Christianity,  Politics

What’s the goal? Abortion reduction or elimination?

Should we be trying to reduce abortions or eliminate them? That was the question that was taken up in a recent edition of “The Albert Mohler Program.” On the show, Russell Moore moderates a discussion between Tony Campolo and Robert George.

On the one hand, George contends that every person’s life (including the unborn’s) should be protected in law (thus eliminating abortion as a legal option). On the other hand, Campolo argues in favor of public policies that might reduce the number of abortions in America. Campolo has recently been named to the Democratic Party’s platform committee where he hopes that an ‘abortion reduction’ plank might be introduced into the party’s platform, even if Roe v. Wade is never overturned.

In one particular exchange, Moore gets to what I think is the heart of the matter and the basic moral untenability of Campolo’s position (beginning at about 27:41).


Moore: What would you say to someone that would argue as I would that getting together with abortion rights supporters and saying let’s reduce the number of abortions is something like a previous generation getting together with white supremacists and saying let’s find a way to reduce the number of lynchings. Don’t you kind of almost provide a smokescreen . . .

Campolo: Wait a minute. That was a very inflammatory way of stating the issue . . .

Moore: Not if unborn children are actually children . . .

Campolo: Would you let me respond? . . .

Even though Campolo is put off by the comparison to white supremacists, Moore’s analogy is entirely appropriate. Just as black Americans are persons created in God’s image whose lives should be protected in law against lynchings, so the unborn are persons whose lives should be protected in law against abortion. The point that Moore so powerfully makes is that it is morally dubious to set aside the question of the unborn’s personhood.

That is precisely what Campolo does (whether he intends to or not) whenever he chastises pro-lifers for seeking to make abortion illegal. Pro-lifers think that we should be working to make sure that every person’s life is protected in law. Campolo thinks that we should not. It’s no surprise that Campolo says that this November he will be voting for Barack Obama for President—the most radically pro-abortion candidate in our lifetime.

Campolo really has no answer to the question put to him by Moore—at least no answer that addresses the personhood of the unborn. That’s why his argument really doesn’t work. And that’s why I’m hoping that pro-lifers are not listening to him.

“The Pro-Life Cause: Working for Reduction or Elimination?” – The Albert Mohler Program


  • Matt Svoboda

    It is interesting that Campolo says in his “Red Letter Christians” that slavery is an issue that is worthy of being a one issue voter, but abortion is not. Am I missing something? How is slavery worse than abortion? I am not saying that slavery is not horrendous or down playing it at all. But is the killing of unborn babies not just as bad if not worse?

    My conclusion is this: Campolo and his possy just want to be well liked and that means compromise on issues that they shouldn’t. While still trying to look strong they point at an issue that EVERYONE agrees on and makes it most important. This makes them well liked by the world and they can still call themselves Evangelicals…

  • Matt Svoboda

    It is interesting that Campolo says in his “Red Letter Christians” that slavery is an issue that is worthy of being a one issue voter, but abortion is not. Am I missing something? How is slavery worse than abortion? I am not saying that slavery is not horrendous or down playing it at all. But is the killing of unborn babies not just as bad if not worse?

    My conclusion is this: Campolo and his possy just want to be well liked and that means compromise on issues that they shouldn’t. While still trying to look strong they point at an issue that EVERYONE agrees on and makes it most important. This makes them well liked by the world and they can still call themselves Evangelicals…

  • Matt Svoboda

    Also, I thought this new breed of liberal Christians was against Christianity siding with one political party… And yet, it appears that they have more fervor for the democratic party than anyone in the ‘religious right.’

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Also, I thought this new breed of liberal Christians was against Christianity siding with one political party… And yet, it appears that they have more fervor for the democratic party than anyone in the ‘religious right’ [for the Republican Party].

    Gold medal clap for Matt Svoboda.

    IMHO, the frustrating thing about Tony Campolo is that he totally understands the reasoning of pro-lifers and pro-traditional marriage’ers PLUS he totally understands the theological deficiencies of pro-abortionists and pro-gay theology, and yet he’ll still support and enable abortions and gay marriage. He is without excuse. James 3:1 for Tony.

  • Paul

    “Also, I thought this new breed of liberal Christians was against Christianity siding with one political party… And yet, it appears that they have more fervor for the democratic party than anyone in the ‘religious right’ [for the Republican Party].

    Gold medal clap for Matt Svoboda.”

    Only if you’re giving out gold medal claps for being wrong.

    Denny’s refusal to talk about any of Obama’s positives ALONE makes him just as biased as anyone on the left. He has every right to be just that, as does any other Christian on the religious right. But when the religious right starts taking on issues that have little to do with being Christian per se (like being armchair soldiers), then yes, the religious right is being JUST as biased as the left is. Y’all have your John Hagees and Jimmy Swaggarts, we have our Tony Campolos and Greg Boyds. Deal with it.

    Honestly, I don’t know what’s going through the mind of someone like Campolo. But I know what’s going through mine when I vote for “abortion should be legal, safe and rare” type candidates.

    1) Once again, y’all get it completely, 110% wrong when it comes to this issue. I will say it again anyway: a repeal of Roe v. Wade ONLY (underlined 10K times) brings the decision back to the states. Illinois, New York, California, the entire northeast, and more than likely most states outside of the deep south will keep abortion legal.

    2) So, a repeal of Roe v. Wade only saves a few lives, in states where the abortion rates are likely fairly low anyway.

    3) An abortion reduction plan that was put together with federal funds or statutes would apply to ALL 50 states no matter what.

    Therefore, there’s a good chance that Campolo’s ideas might save more lives than Moore’s, Mohler’s, Denny’s, or even hater of liberals (insult) everywhere, Matt Svoboda.

    Argue with me all you want, that’s the fact, jack.

    Tanned, Rested and Ready after 3 weeks of working on Hair, the Musical,


  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    “I will say it again anyway: a repeal of Roe v. Wade ONLY (underlined 10K times) brings the decision back to the states.”

    I knew that already (underlined 490K times).

    Regardless, it was a very bad judicial process AND a very bad judicial law by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even many liberals agree that the USSC shouldn’t have adjudicated Roe v. Wade.

    Hello? McFly? Anyone home?

  • Paul


    and what does that have to do with the cost of tea in china?

    Is this about saving lives or your pride and knowledge of halfway decent Michael J. Fox movies?

  • Don

    The question is abortion reduction or elimination. I say both. Accept reduction and work towards elimination, you do not need to pick just 1.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    “What’s the goal? Abortion reduction or elimination?”

    Logically speaking, eliminating abortion will reduce the number of abortions.

    Should we slow down abortions or stop abortions? Here’s an analogy that may or may not work for you:

    A man ran a stop sign and was pulled over by a police officer. The man protested that he had “slowed down.” The police officer said that that was not what the sign said. It said “stop.” The man said that there was no real difference between slowing down and stopping in this case. At that point the officer drew out his baton and began to beat the man. He asked the man “Now, do you want me to slow down or do you want me to stop?”

  • Brian (Another)

    The unfortunate thing is that Paul is right. Overturning Roe v. Wade would put the decision back in the states’ hands. But, Paul, I also think that you have it completely wrong as far as extrapolating that to mean we should cease trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. As it stands, there is utter and completely unrestricted access to abortion. With RvW, we are assured that unrestricted access. Restricting access (adding repercussions to actions, i.e. having sex leads to babies) is what will reduce abortions. And that begins with RvW. So, to me, that is the starting place. All the awareness programs in the world merely make lost men and women (lost not necessarily indicating only non-Christians) better suited to ignore the consequences. To me, whether you are arguing for elimination (which, as Christians, we should) or reduction, I think it has to begin with overturning RvW. Additionally, while some states will choose to allow abortion, on-demand/unrestricted abortion would be allowed in a smaller number of those states as most are dominated by the “only sometimes” line of thinking. Many states will ban abortion. I find it incredulous that the amount of reduction in abortions due to the number of states outlawing abortion would be less than any programmatical (sic) approach. But I suppose we disagree on that.

    I think the discussions that go on here are reflective of the mentality that too many take. The pro-life (anti-abortion) stance should (and does) focus on the fact that that unborn infant is still an infant. But we become too complacent to think of it as a ball of tissue. Or we become too infected by the idea that we can’t change minds or really change anything, thus let’s meld our ideas (syncretism). It’s softer, easier and hey, it’s more palatable to those around us (ergo, we must be bridging them to Christ….though, to clarify, I’m not projecting that onto all). The fact is that we can’t change minds. That’s God’s work. We are to zealously uphold righteousness. And, as Paul (from here) points out, that needs to be a balance (I know, you didn’t specifically point it out in this manner, but bear with me). If we hold to God’s righteous standard, that means in our lives as well as our rhetoric. Hence, support women’s pregnancy centers, etc. Or, another way, live out what we profess. Most of those around me do just that.

  • Paul


    I never said that we should stop trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    What I AM saying is that, realistically, the path that would likely reduce abortions more than an overturn of Roe v. Wade is the path that seeks to put limits on ALL of the states, not just the few (saying many states is naive at best, and I’ll point once again to S. Dakota for proof of that) that choose to outlaw it completely. Especially because save for traveling bans for pregnant women, even a few states outlawing abortion isn’t going to stop anyone that really wants one.

    So, how best to handle the situation?

    I think what SC Justice Alito once said makes the most sense: instead of an outright overturn of Roe v. Wade or an attempt at a ban that will never happen, the best thing we can do is place so many restrictions on abortions that it makes them much harder to get. Like I’ve said before, Sweden’s plan seems to make a lot of sense: up to 12 weeks, they’re relatively easy to get (still harder than in America), and after 12 weeks, it’s virtually impossible unless there’s endangerment to the life (not the mental wellbeing) of the mother.

  • Brian (Another)


    In order to put any restrictions on abortion, you must overturn RvW, though. It will always be there as the hallmark, the measuring stick for what is allowable. Just look at the justification for the Illinois bill. The quote was something along the lines of not voting for the (infant protection) act because it could impinge upon RvW. And logistically (especially when considering the price of gas), even a “some states” ban would prevent more than you think (well, that’s my opnion, of course).

    The core issue is thinking of an infant as a piece of tissue (I don’t think you think that, though). By putting restrictions, it’s simply furthering the “tissue” concept. It may be tissue for less time, but still the concept is there. And people say “look, it’s OK, the law says it is.” And as long as we allow open and easy access (which will continue with RvW in place), then men and women will continue to ignore what happens and live that aspect of their lives with no repercussions. To me, Dr. Moore’s example is spot on. And you can hear Campolo’s voice “say” it is, too.

    That said, if there were a bill on the floor that put a first six weeks limit on abortion, it would be hard not to support it, but in the end, I would have serious reservations since it’s still saying an infant is not human, but a piece of tissue (again, for a shorter amount of time). That just seems like a compromise of values.

    If the S. Dakota example is the fact that they withdrew their bill, that is directly tied to RvW. An established precedent that wouldn’t get overturned by the current slate of judges.

    Hope your tan is better than the lobster I got after Mexico a few weeks back.

    Well, I’m off for a Teen Wolf/Greedy double feature.


    PS: Hey, and don’t discount The Secret of My Succe$s….oh, wait. Yes you should.

  • ChrisB

    I don’t see abortion elimination and reduction as necessarily opposing goals (I know Campolo’s not going to support the former).

    Are there things we can do to reduce the number of abortions? If so, shouldn’t pro-lifers support those things?

    Can we continue to work for total elimination too? Of course.

    BTW, I’m not aware of any positives for Obama — other than that he gives a good speech, at least when he has a teleprompter.

  • John

    Of course guys, Obama has 0 positives. Nada, nilch, nothing. And I’m so sure Denny would post a positive about Obama if there were one, considering he’s so objective and unbiased, without an agenda for every right-wing post he puts up.

    And you wonder why people react against such rhetoric? You probably think he’s a Muslim too. Maybe you don’t even like black people too much.

  • Paul



    #17 IS ungodly innuendo. No one should be calling you a racist until you’ve earned it.

    However, it’s not ungodly sarcasm. It’s calling someone out on the carpet.

    We’ve now seen at least two people say that one of GOD’S creations has no good qualities, and we’ve seen Denny prove that he also believes that fallacy in his completely biased coverage of Obama.

    Sorry man, but when someone needs to be called out, they need to be called out.

    John called y’all out. It’s not his fault that it doesn’t feel good to be treated the same way you treat the liberals (insult — right Matt Svoboda?) on this board.

  • John

    I never called anybody a racist. I qualified my words with “Maybe” indicating that perhaps it’s something some people should think about. If I flat out said you didn’t like black people, then that would be “ungodly innuendo.” Let’s face it (and Paul, I know you agree with me), racism is still very much alive in America, and most people don’t even realize it. Perhaps me saying “maybe you don’t like black people” will cause somebody to realize this. Who knows? Maybe some would find the same things to say about a black Republican, who knows?

    Thanks for the other words Paul, you hit the nail on the head with my intentions.

    TUAD, the truth hurts bud. I’m just standing up for truth and a natural reaction is to get mad at the truth. And more than that, you’re the last person that should be calling somebody out about such matters. Mmmkay…thanks

  • Matt Svoboda

    John and Paul,

    Okay, yes. Obama is created in God’s image. But that in no way means that he has good qualities or views when it comes to being the president of this country. Pointing out that he is made by God is a dumb argument. Hitler was made by God, do you want Denny to write a positive post about him?


  • Paul


    the guy has NO good qualities or views when it comes to being president? None?

    Even Jimmy Carter got the Camp David peace accords done.

    Even George Bush has gotten a couple of things right.

    Saying that a candidate has NO good qualities is not only a bold statement, it’s also one that screams from the rooftops “I HAVEN’T READ OBAMA’S POLICY STATEMENTS ON ANYTHING BUT ABORTION!!!!”

    Quit embarrassing yourself and every Christian you claim to know and read something not associated with Fox News before you speak.

  • volfan007

    Hey, what’s going on? I have typed a comment three different times, and it’s not appearing. If yall see that comment on your computers three times, just understand that it’s not showing on my computer. I didnt realize that Denny was using comment moderation, or else my computer is doing something crazy. Anyway, I hope that my comment gets thru.


  • Scott

    I find it funny that whenever a conservative wants to radically discredit a “liberal” he automatically draws the Hitler comparison. It’s especially funny given that the current presidency has abused the executive branch perhaps more than any president in US history. His approval is lower than any in US history. And yet, we’re supposed to believe his supporters when they say Obama has no good qualities!

  • Paul

    Here’s the deal:

    I don’t like the guy, but to act in a manner which says that the guy has NOTHING going for him is ridiculous.

    Heck, I’ll even give it to the shrub that it seems like he has his heart in the right place a lot of times. It’s just that just like Jimmy Carter, there’s a huge cavernous space between right thought and right action.

  • ChrisB

    When I said Obama has no positives, please understand I mean “as a presidential candidate.” I don’t mean to imply he is without value as a human being.

    But Obama brings absolutely nothing to the table. He wants to raise taxes drastically in a floundering economy. His energy policies would either keep us enslaved to foreign oil or gut our economy — or both. His approach to the war on terror is basically appeasement.

    He would ruin our economy, destroy our health care system, and leave our borders vulnerable. He would reverse every sensible pro-life bill ever passed at any level — partial birth ban, waiting periods, parental notification laws all gone. And he would certainly take the opportunity to appoint as many Ginsburg clones as possible.

    Lastly, though lots of white people will feel great about themselves when they vote for him, many white people would use his presidency to say that all race issues in our country are now officially solved. Of course, if he loses, it will be blamed on racism. I hope they manage to to nominate someone else, because either way his nomination is going to inflame a lot of racial tensions.

    If he has any positives, I’d be glad to hear it, but I sure can’t find one.

  • Mark Gibson

    Maybe some of our liberal friends on this website could mention some of the good qualities about Obama. I can’t think of any that qualify him to be President.

  • John

    Maybe some of our conservative friends on this website could mention some of the good qualities about McCain. I can’t think of any that qualify him to be president (unless you consider being in a couple of more wars good).

  • Mark Gibson


    I’m not the one complaining to Denny to post something positive about Obama. If you can think of something positive about Obama’s policies or something that qualifies him to be POTUS, then post them.

  • Paul

    Okay, this is coming from someone who is not voting for the guy, but I’ll give it a shot:

    1) no matter what, tax and spend is better in the long haul is better than spend and refuse to tax. Heck, even your boy McCain is saying that raising taxes isn’t off the table.

    2) I consider it a positive that he’s willing to threaten Pakistan. If the terrorists are there, and Pakistan isn’t doing anything about it, then we SHOULD bomb them back to the stone age. (BTW, this is one of the few things I give W credit for…right after 9/11, and he went to Pakistan and essentially said, help us out, or we go to war with you. Choose now.)

    3) I’m not a fan of regulation, but Obama’s crew would certainly regulate larger chunks of the financial industry. If that makes it harder for couples making 20K/year to get credit cards with $5K spending limits, trust me, that’s okay.

    4) While I’m not a fan of either Hillary’s or Obama’s attempts to bring Canada’s model of single payer health care to America, I AM a fan of both the Thai and German models (especially the German model, which allowed the health care business to operate, but turned them into their versions of 501(c)3’s). If Obama has ANY sense whatsoever, he’ll think long and hard about single payer medicine, and then he’ll think long and hard about implementing it. McCain has no interest in implementing it at all.

    5) Strangely enough, it’s Democrats who are calling for a return to the military draft again. And I am 110% in favor of it. We’ll see a lot less empire building when Cletus’ kid might have to get shot at instead of helping him with the still out back. I don’t know if Obama’s for this too, but on the off chance that he might be, this would make him a much better candidate than McCain.

    6) If anyone is going to have the knowhow to initiate solutions to make welfare work right when it must, it’s going to be the politician who lives less than a mile from some of the nastiest ghetto anywhere, not the guy who’s married to a beer queen.

    7) Foreign relations: if you don’t think this is a huge deal, think again. Half of our problems in the world stem from the fact that nobody respects us because we elected Howdy Doody to run our country. It’s about time that we had another president that can charm world leaders, like Eisenhower, JFK or, heck, even Reagan.

    8) his view on terrorism: assuming that we go back to a more Clintonian stance on terrorists, we’d go back to the idea of treating terrorism as a policing problem, not a war. Numerous studies have proven this idea to be more in line with an effective combating of terrorism than what we’re doing.

    8a) make fun of France all you want, but this is how they deal with this stuff, and even with their sizeable Arab and muslim population, there’s been what, one riot in an arab neighborhood? I’ll take that over train bombings, anthrax scares and planes flying into buildings any day of the week. They might not be able to win wars, but they understand how to keep arabs in check pretty well.

    That’s a start.

    By the way, “will this guy be a good president” is not measured in whether you like a guy or not, it’s measured in whether or not he has the intellect to govern, the ability to surround himself with able minded people, and the humility to ask those people for help when necessary. I don’t know that Obama’s got that going for him, but it’s clear that McCain doesn’t.

  • JNG

    I love how I am a racist if I don’t like Obama, and don’t think he has any positives. I think everyone knows that is just ridiculous so I will leave it at that.

    Paul you know I was talking about positives as a politician/potential POTUS. I am in no way discussing his qualities as a man. I am sure he has some good qualities, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about his platform.

    I am not trying to be facetious, but I have yet to see a positive about him as a candidate for POTUS or as a Senator for that matter.

    The funny thing is I am sure folks like John and Paul think I am just a backwoods right winger that hasn’t looked past a couple issues. The fact is that couldn’t be more wrong. I have a degree in Political Science. I am active in politics in my local community supporting and helping candidates I feel strongly about. I own my own company, and contribute to the economic growth of my community and this country through starting a business. It is a small business, but Obama would lump me in with the big bad corporations when he raises taxes. No friends, the issues with Obama go a whole lot deeper than just abortion for me. All his policies be it foreign or domestic are flawed, and I have yet to find one I can agree with.

  • Mark Gibson


    Thanks for the response. I think you know that I disagree with you on all of these points except for parts of #2. One question. If Denny disagrees with these points, then why should anyone expect him to post something positive about Obama’s policies?

  • Paul


    I don’t expect Denny to post anything he doesn’t believe in.

    However, if you’re going to trash him on a personal level (oh he goes to a bad church! Oh his theology is all wrong!) then you are nothing but a two bit piece of trash if you don’t mention at least once when he gets something right (here Denny, I’ll give you an easy one: his father’s day speech at the Apostolic Church here in Chicago). And face it, if JESSE JACKSON didn’t like what Obama had to say, then Obama was definitely in the right.

    By the way, it cracks me up when conservatives say that they’re not in agreement with the idea of going back to a draft system for the armed services.

  • Mark Gibson


    What is new about Obama’s Father’s Day speech? It has been said over and over. It is just that conservatives are called racist for such a speech.

    Hardly anyone in the military wants a draft system. Tommy Franks addresses the issue in his book American Soldier. Also, John McCain has sent one son off to war and a second is about to graduate from the Naval Academy. Will you support him now since he will send off his kids to war?

  • ChrisB

    Paul, thanks for your thoughts. Here are mine:

    1) There’s another option: don’t spend. This is what McCain’s famous for.

    2) If Jimmy Carter threatened Pakistan, what would they say? Obama is only slightly more credible. The phrase “paper tiger” comes to mind. If McCain threatens someone it will be far more believable.

    3) Obama’s crew would destroy our economy. No one will be able to borrow anything.

    4) I’m not familiar with Germany’s or Thailand’s system, but I get patients sent to me from single payer systems in other countries. The answer is to change the insurance system (McCain), not nationalize healthcare. Remember, the federal government is the same group who makes companies spend years and years and billions of dollars to bring us Fen-Phen.

    5) McCain has kids in the military right now. A draft isn’t necessary and isn’t desirable — who’s going to be a better soldier, a volunteer career soldier or a draftee?

    6) Listen to Obama talk for a while. He’s just as out of touch as the guy married to the beer queen. Here Obama is a classic liberal. The only reason he talks about getting welfare people working is because the GOP forced this through 10 years ago.

    7) Foreigners who hate us do so because we oppose them (N Korea, Iran, Russia again) or because we don’t let them tell us how to protect ourselves (Germany, France). Of course, not everyone hates us (Australia, Poland). While we don’t want to make enemies unnecessarily, we have to do what’s right and ignore anyone who won’t stand with us. The “citizen of the world” isn’t going to do that.

    Besides the above, here are some other thoughts on McCain:

    8) Judges — McCain won’t (intentionally) appoint judges who see the Supreme Court as an alternate legislature.

    9) Abortion (remember, the topic of the post) — Obama wants to remove every single moderating restriction ever enacted; McCain will support the existing ones and might even sign some new ones.

    10) Iraq — McCain says we broke it, we’ve got to fix it; Obama would just let everything we’ve accomplished there go up in smoke (or at least that’s what he says when you ask him on Tuesdays).

    10.5) Iraq — McCain sees it as a theater in the larger war on terror; so does bin Laden. Obama sees it as a distraction from Afghanistan — that strategically important third world country in Asia — rather than as a key part of stabilizing the Middle East.

    11) Environment — McCain, while leaning green, is more moderate in his proposals; Obama would slash and burn our economy — except burning creates smoke and that causes global warming.

  • Paul


    to answer your points:

    1) impossible while we’re involved in two wars. Keynsian spending is an inevitability. If Obama wants to get us out Iraq, that would save us how much per year?

    1a) taxes will have to be raised just to pay off the enormous debt we’ve incurred during the Bush presidency. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blind.

    2) You don’t know that until he gets into office. It’s all about his advisors. Let’s keep Carter off the table. Even every liberal I know doesn’t have much good to say about him.

    3) If Obama’s smart, he’ll bring in many of the people from the Clinton regime, and the 90’s were a time of economic stability, like it or not. There’s no arguing that.

    4) Germany’s system is the model we should be looking to for “socialized medicine.” It’s more like how the states in the US regulate utilities. Insurers have to be non-profit, have to take anyone regardless of health, and have to pay out for necessary medical expenses. Not to mention, unlike in the US where it can be a bear to get insurance companies to cover things like physicals, the german model realizes that one heap of prevention is better than two heaps of cure.

    4a) fun fact for you to do a little research on: do you realize how much American businesses pay out in benefits? It increases the cost of our automobiles by double digit percentages. I’d assume that the same applies to most of our white collar and unionized businesses as well.

    5) A volunteer army is great until a president gets us into a pointless and mismanaged war that plunges enlistment rates into the toilet. I’m pretty sure that the majority of people who don’t believe in a draft are the people who are afraid to be drafted. Sorry.

    6) The only reason Obama talks about getting welfare people working is because it’s the right thing to do. Yes, I know that there’s the contingent of urban democrats that don’t want to see people get off of welfare because that’s practically a guaranteed voting bloc for them. But, I’ve got to imagine that the guy with his heart in the right place is the guy who has seen the devastation of poverty, as opposed to the son of the admiral who voted against making Martin Luther King’s birthday a federal holiday.

    7)please. France didn’t want us going to war with Iraq because they could see the problems with the idea of toppling an arab government before we went in. Remember, they’re what, 100 miles from North Africa? They’ve been dealing with arabs for the past 300 years (like, well, my relatives), and they knew far better than a cowboy and a bunch of chickenhawks how to deal with the situation.

    8 ) uhh, enough of the activist judges talk. Any judge that would go out of their way to obliterate stare decisis is an activist judge. As would any judge be that wouldn’t allow two people to enter into a legally binding contract because of what Alber Mohler has to say about it.

    9) Obama wouldn’t be able to do any of that. All of that would have to come through congress, and there are enough yellow dog democrats and republicans out there to keep many of those laws in place. Think realistically here, boy.

    10) Both candidates have said at this point that we must keep a force there. Both candidates have also got to understand that pulling out at this point, as much as it’d be a nice option, is not the best one. Politics in practice is a lot different than politics in theory.

    10.5) Yeah, now that we’ve invaded and created lawlessness! And that gets right back to the above point: now that we made a spectacular mess out of the middle east, now we HAVE to do our best to fix it, while still trying to protect Israel.

    11) I highly doubt it. I doubt that Obama would underestimate the number of jobs at stake. If Obama was smart, he’d be putting tons of money into R&D grants and tax breaks for companies putting forth the energy to come up with better means of, umm, energy.

    JNG: you forgot to mention me in that awesome post post.

  • Mark Gibson


    1) Since the Bush tax cuts, there have been record tax revenues. In the long run raising taxes only lower tax revenues because of less economic growth and less foreign investment. The Republicans pushed through a capital gains tax cut during the Clinton years that resulted in a lot of the increased tax revenues.

    2) Bush has already attacked targets in Pakistan. I know that is what Obama meant to say when he made his ivade Pakistan gaffe. The problem is that it is already being done.

    3) How are the Clinton people going to get oil back to $10 per gallon?

    4) We have the best medicine in the world. The increased costs have been because of the government, not insurance companies.

    4a) Which political party supports the unions that are increasing the prices of automobiles by an average of $1500?

    5) Then why are the armed services meeting their recruiting quotas? www. How are we going to pay for a 10 million man military?

    6) The GOP gets credit for pushing through welfare reform in the 90s. I’m not sure what McCain’s vote on a federal holiday has to do with getting people off of welfare.

    7) France didn’t want us invading Iraq because they had an economic interest in keeping Saddam in power. Just see the corruption within the UN Oil-for-Food program.

    8) Activist judges gave us Roe v. Wade. I don’t want judges that are trying to find things in the Constitution that aren’t there.

    10)If the war in Iraq hasn’t been effective, then why is terrorism down worldwide? The Arabs no longer trust terrorist groups because of the brutality they have shown in Iraq.

    11)Oil companies are already investing heavily in R&D. The lack of oil supplies is the problem. We have plenty of oil, it is the environmentalist preventing us from drilling for it.

  • Paul


    1) I’ve heard this before, but no one has ever been able to provide proof. Please be the first, and please make sure that said proof doesn’t come from Fox, World Net Daily, National Review or Little Green Footballs. The only conservative source whose credibility can be guaranteed is the WSJ, and I’ve never read that there.

    2) good! let’s keep it up!

    3) they may not get oil back to $10/barrel (not gallon), but they might offer tax incentives to get all three american car companies to utilize their own hybrid technology, non-oil vehicles (kudos to GM for the Volt, let’s see if they bring it to market…) or hydrogen power (BMW and Honda are already road testing them) There are too many Republican oil men out there for me to think that they’d okay those options.

    4) source? I have too many people related to me that work in medicine that would laugh you off your soapbox on that one. The WHO listed us just ahead of Cuba. Most of the europeans that I’ve ever talked to (save the ones from France and England) are really happy with their countries’ health care (Switzerland and a few others utilize models based off of the German system). Not to mention, I’ll believe you when you can show me a single insurance provider that’ll cover physicals without being forced into it. THAT, right there, is the difference between the German model and the American model. And again, prevention is ALWAYS better than cure. That Americans are too dumb to realize that just proves the vast stupidity of the majority of our citizenry.

    5) Dude, I’m voting green party. Don’t blame me for bad actions on the part of unions that I don’t belong to.

    6) Clinton gets props for signing the thing. It wouldn’t have withstood a veto. This was a joint effort. Don’t forget it.

    7) Agreed. But, when it comes to matters of France and the arabs, trust me, I know more than you on this subject. There’s more there than Fox News wants you to know.

    8 ) Activist judges also gave us CONSERVATIVE justices voting for eminent domain. And it was activist judges that wiped out winnings in the case against Exxon re: Valdez. There’s nothing in precedent stating that punitive damages shouldn’t be awarded in a case where a company’s mistake destroyed an entire city.

    9) Tell that to residents in Israel.

    10) R&D in other energy sources by oil companies is kinda like Phillip Morris’ stop smoking campaigns.

  • Mark Gibson


    I’m sorry this took so long. If I had your email, I would create you a spreadsheet. You’re going to have to copy and paste links otherwise this probably won’t go through.

    1)Here is a link to tax revenues by year since 1934. www.

    Here is a link to historical top tax rates www.

    Link to CPI calculator (it need an http infront of it)

    JFK made the first significant individual tax cut when he took office. The highest rate was lowered from 91% to 70%. The 70% rate went into effect in 1964. In 1963, individual revenues were $47.6 billion. The following amount are adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index:

    1964 – 48.7 B
    1965 – 48.8 B
    1966 – 55.4 B
    1967 – 61.5 B

    In 1981, the top rate was 69.13%. 1982-1986 was 50% and 1987 – 1989 was 28%. Revenues in 1981 were $285.9 billion. I adjusted the numbers back to 1981 dollars. Keep in mind there was a recession in 1982.

    1982 – 280.42
    1983 – 263.66
    1984 – 261.06
    1985 – 282.58
    1986 – 280.45
    1987 – 314.15
    1988 – 308.28
    1989 – 326.73

    In 1990, the top marginal rate for individuals was increased to 31%. I adjusted numbers back to 1989 real dollars. 1989 revenues were $445.7 billion. There was also a recession in this time period.

    1990 – 442.0
    1991 – 425.9
    1992 – 420.7

    In 1993, Bill Clinton took office with the beginning of a booming economy. The top marginal rate increased to 39.6%. 1992 revenues were $476 billion. Numbers are adjusted back to 1992.

    1993 – 494.89
    1994 – 514.15
    1995 – 543.34
    1996 – 586.95
    1997 – 644.68
    1998 – 713.71
    1999 – 740.66
    2000 – 818.09

    Note: Capital gains revenue is included in these numbers. The capital gains rate from 1987-1996 was 28%. The rate from 1997-2000 was 20%. On average, the percentage of tax revenue from 1987-1996 was 7.5% peaking at 11% in 1987. From 1997-2000 the average was 10.75% peaking at 12% in 2000. www. Also, look at the percentage that came from stock sales during the different periods.

    Bush’s tax revenues lagged behind Clintons until recently. 2000 individual tax receipts totaled $1,004.1 billion. The 2007 rate was 35% and the revenues (adjusted to 2000 numbers)were $966.3 billion. If you adjust them back to 2001 ($994.3 in revenue), 2007 revenues are $993.8 billion.

    Bush has made up ground with corporate tax receipts. The rates were the same (except for certain industries) but Bush allowed faster depreciation schedules. Corporate tax revenues in 2000 and 2007 were $207.3 billion and $370.2 billion, respectively. 2007 adjusted to 2000 real dollars is $307.46 billion.

    Hopefully this is suffice. You can play around with the numbers and let me know your findings.
    I think we can agree that the problem isn’t the tax revenues but the spending.

  • Mark Gibson

    I left out a WSJ article about our individual tax rates under Bush. I has a link to the WSJ article http://

    3) I meant to say barrel instead of gallon (per gallon would suck). They are already investing in the hybrid technology. Look at the new Tahoes. They’ll do it on their own in order to make a profit.

    4) I don’t care about a survey done by WHO. Most people over there probably like it because they think it is free. Why do Europeans come here when they need major surgeries done? The problems with our healtcare system is because of government intervention. Just look up what Ron Paul has to say on the subject.

    5) Not meaning to link you in with the unions, but it is true.

    6) I’ll give Clinton props for signing it. But it would have never happened without the GOP.

    7) I fail to see how that has anything to do with invading an Arab country.

    8 ) I’m assuming that you are talking about Kelo v. City of New London. It was a 5-4 decision. All of the conservative judges were in the minority.

    9) Israel would do fine combating terrorism if we would leave them alone when they take the gloves off.

    10)One example: http://

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.