When Rick Warren asked Barack Obama, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”, here was the Senator’s response:
Yes, he really claimed that having an opinion on that is above his pay grade. But that doesn’t mean he thinks all opinions about abortion are above his pay grade. Listen to the audio from the beginning of this clip, taken from comments he made in the Illinois State Senate as he led the fight against the state’s version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act:
In other words, it’s above his pay grade to say that an unborn baby is in fact a baby, but it’s well within his pay grade to say that efforts to protect babies who are born alive after an attempted abortion constitute an undue burden on the women who birthed them. Sounds like what’s really above Sen. Obama’s pay grade is challenging Democratic Party orthodoxy—not a good sign for someone claiming to offer a “new politics” and a post-partisan way of doing business.But then, this is becoming the pattern. As Michael Reagan wrote,
During the forum, his struggle to please everybody by straddling the issues was plain for all to see. He showed he was willing to say and do what he believed everybody wanted to hear. When you try to find any real depth in his beliefs you quickly discover he is utterly shallow and soulless, a sloganeer instead of a missionary. He’s just a politician on the make, trying to be all things to all people—an empty suit proclaiming empty promises. Being without real depth, his platform merely floats on a surface of promises categorized as “Hope” and “Change,” neither of which is clearly defined. He assures us that he wants to change Washington and sweep away all that this city represents. Yet one has only to look at next week’s Democratic National Convention to understand that it’s not change, but lots more of the same.
For that matter, now that we know Sen. Obama’s VP pick, one need look no farther than Joe Biden. I understand the pick, as a matter of political calculation; it’s the same calculation George W. Bush made when he picked Dick Cheney so that voters could feel sure there was a grownup in the White House. Sen. Obama is hoping Sen. Biden can be his Dick Cheney, a man who has the gravitas and foreign policy experience and solid judgment that he himself lacks. At the same time, though, Sen. Biden is as much a member of the Washington establishment as it’s possible to be; more than all but a handful of people, he is the quintessence of the Democratic Congress. I’ve argued before that an Obama administration will really be a Pelosi administration, as the Democratic congressional powers will run the show and Sen. Obama will have to fall into line to get anything done; bringing one of them right into the inner circle of the administration will only strengthen that.Sen. Obama got where he is on a wave of excitement, partly because of his racial heritage, but also in large part because of the power of his rhetoric in promising us a new politics and a new way forward, a way out of the polarized partisan warfare of the last decade or three. Right now, it looks like the power to follow through on his promise is above his pay grade.
It would appear based on your comments that you would like your president to embody your extremist religious beliefs? Personally, I’m not looking for white smoke when I select my president (Catholic humor there), but rather someone that I can agree with on a litany of topics, something you -with your myopic view- could never imagine.
You show an obvious belief that abortion is wrong, but you support a party who’s crimes against humanity have not been seen in two generations. From the deceit on “Global Warming” (we are killing the earth, which is [cough] us)to the lies that were used to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation(which the number of dead and injured is a number beyond your comprehension or care).
Your Christian ideals have somehow becomes so warped that you keep electing people who are putting you, me, and our progeny at risk for the sake of a buck. “Sure, let that baby live, we can kill it on the flipside.”
I am not a liberal pansy (served honorably), and I am a man of unshakeable Faith, but trust me when I say you folks have lost both your way and your minds. The devil’s ways are mysterious too I supposew, just wish you would wise up to it.
If you really believe being pro-life is an “extremist religious belief,” then I’m not sure what I have to say to you. I will say that you’ve clearly been drinking the Kool-Aid on a few subjects–i.e., the media manipulation and hysteria on global warming, and the unsupported media assertions that the administration lied to justify the invasion of Iraq; and further, that a) I have friends serving in Iraq right now (and let me tell you, I trust what they have to say far more than what the media tries to sell me), and b) so far, many fewer people have died than would have died had we left Saddam in power. All in all, I consider that a good thing.
Oh, and further, you missed the point of my post: Obama talks the talk about bipartisanship and compromise, but when it comes to walking the walk, he says it’s above his pay grade.
Your assertion that pro-life is my sole litmus test for your extremist views is incorrect. However, when added to the overall propaganda that you mistakenly claim is a blog, you can not help but come away from your page thinking that your views are a bit on the extreme side.
Global warming is not real?! I think someone has been buying into the Exxon-Mobil view of this calamity. It is frustrating that a person intelligent enough to create and maintain this blog can’t be bothered to do the most minuscule of research on this subject. The proof is overwhelming, and any argument to the contrary is simply the ramblings of either the corrupt (corrupt being defined as staving off the unpleasant notion that your business practices are killing the planet) or an addled mind. Either way it is an unconscionable position that will impact your children, their children and so forth.
Not to one up you Rob, but I have family in Iraq (two at the moment). Not to mention that I, too, spent some time there (Gulf 1). While I do not disagree that Saddam was a person to despise and hate, there was absolutely no reason to invade that country. But our military did as they were told and marched in there in a blaze of unmatched military might. At the end of the day, our military did their job and were left holding the bag while this President (and his administration) scratched his head on what to do next. There is a terrific Front Line show called Bush’s War that I encourage you to watch.
“So far, many fewer people have died than would have died had we left Saddam in power”? I know of no metric that would in any way support this claim, but let’s slide past the obnoxious ignorance of this comment and say that it is true. There are a number of countries out there are in a similar situation, do you suppose that we should invade them all? In case you are wondering which countries might meet the same “litmus” test, might I suggest we review North Korea, Iran, Russia and even China (more, but you get the point)? Do you suggest that we invade these countries as well? Democracy at the end of a gun is your suggestion?! Yikes.
There are a number of things that I dislike about Obama, but humility isn’t a trait that I find offensive. He dodged the question as it has no place in this election. Roe vs Wade is the law of the land, period. Time to move on to more pressing problems and let old wounds heal (and with healing, perhaps understanding and compromise). Some times, “walking the walk” means walking away.
As to your assertion that Obama is a politician who is trying to please as many people as possible in order to get elected, um, hello, that’s the whole point. I know of no politician who purposely alienates whole segments of potential voters by going out of his way to aggravate them? Have I missed something in the last twenty years? Are you implying that McCain -the original maverick- is somehow different? Oh boy….
On another note, I am tired of swapping blood and our future for oil. I remember the 70s and almost forty years later, we are still at the starting line? I believe that Obama will move us off the “oil standard” and help us lead the fight toward reducing our impact on the planet (I like trees, but I have yet to start hugging them. Though, I am quite fond of apple trees). Personally, I would like to see the nation come together and actually solve something. It is depressing to see Administration after Administration continue to pass the buck onto our future.
The Economy has been wrecked by this administration. Two wars, and unchecked spending has left us in quite a predicament. While I acknowledge that Democrats are also to blame, I can not help but remember that Clinton turned over a surplus. It is ironic that “fiscally responsible conservatives” have somehow allowed this Administration to run amok.
Based on comments from John McCain, his grasp of our economy is… well, let’s just say it isn’t his strong suit. Just so that we are clear here, a strong economy equals a strong military (not the other way around as some would suggest).
There are those that have suggested our economic difficulties are simply “mental”, but he seems to forget that are economy has been artificially inflated by two wars and the influx of federal dollars into that process. Even propped up, we are starting to see some serious issues cropping up. McCain does not have the expertise to deal with that crisis.
Obama is a Harvard graduate who worked his way up the old fashion way. And while his resume does not include a stint as a POW (I can not even imagine that horror, my hats off to him for surviving that nightmare and all that he has achieved), he has the tools, the drive, and intellect for the job as President.
McCain is a good man (putting out an advertisement saying that Obama is the anti-Christ is pretty offensive), but he isn’t the right man for this time. Which is sad to say, but there it is. We need a leader who is ready to start down a different path, and I pray that Obama is that person.
My sincere apologies for the length of my post Rob.
You are of course welcome to your opinions. Whenever you feel like backing them up with facts, let me know.
Incidentally, global warming having been mentioned, anyone interested can find what I wrote on that subject back in February here.
Rob,
Which part(s) of my comments would you like facts on? Trust me Rob, you aren’t the only person who can bring massive links to a conversation, and I am equally well read on these subject matters.
If you are referring to “global warming”, reiterating the party line even after the party has conceded the point is absurd. If you didn’t get the memo, Bush conceded that human activities might be contributing to changes in our environment. The rest of the world seems to be on that same page, perhaps you have heard of the Kyoto Protocol? Looks like your conversation piece from February could use some work as it is both misguided and uniformed; most unfortunate, the assertions that it makes are dangerous in the fact that it encourages complacency on the issue.
Even if your view of scientific research, cultural elite, and whomever you snubbed in your article is misplaced, it is encouraging that you at least see a theological reason to be better stewards of our planet.
Of course human activities contribute to changes in our environment. So do beaver activities. If you read what I’ve written, you see that I’m very much in favor of reducing the burning of fossil fuels–that’s why fuel cells and the potential use of termites in biofuel production excite me so much. What’s up in the air is this: are we looking at catastrophic global warming as the result of human CO2 production? On the evidence, as opposed to the agendas, you can’t support a stronger answer than “Not proven.” Given that in fact global temperatures have plateaued in recent years, I suspect even that response would be overstating the evidence.
As for Kyoto, if you want to know the real significance of that treaty, don’t look at who signed it–look at compliance.
Rob,
Please provide me with the links that support your assertions? I know of no reputable source that states that global warming is not occurring, and that temperatures have plateaued?
On a funny note, when the Bush Administration finally conceded that Global Warming was indeed a reality and would be working with the world to diminish our impact, a reporter with the BBC quoted Winston Churchill:
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”
Thought you might like to add that to your collection (assuming you didn’t have it already).
Rob.
I went back and looked at the links that you provided. I see where you derived your quotes from, and those two articles are fairly questionable in my opinion. Let me see if I can run them through the fact checker for accuracy….
Tell you what . . . since it’s silly to have an argument on global warming in the comments on a post about whether Barack Obama is actually willing/capable of following through on his “new politics”/”post-partisan”/bi-partisan cooperation language, why don’t you save it for my next post that’s actually on the subject, and you can see what holes you in fact manage to shoot in what I actually say.
Agreed. Look forward to seeing your post.