Endorsement offers no surprises from Journal
It is not surprising that the Daily Journal is supporting Rep. Childers.
The Journal has a history of liberal leanings. Mr. Childers can and has voted moderately and conservatively on several issues but has voted for one big liberal issue that is pushing all the far left agenda.
That vote was for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Nancy rewarded him with a large donation to his campaign as reported recently (in small print) in the Daily Journal. If Childers is so conservative, why do you suppose the speaker would want him to win? Could it be that she needs him along with others to keep her job as speaker?
I believe that Childers was allowed to make some of his conservative “against” votes on issues that the speaker knew was going to pass. This way, Mr. Childers would not antagonize his constituents back home and would have a chance at being re-elected. A vote for Mr. Childers will be a vote for the Pelosi-Obama far left agenda.
If both are honorable look to their parties
No one will disagree with the Daily Journal’s statement that both Childers and Nunnelee are “good and honorable men.” If this is true, then how are the voters to choose between two good men? What criteria must be used to decide?
Many voters say with pride and conviction that they vote for the man, not the party. That is certainly their right, but again, when the choice is between two men of good character, what factors should determine the voters’ decisions?
As a Christian who believes in the truth of the entire Bible, I have a responsibility to look at the beliefs of the party each man represents and with which he has aligned himself. The Daily Journal says that we live in a “hyper-partisan” political climate, but voters do need to inform themselves on the basic tenets of each party.
The Democratic Party in recent decades has traditionally supported more liberal ideas about homosexuality as evidenced inced by opposing the Defense of Marriage Act as well as promoting equal rights for homosexual couples. The Democratic Party also supports pro-abortion rights. Both of these issues go beyond mere political or partisan positioning, as the biblical view on these two stands is clearly stated in God’s word. (Romans 1:26-28, Genesis 2: 23 amp& 24, Psalm 139: 13-16, and Jeremiah 1:5).
With a choice between two good men, one must look at the bigger picture and examine the party each man represents and ask himself/herself which candidate more closely mirrors the principles set forth in God’s standard of absolute truth. If Childers is indeed a moral man, then he needs to be the first to ask that question.
Nancy G. Anderson
Childers Obamacare stand makes him vote-unworthy
This year’s crop of campaign ads are an interesting lot.
Among the more interesting are ads run by Democrats accusing Republicans of raising taxes, or at least wanting to do so. Most of the Democrats in these ads seem to be positioning themselves just a little to the right of Genghis Khan.
Our own Travis Childers seems to have become a born-again conservative for the election cycle, and is touting his opposition to his party’s leadership. He claims hundreds of votes in opposition to Miss Pelosi’s agenda. Republicans on the other hand claim that he has voted with the leadership of his party over 80 percent of the time. Congressmen certainly must do a lot of voting.
The real question though, is how many opposition votes Mr. Childers cast for leadership sponsored bills that failed to pass. How many Democratic sponsored bills did he help to kill? When you are a new Congressman from a conservative district it is easy to get the leadership’s permission to vote against their program when your vote is not needed.
Mr. Childers proudly announces that he voted against the health care bill which most Americans seem to oppose. Mr. Childers voted against the health care bill because Nancy did not need his vote and gave him permission to vote against it. How else does one explain his statement several days after the vote that he would not vote to repeal Obamacare?
Anyone not willing to vote for repeal of Obamacare is not worthy of our vote.
Lynn Darling nailed truth about John Rosemond
I wish to commend Lynn D. Darling, Coordinator of Training in the Early Childhood Institute at Mississippi State University for her column Oct. 19, telling John Rosemond, columnist, that it’s time to join the new millennium. Ialso commend the Daily Journal for publishing Lynn Darling’s perspective.
It is time the Daily Journal replace the Rosemond column with one offering 21st century quality insight. Today, with advanced understanding of child development, appropriate advice in guidance for “a respectful approach to raising children” is urgent.
NEMS Daily Journal