Personal Attacks, Really?

I'm so tired of hearing about the McCain campaign's personal attacks simply because he is pointing out Barack Obama’s associations with some seedy characters. I thought personal attacks were statements about another which are untrue, unfair, or simply not relevant to the decision making process? Pointing out inconsistencies in candidates' statements is not an attack. For the last time, advertisements rebutting your opponent’s false claims are not negative. Pointing out who your opponent’s close associates are is not a personal attack.

When Obama claims to be tough on terrorism, his cozy relationship with an unrepentant bomber on US soil seems relevant to me. I don’t care if this man was protesting a perceived unjust war or not. When Obama claims undying love for his country, his relationship with a spiritual mentor who blames America for 9/11 and uses god's name and America’s name in vain seems relevant to me. When Obama keeps bashing Bush for our increasing deficit (and he is partially right on this), but then proposes new spending totaling $1 trillion dollars, I want to know about it. When Joe Biden talks about a restaurant he frequents, but it has been closed for 20 years, this speaks to truth of his statements. When Mr. Biden says FDR gave speeches in 1929 on television after the Great Depression and FDR wasn’t president nor television invented yet, I care about it. When Obama says we need to insure 47 million Americans that the heartless Bush administration doesn’t care about, but doesn’t tell you at least 12 million of these are illegal immigrants, this speaks to the substance of his rhetoric.

The McCain campaign is highlighting the character of Barack Obama. Character matters when difficulty arises (and it always does). But, it seems these days the only important thing for most voters is how much money they have or will have. Or, how much money THE OTHER GUY HAS. The Left will say McCain is talking character because they can’t talk about the economy without losing. That is true. You can’t match Barack’s class envy rhetoric when class envy does, in fact, exist. How can you argue with somebody promising free health care for all when everybody wants lower medical costs? How can you argue against the rich paying more taxes when middle and lower class America feels squeezed by high energy and utility costs? How can you argue the Bush administration shouldering the blame for the mortgage mess and declining stock portfolios instead of asking individual taxpayers to shoulder some of the blame for bad decision making? They don’t want to hear it. So, Barack is right, McCain can’t fight on the economy. Barack Obama has the upper hand when it comes to class envy.

Arguing economic facts is a vain pursuit these days because the age of reason is dead. Voters say they want facts, but then call you negative if you recite ones they don’t like. You can tell liberals that decreasing tax rates actually increases government revenue and it doesn’t matter. Send them to the IRS site proving your fact, and they ignore it by shifting the discussion to ‘the deficit’ created by Republicans which has more to do with out of control spending then tax receipts. You can tell liberals the bottom 40% of American taxpayers already don’t pay income tax at all, and it will not matter to them. They will still tell you Republicans are for the rich. You can tell a liberal all day long that Barney Frank and his cronies were warned about the seriousness of Fannie/Freddie’s situation back in 2005 by Republicans and they still blame George Bush.

Character matters. Outlining the other candidate’s positions on issues or rebutting their false claims is not a personal attack. Barack Obama might be promising the moon, but can he deliver? I’m sorry Obama campaign that must have been a personal attack. Please forgive me.

It's Not the Economy, Stupid

This whole election cycle comes down to our economy. Most folks have one eye on the stock market and one hand clenching their wallet. Case in point, much of last night's debate centered on our 'dismal' economy and what each candidate will do to avoid the Great Depression Two. Most of the questions during the first hour were all basically the same, "How are you going to fix my wallet"?

Don't get me wrong, the reasons behind Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac's demise are important, but are they any more important than who the next Supreme Court nominee will be? People defaulting on their mortgage payments is very troubling, but is it as troubling as the imminent legalization of marriage for a lifestyle choice abhorrent to God? Is it more important than approving behavior which has been the downfall of every civilization in history?

People losing jobs is some serious stuff, but is it any more serious then finding out why one of the candidates regularly associates with an unrepentant terrorist? A candidate who pledges to keep us safe from these same terrorists?? BTW, thank you Sean Hannity for talking about this every day for the last year until finally the NY Times brought it up last weekend. Folks defaulting on credit card bills is devastating, but is it more devastating than securing our borders from nuts trying to get in here and kill us all?

Many in our own churches often criticize Christians as being focused exclusively on abortion and homosexuality as campaign issues. I would counter the general public is focused almost exclusively on their wallets and as a campaign issue.

Allow me to elaborate on just one of these important 'other issues.' There is an excellent chance our next leader could permanently alter the balance of power in the Supreme Court for the next thirty years. This same Court just spent the LAST thirty years largely making up law to suit their social engineering goals. The result? Abortion on demand. Prayer taken out of school. Our Judeo-Christian framework torn down every chance they get. Liberal policies are hailed as landmark judgments and progressive. Conservative policies are struck down as judgmental and restrictive. Often times, the victims have more rights than the accused. The Court has long held speech is free as long as this speech agrees with the current liberal think tanks. Clearly, if Mr. Obama is elected and an existing member of the Court steps down, the most liberal nominee possible will be nominated.

We don't have another thirty years to wait. The country will continue to slide morally, ethically, and spiritually. I know, I know, "you can't legislate morality" is often uttered by liberal atheists and liberal Christians alike. My concern is no longer "legislating morality", it is being in such a minority that anyone who doesn't agree with the present radical leadership will be censored. All countries have a framework for their laws. The question is not "if" but "what" do these laws get tied back to? Up until recently our framework, while not perfect, gave religious freedom for all. The government has never forced us to believe anything. But the buzzards are circling, and what liberals really want is religious freedom for all except Christians who they want to shut up.

Economic cycles come and go but a nation's soul continues to hang in the balance.