Saddleback Civic ForumAugust 16, 2008, Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church hosted a political forum for the candidates of the two major political parties. It consisted of 50 minutes of Q and A for Barack Obama, followed by 50 minutes of Q and A for John McCain. I learned a great deal from how the candidates answered these questions, and decided that I have not previously given John McCain the respect he deserves. Q: What is worth dying for? Obama answered this question referring to general principles, such as freedom, American lives, national interest, and alliances with other countries for common defense. McCains answer was much better. McCain also spoke about freedom and national security, but he went on to describe that while America can’t right every wrong, it can be a beacon for freedom around the World. For President, I like a man that has a positive evaluation of America, and that is not a feeling I get from Obama. Moving beyond generalities McCain then spoke of specific examples of conflicts and genocide around the World and mentioned Saddleback Church’s involvement with aid to Rwanda. Some might say that McCain would entangle the American military in conflicts that are none of our business, but his answer shows that McCain knows a lot about what is going on in the World and he had done his homework regarding Saddleback Church, the forum at which he was speaking. Most important to me, McCain gave what sounded like an honest answer, while Obama just put out a sound bite. Q: What is America’s greatest moral failing? Obama said that America does not always adhere to the basic precept of Matthew, "that which you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me," and does not provide good opportunities for people to get to the middle class. There is much more to Matthew than just this brief statement. I consider this statement as an act of pandering to the religious left, who have been using Biblical statements such as "welcome the stranger" to justify giving citizenship to illegal aliens, and using other quotes to justify a number of liberal political issues. As for economic opportunity, apparently Obama considers liberty to be equivalent to a welfare state. McCain’s answer was that America, (and I suppose individual Americans), do not always look beyond their own self interests. He said that instead of telling Americans to shop after 911, they should have been urged to join the military and peace corps, or find some other way to serve a purpose beyond themselves. He is absolutely right. Selfishness is the basic failing of most people, myself included. I liked the Bush response to 911, but I trouble swallowing the "keep shopping of the terrorists win" spiel. Q: What opinion did you hold 10 years ago that you do not hold today? Obama gave a vague answer about welfare reform under Clinton, that even though he though reform worked, you still had to ensure that people received the benefits they needed. I didn’t understand on what opinion he is supposed to have changed his mind. What I think is that he was trying to pander to everyone by being vague and appearing to be for welfare and for welfare reform. McCain’s quick answer was "offshore drilling." He went on to enthusiastically describe how he was in favor of developing all kinds of alternate energy. Maybe he was just pandering to what Americans want to hear, but it is what I wanted to hear. Gas prices wouldn’t be where they are if we had started working on oil independence and alternate energy 30 years ago during the last oil crisis. Q: Taxes, how would you define rich? Obama stated that people with an income below $150,000 would get a tax cut, those above $150,000 would get a modest tax increase. I don’t believe it, this goes against everything I have ever heard about Obama and taxes. I would have to see the numbers in order to believe, and then I would have to have somebody explain the numbers to me to ensure that he wasn’t fooling me with a tax decrease in one area and then sneak up on me with a tax increase somewhere else. As for McCain, he said he wanted to lower everyone’s taxes. That is the standard Republican answer, if elected we will see what he does in office. However, he also spoke of lowering taxes by first lowering government spending. I like that. Q: What judges on the Supreme Court would you not have appointed? Obama listed all the conservative judges, McCain listed all the liberal judges, so no big surprise there. However, the reason each gave for his selection shows a great deal about differences in how the candidates think. Basically, Obama didn’t agree with the decisions of the judges he named, and my impression is he didn’t like those judges because their judgements did not agree with his politics. That is not how the judiciary is supposed to work. Justice is supposed to be blind, not for the poor or the rich, the weak or the strong, justice, justice shall you pursue. Obama also stated that those judges were too eager to allow expansion to Executive power. I don’t buy that. The expansions to executive power mostly pertain to surveillance and the right to detain; the expansions are very narrow and in American history have been common during times of war. McCain said he opposed certain judges because he felt they were not adhering to the Constitution. While I sometimes feel that sentiments about "originalist interpretation" are sometimes just lip service, I do feel that it would be better for our country if our judiciary stayed closer to our Founders intent. Q: abortion. This is an issue in which the candidates are polar opposites. Obama evaded giving an answer about "when does life begin," and then went on to say he supported the right of women to choose because he knows that women agonize with their doctors and clergy over the decision to have an abortion. Yeah right. I know that any woman must agonize over such a decision, but that is not the way abortion is approached by abortion providing agencies. Some time ago I went on the website for "Catholics for Free Choice." Their approach is that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to have an abortion because of financial reasons, as a lifestyle choice, or just because it is not the right time. I believe that the "women agonize" concept is just the face they present to the general public, and Obama should know this. McCain came out much more pro-life than I had expected, so much so that I wondered if he might be pandering to the pro-lifers that make up much of the religious vote. If he is elected, we will see what happens. I have been dissatisfied with many Republicans regarding pro-life issues. I feel that many of them just give the issue lip service in order to get elected, and that most who do make pro-life a part of their agenda do nothing more than attempt to maintain the status quo. What I would like to see is a Republican work to turn back the tide, whether it be through action of law or redeeming the conscience of America. Q:How do you define marriage? It was on this answer that the candidates were most similar. Both opposed gay marriage, Obama supported civil unions, McCain supported just legal agreements between those in non-traditional relationships. This shows that there has been a change in the platform of the Democratic Party. I feel that this change was made for political reasons. Back in 2004 Ohio was a key swing state that went to Bush. The Ohio ballot had a referendum on it regarding gay marriage, and some think that this referendum brought more conservatives to the polls than would normally be the case, and that this issue contributed to Ohio and ultimately the Presidency being won by Bush. I think Obama’s answer indicates that the Democrats are stepping back from an issue that has cost them elections in the past. It also gives me hope that Amendment 2 might just pass, because I can’t see Florida Democrats rallying very hard in favor of gay marriage when their own presidential candidate is opposed to it.
Submitted by FelixKulpah on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 10:59pm.
I find a few things wrong with your answer. If you have the time I would appreciate your fleshing out your position, and I have a few questions to put before you. 1)Can Rick Warren really be classified as an evangelical? If he can be called an evangelical, does that mean he is a member of the religious right? 2)What is there in politics that is not a dog and pony show? 3)When do politicians not want to pander to large voting blocks? Is pandering to large block better or worse than pandering to minority blocks or other types of special interests? 4)What would be an upward intellectual dimension for the masses? 5)I notice you seem a bit disparaging of both parties. Do you perhaps subscribe to a third political party?
Submitted by SoloVoce on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 7:08am.
FK, First, I should mention that I did not watch the program, but did see & read exerpts from it plus various commentaries. But on to your remarks/questions. 1. I googled Saddleback Church & read their mission statement/about us/what I believe segment. If this is NOT a Christian evangelical organization, we had better start giving new definitions to suit every person who wishes to define it, much the same as the many definitions/perceptions people have of a "TRUE CONSERVATIVE." In my opinion, yes, it would make him & his church a member of the religious right. How far right? Your guess would be as good as mine. 2 & 3. Pretty much everything political in a campaign is a dog & pony show. If it suits their purposes, a politician will pander to pretty much any voting bloc, small, medium or large. In my opinion, pandering is pandering. It's only a matter of degree & when it crosses the line from speaking @ legitimate issues to saying pretty much anything for a vote. But here's the big difference in this situation. These two people are candidates for the office of President of the US, not theologian or preacher in chief. Their political stands have been known since the beginning of this seemingly endless campaign. If they go to church, how often, & to what degree they might be religious is irrelevant to their ability to governing a nation or their position on political issues. This was nothing more than a religious litmus test for evangelicals. They realised how much they got burned by Bush, regrouped & rethought, & since an official religious test is against the Constitution, this was an excellent way to by pass it. I was only sorry to hear that they agreed to it. But if either one would have refused, they would have shown some stones but would have lost a ton of voters. Outcome? Pandering. The size or subject didn't matter. 4. One example of upward intellectual direction would be voter education & possibly a test of general knowlege in history & civics, the same stuff some of us supposedly learned in grade & high school. We actually covered this some time back. 5. Disparaging? Only when it calls for it. That's one of the advantages of being an independent. That term also includes independent thought & not having to adhere to party policy. I would consider subscribing to a third party. But the general voting populace, in a number of ways, has shown that it is not ready for such upward intellectual direction. I hope that answers your questions. Also hope that you & every one else survived nature's little temper tantrum. Have a great one. JATFUR. Rich K
Submitted by opexpat on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 8:45am.
I become uneasy when voters assess candidates based on feelings. My perception is that those "feelings" become a substitute for actual reading and analysis of positions. Assessing a candidate on party affiliation should simply be a starting point. Despite being a registered Democrat, I have voted for Republicans and third party candidates in a wide variety of elections. And, there have been Democratic candidates and officeholders I have despaired over. I am fully aware that campaigns work hard to touch the feelings of voters rather than touch their minds. That is why campaign ads last no more than 60 seconds. With a little work any voter can overcome those efforts and find out the actual positions of candidates. Submitted by SoloVoce on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 9:24am.
Opexpat, I agree. I'm sure that you & I are not the only people in the same position. I've made no secret of the fact that I voted for W the first time, only to find out what a mistake I made. When it came to the second time around, it was a no brainer. Part of the problem, which has been covered here before, is that voters are often faced with the decision of choosing the lesser of two evils, regardless of the positive points of one or the other candidate. Another, as I mentioned above, is the educational background of voters when & if they vote at all. Even though public apathy is still a big problem, I guess we should be thankful that some people don't vote. That's a hell of a condemnation, but some one will have to show me where it is wrong. JATFUR. Rich K Submitted by FelixKulpah on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 8:41pm.
I appreciated your answer and while I don't entirely agree with you on points, neither do I entirely disagree. My original point was not that a liked that the forum was in a religious setting, but rather I liked the answers that McCain gave at the forum. I have mixed feelings about religion in the public square, especially in politics. However, this is one of the venues in which the political debate takes place, and like it or not this is not going to change. The Saddleback Civic Forum is the the most public tip of the iceberg. In denominations, political/religious organizations, and on the level of individual churches there is constant politicing. I am a social conservative and look at most of the church politicing as being a debate between social conservatives and social liberals dressed up with religious rhetoric. Strangely, I find myself in agreement with the religious right on most matters, not because I'm a christian, because I am not, but because I agree with them on social issues. There was a section of the forum where Warren asked the candidates things like "what does it mean to you to be a christian", or "what does your faith mean to you on a day-to-day basis?" When I hear this sort of stuff my eyes glaze over until it is done, because I don't care at all. Your comments on voter education are something I can generally agree with, but there is a problem with voter education, that being it is usually partisan. I will give you a for instance dealing with amendment 2, and this is just for purposes of example. I suppose that as a genuine public service, it would be possible for someone to give a neutral explanation about amendment 2 and it's effects. However, most of the people who have enough interest in this particular subject are either for or against the amendment. What I have seen from the "against" crowd is that in some instances they "cherrypick" documents from the Florida Surpreme Court review and the Economic impact report, presenting only the negatives, treating negative things which might happen as definitely happening, and ignoring positives. While I suppose that the "against" people could honestly and complete educate people on the amendment, I have not seen it. The "for" people seem a little more honest, but their campaign seems to be oriented towards churches. I don't know anything about their particular tactics, but I suspect that they are glossing over legitimate issues regarding and are focusing on the religious aspect or something I regard as a social, political issue. Legitimate voter education would be great, but whenever possible it will be taken over by one side or the other. In principle I agree with having people take a civics test before being able to vote, but the right to vote is not based on knowledge and a civil rights issue such a requirement will never happen.
People are talking about ...Here are the recent blog postings with the most comments. |
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 256 guests online.
Online usersRecent comments |
FK,
Unfortunately, this embarrassing display was nothing more than an evangelical Christian dog & pony show . It was highlighted by the fact that both candidates felt some need to pander to a large voting bloc. More's the pity. More's the pity that this country allows this display to have any kind of effect. I guess that's what's meant by downward intellectual direction for the masses. JATFUR.
Rich K