The special Newsweek edition, which gives an in-depth “behind the scenes” look at the two presidential campaigns, is fascinating. It shows the various incompetencies of the Kerry campaign. It’s not very nice to Teresa, either. Clearly, from the article, the Republican campaign really had its act together. George Bush stumbled a variety of times, particularly in the debates, but he stayed on message, and his highly-organized campaign (credit to Karl Rove) could always pick up the pieces. Plus, the Kerry campaign just didn’t capitalize on some of Bush’s mistakes.

I was sure there would be terrorist incidents, somewhere, on election day. But nothing happened. Praise the Lord!

I’m also pleased that the Democrats didn’t unleash their accumulated lawyers to try to get the results changed. I’m sure they could have at least drawn things out for a while. But Kerry pulled the plug the next morning, and I salute him for doing so. It saved the country a lot of turmoil and divisiveness.

It has been amusing listening to pundits talk about moral values, trying to explain why evangelical Christians voted the way they did. They really don’t understand.

The news shows have been talking a lot about the fact that “moral values” ranked at the top of the reasons why people voted for George Bush. This could lead into a discussion of, “What exactly are moral values?” Because some liberals will argue that they voted against George Bush on the basis of their “moral values,” and they will try to add moral significance to liberal stands. It’s not so difficult to impart morality to environmental concerns, anti-war views, and civil rights concerns. But I can foresee some liberals trying to make a moral view out of a woman’s right to choose abortion, a gay couple’s right to marry and thereby proclaim lifetime fidelity to each other, tolerance for alternative lifestyles, the search for cures for disease through stem-cell research, and other issues.

When you have opposing definitions of “morality,” you must then head into a discussion of moral absolutes. Because if one side claims abortion is wrong and another claims it’s okay, and both craft their views in terms of morality–then something has to give. You must ask, “Is there a moral absolute at play here, which would then veto one or the other view?” And it’s hard to find a basis for moral absolutes apart from the Bible.

So, it might get interesting. It might also get ludicrous, as you have secular (non-religious) commentators debating the meaning of morality and trying to explain why people voted as they did. I caught a glimpse of that last night on one of the channels: some guy was talking about moral values, but it was clear that he didn’t understand it the same way people in the fly-over, red states understand it–people with deep Christian convictions.

The election is tomorrow. Most people I talk to think Bush will squeak by. I don’t have a clue. The polls go back and forth, with several new ones (seemingly) every day. All I know is that somebody’s going to win, and I, with a serious lack of enthusiasm, hope it’s George Bush. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Kerry wins. My gut tells me Kerry will win, but that’s not exactly a scientific evaluation.

I do think Kerry could help our standing in the world‚Äîbecause I think ANYBODY would help it. As long as Bush is President, the world will be polarized against us. That’s the nature of his Presidency, acting as though it doesn’t matter what anybody else thinks. I’m not of that mind. Some people argue, “Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? We don’t need them.” To me, that’s a pretty ignorant attitude. It’s in our best interests–our security interests, and our economic interests–to have friends in the world.

I also think the poor would be better served by Kerry‚Äîbecause I think ANY Democrat will probably be more attuned to the lower classes of society (even if only for purely political, rather than altruistic, reasons). Republican administrations look out for the interests of the wealthy. If the minimum wage is to be raised, or social services extended for the poor, I wouldn’t put any hopes in Republicans doing it. I say that as a life-long Republican. I think the Republican Party’s greatest weakness is its lame social conscience when it comes to the poor–because those people are GREATLY on God’s mind, and they should matter to us.

This is a big issue to me, because I’m convinced that God’s blessing on a country has a lot to do with how that country treats the poor. Throughout Scripture, God is concerned about the poor. I think God is pleased when he sees a government that looks out for the poor and helps raise them up, whether they’re doing it for religious reasons or not.

The Bush administration, much more than most administrations, seems to be in the “bag” of Big Business and the wealthy. And nobody really disputes that. That greatly saddens me. Which is why I’m voting for Bush with great reluctance.

I think Bush is genuine about his faith. I just think his clear preference for the wants of the rich, at the expense of the needs of the poor and working class, is a blindspot in his theology. We all have blindspots. But for the US President, this is a blindspot with serious consequences. By turning his eyes from the poor, Bush may prompt God to withhold blessing from us as a country.

Kerry’s Presidency would be a purely secular Presidency. His words about faith ring totally hollow, almost to a comical extent. For several weeks now, he’s been speaking in churches. The pulpit is not the place to be denouncing those in leadership. The Bible tells us to respect and pray for the persons he has allowed to be in leadership. It’s okay to criticize those in leadership. Just don’t do it in the pulpit during a worship service. Those pastors who allow Kerry to come speak‚Äîthey should know better. But Kerry doesn’t know better. I doubt that he’s even aware of the Bible verses he’s violating.

And while I sympathize with the Democrats when it comes to economic policies affecting the lower classes, that’s just about the only social policy where I agree with them. On most others, the Democrats, I’m afraid, would like to take us down some immoral paths. So I’m voting for Bush, despite my problems with him.