Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts

The Barack & Bill Dance


There has been an interesting dance going on between Barack Obama and both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hillary has publicly warmed to Obama, supporting his bid for President by campaigning and urging her supporters to jump on the Obama bandwagon. She has appeared with him, laughing, hugging and joining hands to cement that image that she has become a team player.

For Bill Clinton, things are still pretty frosty and it will likely take a bit more effort to warm him up. Still stinging by the criticisms Barack Obama made during the primary which seemed to question Bill's accomplishments as President as well as accusations that he engaged in race baiting, Bill seems very reluctant to hoop and holler at the next Obama rally.

I can only imagine how Bill Clinton must be seething. Like most former presidents, the slogan is, "It's all about the legacy, stupid!" To listen to his reputation tarnished by this young upstart must be galling indeed, despite Obama's post primary effort to make amends. Even Obama's slogans were once the domain of Bill Clinton. Before Obama marketed himself as the Change Agent, Bill Clinton had been viewed as the young, bright Democrat that was all about change. Remember, "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow...?" Before Obama penned, The Audacity of Hope, Clinton was the Man From Hope.

Political pundit, Dick Morris, has recently opined another explanation for Bill Clinton's cool attitude. Money. Hillary's personal financial investment in her presidential campaign reached somewhere between 14 and 20 million. Though the Clintons are outrageously wealthy, that kind of chunk is hard to recoup. According to Morris, Hillary is doing everything necessary to make sure she has not alienated Obama supporters in New York and possibly jeopardizing her Senate Seat. Bill, on the other hand, is minding the checkbook. It will take more that the $2,300 Barack contributed to Hillary's campaign debt, for Bill to stop playing coy.

Twenty million in debt? I am no political campaign manager but I think there must have been some ways the Clinton campaign could have cut a few corners. Obviously they never heard of VistaPrint, where I have ordered business cards and all kind of printed materials for years at great savings. Twenty million could have purchased a lot of car and custom magnets, as well as brochures and mailers.

It will be interesting to see how this dance continues by the time of the Democratic convention. Obama may well decide he doesn't need to haul Bill onto the dance floor, but may leave him to sulk.


Blogging And The Democratization Of Politics

On a television talk show recently, a political pundit and Barack Obama supporter lamented the spewing of lies he thought was taking place regarding Obama. The conservative panelist responded to a particular example with, "I haven't heard anyone saying that! Who is saying that?"

The Obama supporter retorted, "It's everywhere!" The conservative panelist pressed, "Who?" I believe her questioning related to the fact that no one from the McCain campaign or officials from the Republican party had made these particular statements.

The Obama supporter repeated in frustration, "Everywhere! Nameless bloggers!"

His agitation was revealing. On one hand, he was dismissive - they are just nameless bloggers. They are nobodys! On the other hand he recognized that in today's political climate, bloggers are a force to be reckoned with. Bloggers speed along and often control the political conversation while the typical journalist is still waiting for his editor to proofread his article before going to press. Naturally, the professional pundits are defensive of their turf and are quite resentful at times of bloggers' influence.

Technology has enabled a democratization of politics like we've never seen before. Not only does everyone have a vote, but everyone truly has a voice if they choose to share it. Elitism is rearing it's head as the standard journalists and commentators find they are no longer the premier opinion makers. This is reminiscent of an observation made by Thomas Jefferson upon attending a Baptist meeting. He remarked that the meeting was a true democracy, since every member not only had a vote but a voice in the proceedings regardless of wealth, education, gender, or age.

Given this new sphere of influence, bloggers themselves should take care that they are using the most professional webhosting available. Independent and customer reviews are especially helpful as you research the best webhosts for your particular site. Webhostinggeeks.com is a great source of information on everything from inexpensive (or even free) domain names, to the best webhosing by speed, for blogs, for forums, and much more.

As the election year grinds along, expect more and more influence to come from the 'pajama pundit' bloggers and more weeping and gnashing of teeth from the 'professsionals'.


Rocky, Rambo, Indiana...McCain




An interesting phenomena has hit the box office in the last year or so - the 'thirty something' to 'forty something' virile, kick butt, male action star returns as a 'sixty something' still virile, kick butt, male action star.

Sylvester Stallone headed back to the boxing ring in Rocky Balboa to go the distance with a young whippersnapper in his prime. Sly also graced the screen as Rambo and was still able to outmaneuver, outwit and outfire the bad guys just like the Rambo of twenty years ago.
Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones tops my list of favorite action heroes and he also returned this last month as our favorite archaeologist/adventurer in Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Our beloved Indy managed to jump from one moving vehicle to the next and use his whip to swing Tarzan style through the air.

One aspect of the films that I noted is that these characters were still believable. It didn't seem like a particular stretch that these characters would still be doing what they always did best. Sure they were a little rough for wear and had more lines on their face but they were still essentially the same characters with the same drives and passions. Though remarks or even jokes were made by the heroes themselves about their age, it was clear that age in and of itself would not slow them down or keep them from pursuing what they perceived as their prize, treasure, or appointed mission.

This trend of older heroes should not be surprising given the aging baby boomers as well as the upper end of Gen X. Once you've hit forty, fifty doesn't seem nearly as ancient as it once did. The same is true once you've hit fifty and sixty. In fact, we even have a slogan descriptive of this new perception. "Forty is the new thirty!" or "Fifty is the new forty!" is the triumphant mantra.

In many ways, the mantra is a true reflection of reality. People are waiting till later to get married, to have children. It is not uncommon to see kids in their mid or even late twenties move back in with mom and dad while they go back to graduate school. Everything seems to be pushed further into the future. As for 'getting older' many are pushing the concept off their radar entirely. Commercials for financial investment firms targeted toward baby boomers entering retirement depict people in action - hang gliding, scuba diving, traveling, starting a new business based on a hobby or passion they love.

In light of this current era of perpetual youth despite the calendar years, I find the reaction to John McCain's presidential candidacy curious. Suddenly his detractors are deeming him as old, old, OLD! Unfit for the oval office, McCain might just as well go play checkers on a porch somewhere with other senior citizens.

So let's get this straight. Sylvester Stallone turns 62 this month and Harrison Ford is 66. It's okay and even reasonable that they continue along the hero path but McCain (who isn't much older at 71) should just be put out to pasture? And remember it's not as if McCain is looking to wield a machine gun or go trampling through the jungle. He's not looking to be Tarzan. He is looking to lead this country as Commander-In-Chief and given his experience and background as a real life hero and patriot, he is the candidate most suited for the role.

I suspect that McCain's opponents feel threatened by the whole John McCain story and so supporters of the opposition are trying to change the narrative. Forget that McCain has the character to withstand five years of torture in service to his country. Let us just repeat, "He's too old to be President" enough times and maybe it will stick.

I don't think it will stick. The strategy goes too much against the grain of the 'anything is possible at any age' philosophy our current culture has adopted. If fifty is the new forty, then seventy is the new sixty.

If McCain loses the general election, it will be due to a variety of factors but it won't be because of age. McCain still has too much of the tough guy persona. He is a survivor like Rambo, he is disciplined like Rocky and has the maverick spirit of Indiana Jones. Sure he is a little rough for wear (funny how life as a POW takes it's toll) and has more lines on his face but he is still essentially the same character with the same drives and passions.

The smart democrats know this and though they won't admit it, they fear this.


Wesley Clark Sticks Army Boot In Mouth

Retired Gen. and Barack Obama supporter Wesley Clark, said Sunday on Face The Nation that John McCain's military service does not automatically qualify him to be commander in chief.

Clark has made such grumblings for several weeks and finally had a national audience in which he could officially stick his military boot in his mouth.


"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," he told Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.


"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded _ that wasn't a wartime squadron."


And what praytell, does Obama have in the way of experience at this level? What executive responsibility has he had? For whom has he been 'held accountable'? Which large Navy squadron did Barack Obama command during wartime or any other time? Toy boats in the bathtub don't count.


Wesley Clark did not help Obama's case. The only thing he accomplished (besides looking like a fool) was to remind voters again of the vast gulf in the way of experience between Obama and McCain.





Phillip Johnson Sounds Off At Shepherd's Seminar

A few months ago Politics & Christianity conducted an interview with Phillip Johnson, executive Director of Grace to You, a Christian tape and radio ministry featuring the preaching ministry of John MacArthur. We have long admired Phil not only for his theological insight, but also for his approach to society and culture from a biblical worldview.

In a recent seminar speech, "Politically Incorrect? How To Shepherd Your Congregation In An Election Year", Johnson provides thoughtful analysis and historical context for the Christian's place in the world of politics. How is the believer best able to make truth known? What are the consequences of lobbying, lawmaking, and moralizing taking the place of Christ and the Gospel message? What is the healthy balance of political activism and the Christian servant's duty to serve the Kingdom?

These are important questions which Phillip Johnson answers with wisdom and clarity. In this election year, consider it must reading.

*****

Politically Incorrect?
How to Shepherd Your Congregation in an Election Year

If you came thinking I’m going to tell you how to vote this year, or suggest ways to mobilize your people to sway elections in your home town, you are probably going to be disappointed. In fact, those of you who know anything about me might be surprised that I’m even dealing with a topic like this one. I was frankly surprised when the guys who organize these seminars assigned me this session. Election-year politics are not really my cup of tea. And I don’t mean I’m not interested in the subject. I mean that I purposely try to keep my distance from it.

There’s a good reason for that. Before I became a Christian, I was a hard-core, obsessive political activist. Throughout my high-school years, I thought I wanted to be either a politician or a newspaper pundit when I grew up. That was my highest worldly aspiration, and the political power-struggle was the single, central, driving interest of my life. But when I became a Christian, I gave that passion up for something infinitely better—something of eternal value: the gospel of Christ.

I won’t give you my whole testimony about that. It’s on an audio-recording of one of my sermons somewhere downloadable from the Internet. But the short version is that from the night of my conversion until today, I have deliberately steered clear of partisan politics in the same way most of you would try to steer clear of pornography or recreational drugs. Because in my own experience as an unregenerate person, party politics represented that same kind of addiction. In fact, it was the very first worldly fixation I set aside when I became a Christian—because it struck me almost from the outset that an obsession with earthly power and political ideology is basically an addiction to the wisdom of this world, which is foolishness with God.

That’s not to suggest that I’m naturally apathetic about politics. To this day, I know that if I listened to a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, I would begin to feel rising fits of those same old political passions. But political activism was so much of an idol in my old, pre-Christian life that today I think of it in pretty much the same way the apostle Paul said he regarded his former life as a Pharisee: I count it as dung. I’ve relegated those passions to the rubbish heap of things I count as loss, “In order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”

Some of you are probably already thinking that sounds pretty harsh. If you are inclined to be a political activist yourself, you no doubt think I’m terribly short-sighted, or too much of an isolationist. I hasten to say that I’m not suggesting there’s anything inherently sinful about holding electoral office or doing public service. If it’s your calling to be mayor of your town or a congressman from your district, you’ll get nothing but encouragement from me as long as you seek to fulfill that task to the glory of Christ. But you need to do that not merely by flexing your power, but mainly by being a consistent example of Christlike service and humility. Of course, that’s just what every Christian in the secular workplace should endeavor to do. In the words of 1 Timothy 4:12, “in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.”

I thank God for Christians whose vocation is to serve faithfully in our government—including those elected officials who are devoted Christians. But let’s be clear, here: that’s a different vocation from the calling of a pastor. And I am speaking to you as pastors and church leaders: It’s well-nigh impossible to be a good pastor full time if you also fancy yourself a political lobbyist.

We need to remember that political clout has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual power. Study the priorities for the church in the New Testament; look at the duties Scripture outlines for shepherds of the flock. You’ll find no mandate to press the government for legislation on moral issues. In fact, what you’ll see is that jockeying for political clout is one of the very strategies Jesus named as worldly methods that are not to characterize leadership in His kingdom. He said His kingdom is permanently set apart from every earthly dominion because Christ’s kingdom is advanced by humble service rather than through the kind of political strategies that depend on the exercise of human authority.

I’ll show you that in a moment, but first I want to stress this: Nothing in the past half century has done more damage to the evangelical cause than the notion that the best way for Christians to influence society is by wielding our collective political clout. If you think the most important answer to the ills of our society is a legislative remedy; if you imagine that political activism is the most effective way for the church to influence culture; or if you suppose the church is going to win the world for Christ by lobbying in the halls of Congress and by rallying Christians to vote for this or that type of legislation—then both your trust and your priorities are misplaced.

Personally, I think the tendency to seek legislative remedies for every social ill is one of the absolute worst tendencies of contemporary secular society, and it disturbs me greatly to see Christians more or less follow that pattern blindly. To borrow a thought from the title of John MacArthur’s least-popular book ever, Government Cannot Save Us. The only power that can truly and permanently rescue human society from its own spiritual ills is the transforming power of gospel of Jesus Christ. And that happens through the regeneration of individual human hearts, right? We need to remind ourselves of that fact often, and put more of our energies into the task of evangelism.

We are pastors and church leaders who formally and confessionally recognize the authority of Scripture. Practically the worst kind of spiritual treason we could ever commit would be to supplant the gospel message with a different message, or to allow an earthly agenda to crowd out our spiritual duties. That is exactly the risk we take when we pour money and resources into political and legislative remedies for our society’s spiritual problems.

At the moment, America is in the throes of one of the most hotly contested presidential elections ever. For the first time in more than two decades, the so-called religious right has no clear-cut favorite candidate in the race. None of the likely nominees from either party has credibly expressed any distinctly evangelical convictions. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that the leading candidates on both sides are essentially secular humanists. The candidate who it now appears will be the Republican nominee is a man who has been wobbly on the issues of abortion and same-sex unions, and he has repeatedly made it clear that he doesn’t share the passions of evangelical voters. He once referred to evangelical Republicans as “agents of intolerance.”

Now, consider the bitter irony of this: For more than two decades the number-one issue on the agenda of the evangelical wing of the religious right has been abortion. The number-one legislative goal of evangelical political activists has been to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized abortion. Politically-active evangelicals have been instrumental—in fact, they have been the decisive factor—in the election of every Republican president from Ronald Reagan until now. And yet not only have they failed to achieve their single most-coveted political goal, but they are now approaching a presidential election without a single viable candidate who shares their views.

And meanwhile, if anything, America’s moral decline has accelerated dramatically since evangelicals became politically aggressive in the late 1970s. Although by most accounts evangelicals constitute the largest single voting bloc in America, they have been remarkably ineffective when it comes to using politics to reverse America’s moral and spiritual decline. In fact, if you measure their success or failure according to their own stated political ambitions, evangelicals have failed spectacularly in America’s political arena. Over the past quarter-century, they have not accomplished any of their long-term legislative or constitutional goals.

Worst of all, during that same period of time, the evangelical movement has completely lost its spiritual influence, because the evangelical segment of the church has grown increasingly worldly. Evangelicals have become accustomed to compromise. They have abandoned (or else are in the process of abandoning) virtually all the doctrinal distinctives that made them distinct from Roman Catholics and nominal Christians whose faith amounts to a kind of civil religion. Evangelicals have pretty much forfeited whatever real moral and spiritual authority their movement ever had.

Consider the fact that almost no one in the evangelical world had more political savvy than Ted Haggard, the now-discredited president of the National Association of Evangelicals. He actually advised the White House on evangelical issues. Before his fall from grace, The Wall Street Journal called him “one of the nation’s most politically influential” ministers in America, and Harper’s Magazine said this about him: “No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted.” But whatever his accomplishments in the political arena, by his own admission Ted Haggard was a liar and a fraud in his private life.

I’m not suggesting that political activism is what made Ted Haggard a hypocrite, nor am I saying that he is typical of everyone in the mainstream of evangelical politics. I certainly hope he was a singular case.

But I am suggesting that any religious organization that’s more concerned with political expediency than with biblical truth is by definition following the error of the Pharisees and will breed the grossest kind of hypocrisy. (I’m also suggesting that if the National Association of Evangelicals had been more concerned about their leaders’ spiritual qualifications and less enamored with worldly skills like personal charisma and political shrewdness, they would never have had Ted Haggard as their president. He had never really distinguished himself in any of the biblical categories the apostle Paul outlined as qualifications for an elder. His one qualification was his mastery of the political process.)

And let’s face it, brethren: Whether we like it or not, in the eyes of an observant world, Ted Haggard seems like a perfect mascot for the evangelical right.

Despite our outspokenness on selected issues in the political realm, American evangelicals have sent a mixed and often flatly contradictory message to anyone who looks at the big picture. Evangelical pulpits are notoriously weak and shallow. Evangelical churches are lukewarm and worldly. Evangelical people as a community tend to be increasingly unholy and are now virtually indistinguishable in lifestyle and behavior from their non-Christian neighbors. Evangelical leaders on the whole seem more concerned with being stylish and admired than with being clear and consistent.

For more than a decade now we have been hearing poll data that suggest people who identify themselves as evangelicals are just as susceptible to divorce and alcohol addiction as their unbelieving neighbors—which can only mean that our church rolls are filled with unconverted people. In fact, just about the only significant difference remaining between evangelicals and unbelievers is how we vote. (And certain forces in the Emerging Church are doing all they can to bring the church in line with the world on that front, too.) No wonder the world hasn’t taken the evangelical wing of the religious right seriously. The evangelical movement hasn’t shown itself serious about what we profess to believe.

How did the evangelical movement get so far off track? I wouldn’t suggest that evangelicalism’s recent obsession with political activism is the only factor, but I do think it’s a major one. If the same energies and resources that were poured into failed political efforts had been channeled into evangelism instead, I’m convinced that would have been instrumental in producing more spiritual good and hindering more of society’s evils than all our lobbying, demonstrating, and voting combined.

READ MORE...


Dobson Claims Obama Distorts The Bible

John McCain isn't the only presidential candidate with whom James Dobson has some problems. In an airing on Tuesday of Focus On The Family, Dr. Dobson will take Barack Obama to task for distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

Focus On The Family provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.


Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."


"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.


Dobson accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.


"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.


"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."


Dobson will also criticize Obama for his views on abortion, which Dobson and his listener base have long condemned as the taking of innocent life. Obama claimed that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.


Dobson says Obama is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."


"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."


It appears that Dobson has run out of presidential candidates whom he could support. If the Libertarians can get Bob Barr on the ballot in Colorado, that will give Dobson one last (though unlikely) option.


Newsweek Poll Shows Presidency Might Be 'Mission Impossible' For McCain

Since Barack Obama managed to wrestle the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton, there has been much speculation as to why the presidential race remained so tight. After all, this is an election year that everyone agrees should favor the Democrats. President Bush's approval ratings are in the tank and a majority of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is going, giving the opposing party a definite edge. Yet for weeks Obama and McCain have remained within about three points of one another.

Until now. Newsweek came out with a new poll that shows Obama has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide. Ouch! Of course this is only one poll and the coming weeks will surely render more polls to determine if this is an accurate reflection of the country's mood. But for the time being, it appears that Obama is stepping on the gas and leaving McCain coughing in the dust.

So what can John McCain do? According to many political pundits, there is not a whole lot he can do. As Matthew Dowd and many others have commented, this is an election that John McCain can't win but Obama can lose. In other words, this year it's all about Obama. To the extent that Obama can quell the fears that voters have regarding his candidacy - his lack of experience, his suspicious circle of friends, and especially questions relating to national security - then he will win in a landslide. If he fails to lay aside those concerns, then McCain still has a fighting chance.

The key word here is fighting chance. I diverge somewhat from the pundits because I think there is a lot McCain can do. I think he needs to become a scrapper. We know he has it in him, looking not just at his record as a senator but going back to his time as a POW. He needs to go back to the well and draw from that source of strength, courage and spunk that helped him survive and ultimately get out of that cage in Vietnam.

McCain needs to take a NO FEAR attitude. You've surely seen the popular sports clothing line with the catchy slogans. No Fear is passionate about sports and the lessons and values they instill in the people who live for them, celebrating the human and competitive spirit. This isn't to say McCain has to show up at his next townhall wearing muscle t-shirts, hats, or Motocross gear. But he would do well to adopt the No Fear attitude, to set the tone henceforth that he is out to WIN.

McCain must show he is not going to be pushed around by some punk, greenhorn senator who is practiced at reading a teleprompter. The courage and accomplishments of someone who suffered and put his life on the line repeatedly for his country and has served as a senator for over two decades trumps someone who touts his accomplishment as a 'community organizer'.

Yes, in many ways this is Obama's election to lose. On the other hand, McCain has been given his assignment and chosen to accept it. If he practices a No Fear attitude, it doesn't have to be 'Mission Impossible'. If he wimps out, he will self-destruct.


'Speed' To The Presidency

.


The other night I was watching the movie, Speed. As part of the introduction before the movie started, an executive from Twentieth Century Fox discussed what makes a 'hit'. A lot of it has to do with marketing. After all, if a studio makes a great movie but it is not marketed well then no one will see it. He concluded there were three categories that made for a marketable, and hopefully a hit movie.

First, there is the movie with star power. Forest Gump is a good example. Patrons at the theater might tell the person working the ticket booth they want to see that new Tom Hanks movie. Similarly, people who saw Erin Brockavich went to see the latest Julia Roberts film.

Second, there is the movie with a well known storyline. X-Men and Spiderman already had a huge following of fans before the film version ever came out. The Devil Wears Prada was a bestselling book so there was a ready made audience. Such films may or may not have major movie stars playing the roles. It is not dependent on star power to be a success.

Third, there is the movie with a Big Idea. Speed was a great movie because it had a big idea. We have all seen action movies with bombs and chase scenes before, but Speed was unique in that it had an original, big concept - a madman/former cop is up against a good cop (Keanu Reeves) as he sets a bomb to go off on a city bus if it drops below 50 mph. When the busdriver accidently gets shot, a pretty female passenger (Sandra Bullock) has to drive the bus as Reeves and the police try to outwit and capture the bad guy. Adding to the tension is the setting, Los Angeles, one of the biggest traffic nightmares in the country.

Because Speed was a Big Idea movie, it wasn't reliant on major star power. Reeves and Bullock were not very well known at the time, though they both proved excellent in their roles. It was the Big Idea that propelled the film and made it a hit.

As I thought about these three categories, I couldn't help but to consider the presidential election. In which category would we place Barack Obama? Is the success of his campaign driven by star power, the candidate himself or does he have Big Ideas which the voters find compelling? I believe Obama fits in the first category. He has undeniable charisma and eloquence which attracts huge crowds. However, his ideas for the country don't strike me as particularly 'big' or even original. In fact parallels have been drawn between him and Jimmy Carter - many of Obama's positions appear to be warmed over from the 70's Carter administration, though articulated with more zest and optimism than Carter was ever able to deliver.

What of John McCain? In which category does he fit? Though he has a great, personal hero story, his personality does not exactly bring to mind 'star power'. Neither do I think he has any particularly Big Ideas of what he would do as president, notwithstanding his commitment to win in Iraq and ultimately to win the war on terror.

Supporters of McCain do so mostly for the reasons we find in category two. McCain is a known storyline. His conservative vision of lower taxes, a strong national defense and limited government already had a throng of loyal fans. McCain currently has the lead role in a film with a ready made audience. That is why it is not as important that he be the most sizzling speaker to ever seek the White House, though it would have been helpful.

In contrast, listen to the ardent fans of Obama. When asked what they think Obama would do for the country specifically in the way of policy, they are usually vague (as the candidate oftentimes is himself) or they have no answer at all. Though the constant slogan of 'change' would cause one to think he is running a Big Idea campaign, he is not. People want Obama because they just like and are drawn to the man himself. Pure star power.

A known storyline versus star power - which will prove to be the biggest hit? I suppose we shall see when the voters go to the box office in November.


When Mary Fell

Several months ago I saw a news story about a woman (I'll call her Mary) who lost control of her car and plunged down an embankment. Though it was a well traveled road, she was not readily visible to other drivers as her car was covered in brush far below. Her family was panicked when she did not return home and for days she was listed as a missing person.

When Mary was finally found and rescued she was unconscious and remained in a coma for some time. She eventually came out of the coma, received treatment for her injuries and was deemed well enough for discharge from the hospital. Yet another surprise awaited her. The hospital bill was in excess of a million dollars. That's right...a MILLION DOLLARS!

Hard to fathom, right? In today's world, health care costs have risen to such an extreme that any unexpected illness or emergency can spell financial disaster for those who are uninsured. In this case, the woman and her husband had not been married very long and were not insured. It was sad to see her young husband say how he dreaded breaking the news to Mary about their newly acquired financial hardship.

This is the kind of story that Democrat candidate's speeches thrive on. No one should be faced with this kind of healthcare cost, on top of the personal trauma of the accident and recovery. All the more reason for healthcare to be taken over by the federal government.

That the federal government could do a better job of keeping down healthcare costs, provide the kind of quality Americans expect and do it more efficiently is a questionable claim to be sure. Republicans are quick to point out the many faults with government run healthcare.

While the politicians wrangle over this issue, one lesson we can learn from this story is the need for everyone to obtain health insurance. When we are young and healthy it is easy to believe we don't really need it. When we are underemployed or unemployed we can't afford it. However, everyone should make every effort to keep themselves covered under some kind of plan. kaiser insurance for example has many options to choose from. Whether you are single, married or have children there is a plan designed for your needs. They are flexible and best of all, affordable.

When the Democrats hold their convention in the coming months, look for more healthcare horror stories. John McCain had also better pay attention and have some ready responses and solutions to offer. There are more Marys in the world than many Republicans want to admit.


The Politics Of Black Gold, Texas Tea...Part Two

As far as election issues are concerned, health care is on the back burner as is education. Environmental concerns are diminishing. Even the war in Iraq, as important as it is, will not be the number one issue for many voters. So what is the compelling problem that will have voters practically knocking each other over in their mad rush to the polls?

The high price of fuel! While there are tens of thousands of family members with loved ones in Iraq and even more suffering in both body and pocketbook due to our broken health care system, millions of people drive in this country and are feeling the direct effect of soaring prices every day. It is now viewed as more than a temporary inconvenience, but rather a devastating blow to their monthly budget. Many ordinary commuters are finding their monthly gas bills are running in excess of $500.00, more than many spend on their car payment.

If either Barack Obama or John McCain will speak intelligently to this problem, display that he grasps not only the cause but offers a sound solution that makes sense to the American people...that candidate will win in a landslide.

Political analyst and husband/wife team Dick Morris & Eileen McGann have written an excellent article on this subject. Below is an excerpt:

Democrats call for windfall profits taxes. Bad idea. How can you get oil companies to explore and drill if you tax away their profits? Republicans focus on a gas tax “holiday,” an 18-cent palliative to gas prices that now top $4.50.

Fadel Gheit, managing director of oil and gas research for Oppenheimer and Co., and Jim Norman, author of the book The Oil Card, coming out next month, say that speculation is responsible for a huge part of the run-up in prices.


The growing demand for oil by India and China and the instability of oil supplies certainly account for much of the increase. But the recent spike, they say, is equally due to the weakness of the dollar and massive speculation.


They argue that oil prices are, indeed, determined by supply and demand — not only the supply and demand for oil, but also the supply and demand for oil futures. (Oil futures are a commitment to buy 1,000 barrels of oil at a certain date at a certain price.)


Formerly, most of the investments in oil futures came from energy companies. The federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sharply limited investments by those outside the business, to prevent precisely the kind of speculation now gripping the market.


But when the stock market slowed down in 2000–2002, outside investors decided to speculate in oil futures.


The new players were institutional investors like corporate and government pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, university endowments and other investors, guided by brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.


To avoid the CFTC caps, these investors moved their operations to London, setting up the International Commodities Exchange. Now they can buy all the oil futures they want.


Michael W. Masters, of Masters Capital Management, told Congress that the volume of investment in commodities futures soared from $13 billion at the end of 2003 to $260 billion by March of 2008.


After a while, the CFTC rescinded its limits on how much speculators could buy as long as they went through special “swap” desks at the major brokerage houses. You can buy oil futures for only 5 percent down on margin, a bargain considering the 50 percent margin requirement for stock market equity investments. Because the margin requirement on oil futures rises as the due date approaches, few investors actually end up buying the oil; they just roll over their investments.


So the willingness of sellers to unload their oil futures, and of buyers to acquire them, sets up its own market of supply and demand that has more to do with determining the actual price of oil than even the global demand and supply for the product itself.


***

As Morris/McGann advise, McCain had better explain the cause of this problem to voters because their ears are definitely perked. He needs to articulate what he would do as President to get a handle on what is turning into a full-blown crisis. Washington is apparently deadlocked. When the Senate recently tried to force CFTC regulation of all commodities speculators, the bill was killed by Republicans because it was loaded down with a windfall profits tax.

America needs leadership on this issue. Voters might not be able to afford to drive to the polls but they will walk or bicycle if necessary to vote for the candidate willing to provide it.


Michael Williams At The Republican Party of Texas Convention

Nearly 12,000 delegates and alternates gathered last week for the Republican Party of Texas Convention. It seems that the liberal left, the mass media, and radio talk shows have managed to focus attention on a few of the not so pretty items of interest (eg. John McCain's no-show, some stupid buttons sold by a fringe group, a questionable video introduction, etc.). However, there were plenty of newsworthy and noteworthy events and speeches.

One of the most talked about speeches was delivered by Chairman Michael Williams of the Texas Railroad Commission. He was interrupted by applause more than 30 times during the course of the speech. I have embedded the video of the speech below, along with a transcript. I encourage you to check it out.




CHAIRMAN MICHAEL WILLIAMS
2008 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS STATE CONVENTION
JUNE 12, 2008 – HOUSTON, TEXAS

I am honored to share a stage this week with Chairman Benkiser, Vice Chairman Armstrong and my 28 colleagues who hold statewide office, all of whom are proud Republicans.

And I am especially honored to be in the midst of the many thousands of you who launched a Republican revolution in Texas… the greatest grassroots organization in the 50 states… the delegates and alternates of the Republican Convention of Texas.

You are the heart and soul of our party…a people who have never stopped believing in
conservative ideas, and who have never stopped living up to conservative ideals.

Eight years ago you saw fit to elect a bald-headed guy who wears bow ties and cowboy boots to the Texas Railroad Commission. Two years later you did it a second time. And I thank you.

If you did not support me in those previous races, that’s okay. You will have another chance in November.

With the price of crude oil above $130 a barrel, and the price of gasoline nearing $4 a gallon, we need leadership that stands up for the economic interests of American families by demanding greater exploration of America’s energy sources.

I have fought for energy exploration, the development of clean energy technologies, common sense water protection and pipeline safety measures and self-imposed spending caps at the Railroad Commission.

I have advocated for fiscal conservatism even when it cost me money… such as when I turned down a pay raise from the Texas Legislature, not once, but twice.

And if you re-elect me Railroad Commissioner in 2008, I will be that voice from middle America that Washington doesn’t want to hear… the one arguing with every fiber in his being that the “cap and trade” carbon tax is nothing more than a cap and spend redistribution scheme, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the creation of the modern welfare state.

I know the liberals think Americans are finally coming their way… that suddenly working families are for higher taxes and bigger government. But the election of a Democrat Congress is not an endorsement of Democrat ideas. The fact is Democrats campaign as conservatives so they can govern as liberals. The problem is Republicans started doing the same thing, so the people chose the real thing.

But the American people still believe in limited government, lower taxes and less regulation.

And if our party returns to its Reagan roots, our majority will one day return to Washington as well.

Like many of you, I cut my teeth in the Reagan Revolution. I later served in the first Bush Administration. And for 30 years I have been friends with a man from Midland I am proud to call my president… George W. Bush.

As we choose a new president, I am keenly aware of the historic nature of this campaign.

As an African-American from the South, I am proud of the fact that someone who looks like me will be a major party presidential nominee for the first time in our nation’s history.

What Senator Obama has done is extraordinary. His nomination speaks well, not only of his own personal political skills, but of the America that exists today.

But Americans will not fall for identity politics over good ideas or slogans in the absence of substance or for promises and platitudes that are the wrong policy prescriptions.

Change is just a slogan when the ideas are the Democrat leftovers of the last 50 years. When it is the same menu as McGovern, Carter and Mondale: higher taxes, bigger government and a steady diet of class warfare and expanded welfare.

We must remember what their message of hope and change is all about: their hope is in
government, and the change they seek is in your pocket.

My fellow Republicans, we are the party of change. We are the ones that brought reform to government, reducing regulation and lowering taxes. We brought down the Soviet wall. We are the ones that believe public education should be about the children and not the union leaders.

Our faith resides in the power of the individual and not an all-pervasive federal government.

And we believe in the simple but profound idea that human life is sacred, beginning with the unborn.

Our message of hope is not dependent on bureaucracy but entrepreneurship. We do not settle for the proposition that a healthy environment has to come at the expense of a healthy economy.

Our hope resides in unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit to address both challenges.
We believe in tying incentives, not penalties, to fuel efficiency. We want to create an economic climate conducive to the further development of the electric, natural gas or plug-in hybrid market and the first 100 mile-per-gallon cars.

We want to send our kids off in low emission natural gas or propane school buses. Not only will our kids breathe easier, but so will taxpayers who pay the fuel bills.
We want to challenge innovators and entrepreneurs who develop new clean coal technology.

Our answer isn’t to say “no to coal” with no alternative. It is to say how can we make the burning of coal cleaner, so we have a more diverse and affordable mix of energy and a cleaner environment?

America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Texas has a 200-year supply. Let’s not start with the proposition of “why we can’t,” but “how we can.”

My friends, our message of hope and change built a political majority because it reflects the common sense of Middle America.

If you ever doubt whether we have won the debate of ideas, consider the fact that conservatives still call themselves conservatives and liberals call themselves progressives.

It is far easier to rebuild the brand of a party than revive a disproved philosophy.
But to win this election cycle, we need to get our swagger back. We need to start acting with the confidence of a party that reflects the prevailing sentiment. And step one is to stop licking our wounds and start telling it like it is.

The Democrat policy on Iraq is to withdraw regardless of the consequences. Whether you supported the war in Iraq or not, the next president will not decide the past but the future. We cannot base our policy in the Middle East on appeasing the political left. It must be about serving the American interest.

I am so thankful Senator McCain knows that Democrat policies have empowered oil barons in the Middle East. He knows that an unconditional withdrawal will only shift the balance of power further toward the extremists. He is committed to defeating the jihadists who did not wait for the American invasion of Iraq to begin before killing innocent Americans on American soil.

The energy challenge we face today is a direct result of the refusal of Democrats to consider new energy exploration. Democrat policies stand in the way of developing needed refinery capacity.

Democrat policies have left Texans vulnerable to the rising price of natural gas. Democrat policies have stuck us with soaring electric rates. And it was the Democrat Leader in the Texas House who killed a ten percent rate reduction for millions of Texas consumers last year.

Liberals have hijacked environmentalism and given us extremism. They say “no” to nuclear development, “no” to cleaner coal plants, and “no” to wind energy when it encroaches on their East Coast beach properties.

They have fought energy exploration from the coast of Florida to the outer reaches of Alaska.

Then they turn around and blame American energy companies for the high price of energy when their extremism and obstructionism makes us more dependent on foreign oil every day.

What’s wrong with this picture?

The French are harnessing nuclear power. The Chinese and Castro are producing natural gas 50 miles from our borders. And the Democrats just say no. They are reaching back into history for Jimmy Carter’s failed windfall profits tax. The same tax that drove down American oil production. Never mind that today Americans spend $600 billion a year for imported oil.

If Saudi sheikhs are driving a new Rolls Royce, it was Democrat policies that gave them the extra riyals.

Now, the Democrats want to place a $3 trillion tax on carbon output to combat global warming.

Regardless of where you come down on the science of climate change, putting an extra $3 trillion in the hands of Washington politicians is a truly miserable proposition. Those that produce the most carbon will purchase allowances. The money generated from such a scheme will then allow Senator Boxer and her colleagues to dole out favors to all their friends.

And what will be the benefit for the single mom trying to make ends meet? The office worker trying to put his kids through college? The farmer betting on the next crop? The young couple in south Dallas, east Austin, the Valley or third ward here in Houston?

It will be even higher prices for electricity, gasoline at the pump and food at the grocery store.

That single mom with two kids… that office worker with a college loan to go with the home loan… that farmer paying higher fertilizer and diesel costs … those inner city residents making their first house payments won’t breathe easier under cap and spend either.

China and India will continue to increase their carbon output, negating any environmental benefits whatsoever. So this carbon tax will hurt Texans’ jobs, raise the cost of goods, thin our wallets and do little to reduce greenhouse gases.

My friends, this is the fundamental difference about how we address great challenges:
we want to insure economic growth and create incentives for entrepreneurial solutions; they want to punish job creators through new taxes and a massive redistribution scheme.

When it comes to energy and the economy, we ought to focus on producing more, reliable energy sources here in America. Developing alternative energy for transportation and electricity, the new technology to make traditional sources cleaner and killing the Democrats’ cap and trade redistribution scheme.

And then we ought to do everything in our power to attract more American students to the fields of math, science, engineering and technology.

Both my parents earned college degrees in math. My dad was a high school math teacher and a coach. My wife Donna is a mechanical engineer. I understand the value of innovation and technology to the future of this country, which is why this summer I am co-sponsoring a camp called “Williams Innovators” to inspire students between the sixth and 12th grades to pursue proficiency in the fields of math, science, engineering and technology.

We must end the mass exportation of the talent we educate by filling American classrooms with more American students ready to take advantage of the opportunities of the 21st Century.

My friends, this is an historic time. We cannot win this election focused on internal struggles.

We cannot protect jobs and working families if we are relegated to the sidelines of public discourse. We cannot build and sustain a culture that nurtures life from the comfort of our living rooms. Now is not the time to sow the seeds of indifference. We must remember why we joined this fight to begin with… why we entered the arena.

Imagine with me the America that can be if we don’t lose hope, don’t lose our sense of idealism.

Imagine an America where freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand. Imagine an America where opportunity is available to all and the hope of all. Imagine an America where we exercise proper dominion over God’s creation while ushering in a wave of new prosperity.

Imagine an America where schools compete for our kids instead of taking them for granted.

Imagine an America where the values of Middle America are not looked down upon by the left, but embraced by all because they are right. Imagine communities free of drugs… neighborhoods free of crime… families free of violence.

We can only achieve what we first imagine. We can only realize that which we are willing to do.

I know no election more significant than the next one. My dad is in the Texas Football Coaches Hall of Honor. He says the first rule of winning is to show up.

Will you roll up your sleeves with me, and answer the whistle? Will you join me on the game field? Will you fight for a brighter future for all Americans?

I ask for your help… I ask for your prayers… and I ask for your vote.

May the peace of the Lord be with you. May God bless you and may God bless Texas.

Let’s get to work!


Business Loans In Every Pot?


In 1928 Herbert Hoover sought to show what life under a Hoover presidency would look like. "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage!" he boldly and optimistically declared. As it turned out, not everyone got the chicken and even fewer got their car. Still, it was a good campaign slogan at the time.

Little has changed in eighty years as to the way presidential candidates make promises. Both Obama and McCain are in their own ways trying to channel Herbert Hoover. For example, both men are claiming to be the real friend to small business by claiming it is their tax policy that will help boost the small businessman. Both claim that they will be the one to establish and sustain a growing economy and a climate favorable to the individual entrepreneur seeking to make his company flourish.

This is a wise, strategic move on the part of Obama and McCain because many voters have indeed become enamored with the idea of owning his or her own business. Technology and the internet have opened up new opportunities and ways of marketing that didn't exist a decade ago. Home based businesses are exploding and will likely continue as high gas prices have made long commutes to and from work detrimental to the household budget bottom line.

Furthermore, many families are tired of having their entire lives and schedules dictated to them by a company upon whom they are dependent. When my husband and I first got married we toyed with the idea of starting our own business. We put together a business plan and looked into getting financing. In the end, we decided not to take the risk so early in our marriage and my husband stuck with his company. Over the next seven years the company transferred him three times to three different states. There were some perks but overall they were outweighed by the hassle, instability, and stress of being far away from our extended family. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had we taken the other fork in the road.

For those facing similar fork in the road decisions, be sure to check out ezunsecured.com as you do your research. They are a great resource in helping you get the working capital you need. Application is quick and easy and the funding is fast. The small businesses that fail usually do so because of cash flow problems that could have been avoided by securing the right type of financing from the beginning.

Neither Obama or McCain will solve all of the small business woes. Getting a business loan in your pot depends on you.


Step Into My Parlor Says McCain To Obama

"Step into my parlor", says the spider to the fly. At this juncture in the presidential campaign, John McCain is the proverbial spider trying to lure Barack (the fly) Obama into his web. The web is otherwise known as the Townhall Meeting.

McCain excels in the townhall format where his straight talk style allows him to shine. He is able to demonstrate a commanding knowledge of the issues. The spontaneity of the questions highlights his ability to think quickly on his feet. His vast experience proves to be a well from which he can instantly draw.

Obama, on the other hand, prefers the carefully controlled forums where he can appear before massive (sometimes even swooning) crowds that come to hear his soaring rhetoric. His speeches are prepared and practiced ahead of time, his pitch and inflections are perfect.

McCain invited Obama to a series of ten townhall meetings leading up to the election and at first Obama indicated he would be agreeable. Evidently, Obama's advisers warned him that the format might prove to be a rather sticky web, one from which he could not easily extricate himself. The reply from the campaign was that Obama might be willing to do only one townhall meeting, stipulating that it be done on July the 4th.

The McCain expressed disappointment and claimed the reason Obama was insistent on July 4th was because it would receive less attention as many Americans are away on holiday. So basically they called him a 'scaredy cat' - if Obama flubbed it up big time at least most voters would be too busy eating hot dogs by the pool or watching fireworks to notice.


Obama Running For President or King?

There has been a particular tone I have found troubling about Barack Obama as he has campaigned across the country. His rhetoric often has a certain arrogance, as if he seeks to exert a type of royal prerogative or issue a royal edict. Take for example a speech he made several months ago in which he goes down the laundry list of what he intends to do for the peasants of his future realm. When he comes to teachers, he says, "...And I will reward you for your faithfulness."

And I will reward you for your faithfulness? That sounds eerily similar to, ..."And I shall anoint you, thy good and loyal subject." One can almost picture Obama whipping out a scepter and start touching people on the top of the head. Just who exactly does this guy think he is?

The same I-am-all-powerful-itis afflicted Obama again the other day as he addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He boldly stated “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” he said to loud applause. Of course he backed off from this statement within hours when facing pressure and criticism from Arab and other foreign policy commentators. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared, “This statement is totally rejected,” he announced to the world press. “We will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as its capital.” Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qeri sounded a similar note. “No Jerusalem, no agreement,” he said.

Obama hedged about, replying, “Well, obviously it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues,” he said – clearly waffling on the “must remain undivided” declaration of the day before. He told CNN that he still supported a unified Israeli Jerusalem but suddenly acknowledged that this might prove an unattainable goal. “My belief is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute,” he said.

In response, his eager audience from AIPAC expressed dissappointment. Morton A. Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) remarked, “With Barack Obama and his campaign watering down his statement for an undivided Jerusalem, one must question whether his initial remark was simply meant to mislead Jewish voters and Israel supporters by not stating his true beliefs on this issue.”

What Obama's true beliefs are on this subject is anyone's guess. The real problem is that Obama doesn't just merely tell eager audiences what they want to hear at the moment, only to flounder and retract on the promises later. That is typical politician fare. Obama seems to really believe that he himself is invested with some sort of royal authority he does not possess. Who is he to dictate what will or will not happen in Israel? Are not the leaders and the people of Israel the ones who should determine Israel's future?

Radio talk show host Michael Medved also makes a good point in a recent article:

The appalling aspect of this latest Barack gaffe involves his apparent ignorance that the question of an “undivided” Jerusalem remains intensely controversial within Israel itself --with virtually all the Israeli left committed to some mechanism for splitting or sharing the city with the Palestinian Authority. For instance, former Prime Minister (and current Defense Minister) Ehud Barak agreed in 2000 to give the Palestinians control of all of East Jerusalem, including the Old City (containing sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Moslems). Had Yasser Arafat agreed to the deal, the Clinton administration and the Israelis appeared not only willing – but eager – to divide the city.


Like most other right-wingers in Israel and the United States, I view such eagerness as a form of madness – but not so mad or menacing in the long run as Obama’s suggestion that the American government gets to make life or death decisions for Israel.


I believe that Obama's willingness to sit down with all sorts of dictators also stem from his sense of self-importance, confidence in his own power of persuasion, and inherent authority. How could Ahmadinejad not shrink and bend the knee at the authority of King Obama?

Barack Obama has not even been elected yet and already his crown is slipping.


McCain & Dobson Stalemate Continues

You know the old expression, "Mi casa y su casa", meaning "My house is your house." Apparently the sentiment between James Dobson and John McCain is more like, "My house but not your house."

During the primary, Dobson was pretty clear that he was no McCain fan. After McCain sealed the Republican nomination, Dobson must have found the prospect of Obama or Clinton even scarier. He then offers a fig leaf in the form of an invitation to Dobson's Focus on the Family's headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Family Policy Council gathered on May 9 and word was out that McCain had rebuffed the invite.

The McCain camp responded that this was not a rude refusal. McCain was scheduled to be in Denver on May 2 and invited Dobson to his hotel suite for an unlimited visit. Dobson declined and again offered for McCain to come to Colorado Springs. McCain in turn declined once again.

It appears that neither man wants to meet the other unless it is on his own turf. And so the hatchet is yet to be buried.


Style Over Substance?

Political analysts have been chattering away, or rather criticizing away at John McCain's wanting oratory skill. The contrast was most apparent the other night when Obama addressed a huge crowd of thousands and read effortlessly from his teleprompter, a skill he has honed especially well thanks in part to his better than 20/20 vision. He used just the right cadence, the right inflections and spoke as if he was not reading, but rather speaking from the heart. The enthusiastic crowd clamored with cheers and applause.

McCain, on the other hand, spoke his words slowly as if he were addressing a group of kindergartners sitting in a circle on the carpet for 'story time'. His demeanor lacked passion. However, before judging McCain too harshly for not having a way with words we should remember that McCain is not running for the President of Toastmasters but of the United States. Delivery is important but the words themselves are more so. By most accounts, McCain's speech in and of itself was quite good and substantive even if the delivery was weak.

Consider the apostle Paul, a man who claimed to have a rather important message, when he addressed the believers at Corinth:

"And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:1-5)

Paul did not consider himself to be a man of great oratory skill, nor did Moses, yet they knew the message they conveyed carried great weight.

We should be very wary of over-enchantment with anyone based on rhetorical talent alone. What is the real content of their message? What is the content of Obama's message? Does it carry any weight? Those questions should be scrutinized at least as carefully as McCain's oratory style.