McCain’s VP: It’s Palin!

John McCain made his VP selection earlier this week. Sarah Palin, GOP Governor of Alaska is his choice and I am impressed. 

I find it uncannily hilarious that liberals are countering that Palin isn’t experienced enough to be VP when their Presidential nominee’s highlights go from “Community Organizer” to 140 working days in the Senate. Ask any Barack Obama supporter if they can cite any legislation or voting record as proof of his ability to bring about his change and words will escape them. That’s because there is nothing there! Obama’s entire campaign is hinged on emotion, expectations, and the future. Palin, and McCain for that matter too, have a track record of success. 

Ed Morrissey:

This is a real laugher.  By the same logic, why would the Democrats make a state legislator the actual president?  Obama is a US Senator of three years experience, and Palin is a governor of 20 months’ experience.  Only Barack Obama has spent two of those three years not in the Senate doing his job but running for President.  Before starting his bid, he had a grand total of less than 150 days in session in the Senate.  Palin, on the other hand, has run her state for more than triple that time.

And let’s remember that Obama is running for the top job, while Palin’s running for VP.

Sarah Palin’s resume includes mother of five (one Down Syndrome child, one deploying to Iraq in 12 days), school board, city council, Mayor, and Governor. And she’s not afraid to buck her own party when they turn their back on conservative principles. 

More from Morrissey:

However, the nature of the experience couldn’t be more different.  Palin spent her entire political career crusading against the political machine that rules Alaska — which exists in her own Republican party.  She blew the whistle on the state GOP chair, who had abused his power on the same commission to conduct party business.  Obama, in contrast, talked a great deal about reform in Chicago but never challenged the party machine, preferring to take an easy ride as a protegé of Richard Daley instead.

…

Third, and I think maybe most importantly, Palin addresses the energy issue better and more attuned to the American electorate than maybe any of the other three principals in this election.  Even beyond her efforts to reform the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, she has demonstrated her independence from so-called “Big Oil” while promoting domestic production.  She brings instant credibility to the ticket on energy policy, and reminds independents and centrists that the Obama-Biden ticket offers nothing but the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 years.

Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform.  Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork.  McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.

This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk.    

Even Dr. James Dobson, who started to come around to McCain after the Saddleback debate, is now fully on board. 

Michelle Malkin has a good round up of reactions.

Obama’s VP: It’s Biden

Thank you, Obama, for this wonderful gift. The only candidate that could guarantee victory for you was Hillary Clinton, and you could not pick her. 

Reaction from around the blogosphere:

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey: It’s an admission that Obama’s inexperience has finally begun worrying voters, and not just Democratic power brokers.  There really is no other way to see an addition of Biden to the ticket.  … Now Obama, who supposedly represents a new brand of politics, has instead hitched his wagon to an old-time pol who has trouble coming up with his own words when he campaigns.  That’s desperation, and what’s more, it’s obvious desperation.  And in politics, just as in dating, desperation is not an aphrodisiac.

Michelle Malkin: He said he “wasn’t the guy.” Starting his VP candidacy off with a lie.

Power Line’s Scott Johnson: Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running mate is underwhelming for many reasons, but it affords an opportunity to review a few of the moments that might have provided all the embarrassment a normal person needs to escape from public life. 

The Moderate Voice’s Jazz Shaw: At this point, Obama is fast becoming the only convincing argument I’ve seen in favor of gun control. He shoots himself in the foot so often that I’m shocked the man has any toes left. … Obama made his bones during this election cycle talking first about how Hillary Clinton lacked the judgment to get the Iraq war right. (She voted in favor of the authorization to use military force in Iraq.) Barack later criticized John McCain for his support of the war (”getting it wrong”) and voiced his opposition to the surge. (Another place he had better “judgment” than McCain.) He has now selected a running mate who not only voted in favor of the war, but came out on McCain’s side in saying what a great idea the surge was.

The National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: Question of the Day: How exactly is Biden “change”? 

RedState’s Erick Erickson: The One has chosen. … This is all about Obama. Joe’s just there for constitutionally required window dressing. 

The Weekly Standard’s Dean Barnett: The conventional wisdom regarding vice-presidential nominees is first do no harm. Given that Biden has been a garrulous gaffe machine for his lengthy political career (36 years in the senate, although it feels like longer), it would seem the potential for harm is great. … Also on the right, we’ll get to watch progressives feign joy over Obama’s elevation of an Iraq war supporter who enjoys a cozy relationship with the credit card companies. 

Townhall’s Hugh Hewitt: Obama represents the merger of two of the worst aspects of Democratic politics –’60s radicalism and corrupt Chicago machine politics.  With the addition of Slow Joe Biden to the ticket, Obama has added to his unsteady candidacy an epic amount Beltway cluelessness and arrogance unsupported by anything except frequent flier miles and Delaware’s love for a chuckle-headed fellow with a big smile. 

Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds: OBAMA PICKS BIDEN: So Much for Change? That’s unfair. He’s at least as fresh a face as Madeleine Albright. 

The National Review’s Jonah Goldberg: I think it is an outright terrible decision on Obama’s part to pick Biden. Yes, he helps balance Obama’s inexperience on foreign policy, but he also reminds people of it.  Yes, Biden could conceivably be effective as an attack dog. But Biden is such a gasbag he makes the Hindenburg look like a sack of rocks. 

Townhall’s Amanda Carpenter: Joe voted for the Iraq war, just like Hillary and everybody else did. Obama bashed Hillary on this over and over again through the primaries and yet Obama picks a VP, based on his FP experience, who did the same? This doesn’t make sense. 

Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin: Put simply: what happened to the themes of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign? A “no” vote on the Iraq war was the telltale sign of superior national security judgment. Experience doesn’t matter. A long senate career is useless in preparing one for leadership. All these are now officially inapplicable? Or is there some bizarre methodology by which one would reconcile these messages (and the candidacy of Obama) with the selection of Joe Biden? You got me. 

UPDATE: McCain’s new ad:

Birthday

Today is my birthday and I’m traveling. Blogging will resume later this week.

Have a great day, everyone!

What Happens When Christians Create a Theological Smorgasbord

I’ve heard the notion by the Christian left that Jesus was a “liberal.” But He wasn’t liberal to the degree that He would support abortion, as Barack Obama supporter, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, purports.

From last Wednesday’s The O’Reilly Factor (8/13/08):

O’REILLY: … Barack Obama has been the most progressive voice in the country, more than Barbara Boxer, more than Nancy Pelosi, in supporting abortion on demand, whether it’s in the third trimester, whether it’s partial-birth abortion. No matter what it is, he says, “Yes.” So - How do you reconcile finding Jesus with the being the most pro-abortion politician in the country? Don’t you want to know that?

HILL: I think he’s made that very clear. In fact, he’s probably been most clear on that point. There are different schools of theological understanding, many of which believe that the Bible is not something that should be read fundamentally, but –

O’REILLY: The question is simple. (crosstalk) Would Jesus be as progressive on abortion - does he believe Jesus would, based upon his knowledge of theology - as he [Obama] is?

HILL: Absolutely. I think, absolutely.

O’REILLY: You believe Jesus would say, “Partial-birth abortion: No problem”?

HILL: I think Jesus would be even more radical than all the candidates who are –

O’REILLY (incredulous): On this issue?

HILL: On this issue and on all these other issues. I think a fundamentalist understanding of the pro-life/pro-choice debate is misguided and misses the point. And I think Barack Obama understands this kind of thing — (inaudible) close to the center –

O’REILLY (incredulous): That would be a stunning dissertation if the Senator would give it. And I would absolutely want to hear it.

HILL: And I think he would. I think he will!

Jesus was liberal only in the sense that He gave freely of what He possessed. Translation: He gave salvation to anyone willing to accept Him as their personal savior. But He certainly didn’t use government to dole out government programs stealing from some to give to others. And He definitely would not have supported abortion of any type. Best of all, Hill offers no biblical ideas to support his ridiculous assertion. 

This is the result of a worldview held by Obama, Hill and other leftists that tweaks biblical ideals to meet a political agenda. Just pick and choose the convictions that fit your lifestyle. As we saw in last weekend’s visit with Rick Warren, Obama has no idea when life even begins…it’s “above his pay grade.” Actually, it’s well within his pay grade. Because he’s the one putting it there. Life is actullay something outside the realm of all our pay grades. Any justification for the purposeful taking of innocent life is playing God, something we should all tread lightly upon.  Sadly, Barack Obama and his supporters see life as a political issue that politicians can legislate their version of liberalism upon while simultaneously claiming Jesus’ liberalism is synonymous with their own. They couldn’t be any more wrong on such an elementary issue.

The Life Factor

Most Americans want change from the next president. But change is pretty much a given no matter who is elected. The entire mantra of change being trumpeted by Barack Obama implies one of two things: Bush is running again in 2008 or McCain will be Bush 3.0, neither of which is true. It’s not wrong for Americans to desire change from their next president. We just need to understand what we’re getting. And with McCain we have a very good idea. But with Obama, we have no idea, with the exception of how his views on life will translate into politics. Last Saturday, Barack Obama and John McCain visited with evangelical Christian, Rick Warren, pastor of the mega-church Saddleback Church in California and their answers on life spoke volumes on how they will legislate life.

Senator Obama (D-Illinois) told Pastor Rick Warren he was not sure when an unborn baby should be considered a human life worth protecting. “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade,” said Obama.

It’s obvious anything above the pay grade of President of the United States of America can only mean God, whom Obama believes in. How puzzling that he doesn’t just listen to what He has to say about it then. I wonder where Obama does say life begins. If not conception, and obviously not birth, any murder of a person of any age could then be classed as a “botched abortion.” Fortunately, moral trends in America appear to be swinging back in favor of life as seen in cases of murder of a pregnant mother being sentenced for taking two lives. More:

Obama contends he believes in Roe v. Wade not because he is pro-abortion, but because women do not make decisions about abortion “casually.” He also suggested Americans can find common ground on ways to prevent “unwanted pregnancies.”

No amount of planning an abortion morally justifies it. Obama continues to paint himself into moral corners as he attempts to appeal to voters right of center. Obama’s views bring to mind a warning from author, Henri Nouwen’s book, In the Name of Jesus: “What makes the temptation of power so semmingly irresistable?  Maybe it is that power offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.” This describes Obama’s campaign perfectly. He believes it’s not up to him to legislate when life begins, but each individual can. And he believes it’s up to government (led by a Christian president) to give everything to the poor at the expense of others as opposed to the biblical teaching of individual believers to each do their part to help the poor. 

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on the other hand, strongly declared that he believes a baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception. “I have a twenty-five year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies,” he stated. “That’s my commitment.”

Much better. No matter how appealing Obama’s “change” might appear to Christians, there is simply no justification for voting for him. Life is the most important issue, and the easiest to define. Any candidate failing this elementary check point, is not fit to be president of a country whose Declaration of Independence declares life first among its unalienable rights provided by God. Especially when that candidate doesn’t care what God says about life.

Tripping Their Own Booby Traps

By nominating a black candidate for president, the Democrats thought they’d have the best of both worlds: charisma coupled with an easy, built-in booby trap for Republicans: the race card. Well, it’s simply not working. And with time running out, liberals have resorted to setting off their own booby traps and trying to blame Republicans. Bob Herbert was the most recent man-at-arms sent forth to have a go at putting the race card in the Republican camp.

Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates.

For a man of Mr. Herbert’s qualifications, I’d have to chalk this up to either intellectual dishonesty or a temper tantrum trying to distract from the truth: Harold Ford was seen hangin’ with ”tacky, sexually provocative white women” at a Playboy Superbowl Party. 

The party Congressman Ford attended was the Playboy Super Bowl Party in Jacksonville.”  That is, it was a Playboy party, reportedly with Playmates and lingerie, just not at the Playboy mansion, which is in California.

Fine, simple enough. It’s not the mansion, but a Playboy party nonetheless. It’s equally simple to understand the link between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Barack Obama: None have accomplished anything noteworthy in their careers and all three are soaring to popularity heights due to superficial deception. Spears and Hilton – sex. Obama – change. Maybe Obama could get one of the girls to be his VP. Put their two shallow credo’s together and that makes for one powerful “change” we can believe in! Sorry, couldn’t resist. More from Herbert:

RACE CARD! RACE CARD! The McCain camp started bellowing, and it hasn’t stopped since. With great glee bursting through their feigned outrage, the campaign’s operatives and the candidate himself accused Senator Obama of introducing race into the campaign — playing the race card, as they put it, from the very bottom of the deck.

And they’d be correct. Actually Hillary dragged race into the campaign when she realized she wasn’t the shoo-in nominee. But Herbert, of course, ignores that as well. McCain has never brought up race. But Obama did, three times in one day, in fact.  Herbert only offers this in a frustrated attempt to communicate subliminally to Obama to please stop – this is not helping, you are only tripping our own booby traps:

Whatever you think about Barack Obama, he does not want the race issue to be front and center in this campaign. Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain. 

At least the NY Times Blog included McCain’s quotes:

“I did not bring up the issue,’’ he repeated. “Senator Obama did, three times in one day. And his campaign later retracted it.”

“So I think it’s pretty obvious that at least they acknowledged that. So he brought up the issue of race, I responded to it. Because I’m disappointed, and I don’t want that issue to be part of this campaign. And since his campaign retracted it, I’m ready to move on. And I think we should move on.’’

The truth is, conservatives have been largely displeased with McCain’s lack of criticism of Obama. From abortion and energy to the War on Terror and taxes, Obama has exposed his far leftist position on numerous occasions only to hear but crickets from the McCain campaign. And when conservative bloggers and radio hosts try to help our own cause, McCain scolds us instead. 

If Herbert thinks this is “outrage,” “bellowing,” and “non-stop,” he’s either never seen a presidential race or, more likely, he’s just whining because his candidate is tripping their own booby traps. 

This is nothing more than another tactic by the left to make the playing field uneven. Conservatives have been criticized for discussing Obama’s friends’ statements, his wife’s statements, his lack of qualifications. Every time conservatives attempt to create leverage, the rug is jerked out from underneath them. Are liberals so accustomed to helping blacks succeed with affirmative action that even a presidential nominee cannot get elected without a playing field tipped heavily in his favor? Apparently so.

Discipline, not Prosecute

Truett Cathy, founder of Chick-Fil-A restaurant, had his Florida home broken into and vandalized by two young girls last month, generating a hefty amount of damage. Instead of prosecuting them, the 87-year old Christian formulated a deal with the female vandal’s parents to discipline them with a writing assignment:

The girls must write “I will not vandalize other people’s property” 1,000 times. They are also banned from watching TV and playing video games and must read a good book.

New Smyrna Beach police told the Daytona Beach News-Journal the preteens broke into Cathy’s Florida home two weeks ago and sprayed fire extinguishers, threw eggs, and left water running in the kitchen.

What seemed to bother Cathy most about the crime were the ” bad words” scrawled throughout the residence. ”They upset me,” he told the News-Journal.” I will not repeat them, but they had something to do with sex.”

The elementary schoolers told a police investigator they were bored when they committed the crime sometime between July 11 and 15.

What a perfect example of Christian grace and mercy extended to these two young girls. And the girls, and their families included, should learn far more from this discipline than they would should they have been prosecuted. Of course, it’s highly probable the girls’ parents have administered little discipline in their young lives up to this point.

Properly disciplined young people, though far from perfect, know better than to vandalize property in order to cure boredom. When kids grow up undisciplined, they are unaware of where boundaries are drawn. They don’t know what is permitted and what is not. Breaking in to someone else’s house and vandalizing probably provided a short-term high for these girls. Disciplined children understand this is outside the confines of acceptable exploits and use their imagination, a faculty dulled by video games and TV, to find tolerable outlets of amusement or create new games within their boundaries.