...but most of the supposed facts in this video are either half-truths or outright lies. I am really just blown away by the lack of substance behind most of the anti-Obama stuff I've seen. I'm all for people vetting and researching the candidates and making an informed decision based on their values and convictions (in fact that is the duty of every citizen in a democracy). But so much of what is shaping up to be "the case against Obama" - including most of this video - is based not on substantive issues, but on xenophobia and fearmongering. The first 2 minutes of the video make no point other than how scary and Muslim-sounding his name is! Shouldn't we all strive to be better than to be persuaded by stuff like that? The way that some of these insinuations and allegations have spread over the internet - the fact that so many people are so willing to swallow them up - is what really strikes me as unpatriotic, and counter to true American values.

The church stuff, the "black liberation theology" stuff, probably does deserve some more scrutiny. I'd like to know how invested in that type of theology he is, as a layperson in the church. But he deserves to be able to state his position on it, not be judged guilty by association. I'd hate to have to be held personally accountable for every word "my" pastors have spoken over the years.

I have no problem with anyone who will vote against Obama because they oppose his stance on the war, or health care, or because they honestly feel that he is too inexperienced. But if he loses the election because large numbers of people engage in bearing - and believing - false witness against him, I think it will be a very sad indictment of where we are as a country.

Thanks for the forum, Tony, and I'm sure I don't need to say (but I will anyway) that this is absolutely nothing personal, just my two cents worth on politics!

I definitely agree that the most truly qualified candidates usually are also wise enough to avoid the whole racket. I seem to recall someone making that observation about Jesus - that he'd never have been foolish enough to get in to politics. We can be thankful for that!

Obama does seem to make his share of gaffes - the fallen soldiers and the "57 states" just in the past week. And also the 10,000 casualties from the tornado last year (it was actually 10 or 12). I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, since the rest of his speaking is very eloquent and, I believe, heartfelt. And his gaffes-to-words ratio has to be about a thousand times better than our current president, right?

I also don't buy the "isn't patriotic" bit - I think it is way overblown and it is clearly the angle that the opposition is using against him. It has become the narrative, so to speak. I personally think his stance on the flag pin was indicative of a much more authentic patriotism than those who think just wearing a pin is all that is required to be patriotic. The symbol is fine, but it can't replace the pro-active citizenship that defines our country's greatness. That was his point and I think he is dead-on.

And just to throw one more curve at you, I would argue that at least based on the current GI bill, Obama is being more actively supportive of our troops than McCain. 75 senators voted in favor of Jim Webb's bill, improving college benefits for returning veterans. McCain skipped the vote (bad form) and is making a political issue of the whole thing because he says the benefits package is too generous. I think he is going to look pretty bad on this if the bill passes and overrides the presidents veto.

I also think, based on the sheer number of words I'm pouring out here, that I probably ought to stop hogging your disk space and start my own blog!

Cheers.

See, I think that to label Obama as a guy who "won't put his hand over his heart" means that you either haven't researched the facts, or are parroting accusations made by media pundits like Rush (or both). Obama has directly addressed this accusation, and stated that he has never "refused" to put his hand over his heart or tried to make some sort of statement by not doing so. So to really make the assertion, you also have to assert that he has outright lied about it to the public during the debates. The fact is that he does put his hand over his heart regularly during the pledge and the anthem, and there are videos and photos that verify this. The fact that on one or more occasions he didn't put his hand over his heart does not speak to his patriotism, and certainly does not offer any proof that he "won't" do so. I personally don't know anyone who has held their hand over their heart every single time they have heard the anthem. I guess maybe I am surrounded by unpatriotic ingrates(?)

The GI Bill is sponsored by Jim Webb, who is a decorated Vietnam Vet like McCain, and was Reagan's Secretary of the Navy. He also has a son in active duty, and has been one of the most outspoken advocates for the troops. The bill really doesn't offer troops an "easy" way out - it doesn't affect the length of contracts at all. And the same studies that show the bill will reduce retention (less people will reenlist) also show that it will increase new recruitment by an equal or greater measure. I agree with you that having personnel with experience is important for military strength - but right now we are stretched so thin, sending troops back for 3rd and 4th tours, while recruitment is going down every year.

At any rate, for Rush to claim that one of the bill's purposes is to "give Obama cover" is just unsubstantiated hogwash. Talk about 'spinning it any way they want'! Webb's bill and McCain's bill aren't all that different - McCain's increases the education benefits gradually over time. Maybe that is better, I'm not sure. But like you said, things are often tacked on to these bills. Just like there are no perfect politicians there are no perfect pieces of legislation. The art of compromise is essential to get anything done in congress. Twenty-five Republican senators (including every single one up for re-election) voted Yes on Webb's bill - despite qualms I'm sure they all had about this spending or that spending that was tacked on. McCain didn't bother to show up to cast a vote one way or the other.

I'm glad to hear you are skeptical of the media - we all should be. There is reporting of facts and there is opinion and interpretation - it is always good to be aware of which you are listening to. And then check the facts and evaluate the opinions and interpretations. With Rush, I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that he offers very little supporting factual evidence to go with his opinions and interpretations. And yet, so many of his listeners - who are all convinced that they are immune to being brainwashed by the media - accept what he says as the gospel truth.

J

I'm not sure if you sent the wrong link or I am reading it wrong, but the data you linked to seems to just show the relative percentages by race year-by-year - nothing about overall recruitment levels or whether benchmarks have been met. I did a quick Google and got back a page from your same National Priorities site, which states that

The Iraq War began to have an impact on recruiting in 2005, when the Army missed its goal for the number of recruits. In 2007, for the third year in a row, the Army did not meet its benchmark for the level of educational attainment of recruits.

http://www.nationalpriorities....uiting2007

Next - if Obama putting or not putting his hand over his heart is "not the issue" - then why keep making it an issue by making statements like "refuses to put his hand over his heart?" The assertion certainly does assist your larger point - that Obama isn't sufficiently patriotic. But if the assertion is patently false - which it most certainly is - then you are using dishonest means to make your point.

That, to me, is the thing that really burns me up and sets off my inner alarm bells: when people start to bend and stretch the truth in order to make their larger point. Particularly when people I respect - especially my spiritual brothers and sisters - engage in this behavior. I have encountered people that you and I personally know who are *convinced* that Obama is a Muslim, and are spreading this disinformation to others. It makes me sick to my stomach.

I guess one of my strongest convictions is that Christians ought never spread falsehoods - knowingly or unknowingly - or even have the appearance of being willing to stretch the truth in order to make their case. It isn't just with politics - I recently got all riled up when I heard a pastor state as fact that the album cover for the Eagles' "Hotel California" was an actual photograph of the "Church of Satan" and that all of the band members were part of that church. Something I thought everyone knew by now was a stupid urban legend - being repeated as fact in front of a group of church members in 2008!

My point is that if you truly feel passionate about a particular point - "Obama is unpatriotic", or "rock music is a bad influence" - a Christian should never feel justified in throwing false claims into their argument. It makes us lose integrity as individuals, look terrible to the rest of the world, and it weakens the church as a whole. And when we hear things that are questionable, we ought not gobble them up so readily! (Prov. 26:22) And yet there is all sorts of smear garbage about Obama on the web, like this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics...yphoto.asp

All of it is absolute trash, and it sickens me to my core that any Christian brothers and sisters would partake in consuming and spreading this stuff. And yet that is exactly what is happening.

The simple question, in my mind, is this: What is more important in the end:
1. Stopping Obama, by any means necessary, even at the expense of our integrity as individuals and as a Church
-or-
2. Making honesty and integrity in our lives priority one, choosing never to use false witness as a means to help or hurt any particular politician - and letting go of our desire to control the outcome of the election.

Final point:

Sure, not everyone will have perfect friends, but in taking a very GENERAL snapshot of Obama's buddies, you find links to Muslims, Socialists, terrorists and people who do not like the USA... someone running for President (... shouldn't even be REMOTELY associated with people like the ones Obama seems to hang out with and have as influences in his life.

Quite right. It is all well and good to bring the people a message of hope, but if you choose to surround yourself with outcasts, radicals, prostitutes and tax-collectors, well...

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

James

PS - I think I've exhausted my thoughts on this Obama stuff. I'm ready to move on to other topics like your church transition, and whether you are actually making money off of your little coffee portal and your automatic links to rushlimbaugh.com!!! Maybe we should have lunch sometime!

100% apologies for the "refuses to" business. I understand now that you didn't mean "refuses to". I do think "didn't" would be more correct than "wouldn't" (which implies a conscious decision not to raise the hand - which may or may not be the case we really can't know) but that is completely beside the point by now. Anyway, I would have been just as irritated if someone had changed my words, so... I stand corrected. I guess I got caught up in what I thought I saw.

I will say that I've seen a lot of people making the accusation that I thought I saw you making - that Obama refuses to raise his hand (or even sing the anthem or say the pledge). That is the stuff that bugs me. I guess I also personally identify the word "won't" as meaning an active, ongoing refusal. You've let me know that isn't what you meant, and I see that now.

I also certainly didn't mean to attack your integrity on a personal level. I tried to speak in general terms about all of us rather than single you out. The last thing I would want to do is cause personal offense, so you have my sincere apologies on that.

I sent the Snopes links as examples of some of the false stories that are going around about Obama - if you re-read I never accused you of sending any of them. I was trying to make a point about how much deliberate misinformation is going around and how wrong it is for anyone to pass such misinformation off as fact.

I don't really make any comparisons of Obama to the Messiah - far from it. He is just a guy, and it does concern me that some subset of his supporters seem to think he is going to fix all the world's problems and bring us all blissful happiness. I wanted to make a humorous point about how Jesus really did rub shoulders with and surround himself with many "questionable" characters. And he took a lot of flack for it from the establishment. The point being that who one surrounds oneself with does matter, but not as much as the person's character.

Hope we can put any hurt feelings behind us, Tony. Again I am sorry if anything came off as personal, it wasn't supposed to and I will be more careful in the future.

Thanks for the follow-up. Closing this one up sounds like a good plan. And I will chime in again one of these days, but next time on a less hot-button topic!