With the possibility of this country being thrown into the control of a Liberal President, a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the house of Democrats, should I stay up for this (hopefully) once in a lifetime event, or should I plan to take the day after off so I can follow it all?

It’s a good question.  Elections don’t happen all that often, and even Sen. Obama himself is suggesting we take election day off.  ‘Course they don’t want me to do it, or anyone that doesn’t agree with them.  Not really, even if they say that they do.

What do you think?  Is this election over?  Are you going to vote?  And if so, are you going to support a main-line candidate?

Contrary to what you’re lead to believe, the election of a President is not decided on election night by news anchors with big screens contacting election headquarters.  In fact, President-Elect Obama just won the election January 8, 2009.  The vote was 365 to 173 in favor of Pres-Elect Obama over Sen. McCain.

The Electoral College and Direct Election

The framers of our Constitution built into our system of election the idea of an Electoral College to protect our electoral process.  Indeed, I have read that it was never fully the intention of the framers to have elections like we have today—where there are basically two viable candidates that square off for the popular vote.

The system that is in place for the House and Senate to choose the President and Vice President should no one get the majority of electoral votes was envisioned to be the common route to the Presidency!

Should We Keep the Electoral College?

Every Presidential election (especially since 2000) we have seen someone calling for the abolishment of the electoral college in favor of a direct vote.  Though this would definitely change how candidates campaign, it would also gloss over the reasons behind the system that we have.

How would it change the way candidates would campaign?  No small state would see a candidate, whereas now it’s mostly the some of the larger states (like California, New York, and Texas) that never see the candidate.  It would concentrate campaigning in metropolitan areas where the most votes would be had.  It would also lend itself, even more (if you can believe it) to pandering and offering to throw money in all different directions.

So, Why Keep It?

Good question.  The reason that it is there in the first place is as a buffer.  People in good standing were supposed to be chosen as a check on Democracy.  You see, the Founders knew something that we don’t tend to think about today.  They understood mob morality, and that groups can be persuaded to choose something that isn’t the best.

Therefore, they needed to trust that if the people made a poor choice, the electors could fix it—the electors should elect based on their conscience.

Today, electors are chosen not for character or standing in the community, but for their affiliation with one of the major parties.  Defections are rare, because they’re pledged partisans.

So, should we keep it, because of it’s original purpose, should we attempt some kind of reform, or face the facts that it’s broken and people don’t want it fixed?

Did you hear that Gov. Sarah Palin thought that Africa was a country?

If you answered yes, and you believed it to be true, you aren’t alone.  Turns out that some people will believe anything, based on what they think about a given person, and a couple people decided to see just how far the media had gone from journalistic integrity:

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

Just another friendly reminder that you should verify your sources before publishing to the world.

Have I finally run out of things to say on Election 2008?

Though Rahm Emmanuel seems to be quite the character, I didn’t expect Pres.-Elect Obama to pick new people—I expected the same old leftists.  Then again, I don’t know that Chief of Staff are really that out in the open, I mean, I’m not sure I can recall the current Chief of Staff?

In any case, I’m on the job hunt today, and I have had one contact so far, and I’m waiting on a call, so we’ll see if anything materializes.

Still lots to digest and review.  The game’s not over, it’s only just begun.

Today I received an interesting phone call from my wife.  During it, she told me that one of her friends voted for Pres.-Elect Obama, although professing Christ.

During the run-up to the election, many of us were baffled on how this could be the case.  Surely anyone that was pro-life could not vote for someone that was ok with infants that were born alive being killed—and that was just the beginning of our problems with the Senator from Illinois.

Leadership

It’s not easy to be a leader.  To some extent, I’m not sure it’s something you can train someone to be.  It comes from the inside, and though discipline can sometimes mimic leadership, a true leader is someone who brings people along with him/her, not someone that has to call rank or try to entice the followers to come along.

This is why there was conventional wisdom during the summer that Sen. McCain was in trouble in the polls because the conversation was all about Sen. Obama.  When you’re simply running on “don’t vote for that guy” you aren’t presenting a case why to vote for you.

In any relationship it’s the same way.  When you’re a leader, people follow you—they seek your advice, they look to you for vision, and they want your judgment.  When you simply have the position, they overrun you, they are not inspired by you, and the leave.

The Masses

For quite a while I’ve decried the current voting system.  The idea that we can have a person for elected office chosen by a group of people that can choose any quality they want as a basis for a vote is prone to have dire results on a nation.  When I can choose a candidate because of how I feel about him/her, or what color their skin is or their party affiliation, we erode the system that was designed for people of character to choose someone of character to lead them.

Freedom is something that has to be protected.  It’s something that is fought for, and it’s not a foregone conclusion that we’ll always have it.  Like most things, freedom can be traded for profit, and some on the lower end of the spectrum are doing just that.

I’ve spoken before about changing the election system.  Using computers to make someone go through the issues, eliminating the party affiliations from the ballots, etc. as a way to combat an uninformed electorate from voting based on the color of tie the person wore during the first debate, but it wasn’t until today that I thought more about Leadership and Pres. Reagan.

It’s Not About What You Believe

Unfortunately.  I say this because it should be.  It should be about policy.  It should be about character.  Unfortunately it’s about popularity and leadership.  If you have a person who is a leader, people will follow.  If you have a leader, you don’t have to worry about pleasing every part of your big tent—the tent will follow.

The leader (especially the popular leader) will inspire, will direct, and will attract.  And that was one of the big differences in this election.  Pres.-Elect Obama inspired, even though people disagreed with his policies.  Pres. Reagan inspired.  It was more than conservatism.  It was more than popularity.  It was leadership.

A Leader Stays True to Convictions and Takes Responsibility

You can believe what a leader says, because they will weather the storm and take responsibility.  This is something that Pres. Bush does well.  Even though the Iraq War tanked his popularity, he stayed firm.  He was a leader.  This helps explain him winning in 2004—Sen. Kerry wasn’t a leader, Pres. Bush was.  You could trust what he said.

In any case, I believe that more than getting the right policies and the right convictions, in order for the right to gain momentum and reclaim the Presidency in four years, they need to find someone who is a natural leader.  They need someone that people want to follow, that can be bigger than the small issues, and focuses on a vision.

The next leader has to know where he wants America to go, not just what policies he wants to enact or what things he wants to change.  A leader that can call us to be something bigger than we are and can show us the way will triumph every time.

Names can be funny things.  In my Junior year at Bob Jones University I took History of Civilization and one of the fun parts was hearing the different appellations that were given to various people based on characteristics.

People like Louis VI the Fat, Charles the Great, Pippin the Short now make way for Joe the Plumber and Peggy the Moocher and Belinda the Jeweler.

And here I thought we all have last names to make identifying us easier!

So, in honor of this new trend, please comment below as to what your name would be in this new style (either in the name field of the comment box or in the text itself) and let me know what you think of this new trend!

The office of President of the United States demands a good deal of respect.  The occupant thereof deserves respect as well.  Part of the problem of the last few years has been that there has been little to no respect for the office or its current holder.

That being said, we have a Democratic Republic, not a Monarchy.  President-Elect Obama will not be king, but President.  And in this country is not wrong to state our disagreements with his policies or actions as long as it is done in a respectful way.

Submission

I’ve read a lot about how the Bible commands submission to the government.  To pray for our leaders.  And that God chooses them.  I totally agree with all of these statements.  As Christians we’re to seek peaceable lives, to live Christ in our day to day activities.

However, just as you may disagree with your husband or your boss, that doesn’t mean that you are revolting against their authority.  Where applicable, it is appropriate to discuss the policies and the practices of a government, and you can do so without attacking the person of the President.

Conversations about how Pres.-Elect Obama is the Anti-Christ or is evil are not fruitful to the cause of Christ, or being an American.  Wishing evil upon him, belittling his name or title are completely out of bounds.

But don’t let “submission” stop you from talking about the issues.  Abortion is still killing of an innocent life.  Taking someone’s money and giving it to someone else is still stealing.  Homosexuality is still vile.

Serpents and Doves

Christ commands us to be sharp as serpents and harmless as doves.  As we live the Christian life, we need to spend as much or more time living out the helping, loving, caring end of Christianity as we do the calling out sin part.  Some get labeled for only doing the latter and not the former.  If we’re going to have a good testimony we need to do both, and we need to call out sin even if the finger points at ourselves.

Hypocrisy can be spotted a mile away, and it is not becoming those that follow Christ.

Pro-Life causes took a hard hit last night.  First, the selection of Sen. Obama means that we will have a President with a 100% approval rating from NARAL.  There were also two Pro-Life Constitutional Amendments on the ballot—in Colorado and South Dakota—that were intended to challenge Roe v. Wade.

In some small way it’s good that they didn’t pass.  You would want them to pass when you have a good chance of getting it to the high court, and I’m not sure if there will be a good one in an Obama Administration.

However, buried in the AP article on all of these measures is an interesting bit of news:

A first-of-its-kind measure in Colorado, which was defeated soundly, would have defined life as beginning at conception. Its opponents said the proposal could lead to the outlawing of some types of birth control as well as abortion.

Do you find the last sentence shocking?  You shouldn’t.  Many forms of birth control attempt to prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation using hormones, but the downside (if you believe life begins at conception) is that the same effect prevents implantation of the new life into the mother’s womb.

What you see here in this statement, and by the opponents of the Colorado Pro-Life Amendment, is an acknowledgement of this fact.  If you’re Christian, or your Pro-Life, you need to understand this and come out of denial.

If you use a chemical birth control, you may be aborting your children.

This includes the depo shot, the patch, the pill or anything you ingest or apply to prevent pregnancy.  Read the specs on these things.  And then prayerfully consider what it is you truly believe and what is important.

If you believe half the things that you read on the net—at least in places that I read, you’d believe that this article (Bush: ‘Can I Stop Being President Now?’)from the Onion was true!

I don’t know how many times I’ve read someone saying that Sen. Obama is our President now, emphasis on ours, etc.  The fact is, he’s not President until he’s sworn in January 20, 2009.  This isn’t sour grapes, this is a statement of fact!

No, I’m not going to go all conspiracy theory on you or delude you with false hopes.  I’m not going to talk rogue electors or anything like that.  I’m not even going to tell you that you shouldn’t be praying for the man or that you should look to Texas as a logical place to secede from Union.

However, just like always, I’ll ask you to get your terms straight.  It may be true that in a little more than two months Sen. Obama will become Pres. Obama (barring something unforeseen happening) but the correct title is “President-Elect”.

In the mean time, there’s a lot to be thankful for.  My district’s House seat may end up going to the GOP—and that would be terrific.  It looks like Proposition 8 in California will be enacted.  We don’t have to hear 4 more years of whining about how the electoral process is unfair and that people steal elections—it’s almost refreshing to hear certain parties say that the American People have spoken—even though this was still a close race with the Popular Vote (but we won’t be whining because we know the rules of the game).

In the meantime:

• Continue to pray for our current President and leaders.  There are still two months left and who knows what can happen.
• Continue to be gracious in defeat—no sour grapes.
• Check out this Post Election True or False Quiz, and remember that this is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.
• And like I learned last week—In everything give thanks—I Thessalonians 5:18.

Watching Fox News call both Ohio and Pennsylvania for Sen. Obama, I could remain optimistic that the Exit Polling could be wrong.  I mean, we heard all day that people were thinking of lying to the Exit Pollsters to make the media look back, and we heard that it won’t be over until the votes are counted.

But now the votes are counting, and it does indeed appear to be exactly what they were saying—that our country has decided to give control of power to the Democrats.

If I believed in luck, I would say that I had something to do with it.  In the course of a week or so I’ve lost my job, had the amount of severance pay adjusted a few times and found out that I probably won’t qualify for unemployment insurance.  Oh, and that what was wrong with my van’s A/C system is more extensive than I originally thought.

Let’s just say that it hasn’t been a good past 7 days.

But, as you well know, this election has nothing to do with me directly—and I don’t believe in luck.  You see, other than you reading this, I don’t pretend to have very much sway as far as who many people vote for.  I probably have more sway in my family than with you that read here.

As for luck, I believe that God is active in the affairs of men, and that He chooses to elevate those to be “king” (or in this place, President) for His pleasure and will deal with us as He sees fit.

The practical side of me states emphatically that this will be an interesting two years—especially if the Democrats gain a Senate Supermajority, but even if they do not—and that in two years we’ll get to have a vote on how good the Democrats have done on keeping their word and governing.

Realistically, I believe that the tide will change again in 2010.  No party can keep everyone happy—they cannot steal enough of the rich’s money or print more to keep people satisfied.  And the Democrats will not have the ability to point the finger at the Republicans and say that it is their fault.

And if you think I’m bluffing, how much have the Democrats passed since they took power over both legislative houses since 2006?  Especially at the end of this race, a very small minority of Republicans were able to hold up legislation because the Democrats didn’t want to go-it-alone.

Figure on seeing more of this, and this kind of talk going forward.

Though I’m not happy with the result, and I do fear for my country.  In a cruel way I’ll be happy that it looks like it won’t be close, but at the same token I see the possibilities of what could happen and I find myself wondering if it wouldn’t be better if the financial state of affairs made it so that he was hindered from implementing a lot of his plans.

Like I said—God is in control.