MyFoxKC

Saturday Night’s Political Forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren was one of the most interesting campaign events this year. It was nice to hear someone from the right argue that it is essential that Americans (both conservative & liberal) learn to argue their viewpoints WITHOUT demonizing the other side. In coming to terms with the idea that we are all Americans (even when we disagree) we build upon the idea that we are greater as a nation together than we are as the sum of our separate ideologies.

I was impressed with how quickly Sen. McCain answered. He was direct and to the point. “On Message” as they say. When others suspected that he knew the answers in advance, I doubted it. I simply saw it as someone who has practiced turning every question to a preset campaign talking point. It’s an old debate trick and Sen. McCain seems very good at it. (Case in point: when asked by a reporter on the campaign trail to defend his love of the musical group ABBA, Sen. McCain explained that his musical development was interrupted by his five years in a POW camp.) Any and all questions leads back to either:

1) The Surge Worked

2) Drill now and drill everywhere

3) I was a POW

4) Life begins at conception

Senator Obama gave much more nuanced answers. He frequently fumbled for the right way to express himself. This was seen by many as a sign of his inexperience and unsuitability for the job and I don’t agree with that assessment. Keep in mind that this was not particularly friendly territory for him and ANY misstatement would have been instantly jumped on by the McCain campaign, news anchors and the evangelicals. One could hardly blame him for weighing every word.

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who see everything in terms of black & white and those who see the world as more complicated and filled with shades of gray. Sen. McCain sees clear cut answers to all problems. Senator Obama does not. The question of “when does life begin” is an excellent example of the differences. Senator McCain responded, “Life begins at conception”. That’s an answer short and sweet enough to appear on a bumper sticker. Many people (and most of the audience) agree with this viewpoint. Obama didn’t answer the question directly. He replied that if you are pro-life, you won’t agree with any definition but the one that McCain would eventually offer to the crowd. Sen. Obam realizes that an equal number of people disagree with that definition as agree with it. So Senator Obama’s discussion centered on finding a middle ground that both sides could come to terms with….work together to reduce the number of abortions.

Who’s right & who’s wrong? Let’s look at a couple of hypothetical examples:
“Jane” is a 17 year old high school senior who discovers she is 6 weeks pregnant seven months before her senior prom….she decides to have an abortion. It’s her second one. It’s her choice but most pro-choice people I know would be disgusted with her actions.

“Jill” is a 30 year old stay at home mother of two who discovers she is six weeks pregnant three weeks after her husband is killed in an accident. He had no insurance and she has no job. She is told her unborn child will be born with a chronic illness that will require extensive care for the life of the child. She is also told that in giving birth she stands a good risk of not surviving the pregnancy herself. Does she risk her life (as the single mother of two other children) to bear a child she cannot afford to raise and will never be adopted because of the chronic health problems? Under pro-life beliefs, she has no choice.

This is the reason why I don’t like “bumper sticker” issues. Most things in life are too complex to boil down to simple answers. And Senator Obama seems to recognize that. I don’t mind that his most profound ideas come from pre-written speeches. I like the fact that he thinks about all aspects of a problem before speaking out. If he isn’t as good with an off the cuff comment…I can live with that if the reasoned conclusion is the RIGHT answer.

Senator McCain showed a strong willingness on Saturday night to attack evil! But what does that really mean and where does his commitment end? Tiananmen Square in China in the 80’s was EVIL! How should we have confronted it? Invade Beijing? What about Darfur? What about ….name your troubled nation of choice! A willingness to interfere in other countries sounds great from the campaign platform, but the reality is that there is much more evil in the world than we can effectively combat as a single nation.

John McCain’s entire history in Washington has been highlighted by a strong belief in American intervention to right the wrongs of the world. During the 80’s, John McCain was a strong supporter of another war. He supported the Contra Army in Nicaragua. Remember them? They were the Nicaraguan rebels funded by Ronald Reagan during his administration. (Interestingly enough the money for the Contras was supplied by the US covertly selling weapons to IRAN! Try explaining that on a bumper sticker.)

In 2001, McCain told CNN within a month of 9/11 that we should attack Iraq because of 9/11! ($658 BILLION dollars later we see how that is working out.) Even the Bush administration now admits that Al Qaida was not in Iraq (pre-9/11) and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But John McCain wanted to “hit back” at someone. Unfortunately, taking time to be sure he had picked the right target to hit didn’t occur to him in 2001 as a Senator. The big question is would a PRESIDENT McCain use any more judgment and wisdom in picking targets than Senator McCain has? I would hope that America has seen the problems with “cowboy diplomacy” but Senator McCain insists that “there will be more wars”. I realize that he is right on that, but I hope that they are the RIGHT wars and that his Presidential war picks show more wisdom than his past record suggests. Because it’s our children and grandchildren that will fight and bleed for the future wars of a President McCain.

All the media talking heads looked at who won and who lost Saturday night at Saddleback. And in doing so they missed the whole point. I appreciated the opportunity to see both candidates answering the same questions. We did get the opportunity to compare “apples to apples”. And it served to remind me, that the presidency is not a game of “gotcha”, with the person scoring the lowest gotcha number winning the prize. An election should focus on how the candidate comes to a conclusion on what is the best course for our nation to take. It’s not necessarily how you say it or the “experience” you say it with…it’s the wisdom of what you’re saying that counts.