Yesterday’s message was called A Christian in the Voting Booth. The purpose of the message was to demonstrate how to think Biblically through various issues related to voting in the election on Tuesday. Here is a brief outline of the message:

I. Do I have a Christian responsibility to vote?
    A. You are responsible to exert a godly influence.
    B. You are responsible to pray for your leaders.
    C. As a voter you share the responsibility of government.

II. How do I approach voting as a Christian?
    A. Voting on state issues (Massachusetts)
        1) State personal income tax
        2) Possession of marijuana
        3) Dog racing

    B. Voting on national issues
        1) The economy
        2) Foreign policy
        3) Moral issues (such as marriage and abortion)

    C. Voting for candidates
        1) Character
        2) Wisdom
        3) Leadership

III. Three things to remember.
    A. The gospel is bigger than politics.
    B. The church is bigger than political parties.
    C. God is bigger than elections.

Note: Click on the Sermons tab at the top of the blog for this and other messages.

Theology professor Roger Olson risks offending both Republicans and Democrats with his Ten Questions to Consider Before Voting. (And I guess I risk doing the same by posting them here!)

5 Questions to consider before voting Republican:

1. What will happen to the poor in a Republican administration?
2. Will a Republican administration pursue world peace?
3. How will a Republican administration promote mercy, compassion and justice for all?
4. Is a Republican administration likely to be unduly influenced by large corporations?
5. Can a Republican administration show respect for every human person’s dignity and rights?

5 Questions to consider before voting Democratic:

1. What will happen to the not-yet-born in a Democratic administration?
2. Will a Democratic administration keep America and others safe from terrorism?
3. How will a Democratic administration promote security and safety for Americans and others?
4. Is a Democratic administration likely to be unduly influenced by liberal special interest groups?
5. Can a Democratic administration show respect for traditional family values?

What do you think? Does Olson do a good job with his questions of identifying some of the main strengths and weaknesses of each party?

Methinks this Obama supporter may have got a little carried away by Obama’s promises in his speech at the rally. (Video length: 0:26)
 

HT: Bob Krumm

“It was the most memorable time of my life … It was a touching moment, because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he’ s going to help me.” (Peggy Joseph; Obama supporter)

Click here for a recent list of Obama’s campaign promises (compiled by ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper). Not that all of McCain’s promises have been overly realistic either.

Click here for more posts on Politics.

NEWSFLASH! TIME Magazine argues that experience is not necessary to be president — except that was seven months ago in March when they ran a two-article cover story on Sen. Barack Obama. Check out the following excerpts defending Sen. Obama’s lack of experience. (Where was TIME when people started attacking Gov. Sarah Palin as being light on experience?)

From: Does Experience Matter in a President?

Obama’s relatively light political resume … continues to be the focus of his rivals’ attacks [i.e. Hillary] … Obama’s credentials would be an issue in any election year. He would be sworn in at age 47, making him one of the youngest Presidents in history, and would arrive in the Oval Office with less executive experience than most of his predecessors …

Wouldn’t it be nice if time on the job and tickets punched translated neatly into superior performance? Then finding great Presidents would be a simple matter of weighing résumés … But it has never worked that way, which is why Lincoln’s statue occupies a marble temple on the Mall in Washington, while his far more experienced rival William Seward has a little seat on a pedestal in New York City.

If knowing the system is so useful, then second-term presidencies should be more successful than first-term. Instead, many Presidents lose effectiveness as they go along … To a keen student of human nature, all of life offers lessons in how to lead, inspire and endure. Lincoln’s ability to apply useful lessons from his motley experiences was among his most striking traits.

From: The Science of Experience.

In making the case that she would be a better President than Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton never forgets to summon the argument that she has more experience. But as the Florida State simulations show, experience doesn’t always help. In fact, three decades of research into expert performance has shown that experience itself … can actually hinder your ability to deliver reproducibly superior performance …

Experience is not only insufficient for expert performance; in some cases, it can hurt. Highly experienced people tend to execute routine tasks almost unconsciously … and they retrieve the information they need quickly, rarely pausing to apply rules … Which is not to say that, if elected, Clinton or John McCain would drive the country off a cliff — or that Obama, as a comparative novice, would be more cautious and less burdened by his habits. But the study of experience does indicate that the more seasoned candidates wouldn’t automatically outperform Obama as President.

Do you find TIME’s arguments convincing? Either way, it makes for some interesting reading seven months later and just days away from the election.

Related post: Obama, McCain and Palin TIME Magazine Covers

All the TIME covers from the past year featuring Obama, McCain and Palin.

(Note: Updated to include November 3 cover.)

One of my commenters asked me yesterday about the coverage of Obama vs. McCain on the cover of TIME Magazine. I found conflicting reports online, so I decided to compile the information myself. There have been fifteen issues of TIME Magazine in the last twelve months with pictures of the current presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the cover. Here is the numerical breakdown of total appearances. (Note: On some of the covers two candidates appear together.)

• Barack Obama appeared on 12 covers (all but three)
• John McCain appeared on 5 covers
• Sarah Palin appeared on 1 cover
• Joe Biden appeared on zero (sorry Joe!)

I don’t know that this means anything other than TIME appears to be more interested in Obama than in McCain, Palin or Biden. But I did notice a few interesting things going through the various covers. For example, the May issue with Obama and Clinton on the front is titled There Can Only Be One: was this before or after people started calling Obama “The One?”

It is also interesting to compare the most recent October issue (Does Temperament Matter?) with the March 10 issue (Does Experience Matter?). The March issue contains two cover articles defending Obama’s lack of experience, one from a historical vantage and the other from a scientific viewpoint. Both articles argue that experience is not necessary to be president and may even be harmful! Of course, this makes for very interesting reading seven months later now that much of the media has accused Sarah Palin of lacking the necessary experience to be Vice President.

Here are all the covers. You can click on the title to go to the online issue or click on the thumbnail for a larger picture. If you find anything interesting, be sure to share it in the comments.

December 10, 2007 – The Contender
Barack Obama

February 4, 2008 – The Phoenix
John McCain

February 18, 2008 – The Struggle For the Soul of the Democrats
Barack Obama (with Hillary Clinton)

March 10, 2008 – How Much Does Experience Matter?
Barack Obama

April 21, 2008 – Raising Obama
Barack Obama

May 5, 2008 – There Can Only Be One
Barack Obama (with Hillary Clinton)

May 12, 2008 – The TIME 100 (The Most Influential People in the World)
Barack Obama and John McCain

May 19, 2008 – And The Winner* Is
Barack Obama

August 11, 2008 – The Economy
Barack Obama and John McCain

September 1, 2008 – Special Issue: The Democrats
Barack Obama

September 8, 2008 – Special Issue: The Republicans
John McCain

September 15, 2008 – The Education of Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin

October 20, 2008 – Why the Economy is Trumping Race
Barack Obama

October 27, 2008 – Does Temperament Matter?
Barack Obama and John McCain

November 3, 2008 – 7 Things That Could Go Wrong on Election Day
Barack Obama (tiny, but he’s still there in the upper corner)

 

Related post: TIME Magazine Says Experience Not Necessary to be President!

I am not a big Simpson’s fan, but I thought this was pretty funny.

(Video length: 1:20)

(HT: Althouse)

This reminds me of a hilarious interactive online “ballot” during the 2000 Bush/Gore election. It was basically a flash animation with a picture of Bush on the right and a picture of Gore on the left. The instructions said to click on the one you wanted for president. If you clicked on Gore’s face, you got Gore. But if you moused over Bush’s face to click on him, the faces would switch places. So then you would mouse over to Bush on the left to click on him, but the faces would shift again. If you tried too many times, both faces turned into Al Gore. There was no possible way to vote for Bush.

I have looked for it online since, but have never been able to find it again. Does anyone remember this or know where to find it online today?

By the way, I was living in Fort Lauderdale, FL in 2000, home of the hanging chads and butterfly ballots. There were a lot of funny things posted online at that time about the election. There must be a collection of it all online somewhere. Again, does anyone know where?

HIGHLY PARTISAN POLITICAL EDITION.

• How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, a nonpartisan journalism watchdog organization, reports greater unfavorable press coverage for McCain’s campaign than Obama’s.

• Redistribution of Wealth Experiment. A restaurant diner “spreads the wealth” by redistributing his tip to a homeless person outside.
• Chuck Norris : I’m Voting for Those Not Yet Born. Chuck Norris speaks up on behalf of the unborn.
• An Instructive Candidacy. Victor Davis Hanson reflects on what Sarah Palin has taught us about ourselves during this election cycle.
• The Obama Temptation. “Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal … Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama’s name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world.”
• Deregulation: The Big Lie. “The current crisis was not caused by a deregulated ‘anything goes’ market, but by liberal intervention in the market, i.e. forcing banks to make high-risk loans or face costly lawsuits.”

Gov. Palin released her 2006 and 2007 tax returns last week. Paul Caron over at the TaxProf compiles the main information from all four candidates onto one handy chart.

There seems to be a fairly wide spectrum in both reported income and charitable giving.

Related posts:

• Click here for Obama’s Tax Returns
• Click here for Hillary Clinton’s Tax Returns
• Click here for Britney Spears’ Budget.
• Click here for more posts on politics.

FactCheck.org picks up on the following errors by both candidates at the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate last night.

Gov. Sarah Palin:

• Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.
• Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.
• Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain’s plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.
• Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.

Sen. Joe Biden:

• Biden incorrectly said “John McCain voted the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. The two were actually on opposite sides.
• Biden wrongly claimed that McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the budget bill that contained an increase on singles making as little as $42,000 a year. McCain voted against it. Biden was referring to an amendment that didn’t address taxes at that income level.
• Biden wrongly claimed that McCain had said “he wouldn’t even sit down” with the government of Spain. Actually, McCain didn’t reject a meeting, but simply refused to commit himself one way or the other during an interview.

Now, who’s fact checking FactCheck?

Related post: How to Watch a Debate

In case you missed it, here is the video of the full 2008 Vice
Presidential Debate between Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden.
(Video length: 1:32:30)

Here are some good tips on watching the debates from Alan Johnson, a reporter with The Columbus Dispatch (with extra comments by H.B. London).

• Listen actively. Switch from a passive mode to a learning mode. Pay attention.
• Focus on substance not style. It is not so much how they look and how they sound as it is the clarity of their plans and positions.
• Ignore subtle and disruptive behavior. You have seen candidates twist questions to the point that no answer is ever really given. You need to listen for a response that represents your questions. Discount gamesmanship.
• Keep an open mind. Sometimes I find myself wanting the debaters to say what I want them to say and discounting the other person, even if he or she makes sense. Do you? My political bias many times gets in the way.
• Turn off the TV when the debate is over. The spin zone and post-debate analysis are designed to influence you. Make up your own mind.
• Give your own grade. Be objective. Weigh the significance of the issues. The polls are for the masses — the debate is for you.

HT: The Pastor’s Weekly Briefing

Related post: Fact Checking the Palin/Biden Debate

I have mixed feelings over the recently defeated bailout bill. I would like to see the American economy succeed without it, but there are strong indications that some sort of bailout is necessary to keep the economy afloat. Still, no one seems to know whether the bailout will succeed in fixing our problems or only delay the inevitable, perhaps even making things worse.

I can see why Congress is so divided on the bill. $700 billion ($700,000,000,000) is a lot of money to throw around when you are not sure if it will even work. As Bob Krumm writes:

How big is $700 billion? This source reports that to date America has spent $583 billion to fight the war in Iraq. That’s right, we taxpayers are being asked to add an immediate expense to the federal budget that is more than $100 billion greater than has already been spent on more than five years of war. (Bob Krumm: Call me a skeptic)

Of course the $1.1 trillion ($1,100,000,000,000) lost on Wall Street yesterday cannot be ignored either, although thankfully we are seeing some of that made back today. Thomas Sowell at Townhall recognizes the difficulties but still ends up arguing against the bailout:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the notion that this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense than letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers. (Thomas Sowell: Bailout Politics)

Meanwhile Terence Corcoran at the Financial Post argues that we should let the market correct itself.

It would be unwise to read too much into the Dow plunge, or to link it exclusively to the political circus in Washington. Stocks appeared to be heading lower no matter how Congress voted. Indeed, from the moment congressional leaders announced Sunday they had a deal, filled with anti-market schemes and regulation, stock prices began falling in Asia and Europe. Early yesterday, when it was expected the bailout would be approved, the Dow was down 500 points.

Bailout or no bailout, the stock markets were heading lower as financial markets continue to undergo massive asset revaluations. No matter what elaborate new rescue packages Congress, the Bush administration and the U.S. Federal Reserve bring to the party, the market is going to continue marking stock prices and other assets down until values reach realistic levels.

This is not, nor can it be, the beginning of the end of the U.S. or world financial system. It’s simply how the financial market works, how it should work. And it is working, whatever the games being played out in Washington and whatever their belief that governments can resolve the crisis. (Financial Post: Financial markets go up and down as they should)

So, what do you think? Should we be bailing out the bailout? Or let the economy run its course?

Related posts:

• How Big Is a Trillion?
• Scary Financial Movie Trailer

Last week I posted an article called Palin, Prayer and Precedent. The article looked at Sarah Palin’s prayer for U.S. troops in relation to historical examples of U.S. presidents who also invoked prayer during times of war. (Gov. Palin’s remarks were made during an address to students at Wasilla Assembly of God Church in Wasilla, Alaska.)

The post was linked by Ann Althouse which prompted one reader to respond by raising an additional question concerning Palin and prayer — this time in relation to Palin’s request for prayer about the Alaskan pipeline (made during the same address to students at Wasilla).

We had a back-and-forth discussion in the comments section at Ann Althouse which I thought would be fun to reproduce here. A big thanks to Amy Jacobs for granting me permission to post her comments. Enjoy the discussion!

______________________________________________________________

Amy: The Ray Fowler post makes the same arguments seen elsewhere for Palin’s prayer. The problem with Fowler’s spin is that it doesn’t explain a similarly bizarre comment from Palin: “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.” In this instance it’s clear that Palin claims to know God’s will.

Fowler’s attempt to spin Palin’s prayer offers up this distinction: “There is a big difference between claiming that something is God’s plan and praying that something we do lines up with God’s plan.” Palin says that building the gas line is God’s will. I have no idea how Palin claims to know God’s will regarding US economic and energy policy. In any case an invocation of Lincoln doesn’t help Palin out on this one.

                            – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Ray: I don’t think Gov. Palin is necessarily saying she knows God’s will for the pipeline. I am sure if you asked her she would explain more clearly what she meant. It is similar to Senator Obama and the lipstick on a pig comment. His words could have been interpreted negatively towards Palin, but when given a chance to explain himself, he told us what he meant by the words. In the same way I think we should let Gov. Palin interpret her own words instead of jumping to conclusions.

                            – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Amy: I can only go by what Palin says. In this case it’s perfectly clear: Palin claims to know God has a plan for building a gas line. Words have meaning, which is why you spent so much time analyzing precisely what Palin said about our troops in Iraq. We should hold our politicians responsible for their actions and their words.

Except the new Republican game is to defend ridiculous comments by Republican politicians by arguing that it’s just “verbiage.” Palin did this when she defended McCain’s assertion that the fundamentals of the economy are strong: “Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use.” I think you use the same sort of defense of Palin: “I am sure if you asked her she would explain more clearly what she meant.”

It’s perfectly clear what she meant. She’s used phrases like “God’s will” and “God’s plan” on more than one occasion in support of political positions. If Palin had used the phrase “God’s will” in urging humanitarian work, it wouldn’t be a concern since the Bible offers instruction about charity and giving. But the Bible offers no guidance about gas lines. Therefore when Palin talks about “God’s will” regarding gas lines, she’s using religion to carry a political agenda.

                            – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Ray: Well, it’s more than possible that I am reading my own worldview into this whole scenario, but I don’t think it is perfectly clear that she meant what you say. Palin said: “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.” Couldn’t she simply be saying that if its God’s will for this pipeline to be built, then it is going to take a lot of people coming together, so let’s pray for that?

Once again, I could be pushing my own world view onto this, but I come from a Christian background where we talk about God’s will a lot. And we never assume that “my will is God’s will.” We hope that what we are doing lines up with God’s will, and we pray for God’s will to be done, but I sincerely doubt that Sarah Palin was claiming divinely revealed knowledge about the Alaskan pipeline.

                            – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Amy: That might be what she meant to say, but it’s clearly not what she did say. What she did say is that it’s God’s will for Alaskans to build a gas line and the project will require people and companies to come together.

I come from a Christian background too. I’ve heard people talk about “God’s will” and “God’s plan” in regard to Biblical lessons, but not in referencing specific political projects like building gas lines. Based on your Christian background, can you provide a textual reference to support the idea that God has a plan for gas lines in Alaska?

                            – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Ray: How about Zechariah 4:12? (“Again I asked him, ‘What are these two olive branches beside the two gold pipes that pour out golden oil?’”) Just kidding. I am sure both you and I would agree that this is an irresponsible use of the Biblical text by taking it out of context. But that is exactly my point. From what I know of Gov. Palin’s background, she also would be firmly against using a text like this to justify building a pipeline in Alaska.

I don’t believe Gov. Palin was saying or has ever said that she has Scriptural warrant or a direct decree from God to build a pipeline in Alaska. But she was asking for prayer about it. And she was praying for God’s will to be done.

Just as we let Senator Obama explain what he meant by “lipstick on a pig,” (and I accepted his explanation), I think we should let Gov. Palin explain her words instead of interpret them for her. Now, if she suddenly starts spouting Zechariah 4:12 in favor of two Alaskan pipelines, I will grant you your point and come over to your side.

______________________________________________________________

Thanks, Amy, for a fun discussion. I enjoyed the back and forth even if we ultimately end up disagreeing with each other on this one. And the comments are open if you would like the last word!

Related posts:

• Palin, Prayer and Precedent
• Journalists Code of Ethics
• Sunday at Sarah Palin’s Church
• Sarah Palin Roundup