Home ›

Saddleback

The Abortion Question

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 18:39
in

Crossposted at Right Minds

At Rick Warren’s Saddleback forum, Barack Obama made a devastating gaffe on abortion. When asked when he believed life begins, he responded that the question was “above his pay grade” (honestly, he wants to be president of the United States—what pay grade is higher than that?), but that there was a “moral dimension” to the matter. (Really? So that’s what all those debates between the two sides were all about). Obama never did answer the question.
 
Most Americans will accept a standard pro-life or pro-abortion answer, but not knowing isn’t adequate, and Obama’s moral indifference probably harmed him. In addition, his opposition to a Born Alive Act, which protected fetuses born alive after botched abortions, raised a few eyebrows as well—leaving viable babies to die is perilously close to infanticide. Obama’s abortion answer hurt him. It was also the first time in years that a candidate’s statement on abortion made any news at all.
 
Republicans always give the same answer to the question of abortion: they believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong, that they are against it, but they respect the views of the other side. Democrats also have a standard answer: they believe that abortion is a bad thing (many, such as John Kerry, even go so far as to admit that it is wrong), but that it is a women’s right that they fully support. Ignoring any inconsistencies in these positions (if life begins at conception, then abortion is murder, which makes one wonder why the Republicans don’t fight harder to end the practice; and if Democrats believe that abortion is wrong, then why is it a women’s right?), the most remarkable thing about the subject is the reluctance with which it is discussed. Neither side much wants to broach the subject—it is rarely a major part of a stump speech. Neither candidate mentions the issue unless asked directly. Abortion is a sensitive issue—but then, many issues are. Why is the abortion debate such a third rail of politics?
 
For the Democrat party, the answer is easy—most people believe that abortion is wrong in at least some cases, and it is foolish to seem to support a moral evil. Abortion is not a key issue for most voters—but for those voters for whom it is, it is a very important matter—literally, a case of life and death. For Democrats, the less said about the topic, the better.
 
But why don’t Republicans talk about it? Even the most diehard feminists are probably not as passionate about abortion as evangelicals and conservative Catholics are, and “values voters” were a key demographic in the Reagan Revolution. For many evangelicals, abortion is the one issue keeping them in the Republican party—they like much of what Democrats say about social justice and preserving the environment. Anti-abortion voters are indispensable to the Republican party, and losing their support would be a disaster for the party.
 
Much of the GOP’s reluctance to discuss abortion is probably due to the fact that they realize that pro-lifers aren’t going anywhere—and since they have that bloc locked up, why antagonize the other side? That is true, up to a point—pro-lifers aren’t going anywhere—but misses an important point. Elections aren’t simply about political positions—they also depend on fundraising and grassroots efforts. And pro-lifers are excellent at both of these things. Witness the success of so many evangelical mega-churches. They require lots of organization and are very expensive, yet they flourish across the nation. If evangelicals devoted just a small fraction of the time and money they spend at church to helping the GOP, the party would benefit tremendously.
 
Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee both ran for president on the Republican ticket. Giuliani had name recognition, pundit support, and was a fairly conservative. One problem: he was pro-choice. Huckabee had no name recognition, no money, and had a fairly liberal record—but was very vocally pro-life. Giuliani won one delegate. Huckabee very nearly won the GOP nomination.
 
Granted, the voters here were presumably mostly pro-life Republicans. But independents could vote in most primaries, and Huckabee was competitive in national polls. Abortion is not the radioactive issue many Republicans think it is. Stark criticism of abortion by Republican candidates would probably help the party, not hurt it.

 

The President and the Candidate

Submitted by comewhatmay on Tue, 08/19/2008 - 19:47
in

I’ve been amused by recent speculations that Barack Obama may be the antichrist. After Saturday’s candidate forum at Saddleback Church, I think we can safely say that he isn’t. That would be too far above his pay grade.

Rick Warren is also not the antichrist, though the numerous outcries against him online before the event may have lead some to suspect otherwise. Most will know better now.

And John McCain? He is authentically himself, unmoved by public perception and uniquely unchanged by his candidacy.

Warren could easily have made himself the highlight of the Saddleback event, but he didn’t. He could have easily asked safe questions designed to make his audience love him, but he didn’t. He asked his questions, left very little “wiggle room” for his guests, and neatly stepped out of the spotlight. It was nicely done.

Despite repeated assurances to the press that Warren would stay away from issues-based questions in this forum, he hammered out direct and difficult questions about such issues as abortion, marriage, taxes, and stem cell research without hesitation or compromise. His direct, no-nonsense wording gave the silver-tongued Obama pause, despite the friendly tone in which the questions were asked. If Obama stumbles when answering a jolly and welcoming Rick Warren, I cringe to imagine how he’d do as President when faced with less hospitable interrogators. I have no such fears about John McCain, who had no difficulty in conversing with Mr. Warren. This event was clearly easier for him than for Mr. Obama.

I fully expected Obama to dominate the evening. This was the sort of event that Obama and his brand (for he has been marketed as a brand) have been molded for. His easy-going demeanor and impressive rhetorical skills are ideally suited to this format, often leaving the less polished but more authentic McCain at something of a disadvantage.

I was wrong. Obama’s distinct failure to answer most of Warren’s questions looked shoddy and unprofessional when compared to McCain’s short and direct answers. While Obama gave long, rambling responses and even admitted his inability to answer the abortion question, McCain’s every answer seemed to challenge Warren, as if he were thinking, ‘That was hard? Is that the best you’ve got?’

Obama is polished (though much less so at this event), but McCain is Real. The generation raised on myspace and youtube may be largely unable to make this distinction, but time will show them that Obama’s digital flair cannot compare to McCain’s real-life experience and convictions.

Mr. Obama has talked at length in previous forums about his ability to bring people together. In reality this means that he has an inability to displease his audience. He needs to be liked. This is useful in a candidate, but fatal in a President. He excels in the art of sounding good while saying little, and his refusal to take a firm stance on almost anything in this forum will not help him gain the vote of those who were actually listening.

John McCain has no such qualms. He is well-known for being unafraid of what people think of him. This is not always a desirable quality in a candidate, but it is absolutely necessary in a President. Let Obama remain a candidate for a few more years—he’s good at it. John McCain, on the other hand, is ready to be President.

Syndicate content