Character v Diversity

An African-American from Generation X, two White Guys from the Silent Generation and a woman from Generation X. Arguably, the greatest diversity the U.S. has ever seen in its leading general election candidates for the Presidency. I think that’s a healthy thing.

The progress our nation has made on the topic of diversity is, surely, the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. But, he taught us not to judge people based on observable differences – e.g. the color of skin (or the age of skin or the shape of skin). Rather, his instruction was to base judgment on content of character.

Character, then and not diversity seems to be the important consideration in determining the best candidate for President. But, what is character? J.C. Watts Jr., one of my favorite ex-politicians (I do wish he would get back in the game) says, “Character is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking.” I think that makes a great character “yardstick”. So, lets consider the things that first come to mind about these candidates that we’ve come to learn they did “… when nobody (was) looking.”

With Obama, I immediately think of the nearly 20 years he sat under the teaching of Jeremiah Wright. I find that deeply troubling.

In Joe Biden’s case, I’m mindful of the plagiarism he admitted to in school and that was obvious in his 1988 Presidential Campaign. He’s proven that you can’t take him at his word.

A year ago, “… when nobody (was) looking”, Senator John McCain was traveling coach-class and carrying his own bags because he was willing to stand up for our nation to win, even if it cost him his election. I find it very hard not to stand up for a guy who is willing to stand up for me like that.

Recently, Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin learned that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant. Quietly, giving being Mom priority over being a politician, Governor Palin provided her daughter the love and support she needed to begin dealing with the young woman’s challenging circumstances. Although the press tried to eviscerate her for it, it made me proud to know that someone with this sort of character is willing to serve us, as a nation.

Are there other matters to consider along these lines that would reflect more positively on Obama and Biden and more negatively on McCain and Palin? Perhaps. My recommendation is that we all give these matters our full consideration, in this same light and right away. November 4th is coming fast and we all need to be doing our best to determine the best candidates based on the Substance of their character and not the Style of their presentation.

Price-Per-Barrel, Band-Aids and Bludgeons

Arguably, the single most important issue in the U.S. economy is the current unprecedented rate of increase in the price-per-barrel of crude oil. Unarguably, our “Leaders” are still offering no well thought-out cohesive plan to address this matter that’s been in crisis-mode since 1973. Instead, they continue to offer Band-Aids and Bludgeons.

Band-Aids are things like the gas-tax holiday endorsed by Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain or Congress calling in oil company executives to yell at them about their morally questionable level of profits. While these actions illicit gut-level reactions, they’re not solutions. They are, at best, Band-Aids.

Bludgeon describes how politicians use this to beat on each other. Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama provides a classic example of this. He uses this as yet another opportunity to use the disingenuous phrase “Bush/McCain” and to lay the blame for this crisis at the feet of his political opponent. This completely ignores the fact that every President, Senator (including himself) and Member of Congress, since 1973, has screwed this pooch. Instead of a true “Change” to true leadership that leads to much-needed real solutions, we get the same old political expedience of just blaming the other guy any chance you get. The result? No real solutions, just more Bludgeons.

Well, I’ve had enough! In late 1978, when I was 30, I accepted a promotion and moved from Indiana to Southern California. When I got there, I found that you could only get gas on alternating days, depending on the ending number of your car’s license plate. And, on those alternating days, you’d still have to wait in line for gas, hoping that the filling station you’d picked didn’t run out. To make matters worse, the price for gas was approaching an outrageous $1.00 per gallon! I remember the Tonight Show’s Johnny Carson saying, “Just wait. Once gas gets to $1.00 a gallon, there will be all the gas you want.” I guess he was right. Once there was enough supply, the price didn’t seem to matter that much and not much changed.

So, here we are, 30 years later, I’m now 60, I’ve moved from Southern California to the Pacific Northwest, gas is over $4.00 per gallon and finally, something about our nation’s energy dependence is beginning to change … our driving habits. Charles Krauthammer addresses this well in his recent column entitled “At $4, Everybody Gets Rational”. Once the price exceeded $4.00 a gallon, it did matter to us and the change in our behavior is forcing the “Captains of Industry” to respond.

I guess that’s a good thing and that Krauthammer is right … Its too bad that it takes this sort of “gun to the head” circumstance to change our driving habits but that key needs to remain in place if, as a nation, we’re ever going to achieve energy independence. But, this involves the behavior of “Followers”. What about the behavior of our “Leaders”?! Where is their cohesive plan, now 35 years overdue, that: Safely produces more domestic crude oil and refined product, includes rational and expedient development of alternative fuels, leverages pricing for the products that OPEC imports from the U.S., etc.?

Certainly, I’m not alone in my views on this and I’m confident I’m not even in the minority. What I’ve pointed out up to now isn’t exactly “news”. The question remaining is what do we, as individuals, do about this? Well, we can still “throw the rascals out” with the power of our vote. After 35 years of inaction, whether they have a “D” or an “R” (or any other party-affiliation) after their names, they deserve to be thrown out. If, in over a third of a century, they can’t address such a clearly urgent matter, which can just as clearly be resolved, how can we rely on them for other concerns and why shouldn’t we give “the other guys” a chance to do better?

For me, the time to act is now. I look at what has happened while our “Leaders” have continued to let this matter drift since I was 30. We can’t “unscramble that egg” but lets have enough concern for where our nation will be 30 years from now, to put true Leaders in place who will do better than just continue to let us “go with the flow” into oblivion. There’s no telling if I’ll see 90 but, if things don’t change, I imagine my departure having to be much less elegant than my arrival. I plan to be cremated. Without significant change, I imagine that my Wife and dog will have to drag me to some designated public spot where two sticks can be rubbed together to get me started and I can be used as fuel for something, including the smoke-signals that are used to relay the news of my passing. Part of why I imagine that black-comedy scene is to try to make myself laugh to keep from crying. I do not want to spend my “Golden Years” in depression, both economically and emotionally, as a result of what we allow to continue to happen to our great nation. So, I’m going to do what I can, including doing all I can to “throw the rascals out”. That means I will not vote for anyone, at any level, who isn’t supporting a well thought-out cohesive plan for our nation’s energy-independence. Can I make a difference alone? No. But, if I’m right, that I’m not in the minority on this and those who agree act in unison with me, we will make a difference. In addition to being a difference that keeps my sorry ash from going up in smoke signals we can make a significant and true “Change” that keeps our nation on its course of greatness.

McCain’s Defense of Hagee

OK, there wasn’t one. As a result of controversy that was raised up about Pastor John Hagee within the past few days, Senator John McCain rejected the endorsement Hagee had given his presidential candidacy, without any apparent attempt to come to Hagee’s defense.

At the center of the mentioned controversy is an argument Pastor Hagee included in a late 1990s sermon. Those who unearthed this sermon, sum up Hagee’s argument as saying, “… the rise of Adolf Hitler was part of God's plan to help the Jews reach the Promised Land.” If that’s an accurate summary, I think Pastor Hagee is wrong. I’m a man of faith and I believe that God does know the end from the beginning so I would agree that God knew what Hitler would do. I, also, believe the Bible and what it tells us about the nature of God. As an example, in Romans 8:28, we’re told, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.” In other words, though God knows of the evil that men will do, He sees to it that it leads to good anyway, for His people. So, while I can see that applying to the mind-boggling evil that Hitler did, it isn’t in God’s nature to raise up that evil Himself. With that said, I guess I can see how Hagee could get carried away and come to the conclusion he did but I don’t agree with that conclusion and I would agree with McCain in rejecting that conclusion.

However, it wasn’t just that conclusion that McCain rejected. He rejected Hagee’s endorsement and in doing that, he rejected Hagee himself. In order to understand McCain’s character and his fitness to be our next President, I think it’s appropriate to ask … Why was there no apparent attempt to come to Hagee’s defense?

Of course, I can understand why it was politically expedient for McCain to reject Hagee’s endorsement. Especially, in light of how McCain’s detractors have relentlessly dug for anything they can find to counter the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stigma that McCain’s opponent, Senator Barack Obama, carries. But doesn’t Hagee deserve better? McCain actually sought out Hagee’s endorsement. And this past February, Hagee stood up for McCain, in the way McCain wanted. I trust that Hagee did this, fully aware that McCain has his flaws. McCain admits to this, himself. A good example came this past MLK Day; when McCain appeared at the site of MLK’s assassination and stated, “I was wrong. I was wrong.” And “We all make mistakes. We all make mistakes”, regarding his original opposition to establishing MLK Day, as a National Holiday. Perhaps McCain’s original opposition to MLK Day was out of some well-intended but misdirected over-exuberance. Whatever the reason, McCain, himself, now rejects that position and yet, he asks that we not allow this admitted error to cause us to reject him or his presidential candidacy.

Why, then, isn’t Senator McCain extending the same consideration to Pastor Hagee that he asks for himself? Perhaps Pastor Hagee wouldn’t admit to being in error. I don’t know. What I do know is that it troubles me that McCain rejected Hagee without any apparent attempt to give him that opportunity, so he might continue to stand up for him. It makes me wonder how the “Captain of the Straight-Talk Express” will stand up for me, in spite of my flaws. Although I’m, presently, a McCain supporter, I have to wonder if I can count on him once he finds out that I voted for Ambassador Alan Keyes for President, in California’s 2000 Primaries. I heard Keyes speak at my church and every time he spoke, he uttered my views. Since then, Barack Obama beat him like a drum, in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate and with his few appearances in the current presidential campaign; I’ve been embarrassed for Keyes. Maybe I was just overly enthusiastic about Keyes’ speech at my church but, considering what I’ve witnessed since then, I have to conclude that my judgment was flawed, in casting my Year-2000 Presidential Primary vote for him. Does that mistake, with or without admitting to it, mean that Senator McCain would reject my support and thus, reject me? Maybe so and maybe I’d understand it, in a way. Maybe that would be the politically expedient thing to do. But is that what we want our nation’s character to be founded on? Political expedience?! Shouldn’t we be willing to stand up for those who stand up for us … At least to the extent that, before rejecting them, we give them the opportunity to acknowledge their mistakes so that we can continue to stand up for them? I’ve done that for Senator McCain and so did John Hagee. But, that’s not what Hagee got from McCain, in return. John McCain is an unquestionably-genuine national hero. My gratitude for all he’s done for us and our nation is undying. Regardless, I’m disappointed that I didn’t see the courage of an unquestionably-genuine national hero in the way he dealt with this recent controversy, that was raised up around John Hagee. My hope is that he will revisit this in a way that assures me that we can continue to count on John McCain to courageously stand up for us all, imperfect though we are.

McCain & His “Kind”

In the 40 years, since the death of MLK Jr., our nation has come a long way towards realizing his “ … dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Fittingly, Dr. King focused on “the color of their skin”, in his historic “I Have A Dream” speech. However, he could have just as easily left out the words “the color of” and have made the same point, in general. I’m sure Dr. King would have agreed, its wrong to judge others by any quality of their skin. As an example, isn’t it wrong to judge others by the shape of their skin - i.e by their gender? Of course it is! Thankfully, we’ve come a long way on that matter in the past 40 years too. Why then does it seem to still be so OK in the U.S. to judge others by another quality of their skin … the age of their skin?

With the Late Night Talk Shows, on Comedy Central, and in numerous other venues, it seems to be perfectly acceptable to repeatedly speak of the Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain, as being “really old.” Thankfully, this genuine national hero is also a gracious man. Rather than bewailing this treatment, McCain good-naturedly pokes fun at himself on this issue, saying that he’s “older than dirt” and has “more scars than Frankenstein.” But, whether its dealt with good-naturedly or not, isn’t it wrong that it has to be dealt with at all? Can you imagine the tumult that would ensue if Letterman “joked” about the color of Barack Obama’s skin or if The Daily Show “teased” Hillary Clinton about some physical female trait?! If either of those things happened once, let alone nightly, the uproar would be overwhelming. In fact, Obama and Clinton wouldn’t have to deal with it themselves. The tumult and the uproar would address the matter for them. So why does John McCain find himself having to address the constant insinuations about his age? Where is the tumult and the uproar?

The sad truth about this is that it’s a fact of life for McCain & His “Kind”. I know. Although I’m younger than Senator McCain by more than a decade, I’m not running for U.S. President, etc., I consider myself to be included in that “Kind”. I, daily, deal with the growing prejudice our culture seems to have towards anyone who admits to remembering a time when they didn’t have a cell phone or an email address. I suspect each of McCain’s “Kind” have their own story, in this regard. My story, along these lines, is one that’s unfolded during the past three years, since we decided to relocate our home from one part of the country to another. Of course, with an endeavor like this, not everything goes as planned. For us, the key element of our plan that hasn’t gone as expected is that I haven’t been able to secure the kind of job we had in mind for me – i.e. A job in my chosen field, where I have 25 years of successful experience. Certainly, there’s more than one reason for this. But, to my great surprise, my age has been a significant factor. Candidly, as a Hiring Manager myself, I think there are some legitimate considerations to make along these lines. If a job requires a certain level of energy, I think its legitimate to consider if a person is experienced or if they’re worn out. However, when a Hiring Manager sees a candidate’s face across the table that’s a decade or two (or even three) older than their’s, its simply wrong to make assumptions about their energy or their ability to keep up with technology or their aspirations or their values or whatever, without actually getting to know more about the candidate than the fact that they have an older face … that is to say, judging them by the age of their skin.

When you stop and think about it, we, the U.S. Voters, are the Hiring Managers for our next President. With this, there are many serious considerations we should reasonably be making. Among my hopes is that, beginning with this election, we will no longer include any considerations of any quality of their skin … neither its color nor its shape nor its age.

America's 21st Century Civil War

When asked about the state of the U.S. economy, Hillary Clinton first takes the opportunity to imply some similarity between John McCain and Herbert Hoover. At the same time, Senator McCain delivers a speech addressing, “Senator Obama's fantasy plan for making us safer." Meanwhile, Barack Obama compares Senator Clinton to Walter Mitty, in responding to her "mistake", in recounting her visit to Bosnia, as First Lady.

I understand that these tactics are common, for providing political leverage but how do they help our nation? None of the three current Presidential Candidates mentioned are perfect but, though their approaches differ, I trust that each of of them actually have hearts to serve our nation. Why, then, do we so consistently hear these sorts of slams while we ALMOST NEVER HEAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANYTHING GOOD IN OPPONENT'S POSITIONS, that would in fact serve the best interests of our nation?

Maybe you agree with John McCain's positions and maybe you don't but he is unarguably a genuine National Hero. The late-night comics seem to be getting a lot of mileage out of repeatedly saying that McCain is "really old." I get a laugh out of it and Senator McCain appears to too but isn't it a shame that this sort of thing masks a greater truth ... that, for a guy who was tortured in the equivalent of a kennel cage for six years, he looks pretty good? Then, he came home to continue to work tirelessly to serve his nation. With a guy like this, wouldn't we be better off if McCain's opponents were courageous enough to embrace the good they see in his positions and build on that? After all, McCain's positions on Government Spending, Border Security, Environment, etc., haven't always been completely in line with his party. Surely, there's something in there that Clinton and Obama can draw on that would add to their strategies.

With Hillary Clinton, its not uncommon to hear about her "unlikeability." Whether you want to have dinner with her regularly or not, you have to admit that she's worked hard to prepare herself to serve and she has, in fact, worked hard in serving. Currently, she gets a lot of criticism for claiming "experience" through her roles as First Lady of Arkansas and then, of the U.S. Perhaps much of that criticism is deserved but, if so, she at least equally deserves consideration of that old adage about the most difficult instrument to play being second-fiddle. And, very obviously, her challenges were even greater, as the result of the "fiddling" of the one she was striving to support. You'd think that a person of her caliber would have some ideas about strengthening our middle class, our families and our schools that could be useful in the plans of her opponents.

Many question Barack Obama's substance and the scrutiny his judgement is currently getting over the church he's associated himself with for nearly 20 years seems legitimate. But the guy seems to have some desirable natural leadership qualities and he's speaking out about a number of issues in our culture that have gone untended for far too long. With his intellect, surely he can contribute to a number of challenges but you've got to admit, he's uniquely qualified to address some cross-cultural matters. Wouldn't the U.S. culture benefit more if Clinton and McCain acknowledged their void in an area that Obama can so richly fill?

Unfortunately, our nation has drifted away from what I'm suggesting. Its a quality that made us great in the first place. Some think of it as Yankee ingenuity. I say its a greater strength that comes from the synergy of the best of our differing ideas. Instead, what we've gotten, for quite some time, is having those who say their purpose is to serve, pitting themselves against each other over any difference they can find. The most remarkable evidence of this is what's known as "The Redstate/Bluestate Divide", that became so obvious with the first Presidential Election of this century and millennium.

When Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel came out with their book, Common Ground - How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America, I was hopeful it could start a groundswell of interest that would turn us back in a more productive direction in this regard. I even dreamed that my Presidential Candidate (now dropped out) would pick up on this and champion the cause. Neither happened and that's a shame because I don't think we're just missing out on doing something good here. I agree with Thomas and Beckel that this is a "...Partisan War That is Destroying America." I think of it as America's 21st Century Civil War. Of course, it doesn't really compare with our 19th Century Civil War but, much as was the case with the circumstances that led to The War Between The States, if these circumstances aren't addressed and turned around, I believe it will continue to lead to our decline, as a great nation.

So what's the solution? I think we should look to that first Civil War for the answer. There was no "groundswell of interest" to turn us back in a more productive direction. Instead, our country split in two ... North and South ... and gunfire broke out "across the aisle" between the two sides. It was the bloodiest war we've ever known. Thankfully, Abraham Lincoln stepped into that breech and proved himself to be one of our nation's greatest heroes. Without Lincoln's courage, its doubtful that our nation would have survived that time. Although the circumstances of the North/South Split differ from those of the Redstate/Bluestate Divide, the results could be as tragic. My hope and prayer with this is that a 21st Century American Hero will rise up and have the courage to step into this "Divide" before it leads to a point of no return in our nation's decline. Does anyone see a true hero like this on the horizon? I guess we'll know when we see one of these, who say their intention is to serve the public, changing the words they use and more importantly, changing their actions to match.

Waving the Redstate Flag in the Bluestate's Face

Last week, Figgins and I decided to try a social-political experiment. We wrote an article on "... the passion-evoking, yet vacant, rhetoric of Barack Obama." Then we posted the same content on both a very conservative blog site and a very liberal blog site. Some of the results were pretty dramatic and some were to be expected but, in this process, we saw one aspect in a new light that was quite revealing and educational for us.

As you might expect. there was a difference in the volume of responses from the respective sides. Since the theme was obviously more inflammatory to liberal readers, we expected more of a reaction from that side. However, we were a bit surprised with how dramatic the difference was. The posting on the conservative site has elicited one (1) comment from last weekend to this weekend. On the other hand, I posted the article on the liberal site just as I left for church last Sunday morning and there were 97 comments by the time I got home from church. Of course, there are many possible reasons for this disparity, including my writing talent or lack thereof. The possibility that concerns me most, as a conservative, is that liberals are just more "on fire" about this election than are conservatives. Regardless of my writing ability, Obama's rhetoric is a topic that should rouse significant conservative interest. If conservatives are, generally, as disinterested as this experiment seems to indicate, we should just start adjusting to the thought of seeing liberal Democrats in the White House for at least the next four years.

And, you might expect that we received some just plain rude comments. We're encouraged to say that those were surprisingly few. There were at least as many thoughtful comments that led to some healthy dialog. However, there was one particular quality we were looking for from the responses that was glaringly missing ... Obama's much-trumpeted change.

Although I see little, if any, substance to Obama's oratory, I accept that many are believing, as one Commenter put it, "(His) message of unity to solve America's problems." Obama's campaign often positions him as a "post-partisan politician" in this regard. If that's the case, based on the comments I received from Obama supporters, that doesn't seem to be bearing fruit, or even taking root, in them. There I was, boldly "crossing the aisle" to express my views and I wasn't generally finding Obama supporters who were looking for common ground where we could connect. So, while it may be appropriate for Senator Hillary Clinton to be asking, "Where's the beef?", relative to the substance of Obama's message, I think it's even more appropriate and certainly more poignant for all of us to be asking, "Where's the change?"

With that said, I want to, again, go on the record in saying that I'm very much a fan of change along these lines. That was the focus of my earlier posting, entitled "Rediscovering America's Strength." In fact, at that time, I was hoping that the candidate I was supporting (Governor Mike Huckabee) would pick it up, as a main theme to his campaign. In spite of the fact that Governor Huckabee accomplished far more in the current campaign than was generally expected, its obvious that this "isn't going to be his day." So, I'm rooting for this theme to be picked up by the candidate who will be the Republican nominee ... Senator John McCain. Of course, I think this remains a great theme but I think its a particularly good theme for Senator McCain. He could put the much needed substance to this and do something for our nation that is truly heroic. How fitting that it be done by a man who is, in fact, a genuine hero of our nation?!

"Real Conservatives" position "Real Liberals" for 16-Year White House Stay

Since Figgins knows that I consider myself to be a "Real Conservative", he seemed pretty stunned when he heard me say that I think what many "Real Conservatives" are currently doing will result in "Real Liberals" occupying the White House for at least the next 16 years. I can understand his reaction. It took something pretty stunning to get me to that point.

What got me to that point was hearing Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson state that, if John McCain is this year's Republican nominee and if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are this year's Democrat nominee, for the first time in his voting-life he won't cast a vote for President. Up to this point, the related "McCain is not a real conservative" noise had been troubling me but none of the noise makers had stopped me in my tracks, as Dobson had done.

I know Ann Coulter caused quite a stir when she said that, if McCain is the Republican nominee, she'll campaign for Hillary Clinton. That's certainly not something you'd expect from someone whose current book is entitled, "If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans". I think Ann's oversight here is that it takes more than brains to be a Republican and/or a "Real Conservative". In addition to brains, it also takes common sense ... another key ingredient lacking in many Democrats and/or "Real Liberals". Though Ann's intellect is obvious, this anti-McCain statement makes her lack of common sense just as obvious. So, I think she'll fit in just fine across the aisle and I say, "Good riddance!"

"Conservative Talk Radio" has been making the most noise on this and as usual, the noisiest has been Rush Limbaugh. Now, much like Ann Coulter's, Rush's views generally line up with mine. And, also like Ann Coulter, Rush typically expresses his views in an intelligent and interesting way. However, the guy is a windbag and mostly enamored with himself and I wouldn't let someone like that set my course for me.

Dr. Dobson, however, is quite another matter. I haven't done the accounting but I don't think it would take the fingers on one hand to count up the people in this world who I admire more than Dr. Dobson. What he has done and strives to do through Focus on the Family is priceless in my view. So, when he sets an example, I take it most seriously. In this instance, though, I believe he is mistaken. After all, admire him as I do, he isn't perfect. The flaw in this, as I see it is that he is choosing to not participate as his way of being against. This, I believe, will be very destructive. What makes it worse is that he had and I believe he still has, the opportunity to take a position for something and to be quite constructive.

Initially, there were many more Republican Presidential Candidates than the three major candidates (Please don't expect me to include Ron Paul) remaining. Surely, there was a "Real Conservative" from that field whose views would have lined up reasonably with Dr. Dobson's. I don't understand why Dr. Dobson didn't take the constructive path of endorsing one of these.

Although the opportunity to choose from the initial field of candidates has passed, three candidates remain. Isn't there a more positive tack that Dr, Dobson could take than just being anti-McCain and anti-Clinton/Obama? If so, I think its necessary to look at the three and see if there's something that Dr. Dobson and the others may have missed in determining if any of these are "Real Conservatives".

What about Romney? Instead of just taking an anti-McCain stance, Dr. Dobson could have endorsed Romney but he didn't. Why not? The "Conservative Talk Radio" crowd are certainly behind that. They say Romney maps to all three segments of the Reagan coalition. But, I think they've missed some parts. The Reagan coalition had many more than three parts. Some of the parts that seem to not to be getting mentioned lately are things like having more substance than a glossy veneer and being trustworthy. You may want to reference what I detailed on this topic in my post entitled Honest Politician but I suspect Dr. Dobson sees this and thus, no endorsement for Romney.

And, what about Huckabee? Frankly, he's my guy but I understand concerns about his foreign policy skills and his "electability". But what is such a mismatch between their views that would keep Dr. Dobson's from taking the constructive path of endorsing Governor Huckabee? I'd really like to hear from this man, who I so admire, on this topic.

And, finally, what about McCain? Or, more appropriately, why set an example of not providing support that McCain will need to keep "Real Liberals" from securing, at least, the next 16 years in the White House? Being anti-McCain is always an option but, in determining who is a "Real Conservative", isn't one for-sure quality that they aren't a "Real Liberal"? McCain, at least, passes that test. Clinton and Obama don't! OBAMA IS THE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE SENATE, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!! Doesn't it make more sense for Dr. Dobson and the others to first see if they can settle their differences with McCain? Why not sit down with this unarguably genuine national hero, tell him your concerns, see if you can find common ground where you can meet and support him in order to avoid letting the "Real Liberals" take this country into another cycle of decay? I have to say, I'm sort of disappointed in Dr. Dobson with this. I know for sure that one thing we share is our faith in Christ. Central to that faith is that we have been forgiven through God's gracious gift, in Christ. The Scriptures teach us that forgiven people should be forgiving people so why shouldn't that apply to any missteps "Real Conservatives" see in McCain's past?