Posts
Is President Bush a bad person for vetoing SCHIP, the federal health insurance program for children? "Yes," say a few bloggers I like to read. Jim West takes Bush to task for pumping trillions of dollars into Iraq while vetoing a bill that helps children. And Michael Westmoreland-White encourages his readers to contact their representatives and urge them to override Bush's heartless veto.
The whole debate has been misleading. First, you'd think from the Democratic rhetoric that Bush wants to eliminate the entire program! That's certainly what the Democrats are implying when they shamelessly use kids as their puppets. But Bush actually supports funding SCHIP. Read what he told the Washington Post: "I support the initial intent of the program...My concern is that when you expand eligibility . . . you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government." So Bush supports what the program was designed to do: help low-income families with health insurance. And, according to a July 17 Washington Post article, Bush has proposed $5 billion in additional funding.
Second, the way that the media have emplotted the whole debate is as follows: SCHIP is a bipartisan program, and Bush is just an extremist who wants to appease his conservative base. The Democrats are quick to point out that they have the Republican of Republicans, Senator Orrin Hatch, on their side. And Westmoreland-White emphasizes the Republican support for SCHIP on his blog. He also mentions that the "program was invented largely by Republicans" (probably the same ones Westmoreland-White wanted to throw out in various elections).
But Westmoreland-White includes a nifty record of how all the representatives voted, and the vote is on party lines: most Democrats voted for the SCHIP expansion, and most Republicans voted against it. So much for bipartisanship! And, contrary to Democrats' rhetoric, Orrin Hatch is technically not on their side. Here's another quote from the Washington Post article: "[Republican Senator Charles] Grassley and Hatch, in a joint statement this week, implored the president to rescind his veto threat. They warned that Democrats might seek an expansion of $50 billion or more if there is no compromise." Do you hear what Hatch is saying? These Democrats are such spenders that they'll throw even more money at the program if Bush doesn't seek a compromise! Hatch differs from Bush on strategy. Bush is a fighter, and Hatch is, well, I won't comment.
So what is the debate about? Is Bush just heartless? No, argues Senator Trent Lott in the October 5 Human Events. "He can't know what he's talking about," I can hear liberals saying. Well, he was the Senate majority leader when SCHIP passed, so I think that gives him some authority. According to Lott, SCHIP was originally designed to help the working poor. But something happened. Here's how he tells it:
"As the current Congress approached the new fiscal year, the issue grew into a crisis. Instead of re-authorizing SCHIP with a funding increase to include those children eligible under the intended criteria, the Democratic majority in Congress proposed a broad expansion of SCHIP to include hundreds of thousands of adults as well as upper-income children already covered under private insurance. The price tag is more than double the current program—$35 billion for the expansion alone. In some states, families earning up to $83,000 a year would be eligible for this 'low-income program.'"
Basically, the Democrats want the program to cover more than the working poor. Their version of SCHIP will move America in the direction of socialized medicine.
In general, Republicans support helping people who really need help. I remember the debate over federal school lunch programs in 1994, and a rich Republican official asked on Crossfire why his children should also get a reduced lunch price. Good question. Should everyone be put under cradle-to-grave socialism?
So I'm proud of President Bush for vetoing SCHIP. It's about time that he showed some guts on fiscal responsibility, even if it happens once in a blue moon.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Tom Tancredo
Our featured Presidential candidate for today is Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.
I first heard of him when I was watching the MSNBC Republican debate. When I talked to my brother that week, I said, "There were some candidates I did not recognize. For example, have you ever heard of a Congressman Tornado? Does that ring any bells?" He replied that it did not.
Overall, I find him rather impressive. Or at least he's grown on me. When I watched the MSNBC debate, my thought was, "Who's this non-entity?" But when I saw the Fox News debate soon thereafter, I liked some of his comments. He was making fun of other candidates for running as conservatives despite their liberal records. He said (in my rough paraphrase), "There are all of these conversions. I feel like I'm at a tent revival. But conversions are more believable on the road to Tarsus than on the road to Des Moines" (in Iowa). In this humorous statement, Tancredo highlighted what goes through many conservatives' minds every Presidential election year: "Can I trust this Republican candidate?"
You can always count on Tancredo to stand for conservative principles, no matter how unpopular. Maybe this is because he knows he doesn't have a chance, so he feels free to speak his mind. For example, when he commented on the prescription drug law and No Child Left Behind, he said they were bad ideas because the federal government should not be involved in such matters. I haven't heard a Republican say that for a while. And I liked some of his comments at the Tavis Smiley debate. For example, when a panelist asked him about the "oppressive" requirement for a photo ID to vote, Tancredo sarcastically replied, "Look, a photo ID is not difficult to attain." I'm surprised he received as much applause as he got, considering that a lot of liberals populate Tavis Smiley's audiences.
He is supposedly a single-issue candidate running against illegal immigration. He's even gotten into a fight with Karl Rove over this issue. He doesn't strike me as a single-issue candidate, however, because I've heard him comment on so many topics. As far as the issue of illegal immigration is concerned, I think he has a point. Illegal immigrants are driving wages down and costing America tons of money. They're not only doing jobs that Americans don't want (e.g., maids, pool-cleaners, orange-pickers). They're doing jobs that Americans need (e.g., construction), and at a cheaper cost to businesses. And, whenever they visit an emergency room and do not pay, that is only driving up the cost of health care for all Americans.
At the same time, my heart goes out to people in bad conditions who want to come here. I wonder if we can do more than deport illegals and build a wall to keep them out (the Tancredo approach). Is there a way for us to help Mexico become more prosperous, without us becoming the welfare state of the world? How's free trade going? And is the current Mexican system conducive to prosperity?
Tancredo has gotten criticism for supporting the torture of possible terrorists. He is open to waterboarding, which gives someone the feeling that he is drowning when he is not. "We need Jack Bauer!" Tancredo proclaimed in reference to the fictional character on 24 (a show I've not seen, to the surprise of conservative friends). My stance on torture is mixed. On one hand, as I've discussed with Stephen (aka Q) on this blog, there are estimates that we have tortured innocent people. On the other hand, not everyone we have tortured is innocent, and there may be times when we will need quick information to save American lives. Tancredo made his reference to Jack Bauer in response to a scenario presented by Brit Hume, in which bombs had already gone off in American cities. I would agree with critics that we should ask ourselves how exactly we know that particular detainees are terrorists, since the basis for such a claim may be weak in certain cases. But should we rule out torture at all times, as in not doing it ever?
I probably will not vote for Tancredo, even though I like him. He doesn't really have a rock star quality, and he's not doing well in the polls. I'm not even sure how much longer he'll be in the race, which is why I'm commenting on him. But, hopefully, he will continue his practice of picking fights with the Republican establishment and calling the GOP to conservative ideas.
I first heard of him when I was watching the MSNBC Republican debate. When I talked to my brother that week, I said, "There were some candidates I did not recognize. For example, have you ever heard of a Congressman Tornado? Does that ring any bells?" He replied that it did not.
Overall, I find him rather impressive. Or at least he's grown on me. When I watched the MSNBC debate, my thought was, "Who's this non-entity?" But when I saw the Fox News debate soon thereafter, I liked some of his comments. He was making fun of other candidates for running as conservatives despite their liberal records. He said (in my rough paraphrase), "There are all of these conversions. I feel like I'm at a tent revival. But conversions are more believable on the road to Tarsus than on the road to Des Moines" (in Iowa). In this humorous statement, Tancredo highlighted what goes through many conservatives' minds every Presidential election year: "Can I trust this Republican candidate?"
You can always count on Tancredo to stand for conservative principles, no matter how unpopular. Maybe this is because he knows he doesn't have a chance, so he feels free to speak his mind. For example, when he commented on the prescription drug law and No Child Left Behind, he said they were bad ideas because the federal government should not be involved in such matters. I haven't heard a Republican say that for a while. And I liked some of his comments at the Tavis Smiley debate. For example, when a panelist asked him about the "oppressive" requirement for a photo ID to vote, Tancredo sarcastically replied, "Look, a photo ID is not difficult to attain." I'm surprised he received as much applause as he got, considering that a lot of liberals populate Tavis Smiley's audiences.
He is supposedly a single-issue candidate running against illegal immigration. He's even gotten into a fight with Karl Rove over this issue. He doesn't strike me as a single-issue candidate, however, because I've heard him comment on so many topics. As far as the issue of illegal immigration is concerned, I think he has a point. Illegal immigrants are driving wages down and costing America tons of money. They're not only doing jobs that Americans don't want (e.g., maids, pool-cleaners, orange-pickers). They're doing jobs that Americans need (e.g., construction), and at a cheaper cost to businesses. And, whenever they visit an emergency room and do not pay, that is only driving up the cost of health care for all Americans.
At the same time, my heart goes out to people in bad conditions who want to come here. I wonder if we can do more than deport illegals and build a wall to keep them out (the Tancredo approach). Is there a way for us to help Mexico become more prosperous, without us becoming the welfare state of the world? How's free trade going? And is the current Mexican system conducive to prosperity?
Tancredo has gotten criticism for supporting the torture of possible terrorists. He is open to waterboarding, which gives someone the feeling that he is drowning when he is not. "We need Jack Bauer!" Tancredo proclaimed in reference to the fictional character on 24 (a show I've not seen, to the surprise of conservative friends). My stance on torture is mixed. On one hand, as I've discussed with Stephen (aka Q) on this blog, there are estimates that we have tortured innocent people. On the other hand, not everyone we have tortured is innocent, and there may be times when we will need quick information to save American lives. Tancredo made his reference to Jack Bauer in response to a scenario presented by Brit Hume, in which bombs had already gone off in American cities. I would agree with critics that we should ask ourselves how exactly we know that particular detainees are terrorists, since the basis for such a claim may be weak in certain cases. But should we rule out torture at all times, as in not doing it ever?
I probably will not vote for Tancredo, even though I like him. He doesn't really have a rock star quality, and he's not doing well in the polls. I'm not even sure how much longer he'll be in the race, which is why I'm commenting on him. But, hopefully, he will continue his practice of picking fights with the Republican establishment and calling the GOP to conservative ideas.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Obedience and the Patriarchs
Whenever I've studied Genesis in evangelical churches and small groups, I've noticed a lot of emphasis on the characters' flaws. Evangelicals are quick to point out that the godly characters of Genesis do a lot of stupid or immoral things. Noah gets drunk, Abraham lies to protect himself, Jacob steals his brothers' blessing, Joseph is a spoiled brat, and Joseph's brothers sell their own flesh and blood into slavery. The evangelicals' point is that God is gracious and can use people who are not perfect. Evangelicals also affirm that God does not accept people on the basis of their merit, since the "heroes" of the Bible were far from meritorious. Rather, God accepted the biblical characters because of his grace, which they received through faith.
I live by this message. I know that I need a lot of grace each and every day because, well, I sin each and every day. But I wonder if there is more to the story.
For my Sabbath quiet time on Thursday, I studied Deuteronomy 30. I was just about to finish my study when vv 9b-10 leaped off the page:
"For the LORD will again take delight in prospering you, just as he delighted in prospering your ancestors, when you obey the LORD your God by observing his commandments and decrees that are written in this book of the law, because you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (NRSV).
A lot of times, evangelicals read the Pauline-Lutheran view into all of Scripture. They argue that God gave the Israelites a law they could not keep to show them that salvation cannot come through law but through Christ. And, sure enough, the Israelites did fail to keep the law, to the point that Jeremiah 31:31-34 presents an altogether new covenant.
But the entire history of God's people is not God's anger at them for failing to keep an impossible law, nor is it God's tolerance of sinners. That's a big part of it, yes, but not the whole story. Deuteronomy 30:9b-10 says that God was actually happy with the patriarchs. And it states that God will be similarly happy with the Israelites if they obey his commandments. So why was God happy with the patriarchs? Could one reason be that they obeyed God?
You know, evangelicals focus on the bad things that the patriarchs did, but they should also acknowledge the good things. Abraham left everything behind for a land he did not know. He was willing to sacrifice his beloved son. God summed up Abraham's life by saying that he "obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (Genesis 26:5). Isaac heeded God's warning not to enter Egypt, even though famine was eating up the Promised Land. Jacob worked diligently for the corrupt Laban. He also put idolatry out of his camp when he was about to meet God. And he was willing to return to the Promised Land, despite the possibility that Esau might kill him. Sure, these characters needed grace, but there was something about them that pleased God, something that later generations of Israelites lacked: faith that expressed itself in obedience and good works.
I cannot be thoroughly critical of the evangelicals I have known. They were not antinomians. They almost always pointed out that, even though the characters of Genesis were not perfect, they grew and matured in faith and righteousness. For example, the Abraham of the akedah had more faith than the Abraham who lied to protect himself, or the Abraham who took Hagar to help God out with the promise. Maybe God was delighted in the patriarchs because they were at least willing to grow. And they came to love God's standard of righteousness, which is a significant part of obedience. The subsequent generations of Israelites, however, were not willing to grow. God showed them sign after sign, and yet they did not trust and obey. God had to knock some sense into them through the exile for them to get on the right path.
My conclusion: Christianity is about God's grace to sinners, but it is also about loving God and his righteous ways.
I live by this message. I know that I need a lot of grace each and every day because, well, I sin each and every day. But I wonder if there is more to the story.
For my Sabbath quiet time on Thursday, I studied Deuteronomy 30. I was just about to finish my study when vv 9b-10 leaped off the page:
"For the LORD will again take delight in prospering you, just as he delighted in prospering your ancestors, when you obey the LORD your God by observing his commandments and decrees that are written in this book of the law, because you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (NRSV).
A lot of times, evangelicals read the Pauline-Lutheran view into all of Scripture. They argue that God gave the Israelites a law they could not keep to show them that salvation cannot come through law but through Christ. And, sure enough, the Israelites did fail to keep the law, to the point that Jeremiah 31:31-34 presents an altogether new covenant.
But the entire history of God's people is not God's anger at them for failing to keep an impossible law, nor is it God's tolerance of sinners. That's a big part of it, yes, but not the whole story. Deuteronomy 30:9b-10 says that God was actually happy with the patriarchs. And it states that God will be similarly happy with the Israelites if they obey his commandments. So why was God happy with the patriarchs? Could one reason be that they obeyed God?
You know, evangelicals focus on the bad things that the patriarchs did, but they should also acknowledge the good things. Abraham left everything behind for a land he did not know. He was willing to sacrifice his beloved son. God summed up Abraham's life by saying that he "obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (Genesis 26:5). Isaac heeded God's warning not to enter Egypt, even though famine was eating up the Promised Land. Jacob worked diligently for the corrupt Laban. He also put idolatry out of his camp when he was about to meet God. And he was willing to return to the Promised Land, despite the possibility that Esau might kill him. Sure, these characters needed grace, but there was something about them that pleased God, something that later generations of Israelites lacked: faith that expressed itself in obedience and good works.
I cannot be thoroughly critical of the evangelicals I have known. They were not antinomians. They almost always pointed out that, even though the characters of Genesis were not perfect, they grew and matured in faith and righteousness. For example, the Abraham of the akedah had more faith than the Abraham who lied to protect himself, or the Abraham who took Hagar to help God out with the promise. Maybe God was delighted in the patriarchs because they were at least willing to grow. And they came to love God's standard of righteousness, which is a significant part of obedience. The subsequent generations of Israelites, however, were not willing to grow. God showed them sign after sign, and yet they did not trust and obey. God had to knock some sense into them through the exile for them to get on the right path.
My conclusion: Christianity is about God's grace to sinners, but it is also about loving God and his righteous ways.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Last Great Day 2007
Today is the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. It is the eighth day of a seven day festival. I'm serious. See Leviticus 23:36 and Numbers 29:35.
In the Worldwide Church of God tradition in which I was raised, the day was about God giving people a second chance to be saved. According to the WCG, after the millennium (which the Feast of Tabernacles represents), God will resurrect people in the second resurrection. At that time, according to the WCG, God will give people who had no chance to know him in their lifetimes an opportunity to learn of his ways. The WCG interpreted the Feast of Tabernacles in light of the millennium, so it connected the Last Great Day with the next stage of the story: the second resurrection. How it got a second chance from Revelation 20:11-12, however, I do not know.
David Antion, a minister in the WCG tradition, offered an alternative explanation. He argued that the Last Great Day represents the new heaven and the new earth. For Antion, the millennium was a time of transition from the old, sinful world to a new age of righteousness, peace, and joy. Because Antion equated the Feast of Tabernacles with the millennium, he interpreted the following festival in light of what he saw as the next step of the story: the new heavens and the new earth.
All of this is speculative. The Torah really does not tell is what the Last Great Day represents. But, if Christians want to get something out of the day, they do have a New Testament reference. John 7:37-39 says the following:
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"
In that passage, Jesus most likely refers to a Jewish tradition, which appears in Mishnah Sukkah 4:9 and partially in Josephus' Antiquities 13.13.5. According to the tradition, a priest would pour a water libation at the Water Gate of the Temple. There are various Jewish interpretations of this practice. The Tosefta (third century C.E.), in Sukkah 3:9, interprets the Water Gate in reference to Zechariah 13:1 and Ezekiel 47:9. Both passages refer to a stream that will flow from the Temple. Zechariah 13:1 says that the stream will cleanse Jerusalem of sin and impurity, and Ezekiel 47:9 refers to seawater becoming fresh as a result of the stream.
The Babylonian Talmud, in Rosh Hoshanah 16a, says, "Why did the Torah enjoin on us to pour out water on Tabernacles? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, Pour out water before Me on Tabernacles, so that your rains this year may be blessed." The association of the Feast of Tabernacles with rain goes back to biblical times. Zechariah 14:16-17 says that the nations that do not observe the Feast of Tabernacles after Israel's restoration will receive no rain. The Feast of Tabernacles is designed to bring rain, so the nations that do not keep it will go dry.
Within Judaism, there is a recognition of the physical and spiritual significance of water. On a physical level, humans need water. Scientists have told us that we can survive longer without food than without water. We get thirsty. And water is necessary to create food, which is why the Jews prayed for rain.
But water also has spiritual significance. It cleanses and purifies, which is why we bathe in it. And, according to Jesus, it satisfies. On some level, humans have spiritual thirst that must be quenched for them to live. If it is not satisfied, then they will die inside. How? In Romans 8:6, Paul says, "For to be carnally-minded is death; but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace." Those who are spiritually-minded have peace with God, themselves, and others. And that makes sense. What are the characteristics of the carnally-minded? Hatred of God and others, jealousy, strife, etc. (Galatians 5). These do not describe a mind at rest. But what characterizes the spiritually-minded? Peace with God and others, love, joy, etc. Do you see how the Spirit gives us life and peace? We thirst for peace and rest, and we get them through the Spirit of God, the life-giving water.
As I've said before, I identify more with the flesh than the Spirit. But I am thirsty for what Jesus has to offer, and all I can do is go to him. As the Jews recognized their dependence on God for rain, I see that I need God for rest, peace, and fruit. I am a body of seawater that wants to become fresh.
In the Worldwide Church of God tradition in which I was raised, the day was about God giving people a second chance to be saved. According to the WCG, after the millennium (which the Feast of Tabernacles represents), God will resurrect people in the second resurrection. At that time, according to the WCG, God will give people who had no chance to know him in their lifetimes an opportunity to learn of his ways. The WCG interpreted the Feast of Tabernacles in light of the millennium, so it connected the Last Great Day with the next stage of the story: the second resurrection. How it got a second chance from Revelation 20:11-12, however, I do not know.
David Antion, a minister in the WCG tradition, offered an alternative explanation. He argued that the Last Great Day represents the new heaven and the new earth. For Antion, the millennium was a time of transition from the old, sinful world to a new age of righteousness, peace, and joy. Because Antion equated the Feast of Tabernacles with the millennium, he interpreted the following festival in light of what he saw as the next step of the story: the new heavens and the new earth.
All of this is speculative. The Torah really does not tell is what the Last Great Day represents. But, if Christians want to get something out of the day, they do have a New Testament reference. John 7:37-39 says the following:
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"
In that passage, Jesus most likely refers to a Jewish tradition, which appears in Mishnah Sukkah 4:9 and partially in Josephus' Antiquities 13.13.5. According to the tradition, a priest would pour a water libation at the Water Gate of the Temple. There are various Jewish interpretations of this practice. The Tosefta (third century C.E.), in Sukkah 3:9, interprets the Water Gate in reference to Zechariah 13:1 and Ezekiel 47:9. Both passages refer to a stream that will flow from the Temple. Zechariah 13:1 says that the stream will cleanse Jerusalem of sin and impurity, and Ezekiel 47:9 refers to seawater becoming fresh as a result of the stream.
The Babylonian Talmud, in Rosh Hoshanah 16a, says, "Why did the Torah enjoin on us to pour out water on Tabernacles? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, Pour out water before Me on Tabernacles, so that your rains this year may be blessed." The association of the Feast of Tabernacles with rain goes back to biblical times. Zechariah 14:16-17 says that the nations that do not observe the Feast of Tabernacles after Israel's restoration will receive no rain. The Feast of Tabernacles is designed to bring rain, so the nations that do not keep it will go dry.
Within Judaism, there is a recognition of the physical and spiritual significance of water. On a physical level, humans need water. Scientists have told us that we can survive longer without food than without water. We get thirsty. And water is necessary to create food, which is why the Jews prayed for rain.
But water also has spiritual significance. It cleanses and purifies, which is why we bathe in it. And, according to Jesus, it satisfies. On some level, humans have spiritual thirst that must be quenched for them to live. If it is not satisfied, then they will die inside. How? In Romans 8:6, Paul says, "For to be carnally-minded is death; but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace." Those who are spiritually-minded have peace with God, themselves, and others. And that makes sense. What are the characteristics of the carnally-minded? Hatred of God and others, jealousy, strife, etc. (Galatians 5). These do not describe a mind at rest. But what characterizes the spiritually-minded? Peace with God and others, love, joy, etc. Do you see how the Spirit gives us life and peace? We thirst for peace and rest, and we get them through the Spirit of God, the life-giving water.
As I've said before, I identify more with the flesh than the Spirit. But I am thirsty for what Jesus has to offer, and all I can do is go to him. As the Jews recognized their dependence on God for rain, I see that I need God for rest, peace, and fruit. I am a body of seawater that wants to become fresh.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Barack Obama
Okay, I'm discussing a Democrat today. No, I don't plan to vote Democratic, but I do have thoughts on some of the Democratic candidates.
Like many people, I first heard of Barack Obama in 2004, when he was about to give the keynote address for the Democratic National Convention. I listened to his speech on the radio, and I found it inspiring, even though I voted for Bush that November. One line that sticks out to me is this one:
"And [John Kerry] knows that it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper -- for alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent."
Obama was promoting communitarianism. He wants America to be a nation where people care about one another. And, for him, that means big government. Sure, he denied that in his speech, but ask him (or most Democrats) what America should do about its problems, and he will rattle off a list of government programs.
My question is, "Does big government make America more of a community?" How does dealing with a vast, impersonal federal bureaucracy make people feel more connected? I remember watching Janice Rogers Brown on C-SPAN. As you may remember, Janice Rogers Brown was one of Bush's judicial nominees, whom the Democrats disliked for being "out-of-the-mainstream" (as if the Democrats were in the mainstream at that time). She said that having the federal government solve all of our problems discourages local communities from getting involved. For her, big government discourages community. She has a point. Big government does not necessarily make America more of a community. And small government does not have to mean utter individualism. Many conservatives have said that problems should be tackled by people who are closer to them, such as state and local governments, charities, and individuals. That promotes greater connectedness among Americans, not less.
As far as foreign policy goes, I think that Obama has gotten a bad rap, mainly from Hillary. Obama has said that he would talk to America's enemies as President, that he would bomb Pakistan, and that he would never use nuclear weapons. Hillary dismisses Obama as naive. She said that America needs leverage. And she is right. But why should we assume that Obama is making a gaffe? When James Baker III says that America should talk to her enemies, we're expected to go, "Ooooh, aaah! How sophisticated! If only Bush would listen to this expert rather than those neo-con numbskulls." Yet Obama says the same thing, and we're supposed to make fun of him? Or when George Wallace's 1968 running mate, General Curtis Lemay, said that we should not rule out using nuclear weapons, that was seen as a gaffe. So why is it a gaffe when Obama says the opposite? You just can't win!
Regarding social issues such as abortion, Obama's record is horrible. As both an Illinois legislator and as U.S. Senator, Obama opposed legislation that would protect babies who survive late-term abortions. See this article. Let's just finish them off, huh Barack?! And his stances in these cases made him more pro-abortion than the National Abortion Rights Action League. Imagine that!
For persona, I've always found him rather impressive. He comes across as a down-to-earth, humble guy. He seems to be a family man, for he spoke against "Obama girl." He also attends church. I know that Sean Hannity has criticized Obama's church for focusing on African-American concerns, but I don't see what the big deal is. What is wrong with a predominantly African-American church wanting to help its own community?
I will not vote for Obama, but he has gotten me thinking about some issues. I doubt he'll win the nomination (or, if he does, that he'll win the general election) because of his lack of experience. I mean, he's only been a Senator for three years, and before that he was a state legislator! But, then again, Rudy was only a mayor, and he has a good shot at the Presidency, so who knows?
Like many people, I first heard of Barack Obama in 2004, when he was about to give the keynote address for the Democratic National Convention. I listened to his speech on the radio, and I found it inspiring, even though I voted for Bush that November. One line that sticks out to me is this one:
"And [John Kerry] knows that it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper -- for alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent."
Obama was promoting communitarianism. He wants America to be a nation where people care about one another. And, for him, that means big government. Sure, he denied that in his speech, but ask him (or most Democrats) what America should do about its problems, and he will rattle off a list of government programs.
My question is, "Does big government make America more of a community?" How does dealing with a vast, impersonal federal bureaucracy make people feel more connected? I remember watching Janice Rogers Brown on C-SPAN. As you may remember, Janice Rogers Brown was one of Bush's judicial nominees, whom the Democrats disliked for being "out-of-the-mainstream" (as if the Democrats were in the mainstream at that time). She said that having the federal government solve all of our problems discourages local communities from getting involved. For her, big government discourages community. She has a point. Big government does not necessarily make America more of a community. And small government does not have to mean utter individualism. Many conservatives have said that problems should be tackled by people who are closer to them, such as state and local governments, charities, and individuals. That promotes greater connectedness among Americans, not less.
As far as foreign policy goes, I think that Obama has gotten a bad rap, mainly from Hillary. Obama has said that he would talk to America's enemies as President, that he would bomb Pakistan, and that he would never use nuclear weapons. Hillary dismisses Obama as naive. She said that America needs leverage. And she is right. But why should we assume that Obama is making a gaffe? When James Baker III says that America should talk to her enemies, we're expected to go, "Ooooh, aaah! How sophisticated! If only Bush would listen to this expert rather than those neo-con numbskulls." Yet Obama says the same thing, and we're supposed to make fun of him? Or when George Wallace's 1968 running mate, General Curtis Lemay, said that we should not rule out using nuclear weapons, that was seen as a gaffe. So why is it a gaffe when Obama says the opposite? You just can't win!
Regarding social issues such as abortion, Obama's record is horrible. As both an Illinois legislator and as U.S. Senator, Obama opposed legislation that would protect babies who survive late-term abortions. See this article. Let's just finish them off, huh Barack?! And his stances in these cases made him more pro-abortion than the National Abortion Rights Action League. Imagine that!
For persona, I've always found him rather impressive. He comes across as a down-to-earth, humble guy. He seems to be a family man, for he spoke against "Obama girl." He also attends church. I know that Sean Hannity has criticized Obama's church for focusing on African-American concerns, but I don't see what the big deal is. What is wrong with a predominantly African-American church wanting to help its own community?
I will not vote for Obama, but he has gotten me thinking about some issues. I doubt he'll win the nomination (or, if he does, that he'll win the general election) because of his lack of experience. I mean, he's only been a Senator for three years, and before that he was a state legislator! But, then again, Rudy was only a mayor, and he has a good shot at the Presidency, so who knows?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Mitt Romney
I first encountered the name "Mitt Romney" when I was watching Saturday Night Live. The "Weekend Update" part of the show was on, and it was showing some fake negative ads. Romney was running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate at the time, and the fake Kennedy ad attacked Romney for being a Mormon, implying that he supported polygamy. After all, Mormon founder Brigham Young said that polygamy was a good idea. The ad closed with "Kennedy: One Wife at a Time."
I was living in Massachussetts during Romney's run for Governor, but I moved to another state right before the election. In Massachussetts, I was eating lunch with some ladies in a Democratic area (South Boston), and we started to discuss the election. One of the waitresses was cursing Romney because he wanted to cut certain programs and require testing for teachers. My thought was, "And Romney is evil because...?"
I do not know much about Romney's performance as Governor. If he actually vetoed huge spending bills as he claims, then I like him. That would show he has the courage of his fiscally conservative convictions. He is under fire from conservatives for his health care plan, however, which requires everyone to be insured and extends government assistance to the poor. I'm not sure if I have a major problem with that. If the government is to do something about health care, then it should help mainly the poor, not place everyone under an inefficient bureaucracy.
As far as social issues are concerned, I really do not trust him. As many people know, Romney was once pro-choice. Now, he claims to be pro-life, comparing himself to Reagan, who also changed his position on this issue. I cannot judge Romney's heart, but I think that Reagan was different. According to Lou Cannon's book, Governor Reagan, Reagan as Governor of California actually struggled with the abortion issue when he signed the Therapeutic Abortion bill. He met with priests, and he expressed reservations that abortion could be murder of the weak. And this was before the pro-life lobby was a significant conservative constituency. In those days, the pro-lifers were mostly Catholic Democratic legislators. Most conservative Republicans in California were pro-choicers, since they wanted to keep government out of most areas.
Romney, however, changed his position when there was a significant pro-life Republican base. That screams to me "I'm just changing my position to win votes." Of course, as President, Romney may govern as a pro-lifer to win a second term. But who is to say? If he ever decides that conservative Christians are a dispensable constituency, then he may just support abortion rights. That's the problem with trusting someone who bases his positions on the political winds.
As far as persona goes, Romney is the best speaker in the debates. He is clear and articulate, and he comes across as a friendly guy. Maybe too friendly, like a used car salesman. I liked the debate where Chris Matthews asked the Republicans how they would react if Bill Clinton moved back into the White House, and Romney said, "You've gotta be kidding me!"
So will I vote for him? Not in the primaries. Maybe I will if he runs against Hillary.
I was living in Massachussetts during Romney's run for Governor, but I moved to another state right before the election. In Massachussetts, I was eating lunch with some ladies in a Democratic area (South Boston), and we started to discuss the election. One of the waitresses was cursing Romney because he wanted to cut certain programs and require testing for teachers. My thought was, "And Romney is evil because...?"
I do not know much about Romney's performance as Governor. If he actually vetoed huge spending bills as he claims, then I like him. That would show he has the courage of his fiscally conservative convictions. He is under fire from conservatives for his health care plan, however, which requires everyone to be insured and extends government assistance to the poor. I'm not sure if I have a major problem with that. If the government is to do something about health care, then it should help mainly the poor, not place everyone under an inefficient bureaucracy.
As far as social issues are concerned, I really do not trust him. As many people know, Romney was once pro-choice. Now, he claims to be pro-life, comparing himself to Reagan, who also changed his position on this issue. I cannot judge Romney's heart, but I think that Reagan was different. According to Lou Cannon's book, Governor Reagan, Reagan as Governor of California actually struggled with the abortion issue when he signed the Therapeutic Abortion bill. He met with priests, and he expressed reservations that abortion could be murder of the weak. And this was before the pro-life lobby was a significant conservative constituency. In those days, the pro-lifers were mostly Catholic Democratic legislators. Most conservative Republicans in California were pro-choicers, since they wanted to keep government out of most areas.
Romney, however, changed his position when there was a significant pro-life Republican base. That screams to me "I'm just changing my position to win votes." Of course, as President, Romney may govern as a pro-lifer to win a second term. But who is to say? If he ever decides that conservative Christians are a dispensable constituency, then he may just support abortion rights. That's the problem with trusting someone who bases his positions on the political winds.
As far as persona goes, Romney is the best speaker in the debates. He is clear and articulate, and he comes across as a friendly guy. Maybe too friendly, like a used car salesman. I liked the debate where Chris Matthews asked the Republicans how they would react if Bill Clinton moved back into the White House, and Romney said, "You've gotta be kidding me!"
So will I vote for him? Not in the primaries. Maybe I will if he runs against Hillary.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Duncan Hunter
Congressman Duncan Hunter is Ann Coulter's favorite candidate. At least that was what she said when she spoke at Xavier. And I can see why. Duncan Hunter is a Vietnam veteran, and his son was deployed in Iraq in 2003. He is certainly not a chicken-hawk, nor is he one who sends other people's children to war while his own family is safe. He truly believes in what the U.S. is doing in Iraq, for he thinks that it will make America safer in the long run.
One thing I like about Duncan Hunter is that he opposes big government, and I mean all sorts of big government (domestic and defense). The wikipedia article (which sites other sources, in case you don't like wikipedia) says the following:
"In a House Armed Services Committee hearing on November 9, 2005, Hunter strongly criticized a Defense Logistics Agency 'prime vendor' buying program that led to the purchase of $20 ice cube trays and a tiny refrigerator for $22,797 (initially exposed by The State). Hunter stated that he wanted explanations from the companies in question and the government purchasing agents who had approved the purchases, accusing the latter of 'absolute incompetence.' He further stated that the purchases are 'a real slap in the face to the guy making $13,000 a year who is engaged in a firefight in Ramadi,' and claimed that 'A fairly large amount of incompetence is embedded into the system.'[21][22]."
Many conservatives and Republicans criticize government waste, inefficiency, and bureaucracy in the domestic sphere, but they turn a blind eye to such problems in defense spending. Fortunately, at least one Republican is an exception, and hopefully there are more.
As far as other issues go, Duncan Hunter is mostly conservative. He is solidly pro-life on the abortion issue, which I like. I don't really agree with his stance on trade, since he is a protectionist, and I believe that free trade results in cheaper goods and more jobs for Americans. Although the wikipedia article cites a poor environmental record, Hunter said in a debate that global warming opens up opportunities for the U.S. to look seriously at alternative energy. Where do I stand on this? On one hand, I don't throw stones at Bush for his reluctance to push for more government funding of alternative energy. His critics on this are often big government types anyway. Who says that government is the solution for every problem? Plus, we should not trust immediately in technology that is only experimental (at least presently); rather, we should drill more for oil to resolve current energy problems. On the other hand, wouldn't it be nice to power our cars with a cleaner technology?
Hunter also has a flamboyant side. When Congressman John Murtha was promoting troop withdrawal, Hunter proposed a resolution to withdraw all troops from Iraq. Even the vast majority of Democrats voted against that proposal. And I thought they were serious about ending the war (sarcasm).
Regarding persona, Hunter is like Senator Brownback: he does not really leave an impression on me in debates.
At the moment, Duncan Hunter is my number two choice for the Republican nomination.
One thing I like about Duncan Hunter is that he opposes big government, and I mean all sorts of big government (domestic and defense). The wikipedia article (which sites other sources, in case you don't like wikipedia) says the following:
"In a House Armed Services Committee hearing on November 9, 2005, Hunter strongly criticized a Defense Logistics Agency 'prime vendor' buying program that led to the purchase of $20 ice cube trays and a tiny refrigerator for $22,797 (initially exposed by The State). Hunter stated that he wanted explanations from the companies in question and the government purchasing agents who had approved the purchases, accusing the latter of 'absolute incompetence.' He further stated that the purchases are 'a real slap in the face to the guy making $13,000 a year who is engaged in a firefight in Ramadi,' and claimed that 'A fairly large amount of incompetence is embedded into the system.'[21][22]."
Many conservatives and Republicans criticize government waste, inefficiency, and bureaucracy in the domestic sphere, but they turn a blind eye to such problems in defense spending. Fortunately, at least one Republican is an exception, and hopefully there are more.
As far as other issues go, Duncan Hunter is mostly conservative. He is solidly pro-life on the abortion issue, which I like. I don't really agree with his stance on trade, since he is a protectionist, and I believe that free trade results in cheaper goods and more jobs for Americans. Although the wikipedia article cites a poor environmental record, Hunter said in a debate that global warming opens up opportunities for the U.S. to look seriously at alternative energy. Where do I stand on this? On one hand, I don't throw stones at Bush for his reluctance to push for more government funding of alternative energy. His critics on this are often big government types anyway. Who says that government is the solution for every problem? Plus, we should not trust immediately in technology that is only experimental (at least presently); rather, we should drill more for oil to resolve current energy problems. On the other hand, wouldn't it be nice to power our cars with a cleaner technology?
Hunter also has a flamboyant side. When Congressman John Murtha was promoting troop withdrawal, Hunter proposed a resolution to withdraw all troops from Iraq. Even the vast majority of Democrats voted against that proposal. And I thought they were serious about ending the war (sarcasm).
Regarding persona, Hunter is like Senator Brownback: he does not really leave an impression on me in debates.
At the moment, Duncan Hunter is my number two choice for the Republican nomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)