…so little time.
To use my new favorite phrase, last night’s debate may best be described as a “bilious crapfest.” Actually, it wasn’t quite as bad as that. McCain did a little bit better at holding Obama accountable for his political ideologies, and crusty dinosaur Bob Schieffer asked about abortion! To which Obama responded with a series of documentable, bald-faced lies. But I’ll get to that in mere moments.
Here’s the main thing I took away from last night’s debate regarding Obama, and this was made especially apparent by the recurrent references by both candidates to Joe the Plumber (who is now becoming a folk hero for calling Obama out on raising his taxes): If you can afford it, your money will be redistributed. Really, there’s no sugarcoating, “Well, Joe, I’m going to spread your wealth around.” (What an arrogant, narcissistic, elitist thing to say, by the way.) Joe the plumber made quite clear in an interview with Neil Cavuto just how hard he’s worked to grow his plumbing business to the point it’s at, and how Obama’s tyrannous assertions mean that he won’t be able to expand his business anymore. So much for the American dream. I guess it’s only allowable to $250,000. Obama’s message came across loud and clear: If you’re successful, you will be punished for it. McCain did come through at this point, saying, “There is a fundamental difference of philosophies. This [Obama’s philosophy] is big government at its best.” Arguably, its worst.
Then Schieffer brought up the appointing of Supreme Court justices and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Both candidates stated that they didn’t think there should be a litmus test when considering judges. McCain did say that he would appoint judges who adhere to a strict understanding of the Constitution, and none of this “living, breathing” crap. (My words, not his.) Which is a blog post in itself. How on earth can anyone make a judgement of what’s right or wrong when one believes that those things change constantly? (Read: one of the big quandaries for Protestants, many of whom end up church-hopping incessantly due to disagreements of interpretation.) Back to the discussion at hand, I suppose that one can just about justify any type of behavior this way, which pretty much answers my question about why liberals like this faulty understanding of our nation’s most important foundational document: It can be interpreted to excuse anything…including INFANTICIDE and MURDER of babies in the womb. (Shifting sands, anyone? The foolish man built his house upon the sand. The wise man built his house upon a rock, right?)
When McCain challenged Obama regarding his radical abortion extremism, spotlighting his votes against and “present” on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as well as against partial birth abortion, Obama ummed and uhhed his way through, desperately trying to explain himself. He tried to muddy the water and change the subject by bringing up “equal pay for equal work” (what does that have to do with Roe v. Wade?) His final explanation for voting against BAIPA: The hippocratic oath, according to Obama, would prevent any doctor from allowing an infant to die, cold and alone, in a trash can, after that same physician failed in his attempt to kill it (supposedly while operating under said Hippocratic oath.) And he stated that there was already a law on the books for BAIPA situations. Well, some effective law. So effective, apparently, that an overwhelming number of lawmakers—Republican and Democrat—deemed it necessary to draft BAIPA and sign it into federal law. Yeah, I know, it was quite pitiful.
McCain did occasion for a bit of cheering on my part when he asked Obama, “How do you align yourself with the extreme far left abortion position and vote ‘present’?” How, indeed.
He also threw in the part about there always being an exception for the “life and health of the mother.” Did you know a mother can cite “headache” as a health reason for ending her baby’s life?
Mr. Obama then went into needing to find common ground. There is no common ground here. You either align yourself as for life or against life. There’s is no middle point. By the way, Obama’s definition of “common ground” apparently means codifying abortion into law, taking away state’s rights to decide these things, using tax dollars to fund abortions by repealing the Hyde amendment, and stopping funding of crisis pregnancy centers, which compassionately help women find alternatives to abortion, like adoption. I don’t like Obama’s idea of common ground.
Obama admitted that abortion is a difficult, moral issue. He said that there’s a right to “privacy” in the Constitution. At which point I was screaming at the TV, “What about the right to LIFE?!?” Uh, uh, uh.
If abortion is such a difficult issue, and one can admit that they should be made “safe, legal, and rare” (one of the greatest cop-outs, second only to “I cannot be a single-issue voter”), then isn’t that person basically admitting that there’s something fundamentally wrong with it? I don’t hear anyone saying that we should make murder “safe, legal, and rare.” They’d be laughed out of town. And I’m still trying to figure out in what alternate universe Obama’s strategy of reducing the number of abortions by supporting them legally across the board, for any reason, and at any stage of pregnancy, would actually work? Hey, everybody, let’s reduce the number of abortions by making them even MORE available!
Yes, I’m all riled up. But I reserve the right to get riled up in my blog. After I’m done here, I’ll sedately go about my business with a smile on my face and a prayer in my heart.
Yes, I must end this post. I have company coming and lunch to prepare.