BARACK AND HILLARY - MY TAKE
People ask me what I think about the Democratic Race. I have lots of opinions. I believe the differences are extremely clear between these candidates - they are definitely not peas in the same pod, and they would not make good running mates.
Barack Obama looks a lot younger than he is. People love youth and vibrancy. He has a lot of organizational, teaching, and inspirational experience. Nonetheless, you HAVE to look behind the surface. He sponsored a boatload of bills which are telling in terms of how he thinks. I recommend everybody go on his website http://www.barackobama.com and go through his positions issue by issue. Do not base your decision on Barack's spirituality on what you hear on the 700 Club. Base it upon what you see him say on his website meant for general consumption. Just like if you want to know what Joel Osteen believes, don't watch his TV show. Watch a rerun of his telling interview meant for general consumption on Larry King's CNN show. See my post just prior to this one which has his landmark speech on faith verbatim. You pick up some basic fairness and a desire not to demonize faith per se, yet it is abundantly clear he does not believe the Bible, the words of Christ, or the need to be saved to avoid hell. He clearly equates different religions in the tradition of theological liberals, and finds his comfort zone with only those evangelicals who copycat the left such as Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis.
Barack has a high likability factor and he inspires confidence. He has run an amazing campaign and has raised a prodigious sum of money. While many greatly overestimate the power of the President, it is troubling that he even went left of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in opposing the Infants Born Alive Act.
In the plus side, his moderation on Health Care is much more realistic than what Hillary is proffering. However, other of his positions are clearly not economically viable. Many presidential candidates promise what they cannot deliver. Clearly, the message of CHANGE has not affected that longstanding tradition of both parties.
Barack's steadfast opposition to the Iraq War seems a bit of a moot point with the war essentially won. The moderating comments from his camp indicate a slower pace of withdrawal than many would assume from his speeches. Personally, I do not believe he would endanger our country.
Hillary is trying to position herself as the provider of all things good, but has given not one financial idea to pay for anything. Those who pay little or no taxes are naturally drawn to this Pied Piper. If she proved successful, it would push us into an economic crisis that would dwarf our current malaise.
Hillary's ideas on health care seem unchanged from fifteen years ago. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. When she compares us to other countries, she ignores the fact WE pay to protect those countries. Look at the GNP of Western Europe, of South Korea, and other countries. The US is burdened with the defense of the free world. Israel spends a lot, but still needs out help against their intractable enemies. The US cannot afford to spend the same as other nations - AND when we look even at that, these nations aren't affording it EITHER and are changing things. The rationing of care and the failure of other nations to offer new health solutions is telling. We MUST fix healthcare, but not create a BOONDOGGLE that would be disastrous. This is nothing new - Teddy Roosevelt proposed national health care a century ago.
Who would aver that health care would be as good as it is today had her been successful in that venture?
Hill has been all over the map on Iraq, and that alone in my mind disqualifies her. She simply changes with what she perceives the audience wants. That is the mark of a FOLLOWER, not a LEADER. Leaders lead - they inspire, they stick with the unpopular if it is the right thing to do. Imagine if Winston Churchill had listened to his opponents. The Brits would be speaking German today. If George W. Bush followed the polls, Saddam's minions would still be raping and killing Iraqi citizens. Above all, the President must LEAD, and must have the moral authority to do so.
This issue of moral authority is a major one. None of the candidates of either party appear very spiritual at all. However, when one must have moral authority, one must have moral underpinnings. One must have a firm idea of right and wrong. Hillary has taught Sunday School in the United Methodist Church, a denomination where there has been substantial compromise. Her positions bear no resemblance to Biblical ideas, so we must ask if it is not the Bible she is basing her decisions on, what is it?
I believe the late Murray Rothbard (and I am for real no Ron Paul supporter - they love this guy) had it right back in the early 1990's. I do not see things having changed - just the details. He says:
Now obviously, and of course, a lot of this is Hillary's drive to "reinvent" herself, that is, to create a duplicitous false image, to make herself less threatening to the angry American public. And surely the late nineteenth-century Social Gospelers would be horrified at the current multi-gendered, condomaniacal Clintonian left, to say nothing of the rapid revolving of poor John Wesley in his eighteenth-century English grave. But there is definitely a direct line of descent from the Methodist Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century to the St. Hillary and the monstrous Clintonian left. Mix into "old fashioned Methodism" liberal doses of Marxism, the New Left, the pagan pantheist New Age, and the multicultural and sexual revolutions, stir briskly. and you get the current ruling horror that we all face, and are trying to roll back out of our lives. We face, in short, regardless of what hairdo or persona she affects next week, the evil Witch in the White House.
I am afraid her "authority" is her own ideas, which do not have any moral authority behind them. Deep questions about her own sexual issues, the incontrovertible inconsistencies in the death of Vincent Foster, combined with the fact that her husband, a known serial adulterer would be in the White House and a major advisor to the President.
To many, the idea of a woman president is no big deal. It is a big deal to me. I personally do not believe it is a good idea. After all, God prohibited women from leading and directing the church. How would he then endorse them for leading the world? No Queen of Israel was righteous. The oft-cited example of Deborah was as a judge in a situation where men abdicated. There is a difference of constitution between men and women. It is not the tears she shed (whether accidentally or on purpose). Brett Favre cried much more than she did. I'm sure George Bush has cried many a tear. He wouldn't be human if he didn't. Crying is OK with me. What isn't is vacillation and emotion governing decisions being made. Women are simply not built for the stress than goes with that job. The men in it gray quickly. A well-seasoned person has a tough time with it. Hillary's overstated "experience" and qualifications mask to the uninformed the fact she never ran anything and has even failed to run a good campaign. Why would anyone put a person with that record in charge of the free world?