No News Here – Presidential Candidates Lie To Get Elected

You have probably heard the latest flap over the healthcare debate. The media has been pressing President Obama (through his press secretary Robert Gibbs) to keep his campaign promise and allow the Congressional healthcare debate to be televised on C-SPAN. Obama promised this eight times during his campaign to become President (see all eight on video here). He could not have been clearer about avoiding closed-door sessions where “deals” could be made that were not in the interest of the American people.

And yet, once elected, he has absolutely no intention of keeping his promise.

Like the promise that middle-class taxes will not be raised or the one about posting all legislation publicly on the Internet for 48 hours before voting on it, it was a pledge clearly made with only one real objective – to get Obama elected. I actually think Obama is not much worse than any politician who would run for President. In my experience, they all lie to gain their objective – power and self-glory. Lest you think I’m simply an Obama-basher, I’m relatively certain that we would have seen similar actions from McCain. I’ve already gone on record as being frustrated with George W. Bush, who did little to turn our nation from the curse of abortion, even though he had a high popularity rating AND control of both Houses for a time. Rare indeed is the honest politician who would run for this office…and stick to his or her promises once elected.

Commitments and integrity don’t matter. Personal legacy and victory trump everything.

There have been two White House press briefings on this subject this week. Warning – these will probably make you mad. Maybe we need more anger toward our politicians to make a real difference. Here is the transcript from the Tuesday briefing:

QUESTION: C-SPAN television is requesting leaders in Congress to open up the debate to their cameras, and I know this is something that the President talked about on the campaign trail. Is this something that he supports, will be pushing for?

GIBBS: I have not seen that letter. I know the President is going to begin some discussions later today on health care in order to try to iron out the differences that remain between the House and the Senate bill and try to get something hopefully to his desk quite quickly….

Later in that same briefing, a reporter raised the C-Span issue again:

QUESTION: Okay, just lastly, why can't you answer the C-SPAN question --

GIBBS: I did.

QUESTION: You didn't, because you said --

GIBBS: I said I hadn't seen the letter, which I haven't --

QUESTION: do you need to see a letter? I mean, this is something the President said during the campaign and he talked about he wants everything open on C-SPAN --

GIBBS: Dan asked me about the letter and I haven't read the letter.

QUESTION: Well, I'll just ask you about having it on C-SPAN --

GIBBS: I answered Dan's question and I answered this before we left for the break, Keith. The President's number-one priority is getting the differences worked out, getting a bill to the House and the Senate…

QUESTION: There are a lot of reasons not to do it on C-SPAN -- people could showboat. Does he regret making that statement during the campaign?

GIBBS: No.

Now to Wednesday's briefing – with another question from a different reporter:

QUESTION: During the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of -- quoting one -- "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?

GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday's transcript.

QUESTION: But today is today and --

GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one --

QUESTION: But there was an intervening meeting in which it's been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?

GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-SPAN?

GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.

QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday --

GIBBS: And I addressed that --

QUESTION: -- pressed for something that's in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.

GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday.

Another reporter took up the questioning:

QUESTION: Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see --

GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this?

QUESTION: Speaking for myself --

GIBBS: Just a guess.

QUESTION: That's not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.

GIBBS: So the answer is --

QUESTION: I deal with the information that --

GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct?

QUESTION: Right, but that's got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I'm saying would people benefit by having more information?

GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you've reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?

QUESTION: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care --

GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything --

QUESTION: But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime --

GIBBS: And he'll do so today.

QUESTION: -- and pressed them to --

GIBBS: Do you have another question?

Which, I guess, is a fancy (and lengthy) way to say, “Get lost. We do what we want.” By the way, all three of my children are taking Logic this year in their homeschool studies, and would recognize Gibbs' avoidance technique as the Red Herring fallacy - where a person introduces something irrelevant into an argument and tries to focus only on that.

Here’s the video of this exchange. Gibbs looks very uncomfortable. I hope this story doesn’t die.

Obama Pledges “Everything Possible” to Limit Abortion

Our president recently met with the pope at the Vatican. It was the first meeting of the two men – two men who are diametrically opposed in so many areas.

In a bold move, the pope gave the president a booklet explaining the Catholic opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I’m glad that the pope didn’t just resort to the simple and expected formalities. He had an agenda, and he pursued it because he believes it is vitally important. Obama’s response to the pope’s request, according to the Vatican, was that the president would do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions in the United States.

I got a little excited when I saw that. If I promise someone that I’m going to do “everything possible” to get something done, I tend to…well…do everything possible. But it looks like that was wishful thinking on my part.

Obama has stated that his method of doing everything possible is to improve the economic climate in the U.S., so that fewer women will feel the ‘economic need’ to have an abortion. Such an indirect method is a lot like me saying that I will commit to spending more time each day with my kids – by working for hours a day on a time machine that increases the number of hours in a day to twenty-six, instead of the usual twenty-four. The proposed solution is completely out of touch with the objective, and doesn’t guarantee the objective will be attained even if such a machine could be invented (I might use the two extra hours to sleep, or go fishing).

Obama’s comment is predicated on the belief that abortions occur because of economic hardship. But is this really the reason? According to an Alan Guttmacher Institute study in 2004, only 23% of all women electing to have an abortion cited economics as their primary motivator. In the same study, 59% gave their primary reason as one of convenience (not ready for motherhood, already has all the children she wants, etc.). Only 7% gave health as a primary reason.

Further, assume for a moment that economic times get better. Will this really lessen the number of abortions performed? Or will they increase? It seems to me that the more money a family has, the fewer children that family has. More children brought to term does not necessarily follow as a result of increased economic wealth. In fact, one could make the case that better economic times will increase the number of abortions in this country, as more families can afford to have them, and as their selfishness for more time with their boat or fancy car is increased. I think there is a strong case to be made that links better economic circumstances with an increase in the incidence of abortions. It would make an interesting case study. Just check out the graph above which shows abortion rates have declined somewhat in Michigan…during a period where Michigan’s economy has soured.

If President Obama really means what he says when he will do “everything possible” to reduce abortions in this country, then he should start by supporting the reversal of Roe vs. Wade from every aspect in his power. He should appoint strict constructionist judges who support this reversal. He should promise support to lawmakers who will sponsor legislation to help overturn the practice of abortion. He could hold a press conference (or one of his free infomercials on CBS) boldly stating that he believes abortion to be wrong and a stain on our country’s history. Don’t get me wrong – I truly believe that our president and our congressional leaders could have exactly this change of heart. I pray for it nearly every day. Maybe we all should. God can change men’s hearts in mighty ways.

Teaching The Sanctity of a Promise

I must admit that I am bothered when people don’t keep their promises to me. It may be something as important as honoring a debt, or something as small as the appliance repairman showing up when promised. But if someone gives me their word and then fails to keep it, I am not the most forgiving of people. I promise to work on that! Recently, I had the opportunity to reflect on the importance of keeping promises, and how critical it is that we teach our children about the sanctity of a marriage vow.

During a vacation where our family retreated to a desert condo for a week, we occasionally endured the banality of cable television and the constant assault of ridiculous commercials. I could write more about what I think of cable TV, but will reserve that for another time. While we spent very little time watching television during our vacation, there was one repetitive commercial worth noting. Specifically, this advertisement was encouraging people to trade in their gold jewelry to be melted down, in exchange for quick payment. One satisfied customer commented, “I traded in the wedding ring from my first marriage, and got cash the next day!”

Wow…

That quote contains the essence of our society’s latest attitude toward the institution of marriage. It’s summed up in one succinct sound-bite, and it speaks volumes. I’m saddened at how the advertisers can cheapen marriage to this degree. I’m even more disappointed that society seems to think little or nothing about such a statement. Would this advertisement have caused an uproar if it had been released on television fifty years ago? I think it would have, and for all the right reasons.

I recognize that there are people out there who have been through divorce and re-marriage. And I genuinely appreciate that it is heart-wrenching for all parties involved. Even when people talk flippantly about their former marriages, I believe that they hurt deep down inside over the pain – because God made marriage to be something more than just “teaming up” with someone. It’s a very special union – intimate and sacred – because He wanted it to be that way. And so I want you to know that I don’t comment on the subject in judgment on anyone personally, but as a comment about our society and how we collectively are made to think that marriage is nothing special.

The best part of this story is how much this commercial bothered my eleven-year-old son. Every time we saw it, he became indignant. To him, the irreverence for a lasting marriage was more than distasteful. He actually appeared angry about the commercial and continued to talk about it for a long time afterward. I know that my wife and I have talked occasionally with our children about the institution of marriage, and how they should pick a spouse, but I did not know how much it had affected their views. I’m pleased to see my son so deeply cut when someone mentions marriage in a cheap and demeaning way. Could a vow to remain true for life ever be satisfied in exchange for cash money? Is it possible that people are hurting over failed marriages far more than they would admit?

Let me share one tip with anyone who is married and has children of an impressionable age. One thing that my wife and I have always done and remain faithful over is our treatment of the mere mention of divorce. While I have never even thought fleetingly about a divorce from by beloved bride, we maintain a strict policy in our house. We will never mention divorce even in a joking way – not in front of the kids and not to each other. To us, the sanctity of marriage is at work one-hundred-percent of the time. We never let our guard down on this topic. We never casually even mention the word in our house, and the few times that our kids have done so, we stop what we are doing and talk to them about our rule, and why we maintain it. Judging by our son’s response to the television ad, it seems to be working. I pray that his marriage will be blessed by this developing attitude. A marriage vow is far more than a casual promise.