I find this thought from Wolfhart Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 290-3) about the Lord's Supper and what it says about the church a challenging one. As he sees it, the church is the
fellowship that celebrates the Lord’s Supper. I think he makes a very important
point for the church today, especially the denominations that have a long
organizational history. The supper of the Lord is a reminder that the church
has its existence outside itself, prior to its organizational forms as a
fellowship that is constituted in specific ways. By the celebration of the
Lord’s Supper, the church renews its fellowship by representing and repeating
its grounding in the supper of the Lord. For him, these are the far-reaching
implications of the constitutive significance of the supper of Jesus for the
church. To stress it again, prior to any organizational form, the church
celebrated the supper of the Lord, which is a sign of the fellowship with Jesus
Christ that each Christian receives in the form of bread and wine and unites
all Christians for fellowship with each other in the unity of the body of
Christ. To apply this thought in my own
way, the supper of the Lord is a reminder to us today that denominational
history and their distinguishing characteristics are not the heart of the
fellowship. The supper of the Lord is a reminder that fellowship with Christ as
the risen Lord and fellowship with each other is the heart of the church.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Reagan, Romney, and Obama
Krauthammer
If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal.
Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago.
Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.
If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal.
Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago.
Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
why i vote the way i do
We acknowledge the vital function of government as a
principal vehicle for the ordering of society. … We know ourselves to be
responsible to God for social and political life (Social Principles 164). The
strength of a political system depends upon the full and willing participation
of its citizens. (164B)
I would encourage you to consider your responsibilities as a
Christian and as a citizen seriously.
If someone were to ask me why I vote the way I do, I would
have to say that I decided sometime in the mid 1970s. While in high school and
college, I engaged in discussions of history, government, and politics. I
worked for Humphrey in 1968, but wanted either Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy
as the nominee. I voted for McGovern in 1972. However, it was in graduate school
that I became acquainted with the National Review, George Will, Bill Buckley,
and Milton Friedman. These people led me to read people like John Locke and
Adam Smith. I came to realize that I wanted to be in a political tradition that
went from the founders as enshrined in the constitution and bill of rights,
both of which needed the completion brought by Abraham Lincoln and his
speeches. It needed the completion of the women’s right to vote and civil
rights. It needed the completion brought by presidents like Eisenhower and
Reagan.
To put it simply, I came to believe that limited federal
government was best for the simple reason that politicians cannot know enough.
To use a sports analogy, government can set the basic rules and umpire, but we
are the ones who must play the game. We play the game by building character and
pursue happiness. We play the game by choosing the basic beliefs and values
that will guide our lives. We play the game by accepting a vocation and earn a
living. We play the game by engaging in economic exchanges. We do so freely.
Such a process is self-regulating, to the point where, properly understood, you
do not need a large government apparatus.
Of course, I have left much out. If a state denies
individual rights of its citizens, as happened with slavery and the Jim Crow
laws of the South, the Federal Government needs to be sure the Bill of Rights
are respected. Free enterprise has done more to expand economies, which is the
best way to help all citizens, and especially the poor.
I focus on ideas rather than political parties. Over the
course of a few decades, I have read the opposition. Walter Rauschenbusch and
the social gospel, John Yoder, Jim Wallis, are the Christian version of
politically progressive thought. On the secular side, John Rawls and Michael
Walzer would be high on the list.
With all its imperfections, I value my country. America has
continually expanded its vision of freedom to all of its citizens. For me, this
is the gift America has to offer the world.
Yet, this world is a dangerous one. America deserves to be
defended from those who would do it harm. The world would be a less free place
where it not for America.
I have problems with what passes for conservatism in this
area. I wish conservatism were more conservative in its use of military power. Yes,
I am a child of the 60s in that sense. No need to go into details here, but if
the nation is to put its troops in harm’s way, it better have a good reason. As
the Social Principles (165 I) rightly say, “We also respect those who support
the use of force, but only in extreme situations and only when the need is
clear beyond reasonable doubt ...”
I share this account primarily because we need to take our
role as citizens seriously. I hope you think it through. You may well come to a
different conclusion that I do, and that is OK.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Obama-Romney Debate 3
The UM book of discipline 164B says: "The strength of a political system depends upon the full and willing participation of its citizens." In that spirit, I share a few comments regarding the third debate from various authors.
Charles Krauthammer
Obama lost. His tone was petty and small. Arguing about Iran’s nuclear program, he actually said to Mitt Romney, “While we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian oil sector.” You can’t get smaller than that. You’d expect this in a city council race. But only from the challenger. The sitting councilman would find such an ad hominem beneath him.
Throughout the debate, Obama kept it up, slashing, interjecting, interrupting, desperate to gain the upper hand by insult if necessary. That spirit led Obama into a major unforced error. When Romney made a perfectly reasonable case to rebuild a shrinking Navy, Obama condescended: “You mentioned . . . that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.”
Such that naval vessels are as obsolete as horse cavalry?
Liberal pundits got a great guffaw out of this, but the underlying argument is quite stupid. As if the ships being retired are dinghies, skipjacks and three-masted schooners. As if an entire branch of the armed forces — the principal projector of American power abroad — is itself some kind of anachronism.
“We have these things called aircraft carriers,” continued the schoolmaster, “where planes land on them.”
This is Obama’s case for fewer vessels? Does he think carriers patrol alone? He doesn’t know that for every one carrier, 10 times as many ships sail in a phalanx of escorts?
Obama may blithely dismiss the need for more ships, but the Navy wants at least 310 and the latest Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel report says that defending America’s vital interests requires 346 ships (vs. 287 today). Does anyone doubt that if we continue as we are headed, down to fewer than 230, the casualty will be entire carrier battle groups, precisely the kind of high-tech force multipliers that Obama pretends our national security requires?
Romney, for his part, showed himself to be fluent enough in foreign policy, although I could have done with a little less Mali (two references) and a lot less “tumult” (five).
But he did have the moment of the night when he took after Obama’s post-inauguration world apology tour. Obama, falling back on his base, flailingly countered that “every fact checker and every reporter”says otherwise.
Oh yeah? What about Obama declaring that America had “dictated” to other nations?
“Mr. President,” said Romney, “America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.”
Obama, rattled, went off into a fog, beginning with “if we’re going to talk about trips that we’ve taken,” followed by a rambling travelogue of a 2008 visit to Israel. As if this is about trip-taking, rather than about defending — vs. denigrating — the honor of the United States while on foreign soil. Americans may care little about Syria and nothing about Mali. But they don’t like presidents going abroad confirming the calumnies of tin-pot dictators.
The rest of Romney’s debate performance was far more passive. He refused the obvious chance to pulverize Obama on Libya. I would’ve taken a baseball bat to Obama’s second-debate claim that no one in his administration, including him, had misled the country on Benghazi. (The misleading is beyond dispute. The only question is whether it was intentional, i.e., deliberate deceit, or unintentional, i.e., scandalous incompetence.) Romney, however, calculated differently: Act presidential. Better use the night to assume a reassuring, non-contentious demeanor.
Romney’s entire strategy in both the second and third debates was to reinforce the status he achieved in debate No. 1 as a plausible alternative president. He therefore went bipartisan, accommodating, above the fray and, above all, nonthreatening.
That’s what Reagan did with Carter in their 1980 debate. If your opponent’s record is dismal and the country quite prepared to toss him out — but not unless you pass the threshold test — what do you do?
Romney chose to do a Reagan: Don’t quarrel. Speak softly. Meet the threshold.
We’ll soon know whether steady-as-she-goes was the right choice.
Victor Davis Hanson on the third debate
This week, the third and final debate offered Obama a last opportunity to convince the American people that at least on matters of foreign policy, Romney was either dangerous or ill-informed. That challenge also ensured that Obama would have to crowd into the final 90 minutes near-constant attacks to crack the calm Romney facade. Even or ahead in the polls, all Romney had to do in response was for a third time keep acting presidential and prove that his earlier displays of composure and competence were no flukes -- a no-brainer strategy clear to anyone who had followed the first two debates.
That is precisely what Romney pulled off. As in the second debate, Obama might have done well enough to come away with a tie or even a narrow win on points, but he probably didn't fare well enough to reverse his slide in the polls. If Obama sought to shatter Romney's image as a compassionate and competent captain of industry, he more likely damaged his own once carefully crafted image as a nice guy.
Here is some fact-checking
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney faced off last night in the third and final presidential debate – focusing on foreign policy – at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida.
The Fox News Brainroom provides us with a fact check and in-depth analysis of some of the key claims made by the two men.
Topic: Military spending
Obama: “We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.”
PROBABLY TRUE.
* As the Washington Post clarifies, it is REALLY difficult to get (a) reliable and (b) comparable figures:
“However, raw numbers can be misleading. The official Chinese figure of less than $100 billion a year is believed to be dramatically understated; SIPRI pegs it at around $100 billion. The Defense Department believes the real number for the Chinese military to be $150 billion.
Even that doesn’t tell the whole story, because it costs China less money to buy the same goods and services as the United States. Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, who edits a Web page on Chinese military power, says that using a rough calculation of purchasing power parity, the correct figure for Chinese defense spending would be as much as $240 billion.
That’s still less than the United States spends, of course, but it is an indication of how fuzzy some of these calculations can be. The comparison to China also does not include the fact that because it is not a global power, Beijing may actually spend more on its military in the western Pacific than does the United States.
There is also a question of whether one counts just the base military budget or also the spending on the wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
An administration official said the president’s statistic was derived from an examination of a classified version of the CIA Factbook, which presumably would show higher levels of spending for countries such as China.
If war spending is included, then the U.S. military budget is larger than those of the next 12 countries combined, the official said. If only base budget outlay is counted, the U.S. military budget is larger than those of the next eight countries. So the White House decided to split the difference, which is why the president said the U.S. budget was larger than the budgets of “roughly” the next 10 countries combined.
[source: Washington Post]
Topic: Romney’s investments in a Chinese oil company working in Iran
Obama: “And the fact is, while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian oil sector.”
CORRECT. (Romney will say the investment was in a blind trust over which he had no control, despite the fact that the blind trust liquidated these investments right about the time Romney ratcheted up his anti-China rhetoric).
* Starting in October 2009, Romney’s trust made three investments in CNOOC (the Chinese national oil company) with significant dealings with Iran. He sold the investments in August 2011 for a profit of about $11,000.
* As the Financial Times reported on September 24, 2012:
“Mitt Romney’s trust invested in Cnooc at a time when the US was growing concerned about the Chinese oil company’s multibillion-dollar dealings with Tehran, according to the 2011 tax return released by the Republican nominee for president.
…
Mr. Romney has repeatedly said he had no control over the decisions by the blind trust that held the investments, which are controlled by a trustee named R. Bradford Malt.
…
The first investment by Mr. Romney’s trust in Cnooc Limited, in October of 2009, was made about seven months after the group’s state-owned parent company was widely reported to have signed a deal with Iran to develop the huge North Pars gasfield for an LNG export project.
Mr. Romney’s blind trust made two subsequent investments in Cnooc and then sold all the shares – for a profit of about $11,000, in August of 2011.
That was about the same period when Mr. Romney began ratcheting up his campaign rhetoric against China.”
[source: Romney’s China holdings criticized, by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Financial Times, September 24, 2012]
Topic: The killing of Usama bin Laden
Obama: “Romney said he would not move ‘heaven and earth’ to get bin Laden.”
PARTIALLY TRUE. He used those words, but the quote ignores the larger context.
* As Politifact states:
“An Obama campaign ad suggested Mitt Romney wouldn’t have aggressively pursued Osama bin Laden by citing Romney’s statement that, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”
The Obama campaign is right that Romney used those words, but by cherry-picking them, it glosses over comments describing his broader approach. Romney said he wanted to pursue all of al-Qaida, not just its leaders.”
[source: Politifact]
Topic: Trade with China
Obama: “We doubled exports to China since I took office.”
NOT QUITE – an increase of 49% from 2008 to 2011 ($69.733 billion versus $103.94 billion in 2011) and we are on track for an increase to approximately $105 billion in 2012.
* This also ignores that fact that, despite our increase in exports, our trade deficit with China has increased under President Obama (from $268 billion in 2008 to $295 billion in 2011 – an increase of about 10%).
Year Exports to China Trade deficit
2008 $69.733 billion -$268.040 billion
2009 $69.497 billion -$226.877 billion
2010 $91.881 billion -$273.0632 billion
2011 $103.939 billion -$295.423 billion
2012 (thru Aug) $69.9995 billion -$203.1215 billion
[source: U.S. Census]
Topic: Would Romney have let U.S. auto companies go bankrupt?
Romney: “I said that we would provide guarantees, and — and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Of course not.”
CORRECT.
* In his New York Times op-ed, Romney called for a managed bankruptcy, with the federal government providing guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing.
* Here is the relevant part of the op-ed:
“The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”
[source: New York Times op-ed, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," by MITT ROMNEY, November 18, 2008]
* He further clarified that he was not prepared to let the companies liquidate in a November 28, 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer:
Blitzer: Richard Wagoner, the GM CEO says if they were to do any of those things, go into Chapter 11 or file for bankruptcy, it would even make matters worse because people would be reluctant to buy a GM car knowing that they could have problems getting spare parts or warranty guarantees along those lines. Is he right?
Romney: Well actually, him going to Washington and saying that the companies are going to disappear unless they get $25 billion is already a signal to consumers.
Going into Chapter 11, I’m not convinced would have that big of an impact, particularly if Washington were to say quite clearly we’re not going to let these companies go away. We’re going to guarantee the warranties for anybody who buys a U.S. made automobile this time going forward for some period of time.
We’re going to help with the post-bankruptcy financing that allows these companies to thrive and grow. We basically need to restructure them and then help them get back on their feet and make sure that their future is bright. But just putting money into them as is, is not going to help anybody and frankly is going to lead to these companies losing market share long term and perhaps facing liquidation way down the road. That’s the wrong way. That we don’t want to see.
Blitzer: If these companies don’t restructure very, very quickly, are you willing to let the U.S. auto industry, in effect, die?
Romney: Well, I don’t want to see it die, that’s the wrong course and the union and management and the state officials are not going to let that happen. There’s no reason for that to happen. The U.S. automobile industry is making very good cars these days. They’ve been, actually, really remarkable in designing cars like the Chevy Malibu, the Ford Mustang. There are some — you know, the Chrysler 500.
These are really innovative designs, they’re ranked very well. The companies don’t have to go away. But what has to go away is the excess burden we’ve laid on them and that’s the burden that’s the cause of managers that show up in corporate aircraft and eat in executive dining rooms. That spreads the resentment throughout the company that makes it difficult for labor to do what needs to be done on that front. These are companies that are not going to go away. We shouldn’t have them go away. But we should help them get on their feet so they can compete and finally beat back Toyota and Nissan and Honda and BMW, all of whom make cars right here in the U.S.
[source: Interview With Mitt Romney, November, 23 2008, CNN]
Topic: The 2009 protests in Iran
Romney said that Obama was “silent” on the protests in Iran.
FALSE. However, similar to Libya, there was an evolving language and response to the protests in Iran by President Obama.
On June 13, 2009, Iran announced that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a landslide victory, prompting mass protests from supporters of the key opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi.
Here is how Obama put it in an interview with CNBC on June 16: “Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual positions may not be as great as has been advertised. We’ve got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”
Obama finally toughened his stance a week later, on June 23, after more violence erupted.
“The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days,” Obama said. “I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”
Topic: How many ships does the U.S. Navy want?
Romney stated that the Department of Defense has asked for 313 ships and President Obama only approved the building of 282.
FALSE
* In February 2006, the Navy presented to Congress a goal of achieving and maintaining a fleet of 313 ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships. On March 28, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted to Congress an FY2013 30-year (FY2013-FY2042) shipbuilding plan that includes a new goal for a fleet of about 310-316 ships.
The Navy is conducting a force structure assessment, to be completed later this year, that could lead to a refinement of this 310-316-ship plan.
Because of the retirement and decommissioning of some ships and the building process of new ones, the Navy’s size is constantly varying.
The Navy reached even lower levels during the Bush years, hitting a bottom of 279 in FY 2007.
FY
2005………282
2006………281
2007………279
2008………282
2009………285
2010………288
2011………284
With programs like the Littoral Combat Ship increasing production, shipbuilding is higher now than in previous years
FY…………..ships procured/requested
07……………5
08……………3
09……………8
10……………7
11……………10
12……………11
13……………10
President Obama has never said that the Navy’s size should be at 282 ships, and the size of the Navy will increase, not decrease.
[Source: Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, 8/9/2012 CRS]
Topic: U.S. troops in Iraq
Did Mitt Romney say recently that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq?
MOSTLY TRUE.
Romney’s Remarks at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, 10/8/2012:
“In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al Qaida, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The president has tried. He tried, but he also failed to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.
The president has also failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.”
[Source: CQ]
Topic: The defense budget under Obama
OBAMA: (paraphrase) Defense budgets have gone up every year under my administration.
TRUE. But in the FY2013 request, the base budget will decrease
Defense Base Budgets Under President Obama
…………………
FY2009………513.2
FY2010………527.9
FY2011………528.2
FY2012………530.6
FY2013………524.4 (request)
[Source: Defense Department Comptroller]
2) Obama: “First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed, it’s something that Congress proposed. It will not happen.”
In fact, the idea may have come in part from Obama’s current chief of staff, Jack Lew. The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward reported in his book “The Price of Politics” that Lew, then-Office of Management and Budget director, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors broached the idea of a defense sequester as a threat to Republicans during negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.
The resulting Budget Control Act, which allowed the U.S. to borrow more money but set caps on federal spending over the next 10 years, was passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, and signed into law by the president. It led to the creation of the deficit-reduction “supercommittee,” which failed to agree on $1.2 trillion in debt reduction and as such triggered the automatic onset of those cuts on Jan. 2 – unless Congress averts them. Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, voted for the Budget Control Act.
Obama’s avowal on sequester that “it will not happen” is the strongest statement that he or any Democrat has made in the more than year-long standoff over the potential cuts, but it wasn’t immediately clear whether Obama was taking his veto threat off the table or expressing confidence that lawmakers could reach an agreement when they return next month.
[Source: Politico]
Charles Krauthammer
Obama lost. His tone was petty and small. Arguing about Iran’s nuclear program, he actually said to Mitt Romney, “While we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian oil sector.” You can’t get smaller than that. You’d expect this in a city council race. But only from the challenger. The sitting councilman would find such an ad hominem beneath him.
Throughout the debate, Obama kept it up, slashing, interjecting, interrupting, desperate to gain the upper hand by insult if necessary. That spirit led Obama into a major unforced error. When Romney made a perfectly reasonable case to rebuild a shrinking Navy, Obama condescended: “You mentioned . . . that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.”
Such that naval vessels are as obsolete as horse cavalry?
Liberal pundits got a great guffaw out of this, but the underlying argument is quite stupid. As if the ships being retired are dinghies, skipjacks and three-masted schooners. As if an entire branch of the armed forces — the principal projector of American power abroad — is itself some kind of anachronism.
“We have these things called aircraft carriers,” continued the schoolmaster, “where planes land on them.”
This is Obama’s case for fewer vessels? Does he think carriers patrol alone? He doesn’t know that for every one carrier, 10 times as many ships sail in a phalanx of escorts?
Obama may blithely dismiss the need for more ships, but the Navy wants at least 310 and the latest Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel report says that defending America’s vital interests requires 346 ships (vs. 287 today). Does anyone doubt that if we continue as we are headed, down to fewer than 230, the casualty will be entire carrier battle groups, precisely the kind of high-tech force multipliers that Obama pretends our national security requires?
Romney, for his part, showed himself to be fluent enough in foreign policy, although I could have done with a little less Mali (two references) and a lot less “tumult” (five).
But he did have the moment of the night when he took after Obama’s post-inauguration world apology tour. Obama, falling back on his base, flailingly countered that “every fact checker and every reporter”says otherwise.
Oh yeah? What about Obama declaring that America had “dictated” to other nations?
“Mr. President,” said Romney, “America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.”
Obama, rattled, went off into a fog, beginning with “if we’re going to talk about trips that we’ve taken,” followed by a rambling travelogue of a 2008 visit to Israel. As if this is about trip-taking, rather than about defending — vs. denigrating — the honor of the United States while on foreign soil. Americans may care little about Syria and nothing about Mali. But they don’t like presidents going abroad confirming the calumnies of tin-pot dictators.
The rest of Romney’s debate performance was far more passive. He refused the obvious chance to pulverize Obama on Libya. I would’ve taken a baseball bat to Obama’s second-debate claim that no one in his administration, including him, had misled the country on Benghazi. (The misleading is beyond dispute. The only question is whether it was intentional, i.e., deliberate deceit, or unintentional, i.e., scandalous incompetence.) Romney, however, calculated differently: Act presidential. Better use the night to assume a reassuring, non-contentious demeanor.
Romney’s entire strategy in both the second and third debates was to reinforce the status he achieved in debate No. 1 as a plausible alternative president. He therefore went bipartisan, accommodating, above the fray and, above all, nonthreatening.
That’s what Reagan did with Carter in their 1980 debate. If your opponent’s record is dismal and the country quite prepared to toss him out — but not unless you pass the threshold test — what do you do?
Romney chose to do a Reagan: Don’t quarrel. Speak softly. Meet the threshold.
We’ll soon know whether steady-as-she-goes was the right choice.
Victor Davis Hanson on the third debate
This week, the third and final debate offered Obama a last opportunity to convince the American people that at least on matters of foreign policy, Romney was either dangerous or ill-informed. That challenge also ensured that Obama would have to crowd into the final 90 minutes near-constant attacks to crack the calm Romney facade. Even or ahead in the polls, all Romney had to do in response was for a third time keep acting presidential and prove that his earlier displays of composure and competence were no flukes -- a no-brainer strategy clear to anyone who had followed the first two debates.
That is precisely what Romney pulled off. As in the second debate, Obama might have done well enough to come away with a tie or even a narrow win on points, but he probably didn't fare well enough to reverse his slide in the polls. If Obama sought to shatter Romney's image as a compassionate and competent captain of industry, he more likely damaged his own once carefully crafted image as a nice guy.
Here is some fact-checking
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney faced off last night in the third and final presidential debate – focusing on foreign policy – at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida.
The Fox News Brainroom provides us with a fact check and in-depth analysis of some of the key claims made by the two men.
Topic: Military spending
Obama: “We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.”
PROBABLY TRUE.
* As the Washington Post clarifies, it is REALLY difficult to get (a) reliable and (b) comparable figures:
“However, raw numbers can be misleading. The official Chinese figure of less than $100 billion a year is believed to be dramatically understated; SIPRI pegs it at around $100 billion. The Defense Department believes the real number for the Chinese military to be $150 billion.
Even that doesn’t tell the whole story, because it costs China less money to buy the same goods and services as the United States. Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, who edits a Web page on Chinese military power, says that using a rough calculation of purchasing power parity, the correct figure for Chinese defense spending would be as much as $240 billion.
That’s still less than the United States spends, of course, but it is an indication of how fuzzy some of these calculations can be. The comparison to China also does not include the fact that because it is not a global power, Beijing may actually spend more on its military in the western Pacific than does the United States.
There is also a question of whether one counts just the base military budget or also the spending on the wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
An administration official said the president’s statistic was derived from an examination of a classified version of the CIA Factbook, which presumably would show higher levels of spending for countries such as China.
If war spending is included, then the U.S. military budget is larger than those of the next 12 countries combined, the official said. If only base budget outlay is counted, the U.S. military budget is larger than those of the next eight countries. So the White House decided to split the difference, which is why the president said the U.S. budget was larger than the budgets of “roughly” the next 10 countries combined.
[source: Washington Post]
Topic: Romney’s investments in a Chinese oil company working in Iran
Obama: “And the fact is, while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian oil sector.”
CORRECT. (Romney will say the investment was in a blind trust over which he had no control, despite the fact that the blind trust liquidated these investments right about the time Romney ratcheted up his anti-China rhetoric).
* Starting in October 2009, Romney’s trust made three investments in CNOOC (the Chinese national oil company) with significant dealings with Iran. He sold the investments in August 2011 for a profit of about $11,000.
* As the Financial Times reported on September 24, 2012:
“Mitt Romney’s trust invested in Cnooc at a time when the US was growing concerned about the Chinese oil company’s multibillion-dollar dealings with Tehran, according to the 2011 tax return released by the Republican nominee for president.
…
Mr. Romney has repeatedly said he had no control over the decisions by the blind trust that held the investments, which are controlled by a trustee named R. Bradford Malt.
…
The first investment by Mr. Romney’s trust in Cnooc Limited, in October of 2009, was made about seven months after the group’s state-owned parent company was widely reported to have signed a deal with Iran to develop the huge North Pars gasfield for an LNG export project.
Mr. Romney’s blind trust made two subsequent investments in Cnooc and then sold all the shares – for a profit of about $11,000, in August of 2011.
That was about the same period when Mr. Romney began ratcheting up his campaign rhetoric against China.”
[source: Romney’s China holdings criticized, by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Financial Times, September 24, 2012]
Topic: The killing of Usama bin Laden
Obama: “Romney said he would not move ‘heaven and earth’ to get bin Laden.”
PARTIALLY TRUE. He used those words, but the quote ignores the larger context.
* As Politifact states:
“An Obama campaign ad suggested Mitt Romney wouldn’t have aggressively pursued Osama bin Laden by citing Romney’s statement that, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”
The Obama campaign is right that Romney used those words, but by cherry-picking them, it glosses over comments describing his broader approach. Romney said he wanted to pursue all of al-Qaida, not just its leaders.”
[source: Politifact]
Topic: Trade with China
Obama: “We doubled exports to China since I took office.”
NOT QUITE – an increase of 49% from 2008 to 2011 ($69.733 billion versus $103.94 billion in 2011) and we are on track for an increase to approximately $105 billion in 2012.
* This also ignores that fact that, despite our increase in exports, our trade deficit with China has increased under President Obama (from $268 billion in 2008 to $295 billion in 2011 – an increase of about 10%).
Year Exports to China Trade deficit
2008 $69.733 billion -$268.040 billion
2009 $69.497 billion -$226.877 billion
2010 $91.881 billion -$273.0632 billion
2011 $103.939 billion -$295.423 billion
2012 (thru Aug) $69.9995 billion -$203.1215 billion
[source: U.S. Census]
Topic: Would Romney have let U.S. auto companies go bankrupt?
Romney: “I said that we would provide guarantees, and — and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Of course not.”
CORRECT.
* In his New York Times op-ed, Romney called for a managed bankruptcy, with the federal government providing guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing.
* Here is the relevant part of the op-ed:
“The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”
[source: New York Times op-ed, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," by MITT ROMNEY, November 18, 2008]
* He further clarified that he was not prepared to let the companies liquidate in a November 28, 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer:
Blitzer: Richard Wagoner, the GM CEO says if they were to do any of those things, go into Chapter 11 or file for bankruptcy, it would even make matters worse because people would be reluctant to buy a GM car knowing that they could have problems getting spare parts or warranty guarantees along those lines. Is he right?
Romney: Well actually, him going to Washington and saying that the companies are going to disappear unless they get $25 billion is already a signal to consumers.
Going into Chapter 11, I’m not convinced would have that big of an impact, particularly if Washington were to say quite clearly we’re not going to let these companies go away. We’re going to guarantee the warranties for anybody who buys a U.S. made automobile this time going forward for some period of time.
We’re going to help with the post-bankruptcy financing that allows these companies to thrive and grow. We basically need to restructure them and then help them get back on their feet and make sure that their future is bright. But just putting money into them as is, is not going to help anybody and frankly is going to lead to these companies losing market share long term and perhaps facing liquidation way down the road. That’s the wrong way. That we don’t want to see.
Blitzer: If these companies don’t restructure very, very quickly, are you willing to let the U.S. auto industry, in effect, die?
Romney: Well, I don’t want to see it die, that’s the wrong course and the union and management and the state officials are not going to let that happen. There’s no reason for that to happen. The U.S. automobile industry is making very good cars these days. They’ve been, actually, really remarkable in designing cars like the Chevy Malibu, the Ford Mustang. There are some — you know, the Chrysler 500.
These are really innovative designs, they’re ranked very well. The companies don’t have to go away. But what has to go away is the excess burden we’ve laid on them and that’s the burden that’s the cause of managers that show up in corporate aircraft and eat in executive dining rooms. That spreads the resentment throughout the company that makes it difficult for labor to do what needs to be done on that front. These are companies that are not going to go away. We shouldn’t have them go away. But we should help them get on their feet so they can compete and finally beat back Toyota and Nissan and Honda and BMW, all of whom make cars right here in the U.S.
[source: Interview With Mitt Romney, November, 23 2008, CNN]
Topic: The 2009 protests in Iran
Romney said that Obama was “silent” on the protests in Iran.
FALSE. However, similar to Libya, there was an evolving language and response to the protests in Iran by President Obama.
On June 13, 2009, Iran announced that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a landslide victory, prompting mass protests from supporters of the key opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi.
Here is how Obama put it in an interview with CNBC on June 16: “Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual positions may not be as great as has been advertised. We’ve got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”
Obama finally toughened his stance a week later, on June 23, after more violence erupted.
“The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days,” Obama said. “I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”
Topic: How many ships does the U.S. Navy want?
Romney stated that the Department of Defense has asked for 313 ships and President Obama only approved the building of 282.
FALSE
* In February 2006, the Navy presented to Congress a goal of achieving and maintaining a fleet of 313 ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships. On March 28, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted to Congress an FY2013 30-year (FY2013-FY2042) shipbuilding plan that includes a new goal for a fleet of about 310-316 ships.
The Navy is conducting a force structure assessment, to be completed later this year, that could lead to a refinement of this 310-316-ship plan.
Because of the retirement and decommissioning of some ships and the building process of new ones, the Navy’s size is constantly varying.
The Navy reached even lower levels during the Bush years, hitting a bottom of 279 in FY 2007.
FY
2005………282
2006………281
2007………279
2008………282
2009………285
2010………288
2011………284
With programs like the Littoral Combat Ship increasing production, shipbuilding is higher now than in previous years
FY…………..ships procured/requested
07……………5
08……………3
09……………8
10……………7
11……………10
12……………11
13……………10
President Obama has never said that the Navy’s size should be at 282 ships, and the size of the Navy will increase, not decrease.
[Source: Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, 8/9/2012 CRS]
Topic: U.S. troops in Iraq
Did Mitt Romney say recently that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq?
MOSTLY TRUE.
Romney’s Remarks at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, 10/8/2012:
“In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al Qaida, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The president has tried. He tried, but he also failed to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.
The president has also failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.”
[Source: CQ]
Topic: The defense budget under Obama
OBAMA: (paraphrase) Defense budgets have gone up every year under my administration.
TRUE. But in the FY2013 request, the base budget will decrease
Defense Base Budgets Under President Obama
…………………
FY2009………513.2
FY2010………527.9
FY2011………528.2
FY2012………530.6
FY2013………524.4 (request)
[Source: Defense Department Comptroller]
2) Obama: “First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed, it’s something that Congress proposed. It will not happen.”
In fact, the idea may have come in part from Obama’s current chief of staff, Jack Lew. The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward reported in his book “The Price of Politics” that Lew, then-Office of Management and Budget director, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors broached the idea of a defense sequester as a threat to Republicans during negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.
The resulting Budget Control Act, which allowed the U.S. to borrow more money but set caps on federal spending over the next 10 years, was passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, and signed into law by the president. It led to the creation of the deficit-reduction “supercommittee,” which failed to agree on $1.2 trillion in debt reduction and as such triggered the automatic onset of those cuts on Jan. 2 – unless Congress averts them. Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, voted for the Budget Control Act.
Obama’s avowal on sequester that “it will not happen” is the strongest statement that he or any Democrat has made in the more than year-long standoff over the potential cuts, but it wasn’t immediately clear whether Obama was taking his veto threat off the table or expressing confidence that lawmakers could reach an agreement when they return next month.
[Source: Politico]
Saturday, October 20, 2012
2012 Presidential Election Predictions
As a United Methodist pastor, I am glad our Social Principles acknowledge that "we know ourselves to be responsible to God for social and political life" in paragraph 164. This brief blog looks at some predictions made by observers of the 2012 presidential election.
When the Republican Party had its primary season, my assumption was that Obama would win re-election. Lately, a few commentators are predicting a Romney win. As I see some predictions, I thought I would post and see how well they do.
Michael Barone: The only way Pennsylvania and Michigan can be close is if Obama's support in affluent Philadelphia and Detroit suburbs has melted away....What we may be seeing, as we drink from the fire hose of multiple poll results pouring in, is a slow motion 1980.The Gallup tracking poll, whose procedure for designating likely voters makes it very susceptible to shifts in the balance of enthusiasm, has been showing Romney ahead by 5 to 7 points.
Ben Shapiro:Obama's presidency reflected his poverty of ideas. Now his campaign does, too.
A small campaign means an unstable campaign. When you're forced to jump topic to topic, debating inconsequential ideas with gusto, your campaign seems to swing unpredictably back and forth. When you're discussing Romnesia one day and binders the next, you're losing. A big campaign, by contrast, has big themes. Obama has no themes because he has no record and no second-term agenda. Romney has themes: economic growth through tax cuts and less burdensome regulation, a foreign policy based on a stronger military. Because he has themes, he seems steady. And that's why he will win. None of this is going to change in the next two weeks. Obama's record will not suddenly allow him to become an ardent advocate of his own job performance. And he won't come up with any bold new plans -- he has nothing left in the tank. The ball is in Mitt Romney's court. And the American people know it.
Hugh Hewitt: The nation is simply finished with a president whose rhetoric has never been matched by his actions, and whose performance has removed Jimmy Carter from the bottom of the rankings of the modern president. Mitt Romney by contrast followed two very strong debate showings with a wonderful set of remarks at the Al Smith dinner, the third time in two weeks that he has reassured those just tuning into the presidential campaign that he will be a steady and reliable force for good in the Oval Office. And what a surge. Romney was up seven points in Thursday's Gallup tracking poll, and even the very partisan Democratic polling firm PPP has Romney ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire on Friday. There is a 1980 landslide forming, and while the MSM is doing its best to pretend it isn't there and that the race is still close. It isn't, and it won't be. The electoral cake is baked.
Dick Morris: Overall: Likely a 5-10 pt Romney win and above 300 electoral votes. His final predictions: In the popular vote, Romney will win by more than 5 points, and Electoral College 325 Romney and 213 Obama.
Karl Rove: My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.
Linda Chavez: they (the American people) like the president personally and wanted to give him a chance to prove he deserved re-election. But he hasn't given a single, convincing reason why he should be, which is why I believe Americans will vote for genuine change Nov. 6.
National syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer believes it will be close, but that Romney will come out with the victory over President Obama on Tuesday.
Michael Barone is forecasting that Romney will defeat President Obama by a wide margin, 315 electoral votes to 223. He predicts that Romney will win nearly every swing state, including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado and Virginia. Barone admitted, however, that he is going out on a limb with some of his calls.
Rich Galen: "four years ago Barack Obama was on a crusade; this year he's in a campaign."
Obama won the crusade, but Mitt Romney will win this campaign. I know … I know. The polls are close. The national polls are tied; the state polls tilt toward Barack Obama. I know all that. But, Romney will win.
When the Republican Party had its primary season, my assumption was that Obama would win re-election. Lately, a few commentators are predicting a Romney win. As I see some predictions, I thought I would post and see how well they do.
Michael Barone: The only way Pennsylvania and Michigan can be close is if Obama's support in affluent Philadelphia and Detroit suburbs has melted away....What we may be seeing, as we drink from the fire hose of multiple poll results pouring in, is a slow motion 1980.The Gallup tracking poll, whose procedure for designating likely voters makes it very susceptible to shifts in the balance of enthusiasm, has been showing Romney ahead by 5 to 7 points.
Ben Shapiro:Obama's presidency reflected his poverty of ideas. Now his campaign does, too.
A small campaign means an unstable campaign. When you're forced to jump topic to topic, debating inconsequential ideas with gusto, your campaign seems to swing unpredictably back and forth. When you're discussing Romnesia one day and binders the next, you're losing. A big campaign, by contrast, has big themes. Obama has no themes because he has no record and no second-term agenda. Romney has themes: economic growth through tax cuts and less burdensome regulation, a foreign policy based on a stronger military. Because he has themes, he seems steady. And that's why he will win. None of this is going to change in the next two weeks. Obama's record will not suddenly allow him to become an ardent advocate of his own job performance. And he won't come up with any bold new plans -- he has nothing left in the tank. The ball is in Mitt Romney's court. And the American people know it.
Hugh Hewitt: The nation is simply finished with a president whose rhetoric has never been matched by his actions, and whose performance has removed Jimmy Carter from the bottom of the rankings of the modern president. Mitt Romney by contrast followed two very strong debate showings with a wonderful set of remarks at the Al Smith dinner, the third time in two weeks that he has reassured those just tuning into the presidential campaign that he will be a steady and reliable force for good in the Oval Office. And what a surge. Romney was up seven points in Thursday's Gallup tracking poll, and even the very partisan Democratic polling firm PPP has Romney ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire on Friday. There is a 1980 landslide forming, and while the MSM is doing its best to pretend it isn't there and that the race is still close. It isn't, and it won't be. The electoral cake is baked.
Dick Morris: Overall: Likely a 5-10 pt Romney win and above 300 electoral votes. His final predictions: In the popular vote, Romney will win by more than 5 points, and Electoral College 325 Romney and 213 Obama.
Karl Rove: My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.
Linda Chavez: they (the American people) like the president personally and wanted to give him a chance to prove he deserved re-election. But he hasn't given a single, convincing reason why he should be, which is why I believe Americans will vote for genuine change Nov. 6.
National syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer believes it will be close, but that Romney will come out with the victory over President Obama on Tuesday.
Michael Barone is forecasting that Romney will defeat President Obama by a wide margin, 315 electoral votes to 223. He predicts that Romney will win nearly every swing state, including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado and Virginia. Barone admitted, however, that he is going out on a limb with some of his calls.
Rich Galen: "four years ago Barack Obama was on a crusade; this year he's in a campaign."
Obama won the crusade, but Mitt Romney will win this campaign. I know … I know. The polls are close. The national polls are tied; the state polls tilt toward Barack Obama. I know all that. But, Romney will win.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Election Reflection: Some Perspective
In
the movie Napolean Dynamite, “vote for Pedro” becomes a movement. In his speech,
he says,
Hello. I don't have much to say. But I
think it would be good to have some holy santos brought to the high school...to
guard the hallway and to bring us good luck. El Santo Niño de Atocha is a good
one. My Aunt Concha has seen him.
And...and I'd like to see more of that.
If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true. Thank you.
I take my politics seriously. I study
the issues. I have developed some political commitments. For some reason,
reflecting upon Psalm 146 has helped. In fact, I invite you to read Psalm 146
in light of the election this year for President.
First, only God deserves praise.
Psalm 146 begins with the command,
"Praise the LORD!
Praise the LORD, O my soul!
I will praise the LORD as long as I live;
I will sing praises to my God all my
life long" (vv. 1-2).
For
the most part, politics is not worthy of praise. In contrast, Psalm 146 is a
celebration of the eternal sovereignty of God -- a leadership position that has
no term limits. This psalm has long been part of daily morning prayer in the
Jewish tradition. It is appropriate for use by Christians as well, as we join
the psalm-writer in singing "praises to my God all my life long." To
praise God is to give credit where credit is due to the Lord who is our
creator, redeemer and sustainer. When we offer praise, we are saying that God
is God, and we are not.
Second, put your trust in something
eternal. The psalm warns us,
"Do not put your trust in princes,
in mortals, in whom there is no help.
When their breath departs, they return
to the earth;
on that very day their plans
perish" (vv. 3-4).
We
take a chance when we rely on political leaders to help us because they are as
flawed, weak, biased, transitory and limited as any human beings on Earth. Paul
McKay wrote that emotion can get away with us as we invest so much faith in a
political messiah. We can develop blind spots that blind us to the mistakes and
foibles of the ones we have invested so much faith and trust and emotion in.
Eric Hoffer wrote a little book about this, The
True Believer. Such emotional investment is powerful.[1]
Inevitably, our political heroes let us
down, if we are honest and dispassionate about them. At that point, we might be
angry at their human weakness -- and at the same sinful nature we have in
common with them all.
Third, do not expect a candidate to
make you happy. With all the energy that goes into a presidential campaign, we
can certainly forgive voters for wanting their favorite candidate to bring them
joy and satisfaction. However, such an expectation is truly unrealistic and is
often a recipe for disappointment. Whether the victor is a Republican or a
Democrat, he is going to let down large numbers of his supporters.
Fourth, vote the Lord's values.
Sadly, this single thought has been
co-opted by both Left and Right. As Nathan D. Baxter put it, we need to
remember that Jesus is not a doctrine or political philosophy. Jesus is a life,
a teaching, an everlasting witness of divine grace and love -- even unto the
cross.[2]
Psalm 146 says that God is the one
who executes justice for the oppressed;
who gives food to the hungry.
The LORD sets the prisoners free;
the LORD opens the eyes of the
blind" (vv. 7-8).
These
are God's values, according to the psalm. Some people will define how
compassionate a government is by how many people receive government help. In
contrast, others will take the position that limited government, combined with
the lowest possible taxes and regulation, will create a rising tide lifts all
boats. For them, the best way to help the poor is to have a growing and
expanding economy. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. In fact,
which side you fall upon is largely a matter of degree. While good Christians
will certainly debate the ways that our society can address these concerns,
there should be no disagreement about their priority to God. When you enter the
voting booth, vote for the candidate who is best aligned with God's priorities.
- Justice for the oppressed --
fair treatment for those who have been mistreated, shoved aside or
ignored.
- Food to the hungry -- access
to nourishment, in developing countries and in American inner cities.
- Freedom for prisoners --
both spiritual liberation while incarcerated and work opportunities once
released.
- Opening the eyes of the blind -- not only physical healing, but new visions of a better future for us all.
These
are God's values, and they undergird what the psalm tells us about God:
The LORD lifts up those who are bowed
down;
the LORD loves the righteous.
The LORD watches over the strangers;
he upholds the orphan and the widow,
but the way of the wicked he brings to
ruin" (vv. 8-9).
In
every time and place, God lifts up the burdened and loves those who are in a
right relationship with him. God has special concern for the strangers in our
midst and wants to take care of orphans and widows -- those who have no way to
provide for themselves. Once again, there are going to be honest disagreements
about how best to meet these needs, but the needs themselves are indisputable.
Fifth, take the long view. If you
are joyful on election night, do not get overly elated. If you are disappointed
when the election is over, do not get too depressed. The next presidential
campaign will begin before you know it, and the political pendulum will begin
to swing in the other direction.
As Christians, the most important leader
in our lives is Almighty God, and Psalm 146 reminds us that
"the LORD will reign forever,
your God, O Zion, for all generations.
Praise the LORD!" (v. 10).
When
we give praise to God, we are joining a community of faithful people who are
linked together across the generations. The church has seen countless political
victories and defeats, as well as numerous times of national celebration and
heartache. Election days may be divisive and difficult, but they do not prevent
us from looking up to God together and taking the long view of human history.
Frederick Douglass, from a speech
celebrating West Indian Emancipation Day, August, 1857, reflected on the symbol
of the Statue of Liberty.
The Statue of
Liberty is a familiar icon of American democracy, but few Americans have
examined Lady Liberty closely enough to realize she is trampling on a set of
broken shackles lying on the ground at her feet. The shackles have a very
specific meaning that has been all but lost to popular memory.
It was a French
abolitionist, Édouard René Lefèbvre de Laboulaye, who first conceived the idea
of the French people giving such a statue to the United States. At the time of
the Confederacy's surrender, de Laboulaye rejoiced. At a Paris dinner party, a
young sculptor, Frédéric Bartholdi, heard him propose the idea of a massive
statue celebrating the Union victory. The statue would eventually be called
"Liberty Enlightening the World." It would demonstrate how the
abolitionists' hard-won victory was a shining example for all humanity.
With the support
of de Laboulaye, Bartholdi became not only Lady Liberty's sculptor, but also
her chief fundraiser. A subscription campaign in France paid for the statue,
and a corresponding campaign in the United States paid for her massive pedestal
-- a significant work of engineering in itself.
Bartholdi's
original design called for Lady Liberty to be holding a broken chain, symbolic
of the freedom the Union victory had won for the American slaves. Even though
the statue's 1886 dedication took place more than 20 years after the
Confederate surrender, feelings still ran strong. That aspect of the design was
considered too provocative. Bowing to the realities of fundraising, Bartholdi
revised his design, placing in Lady Liberty's hand, instead, a tablet
symbolizing the rule of law. Yet, he refused to abandon de Laboulaye's original
vision of the statue as an abolitionist monument. Bartholdi moved the broken
chain from her hand to the ground under her feet.
There the chain
and broken shackles remain to this day, a symbol of the vision of liberty for
all God's children that thrilled the world at the end of the Civil War.
Liberty
continues to be a fragile ideal that must be struggled over, at times even
fought for. Going to the polls to vote our conscience is a way of preserving
the vision of Liberty's broken shackles.
Those who
profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops
without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning.
If your candidate wins, praise the Lord!
If your candidate loses, praise the Lord! If you are excited about the next
four years, praise the Lord! If you are worried about what will happen next,
praise the Lord! There is nothing that can happen on Election Day that should
shift your focus away from giving praise to the God who has created you,
redeemed you and sustained you throughout the course of your life.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Obama-Romney Debate 2
As Chris Wallace said, Obama’s performance stopped the bleeding in his
campaign, so Democrats will be happy. I think Republicans will be
happy, too. Romney came off as knowledgeable and didn’t back down.
Fox News contributor Brit Hume gave his analysis on the candidates during the town hall-style presidential debate. He assessed that President Obama was more aggressive and assertive this time around, whereas Mitt Romney was “basically the same” as he was during the first debate.
Hume said that since the president raised his game in comparison to his first debate performance, he will come out as the winner. He continued, “I will say this though, it was clear time and time again the difficultly the president has in being the incumbent.”
This was apparent when a voter in the audience told President Obama that he’s not as optimistic as he was four years ago. “There’s really no rebuttal to that. There’s no way a good debate performance can get you around that,” Hume said.
Charles Krauthammer reacted to the second presidential debate on tonight’s post-debate analysis, saying of the contentious debate, “this was a boxing match … at one point, I thought they were going to use their mics as weapons,” turning it into a Taiwanese parliament.
“Obama clearly had a good night,” Krauthammer said, asserting that on points, President Obama won the debate. “When Romney went large he did well, when Romney went small [...] Obama got the better of him.”
One area that Krauthammer said offered Romney a “huge opening that he missed” was on the topic of Libya. Krauthammer said the president “was completely at sea” on questions on the Benghazi attack. “He didn’t even try to answer it.”
According to Dick Morris, Romney looked more presidential than Obama did and showed himself to be an articulate, capable, attractive, compassionate leader with sound ideas. When a president gets into a bar room brawl, he loses his dignity and his aura, key assets for an incumbent. Romney was polite but firm. Obama seemed quarrelsome, frustrated, nasty, and cranky.
1. Romney made very clear the case against Obama's economic record and Obama's rebuttal about 5 million jobs was pathetic.
2. Romney injected the China issue, big time, and tapped into a strong public sentiment on the issue.
3. Romney made the effective case that Obama is anti-oil, coal, and gas and that this has doubled gas prices.
4. Romney was very effective in differentiating himself from Bush-43 and in establishing that, unlike the GOP of the past, he was for small businesses not big businesses
5. Romney rebutted the attacks on him over Chinese investments.
6. Romney explained his tax plan well and to everyone's satisfaction.
7. Obama erred in trying to make us believe that he always felt Libya was a terror attack. We all heard him blame the movie.
Obama scored points over the 47% statement by Romney, immigration, and by his response to the accusation that he went to Vegas after the murder of the Ambassador.
In another composition, Morris offered the following for believing that Romney is on his way to victory.
Romney:
1) Explained his tax plan very well. His suggestion that he would allow up to a flat $25,000 in deductions was excellent.
2) Recited the statistics of economic decline so well and so frequently that they will be repeated again and again by voters as they contemplate their decision.
3) Clearly pinned the blame for high gas prices on Obama by enumerating the president's anti-oil, anti-coal policies.
4) Put the China issue in play big time by explaining Chinese currency manipulation. In the next debate, Romney should drill down and explain how much Chinese chicanery and hacking costs us jobs and how passive Obama has been in the face of their conduct.
5) Demonstrated his compassion and heart in his personal stories of his ministry. He should continue just this kind of argumentation.
Here is some fact checking.
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney faced off last night in the second of three presidential debates, with just three weeks remaining before Election Day. The town hall forum was held at Hofstra University in New York, and was moderated by CNN’s Candy Crowley.
So where did the candidates get it right and where did they stray from the facts?
Check out this fact check courtesy of the Fox News Brainroom:
1) Romney said Detroit should go bankrupt
Romney: “And one thing that the president said, which I want to make sure that we understand, he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt. And that’s right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy’s and Condell (ph) Airlines and come out stronger.”
TRUE. Romney called for a managed bankruptcy in a New York Times Op-Ed.
This statement is drawn from a headline – “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” – on an opinion article written by Romney for The New York Times. But he did not say that in the article. (He repeated the line, however, on television.)
Although “bankrupt” often conjures up images of liquidation, Romney called for a “managed bankruptcy.” This is a process in which the company uses the bankruptcy code to discharge its debts, but emerges from the process a leaner, less leveraged company.
Romney: And I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.
Crowley: “Let me give the president a chance.”
Obama: “Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn’t true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open. And we would have lost a million jobs. And that — don’t take my word for it, take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney. But they’ll tell you his prescription wasn’t going to work.”
Obama’s statement is FALSE.
[Source: "Fact Check: Letting Detroit go bankrupt," The Washington Post: 17 Oct 2012]
2) Women earn less than men
Question: “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?”
The question posed was slightly INACCURATE.
The Census Bureau, which tracks annual wages, found women who worked full-time, year-round in 2010 made 77 cents for every dollar men earned across the country. This comparison includes all male and female workers regardless of occupation.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses different measures to analyze the pay gap, including weekly wages. In 2010, women working full-time had median weekly earnings of $669, versus $824 for males, according to a BLS report released in 2011. So women earned 81 cents of every dollar earned by men, which has been typical since 2004.
[Source: Politifact]
3) Romney’s 60 Minutes interview
Obama: “Now, Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on 60 Minutes just two weeks ago and he was asked: Is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 year? And he said, ‘Yes, I think that’s fair.’ Not only that, he said, ‘I think that’s what grows the economy.’”
FACT CHECK – Obama took Romney’s words slightly out of context and also misled the audience when he added, “And he said,’Yes, I think that’s fair.’ Not only that, he said, ‘I think that’s what grows the economy.’”
The president’s comments suggested that Romney thinks the economy will grow by virtue of bus drivers paying less than millionaires. But the Republican candidate was really saying that limiting taxes on investment income will encourage people to invest more of their money into the economy.
Note that none of this has anything to do with individual income tax, for which both Romney and Obama have both proposed progressive systems requiring higher earners to pay more than lower earners.
Here’s a transcript of the relevant part of that conversation between Romney and 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley:
Pelley: “You made on your investments, personally, about twenty million dollars last year and you paid fourteen percent in federal taxes. That`s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes fifty thousand dollars and paid a higher rate than you did?
Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as thirty-five percent.
Pelley: So you think it is fair?
Romney: Yeah, I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.”
[Source:The Washington Post: 16 Oct 2012]
4) Obama’s China connection
Obama deflected questions about his own investments in China with a joke. But independent reports have shown Obama holds shares in mutual funds that invest in Apple, Wal-Mart and other U.S. firms with operations in China.
[source: Washington Post -- Fact Check, Debate: Fact Check: China investments, Oct 16, 2012]
The Romney campaign claims that President Obama has money invested in China too, albeit indirectly. The president’s financial disclosure shows he has retirement money in Vanguard mutual funds and the Illinois pension plan. Those funds list investments in some 500 companies, including Apple, Wal Mart, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and General Electric.
Those firms have employees and in some cases, manufacturing facilities in China, which relates to another campaign hot-button issue: outsourcing. However, the companies themselves are based in the U.S. The investments involve domestic, not international, stock purchases.
[source: Politifact - Obama says Romney talks tough on China but puts his money there, Sept 13, 2012]
_____________________
What Romney said last night:
Romney: Yeah. Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in – in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
Obama: (Inaudible) – Candy -
Romney: Have you looked at your pension?
Obama: I’ve got to say – (inaudible) -
Romney: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
Obama: You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it – it doesn’t take as long. The -
Romney: Well, let me – let me give you – (laughter) – let me – let me give you some advice.
Obama: I don’t check it that often. (Chuckles.)
Romney: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension.
Obama: (Chuckles.) OK.
Romney: You also have investments in Chinese companies.
Obama: Yeah.
Romney: You also have investments outside the United States.
Obama: Yeah.
Romney: You also have investments through a Caymans trust, all right?
5) Speaking time
According to a tally by CNN, the president received over three minutes of additional speaking time compared to Gov. Romney. Obama spoke for a total of 44:04 while Romney spoke for 40:50.
Fox News contributor Brit Hume gave his analysis on the candidates during the town hall-style presidential debate. He assessed that President Obama was more aggressive and assertive this time around, whereas Mitt Romney was “basically the same” as he was during the first debate.
Hume said that since the president raised his game in comparison to his first debate performance, he will come out as the winner. He continued, “I will say this though, it was clear time and time again the difficultly the president has in being the incumbent.”
This was apparent when a voter in the audience told President Obama that he’s not as optimistic as he was four years ago. “There’s really no rebuttal to that. There’s no way a good debate performance can get you around that,” Hume said.
Charles Krauthammer reacted to the second presidential debate on tonight’s post-debate analysis, saying of the contentious debate, “this was a boxing match … at one point, I thought they were going to use their mics as weapons,” turning it into a Taiwanese parliament.
“Obama clearly had a good night,” Krauthammer said, asserting that on points, President Obama won the debate. “When Romney went large he did well, when Romney went small [...] Obama got the better of him.”
One area that Krauthammer said offered Romney a “huge opening that he missed” was on the topic of Libya. Krauthammer said the president “was completely at sea” on questions on the Benghazi attack. “He didn’t even try to answer it.”
According to Dick Morris, Romney looked more presidential than Obama did and showed himself to be an articulate, capable, attractive, compassionate leader with sound ideas. When a president gets into a bar room brawl, he loses his dignity and his aura, key assets for an incumbent. Romney was polite but firm. Obama seemed quarrelsome, frustrated, nasty, and cranky.
1. Romney made very clear the case against Obama's economic record and Obama's rebuttal about 5 million jobs was pathetic.
2. Romney injected the China issue, big time, and tapped into a strong public sentiment on the issue.
3. Romney made the effective case that Obama is anti-oil, coal, and gas and that this has doubled gas prices.
4. Romney was very effective in differentiating himself from Bush-43 and in establishing that, unlike the GOP of the past, he was for small businesses not big businesses
5. Romney rebutted the attacks on him over Chinese investments.
6. Romney explained his tax plan well and to everyone's satisfaction.
7. Obama erred in trying to make us believe that he always felt Libya was a terror attack. We all heard him blame the movie.
Obama scored points over the 47% statement by Romney, immigration, and by his response to the accusation that he went to Vegas after the murder of the Ambassador.
In another composition, Morris offered the following for believing that Romney is on his way to victory.
Romney:
1) Explained his tax plan very well. His suggestion that he would allow up to a flat $25,000 in deductions was excellent.
2) Recited the statistics of economic decline so well and so frequently that they will be repeated again and again by voters as they contemplate their decision.
3) Clearly pinned the blame for high gas prices on Obama by enumerating the president's anti-oil, anti-coal policies.
4) Put the China issue in play big time by explaining Chinese currency manipulation. In the next debate, Romney should drill down and explain how much Chinese chicanery and hacking costs us jobs and how passive Obama has been in the face of their conduct.
5) Demonstrated his compassion and heart in his personal stories of his ministry. He should continue just this kind of argumentation.
Here is some fact checking.
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney faced off last night in the second of three presidential debates, with just three weeks remaining before Election Day. The town hall forum was held at Hofstra University in New York, and was moderated by CNN’s Candy Crowley.
So where did the candidates get it right and where did they stray from the facts?
Check out this fact check courtesy of the Fox News Brainroom:
1) Romney said Detroit should go bankrupt
Romney: “And one thing that the president said, which I want to make sure that we understand, he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt. And that’s right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy’s and Condell (ph) Airlines and come out stronger.”
TRUE. Romney called for a managed bankruptcy in a New York Times Op-Ed.
This statement is drawn from a headline – “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” – on an opinion article written by Romney for The New York Times. But he did not say that in the article. (He repeated the line, however, on television.)
Although “bankrupt” often conjures up images of liquidation, Romney called for a “managed bankruptcy.” This is a process in which the company uses the bankruptcy code to discharge its debts, but emerges from the process a leaner, less leveraged company.
Romney: And I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.
Crowley: “Let me give the president a chance.”
Obama: “Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn’t true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open. And we would have lost a million jobs. And that — don’t take my word for it, take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney. But they’ll tell you his prescription wasn’t going to work.”
Obama’s statement is FALSE.
[Source: "Fact Check: Letting Detroit go bankrupt," The Washington Post: 17 Oct 2012]
2) Women earn less than men
Question: “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?”
The question posed was slightly INACCURATE.
The Census Bureau, which tracks annual wages, found women who worked full-time, year-round in 2010 made 77 cents for every dollar men earned across the country. This comparison includes all male and female workers regardless of occupation.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses different measures to analyze the pay gap, including weekly wages. In 2010, women working full-time had median weekly earnings of $669, versus $824 for males, according to a BLS report released in 2011. So women earned 81 cents of every dollar earned by men, which has been typical since 2004.
[Source: Politifact]
3) Romney’s 60 Minutes interview
Obama: “Now, Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on 60 Minutes just two weeks ago and he was asked: Is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 year? And he said, ‘Yes, I think that’s fair.’ Not only that, he said, ‘I think that’s what grows the economy.’”
FACT CHECK – Obama took Romney’s words slightly out of context and also misled the audience when he added, “And he said,’Yes, I think that’s fair.’ Not only that, he said, ‘I think that’s what grows the economy.’”
The president’s comments suggested that Romney thinks the economy will grow by virtue of bus drivers paying less than millionaires. But the Republican candidate was really saying that limiting taxes on investment income will encourage people to invest more of their money into the economy.
Note that none of this has anything to do with individual income tax, for which both Romney and Obama have both proposed progressive systems requiring higher earners to pay more than lower earners.
Here’s a transcript of the relevant part of that conversation between Romney and 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley:
Pelley: “You made on your investments, personally, about twenty million dollars last year and you paid fourteen percent in federal taxes. That`s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes fifty thousand dollars and paid a higher rate than you did?
Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as thirty-five percent.
Pelley: So you think it is fair?
Romney: Yeah, I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.”
[Source:The Washington Post: 16 Oct 2012]
4) Obama’s China connection
Obama deflected questions about his own investments in China with a joke. But independent reports have shown Obama holds shares in mutual funds that invest in Apple, Wal-Mart and other U.S. firms with operations in China.
[source: Washington Post -- Fact Check, Debate: Fact Check: China investments, Oct 16, 2012]
The Romney campaign claims that President Obama has money invested in China too, albeit indirectly. The president’s financial disclosure shows he has retirement money in Vanguard mutual funds and the Illinois pension plan. Those funds list investments in some 500 companies, including Apple, Wal Mart, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and General Electric.
Those firms have employees and in some cases, manufacturing facilities in China, which relates to another campaign hot-button issue: outsourcing. However, the companies themselves are based in the U.S. The investments involve domestic, not international, stock purchases.
[source: Politifact - Obama says Romney talks tough on China but puts his money there, Sept 13, 2012]
_____________________
What Romney said last night:
Romney: Yeah. Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in – in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
Obama: (Inaudible) – Candy -
Romney: Have you looked at your pension?
Obama: I’ve got to say – (inaudible) -
Romney: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
Obama: You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it – it doesn’t take as long. The -
Romney: Well, let me – let me give you – (laughter) – let me – let me give you some advice.
Obama: I don’t check it that often. (Chuckles.)
Romney: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension.
Obama: (Chuckles.) OK.
Romney: You also have investments in Chinese companies.
Obama: Yeah.
Romney: You also have investments outside the United States.
Obama: Yeah.
Romney: You also have investments through a Caymans trust, all right?
5) Speaking time
According to a tally by CNN, the president received over three minutes of additional speaking time compared to Gov. Romney. Obama spoke for a total of 44:04 while Romney spoke for 40:50.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)