The anti-Obama Christian bloggers

One of the more painful things I have had to read in the past few weeks has been the growing chorus of panic and dismay amongst Christian Bloggers who are going crazy over the prospect of a Barack Obama/Democrat victory.

I have had to remove one Christian blogger from my bookmarks because the standard of his writing now befits that of a propaganda apparatchik. Lee Grady, the editor for Charisma magazine, has also gone ballistic over Obama and has also found himself removed from my bookmarks.

Look - it's not that supporting McCain/Palin and the Republicans is the issue. The issue is when Obama/Biden and the Democrats become agents of the devil who will destroy America.

There's also the sources that these bloggers use that is concerning. When reporting events they tend to link to Drudge, Worldnet daily, neo-con commentators, Townhall and other "reliable" sources of information. This is not to say that "the MSM" are wonderfully accurate - but the fact is that "the MSM" depends upon more readers and watchers and there is a greater element of responsible veracity in "the MSM" than there is among Right-wing rumour sources.

I honestly think many of these Christian bloggers are bearing false witness by repeating the lies that they have heard without checking them properly. Moreover, they speak so badly of Obama that they come close to Jesus' warning about those who speak evil of others being just as bad as murderers.

This is not to say, of course, that it is somehow wrong for Christians to be critical of politicians. A casual perusal of this blog will show you my opinion of George W. Bush, John Howard and others. By contrast to the "Obama is evil" Christian bloggers, I have spoken kindly about John McCain and tried to examine his religious beliefs more objectively. In regards to Sarah Palin, I gave as objective a summary of her background at first, and then spent considerable time examining and then debunking many of the smears on her character that appeared soon after her VP nomination. Yet I do not think the McCain/Palin ticket is the better solution.

In short, I have not demonised McCain/Palin in the same way that Christian bloggers have demonised Barack Obama.

Moreover, I have to say that I am starting to get concerned about where this will lead. Polls suggest a much greater chance of an Obama win than a McCain win, which means that a situation might arise in which a great number of angry, terrified Christians are faced with an Obama White House and a Pelosi/Reid Congress.

What will these Christians do? Hopefully they will settle down, look back at what they believed in the lead up to his victory and then begin to exmaine their beliefs more objectively. Unfortunately, given the propensity of American Christians to be convinced that fiction is fact (eg Harry Potter and Satanism) I don't think this is going to happen. I'm worried, though, that violence may occur in response to an Obama/Reid/Pelosi victory as Christians take up the arms guaranteed by the constitution, refuse to pay taxes and begin overt resistance to the world of evil that they believe exists in the form of Obama and the Democrats.

I'm an Evangelical Christian. That means I do believe in the spirit world, including the existence of Satan. At the moment, though, I would guess that Satan is hiding more behind the actions of out of control American Christians than behind Barack Obama. If violence does ensue after the election - violence backed by and instigated by Christians - it will be the worst thing to happen to the church since the Spanish Inquisition. This time, however, at least I am expecting it.

Dear God, I do not pray for an Obama victory. Neither do I pray for a McCain victory. I pray that whomever you have sovereignly chosen to occupy the White House will be a man whose actions and policies make America and the world a better and more peaceful place. I pray that your church maintain its faith in you through this process and not be tempted by the excesses of any political belief they may hold, whether that be "politically conservative" or "progressive" in nature. Give your church a desire for personal holiness, an enthusiasm for your Word, the Bible, and a focus upon Christ on the cross, the empty tomb and the prospect of his eventual return. Amen.

McCain suffering from TIA?

I personally haven't seen any videos showing McCain's behaviour lately, but a doctor weighed in over at Americablog on McCain's "confusion":

I actually viewed the bumbling around the stage episode on TV while I was leaning over a patient today - and was somewhat concerned. In light of the fact that this occurred just seconds after the facial issues that you documented in the other video is very very disturbing. Let me put it like this. If I had seen a 70-75 year old man do that in front of me in the emergency room - that gentleman would be immediately admitted for what is known as a TIA. This is a mini-stroke that often comes before a big huge one. It is likely that if this occurred - Senator McCain may have realized something was wrong - and immediately began looking for an exit. This bumbling lost behavior followed by the initial onset of the symptoms is very commonly described by family members witnessing such events. Regardless, he should be admitted to the hospital for observation - ruled out for strokes with tests - and possibly be immediately begun on certain meds to attempt to abort any other such attacks.

...

I showed this video to 3 colleagues today - AND a neurologist - all of us agreed - this is concerning and should be immediately evaluated. It is, however, impossible to make medical diagnosis via a video - unless you are Bill Frist or Tom Coburn. I would caution you to be careful about making any insinuations about his medical condition based on just that alone. However, I am concerned enough about what I saw of Senator McCain today that he should be seeing a doctor immediately.

Nice to see that there is a disclaimer note in the last paragraph. I'm hoping this is just a beat-up (deliberately or accidentally) perpetrated by lefty-bloggers because to hope they are right would make me less than a normal human being.

McCain, Money and Mondale

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows my distaste for the US Republican Party. This distaste has been present ever since George W. Bush won the 2000 election. This does not mean that I am a partisan Democratic supporter, but it does mean that, at present, I honestly believe that the best choice America has in November is Obama and Biden.

The fact is that I will support whatever party has the better policies or the better record or a combination of both. Back in 1996 I voted for John Howard and the Liberal Party (which is, ironically, Australia's conservative party) because the Labor Government under Paul Keating was philosophically bankrupt and, despite 13 years of economic reform, had not been fiscally responsible. My support for John Howard evaporated after 2000 when he began to implement racist policies and use the fear generated by 9/11 for political gain. Joining in the 2003 invasion of Iraq was another problem for me.

So my support for the Democratic Party and Obama has nothing really to do with partisanship. I am sure that I would support the Republican Party at other times if their history since 1981 was different. Having said that, I will state now that a McCain/Palin victory in November may possibly end in disaster.

I personally have no beef with John McCain, and the only thing that really worries me about Sarah Palin is whether or not she is capable of being America's president in case McCain goes to meet his maker. The policies of John McCain, though, are problematic - specifically his tax cutting program.

I have seen a comparison of Obama's and McCain's tax plan and McCain gives the biggest tax cuts by far. Obama gives bigger tax cuts to lower income earners than McCain, while increasing the taxes of those on higher incomes, with the end result being a small net tax cut.

For many conservatives, the idea of a tax cut is wonderful news. The problem is that McCain, along with Obama, has yet to explain how such a tax cut will impact government spending. I am of the belief that any tax cut should be met by a corresponding cut in government spending. I am also of the belief that if anyone wants to increase government spending, then taxes must rise as well.

The problem is that, for the last 25 years, the Republican Party has been dominated more or less by Supply-side economics, a form of "voodoo economics" which believes that tax cuts fund themselves by stimulating economic growth and generating more tax revenue. While there is some truth to be found in the more intellectual corners of this economic system, it has resulted in a simplistic and effective myth -  that the government should just keep cutting taxes.

After 25 or more years, popular supply-side economics has resulted in nothing but large federal government deficits. Ronald Reagan's big tax cuts in the 1980s were followed by increased tax revenue but also a corresponding increase in public debt. It was not until George H.W. Bush raised taxes after his "read my lips" promise that Supply side economics began to lose its influence. But by that stage, the damage had been done and the US government was deeply in debt.

Such was the loss of standing of Supply side economics that Republicans during the 1990s returned to a more traditional economic stance. Whatever I may have disliked about the Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich and their government shutdowns and impeachments, the fact was that they worked with the Clinton administration to balance the budget - a process that eventually led to surpluses near the end of Clinton's presidency.

Unfortunately, the Republican congress under Bush enthusiastically returned to the populist appeal of tax cutting. The result has been astounding, with public debt increasing dramatically. The recent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout will see a substantial increase to this level of debt. The current recession in the United States will also result in lower tax revenues.

So, fiscal irresponsibility + Fannie and Freddie Bailout + recession equals a federal government with a massive debt burden that will most likely exceed any comparative level of net debt in peacetime US history.

Of course, for regular readers, this warning of mine is nothing new. So why am I repeating the fiscal alarm all over again? It is because I believe that a McCain/Palin administration will continue the fiscal irresponsibility started under Bush. Moreover, the inaction of the Democratic-party dominated congress (elected in 2006) has allowed the situation to deteriorate. If the White House continues to be Republican, there is little chance that a Democratic Congress will have the testicular fortitude to stand up to him and pass economically sensible bills.

The only real chance for fiscal responsibility to return to Washington is for a Democratically controlled Congress and White House. Republicans have proven themselves too attached to Supply side economics for the past 25 years (with the notable exception of the Gingrich years) while the Democrats have not.

This is not to say that the Democrats (Obama and congress) won't make a hash of the economy between 2009 and 2012 - I'm just saying that they are less likely to ruin the economy than one in which Republicans control the White House during that period.

Hard decisions must be made in 2009 about the federal budget. Loaded down with increasing amounts of debt, congress and the president must pass spending bills that will ensure that revenue exceeds spending - or at least a bill that will return the budget to surplus over a number of years. In order to do this, taxes must be raised or spending must be cut or some combination of both.

But herein lies the problem. If taxes are to be raised, won't that hurt the economy? And if spending is to be cut, which government departments should suffer the most cuts? Given the massive expansion in military spending since 2003 and the inefficiencies that run through it, and also given the fact that other federal government departments are so small in comparison (completely closing down NASA and the Department of Education won't be enough to stop a big deficit), then whoever sits in the White House next year will have a very unenviable task. What should next year's president do?

Given the nature of the Republican Party, it is unlikely that McCain and Palin will raise taxes or cut military spending. At most, they will probably cut back on other expenses (like NASA or Education), a process that will simply not be enough to return the federal government to a fiscally sound position - to say nothing for the damage that such cuts would make to important government services. The result of a McCain/Palin White House is therefore likely to be one in which the federal debt gets larger and larger - a process that will lead America further into economic decline.

On the other hand, an Obama/Biden White house along with a Democratic Congress is far more likely to make painful but necessary decisions. I'm not saying that this is a given, but I am saying that it is more likely.

Which brings to mind the prophetic words of 1984 Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale. When discussing the Reagan tax cuts and the deficits that had resulted from them, Mondale said these fateful words:

By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did.

Reagan won the election in a landslide, mainly due to the perception that Mondale was a "tax and spend" Democrat. Yet, in hindsight, Mondale's words have come back to haunt the Republican Party and the memory of Reagan. Supply side economics was still in its ascendency during the Reagan years and people had not yet begun to suffer its negative effects. Now that Supply side economics has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be unworkable and ultimately damaging to an economy, the time has come to pay the price for political expediency and financial stupidity.

It was over ten years ago that The Simpsons episode "Trash of the Titans" was aired. In that episode, Homer becomes Springfield's sanitation commissioner, defeating the incumbent Ray Patterson (voiced by Steve Martin), and promises a lot of crazy things for the people of Springfield. Homer's policies soon end up bankrupting his department and completely ruining the city. When Ray Patterson is unanimously voted back in as sanitation commissioner, he gives this wonderfully short speech:

Oh gosh. You know, I'm not much on speeches, but, it's so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye.

I can't help but think of comparing Walter Mondale to Ray Patterson here. Twenty-four years after his abysmal failure in the 1984 presidential election, Mondale could probably be justified in repeating Ray Patterson's short speech.

The Basic problem - experience

, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/9c12DfJ_J2A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9c12DfJ_J2A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" id="">

I have to agree with Carville on this one. I'm beginning to realise how good James Carville is when facts are on his side (as opposed to other occasions of course).

What if Bristol were black?

From the department of It's okay if you're a Republican?

Christian-right leaders and conservative stalwarts have praised the decision of Bristol Palin, the daughter of Governor Sarah Palin, to carry her child to term. She is 17 and conceived this child out of wedlock. Now imagine she wasn't the daughter of a prominent Republican politician but an average person. Now imagine she was black.

What do you think conservatives would have to say about her? "Typical, urban youth with no sense of responsibility raised with loose morals who plans to depend on the state to take care of her child." You know it. It's not within dispute. That's exactly what they would say.

Barack Obama has told everyone to lay off this because it is a personal, family matter. Yes, but it also has public policy ramifications. Governor Palin is for abstinence only education. Well, that obviously didn't work.

Has she learned her lesson? Will she now amend her policy position on this matter given her personal record of failure in implementing this ridiculous stance?

Notice I am not blaming Bristol. Quite the opposite. People like me are the ones that defend the Bristols of the world. It is conservatives like James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and yes, Governor Palin who usually attack people who find themselves in Bristol's situation. They demand a dogmatic adherence to moral strictures and chastise and belittle women who have children out of wedlock. Especially if they are women of color.

Which brings us back to Obama. Do you think the Republicans would lay off of Obama if his 17 year-old daughter had gotten pregnant out of wedlock? You know the answer to that question. Everyone does.

"This is what the permissive liberal attitude gets you. If you allow your children to think everything is acceptable, they have no boundaries. They wind up getting themselves in trouble like this. It's a predictable result of the liberal lifestyle."

And that's before the subtle and not so subtle racial implications are brought into this. There is a constant double-standard of how black and white people and politicians are covered in this country. When a young black girl gets pregnant, she's looking to get money from welfare. When a young white woman gets pregnant, she made an unfortunate mistake and her family is being supportive in trying to help the make the best of it.

Cindy McCain was addicted to drugs and stole from her own charity to feed her addiction. Now what do you think the Republicans would have done if Michelle Obama had done that? How do you think the press would have covered it? You think they would have called it a simple mistake and moved on?

When presented with these examples, no matter who you are, you know in your heart that this double standard exists. All of this is not said to condemn Bristol Palin or Cindy McCain. This is to get you to think twice about your own assumptions about the next time you hear a story of a young African-American woman who got pregnant in the inner city or a minority who got addicted to drugs and committed a crime to feed that addiction.

There but for the grace of God go Bristol Palin and Cindy McCain.

Here's Bill O'Reilly in December 2007:

On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet.

Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves.

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the family, said in January this year:

...the number of working mothers who think a full-time job is the ideal arrangement for them has dropped more than 10 percent in the last decade — a reflection, one must assume, of a renewed realization that nothing is more important than being there for your kids.

James Dobson, in "The New Dare To Discipline", blames the supposed crumbling of “moral values” and “anarchy that is now rumbling through the midsection of democracy” on working mothers and “permissiveness.”

Is John McCain a Christian?

This is in response to comment on my previous article on John McCain. During the Saddleback forum, there was this section:

Warren
You publicly say you are a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you and how does faith work out in your life on a daily basis? What does it mean to you?

McCain
Means I'm saved and forgiven and we're talking about the world. Our faith emcompasses not just the United States of America but the world. Can I tell you another story real quick? (goes on to plagiarise Alexander Solzhenitsyn).

At no point during this conversation does McCain say anything specific about Jesus. He doesn't talk about sin or judgement or repentance and faith. He says "I'm saved and forgiven" but that is not enough to determine whether or not he is a Christian.

Now, what about Obama's response to the same question?

Obama
As a starting point, it means I believe in that Jesus died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. I know that I don't walk alone, and I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis hopefully will be washed away. But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words but through deeds the expectations that God has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these. It means acting - well, acting justly and loving mercy and walking humbly with our God. And that, I think trying to apply those lessons on a daily basis knowing that you are going to fall a little bit short each day and kind of trying to be able to take note and say, well, that didn't quite work out the way I think it should have but maybe I can get a little better. It gives me the confidence to try things including running for president where are you going to screw up once in a while.

A far more substantial answer than what McCain would give. He talks explicitly about what sin is (though not terribly well) and says that Jesus died for them so that he could be redeemed. His extended response then talks about the struggles of repentance. This almost makes me think that Obama is a Christian. Almost.

As the McCain interview progresses, we get another hint at McCain's beliefs:

Warren
How about the issue of evil? I asked this of your rival in the previous thing. Does evil exist and if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it or defeat it?

McCain
Defeat it. Couple points, one, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I follow him to the gates of hell I will get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do that. I will get that done. No one should be allowed to take thousands of American - innocent American lives. Of course evil must be defeated. My friends we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century, radical Islamic extremists (branches into talking about Al Qaeda and Iraq).

So. Nothing there about Satan. Nothing there about Jesus Christ defeating him at the cross. Nothing there about taking up the spiritual armour of God. At no point does McCain use this question to further explain any Christian beliefs he may have. Strangely enough, this was Obama's response to the same question:

Warren
Okay we've got one last time - I've got a bunch more about let me ask you one in evil. Does evil exist and if it does do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?

Obama
Evil does exist. I mean, we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil sadly on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who have viciously abused their children and I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task. But we can be soldiers in that process and we can confront it when we see it.

So while McCain focuses solely upon Islamic terrorism as a definition of evil, Obama's response is more rounded. Rather than seeing evil just in one simple emotive subject, Obama expands it. Moreover, Obama even says that defeating evil is not our job, it is God's job. Of course Obama doesn't go on to talk about Jesus defeating evil either, but it is obvious that his understanding of evil has a more Christian basis to it than McCain's.

Of course, it would be rather silly to make this judgement of McCain based solely upon his performance at Saddelback. Fortunately he was interviewed at some point by Dan Gilgoff, the politics editor at beliefnet. This interview gives a much more complete picture of McCain's religious beliefs. Here's a series of interesting questions and answers:

Gilgoff
For years, you've been identified as an Episcopalian. You recently began referring to yourself as a Baptist. Why?

McCain
[It was] one comment on the bus after hours. I meant to say that I practice in a—I am a Christian and I attend a Baptist church. I am very aware that immersion is part—as my wife Cindy has done—is necessary to be considered a Baptist. So I was raised Episcopalian, I have attended the North Phoenix Baptist Church for many years and I am a Christian.

Gilgoff
What prevents you from taking that final step of undergoing the baptism?

McCain
I've had discussions with the pastor about it and we're still in conversation about it. In the meantime, I am a practicing Christian.

Gilgoff
So the baptism is something you still might do?

McCain
Oh, sure, yeah. But, some of the factors haven't got so much to do with religion as they have to do with just—I'm in conversations with [my] pastor about it, as short a time ago as last week. But I would not anticipate going through that during this presidential campaign. I am afraid it might appear as if I was doing something that I otherwise wouldn't do.

At issue here is McCain's reticence to be baptized as an adult in his Baptist church. Why is this a problem? As a Baby-baptizin' pedobaptist I too would find it difficult to be rebaptized in a Baptist church. But what McCain doesn't speak about here is the meaning behind baptism - that it represents (either as an ordinance or sacrament) a spiritual reality. ie, that we have been born anew. If McCain really was a born-again Christian, he would probably have emphasized that point very firmly in his explanation of his reticence to be re-baptised. I'm not asking McCain to speak about deep theology, but I want him to be clear on the basics. Gilgoff himself gives McCain an opening later on to explain his understanding of human sinfulness and "transformation". It's a gimmee that McCain fails to capitalise upon:

Gilgoff
In Hard Call’s chapter on Reinhold Niehbur, you write about his evolution from sharing a Social Gospel emphasis on human perfectibility to a more fundamentalist Christian emphasis on human sinfulness. As someone raised in a mainline Christian denomination but now attending a Baptist church, have you undergone a similar transformation?

McCain
On the subject of Reinhold Niebuhr, I think his realization and appreciation that we have to combat evil even if that means that we violate some of God's commandments was an interesting journey that he took, particularly when at the end he arrived at the conclusion that I agree with—we are not perfect. We are imperfect. And at the end of the day, for our sins, we have to ask for the judgment of a loving God. He had to confront with his conscience this overwhelming evil that he couldn't sit by. But, yet, at the same time, he violated one of his fundamental principles of pacifism.

Hmmmm. "At the end of the day, for our sins, we have to ask for the judgement of a loving God." That is the "conclusion" of Niebuhr that McCain agrees with. This is, of course, partly true - but is there the assurance of forgiveness for the believer? More seriously, where is Jesus? Where in any of McCain's interviews does he talk about Jesus? He doesn't mention Jesus at all during his Saddleback interview or his beliefnet one.

When it comes to people using Christianity to gain some sort of power, it is important to carefully check their beliefs to see whether they are in line with actual Christian beliefs. As far as I can tell, McCain's various responses to questions about his faith do not show a belief that I could classify as "born again Christian". The problem is not in what McCain says, but what he doesn't say when he has the opportunity. The person and work of Christ is central to Christianity, and the meaning of the cross - why Jesus died and rose again three days later - is an integral part of the Christian faith. If John McCain was truly a "born again" Christian, he had plenty of opportunities to explain his faith when asked. While it is true that McCain has a religious faith, it is not a faith that would be synonymous with being "Born again". Moreover, it is clear from McCain's responses to Gilgoff's questions that his religious faith is not simplistic but has some level of intellectual maturity about it, which is what we can tell from his answer about Reinhold Niebuhr. Obviously McCain has thought a lot about his faith - enough to interact with the teachings of a famous American theologian. Yet it needs to be pointed out that evangelical Christians - "Bible believing Christians" - would not be happy with the lack of Christ in McCain's belief system.

I have read nothing that John McCain has said that has convinced me that he has repented of his sins and trusts in the death and resurrection of Christ for his forgiveness.

Update
I have been informed (see comments) that McCain's story was not a plagiarism of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and was genuine. I'm willing to believe that and so I'm happy in this case to admit being more influenced by the left wing echo machine than by facts.

This is why I don't hate John McCain

I'm not a fan of John McCain. I think he decided a few years ago to pretty much align himself with George W. Bush and has been happy to parrot right wing boilerplate ever since he announced his candidacy for the 2008 election. His economic policies are dangerous and he seems to have little idea what his actual positions are on issues.

Having said that, with all the standard rumours entering the various echo-chambers making it hard to think, I have decided to reject some of the more standard attacks.

First of all, I think that his service for the US Navy as a Skyhawk pilot was brave. He was certainly braver than George W. Bush who managed to avoid the war by defending the Republic of Texas as part of the Air National Guard. As a pilot McCain may have been a bit of a jerk, but then a lot of fighter pilots are. He did his job, bombing targets during the Vietnam war, a war which I think was a big mistake for America to get involved in but I blame the leaders at the time (Johnson, McNamara and 1st term Nixon) not those who fought in it. I think he did stellar service and anyone who is happy to point out his shortcomings as a navy aviator needs to understand that many of them aren't perfect. McCain did get shot down and was imprisoned and was tortured. That, of course, was a horrible thing, but I'd wish he'd used his experience of being tortured to explain to the American people why those in Guantanamo Bay, who underwent similiar treatment, were being tortured as well. Nevertheless I don't think McCain's service in Vietnam - as pilot and as prisoner of war - was anything but brave. Along with Vietnam Veterans such as Al Gore and John Kerry, we should recognise his service.

Secondly, it is true that McCain committed adultery while his first wife was sick in hospital. As a result of this infidelity he left his first wife and married the woman he committed adultery with - which is his current wife. McCain's actions were definitely immoral in a Christian sense, but there's no way I would describe McCain as being a Christian anyway. Having said that, a public official's private life should only be of importance if he or she has broken the law and disqualified himself or herself from public office. McCain, like many politicians (including Bill Clinton and John Kerry), has had marital difficulties and/or problems with adultery. Just as it was not enough to disqualify others from public office, so too is it not enough to disquality John McCain.

Thirdly, John McCain was one of the Keating Five, a group of US Senators who were involved in a corruption scandal in 1989. McCain admitted his wrongdoing to Congress but none of the five were jailed. Had voters been up in arms about McCain, he would not have been re-elected by the state of Arizona as their Senator in 1992. Obviously Arizonans know McCain and have been happy with his service in the Senate both before and since the Keating Five scandal.

Fourthly, a lot of mention has been made lately about McCain not knowing how many houses he owns. As a rich man, McCain's inability to remember his personal assets is understandable. Okay, he is not "like ordinary people" and maybe if he has been presenting himself that way then that would be a bit problematic. I don't have any problem with a rich man in public service. John Kerry and his wife had multiple properties as well, and John Edwards probably did spend a lot of money on a haircut. McCain spent a lot of money of his shoes. This is not a reason to portray someone as being elitist of out of touch as it can probably be said that 99% of all members of congress are elitist and "out of touch", even right wing politicians who have convinced their voters that they aren't. Besides, I agree with Jon Stewart on this one - not only do I want an elite president, but I want someone who is embarrassingly superior to me.

So, is John McCain a horrible person? A lying liar who has managed to cover up his incompetent past in order to progress politically? Definitely not. I think if he were to become president he would be better than many of his predecessors (Bush 2 and Nixon for starters).

However, McCain is a Republican, and Republican politicians are more to blame for America's current economic problems than Democrats are, and Republicans are more to blame for America's loss of standing in the world than Democrats are. If he follows through with his economic promises he will continue America's stupid fascination with Voodoo Eocnomics (aka Supply side economics). Moreover, while I don't think Barack Obama is the Messiah I certainly don't think he's the antichrist either, and I think he represents a far better choice for both America's present and future.