Two people discussing the election. Each voted for a different candidate.

The person who voted for McCain is older and listed a host of issues. The person who voted for Obama keeps repeating that Barack is such a good speaker.

I think I am gonna cry

I want to start off this morning by acknowledging Barack Obama’s moment in history. His victory is not to be demeaned or degraded. America spoke clearly and it said it wanted change and was not happy with its current economic situation.

It is okay to be discouraged, frustrated and even scared a little given President Elect Obama’s past legislative history and Constitutional beliefs.

The election was closer than believed and there is no mandate for a radical shift to the left. Voters agreed with McCain on every issue except for the economy and were burned out on President Bush.

Obama’s people know this and if they care and want to stay in power for any length of time will be forced to legislate more toward the middle than what members of his base want to believe.

Similarly, I refuse to follow the Democrat model of defeat. I refuse to wish America ill and pray for bad economy and hope for mounting casualties in our confrontations abroad. To do so, from my perspective, would be twisted. I love America and want to see her succeed. 

We need to honor the position which Obama is elected to. For those of us who are Christians, we must follow God’s word and subject our selves to lawfully unto the government. God expects us to obey the law and pay taxes, regardless of their nature or fairness.

God does not mean for us to necessarily be silent, though. As Noel Smith spoke in 1966 (I would ask people to reread the sermon)- we should vote, talk and write. We must not roll over and play dead and stamp legislation which embodies evil.

Today, Like Erick Erickson posted today at Redstate.com, time is now that we should rest and try to regroup.

Well, here we are at the local GOP victory party in Springfield, MO.

I should mention I am here with local bloggers Jason Wert and Joe Albers. Further commentary will come from “red leader” and other friends I have in Washington.

At this point, McCain is winning what he should with a few other states too close to call.

6:58: “red leader” says its closer than expected.

7:24: McConnell projected to be safe, but Dole loses. Not good.

Bill Krystol on Fox News notes the severity of the situation - GOP hasnt lost seats in the senate consecutively. Juan Williams notes the public holds the GOP responsible for bad news, regardless of who is responsible. Notes McConnell will be forced to work with Democrats.

Of course I find that interesting given Democrat tactics over the past eight years.

Wert says AP is calling the governor’s office for Nixon.

Networks are calling PA for Obama, Fox is not because there is NO AVAILABLE DATA to confirm. This is very important since there is a wide margin of error from the exit polls and what has returned from other places.

7:34: Fox News calls PA for Obama. Sigh. McCain gets Arkansas.

7:45: “red leader” checks in. Dems wont get 60, McCain lost. Dems wont over get 57.

8:00: Still cant call the election for Obama. Take that Dave.

8:30: Ohio called for Obama. Not good, “red leader” is probably right about McCain being toast. At this point we are talking about limiting power. God help us.

8:46: Talked to Bob Dixon and Erick Burrlison. No reax from Burrlison. Dixon says its too early to say because he doesnt know which districts are in. If its from the center part of Springfield, then the results are expected.

9:05 CBS news starts its coronation of Obama.

9:45 Virginia goes Obama. Popular is close, but Obama looks to prevail.

10:05: We hear in the back ABC News is calling the election for Obama. I know its a captain obvious moment, but still its a point of frustration.

At this point my hope is focused on Missouri going for John McCain and being a thorn in the side of Claire McCaskill. Though if Greene county is any indication, Obama might steal Missouri by the smallest amounts.

10:37: McCain concedes. I chat with Roy Blunt (will be posted later). Several people here cry at McCain’s loss. I try to note specifics about picking up the pieces and offer encouragement.

The good news at this point? The 7th is still as solid Republican as ever.

At this point, we are gonna need every bit to hold on for dear life for our rights.

12:04: I am safely home. Missouri still hasnt gone to either candidate. I am still clinging for hope of a McCain victory which would get a certain Junior Senator’s undergarments in a wad (hopefully).

The election was a lot closer than people thought. Litterally one to two percent here and there and McCain would be president. That is not a joke.

There are lots of people out there with fear of what might be wrought by an Obama administration. I share elements of that concern, but I also hold out hope that Obama will be forced to govern from the center. In fact exit polls showed that Americans sided with John McCain on pretty much every issue except the economy.

Americans are burned out on Bush and the war in Iraq and elected to go another direction. Whether they understand the implications of that decision is debatable.

With that said, I refuse to embrace the same hate filled determination which brought Democrats to their victory tonight.

I love this country and refuse to seek its defeat in the world and wish economic ruin.

On the contrary. I pray that by some act of God Obama will be forced to govern from the middle. After all, isnt it the positive results which matter and not whom is at the control switches in Washington.

Dont get me wrong, I am honest to God scared for our nation and what might happen to our personal liberties and freedoms in the coming months and years. I say that given Obama’s past and how he voted, not just because of some campaign slogan.

However things can change and God is still has a say in this world whether or not men like it. I believe that while we are responsible for this vote as a country, there are plenty of people who care enough and can get down on their hands and knees to ensure we stay on the right path.

with that said, Im headed to bed. I will post interviews from the party last night.

Remember folks, lets get some sleep, clear our heads and start afresh tomorrow.

• The long lines of voters litterally bring tears to my eyes. Regardless of who they vote for, democracy in action is awesome. Thank God for that ability. I pray that we will continue to hold that right for future generations.
• Sarah Palin is cleared of any wrong doing in firing of subordinate by the state personnel board. It should be noted the earlier report which found Palin was cleared in firing former Commissioner Monegan, but violated state ethics, was chaired and investigated by Senator Obama activists who promised an “October suprise.” It might be a day late and a dollar short, but at least she was vindicated on the matter.
• Media members are already trying to call the election for Obama. Anyone else find it funny that if a race is “too close to call” then it must be bad news for McCain? I guess it should be expected coming from where it is.
• Exit polls are rigged. This isnt a joke. They are using completely untested models due to the expectedly high voter turn out models. Those base models gave Democrats a five to seven point lead in 2006. Oddly enough those races ended with the Democrat winning with less than one percent.
• How will people really vote? Will the media’s precoronation of Obama cause apathy in many Republican districts?
• Who’s vision of government will be selected? That of our forefathers who believed in limiting government and independence from the state, or one which reflects a larger government roll with socialist and Marxist underpinnings as  pushed by the Frenchman Robespierre in the late 1700s and Karl Marx in the early twentieth century (note - Robespierre had a different belief than Marx, but the common ground is that government should take an active role in persuing social “injustice” through economic and other methods).
• Absolutely disgusting advertisement ran in California which thrashes Mormons, and indirectly every other religion in this nation. People need to condemn this advertisement immediately, or others like it will spread. Why is that important? Ask your self how important you view religious freedom and therein lies the answer. (h/t NRO)
• In frank moment, Senator Schumer of New York equates political free speech to pornography. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what many of us fear and it seems to be coming to fruition. This means freedom of political speech is now on the endangered species list. I dont know if people understand this or its implications. The fact that Schumer is being so bold about the matter is telling.
• Fox News reports (and confirms with video) a pair of Black Panther members are outside an Pennsylvania voting station. One armed with a night stick. (video of a confrontation with a citizen here)
• Just had a get out the vote volunteer stop by the house.. again late, but I guess better than never.
• Man admits he voted twice in Philadelphia
• One of my inside guys I will hence name “Red Leader” says he hasnt heard anything to this point, only of a concern that McCain will win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote. I’ve heard the same weeks ago - so no shocker.
• Congressional newspaper “The Hill” discusses Schumer’s comments on the Fairness Doctrine and his support for removal of worker’s right to secret ballot - saying that there “has to be some counter” to the leverage businesses have.
• “Red Leader” checks in and says that Republicans should hold KY, MN and GA senate spots but Dole is gone. Democrats might very well get the 58 they hoped. Talk about Depressing
• 5:27 CST - “Red Leader” emails me this - “McCain is toast.” With that said, Mark Steyn at NRO Corner calls up a bit of history which seems a tad familiar.

A couple weeks ago as I sat in my church’s video control room during the singing part of the service I picked up a copy of the November issue of the Baptist Bible Tribune, the magazine for the Baptist Bible Fellowship International, as its cover drew my attention.

On its cover were the words “O give thanks unto the Lord” with a qoute from John Quincy Adams which noted the “indissoluble bond” with the principles of civil government and Christianity.

Intrigued I sought to scour the inside for what the editor, Keith Basham, Sr., sought to publish. Inside, to my suprise was an republished sermon from founding editor Noel Smith given in 1966 on obligations of being citizen and Christian. It was astounding so after service I spoke with Mr. Bassham and agreed to allow me to republish the sermon here, on this blog.

As you read the article below, I would hope that it would make people think. Its truths are timeless and speaks across the decades.

For reference purposes people should know that the sermon below is a reprint from the November edition of the Baptist Bible Tribune. The sermon its self was preached by Tribune founding editor Noel Smith (1950-1974) at the 1966 Fundamental Baptist Congress of North America. The sermon was published in The Biblical Faith of Baptist: Book II, Regular Baptist Press, 1966.

—

The Christian and Citizenship
Noel Smith

Obviously, the first consideration is the New Testa­ment’s teaching on the Christian’s attitude toward civil govern­ment. We find this teaching, for one place, in the first eight verses of the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Romans:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the or­dinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for lie beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

“Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

“For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s minis­ters, attending continually upon this very thing.

“Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”

I

The Apostle Paul, who was a Roman citizen, is saying there that the institution of civil government was established by God, and that this institution is to be recognized and in every prac­tical way respected, not only by Christians but by “every soul.”

I believe the Greek authorities substantially agree on the interpretation of these passages. A. T. Robertson says: “Paul is not arguing for the divine right of kings or for any special form of government, but for government and order. Nor does he oppose here revolution for a change of government, but he does oppose all lawlessness and disorder.”

Resisting the “power” of government means to take a “stand” against the institution of government. It means to “line up” against the institutions of government. It means to rebel against the institutions of government.

Of course there are bad governments. There are bad families. But this does not negate the Divine origin of the institutions of the government and the family. Nor does it minimize the abso­lute necessity of these two basic institutions.

Paul is not saying that citizens, Christian or non-Christian, should submit to any degree of governmental tyranny. On the contrary, the New Testament clearly teaches that when Caesar demands disobedience to God, Caesar is to be resisted — even unto death. “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19f).

A multitude of Christians perished in that Graeco-Roman world because they would not obey the edicts of an anti-God government. When Caesar demands absolute obedience, even that of worship, Caesar is demanding that which belongs to God, and to God alone. God is not the author of that kind of govern­ment because God’s left hand is not at war with His right hand.

But on the other hand, the idea of authority and supremacy is implied in the institution of government. Government supposes an authority higher than the governed. Law is superior to the subject of law (to put it as W. G. T. Shedd puts it). It is on this point that many of us, Christians as well as non-Christians, are pretty sensitive.

We are to recognize and to respect in every practical way that civil government is a Divine institution — just as the family and the New Testament church are Divine institutions. We are to oppose, in every lawful and practical way, the antithesis of civil government — nihilism and anarchy.

Lord Chief Justice Camden was right more than two hundred years ago when he said: “Tyranny, bad as it is, is better than anarchy; and the worst of governments is more tolerable than no government at all.” As Macaulay said: “Government exists for the purpose of keeping the peace, for the purpose of com­pelling us to settle our disputes by arbitration instead of settling them by blows, for the purpose of compelling us to supply our wants by industry instead of supplying them by rapine.” Martin Luther in his blunt way said substantially the same thing: “Government is a sign of the Divine grace, of the mercy of God, who has no pleasure in murdering, killing, and strangling. If God left all things to go the way they would … without good government, we should quickly dispatch one another out of this world.”

Without government there can be no law. Without law there can be no progress. The barbarians found this out. When they were content to remain huddled around their camp fires in the forests, their tribal customs and laws were adequate. But when they got a taste of civilization and progress and wanted to par­ticipate in commerce and trade, they had to adopt the legal concepts of Rome.

II

I now come to a practical consideration and application of the New Testament’s teaching on Christian citizenship. I have no patience with mere abstractions and generalities. I am congenitally prejudiced against people who pick their teeth in pub­lic and substitute dialogue for proclamation. Ideas that are not translated into the concrete are worthless.

This is a North American Baptist Congress, not an American congress. But I believe I can be more direct and pointed and prac­tical if I confine this discussion to Christian citizenship in my own country — the United States. What I say about Christian citizenship in my own country will be basically applicable to Christian citizenship in Canada.

To begin with, I want to make one or two things absolutely clear. Had I been a citizen of the Roman Empire, I would have done as the majority of the Christians did — made the best of it I could. My supreme objective would have been that of ad­vancing the cause of Christ and making it as easy for my fellow Christians as I could.

And today, if I were a missionary in a foreign country I would consider myself a guest in that country. Even though the govern­ment were a Communist government, I would not criticize it and advocate a change. My primary purpose would be that of advancing the cause of Christ and making it as easy for my fellow Christians as I could.

But I am not living in the Roman Empire. I am not a foreigner in a foreign land. I am a born citizen of the United States. I live under a Constitution which says, in Article XIV, Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As a citizen of the United States, the President doesn’t have a single privilege that I don’t have. The Chief Justice doesn’t have a single privilege that I don’t have. No politician has a single privilege that I don’t have. I pay taxes. I have to live under the laws the politicians make. And for me, this means that I am going to exercise my constitutional and moral privi­leges as a citizen of the United States. I have a contempt for this flabby attitude that in this country a Christian shouldn’t do anything but pay and vote and keep his mouth shut. I am going to pay, I am going to vote, I am going to obey the laws — and I am going to talk and write and act. The Apostle Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship, and he exercised his rights under that citizenship. Listen to him there at Philippi, talking loud enough for everybody to hear him:

“They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out” (Acts 16:37).

He is saying there: You are not going to treat us as though we were a couple of bums preaching a crackpot religion. I am clothed in the dignity of Roman citizenship. I was born a Roman citizen, which is more than most of the authorities here can say. You have publicly beaten us and humiliated us and imprisoned us, and now you are going to publicly admit that you violated all our rights, and you are going to publicly apologize for doing it.

That’s not the talk of a lot of the flabby, insipid, sentimental religion we have today. That’s the talk of self-respecting manhood.

But about all we talk about — if we talk about it at all — are the privileges of Christian citizenship. If you look up citizenship in the Christian reference works, in nine cases out of ten you will find the article confining itself to the privileges of Christians under various forms of government.

We say nothing about the obligations of Christian citizenship. It’s all negative, nothing positive. We have divorced love from truth, and we have divorced privilege from obligation.

As a Christian citizen of the United States I not only have privileges, I have obligations. I have the obligation to take as active and intelligent and practical a part in government as any other citizen. I have the obligation, constitutional and moral, to get “mixed up” in politics. I have the obligation to get out where there is cursing and drinking and gambling and do my duty as a citizen. Seventy-five percent of the corruption in this country today is due to the practical indifference of lazy, cowardly, flabby, “built-up” saints who don’t want to risk soiling their soft white hands by getting into politics and taking a prac­tical stand for what is decent and right. Half of them don’t even vote. They say they are waiting for the Lord to come and “clean up the mess.” They conveniently forget that the Lord taught that they should be busy while He was away, and when He came. And if we shouldn’t be busy about our citizenship, upon which depends the very foundation of civilization and the future of our children and grandchildren, what should we be busy about?

III

Christian citizenship is involved in the basic national issue confronting us today. What is that issue? It is what Clinton Ros­siter says is the message of The Feberalist the greatest work in political science ever conceived and written by Americans. That issue is this:

Can there be any happiness without liberty, any liberty without self-government, any self-government without constitution­alism, any constitutionalism without morality, and any of these without stability and order?

The Romans were confronted with this basic issue more than 2,000 years ago. When confronted with it one of the greatest of them, Cato the Younger, committed suicide. Another one, Brutus, committed murder.

Suicide and murder are not much of a remedy for Caesarism. Neither are hysteria, fear, cowardice, and hate. This issue must be faced, debated, and resolved by men and women of good will, intelligence, reason, intellectual capacity and integrity, a genuine love for their country, and a deep concern for the kind of America their children and grandchildren are to grow up in.

And on this basic and decisive issue, if Christian citizens do not exercise in every practical way their privileges and obli­gations of citizenship, then they should be decent enough to keep their mouths shut about the religious, moral, and political depravity and degeneracy that surrounds them.

Christian citizens should be both thinkers and doers. This country was founded and constitutionally established by men who were both thinkers and doers. To think without doing is worthless, and to act without first thinking is to make the con­dition worse.

Christians have a habit of going from one extreme to another in exercising their privileges and obligations of citizenship. Either they want the country reformed from top to bottom in a week, or they want to leave the whole mess for the Lord “to clean up when He comes.”

Civil government is not that simple. In the first place, civil government was not established by God for Christians exclu­sively. God loves men and women who are not Christians. God loves heathens. He loves pagans. God established civil govern­ment in the interest of the human race.

Therefore Christians should not take the position that we should have none but a Christian government. I wouldn’t want to live under a government by preachers. In the first place, half of them would hang the other half before sundown — for the glory of God. And I suspect I would be on the hanging end. The best Christian on earth may know nothing about the phi­losophy of civil government. In government Christians have failed about as often as non-Christians.

Benjamin Franklin wasn’t a Christian. Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Christian. Willam Howard Taft was a Unitarian. Mr. Taft wasn’t one of our great Presidents. William Jennings Bryan said that he went into office by a majority and went out with universal consent. But Mr. Taft was an able Secretary of War, a wise administrator, and he was one of the great Chief Justices.

William Howard Taft was an American. He believed in and loved his country. He was a man of principle. He believed that the alternative to constitutionalism was exactly what we have today — anarchy.

I will vote for such men of character and patriotism, whether they are Christians or not.

And why? Because many professing Christians are not good Americans. And a good American is not necessarily a Christian — as I wish he were. You can be a devout Christian and know nothing about law and medicine and government.

I am saying that under the governments of the United States and Canada, Christian citizens have the constitutional privilege to participate in civil government in every practical way. I am saying that they not only have the constitutional privilege, they have the constitutional and moral obligation to do so.

But I am saying, at the same time, that Christians have the obligation to be intelligent participants. They have the obliga­tion to be versed in the philosophy of civil government. They have the obligation to understand and appreciate the distinction between civil government and Christianity.

But again, such knowledge and intelligence is completely worthless unless the Christian citizen gets into the main stream of the life of his country and plays a practical part in govern­ment. This means, again, that the Christian citizen has got to get out in the mud and dirt, in an atmosphere of cursing and gambling and drunkenness, and do battle with the forces that are destroying the very foundations of the institution of civil government. I don’t mind smelling like the Devil’s crowd if I get the smell by fighting them. I had rather have that smell on me than the smell of a theological beauty shop. 

�

I am going to post two part series over the next day or so regarding our as citizens in this great nation of ours, and why it matters.

While it is true that God is sovereign and ultimately in control - he does give us choices with consequences, just as he did Isreal.

In that vein I would like to present an article written by John Revell which discusses how God holds us accountable for who we elect to office, and what is acceptable behavior and what we should look for in our public servants. This goes beyond the traditional, moral issues which should weight on our hearts heavily.

Isaiah revealed their wickedness in 1:17, where he declared that the nation had failed to “seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” Isaiah continued the indictment in verse 23, where he proclaimed: “Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them.”This alarming indictment was because of Judah’s civil sin. The national leadership had failed miserably in key areas of civil responsibility: justice, deliverance from oppression and protection for the helpless. They had also allowed their rulings and policies to be influenced by bribes and “gifts.” God explicitly identified this failure as “evil” in Isaiah 1:16, and equated these civil sins with the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah in 1:10.

This applies to both parties.

Democrats seeking to remove the right of secret ballot of workers in an effort to force increased unionization and therefore pad their coffers is one example. Republicans taking money from “big business” lobbyist is a form of another.

Lets be clear though, seeking justice and defending the cause of the fatherless and case of the widow is not adhearing to Marxist belief in wealth redistribution and taxing everyone into poverty to empower the government. It is a claim of protecting the weak and re-enforces the notion that everyone should be equal under the law with no exception.

The larger point Revell makes, though, is that God ultimately holds us accountable for electing bad (immoral) leadership.

In Isaiah’s day, God not only held the leaders accountable for their civil immorality, He held the people accountable for their actions as well.The principle we draw from this passage is this: When the citizens have a voice in the selection and direction of their civil leaders, God holds both the leaders and the citizens accountable for the civil sins of their government.It was true of Judah, but is it fair to suggest that God applies this standard to us today? Consider the following:

The citizens of the United States elect the leaders of our nation — leaders who set civil and social policies for our nation, including policies on moral issues such as abortion, “gay marriage,” euthanasia, assisted suicide, and more. The decisions of these leaders directly impact the moral direction of our nation. Therefore, the people’s vote (or failure to vote) ultimately determines our nation’s civil, social and moral direction.

Furthermore, the president is responsible for appointing members of the federal judiciary. These judges interpret laws and make legal decisions that affect the entire nation. Therefore, the citizen’s role in each election directly impacts every level of government.

Because the American system is a representative form of government, there is an obvious relationship between an elected leader’s actions and the citizens who elected the leader — or who allowed his election by not voting.

It logically follows that God holds the citizens accountable for immoral governmental policies.

The truth is that God is not to be put aside as we enter the voting booth. As will all decisions in our lives, we should seek out what is right as defined in the Bible, not by man. To ingore those standards which God himself put into place is asking for trouble.

To believe that its okay if America elects leaders from either party who believe and entrench our society in immoral behavior while we Christians sit on our hands is irresponsible. The Bible is clear, dont expect for things to be “okay.”

God has established universal standards of justice that He expects all nations to uphold and enforce — and the United States is not exempt from these standards. If our government refuses to uphold and enforce them, we shouldn’t be surprised at the judgment that is certain to follow. But even more sobering is the reality that when the citizens choose their leaders, He holds the citizens corporately accountable for the actions of their leaders.Our vote — or failure to vote — has a direct bearing on not only the election, but on how the Lord will deal with our land. If we fail to vote for candidates that most closely reflect God’s standards — or if we fail to vote — we should not expect to escape the consequences.

As reported by many in the blogsphere yesterday, an interview with Senator Obama was highlighted which he states that he wanted to force companies operating and building coal power plants (which make up the vast majority of our infrastructure) into bankruptcy through cap and trade.

The discussion is continued in which the Junior Senator from Illinois discusses how those companies would pass those costs along to customers, causing energy rates to sky rocket.

This might seem as a shock to many, but one must remember when Senator Obama said earlier this year he wasnt upset because gas prices were high, just that it happened so fast.

Voters need to understand this is how the Democrat leadership, and Senator Obama, fundamentally believe we should address the environment.

Economy? What economy? Who cares. Seriously.

If there was a concern, then we would see proposals like Senator McCain’s or T Boone Pickens which embraces all solutions and develops a bridging techonology which would help with in the transition period. Instead, what we might very well get is a harsh policy which would collapse our infrastructure and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

This is the same reason why few countries adopted the now infamous Kyoto Protocol and fewer stuck to the commitments. In short, policies like what Senator Obama and Democrats propose is more about wealth redistribution and increasing tax revenues than addressing environmental issues with care.

As I tab around the various local blogs regarding tonight’s visit to Springfield, MO by Barack Obama one thing that keeps popping up at KY3 is the size of the crowd. Why?

Im not going to pull any punches when I say that I believe Catanese is in the tank for Obama and carrying his water. With that said, why is the crowd size being pushed?

Are we seeing the Obama campaign create an astroturf campaign in an effort discourage local GOP turn out like the national scene? Or is it meant to simply sway undecided voters.

Another thing I find odd is a lot google searches hitting this site for Obama “Springfield, MO” from places outside of Missouri and in the St. Louis and Kansas City region.

Maybe its nothing, but something does not seem right.

Nothing on substance, certainly no tough questions will be asked by local media (particularly Catanese), but what is this focus on crowd size?

Update: Chad Livengood reports with 75 minutes left to go only the home side grandstands are full and the inner ring is in the process of filling up with an over flow area which goes from the 30 yard line to the end zone still held in reserve.

If this holds up, this could be (and should be) embarassing to the Obama campaign. Of course I doubt it will be reported as such.

For those who dont go to political rallies, about an hour to two hours out the place is usually filled completely and in the process of getting fired up. hrm.

Again though, why the focus on crowd size. People shouldn’t be considering whether or not to vote for someone based on how many people go to see them.

Update 2: Chad Livengood posts an interesting quote from Senator McCaskill:

“I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking this crowd is bigger than Bass Pro Shops’ parking lot,” said McCaskill, referring to the estimated 15,000 people who showed up eight days ago to see Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin speak in Springfield.

Hm. I wonder if some people (not Livengood, other journalist who are known to give McCaskill a rather kind ear) got a few talking points ahead of time on what to write about. Could it be the Obama’s spreading of the wealth policies? and how small businesses will get taxed to death? Nope, crowd size.

Update 3: My gut, I think, is correct. I found this article in the New York Times marked yesterday announcing how Barack Obama was going to campaign in “deep Republican” areas and quotes Senator McCaskill a number of times and directly references Barack’s visit tonight.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I believe there has been an emphasis in how many people will be showing up tonight. It seems the entire rally was designed to fit Axelrod’s astroturfing philosophies.

Be looking for Obama’s visit here to attract further national attention and for journalist who are in the tank for Obama to push the crowd angle (both degrade the number who showed for Palin and pump up the number for Obama.

It could also be, to keep Missouri from humiliating McCaskill, whom is one of Obama’s closest compatriots.

Livengood is reporting that Springfield Public School officials are reporting the crowd to be at 35-40,000. Is that accurate? Can they really fit that many people into that small a field? That would be on the same level of filling up Busch Stadium in St. Louis. Something does not seem right, but unless someone can challenge it, it will be the talking points for the weekend.

The crowd would be the largest I can remember and possibly ever in Southwest Missouri political event.

I dont know about anyone else, but this clip from Obama completely creeps me out. What does he mean by this? Will they be armed or will it replace the National Guard or in competition with it in place of something controlled by Washington instead of each state?

Or is this “force” focused on NGO work.

Either way, I am creeped out and need some sort of clarification.

(h/t Drudge)

I wanted to comment on a Kraske piece published recently in the Kansas City Start. It is a piece which is vile, disgusting and embodies the type of biased journalism which permeates the “main stream media” during this election cycle.

In the piece, Kraske discusses what would happen if McCain wins instead of Obama. He lists a whole bunch of things which are supposed be bad (like divided government) with little discussion on why those committing the acts would be irresponsible in doing so.

However, Kraske then writes something so irresponsible and reprehensible that I cannot let things go. He says that a McCain win would be inviting “Jim Crow to dinner.”

For those who do not remember or know who Jim Crow was, they were laws established after the civil war to prevent African Americans from voting and participating in society.

To imply that a McCain win would be inviting that mentality back into American culture is both a lie from the pits of hell and disgustingly beyond the pale.

I cannot word strongly enough my repudiation of the thesis of the remark and the thoughts behind it. It reminds me of how a local reporter tried to persuade people to vote for Obama by posting a remark supposedly made by a friend of his who “is a traditional Republican.” Supposedly the friend is voting for Obama simply to tell their child because they felt unable to answer to their children why they didnt vote for the first African-American president.

If the person was really thinking, they would be able to look their child straight in the eye and respond: I voted on by the content of character, not by the color of one man’s skin.

The same is applicable to Kraske’s piece. If Obama is not elected it has nothing to do with his race, and more to do with his radical positions and suppression of basic freedoms which an unchecked Congress would be all to happy to pass.