Obama, McCain, Or "None Of The Above"

I know it's been a long time since my last post in which I was considering writing in "None of the above" on my ballot. Some may be wondering, now that the election is nearing, if I still feel the same way. My response: not a chance.

I'm still not crazy about the choices we have, but the issues facing our country are too important and the choices we are presented with are too crystal clear for me to waste my vote this year.

I ran across this blog post today, and it's the best argument I've seen yet for voting for the lesser of two bad choices. This article wasn't the deciding factor in my decision (I'd made my mind up many months ago), but it very articulately sums up the way I've been feeling.

The only thing I would add to the aforementioned blog post is that one of the candidates has, in the past, opposed a law that would require doctors to give life-saving treatment to a baby that is "accidentally" born as the result of a botched abortion. His reasoning: to call in another doctor to administer life-saving treatment to the baby would go against the original intention of the mother and doctor who attempted the abortion (which was to kill the baby). To put it another way: he supports infanticide. For me, that tells me everything I need to know about this candidate as a potential president.

None Of The Above

In the movie Brewster’s Millions, Montgomery Brewster (played by Richard Pryor) inherits 30 million dollars that he must spend in thirty days without acquiring any assets. If he is successful, he will receive his real inheritance of 300 million. But according to the terms of the will, if he fails at this task, “You don’t get diddly!”

Brewster, who is a struggling minor league baseball player, comes up with an ingenious plan to accomplish his goal. He will run a campaign for mayor of New York City, spending all of his resources to try and sway the election. And whom does he recommend that people vote for? “None of the above.”

Spending millions on flashy advertisements and infomercials, Brewster is successful in getting more votes for “none of the above” than the other two crooked candidates receive. The result: A new election is scheduled, and both candidates say they will not run again. It may seem like a far-fetched idea, but it made for some interesting entertainment.

Now, here we are some twenty years after that movie came out, and I’m beginning to think that “none of the above” sounds like a pretty good idea in this year’s presidential election. I mean let’s face it, it looks like our choices have been limited to three people: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m tired of voting for the candidate who I think will be the “least bad.”

Of course, I could just stay at home and not go to the polls. I’ve heard some of my fellow conservative Christians say that they will not vote if they are unhappy with the candidates on the ballot. But if I do that, I’m sending the signal that I don’t really care one way or the other about this presidential election. I’ve been given the privilege to vote, and I’m not going to waste that opportunity just because I’m disgruntled over the choices.

Then there’s always the option I mentioned earlier, to hold my nose and vote for the candidate who I believe is the “least smelly.” And to be honest, I’ve had to do that a lot in my lifetime. But I’ve always been able to find somebody who, although I wasn’t completely satisfied with them, I could half-heartedly support in the end. And I’m not saying that won’t happen again this year when November rolls around, but right now I don’t feel that way at all.

And then there is option number three, the Ann Coulter option. Ann suggests that conservative voters should vote for the Democrat because after four years, they’ll get the blame for the disastrous results. If McCain wins the election, it will still be a disaster, but the Republicans will take the blame and we’ll have thirty years of Democratic control in D.C.

Now Ann’s a lot smarter than me, and definitely knows a lot more big words than I do, but I can’t jump on her bandwagon either. I could not, with a clear conscience, cast my vote for either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama. That’s one decision I don’t even have to think long and hard about.

So what can a guy like me do? Do I have a fourth option? Is there a way to let my voice be heard without compromising my principles, doing nothing, or holding my nose as I vote?

I believe there may be. Why can’t we disillusioned voters do something that will make a statement concerning how we feel about the current crop of presidential possibilities? I propose that we write-in our votes, but not for a person. I’m thinking more and more about writing in “none of the above” on my ballot.

Now I realize that “none of the above” has about as much chance of winning the election as Britney Spears has of winning the “Mother of the Year” award, but I still think it’s a good idea. If enough people would come together and write-in “none of the above,” the networks would have to give it some airtime. And I think that would send a much louder and clearer message to the politicians than simply staying home and not voting at all.

So, what do you think? Is there anybody out there who will join with me and write-in “none of the above?”

Why Can't We Have Both?

I’m a Southern Baptist pastor, so naturally I’m going to support Mike Huckabee for president. Or at least that’s what some people might think. After all, Huckabee and I have so much in common. He’s a former Baptist minister; I’m a current one. He worked in the radio industry before serving in full-time vocational ministry; so did I. He and I both hail from a state that begins with the first letter of the alphabet. Why would I not support him?

Well, let me start out by saying that I think Mike Huckabee is a wonderful Christian man and a quality human being. I’ve been reading his book Character Makes A Difference, and I can honestly imagine him being one of my close friends if we ever had the chance to know one another. In fact, I could see him coming over to my place to watch football and eat chicken wings. I think if I knew him personally, I would genuinely like the man and enjoy spending time with him. But does that mean I think he’d make a great president? Not especially.

I know Huckabee’s doing well with evangelical voters right now, and that’s primarily because he’s a Christian who is strongly opposed to abortion. And I applaud him for that. In fact, if the election in November were between Huckabee and any of the pro-choice Democrats (take your pick), I’d choose the pro-life Huckabee in a second. Huckabee’s social conservatism would be a much better alternative than the liberalism espoused by Clinton, Obama and Edwards. That choice for me would be a no-brainer.

But what about some of the other issues, apart from abortion, that Huckabee is not so conservative on. I hate to go all Dr. Phil on everybody, but the best indicator of future behavior is taking a look at past behavior. And if Governor Huckabee’s record in Arkansas is any indicator, I’m afraid he leaves a lot to be desired for a conservative voter like me. So just for a moment, let’s look at some of the things that the former governor supported that are serious warning signs on my radar screen:

1. He has opposed school choice initiatives (vouchers), earning him the endorsement of the National Education Association in his state. That is a major red flag for me.

2. He supported giving scholarships to illegal immigrants in Arkansas. And when asked what his plan for securing the border is, his answer: Chuck Norris. That’s funny, but it tells me nothing. I think we need a president who will get tough on illegal immigration. Taxpayer funded social programs need to go to our legal citizens, not to those who are here illegally.

3. He has shown contempt for our foreign policy concerning the war on terror. Despite some missteps, I believe this war against Islamic extremists is one that is morally justified. And it is a war we must win. I don’t think Mike Huckabee is the best choice to be commander-in-chief given the post 9-11 world we are living in.

4. He raised taxes while he was governor of Arkansas. Perhaps if he wouldn’t have given those scholarships to illegal immigrants, he could have balanced the budget without a tax hike.

That’s just four of the issues that concern me with Mike Huckabee. Yes, he’s a social conservative who believes like I do that life is sacred and should be protected from the womb to the tomb. But he’s not a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, and Christians who think he is should take a good, hard look.

It seems to me that the Republican Party has become split between the social conservatives (i.e. the Christian right) and those who are fiscal conservatives (i.e. Rudy Giuliani). And my question is: why? Why does it have to be that way? Why can’t we have both?

Why can’t we have a candidate who is both socially and fiscally conservative? Why can the GOP not unite around a nominee who would bring both sides of the debate together and forge a coalition that could defeat Obama or Hillary in November? You can call me a dreamer, but I don’t think it’s too late for that to happen.

When it comes to elections, I vote on issues. Not party lines, not personalities, but issues. What the candidate stands for. And although I’ve never personally endorsed anybody for president, I do see one man who seems to be the best choice when it comes to the issues that are important to me. He is both a fiscal and a social conservative. He’s a straight talker, and he doesn’t check the polls before he makes a decision. He does what he believes is right, regardless of what popular opinion might be. His name is Fred Thompson. I believe he is the clear choice for those who want a solid conservative, both socially and fiscally, in the White House.

For all my evangelical brothers and sisters out there, let me urge you to think before you vote. Don’t vote for somebody just because they will be a “strong Christian leader.” Vote for the person who will do the best job as the leader of the free world.

And for my Southern Baptist brethren, let me remind you that we’ve had two of our own elected president in modern times: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Maybe that should tell us something.

Hiatus Is Over

After taking a break from the blogging world, The Lambert Commentary will make a return with a new post later today. It's been a while since I've sounded off, and I've got a lot on my mind. First on the agenda: a post about the current state of the Republican presidential race entitled, "Why Can't We Have Both?"

Both what? Candidates? Parties? Ideas?

I'll let you know in just a little while.

Word To My Brothers

Let me begin by sharing my credentials as a black man. Although I clearly don’t have dark skin, and there can be no doubt that my ancestry is unquestionably of the Caucasian persuasion, I think there is enough historical precedence to identify me with the African American community. How can that be? Well, many of you will remember that Bill Clinton was sometimes referred to as “America’s first black president.” Hey, if a white man who is the former governor of a small southern state qualifies as a “brother,” there’s no reason why I can’t be one, too.

Besides, Jesse Jackson is now saying that Barack Obama is “acting like he’s white.” Who would know colors better than Mr. Rainbow Coalition himself? So if Clinton is black and Obama is white, I feel perfectly comfortable speaking as a black man on behalf of men of all colors.

Isiah Thomas, coach of the New York Knicks, made the news this week because he seems to believe that there is one standard for black men and a different one for white men. Mr. Thomas says it is deeply offensive to him when he hears a white man refer to a black woman as, well, you know, the “b-word.” A black man doing the same thing, however, is, according to Thomas, not such a big deal. It must be a part of that culture, kind of like Michael Vick’s dog fighting.

Here’s my problem with Mr. Thomas: How does a man’s being black or white give him the right to talk to any woman, black or white, in a degrading way? Call me old-fashioned, but I was raised to treat women (and all people for that matter) with respect, not to talk about them or to them in offensive ways. I think that should go for men of all colors and ethnicities, whether their name is Isiah Thomas or Don Imus.

Imus was way out of line with his comments about a group of female college basketball players, and the public outcry was loud and understandable. His career went up in flames after leaders in the African American community began calling for his head.

Here are my questions: Will Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come out publicly and call for Isiah Thomas to be fired? Is there a boycott of the New York Knicks in the works? Where is the outrage?

What will be next? Some “gangsta rapper” will come out and say that black men get a pass when it comes to roughing up black women because it’s “different” for them. Sharpton and Jackson will administer a gentle slap on the wrist, and the whole episode will be chalked up to the “African American culture.”

As a black man, I find this exceedingly offensive.

Who's The Traitor?

It was one day. Twenty-four hours. Isn’t it amazing how life as we know it in America was forever changed in one single, solitary day?

It’s been six years. Six years since that day when time seemed to stand still.

I’ll never forget the range of emotions I felt on that day. First there was confusion. Somebody reported that a small plane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. Nobody knew for sure at the time if this was some bizarre accident or if it was done intentionally.

Confusion gave way to disbelief when I saw a second plane slam into the other WTC tower. Suddenly, the once fuzzy picture was becoming all too crystal clear: we were under attack. Yet it all seemed so surreal and unthinkable. How could this be happening in the land of the free?

Disbelief gave way to fear. We heard a report that a low flying plane was headed north along the Potomac River. Suddenly this unfolding drama seemed to be right in my own backyard. I lived less than a mile from the Potomac. All I could think was, “Who’s going to be next?”

Fear gave way to uncertainty. When I heard the news about a plane hitting the Pentagon, I immediately reached for the phone. My stepmother works in the Pentagon, and my dad’s office wasn’t too much further away. Desperately I dialed their numbers, praying that they were both OK. The phone lines, however, were completely jammed. I couldn’t call them and they couldn’t have called me if they had wanted to. It was a helpless feeling. Later in the day, thankfully, I got confirmation that they were both safe.

Uncertainty gave way to anxiety. I had just witnessed an act of war. I didn’t know at the time who had done it, but I knew one thing for sure: we were no longer a country at peace. Suddenly, the future looked very different. Somehow I knew that things had forever been changed. There was a nervousness down deep in my stomach, and I’ll never forget how it felt.

Anxiety gave way to anger. As my heart and brain processed the events of the day, I began to feel this seething rage inside of me. I didn’t know what could possess someone to perpetrate something like this, but I knew that we had to bring them to justice. To put it succinctly: I was hot!

But then, as the day was drawing to a close, the anger in me gave way to pride.

I had never been more proud to be an American than I was on that day. As I watched firemen and police officers risk their lives to save the lives of others, I was proud to be an American. As I considered the possibility that a group of passengers on board a plane gave their lives to prevent an attack on our Capitol, I was proud to be an American. As I watched our lawmakers standing side-by-side on the Capitol steps singing God Bless America, I was proud to be an American.

Does anybody other than me remember how, in the midst of our darkest hour, this great country became united? There was no Democrat or Republican on that day. There was no conservative or liberal on that day. There was no upper, middle or lower class on that day. We were all united simply as Americans.

Oh, what a difference six years makes.

Actually, it didn’t take six years to divide us. As a matter of fact, it only took one congressional election the following year to bring Washington back to politics as usual. And today, on the sixth anniversary of the attacks on America, the political divide in our country is a chasm that seems unbridgeable.

Yesterday, an ad appeared in The New York Times that essentially called the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, a traitor. The full-page ad was the work of moveon.org, an ultra-liberal special interest group that represents the extreme left fringe of the Democratic Party. At least that’s who we thought they represented.

This ad should have been universally condemned by members of both political parties. General Petraeus is a well respected, highly decorated, and impressively qualified leader who was chosen to lead the surge in Iraq without one dissenting vote in Congress. More than that, he is not a puppet of President Bush. From all I’ve seen, General Petraeus is a straight shooter, and he’s not going to “cook the books” just to make the president look good.

But now that he’s testifying before Congress, he’s archenemy number one for moveon.org, and apparently for many of the Democrats; particularly those who are running for president. They seem to be afraid of upsetting the movers and shakers at moveon.org, therefore they refuse to condemn this ad in spite of how despicable it may be.

And so, six years after 9-11, partisan politics is alive and well in Washington. And the country is more divided now than we ever were before. Moveon.org should be ashamed of itself and issue an apology immediately. If anyone is acting like a traitor, it is this ultra-liberal organization, not our leader in Iraq.

Back In Two Weeks

The Lambert Commentary will return after Labor Day.