Conservatives for Obama

Some well-known conservatives, such as Christopher Buckley and Ken Adelman, have jumped on the Barack Obama bandwagon. So have some of you readers. What is the conservative case for Obama? Or, put another way, in what sense can you support Obama and still consider yourself a conservative?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • FW

    Well… Mc Cain would continue Bush´s legacy which looks like this. I see signs that Obama (with the glaring and hideous exception of abortion) would restore the Rule of Law, as a conservative.

    With the republicans we have a state:

    1)That snatches its victims off the street, denies them all form of legal process and whisks them away to secret “blacksites” where they can be tortured using all the techniques described in Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon?
    2)That arrests and prosecutes its political adversaries for imaginary crimes so as to eliminate them from the running in election cycles in which they could do some damage?
    3)That destroys the careers of professional military men because they got promotions under a prior regime and therefore considers them disloyal?
    4)That believes it can detain and hold its enemies forever without any charges or any evidence against them, denying them access to courts to prove their innocence?
    5)That constantly manipulates the population’s fear whenever its public popularity slips and elections begin to approach?
    6)That believes that it can make no errors, and that those who point to its errors are traitors?
    7)That systematically spies on millions of its citizens in direct violation of a criminal statute which forbids such surveillance?
    8)That signs new laws with its fingers crossed in the form of signing statements, so that no one knows whether the laws—or any part of them—will actually be enforced?
    9)That lies to its people about threats from abroad in an effort to build popular support for a series of wars and then cites the existence of those wars as a reason to suppress dissent?
    10)That nationalizes the debt of predatory capitalists so they suffer no punishment for their misconduct and then nationalizes major financial institutions, converting the nation’s free market system into a socialism in which crony capitalists are a privileged elite?

    No I am not voting for Obama as a negative vote against the current Republican actual “agenda.”

    I am voting for Obama because I DO perceive that he will move us back in the direction of constitutional law of checks and balances and away from concentration of power in the executive branch. I predict that he will change ALL of these practices (10 will look under him like what Sheila Bair FDIC did with that bank in california they reorganized. Debt will not be forgiven, but there will be a “workout”) during his term.

    Would any conservative here want to place a friendly wager on this? Do ANY of these points that haven´t really hit the MSM even really matter to any of you with any degree of passion?

  • FW

    The Abortion Issue:

    I do believe that abortion=murder.

    I believe this to be true even in the case of rape or incest.

    I do not believe we can fix the abortion problem with a new set of laws or prohibitions.

    Therefore the law, like any other law, has to be seen as a curb and not a cure. the goal is to reduce the number of abortions to as close to zero as possible. This would include carrot (in terms of offering some sort of intelligent support for women to keep the baby), instead of merely focusing largely on the “stick” of illegality.

    Abortions are illegal here in Brasil. I do not see the crime of abortion being practially resolved any better here. to the contrary. and yes the laws are rigerously enforced against both doctor and woman.

    I do not believe that overturning Roe bv Wade (as glaringly inconsistent with the Rule of Law as it is) will arguable make things better by returning this back to the states. Even though, constitutionally, it probably belongs there.

    Therefore the SINGLE argument remaining to vote for the Republican ticket (appointment of supremes) to me is moot or at best a point that can honestly and honorably be argued.

    Is there any OTHER argument to be made for 8 more years of Republicanism at this point ??!!

    a vote for a pro-choice candidate (I prefer not to try to force labels on others here that they themselves would find repugnant because it merely shuts the ears of persons i would like to persuade!!), does not in any way equal a condoning of abortion.

    The common ground is this: I do not know of hardly any average person on the street who thinks abortions are a good thing, or that the fetus is merely an “inconvenience” (regardless of the Obama soundbite, and yes extreme examples can always be found).

    Everyone that I have had a serious discussion with thinks that every abortion is a personal tragedy at some level. At a minimum i cannot imagine anyone saying “hey, abortions are really cool! Every woman should experience at least one!” Really now. Let´s move beyond “talking points” and truly engage persons who differ. lives depend on just this.

    No supreme court or other court or even a dictator, will for long enforce a law that is opposed by the majority. This IS a bedrock fact! therefore the conservative wet dream of forcing a prohibition of abortion on a majority through a law simply will NEVER happen. Let´s be very very clear on THIS point even if we disagree on other strategy issues.

    My position stems from this very reality actually. argue persuasively from any history that I am wrong here in this point and I will be forced to seriously reconsider my own position.

    Whether you believe this or not, you I hope could agree that any government program that would work aggressively to provide options without restricting access to legalized abortion could probably be presented in a way that would have the support of that vast majority of the population. This IS a potential middle ground. we are not nearly as divided as a country as pundits and republicans and democrats would have it…

    Politics is about the possible.

  • TK

    Frank,

    You say you are not voting for Obama as a negative vote against the Bush administration, but then go on to devote most of your comment to your complaints against his administration. Keep in mind that Bush is only one camp in Republicanism…a dying one, at that. I would like for you to expound on your second to last paragraph…the only one I find helpful. Give me good reasons to vote for Obama, as a conservative, without making it a rant against Bush. It is my prayer that a new conservative party (I see that happening among Republicans) will rise up for my children’s generation. I have no evidence, at this time, of that happening in the Democratic Party…give me some hope! No rants. Pretty please :)

  • TK

    Of course, I was referring to your first set of comments. I don’t want to hear about abortion; you made your case well.

  • D

    “No supreme court or other court or even a dictator, will for long enforce a law that is opposed by the majority.”

    Yes. But isn’t it true that if Roe is overturned tomorrow, it becomes a state-to-state issue? I understand that many states have laws simply waiting to pass, which DO reflect the will of their majorities, prohibiting abortion. So at least in some (many) states, the supreme court strategy would help.

    FW you’ve made the best case yet I’ve heard for a conservative to vote for Obama. But I’m far from convinced. Obama would turn us so far toward socialism, I think, it would be hard to recover. Of course, I’m one of those that laments much of what FDR did.

  • PW

    I really wasn’t sure about either candidate. I seemed to be leaning toward Obama but was concerned about some of the vagueness in his campaign, as well as his liberal views on some issues. But I wasn’t really sure about McCain either.

    McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as VP helped me arrive at a decision. I think Colin Powell spoke well when he respectfully said “I don’t believe she [Palin] is ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.”

    Further, the Republican’s campaign has been too negative. I don’t want to reward that kind of thinking with my vote.

  • FW

    #3 TK

    I think you are wrong to call my post a “rant” against President Bush.

    Here is why:

    I consider constitutional protections to be necessary for someday when the “bad guys” have a chance to take power, as in someone with real dictatorial aspirations.

    Likely that dictator-wanna-be will use some national crisis that is presented by a present danger from outside forces, or inside ones less likely, the menacing “them”.

    Bush and Cheney in my mind clearly have moved us from the rule of law in the direction of the “rule of men.” This looks like “trust us! we will never abuse the power you have given us!” (democratic senator feinstein actually made this argument for the administration in fact in voting for administration proposals like FISA).

    here where I live in Brasil, they truly have the “rule of men”. I appreciate our nations founding principles now more than ever. Corruption is rampant. there is no Rule of Law. so good government really DOES depend on the election of someone of good character. there are no real checks and balances. The USA is not even close to being at that point yet. I pray she steps back from the brink Pres Bush with full complicity and not-even-whimper of a democratic congress I might add!!!!!

    if there is any lesson to be had from history, it is that a government will ALWAYS eventually abuse powers given to them. this is madison´s argument for weak government in fact. I really do see this set of actions by the current administration as being a much greater threat to freedom than any set of economic policies. Besides, just a short year ago, it was utterly unthinkable that a republican administration would propose socialism by nationalizing banks. Could the democrats really be much more radical? I think this is something republicans have ceded their moral high ground on…. you are right. Obama will be a classic FDR democrat. this is no longer “radical” is it? it is the “traditional” position of dems and reps for some years now. Even republicans know that social security is the political “third rail”. and even mc cain in 2000 said that the wealthy should pay more…I have the Utube clip to prove that…. so…..

    I honestly think we have been blessed so far as a nation. I believe that Bush and cheney are well intentioned patriots. I pretty much refuse to question the motives of anyone. I consider that sinful.

    But! Constitutional Rule of Law, those checks and balances, exists based on an attitude of healthy skepticism about human nature.

    In my former lutheran church I have two excellent examples of the Majestic Rule of Law:

    first, my congregation was to vote on merging with a chinese lutheran congretation. the older members packed the house with persons who had not attended church in years. racial comments were made that troubled many. the motion to merge was carried by about 70-30 percent. The pastor immediately moved to void the decision saying that we should all be ashamed, that we were not worthy of the merger, and that we had to honor the 30% opposed because we were not a democracy, we were, as a church a benevolent kingdom that needed to humbly seek unity and not use majority power to lord it over an adamant minority. so the minority actually won! but NOT in any way that really pleased them. rule of law as opposed to democracy. Most conservatives I see as trying to use democracy in this very way. especially on charged issues like abortion. Conservatives should always be small-r republicans I feel. especially us christian ones.

    second: there was a vote that was clearly unanimous to change the constitution of the church. this required a second vote at a second meeting. someone suggested, for reasons of reasonable expediency to simply vote a second time , a procedure contrary to what the constitution required.

    our wise pastor said “no, we need to set the right precident and an example so that someday if the “bad guys” want to do something, they cannot circumvent the Rule of Law in our church.

  • Carl Vehse

    “I am voting for Obama because I DO perceive that he will move us back in the direction of constitutional law of checks and balances and away from concentration of power in the executive branch.”

    This alleged perception are totally unconvincing compared to what 0bama has actually said about the Constitution here and here.

    Furthermore, 0bama’s stand for abortion, his anti 2nd amendment views, his obvious inexperience and lack of accomplishments, his need for a teleprompter to speak conherently, the completely idiotic decision of selecting a verbal goofball as his VP candidate, and his association with disreputable characters during his political rise, all are only a small part of why it would be a foolish if not unAmerican decision to vote for such a worthless politician.

  • FW

    #5 D

    i could not agree more with you! I feel alot of what FDR did was probably necessary, but those measures should have been temporary ones only.

    I have another theory though that I would like to run by everyone here in faint support of “socialism.”

    I DO agree with Frederick Hayak in his seminal work “The Road to Serfdom”, that socialism IS a march backwards to feudalism. it is not in any way progress.

    here is my caveat. let me know what you think….

    the extended “nuclear”family of grandparents, aunts uncles , cousins parents kids, was THE social security safety net for all until about , oh say, 1930. this no longer exists. I think it safe to say that it will not return. even the concept of “traditional nuclear family” we have retreated to, mommy,daddy and 32. kids, represents a minority of about 20-25% of “family units” in our society. Divorce, work-related migration, damage caused by govt social programs, have all made this so.

    Persons in these “tribes” felt a true burden of conscience and considerable social pressure to “take care of their own.”

    SOMETHING has to fiil the void of what was provided by this system since the dawn of time till only recently. Tell me I am wrong.

    charitable organizations and churches do not have the resources to replace the millions of extended families that no longer exist.

    So I do think, in our modern situation, that some form of “socialism” is a necessary evil.

    I do believe that govt is the LEAST efficient and effective means to deliver these social goods.

    I also believe that govt delivery will result always in a significant amount of waste, fraud, corruption and further erosion of social “adhesion.”

    I do not think these negative facts negate the social need to fill this void.

  • Anon

    Only if your definition of conservative includes being a rebel against the Living God, and being opposed to the entire Judaeo-Christian civilization and the Bible.

  • FW

    #8 carl

    Oddly I agree with you and reach different conclusions.

    socialism: Mc Cain also is on Utube record saying in 2000 that the rich need to pay more. so this issue in my mind cancels out between the two candidates.

    abortion:

    I consider the founders ideas AND practices on slavery to be pretty much a mirror image of Obama´s ideas and practice on abortion.

    Politicians reflect the majority opinions of their time. I would not question the ideals of the founders because of this glaring, hideous and yes, criminal inconsistency on their part. I would however hold their feet to the fire, just as I expect to constantly point out to Obama the inconsistency of his constitutional views.

    even dictators cannot long rule contrary to the views of their majority.

    conservatives dreaming of passing laws contrary to majority wishes, or more dangerously(!!!!), leaning towards small-d democracy and abandoning the ideal of small-r republicanism to get their way smells in every way of end-justifies-means.

    democracy is the despotic, fickle, tyranny of the 51% against the 49% or that 5% despised minority. which christians will eventually be in our country! Christians should oppose democratically (small d here) won battles and strategies with our hearts and souls!

    This is THE issue for me in fact, of what marks a true conservative today, distilled into a single sentence.

    it will only result, at best, in a phyrric social victory.

  • FW

    Respectfully Dr Veith, this is what I see current republicanism, even of the newt gingrich variety, missing. Tell me that I am not on to something big here and very core:

    even dictators cannot long rule contrary to the views of their majority.

    conservatives dreaming of passing laws contrary to majority wishes, or more dangerously(!!!!), leaning towards small-d democracy and abandoning the ideal of small-r republicanism to get their way smells in every way of end-justifies-means.

    democracy is the despotic, fickle, tyranny of the 51% against the 49% or that 5% despised minority. which christians will eventually be in our country! Christians should oppose democratically (small d here) won battles and strategies with our hearts and souls!

    This is THE issue for me in fact, of what marks a true conservative today, distilled into a single sentence.

    I short I believe that even conservative intellectuals have “drunk the kool-aid” about using small-d democratic means to achieve conservative goals.

    I submit three accusations about this:

    unprincipled. short-sighted. liberalism-in-fact-masked-in-conservative-end-justifies-means.

    can we argue this point please? I do believe it is THE seminal issue for conservatives today. It goes to the very underlying basics of what it means to be an american conservative in fact and not just the current boxes we are asked to think in.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer TK

    Frank,

    I’m sorry you didn’t like my use of the word “rant”, but I still don’t know why you are voting for Obama other than you expect him to provide checks and balances and be a classic FDR democrat. Regarding your list of what you believe the Bush administration has done, I see that you are passionate about it. I could go alone with a couple of the points. The rest are either debatable or are things done by the Clinton administration as well. It’s not that I’m not passionate, but I’m gonna save my passion for other things…not politics. Politics is important, but not eternal. I know we agree on that. So, I’m not ignoring your list of what you feel the Bush administration has done, I just don’t want to go down that road today. I just want a list of why an Obama presidency is good for conservatives.

    D, you wrote: “FW, you’ve made the best case yet I’ve heard for a conservative to vote for Obama.” Where? I must be blind. Please copy and paste. I want to hear a fellow Christian’s list of reason to vote for Obama…I promise I will share it with two voting teenagers! But it cannot be a list of complaints against the Bush administration. I’m am totally sincere in this request.

    Theresa – a (r)epublican who is unhappy with both parties, but hates to think of voting for someone who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of getting elected.

  • FW

    Meet Senator McCain. Socialist!

    From an exchange in 2000:

    Responding to a question from a girl who wants to know why her her father, a doctor, pays a higher tax rate than people who earn less:

    McCain: “I think it’s to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.”

    Doctor’s daughter: Aren’t we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?

    #8 carl

    at least on the issues of socialism, i do really believe that we are talking “pot meet kettle” on the issue of “socialism”:

    from Mc Cain´s 2000 run for president:

    McCain: “Here’s what I really believe. When you are, reach a certain level of comfort, there is nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189119&title=mccain-says-the-s-word

  • allen

    The historic core trinity of the GOP is limited government, competent government, and a realistic foreign policy. If the Ds manage to co-opt the latter two, the Rs will have to get a new name and try again in 20 years.

  • FW

    another conservative argument for obama:

    he is a true intellectual who has thought, rather profoundly, about constitutional law.

    he feels that the courts (should) follow, rather than lead societal norms (this is, by the way, a conservative stance).

    make no mistake. Obama is an FDR liberal.

    yet still, could you imagine Palin or even for that matter, Mc Cain, debate constitutional issues at this rather complex level?

    here are two legal bloggers talking about an obama audio tape where he is discussing the Warren Court.

    Impressive.

    links here….

    http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml

  • FW

    #15 allen

    I agree here. and add that the republicans have historically been engaged internationally and democrats more isolationist in tendency.

    republicanism and conservatism do not overlap well I maintain.

    both democrats and republicans and society at large have moved radically towards small-d democracy.

    true conservatism should be a voice in the wilderness reclaiming small-r republicanism. representative, constitutionalism that simultaneously is undergirded by and supports the Rule of Law.

  • Don S

    Allen @ 15 and Frank throughout:

    Allen, do not fear that Democrats will actually “co-opt the latter two”. They historically tack far to the right of their actual positions during Presidential elections and then revert to far left form while governing. The exception, to some extent, was Clinton, but this is mostly because of the ’94 elections and the Republican congress holding him accountable. From all reports, Obama will have no such restraining influence, and may even have a filibuster-proof Senate. Not a good thing.

    Frank, you obviously didn’t listen to the tape that Carl Vehse linked to. The most chilling parts of it are not what he says about redistribution of wealth, but about how the “rule of law” you are so fond of could be circumvented to achieve his goal of redistribution of wealth. The most nonsensical part of your argument for Obama is his respect for the Constitution. Liberals have never respected the Constitution, at least as it was established. Their whole goal is to re-make it to suit their concerns, to have it change, willy-nilly, in accordance with changing societal standards, and to have those changes be implemented by unelected black-robed judges.

    Exactly how is that different from the “rule of men” you abhor?

  • D

    TK-
    “D, you wrote: “FW, you’ve made the best case yet I’ve heard for a conservative to vote for Obama.” Where? I must be blind. Please copy and paste.”

    Uh, I said it was the best case I have heard from a conservative, I didn’t say it was a good one. Admittedly, I haven’t heard that many.

  • FW

    if Mc Cain does in fact continue the current administration´s fiscal policies, they will progress the largest expansion of government of ANY administration, democratic or republican, in modern times.

    I am not saying this is right, I AM saying that someone, the bush administration has positioned themselves as being, in actual practice, more big government than the democrats have been. more than truman, eisenhower, jfk, lbj, nixon, ford, carter, clinton…..

    now they are nationalizing our banks. I do believe this is socialism by definition.

    I am really challenged to see how Obama could be even MORE radical than that. He might be AS bad. I don´t see how he could actually be worse.

    on the other hand, on ALL other constitutional issues, excepting the important abortion issue, he is far, far more conservative than bush has been. his position on brown v board of education is a prime example of this.

    I have never heard in fact, this kind of detailed, thoughtful constitutional discussion from Palin. Never will. and neither from senator mc cain.

    obama is constitutionally a conservative I maintain. or at least FAR more so than bush. bush in this area i further maintain has been very very radical.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    ‘No supreme court or other court or even a dictator, will for long enforce a law that is opposed by the majority’
    That’s so wrong it’s laughable.
    fw, meet Roe v Wade.

  • Joe

    Frank

    I think you are way off track with your “Rule of Law” bit – not becucase rule of law is bad but because Obama is not this great proponent of it. The question we are facing is not do we want to be rule by laws or by men, it is what law as a society do we want. I want to know what set of laws he wants enacted because while order is better than chaos, that is really not the choice. The choice we are faced with is about what kind of order. What set of laws are we going to enact?

    On a constitutional level, Obama does not adhere to rule of law. He is a typical, standard issue living constitution guy. Which, is nothing more than the Rule of Men. Agree or disagree with what those men do and the motivation for their decisions, but it is the Rule of Men.

  • FW

    #21 susan

    I do not think my proposition is “laughable”. just sad and true. true democracy never has a good ending.

    Roe v Wade was a political decision not a well thought out legal one.

    “political” generally DOES mean a ruling that follows the general majority public will.

    1) I do not believe that a majority would currently favor making abortion the capital crime that it is in the form of codified law. even most “pro-life” candidates are actually “pro-choice” in cases of rape or incest. inconsistently I would add. betraying political calculation based on where the perceived voter base is positioned on the issue most probably.

    Susan do you really believe that a majority of voters would favor jailing or executing women and doctors for having/performing abortions/murder of infants? I do not. So what exactly are you asserting with your post?

    2) even IF we could muster a majority, I believe that trying to achieve goals small-d democratically rather than by small-r republican means are A)liberal B) short sighted C) unprincipled end-justfies-means D) contrary to every christian principle of the place of the Majestic Rule of Law instituted by God and E) questionably moral because morally I probably should not consider it “a right” or “right” to be able to be part of a 51% majority that can out vote and force my will on the opposing 49%. This does not look like “blind justice”. it looks like tyranny.

    Christians need to achieve a majority by persuasion. there is no other way. short of that, and in the mean time we need to pursue ANY method that reduces abortions that can be supported by as many of the voters as possible.

    this might include, but not be limited to birth control/family planning (unfortunately), social welfare programs for single moms and dads and their children. Attacking the social disease of a high divorce rate and serial polygamy, absentee fathers in failed marriages, underlying causes of teen pregnancies, some government health plan perhaps, making sure that welfar-to-work programs do create the unintended consequence of latch-key kids where mom has to hold down 2 fast food jobs and a 4 hour commute and her kids are totally unsupervised. Facing the reality that there are often no optimal solutions to the social mess we live in. Understanding that welfare and massive govt social intervention often creates more problems than it solves.

    it also includes agreeing that overturn of roe v wade is not the ONLY valid strategy for a “pro-life” citizen to support. and that someone can be anti abortion and see other strategies than the standard one to seek a mitigation of this horrible blight on our society.

    voting for a pro-choice candidate is not ipso-facto, a vote for death.

  • FW

    #22 joe

    you are an attorney and I am not so maybe i should be deferential to you.

    “The question we are facing is not do we want to be rule by laws or by men, it is what law as a society do we want.”

    This looks more like democracy to me than republicanism. society decides what is right.

    so I must respectfully disagree. I am an ardent small-r republican. this, to me, looks like a constitution that enumerates broad principles that all can agree on, and in turn all laws passed by legislation or worse, by referendum(direct democracy) are tested against that constitution.

    I do believe that “strict constructionism” while sounding good is mostly a cannard. True strict constructionism would strictly interpret the constitution exactly the way the founders intended it. the private and public writings AND practices of the founders would then be always used to determine constitutional meaning.

    in that case, slavery would still exist, sufferage would be limited to white male property holders. No national construction could be done (federal highway system etc), women and children would basically have the same rights as slaves (really). etc.

    I favor the idea that the constitution is to limit government and not the citizenry.

    so there is ample room for honorable men to disagree on things that conservatives are quite certain are beyond disputing.

    I hope the republican party is reconstituted as the party the ignites true open debate on these issues.

    the best debate i ever saw was the california governors debate when swartzenegger first ran. it included all the 3rd party candidates. we need alot more of that…..

  • Susan aka organshoes

    It has never been clear that a majority of Americans support legalized abortion, let alone the Roe v Wade decision. Indeed, it was hardly on the radar of most Americans, that abortion should be a woman’s right, when the decision came down.
    As to what punishment most Americans would accept, that’s beside the point, as well as an argument of last resort.
    The accompanying ‘accomplishments’ of Roe are almost as heinous as abortion itself. The reality of legalized abortion has made us so squishy as to what’s right and what’s wrong–about declaring anything wrong; in knowing what’s killing and what’s preserving rights; in understanding what our constitutional rights really are–well, the genie is long out of that bottle and the bottlecap is currently lost.
    My vote goes to the least squishy guy. I’m dead tired of squishy guys touting a squishy constitution, and of self-describing Christians thinking squishily.

  • WebMonk

    FW, your #1 most certainly was a rant against Bush and Cheney. Not one thing in there was about Obama – it was all anti-Bush/Rep.

    Perhaps you meant to imply that all those bad things Bush, Republicans, and Democrats supported are things Obama opposes. Nonsense. Obama is philosophically supportive of many of the things you’ve mentioned, and has actually supported many of them in his votes.

    He supports the wiretapping by his votes, but opposes it with his speeches. I think that makes Obama complicit on #7 and #8.

    On free speech he is horrible, at times supporting the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine, and then not supporting, then supporting, then not….

    He’s certainly in favor of #10.

    He certainly does #6.

    He’s done the civilian equivalent of #2.

    Until he started campaigning, he supported the Patriot Act bills. That would make him complicit on #1 and #4.

    You’ve said your pro-Obama vote isn’t an anti-Bush vote, but EVERYTHING you’ve posted suggests that you actually are doing an anti-Rep vote, ignoring that Obama is no different than those you are opposing on most of the counts – 1,2,4,6,7,8,10.

    Obama has never made any significant move to unite anyone, and certainly hasn’t made any moves to substantively support the “rule of law” as you say. He talks about it, and if you actually believe what he says, then fine, but you’re believing what he says in opposition to what he has done.

    Obama isn’t any different fundamentally than any other Democrat.

    You talk about McCain possibly continuing the current administration’s financial policies, and rightfully say what a horrible thing that would be. But then, you ignore that Obama’s plans far outstrip McCain’s plan in the amount of spending. He’s even more supportive of nationalization than McCain.

    On what issue has he been constitutionally conservative? Certainly not on free speech. Certainly not on abortion. Certainly not economically. Certainly not on wiretaps. Certainly not on 2nd amendment issues. Until the last 2 years, he wasn’t even particularly against the PATRIOT Act.

    A couple weeks ago someone mentioned that he thought Obama was something of a Rorschach test – people projected onto him what they felt. I see lots and lots of your frustration with Bush and Republicans, and all that seems to be reflected onto Obama as the antidote, but he’s an inkblot for you. There’s nothing in his record that supports most of what you’re attributing to him.

    – You think he’ll promote national unity and he talks it, but there is NOTHING to actually corroborate that he’ll even try, and several things that suggest otherwise.
    – You suggest he’ll not be a wild spender like Bush, but he has a record of supporting Bush’s spending and based on his plans, he wants to expand it more.
    – He talks of decreasing racial tensions, but opposes the recent two cases that continued Brown v BoE’s ban of race-based selection in determining where kids go to school.

    FW, I can identify with your complaints about the Republicans, Bush, and McCain, but WOW! do you ever have the wrong guy if you think Obama is any better. In most cases he’s worse! (spending, nationalization, civil rights)

  • Rich Shipe

    Why is it impressive that a law professor knows the Constitution? Isn’t that supposed to be expected?

    What impresses me about that interview with Obama was how much he directly reveals about his political philosophy. Usually liberals cover their radicalism in populism. Here Obama just comes out and says it. Wow. He thinks the biggest error of the Constitution was its lack of positive rights. Wow. That is huge. If he is elected we will have by far the most radical liberal presidents ever.

    I agree with others who posted ahead of me, where is the conservative argument for Obama? I’ve seen plenty of arguments against Bush/Cheney and McCain but where exactly is Obama more conservative than McCain? My theory is that these conservatives who are voting for Obama aren’t really conservatives.

    I’m voting for McCain because of abortion. What good is the rest of government if we continue to murder thousands a day? I’ll gladly pay higher taxes if we could eliminate abortion.

    Here is a fatalistic conservative argument for Obama: McCain is more conservative but he is still on the same general path as Obama. Our nation needs to hit rock bottom fast so that it can come out of this liberal/socialistic funk and get back to its senses on every single significant issue. So vote for Obama so everything can get screwed up faster so we can get it fixed faster. If McCain wins we’ll slowly get to the same place and won’t understand what went wrong.

  • FW

    #26 webmonk

    I guess we will find out probably eh?

    I disagree with most of your observations on substance.

    I miss similar substance from McCain and especially Palin. I hear alot of sound bites from them and very little policy detail, and nothing about the philosophy that undergirds their policy proposals other than broadstroke standard republican talking points.

    Obama is the only candidate to speak out consistently against torture. His speech on race after the flap over his pastor is truly on target and inspirational and reveals alot about his character.

    I am willing to accept that Obama will walk his talk. If his campaign is any reflection of his administrative skills and his constancy under fire, then we will be fine.

    he has been campaigning for 2 years and has faced off against formidable and worthy opponents, first clinton, now mc cain. he has been vetted.

    i will take my chances with change when the alternative is a simple continuation of bush policies by a man whom I no longer trust largely because he picked a vice president who makes me extremely uncomfortable as the backup to become president.

    I am not the lone conservative to endorse obama. google to see their reasons. my position is debatably reasonable.

    I won´t waste my vote by going third party or staying at home.

    i will pull the lever for Obama.

  • FW

    #26 webmonk.

    we are blest in any case by the caliber of our american candidates, republican and democratic. we are all americans. I do not think the differences are as stark as you state.

    I AM opinionated, but at the same time, I will support and pray for all of our elected officials and be the “loyal opposition” and not merely the “opposition” where I see that that is the patriotic thing to do.

    I will not villainize the opposing party. I have not done so with Bush, but i do think his view of the constitution is extremely radical and subversive of our rights and so I do oppose it.

  • FW

    when this election is over, the bumper stickers need to be promptly removed. the campaigns need to be over, and we need to close ranks behind whoever is elected.

    I would say this for democrat OR republican.

    part of closing ranks will be to, respectfully and loudly disagree substantively and on policy issues.

    conspiracy theories and character attacks about obama being secretly a terrorist or muslim or worse be gone.

  • FW

    #27 r shipe

    i just cant see how you read obamas words as supporting positive constitutional rights… he is not saying that the court SHOULD break free. he is merely making an observation…..

    the “[Warren Court’s interpretation of the Constitution] wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. At least as it’s been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can’t do to you, what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf.”

  • FW
  • FW

    colin powell´s endorsement of barack obama

    and…

    I agree with everything secretary powell says.

  • FW

    REPUBLICANS FOR OBAMA!!!

    republicans for obama. a listing and linking to all conservative endorsements for obama to date. the list is very extensive…..

    http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341

  • Don S

    Frank @ 23:

    If I am reading you right, you are saying that we should not try to overturn Roe v. Wade through the Supreme Court, but rather through the legislature. Do you realize that this would mean passing a Constitutional Amendment? It would have to pass the Congress by a 2/3 vote, and then be ratified by 2/3 of the states. So, in your view, to be fair, even though the liberals routinely force their views on us through the pronouncements of unelected judges, our only response should be legislative. Conservative judges should avoid rolling back egregious rulings at the judicial level. That approach is a standard far left platitude. Conservative judges are accused all of the time of being “activist” for not blindly adhering to “stare decisis” and affirming all prior liberal rulings. Liberals would love that — they impose their views on us judicially, and then limit us to rolling them back only through statutory or constitutional changes.

    Sorry, but true adherents to original interpretation should certainly feel free to reverse the lawless impositions of runaway liberal judges.

  • WebMonk

    Wow. That is sad. FW, might I suggest to you that you are ridiculously and insanely self-deluded if you can say with a straight face that you “will not villainize the opposing party. I have not done so with Bush….”

    Your blind spots about Obama are as nothing compared to that. That’s like the dwarfs in The Last Battle.

    I’ll answer your reply ahead of time because there’s no point in continuing the discussion after that: I understand the difference between pointing out someone’s errors and vilifying someone. I really do.

  • FW

    #35 don

    no i have a larger point.

    I think that it is wrong headed to think that we can use the courts OR legislation to impose a law that would not be supported by the majority of the population.

    even if the majority WOULD support such a law, it would be wrong stragegy because it would be relying on small-d democracy, rather than principled small-r republican ideals.

    majority rule is the tyranny of the 51% . it is especially dangerous to the wellbeing of disliked small and voiceless minorities. such as the unborn for example. but also christians, jews, gays, gypsies, etc etc.

    far better to do what the early christians successfully did: rely on persuasion and example. the goal should be to use a wide variety of stategies to reduce the number of abortions to as few as possible.

    We do contrary to this by insisting on labeling everyone who is “pro-choice” as being also “pro-death” or “baby killers” or worse. this will persuade no one on who has that position, many of whom would like to see abortions become as rare as possible. Treating this group as monolithic or insisting on imposing a label most would find distasteful is also a poor strategy I think.

    abortion is illegal everywhere south of the us border. abortions are still rampant. laws are not cure, they are merely at best curb. to focus mostly on forcing something against majority will, or worse by using majority will, with a law, is a phyrric victory at best. It is the worst possible means to acheive a durable result that is just and least damaging to society.

    I don´t see how dispersing roe vs wade to 50 state supreme courts and legislatures will better things.

    enlighten me here.

    people CAN travel and cross state lines. I am not at all convinced that it would reduce the number of abortions.

    reducing the number of abortions is what the common goal needs to be. politics is about the possible, not about a perfect solution or cure.

    i hope you follow me Don. This is way outside the usual “box”.

  • FW

    #36 webmonk

    “Wow. That is sad. FW, might I suggest to you that you are ridiculously and insanely self-deluded if you can say with a straight face that you “will not villainize the opposing party. I have not done so with Bush….”

    no webmonk. I pray for him and the congress weekly in and out of church. i strongly disagree with many of his policies. I DO believe that God himself has placed Bush as our president thru the instrument of the voting process. So I honor him thusly.

    I also believe it is right to oppose his policies where I see them as wrong.

    as a sinful human i have not been above attacking his character at times. that is wrong. I need to repent.

  • Don S

    Frank @ 37: Roe v. Wade is wrong. It was wrongly decided, made up out of whole cloth from an inferred Constitutional right that does not exist. Surely, you agree with that. Accordingly, it is absolutely appropriate for the Supreme Court, when given the opportunity to reconsider the issues addressed by Roe v. Wade, to reverse that wrong decision, regardless of whether the public believes it to be the right decision. Constitutional rights can never be decided by majority rule. They are enshrined in the Constitution, and must be protected regardless of popular sentiment. Because they are so powerful, those that are wrongly added to the Constitution must be swiftly repudiated.

    Of course, as you no doubt know, reversing Roe v. Wade does nothing more than permit the issue to revert to each state. The people of those states can decide, through the ballot box, whether they want to equate abortion with the murder that it is, and prohibit it.

  • Anon

    Socialism is not a move back towards feudalism, but a move back towards an oriental despotism.

    Obama has profound contempt for the 1st, 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution and for the Constitution itself, which he calls “fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”

    It has been shown that an Obama election will result in 125,000 more abortions per year, not fewer abortions.

    Civil law has a teaching effect and a restraining effect upon evil (1 Tim 1) Those who argue otherwise are forgetting that. If abortions per year returned to the 100,000 that they were when they were illegal except for one or two States or cities, that would save 1.3 million lives per year. That is not inconsiderable.

    Obama will force abortion to be approved of, with federal penalties for those who speak against it. Likewise with the black mass of the abomination and blasphemy of homosexual “marriage” He has promised this.

    The law against speech that hard left Democrats hate will swiftly become law if he is elected.

    Homeschooling will be banned, and children taken away from resisters.

    Christian schools will be forced to teach that abortion and homosexuality are ok, or they will be shut down.

    These are things promised by either Obama, Pelosi, Reed or Biden. And they will be able to make these things happen.

    Taxes will rise for everyone and every couple making 25,000 a year or more.

    There will be a federal organization as well-manned, armed and funded as the 5 branches of the military to keep an eye out for dissent in this country – another campaign promise of Obama.

    Allen, don’t worry, the Dems if Obama is elected and the Senate gets a filibuster proof majority will radically increase the federal government creating a completed State Totalist environment where every detail of your life will be regulated, including what you are allowed to say, how much you can eat, what you tell your children and other intrusive matters. It would take a revolution of the military kind to reverse that.

    fw thinks that if the Republicans were finally able to restore Constitutional government that they would only be representing a minority. He forgets that liberals as well as conservatives supported Ron Paul *just because* he wanted to restore Constitutional government (he obviously did not have a realistic foreign policy). And that certain States such as California, Oregon, New York, and Massachusetts would still have very pro-abort, pro-perversion legal regimes.

    fw, Obama thinks and says that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed from the beginning. Further, we have no idea what kind of education he had, what classes he took or how well he did – he absolutely refuses to release *any* of his educational records, leading to speculation that they prove he is a foreign citizen, or that he did very badly indeed.He certainly doesn’t talk like a reflective thinker!

    His talk on the Warren Court showed that he was so radically anti-American Constitution that he didn’t think that the Warren Court was anything but very conservative compared to what he wants to do in remaking America in the Alinskayian/Weather Underground/New Party image.

  • Anon

    Wars cost a lot of money, which is the negative thing weighing down the “Bush economy” of course the current stock market crash is a result of the economic policies of ACORN, Obama, Frank, Dodd, Carter and Clinton.

    Yes, the Democrat plan is nationalizing the banks.

    Susan, not to mention Casey and Lawrence! Or India and China.

    fw, your stupid (yes) argument in #24 either forgets, or hopes the rest of us forget the amendation process for the Constitution. Your whole argument is specious and idiotic.

    The vast majority of Americans oppose abortion except where the life of the mother is *actually* threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy, the baby’s life cannot at all be saved, and the abortion would be less traumatic physically to the mother than a c-section. Those are the facts.

    Humpty Dumpty tried to make words mean whatever he wanted. fw, you are no conservative.

    The problem with positive rights is that it makes the government the font of all rights and laws. That is a rejection of the existence of this independent republic, of Almighty God, and establishing the government in the place of God, which is idolatry, of course.

    #37, fw, Lawrence opposed the will of the majority. For some reason I imagine that you support that, as well as the California Supreme Court overturning Prop 22, and the will of the people in order to force something the majority did not want, upon them. I seem to recall you being happy about that, too. There is a rather huge absurdity in your claiming what you do in #37 about opposing laws that are against the will of the majority.

  • Rob

    Actually, FW, Obama did quite explicitly support positive rights in that interview. To his credit, he does not believe that the Courts do (and, perhaps, should) have the power or authority to grant such rights, but he clearly believes that coalitions of legislative and executive power should be constructed in order to correct what he regards to be a glaring omission in the Constitution: a positive redistribution of wealth and opportunity, at least to historically disadvantaged minorities. Please read the entire interview carefully.

    In fact, it’s quite obvious that Obama’s underlying philosophy is erected on a basis of liberationism and (yes) Marxist-lite thought in the sense that he sees class conflict as the root of contemporary political interaction: this is in fact a traditional stance of the Democratic party for the last several decades.

    Before you exile me to the McCain camp: I will not be voting for McCain. I will be writing-in/voting third party. My vote does not count anyway, so I may as well not waste it on a candidate I despise and support an establishment that increasingly fails to fulfill the definition of republican (mixed), representative government.

    On that note: why are we debating the merits of abortion? First of all, the President (especially with a Democratic congress in place) can have exceptionally miniscule impact upon the entire issue. Second, and more importantly, I can guarantee you that our deep cultural commitment to lavish living and tax/borrow and spend policies will destroy this nation far sooner than anything negative result of abortion. McCain, who voted for the bailout will do little resolve this situation, but does anyone honestly think that Obama would be more beneficial and do more to uphold the so-called “rule of law” (whatever that means; law is not a good prima facie)?

  • Rob

    *Forgive the typos, particularly in the final paragraph.

  • FW

    #42 rob

    “Actually, FW, Obama did quite explicitly support positive rights in that interview. To his credit, he does not believe that the Courts do (and, perhaps, should) have the power or authority to grant such rights”

    confusion.

    agreed. obama here says the warren court did NOT say the constitution conferred “positive rights”. and he seems to favor the warren courts position on the constitution. this is a conservative position!!! He faults the civil rights movement for relying on courts and court rulings to seek those “positive rights”. and yes he supports some sort of distribution. as tax laws under dems/reps have since income tax was made permanent.

    The mc cain camp is using this interview to try to establish that obama is MORE of a socialist than dems and republicans have been since fdr.

    this interview clearly falls short of being evidence of that.

    It establishes the very opposite in fact.

  • Rich Shipe

    FW, I guess we are looking at different interviews here but he says that the Warren court wasn’t radical enough! He does say that the courts aren’t the best place to make those changes but that is a political argument, not a process or legal argument. He is not saying he’s opposed to activist courts but that it is always better and longer lasting for the legislature makes those changes.

    He also makes it very clear that he considers it a mistake of the Founders that the Constitution only deals with negative rights. Writing positive rights into the Constitution is a liberal position whether that is done through activist courts or through amendment.

    Your link to conservatives and GOP that have endorsed Obama is pretty scant. How can anyone with a straight face say that Powell and Lincoln Chaffee are conservatives? I think you are just trying to confuse people here.

    Also, I’m not sure you are a conservative. Ok, you are pro-life, that is great. You can call yourself a conservative but that doesn’t really make you one.

  • Rob

    What Rich said. The fact that Obama does not believe the courts have/should have the authority and power to redistribute wealth only flimsily conceals the fact that he believes the legislature and executive powers should do so (actually, it does not conceal that fact at all, but I’m attempting to be charitable). The core of the matter is that Obama does indeed favor some form of wealth redistribution, which is infinitely removed from a conservative political position in the United States.

    Basically, there is no possible universe (except the former Soviet Republics, in which socialism=the tradition=conservatism) in which Obama could be construed to be remotely conservative; roughly the same, though to a lesser extent, could be said of McCain. You can make your own judgment as to whether this is a good or bad, but let’s not obscure the facts here. Obama is not conservative. You will not get conservatism if you vote for him and if/when he is elected. Basically, my firm warning is, “Don’t kid yourself.”

    Basically, FW, you have the right to support Obama for whatever reasons you please, and none of us are denying that the Republican party is no longer the home of convervatism in America, but its new home is certainly not Obama’s campaign. Let’s not pretend that Obama is conservative; he’s about as “progressive” a candidate as has run for high office in decades.

    That said, there are far better conservative arguments for casting a vote in Obama’s direction, though obviously none of them have convinced me (and certainly the claim that Obama is more conservative is about the least convincing argument I have heard; he voted for the bailout too, after all)…

  • Rich Shipe

    Good grief. I just read the Andrew Sullivan 10 reasons conservatives should vote for Obama that FW links to above. Really?

    10. Isn’t Obama leading in the polls today a body blow to Jesse Jackson? I’d rather have Jackson and his politics on the outside of the White House throwing rhetorical bombs rather than on the inside.

    9. What about the Laffer Curve? McCain is a stud (comparatively to most in DC) on spending.

    8. “Obama read a book about good foreign policy” is what that strikes me as. What about Obama’s buddying up with Palestinian terrorists? It is hard to know if he really understands who is a friend and who is not.

    7. I think he just made that one up. Remember that four years ago today he was a state senator.

    6. Again, quiet a statement considering his lack of experience.

    5. That is a personal insult to anyone who believes that the Bible is God’s word. Look up Sullivan’s writings on Christianists to understand his full meaning.

    4. Sullivan is homosexual and this is obviously a personal area for him. But conservatives aren’t for special rights for homosexuals or undermining the definition of marriage. Do conservatives think that the outcome of the 60s culture wars were/have been good?

    3. What? Palin is awesome on the issues. Better than McCain in fact. She is scary to Sullivan because she is so conservative and because she’s a Christian (or Christianist to him)

    2. That was my fatalist argument above.

    1. I disagree totally here. Maybe not always done as best as it should have been done but this is a growing force that we will have to face whether we like it or not. It is easy to play Monday Morning QB. We can spend the next four years ignoring them and becoming their friends but they will only refortify and attack us again. This is a fight to the death. Look at how Europe is losing this fight. Obama will bring us the “peace” that much of Europe is regretting. Sullivan understands this but is delusional in his hatred of Bush.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    I do agree, FW, on the importance of the rule of law. That must be absolutely fundamental. That has to require close adherence to the constitution. Obama seems to be complaining about the “restraints” that the constitution imposes on the government. That scares me in a head of state.

  • FW

    #48 Dr Vieth

    I DO believe the article that Drudge and then the MCCain campaign latched onto is being grossly misconstrued.

    Obama is in no way “complaining ” about constitutional restraints. he is observing that the warren court was conservative here, and seems to agree. you have probably formed your opinion based on a utube clip that is missing part of the interview.

    we have had a “progressive income tax” for a long time now, crafted by both democrats and republicans. this IS redistribution of wealth. so there is nothing radically new about that.

    in fact in the interview, the redistribution obama talks about is funding for schools and stuff like that. this IS the narrow legal context he is addressing in fact. brown v board of education, the warren court and the civil rights movement to be specific.

    Obama is so NOT complaining in this interview about constrains. he is in fact, echoing a conservative view that judicial activism is not the way to acheive lasting social change. one of his points is that judicial activism on funding issues raises problematic issues about the separation of powers…

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_back_on_redistribution.html?showall

    read this carefully vieth. and then go back and read the ENTIRE interview transcribed. there is nothing exceptional or groundbreaking here Dr vieth.

    it seems that the mc cain campaign is looking to further the “spreading the wealth”/joe plumber thing with this quote. very very lame!

  • FW

    #48 Dr Vieth

    conservative talking points….. hmmm… widen your net…

    if you look at the posts you will see that the following is a rather conservative legal blog. it has a post that links to a rather expansive obama interview on his judicial appointment philosophy, and if you scroll down, a rather balanced evaluation of the audio clip that drudge and then the MC Cain folks are trying to use as evidence that obama is a socialist and radical.

    http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_26-2008_11_01.shtml#1225104785

    I really don´t think the argument can be made for that here.

    obama in fact seems to be arguing against judicial activism! and yes, he is in favor of the progressive tax system that “spreads around the wealth”.

    note that there is a McCain clip on youtube from his 2000 campaign where he says that ” the rich should pay more.”

    so ok. what is new news about all of this? how is obama really outside of the dem/republican mainstream here?

    we don´t usually call our current income tax system out with the label “redistribution of wealth”. it is that though. is it not? so………

  • FW

    #48 dr veith:

    senator obama expresses his views on supreme court nominations. can you point me please to senator Mc Cain´s views on constitutional law and supreme court appointments dr vieth or anyone else here?

    http://www.freep.com/article/20081003/OPINION01/810030434/1069/OPINION01

  • FW

    #48 dr veith

    just read that sen obama is on record supporting the white soxs.

    as a cubs fan, I have to reconsider my vote.

    seriously.

  • Don S

    FW @ 50:

    You cannot equate a progressive income tax with “spreading the wealth”. They are not synonymous. A progressive income tax certainly unevenly distributes the burden of government. As the government pays its bills, it “redistributes” wealth to some extent because it got most of its money from a small segment of the population. But Obama wants to take this many steps farther. He wants, deliberately, to take additional money from the “wealthy”, and to use those funds, not to pay the bills of the government (defense, treasury, judiciary, and other legitimate federal expenses), but to make direct payments to other people in the population, based on some kind of political formula. In particular, he has proposed a broad-based refundable tax credit as a mechanism for this wealth distribution. While it is true that the earned income credit (EIC) already exists in the federal code, this new tax plan would greatly expand the idea of refundable tax credits. It is a way to avoid the restrictions on welfare that were passed by Clinton and the Republican congress in 1996.

  • FW

    #53 don

    mc cain wants to give everyone a $5000/$2500 check. same thing. so obama doesnt seem radically ahead of the pack with his tax and economic views….

  • FW

    #53 don

    c´mon dear brother!

    It’s true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it’s emphatically not the government’s job to redistribute wealth.

    But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a “right to health care,” or “equalizing educational opportunities,” or “making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,” or “ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,” and so forth and so on…. statements that Mc Cain and other mainstream republicans have all been fully known to make…..

    that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth?

    Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don’t actually use phrases such as “redistribution” or “spreading the wealth,” in which case he suddenly becomes “socialist”?

    If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.

  • Anon

    There is no conservative case for Obama, and a Christian cannot vote for him. Except if in ignorance.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79276

    It is a mortal sin, a turning of ones back upon ones baptism to vote for Obama, knowing what he has promised and what he stands for.

    Of course, a lot of people voting for Obama think that his policies are what McCain/Palin are actually running on. They have the wool pulled over their eyes by the ‘glamour’ (in the old sense of the word) of Obama’s silver-tongued charisma.

  • Anon

    Actually, a progressive income tax was one of the party planks of the CPUSA.

    The CPUSA (along with Hamas, Hezbollah and Hugo Chavez) have endorsed Obama.

  • CRB

    #56 Anon,
    After reading that article on that link, I think I would ask
    Ms Porter in her sighting of Matthew 7:26-27:
    “So, you *do* keep Jesus’ words then, that is, all that he spoke in chapters 5, 6 and the beginning of 7?! In other words, she seems to be implying that if you “don’t obey Jesus’ words, then you are not a Christian, if I’m reading her right. Sounds more like Moses than the Savior, doesn’t it?!

  • john

    It is difficult to believe that any christian could vote for the republicans anon.
    In temperment and thought Obama is a moderate. He is not a maverick. His ruminations on the Supreme Court are hardly controversial. You can bet London to a brick he will not appoint the left wing equivalent of Clarence Thomas.
    Recalibrating tax rates to reduce the deficit, improve services or increase/decrease income is not socialism — the government giveth and the government taketh away.
    In this part of the world politicians say that the voters generally get it right and we do. But in 2000 and 2004 America got it disastrously wrong. Set aside your concerns over Roe versus Wade, consider the larger community –it is time for generational change.

  • Anon

    CRB, whaa? Are you saying that Jesus sounds more like Moses than your savior??? And what division are you putting between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament?

    John, Obama is only a moderate compared to Pol Pot. He is hard left, no moderate. His ruminations on the Supreme Court are extremely controversial (you did see the controversy here?) They are in fact treasonous, were he to act on them.

    What -would- be the left-wing equivalent of strict constructionist? Someone who takes his Constitutional Oath seriously?

    The government does not give most people the money which they earn. That would only be the case if the government encompassed all of society, which would indeed be socialism. Do you know what that word means? Are you claiming that Obama was not a socialist in the 80s and 90s, that he wasn’t raised by Marxists?

    There are no political concerns higher than that of the lives of millions of people, brutally murdered and millions more to be brutally murdered. No murderer has eternal life in him. To cooperate and promote that evil is to be guilty as an accomplice.

    Generational change? What is that? It sounds like the chronological heresy, and a rejection of the wisdom of ones elders.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X