McCain will run again

But not for President. The Washington Post reports that he will, however, seek reelection to the Senate when his current term is up in 2010.

I really didn't think he would. Not sure why....once you've sought the greatest prize and failed, wouldn't you just want to serve out your time and go home? But, obviously not. The WP says that he is looking forward to an "active Senate agenda" in "these challenging times", and especially anticipating bringing up the fight for immigration reform again. Clearly, Senator McCain hasn't changed, for those of you that thought he had moved right. (Yes, I voted for him, too.) Thankfully, McCain seems to be done with Presidential quests.

You can read the whole WP article here.

Hugh Hewitt also had a very compelling article up on Townhall on November 20 about the inarguable fact that we MUST change the primary process NOW for 2012 if we want to avoid the debacle we faced this year with 3 candidates splitting the conservative vote (Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson). Of course, an equal danger, which Hewitt also posits, is that Democrats realize that Obama's re-nomination is assured and decide ala "Operation Chaos" to come over and mess with the Republican primaries, forcing the nomination of the candidate they prefer, rather than the one we want.

Hewitt's point is that every current candidate for the RNC chairmanship needs to be asked what they will do to remodel the 2012 primary process. It certainly makes me a whole lot more interested in who gets that post, which I really hadn't been up until now.

I am impressed with Michael Steele whenever I see him on Fox. I heard him making his case for election to the chairmanship, which included his political life story. If anyone merits consideration as a result of having come up through the ranks from the bottom (Republican community activist...no, not organizer!!!), Steele should. We will see. The 168 committeemen and women will pick the new chair at their Winter Meeting in January.

It is an interesting and unpopular, in many sectors, time to be a Republican, which means it is a good time to get in there and stir the pot in a positively mobile sense. (Is that a mixture of metaphors? Probably.)

The Legacy of George W. Bush

And now that I have so profusely expressed my gratitude to everyone, I will probably proceed to anger half or more of my readership, which probably isn't the smartest move if I want to continue to win and build an audience! But surely you knew something like this would be forthcoming with George Bush's pending departure for his Crawford ranch in less than 2 months.

Truly, though, after 2 horrendous election losses for the GOP, hasn't the time come to be honest about what George W. Bush has bequeathed to us? With ANY President, if we don't forthrightly face the facts of their respective tenures, we not only kid ourselves, but in rewriting history, we discard the lessons that our times should teach to the next generation.

George W. Bush is a kind and decent man, by all accounts. I believe he meant well when he assumed the helm of the country in January 2001. His conduct and yes, his performance in the immediate wake of September 11 was surefooted, confident and comforting.

It is easy for me to cite Bush's two greatest accomplishments. Their names are John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Along with those two good men, a stellar roster of judges now sit on appellate and circuit court benches across the United States. This is no small feat.

With Karl Rove's help, George Bush proved that he was a politician of electoral acumen. Even in the midst of a war on which the American people had already begun to sour, he managed to recapture the White House and expand GOP majorities in both houses of Congress.

Such promise...but (and I take no delight in saying this) ultimately unfulfilled.

For George W. Bush has proved through his governance that he is certainly no conservative. Under George W. Bush, discretionary spending (spending above and beyond defense, Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare) has increased at an unprecedented rate, with little to no protest from the Bush White House. And the first 6 years of those budgets were offered by a GOP Congress!

On George W. Bush's watch, we have also seen foreign aid skyrocket, watched our trade deficits soar and inaugurated the largest new government assistance program since LBJ with the advent of the prescription drug benefit. The No Child Left Behind bill cemented the status of a Department of Education that all previous Republican Presidential candidates had vowed to abolish. And in answer to 9/11, a massive new Cabinet-level agency was created, accompanied by the nationalization of airport security.

George W. Bush bet his Presidency on the war in Iraq, a war that he continues to believe was justified. Credit where credit is due; the surge strategy has quelled the sectarian violence for the time being. But what will happen when we leave? Will Sunni and Shia alike lay down their arms? Will the Arab world opt for democracy, and if they offer freedom of the vote to their peoples, will those people elect leaders who model American values? Recent results do not indicate such an outcome, with the resurgence of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Queda. Was it ever truthful to refer to Islam as a "religion of peace?" Furthermore, was it ever realistic to expect a region of the world that has been militantly Islamist for more than a millenium to opt for a Western way of life over the span of a few brief years?

Did we attack Iraq to rid the nation of nuclear weapons? Yet there were none. Was our intent to make Iraq a democratic regime? See the previous paragraph. If we had elected a new Republican President, would we be building on the success of the surge in Iraq by attacking other nations we fear will acquire atomic weaponry? But, how would it even be possible with a Treasury that has been bled dry and an economy that sags lower by the day?

Yet, in the end, the greatest disappointment of the Bush Presidency has occurred in the last few months, with his status as a virtual bystander as one of the greatest taxpayer ripoffs in history has occurred. Virtually none of the many directions in which he and his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, have pivoted has been productive. Now, Paulson says he doesn't even plan to use all of the bailout money, but will leave the second half of it for Barack Obama to spend.

This column by Dick Morris was the final straw that provoked me into expressing these thoughts, which have been building for months now. At the meeting Bush attended with leaders of the G-20 last week, he agreed to subject American financial institutions to the oversight of the global community, to which European Union members are subject. Here is the money quote from Morris:

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.

I voted for George W. Bush 4 times if you count the primaries. Given the choices in those general elections, I would do so again.

But, conservatives need to stop being hoodwinked and start speaking up in no uncertain terms when our principles are so repeatedly violated. We must reach a point where it is not enough just to have a place at the White House mess hall and a President who speaks the language of Christian tradition.

Some may doubt this, but I have tried my best to be fair in this discourse, which the Democrats have not been. The Democrat Party has painted George W. Bush as a heartless automaton whose strings were pulled by the evil puppet master, Karl Rove. Need it even be said that this is a grossly unfair caricature?

Yet, we must acknowledge the failures of even a Republican President who, though a kind and compassionate man, simply was not able, at the end of the day, to take the measure of the times and meet it with adequate answers that would send the country on a course of economic growth and renewed moral purpose. Rather, we find ourselves contemplating not only a strongly leftist Democrat President, but a Democrat House with a huge majority and, in all likelihood, a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate. All of this, with the idea of limited government and economic self-sufficiency all but dead and buried.

If this is not the time to assess and provide an accurate picture of where we are and begin to rebuild as a conservative movement, I don't know what is. I believe it can be done! But the first step in that direction is facing ourselves squarely and admitting what has put us into this position in the first place. And I believe that involves a transparent look at the legacy of the President to whom we will bid farewell on January 20.

Conservatism offers the answers this country needs! But, they will be found, in the words of Ronald Reagan, as we "raise a banner with bold colors, not pale pastels."

Thanks

Is it enough to just say "Thank You" to all of you who left such kind comments on my last entry, and to all who have approached me within the last few weeks letting me know you read this blog? I had no idea!!! So, "Thank You", in fact, is probably insufficient, but it is deeply sincere and comes straight from the heart.

Rabbi Harold Kushner says, "Human beings are God's language to a hurting world." You all have spoken words of divine healing through your love to me and my family over the last month. May God richly reward you.

Grief and loss

Last Friday night, November 7, what began as an evening of fun and celebration for so many of us culminated in tragedy and unspeakable sorrow. About 10 of us couples from our "New Directions" class at First Nazarene had gathered at Konny & Stan Zurcher's house for our annual fall picnic. I had wondered if I should even go because I had been sick from a horrific virus (intermittent fever and chills, chest congestion and cough) for the previous 4 days, but felt that I was on the downside of it, so decided to make the trek. Lots of good food, a roaring bonfire, story swapping, hugs and laughter all around...

Then, at about 9:30 p.m., as Konny was showing Pam and I around her home, Pam's cell rang. We were upstairs and I knew I couldn't get to it, so I yelled down and asked Lyndsi Smith to grab it and see who it was. Lyndsi read the caller ID and told me it was Pam's Mom; I figured Mom was calling to discuss next week's trip out to see us that she and Dad were planning to make. I bantered back and forth with Lyndsi in the innocence of the moment about how my cell showed "Mom and Dad" when my parents called, but "Satterfields" when the in-laws did, and Pam's vice versa; Lyndsi said she and Brent's cells showed similar readouts with their respective parents. (I wonder, are we always so blissfully unaware of the sands running out of the hourglass?)

About a minute later, my cell rang and I saw it was Mom. Alarm bells started way in the back of my mind, on a very subconscious level as I answered the call that would change our lives forever.

Mom's voice was quiet, but so panicked, as she said she didn't know who to call, but....Dad had collapsed after playing basketball. He was unresponsive and they had done CPR on him for some time now. My mind quit working as I groped for words. Was he going to be alright? Mom didn't know. Where were they now? On their way to the hospital. I do remember Mom asking me, with tears choking her voice, what we were going to do. I was in shock, possibly for the first time in my life. I don't remember how I concluded the phone call, but I had to walk out into the living room and break this news to my wife and those gathered around. Konny led in prayer for Dad's recovery and we began to call different people asking them to pray. I know I called my parents, Pastor David (I talked to Janet) and my friend Jed Hutchison.

Then Pam's phone rang. She answered it, spoke briefly, then wordlessly handed it to me with tears streaming down her face. I knew what it conveyed even before I answered and heard Pam's Mom whisper, "Glen, he's gone."

What numbing, crushing, incomprehensible grief! The sobs and groans came from deep within, from an untapped reservoir of pain over the unimaginable loss of a man I had loved as if he were my blood father, one that I had looked up to more than he ever knew. The thoughts surged through my brain: Did he know I loved him so? Was he aware of all the reasons I admired him? Why couldn't we all have had 30 or 40 more years together?

I pounded the walls with my fist as the emotion coursed through me, not caring who saw or heard. I somehow concluded the conversation with Mom, if you could call it finishing; I remember saying that I should be strong for her, but knowing I couldn't be right then. I somehow made it out to the living room, where the remaining guests, now somber and grave, were gathered. Stan and Konny seem to continually be present during the trials in our lives and it was an unfathomable comfort to be with them when this news was broken.

I will never forget asking God "WHY!" and crying out from the depths of my sorrow that I didn't want to be angry with God. Was I really angry with God? I don't know. I know I had never hurt like this before. I have, however, come away with this awareness since those moments: I am profoundly grateful for a compassionate Savior who DOES NOT WALK AWAY when we're at our weakest. When we scream out in our anguish and question His infinite wisdom, Jesus doesn't shrug and say, "I don't have to put up with this; I am God, after all." My friend, Katie Metz, says she likes to think that God knows that our feeble protests against the exercise of His will are just code for "I need you NOW, Jesus, more than I ever have." I believe she is right.

We somehow drove home, where my parents were waiting for us. I will always appreciate their help getting our house organized as we tried to throw belongings enough together for a stay two states away of undetermined length.

We finally pulled out of our driveway around 2:30 AM on Saturday morning, November 8. We drove through the night and morning and arrived in Indiana, PA around noon. What a lonesome feeling to drive up to the parsonage and know that that cheery face would never walk out the door to meet us again. Mom came out and burst into tears as I hugged her. Oh, what loss.

It all seemed so surreal. The family was all here, but the man at the center of it all was not.

We had a memorial service just for the church people the next morning, the only service of the day.

On Monday, November 10, the viewing lasted from 2-9. I said over and over that I hoped he knew how much he was loved as hundreds filed by the open casket. My brother and his wife and little girl drove 380 miles to be with us, from their home in Greenbush, VA. My parents and sisters also drove out from Indiana that day, then turned around and drove home. I will never forget it.

We have also received phone calls, e-mails and Facebook condolences from across the country. The support meant so much. (If there was anything I could be said to have "enjoyed" from this week of suffering, it was meeting some of the friends I have heard Mom and Dad speak of for so many years. Some of them read this blog!)

Dad's funeral was held on Tuesday, November 11, a very memorable ceremony, with a number of his preacher friends officiating with stories, Scripture, encouragement, tears and laughter. We buried him on the hillside cemetery in Cherry Tree, PA on a gray, bleak afternoon. Yet, we didn't leave HIM there, only the "earthly tent" that he left behind. Dad is in Heaven rejoicing with the one He served, although we mourn his loss and still shed our tears. One day, we will see him again, never again to be separated. In the meantime, we continue on, serving the One who gave Dad life and brought him safely Home.

The future of conservatism

I have been saying for the past several weeks something that this election conspicuously confirmed to me, although I'm aware that many pundits and talking heads would disagree. Republicans need to decide whether we are going to be a center-right party, economically and socially, or just a "Me too, but not quite as much" carbon copy of the Democrats. It is time for some serious soul searching. I understand the need to build winning coalitions, and that that is what political parties do. But there is a point when the tent gets too big. And there also comes a time when heartfelt convictions informed by genuine knowledge need to carry the day rather than unconvincing talking points.

Tony Blankley has written 2 excellent columns (here and here) in the last couple of weeks. He discusses first the temptation to check our convictions at the Capitol (or 30 Rock) doors once our people gain power, and simply become part of the establishment. Thus, of course, we lose our identity and even worse, our ability to shore up the country's foundations.

But, he also states that our win in 1994 came because we learned how to talk to the country where they were, rather than "standing on our high horse declaiming to a nation" about conservative principles (I love that phrase and was briefly tempted not to put it in quotes, so some of you would think I came up with it, but alas, honesty prevailed).

The temptation to simply declare the other side as inadequately educated and simplistic thinkers is compelling when we lose an election. But Reagan did not do that, and neither did Newt Gingrich at his best.

Yes, the country needs an education, especially in economic principles. TV and broad media in general have reduced us to a soundbite culture, where most of us can easily list far more of our favorite TV shows and movies and pop songs than we can the non-fiction books we've read lately. This, along with a built-in media bias, is certainly a deficiency that we must overcome.

But, we will only do so through humor, warmth and mesmerizing truth telling, not sourness, acid sarcasm and bitterness, as inviting as that may be. John Stossel, who is not a conservative but more of a libertarian (which means he is more conservative on economics than most Republicans) is a great example in the pop culture of someone who tells profound truths in a simple way, but with articulate humor and a disarming style. On today's political scene, Congressman Mike Pence is as good an example as I know.

I do not believe that America is finished or destined for doom. I know that conservatism works. To quote Tony Blankley once again:

Conservatism always has been and always will be a force to reckon with because it most closely approximates the reality of the human condition, based, as it is, on the cumulative judgment and experience of a people. It is the heir, not the apostate, to the accumulated wisdom, morality and faith of the people.

I am looking forward to being part of the conversation is constitutional conservatism mobilizes and marches on! I have my ticket to CPAC 2009; I will be there all 3 days. I am having fun being part of a Student Steering Committee that has input on the list of speakers, the general theme, etc. We are energized!

One last thought: SARAH PALIN WAS NOT A MISTAKE! She was the best thing that happened to this campaign, and McCain's loss would have been ever worse if she had not been on the ticket. The modicum of excitement I had at voting this time was due first to her, and second, to the memory of McCain's performance at the Saddleback Civil Forum. Palin will not be on a national ticket in 2012, nor do I think she probably wants to be. But she is not going away, and has endeared herself to millions of Americans. Alaska will never be the same!

President-elect Barack Obama

As I was driving to the store this morning, a quote from Lincoln's Second Inaugural address came to my mind. In the midst of at least equally, if not more perilous times than these for our nation, Abraham Lincoln articulated the following sentiment:

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

As I understand Lincoln (and certainly, some of you are better read on him than I), he was not saying that the Civil War was God's punishment on America. If you read Lincoln in context, it seems more likely that he didn't know if the War was God's punishment or the natural course of events spiraling out of control, which Lincoln "plainly confessed" had "controlled" him. I think Lincoln was suggesting, at least, that all actions, good and bad, integrally contain many causes and effects. Some Southern stalwarts even today argue that Lincoln's 1860 election brought on the war because of his stated goal of maintaining the Union at any cost, not a desire on Lincoln's part to crush slavery. They are probably right, to an extent, at least. But that is not the point. Had a conflagration not erupted over slavery under a Lincoln Presidency, it would still have only been a matter of time.

I likewise do not want to argue that Barack Obama's election is God's retribution for the 100 years of segregation, lynchings and general bigotry that followed the Civil War's conclusion. But I am prepared to say that Obama's win stems from an American electorate hungry to purge itself of the stigma of past racism. I don't think electing Barack Obama is the proper path to that cleansing, nor do I think Obama voters only voted for him for that reason. But I do believe it played a part, and I also think it is understandable, even though I don't agree with the logic behind it. Shelby Steele has probed this theme for this entire past election year, and has a new column out today that closes the loop. It is worth reading the whole thing; Steele explores the issue in a far more profound way than I can.

Here are several personal takeaways from this election, in no particular category or order:

I wish the new President well on a personal level. I trust Christians everywhere can at least unite on this. I have not forgotten the vitriol of the Clinton administration, and some of the sentiments I heard people express who were supposed to be spiritual role models. (For example, I recall one elderly lady opined that Clinton "needs a brick through his head.") The saddest thing to me as I recall this is that probably some of those unkind words came out of my own mouth.

Saying that Obama is a socialist at heart is not invective or unkind, at least in my book. It is simply descriptive. Wishing that ill would befall him or using uncharitable terminology to describe his wife, for instance, IS unkind however, and is not becoming to a follower of Jesus Christ.

I plan to pray for the President daily, criticize him forthrightly when he is wrong, which I anticipate will be 90% of the time or more and support him when he is right. And I'm sure I will be advocating for most of his political opponents in 2010 and his opposing contender in 2012. But let us not forget the lesson of I Corinthians 13, nor that our Kingdom at the end of the day is not of this world. Without agape love, we are nothing but a sounding gong or clanging cymbal. Paul's analogy rings as true today as it did 2,000 years ago. Opposition without charity is bitter and empty in the end.

Finally, I do rejoice that we have reached the place in our society where the election of a black President is possible. But let us do our due diligence and firmly hold President-elect Obama accountable to the fundamental principles of our nation.

Final pre-election thoughts

It is 4:00 PM EST. I finally turned the TV on about 15 minutes ago, even though I know no real action will start for some time. I just couldn't stay away any longer. Who knows when it will be flicked off again? I will also be all over Drudge and Real Clear Politics all through the evening.

The quiet feeling that we are headed for a sizable Democrat win tonight has been building inside me for a couple of weeks now. I have not said anything about it up till now; I just haven't had the heart for it. Why depress those who still have to vote and possibly keep them ultimately from casting their ballots?

My biggest hope tonight is that we keep the Senate below a 60-seat margin. If Mitch McConnell loses in Kentucky, we are truly in deep trouble. I will also admit that I am closely watching the Minnesota race; if Norm Coleman goes down to the weasel, Franken, then you have to wonder about this country. (I am not into name-calling, but everyone has their limits! Franken stretches mine.) On the other hand, if Elizabeth Dole, for instance, and Gordon Smith or John Sununu can somehow hang on, then we are headed for a better night than I've expected.

John McCain and Sarah Palin have fought heroically in this race, especially over the course of the last two weeks. But, the headwinds are so strong this year with an unpopular President (largely due to the Iraq War), a charismatic and eloquent Democrat and finally, an economic crisis of major proportions.

Contrary to some, I do not believe the country is lost if the voting goes as I project that it will tonight. A President Obama still has to govern. And my guess is that no major policy shifts will be forthcoming for the first while, while the country struggles, perhaps for the next few years, to regain its economic footing. McCain argued until about 6 weeks ago that the fundamentals of our economy are sound. I would modify that to assert that the basic principles on which our Constitution was formed are still sound and they work remarkably well when applied with wisdom and honesty. I expect to be disappointed tonight, yes, but I also anticipate participation in the regrouping of a Constitutional movement in this country. More on that later; now to focus on the show at hand over the next few hours...