"I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate," McCain said. "This presidency will have pro-life policies."And then maybe not. Check out this TNR piece about how successfully McCain has masked his pro-life zealotry. I have to say, even I was shocked by the reporting. I always thought of McCain as a guy who merely tolerated hard-right social conservatives. I was mistaken.
An interesting aspect of the platform decision is that pro-choice leaders, I'm told, were genuinely interested in making the party more palatable to evangelical leaders. That this compromise would get public support from religious Democrats almost certainly factored into the pro-choicers' willingness to bargain. The language is not officially final until it is ratified at the national convention, and pro-lifers will probably make some nominal efforts to address their lingering doubts, especially in regard to the "conscience" language. But for the most part, this has been a success for the platform committee and the Obama campaign. "It's a big difference from 2004," Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life, told me. "And it's a big difference that the committee reached out to us. It shows that we're accepted into the party."]]>
1) His fly by the seat of his pants approach to politics. Yeah, he's not quite a party hack, but part of that is that he seems like he's playing at being a senator. Look to his numerous foreign policy gaffes in this cycle, while that is supposed to be his area of expertise.
2) Running as an underdog in 2000 and flirting with the possibility of advancing his career in 2004 by running as Kerry's veep. He's only been a maverick in his views when it was politically feasible to do so. That's why the Bush revisited meme the Obama camp is pushing is actually pretty accurate.
]]>This is not really much different than the example of his much-referenced "reluctance" to use his POW experience for political gain -- when he uses a slick audiovisual segment about it as the intro to almost every campaign rally he holds. Ugh. McCain might as well borrow a campaign slogan from the late Benny Hill: "always be sincere, even if you don't mean it."
I personally suspect that, in his heart, McCain really isn't interested one way or another in the choice question, as with so much else domestically. But he has learned that for him, success lies in encouraging the notion that's he's his own man, when in his actual voting and policy positions are pretty much straight, down-the-line GOP.
]]>This last Friday we commemmorated the Assumption into heaven of a woman who, instead of resorting to silly rhetoric about 'choice' and 'freedom', said, "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord. Be it unto me according to Thy word." The contrast between the figure of St. Mary and the sterile utopia of "Choice" that Mr. Obama seems to prefer, is truly too glaring not to be commented on.
]]>Obama addressed this nonsense very vociferously last night, Hector. Stop repeating lies. I'm told it makes the Baby Jesus cry.
]]>The only reasons McCain is alive in this election is thar enough moderates and independants still believe he is secretly one of them and not a down the line right winger. Having it broadcast on national TV that he is 100% Pro Life and would replace the 4 moderate to liberal judges with Alito and Roberts clones can't help him. Andit certainly doens;t help him to have Tony Perkins gushing about his statements on CNN. Sure he shores up the base, but how many moderates get turned off?
This is also ironically where he reputation for being a moderate hurts him. As the republican he shouldn't need to stand in front of a mega church and be so uniequvical. If he had credibility with them he could do what Bush did and say a bunch of nonsense about Compassionate Conservativsm to snow moderates while winking at the right.
]]>See you in hell!!!
]]>http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=121780
]]>Um, I didn't listen to that interview. I personally doubt that there is much Obama could have said to exonerate himself, but perhaps you're right. Why not try and paraphrase what he said for me? If you think what Mr. Obama did was defensible, then by all means try and defend it. Perhaps you'll change my mind.
I've never seen any grounds to believe that Mr. Obama is anything but a diehard acolyte of the abortion lobby, so while I may be _mistaken_, I'm certainly not _lying._ I'd appreciate if you would retract your accusation.
I didn't actually say you were lying, Hector. I said you were "repeating lies," which you certainly were. I realize you're slightly nutty about the abortion issue but that's no reason to repeat right-wing nonsense without investigating it for yourself.
This is what Obama said, as cited by Sullivan. "http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/this-is-obama-a.html#more"
]]>Don't be so hard on yourself. You were carefully manipulated to reach that conclusion.
We're doomed.
]]>By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous.
Prove it or go troll elsewhere.
]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/frank-as-a-former-pro-lif_b_119435.html
]]>"There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so … this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
This might make sense - if the law defined all pre-viable fetuses as persons. But the law just defined the ones who were born as persons. This is the relevant phrasing in the law:
“the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”*
Note the words 'born alive.' The law wouldn't have created equal protection rights for non-born fetuses at all. But in case you don't believe me, here's the law's definition of 'born alive.'
"As used in this Section, the term 'born alive,' with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."**
In conclusion, either Obama's stupid or he's lying, because this bill wouldn't have undermined Roe at all.
*http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2NmMGNkMTdkZWJkZWRkMjRkNjY5NjllNzZlYjkyNmY=
** http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20018853&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
The only problem I have with this statement is that I suspect that "religious beliefs" only include stuff like "life begins at conception" but not "we need more Federal oversight of health care".
]]>