Voting for the Man

Think you "vote for the man, not the party"? Think again.

First, if you vote for a Democrat for the House of Representatives, you're not voting for a man. Regardless of the name of your local Democratic candidate, vote for him or her and you're really voting for Nancy Pelosi. Your candidate may try to distance himself or herself from Pelosi, but it doesn't matter. Vote for a Democrat for the House and you're voting to keep Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. To some extent, that means she will decide how the House votes, but more importantly, it means she will decide what they vote on and when.

The same goes in the Senate for Harry Reid. Control of committees, legislative agendas, and dozens of other essential functions within the legislative branch of government are a function of party. You think you're voting for the man or woman, but you're voting for the party.

For President

Recently, the press (and even the comedians) have been depicting a race where one man (Barack Obama) talks about issues and the other man (John McCain) engages in vicious personal attacks. In the debate and in recent speeches, Senator Obama complained that Senator McCain wants to talk about him (Obama) instead of the real issues.

From this we can assume that Obama doesn't feel a candidate's history, experience, associations, resume, or character are as important as the list of things he says he will do once he's given the office he seeks. On this, he's wrong. The candidates themselves are the chief issues in any campaign . . . and they are more than their lists of promises.

In 2000, George W. Bush could not have known he would, as president, face the end of the dot-com financial bubble, 9-11, the ensuing many-fronted war on terror, Katrina, or the present financial crisis. He said his foreign policy would avoid nation-building, but the world situation changed and he wound up nation-building in, not one, but two countries through most of his administration.

Because things change, we are voting for a candidate's judgment even more than his promises. That means a candidate's choice, even in something as personal as that of pastor, can be extremely significant. It tells us how he makes decisions and the kind of judgment he possesses.

Barack Obama complains that the campaign should only be about "issues," but his speeches and campaign ads are notorious for their vacuity when it comes to issues. He brings up the problems. He explains how wonderful things will be when the problem is solved, but he doesn't say how he would get from problem-infested here to the land of wonderful over there.

His health care commercial says:

On health care reform, two extremes — on one end, government run health care, higher taxes. On the other, insurance companies without rules denying coverage. Barack Obama says both extremes are wrong. His plan — keep your employer paid coverage, keep your doctor, take the insurance companies on to bring down cost, cover pre-existing conditions and preventive care. Common sense for the change we need.

Is it common sense to say that insurance companies can be forced to begin covering pre-existing conditions while lowering costs? Is it fair to allow someone who had a heart attack yesterday and learned they're going to have open-heart surgery tomorrow, to sign-up today for the best insurance-coverage available covering all the costs resulting from yesterday's heart attack? He says buying insurance under his plan will be optional, therefore, it will make sense for some people to wait for the cancer diagnosis before buying the insurance to cover their care. Others may want to wait until the day they enter the nursing home to buy long term care coverage.

Of course, the ad doesn't say he will propose laws forcing the insurance companies to accept these things, but says he will bring them about because he will "take on" the insurance companies. That's really not saying anything.

In an Obama-utopia, insurance will cost less and do more. We the people won't have to do anything, make any sacrifice, work any harder, and in return we will pay less and get more. All we have to do is vote for Barack Obama.

Who Won the Debate?

How can you tell who won a debate? Not by focus-groups. People skilled at picking focus groups can tell you what their judgment will be before the group ever hears the debate, even if they all claim to be undecided. And not by instant polls. They show you who's currently ahead in the race, but not who won the debate.

There are a set a polls that tell you who won the debate, just not the polls that ask who won. Look at the daily tracking polls in the three or four days following the debate. If the election is close and the numbers change in one candidate's favor, he won. For instance, George W. Bush's numbers went up after every encounter against Al Gore. Gore was supposed to be a great debater and Bush hardly able to get a complete sentence out of his mouth, but he connected with the American people. The pundits thought Gore won, but the Bush numbers went up after each debate.

Who won the debate Wednesday? John McCain. Today is the second day in a row that Gallup's daily tracking numbers put them within two points of one another, with Obama at 49% and McCain at 47%. AP/Yahoo has Obama at 44% and McCain at 42%. A week ago these numbers would have seemed absurd. Obama was walking away with the election.

Of course, Obama remains the clear favorite. The polls I cited show the race closer than the other polls, though it seems to be tightening in most of them. That could change tomorrow, but if you're for McCain, don't lose heart and if you're for Obama, don't start the celebration too soon.

We each have to keep doing our part — work, pray, persuade, vote.

And keep the Faith!