Fred2Blue

The Free Lance-Star (FLS) editorial of August 31 achieved a new low in its ongoing effort to disparage the Obama campaign.  It made the usual lame comparison to religious fervor, using phrases like “viewed by many as a messianic figure”, “his true believers”, “Obama’s disciples”, and “God is not mocked. Nor is His Chosen One”.  That theme is a popular crutch used by many conservatives to belittle the campaign’s appeal and enthusiasm.  But the new low was achieved at the end when the writer closed with:

Hebrews 11:16 blesses those who “desire a better country, that is, a Heavenly one.”  However, the “country” the verse references lies beyond this mortal veil.  While Jesus left that place mostly to the imagination, one biblical entity [Matthew 4:8-9] enticingly showcased the palpable promises of this world.  “The devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.  ‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’”

Obama the Savior?  Obama the Tempter?  Don’t take this for a normal presidential election.

Is it me, or did the FLS just compare Obama’s appeal to that of the devil?  We’ve grown accustomed to the occasional comparison to Nazi appeasers and even Nazis directly, but Lucifer?  How desperate, how nutty is this going to get?

Our enthusiasm for Obama has to do with his personal ability and our disgust with eight years of a bone-headed, incompetent administration.  The one the FLS endorsed twice.

Regarding the New Yorker cover, objections had to do with the fact that according to a Pew Research survey back in March, 10% of the public believes Obama is a Muslim and a third don’t know what his religious beliefs are.  To the extent the FLS seeks to inform people, was that an embarrassment?

Obama has been every bit as detailed as McCain, if not more so, in presenting his policy details.  If the FLS is skeptical of Obama’s accounting, what do they think of McCain’s arithmetic?  After all the Bush economic failures and record setting deficits, McCain promises more of the same.  A willingness to label eight years of cash advances against the Federal debt as “tax cuts” is symptomatic.  McCain is for their continuation after he was against them.  A lynchpin of his plan to balance the budget is to eliminate earmarks.  Has the FLS once pointed out that McCain has said he will balance the budget by 2013 in part by fixing Social Security (“a disgrace”)?  Aren’t they at least curious as to how “fixing” a program that is projected to run a surplus until 2017 will help him balance the budget by 2013?

The FLS calls a vote for Obama a roll of the “dice on a desperate chance for something new and nourishing”.  And yet they appear poised to endorse McCain and his VP intern from Alaska for four more years of the same economic failure and bellicose foreign policy.  McCain advisor Charlie Black said, “[Palin] is going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years.”  Ready to govern, indeed.  McCain met Palin once, talked to her on the phone once, then offered her the VP spot.  Governor Tim Kaine says that tells us a lot about McCain and how he makes decisions.  Does any of that give the editor pause?

If an FLS endorsement of McCain is to have any credibility, they’ll have to do more than perpetuate the myth he’s a moderate.  They need to address his numerous flip flops, his endorsement of so many Bush failures and mistakes, the infestation of his campaign with so many lobbyists, his anemic efforts to promote alternative energy solutions, his opposition to enforcement of equal pay for equal work, and his opposition to protecting women’s rights.  Just for starters.