The Audacity of Negativity

A new kind of politics. The audacity of hope. Positive messages. No negative advertisements.

These are the slogans that Senator Obama is dedicated to. He certainly says these things enough. In fact, it’s a big reason he defeated Hilary Clinton in the primary.

However, it’s important to look at the facts. Lately, it seems as though the Democrats have been crying foul of the evil Republicans and their vicious ads and their attack machine.

“It’s politics as usual!” cry the Democrats
“It’s Swiftboating all over again” howl the Democrats!
“Change we can believe in is a positive message” yearn the Democrats!

So…who is actually responsible for more negative ads that we’ve been seeing?

GASP!

It’s Senator Obama!

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/17/1410673.aspx

77% of Obama’s ads are negative, while only 56% of McCain’s are negative.

So, it seems as though Barack’s vision of post-partisanship and positive messaging is simply a load of fresh manure from the heart of Dallas County. In essence, his entire campaign message has been undermined by…the facts.

The Supreme Court: Part 3

The Supreme Court has become increasingly hostile to gun ownership over the few years. Several justices on the court seem content with interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution rather liberally. It’s times like these where I am very pleased that President Bush nominated two people to the highest court that interpret the Constitution strictly.

So, what kind of Supreme Court Justices would McCain and Obama appoint?

MCCAIN
“John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right.” (McCain’s website)

Now, Senator McCain has the voting record to back that statement up. No doubt about it. However, Senator Obama’s record is a little more furry.

OBAMA
"I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." (Politico, February 2008)

It’s a nice saying, but I guess we just need to look at the record, though. For example, back in 2004 when Senator Obama was a state senator (seems like just yesterday), the Illinois State Senate voted on a measure that would allow homeowners to defend their home with their firearm. The measure was fairly straightforward. In fact, it was passed by almost 75% of the Senate, including many Democrats by a margin of 41 to 16. That’s fairly overwhelming.

However, Barack Obama was an opponent of this measure.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may2004/home.htm

At issue is the fundamental right to own a gun in your own house. Barack Obama basically said that the government can trump your right to own a gun, even if it’s in your own house, and even if you want to use it against home invaders.

As citizens of Dallas County, we know that the right to bear arms exists in our county and state. However, it seems that if Barack Obama had his way, that right would be diminished, seriously curtailed, or even denied. As I’ve said before, I just don’t trust him with the responsibility of appointing justices to lifetime Supreme Court positions.

The Supreme Court: Part 2

Let’s continue on with our discussion about the Supreme Court.

But first, a history lesson. In 1801, with about a month left in his term, Federalist John Adams appointed John Marshall to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was approved by the Senate, and he began serving. Adams left office in March of 1801, being replaced by the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson.

Little did Adams know, when he left office, the Federalist Party had begun its march towards dissolution. Yet John Marshall remained on the court. The Federalist Party would be finished by 1816. Yet John Marshall remained on the court. John Adams would pass away on July 4th, 1826. Yet John Marshall remained on the court. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams, and Jackson would all be elected President. Yet John Marshall remained on the court.

For 35 years, John Marshall remained on the court. 34 years after his nominating President left office. 9 years after his nominating President had actually died. The lifetime appointment can indeed be, a lifetime appointment.

Let’s just say that the Supreme Court is incredibly important.

As such, we again look at Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama’s positions on important Supreme Court issues.

Senator McCain, when does life begin?

“At conception” (Rick Warren Debate)

Senator Obama, when does life begin?

“I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know is above my pay grade.” (Rick Warren Debate)

Above your pay grade, Senator? I hope you realize that this issue is very important for millions of Americans and unborn children. Aren’t you being a little too flippant?

‘‘Probably. ...What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into ... It’s a pretty tough question.” (September 7, 2008)

Senator Obama, we appreciate your candor. However, if you’re hoping for a job that doesn’t deal with tough issues and tough questions, perhaps you should look for another line of work. One of these tough questions deals with Supreme Court appointments and I’m sorry to say, I simply don’t trust you to answer this question correctly.

Life Issues

Saturday, I mentioned that Sarah Palin had more executive experience than Senator Obama. The media narrative has continued, comparing the experience of Palin to Obama. I’m fine with that, because that’s an argument that John McCain wins. The underlying assumption to this argument is that John McCain is WAY more experienced than Barack Obama. This underlying assumption pleases me…because it’s true.

However, we move on to major issues that revolve around the Supreme Court.

The platform of the Dallas County Republicans is pro-life. As such, I enthusiastically support Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate this year. However, I had no idea that her pro-life stance would be personified so quickly in this race.

So, let’s continue in this Palin/Obama comparison, as we move back towards our discussion about the Supreme Court

On abortion:

Sarah Palin: Concerning her child’s pregnancy.

“We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support. (August 31, 2008)

Barack Obama: Concerning her child’s (potential) pregnancy

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information." (March 29, 2008)

Sometimes, someone says something so terribly offensive, you really don’t know which part is most offensive.

First, babies are not punishment. Prison is punishment. A child is not.

Second, comparing human life to STDs? STDs are disease. Babies are miracles. I’m rather speechless.

So, when it comes to life issues against Obama, I’m going to side with Palin. And since McCain’s first “appointment” was Gov. Palin, in regards to judicial philosophy and attitude towards the unborn, I’m going to side with McCain.

Labor Day

As we enjoy a beautiful Labor Day weekend up here in Iowa, let's be sure to keep the Gulf Coast in our thoughts and prayers.

This hurricane is devastating, and let's be sure to do all we can to help out those who need it the most. We came together earlier this summer to give ridiculous amounts of help to those in need in Iowa. Let's try and do the same for those who are in the path of Gustav.