August 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.

                                                                               Christian Right VS Christian Left:

Obama VS McCain?

The conservative and liberal power brokers of American Christianity each have specific political goals. One Christianity, but two different viewpoints and two different goals. This is not a matter of theology but instead a matter of sociology: conservative Christianity is of the Republicans and liberal Christianity is of the Democrats. Understand the matter in this simple and practical manner, and be at peace; leave the theology to the theologians, for any practical person who delves deeper finds there are problems with manifesting spirit in the voting booth, and this confusion harms both their spiritual and political judgements.

I would say that those who want a true separation of church and state are at heart spiritual libertarians; but as the libertarians are a minority political party so are spiritual libertarians a minority of the American faithful. We are a spiritual people and a political people, and so the matters are intertwined in our national understanding.

On the one hand we have Obama, definitely a leadership symbol to both the Christian and political left. A member of the United Church of Christ, formerly a member of Trinity Church, the most liberal member of the Senate, a charismatic figure who routinely engages in spiritual and liberal social rhetoric; his nature is clear to all who care to see it. He is a new and savvy type of politician who epitomizes the heart of the Christian and political left, but is able to send forth this message in a manner which is palatable to a mainstream, majority audience.

On the other side is McCain, but he has not been recognized as the standard bearer of the religious right, nor does he consider himself the champion of conservative Christianity. Yet, as the Republican candidate and opponent of Obama he is by default the hope of Christian, political conservatism. Leaders of the religious right have been foolish in failing to recognize how valuable McCain is to them.

To understand the matter we must examine it in purely political terms, and on this political basis define the goals of the Christian Right and the Christian Left.

Simply, the religious right wants to outlaw abortions and ban gay marriage. Certainly they are about much, much more than this, but their main agendas in the political arena have involved abortions and gay marriage. From a political viewpoint, both of these agendas involve denying people the freedom to perform these actions. In the simplest definition, you can say that the religious right wants to deny people the freedom to perform actions that the religious right finds objectionable because of their religious beliefs.

The religious left is much more complicated, but in simplest terms their political agenda is to make the World into a better place. This in itself is easy to understand, the complexity lies in the number of activities that go into improving the World. They want to help the poor of the World, they want to help the sick, they want to reduce war, provide universal health coverage, establish global equity, establish recompense for past racism and economic exploitation, protect us from global warming, and "welcome the stranger" through liberal immigration reform.

One may look at these list of goals and consider that most of them are positive and match well with the humanitarian and charitable aims of both secular and religious Americans. So what is the problem?

The key word is charity.

Charity is voluntary. Voluntary is also a key word.

It is a great thing when people and organizations voluntarily engage in charitable activities. It is a great thing when people voluntarily exercise social responsibility. It is an entirely different matter when these activities are forced upon people by the government.

Let us consider just the issue of global warming. The liberal Christian organizations have whole-heartedly signed on the same issues as the secular green movement, so their objectives may be seen as one-in-the-same. Green political goals consist of a broad and intrusive activity of regulation upon both business and private individuals. Government mandated restrictions on how you dispose of your trash, what kind of light-bulbs you can put in your home, and what kind of cars can be built. We see a crippling of American business through increased taxes and regulation, and we see the price of energy skyrocketing, partly because of green efforts to block domestic energy exploration and gasoline refining.

It is the individuals right if they want to take on the expense and trouble of adopting a green lifestyle; it approaches tyranny when the government mandates how you shall live. It is economically foolish to continually pile on extra expense to the operation of American business. It is economic coercion to engage in activities that raise the price of gasoline; the purpose is that in the long run it will encourage conservation and the development of alternative energy, but the immediate result is to empty American wallets.

When you examine the political goals of the religious left and the secular left you see that in their eyes the cause is always more important than the cost. Know that the cost is high: higher taxes for individuals, higher prices at the pump, lower returns for those whose retirement funds are based upon stocks, and of course the price that we pay when we lose the freedom to buy and live as we choose.

It adds up. It adds up to a lot.

Consider also the mindset of the green movement, that America is nothing except a filthy, consumptive nation. They do not take into account that which we have done. Industry is much cleaner than it once was, cars get much better mileage than they once did, auto emissions are cleaner, we’ve cleaned up many of our past problems related to pollution, and the EPA is already very restrictive. From the rhetoric of the greens you would think that America has done nothing. From this mindset we can establish three axioms regarding the political causes of the left:

Compare the religious right to the religious left: the banning of gay marriages affects relatively few people, the banning of abortions has a greater effect upon a larger number of people, but does so infrequently. The political goals of the religious right seek to place restrictions on a few without raising the cost that is paid by all. The green cause that is supported by the religious left would affect everyone all the time and everyone would foot the bill. That does not seem like the American way of doing things.

Let us consider the cause of global charity, that America must do more to eliminate global hunger, disease, and poverty. Consider that the American government already sends huge amounts overseas to fight hunger, disease, and poverty, and provide economic development, more over time than any other country. Consider that not only do many American businesses engage in charitable activities, the outsourcing of jobs has resulted in incomes for a multitude of workers in foreign lands. Consider all the foreign missions carried out by American churches and how much money is send overseas by secular American charities.

You would think that we have done nothing. If it becomes a government mandate that we do more, it will be the taxpayer who bears the cost for this cause.

The Christian reformer Martin Luther once said "it is enough that the poor live, it is not necessary that they live well." Is it not enough that we be a charitable nation, enough that we already extend a helping hand to so many across the globe? How much more can we be expected to do, how much more will we be expected to pay? When does America become a good nation rather than the scourge of the Earth?

Examine other goals of the religious and secular left regarding war and see that they involve degrading American sovereignty and military power. Examine their goals regarding immigration; if fully enacted they will ultimately result in dramatic changes in American society as we slowly transform into an Hispanic nation. In these things too, it will be the American taxpayer who will pay all bills and suffer all consequences.

Forget religious values; the religious left spits in the face of all secular values regarding freedom, representation, patriotism, and capitalism.

We see that Obama is the hope of the religious left, and that all on the left have endorsed him. What about McCain? Why hasn’t he been endorsed by the religious right?

The problems that McCain has with the religious right are partly a matter of personality conflicts with leaders of the religious right, and partly a matter of how McCain has presented himself. Much of it goes back to 2000, when McCain was running for the Republican nomination. Simply, the religious right backed Bush over McCain, and McCain made some negative comments about this. This has led to some deep wounds and lasting resentment on both sides. There has been a reluctance by leaders of the religious right to endorse McCain, and little effort by the McCain campaign to reach out to religious conservatives.

The matter was further complicated by the Huckabee campaign.

Mike Huckabee, former Baptist minister who won the Iowa Caucuses by marketing himself as a "Christian Leader." Mike Huckabee, the hope of so many evangelicals, who after a surprise victory in Iowa wasn’t able to win another state until Super Tuesday. Mike Huckabee, who many social conservatives credit with splitting the conservative vote and making McCain the inevitable winner of the Republican nomination.

I was never impressed by Mike Huckabee, neither do I understand how it can be that in a race where every candidate is a Christian that it makes much difference to anyone that one candidate is "more" Christian than the others. Yet, a significant number of evangelical voters did consider Huckabee to be their candidate.

How is it that Huckabee was never able to garner support from leaders of the Christian right, in particular the support of Dr. James Dobson?

I consider Dr. Dobson to be the most influential member of the Christian right. The reason I make such a judgment is that Focus on the Family has substance that goes beyond Christian beliefs in that is deals with basic issues of family and society. Dr. Dobson is one of the most well-known Christian leaders, and unlike many others he has not disqualified from public discourse by making outrageous statements. Perhaps most importantly, Focus on the Family has many offshoots that operate all across the nation as PACs promoting traditional American values.

Dobson has huge gravitas. Yet, for some reason he did not support Huckabee? Why not?

To give some background, back in 2007 there was a great deal of dissatisfaction among evangelical leaders regarding the Republican Presidential candidates; they just didn’t feel that any of their choices represented religious conservative voters, and there was some talk of the religious right building a campaign around an independent candidate. That was probably just talk; I haven’t heard of any viable independents running for president, so I guess that the grumbling came to nothing.

We will return to the subject of independent candidates and third party candidates in a moment.

In this environment of evangelical discontent emerged Mike Huckabee. He filled a void and a number of people voted for him, not all of them evangelicals. Yet, he did not immediately receive the Dobson endorsement.

I can only speculate as to why Dr. Dobson failed to endorse Huckabee. It could have been because, like myself, perhaps Dobson was not impressed with Huckabee and did not consider him to have any chance of winning the Presidency. He might also have considered Huckabee to be a little too liberal; this is pure speculation on my part, but I have seen Huckabee praised in the pages of Sojourners, this could be an indication that even though Huckabee is a Baptist, he might incline more towards the "emerging church" than towards old-line Baptist dogma.

Dobson withheld his endorsement until it became clear that McCain was going to win the Republican nomination. If I recall correctly, even at this point Dobson was reluctant to fully endorse Huckabee, and only did so after Romney dropped out of the race. At this current time there is still reluctance to fully support McCain, though there is some talk of leaders of the religious right talking to each other about the possibility of supporting McCain for president. There is also a movement among some evangelicals urging McCain to pick Huckabee as his vice-presidential candidate.

Oh, what to do?

I didn’t vote for McCain in the primary, but I will vote for him as president. Every vote for McCain is a vote against Obama. Conservative religious people need to buckle down and admit that if they don’t support McCain then they are more likely to get four years of Obama. That’s four years of plans to raise taxes, restructure American society around liberal values, dismantle our military, and support the Christian left through a restructuring of the Faith Based Initiative.

Is that what you really want? Is McCain so offensive to you that you that through pride you would allow someone more offensive to win the office of president?

It is not that McCain is anti-religious, or that he is a religious liberal, it is just that he is middle-of-the-road on issues that concern religious voters.

Isn’t that enough?

John McCain goes to church, he does not oppose any issues of the religious right, this should be enough for you. In a sense McCain is the average Christian in that while he has the right beliefs he does not constantly witness regarding his beliefs. He is running for President, not pastor, he is Christian enough. Vote for him. He is your only viable choice, and the more you waffle the more likely it is that you will get Obama.

Now a word about third-party candidates.

I am a registered Republican. Even though I don’t always agree with party leaders on all issues I have always voted Republican. This fall I am considering voting for some independents in the county elections, but in the national race I will always vote Republican because even the worse Republican candidate for President has been far superior to the Democratic alternative.

Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama: the Republicans could run almost anyone and I would still give them my vote just to vote against the Democrats.

There are two major conservative third-parties in America, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. There are many similarities between these parties, and I generally consider the Constitution Party as being a Christian version of the Libertarians. As an example of this, the Constitution Party opposes abortions, while the Libertarians say government has no right to deal with a personal issue. I incline more towards the Constitution Party, but I find that disagree with them on too many issues, and while I am not always happy with the Republicans I agree with them on more points than I do the Constitution Party.

I mention this because there is a generalized split among Republicans in this election, and I feel that there will be a larger than normal number of votes for Libertarian and Constitution candidates. Neither of these third-party candidates have a chance of winning the Presidency, they can only take votes away from Republicans. As I have said before, if you don’t vote for McCain you are more likely to get Obama. It is the right of the American citizen to vote as they choose, but I would urge everyone who is considering a third-party vote to thoroughly examine not just the candidate they are considering, but also the platform of their party. If you are like me, you will find that while you might agree with the third-party on some issues, you are in greater agreement with the Republicans on a range of issues.

Don’t vote out of spite. Neither should you decline to vote; compare McCain to Obama, while you might dislike McCain you will find that you like him more than Obama.

Beyond all else, there is no doubt in my mind that John McCain loves America. I don’t feel this way about Obama. He began his campaign as a liberal, he now seems to be wandering towards the middle, but I think if elected he would be much more of a leftist than even moderate Democrats could stomach.

Vote Republican.

I am not against the conservative third-parties, I just know that they have no chance of winning a national election and every vote they receive is a vote taken away from Republicans, and in the end this only favors the Democrats.

If you want to vote third-party, do so locally, you have a much higher chance of winning and you won’t help put a Democrat in the Oval Office. However, there is a problem with casting a ballot for a third-party in a local election, the problem being that in most cases there is no third-party to vote for. I read of this problem recently on the Constitution Party website, that even though they do get a great deal of grass-root support, they don’t have many people step forward to be candidates for their party.

If you like a third-party, I suggest that you run as their local candidate. Don’t fret about a third-party president because that effort is only going to backfire. It’s not that hard to run as a candidate. In my county you have to either collect 1% of the electorate in signitures or pay a fee to be on the ballot; failing this you can be a write in candidate for a modest fee and filing the right papers. Considering how easy it is to run for office, I don’t understand why more people don’t do it. Your chances of winning as an independent or third-party might be pretty slim, but you can’t win if you don’t play. If independents start winning counties and states, it might have the effect of reforming the Republican party: instead of trying to be more liberal, more like the Democrats to appeal to a larger electorate, if they see great support for conservative third parties they might become more conservative.

Now a quick word regarding Huckabee.

In 2007 there was talk of the religious right backing and independent candidate. Huckabee stepped up to run for the Republican nomination, and all the talk about a Christian independent ceased.

The way I look at it, not only did Huckabee spoil Romney’s chance at the nomination, he spoiled the chance of the religious right to support a candidate that they found acceptable.

I have just finished saying that people should not vote for third-parties, and I know that a religious right candidate would virtually guarantee a Democrat win, yet I can’t help but feel that the addition of a Christian candidate in the elections would have opened up a new dialogue about conservative, American religious values. I would prefer that such a candidate attack Obama, then drop out of the race in October and endorse McCain, but that cannot be. What we are left with is Obama as the canndidate of the Christian left, McCain as a Republican candidate who would never dare attack someone on the basis of religious beliefs, and Dobson as the mouthpiece of the religious right who seems to be the only one willing to take Obama to the mat on religious issues.

What I would tell any conservative is that not only should they vote Republican, they need to take a good look at Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family. They also should examine the Focus on the Family affiliate that operates in their state. Conservatism starts at home, religious and social conservatism are very closely related on the matter of issues, and in this election the religious battle against the left is being waged by Dr. Dobson.