Does either McCain or Obama Have the Answer?
Joel Thornton, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, summarizes the presidential candidates' responses to high gas prices:
"John McCain thinks he has a way to battle soaring gas prices: expand offshore drilling and suspend the federal gasoline tax for the summer. Barack Obama says neither one is the answer: he wants to strengthen oversight of energy traders whose futures speculation he blames in large part for the rising price of oil."Thornton over-simplifies both candidates' positions. Both understand the root cause of rising oil prices: finite supply and ever-growing demand. Both have said that there's little that can be done that would have an immediate effect. Both have said that the solution involves a broad strategy.
That said...
McCain's gas tax holiday is pure pander.
McCain's proposal for offshore drilling is an environmental risk for a teeny benefit, years in the future. Someone aptly described it as tearing up your couch looking for loose change because the mortgage payment is overdue.
Obama's suggestion that energy traders are playing a part deserves investigation. Supply/demand forces are driving up the price of oil, no doubt, but for the oil price to double in a year indicates that something else may be at work. We all remember Enron's manipulation of the electric power industry in California and the resulting rolling blackouts. We are now painfully learning how the mortgage banking industry ran the housing industry into the ground. The oil industry needs thorough investigation, too, especially after eight years of oil men running the White House.
Dobson to Obama: Fruitcake
Wayne Slater, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, reports on a speech by Christian right icon James Dobson attacking Barack Obama for distorting the Bible. Dobson is reacting to a speech Obama gave two years ago to a Christian group, in which he called for tolerance.
A blog commenter asks, "Did you listen to Obama's speech? Obama calls out Dobson and threw the first stone."
In fact, Obama did not call out Dobson.
Obama did not throw stones.
Obama merely used Dobson and Al Sharpton as examples of two religious leaders whose opinions of the Bible differ.
"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?"
Dobson's attack on Obama today supports Obama's point that not all Christians agree on everything.
Ironically, when he gave the speech two years ago, Obama drew more criticism from the left for arguing that people of faith shouldn't have to leave their religion at the door when they enter the public square.
"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God.' I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.
Dobson's attack on Obama today shows why some on the left think religion should be kept out of the public square. Thankfully, Obama himself is tolerant where Dobson is not. Thankfully, Obama is running for President and Dobson is not.
Read Obama and Dobson in their own words. Obama doesn't say Dobson can't seek to pass legislation based on his religious beliefs. Obama says that Dobson is likely to be more successful if he can express his views using more universal values because not everyone shares the same faith that James Dobson does. Dobson would be more likely to get his anti-abortion laws passed if he listened to Obama's practical advice about how democracy works. I suspect Dobson's problem is not so much with Obama as it is with democracy.
Obama:
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."Dobson:
"What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that I can't seek to pass legislation for example, that bans partial birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue and if I can't get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. That is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
No comments:
Post a Comment