Still Undecided


Did you watch the debate?

I was driving home from Seattle so had to listen to the first hour the old-fashioned way, via a radio. Radio seems to be the perfect medium for debates. Listeners can’t see the eye roll, the smug lift of the chin, the wry grin, the tightening of the jaw, the flashing smile, or the false pleasantries.

On radio, all you get is what the candidates say.

What I heard is Romney and Obama both running roughshod over the moderator.

I wasn’t sure who was moderating, since I couldn’t see him and I had missed the introductions in my search to find a station carrying the debates. It didn’t take me long to figure out that it was PBS’s Jim Lehrer. Poor man couldn’t get a word in edgewise, and certainly couldn’t steer those wild horses in the right direction.

I get that a candidate must come off as being strong, forceful even, to lead this nation of people nursed on the notion of “My rights trump yours.” To hell with community and what’s best for the whole of us.

Public forums are at their best when they are well-moderated, but moderating is no easy task. One must keep control of the reins the entire time, lest the mules wrangle them away, which is exactly what happened in the first fifteen minutes of last night’s debate and even Mr. Lehrer seemed to be aware of it. Bless his little heart, Mr. Lehrer tried unsuccessfully to get Obama and Romney to quit acting like school boys in a tussle but they simply ignored him. What he needed to do was enter the fray and jerk them both back by their collars and tell them that they had better play nicely or he was going to slap them into Sunday.

People who study these things say the clear winner last night was Romney.

Perhaps so, but the clear loser last night was Lehrer.

And the American public.

Primarily golden-ticket holders often referred to as the Middle Class, who once again, were being fed a pile of hooey and being told it was Hamburger Helper.

Here’s some of the inaccuracies stated in the debate according to FactCheck.Org:


  • Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
  • Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit
  • Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
  • Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
  • Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
  • Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have “seen their income come down by $4,300.” That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.


The two issues that are weighing heavily for me as I consider who I will vote for in this upcoming election are jobs and health care. The health care component has grown even more serious for me over the past two months as I’ve spent the bulk of those months in and out of hospitals and cancer clinics with my mother who has lung and brain cancer.

In addition to the cancer, my mother has blood clots that needed treating. The shots she has to take daily cost $2,800 a month. Fortunately for us, our mother has double-health insurance, and while Medicare doesn’t pay for those shots, her other insurance does. Without that coverage, we simply would have to let the blood clots run their course.

Doctors have been very clear — our mother is dying. They gave her a couple of months. This week marks the end of that estimate. We are grateful for every single day. We consider our mother a walking miracle right now, even though we all realize we are on a death march.

So, yes, the health care issue weighs on my noggin like an ill-fitting beanie. Obamacare might be a bold move but that doesn’t mean it’s a good solution to the health care crisis in the country.

In addition to my concerns about health care, I’m concerned about the job market in this country. I teach college students, all of whom are hoping to be gainfully employed in a real job one day soon. A career job. One that pays the mortgage and car payment and allows them a dinner out and a movie on Saturday night.

These students are good people. They care about their grades and their siblings serving in the military. Romney’s promise to increase the military budget bothers me. While I would like to see care for our returning veterans increase, the last thing I think we need to be inflating is a budget for our military. I was chatting with a solider in Afghanistan recently, literally chatting online with him, while he was holed up in some compound and me in a home 20 miles from Fort Lewis, Washington. I’ve known this soldier all of his life. He’s serving in one of the most well-respected branches of the military, a position he had to earn with sheer doggedness and buckets of sweat. We were discussing matters of military when he mentioned the wastefulness of war.

He wasn’t referring to loss of life, although there is that, too.

He was speaking specifically about the ways in which money is burned like kindling in the war zones.

Wasteful, he said.

And he’s not the first soldier to tell me that.

We all know that the real benefit to war is the money that private contractors are making. They are bilking the Middle Class who are standing by waving their flags and shouting God Bless America as they ship their sons and daughters off to fight wars that are ill-conceived and poorly-executed, though bravely fought with valor and idealism.

That bothers me.


The pull-and-push of states rights versus federal rights is something we discuss-in-depth in that college class I teach. No Child Left Behind is a fine idea in theory. In practice, it’s a frigging nightmare. Education is best left up to the individual states to figure out.

For all his sweet-talking ways, Obama has not made educating future generations a priority.

And, here’s the thing that really is bugging me, nobody seems able to bring our federal debt under control and to put a stop to the obscene profiteering and corruption of certain said corporate powers controlling Congress.

That the Supreme Court allows this commandeering of elections by Corporates Are People too makes a woman like me want to go all menopausal and slap some sense into somebody, anybody.

Others have rightly pointed out that there was no mention of the growing population of the poor in this nation, or the escalation of the epidemic of child abuse, or the ever-expanding homeless community during the debates.

So, no, I don’t know who I’m voting for yet.

I tell myself it doesn’t really matter — that God controls my future. And while that’s true, He does, I know my vote matters because somewhere out there is a father who can’t afford the medicines his child needs, a woman who can’t get a decent job, and over 300 kids murdered on the streets of Chicago, kids who don’t worry about getting an education because they don’t dare hope for a future.

What about you? What were your thoughts on the debates? And do you have your mind made up already?






Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • AFRoger

    Didn’t watch or listen to the “debate” but could have predicted the result and probably written most of the script for it. This is what we get for all the money being spent: two candidates whose numbers don’t come close to adding up because if either were honest and realistic, we would flee in horror to the magic opponent whose “solutions” offer a painless way out of a monumental mess that every sane analyst says will cost us all dearly to fix. And the longer we wait the higher the cost.
    Was talking with a customer in OK yesterday. He and I are on the same page. He’s not satisfied with either candidate but knows which way his state will go regardless of how he votes. So that frees him to vote his conscience. Here in Oregon, we’re so firmly in the Obama column on the elctoral vote map that the candidates don’t come here or buy TV ads. Lucky us! So I’m voting my conscience:
    I listened to Rocky Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City, several weeks ago. Every word he said made sense and is a direction I would actually sit down and write a tax surcharge check to support if he were president and said we needed to chip in to our own self interest and solve problems rather than to delay, defer and deny. Anderson said one thing that I have pondered ever since. He said that he does not recognize the Mitt Romney who is running for president because he is not the man Anderson knew and worked with years ago. So that’s what the most expensive political system in the world delivers: artificial candidates and non-solutions.
    I can’t in good conscience vote for either of the two candidates or either party. That oath I took in 1969 at the age of 22 still binds me as far as I’m concerned. I must do the right thing for my country and our U.S. Constitution. I must vote FOR something, not cast a vote reluctantly out of fear that the other guy will win. I fear for our future if either wins.

    • AFRoger

      Didn’t skip the debate for lack of interest or being tired of politics. We were at a Social Security and retirement planning seminar hoping to figure out how both of us can afford to live another 30 years here and not end up homeless. Neither candidate will ever have to worry about health care costs or having to choose between medical care and bankruptcy. I try to imagine how the world looks through such eyes, but I can’t. I just can’t.

    • This two party choice is the worst ever since the Supreme Courts decision on Citizens United.

      • t11publius

        Actually, many in the founding generation would have argued that any choice by ‘party’ is always a ‘bad’ choice. The political process from the Greek ‘polis’ ought to be a community building and ordering process that promotes the common good and not the victory of one interest/party. The initial division into formal parties was the “worst” choice . . .

  • Linda Williamson

    I do know who I am voting for – Romney for multiple reasons. First of all we are small business owners of a local hardware store in our small rural community. If Obama is reelected I fear for that and other businesses. We have 5 employees but given the policies of the Obama administration (Obamacare, banking regulations re: cash flow for good, solvent small businesses, etc.) I can envision having to cut back on that number. That is so incentive to add employees or even to stay in business if you arenot making a profit. And yes, I do agree with Romney that small business is the economic backbone of our nation.

    Also I fear for the agricultural community in our area. Family farms are vital to our community. If Obama is reelected, the increase is estate taxes which will happen unless Republicans maintain a majority in Congress will cause many of these farms to be sold simply to pay the taxes because of much higher property valuations.

    I for one, am considering selling farmland left to me before the end of this year, because Obama has proposed an increase in capital gains taxes from 15% to 25% which can be quite significant.

    I do understand about providing for those in need, but without economic prosperity there are going to be more in need and many fewer people who have the discretionary income to give to charitable causes adding an even heavier burden on the federal govt.

    This nation has always rewarded hard work and individual economic success – not a plan which whether inadvertently or not brings about a redistribution of wealth. And I sincerely believe that Romney is the best choice for that economic prosperity with his plan supporting small business thereby increasing the number of jobs thereby automatically providing for more tax dollars without increasing the tax rate.

    • I agree, Linda, that economic prosperity is critical for the welfare of all Americans. But is it not true that certain corporations are making record profits? So it’s not a lack of economic prosperity that is the problem but that the reason those companies are making record profits is because they have taken jobs overseas, where wages are lowest and human rights offenses are the highest. I’d like to see companies that keep their jobs at home rewarded.

  • Sharon O

    It is a very sad state of election I think. We don’t have many choices and already have seen ‘the track Obama has laid’… conservation of our ‘society’ is a good choice, perhaps Romney will have the conservative backing to help with that? I just pray the Lord will come and we won’t have to worry about it.

  • Thank you for this, Karen. All excellent points. Don’t forget all the aborted babies when you discuss murder. And, I know you have been caring for your mother, but I ask that you see the movie “2016” (now available online I’ve been told). That should help you make up your mind. And, referring to God — many in our community have been following the “Desperate for Change: 40 Days of Prayer for America” program. Today’s devotional is from Deut 3:22: “Do not be afraid of them; the Lord your God himself will fight for you.”

  • LynnW

    I posted this on a friend’s wall earlier today: My opinions were only strengthened last night. Mr. Romney is an adult who has plans and realizes we cannot say “yes” to everything. Part of being a grown up is being disciplined enough to say “no.” We must fix the economy, but we must also limit government. We need to help people, but we do not do that when we do not teach personal responsibility. A friend of mine who has worked on the streets as a nurse for ten years said this today: “…….it has everything to do with personal responsibility, and more importantly, personal freedom. Food stamps, disability, even social security are another brand of slavery, stifling if you’re stuck on them. I’ve worked on the street with this for ten years. Too much time on those programs infuses people with fear, self doubt, and hopelessness.” (This does not mean that people do not need help at times, of course, but when waiting on the system to fix things becomes a way of life, it destroys lives rather than helps them. God created us to be productive. Productivity builds self esteem. Dependence on the government buries it.) And there are better ways to fix our health care. But this post has gone on too long. Let’ s just say that as a person who lived under socialized medicine in Great Britain for three years and whose husband could have died as a result of waiting lists, I will never be a fan. Additionally, the fact that Obama has no respect for the least of these, the unborn, speaks to his character. Unless the person is a complete whack, which Romney is not, that is a deal breaker for me.

    • As a woman who has had an abortion – which I’ve written about in both my memoir After the Flag has been Folded and here on this blog – I will admit to having very little tolerance for the argument about the unborn. I have my thoughts about that and have expressed them more fully in other posts. Suffice it to say I don’t vote for candidates on the basis of whether or not they are Pro-Life or not. I’m much more concerned with what we are failing to do with the children among us. Are you aware that 20,000 living children have been murdered here on US soil in the past 10 years as a result of the epidemic of child abuse? Something neither candidate has addressed. ( I wrote about all that in A Silence of Mockingbirds.)
      There have been times when I relied on Food Stamps to put food on the table. Times when I relied on WIC to feed my children. Times when I have been on unemployment. Times when I relied on government-funded health care to get my children the medical care they needed.
      Never did it feel like slavery to me. Not that I would have the slightest clue of what it means to be enslaved.
      What it felt like is help. Relief. A hand up. Hope.

      • LynnW

        Because you are new to me, I did not know about your abortion and for that I am very sorry. Please understand I am all about grace in those circumstances and that was not a condemnation of women who have had to make that painful choice or have come to different realizations after the fact. I do have friends who have had abortions and I have felt nothing but compassion when I learned their stories and could not have imagined being in their place. Please know also that I quoted from my friend who is a nurse who has worked with many (and I mean many) people on the street and that is what she has experienced. Note that I said we do need to help people at times but when the dependence lasts on and on and on, the trap ensnares. And when we teach them to be totally dependent on the government and not teach them how to get out of poverty (not easy I know) where does the cycle break? She has true story after true story of those who felt trapped. I’m glad you felt you received help. Please know also that I do not write as someone who does not help. I work with at-risk children on a regular basis, gladly giving hours of my time. I believe in putting my money where my mouth is, and the pain some of them are experiencing breaks me to my core. Yet a dear friend of mine who has broken through the cycle of tremendous poverty tells horrible stories about having no food in the house yet her parents having money to buy drugs, even selling to law enforcement officers. As someone who experienced the worst conditions, she also believes the government does too much. Obviously, we don’t want to abandon people, but we need to be able to discern between those truly in need and those who have learned to work the system. Our current government does that very poorly. But I stand by my convictions about the unborn and the way I will vote, especially since our president has no compunction about late-term abortions (that is not hearsay). So we agree to disagree, and again I’m sorry for your loss and your pain.

        • LynnW: Thanks for your gracious words.
          You said it best when you said that we need to be able to discern between those truly in need and those who have learned to work the system. I think Jesus said we would have the poor with us always. He didn’t mention whether they had learned to work the system or not. He just said they would be among us, and told us repeatedly to take care of them. While I understand the concerns you’ve expressed about people who become dependent upon the system, I have spent some time with the homeless (Will Jesus Buy Me a Doublewide?) and as far as I can tell nobody grows up thinking, planning and desiring to be homeless. The reasons why they end up that way are complex. There is no one problem that led to it, thus, there doesn’t seem to be one-fix-all-cure-all for it. I don’t know the answer. I didn’t hear any answers put forth in the debate that persuade me for one candidate or the other. As I said previously, I won’t vote for a candidate on the basis of whether or not they are pro-life. We have a Republican Congress, most of whom claim to be pro-life. If they were really committed to acting upon their convictions about abortion, shouldn’t they be the ones overturning Roe v Wade? Or at least the last trimester abortions?

          • AFRoger

            “We need to be able to discern between…” Very important concept. A woman who once wrote for the local newspaper had a nice little triage for people on the street (or in any other situation in which they are not self-sufficient). She said they fell into three general categories:
            1) the have-nots. They have fallen down and need help to get up and going again (lost job, health crisis, etc.) and they will be OK.
            2) the can-nots. Mental illness, phycial limitations, addictions in combination with the former, maybe PTSD in combination, a bunch of things keeps them from ever being able to attain full self-sufficiency.
            3) the will-nots. People who do game the system, at least for now, but maybe not forever. Somebody’s still gotta show ’em the way, and help them find a reason to go another way.
            All three groups are still human beings, however. And the only way we will ever discern is to actually get to know a few of them by name, life-story, etc. Otherwise, it’s too easy to treat a 1 or a 2 like a 3. I can judge people without knowing them. But I can’t love anyone I don’t know, not genuinely. Jesus asked us to love, not to judge.
            Here’s what I keep coming back to. With the unimaginable amount of wealth, time and opportunity in the hands of Christians in our country today, why haven’t most government social programs that we compalin about dried up and blown away for lack of customers–because we followers of Christ have gotten there first?

          • Yes. We need to realize there is no one pathway into the issues and thus no one clear pathway out of them. There is no “Right” candidate, no Saviour as it were, altho like our ancestors, we certainly long for that Cure-all-ills-Candidates. The thing is, none of us are honest with ourselves. We want an end to welfare when it concerns our neighbor, unless our neighborhood is in a gated community and then we want tax breaks and corporate welfare. We want an end to abortion but we lack the moral conviction to care for children, neglected and abused. We complain about teachers and our educational system failures, but bitch and moan about paying higher taxes to fund schools and buy books, while at the same time we sign blank checks to Defense contractors. We care deeply but find it difficult to translate all the caring into actions that really could turn things around in ways that an elected official will never be able to.

          • AFRoger

            Karen: Your list of ways we live in full contradiction is almost endless. A late Christian scholar, pastor and professor summed it up well in a single sentence. He wrote the sentence in the 60’s after observing a bunch of well-dressed, manicured, well-transported suburban women spend an hour or so chanting slogans and waving placards against the Vietnam War in a busy plaza of downtown Chicago, only to toss the signs into the trunks of their cars and limos (yes, limos) and head off into the quiet ‘burbs. He said this:
            The decade past of our history here in the USA has been living proof. In spades. Completely distracted from the work of building and maintaining our country, our infrastructure has now fallen to 24th in the world. An entire generation of young Americans is in school today completely unaware that the term “budget cuts” is comprised of two separate words. Yet we already spend more on defense than the next 15-17 nations’ defense budgets COMBINED. And we think the way forward is to continue to spend that much, or MORE…?
            At the expense of what, for God’s sake? Clearly, we do not take Psalm 124:8 seriously. Heck, we can’t even talk about what that might look like.

          • Amen. Amen.

  • I’m voting for Obama. The debate doesn’t change that, and in fact I didn’t even watch it as I needed to help out with homework. If Romney wins and actually keeps his promise to undo healthcare reform, the results will be disastrous. On this and three dozen other issues, I prefer the Democrat over the Republican.

  • Larry Easton

    There are so many reasons to disregard modern liberalism and its legion of half truths and whole lies. Nevertheless, even in their absence the reason I could never, never, NEVER consider voting for a Democrat is that party’s dedication to

    It is responsible for championing the brutal and sadistic slaughter of more than 50,000,000 unborn children. Hitler is viewed as a monster for the Holocaust, a nightmare that claimed the lives of 6,000,000 Jews. By comparison, he was a piker.

    I find it difficult to respect any person, much less a fellow believer who can deceive themselves into believing that this is not a monstrous evil. Tens of millions of babies, mercilessly slaughtered in the most sadistic fashion possible .. either burned alive with saline solutions, or torn apart, limb by limb, without anesthesia. Or in the case of partial birth abortion, partially delivered … only to have a cold pair
    of forceps cradle its skull … and crush it.

    It is easily the worst and most sordid crime against humanity occurring today … fully sanctioned, championed and celebrated by the Democratic Party. Shame on
    any man or woman, Christian or not, who empower leaders who fight to
    continue this wanton massacre. This unimaginable evil.

    Undecided? Really? What you call “considering” I call amoral and shameless
    pretentiousness. A lack of conviction so severe that righteousness doesn’t stand a chance of influencing you. You enjoy the ability to justify whatever leaves you feeling comfortable, yet self-righteous.

    Your sensibilities are clearly informed by the same deceptive inanity which
    animates modern liberalism. The devastation it has wrought on every level and in every nation it has found a home is difficult to calculate … but crushingly obvious. Which is of course why the Left, religious or not, finds truth, facts and the obvious so odious and frightening.

    • Larry: We’ve had Republican leadership in both Congress and in the Presidency, and what exactly have they done to stop this “slaughter” of which you speak, other than to start two wars in which more slaughter has taken place?

      • Larry Easton

        Karen, they’ve repeatedly addressed the issue and worked at least to genuinely reduce and discourage abortions (to include appointing Justices which might well rule to end the barbaric practice).

        Of course you’ve done nothing but offer a sophomoric dodge coupled with desperate but shockingly facile equivocation. You’re comparing efforts in self defense to the wanton murder of innocent children (made worse by the multibillion dollar business that is abortion).

        I yearn for Republicans to work even more aggressively to end the murder of unborn children. Meanwhile, you empower men and women who labor and cheer the slaughter of innocents.

        This is not surprising. Your argument represents the cognitive dissonance and eventual compartmentalization that afflicts the modern liberal. The plethora of contradictions and intellectual vacuity of Leftist thought is intellectually atrophying. You find solace in cheering each other with empty and strange slogans … but struggle to offer cogent and meaningful responses to real criticisms.

        The Left is a captive to a dark and corrupting ideology that effortlessly calls good evil and evil good. Repentance is the only way out of the darkened maze that treats the slaughter of children with such callous indifference and finds refuge in the most insipid arguments.

        • And what say you about the multi-million dollar biz that is war, DOD and private contractors? And do you find the labels helpful for productive discourse? I honestly don’t know any thoughtful person — of any political affiliation — that cheers the murder of children, unborn or otherwise.

          • Larry Easton

            Karen, your going to real lengths now to underscore my points. How can you possibly equate the two. Nazis were famous for such arguments. It made killing Jews so easy (and profitable).

          • Larry Easton

            You’re running from the real discussion … the murder of children. How do you justify that Karen.

          • Larry: I have had an abortion, which I have written about in my memoir and on this very blog. I don’t vote for a candidate on the basis of whether they are Pro-Life or Not. If that makes me ignorant, immoral, or a Nazi in the making, so be it. I think I understand abortion, and its impacts, far better than you, a man, ever will or can.

          • Should you care to read my thoughts about my own abortion, here’s one link you might consider:

          • Larry Easton

            Hmmm, I’m not a woman AND I haven’t had an abortion … therefore I lack the necessary insight into understanding why you find no shame in empowering men and women who championing infanticide. Shifting the burden is the refuge of those who’ve run headlong into a question they cannot afford to answer.

            Since I’m not an adulterer I guess I have no moral authority to address that issue, eh? Don’t have the requisite insight that unfaithfulness might afford me. Though, by your reasoning, if I had, not only would I enjoy sufficient discernment into the behavior but … recommend it to others!

            Ditto for thievery, spousal abuse and well, heck … just about anything.

            Sound nutty? I sure think so.

          • Larry: It’s very hard to have a thoughtful discourse with someone who is convinced that nothing I say is of value or has any merit. Silly me for trying anyway. You have all the moral authority in the world. Judge away. Rant. Rave. Argue until your heart is satisfied and you are more sure than ever that you are right and anyone who disagrees or takes another position is just plain wrong or stupid. There, now, feel better?

          • Larry Easton

            Karen, thoughtful discourse? “You’re not a woman or ever had an abortion so you can’t understand” and I’m the one preventing thoughtful discourse?

            A reasoned argument, absent logical fallacies would be nice Karen … as would simply answering my question. How do you justify empowering leaders who champion and celebrate infanticide?

            A simple answer Karen absent histrionics. Is that possible?

          • My simple answer is I don’t vote for a candidate on the basis of whether they are Pro-Life or Not. I think I said that already.

          • Larry Easton

            That’s not an answer to my question … just another dodge. When you do vote for a candidate who champions slaughtering unborn children … how do you justify that?

            That’s the question Karen … not do you (you’ve already made it plain that you do), but when you do, how do you justify it.

            Unborn children, enduring unthinkable pain as they are dismembered, limb by limb or burned alive in saline, or while emerging from the birth canal endure gruesome death at the hands of a “doctor” who crushes their skulls. Or, those (Obama lobbied specifically for this practice) who are born, but unwanted, and so are left alone, unattended in a darkened room to die of neglect.

            How Karen do you justify encouraging such a heinous, devious and inhuman practice? A simple answer Karen. Not a dodge … but an honest, adult answer.

          • My position is that no one’s forced faith is genuine. We don’t get the right to force someone to become a Believer. I don’t believe in making someone’s else’s decision about their faith or lack thereof. In the same way it’s not my role to force someone else to carry their unborn child to term. And if it’s not my role, it’s certainly not the government’s role. I don’t have the right to force somebody to do things my way. The current Supreme Court ruling allows us to regulate abortion in the second and third trimester, as long as it’s not a risk to the mother. Obama supports the Supreme Court decision, but then so does Romney. Or he did when he was governor, but, of course, he’s modified that position somewhat in order to woo one-issue voters.. In August, Romney told CBS:
            “My position has been clear throughout the campaign,” he said. “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and health and life of the mother.”

            Glad he added that disclaimer about being clear throughout this campaign because he does seem to modify his position depending upon which audience he’s trying to appeal to.

            We’ve had Pro-Life candidates serve as Presidents. One or two of which I voted for. But once in office they didn’t do anything for the unborn.

            Voting for Obama or Romney is like six of one or half-a-dozen of the other, which is why I am still undecided.

          • Larry Easton

            “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the
            people favoring abortion, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor abortion are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are
            accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the abortion question for themselves within their own limits.”

            Rather similar sentiments to your own, Karen. Yes?

            I’ve quoted, here, Stephen Douglas … the gentleman who ran against Abraham Lincoln for the Presidency. I’ve also substituted the word “abortion” for the word “slavery” … that was the great immoral. evil and legally sanctioned act for which America still bears shame.

            Lincoln eloquently and rightly laid bare the cruel lies and contradictions so obvious in arguments which attempted to shield those who advocated such barbarity from shame.

            Those who felt slavery was a “personal choice” couldn’t escape the amorality of a choice which treated with callous indifference the humanity and rights of the slave himself.

            The same holds true for the selfish and indifferent ruse which attempts to cloak murder in the language of privacy and liberty. Ignoring the murder of an unborn child because its screams are silenced by the womb, and its carnage hidden from view in sterile clinics (where the cameras of those who join in lie will never go to reveal the barbarity of infanticide).

            History will of course treat with brutal condor those who led this holocaust … as well as those who sought refuge in deceptive arguments to shield them from shame as they empowered the leaders who celebrate the and encourage the slaughter, the doctors who grew wealthy murdering the children, and the men and women who resolved their “inconvenience” by snuffing out the life of a child.

            History is one thing of course … they’ll also answer to the God who describes true religion as that sacrificial love which reaches out to the widow and the fatherless in their distress. Such an injustice can hardly escape His eye. If He finds the death of a sparrow worthy of his loving attention … how must he view the wanton murder of an unborn child.

          • False comparison. And, you, sir, still have not addressed the issue of exactly how it is that one candidate in this election is a clear choice. If you are so fired up over abortion, and only going to vote for the Pro-Life candidate, which candidate would that be? Because it ain’t Romney. He plans to uphold the law of the land. So I take it you only vote for Congressional candidates who are Pro-Life, too? And last time I checked those so-called Pro-Lifers have control of Congress. So why is it Congress hasn’t done more to put a stop to this infanticide of which you rant so stridently?

          • Larry Easton

            Karen, that is anything but a false comparison (other than that a slave still had hope of freedom while his breath remained … abortion means death … hopeless, agonizing and tortured death for unborn children). It is in fact a most apropos example.

            Slavery, though immoral and wicked was, nonetheless, legal. A sanctioned evil (like the holocaust). The “rights” of the slaveholder were preeminent … the rights of the slave, like an unborn child, were not merely conveniently ignored, but by categorizing them as not quite human … completely dismissed.

            It was as self-serving an argument as it was evil and stupid. But it satisfied those eager to curry favor with such a constituency and for those who found in it, comfort for their seared conscience.

            Slavery is now illegal … but a grave stain upon our nation to this day. As I said, an apropos example of the modern evil of abortion. Your attempts to wiggle free of the obvious are as disingenuous and transparently absurd as those of Douglas and his brethren.

            Karen, simply because you say Romney isn’t now pro-life doesn’t of course make it so (save in the strange cloisters of modern liberals for whom such empty reasoning is viewed as sublime). Yes, Congress is comprised of a number of pro-life candidates … do you imagine that Obama would sign into law a bill banning abortion.

            Not only did he reject restrictions on partial birth murder (as does the DNC platform) he favored the practiced of abandoning new born children in order to allow them to die.

            Your attempts at equivocation betray a reckless disregard for both life and the truth Karen. To pretend that facts are meaningful is nothing but a clever disguise. The differences between the two candidate are obvious.

            Would I prefer a candidate that has enjoyed a long and unbroken history of pro-life thought and commitment? Of Course. But I’ll choose Romney any day over a man who reveals a maniacal dedication to the very worst sort of infanticide possible.

            “Ranting tirelessly”? Is that what Lincoln did? Fredrick Douglas? John Newton? William Wilberforce?

            Karen, step back for a moment and look objectively at your arguments. They strike me as rants. They lack reason, they lack honesty, they lack credibility. You swing wildly and frantically against the truth with arguments and logic which simply collapse in on themselves. Contradiction slamming into contradiction … all in defense of the indefensible.

            Why surrender your intelligence, honor and dignity to become hostage to a lie. Especially so damning a lie. Liberty isn’t a consequence of license … its the effect of knowing and embracing the truth.

          • On this we agree — I think Obama’s position on late-term abortion is wrong. I don’t support it.
            In regards to the law that allows for late-term abortion, isn’t the the place to change that with your Congressional leaders?
            The trouble with one issue voters, for me, is the tendency to totally dismiss all kinds of horrors as long as it’s not the one issue they care about. You, a man, want the absolute right to tell a woman, any woman, that abortion is wrong period. You want to make that the law of the land. But, let me get this straight, you want less government intervention in the lives of the public, too, right?

          • Larry Easton

            No Karen, I want to ban the murder of unborn children. You act as if the baby is of no concern … only the “right” of the mother to commission her child’s death.

            Being a man is of no consequence, unless of course you’re suggesting that women enjoy a special tolerance for infanticide not enjoyed by men.

            I’m curious, why are you opposed to late term abortions, or abortion through neglect of the newborn. If abortion is alright, then timing is of little concern.

            It appears by your remarks that you have little knowledge of the legislative efforts of Republicans concerning abortion … and the repeated vetoes or veto threats of both the Bill Clinton and President Obama.

            And yes, I’m very much in favor of less governmental intrusion, however, by your logic, the government would have no authority to stop you from murdering your neighbor. Yet, the law offers protection to your neighbor by assuring that your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not supersede his.

            Pro-abortion advocates deny, as a matter of necessity, the humanity of the unborn child in order to deny that unborn children enjoy the fundamental protection of the law against murder.

            The number of Americans opposed to abortion now approach more than half. Why? I think the in utero videos of unborn babies have made the truth of life obvious to all … well, all but those who must deny the obvious or face the knowledge that they approve of murder. Of murdering infants.

            Tell me, what do you think would happen to existing abortion laws if the major networks showed, in utero, an abortion as it occurred? The bloodied and broken remains of a child dismembered in the womb?

            I think that the practice would be banned almost immediately, those doctors who routinely murder children would be viewed as our generation’s Dr. Mengeles, and those who championed its cause shamed from public office while those who empowered them decade after decade, election after election would be left to contemplate the horror of their deception.

            But if course, that has never occurred. Not likely to either. The pro-abortion industry knows all to well the essential importance of keeping such knowledge hidden entirely from view. How does that make you feel, Karen, that you support a practice which relies on ignorance to continue? That through simple exposure to the grotesque reality of abortion, the general public would be horrified and demand its repeal?

            I care about a multitude of issues Karen, but when innocent children are being slaughtered for convenience … nothing even begins to approach that in importance.

            You’ve fallen back on the delusional, bigoted and deceptive ploy offered so routinely by unthinking liberals … “your a man, and you want to control my life”. What a sad commentary on the intellectual vacuity and moral emptiness of modern liberalism that it can find shelter in such an obvious lie.

            If you’re willing to refer to attempts at saving lives as attempts at controlling women … then yes, control is our aim. Every baby spared is grateful to those who intervened to save them from death … at the hands of those for whom rights are restricted to those able to defend themselves.

          • We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t subscribe to your brand of communication — coercive & fear-based. Nor do I subscribe to your brand of theology — also coercive & fear-based. Control is your aim. Certainosity — the practice of being right over redeemed — is your claim. I’ve never found a faith that is born of manipulation, fear, and guilt very useful or meaningful. Keep in mind that it wasn’t the whores Jesus chased from the temple, but the money changers and religious people who prided themselves in their ability to argue religious law. Nothing you have said has been either enlightening, insightful or very useful in addressing the issue of the post — who to vote for.

          • Larry Easton

            Karen, thoughtful discussion? “You’re not a woman, you’ve never had an abortion so you don’t understand” … is that really the stuff of thoughtful discussion?

            Logical fallacies are hardly helpful to substantive discussions. I’m still waiting for an honest and complete answer to my simple question … how do you justify empowering leaders who champion infanticide?

            Just a simple answer absent histrionics please.

    • t11publius

      Any legislation against an immorality, accomplishes some limiting of the outward action of the evil, but it does not conquer it. It’s a feeble band aid. Regardless of whatever monstrous nature of the evil it is that one identifies in our world the biblical approach for dealing with it IS NOT a human legislative or authoritarian mandate. Jesus did not command his disciples to go forth and legislate or execute punishment (such commands do exist in other ‘religions’). Thus, my discipleship duty does not even include voting.
      Jesus actually said, “as the Father . . . even so send I you.” The new covenant is JESUS, a personal relationship, NOT A LEGAL MANDATE. NOT in the casting of the ‘correct’ vote.The salt and light of a Jesus follower is communing with Him and developing horizontal personal relationships with others that the Spirit of God uses to transform each member into His righteousness. And thus, His Kingdom comes.
      Salvation will come to human life as each disciple of God embraces in relationship every other human in need. Don’t tell a woman she can’t have an abortion; go meet her and engage her as a person; find those areas in her life where you can serve; bear her burden with her. To do otherwise is to engage in the legalism of the old law and to miss the grace for which Christ was crucified and, thus, postpone the coming of His Kingdom.

      • Larry Easton

        SO, by your thin reasoning, slavery, murder, theft, etc should all be behaviors we labor to prevent through dialogue. No laws, no law enforcement (and clearly, in the absence of laws or law enforcement their would exist no courts or prison).

        I can’t believe you’ve offered your opinion even a few seconds reflection. God’s word specifically addresses, in both testaments, the essential nature of civil order, and its attendant laws and enforcement.

        Your post simply fails every test of scripture and logic. Let me ask you, if you observed a child being murdered would you stand by? Would you commune with Jesus while trying to establish a horizontal relationship with the would be murderer while the child inches toward death?

        Or would you intervene? Your approach places value on the oppressor while benignly telling the victim to go to hell.

        What extraordinary moral and theological confusion!

  • Mamz

    “Physician, heal thyself. . .” Jesus anticipated this cynical retort when he returned to his neighborhood. Now we hear (from God’s party), “Invalid, heal thyself. . .or if you are destitute and ill, die!” I look for where there is some compassion. Some love. Some empathy.

  • John C. Key MD

    You are undecided? Really? And your main issues are jobs and healthcare? Then let the scales fall from your eyes, there is only one choice…Romney. He understands both. Obama care is not a healthcare bill; it is a tax bill, and a cruelly cynical approach by a dedicated leftist president to “fundamentally change” the nation, in ways that no sane person would ever have contemplated.

    Jobs cannot come from an Obama agenda; they have not and will not. His “millions of green jobs” will never appear, just like his “shovel ready projects” don’t exist and his stimulus dollars line the pockets of his contributors–yet you choose to denigrate Citizens United though apparently you wouldn’t have a problem with Union money and Super-PACs on the left.

    Don’t like the military, huh? Free people the world over sleep better and thank God for a strong US miliary Let it continue to decline as Obama wishes and the world will be left to the tender mercies of China and a resurgent Russia and its client states.

    And since this is posted in Patheos, I’d expect you to be strongly in favor of freedom of religion rather than Obama’s more narrowly defined freedom of worship. The actions of the President, his Attorney General and Department of HHS have clearly shown their opinion of religious freedom and convictions.

    Undecided? I don’t think so. You are either a doctrinaire leftist who is being dishonest, too confused and gullible to be an informed voter, or else you are quite content to let Obama continue his march over the cliff.

    • Why does being undecided make me a doctrinaire leftist? Can’t it simply be possible that I really remain unconvinced that either candidate is a good choice?

      Re your other statements:

      – On military: I’m a Gold Star daughter. Panel 9E Line 71. Serve on several national veterans boards. Huge proponent of military families, given my own mother is a war widow. Written extensively on military issues, most notably the memoir After the Flag has been Folded.

      – On Supreme Court ruling stating that Corporations are People too. That these two candidates have spent records amount of money in an effort to buy my vote (and yours) serves to make me all the more cautious in deciding who to cast that vote for. Corporations are not people. People may work for them. But they are not people. They don’t have a soul. We only have to look at the recent economic collapse of 2008 and the reasons for that (Will Jesus Buy Me a Doublewide?) to understand that corporations use people, but they are not people.

      _ RE: As far as I know the First Amendment is still legit. We have the right to establish religion and to practice it — anyway we see fit. Obama hasn’t robbed me of that right. And Romney won’t either.

  • Miss Karen,

    Yes, I have my mind made up already. Like you, each of us brings our personal battles and scars and influences into the voting booth. And like you, I’ve talked with soldiers, one a newbie and one a severely wounded warrior. We are Believers and have all reached the same conclusions…
    We need to vote for the one who most aligns with the values God sets forth.- Marriage. Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.- Life. It’s up to God.
    And the values I hold dear as an American.- The right to bear arms. (soldiers see our 2nd Amendment rights in dire jeopardy if our current leader is re-elected)- Healthcare. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty dang good right now. I don’t need a panel (and yes, I’ve read a good deal of the healthcare plan) telling me how many times a day to test my blood sugar; nor do I need them to tell me how to lay off food and water once I’m past my prime so I can die at home.
    Alrighty then, thanks for the question and thanks for your point of view. Have a blessed day in the Lord, miss Karen.

    • I don’t think we’ve all reached the same conclusions. I think that this matter of what God’s will is in an election is an odd question. Perhaps even the wrong question. I think Jesus was pretty clear on the separation of church and state thing. He told the Jews repeatedly he was not their political hope. He had a different agenda altogether. A bigger agenda. One that went beyond the confines of a political office. What I find disturbing is this notion that there is a right and wrong to this election. Both men are clearly capable of leading. We’ve never had a president who went into the office with the intent of doing anything less than his best. We’ve never had a president who set out to intentionally destroy the country. Being men, being human, they both have areas they are strong in and areas they are weak in. Do they have differences? Sure. But one isn’t more “Godly” than the other, any more than I am more godly than you, or you, me. The question isn’t which one is God’s Candidate, as if God has a candidate, but rather who can accomplish more of what we as voters want them to accomplish? Primarily jobs and healthcare, if the pollsters are correct. God can use a jackass so I’m pretty sure He will accomplish his will no matter who we elect to office.

  • steve baker

    Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H. L. Mencken

    • And dictatorship is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of one. And representative government is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of a few.

  • john@pdx

    Wow! Some passioned debate here. Interesting to listen to some different ideas.
    I am voting for a Ham Sandwich. Anybody but Obama.

    I don’t like Obamacare (let’s pass it first and then read it) for lots of reasons,
    failed economic policies (especially things like Solandra and the Volt),
    helping big banks but not having credit available for small business,
    not concentrating on small business incentives and more regulations,
    Obama’s blatent pay offs to his big money donors,
    Obama’s unilateral policy decisions when congress is not in session,
    his disdain for the people that are paying taxes,
    I have to stop – I am getting worked up.