Saturday night, after spending some much-needed time in conversation with my wife in the wake of our oldest son leaving for his sophomore year at Purdue, I turned to the Olympics to watch Michael Phelps’ swim into the record books. Sunday morning, though, I heard a good bit of buzz in church about another event that occurred on Saturday evening – the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, where Rick Warren sat down and gave essentially identical interviews to both major Presidential candidates. On the advice of many, I watched the replay on Sunday night…

…and I was impressed. Perhaps my expectations were already low (since I’m pretty skeptical on the mixing of politics and faith), but I was very pleased and surprised at the service done for the church in America by Dr. Warren’s church. And – if public reaction can be taken as an indicator – he may have provided an excellent example of how the church can play a non-partisan way in political involvement and improvement of public discourse. [After all, with Obama's official cheering section (i.e. the MSM) being sure to note that the Saddleback crowd was stacked to favor McCain, and the anti-Obama spokesfolks (i.e. the Armchair "Discernment" "Ministries") grousing about audience applause for and Warren's non-condemnation of the Democrat, the truth is bound to be between the two interpretations...]

Some highlights and thoughts…

The Forum, Itself

RW: We believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just a world view, and everybody has some kind of world view. It’s important to know what they are.

Very true. While I’m always skeptical when I hear something like this, as it is usually a front for the church itself backing one party over another, I felt that Warren was quite even-handed. Rather than spoon-feed the audience points of where they should agree/disagree with the candidates, based upon the doctrine of the church, Warren allowed the candidates to speak for themselves – asking them pretty tough questions (much better than the ones we’re likely to get in the debates later this fall) which should make the differentiation between the two clear.

RW: I have to tell you up front, both of these guys are my friends. I don’t happen to agree with everything each of them teach or believe, but they both care deeply about America. They’re both patriots. And they have very different views on how America can be strengthened. In America, we’ve got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other and we need to restore civility — Yes. We need to restore civility in our civil discourse, and that’s the goal of the Saddleback Civil Forum.

An excellent aim, I would also agree. Too much of politics has become demonization of each other’s opponent – to the point that this spills over into the way we discourse about almost every controversial subject (which is the root of much of the ills of the online “Discernment” methodologies).

But on to the show

Leadership

Question: Who are the three wisest people you know in your life, and who are you going to rely on heavily in your administration?

BO: My wife, my grandmother, lots of bipartisan senators

JM: Gen. David Petraeus, Congressman John Lewis, Meg Whitman

Interesting answers from both. Pretty much a puff question, so not much learned there.

Moral Failure

Question: What would be the greatest moral failure in your life?

BO: You know, there were times where I experimented with drugs. I drank in my teenage years. And what I traced this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn’t focus on other people. And I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it’s not about me.

JM: My greatest moral failing — and I have been a very imperfect person — is the failure of my first marriage. It’s my greatest moral failure.

Question: And what would be the greatest moral failure of America?

BO: I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of — that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having — not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. There’s a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of us.

JM: I think America’s greatest moral failure has been. Throughout our existence, perhaps we have not devoted ourselves to causes greater than our self-interest, although we’ve been at the best at it of everybody in the world. I think after 9/11, my friends, instead of telling people to go shopping or take a trip, we should have told Americans to join the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, the military, expand our volunteers, expand what you’re doing, expand the current missions that you are doing [...] And you know — a little pandering here — The first words of your very successful book are “this is not about you.” You know what that also means? Serve a cause greater than your self-interest.

Very interesting, and rather more defining, I thought, than the first question.

Self-Sacrifice

Question: Can you give me a good example where you went against party loyalty, and maybe even win against your own best interest, for the good of America?

BO: I’ll give you an example that, in fact, I worked with John McCain on, and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform. That wasn’t probably in my interest or his, for that matter, because the truth was that both Democrats and Republicans sort of like the status quo. And I was new to the Senate and didn’t necessarily engender a lot of popularity when I started saying, you know, we’re going to eliminate meals and gifts from corporate lobbyists. [...] But I think that we were able to get a bill passed that hasn’t made Washington perfect, but at least has started moving things forward.

I guess the other example where I’m not sure that this was a — more of a partisan issue, but it was something I felt very deeply, was when I opposed the initial decision to go into war in Iraq. That was not a popular view at the time. And I was just starting my campaign for the United States Senate. And I think there were a lot of people who advised me, you should be cautious. This is going to be successful. The president has a very high approval rating and you could end up losing the election as a consequence of this.

JM: Climate change, out of control spending, torture, the list goes on, on a large number of issues that I have put my country first and I’ve reached across the aisle. but I’d probably have to say that one of the times that probably was one of the most trying was, when I was first a member of Congress, and I’m a new freshman in the House of Representatives and very loyal and dedicated to President Reagan [...] He wanted to send troops to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission.

My knowledge and my background told me that a few hundred Marines in a situation like that could not successfully carry out any kind of peacekeeping mission. And I thought they were going into harm’s way. Tragically, as many of you recall, there was a bombing in the Marine barracks and well over 100 brave Marines gave their lives. But it was tough, that vote, because I went against the president I believed in, and the party that believed that maybe I was disloyal very early in my political career.

On this question, as in many, it was evident that McCain’s age was likely an advantage, as it gave him a much greater set of experiences to pull from. I also found it ironic that Obama brought up campaign finance reform, since he rejected the public campaign financing he’d vowed he’d accept. As for his second example, being a neighbor to Illinois, I can tell you that Obama had very little to fear in his first Senate race, as his opponent in the race was pretty much a joke pre-ordained to lose after months of GOP scandal. So this particular round of questioning, for me, was much more revealing than the earlier ones.

Willingness to Change

Question: What’s the most significant position you held ten years ago that you no longer hold today, that you flipped on, you changed on, because you actually see it differently?

BO: I think that a good example would be the issue of welfare reform, where I always believed that welfare had to be changed. I was much more concerned ten years ago when President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have disastrous results. [...] It had — it worked better than, I think, a lot of people anticipated. And, you know, one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to work as a centerpiece of any social policy. Not only because — not only because ultimately people who work are going to get more income, but the intrinsic dignity of work, the sense of purpose.

JM: Offshore drilling, we’ve got to drill now and got to drill here and we’ve got to become independent from foreign oil. And I know that there’s some here in California that disagree with that position. Could I also mention very seriously about this issue. My friends, you know that this is a national security issue. We’re sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much, that some of that money is ending up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We cannot allow this greatest transfer of wealth in history and our national security continuing to be threatened. [...] We’ve got to do everything. We’ve got to do wind, tide, solar, natural gas, hydrogen cars, hybrid cars, electric cars. And we have to have nuclear power in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and save on our energy costs.

Here, I think Obama had the better answer to the question asked (admitting that social policy needs to require those receiving it to work, as they are able). McCain’s stance against offshore drilling is not one of his trademarks, and now falls back in line with his party, so it was a weak answer to the question, though the substance of what was said is spot on.

Tough Decisions

Question: What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you ever had to make and how did you process that to come to that decision?

BO: Well, you know, I think the opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision as I’ve had to make. Not only because there were political consequences, but also because Saddam Hussein was a real bad person, and there was no doubt that he meant America ill. But I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and there were a lot of questions that, as I spoke to experts, kept on coming up. Do we know how the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds are going to get along in a post-Saddam situation? What’s our assessment as to how this will affect the battle against terrorists like Al Qaida? Have we finished the job in Afghanistan?

So I agonized over that. And I think that questions of war and peace generally are so profound. You know, when you meet the troops, they’re 19, 20, 21-year-old kids, and you’re putting them into harm’s way. There is a solemn obligation that you do everything you can to get that decision right. And now, as the war went forward, there are difficult decisions about how long do you keep on funding the war, if you strongly believe that it’s not in America’s national interest. At the same time, you don’t want to have troops who are out there without the equipment they need.

So all those questions surrounding the war have been very difficult for me.

JM: It was long ago, and far away, in a prison camp in North Vietnam. My father was a high-ranking admiral. The Vietnamese came and said that I could leave prison early. And we had a code of conduct. It said you only leave by order of capture. I also had a dear and beloved friend, who was from California, named Ebb Alvarez, who had been shot down before me. But I wasn’t in good physical shape. In fact, I was in rather bad physical shape. So I said no. Now, in interest of full disclosure, I’m happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so.

But I said no, and I’ll never forget sitting in my last answer, and the high-ranking officer offered it, slammed the door and the interrogator said, “Go back to your cell. It’s going to be very tough on you now.” And it was. But not only the toughest decision I ever made, but I am most happy about that decision, than any decision I’ve ever made in my life.

Here I think McCain’s life experience was key, yet again. In Obama’s case, he wasn’t even in a position to approve/reject the war back in 2003, before he was in the Senate, so I struggle to see how this was all that “gut-wrenching”, and in McCain’s, I truly have to wonder if I would have been able to turn down a ticket home.

Faith

Question: What does it mean to you to trust in Christ? And what does that mean to you on a daily basis? What does that really look like?

BO: As a starting point, it means I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don’t walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.

But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words, but through deeds, the expectations, I think, that god has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these. It means acting — well, acting justly, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with our god. And that — I think trying to apply those lessons on a daily basis, knowing that you’re going to fall a little bit short each day, and then being able to kind of take note and saying, well, that didn’t quite work out the way I think it should have, but maybe I can get a little bit better. It gives me the confidence to try things, including things like running for president, where you’re going to screw up once in a while.

JM: It means I’m saved and forgiven. We’re talking about the world. Our faith encompasses not just the United States of America but the world. Can I tell you another story real quick?

RW: Sure.

JM: The Vietnamese kept us in prison in conditions of solitary confinement, or two or three to a cell. They did that because they knew they could break down our resistance. One of the techniques that they used to get information was to take ropes and tie them around your biceps, loop the rope around your head and pull it down beneath your knees and leave you in that position. You can imagine it’s very uncomfortable.

One night, I was being punished in that fashion. All of sudden the door of the cell opened and the guard came in. The guy who was just — what we call the gun guard — just walked around the camp with the gun on his shoulder. He went like this and loosened the ropes. He came back about four hours later and tightened them up again and left.

The following Christmas, because it was Christmas day, we were allowed to stand outside of our cell for a few minutes. In those days we were not allowed to see or communicate with each other, although we certainly did. And I was standing outside, for my few minutes outside at my cell. He came walking up. He stood there for a minute, and with his sandal on the dirt in the courtyard, he drew a cross and he stood there. And a minute later, he rubbed it out, and walked away.

For a minute there, there was just two Christians worshipping together. I’ll never forget that moment.

I thought both men answered this one as you might expect in a public forum, though McCain’s anecdote was more personal – something I didn’t expect from him.

The Questions Everyone (on both sides of the aisle) Were Waiting For

Question: Forty million abortions – at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

BO: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

JM: At the moment of conception. I have a 25- year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.

I can’t really say I am surprised by the answers, since they were already pretty well known. However, I found this question pretty funny after reading the dire predictions of one of the Armchair “Discernment” sites:

“What makes some church leaders — and I guess average Christians — a little suspicious about this is…for lack of a better term, the self-censorship that Rick Warren is practicing here [...] For example, he’s not going to ask either of the candidates anything about abortion even though it’s one of the primary distinctions between the two candidates”

Whoops! I guess they got the wrong script. I do have to wonder, though – If “at what point does a baby get human rights” is a question above the pay-grade of the most powerful person in the free world, why do we bother electing someone for that position in the first place?

Question: Define marriage.

BO: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [...]

RW: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

BO: No, I would not.

RW: Why not?

BO: Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

JM: A union — a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That’s my definition of marriage. [...] I strongly support preserving the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I’m a federalist. I believe that states should make those decisions. In my state, I hope we will make that decision, and other states, they have to recognize the unique status between man and woman. And that doesn’t mean that people can’t enter into legal agreements. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have the rights of all citizens. I’m not saying that. I am saying that we should preserve the unique status of marriage between one man and one woman.

And if a federal court decided that my state of Arizona had to observe what the state of Massachusetts decided, then I would favor a constitutional amendment. Until then, I believe the states should make the decisions within their own states.

Here again, a stark difference between the candidates, but no demonization and sniping, as often witnessed in normal ‘debates’.

Question: what about stem cells? We’ve had this scientific break-through of treating these pluripotent stem cells in adult cells. Do we still need federal funding for research? Would you still support that for embryo stem cells?

BO: Keep in mind the way the stem cell legislation that was vetoed by the president was structured. What it said was you could only use embryos that were about to be discarded, that had been created as a consequence of attempts at in vitro fertilization. There were very tightly circumscribed mechanisms that were permitted. I think that that is a legitimate moral approach to take. If we are going to discard those embryos, and we know that there’s potential research that could lead to curing debilitating diseases, Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, you know, if that possibility presents itself, then I think that we should, in a careful way, go ahead and pursue that research. Now, if, in fact, adult stem cell lines are working just as well, then of course we should try to avoid any kind of moral arguments that may be in place.

JM: For those of us in the pro-life community this has been a great struggle and a terrible dilemma because we’re also taught other obligations that we have as well. I’ve come down on the side of stem cell research. But I am wildy optimistic that skin cell research, which is coming more and more into focus and practicability, will make this debate an academic one.

Neither candidate’s answer was one, I suspect, that many in the audience liked all that much, but it was nice that each understands the nuances without the need to pander on the subject.

The Nature of Evil

Question: Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?

BO: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God’s task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil. [...] In the name of good, and I think, you know, one thing that’s very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn’t always mean that we’re going to be doing good.

JM: Defeat it.

A couple of points. One, if I’m president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that. And I know how to do that. I will get that done. No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of American — innocent American lives. [...] Of course, evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcended challenge of the 21st century — radical Islamic extremism. We face this threat throughout the world. It’s not just in Iraq. It’s not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us Al Qaida continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America. My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge. And we must totally defeat it.

Maybe it’s in reading the recent link from the CRN.Info submissions page dealing with persecution of Christians by radical Islam, but on this one, again, I felt McCain had more visceral credibility on the subject, though his answer seemed overly optimistic and Obama’s overly defeatist.

The Supreme Court

Question: Which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated? [brilliant question, IMHO]

BO: I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. [ applause ] I don’t think that he — I don’t think that he was as strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice Scalia, although I don’t think there’s any doubt about his intellectual brilliance, because he and I just disagree. He taught at the University of Chicago, as did I in the law school. [...] John Roberts, I have to say was a tougher question only because I find him to be a very compelling person, you know, in conversation individually. He’s clearly smart, very thoughtful. I will tell you that how I’ve seen him operate since he went to the bench confirms the suspicions that I had and the reason that I voted against him.

JM: With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter, and Justice Stephens. [...] I think that the president of the United States has incredible responsibility in nominating people to the United States Supreme Court. They are lifetime positions, as well as the federal bench. There will be two or maybe three vacancies. This nomination should be based on the criteria of proven record, of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench. And by the way, Justices Alito and Roberts are two of my most recent favorites, by the way.

On this one, I really had to do a double-take. Did Barack Obama, a first-term Senator running for President of the US, really just diss Clarence Thomas because he didn’t have enough experience for the position he aspired to? Seriously, though, if I have an issue, it it the judicial system. In much the same way as I object to folks wanting to rewrite the Bible to better fit their modern sensibilities, I also object to folks wanting to undermine the constitution by judicial fiat.

Faith-Based Organizations and the Law

Question: Recent polls say 80 percent of Americans think faith-based organizations do a better job at community services than the government, helping addictions, homelessness, poverty, and the like. The civil rights act of ‘64 says that faith-based organizations have a right to hire people who believe like they do. Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?

BO: I think that we should have an all hands on deck approach when it comes to issues like poverty and substance abuse and as somebody who got my start out of college working with churches, who are trying to deal with the devastation of steel plants closing in the south side of Chicago, I know the power of faith-based institutions to get stuff done. What I have said is that when it comes, first of all, to funding faith-based organizations, they are always free to hire whoever they want, when it comes to their own mission, who the pastor is, various ministries, that they want to set up, but, and this has been a longstanding rule. [...]

When it comes to the programs that are federally funded, then we do have to be careful to make sure that we are not creating a situation where people are being discriminated against, using federal money. [...] In 95 percent of the circumstances, it’s not an issue because people are careful about how they use the funds. There are some tough issues. [...] The devil’s in the details. I think generally speaking, faith-based organizations should not be advantaged or disadvantaged when it comes to getting federal funds, by virtue of the fact that they’re faith- based organizations. They just want a level playing field. But what we do want to make sure of is that as a general principle we’re not using federal funding to discriminate, but that is only when it comes to the narrow program that is being funded by the federal government. That does not affect any of the other ministries that are being taken, that are taking place.

JM: Absolutely, not. And if you did, it would mean a severe crippling of faith-based organizations and their ability to do things so successfully. [...]

I went to New Orleans after Katrina. The Resurrection Baptist church was doing tremendous work with thousands of volunteers. I’m sure probably from here at Saddleback, coordinating efforts of thousands of volunteers, including my own church, the North Phoenix Baptist church, who came from all over America. And various authorities, off the record, told me, off the record, that they were doing so much more good than the government organizations, that it was incredible. And New Orleans could not have been on the path — and they’ve got a long way to go — on the path to recovery if it hadn’t have been for the faith-based organizations who are still operating in New Orleans, much to their credit, AND thank God.

RW: First in, last out.

JM: Yes.

Again, a stark contrast between the two candidates.

Teacher Salaries

Question: 80 percent of Americans recently polled said they believe in merit pay. Do you think better teachers should be paid better? They should be paid more than poor teachers?

BO: I think that we should — and I’ve said this publicly, that we should set up a system of performance pay for teachers, negotiated with teachers, worked with the teachers to figure out the assessments, so that they feel like they’re being judged fairly, it’s not at the whim of the principal. That it’s not simply based on a single high stakes standardized test but the basic notion that teaching is a profession, that teachers are underpaid, so we need to pay them all more, but — and create a higher baseline, but then we should also reward excellence. I think that is a concept that all of us should embrace.

JM: Find bad teachers another line of work. [...] Choice and competition, choice and competition, home schooling, charter schools, vouchers, all the choice in competition. I want everyone American family to have the same choice that Cindy and I made and Senator Obama and Mrs. Obama made as well, and that was, we wanted to send our children to the school of our choice. And charter schools work, my friends. Home schooling works. Vouchers in our nation’s capital works. We’ve got thousands of people in Washington, D.C., that are applying for a voucher system. New York City is reforming.

I go back to New Orleans. They were — as we know, the tragedy devastated them. They have over 30 charter schools in the city of New Orleans, and guess what? It’s all coming up. It’s all coming up. It’s a simple principle, but it’s going to take dedicated men and women, particularly in the teaching profession, to make it happen.

And by the way, here — I won’t go any further, but the point is, it’s all based and it’s being proven that choice in competition for every American family. And it is the civil rights issue of the 21st century, because every citizen’s child now has an opportunity to go to school. But what kind of opportunity is it if you send them to a failing school? That’s why we’ve got to give everybody the same opportunity and choice.

Great answers from both. In terms of difficulty, I wonder if Obama will have the NEA and other teachers’ unions backing him on the answers. The GOP has always supported the idea of merit pay, but the most powerful state lobbies are consistently teachers’ unions, so progress in this arena is pretty slow.

Death and Taxes

Question: Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. Give me a number – Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we’re going to tax. How can you define that?

BO: Look, the — here’s how I think about it. Here’s how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you’re middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you’re basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you’re living. [...] I would argue that if you’re making more than $250,000, then you’re in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You’re doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I’m not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don’t want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we’ve got to pay for these things, they don’t come for free, and it is irresponsible.

JM: Some of the richest people I’ve ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don’t want to take any money from the rich — I want everybody to get rich. I don’t believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as — quote — “rich,” my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. [...]

So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? The point is that I’m trying to make here, seriously — and I’m sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids’ futures. [...]

So, it doesn’t matter really what my definition of “rich” is because I don’t want to raise anybody’s taxes. I really don’t. In fact, I want to give working Americans a better shot at having a better life, and we all know the challenges, my friends, if I could be serious.

This question probably provided the most laughs, though I’m not sure anyone will remember the content of McCain’s answer besides his “$5 million” quip…

Foreign Policy

Question: As an American, what’s worth dying for? What’s worth having sacrifice of the American lives for?

BO: Well, obviously American freedom, American lives, America’s national interests. [...] I think that is a solemn obligation that we all have. I think that we also have forged alliances with countries, NATO being a prime example, where we have pledged to act militarily for the common defense, that is in our national interest and that is something that I think we have to abide by.

RW: What would be the criteria that you would commit troops to end the genocide, for instance, it’s like what’s going on in Darfur or could happen in Georgia or anywhere else?

BO: You know — I don’t think that there is a hard and fast line at which you say, OK, we are going in. I think it is always a judgment call. I think that the basic principle has to be that we have it within our power to prevent mass killing and genocide, and we can work in concert with the international community to prevent it, then we should act. Now, I think that international component is very critical. We may not get 100 percent agreement.

RW: The war without U.N. approval?

BO: Yes, absolutely, but I think you take an example like Bosnia, when we went in and undoubtedly saved lives. We did not have U.N. approval, but there was a strong international case that had been made that ethnic cleansing was taking place, and under those circumstances, when we have it within our power, we should, you know, we should take action.

JM: Freedom — our national security, our security as a nation. Wars have started in obscure places that have enveloped us. We also must temper that with the ability to effectively and beneficially cause the outcome that we want. In other words, there is tyranny and there is tragedy throughout the world — and we can’t right every wrong, but we can do what America has done throughout our history, and that is be a beacon of hope and liberty and freedom for everyone in the world — as Ronald Reagan used to quote, “a shining city on a hill.”

And so there are conflicts that we can’t settle. The most precious asset we have is American blood, and throughout our history Americans have gone to all four corners of the world and shed that blood in defense of someone else’s freedom. No other nation on earth has ever done that, but we have also succeeded in other ways. We won the Cold War, as I mentioned earlier, without firing a shot because of our ideology that communism was wrong and evil and we can defeat it, just as we can defeat radical Islamic extremism.

RW: Let me ask you this: What would be the criteria for which you would commit troops to [prevent situations] like genocide in Darfur, or if mass killings took place in Georgia?

JM: American national security interests are threatened. Our obligation is to stop genocide wherever we can. We all know about Rwanda. No one knows that better than you and the Saddleback Church who have been so active.

Darfur our most respected former Secretary of State Colin Powell called genocide some years ago. The question is how can we effectively stop it? And obviously we’ve got to do more, and we’ve got to try to marshal the forces all over the world to join us. I think one of the things we ought to explore more carefully is us supplying the logistics and equipment and the aid, and the African countries step forward with the personnel to enforce a genuine cease- fire. It’s a very complicated situation, as you know, but we’ve got to be committed to never saying “never again” again. [...]

I am very saddened here to be with you and talk about Russian re-emergence in the centuries-old ambition of the Russian Empire to dominate that part of the world — killings, murder, villages are being burned, people are being wantonly ejected from their homes, the latest figures from human rights organizations 118,000 people in that small country. It was one of the earliest Christian nations. The king of then-Georgia in the third century converted to Christianity. You go to Georgia and you see these old churches that go back to the 4th and 5th century.

My friends, the president, Saakashvili, is a man who is educated in the United States of America on a scholarship. He went back to Georgia, and with other young people who had also received an education, they achieved a revolution. They had democracy, prosperity and a great little nation, and now the Russians are coming in there in an act of aggression, and we have to not only bring about cease-fire, but we have to have honored one of the most fundamental rights of any nation, and that is territorial integrity. [...]

The Russians must respect the entire territorial integrity of Georgia — and there’s only 4 million people in Georgia, my friends. I’ve been there. It is a beautiful little country. They are wonderful people.  They are suffering terribly now, and there are two other aspects of this, very quickly. Don’t think it was an accident that the presidents of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Ukraine — flew to Tbilisi to show their solidarity with the president of Georgia because they all have something in common with Georgia. They lived under Russian domination for a long period of time.

Second of all, of course, it is about energy. There’s an oil pipeline that goes across Georgia that up until now had not been controlled by the Russians, and, my friend, energy the Russians are using as a tremendous lever against the Europeans.  So keep them in your prayers. Let’s get the humanitarian aid as quickly as possible to them and send the message to the Russians that this behavior is not acceptable in the 21st century.

Compassion

Question:  Most people don’t know that there are 148 million orphans in the world. They don’t need to be in an orphanage. They need to be in families. But a lot of families can’t afford to take these kids in. Would you be willing to consider and even commit to doing some kind of emergency plan for orphans, like President Bush did with AIDS, to deal with this issue?

BO: I think it is a great idea. I think it’s something that we should sit down and figure out, working between non- governmental organizations, you know, national institutions, the U.S. government and try to figure out what can we do. I think that part of our plan, though, has to be, how do we prevent more orphans in the first place, and that means that we’re helping to build a public health infrastructure around the world, that we are, you know, building on the great work that you, and by the way, this president has done when it comes to AIDS funding around the world. I think it helps. I’m often a critic of President Bush, but I think the PEPFAR program has saved lives and has done very good work and he deserves enormous credit for that.

JM: Well, I think we have to make adoption a lot easier in this country. That’s why so many people go to other countries to get — to be able to adopt children.  My great hero and role model Teddy Roosevelt was the first modern American president to talk about adoption and how important it was, and I promise you this is my last story.

Seventeen years ago Cindy was in Dhaka, Bangladesh. She went to Mother Teresa’s orphanage. The nuns brought her two little babies who were not going to live. Cindy came home. I met her at the airplane. She showed me this 5-week-old baby and said, “Meet your new daughter.” She’s 17, and our life is blessed — and that’s what adoption is all about.

Similar answers, though again McCain was able to personalize it.

Religious Persecution

Question:  What do you think the U.S. should do to end religious persecution, for instance, in China, in Iraq, and in many of our supposed allies? I’m not just talking about persecution of Christianity, but there’s religious persecution around the world that persecutes millions of people.

BO: Well, I think the first thing we have to do is to bear witness and speak out, and not pretend that it’s not taking place. You know, our relationship with China, for example, is a very complicated one. You know, we’re trading partners. Unfortunately, they are now lenders to us because we haven’t been taking care of our economy the way we need to be. I don’t think any of us want to see military conflict with China.

So we want to manage this relationship and move them into the world community as a full partner, but we can’t purchase that by ignoring the very real prosecutions, persecutions that are taking place, and so having an administration that is speaking out, joining in international forums, where we can point out human rights abuses, and the absence of religious freedom, that, I think, is absolutely critical. Over time, what we are doing is setting up new norms and creating a universal principle that people’s faith and people’s beliefs have to be protected.

And as you said, it’s not just Christians, and we’ve got to make sure, you know, one thing I think is very important for us to do on all of these issues is to lead by example. That’s why I think it’s so important for us to have religious tolerance here in the United States. That’s why it’s so important for us, when we are criticizing other countries about rule of law to make sure that we’re abiding by rule of law, and habeas corpus, and we’re not engaging in torture, because that gives us a moral standing to talk about these other issues.

JM: The President of the United States’ greatest asset is the bully pulpit. The president of the United States — and I go back again to Ronald Reagan — he went to the Berlin Wall and said, “Take down this wall,” called them an “evil empire.”  Many said don’t antagonize the Russians, don’t cause a confrontation with the Soviet Union. He stood for what he believed, and he said what he believed, and he said to those people who were then captive nations, the day will come when you will know freedom and democracy and the fundamental rights of man.

Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world, and I’d like to tell you that I still think that even in the worst places in the world today, in the darkest corners, little countries like Belarus — they still harbor this hope and dream someday to be like us and have freedom and democracy.

And we have our flaws, and we have our failings, and we talk about them all the time, and we should, but we remain, my friends, the most unusual experiment in history, and I’m privileged to spend every day of my life in it. I know what it’s like to be without it.

On this issue, I think that Obama stuck to the question asked and McCain switched to a stump speech.  Probably the only other question like this was when McCain brought up off-short drilling.

Final Questions

Question:  Tell me in a minute why you want to be president.

BO: You know, I remember what my mother used to tell me. I was talking to somebody a while back and I said the one time that she would get really angry with me is if she ever thought that I was being mean to somebody, or unfair to somebody. She said, imagine standing in their shoes. Imagine looking through their eyes. That basic idea of empathy, and that, I think, is what’s made America special is that notion, that everybody has got a shot. If we see somebody down and out, if we see a kid who can’t afford college, that we care for them, too.

And I want to be president because that’s the America I believe in and I feel like that American dream is slipping away. I think we are at a critical juncture. Economically, I think we are at a critical juncture. Internationally, we’ve got to make some big decisions not just for us for the next generation and we keep on putting it off. And unfortunately, our politics is broken and Washington is so broken, that we can’t bring together people of goodwill to solve these common problems. I think I have the ability to build bridges across partisan lines, racial, regional lines to get people to work on some common sense solutions to critical issues and I hope that I have the opportunity to do that.

JM: I want to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest. I believe that America’s best days are ahead of us, but I also believe that we face enormous challenges, both national security and domestic, as we have found out in the last few days in the case of Georgia.

And I want to be — make sure that everybody understands that this is a time to come together. Throughout my life from the time I was 17 and raised my hand and was sworn in as a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy, I’ve always put my country first. I put my country first when I had the honor of serving in the military, and I had the honor of serving my — putting my country first as a member of the House of Representatives and then the United States Senate.

America wants hope. America wants optimism. America wants us to sit down together. I have a record of reaching across the aisle and working with the other party, and I want to do that, and I believe, as I said, that Americans feel it is time for us to put our country first.

And we may disagree on a specific issue — and I won’t reveal them now — but I want every American to know that when I go to Gee’s Bend, Alabama, and meet the African-American women there who are so wonderful and lovely, an experience I’ll never forget, and when I go to places where I know they probably won’t vote for me, I know that my job is to tell them that I’ll be the president of every American and I’ll always put my country first.

And finally…

Question:  What would you say to people who oppose me asking you these questions in a church?

BO: These are the kinds of forums that we need, where we have a conversation, and I think based on — [ applause ] — based on these conversations, the American people can make a good judgment. I mean, one of the things, if you’re a person of faith like me, I believe that things will work out and we will get the president that we need. What you want, though, is just to make sure that people have good information, that they’re not just consuming negative ads or the kind of nasty tit-for-tat that has become so common in politics.

You know, I want people to know me well and I want people — I’m sure John McCain feels the same way. And that if we are both known and people know where we stand on issues. You know, I trust in the American people. They’re going to make a good decision and we’re going to be able to solve the big problems that we face.

JM: I say to them that I’d like to be in every venue in America. This is an important — this is a very important election. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles.

I’m happy to be here in a church. I’m happy to be here in a place that with your programs such as PEACE, such as your help throughout the world, such as your outreach to so many thousands of Americans. I’m honored to be here, and I thank you.

While neither of the concluding statements was all that telling, I do find it ironic that Obama says he’s in support of such forums but that he’s rejected all other town-hall style forums but this one.  Credibility-wise, it reminded me of his earlier praise of campaign reform, in which he rejected participation.

Summing it Up

I would have to say that, overall, this particular meeting was a huge win for McCain. A number of folks I know who were ambivalent toward him, average folks who don’t get all that much into politics until the final month or so of a race, I would now say are pretty squarely behind him. Even the normally Obama-friendly Washington Post seems to think this one was a win for McCain.

Obama’s response on abortion — the issue that remains his largest obstacle to evangelical support — bordered on a gaffe. Asked by Warren at what point in its development a baby gains “human rights,” Obama said that such determinations were “above my pay grade” — a silly answer to a sophisticated question. If Obama is genuinely unsure about this matter, he (and the law) should err in favor of protecting innocent life. If Obama believes that a baby in the womb lacks human rights, he should say so — pro-choice men and women must affirm (as many sincerely do) that developing life has a lesser status. Here the professor failed the test of logic.

For many evangelicals, the theoretical Obama — the Obama of hope and unity — is intriguing, even appealing. But this opinion is not likely to improve upon closer inspection of his policy views. Obama is one of those rare political figures who seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him. “I want people to know me well,” said Obama at the forum. Among religious conservatives, that may not be an advantage.

The next few months will be interesting and testing, probably more of the latter than the former. I would hope that Christians who support either candidate would be as gracious and civil as Warren was in hosting this particular debate. People don’t need to be told who to vote for, and doing so often just ticks them off. One issue does not define everything about a candidate, but it can shed a light on much of his or her belief systems. Each person should be allowed to vote his or her conscience, as they feel led, without backbiting recrimination, but they should do so with their eyes open. Let us pray for such “eye-opening” enlightenment, and trust God to lead us.

[Please note that if the discussion thread becomes a political flame-war, I will likely shut it down early. Please don't go there.]