Conservative writer David Brooks

[Kelly the Dog]

We'll see. Obama told Planned Parenthood that his 1st act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (introduced 1st in 2007) that strips every single state law regulating abortion that more than 70% of the states have enacted.

 

I relish that debate. If the press had any !@#$ing balls what-so-ever - they would press this "intelligent man" to explain how he would not have supported the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill that passed 98-0 in the Senate (including support by Barbara Boxer) and how he voted against it 3x as a state senator in Illinois. There is no law, no funding restriction, not even restrictions protecting a live baby separated from their mother that this extremist (by any definition of the word) would support.

 

He is a radical's radical and I think you will see that bill come up for a vote, though I doubt it will ever reach his desk.

Gerson Wrong on Obama and "Born Alive" Legislation

April 02, 2008

 

RHETORIC:"In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion." [Washington Times, 4/2/08]

 

REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

 

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

 

NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That's Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, "We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them." [CNN, 8/5/02]

 

NARAL Statement: "NARAL Does Not Oppose Passage" of BAIPA.In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01]

 

Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA: "The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge" Roe V. Wade. "Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring 'infanticide' because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it." [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]

[X. Benedict]

Do you live in this country and pay any attention to politics? Abortion and Stem cell research are huge issues with radicals on either side. It was one of the biggest issues in confirming Roberts.

The key to confirming Supreme Court Justices has been that they haven't had any history in abortion decisions.

 

There is no end game for abortion politics - there just isn't.

 

But the issue can certainly deliver a political base.

Take Palin for example...if Roe v. Wade was overturned "It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values."

 

So that would make her pro-referendum?

Much better to be perceived as being against.

 

Then you have Biden who curiously gets rotten scores from National Right to Life and NARAL because he opposes federal funding, yet opposes overturning Roe v. Wade.

Better to be perceived as.....well just ask Biden....he'll tell you for the next 50 minutes.

 

It's a stalemated issue.

[SDS]

It is much more complicated than that:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob...nfanticide.html

 

but you see, that is what you get when you support intellectuals for the sake of intellectuals. You start arguing over the meaning of "is" and whether a bill is "exactly" the same to provide cover for one's self.

 

Intellectuals can be just as dangerous as those "stupid" people you are so tired of.

[ExiledInIllinois]

It is much more complicated than that:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob...nfanticide.html

 

but you see, that is what you get when you support intellectuals for the sake of intellectuals. You start arguing over the meaning of "is" and whether a bill is "exactly" the same to provide cover for one's self.

 

Intellectuals can be just as dangerous as those "stupid" people you are so tired of.

 

NEWSFLASH: One is going to be picked and have the power. I would rather be bossed around by a smart person than a dumb person.

 

Until we take the money out of the equation and have more VIABLE choices this is the way it is.

[Kelly the Dog]

It is much more complicated than that:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob...nfanticide.html

 

but you see, that is what you get when you support intellectuals for the sake of intellectuals. You start arguing over the meaning of "is" and whether a bill is "exactly" the same to provide cover for one's self.

 

Intellectuals can be just as dangerous as those "stupid" people you are so tired of.

It's an interesting article but ultimately means nothing. One would have to think of some bizarre reason for his objection. I think that ultimately, the last paragraph of the factcheck article means the most:

Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

I'm not at all supporting intellectuals for the sake of intellectuals, and you surely don't have to be an intellectual to be smart. In fact, I don't trust or like most intellectuals. I like smart people. I don't think I have ever used the term intellectual in that sense of the word when posting about Obama.

 

He happens to be an intellectual but that is not at all why I like him. I like him because I listen to what he says, I watch how he responds to people around him and the world, I observe how he handles things, I see who he surrounds himself with, and I see him respond to things in a manner I think to be thoughtfully. I generally like what I see and hear. Most "intellectuals" I see as smug, arrogant, non-common-sense elitists that speak way over your head. I don't see any of that from Obama. You may.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

And the abortion "debate" is completely bankrupt fear mongering. Neither party will EVER touch it legislatively or from the Executive because they're not stupid.

but you have to admit, McCain could overturn roe v wade if he appointed 1 sc judge, and almost definitely if he appointed 2

 

not saying he would

 

by the same token, obama could ensure a liberal court for a long time

[SDS]

It's an interesting article but ultimately means nothing. One would have to think of some bizarre reason for his objection. I think that ultimately, the last paragraph of the factcheck article means the most:

 

I'm not at all supporting intellectuals for the sake of intellectuals, and you surely don't have to be an intellectual to be smart. In fact, I don't trust or like most intellectuals. I like smart people. I don't think I have ever used the term intellectual in that sense of the word when posting about Obama.

 

He happens to be an intellectual but that is not at all why I like him. I like him because I listen to what he says, I watch how he responds to people around him and the world, I observe how he handles things, I see who he surrounds himself with, and I see him respond what I think to be thoughtfully. I generally like what I see and hear. Most "intellectuals" I see as smug, arrogant, non-common-sense elitists that speak way over your head. I don't see any of that from Obama.

 

that last paragraph dealt with the earlier votes, but whatever - I'm just saying you can't blow off the charge against him because he said it's not true and accept his reason for it. There is a lot more to it.

 

as for the last part - your answer scares me as much as Palin supposedly scares other people. The entire problem with Obama is that he is a smart person with slick rhetoric, yet no one wants to contrast that picture with what (little) he has actually done. Smart people can say anything. They can manipulate you all day long. However, it is your past record that either supports or detracts from your rhetoric.

 

I know everyone on the left wants to blow off William Ayers. I find that incomprehensible. Can you imagine if Palin was associated with anyone that bombed an abortion clinic? Do you have ANY idea what kind of sh-- storm that would cause? Yet there is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. There are lots of these characters in Obama's past, yet time and again he has to disavow them. No one cares. No one cares that he has no one to vouch for his actions on the past.

 

He's married to a woman who flat out hates America. She's a friggin' psycho. He marries someone who hates this country, he goes to church to listen to someone who hates this country, he raises money for people who bombed buildings, and yet no one cares. All these nutjobs that he surrounded himself with his entire life. Yet, no one cares. Because he talks nicely. I mean, WTF? It is the only thing we have to judge his words by - and no one voting for him really cares.

[elegantelliotoffen]

He's married to a woman who flat out hates America. She's a friggin' psycho.

 

Proof please.

[ExiledInIllinois]

that last paragraph dealt with the earlier votes, but whatever - I'm just saying you can't blow off the charge against him because he said it's not true and accept his reason for it. There is a lot more to it.

 

as for the last part - your answer scares me as much as Palin supposedly scares other people. The entire problem with Obama is that he is a smart person with slick rhetoric, yet no one wants to contrast that picture with what (little) he has actually done. Smart people can say anything. They can manipulate you all day long. However, it is your past record that either supports or detracts from your rhetoric.

 

I know everyone on the left wants to blow off William Ayers. I find that incomprehensible. Can you imagine if Palin was associated with anyone that bombed an abortion clinic? Do you have ANY idea what kind of sh-- storm that would cause? Yet there is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. There are lots of these characters in Obama's past, yet time and again he has to disavow them. No one cares. No one cares that he has no one to vouch for his actions on the past.

 

He's married to a woman who flat out hates America. She's a friggin' psycho. He marries someone who hates this country, he goes to church to listen to someone who hates this country, he raises money for people who bombed buildings, and yet no one cares. All these nutjobs that he surrounded himself with his entire life. Yet, no one cares. Because he talks nicely. I mean, WTF? It is the only thing we have to judge his words by - and no one voting for him really cares.

 

Are you really scared? You really think there are going to be acts of violence against our country from this source. The violence will more than likely come from someone Palin is inciting.

 

Again... Note my football game analogy and how some chicks incite others to fight.

 

What is this fear all about? I fessed up to what scares me.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Proof please.

 

He's got nothing but white suburban fright.

[SDS]

Proof please.

 

I doubt I could provide anything to you that you would consider proof. It is my opinion of her based on her words, her associations, and her actions.

[elegantelliotoffen]

I doubt I could provide anything to you that you would consider proof. It is my opinion of her based on her words, her associations, and her actions.

 

Such as?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Such as?

 

 

Not in response to the reply above.

 

Remember the movie Hairspray... The mother, Prudence Pingleton... The scene when she was walking through inner Baltimore clutching her purse from the African-Americans. Well, that is who we are dealing with on the conservative suburban white/right.

 

[Kelly the Dog]

that last paragraph dealt with the earlier votes, but whatever - I'm just saying you can't blow off the charge against him because he said it's not true and accept his reason for it. There is a lot more to it.

 

as for the last part - your answer scares me as much as Palin supposedly scares other people. The entire problem with Obama is that he is a smart person with slick rhetoric, yet no one wants to contrast that picture with what (little) he has actually done. Smart people can say anything. They can manipulate you all day long. However, it is your past record that either supports or detracts from your rhetoric.

 

I know everyone on the left wants to blow off William Ayers. I find that incomprehensible. Can you imagine if Palin was associated with anyone that bombed an abortion clinic? Do you have ANY idea what kind of sh-- storm that would cause? Yet there is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. There are lots of these characters in Obama's past, yet time and again he has to disavow them. No one cares. No one cares that he has no one to vouch for his actions on the past.

 

He's married to a woman who flat out hates America. She's a friggin' psycho. He marries someone who hates this country, he goes to church to listen to someone who hates this country, he raises money for people who bombed buildings, and yet no one cares. All these nutjobs that he surrounded himself with his entire life. Yet, no one cares. Because he talks nicely. I mean, WTF? It is the only thing we have to judge his words by - and no one voting for him really cares.

That is just garbage, Scott. Sorry. Lunatic fringe stuff. That fear mongering and your charges are just as anti-American as anything I have ever heard out of him or his wife (including that foolish charge "proud of country") His wife doesn't hate America in any way. What money did he raise for William Ayers? They both worked for non-profits for a Republican. There is ZERO connection to Ayers former life. when Obama was eight years old. In fact, he didn't even know of Ayers past until after he had met him, and why would he? (Which David Axelrod said today). Even Republicans who served with both men said this charge is just stupid.

 

Regardless of his background, it was never a problem for anyone — including Republicans and Chicago's most powerful business leaders — to work with Ayers on Chicago's public schools. In fact, Ayers is widely respected in the field of urban education.

 

"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."

 

Nelson says her fellow Republicans "might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life ... but beyond just snorting, I don't think anyone gives it another thought."

 

"I don't remember ever hearing anyone raise concerns or questions or concerns about [Ayers'] background," says Anne Hallett, who has worked closely with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge grant and with Obama on education and other community and legislative matters. "And that included everybody I was engaged with," including prominent Republicans, and corporate and civic leaders in Chicago, Hallett adds.

 

Hallett calls this attack on Obama's association with Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge by further association, "a smear campaign. It's a political diatribe that has no basis in fact. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an extremely positive initiative. It was well-vetted, thorough, and the fact that it is now is being used for political purposes is, in my opinion, outrageous."

[Alaska Darin]

by the same token, obama could ensure a liberal court for a long time

So you mean adding 2 more judges who think that "shall not be infringed" means a complete ban on gun possession is OK is far more important than a woman's right to choose?

 

Yeah, abortion is way more important than the Bill of Rights.

[John Adams]

Do you live in this country and pay any attention to politics? Abortion and Stem cell research are huge issues with radicals on either side. It was one of the biggest issues in confirming Roberts.

 

And who cares?

 

It's a Rome fiddling issue like gay marriage. A few radicals on either side won't cross a line and vote based on it. A whole lot of people in the middle vote based on a galley of other important and pressing issues, like say, the economy.

 

Regarding Roberts, it was an issue people could make wind out of and look like they were fighting the nomination. In the end, he is a highly qualified (read: not Clarence Thomas) judge and was rightfully approved.

[molson_golden2002]

that last paragraph dealt with the earlier votes, but whatever - I'm just saying you can't blow off the charge against him because he said it's not true and accept his reason for it. There is a lot more to it.

 

as for the last part - your answer scares me as much as Palin supposedly scares other people. The entire problem with Obama is that he is a smart person with slick rhetoric, yet no one wants to contrast that picture with what (little) he has actually done. Smart people can say anything. They can manipulate you all day long. However, it is your past record that either supports or detracts from your rhetoric.

 

I know everyone on the left wants to blow off William Ayers. I find that incomprehensible. Can you imagine if Palin was associated with anyone that bombed an abortion clinic? Do you have ANY idea what kind of sh-- storm that would cause? Yet there is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. There are lots of these characters in Obama's past, yet time and again he has to disavow them. No one cares. No one cares that he has no one to vouch for his actions on the past.

 

He's married to a woman who flat out hates America. She's a friggin' psycho. He marries someone who hates this country, he goes to church to listen to someone who hates this country, he raises money for people who bombed buildings, and yet no one cares. All these nutjobs that he surrounded himself with his entire life. Yet, no one cares. Because he talks nicely. I mean, WTF? It is the only thing we have to judge his words by - and no one voting for him really cares.

 

I hope the country will move past electing leaders that have the support of people like you

[erynthered]

as for the last part - your answer scares me as much as Palin supposedly scares other people. The entire problem with Obama is that he is a smart person with slick rhetoric, yet no one wants to contrast that picture with what (little) he has actually done. Smart people can say anything. They can manipulate you all day long. However, it is your past record that either supports or detracts from your rhetoric.

 

I know everyone on the left wants to blow off William Ayers. I find that incomprehensible. Can you imagine if Palin was associated with anyone that bombed an abortion clinic? Do you have ANY idea what kind of sh-- storm that would cause? Yet there is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. There are lots of these characters in Obama's past, yet time and again he has to disavow them. No one cares. No one cares that he has no one to vouch for his actions on the past.

 

He's married to a woman who flat out hates America. She's a friggin' psycho. He marries someone who hates this country, he goes to church to listen to someone who hates this country, he raises money for people who bombed buildings, and yet no one cares. All these nutjobs that he surrounded himself with his entire life. Yet, no one cares. Because he talks nicely. I mean, WTF? It is the only thing we have to judge his words by - and no one voting for him really cares.

 

 

Great post. Though most wont be able to wrap their heads around it because they're in Obama's trance. Drink up Lemmings.

[Lurker]

Intellectuals can be just as dangerous as those "stupid" people you are so tired of.

After the past eight years, that's a hard argument to make right now.

 

And since when did being intelligent = intellectual? Is that just a code word to make people distrustful that someone's "better than you?" God help us if we move from culture wars to intelligence wars...

[molson_golden2002]

After the past eight years, that's a hard argument to make right now.

 

And since when did being intelligent = intellectual? Is that just a code word to make people distrustful that someone's "better than you?" God help us if we move from culture wars to intelligence wars...

It's pretty interesting that they are now saying Obama is too smart to be president

 

Or words to that effect.