The Vice Presidential Debate and Inconsistencies

    As the election swiftly approaches, the media is making lots of headlines declaring poll research and the most memorable comments by the contestants.  One question I've been asked is if I watched the presidential debates or the vice presidential debates.  I've had to confess that I didn't when they occurred, but have since watched the debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan.  As the media said it, was very lively.  When asked about this debate, I replied that the issues are more important to me than the performance of the challengers.  What I found after watching the debate was that both challengers were inconsistent.

     The most important issue that I can see in the political realm is the protection of life.  This is the primary purpose of  government.  The fundamental purpose of government is to punish the evil and protect the innocent.  Now we have the very opposite happening to the unborn, the disabled and the elderly.

      How did these men show inconsistency?  We could talk about issues like the debt crisis that neither politically party has answers for because they both see the problem as the solution (I'm referring to the whole money system that is based on debt).  With the most important issue of the sanctity of life both men were not consistent with their personal views and their political policy.  They both have allowed political expediency to dictate their public policy in regard to protecting  the most innocent and most vulnerable segment of society.  Both men said they believe life begins at conception.  Both say religion holds an important area in their lives.

     The position Biden took was to say his public policy is not influenced by his personal beliefs.  How could it be that a man that has tremendous power to do good will not because the truth he knows in his heart can't influence his public policy?  The truth is that he does allow his personal views to influence his public positions because he later defended his position by saying that abortion was only a matter of a woman choosing what to do with her own body after he said he believes life begins at conception.  His role to protect the innocents goes beyond political affiliation as his responsibility as a public servant is to uphold the Constitution and protect people's rights including the right to life.  For that matter, his responsibility goes beyond the Constitution to the law of nature where we understand it is wrong to kill the innocent.  His responsibility in protecting life  goes beyond the law of nature because of the law of heaven which says "if a man sheds blood, by man shall his blood be shed."  Under the callused belief that Biden expressed no one would be safe.   

      Ryan made it known that his beliefs are the same publicly as they are privately.  He expressed his desire to be consistent and not two-faced.  But then his challenger reminded him of how he changed a position he had before he joined Romney's campaign.  He was against all abortion.  His new position allows abortion in the cases of rape and incest.  The problem is that the innocent party, the unborn child, should not become the victim of murder even if his life was the result of a tragic situation.  He is a real person that is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life.  The tragic problem with taking compromised positions like the exceptions that Ryan took is that it undermines his credibility.  His purposes might be good, but I believe that taking a pragmatic approach will only complicate matters and chip away at giving real solid answers.

     America needs real answers, not great debate performers. I think it is great if someone can express the truth with clarity. The problem is that the truth won't always be popular as Romney found out when he mentioned the problem of having so many people receiving entitlements.  Yet, to truly find answers that will pass the test of time, we need people to speak the truth without apology.