But I do have several things to offer.

First, Trevin Wax is here and is ready to challenge Timmy Brister for champ of the live blog.  Here are his notes on Ed’s presentation.

Also, here is a link to the tweets I put up at the MissioScapes twitter feed.

Finally, I’d like to summarize my reaction to Ed’s super fast talking.

The gist of it all was that, yes, we will have denominations, but what they will look like has yet to be determined. Nevertheless, churches naturally will find each other and will work together if they have a passion for the Great Commission.

Still, there are benefits and burdens that go along with denominations. The burdens center around our tendency to focus on the mechanisms of our cooperation rather than our common calling.

The benefits are many and, quite frankly, are both obvious and listed in the above links.

What most struck me about the message was the forceful tone he took calling for cooperation.  This might not surprise you, but what might surprise you is that, at one point, Ed suggested that if certain people can’t get along with the rest of us, insist on attempting to run everyone else out or force us to conform, then THEY should leave the convention.

The people about whom he was speaking were obvious to the engaged SBC observer and even to the more disengaged former SBC blogger, like myself.

In terms of pointed rhetoric, Ed was somewhere between his usual provocativity and Marty Duren from back in the old days.  On the SBC spectrum of “lighting it up,” if Micah Fries is a 1 (humbly opinioned) and Ben Cole is a 10 (Shock & Awe), Ed normally resides in the middle at a happy 5.  I’d have to say that last night, Ed jumped up to 8 on a few occasions, which was kind of fun.

Especially because I agreed with him.

Had he been talking more about me (and he did from time to time) I might not have enjoyed it as much.

Related posts:

• The Future of Denominationalism Schedule
• The SBC doing things VERY well
• Baptist Identity Pt. 1
• Church Staffing: Mis-Matched by Malcolm Gladwell
• Founders Conference: Ed Stetzer

Could you tell that I’ve lost my passion for live blogging?  I’d forgotten to even write about Ed until this morning. :)

But I do have several things to offer.

First, Trevin Wax is here and is ready to challenge Timmy Brister for champ of the live blog.  Here are his notes on Ed’s presentation.

Also, here is a link to the tweets I put up at the MissioScapes twitter feed.

Finally, I’d like to summarize my reaction to Ed’s super fast talking.

The gist of it all was that, yes, we will have denominations, but what they will look like has yet to be determined. Nevertheless, churches naturally will find each other and will work together if they have a passion for the Great Commission.

Still, there are benefits and burdens that go along with denominations. The burdens center around our tendency to focus on the mechanisms of our cooperation rather than our common calling.

The benefits are many and, quite frankly, are both obvious and listed in the above links.

What most struck me about the message was the forceful tone he took calling for cooperation.  This might not surprise you, but what might surprise you is that, at one point, Ed suggested that if certain people can’t get along with the rest of us, insist on attempting to run everyone else out or force us to conform, then THEY should leave the convention.

The people about whom he was speaking were obvious to the engaged SBC observer and even to the more disengaged former SBC blogger, like myself.

In terms of pointed rhetoric, Ed was somewhere between his usual provocativity and Marty Duren from back in the old days.  On the SBC spectrum of “lighting it up,” if Micah Fries is a 1 (humbly opinioned) and Ben Cole is a 10 (Shock & Awe), Ed normally resides in the middle at a happy 5.  I’d have to say that last night, Ed jumped up to 8 on a few occasions, which was kind of fun.

Especially because I agreed with him.

Had he been talking more about me (and he did from time to time) I might not have enjoyed it as much.

Related posts:

• The Future of Denominationalism Schedule
• The SBC doing things VERY well
• Baptist Identity Pt. 1
• Church Staffing: Mis-Matched by Malcolm Gladwell
• Founders Conference: Ed Stetzer

But there I sat, front and center, listening to them say some of the things I had been thinking for years.  Even taking some hits from some dude channelling the spirit of Roger Moran until interrupted and chastised by both Hunt and Floyd, being further corrected by Mohler.

How did I get here?  Am I dreaming?

Some will complain that these guys are just classic middle adopters, attempting to lead from the middle.  Others will say that they’ve offered nothing new.  I’ve heard others say they are simple politicians, finding the flow of the crowd and getting out in front.

Those things may be.  I can’t tell you, but you see, the thing about a middle adopter is, he’s adopted.

These guys seemed pretty genuine to me.  If not, time will tell.  The telling of their sincerity will be in Orlando and it is something for which they asked.  Judge us by Orlando.

Fair enough!

Before I quit blogging about the SBC, I said that if the statesmen of the SBC stood against the wall while I stood to the mic, then the SBC will fall away into decline and there would be no stopping it.

The big deal about the principles and ideas being put forth by the GCRTF is that those speaking are not on the fringe of power within the SBC, but they are the leaders and statesmen.

About time.  Well done.  Thank God.

Comments

• August 27, 2009, Michael writes: If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 May it be so in our convention leadership but may it be more so in the pews of our local churches.
• August 27, 2009, Gary writes: Michael: Amen!

Related posts:

• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Today
• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Videos
• The Great Commission Resurgence, MissioScapes and Partnering with the Unholy
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes
• So I’ve decided to be a blogger

If you had told me 3 years ago that I would be sitting, at Ronnie Floyd’s invitation, in his church listening to him, Johnny Hunt and Al Mohler talk about the SBC as being in decline and the need for us to deconstruct that which is complex and bulky to get to what is efficient in accomplishing God’s Mission – I would have thought you insane.

But there I sat, front and center, listening to them say some of the things I had been thinking for years.  Even taking some hits from some dude channelling the spirit of Roger Moran until interrupted and chastised by both Hunt and Floyd, being further corrected by Mohler.

How did I get here?  Am I dreaming?

Some will complain that these guys are just classic middle adopters, attempting to lead from the middle.  Others will say that they’ve offered nothing new.  I’ve heard others say they are simple politicians, finding the flow of the crowd and getting out in front.

Those things may be.  I can’t tell you, but you see, the thing about a middle adopter is, he’s adopted.

These guys seemed pretty genuine to me.  If not, time will tell.  The telling of their sincerity will be in Orlando and it is something for which they asked.  Judge us by Orlando.

Fair enough!

Before I quit blogging about the SBC, I said that if the statesmen of the SBC stood against the wall while I stood to the mic, then the SBC will fall away into decline and there would be no stopping it.

The big deal about the principles and ideas being put forth by the GCRTF is that those speaking are not on the fringe of power within the SBC, but they are the leaders and statesmen.

About time.  Well done.  Thank God.

Comments

• August 27, 2009, Michael writes: If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 May it be so in our convention leadership but may it be more so in the pews of our local churches.
• August 27, 2009, Gary writes: Michael: Amen!

Related posts:

• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Today
• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Videos
• The Great Commission Resurgence, MissioScapes and Partnering with the Unholy
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes
• So I’ve decided to be a blogger

I’m not sure if I’ll bother live blogging, but I might tweet.

If you are interested follow my twitter or the MissioScapes twitter feeds.

I’ll probably write a post event perspective for later in the week.

Related posts:

• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon
• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Videos
• The Great Commission Resurgence, MissioScapes and Partnering with the Unholy
• Principal for the Day
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes

Yep, I’m going.

I’m not sure if I’ll bother live blogging, but I might tweet.

If you are interested follow my twitter or the MissioScapes twitter feeds.

I’ll probably write a post event perspective for later in the week.

Related posts:

• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon
• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Videos
• The Great Commission Resurgence, MissioScapes and Partnering with the Unholy
• Principal for the Day
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes

Comments

• July 29, 2009, Mike Woodward writes: While there might be an inclination to throw out anything he says due to his open theism, I gotta say I think he hits the nail on the head with why Christianity is so weak in the West. Following Christ is, or should be, inherently counter cultural. We're ineffective when our idols do not look much different than those around us who are lost. I particularly liked his discussion of the title of his book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation". We are a home schooling family, so we tend to run into a lot of Christian nation restorationists. I've held a contrarian view for some time, but my wife was somewhat neutral. One day after a good unit study of American history, she saw the emptiness of the argument that we are a Christian nation. The shallow "history" that glorifies every move our country has made has done us a disservice. I've always wondered what makes a Christian nation. Shouldn't there be a covenant involved? When exactly did God meet our leaders and proclaim us to be His people? I liken it to someone just deciding one day that they are a Christian, without truly getting the input (read redemptive, life transforming power) of Christ.
• July 30, 2009, david writes: i have long struggled with the idea of america as a christian nation. i love the quesiton you pose - "shouldnt there be a covenant involved?". in our fluffy almost laughable approach to being Christ followers in america, we find more comfort in the power of the flag than in the saving power of Christ. we find more motivation in the sacrifice represented on the flag than the redeeming sacrifice offered on the cross. i love america. i love the "troops" and the sacrifice that friends of mine have given to our country. it is, in my heart, heralded as a great nation, but it will in the end pass away. shane claiborne puts it this way (in regards to a seeker sensitive church that didnt want the cross to offend someone) "It is a dangerous day when we can take the cross out of the church more easily than the flag." that has a special meaning for me. in many churches, i have seen the flags and americanism exalted high above the God i hold so dear. arent we aliens in this world any way...
• July 30, 2009, art rogers writes: Mike, Good catch on the Open Theism. I almost commented on that in the post, but decided to see if anyone else caught it. David and I discussed it for half an hour yesterday morning. Obviously, I think you're right. While I consider Open Theism to be heresy, it doesn't change the truth he proclaims here about our tying national politics to God. I know that during the WWII era, many Lutheran churches in Germany hung Nazi flags in their Sanctuaries. The difference between Nazi Germany and America is significant, and I'm not comparing them. However, the similarity between those church's approach and our own is sometimes frightening. I love America. I would die for my country. I love the Kingdom of God more. I would, and hopefully have already committed to, give everything for it.

Related posts:

• Read and Compare
• The Myth of the Majority
• Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit 5
• The Myth of the Majority, revisited
• How do you pray for Barack Obama?

Interesting what this evangelical pastor has to say about the church’s involvement in the political process.  All three videos = just over 20 mins…

Comments

• July 29, 2009, Mike Woodward writes: While there might be an inclination to throw out anything he says due to his open theism, I gotta say I think he hits the nail on the head with why Christianity is so weak in the West. Following Christ is, or should be, inherently counter cultural. We're ineffective when our idols do not look much different than those around us who are lost. I particularly liked his discussion of the title of his book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation". We are a home schooling family, so we tend to run into a lot of Christian nation restorationists. I've held a contrarian view for some time, but my wife was somewhat neutral. One day after a good unit study of American history, she saw the emptiness of the argument that we are a Christian nation. The shallow "history" that glorifies every move our country has made has done us a disservice. I've always wondered what makes a Christian nation. Shouldn't there be a covenant involved? When exactly did God meet our leaders and proclaim us to be His people? I liken it to someone just deciding one day that they are a Christian, without truly getting the input (read redemptive, life transforming power) of Christ.
• July 30, 2009, david writes: i have long struggled with the idea of america as a christian nation. i love the quesiton you pose - "shouldnt there be a covenant involved?". in our fluffy almost laughable approach to being Christ followers in america, we find more comfort in the power of the flag than in the saving power of Christ. we find more motivation in the sacrifice represented on the flag than the redeeming sacrifice offered on the cross. i love america. i love the "troops" and the sacrifice that friends of mine have given to our country. it is, in my heart, heralded as a great nation, but it will in the end pass away. shane claiborne puts it this way (in regards to a seeker sensitive church that didnt want the cross to offend someone) "It is a dangerous day when we can take the cross out of the church more easily than the flag." that has a special meaning for me. in many churches, i have seen the flags and americanism exalted high above the God i hold so dear. arent we aliens in this world any way...
• July 30, 2009, art rogers writes: Mike, Good catch on the Open Theism. I almost commented on that in the post, but decided to see if anyone else caught it. David and I discussed it for half an hour yesterday morning. Obviously, I think you're right. While I consider Open Theism to be heresy, it doesn't change the truth he proclaims here about our tying national politics to God. I know that during the WWII era, many Lutheran churches in Germany hung Nazi flags in their Sanctuaries. The difference between Nazi Germany and America is significant, and I'm not comparing them. However, the similarity between those church's approach and our own is sometimes frightening. I love America. I would die for my country. I love the Kingdom of God more. I would, and hopefully have already committed to, give everything for it.

Related posts:

• Read and Compare
• The Myth of the Majority
• Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit 5
• The Myth of the Majority, revisited
• How do you pray for Barack Obama?

The opposite perspective among evangelicals is represented most famously by Donald Miller, who prayed during the Democratic National Convention and tends to represent a great number of younger evangelicals by most observations.

So…  You are called to pray for the leaders of our nation.  How do you pray for Barack Obama?

Side note:  what did you think of Rick Warren’s Inagural Prayer?

Comments

• January 20, 2009, Rick Boyne writes: Art, Here is what I've put on my website and the church site as well:

  As our country experiences another peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next, let us commit to pray for our new President. President Obama will need God’s direction and God’s wisdom as he leads our country. We must be diligent to pray for him and the decisions that he makes, that they would bring glory and honor to God. Pray for him to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to surround himself with wise counsel. The honor of leading our country is no easy task and our new President will need our prayers!

  I think it is nonsense to pray that Obama will fail. I think it is better to pray that God would guide him! PS: are you going to the Ev Conf next week? We need to meet! Rick Boynes last blog post..Pray for our new President
• January 20, 2009, art rogers writes: Rick, That's a good prayer and a good answer. No, I'm not going to the Ev Conf next week. We'll have to look for another time and place.
• January 20, 2009, Debbie Kaufman writes: I was very impressed with Rick Warren's prayer and thought it powerful, especially how he invoked the name of Christ. Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..The Inaugeration: What Do You Expect
• January 20, 2009, Joseph M. Smith writes: I was not happy with Warren's prayer. At the beginning he tried to embrace Christians, Jews, and Muslims with phrases each group could identify with. Then he wandered over into lecturing God. One or two lines seemed calculated to draw a response from the crowd, and it did -- applause! He ended up invoking the name of Jesus in several formats, presumably to include everyone -- but the name of Jesus in Hebrew and in Arabic is probably quite offensive to those groups in that context. Then to conclude with the Lord's Prayer, presumably expecting others to follow, is again an assertion that the crowd is essentially Christian. With Lowery, of course I responded well to the quotations from "Lift Every Voice and Sing", but he too began to lecture, and the ending about blacks no longer staying back, brown stick around, etc., was offensively cute to me. I do not do cute in prayer! But I liked his ending, doing what African-American preachers often do, rising to a climax that calls for an "Amen" without necessarily invoking a particular name. And he knew enough not to say, "Let the church say 'Amen'" because this was/is not a church. It all makes me feel, as one who has tried too many time to do public formalities like this (university graduations), that we do a disservice to people and their understanding of prayer with this sort of exercise.
• January 20, 2009, art rogers writes: Cute like this:

  Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... (LAUGHTER) ... when yellow will be mellow... (LAUGHTER) LOWERY: ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. AUDIENCE: Amen. LOWERY: Say Amen. AUDIENCE: Amen. LOWERY: And Amen. AUDIENCE: Amen.

• January 20, 2009, Kevin Bussey writes: I didn't see Rick Warren or any of the Inauguration for that matter since I was working. :) However, I will be praying for our President and yes he is my President even though I didn't vote for him. I pray he will seek God and that God will use him. If he fails we all fail. Kevin Busseys last blog post..‘Horrified’ by ‘Aggressively Christian’ Prayers?

Related posts:

• Carter Quandary
• Election Special
• Race Relations and the President Elect
• “On Mission Pt. 3″
• No Phriday foto… Pray for Caelan, Please

Interesting clash of ideologies among evangelicals.  I read one report where a man was calling for prayers for the new president to fail in his aspirations and agendas.

The opposite perspective among evangelicals is represented most famously by Donald Miller, who prayed during the Democratic National Convention and tends to represent a great number of younger evangelicals by most observations.

So…  You are called to pray for the leaders of our nation.  How do you pray for Barack Obama?

Side note:  what did you think of Rick Warren’s Inagural Prayer?

Comments

• January 20, 2009, Rick Boyne writes: Art, Here is what I've put on my website and the church site as well:

  As our country experiences another peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next, let us commit to pray for our new President. President Obama will need God’s direction and God’s wisdom as he leads our country. We must be diligent to pray for him and the decisions that he makes, that they would bring glory and honor to God. Pray for him to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to surround himself with wise counsel. The honor of leading our country is no easy task and our new President will need our prayers!

  I think it is nonsense to pray that Obama will fail. I think it is better to pray that God would guide him! PS: are you going to the Ev Conf next week? We need to meet! Rick Boynes last blog post..Pray for our new President
• January 20, 2009, art rogers writes: Rick, That's a good prayer and a good answer. No, I'm not going to the Ev Conf next week. We'll have to look for another time and place.
• January 20, 2009, Debbie Kaufman writes: I was very impressed with Rick Warren's prayer and thought it powerful, especially how he invoked the name of Christ. Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..The Inaugeration: What Do You Expect
• January 20, 2009, Joseph M. Smith writes: I was not happy with Warren's prayer. At the beginning he tried to embrace Christians, Jews, and Muslims with phrases each group could identify with. Then he wandered over into lecturing God. One or two lines seemed calculated to draw a response from the crowd, and it did -- applause! He ended up invoking the name of Jesus in several formats, presumably to include everyone -- but the name of Jesus in Hebrew and in Arabic is probably quite offensive to those groups in that context. Then to conclude with the Lord's Prayer, presumably expecting others to follow, is again an assertion that the crowd is essentially Christian. With Lowery, of course I responded well to the quotations from "Lift Every Voice and Sing", but he too began to lecture, and the ending about blacks no longer staying back, brown stick around, etc., was offensively cute to me. I do not do cute in prayer! But I liked his ending, doing what African-American preachers often do, rising to a climax that calls for an "Amen" without necessarily invoking a particular name. And he knew enough not to say, "Let the church say 'Amen'" because this was/is not a church. It all makes me feel, as one who has tried too many time to do public formalities like this (university graduations), that we do a disservice to people and their understanding of prayer with this sort of exercise.
• January 20, 2009, art rogers writes: Cute like this:

  Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... (LAUGHTER) ... when yellow will be mellow... (LAUGHTER) LOWERY: ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. AUDIENCE: Amen. LOWERY: Say Amen. AUDIENCE: Amen. LOWERY: And Amen. AUDIENCE: Amen.

• January 20, 2009, Kevin Bussey writes: I didn't see Rick Warren or any of the Inauguration for that matter since I was working. :) However, I will be praying for our President and yes he is my President even though I didn't vote for him. I pray he will seek God and that God will use him. If he fails we all fail. Kevin Busseys last blog post..‘Horrified’ by ‘Aggressively Christian’ Prayers?

Related posts:

• Carter Quandary
• Election Special
• Race Relations and the President Elect
• “On Mission Pt. 3″
• No Phriday foto… Pray for Caelan, Please

Nevertheless, I have heard some skepticism on this issue.  That President Obama will not be able to meet the expectations put on him by minorities and frustration will grow.

Do you think that race relations will get better or worse in the next few years?

Why?

Can the church help?  If so, how?

Comments

• November 6, 2008, Joe Kennedy writes: I think the relationship will take the direction the church leads it toward. For too long evangelicalism has reflected its political counterpart: fat, white, with a penchant for abusing power. This I write knowing it's a broad generalization, but one based on truth. Joe Kennedys last blog post..A Prayer for the President…
• November 6, 2008, Rob Westbrook writes: Yes, they will and they are already changing. As the pastor of my church, I told them that there will be NO politics talked, from the pulpit, in meetings, none. So I'm finally using this as my forum to go political. I'm proud of myself, our country, and Obama. I'm proud of myself, a lifelong resident of the Old South, primarily Mississippi. I did not vote for Obama, but his race never was an issue with me. It was not because I disliked him. It was all on principles. I'm proud of myself that I've been able to eliminate race completely. I'm proud of our country because they used the system to bring about change. Tomorrow I'll begin two weeks on another continent where change only comes by brute force and the guys with the biggest guns. Most of the world still marvels at how we can change leaders, wake up the next morning, and continue to be the greatest country God has yet raised up. And I'm proud of Obama. On the issues, he and I would probably agree on less than 1%. But he handled himself exceptionally well. Considering all things, he has had to probably accomplish more to get to his position that almost any other person who's ever reached the presidency. My initial reaction to his acceptance speech is reconciliation. Not only race, but the also red/blue thing. I'm ready to give him a chance. I have many African-American friends, and for them this is monumental. For them, Obama's election validates their race as American. They now feel part of the process. My one concern is that Obama will receive tremendous pressure from those groups that worked to get him elected. We've seen what pressure can do to white presidents. I feel Obama will receive much more. That's where my prayers are targeted. I pray that Obama will not succumb to pressure that could potentially reverse any racial gains we see right now. Rob Westbrooks last blog post..Gearing Up
• November 6, 2008, art rogers writes: I, too, am glad the race barrier is finally broken. I never thought it would happen. I'm concerned about the future. I would have been just as concerned if John McCain had been elected - just in different areas. As Rob said, the real problem will be with unrealistic expectations. I think Obama is spinning this already though. In his acceptance speech he said, "we may not see it in one year, or even one term..." Already running for his second term on election night... Now that's a smooth operator.

Related posts:

• More Presidency News
• Sutton Is Back In!
• Race for the Cure, Tulsa – 2009
• McKissic Mania
• Another 1VP Candidate

One of my great hopes for race relations in America is that there will be healing now that someone that is not a full blooded white dude has been elected.  The best case scenario is that minorities will feel that they are included in the leadership of America and that minority children will really believe the saying, “In America, you can be anything you want to be.”

Nevertheless, I have heard some skepticism on this issue.  That President Obama will not be able to meet the expectations put on him by minorities and frustration will grow.

Do you think that race relations will get better or worse in the next few years?

Why?

Can the church help?  If so, how?

Comments

• November 6, 2008, Joe Kennedy writes: I think the relationship will take the direction the church leads it toward. For too long evangelicalism has reflected its political counterpart: fat, white, with a penchant for abusing power. This I write knowing it's a broad generalization, but one based on truth. Joe Kennedys last blog post..A Prayer for the President…
• November 6, 2008, Rob Westbrook writes: Yes, they will and they are already changing. As the pastor of my church, I told them that there will be NO politics talked, from the pulpit, in meetings, none. So I'm finally using this as my forum to go political. I'm proud of myself, our country, and Obama. I'm proud of myself, a lifelong resident of the Old South, primarily Mississippi. I did not vote for Obama, but his race never was an issue with me. It was not because I disliked him. It was all on principles. I'm proud of myself that I've been able to eliminate race completely. I'm proud of our country because they used the system to bring about change. Tomorrow I'll begin two weeks on another continent where change only comes by brute force and the guys with the biggest guns. Most of the world still marvels at how we can change leaders, wake up the next morning, and continue to be the greatest country God has yet raised up. And I'm proud of Obama. On the issues, he and I would probably agree on less than 1%. But he handled himself exceptionally well. Considering all things, he has had to probably accomplish more to get to his position that almost any other person who's ever reached the presidency. My initial reaction to his acceptance speech is reconciliation. Not only race, but the also red/blue thing. I'm ready to give him a chance. I have many African-American friends, and for them this is monumental. For them, Obama's election validates their race as American. They now feel part of the process. My one concern is that Obama will receive tremendous pressure from those groups that worked to get him elected. We've seen what pressure can do to white presidents. I feel Obama will receive much more. That's where my prayers are targeted. I pray that Obama will not succumb to pressure that could potentially reverse any racial gains we see right now. Rob Westbrooks last blog post..Gearing Up
• November 6, 2008, art rogers writes: I, too, am glad the race barrier is finally broken. I never thought it would happen. I'm concerned about the future. I would have been just as concerned if John McCain had been elected - just in different areas. As Rob said, the real problem will be with unrealistic expectations. I think Obama is spinning this already though. In his acceptance speech he said, "we may not see it in one year, or even one term..." Already running for his second term on election night... Now that's a smooth operator.

Related posts:

• More Presidency News
• Sutton Is Back In!
• Race for the Cure, Tulsa – 2009
• McKissic Mania
• Another 1VP Candidate

If you haven’t, you should.

I am concerned about our process, though.  I walked up and just told the registrar my name, though I had my registration card and driver’s license in my hand.  I had seen several before me just say their names and he simply let them sign and vote.

No id required.

*sigh*

No wonder Indianapolis has 105% of its eligible population registered to vote.

My prediction is that Oklahoma will vote Republican and Barack Obama will receive the majority of the electoral college and become president elect.  That seems pretty clear to me, though I confess some anxiety over the issue.

What was not so certain is the two tax initiatives for citizens of the City of Tulsa.  A few months back, Tulsa wanted to develop its riverfront area in the fashion of suburb, Jenks.  The additional tax to fund the project was shot down by the voters, primarily because of the failure of the city leaders to maintain the infrastructure (mostly the streets) with the tax money it had already collected.

The cry went up and the vote came down.

So the leaders said they learned their lesson.  They came up with not one plan, but two, to fix our streets.  If one initiative passes, only its projects are funded, so the new slogan is, “Vote Two for Tulsa.”  The promise?  This time, WE PROMISE that all the tax money we raise for streets will actually make it to the streets.  Really.  We promise.

Ahem.  You have not learned your lesson.

The solution is not that you will raise a new tax, in a floundering economy, when your people are concerned with the future, in order to provide what you promised before and have yet to deliver.

Tell you what.  Reduce the size of local government and make room for the improvements from monies diverted to projects less necessary and you’ll have both the improvements and support of the citizens of Tulsa.

Sheesh!  How hard is this?

Comments

• November 4, 2008, Michael writes: Art, You skipped a couple of steps...first we must form a committee to look into the ramifications of such a change. Then we can form a committee to research the cost and necessary steps to completing such projects. Oh...wait...we have to decide what projects should be undertaken to bring about such an outcome. Hmmmm. I wonder if the first committee can do that or if we should formalize a plan of action in a different manner? Of course you know we cannot expect these folks to donate their time for the greater good. We are going to have to reimburse them for incurred expenses as well as their time and efforts. Hmmmm. We'll have to raise funds somehow. Those benefitting will have to pay these folks. Hey...were we talking about secular government or church?

Related posts:

• Non-Raptured: Politics
• Presidential Election
• BGCO – Presidential election pt. 2
• BGCO – Presidential election
• Dr. Dockery Interview and Live Blog

I voted today.

If you haven’t, you should.

I am concerned about our process, though.  I walked up and just told the registrar my name, though I had my registration card and driver’s license in my hand.  I had seen several before me just say their names and he simply let them sign and vote.

No id required.

*sigh*

No wonder Indianapolis has 105% of its eligible population registered to vote.

My prediction is that Oklahoma will vote Republican and Barack Obama will receive the majority of the electoral college and become president elect.  That seems pretty clear to me, though I confess some anxiety over the issue.

What was not so certain is the two tax initiatives for citizens of the City of Tulsa.  A few months back, Tulsa wanted to develop its riverfront area in the fashion of suburb, Jenks.  The additional tax to fund the project was shot down by the voters, primarily because of the failure of the city leaders to maintain the infrastructure (mostly the streets) with the tax money it had already collected.

The cry went up and the vote came down.

So the leaders said they learned their lesson.  They came up with not one plan, but two, to fix our streets.  If one initiative passes, only its projects are funded, so the new slogan is, “Vote Two for Tulsa.”  The promise?  This time, WE PROMISE that all the tax money we raise for streets will actually make it to the streets.  Really.  We promise.

Ahem.  You have not learned your lesson.

The solution is not that you will raise a new tax, in a floundering economy, when your people are concerned with the future, in order to provide what you promised before and have yet to deliver.

Tell you what.  Reduce the size of local government and make room for the improvements from monies diverted to projects less necessary and you’ll have both the improvements and support of the citizens of Tulsa.

Sheesh!  How hard is this?

Comments

• November 4, 2008, Michael writes: Art, You skipped a couple of steps...first we must form a committee to look into the ramifications of such a change. Then we can form a committee to research the cost and necessary steps to completing such projects. Oh...wait...we have to decide what projects should be undertaken to bring about such an outcome. Hmmmm. I wonder if the first committee can do that or if we should formalize a plan of action in a different manner? Of course you know we cannot expect these folks to donate their time for the greater good. We are going to have to reimburse them for incurred expenses as well as their time and efforts. Hmmmm. We'll have to raise funds somehow. Those benefitting will have to pay these folks. Hey...were we talking about secular government or church?

Related posts:

• Non-Raptured: Politics
• Presidential Election
• BGCO – Presidential election pt. 2
• BGCO – Presidential election
• Dr. Dockery Interview and Live Blog

Many suppliers cut their margins to keep their products as close as normal when rising fuel costs increased the cost of everything.  For them, the fall of prices brings their margins back to a more comfortable place.  For those who did not cut their margins, they are facing larger than normal profits.

All of this is based on the presumption that the prices that went up quickly following the fuel costs will not fall as quickly as they are dropping.  Anyone think that is an unrealistic assessment?

If not, then small businesses should stabilize somewhat and some may even flourish.

Related posts:

• Stimulus Checks?
• The Right Fight 2
• Making a difference among the impoverished
• Small Groups
• Phriday foto 01-18-08

One of the smaller and not often noted additions to the economy is the increase of margins with the decrease of fuel costs.

Many suppliers cut their margins to keep their products as close as normal when rising fuel costs increased the cost of everything.  For them, the fall of prices brings their margins back to a more comfortable place.  For those who did not cut their margins, they are facing larger than normal profits.

All of this is based on the presumption that the prices that went up quickly following the fuel costs will not fall as quickly as they are dropping.  Anyone think that is an unrealistic assessment?

If not, then small businesses should stabilize somewhat and some may even flourish.

Related posts:

• Stimulus Checks?
• The Right Fight 2
• Making a difference among the impoverished
• Small Groups
• Phriday foto 01-18-08

RealClearPolitics – Articles – A Feminist’s Argument for McCain’s VP.

and

The Dr. Laura Blog – Sarah Palin and Motherhood

The most interesting section to me, was from Tammy Bruce:

There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us – but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

This is all absolutely fascinating.  Especially when you look at the latest polls:

Gallup has McCain up 49% to 44%

and Zogby has McCain up by almost the same numbers over Obama in a poll released yesterday.

[HT:  Tammy Bruces article Thom Rainer via his Twitter feed, Zogby poll Ed Stetzer via his Twitter feed.]

Hmmm.  Twitter is more useful than I thought.  Mine’s twitter.com/artrogers.

Related posts:

• The Myth of the Majority, revisited
• Many Concerns

Fascinating confluence of ideas and events in politics this last year, wouldn’t you say?  Tammy Bruce, a liberal feminist is for Sarah Palin’s nomination for what seems to be the reason Dr. Laura is against her.

RealClearPolitics – Articles – A Feminist’s Argument for McCain’s VP.

and

The Dr. Laura Blog – Sarah Palin and Motherhood

The most interesting section to me, was from Tammy Bruce:

There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us – but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

This is all absolutely fascinating.  Especially when you look at the latest polls:

Gallup has McCain up 49% to 44%

and Zogby has McCain up by almost the same numbers over Obama in a poll released yesterday.

[HT:  Tammy Bruces article Thom Rainer via his Twitter feed, Zogby poll Ed Stetzer via his Twitter feed.]

Hmmm.  Twitter is more useful than I thought.  Mine’s twitter.com/artrogers.

Related posts:

• The Myth of the Majority, revisited
• Many Concerns

The argument, as recently posted by my friend Micah Fries, goes that to pick the lesser of two evils, which McCain and Obama are supposed to be, then you have to choose “evil.”  Therefore, vote your convictions and let the chips fall where they may.

I would like to humbly challenge this thought process.

The conclusion above assumes that avoiding the election of someone that would lead us away from my overall convictions is a choice that leads to me not voting my true convictions.  In fact, to avoid leadership that would, in my opinion, shipwreck our nation is a very firm conviction of mine.

In America’s not too distant history, we have precisely two perfect examples of people voting for third party candidates in order to “vote their convictions” – one to the Republicans and one to the Democrats.

In 1992, H. Ross Perot ran as a candidate for President against George H. W. Bush, the incumbent, and William Jefferson Clinton.  While both parties hemorrhaged disenchanted voters to Perot, the Republicans were the greatest loser.  As a result, though Bill Clinton did not even receive a majority of the popular vote, the electoral college swung his way and the Republicans endured the Democrats’ most beloved leader since JFK, the “Teflon Don” of Presidential politics, Bill Clinton, who was re-elected and served for 8 years.

In 2000, Ralph Nader eschewed calls from the Democrats to step aside.  Rather, much like Perot, and like the “lesser of two evils” argument, Nader declared that both candidates, George W. Bush and Al Gore were so similar that the difference was negligible.  This was a Green Party slap in the face to Al Gore, who claimed to represent the Environmental interests.  It turns out, that Nader was probably right.  At least in evaluating Bush’s and Gore’s personal commitment to the environment, it is well documented that Bush’s ranch in Texas is a model of “earth friendly” efficiency, while Gore’s is an energy hog and burns natural gas at a rate of 12 times that of his neighbors, while only having a house 4 times as large – documented on Snopes.

What is my point with all of that?  Apparently, the environmentalists, at least enough of them, agreed with Nader and voted for him.  George W. Bush, though losing the popular vote, won the boondogle court case in Florida and the Supreme Court of the United States and the electoral college that goes with it.

What are the results of these two turns?

Many, but most tangible are the appointments to the Supreme Court.  Bill Clinton:  Ginsburg and Dreyer.  George W. Bush:  Chief Justice Roberts and Alito.

And here we are again.

A report from the Boston Globe documents the speculation that at least one if not three justices are on the verge of retiring.  It also documents that the court is very definitely split between two groups of 4 right leaning and 4 left leaning justices, with Justice Kennedy often now the swing vote.

There are justices in both “camps” that are possible retirees.

All of this is to say, whoever wins the election will most likely control the court and it will swing one way or the other.

Oh, and the Globe also reports that Obama is promising to appoint justices with a “broader social outlook” and McCain is promising to appoint justices more int he model of new Chief Justice John Roberts.

This is not to mention the vast number of vacancies on lesser Federal Benches that the left leaning Congress has declined fill, delaying the nominees of President Bush in hopes of replacing him with a more liberal President that will nominate men and women to fill the gaps in a way that will suit them better.  The lower courts are backed up to the point of violating the Constitutional right to a speedy trial and the Congress can’t hold out another four to eight years.  Allow the election of the wrong President, and they won’t have to wait.

I humbly submit to you that I will be voting for a major party candidate this year and will not hesitate to “vote my convictions” – even if he is not the one I would have chosen a year ago.  My convictions are that we return the our courts to their conservative roots and not have justices that legislate from the bench.  Presidents and Congressmen come and go, but the courts last for decades.

Comments

• July 7, 2008, Bob Cleveland writes: I don't know (nor care)whom you're going to vote for, but I couldn't agree more with this post. Well done. Bob Clevelands last blog post..Proverbs 3:5-6, Live Version
• July 7, 2008, Debbie Kaufman writes: I take voting very seriously, and this is the first election in memory that I have not wanted to vote for either. I believe strongly with you that voting our convictions is the correct way to vote, and if more would do this, it does send a loud, clear message. Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..Battles Among Christians Part 2
• July 7, 2008, art rogers writes: Deb, thanks Bob, I tried to write impartially, but I'm afraid the concluding paragraphs failed. Still, thanks for the encouragement.
• July 7, 2008, Big Daddy Weave writes: Ford gave America the liberal John Paul Stevens. Reagan gave America the moderate Sandra Day O'Connor. Reagan also gave America the swing-voter Anthony Kennedy. George Herbert Walker Bush gave America the usually liberal David Souter. All four Justices were nominated by conservative Republican Presidents. All four Justices have voted on multiple occasions to uphold Roe v. Wade and voted in favor of gay rights. All four have played key roles in drafting decisions like Casey that gave the right to have an abortion a more or less permanent place in American society. You seem to have a great amount of confidence that McCain the Maverick, the guy who lead the Gang of 14, will nominate a Justice in the mold of John Roberts who will restore what is often called conservative values. Reagan and Bush I made those same promises. Look what they gave America. In regards to the claim of "legislating from the bench" I've reached the conclusion that the accusation of "legislating from the bench" says less about the Justice's judicial philosophy and more about accusers disagreement with the decision being handed down. Liberals and conservatives both make claims that Justices legislate from the bench. "Legislating from the bench" is not a disease that has infected only liberals. Just over a week ago I read an article by E.J. Dionne who was lamenting that the conservative justices were "legislating from the bench" in the recent DC Gun ruling. Constitutional lawyers, journalists, and analysts will always make these arguments regardless of the Court's makeup. I do think that all Christians should vote their convictions and be active participants in the democratic process and in the public square. I also think that Christians can express their faith-informed convictions by voting third-party as well. My Nader friends always annoyed me but I had respect for them and their sincerely held belief that the two-party system is broken. On election day, I hope to see more of my fellow evangelicals cast their vote with me for Obama! :-)
• July 7, 2008, art rogers writes: Aaron, I noted in reading background for this post that those justices came from "conservative" Presidents. I did a poor job of not "siding" with a candidate, but since you have openly called for Obama votes and since I did such a bad job of hiding my under girding predispositions, let me say that my confidence is not in McCain. The whole point of this article is that I have NO CONFIDENCE in Obama, and will, therefore, happily vote for McCain and I believe that such is voting my conscience. But, let's please leave it there. I have no desire to turn this into a candidate specific tet-a-tet. :)
• July 7, 2008, Rick Boyne writes: Art, In the spirit of the last paragraph of your comment number 5, let me say that I completely agree with your post and my vote this year will NOT be in favor of any candidate; it will be in complete opposition to a certain candidate. In that manner, I am voting my convictions as well. I think we are on the same page.
• July 7, 2008, Sheila Rogers writes: I'm with Debbie, I don't see anything good about this election. For me it is just a scary thing to think of either one of them being elected. I don't get what is so great about Obama or why one would hope he gets the votes. I totally get what you are saying Art.. Do you watch Glenn Beck too??
• July 8, 2008, Steve Austin writes: Americans have been complaining about the length of this election process for over a year. The payoff is that we find out earlier and earlier who to hope gets nominated and who to start reading up on. I'm hoping either Sen. Wm. Proxmire, Gen. Andrew Jackson, or Teddy Roosevelt steps out from behind a curtain soon! I can't imagine McCain in the Executive Mansion, and I can't imagine Obama ever even becoming a senior state senator, much less in Washington. I honestly believe you could run the Obamamessiah for governor in every state of the union and he'd lose every race.
• July 8, 2008, art rogers writes: Sheila, I don't watch Glenn Beck. I don't have the time, I'm afraid. Steve, I don't think he would lose every election. There are plenty of people behind him and in certain states where the electorate is concentrated in larger cities (which trend Democratic) I think he would win in a cakewalk. I know a lot of Republicans who are very afraid of him winning and a number of others who seem to be resigned to that fact, which is dangerous for them. If Republicans think its a done deal, they are likely not to turn out and the sentiment becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. However, I have said before privately and now say publicly, that one should never underestimate the racism of America. I am against racism - it is rank sin. Commenting objectively, though, Obama is going to have to overcome old white people who will come out of the woodworks just to keep a black man from becoming President. On top of that, the accusations that he has Islamic ties/heritage will be a hurdle for a completely different section of society. McCain, on the other hand, will have to cross a generation gap and negative emotions against the war, which he has supported and has not promised to bring troops home right away the way Obama did right away. Bringing the troops home right away is, in my opinion, terrible foreign policy and will open the floodgates for extremists to make Iraq their home state, but emotional negativity about the war - whether we should even be in the war - will not worry about the long term future. Just the short term past. Frankly, I think it is a toss up, at this point. We'll see.
• July 11, 2008, Marty Duren writes: I'm writing in for CB Scott. Marty Durens last blog post..Taking a Break

Related posts:

• Nova Scotia Mayor Refuses to Fly Gay Flag Because of Christian Beliefs
• SBC Primer – Voting & Quorums
• Nominations
• Our church is definitely NOT for you…
• Primer Revisited

I’ve heard it argued that to vote one’s Christian convictions, especially this year, the vote must not be cast for either of the two major party candidates that appear to have finally sewn up their party’s nomination.  We think.

The argument, as recently posted by my friend Micah Fries, goes that to pick the lesser of two evils, which McCain and Obama are supposed to be, then you have to choose “evil.”  Therefore, vote your convictions and let the chips fall where they may.

I would like to humbly challenge this thought process.

The conclusion above assumes that avoiding the election of someone that would lead us away from my overall convictions is a choice that leads to me not voting my true convictions.  In fact, to avoid leadership that would, in my opinion, shipwreck our nation is a very firm conviction of mine.

In America’s not too distant history, we have precisely two perfect examples of people voting for third party candidates in order to “vote their convictions” – one to the Republicans and one to the Democrats.

In 1992, H. Ross Perot ran as a candidate for President against George H. W. Bush, the incumbent, and William Jefferson Clinton.  While both parties hemorrhaged disenchanted voters to Perot, the Republicans were the greatest loser.  As a result, though Bill Clinton did not even receive a majority of the popular vote, the electoral college swung his way and the Republicans endured the Democrats’ most beloved leader since JFK, the “Teflon Don” of Presidential politics, Bill Clinton, who was re-elected and served for 8 years.

In 2000, Ralph Nader eschewed calls from the Democrats to step aside.  Rather, much like Perot, and like the “lesser of two evils” argument, Nader declared that both candidates, George W. Bush and Al Gore were so similar that the difference was negligible.  This was a Green Party slap in the face to Al Gore, who claimed to represent the Environmental interests.  It turns out, that Nader was probably right.  At least in evaluating Bush’s and Gore’s personal commitment to the environment, it is well documented that Bush’s ranch in Texas is a model of “earth friendly” efficiency, while Gore’s is an energy hog and burns natural gas at a rate of 12 times that of his neighbors, while only having a house 4 times as large – documented on Snopes.

What is my point with all of that?  Apparently, the environmentalists, at least enough of them, agreed with Nader and voted for him.  George W. Bush, though losing the popular vote, won the boondogle court case in Florida and the Supreme Court of the United States and the electoral college that goes with it.

What are the results of these two turns?

Many, but most tangible are the appointments to the Supreme Court.  Bill Clinton:  Ginsburg and Dreyer.  George W. Bush:  Chief Justice Roberts and Alito.

And here we are again.

A report from the Boston Globe documents the speculation that at least one if not three justices are on the verge of retiring.  It also documents that the court is very definitely split between two groups of 4 right leaning and 4 left leaning justices, with Justice Kennedy often now the swing vote.

There are justices in both “camps” that are possible retirees.

All of this is to say, whoever wins the election will most likely control the court and it will swing one way or the other.

Oh, and the Globe also reports that Obama is promising to appoint justices with a “broader social outlook” and McCain is promising to appoint justices more int he model of new Chief Justice John Roberts.

This is not to mention the vast number of vacancies on lesser Federal Benches that the left leaning Congress has declined fill, delaying the nominees of President Bush in hopes of replacing him with a more liberal President that will nominate men and women to fill the gaps in a way that will suit them better.  The lower courts are backed up to the point of violating the Constitutional right to a speedy trial and the Congress can’t hold out another four to eight years.  Allow the election of the wrong President, and they won’t have to wait.

I humbly submit to you that I will be voting for a major party candidate this year and will not hesitate to “vote my convictions” – even if he is not the one I would have chosen a year ago.  My convictions are that we return the our courts to their conservative roots and not have justices that legislate from the bench.  Presidents and Congressmen come and go, but the courts last for decades.

Comments

• July 7, 2008, Bob Cleveland writes: I don't know (nor care)whom you're going to vote for, but I couldn't agree more with this post. Well done. Bob Clevelands last blog post..Proverbs 3:5-6, Live Version
• July 7, 2008, Debbie Kaufman writes: I take voting very seriously, and this is the first election in memory that I have not wanted to vote for either. I believe strongly with you that voting our convictions is the correct way to vote, and if more would do this, it does send a loud, clear message. Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..Battles Among Christians Part 2
• July 7, 2008, art rogers writes: Deb, thanks Bob, I tried to write impartially, but I'm afraid the concluding paragraphs failed. Still, thanks for the encouragement.
• July 7, 2008, Big Daddy Weave writes: Ford gave America the liberal John Paul Stevens. Reagan gave America the moderate Sandra Day O'Connor. Reagan also gave America the swing-voter Anthony Kennedy. George Herbert Walker Bush gave America the usually liberal David Souter. All four Justices were nominated by conservative Republican Presidents. All four Justices have voted on multiple occasions to uphold Roe v. Wade and voted in favor of gay rights. All four have played key roles in drafting decisions like Casey that gave the right to have an abortion a more or less permanent place in American society. You seem to have a great amount of confidence that McCain the Maverick, the guy who lead the Gang of 14, will nominate a Justice in the mold of John Roberts who will restore what is often called conservative values. Reagan and Bush I made those same promises. Look what they gave America. In regards to the claim of "legislating from the bench" I've reached the conclusion that the accusation of "legislating from the bench" says less about the Justice's judicial philosophy and more about accusers disagreement with the decision being handed down. Liberals and conservatives both make claims that Justices legislate from the bench. "Legislating from the bench" is not a disease that has infected only liberals. Just over a week ago I read an article by E.J. Dionne who was lamenting that the conservative justices were "legislating from the bench" in the recent DC Gun ruling. Constitutional lawyers, journalists, and analysts will always make these arguments regardless of the Court's makeup. I do think that all Christians should vote their convictions and be active participants in the democratic process and in the public square. I also think that Christians can express their faith-informed convictions by voting third-party as well. My Nader friends always annoyed me but I had respect for them and their sincerely held belief that the two-party system is broken. On election day, I hope to see more of my fellow evangelicals cast their vote with me for Obama! :-)
• July 7, 2008, art rogers writes: Aaron, I noted in reading background for this post that those justices came from "conservative" Presidents. I did a poor job of not "siding" with a candidate, but since you have openly called for Obama votes and since I did such a bad job of hiding my under girding predispositions, let me say that my confidence is not in McCain. The whole point of this article is that I have NO CONFIDENCE in Obama, and will, therefore, happily vote for McCain and I believe that such is voting my conscience. But, let's please leave it there. I have no desire to turn this into a candidate specific tet-a-tet. :)
• July 7, 2008, Rick Boyne writes: Art, In the spirit of the last paragraph of your comment number 5, let me say that I completely agree with your post and my vote this year will NOT be in favor of any candidate; it will be in complete opposition to a certain candidate. In that manner, I am voting my convictions as well. I think we are on the same page.
• July 7, 2008, Sheila Rogers writes: I'm with Debbie, I don't see anything good about this election. For me it is just a scary thing to think of either one of them being elected. I don't get what is so great about Obama or why one would hope he gets the votes. I totally get what you are saying Art.. Do you watch Glenn Beck too??
• July 8, 2008, Steve Austin writes: Americans have been complaining about the length of this election process for over a year. The payoff is that we find out earlier and earlier who to hope gets nominated and who to start reading up on. I'm hoping either Sen. Wm. Proxmire, Gen. Andrew Jackson, or Teddy Roosevelt steps out from behind a curtain soon! I can't imagine McCain in the Executive Mansion, and I can't imagine Obama ever even becoming a senior state senator, much less in Washington. I honestly believe you could run the Obamamessiah for governor in every state of the union and he'd lose every race.
• July 8, 2008, art rogers writes: Sheila, I don't watch Glenn Beck. I don't have the time, I'm afraid. Steve, I don't think he would lose every election. There are plenty of people behind him and in certain states where the electorate is concentrated in larger cities (which trend Democratic) I think he would win in a cakewalk. I know a lot of Republicans who are very afraid of him winning and a number of others who seem to be resigned to that fact, which is dangerous for them. If Republicans think its a done deal, they are likely not to turn out and the sentiment becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. However, I have said before privately and now say publicly, that one should never underestimate the racism of America. I am against racism - it is rank sin. Commenting objectively, though, Obama is going to have to overcome old white people who will come out of the woodworks just to keep a black man from becoming President. On top of that, the accusations that he has Islamic ties/heritage will be a hurdle for a completely different section of society. McCain, on the other hand, will have to cross a generation gap and negative emotions against the war, which he has supported and has not promised to bring troops home right away the way Obama did right away. Bringing the troops home right away is, in my opinion, terrible foreign policy and will open the floodgates for extremists to make Iraq their home state, but emotional negativity about the war - whether we should even be in the war - will not worry about the long term future. Just the short term past. Frankly, I think it is a toss up, at this point. We'll see.
• July 11, 2008, Marty Duren writes: I'm writing in for CB Scott. Marty Durens last blog post..Taking a Break

Related posts:

• Nova Scotia Mayor Refuses to Fly Gay Flag Because of Christian Beliefs
• SBC Primer – Voting & Quorums
• Nominations
• Our church is definitely NOT for you…
• Primer Revisited