Don’t blame me, I voted for Sarah bumper stickers!
The GOP sure took a beating last week, and most surveys reflect that Obama won the votes of people who either support truly liberal policies or simply were tired of the party in charge. The latter, coupled with an over one percent decline in Republican voter turnout, tells me that the problem lies with Republicanism. That, however, is very different from Conservatism.
The fact remains that the Republican Party has governed like anything but a group of conservatives for some time now. The out of control spending (Farm Bill, prescription drugs, etc.), the ethical disasters (Foley, Stevens, Craig, etc.) and the abdication of traditional conservative values such as free speech (campaign finance reform) and limited government ($700b federal bailout) left conservatives with no champion of their beliefs. They therefore voted for McCain, if they voted at all, for two reasons—one negative and one positive.
Conservatives who voted for McCain fear the ramifications of an Obama presidency. That’s pretty self-explanatory, but it can be summed up in the single specter of an Obama-selected judiciary. Conservatives voted for McCain simply to stop the (now coming) assault on innocent life, individual rights and free speech.
Conservatives who voted McCain also did so because of the lone bright spot on the ticket—Sarah Palin. Governor Palin likely added anywhere from five to seven points to McCain’s tally, and without her presence, local volunteerism would have continued to atrophy in September and October. She was the only catalyst on the long, slow march to defeat.
Conservatives need now to regroup and refocus on their goals and how to achieve them. They must remember that we’ve seen this movie before, and its star was Jimmy Carter. We’ll emerge from this with the right kind of leadership—the leadership of a conservative. His name, in 1980, was Ronald Reagan. I don’t know who it will be in 2012, but I do know that we owe a debt of gratitude to the one Conservative champion we had in 2008—Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin was one of very few Republicans on the national stage during the last few weeks who stood up for innocent life forcefully and unashamedly. She was one of the few who stood up for traditional marriage (which, by the way, even Californians supported last week). She also, famously in opposition to her running mate, supported drilling everywhere, including ANWR, now—right now.
Sarah Palin shone a beacon for Conservatives and offered them refuge on a ticket whose headliner often left us dazed and confused. Conservatives supported Sarah Palin, and if you were one of those, here’s your chance to let everyone know it. Display your support of Sarah Palin and identify yourself as a true conservative with this bumper sticker. Likewise, let everyone know from the beginning that you made the right decision last week and that you’re proud of it.
Conservatism will be vindicated again, like it has been in the past. Don’t hide, don’t shirk. Stand up for your values and let everyone know it. We’ll be back, and we’re starting today.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:43 am
[...] Still Proud to be a Conservative Conservatives who voted McCain also did so because of the lone bright spot on the ticket—Sarah Palin. Governor Palin likely added anywhere from five to seven points to McCain’s tally, and without her presence, local volunteerism would … [...]
November 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Very, very well put, Senator. It’s time to reclaim our party for conservatism!
November 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
John McCain’s campaign managers lost the opportunity of allowing Sarah Palin to become all she can be. Although her knowledge of national and international issues needed enhancing, her greatness is found in her ability to energize and inspire. When the campaign managers decided to protect her from media exposure, they blocked her from shining her light and reaching out to all Americans across all political aisles.
In 2012, a Huckabee/Palin ticket could be awesome.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“Sarah Palin. Governor Palin likely added anywhere from five to seven points to McCain’s tally”
—-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31poll.html?hp
Polls show that Repubs love her, everyone else…..? not so much.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
The NY Times. Do they still sell newspapers?
November 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Of course, it is the New York Times, and NBC, and CBS, and ABC, and CNN, and MSNBC, and every other newspaper in any metropolitan area along with all news television. The only ones you can believe are Rush and Hannity. Hell, even FOX NEWS is in the tank for liberals these days.
Palmetto, you just keep on believing that the country actually agrees with you and it is a huge liberal conspiracy involving the media. Keep believing what Rush and Hannity tell you. Keep believing that, because soon you will be living in the only remaining red state. You all have been preaching this nonsense forever, and it doesn’t work on the majority of people anymore. It just ends up making you look a bit paranoid and frankly…. kind of nutty.
I am no fan of big media, but to think there was somehow a manipulation of poll results from the countries newspaper of record collaborating with one of our top network news agencies to make a pol look bad? Take your meds bro (or sis), cause that’s just frickin’ nuts.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Sarah Palin has suffered greatly from the mishandling of her role as a vice-president candidate by the McCain campaign managers. They handled her as a fragile candidate, while in fact she was a dynamite personality, capable of energizing millions.
Clearly, Governor Palin has started rehabilitating her image through granting many interviews to national news-networks. In addition, through working with a group of advisors on national issues and foreign policies, she will become a force to deal with in charting the political future of this nation.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Well, this is AWESOME!!!!!
I still find it shocking that any American could support someone who thinks that America is so imperfect, that they would pal around with radical, fringe, America-hating, secessionists.
Another anti-intellectual, marginally intelligent, uninformed, inarticulate, “folksy,” fundamentalist extremist. After 8 years of the epically incompetent W, this is exactly what the GOP needs!
I have a similar bumper-sticker. It reads:
Sarah Palin/Joe the Plummer 2012
Mavwrecks…yer darn tootin!
November 17th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Sully man,
You should be thankful that America allows you the opportunity to make many unsubstantiated comments and reach illogical conclusions, while knowing that your freedom of speech is still protected.
Sarah Palin never preached any radical ideas or supported secession from this nation. As a public official, she has met and communicated with many groups from all sides of the political aisles. However, communicating with various groups does not mean that she has endorsed all of their views.
Governor Palin has proven to be an intelligent, articulate, and inspiring public speaker. In addition, she has proven to be a fast learner. I do expect her to make a move to the U.S. Senate, followed by another run for the White House.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Really? So the whole thing about Sarah being a complete joke escapes your minds?
November 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Art,
Your criticism of my comments being unsubstantiated are themselves unsubstantiated remarks. While I did not provide the links this time, the fact is that SP has long and deep connections to this radical, fringe, America-hating group. Her husband was a member from 1995-2002. She has attended numerous events, most of which pre-date her being governor or even running for office. As recently as 2007 she provided a video-taped address for their conference telling them to “keep up the good work.”
Here is a quote from the founder of the party, that is highlighted on the party’s own web site “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”
Read it for yourself here:
http://www.akip.org/introduction.html
Here is the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story
Here is the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/politics/04party.html?ref=politics
Here is her address:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
Here is a short documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its&feature=related
Here is a Fox News interview with Todd Palin:
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3093297&referralPlaylistId=undefined
So, SP has been very vocal about the legitimacy of scrutinizing candidates’ associations, and I think her embrace of these rabid Anti-American extremists raises important questions about her judgment.
Art we obviously have very different perceptions of SP and I respect your views. But fast learner? Wouldn’t a sitting governor of the largest state in the Union who was a fast learner already know which countries were in NAFTA before they jumped into a presidential race?
Now, please look into this yourself and stop claiming that my comments are unsubstantiated and my conclusions are illogical. I’ve made it easy for you.
And as for the logic, here is the logic: If you pal around with people who hate America, your views about America, and your patriotism, should be called into question. SP pals around with people who hate America.
We can both agree on one thing, though. She is a fantastic representative of the Conservative base and I hope she carries the mantle for the GOP in 2012!
November 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Hello,
thought/culture police? Let’s not forget about the 1st Amendment….
November 17th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Art,
I think the links I tried to provide are blocking my comment from posting. Sorry. Try Google. Here is my follow-up without the links.
Your criticism of my comments being unsubstantiated are themselves unsubstantiated remarks. While I did not provide the links this time, the fact is that SP has long and deep connections to this radical, fringe, America-hating group. Her husband was a member from 1995-2002. She has attended numerous events, most of which pre-date her being governor or even running for office. As recently as 2007 she provided a video-taped address for their conference telling them to “keep up the good work.”
Here is a quote from the founder of the party, that is highlighted on the party’s own web site “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”
So, SP has been very vocal about the legitimacy of scrutinizing candidates’ associations, and I think her embrace of these rabid Anti-American extremists raises important questions about her judgment.
Art we obviously have very different perceptions of SP and I respect your views. But fast learner? Wouldn’t a sitting governor of the largest state in the Union who was a fast learner already know which countries were in NAFTA before they jumped into a presidential race?
Now, please look into this yourself and stop claiming that my comments are unsubstantiated and my conclusions are illogical. I’ve made it easy for you.
And as for the logic, here is the logic: If you pal around with people who hate America, your views about America, and your patriotism, should be called into question. SP pals around with people who hate America.
We can both agree on one thing, though. She is a fantastic representative of the Conservative base and I hope she carries the mantle for the GOP in 2012!
November 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Here’s another idea for a bumper sticker:
Barack Hussein Obama
Community Organizer in Chief!
November 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I just asked if they still sell newspapers. Someone definitely needs some meds.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
sully, does Sarah have friends like Bill Ayers?
November 17th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Sully man,
After reading every link you provided, I am very puzzled by your claim that Sarah Palin supports radical ideas and secessionist views. The material you provided proves that Sarah Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982. She may have been civil and respectful of other views, but there is no evidence that she has ever been less than fully loyal to the United States of America.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Art,
Her association with members of this radical group are much deeper than Obama’s with the Weather Underground. She sleeps with a man who was a member of this fringe group for 7 years.
I know you are reasonable and do not beat the Bill Ayers drum as SP and her supporter do, even today, but if the Ayers question is relevant, so is this. I hope your opposition to the Ayers smears is equally vociferous. And please note, it is this lady, who you support, who continues to the beat the Ayers dead horse. Do you condone her behavior? If so, why?
November 17th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
[...] Conservatives who voted McCain also did so because of the lone bright spot on the ticket—Sarah Palin . Governor Palin likely added anywhere from five to seven points to McCain’s tally, and without her presence, local volunteerism would …[Continue Reading] [...]
November 18th, 2008 at 8:14 am
??,
Yes. And she is an Islamo-Fascist.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Yuk, yuk, yuk. Centrist, centrist, centrist….
November 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Palmetto,
You implied the poll was inaccurate with you comment. Do you think teh poll is inaccurate and a posting with nothing to back it up saying she added 5-7 points is? Why don’t you make an argument for something?
November 18th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I didn’t imply anything, but you certainly blew a gasket. I just asked if they still sell newspapers. Did you get those meds?
November 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Palmetto,
Still here with your snide couple of condescending lines every once in a while? Nice MO. Keep representing!
November 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
That is blowing a gasket? It is tough when you don’t have a leg to stand on isn’t it? Would you like to refute the information in the poll Palmetto, or would you just like to make a comment about a newspaper and that’ll go ahead and take care of it?
November 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Yuk yuk yuk. Centrist, centrist, centrist.
The nice thing about this blog is you can just toss any incendiary crap that comes to mind without having to support it with any evidence at all. You know, like “Obama is just like Osama.” And then you get the young acolytes posting “Obama shares a similar ideology as bin Laden” and “Obama has Socialist, Marxist policies.” And “Obama is un-American.” Then you need not provide any examples to back up your statements. It’s awesome!
November 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I can see into the future:
November 2012 NYTIMES:
“American’s Still Don’t Like Shooting Wolves from Helicopters”
November 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Sully man,
In a private, rare conversation during the campaign, which was caught on tape, Sarah said the following: “If I had a magic wand, I would focus all campaign comments on the issues, rather than personal allegations.”
I do believe that the use of Bill Ayers to imply that Barack Obama is guilty by association was an idea pushed by the McCain campaign, not by Sarah Palin. However, she apparently felt obligated to preach the message, and now she has no graceful way to condemn its use.
By the nature of their work, public officials have to deal with the public as a whole, not just a select few. Consequently, many public meetings, photo opportunities, speeches and presentations may give the perception of association with controversial individuals. However, every public official should be judged by what he/she says and does, not who they meet during public events.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Art,
SP really seems to relish the personal attacks. The reporting that I’ve heard is that she went forward with the Ayers business before even receiving the OK from McShame. But I must admit, those reports did not necessarily come from Limpbaugh, Hannity, Liddy, or Fox News.
She cannot find a graceful way to stop repeating it over and over at almost every opportunity, even though it was something pushed on her that she was not really comfortable with? Even though the campaign is over? That does not sound like a fast learner to me, nor does it sound like a strong and principled individual.
I agree that they should be judged by what they say and do, and in this case, it’s shameful. Almost as shameful as Sen. Bryant’s Osama/Obama post. It’s just about all they did, negative character attacks. Is there some equivalent that Barack pulled?
Do you think SP has a better understanding of what a community organizer does NOW?
November 18th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I’ve got you fired up, jack (all of your personalities). Is this any way for disciples to act? Can’t we all just get along?
Speaking of strange MOs, you never seem to defend “The One.” You just keep on complaining about everyone else.
Centrist, Centrisr, Centrist….
November 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Palmetto,
Yes, I am simply beside myself. You are so clever, you push all of my buttons all at once. Oh, the way you say “Centrist, Centrisr, Centrist” just makes me go all to pieces! Is your behavior any way for a Christian to act? Would Jesus be posting your little lines?
Sorry, but I am not going to defend Obama from the paranoid, delusional smears you people post here. Now if anyone has anything REAL they would like to discuss, I’ll be happy to. You know like a criticism of an actual policy position. But “Obama was born in Kenya” or “he’s a Muslim” or the Antichrist or fascist or whatever, is simply impossible to reason with.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“The one” LMFAO, you are a typical conservative palmetto. Can’t even engage in honest conversation. So was Palin a drag on the ticket or not? Would you mind citing? Thanks a bunch big guy.
BTW, hope you enjoy turbans and giving your guns away!
November 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
And on and on and on. I obviously pushed the reply button. It’s clear you’re not here to defend Obama, because you won’t. What is clear is that you’re hear to malign conservatives. The profile becomes clearer with every post.
Have you ever styled yourself as an economic developer? (That’s for either of your personalities)
November 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Would you like to talk about Obama Palmetto? Would you like to continue to misconstrue the definitions of forms of government? If you want an honest conversation, start one. If not, I will continue to point and laugh at your willful ignorance. Now, an economic developer? I have not styled myself as such, no. We can discuss economic development if you would like.
It seems as if your only purpose is to throw around names at people. You are not here to have an honest discussion, let me know when you are ready pal, cause I am ready to hear real ideas from conservatives as opposed to name-calling and innuendo. The reality of this issue is that you are not knowledgable enough to engave in a real conversation, so…………..
at least use google!
November 18th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Art,
To me it is clear. Obama and Ayer’s served on a board together, that much is true. There was no actual relationship, and that board was filled with prominent Democrats and Republicans.
Sarah Palin was by far the worst of the bunch when it came to propogating this ugliness, and she was married to a man that belonged to a radical secessionist party. She spoke at their events, she helped them out. The links above that SullyMan posted are factual. The video is out there. Should she be ostracized for her secessionist friends and family? I don’t believe so, she does that on her own anyway. But she sure as hell cannot cite Obama’s very loose associations when these are hers.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Dude, I was talking to Sullyman. Err, I guess that’s you too. Either way, if you want to talk about Obama, start talking. Tell me more about the new president and his policies. Tell me more about his stance on Israel, taxes, abortion, or anything.
You and all your personalities sound a lot like those folks driven to hysteria by the Anderson County primaries. And the profile becomes even more clear.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Palmetto,
Your paranoia is rearing it’s ugly head again, like Putin over Wasilla.
You seem to have the faulty belief that The Dude and I are the same people. We may be like Osama is to Obama, but The Dude abides, and I am not The Dude.
What is it that you want to know about Obama’s stances on Israel, taxes, abortion, or anything that inspires such fear in you that you would buy into to these delusional conspiracy theories?
I’m not going to regurgitate his policy positions for you. You are very clever and have access to the series of tubes that make up the internets. You surely have followed The One’s policies on the issues. What is it that makes you so frightened?
Let’s start with Israel, since that is a recurring fear for you. What is it about his stance on Israel that makes your bladder constrict so?
November 19th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I’m open to anythng you care to share. The floor is yours.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Palmetto,
You really don’t know anything about his positions on Israel, do you? You just believe that you should be afraid because of what you are fed in the echo chamber. You’re disappointing me Palmetto. What is it about his positions on Israel that I am supposed to defend?
2/17/07
“My view is that the United States’ special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction,” he said.
What’s so radical about that?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:38 am
http://www.mlive.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2008/11/obama_fared_better_than_feared.html
Obama did pretty well with American Jews. Better than Kerry by 3 points. Maybe they just don’t know what a disaster he would be for Israel. Or maybe, just maybe, they don’t know about all his controversial ties?
http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/IsraelFactSheet.pdf
There is an Obama Israel primer. It is obvious you did not pay attention before the election. here is your chance.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:41 am
June 4, 2008 - “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
June 5, 2008 - “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties”
Which one is it?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Obama on taxes:
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
Figure out your Obama tax cut here Palmetto!
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
To be honest, it seems you might get your news from Joe the Plumber, but read up if you like. Before you get all up in arms though, realize we did have this thing called a progressive rate income tax before Obama, ok? I just don’t want you to get all up in arms about socialism when you see that the rich pay a higher percentage. We have been doing that since the Civil War.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Palmetto,
Finally!!!! I knew you could do it.
It’s both. He believes that Jerusalem should remain undivided, but ultimately it is up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to work that out. He can’t issue edicts to them, they have to come to an agreement on the issue.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Palmetto,
What is SP’s position on Jerusalem? You might want to remind her that it is a city, not a country.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I give up, Palmetto. I can’t match your wits
November 19th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
That’s cute, someone using my name. Good work! I am surprised the joker that did that can do teh adding required to post.
However, I see they won’t post my last comments. Yippee!
November 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
He didn’t say “should,” he said “must.” So, his true belief remains unclear.
I don’t know what Palin believes on Israel, and it doesn’t matter. She’s not responsible for deciding anything about Israel. The new president is.
So, we’re left with a mixed message on the future of Jerusalem.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Palmetto,
His true belief is that it “must,” but it is not up to him. You do acknowledge that it is ultimately not his decision, right?
November 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
From the Wa Po, 2/28/08
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the liberal Jewish magazine Tikkun, issued a statement declaring that Obama “has been very successful . . . in reassuring the bulk of American Jews that the innuendoes and overt attacks on his alleged hostility to or indifference to the well-being of Israel are false.”
November 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Okay, you have said that, “He believes that Jerusalem should remain undivided,” and you have said that, “His true belief is that it ‘must,’….
So, we’re still unclear on what exactly he believes.
And, it is ultimately the decision of the President of the United States what will happen or, conversely, what will not happen. The President will decide what foreign policy outcome they want, hopefully within the framework of what’s best for the United States, and then they will use whatever diplomacy they can to achieve it.
Furthermore, and more importantly, they will (we hope) do whatever they have to to prevent the opposite of the interest of the United States from occurring. That’s why it matters what Obama wants. He’s the decider now, and he controls the carrots and sticks.
So, if he can’t tell us what he wants, we have no way of knowing what he will do in a given situation or crisis. More importantly, in this particular scenario, the Israelis have no way of knowing.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Palmetto,
I think Obama clearly said what he wants, I also think he acknowledged the fact that he couldn’t make it happen on his own. What do you think is in teh best interests of America as pertains to Israel and Palestine?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Exactly what he believes is that it should and must remain undivided. How could he make it more clear what he wants? “it must remain undivided” sounds like a crystal clear position statement to me. What is so unclear and/or radical about that? That’s his position, and he will use diplomacy to achieve it. But he is a reasonable person, and Israel is not a colony. What happens to Jerusalem is not a life or death question for the US security, and he would not use every means available to him to insure that Jerusalem remains undivided if the parties negotiated a different solution.
Why are you so concerned with how the Jerusalem question is decided?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Palmetto,
You claim he has radical positions, but what you are saying is that his position on this is not radical enough. What should he say? “Jerusalem will only be divided over my dead body!” or “I would rather obliterate every Palestinian on earth than see Jerusalem divided?”
November 19th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
On one day he says one thing, and on another day he says another thing. On one day he says something “must” and “will” happen and on another day he says “it has to be negotiated.”
The point is that words matter. If you (as a presidential candidate) tell a pro-Israel group that Jerusalem “must” and “will” remain undivided, then you are telling them that you will exert the power of the United States to that end.
If then on the next day you tell the general public that “it has to be negotiated,” then you are telling them (including the folks from the day before) that it is an open question, not a “must” or “will” condition.
Whether or not the fate of Jerusalem and Israel is a US national security issue is another debate. I would just like to figure out which position the new president holds. Is an undivided Jerusalem, the preferred Israeli position, a mandatory condition for the new president or is the question open to negotiation as the Palestenians prefer.
It remains unclear.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Palmetto,
You do not seek clarity on the issue, you seek uncertainty and confusion so that you can justify your dislike of Obama. So you will remain uncertain and confused.
He has been very clear on his position, while maintaining enough flexibility to engage in diplomacy and negotiation. He did not paint himself into a corner. It’s called competence.
Now, why is the Jerusalem question such an important one? Are you afraid for our national security, or afraid that you will not get the outcome that you want for Jerusalem as a Christian?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
So, on Israel, his words mean anything on any given day. One day something is mandatory and another it’s open to negotiation, but there’s no inconsistency there. That’s comforting.
Are there any other issues you’d care to clarify his position on? How about abortion? How does he feel about that?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
For some reason, most people do not find his position difficult to understand or scandalous.
It will take a while to adjust to a President who is not obtuse and does not see things from an absolutist, black and white, my-way-or-the-highway perspective. It’s why the world is rejoicing about the election.
What about Jerusalem? The fact that you are ignoring the question points strongly to one conclusion about your position.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Palmetto,
So, you are couching his position on the Jerusalem issue as critical to you as an American, but the truth is that it is important to you as a Christian?
November 19th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Y’all are starting to sound “radical.”
November 19th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
October 30 - Charlie Rose
“I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is, I really don’t know.”
Tom Brokaw - “No, no, I don’t either.”
Charlie Rose - “I don’t know how he really sees where China is and where it wants to go and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure.”
Nov. 6 - Morton Kondracke
“Barack Obama is our next president. The question is: Who is he? It’s still not clear whether he is a pragmatic post-partisan unifier or a populist liberal ideologue.”
And now you tell me that “must” and “negotiable” are synonyms.
Anyway, on to another subject. I proposed abortion as our next topic, but if you prefer another, go right ahead. Tell me what our next president believes–about anything.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Palmetto,
Are you conceding the point I made in my 5:43 pm post?
I think that the fact that you are throwing up some random quote from Morton Kondrache to distract from the question says it all.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
So basically, what this smear tactic is, is to make voters afraid that Obama will undermine national security, when in truth your concern is that he won’t fulfill your desires as a Christian?
November 19th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Now Rose and Brokaw are smear merchants? Nice dodge. I’m conceding that you can’t answer the question, so let’s move on. Pick another topic. Any topic.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Jerusalem. Why is it important?
November 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am
It’s important because it’s a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That’s relatively self-explanatory.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:09 am
And if, through the process of negotiation, it was divided, that would be OK with you?
November 20th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Doesn’t matter what I think, I’m not the decider. It matters what Obama thinks. He’s the decider. If you don’t want to discuss any of his other policy positions, that’s okay. Your record isn’t so good at this point.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Why are you so afraid to stand up and express your views? You are confirming some of my worst beliefs about Christian Fundamentalists.
The fact is, the President’s job is to do what’s best for America, not to fulfill the right-wing Christian agenda. So why don’t you just be honest, rather than trying to cast the opponent as “risky” or “un-American” or “radical” when what you really mean is that he is not radical enough?
November 20th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I think the real problem is we just don’t know who Obama is.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The excercise here is to learn more about the president-elect. Remember this: “What is it that you want to know about Obama’s stances on Israel, taxes, abortion, or anything….”
So, I’m trying to learn. Does your offer still stand?
Also, what makes you think I’m a Christian fundamentalist? And, why would it matter?
November 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
As for abortion, I would say Obama says what most Dems say: safe, legal, and rare. He is pro-choice. He looks to improve access to contraception to prevent unintended pregnancies. He also believes in comprehensive sex ed, as opposed to abstinence only education, which has been an abject failure at every level imaginable.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Are these also positions most Democrats hold?
In 1997, Obama twice voted “present” on an Illinois partial-birth abortion ban.
In 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to notify parents when their minor children seek an abortion.
In 2003, Obama, as a committee chairman, killed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which was consistent with his previous votes against it.
His stance on comprehensive sex education also unfortunately includes such instruction for all children from Kindergarten on.
Are these the stances we should expect him to promote as the next president?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
You are confused buddy. Look at what voting present means in the Illinois legislature. Happens all the time, and is not just to duck for political cover. It is a nuanced way of looking at bills, and it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t get it.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_GovWatch.htm
As far as Partial Birth Abortions and born alive abortions, you are distorting (not surprisingly) his position.
“Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion
On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.
Part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.
As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don’t think that’s any Republican out there who I’ve worked with who would say that I don’t listen to them, I don’t respect their ideas, I don’t understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we’re always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008 ”
The sex education claim is a dubious claim from McCain’s campaign commercial. Absolutely ridiculous.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314
If you think Obama is for killing babies that survived attempted abortions, you are just ignorant. If you are misguided, then welcome to the light. The bill he helped block in Illinois contained no protection of a woman’s right to choose, and contained language that supercede3d Roe vs. Wade.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Anyhow, is he not pro-life enough or pro-choice enough for you?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
It’s not about me. It’s about the new president. He’s in charge.
So, the positions he’s held previously as an IL and US Senator are the ones we should expect him to continue to hold when he gets legislation on the subject or faces a Supreme Court appointment?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I have a comment awaiting moderation.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I would expect him to nominate justices that are fair and balanced (the real fair and balanced) first and foremost. I would not expect him to nominate judges that would overturn Roe vs. Wade.
I would expect him to support a states right to ban late-term abortions as he has in the past, but to go no further than that. I would expect a bad bill, like the one he refused to pass in Illinois would not be signed by him, or passed by the Dem congress. However, if it was similar to the federal bill he supportedm he would.
Pleas wait for my comment to “be moderated”
November 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Palmetto,
You are obviously a Christian Fundamentalist, and it matters because you have a hidden agenda. And you hide it behind smears rather than just saying, “Obama will not guarantee that Jerusalem will remain undivided, and that bothers me because, as a Christian, I believe that at the End of Days, Jerusalem will be where Christ comes again” or whatever your belief is. Instead you try to confuse the issue and instill fear about the candidate.
You raise a lot of votes, and I don’t care to do the research to speak to each one individually.
I can tell you that the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” was a bill that he said was “introduced for political reasons and unnecessary in Illinois. The loaded name of the bill suggests that he was right.
On abortion, Obama is where the vast majority of the country is, anti-abortion, pro-choice. Most of the country does not believe that the government should decide what goes on within a woman’s reproductive system. It’s not a radical position, it’s mainstream. Let’s be clear, you are the radical who is out of the mainstream. And yes, I think you can expect him to nominate judges who are in the mainstream. That’s no secret. What’s the mystery? What’s the scandal?
There is none, but you want to create one, so you paint him as an inhumane baby-hating monster to forward your poorly hidden agenda.
On sex education, this smear has already been totally debunked. Ask most parents in the US if they would want their kindergarteners taught about what is appropriate touch and what is not, and what you should do if someone is touching you inappropriately. It’s about protecting kids from child predators.
Why do you support child predators?
November 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
And stop pretending that you want to “learn about his positions.” Did you not pay attention during the elections? Did you cast your vote without knowing about his positions? Are you old enough to vote?
November 20th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Dude,
abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t work? I bet Sarah Palin would disagree….oh, never-mind.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Hey SullyMan,
They are just having the child and marriage they and God always wanted! Good on them. They are an example for every other kid that gets pregnant in their teens. Just have your family financially support you and use their political power to make the boy marry you! Boom! No more abortions needed. Now excuse me while I go and tell all the kids from single parent, low-income families!
November 20th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Palmetto,
Why is it wrong to support age-appropriate sex education for kindergarteners aimed at protecting them from sexual abuse?
November 20th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
“You are obviously a Christian Fundamentalist, and it matters because you have a hidden agenda.”
How do you arrive at that conclusion? If I have said anything that indicates that, please cite it.
“Instead you try to confuse the issue and instill fear about the candidate. ”
How have I tried to confuse the issue? I simply ask questions, ones that you invited (see above). You seem confused about the answers, but that’s not my fault.
“you paint him as an inhumane baby-hating monster to forward your poorly hidden agenda.”
I simply list his votes. If you characterize them as “inhumane baby-hating,” then okay, I’ll take your word for it. They’re your words, not mine.
“I can tell you that the ‘Born Alive Infant Protection Act’ was a bill that he said was ‘introduced for political reasons and unnecessary in Illinois.’ The loaded name of the bill suggests that he was right.”
How can you tell me that? Can you cite language in the bill or do you simply take his word for it? Is the phrase, “the loaded name of the bill” not a “fear and smear” tactic, as you might call it? There’s no evidence here that you know anything about the bill, you just call it (and me) some nasty names and dismiss it. Isn’t that what you accuse others of doing?
“On sex education, this smear has already been totally debunked. It’s about protecting kids from child predators.”
When asked if the sex education bill was sepcifically about inappropriate touching, co-sponsor Senator Iris Martinez said, “Absolutely not.”
But here’s the best line of all: “You raise a lot of votes, and I don’t care to do the research to speak to each one individually.”
Really? So, you’re just giving up and falling back on name calling and innuendo? Nice.
Look Sullyman, you’re really losing it here. I ask specific questions citing specific data and/or quotations, and you respond with tirades that accuse me of religious beliefs that you have no knowledge of yet cahracterize as heinous. You furthermore continue to decry me as a “smear and fear” merchant while in the same breath denigrating me and my questions without any evidence to refute them.
You really need to raise this discourse back to a decent level. Is this the meaning of “change we can believe in?”
November 21st, 2008 at 8:55 am
Palmetto,
So much nonsense. Why are you afraid to engage in a little straightforward discussion? I don’t need to cite anything that says you are Christian Fundamentalist. I can tell by the views that you hold, the people you support, the the way you frame the issues that you are. Am I wrong? If so, just say so. It does not need to be a big deal. Why won’t you say what you believe? You can be honest here, Palmetto. It’s a safe space.
And yes, when I say that “you try to confuse the issue and instill fear about the candidate” I am speaking of you and your ilk and those you march in lock step with. Those who have suggested that Obama, because he did not sign the bill, wanted to see babies born alive “shelved” or allowed to die. It wasn’t happening in Illinois.
But what is so radical about his position on abortion. Oh, I forgot, you won’t give your thoughts or beliefs on any of the topics that are important to you. OK, how about, why was it wrong for him to sign the bill. Fill me in, here, Palmetto.
And no, calling the name of a bill “loaded” is not a fear and smear tactic. It’s pretty straightforward really.
On sex ed, clipping quotes out of context really does not add much to the discussion. Why don’t you tell me what the fact that he supported that bill tells us about the new Community Organizer in Chief?
And I am still waiting for you to fill me in on Jerusalem. Must be a touchy subject.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:01 am
“I don’t need to cite anything that says you are Christian Fundamentalist. I can tell by the views that you hold….”
And then, “Why won’t you say what you believe?”
So, you can tell what my views are despite, by your acknowledgement, the fact that you don’t know what they are.
It’s like everything else you say. No citations, no evidence, no data, just words–just speeches (to quote the next president).
You bring absolutely nothing to the table besides your rants, name calling and declaration of ESP. You utterly fail not only the decency test but also the integrity test.
You have no idea what the next president believes or will do (or you won’t tell us), and you cannot answer even the simplest of questions, yet you continue these tirades as if mere volume substitutes for facts.
I’m happy to keep pointing out the obvious, if you want to continue your childish kicking and screaming, but this would be a whole lot more edifying if you would simply engage in the facts.
If you’ve got any more topics on which you’d like to illuminate the next president’s position, please do. Right now you’re 0-2.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Geeze, talk about a tirade! Why won’t you just say what you think. When you refuse to stand up and say what you believe, one can only draw conclusions.
Tell me, is Obama an extremist on Israel or abortion? Or how about sex ed. Tell me why his vote on sex ed was wrong. Why can’t you do that? Or how about we discuss his “Marxist” policies. What are they? Take your pick. If so, why do you think so? What are these “facts” you want to engage in? There’s more to debate than picking out one line quotes out of context. Your refusal to say what you believe is really quite cowardly.
I have no idea what Obama believes? I think I was quit explicit on his views on abortion and Jerusalem (see above). Where was I wrong? Are his positions on abortion outside of the mainstream, or are you the extremist?
Why do you continue to ignore the Jerusalem question I posed? Why are you afraid to discuss Jerusalem?
And you can keep score however you want. I’ll let the dialogue speak for itself.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:39 am
Palmetto
“you cannot answer even the simplest of questions”
Total crap. You are the one who will not answer questions. Repeatedly.
Palmetto
“So, the positions he’s held previously as an IL and US Senator are the ones we should expect him to continue to hold when he gets legislation on the subject or faces a Supreme Court appointment?”
Sullyman
“On abortion, Obama is where the vast majority of the country is, anti-abortion, pro-choice. Most of the country does not believe that the government should decide what goes on within a woman’s reproductive system. It’s not a radical position, it’s mainstream. Let’s be clear, you are the radical who is out of the mainstream. And yes, I think you can expect him to nominate judges who are in the mainstream.”
November 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Okay, let’s cover the same ground again.
“On abortion, Obama is where the vast majority of the country is, anti-abortion, pro-choice. Most of the country does not believe that the government should decide what goes on within a woman’s reproductive system. It’s not a radical position, it’s mainstream. Let’s be clear, you are the radical who is out of the mainstream. And yes, I think you can expect him to nominate judges who are in the mainstream.”
You believe that the vast majority of the country would not oppose partial-birth abortion and would oppose an infants born alive protection act. Please share the polling or anecdotal evidence for that.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Barack Obama
“On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.
Part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.”
Fox News interview, April 27, 2008
Obama on the infants born alive act
Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say –that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. 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. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It’s one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it’s another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they’re wrong. And that’s what’s been happening.”
Palmetto, I suspect you are smart enough to know that a single vote on a single bill does not define one’s position on an issue overall. Sometimes there are provisions within a bill that are inserted for partisan political reasons that a candidate finds objectionable. Like on the partial-birth bill you cite. It defined the fetus as a person, which could have outlawed all abortions. Or like no provision for the health of the mother.
I have not seen any polling on whether voters who have been educated on the content of these two particular bills would support them.
Here’s an NBC/Wall St. Journal poll that shows 86% of Americans support abortion being legal if the life of the mother is at stake, or in cases of rape in incest.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Here’s the ultimate poll: Obama 365 McCain 173
Is it safe to assume that you oppose Obama’s position on abortion, or would that be me using ESP again? Do you see anything wrong with his postition on abortion. It seems pretty clear to me. He will safeguard a woman’s right to choose under Roe v Wade and will try to reduce abortions through education and access to birth control.
What’s the problem?
How about the sex ed. bill? Let me guess, you are going to put some incomplete little snipped and suggest that it represents his comprehensive position on a complicated and sensitive issue…
November 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Palmetto,
Don’t be thick just to make a point, it isn’t becoming of you. If you really are too thick to understand that Obama does not support abortion, let alone partial birth abortion you are just another thick-headed fundy. I really expected more. Not once have you ever stated what you believe. I am with Sullyman, you are obviously a fundy. However, you are smart enough to know how ridiculous your views sound to folks that use intellect so you hide behind smears and half-truths.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Also, I beg of you, tell me you aren’t so dumb that you cannot see the nuance in the protecting children from predators bill or the abortion bill. Maybe you can and you are just a radical Christian fundamentalist that sees in only black and white. If that’s the case, it’s ok pal. I just wish you you wouldn’t try to make others look radical to hide your own ridiculous views. It certainly looks that way.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“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. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It’s one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it’s another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they’re wrong.”
Defies common sense and imagination. Offensive. Indeed.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Folks, this is why we need line-item veto at both the state and federal level, so politicians will no longer be able to hide behind smokescreens and mask their true positions. I personally think that Barack Obama really is radically pro-abortion, and you two, Sullyman and The Dude, do not. That’s okay, but when he becomes an executive he will still be able to claim these kinds of excuses for the bills he signs or vetos. If we had line-item veto no President would escape the scrutiny of questions about why he did or didn’t veto this particular part of a bill. From my observations, I would think that you two would agree with me that more accountability is what we need at the presidential level, regardless of who that president is.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hannah,
I do not have a problem with the line-item veto. The only problem is that the people who count say it is unconstitutional.
As far as Obama being radically pro-abortion, I think that is a really unfair and inaccurate way to characterize it. He is firmly pro-choice. Those are not the same positions. I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. I don’t think it is up to me or the government to decide, and we would all like to see fewer abortions rather than more. Framing it as “pro-abortion” suggests that he wants more abortions, maybe even that every pregnancy should be aborted.
I think Obama’s position could be characterized similar to the way I have described mine. You might say that his position is radically different from yours, but you are the one that is out of the mainstream, which could better be characterized as “radical.”
None-the-less, it is an extremely difficult and complicated issue, and I respect your opposition to abortion. Again, I just don’t believe that the government should have that kind of control over a woman’s reproductive system. What I have a problem with is republicans smearing him on this.
Praise God, we have someone here that can state honestly what they believe! Thanks Hannah.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Sullyman,
It is true that there are differing views on the line-item veto, but I just don’t see how the powers-that-be can say it’s unconstitutional. I’ve read the Constitution, and I don’t see that, although I could be missing something. I wonder if the reason those folks oppose it is actually because it would force them to come more out in the open about what they are really trying to do. You know, something about accountability really scares government officials!
I also respect your opinion on the subject of abortion, and I understand where you are coming from with the “pro-choice” vs. “pro-abortion” terms.
The way I look at it is this: I would defend your right to life to the death. No one has a right to take your life on a whim, even if your life causes them considerable emotional and psychological distress. From the moment of conception, every fetus IS a person. It is a life, and it should have the same protection than any other person enjoys.
Again, I do understand where you are coming from, and I don’t think government should have control of women’s reproductive systems. But the issue of whether or not a pregnancy is terminated is not a question of reproductive rights. The reproduction has already taken place, and now it’s a question of whether or not the government should protect life at every level.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Hannah,
I honestly respect your view and thank you for expressing it. It is because I do not share the same certainty as you on this that I don’t believe that it should be up to me or the government.
It is an intensely personal matter that involves one’s faith, sexuality, intimate relationships, worldview, and opinions about the role of government. For these reasons, I think it should be up to the individual.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
You cannot be “pro-choice” and be pro-life. Either you are for abortion or you are against it. You can’t sit the fence. Either you will tolerate it or you will nip it in the bud. The government was wrong to legalize it, and the only thing to do now, is to undo what they did by overturning Roe v. Wade. If you think that abortion should be allowed, then you are pro-abortion. Favorite lines of pro-abortionist are “its a woman’s right to choose,” and “it’s her body.” Well, its not her body in question, its the body of another person, and its not a woman’s right to choose to take the life inside of her anymore than it is anyone else’s right to choose to take her life.
Have you ever studied the ancient Aztec culture? Were you horrified to learn of the thousands and thousands of human victims sacrificed to their gods yearly? Yet had you protested such cruelty and debauchery they would not have understood. It was an understood and accepted thing in their culture. You may think “thank goodness modern civilizations would never stoop to that.” But have they? Have we? Why are most abortions performed? Are we not sacrificing most of these innocent lives on the alter of selfish convenience, to escape the consequences and knowledge of our actions or the memory of an unpleasant situation? So to spare ourselves pain, we in the ultimate act of selfishness, punish someone who has done nothing to deserve punishment, let alone death, the ultimate punishment? If the most hideous murderer were to be executed without trial, would there not be an outcry? Of course there would be, and there should be. But why then do we not cry out against the taking of a human life where no crime whatsoever has been committed, and no trial given? Why is it an allowed and accepted thing that a life should be snuffed out, in the place where he should be most protected, and by the person who should love him the most? Has our great modern culture stooped to accept human sacrificing as normal, in legalizing so blatant and heinous a form of murder?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Priscilla,
You obviously feel really strongly about this, and there is nothing wrong with that. If I shared your certainty about the issue, I would be in the same camp. Can we just agree that you have the extremist position,and not Barack?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Palmetto,
Where have you gone?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I think you were going to respond to this…
“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. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It’s one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it’s another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they’re wrong.”
Defies common sense and imagination. Offensive. Indeed.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Sullyman, you are right that I do feel very strongly about this issue, and maybe I do have and extremist position. However, the thing you have to remember is that there are two extremes with every issue, and while I am at the one extreme, I believe Barack Obama is at the other.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Palmetto?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Anyone have any secret information about how Tim Geithner is going to implement Obama’s Marxist policies.
Palmetto, I’m counting on you…
November 21st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Palmetto,
Are you grounded from the computer?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Here’s the bill the next president voted against in 2001:
Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”,
11 “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
Here’s the bill the next president voted against in 2002:
1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:
6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”,
11 “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
Note that the definitions both say: “every infant
member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Again, the key phrase is “born alive.”
The next president, while chairing a committee hearing the same bill in 2003, voted against it:
AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:
6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”,
11 “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
Now, this would seem consistent except that he voted against the bill after voting to amend it with the “neutrality” language that mirrors the federal law on which NARAL declared itself neutral.
The vote occurred in committee, and here’s the link to the language:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam001&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=
The next president voted against a bill amended (by a vote he supported) with the same language not opposed by NARAL at the federal level. See the federal bill, now law, here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2175
Factcheck described the next president’s position this way:
A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.
Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.” [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]
The statement was still on Obama’s Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of “lying.” But Obama’s claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.
So, here we have again the next president saying one thing on one day and another thing on another day.
Moreover, the next president actually (some might say cynically) amended the IL bill with the federal langauage he claimed to support and then voted the amended bill down.
The next President of the United States either doesn’t know what he’s voting for, or he doesn’t want us to know. Either way, it’s a disturbing trend.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 am
And then he ran away…
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 am
Sullyman, are you addicted to the computer? You need to get a life!
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
[...] Comments ?? on Don’t blame me, I voted for Sarah bumper stickers!Sullyman on Don’t blame me, I voted for Sarah bumper stickers!Sullyman on wsj: Don’t [...]
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
??
You need to get a name.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Palmetto Con,
Also from FactCheck.org
“And Illinois law has long stated that if an abortion is performed when the fetus is deemed to be viable, the doctor must:
* Choose the method of abortion least likely to harm the fetus.
* Have in attendance a second doctor who can immediately take over care of the child if it’s born alive.
* Use every available means to keep any born-alive child living and healthy.
To do otherwise constitutes a Class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to five years in prison. That’s been the law in Illinois since 1975, two years before Jessen was born. What Obama voted against was legislation that would have extended the law’s protection to any aborted fetus that shows any sign of life, even if doctors are certain that it cannot survive.”
Can you cite any cases where viable aborted fetuses were left to die? If so, were the doctors prosecuted under existing IL law?
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Palmetto,
Good work on finding the “born alive act” that our next President voted against. It’s hard to refute the facts.
I like what what the priest said about Catholics who voted for Obama, “you will have the blood of all the aborted children on your hands.” I think that goes for good protestants too.
Senator, Thanks for putting up the link to the Sarah bumper sticker. I think I need to get a few for myself.
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
oh yes, the facts say it all, especially if we are very selective about them.