I hate the horse race

The horse race theme of the presidential candidate coverage reminds me of the guest stars on The Love Boat or the contestants on TattleTales. It's about being famous for being famous. (Seriously, what did Dick Gautier do for a living?) Or, in this case, being in the lead because you've been in the lead. The news coverage is all so self-fulfilling it is frightening.

Even McCain pollster Bill McInturff laments the vicious cycle of the poll-driven nomination process, “Polling affects press coverage, which affects your name recognition, which affects polling.” Which affects voting. When people hear "current front-runner" tacked on to every mention of a candidate's name, it can heavily influence voters to pick the horse who seems to have the best chance of winning.

I'm still convinced this dynamic accounted for Bush winning the GOP nomination in 2000. He was one of the least substantive candidates in the field (he couldn't pick out many countries on a map) but he had constant early press coverage (and the front-runner label) for his gigantic fundraising results as far back as 1998. That gave him a tremendous advantage going into the final year.

I find it ludicrous that the news media treats each individual state as if it's make or break when only two states have even voted! Someone wins Iowa and they are trumpeted as the frontrunner: "Smith Takes the Lead!" Then the same person loses New Hampshire and the headlines scream "Smith Campaign Reeling! Will It Survive?" It's only two states! There are 48 more to go!

I believe there should be a nationwide primary. It would put an end to all the false do-or-die drama and give every candidate a chance to receive votes in every state. This is also important to me because I live in Alabama and our turn comes so late that I can't recall ever having voted in any primary where the nominee hadn't already been decided. At the very least, my preferred candidate as always out of the race by that point.

It would also spare us watching the candidates going from state to state and lying about everything they're going to do just for that state - as if it were their first priority.

Yes, I'm talking to you, Mitt.

To Hear Good News

.
GOP blogger (and sex symbol) Mary Katherine Ham's humorous take on Senator Harry Reid's refusal to hear ANY good news from Iraq. It's a little overlong but very creative. MKH's mom is reading the text. Keep an eye out for JFK's favorite poet.

Monumental stem cell breakthrough

.
AP - Stem cell breakthrough uses no embryos

CNN - All sides in stem cell debate claim vindication
But the only video they provide is of one side of the debate. Guess which one?.

NRL - Stem cell breakthrough uses no human embryos
Here's some equal time.

At any rate, this is certainly cause for thanksgiving from both a sanctity of life perspective and a medical one.

So I'm a Huckabee supporter?

These are my results from a quiz given by a Minnesota TV station (and originally developed by Minnesota Public Radio). It takes your opinions on 12 topics and the emphasis you think each deserves, then ranks the current presidential candidates according to how much they agree with you.

They didn't agree with me much. The most anyone agreed with me was on 6 of the 12 issues.

1. Mike Huckabee (R)
2. John Edwards (D)
3. Ron Paul (R)
4. Chris Dodd (D)
5. Dennis Kucinich (D)
6. John McCain (R)
7. Bill Richardson (D)
8. Hillary Clinton (D)
9. Barack Obama (D)
10. Mike Gravel (D)
11. Joe Biden (D)
12. Tom Tancredo (R)
13. Duncan Hunter (R)
14. Fred Thompson (R)
15. Rudy Giuliani (R)
16. Mitt Romney (R)

-- Take the Quiz! --

Here are my responses. Please note that it was multiple choice and these are the quiz's answers. I don't like the way they are phrased and many are oversimplified.

Iraq: What is your opinion on the war in Iraq?
D. There should be a timetable for the removal of U.S. troops. Very important.
Explanation: It's our mess and we must help clean it up and we can't just pull out in the next year. But we must leave sooner rather than later. Make sure the Iraqi government knows we will. Set incremental timetables for their compliance and stand by them. Their military will not be corruption- or infiltrator-free. The different factions will never join hands and sing Kumbaya in our lifetime. We can't wait for those conditions before we leave.

Immigration: What is your position on immigration in the United States?
B. Tighten security first, but I also believe we should provide a mandatory path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here. Very important.
Explanation: Mass deportation of 12 million people would be a logistical impossibility and an ethical quagmire.

Taxes: Do you believe the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be made permanent?
B. No. Important.
Explanation: Especially not for the top 1%. I'm also against a national sales tax. It is regressive beyond imagining.

Stem-Cell Research: Should federal funding of embryonic stem cell research be expanded?
B. No. Important.
Explanation: I am pro-life, down to the embryo. See next question.

Abortion: Do you favor or oppose legalized abortion in the United States?
B. Oppose. Very important.
Explanation: I am pro-life. I am, however, also pro-sex education, pro-prevention, and pro-support networks. So I am not going to raise a ruckus about condom distribution in schools but I will about opposing abortion and then not supporting the mothers who keep their children.

Health Care: Do you favor or oppose the concept of universal health care in America?
B. Favor. Important.
Explanation: Not really but I am not for the status quo. The current system is a racket for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

Social Security: Do you favor the concept of privatization of Social Security to any degree?
B. No position. Somewhat important.
Explanation: I haven't studied it enough.

Line-Item Veto: Do you favor or oppose giving the president a "line-item" veto; that is, the ability to remove parts of a spending bill without needing to veto the entire bill?
A. Favor. Somewhat important.
Explanation: Great tool against pork-barrel spending. Can be abused, however.

Energy: Do you support federal assistance for the production of ethanol and/or biofuel as an alternative to oil?
B. No. Important.
Explanation: This isn't really a yes or no answer. Alternative fuels are paramount but the problem with ethanol is it requires more oil to produce than it would save! It's a sop to the corn lobby - the largest agricultural lobby on the planet. We have the technology to produce fantastic electric cars but they are squelched by the auto and oil industries because they last forever and don't have as much long-term profit.

Marriage: Do you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?
A. Oppose. Somewhat important.
Explanation: I am opposed to gay marriage in principle. I think legal partnerships shouldn't be off the table, though, and have often toyed with the idea of C.S. Lewis' suggestion of a two-tiered marriage system. I don't think this is a large enough issue to warrant amending the constitution. Let the states decide.

Death Penalty: Do you favor or oppose the use of the death penalty for certain crimes?
A. Oppose. Important.
Explanation: This is a hard choice. But I think we have to respect Jesus' admonition against eye-for-eye justice and his promise of mercy to the merciful. I also feel it may be a more consistent approach to sanctity of life. And the death penalty is far too unfairly applied in this country.

***

Of course, this quiz is riddled with problems. It doesn't ask for your reason for giving an answer. I had answers that could sound conservative in a yes-or-no context but I had liberal or populist reasons. And this quiz leaves out dozens of other issues that may be far more important to certain voters. What about poverty, the environment, outsourcing, gun control, corruption and lobbying, domestic spying, disaster preparedness, and foreign aid?

I invite readers to submit more comprehensive quizzes if they find any.

Huckabee, huh? Fine. Here goes.

The Government's Job

I have heard many, many pundits and private individuals go on about how taking care of the poor and the sick are not the government's job, that it's the private sector's place to handle such things. Government messes up everything it touches and does everything inefficiently. It would be the least reliable arbiter of who should and should not receive health care or food and shelter. Or so the story goes.

Fair enough. So then it should stand to reason that these same folks would have no problem with the government staying out of people's morality as well, seeing as how it would be the least reliable arbiter of such things. By that logic, Americans should be free to marry whom they want to marry (regardless of gender), burn whatever objects they wish (including the national flag), sleep with their students, put their chronically ill loved ones to death, and do any of these things on television or in the movies or in front of small children if it cranks their tractor. All without government intervention.

Point made yet? If not, here goes: Sure, in an ideal world the free market would make everything available to everyone at a reasonable price that is kept down by competition. But that ain't the way it works. And I do believe it is the private sector - nay, the CHURCH's - job to be the primary support for the poor. But we ain't getting the job done, folks. And our government IS put in place to "establish justice" for and "promote the general welfare" of all its citizens. And justice and welfare are often in short supply in a system predicated primarily on stock valuation and populated by those of us who are more worried about TiVo than transients.

The Micah mandate

“He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

From Carry A Big Stick by George Grant:

“In 1917, when American troops were preparing to sail across the seas in order to take to the battlefields of France and Belgium in the First World War, the New York Bible Society asked former president Theodore Roosevelt to inscribe a message in the pocket New Testaments that each of the soldiers would be given. The great man happily complied. And he began by quoting Micah’s striking triune call for biblical balance — what he called the ‘Micah Mandate.’

“Why this particular passage? Because he said, ‘The whole teaching of the New Testament’ is actually ‘foreshadowed in Micah’s verse.’

“In his brief message to the soldiers, he explained:

" 'Do justice; and therefore fight valiantly against those that stand for the reign of Moloch and Beelzebub on this earth. Love mercy; treat your enemies well; succor the afflicted; treat every woman as if she were your sister; care for the little children; and be tender with the old and helpless. Walk humbly; you will do so if you study the life and teachings of the Savior, walking in His steps.'

"He concluded, saying:

" 'Remember: The most perfect machinery of government will not keep us as a nation from destruction if there is not within us a soul.'

"Roosevelt believed that the ultimate security of men and nations depended on a faithful adherence to Micah’s threefold demonstration of true Biblical balance: "A strident commitment to justice, a practical concern for mercy, and a reverent humility before almighty God.”

When Is Red Blue?

Here is an editorial from Christianity Today that takes Tony Campolo to task for numbering himself among Red Letter Christians.

When Red Is Blue: Why I Am Not a Red-letter Christian
by Stan Guthrie

Though I own several Bibles with the words of Christ printed in red, I've always found the concept a bit iffy. After all, we evangelicals believe in the plenary, or full, inspiration of Scripture, don't we? Setting off Jesus' sayings this way seems to imply that they are more holy than what is printed in ordinary black ink. Sure, Christians understand that Jesus the incarnate Word fulfills the written Word. But if all Scripture is God-breathed, then in principle Jesus' inscripturated statements are no more God's Word to us than are those from Peter, Paul, and Mary—or Ezekiel. That's why I felt a bit queasy when I heard about a group calling itself "Red-Letter Christians." In the book Letters to a Young Evangelical, Tony Campolo says RLCs have an "intense desire to be faithful to the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament." That's a worthy start, of course—but only that. More >

My response:

While Stan may score some points for exposing the disingenuity of Tony's professed non-partisanship, he fails miserably in his refusal to admit that the Republican party and mean-spirited, agnostic radio talk show hosts OWN more than half the evangelicals in this country. Most evangelicals equate doctrinal conservatism with political conservatism but sometimes the two are radically antithetical. I have been called a communist by a fellow ministry leader because I made a positive remark about the first century church's all-for-one economic model mentioned in Acts. His thinking was, "It's communalism, therefore communistic, therefore atheistic!" Never mind that it's scriptural. If it doesn't fit the social Darwinism espoused by modern-day conservatives, it's considered un-Christian. Is that irony or what?

Another thing: In context, when Jesus said "The poor will always be with you", he wasn't saying "Therefore, they aren't a priority." His point was, "I won't always be here. Focus on me now, and them when I'm gone." In fact, Matthew 25 makes it harrowingly clear that He says, "They ARE me, as far as you're concerned. If you don't take care of them you aren't mine. Get that through your head!"