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.