Decision Time
January 28th, 2008 | by Scott |–When Eli Manning went all John Elway and refused to play for San Diego if they drafted him I vowed that I would never root for him. That string is intact. Go Patriots!
–Back in March I picked John Edwards as my nominee of choice. It’s time to acknowledge that I have shifted in my preference. Next Tuesday I will venture over to my local Nazarene polling place (Separation of Church and State, pshaw) and pull the lever for a different candidate.
–In a tremendous piece over at God’s Politics Obery Hendricks wades into the character assassination pieces aimed at Obama:
But what is also troubling about all the false information being spread about Obama is its obsession with doctrines and creeds to the apparent detriment of any sense of the spirituality of service. This tragically flawed understanding of Christian faith is apparently more concerned with the fleeting testimony of one’s mouth than with the abiding testimony of one’s walk in the world. If this was not so, if what was really the concern of those seeking to discredit Obama was that one be a Christian rather than simply bearing the name, then why do they not attack the people “of faith” who tell every listening ear that they are Christians, yet everyday spit on the very tenets that Jesus taught by making greed, self-aggrandizement and treating poor people as children of a lesser God their de facto religion? Why not equally publicly indict the rapacious “prosperity preachers” and fake healers who appear in pulpits and on television weekly to steal from the poor so they themselves can live in imperial luxury like the Roman Caesar, the same Caesar whose empire tortured Jesus to death? According to the teachings of Jesus, transgressions like these are what believers should be exposing and denouncing. Indeed, in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus makes it clear that betrayal of the poor and the vulnerable is among the worst sins possible. Moreover, there Jesus reveals that if nothing else will get one banished to Hell, hurting - even ignoring - those he calls “the least of these” surely will.
35 Responses to “Decision Time”
By Robin on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
“Why not equally publicly indict the rapacious “prosperity preachers” and fake healers who appear in pulpits and on television weekly.”
Last time I looked none of them were running for president.
By len on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
Why did you leave Edwards?
I don’t have a problem with Obama, or any candidate, being asked about their church affiliation. At first glance there are some troubling things that came from his church’s statement of faith. But, imo, there is no real substance to those concerns. I believe that if I went to TUCC I would be welcome at the service. I don’t think Obama is a Muslim or a racist. And to portray him as such is unethical and unchristian. Most candidates have enough real baggage that dirt doesn’t need to be shoveled.
A flaw I see with the article is that is assumes that if one cares about doctrine that they don’t care about helping the poor. Is he not becoming the very thing he criticizes?
Are my eyes deceiving me or did Scott Freeman just endorse an article that implies that people may actually go to Hell?
By Scott on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
I left Edwards for fully pragmatic reasons. I like his message but he isn’t going to win. And if he is running just to be kingmaker I’m not really cool with that. If he is running to give his delegates to Obama and then score an AG nod that’s cool.
You are right, there is no substance to these pieces that float around about him. I didn’t quote the full article by Hendrick’s in which he refutes the thrust of these emails that either paint Obama as a closeted Muslim or not really a Christian. The point he makes in my excerpt is that many of the charges focus on points of doctrine and ignore the message that Obama gives. Hendricks does right sensationally but I didn’t get the idea that he was trying to slight doctrine but instead points out the foolishness of elevating doctrine and ignoring the life.
And I’ve never said I don’t believe in Hell. I do.
By len on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
Even though you do believe in hell can I start an e-mail smear campaign about your false beliefs?!
By Scott on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
Go for it. I’m sure you could get some volunteers to help you out
By R-Liz on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
From 6-weeks of age on, I was raised in Denver. John Elway is like royalty to us. He used leverage to his advantage, and was able to parley that into a different and better gig. Don’t fault the guy cause he didn’t buy into the indentured servitude (millions of dollars is besides the point) of the system. He said, “Down with the fascist side of the NFL!” I regularly tell my husband that our daughter is actually named for Elway. He hates it (He’s singing, “Prima Donna” as I write this).
I could give a rat’s ass about Eli. I just heard you say “Elway,” and my undying allegiance spewed forth.
The Pats are going to win because they’re a machine…and their homeless-looking coach is a cheater.
By Scott on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
That was R-Liz in the “no spin” zone.
Elway was an opportunist.
By R-Liz on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
Yes, we Elway-allegiant fans are always ready to defend, without prejudice or spin. We’re like a pack of mommies. You say “opportunist,” we say “smart and savvy.” It’s the potAto, potAUto thing.
By Belinda on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
I have to admit I still love John Edwards, but Obama is my second choice. I’m wondering if other states (than my home state - Alabama) have open primaries. My husband and I plan to vote republican in the primaries. We wondered if others were doing the same thing.
By Larry Freeman on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
But what is also troubling about all the false information being spread about Obama!! This is being done to every Presidential canidate, Not just Obama.
By Justin on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
Democrats are finally realizing that the Clintons are exactly what the Republicans said in the 90s. To quote Sorkin (though not about the Clinton’s but about Casey rigging a who’s cooler internet poll on sports night) they are “a conniving, scheming, stop-at-nothing, claw-your-way-to-the-top, cheats-at-solitaire, y’know, guy?” Well, people.
Obama v Paul. Love to see those debates. Economics vs The Joel Osteen Democrat
By len on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
How about Ted Kennedy coming out in support of Obama. When he indicates that you are slimy, well that says a lot.
Belinda, may I ask why you are voting in the Republican primary?
By Scott on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
Gotta love that Teddy endorsement.
We have a closed primary here. I imagine I should be in a much shorter line when I go to the polls. The city I live in voted 70% for Bush in ‘04.
By Justin on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
How did the Republican party get so misled by president Bush? Does anyone remember when he ran on getting out of Bosnia, and minding our own business abroad?
By Scott on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
9/11 changed everything. He became a different president after that, for better or worse.
By Justin on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
That really doesn’t make sense without my qualifying it. I was referring to how 70% of anywhere could vote for him. Or any candidate really. That’s just nuts
By Justin on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
It didn’t though, that’s what drives me crazy. A drastic change in foreign policy shouldn’t be determined by 13 thugs from Saudi Arabia. We weren’t attacked by a state, so we can’t fight them like we fight a state. But that’s a different discussion for a different time.
Of all the candidates besides Ron Paul, I think I could tolerate Obama, if for no other reason then he makes me feel all warm and fuzzy when he talks. Gotta love the Power of Positive thinking. Ok, enough Obama digs, I really do like the guy. He seems nice. For real.
By matt elliott on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Personally, I’m voting for John Elway.
By scott on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
“A drastic change in foreign policy shouldn’t be determined by 13 thugs from Saudi Arabia.”
But it was. The mantle that he ran on in 2000, that of “compassionate conservatism”, was MIA come 9/12.
Another reason to vote for Obama: He’s not 120.
And no way I’d ever vote for Elway. Now, Jim McMahon? Absolutely.
By Justin on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Kinky Friedman for President!
By Scott on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Uhh, no. I lived in Texas during his ill-fated Gubernatorial bid. Not a pretty sight.
George Clooney. That I can buy.
By Justin on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
You gotta agree though, the country wants change. And Kinky Friedman would bring it.
By len on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
“Another reason to vote for Obama: He’s not 120.”
Wow Scott, I thought it was the Republicans who hated old people.
How many Democrats were opposing Bush’s policies on 9/12?
By jasonk on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Back to the heart of your post, I agreed with everything in the piece you quoted. But it looks like a smoke screen to me. Don’t question Obama’s religion, or his doctrine, or his family history. He cares about poor people, so that’s all that matters. It isn’t all that matters. Someone rightly said that Obama isn’t the only candidate who is experiencing this. Glenn Beck is on a John McCain tirade, and is having a love affair with Mitt Romney. Hillary, Huckabee, Edwards, Paul–people are doing the same thing to all the candidates.
I don’t think that an Obama presidency will mean the end of the world. And I don’t think he will make things better either.
As for John Edwards, the reason he will lose is because he doesn’t get any face time. The media are so enamoured with a historic presidential election, electing the first woman, or the first African American, that all the other voices get lost in the noise. Look at the debate last week as proof. Hillary and Obama arguing over what board they sat on, or what slum lord donated to their campaign, and there was Edwards, rightly saying that all this arguing won’t get kids health care.
By Scott on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
True, Kinky would bring change. But who would be his running mate?
Len, I love old people. I know several and am even related to a few.
Not sure if I would vote for them for “Commander in Chief.”
I would say there were very few Dems who opposed Bush on 9/12. That’s not my point. My point is that Bush changed his focus post-9/11. I don’t fault him for that. I think most people in that situation would have. But as time progressed there seemed to be little movement back toward those initial ideas and more toward the war on terror.
By Scott on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Jason, I don’t completely agree. I think the totality of the article (I didn’t quote all of it) tries to defuse the spate of emails circulating about him.
I do agree that a modicum of this goes on about the other candidates. However, I don’t get anywhere near the emails about the other candidates as I do on these two issues of doubting his faith and accusing him of being a closeted Muslim.
John Edwards has gotten lost in the shuffle, that is for sure. And that is a pity because he has much to add to the discussion. However, we haven’t heard the last from him.
By Justin on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Re: war on terror
Anytime we declare war on an ideology or a problem, and not a nation, we end up with fewer freedoms, and typically the problem gets worse. Think “war on poverty” “war on drugs” “war on terror”. Its all semantics used for a government power grab, regardless of who is in office.
And what’s ironic about the Bush Doctrine is that its the old liberal doctrine of spreading or protecting an ideology through war and intervention. One shouldn’t be confused thinking that the democrats are really anti war. They are anti republican war. There are just a handful of dems and repubs in elected office who are truely for a foreign policy of not policing the world. Its too bad the corporate media ignores them, or calls them crazy, or kooky.
By jasonk on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
I don’t know if Obama is a closeted Muslim. He may very well be. I hope not. I do think he is a Socialist, and that worries me as much as anything. It also worries me that our enemies, especially radical Islamists, will view his election as a victory for them, and a victory for Islam, because they believe that if your father is a Muslim, then you are a Muslim.
Maybe the best we can hope for is that Obama is just like everybody else–he wants to be president of the United States because he is an egotist who wants power.
By Scott on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Jason, I don’t know if YOU are a closeted Muslim.
By Justin on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Jason
I don’t think the radical islamists will care much either way. They’ve made it pretty clear that what they want is political change, not an American theocracy. They want Israel out of the Middle East completely and they want us to quit messing with their internal politics. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. And as long as that’s what they say they want, no matter how many of them our military kills, it will just increase their recruiting. If we just stopped aid to the dictators that control their societies, and let Israel deal with its own security, I think we’d be much better off. I don’t think Obama is gonna do that though. Democrats tend to think that they can run wars better than Republicans, they want to police the world just as much as neocons.
By jasonk on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Scott!! Sssshhhh. allah akkbar.
Justin–the way people in the Middle East danced in the streets on 9/11, I think that the radicals of this world would be happy if the son of a Muslim were elected to the White House.
By matt elliott on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
I thought Obama was the son of a goat-herder. Didn’t that come up at the last Democratic national convention?
By Belinda on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
If I vote republican in the open primary, it will be for the same reasons republicans vote in the democrat primaries: hoping to influence the republican candicate.
I’m not totally convinced that I’ll do that though. I still really like what John Edwards has to say. If he hangs in there until we vote on February 5, I will probably vote for him. I think he has the best ideas - he’s just getting lost between the woman and the african-american candidate. Sad, sad, sad.
By Doug Freeman on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
This is not a comment, only a statement. I would like to see Hillary as Prez and Ann Coulter as Vice Prez.
By Jonathan on Jan 29, 2008 | Reply
Belinda wrote:
Admittedly, Obama and Clinton do get some extra attention for being ground-breakers (unfortunately for Edwards, rich white guy is not an under-represented demographic among presidential candidates). However, I think it’s a gross oversimplification and insulting to the other candidates to claim this as the main reason Edwards is losing. Last time he lost out to Kerry, for crying out loud. Apparently something is preventing him from being a winning national candidate, and I don’t think it is primarily his race or his gender.