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.

CA Voters Should “Recall” Why Prop 22 Was Abandoned

In 2003, California held a statewide circus known as the Gubernatorial Recall election. That election actually considered two questions … Yes or No, should their sitting Governor, Gray Davis, be recalled? … And, if Yes, who of the 154 candidates should replace him? The slate of candidates included Actors, a Lieutenant Governor, a State Senator, Business People, a Porn Star, a Comedian, etc., etc.

In the lead-up to this election, it seemed likely that Davis would be recalled. This gave the Republicans the opportunity to capture the Governorship of the nation’s most populous State from the Democrats. In my opinion, it was unnecessary emphasis on this that led the California Republican Party to make a tragic error. Dana Rohrabacher, the U.S. Congressman for the California District I lived in at the time, took the lead in the party’s effort to support Actor/Businessman Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was obvious that this endeavor was founded on Schwarzenegger’s popularity, making him most likely to garner the plurality of votes needed to be Davis’ replacement. It was just as obvious that, for the group led by Rohrabacher, the subject of “Who is the best Gubernatorial Candidate for the future of the State?” took a back seat to the issue of popularity. To many, the answer to the question of “Who is the best Gubernatorial Candidate for the future of the State?” was State Senator Tom McClintock. He seemed to be very clear on every issue, as it pertained to what was needed from a California Governor for the present and the future. However, he wasn’t widely known in the State and he is far from being a flashy politician. Of course, it’s impossible to say that, if Rohrabacher’s efforts had been invested in McClintock, he would have won and the Republicans would still have secured the California Governorship. As you know, Schwarzenegger became “The Governator”. However, since McClintock received more votes than any Republican besides Schwarzenegger, it seems quite feasible that, with the Rohrabacher group’s support, McClintock could have won the Governorship.

So, since that circus took place nearly five years ago, what’s its importance now? Especially, at a time when the political “hot topic” is the May 15, 2008 Headline - California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban - i.e. The overturn of California’s Year 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 which, by a vote of 61.4% in favor, prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Of course, there’s ongoing heated debate on this issue. I’m not writing to add to that fire. I will say that there are people who are dear to me on both sides of this matter and my prayer is that we all can keep our related discussions, no matter how inflamed, from singeing those treasured relationships. I’m not even writing to address the matter of seven unelected officials forsaking the will of 61.4% of the California Electorate … though that seems pretty obviously wrong to me. I’m writing to address the matter of choosing style over substance – i.e. in 2003; the California Electorate let themselves be led to choosing popularity over ability. The current political “hot topic” just helps to illuminate that folly and its result … You may end up with just what you asked for, a likable “leader” who isn’t able (or willing) to respond in a way that reflects the will of those he represents. Specifically, in a statement responding to this California Supreme Court ruling, Governor Schwarzenegger simply said that he respected the ruling and did not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it. By contrast, State Senator (and now, U.S. Congress Candidate) Tom McClintock said, "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a travesty of judicial activism and is based not on California law - which is crystal-clear - but on the social views of the individual justices. Fortunately, the initiative process allows voters the opportunity to overturn this ruling by adopting the Marriage Protection initiative this November," McClintock said. "I intend to do everything in my power to campaign for this initiative."

Certainly, the outcome of the 2003 California Recall Circus isn’t unique, in terms of a population choosing style over substance, leading to travesty. As with most things, the best example is in the Bible, when Israel demanded a King. They first chose Saul, described in 1 Samuel 9:2 as “… a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.” … He was a good-looking tall guy who was a disaster, as King. On the other hand, David, Israel's first great King, who God instructed Samuel to anoint to replace Saul, was initially not included with the sons of Jesse who Samuel was considering. He wasn’t even present … as the youngest and the least, he was the one assigned to be out in the field, shepherding the flock.

So, what can we learn from this? Obviously, though we were given the “choosing style over substance” lesson in Saul and David, thousands of years ago, in Israel, it seems we still haven’t fully learned that lesson. Hopefully, the voters of California are learning from the results of their having elected (and reelected) “The Governator”. But, I no longer live in California so I’ll leave that to present-day Californians. My hope is that we will apply this lesson to what lies before us, as a nation. In the current Presidential campaign, as in most political campaigns, there is much to consider, in terms of what is style and what is substance. I’m not going to tell you, here, which of the Presidential Candidates I see as having more substance. With this, I just want to encourage you to seriously consider the matter of “a population choosing style over substance, leading to travesty.”

MoveOnBostonLegal.org

“Legal Dramedy”, is how Wikipedia defines the format of the TV series Boston Legal. Living TV describes the show as a “… critically acclaimed and Emmy Award-winning quirky legal drama …” That is a good summary of why I first became enamored with this brilliantly entertaining program. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly common to hear the production characterized as “shamelessly liberal”. With that, Boston Legal’s brilliance and entertainment value has continued to decline and its charm is rapidly fading for me.

Ironically, in a recent episode, entitled “Tabloid Nation”, Boston Legal, itself, addresses my very concern. In that episode, during one of his much ballyhooed “arguments”, James Spader, as Attorney Alan Shore says, “… today you can switch back and forth between the right-wing news and the left-wing news. Whatever happened to Huntley? Brinkley? John Chancellor? To news that was just the news? Now we have partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” I want to ask something very similar … Whatever happened to Seinfeld? Frasier? Tony Soprano? To brilliant entertainment that was just brilliant entertainment?

Now, it’s Boston Legal that gives us one-sided “… partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” Worse yet, its cloaked in the pretense that it’s still really just entertainment. There’s a Biblical caution about this … In what is known as The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:15), Jesus says, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” And, there’s a Biblical caution about the results too … in Revelation 3:16, the Lord says, "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” If Boston Legal wants to be brilliantly entertaining, I believe it still can. If it wants to be a “shamelessly liberal” public policy advocacy group, it can probably do that too. By trying to be one while pretending to be the other, it squanders the significant value it once had and that makes me want to vomit … or, at least, tune out.

Although the waste of what Boston Legal once was is a shame, what it has become is aggravating a wound that our nation desperately needs healed. In a more recent Boston Legal episode, entitled “The Court Supreme”, more one-sided “… partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” is featured in another Spader/Shore “argument”. This has received much acclaim from those to whom this sort of thing appeals. For me, it was another glaring example of the continuing political decline of our nation – i.e. the politics of fully pitting ourselves against those who don’t agree with our views, based on any difference we can find. As I said in an earlier posting, entitled Rediscovering America's Strength, our nation needs urgent care for this wound, through “… rediscovering the strength that made America great in the first place ... the synergy of the best of our differing ideas.” With that in mind, reluctantly, I plan to start tuning out of Boston Legal, as well as other programs that choose a similar route.

God’s Laughter

The opening line in the movie “Bella” is, “If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans.” As I’ve reflected on our plans, about three years ago, to move from Southern California to the Pacific Northwest and consider how that matches up with how things have actually gone, this thought has seemed most fitting.

Our present circumstances are quite different than what we had in mind and some might look at this and say, “Yes, God’s laughing … in derision.” That isn’t the way I see it though. First, that isn’t accurate of God’s nature. There’s nothing to indicate that He would laugh in derision at anyone, especially not at His own children. I think a more correct understanding of God’s laughter is along the lines of my spontaneous laughter when I’m working in my home-office and I turn to see our Corgi/Pug in the easy chair behind me, laying upside-down, displaying total inhibition and relaxation. I laugh because his sweet, innocent, unconditionally loving nature lightens my heart and I delight in loving the little character. Second, while having our plans not work out as we had in mind can be challenging, we rejoice in knowing what God tells us about His plans for us - For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” – Jeremiah 29:11. We’re thankful that God is in our lives and that His plans are far better than we can begin to imagine.

For me, the best example of this, in our present circumstances, is how things are working out for us in our jobs. Basically, our plan was for me to find a job where my years of experience could “make a difference” in a Consultative Sales organization. For Ruth, our plan was for her to be in a position to not work unless she just wanted to.

Frankly, I don’t have an understanding of the “end-game” that God is going for in His plan for my work but I can see that He is doing a lot more than I had in mind. With my plan, I would’ve found the right job within the first couple of months and I would only have developed relationships with my coworkers, as well as with my company’s business contacts. Instead, God’s plan has led me to enthusiastically strive to become more and more a part of the local business community. In the process, I’ve become a part of several local business and social organizations, I’ve developed relationships with hundreds of people in the local business community, I’ve refreshed many existing relationships and I’ve renewed numerous relationships where I’d been “out of touch”, in some cases for many years. I’ve, also, honed skills and done a lot of learning, which will enable me to perform on the job in ways that I couldn’t have without having gone through these circumstances.

For me, what has happened with Ruth’s work has been the most exciting though. I suppose that’s because God’s “end-game” with this is easier to see. At first, Ruth decided that she wanted to work in sort of a “Temp” capacity, because she was getting bored. Then, as I’ve continued to struggle in finding a “right fit” job for me, she decided to accept the offer of a full-time position, to provide some hedge against my circumstances harming our financial future. The position she accepted has her working with elementary-school-aged children who have chronic emotional and behavioral problems. Of course, the nature of that work means I must be very circumspect in sharing information about it. Let it suffice to say that, when we discuss her day, we often find ourselves responding to the circumstances that these kids live in by saying, “Without God, he/she doesn’t stand a chance.” To me, its clear that one way God is making sure they get a chance is by touching them through Ruth and that He has much more in mind with this than just guarding our nest egg.

So, we’re pretty sure that the plans we made have resulted in God’s laughter. Since, unlike God, we can’t see the end from the beginning, that makes some days more challenging than others. But, in general, it keeps us reminded of a personal slogan I pulled out of a song that a wonderful Christian Sister sang at our wedding, years ago, in Huntington Beach. The slogan is, “I don’t know what tomorrow holds but I know Who holds tomorrow and we’re safe in His hands.” Knowing this and that God’s laughter is really the result of His love for us, lightens our hearts and keeps us moving forward, in faith.

Rebuilding Lake Wobegon

Recently, I heard radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt interview Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais about their book “Millennial Makeover: MySpace, You Tube, and the Future of American Politics”. As Winograd and Hais outlined distinctive differences between the Millennial Generation and the Baby Boom Generation, my fellow Baby Boomer’s (Hewitt’s) reaction was to repeatedly say “Omigosh!”

Not long before I heard Hewitt’s interview, another fellow Baby Boomer directed me to the CBS News Website for a Morley Safer 60 Minutes segment entitled “The ‘Millennials’ Are Coming”. Maybe it’s the result of this Morley coming from the Silent Generation (a step closer to being from the GI Generation - aka The Greatest Generation), that led to him mostly just having his mouth gaping open, unable even to utter the expression “Omigosh!”, as he listened to emerging “experts” detail strategies for how to appropriately deal with the unconventional behavior of Millennials.

I think the most ridiculous reaction I’ve heard on this came from the authors of "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, You Tube, and the Future of American Politics”, themselves, when they likened the differences between Boomers and Millennials to the differences between Moses’ Generation and Joshua’s Generation. The authors’ assertion is that Boomers and Moses’ Generation were/are idealists while Millennials and Joshua’s Generation were/are civic-minded. Not only is this ridiculous, it’s Biblically inaccurate.

Though I do find these reactions to be ridiculous, that’s not to say that they’re not natural. In fact, they don’t seem to be that different from the reactions that my generation, the Baby Boomers, received from the GI Generation in the 60s and 70s.

When Hewitt posed the question, “What do they want?”, the Winograd/Hais answers were, “Wonderful family life…life that is filled with the riches of interpersonal relationships, and that has enough income so that they aren’t pressured enough on the income side … They want to leave America in better condition than they found it.” That’s not something that makes me want to say “Omigosh!” It makes me want to say “Amen Brother!”

When Morley Safer asked Wall Street Journal Columnist, Jeffrey Zaslow, who to “blame” for Millennials being such “narcissistic praise hounds”, he points to TV’s Mister Rogers and says, “He was telling his preschoolers, 'You're special. You're special.' And he meant well. But we, as parents, ran with it. And we said, 'You, Junior, are special, and you're special and you're special and you're special.' And for doing what? We didn't really explain that." Zaslow may be right but, to me, it all sounded a bit familiar. Aren’t we, the Baby Boom Generation, the ones who fell in love with Garrison Keillor telling us about Lake Wobegon, “Where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking and all the children are above average”?

Since the Millennials … aka Generation Y … aka the Echo Boomers … are the largest generation in American history ... approximately 1 million more than the Baby Boomers … of course, they are a serious force to be reckoned with. But, hyperventilating while repeating the expression “Omigosh!” doesn’t seem appropriate. In fact, that sort of reaction will most likely result in widening the chasm between the Millennial Generation and its predecessors. And, by the way, there are reactions in the opposite direction that are just as counterproductive. When a Millennial sees a 60-year-old face; assumes that this is a person who can’t grasp the concept of Social Networking, Blogging, Wikis, RSS, Twitter, etc. and deals with that person based on that assumption; that widens the chasm too. What is needed is for both generations to recognize how much they have to offer each other and if the chasm must remain, at least to build a bridge across it.

From my perspective, the greatest value Baby Boomers have to offer Millennials is what I call “A Great Wealth of Wisdom.” My generation was lavished, more than any other, with education. Moreover, we were raised by the GI Generation, who instilled us with a great work ethic. That meant, not only did we get a great education, we actually went out and tried to accomplish everything we could with that resource and in the process, grew the resource by honing it with experience to create … “A Great Wealth of Wisdom.” Sadly, though, if we don’t find a way to transfer this “Great Wealth”, IT WILL DIE WITH US!

But, wait a minute! Doesn’t this “Great Wealth” sound like just the right resource for Millennials to add to what they already have, to attain what Winograd and Hais say they want? – i.e. “Wonderful family life…life that is filled with the riches of interpersonal relationships, and that has enough income so that they aren’t pressured enough on the income side … They want to leave America in better condition than they found it.” And, didn’t I say that hearing this makes me want to say, “Amen Brother!”? I did and when my fellow Baby Boomers get the chance to consider this, without the hyperbole added by those promoting their newly formed cultural consulting companies or their books or their radio shows or their TV programs, I believe the majority will react as I did. That, in fact, means that both generations want the same thing – i.e “…to leave America in better condition than (we) found it.” Getting this done will require us to proactively connect instead of reactively separating. I say, “What are we waiting for?!” When you consider that connecting these generations results in forming a team made up of people who are all “special” and “above average”, there’s no reason for us not to attain this goal that we owe the future of the nation that we’re blessed to live in.

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.