Barack Obama’s mantra of change has inspired young and old, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. While calls for change have become recycled rhetoric, Obama has convinced many that his promises won’t be relegated to the closet if elected. Some, however, aren’t buying it, including one staunchly liberal demographic—homosexuals.

In a recent ABC News interview, Obama infuriated gay rights advocates when he declared allegiance to the traditional view of marriage. “You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he told Jake Tapper. Like John McCain, he feels states should decide the gay marriage question.

Not surprisingly, the homosexual community responded harshly. The American Spectator’s David N. Bass reports that one lesbian blogger said: “If I hear ‘Marriage is between one man and one woman’ one more time from Obama’s mouth—or any Democrats mouth—I’m going to scream. How is this change? Leadership? Hope? Or do only straight people get to hope?” On the Reuters blog, Peter Henderson quotes one gay rights advocate as saying, “He was a civil rights lawyer. It just seems weird to me that he doesn’t think we should have full civil rights.”

Such a controversy, however, is unlikely to make huge difference come November. Unlike the riff in the Anglican Church over homosexuality, this disagreement among Liberals and Democrats will not bring schism. But it does show us something important: Mr. Obama is not as committed to radical change (at least regarding same-sex marriage) as some believe, or want him to be. As Bass puts it:

This underlines the tension that, for years, has seethed between the Democratic Party bosses and homosexual-rights activists on the issue of marriage. The far left wants strong rhetoric and actions to back it up. Politicians have elections to think about. . . . Obama is hardly the Democrats’ perfect savior. And at least on this one issue, he’s anything but the candidate of change.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Editor's Choice, Front Page, The Nation | 29 Comments »

On Wednesday, Barack Obama and John McCain decried the Supreme Court’s decision to ban capital punishment for child rapists.  But as McCain denounces the judicial activism seeping from the bench, he forgets that he’s partly to blame for it.

During the Clinton Administration, McCain voted to confirm two of the Court’s leading liberal Justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both of whom sided with the majority in yesterday’s capital punishment case, and also voted against the right to keep and bear arms in Thursday’s hand gun decision.  Still, a conservative voting to confirm liberal Justices isn’t that damning—unless that conservative is on the brink of appointing future Justices.

At Wake Forest’s commencement in May, McCain defended his decision, saying he voted for Ginsburg’s and Breyer’s nominations “for the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise.”

Scrutiny of a president’s judicial nomination can no doubt evolve into petty politics, but voting against a Justice’s appointment surely is not always “disingenuous,” especially if the nominee holds a drastically different judicial philosophy, and no doubt Ginsburg and Breyer do.  That’s why McCain’s website names Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito “as the model for John McCain’s judicial nominees,” not Ginsburg and Breyer.  That’s why his website also promises that McCain will appoint Justices who “understand that there are clear limits to judicial and federal power.”  This week, and in many other decisions, Ginsburg and Breyer proved they have a different judicial philosophy.

The question then remains: How can McCain defend his decision to appoint liberal Justices based on experience, and then vow to appoint future Justices based on judicial philosophy? Did McCain sell out while confirming Ginsburg and Breyer, or are his statements regarding judicial philosophy just rhetoric meant to pander to the Conservative masses?

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 9 Comments »

Benedicta Cippolla makes the observation that Democrats’ favorite Scripture seems to be from the book of James: “Faith without works is dead.”

In Kentucky, Obama mailed out a flier that featured him behind a pulpit with the words, “My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want.  But I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work.”  According to Politico, Clinton’s “standard church speech” used the line “Faith without works is dead, and works without faith is just too hard.”  When she spoke at Saddleback Church, she called it her favorite Scripture.

John Kerry and Al Gore quoted it when they ran against Bush.  Even Daily Kos borrows this “faith without works” language with the headline, “Midwestern Flooding Responses: McCain Prays; Obama Grabs a Shovel!

It’s not the only Scripture politicians favor.  Before the second anniversary of the Katrina disaster, Obama invoked the Sermon on the Mount, saying the disaster’s aftermath was so devastating because America’s foundation wasn’t built on the rock of brotherhood.  When a Democratic debate monitor asked candidates to tell their favorite Scriptures, Obama said the Sermon on the Mount, and Clinton named the Golden Rule.  Obama also said the Golden Rule when he took a similar question at a townhall meeting.

No one seems to have asked John McCain the same question, and Jonathan Martin finds it hard to see him answering it (although Daily Intel hazards a guess).  If anyone did ask, he’d probably come up with a similar verse — an inoffensive one, reduced to a lowest-common-denominator interpretation palatable to both Christians and atheists.

As Cippolla notes, the book of James, with its focus on ethical living, is the perfect book for a politician: “Its scriptural authority speaks to Christians, but its emphasis on ethical action speaks to everyone.”  Ironically, though, these inoffensive Scriptures are the most radically impossible to put into action, apart from the “faith” that politicians necessarily dilute when they borrow it to “speak to everyone. “

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 6 Comments »

In a video announcement to supporters, Obama declared Thursday morning that he would not participate in the campaign finance system—a first in the 32-year history of the finance system.  “I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” he said, “but the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system.”

Obama used the announcement to suggest that McCain’s campaign depends on special interest groups in Washington, and that “he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks” that both candidates agreed not to use.  The announcement refers to these examples to explain the departure from the campaign finance system, which is a surprising move after Obama had agreed with McCain in February 2007 to participate in the system and criticized Hillary Clinton in January 2007 for opting out of public financing for the public system.  “This election is about a lot of things but it’s also about trust,” McCain said in response to Obama’s decision.  “He said he would stick to his agreement.  He didn’t.”

The campaign finance system was established after the Watergate scandal to limit the spending on presidential campaigns, limiting candidates to $84 million in the two months between the parties’ conventions and the general election.  The funding was set up to balance the limitations so that presidential candidates would participate in the system.  Obama’s rejection noted that he “will be forgoing over $80 million in public funds during the final months of this general election,” but made no mention of the spending limits he is also forgoing.  The Democrat’s campaign thus far has broken records in campaign fundraising, raising an “unprecedented” $265 million, with $46 million left over from the primary.  McCain has raised $96 million.

The finance system is hamstrung by a number of loopholes, but some of its critics add that the issue runs deeper than legal phrasing: The principle of free speech implies that unaffiliated activists should be able to use unlimited spending to encourage (or condemn) either candidate, and regulating that activity comes scarily close to regulating free speech.

The campaign finance system restricts only the official spending of the presidential campaign.  McCain has led several efforts to reform the campaign finance laws, and he responded to Obama’s move by declaring he would play by the rules of the existing finance system.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 101 Comments »

A New York Post story reports that young Christians are the newest target of the Obama campaign. Next week, Obama will launch the “Joshua Generation Project,” attempting to court young Catholics and Evangelicals.

A source told the Brody File: “There’s unprecedented energy and excitement for Obama among young evangelicals and Catholics. The Joshua Generation project will tap into that excitement and provide young people of faith opportunities to stand up for their values and move the campaign forward.”

The feeling among Evangelicals, however, is mixed. Mike Farris, president of Patrick Henry College, sent the Obama campaign a cease-and-desist letter, claiming he coined the term “Joshua Generation” and threatening legal action. He told the Post, “I don’t want Obama to win.”

Other Evangelicals have embraced the Senator and his effort. The Post quotes beliefnet.com editor Patton Dodd as saying, “I’m definitely drawn to Obama.” Dodd seems to echo the sentiments of many young Evangelicals just receiving their political driver’s licenses and ready to travel new roads. But while road trips to discover one’s identity are welcomed, some young conservatives are forgetting about essential issues—like abortion.

Abortion, no doubt, has long been a rallying cry for conservatives and Republicans. And too often, a conservative candidate’s stances on issues such as the economy take a back seat to his views regarding abortion. But while abortion shouldn’t be the only judging criteria, it certainly cannot be forgotten. Unfortunately, though, young voters are increasingly ignoring its significance.

A quote by Dodd offers a concerning glimpse into the mind set of Obama’s target audience. “I asked someone about abortion,” Dodd says, “and he said, ‘I’m less concerned with policies that kill the unborn than policies that kill the living.’” Citing this, the Post claims that “issues that were once non-negotiable . . . have been relegated by younger evangelicals to the dustbin of wedge issues.”

To the media, the irony is apparent: Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and even most young people generally support young life. Barack Obama doesn’t. As The American Spectator reports, Obama has made numerous pledges to advance pro-choice legislation and even refuses “to define as ‘persons’ babies who survive late-term abortions.” Still, “his most ardent supporters” come from “18 to 30 year olds,” which is “the most pro life demographic in a generation.”

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 45 Comments »

Here is something to watch for as the Presidential campaign goes into full swing: courageous speeches.

You know the kind I mean, where the fella bangs on the podium and proclaims emphatically — and he doesn’t care who knows it! — that he stands for justice! And freedom too! Or for civilization. Or for the planet.

There is an art to this. You choose a conviction that used to be unpopular, maybe thirty years ago, but that savvy politicos know is in the ascendancy and will soon be mainstream (eg. Abortion or gay rights). Embracing this cause in your platform gives you all the appearance of being a person of courage, with none of the risk.

Alexandr Solzhenitsy talked about it thirty years ago: “…the decline of courage…is ironically emphasized by occasional outburst of boldness and inflexibility….when dealing with…doomed currents which clearly cannot offer any resistance.”

C.S.Lewis illustrated it in the fictional confession of a repentant former practitioner of the art:

Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful. At College, you know, we just started automatically writing the kind of essay that got good marks and saying the things that won applause. (The Great Divorce)

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 15 Comments »

One thing is missing from the media obsession with Obama’s new campaign against negative advertising: McCain’s exoneration.

After naming Michelle Obama “a Republican target,” an article from CBS News uses conspicuous name-dropping to associate “the first blow” with Cindy McCain. Quoting a speaker who introduced Cindy as “proud of her country, not just once but always,” the article labors to establish the offense to Michelle—but skates around the fact that Cindy had nothing to do with it.

John McCain and Barack Obama agreed last week to keep the campaign “civil,” and avoid the negative advertising strategies that have marred previous presidential competitions. Yesterday, however, the liberal online magazine Salon.com published an article linking McCain to various conservative groups that have produced ads opposing Obama. The column calls on the candidate to ask for his party’s “fat cat donors” not to support negative advertising. Disregarding McCain’s statement publicly distancing himself from some recent negative ads, the article goes on to make the accusation that “This year’s McCain likes to talk reform and act unreformed.”

Does he? In April, even before the gentleman’s agreement to be civil last week, McCain asked the North Carolina Republican party to cancel an anti-Obama ad. And of the supposed anti-Michelle campaign, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin says, the criticism isn’t coming only from Republicans. Asked about some of the rumors about Michelle Obama circulating the internet, Malkin noted, “if you go online and you look for some of these rumors, the proponents of these rumors are Hillary supporters. It’s coming from the left wing, not the right wing.”

For all the media protestations against Republican groups’ negative ads, the continual tie-ins to McCain may well constitute their own negative “smear” campaign—but the Democratic party isn’t leaving it up to chance. Despite the candidates’ agreement on June 4, the Democratic National Convention has been airing an anti-McCain spot since late April.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 35 Comments »

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Sarah Lueck reports that the 2008 Congressional elections are all but over, with the advantage going to the Democrats. “Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate,” she says. A look at the current Congress, however, may show the future isn’t so bleak for the GOP.

In 2006, Democrats were pushing a recycled agenda promising change and results. Top Senator Harry Reid declared, “It’s time for bipartisanship. It’s time for open government, transparency, and it’s a time for results.” In an echo of Republicans’ 1994 “Contract with America,” Democrats unveiled “A New Direction for America,” or their “Six for ‘06” campaign: six areas they were committed to reforming.

So how is Congress doing? Just last month Congress made history with its dismal approval rating: it tied Gallup’s all-time low; an anemic 18%. In fact, Congress’s approval sits lower than the President’s, which is 10 points higher at 28%. So how did the 110^th Congressional prodigy turn into a back-room-bar bust? Lies (according to one Democrat) and broken promises.

In the latest issue of WORLD, Cal Thomas reports that veteran Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) admitted he and his colleagues “sort of stretched the facts” regarding their commitment to bring troops home from Iraq. The remarks, captured on YouTube, are disheartening and demeaning. Fred Barnes says that the 110^th has “done nothing that matters,” scathingly calling it a “do-nothing Congress.” The numbers prove that the American people agree.

Not surprisingly, many election campaigns are built on the backs of broken promises. That’s just politics. But sometimes the promises are so big that failure cannot be overlooked or written off. Democrats promised returning GIs, and instead we saw a surge. They also promised cheaper gas, and instead gas has risen by more than $1.60 since they took control, translating into record prices at the pump.

The question now is: Will the American people suffer short-term memory loss come November? The Journal seems to think so. But Congress’s inability to institute “change” is sure to make even the most amnesia-plagued voter think twice. And if Congress’s current approval numbers stay anchored, a landslide Republican defeat may not be so imminent.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 15 Comments »

The U.S. average gas price reached $4 a gallon for the first time last week, stirring up new rounds of old debates about oil and the economy. Some 94 percent of Americans see the energy situation as “very serious” or “fairly serious,” and gas prices number second among people’s voting concerns. So what do the two major remaining presidential candidates have to say?

Obama says that he would impose a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies and devote government resources to finding a renewable energy policy. He also criticized McCain for wanting to cut taxes: “When we’re paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. … That isn’t just irresponsible. It’s outrageous.”

In a 2006 podcast, Obama declared that his long-term solution to rising oil prices was to manufacture cars with better gas mileage and invest in ethanol. “If we had taken all these steps decades ago,” said Obama of his 2006 plan, “like Brazil did when the call for energy independence was first issued, we’d be immune right now to the whims of oil-rich dictators and surging gas prices.” So how cheap is gas in Brazil? The Washington Post reported in 2006 that prices at the pump in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city, were $3.74 for a gallon of gasoline–while the US national average hovered at around $3.01. Pure ethanol was cheaper, reported the Post: only about $2 a gallon.

McCain’s campaign website (under the “Economy” issue) notes that the candidate will “End policies that contribute to higher transportation and food costs.” In particular, the site claims that ethanol subsidies, tariff barriers and sugar quotas “drive up food prices and hurt Americans.” McCain also has called repeatedly for a “tax holiday” to suspend government taxes on gasoline for the summer traveling months, which would reduce the price at the pump by about 18 cents. Hillary Clinton also favored the tax holiday, but Obama has repeatedly criticized the idea as political pandering.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 33 Comments »

In an article for the Wall Street Journal , William McGurn argues that Barack Obama can fix one of the unintended consequences of John F. Kennedy’s presidency: he can once again give those “motivated by religious principles a place in public debate.”

As evidence, McGurn quotes a speech Obama gave two years ago at a Sojourners/Call to Renewal Conference. In his eloquent oration, Obama says:

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. . . . To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity.”

While JFK called for an “absolute” separation of church and state and said that a president’s faith should be his own “private affair,” Obama claims his faith is an integral part of his political life. But while this may induce hope for change within a party that has largely approached religion-informed politics with hostility, such hope is short-lived.

While McGurn believes Obama is the religious man’s Hercules, others believe Obama’s recent actions suggest otherwise. In an op-ed in last week’s San Diego Union-Tribune, Ruben Navarrette claims the once-proud member of Trinity United Church of Christ has sold out. With a “sleight of hand reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s,” Obama has become the candidate of political expedience, not the candidate of change. Leaving the congregation that supported him for so long, Navarrette says, “shows [Obama] is a traditional politician after all, and may suggest that his religious convictions are not all that firm.” Such abandonment-under-fire, he explains, is worrisome:

Long gone is Obama’s admirable rhetoric about how he could ‘no more disown’ his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and implicitly his now-former church, than he could disown his own grandmother. Now, Wright has been disowned. The church has been disowned. And Grandma should watch her back. . . . [Obama’s] supporters are right to worry about the price of the ticket.

Navarrette may have a point: even JFK, in his famous religion speech refused to cave under pressure. “I do not intend to … disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election,” Kennedy said in 1960.

Navarette’s indictment may not mean Obama is unfit to run the country. But in light of Alisa Harris’s article this week highlighting the importance of virtue, it might be an indictment to heed.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 17 Comments »