McCain or Obama: Which would make the best president for Adventists

[Bravus]

I know there's some of that, but for me it's much more about capacity to get the job done: I know people in their 80s who are much sharper than me, and as you say, others in their 50s who I wouldn't want running a small business, let alone a large country.

[doctorj]

So we seem to have talked this issue out rather well over the last few days. And it seems like the consensus is that McCain would be the better person to vote for to best represent an Adventist group of people. My, my . . . a very different viewpoint than the one I had developed from watching news channel from the distant land of Australia in which I live.

[John317]

...At least Obama talks about and is knowledgeable about religion, church going and the like.

I'm concerned that he would sit in that church for 20 years and then claim that he did not know Wright taught things that Obama has admitted were divisive and wrong. Everyone else who knew Wright knew he taught those things, so why didn't Obama? Obama was the only one who was taken by surprise at what Wright said.

Quote:

McCain can hardly say anything on the topic. I have yet to see McCain saying anything much about religion or even if he would take into account people's religious beliefs.

Take a look at the following. There are many others available as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUGjyX6bK88&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCv-ONLH1Js

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5z2m_7Q4Yo&feature=related

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Oh I don’t know..., it seems to me our military places inordinate emphasis upon the mind in preparing our boys and girls in case of capture by the enemy. I’d say that McCain must be an extraordinary example of that strength of mind; perhaps following – thought, also.

Quote:Bravus

Obduracy is pretty much the opposite of the kind of flexibility that is required of a leader in a rapidly changing world.

Queer descriptive. I suppose I ought to be glad I qualified my statement with, “perhaps following – thought, also.” That said,

I read of an unusual man ‘bout a coupla millennia ago who might likewise be described obdurate – given the descriptive proffered above. Thank goodness for His obduracy

[John317]

Right now most of the polls show that they are very close, within about 5-7 percentage points. Obama seems to be a little ahead as far as the polls are concerned, but if you study the history of American elections, you will find that the loser is frequently ahead at this time in the process. Virtually anything can happen. If the past is any indication of what we can expect, there will probably be a lot of up and down movement in the polls between now and Oct. We can be more sure of who will win after a few more months, say the middle of September. I just hope that the best man for America wins. Welcome along for the ride.

[jasd]

I don't know if the procedure is still practiced but - men were having their large intestines surgically shortened in Florida. The reasoning was that the shorter length of the large intestine of short(er) men - translated to greater drive: witness, Napoleon.

Napoleon managed quite well against taller generals -- until he met Wellington. Wellington was probably taller than the other generals.

Age: Pope John Paul II was 84 when he passed away. Before his passing, he administered an EMPIRE! exceptionally well.

Mao Tse Tung died 82 years old. In the meantime, he ruled a billion people - who, in the few short years since - are fast becoming a credible hegemony, politically, militarily, and economically.

It goes on...

Mebbe, it is that McCain will outlive a whole bunch of us! with an effective mind, yet...

round and round it goes and where it stops - nobody knows

[doctorj]

Welcome along for the ride.

AND what a ride this is shaping up to be. What a great time to be alive! May the best man for America and the World win!

[Jeannieb43]

So we seem to have talked this issue out rather well over the last few days. And it seems like the consensus is that McCain would be the better person to vote for to best represent an Adventist group of people. My, my . . . a very different viewpoint than the one I had developed from watching news channel from the distant land of Australia in which I live.

Dear Dr. J.

Please know that the posters who have spoken [written?] the loudest and the most often on this thread do not speak for everybody on this Adventist Forum.

My opinion has been well documented on this board, and I won't repeat it here. But McCain's stated promise to appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Justices Roberts and Scalia speaks loud and clear: He's in the pocket of the radical rightwing of the Republican party. NOT a good forecast for religious freedom, or personal freedoms, during the anticipated lifetimes of newly appointed justices.

I will never vote for McCain.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: doctorj

So we seem to have talked this issue out rather well over the last few days. And it seems like the consensus is that McCain would be the better person to vote for to best represent an Adventist group of people. My, my . . . a very different viewpoint than the one I had developed from watching news channel from the distant land of Australia in which I live.

Dear Dr. J.

Please know that the posters who have spoken [written?] the loudest and the most often on this thread do not speak for everybody on this Adventist Forum.

There is no reason for him to think that anyone is speaking for anyone but themselves. I assume that everyone is free to give their opinion, and that is all anyone has been giving here.

[pindoc]

"I'm concerned that he would sit in that church for 20 years and then claim that he did not know Wright taught things that Obama has admitted were divisive and wrong. Everyone else who knew Wright knew he taught those things, so why didn't Obama? Obama was the only one who was taken by surprise at what Wright said."

The point is that a person with a measurable IQ who sits in a church and has a close relationship with Wright could not but already know that he taught these things.

Certainly, every individual here speaks for him/her-self and nobody's political choices should be assumed r/t a particular denomination membership or participation in this Adventist Forum.

[John317]

Add it to what Obama said about his friend of about 20 years, Antoin Tony Rezko, recently convicted by a Federal jury on corruption charges:

Rezko's guilty verdict on 16 of 24 corruption counts could have broad repercussions for Blagojevich, who made Rezko a central player in his kitchen cabinet. It could also prove a political liability for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, who once counted Rezko as a friend and fundraiser, as the likely Democratic presidential nominee heads into the general election campaign against Republican John McCain.

"I'm saddened by today's verdict," Obama said Wednesday. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform. I encourage the General Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future."

So Obama knows two people for 20 years and he claims that he is shocked at what both do or say.

What is he going to do when he walks into a room and is faced with people he has never met before, perhaps the leader of Russia or Iran? Will he show better insight and judgement? Are Wright and Rezko simply cases of bad luck? Or is Obama hanging around the wrong people? Is it possible that a man of Obama's intelligence really did not know anything about these issues regarding either Wright or Rezko? Was he awake? How extensive are his powers of observation and intuition? And if he did not know, why on earth didn't he? Has he proved that he is a good man to trust as a judge of people's character?

[Anderoo]

I plan to vote for Obama. I am no longer affiliated with the Adventist church (though my name remains on the books) but I do find myself approaching many aspects of life still looking through an Adventist lens. I am choosing Obama because I think he is the best of the two candidates. I do not want a candidate who will continue the policies of the Bush administration. I've heard all of the criticism of Obama (I even tune in to right-wing talk radio to hear what they are saying) and I've heard all the criticisms of McCain (I listen to liberal broadcasts online). When I put all of it into the scales, I find the scales tip in Obama's favor.

He isn't perfect. He has allowed himself to pander to AIPAC. In my opinion, if Israel is so special, let them fend for themselves. The Christian fundamentalists in our country want a president who will further their prophetic understanding of the role of Israel. As far as Adventists are concerned, the literal nation of Israel is irrelevant-God's people are spiritual Jews. I think Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is reprehensible. I would hope that Obama will not let Israel have so much influence on American foreign policy.

I think abortion and gay marriage should be a state-decided issue. I personally do not agree with abortion or gay marriage but I also believe that the federal government should not get involved in those issues. At the same time, I think the Republican party has emphasized those issues and gotten religious conservatives all fired up about them so they will vote Republican. To me, Republicans have done much to undermine the family with economic policies that benefit multinational corporations to the detriment of workers and consumers. Although NAFTA was passed under Clinton.

I don't trust the Clintons one bit. I'm glad Hillary is not going to be the nominee. It makes me nervous to see Obama paying off her debts in order to appease the Clintons. Bill is a sore loser!

Sometimes I think it doesn't matter who we pick to be president. If a person makes it through the media horse and pony show to become one of the "approved" candidates, they probably are in the back pocket of corporate and elite interests. I want to believe that Obama could be above that but when I found out that he and Hillary possibly snuck off when they were in Virginia to meet with the Bilderberg group in Chantilly, (google it) my hopes sunk. I want a candidate who will work for "We the People."

I wanted Dennis Kucinich but the powers-that-be didn't let him get his views across to the voters. Adventists would like him: doesn't drink alcohol or coffee, doesn't smoke, and is a vegan!

[John317]

Interesting and thoughtful post. I like the part where you say you are voting for Obama because you believe he is the best candidate. I am not sure that Obama is the best, but you have the right reason for voting for someone for president. I don't agree with everything but I can agree with much that you say. It sounds like you are being consistent in your political choices.

[Anderoo]

I want to add something else. It seems suspicious to me that Joe Lieberman is a strong McCain supporter (and potential running mate) and war hawk yet he was Al Gore's running mate. Al Gore didn't squawk at all about losing under questionable circumstances. It makes me wonder if they all aren't playing for the same team. Who is that team? It doesn't look like it is "We the People."

[John317]

Joe Lieberman was a conservative to moderate Democrat, never a liberal Democrat. (Apparently that is why Gore chose him as his running mate-- to attract Republicans and keep conservative Democrats, both of whom held Lieberman in high regard.) Obama, by contrast, is a very liberal Senator, maybe the most liberal of all of them. Lieberman thinks it would be a mistake to simply pick up and leave Iraq, and he favors a strong pro-Israel policy, of course, since he himself is Jewish/American. Also, the democrats didn't accept him as a democratic nominee because of his difference over Iraq. So it is not surprising that he would side with McCain, since the Democratic party is to the Left of where it was in 2000 and even in 2004.

There is also the fact that McCain came very close about 2001- 2003 to becoming an Independent, and of course that is exactly what Joe Lieberman did do. So in actuality, they are fairly close on many political positions.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

McCain's stated promise to appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Justices Roberts and Scalia speaks loud and clear

That is probably the best reason to vote for McCain. I do believe the strongest reason to support McCain is his commitment to appoint constructionists to the Court. And the biggest concern about voting for Obama is his desire to appoint activists to the Court.

That is not to say I favor McCain overall. It is a long way to November and I have yet to decide who I am going to vote for. There are a lot of things I like about Obama. It simply isn't going to be an easy decision.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Al Gore didn't squawk at all about losing under questionable circumstances.

November and December of 2000 were some pretty big squawk months. It was Richard Nixon who didn't squawk when he lost to Kennedy under questionable circumstances. Al Gore Jr. has actually criticized Nixon by saying he should have squawked.

What is odd is that Gore choose Lieberman as a running mate in 2000 but did not endorse him in 2004. What does that tell us about Gore?

[John317]

I agree, Shane, and in fact, I almost wrote something very similar. Nixon actually had a very good case, and it is likely he could have won his case if he had protested the election results, or at the least he could have caused Kennedy a great deal of embarrassment. We know now that Kennedy's father got his son enough votes in Chicago to win the election, and Nixon knew it. The fact is, Nixon put his love of country above his personal ambitions. Or it might be that he knew if he had squawked loudly, he would have ruined his chances of a comeback.

This from the Wikipedia:

Kennedy won Illinois by a bare 9,000 votes, even though Nixon carried 92 of the state's 101 counties. Kennedy's victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago's vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes --- more than 10% of Chicago's 1960 population of 3.55 million[6] --- thus (barely) overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to "prove" that the state was stolen for Kennedy.

So proving that my favorite modern president was elected on the basis of dishonesty and fraud. (I was only one of two students in the SDA school to vote in the sixth grade for Kennedy. After the teacher counted the votes, he told the class, "Two smart-allecks voted for Kennedy.")

[Dr. Shane]

In contrast the Florida 2000 vote was recounted three times (including the time the media counted it) and Bush came out ahead each time.

[jasd]

QR frame:

>>Please know that the posters who have spoken [written?] the loudest and the most often on this thread do not speak for everybody on this Adventist Forum.<<

I don’t know if I am the loudest, but I do admit to being very, very noisy.

I find myself indebted and appreciative – to Jeanieb43 – for separating me from the madding crowd. [/kiddinggg] Y’all are not madding.

Big Thanks

>>But McCain's stated promise to appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Justices Roberts and Scalia speaks loud and clear:<<

There’s something wrong with strict constitutionalists sitting on the Supreme Court? We prefer that legislation now devolves from Congress to any and/or all Justices, any court – legislating from the bench?

“Republican presidents have appointed numerous liberal justices to the U.S. Supreme Court including Earl Warren (Eisenhower), William Brennan (Eisenhower), Harry Blackmun (Nixon), John Paul Stevens (Ford), Anthony Kennedy (Reagan), Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan), and David Souter (Bush I).”

Additionally, not all of those Dubya desired as nominees to the Court can be considered conservative.

How many conservatives were nominated by Dem’crats to sit as Justices on The Supreme Court?

Were I POTUS, I’d stack the court by means of The Federal Register, executive order, and 'jingle-jangle’ – Congress be dinked: ipso..., no mas the fraudulent ROE v WADE mis muchachas (sorry :-o for the no-more-than-that emphatic superlative).

You don’t want someone like me Prez. But..., Hey! aren’t the Dems nominating someone kinda like me? Naahhh...

[doctorj]

I plan to vote for Obama. I am no longer affiliated with the Adventist church (though my name remains on the books) but I do find myself approaching many aspects of life still looking through an Adventist lens. I am choosing Obama because I think he is the best of the two candidates. I do not want a candidate who will continue the policies of the Bush administration. I've heard all of the criticism of Obama (I even tune in to right-wing talk radio to hear what they are saying) and I've heard all the criticisms of McCain (I listen to liberal broadcasts online). When I put all of it into the scales, I find the scales tip in Obama's favor.

He isn't perfect. He has allowed himself to pander to AIPAC. In my opinion, if Israel is so special, let them fend for themselves. The Christian fundamentalists in our country want a president who will further their prophetic understanding of the role of Israel. As far as Adventists are concerned, the literal nation of Israel is irrelevant-God's people are spiritual Jews. I think Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is reprehensible. I would hope that Obama will not let Israel have so much influence on American foreign policy.

These are the very reasons that from what I can gather from US News Channels we see here in Australia why I would pick Obama. However, the Israel thing seems to be a problem as you note.

I see a lot wrong with the Bush Administration and think that the Bush Administration should be curtailed. So not a good idea to vote for McCain who will most likely act in a similar manner to the current President.

[carolaa]

General comment:

It's interesting that the religious right is supporting McCain, who doesn't seem to be very religious, from what I've seen. It's also interesting that the religious right seems to have 2 litmus tests - abortion and homosexuality. What I'm wondering is, is that the extent of their religion? I think the more encompassing beliefs of Jim Wallis better reflect Christ's message. Here is his blog from yesterday:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/07/obamas-faithbased-plan-by-jim.html

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

What I'm wondering is, is that the extent of their religion?

Some of the most loving, caring, generous and kind Christians I know consider themselves part of the "religious right". I am ashamed to admit that some of them have stronger faith than I. I certainly cannot look down my nose at them.

[jasd]

>>These are the very reasons that from what I can gather from US News Channels...<<

It is hoped that you receive your 'news' from more credible sources than MainstreamMedia, America.

Example of the American Fourth Estate/Fifth Column:

"My niece, Katelyn, stationed at Baluud, Iraq was assigned, with others of her detachment, to be escort/guard/watcher for Martha Raddatz of ABC News as she covered John McCain's recent trip to Iraq . Katelyn and her Captain stood directly behind Raddatz as she queried GIs walking past. They kept count of the GIs and you should remember these numbers. She asked 60 GIs who they planned to vote for in November. 54 said John McCain, 4 for Obama and 2 for Hillary. Katelyn called home and told her Mom and Dad to watch ABC news the next night because she was standing directly behind Raddatz and maybe they'd see her on TV. Mom and Dad of course, called and emailed all the kinfolk to watch the newscast and maybe see Katelyn. Well, of course, we all watched and what we saw wasn't a glimpse of Katelyn, but got a heck'uva view of skewed news. After a dissertation on McCain's trip and speech, ABC showed 5 GIs being asked by Raddatz how they were going to vote in November; 3 for Obama and 2 for Clinton. No mention of the 54 for McCain." --Major General (ret) Buckman:

>>I see a lot wrong with the Bush Administration and think that the Bush Administration should be curtailed.<<

I'm curious as to the "a lot wrong...". Please, feel free to expand.

>>So not a good idea to vote for McCain who will most likely act in a similar manner to the current President.<<

Surely! you're much too astute to latch on to such guff as advanced by the Dems - that McCain represents a Bush second term. You seem too intelligent. Indeed,

I would more willingly vote for McCain were he "likely" to act as a Dubya might. I submit that in a Republic now almost entirely represented by political duffers, Dubya remains as one its last statesmen, a stalwart,

oratory considerations notwithstanding.

It seems that truly, the gods have made Americans mad/barmy - to have become so enamored with a Presidential candidate lacking either résumé or substance. I suppose the rest of the proverb is...

we are destroyed.

[jasd]

>>It's also interesting that the religious right seems to have 2 litmus tests - abortion and homosexuality. What I'm wondering is, is that the extent of their religion?<<

What I find interesting is - that one might seem to take issue with moral certitudes. C'mon...,

personally, I find the laissez-faire mentality that condones a woman's right to introduce a saline (read: salt) solution to the unprotected fetus in her womb, or to literally dismember the fetus with whirring stainless steel blades, or to partially deliver the child only to insert a surgical instrument into its skull that its brain may be vacuumed into a disposable bag -

is morally repugnant.

Homosexuality: I'm sorta a live and let live kind of guy. I take issue with homosexuals where and when they morph into very political activists who demand this, demand that - (special rights and guarantees) - and, well, generally make a nuisance of themselves.

Lastly, why might concern about abortion and homosexual issues not be considered inclusive - rather than limiting - to one's belief system?