The Day After the Vote

This funny Shoebox cartoon reminds me that ...

    •  America is a great country built on diverse views,
    •  People are divided on candidates but unified on freedom,
    •  My New Years predictions are often very wrong,
    •  Our constitution is an amazing and enduring document,
    •  Republicans are splintered and need to find common ground,
    •  The hardest change is often the change in my attitude,
    •  Ohioans like my friends Julie and Brian made the difference,
    •  For now, politics will not dominate the news,
    •  Squawk Radio pundits are not all that influential,
    •  I am probably a bit too much of a political junkie,
    •  Lastly, LOL, I feel more tricked than treated but still grateful.

What are your post-election thoughts? Feel free to share.

---

Voting: Godly Obligation or Not?

Just read a blog comment that opines:

"the Bible forbids one from voting for someone who does not Fear God, Kiss the Son, and uphold the Commandments. Neither candidate does so. Therefore I will not cast a ballot for president."

It is an interesting take on a Christian's civic responsibility on election day. My view is that religious passivity and sanctimony have never done anything for our nation. I hope that Christians will, if they have not done so already, cast an enlightened vote. What do you think? Godly obligation or not?

---

Why do you watch the Debates?

I am a political junkie and will watch tonight's debate just to be entertained. Doubtful that it will affect the way that I vote one bit. So why will you watch tonight?

        1) Morbid political junkie entertainment?

        2) Information that will help you vote?

        3) Stuff to post on Facebook in the morning?

        4) Other? Please explain.

Please let me know. I'd love to hear other reasons to watch.

---

The Election Industry

A few years ago the Supreme Court of the USA opened the monetary floodgates and this years presidential campaigns have seen billions of dollars spent to elect one person to a not very high paying job. It makes you wonder if elections have become just another industry that makes a lot of money for the radio and television networks that air mudslinging ads as well as the 24x7 pundit industry that makes millions off analyzing and criticizing the candidates. Makes me want to stop watching and starve this industry a bit. Even so, could it be that the Election Industry is one of the few things that are really 'made in America these days?

---

VP Debate Tweets

I continue to be fascinated by the way that technology is impacting American and glogal politics.

---

Did Obama really save GM?

George Will is one of my favorite conservative writers and pundits. A few weeks ago he framed the takeover of General Motors in a way that might make liberals, I mean progressives, cringe in his piece titled "Liberalism, as we know it".
Here is an excerpt from it:

"After a delusional proclamation — General Motors “has come roaring back” — Obama said: “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.” We have been warned.
Obama’s supposed rescue of “the auto industry” — note the definite article, “the” — is a pedal on the political organ he pumps energetically in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere. Concerning which:

He intervened to succor one of two of the U.S. auto industries. One, located in the South and elsewhere, does not have a long history of subservience to the United Auto Workers and for that reason has not needed Obama’s ministrations. He showered public money on two of three parts of the mostly Northern auto industry, the one long entangled with the UAW. He socialized the losses of GM and Chrysler. Ford was not a mendicant because it was not mismanaged.

Today, “I am GM, hear me roar” is again losing market share, and its stock, of which taxpayers own 26 percent, was trading Thursday morning at $21, below the $33 price our investor in chief paid for it and below the $53 price it would
have to reach to enable taxpayers to recover the entire $49.5 billion bailout."

The GM takeover and their subsequent performance gives me cause to pause when I hear it used as an achievement of the administration. How can a candidate boast about a deal that has lost taxpayers so much money?

---

Yes, John Stewart! We Built It!

Watched "The Daily Show" last night and was amused how folks like John Stewart don't understand why "We built It" is an American message. Consider how the Huffington Post reports it:

"Tuesday night's speeches at the Republican National Convention in Tampa were centered on a new catchphrase: We Built It. The slogan is the latest reaction to President Obama's remarks about small business from earlier in the Summer, and as far as Jon Stewart can tell, there's only one problem: the GOP is taking the quote totally out of context."

Whether the Obama quote is out of context or not, it is absolutely clear that the president believes that the government, and not tax payers, is responsible for the things that make business successful. Somehow he thinks that the government can take credit for for the things accomplished by American's tax dollars. In truth, the government builds a bridge only because Americans pay their taxes. So, in a very real sense, Americans have built every part of America - not the government.

Yet I wonder how many really understand this very simple American message?

---

Conservatives have endorsed Romney

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is often considered by many to be a moderate at best and a liberal at worst. Thought it might be fun to list some of the endorsements from conservative leaders and others.

“Throughout this campaign I have heard from many candidates on how they are uniquely qualified to get our country back on track. While I am proud of all of them, I know that one man stands head and shoulders above the rest. That man is Mitt Romney. I have seen him up close for many years and I know he is the conservative we need to lead our country.” -American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas

“Romney cheerfully campaigns on, the biggest outsider and most conservative candidate we've run for president since Reagan, while being denounced by the Establishment as "too Establishment." -Ann Coulter

“No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney.” -Judge Robert Bork

“If Americans want a real conservative in the White House, they need to look no farther than Mitt Romney,” -Bay Buchanan, Treasurer to Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns

“I’ve talked to Governor Romney and I have no doubt, and I mean this in all sincerity, I have no doubt he understands the centrality of family.” -Rick Santorum

“Romney is a conservative. And he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race.” -Senator Marco Rubio

"Romney's record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives" - Michael Reagan

Pro-Lifers must unite behind Romney. -Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List

---

Following Jesus and the Presidential Election

Adam Hamilton, our senior pastor, has a new post, titled Faith and the Presidential Election, on his blog. I am glad that he shared his perspectives on the election. Here is an excerpt from it:

"So, what do we know about the faiths of Mitt Romney and President Obama? Both men claim to be followers of Jesus Christ. President Obama came to faith and was baptized in a Disciples of Christ Church. The Disciples are mainline Protestants. I have several friends who have spoken with the President about his faith, and they contend that his faith in Christ is authentic and an important part of his life.

Mitt Romney comes from the Mormon tradition. In several areas Mormon theological convictions differ from mainstream Christianity but they share in common with mainstream Christianity a desire to follow Jesus Christ. My experience with most Mormons I've met is that they are, like mainstream Christians, earnest in their desire to follow Jesus.

My point is this: to the degree that each of these men is seeking to follow Jesus Christ they will seek to love God and neighbor. They will long to “do justice, and to love kindness,/ and to walk humbly with…God” (Micah 6:8). And they will seek to do unto others as they would done unto themselves. Both President Obama and candidate Romney claim these basic convictions and practices."

You can read Adam's entire post here. I like his focus on how the candidates are trying to follow Jesus better than a questioning of whether they are Christians. What do you think? Do you consider a candidates faith when you vote?

---

Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity

Mitt Romney's VP pick has brought The Path to Prosperity (i.e. the Ryan budget plan) back into the forefront in the United States. Thought it might be helpful to share the bullet items from it that were detailed in the Business Insider.

• Major cuts in government spending and reduced tax revenue.
• The plan does not balance the budget for at least 20 years.
• Redraw personal income taxes into two brackets--25 percent and 10 percent. The plan doesn't exactly specify yet what income would qualify you for the higher bracket.
• There would also be a massive drop in corporate taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent. And there would be hardly any tax deductions either.
• Big cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and (implied) Social Security, along with the elimination of Obamacare.
• Existing Medicare users would keep their current plan.
• In the future, the plan offers a govt subsidy that Americans could use to buy private insurance. The idea is that competition among insurers would keep costs down.

I predict that this budget plan will be the centerpiece of the campaign and hotly debated by both sides. I think that it will bring the candidates' back to ideas and away from personalities. What do you think?

---

The Mathematics of Voting

It is predicted that voter turnout for today's election in Kansas City will be about twenty-five percent max. Not surprising when you consider this:

According to International IDEA (Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance), the United States has almost the lowest voter turnout in the world, ranked a measly 140 out of 163. Perhaps Americans are apathetic, or maybe they’re just concerned their vote is meaningless in the face of America's massive political machine. Can my vote really change the course of politics, or am I just a grain of sand on the massive beach of democracy?

Now you might expect me to bemoan the apathy of the other (probably more than) seventy-five percent who shunned the voting booth today but I am not sad at all. In actuality their apathy made my vote more powerful today because of the mathematics of voting - the fewer people who actually vote means that my vote carries more weight.

---

Are religious voters all that different?

This chart from the Barna Group illustrates an idea that I have often wondered about. Does a person's religious beliefs really dictate their voting choices? The polling revealed by this chart seems to indicate that issues and character are the most important factors for all voters - religious and others. The exception seems to this rule seems to be in column number five - a candidate's religious faith is much more important to an evangelical Christian than for most voters. That seems accurate as this sector, generally speaking, integrates faith into every part of their lives.

What do you think? Are religious voters all that different from other voters?

---

The Politics of Birth Control

I was surprised to see a commentary piece, titled "An open invitation to Rick Santorum" by Aimee Patton in the Saturday edition of the Kansas City Star that referenced a post from my blogging friend Shane. Here is the Santorum quote that she cited:

“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. … Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK, contraception is OK. It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

I really did not know that candidate Santorum had such a political position on birth control. Most of the Roman Catholics that I know (evidenced by the size of their family) do not seem to have this view. Yet it reveals to me how this view (i.e. that sexual intimacy in marriage is all about procreation) is still alive and well on planet earth. I do not agree with that view but suspect that some of you might or maybe know a person that holds that view. Even so, do you think it odd that a candidate would make an issue of it?

Super PACs and the SCOTUS

Many of my conservative friends are whining these days about the influence that the negative ads, sponsored by Super PACs, are having in the Florida GOP primary election. My thinking is that this huge dollar door was opened up on January 21, 2010 by a landmark decision of the conservative led United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. Here is a clip from the wiki on the topic:

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision had upheld provisions of the 2002 act, which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.

Conservatives say that the court was correct because the issue was free speech. Others are not so adamant about this sort of free speech because they understand that the influx of huge amounts of money in the election process often results in an unhealthy exertion of power. I mean really, does anyone think that campaign finance reform is bad. Does anyone think that large corporate entities are people and, as such, have the same rights that you and I have with regard to "electioneering communication"?

---

Man Up Mitt!

Rough week for fans of the Bain Capital man. I do not know about you but I am sick and tired of listening to the Blowhard in Chief brag about his debating prowess. Like beating Obama is all about out-talking him and giving a better speech than he does. Here are a few things I would like to see Romney do this week:

• Release his taxes. Explain to people why he made so much money and not apologize for being successful. If he does not he will go down in flames.
• Explain how he is different from so many executives in that he actually started something rather than simply working the system and rising from the ranks. 
• Delineate himself from the other three career politicians who have not held a job in the public sector for over thirty years.
• Speak clearly about his story. I have seen him connect with people when he speaks of his wife and her disease. Being faithful should not be a liability.
• Take the gloves off. Get some passion in his voice when he speaks about his successes. Unashamedly debate his accomplishments.

It is time for Romney to man up. The election has turned into a bit of a street fight. People like Newt's passionate bravado. Mitt needs to find a way to unapologetically communicate his passion without the bravado.

---

Endorsing Herman Cain in SC

I am recommending Herman Cain in South Carolina to all voters that are fed up with with the current field of candidates. After the events of this week I think that I could vote that way. I think that it might be a good message to send the GOP?

Does God select the President?

Ever since Pat Robertson ran for the US presidency in 1988 God has often been credited with calling such people to run for the high office. Even today there are a few GOP presidential candidates that credit God calling them to run for office. There are a few verses in the New Testament that causes some to ponder the idea that the Almighty chooses, or at least calls, the leaders of nations. Consider these thoughts that the apostle writes to the Romans:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Taken in a literal and dogmatic way these verses pose a problem for Americans because our nation was founded by people who rebelled against British governing authorities. The verses also are troubling when one considers those who are rebelling in countries like Iran, Egypt and Libya. Is Paul telling these people to simply submit to tyrants who kill and oppress their neighbors? I think not.

I submit to you that Paul's words can be helpful when they are considered in the light of history. Ancient events record the rise and fall of nations - even Israel fell at the hands of pagan nations indicating that God allows such events. So, I believe that Paul is not saying that governing authorities are not to be challenged. My take is that Paul is simply saying to obey the law and stay out of jail. Tax evaders do well to heed his words. :)

But to the issue of the nations, I think that the prophet Isaiah said it clearly when he declared that God "brings princes to nothing, and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness". In truth God's sovereignty over the earth is not about raising up or bringing down nations but about raising up and bringing down leaders. To that issue we would all do well to understand that, especially for leaders, God opposes the proud but empowers the humble.

Pride and humility? Something that people in New Hampshire should consider today when they cast their ballots.

---

The Candidate Match Game

I took the US Today Candidate Match Game and came up with these results. Not great results considering that I only resonated with five of eleven issues of the candidate that they declared most resonating with my views. I suspect the 66.7% was the result of the way that I weighted the importance of the eleven issues. Of course my number three is moot now since she dropped out of the race. That said, I admit that the other two candidates did not surprise me as they are my top picks from the crowd. Let me know if you play the game and if you are surprised by the results.

---

The Middle Matters

With the Iowa Caucus just a day away I thought that I might share a few quotes from a Christian Post article titled Huckabee: GOP Needs to Skip Political Bashing, Focus on Independents.

“I watched this whole cycle unfold, sadly the focus seems to be about who can tear each other up as Republicans or how can we tear up Barack Obama, not whether we can build up the country.” -Mike Huckabee

“While Obama-bashing may again fire up the conservative base, it delivers nothing to those crucial Independent and middle-of-the-road voters who are anxious, confused and looking for someone to convince them they have a better plan.” -Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal editorial board

“On issue after issue, the opinions of the GOP’s conservative base are out of step with those of white working-class Independents. Rather than grasp this fact, however, many Republican political leaders have listened solely to the base and ignored the other partner in the marriage.” -Henry Olsen, vice president of national research for American Enterprise Institute

I feel that the candidates would do well to take this advise to heart. The independent middle matters.

---

Iowa and New Hampshire :: Not What They Used to Be!

I agree with the Christian Science Monitor's article titled "In GOP race, Iowa and New Hampshire aren't what they used to be". It reminded me that Michele Bachmann won the big-time Iowa Straw poll just a few months ago. Here are a few good clips from the article:

"When Iowa Republicans caucus on Jan. 3, chances are the voters will know more about the candidates from nationally televised debates and interviews than from personal interaction. Ditto the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 10."
...
"On-the-ground retail campaigning, it just doesn't pay," says Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party. "That's a disappointing realization. The idea of Jimmy Carter building support one by one is not nearly as effective as having a good debate moment that goes viral on YouTube."
...
"The GOP’s new rule awarding delegates proportionally based on the vote, rather than winner-take-all, in most contests before April also makes the early contests less important than in the past."

Hat tip to Iowan Shane for pointing me to the article even though he vehemently disagrees with what it says.