In this past Saturday’s Presidential forum at Saddleback Church, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was made quite clear. Many of us have known for some time as to where these men stand on the issues, though Barack managed to mucky up the waters in that area yet some more, but it was the character of these two candidates that was ultimately distinguished.
Barack Obama was poised and smooth. Even without his scripted responses and pre-written speeches, he managed to answer all of Rick Warren’s questions with seemingly little effort. He conducted himself like a true politician. (That last statement was not meant to be a compliment.) Unfortunately, Barack seemed to lack sincerity in some of his responses. It was apparent that his longer, drawn-out answers were carefully worded in order to please as many people as possible. In fact, some of what he said was in opposition to his position in the recent past.
John McCain, on the other hand, was extremely sharp and quite bold in his responses. There seemed to be no conflict in his mind as to what the right answers were for him. When he was asked a question, he gave his answer with no apologies and felt little need to dance around any subject. McCain was obviously not pandering to any string-pullers or big-money contributors. Right or wrong, he said what he firmly believed. That is something I respect and believe is an identifying quality of a good leader.
The Saddleback forum did virtually nothing to reveal anything new about their public policies. In fact, Warren’s questions seemed designed to draw out the principles and characters of each of these men. I would say that mission was successfully accomplished.
Nothing as clearly defined the difference between them like the question: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
First of all, he did not ask for the right or wrong answer. He asked this question in order to get an answer based on their personal view. Warren did a fantastic job of not judging either of the candidates but gave them equal opportunity to express their beliefs. Watch this video and you tell me who was being straight-forward with what he believed and who was careful to respond in such a way that he would not upset any listening ears.
Secondly, it’s not just about what their answers were. It’s also about how they answered. Again, watch this video and tell me who was confident and sure of himself and who was uneasy with the “difficult” questions.
John McCain answered immediately by saying, “At the moment of conception.” Barack said a whole lot more but his actual answer was, “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” What?!
How can a man deal with any issue of human rights if that man cannot define the beginning of that life and the rights constitutionally afforded to it? In other words, whether a man be right or wrong, if he cannot determine the beginning and end of a United States citizen’s human rights, how in the world can he properly grant, deny, or judge anyone who might be entitled those rights? It is impossible! At some point, whether it be at conception or birth or fifty years old, there must be a line drawn as to where human rights in this country are legally given to every person. Otherwise, who can we say actually has rights? No one!
Barack couldn’t do it. He said a lot but had no answer to that question. The same man who wants to take on one of the toughest jobs in the world in which he will face some of the toughest decisions of all time is the same man who could not give an answer to this fundamental question (or at least be honest about it). At some point, even in the liberal mind, a baby has to stop being a mother’s “property” and become a person with rights. When exactly is that, Mr. Obama?
This question, as much as any other, illustrated what I’ve been saying all along. Barack Obama is not ready to be President. I’m not sure I’d even let him run the local boy scouts. I mean, what if they don’t yet have human rights? Apparently, he’s not sure.
On the other end of the spectrum, John McCain gave a prompt and sure answer to Warren’s question. Not only that, he made it positively known that he has made some incredibly difficult decisions and has even been willing to sacrifice himself to do what he believes is right. Is there even a question as to who should be President?
Putting aside where Barack Obama stands on the issues, the fact he continues to flip-flop, and the fact that he told at least one bold-faced lie (that I caught, anyway) during the forum, the man is not even strong enough to look another man in the eye and tell him what he personally believes. That’s not a man I want leading this nation.
22 Comments
Permalink
Good Morning,
I watched the clips of both McCain & Obama on your last post and found O’bamas’ response to this question disturbing because he just could not say yay or nay. He used so MANY words that made it virtually impossible to get a CLEAR opinion. Leading me to believe, he hasn’t one he wanted to share in this arena. McCain was instant in his statement, his beliefs.
I get the “polished, charismatic, smooth as velvet” image but I’m not interested in how he LOOKS or sounds. I want to know that when/if he occupies the Oval Office, will he be looking after MY interests. Will America’s inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness” be carefully preserved. I feel and hear the strength in McCain.
In sweet hope, I remain.
Permalink
The significant difference between McCain and Obama?
McCain is a man, one with core values that have worth, earned life experience, points of view–including what life is and when it begins, and that there is evil in the world that must be dealt with decisively–belief in God, courage and genuine leadership traits.
Obama? None of the above. Plus he loathes America, has no connection to it or its people, apparently hates the unborn and just-born, is confused about what he is and doesn’t understand the difference between good and evil.
Permalink
Obama’s reply is hard to watch, he was just so awkward I almost felt sorry for him.
He should have been asked when he believed his own children had human rights, maybe then he could have given a more definitive answer.
Permalink
Though I agree that McCain did better than Obama, I doubt that the discussion will have much of an effect on anything. Given a choice of a religious/political discussion on a Saturday night in August, most of the relatively few people who were home watching television were tuned to the Olympics. A few others will see selected YouTube snippets, but McCain was going to get the conservative evangelical vote, anyway, though he may have boosted his credibility with the folks he once termed “agents of intolerance.” Obama may have somewhat countered the ongoing fiction that he is a Muslim, though the people dumb enough to believe that may not be able to figure out how to vote, anyway–and if they do, they weren’t going to vote for Obama.
I think Warren did a decent job, though I’d also like to hear the candidates’ answers to the following religious questions:
Catholics who practice birth control or have abortions sometimes are criticized for hypocrisy because they act in opposition to what the pope has professed. Since the leadership of every major religious denomination in the United States opposed the Iraq War, does that suggest hypocrisy among those churchgoers who favored the war–including President Bush and those in Congress?
What is or should be the role of a church denomination’s leadership, for you and for Christians in general?
Catholics make up roughly a quarter of the U.S. population, and Jews only about 2 percent. Since five of nine Supreme Court justices are Catholic and two are Jewish, isn’t the court seriously out of balance?
How do your views of the death penalty correspond with your Christian faith?
As president, you are expected to represent the entire nation. Name one Muslim and one atheist whom you count among your friends and advisors.
Discuss your views of evolution and “intelligent design,” and how you feel they should be taught in public schools.
Permalink
Its very interesting that conservatives are all for “human rights” of an unborn baby, but what happens if that baby then is born and is homosexual? What about his/her rights then? Its always so ironic how people seem much more concerned about the rights of the unborn rather than the rights of the born.
And to CKA, I am getting very sick and tired of people just blurting out how Obama hates America and all that crap. Where is the proof that he hates America? Where is the proof he hates the unborn?
Everyone always talks about people jumping on the Obama bandwagon, but I think its also a good point about how easy it is to pile on the anti-Obama Express and claim he’s muslim or hates God or whatever else they can pull out of their rear.
Permalink
Conservatives, or at least this conservative, believes in Constitutional rights which includes the right of life. I would call that the most important and fundamental right. People need to discern what is a right versus what is not (and probably should not be).
Permalink
And who is to draw the line between what should and should not be a right? I mean, I fully understand the right to life, but I don’t get why there seems to be the need for more rights there, but then if these people grow up to be gay/athiests/whatever, we can then limit the rights that they have after we fought so hard to protect them before they were born.
Permalink
…I fully understand the right to life, but I don’t get why there seems to be the need for more rights there.
Wouldn’t you say that’s the most fundamental right above all? The reason I believe it’s such a big issue is because not everyone is given even that right. As far as homosexual “rights” go, I personally am not ashamed to admit that I don’t care a bit about them. One, there’s nothing in the Constitution to give them rights to legally marry. Two, I don’t support it because I believe it’s immoral. Even if you want to say homosexuality is somehow genetic, we wouldn’t afford special privileges to the mentally disabled who might kill another person (aside from a different punishment). That’s my personal position on the matter.
Permalink
I don’t understand where the comparison between “homosexuals and the mentally disabled who might kill another person”. Are you saying homosexuals are mentally ill and are inclined to murder?
Permalink
No. I was saying that even if someone makes the argument that we should accommodate homosexuals because they are “born that way”, then where do we draw the line?
Permalink
Why are we “accommodating” homosexuals at all? By allowing them to live as they choose is not “accommodating,” it’s minding our own business. Where do we draw the line? We draw the line where people start hurting other people.
For example, I’ve heard many Christians use the ridiculous argument that if we start allowing homosexuals to do as they wish, then, the perversion will just grow and the next thing you know, we’ll be approving of child molesters. I’m sorry, but that argument is ridiculous. When a child is molested, the child is harmed. If two consenting adults who are of the same gender choose to have sex together, they aren’t bringing any harm to anyone.
It makes no sense to say that because YOU think homosexuality is wrong, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it. The line is drawn where people are being harmed, and homosexuals are not harming anyone. If homosexuals are getting married, that isn’t hurting anyone, either.
I do not see how minding our own business and letting people live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t hurting anyone is “accommodating.”
Permalink
I will stand against homosexuality regardless of what the lawmakers of this country ever change because it is immoral. I have no say over what choices anyone makes but I always speak out for what is right. Immorality does grow and spread. You’ve read Genesis chapter 6. I personally believe it whether you do or not.
Permalink
Again, just because you believe it is wrong, does not mean it should be illegal. What if other people had a religious text that said it was immoral to attend church? Would you be ok with them making a law saying you could not go because a group of people felt it would be immoral for you to do so? what if a group of people felt it was immoral for you to marry a woman. Would you be ok with them banning it even though you think it is fine and ok and want to just because they believe it is immoral?
Christians got so angry when they started saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” at many stores. Why? Because the Christians say that just because a bunch of other people don’t want to hear Merry Christmas, that’s too bad, because the Christians believe it is ok. It seems that when other people try to ban something Christians want over a personal preference, they get upset. Yet, Christians will ban things other people want over a personal preference, and that is acceptable. Seems it is ok for Christians to do it to other people, but it is not ok for other people to do it to Christians. That’s pretty hypocritical.
You can believe homosexuality is immoral all you want. But, the fact remains that homosexuals are not hurting anyone, so it is not your place to tell them what they can and cannot do. Since you are not them, it just doesn’t matter if you think their actions are ok or not.
Permalink
Because I truly believe it’s wrong is the very reason I advocate against it. I wouldn’t go bombing abortion clinics because I believe it’s evil to kill the unborn, but I will still speak out against it. I will fight against it the same way others will fight for it. If it passes, so be it. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Permalink
You still have yet to explain how allowing homosexuals to live as they choose (by, for example, getting married) is affording them “special rights.” Or, how you could even possibly compare allowing homosexuals to marry to giving some sort of special rights to mentally ill people who want to walk around murdering people, when the latter would obviously be harmful to other people.
Being allowed to marry is not a “special” right. It would elevate homosexuals to having equal rights, not extraneous, special rights.
Permalink
The homosexual/mentally-disabled comparison was not to compare the crime, but the uncontrollable condition of the person. Anyway, the Constitution declares the right to marry is exclusive to one man and one woman. Therefore, to allow gays to marry would be giving them “special” rights. You won’t ever see this the way I do if you’ve thrown out the Bible. We all believe there is a limit to these rights, but we all draw the line at different places. You might say it would be wrong to allow an adult to marry a child, but someone else would disagree. I draw the line at one adult male and one adult female.
Permalink
The problem is that you are drawing the line for other people instead of just for yourself. You said I won’t ever see it the way you do without the Bible…well, neither will other people. Not everyone believes the Bible to be the ultimate, final Word of God. Yet, you believe they should live according to it because you believe it is. Draw lines for yourself…that’s the only thing you have the right to do (unless someone is being harmed). If you want to draw the line at marriage should be between a man and a woman, then, don’t marry a man, marry a woman. But, who are you to tell someone else they must draw the line there, too?
I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure the constitution does not define marriage as between a man and a woman.
You still cannot use the comparison of allowing a child to marry because this has been shown to be very harmful and damaging to a child. This is when it is ok to step in and draw a line for someone else because you’d be protecting someone from harm.
The bottom line is that if gay people get married, it has absolutely no effect on your life whatsoever. So, you are welcome to draw the line where you want, but only for yourself. It’s not your place to draw other people’s lines for them.
Permalink
It does too. I might have to raise my children here, for crying out loud.
Permalink
And gay people being married won’t affect your children, either. Unless, of course, they are gay themselves and would like to get married.
Permalink
The more the nation as a whole tolerates and even endorses this kind of thing, the more my children will be exposed to it. Not only will they be more exposed to it, it will no longer be seen as the immorality that it is.
Permalink
One: God create all equal, but He also created Man & Woman for a reason to reproduce and create life. The fact women find themselves in umpridictable situations, with no where to turn, and no one lending a hand, including the man that created the child, of course we realize, at some points of a pregnancy it can be terminated w/ in a reasonable amount of time. 3 months should be the max, at this tri-mester is when most, if going to have a misscarriage, it would have occurred, and if you think you can not care for a child, then make the descision now. Why on earth would a woman wait to decide? Money, give me a break, make laws now that can assist with early abortion to reduce risk to the mother and to eliminate the thought that a child would feel pain at this trimester or even be developed enough to comprehend the act. God loves all of us, and yes, we all make mistakes we regret in life, but how dare anyone not walk in the shoes of another and feel the right to cast judgement. How dare McCain, and may I ask for you to understand the fear and pain of a young mother, trying to figure out how to survive, fit in, and lose the respect of her parents. You tell me you would support your daughter at age 16??? I doubt your words of truth sir, you would hide this from public knowledge, and sweep it quickly under the rug just like any other white collar polotician. I support Obama, I was raised in Oklahoma, a place where white girls were threatened never to go near black boys, but I tell you this… I was raised a Baptist, I believe in God, and I know the difference between right and wrong, McCain, you are wrong and I feel in my heart Obama is right. May God bless my descision, and I hope my Husband that I am 100% loyal too can see what I see, Obama would be the choice for our family regardless of history background. Thank you God for putting a man that signifies your work. Obama… promise to uphold God’s vision in family and He does not support homosexuality by any means, my those that feel this realize they have fallen to the circumfrences of TV, Music, and others in deaming what is right by the law of God himself. Removing Him from our schools and children’s hearts would be, in my opinion, detremental to society. God bless the Nation He created. Amen
Permalink
Ugh what an awful site. I absolutely resent the fact that some of you think you know how to live the lives of other people better than they can. Do what you like but don’t tell me what I can and can’t do, who I can and can’t marry. You do not have the jurisdiction to judge. How absolutely condescending!
“The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by sufering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”
-John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), On Liberty
3 Trackbacks
[...] Jeremy E. Sarber & Friends: McCain Versus Obama: The Significant Difference [...]
[...] know this has been a topic of discussion so I’ll address it further. The liberal dissenting voices will say I have no place to impose [...]
[...] McCain Versus Obama: The Significant Difference [...]