The mood among Dallas Republicans

Bush chased me out, but them I am not a single issue voter.

Steve

There have been enough surprises in elections that I wouldn't say anything is over until it's over.

It is axiomatic that serious, thoughtful and religious conservatives will not vote for an Obamanation. Either (a) the man is unserious, (b) the man is not thoughtful, (c) the man is not religious, (d) the man is not conservative, (e) you don't know many, serious, thoughtful, religious, and/or conservative people, or (f) some or all of the above.

Wow.

Just... wow.

I'm so glad that it is such a simple matter for some to make such incredible, sweeping pronouncements. I wish I had such amazing insight into the truth of other people's souls, minds, and hearts.

Richard

Ok, but for what it is worth, I spoke this morning to a very close friend of mine - a hardcore ideological lefty journalist who has ties to the Clintons.

He told me of a certain mover and shaker publisher with close ties to the Democratic Party who is absolutely scared "[stuff]-less" that the Obama campaign is in for a very rude surprise come November when the Republicans will manage to pull it out.

Now, to be sure, my lefty friend and everyone he knows thinks this opinion is crazy as hell, that Obama is going to cruise to an easy and certain victory at the polls. But the publisher is adamant that the Democratic ship is going to hit a reef before its all over.

But file this under things that make you go "Hmmm."

One question that I've been dying to ask the serious conservative crowd that seems to be whining about the Palin pick is if not her than who should McCain have picked for VP? And who would you liked to see as the future of the Republican party? Jindal has been in office for less than a year and hasn't really done anything impressive (unless micromanaging a hurricane counts). Pawlenty strikes me as having the same problems as Palin (i.e. lack of gravitas) without Palin's considerable political skills.

I remain stunned by such a laser-like precision when it comes to really being able to flawlessly evaluate an individual political position.

You know, every time I think somehow political discussions can't sink to any nastier of depths, I am surprised. The thing is, I know it's only going to get about a million times worse...

...and that's just between now and when the polls close on election day.

Richard

"Serious Christian". Exactly what does that identify in the above article? Someone who practices the tenets of Christianity or, in the alternative, uses organized religion as a political tool? (Not that they are always mutually exclusionary.) Just curious. The term has somehow become confused over the last few years.

As a conservative-but-not-Republican, and somewhat cynical to boot, I never had any investment in Bush at all, beyond thinking Gore was worse, and hope that there was more to him than there seemed to be in 2000. I thought his "compassionate conservatism" shtick was plenty of evidence that he was not in any coherent way a conservative.

But I'm interested in the comment that "we picked the wrong guy in 2000." Jog my memory: who were the other options? Besides McCain, who seemed even less conservative than Bush at the time. I mean, he often seemed to actively dislike conservatives.

"I remain stunned by such a laser-like precision when it comes to really being able to flawlessly evaluate an individual political position.

You know, every time I think somehow political discussions can't sink to any nastier of depths, I am surprised. The thing is, I know it's only going to get about a million times worse..."

Richard, to what exactly do you refer?

Well, if we get Obama, we certainly deserve him.

Please be careful how you use the term "Christian".

The extreme right idealogy you refer to is actually "Evangelical Republicanism", a fanatical breakaway sect found only in the U.S. This sect is political and it's ultimate goal is theocratic.

You will find very little of Christ's original message associated with Evangelican Republicanism.

Thoughtful, serious, religious conservative=one issue.

Steve

I agree with Loudon is a Fool.

And also with Maclin Horton. Exactly who were we supposed to vote for in 2000 if not Bush? According to Wikipedia (I sure as heck couldn't remember), the Republican candidates in 2000 were (in alphabetical order):

Lamar Alexander
Gary Bauer
Pat Buchanan
George W. Bush
Elizabeth Dole
Steve Forbes
Orrin Hatch
John Kasich
Alan Keyes
John McCain
Dan Quayle and
Robert Smith (who??)

Knowing what we know now, who should conservatives have voted for? I mean, really.

Please understand, I am a conservative.

But why would this group be so concerned with giving up on McCain and Bush yet be so willing to save "as many Republican senators as they can now"?

I don't understand what good these senators have done us, or at least why they are more worthy of being fought for than McCain. In many cases (Coleman is one of my senators) they are not reliable servants of the conservative cause and have demonstrated that they are willing to whatever it takes to retain their place in the senate. Think-vote on the bailout package.

I am going through a trememdous inner struggle about whether I should vote for Coleman or not, and the deciding fact is probably going to be that he is opposed by Al Franken. If I do vote for Coleman it sure won't be because he deserves it. He has not stood up consistently for a balanced budget, for free trade, or many other issues that are important to me. He might talk the talk, but actions speak louder than words.

I am disappointed in our nation when I look at the slate of candidates we are running for state and federal offices. I'm tired of voting against people and not having candidates I can get excited about supporting. I know I will be pilloried saying this, but how can Palin be so much worse than Biden? Think about this-if you had to choose between the two of them which would you choose?

"Nancy
October 21, 2008 5:42 PM
Please be careful how you use the term "Christian".

The extreme right idealogy you refer to is actually "Evangelical Republicanism", a fanatical breakaway sect found only in the U.S. This sect is political and it's ultimate goal is theocratic.

You will find very little of Christ's original message associated with Evangelican Republicanism."

This is very well put, though I think the theocratic threat, while real, is smaller than many seem to think.

In any event, I am very serious (no, really!), very conservative socially, fiscally, politically, and theologically, and I'm a Christian, AND I get the shivers when I hear (read) the evangelical republicanism advocates. Render unto Ceasar and all that.

While ideology is not a bad word in my dictionary, Christianity is not ideology, even if some ideologies come closer to not running afoul Christian dogma (another word not on the bad word list in my book).

In response to Kirk. I think John McCain would have been a much better choice for president in 2000 over Bush any day. But we have Karl Rove's propaganda machine especially in South Carolina to thank for that little mistep.

Good for them--your friends are in good company, joining such conservative luminaries as Christopher Buckley, Susan Eisenhower, and Andrew Bacevich in voting for Obama.

Abortion is obviously the deal-breaker for many of you. Therefore, I must ask if you really believe that any republican president would put real energy into overturning roe v wade?

If so, why didn't it happen under Bush and his far right supreme court?

Could it be that you are voting for a single issue that will never be resolved in a way that satisfies you?

All that proves, Rod, is that there's people who claim to be "conservative" and will turn their backs on it completely and lightly.

It is not possible to be a political conservative and even consider voting for Obama.

And their anger... Anger at Bush is misplaced. His only serious mistakes were to not publicly campaign for his own ideas, and to compromise with Democrats.

As far as I'm concerned, all this "Bush has been horrible" is pure hogwash. Not great, not very defensive of conservative ideals, it's just allowing your political opposition to control your thinking.

Nancy,

No, I don't think the Republicans, and especially McCain, would do much to advance life issues, although he says he will appoint judges who will not practice the judicial tyranny we see in Roe v. Wade.

But Obama says he favors no restrictions on abortion at all, and he has voted to that effect, not even allowing parental notification, not even restricting partial birth abortion, not even voting for protection of infants born alive after abortion. He also says he supports taxpayer funded abortions.

If this is true, especially the last, and these things become law, as unlikely as that would be, then many thoughtful Christians will have to withdraw our consent to the present regime in the United States.

While it is true now that the US is, in important respects, not a constitutional republic but rather a judicial oligarchy--a judge-ruled state--the elected branches help moderate and provide resistance to that. However, if all branches of the government, even the elected ones, were supporting and paying for a practice that is the equivalent in moral evil to slavery, then Christians who are Christians before they are Americans, would have to withdraw their support of the state. At the least, this would mean we could not pay federal taxes if such taxes are going to pay for elective abortion on demand. At the greater, it will mean the need to openly advocate a constitutional revolution to restore the kind of democratic governance the founders intended.

All this is, I believe, highly unlikely. I sense that Obama is not going to press the abortion issue politically since it is so divisive in this way, and he has so many other fish to fry. And where are the pro-aborts going to go? They have nowhere else to go. He is a pragmatic, even cynical, politician above all, or at least I hope he is, and if so he will stay away from this, except to appoint judges who will maintain the US as a judicial oligarchy in most important respects. However, this latter disqualifies him for those of us who care not just about abortion, but who also care that the US return to popular sovereignty and democratic governance instead of judicial sovereignty and judge controlled governance. This is in spite of his obvious gifts and other fine qualities.

Nancy is correct about Republicans doing nothing to make abortion illegal. Reagan and Bush 2 flip-flopped from their pro-choice views as governor by promising a Constitutional Amendment. Neither did anything once elected.

In 1999, McCain said Roe v. Wade should not be overturned because it would cause women to have unsafe abortions.

During the last two months, McCain's answers to the abortion questions have been vague and changing. The last was make it a state decision, which prevents McCain from making a decision. If he was serious a federal law would be the answer.

After 35 years of being fooled by Republicans, why does anyone believe McCain will do anything about abortion.

I am surprised by any Christian that does not believe in giving the lowest earners a tax break, especially when the wealthy benefited the most under Bush's tax plan.

McCain would save about $400,000 a yr on taxes. Remember the story about the eye of a needle?

For what it's worth, not a single serious and thoughtful religious conservative that I know is voting for Obama. Not one. Not even one who would even consider such an act.

But NO serious, thoughtful, religious conservative could possibly vote for Obama. Any conservative vote for Obama is simply a childish temper tantrum; therefore, neither serious nor thoughtful.

Maybe, just maybe, Loudon and Laurrie, the world is bigger than the circle of people whom you happen to know. Even the world of serious and thoughtful religious conservatives.

And I must say that to assume that people who are "serious and thoughtful" must necessarily agree with you is an incredible display of arrogance.

You remind me of the remark attributed to Pauline Kael, who for years was the influential movie critic for The New Yorker. She said that she didn't understand how Nixon won, because she didn't know anyone who voted for him.

As Hamlet said to Horatio, "There are more thing in heaven and on earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

***

Even if the Obamanation would cause abortions to actually decrease (something that I very, very, seriously doubt given how devoted he appears to be to the cause) over a McCain presidency, in the final analysis Obama thinks it's cool to murder millions and millions of people and McCain does not. So we can't vote for him. Period.

Matthew 21: 28-31:

28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.

I think I am bound to support the candidate whose policies I think might result in fewer abortions actually being performed, rather than the one who simply says what we want to hear. Please note that I'm not impugning the sincerely of either McCain or Obama on this issue. But I think that abortion is an issue where talk is cheap and actual results are more important.

After all, which is more important: that Pius XII and others in the Church actually made efforts to save the lives of Jews during the Holocaust, even at the cost of choosing not to make a public statement that might have jeopardized those efforts; or that he should have made a public statement condemning the Holocaust, even if it might have jeopardized the efforts underway to save the lives of Jews. Making the public statement would certainly have made him look better 60 years after the fact, but might have resulted in fewer actual Jews being saved.

Again, I don't feel a moral obligation to vote for a candidate who simply says the right thing on abortion. I feel more obliged to vote for the candidate whose policies I think might actually reduce the number of abortions, even if his stated position on the issue is, to say the very least, objectionable.

I understand why you feel the way you do; I really do. And perhaps I'm wrong about the relative practical effects of the two candidates' overall policies on this issue. But there seem to be no easy answers on this one.

As for voting for a third party candidate (i.e., one who has no chance of winning), again, I understand the temptation (esp. as someone who voted for Perot in 1992). But, IIRC, one of the tenets of just war theory (at least in the Catholic Church) is that, in order to be just, the exercise of force must have a reasonable chance of succeeding. (http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp)

Now, I realize that voting and waging a war are two very different exercises, but they are both morally serious and, really voting is in fact and exercise of a kind of force. I wonder whether, when the stakes are morally high, voting for a candidate who has no realistic chance of winning is morally justified.

Again, I don't feel a moral obligation to vote for a candidate who simply says the right thing on abortion.

Nor do I. I do, however, feel a moral obligation not to vote for a candidate who supports an instrinsic evil.

Also, my circle of acquaintances is admittedly and intentionally insular, but there is robust disagreement on all issues on which resonable minds can disagree. Fortunately, whether or not a religious conservative can vote for Obama is not one of those issues.

Like most of the defenders of the innocent on this thread I am not a GOP partisan. I frequently wish they would have their collective hat handed to them for their own good. Just not in a race against the avatar of abortion.

Finally, you may be correct that one is morally obligated to vote for McCain instead of absatining or voting for a third party to prevent the Obaminable Abortionman from gaining the White House. I will consider that argument further. But it's a different issue from whether the God-fearing and neighbor loving can intentionally cast a vote for Obama.

in the final analysis Obama thinks it's cool to murder millions and millions of people and McCain does not.

Oh, give McCain enough time, and I’m sure he’ll murder millions in Iraq. And he’ll think it’s cool.

Now, of course, among those who like to kill and steal (or those who like people who kill and steal) Obama is very popular. I'm not arguing that. But among those who like God and who love (or at least don't hate) their neighbor, the support is not so strong.

That was a HORRIBLE thing to say, and the only thing I can be glad of is that when you people cause this country to break in two, I will be in a very blue state and won’t have to meet people like you.

quote: "If Pat Buchanan is the answer, it must be a damn strange question."

Not at all. As with Ron Paul, Buchanan has been a strong opponent of Bush's wars and the American Empire in general. Buchanan's magazine "The American Conservative" has been as critical, if not more, so of Bush's foreign policy than any leftist publication. That and Buchanan, unlike Bush is against illegal immigration.

rr

Only four years ago the GOP was touted as being close to achieving permanent majority status. Today its defenders are reduced to calling people names. Sic transit gloria mundi, indeed.

I followed the "CrunchyCons" article and the book and the fascinating blog on National Review to this Beliefnet blog, but it has become more and more puzzling. Clearly, Con is no longer short for conservative, but stand for an entirely different con indeed.

In my circle there is little enthusiasm for McCain, although it ticked upward a bit with the choice of Palin, but a deep distaste for Obama and his redistributive, pro-abort ideas. Once again, we independents will go for the lesser of two evils, will spread our votes around among the solid "down-ticket" candidates, and hope for one more chance.

David J. White

A very well thought out, and intelligent response.

"I think I am bound to support the candidate whose policies I think might result in fewer abortions actually being performed, rather than the one who simply says what we want to hear."

Such a fantastic point - one rarely heard in sometimes overly simplistic conservative circles. Yes, lets look at the whole issue, rather than isolating the act, condemning it and walking away from the factors associated with it.

Thank you.

It is axiomatic that serious, thoughtful and religious conservatives will not vote for an Obamanation. Either (a) the man is unserious, (b) the man is not thoughtful, (c) the man is not religious, (d) the man is not conservative, (e) you don't know many, serious, thoughtful, religious, and/or conservative people, or (f) some or all of the above.

Loudon,

I am a serious person (although I hate saying that because it sounds pretentious, as with saying that I fit your other points). I am thoughtful, religious, and conservative. I've been both a conservative and a Republican since the late 80's (when I "converted" from the liberalism I inherited from birth). I've read National Review since then, both in print and online. I have been an avid reader of The Weekly Standard and The American Spectator as well over the years. I also read centrist and leftist magazines out of intellectual curiosity, such as The New Republic and Washington Monthly. I daily read the online cultural and political articles linked by aldaily.com.

I am voting for Obama, and do not consider him an "Obamanation." I think he is an intelligent, decent, and thoughtful man who deserves to be president (based on the campaign he has run), and will probably be a very good one.

So speak for yourself.

John M.,

Would you vote for a racist presidential candidate with whom you agree on all public policy pronouncements except that he desires to strip blacks of their property and perform medical experiments on them without their consent? I would hope the answer is no, no matter what kind of empty suit is running on the other side.

Some acts are just nasty. It's hardly political correctness or ideological conformity that requires you not vote for people who want to do nasty things. It's a little thing called conscience.

We are going to kick the GOP's butt in just 14 days.

My answer to the question about the GOP having chosen the wrong person in 2000: I said it then...and wished it had been on 9/11....that the 'right' person in 2000 was Senator John McCain. Unfortunately, sadly..... in 2008 life (and death) after George W. Bush, that is not the case.

I and others contend that any conservative had every reason to have hoped for and supported Bush in 2000 once he was the party's pick. But after the first four years, with a track record and war plainly laid out....many Americans voters hold anyone who voted for Bush again in 2004 responsible in part as their motivation to support Obama. Those who flew in the face of Bush’s first term broken promises and failures…. in the name of social issues at the expense of fiscal madness and war and other sundry Bush failures in the first administration…failed themselves and their party. No one won but a handful of no bid contractors and hedge fund Swiss banking elite.

No few partisan Democrats moved on after Florida's hanging chads. Fewer Democrats AND conservatives / Republicans have forgiven Bush’s second term or those who made it possible. It is a legacy we will live with for the rest of my life.

I'm religious. I'm just not Christian (I'm a Jew).

And I am voting for Obama.

Well I can see that "think for yourself" is not in the vocabulary of Erin Manning or Loudon is a Fool.

"If you call yourself a Christian, then you must think exactly this" is a very good reason to not be a Christian.

Jim R, thanks for the compliment of asking me for my opinions. I'm really not that important, but if you think it can help you come to a decision, or come to terms with the inevitable, I'll do my best. (I only have a few minutes, so this will be brief. To which all the other commenters will respond: "And there was much rejoicing.")

treebeard:
It's probably not safe for me to do this, but I'm going to assume that you have had some concerns about how fiscally responsible an Obama administration might be, especially combined with a Democratic congress.

I honestly don't think it is possible for Obama with a Democratic Congress to be as fiscally irresponsible as Bush and the Republicans have been over the past eight years. We gave the Republicans a shot, one that they have never had in a long time, and they blew it. While I don't trust the Democrats in Congress, I do trust Obama's intelligence and integrity, and I do notice that he has surrounded himself with people (such as Volcker) who are not likely to indulge in financial mismanagement.

I'm not saying McCain would be great, but at least there would be the potential for gridlock.

Normally I would agree with this argument, but right now I don't think we need gridlock. For example, I think the House Republicans did the country, the economy, and their own party a tremendous disservice by voting against the bailout. Normally I would be against such a rescue package, but this was one occasion where an emergency measure was necessary. (At this moment, I cannot honestly tell you what McCain believes about the financial crisis. It's not enough to talk about greed and how we need a maverick to reform things. He has admitted he knows little about economics, and the way he behaved himself recently - "I am suspending my campaign to ride to the rescue on my white horse, oops I guess I screwed things up" - makes me honestly afraid about how he would mismanage the current financial situation. We need fresh and creative thinking, which I see with Obama and with the people advising him. I do not think that Obama is merely a leftist, or a typical ideologue Democrat. I think he is capable of thinking "outside the box." Maybe this is naive, but I also think that his years teaching law at the University of Chicago, a conservative and libertarian powerhouse, must have made an impression on him.

Also, has the "spread the wealth" argument given you any pause?

Not really, because I don't think he meant it as a socialist or class warfare perspective. Again, maybe I'm naive, but I just haven't seen anything to tip me off that Obama is a Manchurian candidate who is going to turn the U.S. into the old Soviet Union or into a European Union style administrative state. I just give him more credit than that. I fully believe that if Obama goes too far in enacting a liberal or leftist agenda (whether on economic issues, social issues, or whatever), the country will react the way they did in 1994 when Clinton overstepped his bounds. I think Obama will govern from the center-left, and not from the die-hard left. He has said enough things that can't sit well with typical Democratic constituencies to make me predict that he will be a thoughtful, restrained leader who will govern by consensus. (Unlike our current president, and unlike McCain.)

What's your expectation on how Obama and a democratic congress will address the gun issue,

I think the Second Amendment will not be repealed under an Obama administration. I also think that Obama is smart enough not to piss off hunters and gun owners. My belief is that the Democrats have learned their lesson when it comes to endeavoring to enact gun controls. I would also add that I am not a gun rights fundamentalist, and would have no problem with certain weapons being banned. Thus some conservatives would write me out of their ever-dwindling movement.

the fairness doctrine,

I would like to see the Democrats try that, and watch the backlash wipe out their majority in Congress. I don't think Obama is that stupid.

or carbon tax issue?

I don't know enough about alternative energy issues to have much of an opinion, but I do think it is the Democrats and not the Republicans who have offered the most creative thinking on how to confront global warming. Earth to fellow conservatives: global warming is real, and something needs to be done. Watching Obama and McCain, I think the former has a better mind to grapple with this issue. I don't think McCain could plan out and then pursue a decent energy policy, and he would probably get "all mavericky" and screw things up.

Since you bring up one form of tax, let me add that I used to be a "lower taxes or no taxes no matter what" conservative. I think that now we need a leader who is willing to say (as Bush should have said in regards to paying for Iraq, etc.), "The only way we can afford to spend this much is to raise taxes. Either that, or here is what we're going to have to do without." We are not living in the 80's anymore.

Not trying to be confrontational-just interested in the thought process of someone who has made the decision you have made. Your insights may help me more easily accept an Obama presidency.

Not at all. I appreciate the chance to share and write a long comment that will cause everyone else to think, "Can't he just shut up?" After all, it appears from other commenters that I am no longer thoughtful, no longer conservative, and no longer a Christian because I support a man whose only agenda is to murder children.

Based on what I have seen over the past few months, I honestly fear a McCain presidency. I regret that he did not win the primary and then the election in 2000. That was his time. But now he is an old, unreliable, bitter man who shows no ability to exercise authority in the way that this country now needs. Just look at his campaign. And if Palin becomes president, I think this country would be in actual danger, as all of our allies and enemies no longer take us seriously.

Obama took a very long time to grow on me. All I can say is that I'm impressed with what I have observed. I am pro-life, but I don't think that people who are pro-choice are evil demons who delight in destroying human beings. I think that abortion is a complicated, tragic issue, and that it should be handled pragmatically. If the economic situation continues to deteriorate, there will certainly be more abortions. So putting the right leader in at this moment will have an indirect impact on whether the number goes up or down. And incidentally, I think it's time for Christian conservatives to stop being taken advantage of by the Republican party, and to vote for the leaders who will be competent in exercising their powers, rather than the ones who pay lip service and then do nothing.

But Jim (or anyone), please feel free to respond and question my conclusions.

One more point for Loudon: Christians are not supposed to focus on the Ten Commandments. There is a New Covenant, in which God writes His laws on our hearts and minds. We are supposed to focus on that process, the "law of the Spirit of life" working within us, as opposed to the "law of dead letters." There is a ministry of the Spirit, of life, and of righteousness (from Christ), and there is a ministry of condemnation and death (from Moses). Read the book of Hebrews if you don't understand me. But those who focus on keeping the law of Moses often miss the deeper laws that come through faith and the receiving of grace. It's easy to impose legalities when you are a law keeper ("no Christian can vote for Obama"). But that is not what Christ called us to.

End of sermon. And I said this would be brief. >sigh

Erin: I've been encouraged by the voices of my Church's bishops on this matter [Obama vs. McCain] in recent days....I have a much harder time understanding how anyone who is against abortion can support Obama....

I might point out that African bishops tend to be among the most conservative in the world, but as you can see here, Bishop John Onaiyekan of Nigeria has said that if he were an American, he'd vote for Obama. I might also point out examples such as this and the "Battle of the Bishops" posts over on the "Pontifications" blog here at Beliefnet that indicate that at least some American bishops have warned against "single-issue" voting (which in my opinion has been the way the GOP has been the puppetmaster of pro-life voters for years). Finally, I'd point out this story (scroll about halfway down) by the excellent Vatican reporter John Allen, comparing European and American politics. Note that in the former case, the European bishops say nary a peep about pro-choice politicians recieving Communion (which I'd admit is a bit much), let alone chiding the electorate for whom they support.

Just sayin'.

"As a conservative-but-not-Republican, and somewhat cynical to boot, I never had any investment in Bush at all, beyond thinking Gore was worse, and hope that there was more to him than there seemed to be in 2000. I thought his "compassionate conservatism" shtick was plenty of evidence that he was not in any coherent way a conservative.

But I'm interested in the comment that "we picked the wrong guy in 2000." Jog my memory: who were the other options? Besides McCain, who seemed even less conservative than Bush at the time. I mean, he often seemed to actively dislike conservatives."

Hard to blame Bush for the failings of conservatism when there's little remotely conservative about the way he's governed. His 2nd inaugural address could've been written by Woodrow Wilson. But fair to ask-wehn do we get an actual conserative who believes, understand and can explain it.

I suspect Palin is a much more staight forward conservative than the Mccain campaign has allowed her to be. I understand-she's a middle class person raising a family who rose to her position and against her party. And she cut government spending and returned money to taxpayers.That she doesn't spend her hours pondering the deep paradigms of conservatism as delineated by David Brooks and Peggy Noonan doesn't bother me in the least(I think David Brooks should have "I'm the moron who came up with American greatness which gave W intellectual cover far his dumb war" tattooed on his forehead, but I digress). She should be allowed to ask the same question Joe the Plumber has asked and the press has refused to ask-How you going to pay for all that hope and change?

Palin is the one shining common sense light in the Mccain campaign. Insanity is defined by expecting a different outcome with the same exact inputs.Same you know what, different election since Reagan left(and I mean that literally, not the talk radio pining for someone like Reagan to show up).If the major players of the GOP cannot see that we have contracted clinical insanity since 1988, we're doomed to another bunch of country club yahoos picking another loser in 2012.

So Rod,

How was your lunch at The Dallas Country Club?

At this point in time, there is no way of knowing with certainty how Obama and a Democratic super-majority in Congress will govern. I normally subscribe to the idea that divided government works best at holding in check the excesses of the opposition. However, we are about to see a situation where there is no effective opposition party in Congress.

The virtue of the next four years will be that it will be easy enough to assign credit or blame for what happens. Those Obama supporters who oppose abortion will be able to measure whether the incidence of abortion has declined during this time, or whether the situation has worsened, particularly regarding repeal of the Hyde Amendment, re-legalization of the partial-birth procedure, etc. Those Obama supporters who are anti-war will be able to measure whether we have disengaged from Iraq, or alternatively whether we are in a ground war in Pakistan. Those Obama supporters....you get the idea.

It is important that each of us remembers how we voted this year, and why. I say this as a conservative who supported Bush in 2000 and 2004, but who now has deep remorse for having done so.

The virtue of the next four years will be that it will be easy enough to assign credit or blame for what happens.

No it won't, because the media and the Obamabots won't let you. If Team Obama-Pelosi-Reid does badly, these three will 1) blame it on what they inherited from Bush, and 2) say they just need more time, and 3) make disingenuous excuses that their followers - including Republicans and Conservatives who cast their lot with Obama - will blindly accept. Witness Biden's comment the other day that Obama will face a crisis, and we have to get behind him and trust what he will do, because it will look like he's doing the wrong thing. The memes and mantras are already being spoken so when these things come to pass, we'll be conditioned to give the appropriate response.

"Here are the boxcars, folks. Climb right in. Next stop: Auschwitz."

Great googly-moogly, folks! Don't give up--Fight!!

I've seen a propensity lately for conservatives I know to become a bunch of whiney little girls. Sure, McCain isn't the perfect conservative but calling it "game over" and letting Obama win would be a terrible, terrible thing. We can't just spend the next 2-4 years sitting in a dark room drinking alone or squawking and heckling like a bunch of back-benchers. This country has 2 weeks to get it's senses back. If it doesn't then we live to fight again another day. The next election cycle starts Nov 5.

If we loose, well, we’ll still have court nominations to worry about. We will have wars to fight. We will have a recession to climb out of. We will have a fairness doctrine to use in order to rally against the "Old Media" (yes, it can be used against them as easily as they want to use it against the us).

As Seneca the Roman said: "Brave men rejoice in adversity, just as brave soldiers triumph in war."

Everyone needs to step away from the ledge, roll up their sleeves and get back to work. Chop-chop, mushi-mushi, people!!! We got work to do.

Treebeard,

I was being a bit hyperbolic about Obama supporters having a desire to kill people and steal. And I wasn't setting forth the 10 commandments as the goal, but rather as a minimum threshold for the support of candidate. Requesting that a candidate not believe it's ok to violate exceptionless moral norms seems to me a pretty low bar. Candidates should go further without a doubt, but given our choices of late we'll probably have to make due with people who are at least willing to be on the record against lying, stealing and murdering.

The point is Obama supports an act that is intrinsically evil. At all times, and under any circumstance, the intentional killing of the innocent unborn is a vile and heinous act. And Obama believes that it is not only a human right to snuff kids (and geezers too), but that ANY state restriction on what Daniel coyly refers to as a "medical procedure" (which, I suppose, would also include lethal injection) violates the constitutional guarantee to eliminate the undesirable. So the question is, "Is a vote for Obama immediate material cooperation in a grave attack on human life?" It's not, "Will I feel ok after voting for Obama?" It's not, "Do I consider myself a good person, and yet I want to vote for Obama?"

Obama wants to snuff kids. So you can't vote for him. Period. It's really that simple.

Unjust wars (which kill far fewer people than abortion) are not a proportionate reason to vote for a kid killer. Torture (an issue on which McCain has opposed the current administration), while an intrinsic evil like abortion (and in which aspect can be contrasted with war) and its avoidance is not a proportionate reason to vote for a kid killer. The death penalty, the intrinsic evil of which is very debatable, similarly will not kill as many innocent (or guilty) as abortion.

So even if you think Obama is eloquent and good looking and you buy what he's selling, serious thoughtful religious conservatives can't vote for him. Now the reality is the packaging is far better than the product and an Obama presidency will be disastrous in all aspects. In eight years Americans will be yearn for a return to Bush's golden years of the war on terror and economic recession. But that's an issue on which history will be the judge and reasonable minds will disagree.

As to the issue of whether a serious thoughtful religious conservative can vote for a blood thirsty ghoul like Obama, however, the answer is short and simple. No. Sorry Treebeard. That's just the way it is.

Applause, Loudon is a Fool; stated with admirable clarity.

Daniel, you really need to shed yourself of the disgusting euphemism that abortion is a "medical decision(s) about her (a woman's) body" and that that is what Catholics and others oppose. I can make all the medical decisions I want to about my own body. I'm not free, in the event God grants me another child one of these days, to pay someone to shred my unborn child's body into pieces, vacuum her body parts out of my uterus, and have her disposed of as "medical waste." No real "medical decision" involves killing another person. There's nothing "medical" about abortion; it's savage brutality, satanic in its hatred of the living image of God present in the human child from the first moment of her conception.

No one who supports it is morally fit to run a prison, let alone a nation.

"As to the issue of whether a serious thoughtful religious conservative can vote for a blood thirsty ghoul like Obama, however, the answer is short and simple. No."

According to you. Please own your comments and don't pretend they are based on Scriptural lessons or even the teachings of the politically-motivated U.S. Catholic Bishops. As for a bunch of Evangelicals in Dallas, there's nothing binding them to the pro-life mantra or even the on-again-off-again view of the Vatican when it comes to abortion and public policy. So it is quite conceivable that a thoughtful religious conservative could support for Obama despite his position on woman's right to choose.

Well, you are not allowed to vote for Mr. Obama!

Telling other people what they may and may not think - now THAT is Christianity to me!

But honestly, this kind of tyranny really doesn't deserve the light of day.

But it is astonishing! To know with such smug certainty what is true, what is right and wrong, and what is in the hearts and minds of everyone else - and to be in charge of judging each and every one of us!

Your authoritarianism is just plain nauseating.

"Let's face it, we went with the wrong guy in 2000..."

If they dislike McCain now as well, this begs the question: "Who was the 'right guy'?" Steve Forbes?

The commandment "thou shalt not kill" does not come with footnotes or loopholes. There is no "just war" clause in the commandment. I will take the pro-life movement more seriously when I see them committing equal time to protesting war and capital punishment, and to caring for the thousands of neglected and abused children that we already have.

"If I had known that the Bush administration was supporting the torture of prisoners in 2004, I hope I would have voted third-party that year (though honesty compels me to admit that Mark Shea's guidance on the issue, which was invaluable to me from a moral perspective, wasn't available at that time as far as I know"

Abu Gharib became public in early 2004. It was widely reported in the press during the Spring of 2004, months before you voted for Bush. At that time, you were also aware--because you live in the execution capitol of the U.S.--that he was responsible for more executions of prisoners than any single person in American history and had waged an unjust war for three years.

Voting is a complex thing. We weigh many factors when we vote and sometimes we put policy over optimal moral outcomes. You've done it and I've done. I find abortion abhorent, but I find the idea of criminalizing the doctor's office also aborhent. I consider abortion a moral tragedy, but I consider the idea of the state telling women they can't control their own health care a moral tragedy.

I make decisions in the voting booth that are morally perilous and in conflict with the Church. You make decision in the voting booth that are morally perilous and in conflict with the Church. The difference is that no one is threatening you with denial of Communion for voting for warmongering torturers who execute prisoners and who create policies that are hostile to the poor. Why is that?

I am a conservative man, I am 45 years old, married with one son.
Since I was old enough to vote, I have never voted for a Democrat. Not once! Today I went and early voted and cast my vote for the Democrat Party for the first time. Not only have I been disgusted at the way our Party has handled the war and the economy, I truly believe we must lose this election and lose it bad before we will regain our true conservative ways.
How can we as a Party claim to be conservative when we are spending more than any Democrat in history.
We do need a change, and while I had to swallow my pride to do it, I cast my vote for the Democrats this year.

Sorry, Daniel; did I miss the reports as to how Abu Gharib was the fully sanctioned policy of the Bush administration? Because I thought it was the actions of a bunch of jerks who were a disgrace to the uniforms they wore, frankly, and was unaware that in 2004 evidence existed that illustrated otherwise.

I'm glad that you think abortion is a moral tragedy. Up to now you seem to have considered it a medical decision, a mere surgical procedure with no moral implications. The question is, why is abortion a moral tragedy? If it's because each abortion kills an innocent human being, it's kind of hard to argue that it should remain legal, isn't it? And if abortion doesn't kill an innocent human being, then why is it a moral tragedy?

Sig, if you want to get into a theological debate about the efficacy of prayer, I'd be game, but I think this thread's pretty far off topic as it is. (And I'm not sure which of the many pagan goddesses you think would help end abortion--they were usually even more cruel and bloodthirsty than their male counterparts, if my recollections of Hesiod and others are sound.)

sigaliris, whoever you are, I love you, man, I really do.

Daniel,

What's complex about it? You can't vote for torturers either. If the race is between the ghoulish Obama and that manly looking chick from Abu Grab@ss, you can't vote for either of them. Fortunately, only Obama is on the ballot.

I hope that all those "Republicans" who vote for the Democratic candidate this year because they are "disgusted" with the past 8 years will keep their mouths shut when the economy goes further in the tank due to increased taxation and the implementation of a national health system that will make the Canadian and English systems look like paragons of free enterprise.

While I don't care for McCain (and haven't for quite sometime) the petulance exhibited by these "Republicans" is amazing. I would support it if BHO were the second incarnation of RR, but he isn't. So I will support my party and at the same send them a message that this vote was done out of desperation.

Just wait until a veto proof house and a filibuster proof Senate in are in place. The times should be fun

Peterk,
I'm assuming your use of quotes around "Republican" is basically to say, "If you're voting for Obama you're not a real Republican. You're a RINO."
Would you put quotes around "Democrats" when talking about those who voted for Reagan in the 80's? Perhaps they weren't real Democrats, and should have stuck with the party affiliation (thus voting for Carter and Mondale)?
God forbid that any member of a political party should vote for the other, better candidate when his own party's candidate sucks.

Sorry people. If you're pro-war, you're not pro-life. No how. No way. Uh-uh.

You can justify your support of the havoc your country is inflicting on INNOCENTS around the world, but it's meaningless drivel. Iraqi babies in their mothers' arms are just as important as American fetuses.

As far as the Just War argument - nonsense. The US hasn't been involved in a Just War in over sixty years.

Obviously the American psyche has become immune to the suffering of those who are different from them.

Daniel,

That is a mischaracterization of McCain's vote and he has been a consistent critic of the Administration's torture policy. There are plenty of reasons for men of good will to dislike McCain, but I'm not sure his stance on torture is one of them. But even if he were pro-torture, then the issue would be whether you could vote for nasty when he's running against super duper nasty. Probably in that case you should just vote for a third party candidate, but reasonable minds could disagree and vote for nasty but not super duper nasty (in case there is any confusion, super duper nasty is a code for Obama who is super duper nasty hence the appellation).

The problem I see with such a statement is that the God, YHWH, who gave the "Thou shalt not murder" commandment (N.B.: Richard Elliott Friedman translates Exodus 20:13 as "murder" (ratsach), not "kill" (harag - which occurs in Exodus 21:14) is the same God who ordered the Israelites to go to war against the Canaanites and others, and to execute/put to death Israelites who violated certain other of His commandments, statutes and ordinances. In other words, YHWH does not interpret His own commandment as prohibiting war and the attendant killing, or capital punishment, and in fact issues divine orders to go to war and execute Law violators.

That rationalization conveniently omits Numbers 5, which describes an abortion procedure, as well as the Jewish/desert Semitic tradition of sanction of parents letting defective, dying, or intolerable neonates (i.e. bastards or conceived by rape) die.

1) There's nothing "potential" about human life in a pregnancy. It is human; it is alive. We're left to argue over whether it's a human being by acceptable terms, or at what point that happens.

Well, those blanket criteria don't distinguish between a tumor and fetus. It comes down to consciousness, and simply put no one actually believes an early fetus has enough to qualify.

Many people do claim certainty to the contrary. Their source of knowledge of this however involves occultic methods/assumptions, i.e. some form of crystal ball from which this knowledge is obtained- e.g. an ultrasound machine, looking into the eyes, reading it in a particular book.

Daniel that's absurd.

Obama, by his own admission, voted to leave innocent babes on a shelf to die out of concern that it would undercut Roe. McCain, by his own admission, voted against the waterboarding ban because it removed discretion from the hands of torturers to do stuff that isn't torture. At the time of the vote he against the bill he stipulated his opposition to torture.

In sum, Obama likes abortion (and torture when it involves kids), McCain dislikes torture (and abortion). Or if you prefer, Obama likes intrinsic evil, McCain dislikes intrinsic evil. No doubt you think liking intrinsic evil is the same as disliking intrinsic evil because it allows you to support people who like intrinsic evil (hence, in Danielspeak, they dislike intrinsic evil). But allow me to at least suggest that liking intrinsic evil is not the same as disliking intrinsic evil. Perhaps, even, the two are very different. But I'm no expert on intrinsic evil so you should probably run this by Obama.

Jillian:

My comment to Roger was not a rationalization but a clarification/rebuttal to his claim that "Thou shalt not kill" does not allow for war or capital punishment. I was not even addressing abortion. I'm not sure how your response relates to what I wrote, or why you're addressing me.

We do let some terribly malformed or very sick newborns die.

I suspect that some, perhaps many, doctors have seen things come out of wombs that would be too shocking even for horror movies.

Bottom line, when McCain had the chance to vote against the torture president, he didn't. He made it easier to torture. That vote is almost identical to Obama's vote against the born alive bill. Obama supported the bill--and the already existing law--but did not support the effort being made by pro-life activists so he voted against the political maneuver. McCain is opposed to torture, but opposed a bill making it more difficult because the effort was being made by anti-war activists so he opposed a political maneuver by supporting the Bush administration.

Loudon is a Fool said:

"In sum, Obama likes abortion (and torture when it involves kids), McCain dislikes torture (and abortion). Or if you prefer, Obama likes intrinsic evil, McCain dislikes intrinsic evil."

Well, you have no shame, I give you that.

Read How to Read the Bible by James L. Kugel (2007), pp. 265-272 on whether the fetus was considered a full human being (as well as excerpts of other ANE texts on this subject). Apparently Jerome did not think so, based on his translation of Exodus 21:22-25 (Vulgate).

"He said, straight up, that he wasn't gonna answer that question."

Who the heck does he think he is, Sarah Palin?

But then again, since this column is about 'seriously religious people', do y'all need remindin' that McCain once called such people "agents of intolerance", yet now he as such an agent as his running mate. Can you say "pander"?

"Obama's desires to "spread the wealth around" should also make him anathema to not so religious conservatives."

How is this any different from the $70,000,000,000.00 spreadin' o' the wealth - to the already wealthy? Can you say delusional"?

"(if by "religious" we at least mean "those who understand the 10 commandments to be binding")."

With the apparent exception for the no bearing of false witness commandment.

"[Bush's] only serious mistakes were to not publicly campaign for his own ideas"

Yeah, riiight. Iraq? Didn't happen. WMDs? Not a mistake. Abu Ghraib? Not "serious" enough. Guantanamo? Illegal wiretaps? Torture? The collapse of the economy? Loss of habeas corpus? 9/11 & Saddam? How is such grand self-delusion on the part of the 'right' even possible?

"[Palin] cut government spending and returned money to taxpayers."

Two disparate things conflated. The money she 'returned to taxpayers' came from Big Oil, much to their chagrin. I'm sure Exxon shareholders would perceive this as "sharin' o' the wealth".

"Palin is the one shining common sense light in the Mccain campaign."

Guffaw!