That is what I call, in literary terms, an attention grabber! Unfortunately, I do not mean John Fitzgerald Kennedy. John Kennedy was a visionary that truly motivated the American population without an empty promise of "change," but by delivering results to affirm his convictions. JFK, in the case of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, relates to John Forbes Kerry. The reason? Ever since Senator Clinton's long awaited dismissal, Barack Obama has done more flip flopping than a commercial fishing boat with a fresh catch.
Four years ago, I was caught up in the nostalgic idea of fundamental policy changes that I believed John Kerry would bring to the presidency. I, like so many others, disagreed with the Bush Administration on many ideas and policies that were forming his policies nationally and abroad. The situation reminds me of a quote by Winston Churchill. It states, ""If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain." At 20 years of age, I ran with the mindset of change and "anybody but Bush." Four years later, I've collected my emotions, decided what I value, and affiliated myself with common sense.
During this presidential election season, we have seen a candidate that will do anything to get elected. However, to Barack Obama and the hard left liberals, being the flavor of the day, week, month is the right road to the White House. There are those who flip flop on issues because they realize a faulty mistake in judgement, but then there are those who flip flop because of outcomes of the latest polls. Barack Obama falls into the latter.
Over the past weeks, Obama has flip flopped on four interesting foreign policy issues. And for being the "diplomat" he promotes, that isn't the most encouraging thought for the electorate. First, in his remarks to the Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama Said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, however, the very next day (because of Palestinian distress over the remarks) Obama declared that the future of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians. Second, Obama now claims that he will only meet with foreign leaders at a time of his choosing if it will advance U.S. interests, but previously said he would meet with rogue leaders his first year in office without preconditions. Kind of a big switch? That was then: "Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"...Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07" This is now: "Obama: "Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)" What a difference 11 months makes huh? Third, obama has pivoted in his opposition to legislation labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard a Terrorist Organization. However, in a pro-Israel crowd, he told them what they wanted to hears. "Obama's campaign suddenly discovered that their man -despite having spent the last nine months campaigning on his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman - 'has consistently urged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard be labeled what it is: a terrorist organization.' Well, not that consistently. Senator Obama has been scrupulously careful not to call explicitly for designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Now, however, with the Democratic nomination almost in hand, Obama feels comfortable telling a pro-Israel audience what it wants to hear."(Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08)." Four, Obama now claims that he opposed Palestinian elections in 2006, but he supported them at that time. With Obama, it is never about the positions, it is about the crowd.
Along with foreign policy, Obama has flip flopped on his "blueprint" for the Iraq War. Once a staunch opposition, Obama now talks a different game that has American troops in Iraq for AT LEAST 16 months and his agenda could change with increased violence and insurgency to the area. He has also blatantly lied to the American public on his goals for public financing. Barack has flip flopped his positions on NAFTA, the debacle of the Reverend Wright issue, the energy bill being proposed by the Bush Administration, abortion, Iran, Israel/Palestine, gun control, corporate taxes, and (I'm sure) more to come over the remaining 4+ months.
The primaries are the Democrats playing field. They can talk all the smack, push the most left agenda, and provide this empty hope of change. It never really changes. The interesting spectacle is when the nomination has been decided. That nominee ALWAYS, no matter how far left they dove, comes crawling back to the ideas and values of mainstream America. Case in point, Barack Obama.
If there was ever a case of putting your agenda first and the countries second, this is the guy. Now, I know John McCain has flip flopped on issues as well. Neither are a perfect candidate for their respective parties. However, one thing is dramatically different between these two men. John McCain does put his country first. In fact, what was once kept silenced by our left leaning media, John McCain has proven (on many important topics) to be far different than this Bush Administration. He continually puts the American people first when it comes to making the right decisions. He did as a military man, he did as a Senator for over 25 years, and he is as a presidential candidate for the 2008 election.
Barack Obama isn't the "Political Messiah" that our liberal media has portrayed him as. In fact, Obama most likely resembles a wolf in sheep's clothing that will do anything to swoon the flock. It is my hope that this great country will dance around the political machine that is missing a few important parts, and elect a man that will continue to uphold the values that this nation established almost 250 years ago.
God bless <><
10 comments:
Hey, my name is Joshua Elek, a friend of Carrie and Adam Babcock. Carrie sent me a link to your blog today because she knows I'm a staunch Barack supporter, and well, I guess I would like to respond.
I have not read a single policy of Barack Obama's with which you disagree. I have not read any policy of McCain's with which you actually agree. I have only seen you write about "flip-flops." Are we there again? Are we back to an intelligent American public being swayed by media representatives parsing verbs and nouns? That's all they do when they talk about flip-flops, I hope you can understand that. I know what follows is a long response, but please, let's examine what was written in this post.
First of all, I think it' important to explain what a "flip-flop" is. For a candidate to flip flop, he must say one thing, contradict himself, and then go back to his orginal statement. A simple example: First a candidate says, "I will drink milk." Then he says "I will never drink milk." Finally he says "I will always drink milk." When he said "I will never drink milk" the candidate flipped. When he then says "I will always drink milk" he has now flip-flopped. Candidates change their minds through the course of an election, and they must. If a candidate still thinks everything he thought when he started campaigning, he demonstrates that he is unteachable. However, candidates should not be able to say one thing, disagree, and then say that thing again. That is flip-flopping. Even if we agree with everything you have written (and I don't) you have not demonstrated a single instance in which Obama has flip-flopped. But I don't agree that Obama has even flipped as much as your post implies.
The first of the four points in which Obama "flip-flopped" is whether or not Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Jerusalem. Obama said that he thinks Jerusalem should not be split. And still has the wherewithall to understand that it's not his choice. Regardless of his preference, the Jerusalem decision should be made by the people living there, not by a US President. Of course, the media will point out that one time he said Jerusalem shouldn't be split, and then he said Israel and Palestine should work it out. What they don't say is that in each circumstance, Obama has the same position. I don't believe he "flip-flopped" here, he merely is saying that his preference doesn't rule the day in the Middle East. The last time our president claimed that his preference should rule the day in the Middle East, we shocked and awed Baghdad. I'm in favor of Barack here.
The second "flip-flop" was regarding Obama's willingness to meet with our enemies "without precondition." If you are familiar with the situation, such preconditions would include increasing human rights, agreeing to cease fires, etc. Barack basically said that he would meet with our enemies even if they are doing things we don't like. A policy I heartily agree with. (The silent treatment policy of McCain and Bush has not stopped either of our most dangerous enemies from acquiring nuclear weaponry... so I can't see how it's working.) "Without preconditions" did not imply that Barack would leap out of bed and meet with our enemies because they rang him on the phone. "Scheduling" was not precondition the precondition the questioner was discussing. To state that Barack choosing a time to meet with Iran means he "flip-flopped" on the precondition clause is sort of silly. He is still quite willing to meet with Iran without preconditions. Stating that Barack "flip-flopped" by saying he won't meet with them if it's not good for the US assumes the hard-line position that meeting with your enemies is bad for us. Barack believes talking to your enemies is good for US policy. He is still quite willing to meet with our enemies without precondition. You just have to understand what preconditions are.
The third "flip-flop" is Obama's desire to label Iran's national guard as a terrorist organization. I did not hear Obama say that he wants to or does not want to label them as a terrorist organization. I'm not familiar with this debate, and it's not very clear from your post what Barack has said at all. It's merely clear that some reporters have labelled his remarks as flip-flops. You wrote that "Obama is telling a pro-Israel audience what it wants to hear." But you don't ever say that once he said that he has changed his stance on the IRGC. Even if he did, so what. Candidates SHOULD flip on some things through a campaign. They should not go back and forth, but they SHOULD admit when they got something wrong.
What did Obama actually say about the labelling of the IRGC? Maybe he did flip, I honestly don't know. But I honestly don't care. I don't care if my politician has changed his mind on an issue, I want to know what he's going to do. What is his policy?
Now, about Obama's "flip-flop" on the Iraq war. Obama still says that we will withdraw troops, end the war, and remove our men from harm's way. However, if Iraq is no longer dangerous to American lives, we will keep a police force there. Much like we keep men in Korea now. Barack still promises an end to the war in Iraq. He still wants to make Iraqis take care of Iraqis. He hasn't flip-flopped, he still promises to end the war. More than McCain has been willing to do for sure. I don't care if he said once that we would take all the troops out and now he says we'll leave a police force in, because I don't care if we keep a police force in Iraq. I care that this war ends. And Obama wants to end it. I have not heard McCain say he wants to end the war, I've heard him say he wants to "win" it. We "won" the cold war, now look at Russia and Afghanistan. Turns out winning at all costs isn't always the best solution. Let's talk about how to end the war, not just how to win it.
Further, I'm uncertain as to when Obama lied to the American public about his goals for public financing. This is the one I am most surprised at. I know that in a debate, Obama was asked if he would accept public funds, and he said yes. Now that he can run for president without taking part in the corrupt system of publicly funded elections, he has decided not to do so. I have not heard him go back to saying "yes. Now I will accept public funds." I know that John McCain himself once supported raising funds as Obama is currently doing. During the success of the Howard Dean fundraisers McCain said "that's how campaigns should be run". McCain himself agrees with the way Obama is raising money. Sure, he's a little threatened by it, but he supports it. Or at least he did once. And if he no longer does support it, ok. He's changed his mind. He's allowed.
Again, who cares what the candidates said, let's examine the policies themselves. One policy takes a dollar from a million americans. Another takes a million dollars from an oil company, a pharmaceutical company, a gun company, etc. (Yes, this is an oversimplification, but it's not far off.)
Which POLICY do you favor? Let's not talk about parsing nouns and verbs, let's talk about who is funding these campaigns. Of course, McCain's camp doesn't want you to talk about that, so they cry "flip-flop" and you write a blog post. Don't you see it's working? Has anyone found out who contributes to the McCain campaign?
I don't know in what manner Obama flip-flopped on NAFTA, or the energy bill, or abortion, or Iran, or the Israel/Palestine debate, or gun control, or corporate taxes. And from the post, I'm not sure you know either. Maybe you could be specific?
I actually see why Barack could be labelled to have flip-flopped on Jeremiah Wright. But, let us not pretend that Wright was Obama's issue. Wright was not even affiliated with Obama at the time. He was an unconnected man from Obama. Let's not pretend that Wright has anything to do with Obama's thoughts and policies. The Jeremiah Wright issue was a non-issue. Nowhere in the entire debate did a single one of Obama's beliefs and policies come under fire. All they managed to find was that someone who Barack used to be connected to said that God should not bless America for dropping nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. (Or have you not heard the entire sermon?) Again, we're not talking about policies. We're not even talking about Obama!
All in all, this post is disappointing. It does not examine a single strength of McCain. It does not examine a single weakness of Obama. It does not look into any single one of the issues that endanger our country right now, it merely regurgitates word parsing and spin control by the media. I urge you to stop listening to what people say about the things candidates say. Actually listen to the policies of Obama and McCain.
I don't care if you vote for McCain. I don't care if you hate Barack Obama. I just want you to vote for someone because you agree with his policies. Not because you heard someone say "flip-flop" and it left you wounded from your last political vote.
Please, write something about the issues. Not the spin.
I couldn't have said or written this any better!! TERRIFIC JOB!! Aunt Sue
Joshua,
Nice to meet you too :/
Politics are a hobby of mine. Most of my free time is spent watching, reading, discussing political matters that are relevant to our times. In the case of the voting public, I would call myself above-average when it comes to being well-versed on political issues. Based on the tone of your comment, I will graciously excuse your lack of faith in my intellect regarding your erroneous claim that I only read from the headlines.
A blog, like many of us use, is a medium that I choose to use to share my thoughts, opinions, and experiences. I am not, in the least bit, trying to satisfy or dissatisfy anyone. In fact, I wasn’t aware of any apparent rules regarding the blogging world. If a quantitative debate between “myself and I” regarding the two candidates, position by position, would have been your preferred read…I’m sorry I wasted your time. I disagree with the hype that is Barack Obama, and I have made it my mission to uncover his true character and policy agenda during this election season. I originally supported Mike Huckabee. After he bowed out, I decided to support the next best person who aligned with my values regarding this country. That person is John McCain.
I find it interesting that you have, in your own response, done exactly what you were slapping me on the wrist for. You bash my opinion, which is important to note here, and find faults without ever expressing your own rebuttal to the points made.
Your statement, “First of all, I think it' important to explain what a "flip-flop" is.” This was followed by a definition of a mistake of judgement. The true definition of a “flip-flop” is, simply, a U-turn. A sudden real or apparent change of policy or opinion by a public official, sometimes while trying to claim that both positions are consistent with each other. Just to clear the air.
Listen, I’m going to make this as simplistic as possible since you seem to already know me, my intelligence, and my worldview regarding politics: I am NOT supporting Barack Obama because as a Christian Man, a Family Man, an American Man, and a Man of Judgement, he stands for issues and policies that I feel are dangerous to that of which I am.
Since, I have not fulfilled your blogging appetite; here are a few reasons that I DO NOT support Barack Obama. First, the issue of abortion.
Obama has been a leading political voice for the Pro-Choice movement. He recently supported and put his name to legislation called the Born Alive Act, which says that babies born alive and healthy in the case of an abortion must not be given any medical attention to aide in their survival. With 1.4 million abortions conducted in the United States each YEAR, Obama is pushing an agenda that is degrading our societies potential. He argues that abortion is a women’s choice because of incest, rape, medical issues, etc. However, 0.33 percent of abortions are due to rape and incest, 1.2 percent due to medical issues, and 98+ percent are done because of personal choice.
Obama on foreign policy. Since you provided a simplistic example, I will too. Let’s first talk about the issue of an enemy. You nor I, hopefully, have any enemies to the effect in which the United States does. We could easily sit down with an “enemy” and set foundations for a better relationship, because in most cases, that which separates us is trivial. However, in the United States case, we have enemies (Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc.) who have on numerous cases throughout the years used our name in relation to death, extinction, beast, devil, extermination, slaughter, etc. When we sit down with this kind of enemy, what are we trying to accomplish? Do we want them to kind of want to kill us? Do we want them to maybe want to slaughter us? Do we want them to possibly wipe us off the map? This isn’t a battle of what you got I want, this is a battle of what you have I do not want to even exist. How do you negotiate that? Barack Obama wants to take the liberal approach and put everyone on a psychiatrist’s couch and talk about their problems. Then, the liberals put the idea that the current type of foreign policy is all Bush’s fault. This type of policy has been going on since the 1950’s. In fact, most of this type of diplomacy happened in the administrations of Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. Thus, there is no political argument. We cannot give into the radical fundamentalist philosophy and negotiate, talk, discuss with the despots of this world.
Obama on the Iraq War/War on Terror. Iraq is no longer a win or lose situation. It is a stability situation. Not only for the free world, but for the region itself. Obama wants to immediately withdraw troops from a region that is a hotbed for insurgency, terrorist propaganda, and a country that cannot even police itself. There is a faction, believe it or not, in this world that will do anything to undermined the United States and everything it stands for. The Talibans and Al-Qaidas of this world want nothing more than to see us fail. To see this growing sect of Islam triumphantly defeat such a giant, and the scary thing is, they believe this can happen. Whether that is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or somewhere else that is yet to be determined. This isn’t about saving face and admitting logistical mistakes, this is about promoting a free world. I cannot trust a presidential candidate that goes for years saying that an immediate dismal from Iraq would occur on his first day in office to at least 16 months or we’ll have to see what happens in the resulting sectarian violence. That is unsettling.
Just a few other “issues” to touch on. Obama’s current election proposals would generate another 3.3 trillion dollars of debt to the U.S. government. His proposal to increase payroll taxes. Increase taxes on those who make over 200,000, which includes many small business and franchises. Whenever we hear the word “increase” associated with taxes, we should be weary as Americans. We are already overworked, underpaid, over taxed, and we cannot have a presidential candidate claiming to give a fix all with our money. I disagree with him about his stance on same-sex marriage. I dislike his ties to Tony Rezko and Reverend Wright. This IS an issue. Reverend Wright was not one sound bite. He preaches at an Afro-centric church that, for the past 20 years in which Obama has been a member, preached oppression and racist toned sermons. Since when did the church start preaching about the promotion of disunity instead of unity? Shouldn’t we be preaching about Christ and how to repeat his life? Again, his lie on public financing. His u-turn on the stance of NAFTA. His desire to live in a gun-free society which breaks our right to bear arms.
I support John McCain because he obviously differs on these issues. Why would I waste my time to give basically the opposite position? I support him because he vows to cut spending and has pledged to not increase taxes during a one to two term presidency. He understands, through over 40 years of military and political experience dealing with military issues, what is at stake in our War on Terror. He shares most of the same social stances that I do regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.
To conclude, I hope this clears things up for you and my position regarding my thoughts on Obama and his issues. I guess I could have done this the first time, but…why? Remember, a blog isn’t a forum, it is a personal communication tool.
Forgive my misunderstanding concerning your blog. I blog hoping that others will read it, and really hoping that someone will comment. I guess that means I blog hoping for a forum, I guess I shouldn't assume that everyone does so.
I take your point, you are not obliged to discuss the things that I want you to discuss. I'm sorry that my response came across asking for that. I meant to request that you base your vote on issues that are important to you. Your follow-up comment has demonstrated that you are doing just that.
Also, I apologize if you felt as though I was calling you simple-minded. I do not pretend to know your mind, I did not mean to imply knowledge of your political worldview. I meant to comment on the post itself, which in my mind, did not examine the issues themselves.
In the long run, it's obvious that you and I disagree. And that's ok. I love that we are both committed Christian people who disagree so passionately. Such disagreements demonstrate the true depth of Christianity.
Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying here, but it sounds like you are voting for John McCain because he supports gun rights, which you also support. He has a foreign policy which views talking with evil despots as dangerous, with which you agree. He is also against abortion, vows for not to raise taxes, and opposes same-sex marriage all of which you agree with. You also want to vote for the candidate who has the most military experience.
Ok. I just disagree with some of those things. I think the second amendment clearly says that we have the right to bear arms in order to keep a well regulated militia. Seeing as we have the strongest army in the world, I would say we have a well regulated militia. The current gun laws, and our current cultural practices, do nothing to promote a well regulated state militia. I see the current gun legislation as beyond the original aim of the constitution, and therefore I do not support it. (In the interests of self-disclosure, I am also a pacifist.)
We clearly disagree about talking with evil empires. Please do not assume this is due to my lack of understanding. We simply have a different belief regarding the effectiveness of diplomacy. I believe fifty years of exclusionary diplomacy has achieved little to nothing to stop men like Ahmadinejad, Jong-il, Castro, and Chavez. I welcome a new approach.
I support taxing small business owners. Such a tax would not only tax small business owners, it would also tax people like my cousin-in-law the CFO of Shell Gasoline global management. We are over taxed. But the 2% at the top of the American earnings bracket are dramatically undertaxed. It just so happens that many of the people writing tax laws are also in that upper 2%. I support a shift in such tax policy.
Contrarily, I also support small government. However, seeing as Republicans have done little to nothing to appreciably reduce the size of our government, I can no longer vote for someone on the clearly mistaken belief that he or she will appreciably reduce the size of our government.
I understand that Obama's practices will result in a tax hike. I would also like to point out that the Iraq War has been fought on credit. We are deeply in the red as a result of a program for which no taxes have been raised. I do not view this as a successful economic strategy. If John McCain indeed does not raise taxes, this debt will increase by leaps and bounds in four or eight years due mainly to interest. I do not support such accrued debt. Either candidate will have to pay for this war, and it will be nearly impossible to do so without raising the money. It will be nearly impossible to raise the money without raising taxes.
I actually support same-sex marriage. I do not believe these unions should be supported by the Christian church, but I do not see anything in our US Constitution which prohibits the US from sanctioning such unions. In fact, I think the civil liberties in our constitution do far more to grant these rights than they do to undermine them. Prohibiting the government from offering these unions would severely undermine our civil liberty laws as they currently appear in the constitution. Here, I assume, we disagree.
I disagree with pro-choice. My whole life I have voted for candidates who are pro-life, and I have yet to see any of them move toward revoking Roe V. Wade. To me, this is a non-issue because America is so sufficiently polarized that neither group will achieve ground here. I support pro-life agenda but cannot support a candidate who is willing to sacrifice thousands of men to war, but has a philosophical disagreement with the murder of thousands of children. If John McCain vowed to end abortion I would vote for him. But he won't do anything about it, so I can't give him my vote because of abortion.
All in all, you and I are just different. We have different opinions that probably will not be altered through this dialogue. We can merely respect each other's differences and evaluate why two men so deeply committed to the same Book would view things so differently. It's question worth asking.
I certainly mean no offense, and clearly my response was taken as at least a little bit offensive. I apologize for this. I did not mean to pretend to know you, and everything you think. I didn't mean to insinuate that you were not intelligent. I did not mean to claim that you only read the headlines. I meant to comment on your post. I meant that your post indicated you disliked Obama for "flip-flopping" (we can't even agree on the definition of the word). I meant that your post was simplistic, and did not consider the issues at hand, but was in my mind a mistaken perception that Obama flip-flopped a lot. My comment was intended to clarify what I believe a flip-flop is, and demonstrate that Obama had not done this.
I apologize for sounding as if I were commenting on you personally, I merely meant to discuss what you wrote.
Thank you for dignifying my comment with a response. I look forward to reading more from your blog.
WAY TO GO RYAN!!!!!!! Perfectly stated - and perfectly accurate!! We are very proud of the "stand" you have taken and for the christian way that you think and live your life!! GOOD FOR YOU!!
Love,
Mom & Dad H.
Joshua,
No problem. And you are correct, we can agree to disagree. That's the beauty of America.
I just wanted to comment on one issue that you mentioned. The issue of John McCain sending men to war. Unfortunately, I think either man will be led into a military movement involving the continuation in Iraq and/or a breakdown in the situation involving Iran. Or, even situations that have not yet unfolded. Obama may be the best negotiator in the world, but in the case of these ruthless regimes, I do not think any of that much matters. It's just the sign of the times. I'm reminded of a quote by Orwell that states, "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." I think the key phrase in that quote is "to visit violence." Global terrorism is a real, concrete threat and I think America should be on her toes and not with her back turned. I hate war more than the next guy. I hate death because of war more than the next guy. But, I value my freedoms that so many of us take for granted and I know that there are some sacrifices that will have to be made to aquire or restore those freedoms. I just wish more people realized what side of the tide they were on.
Whatever the outcome, God will have His way. I'm just doing my part to make it easier on Him ;)
Agape
Two final observations that I omitted. First, Obama's stance on Universal Healthcare. The overhaul to this program, nationally, would be a HUGE expense. It would also give us more restrictions on our healthcare, drive up premiums, cut competition, and be an overall mess. What they need to do is regulate medical insurance and malpractice cases. That is the root of our affordability problems.
Second, you say abortion is a non-issue. But, I will contend that it is a huge reason. You mention men dying in Iraq because of the War. What are we at now? Around 5,000 deaths? Not to downplay any of those deaths, but it is the lowest wartime death total in any conflict during U.S. history. However, you support someone that willingly supports the death of 1.4 million people per year. So from the beginning of the war, in reality, John McCain has been supportive of a war that has killed 5,000 men and women while Barack Obama supports a CHOICE that has killed over 6 million people in that same time span. That, in itself, is enough to NOT vote for him.
Well, again, we disgree. War for me is unacceptable. I agree that diplomacy with Iran may degrade into a conflict. But I am not willing to concede that redemption is possible in this situation. Not to sound too religious here, but I believe in the power of Christ even as it relates to Ahmadinejad. His grace is so overwhelming, I think it could transform him, and men like Bin Laden. There is still hope for their redemption.
I just don't see any words of Christ that would condone a visit to violence. His actions, and his speeches all asked us to refuse violence. When we find our freedoms infringed upon, we are to give our cloak to the man. I know that many say this policy does not play out on a national scale, but I cannot help being a pacifist. I see it as the logical conclusion of Christ's teachings. I will condone anyone who will stop men from killing men.
You point out the weakness in this argument. Namely the abortion issue. Like I said, if McCain would do anything about the thousands of lives that will be lost during his term through abortion, he will get my vote. But McCain will do nothing to stop these deaths. And I think of the two candidates, Obama is less likely to lead our nation into another war. At the end of the day, I think Obama's presidency will result in fewer lost lives.
You may disagree, saying that a weak foreign policy will result in nuclear attacks on our soil. I agree that is possible. But I have to put my hopes in diplomacy.
On the same hand, McCain was largely responsible for the diplomatic negotiations at the end of the Vietnam war. Maybe he can do the same thing with Iran. But I have yet to hear him proclaim a desire to exercise such diplomacy. And Ahmadinejad is listening to the same news as I am. So, I can only assume Ahmadinejad views McCain as unworkable, and Obama as a man with whom peace may be struck. That's my hope. It may be misplaced, but I hope for peace through diplomacy. I don't mean to imply that McCain does not want peace through diplomacy, I simply mean that as a result of their campaign rhetoric, I believe Obama would be better at negotiating such peace.
I'm enjoying the dialog here; I think it's really healthy when two, three ten etc. Christians can disagree but more importantly, talk about why they disagree and not just dismiss and label eachother. Thank you Ryan, Josh and Rachel for doing that here.
Ryan C.
Oops, apparently I was still logged into my wife's account when I wrote that last comment. Sorry, didn't mean to confuse anyone.
Post a Comment