Surprisingly, I found myself watching pretty much the whole two hours of Rick Warren’s interviews with John McCain and Barack Obama on CNN over the weekend.
I’ll admit, I was reluctant. I figured it would be two hours of fire & brimstone Q&A. All religion and no secular questions. But I’ll give Warren credit — he came up with a thoughtful format and a lot of questions that no news anchor ever would have asked the candidates in a debate forum.
Sure, a lot of the answers were predictable, but I found it interesting that Obama actually tried to engage in a thoughtful conversation, while McCain just didn’t have that in him, following his scripted talking points or ignoring the questions all together.
It was an interesting way to take the measure of each man. And for me, the question about 148 million orphans worldwide did it.
I would have thought that should have been a slam dunk for McCain, being a father by adoption and all. But when Warren asked whether McCain would commit to resolve the epidemic of homeless children in the world, in the way that others have looked at HIV/AIDS as an epidemic that needs to be addressed and have acted, he dodged.
He laughed his uncomfortable laugh.
He told us again of the scenario under which he became a reluctant father to his last child, whom his wife brought home from Mother Theresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh.
But he made no commitment. He didn’t even utter anything that sounded like an acknowledgment that millions of children need families ASAP.
As a mother by adoption, I wonder — how does a person have their lives touched by adoption not have it in them to want to find homes for all the children languishing in orphanages around the world? As leader of the free world, you’d have a pretty powerful pulpit from which to advocate for those who can’t do it for themselves. And all I could come up with is, because he’s scared.
Because McCain knows that means possibly going down the road to giving his blessing to same-sex couples adopting children. He did mention the children in the U.S. foster care system who need families, but that’s only a drop in the bucket — about 130,000 children. McCain didn’t even want to touch the issue of the other 147+ million children in countries around the world.
There are untold numbers of children who live in Chinese ‘baby homes.’ There are plenty still waiting who, if they don’t find families, will live their childhoods in those orphanages and when they turn 18, be on their own with no friends, no jobs, no family. Nothing.
McCain is willing to spend billions on a war that should never even have been started, but not make a commitment to finding loving homes for children around the world who are languishing?
That pretty much sums it up for me. I don’t need to know anything else to take the measure of John McCain.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I completely agree.
It shouldn’t be too far out on anyone’s political limb to say that children should not be homeless. What does it say about our world if that is a radical notion?
August 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Great post!
I always love how people who want to inject religion into politics pick and choose which parts of it they want to legislate. Typically, if the matter at hand is about religion and personal choice, i.e. abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., they are all too happy to yammer on and on about how this country was founded on Christianity. They aren’t gay or they’ve never been in a position to consider abortion or they don’t need to smoke pot for cancer relief and they are all too willing to restrict the liberties of others to protect the country’s “Christian” values.
However, then when an issue that was the main canvas of Jesus Christ’s teachings, poverty and caring for others before one cares for themselves, well then that’s a personal choice. Should we feed the poor? Yes. Care for the ill? You betcha. But, only if you want to. It shouldn’t be done through government.
And that’s exactly why John McCain won’t go on the record saying that homeless kids should have a solution provided for them by us, those who can. He knows that a debate moderated by a televangelist only ensures that super conservative people will be tuning in record numbers. Liberal who believe that there should be a total separation of church and state aren’t going to be viewing this because most are pissed that it’s happening in the first damn place. And I’m a Christian.
SO, John McCain knows that these millions of “Christian” viewers were going to applaud in their living rooms as he rambled on about the sanctity of marriage. But, if the words help for homeless kids came out of his mouth, these same “Christian” would pout up like a blowfish because while they think their morality should dictate if strangers can marry, they don’t think others morality should require them to spend one penny extra in taxes. Unless of course that is going toward bombing a Muslim country to the stone age. Then it’s okay.
But if it is going toward building shelter instead of destroying it, count them out.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
there’s this great website that if found that has tons of helpful information to make the everyday topics of a mothers life seem a bit less overwhelming…http://hrbaby.com/
August 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
But he said nothing about it in such a crafty way that I almost thought he “wanted to do something about orphans,” after all he adopted one himself and she’s 17.
Here’s the kicker: if he doesn’t want anyone making under $5 million paying taxes then he CAN’T promise to do anything about orphans or say he’ll provide emergency care funds for foster families because that would . . . wait for it . . . require paying taxes.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
You are right. He could have made a token comment that in the long run means nothing really. I suspect that's what Obama did. Because truthfully, what can he do about orphans in some country that he isn't going to be the president of?
The HIV/AIDS crisis worldwide is a disgrace – I hope someone said so in this Q&A show. That children languish in homes without hope of adoption is too. But doesn't that have more to do with the policies and attitudes in these countries than in U.S. aid?
The children stuck in our own social system are largely victims of programs that foolishly give too many chances to bio-parents at the expense of their children's real needs for home and stability. Did they address that? Probably not.
Dog and pony shows like this are pointless. We don't learn much. McCain isn't a good speaker off the cuff. Obama is charm itself and always knows what and when to say things.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I was really thrown through a loop when you drew the adoption/homosexual conclusion. That was stretching it imo.
I also don’t really understand what you expect the president of the USA to do about children in other countries? They already allow forgein adoption, what more would you expect them to do?
Like he said, there are already thousands of children here in the US that aren’t being taken care of.
I’m all for adoption, seriously considering it myself in the future…but I just didn’t get the criticism of McCain on this issue. (and he has plenty of areas to criticize)
But come on, he has an adopted child, obviously he supports foreign adoption. And when you think about it, what better way to garner more attention and support than for the President to actually have an adopted child? IMO that will create a lot of positive awareness.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Anonymous – the criticism is that John McCain did not answer the question.
The question was something like, “will you make it easier for people to adopt children by providing who are willing to house children with emergency care assistance? There are lots of families who are willing to foster children but, they can’t afford the extra expense and the gov. isn’t helping”
John McCain chose to distract you by saying, “I adopted from India” instead of answering the question or finding a solution to the problem.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
tracee- I didnt hear the exact question or response yet (havent made it that far on the youtube videos of the debate) but are you sure the question was about foster parenting? Because foster parents DO receive monetary funds to help raise the children. I personally know 3 women who foster parent and have talked with them extensively about it.
Is it enough to go to Hawaii on? Probably not. But its enough to put food in the cupboard, clothes in the closet and take them to a movie.
I don’t understand what that has to do with Pundit’s OP anyway, I thought she was referring to forgein adoption (and that that was what the original question to McCain was about)?
Also, I am still confused as to what people expect the US gov’t to do to help US citizens adopt foreignly (as opposed to in the US). Personally I don’t see it as the US gov’t's job (or tax payers) to fund something like that. I also personally know someone who has adopted forgeinly and she raised all the funds herself through charity events.
PS. That question was the only question Obama heard prior to the debate, but since McCain showed up late he didn’t get to hear the question until it was asked. If anything that is the ONE question where it wasn’t balanced, so its hard to really point fingers in that case (IMO). Obama had an hour to consider his answer, McCain had 10 seconds. Not saying that excuses his supposed “non-answer” but it should give you some pause.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
watch the debate and then you’ll know that it wasn’t about foreign adoption – it was about all the orphan American kids.
The pastor made a comment about how people who make a modest living are willing to take these children and give them good homes – but they can’t afford it.
Adoption, whether foreign or domestic, is basically for the wealthy. It costs about $20,000.
It ought to at least be tax deductible.