ObaMarxist


McCain’s thoughts on Obama’s “paygrade” comment
August 23, 2008, 7:49 am
Filed under: Obama doesn't quite get it, Obama lied | Tags: , , , , ,

by John McCain, Real Clear Politics

Good morning, this is John McCain, speaking to you at the end of an eventful week in the presidential campaign. All the talk today is about my opponent’s selection of his running mate. To his new running mate, my congratulations and I’ll get back to you real soon on your debating opponent.

The week began with a debate of sorts between Senator Obama and me at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. In case you missed it, the discussion yielded the line of the week, and maybe even of the campaign, when Pastor Rick Warren asked my opponent a very serious question. He wanted to know at what point, in my opponent’s view, does a baby have human rights? Senator Obama thought about it for a moment, and came back with the reply that the question was, quote, “above my pay grade.”

Here was a candidate for the presidency of the United States, asked for his position on one of the central moral and legal questions of our time, and this was the best he could offer: It’s above his pay grade. He went on to assure his interviewer that there is a, quote, “moral and ethical element to this issue.” Americans expect more of their leaders.

There seems to be a pattern here in my opponent’s approach to many hard issues. Whether it’s the surge in Iraq that has brought us near to victory, or the issue of campaign reform, or the question of offshore drilling, Senator Obama’s speeches can be impressive. But when it’s time for straight answers, clear conviction, and decisive action, suddenly all of these responsibilities are – well, as he puts it, “above my pay grade.” As mottos of leadership go, it doesn’t exactly have the ring of “the buck stops here.”

Often, too, Senator Obama’s carefully hedged answers obscure more than they explain, and this was the case in his conversation with Rick Warren. Listening to my opponent at Saddleback, you would never know that this is a politician who long since left behind any middle ground on the abortion issue. He is against parental notification laws, and against restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation to prevent the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. Senator Obama opposed that bill, voting against it in committee and voting “present” on the Senate floor.

Continue reading

Advertisements


Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide: More important to protect abortion doctors than “that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it.”

By Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO

There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”


Continue reading



Obama And The “Infanticide Issue”
August 17, 2008, 2:43 am
Filed under: Obama doesn't quite get it, Obama lied | Tags: , , , , , , ,
by Austin Hill, Townhall

What a different sixteen years makes.

Back in 1992 when then-Governor Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency with a pledge to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare,” he was in significant ways speaking the mind of America.

At the time, many polls showed a slim majority of Americans believing that abortion should remain legal, yet also believing that efforts should be made to reduce the overall number of abortions performed.

Of course, as was the case on many important policy matters, candidate Clinton’s rhetoric didn’t match with President Clinton’s policies, and after eight years in the White House, his administration clearly left a “pro-abortion” legacy.

Nonetheless, Clinton moderated the Democratic Party’s “official” position on abortion, at least a little bit. And the very fact that the party would even agree back in the 1990’s to using the words “rare” and “reduce” in the context of discussing abortion, indicates that the Democrats’ previously held “abortion on demand” position was no longer being embraced by a majority of Americans (if, indeed, it ever was).

But that was in the 90’s. Now, just days away from the 2008 Democratic National Convention, where Senator Barack Obama will presumably become his party’s nominee for President, reports indicate that there is a bit of an internal struggle with those who are formulating the Democratic Party platform. What’s the controversy about? Whether or not the word “rare” should stay in the abortion plank. Apparently, the prevailing sentiment is that making abortion “rare” is now an unworthy, and perhaps even harmful objective.

Continue reading