This ad makes me uncomfortable. I agree with its premise that Obama's treatment of his family reflects on his character. My discomfort comes from the fact that every speaker seems to be talking about McCain rather than Obama. It may be that I just can't avoid the contrast knowing that McCain had an affair, left his wife and married his mistress. Political ads are parsed for tone and implication, and it is clear to me that the Matthew 25 group who put out this ad is not saying people should support Obama because he is a family man, they are saying we should not support McCain because he was unfaithful to his wife. Perhaps they were not as subtle as they think they were. Perhaps this was the balance of directness/indirectness they were seeking.
In tandem with this release is this from an article by Johnathan Martin of Politico.com.
Per ABC, Kirbyjon Caldwell, who is a close friend of the Bush family and officiated at Jenna Bush's wedding earlier this year, used a conference call organized by a new left-leaning Christian group to go there:
"His marital history has been duly recorded," said Caldwell, referring to McCain, "and as recently as yesterday I think it is, our pastor from Saddleback, Rick Warren indicated that he would not feel comfortable voting for an adulterer and I don't know exactly to whom he was referring but I think the data speaks for itself, and again, at the end of the day, and I really appreciate you raising this because, at the end of the day again I think the American public deserves full revelation of the candidate's character and competency. Character and competency. So, whatever questions that should be asked that would give the voting public an indication as to who they are and what they've done should be fair game."
Asked by ABC's Tapper if he would have compunctions about voting for someone who had cheated on his wife, Warren said Thursday, "Absolutely I would. Absolutely I would. Because if you can’t keep your faith to your most sacred vow — 'til death do us part' — how in the world can I trust you to lead my family? My government? My nation? ... Absolutely I would. I think people first need to ask forgiveness and then earn trust back over time. Can trust be re-earned? Absolutely, but it takes time."
It is rather ironic to me that a group called Matthew 25 is touting the character of a man who voted against extending legal protection to "the least of these" and then lied about his reasons for doing so. While infidelity is always wrong, we mustn't forget that McCain's first marriage failed under rather extraordinary circumstances, and thus cannot be said to be yet another case of infidelity. At any rate, if what McCain was doing in the late 1970's disqualifies him, then what Obama was doing in the late 1970's should be evaluated with as much condemnation, if not moreso. Cue Eric Clapton.
voted against extending legal protection to "the least of these" and then lied about his reasons for doing so.
Tim I have no trouble seeing why you would feel this way. Your premise here is one that the left and the right are just not going to agree on. What seems compellingly obvious and true to you about this does not seem compelling at all to me.
I agree that the circumstances around McCain's divorce were extraordinary. His POW situation is the kind of trauma that could very understandably destroy a marriage. The fact that she was in a wheel chair could also do it, but that is not an admirable reason. Either way, I am not happy with the fact that he had an affair before he was divorced.
I agree that the time means something. McCain could have grown substantially since then. He could explain that he was a troubled man then and that he regrets his actions. That is difficult to do, though, when you are still married to the other woman.
As to character questions from the past, I think that the position they are being elected for opens them up to the kind of scrutiny of their past that we would not normally be open to. If there are things that need to be more fully explored from either of them in the 70's, I think the door should remain open until questions are satisfactorily answered.
"Tim I have no trouble seeing why you would feel this way. Your premise here is one that the left and the right are just not going to agree on. What seems compellingly obvious and true to you about this does not seem compelling at all to me."
Bill, in describing my statement as the way that I "feel," I think you are overlooking the facts surrounding Obama's votes and views on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It is a fact that the left and the right agreed to extend legal protection to all babies alive outside the womb. It is also a fact that Obama voted to kill a state version of BAIPA in 2003. It is also a fact that, when pressed about his opposition to the state version of BAIPA, Obama claimed (1) he voted against it because it did not include language which protected Roe v. Wade, and (2) he would have voted in favor of the state version of BAIPA if it had had language similar to that of the unopposed, bipartisan federal BAIPA, which protected Roe v. Wade. These are irrefutable facts.
However, it is also a fact that the state version of BAIPA actually did have explicit language, which had been adapted from the federal BAIPA, yet Obama nevertheless voted in the negative, meaning that he failed to extend legal protection to the most vulnerable among us ("the least of these") even though it included the explicit language which Obama claims was not there. Thus, it is not hard to conclude that Obama grossly distorted his reasons for voting against the BAIPA.
he failed to extend legal protection to the most vulnerable among us ("the least of these") even though it included the explicit language which Obama claims was not there.
Obama asserted that this law would have extended protection that was already in place - that in fact it would have had no effect. In contrast to his response, what difference would this law have made, Tim? It appears to me to be only a rhetorical tool in advancing an attack against the practice of abortion. I am not very troubled by someone voting against a rhetorical tool, even if it was worded to be a political trap.
Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton voted for it, and NARAL did not oppose it. What harm then would take place by voting for it? Or even allowing a vote for it? (Obama killed it as a committee chair).
As demonstrated in Congressional testimony, the acts prohibited by the law did take place, so the law does far more than nothing. And Obama's assertion that the law would extend protection that was already in place is not true, even if sincere (though as a professor of constitutional law, his not knowing the case law is disturbing).
The Senate voted for the federal version 98-0. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes us doubt that he can bring people together over difficult issues. Here's one of the most difficult issues we have, and he could not bring himself to take the same position that Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton agreed with. If you can't do it then . . .
It's one thing to say he has several other qualities that outweigh this past decision, it's another to mischaracterize his position as avoiding a trap and the law as a "rhetorical tool" (words, just words?).
Better to acknowledge the simple political difference at stake here: abortion and near-infanticide is not an important concern for you.
Actually, Micah, I would rather know more about this. It is true that this is not an issue I study nor advocate for. What is it that this law was going to do that would not have been otherwise protected? Educate me.
Forgetting the abortion issue for a moment, what is this group doing? I agree with the assessment that the message of the ad is not so much that Obama is a good family man, but by contrast we know who isn't. I have respect for the people in the ad, but I'm disappointed with them. Yes, character absolutely counts, but the ad plays more like the schmaltzy introduction videos at a party's national convention than something with substance.
One doesn't have to dig far to find sermons throughout our history of pastors endorsing candidates, baptizing them, or putting their weight behind a certain party or ideology. Still, it makes me very uncomfortable, especially when I see neither party fully embody a Christian message (and I'm not sure it's possible that they can).
My apologies for responding to this thread rather late. The above link contains rhetoric of which all sides should be well aware.
That stated, it is quite horrific, the practice of infanticide and abortion more generally. (Does one believe, however, that criminalizing abortion will put an end to it, much in the same way that Reagan's war on drugs stopped drug dealing in its tracks?)
The two party system problematizes the sublime ending that threatens us. One who votes Obama does so with the hope that he will deliver on his promises to concentrate his energies (and responsibly end) the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, relying on diplomacy to guide our additional entanglements with Iran, Russia, etc., and thereby avoid a US draft.
Micah once likened the Creative Lie to parents who leave out knives for young children to find ---> Enablers Of Disaster.
Is there an analogy we can draw here with voting in (voter responsibility for ensuing political events) McCain and the atomic warfare to follow when McCain (or whomever represents the neo-conservative party in the near future) expands the war to Iran and Russia as promised?
---> One votes this way all in the name of overturning Roe... even to the extinction of the species? Of course not, Revalation says...
Yes, but as the clip above suggests, we might not be a part of it.
posted by Nathaniel J Thompson on Tuesday, 08/26/08, 10:40 am
Leave your comments
by Bill Ekhardt
A stay at home dad, doctoral candidate and pastor setting aside the pulpit for a season to raise three children in Des Moines, IA.
