Obama Thinks McCain “doesn’t know what he’s up against”
Yeah… I think McCain does.
“Our job in this election is not just ‘win,’ although I’m a big believer in winning,” Obama said during the rally. “I don’t intend to lose this election. John McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against.”
His arrogance knows no bounds…
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 0845 hrsArrogance? WTF are you seeing in his comments that would lead any reasonable person to say such a thing?
I’d like to know is what you all think about his remarks about McCain challenging his patriotism and sincerity.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2008 at 0912 hrsI’d like to know is what you all think about his remarks about McCain challenging his patriotism and sincerity.
Offer up a quote, I’ll tell you what I think about it.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 0922 hrsJohn McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against
Well put, Obama!
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 0958 hrs
- and I think at least half the population doesn’t know what/who the hell you are either.Does anyone really challenge Obama’s “character and patriotism” or is that just the “rush-to-victim” method of deflecting criticism Obama uses all the time?
I think when Obama is confronted with questions about his poor judgement and non-sense positions on some things he doesn’t have a good response so he just cries foul and says people are attacking his “character and patriotism”
Its really pathetic if you ask me.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1027 hrsMcCain’s never challenged Obama’s patriotism. Obama knows it, and so do his supporters.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 20, 2008 at 1037 hrsSo we’re all agreed that Barack Obama is a patriotic American, then?
Posted by scott on August 20, 2008 at 1048 hrsNope - personally, I don’t think the guy has any allegiance to anything but himself. But the issue is whether or not McCain has challenged his patriotism. When Obama and the Dems claim he has, they’re lying.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 20, 2008 at 1055 hrsCould be, could be. But I’m intrigued by your own view. How is it that you have so quickly managed to demonize this guy? Is that the kind of frenzy you have to work yourself into in order to vote for the other candidate? I don’t get it. I don’t feel any urge to demonize John McCain. I often say that I like him, in fact. I just happen to think that he’s wrong on some of the major issues facing the country, and I don’t like the political thrust of his party, either.
Why do some people feel the urge to paint the opposition as wicked and morally inferior? Does it not strike them as odd that they end up doing this to every single candidate offered up by the opposing party? Coincidence?
Posted by scott on August 20, 2008 at 1102 hrsSo we’re all agreed that Barack Obama is a patriotic American, then
Scott, you’re king of the dodge…
First you ask:
I’d like to know is what you all think about his remarks about McCain challenging his patriotism and sincerity.
And I ask you to provide an example, and either you can’t, or you don’t want to be wrong, so you don’t.
And you just move on to another hip-shot non-sense comment.
Just exactly what comments has John McCain made challenging Baracks patriotism or character?
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1104 hrsI have no idea. I’m not the one making the claim, Obama is. If it’s your position that this never happened, fine. As I just said above, that could be right. I really don’t know.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2008 at 1107 hrsObama may or may not be a Patriot, but he sure is a socialist- as long as his half brother is not involved.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1117 hrsMore of that demonization I mentioned in comment #9.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2008 at 1123 hrsNearly every time McCain makes a stump speech, he includes a lines to the effect of “Obama would rather lose a war than the election.” How is that not impugning his patriotism?
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1155 hrsfacts getting in the way scott?
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1201 hrsNo - not demonization… Just pure and complete disagreement with the policies he advocates.
I don’t like Obama’s positions - not on politics, not on the environment, not on taxes, not on national defense, not on energy - none of them. They are far to close to European socialism and government intrusiveness into they way I choose to live my life than I am comfortable with.
That doesn’t mean I am demonizing him. It doesn’t make him a victim, it doesn’t make me a racist.
One problem that Obama has with the independents in the country right now is that every time someone criticizes him in any way shape or form, his campaign (whether himself or his surrogates) cry foul in some way. He comes across as weak. If the man can’t stand up to the election process, how in the hell is he going to stand up to Vladimir Putin?
Another problem - that he caused himself - is his over-the-top self-agrandizing. Seriously - the oceans will stop rising? Puh-leeze....
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1201 hrsoops - hit submit prematurely…
To finish the point - the self-agrandizing comes across as extremely arrogant.
Personally - The combo of “all-of-the-above” makes it impossible for me to pull the lever for the man. McCain isn’t my favorite either… but the nose-plugging will commence one more time on November 4.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1205 hrsLet’s see here, Scott:
Socialized medicine, more government involvement in everything, higher taxes, punishing companies for being successful, and curtailing free speech through the fairness doctine.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it is probably a socialist duck.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1223 hrsHow have I so quickly demonized the guy? I’m just describing who he really is. It’s not because of any frenzy; it’s just that, over the course of this campaign, some really stunning windows into his character have come to light. A decent man does not support infanticide. A decent man does not expose his children to insane, hatemongering pastors every Sunday.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 20, 2008 at 1304 hrsIs John McCain’s affair and divorce and remarriage a “stunning window into his character,” as well?
C’mon. This is character assassination. Politics by other means. is that what you want politics to be about? How awful we can make the other person sound instead of a legitimate discussion of the political issues of the day?
Posted by scott on August 20, 2008 at 1449 hrsFor those of you just joining the discussion, please read the previous statement and then read comment #5.
Thanks Scott, for backing up exactly what xxp said
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1513 hrsI do happen to think McCain’s affair is legitimate grounds to judge him by, which is one of numerous reasons I didn’t want him to be the nominee.
It’s not character assassination to notice when our candidates do dishonorable things, whatever they may be. Especially in the case of your candidate supporting infanticide, which is a policy matter, and subequently lying about it, which is a character matter.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 20, 2008 at 1519 hrsMy point is this: Most of those who point out these “stunning windows into” a candidate’s character seem to be their political opponents. Even though their own candidate has such “stunning windows,” you never see these same people making big deals about it, nor does it stop them from voting for their guy.
So you see, I believe that most of this is just a politically advantageous way of hurting the opposing candidate. Politics by other means.
McCain has a fair bit of dirt on him. But you know what? I don’t really care that much. It’s the man’s party and his policy choices that I disagree with.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2008 at 1525 hrsSo per #18: You are pro socialized medicine, pro “big-brother” government involvement in our lives, pro high taxes, pro punishing corporations for daring to make a profit, pro infanticide and pro stifling free speach. Am I wrong? God, I hope so.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1533 hrsSo per #18: You are pro socialized medicine, pro “big-brother” government involvement in our lives, pro high taxes, pro punishing corporations for daring to make a profit, pro infanticide and pro stifling free speach. Am I wrong? God, I hope so.
Are you new here bajaskier? He’s all that and more. The only reason he posts here is because he gets his jollies derailing and trolling discussions and then “unlinking” from them.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1537 hrsNah, not new. Just wanted to put it in a package. A few months ago Scott said he wasn’t going to post any more because of all the “liberal bashing”. Just wanted to rub it in a little (or a lot)!
Then again, it is admittedly in poor taste to harrass the afflicted.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1544 hrsYes, I want health insurance for everyone--like everyone else does. Whether that’s single payer, some other plan, I’m open to discuss the options. To many the term “socialized medicine” means a system where the government actually runs health care facilities, like the British. To others it means a system where health insurance is publicly financed or even just publicly administered. To most folks on conservative blogs it seems to mean any health plan put forth by someone without an R after their name.
No, I’m against the NSA or other government agency spying on Americans without proper judicial oversight. You?
No, I’m not for paying more taxes. You’ll want to note, however, that I get a tax cut under Obama’s known policy proposals. McCain’s too. In fact, the real difference appears to be with those making a couple hundred grand a year in income. Obama would like to raise their taxes, McCain wants to give them the biggest tax cut of all. Nothing is as simple as you say it is.
I like for corporations to make profit. Lots of it. But I’m not for subsidizing the most profitable corporations while Americans struggle under the rising prices of their products. I think we should end those subsidies, or at least limit them to the ones that encourage the behavior we want from these companies, such as tax breaks for investing in alternative energy.
You’re just going to have to work a little harder to convince me that anyone anywhere is “pro” infanticide. The fact that someone can vote against a ban on the so-called “partial birth abortion” because it does not contain exceptions for the mother’s life doesn’t mean they’re baby killing monsters. Not in my book, at least. You’re free to have your own view of it, but don’t go around using those terms expecting to actually engage the people who disagree with you on it. We don’t share the same view, so if you want to really talk about it you’re going to have to meet in the middle rhetorically. I’m not going for any “when did you stop beating your wife” discussions. No reason to.
I have no desire to stifle free speech. The only caveat to that is that I think this desire runs afoul of our genuine need to keep big money from influencing politics to an undue degree, as it does today. I just don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that I’d like it if we could preserve our individual rights while acknowledging that interest groups donating millions to 527s isn’t “speech” in the same sense. I’m not a lawyer, I really don’t know if that’s going to work, but I can dream.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2008 at 1545 hrsA few months ago Scott said he wasn’t going to post any more because of all the “liberal bashing”.
Did I? I don’t recall that.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2008 at 1546 hrsMost of those who point out these “stunning windows into” a candidate’s character seem to be their political opponents.
Which is irrelevant as to whether or not the claims are true or meaningful. In the infanticide case, it’s actually a significant mark of shame for every Democrat who doesn’t seem to care about it.Even though their own candidate has such “stunning windows,” you never see these same people making big deals about it, nor does it stop them from voting for their guy.
McCain’s affair isn’t brought up as much simply because it happened decades ago, and we’ve known about it forever. Most people recognize the difference between an offense you committed long ago, apologized for and not committed since on the one hand, and an offense you’ve done recently and are currently lying about on the other hand.
Again, it did lead plenty of us away from McCain in the primary. But after the choices have been narrowed down to McCain and Obama, we have to make a choice between two flawed candidates, and there’s no question that, while it was reprehensible for McCain to cheat on his wife, for Obama to do something as evil as support actual infanticide is drastically worse.
Besides, this again cuts against Obama. His crime was a legislative, political decision, which by your own standard is more relevant. Obama has taken one of the most unethical policy positions since the debates over segregation and anti-lynching laws. And if that’s not relevant, even necessary for the public to consider, then nothing is.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 20, 2008 at 1549 hrsGlad you converted. ‘Cuz with the Obamessiah, you get all the above and more. Not that McCain is any great shakes..just the lesser of the two antichrists.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1550 hrsre #28
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1552 hrs
Not sure, I believe it was within the context of the ethanol debate.You’re just going to have to work a little harder to convince me that anyone anywhere is “pro” infanticide. The fact that someone can vote against a ban on the so-called “partial birth abortion” because it does not contain exceptions for the mother’s life doesn’t mean they’re baby killing monsters. Not in my book, at least.
Waitaminute--you mean you think by “infanticide,” we’re referring to partial-birth abortion? You mean you really haven’t heard about Obama’s support for actual infanticide in the Illinois state senate?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 20, 2008 at 1553 hrsI mean not sure which posts/subposts, but it was written notwithsatnding.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1553 hrsNot that “partial birth abortion” isn’t infanticide, but you need to read up on your man Obama. What he supported is even worse; deny life support procedures to infants surviving an “unsuccessful” abortion procedure.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1556 hrs"Yes, I want health insurance for everyone--like everyone else does.”
No - I don’t.
I don’t want to continue to support people who sit on their rears and contribute nothing to society than the air they exhale.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1644 hrs“Yes, I want health insurance for everyone--like everyone else does.”
No - I don’t.
I don’t want to continue to support people who sit on their rears and contribute nothing to society than the air they exhale.
I’m with Bill on this.
The Government paying people to sit on their asses all day and do absolutely nothing all day may be the “nice” thing to do, but it sure as hell doesn’t teach job skills.
It also doesn’t teach people to be PRODUCTIVE taxpaying members of society.
It does however teach people that they can rely on the Government for anything and everything and that my friend is VERY dangerous!
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 1710 hrsOf course McCain knows. That’s why he is going to lie, smear and gin up the fear through this campaign because he has nothing else to offer us. But you guys seem to enjoy that, and because you think Obama is being uppity you are more bothered than being treated like fools over oil drilling.
By the Scott. Nice was to get about six people to thoroughly waste their time.
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 2125 hrsA few months ago Scott said he wasn’t going to post any more because of all the “liberal bashing”.
Did I? I don’t recall that.
For the life of me, scott, I can’t figure out why you would make such a big deal about not posting here any more, then indeed cease posting for a solid month or two, then come back and repeatedly deny your whole tantrum ever took place.
What’s that all about, anyway?
Posted by on August 20, 2008 at 2212 hrskEITH:
LIKE THE OTHERS, YOU DID NOT ADDRESS INFANTICIDE. CHRIP, CHIRP LEFTIES.
Posted by on August 21, 2008 at 1111 hrsI can’t figure out why you would make such a big deal about not posting here any more
And I can’t figure out why you keep saying that. Perhaps I said something that you misinterpreted? Help a guy out here.
Posted by scott on August 21, 2008 at 1115 hrsLook, nobody’s going to address this asinine charge of “support for infanticide” because it’s just like Godwin’s Law. Once you compare someone to Hitler, or accuse them of supporting infanticide, you’ve lost your right to be taken seriously.
Posted by on August 21, 2008 at 1137 hrsInfanticide my butt.
Posted by scott on August 21, 2008 at 1448 hrsSo then Scott, exactly how did this bill pose a danger to abortion rights?
Posted by on August 21, 2008 at 1551 hrsI’d like to know that myself.
Posted by scott on August 21, 2008 at 1553 hrsAnd I can’t figure out why you keep saying that. Perhaps I said something that you misinterpreted? Help a guy out here.
I think he’s referring to the time you were crying about people not respecting your opinions or something a while back and you said you weren’t going to post anymore.
Posted by on August 21, 2008 at 1606 hrsAnd I think you’re both on drugs. I don’t think I ever said that I was not going to comment anymore on B&S;. I’m not above complaining about others here, but pledge never to comment again? No.
Posted by scott on August 21, 2008 at 1609 hrsScott: you dismiss articles cited on Sweetness & Light because it’s a “partisan blog,” but then have the gall to put up a crap article by the bitterly-partisan Media Matters?! You’re pathetic.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 21, 2008 at 2010 hrsAnd I think you’re both on drugs. I don’t think I ever said that I was not going to comment anymore on B&S;. I’m not above complaining about others here, but pledge never to comment again? No.
Four different people have now pointed out what you said a couple months ago. We all have faulty memories or “misinterpreted” your comment? OK, whatever, scott.
Posted by on August 22, 2008 at 0647 hrsSome reading for Scott and APC—assuming they can stomach critical scrutiny for their candidate:
http://rightcal.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-pro-infantic ide-candidate.html
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1039 hrsThat’s interesting. I even read Ramesh Ponnuru’s article in the National Review, too. But how does all this square with reports like this?
Posted by scott on August 22, 2008 at 1104 hrs"Critical” scrutiny? A blog post on your own blog entitled Obama: The Pro-Infanticide Candidate? That’s not critical scrutiny, that’s just another screed against a politician you obviously hate.
Look, it’s clear that you’re extremely passionate about your beliefs, and I can respect that. But can’t you see that when you throw out inflammatory and extremist charges like “pro-infanticide” that most people are likely to, if not completely dismiss, at least have serious reservations about what you say?
Posted by on August 22, 2008 at 1105 hrsScott,
Interesting report, and I’ll be watching closely for details to emerge. But it seems to me you can only say newborns were already protected if you consider “sustainable survivability,” the standard of Illinois’ preexisting law, sufficient protection. The whole point of the new act was to remove ambiguity with a simple standard: babies that have been fully born.Obama thought some nonexistent threat to Roe in the language was more important than removing said ambiguity. And we now have the audio and transcripts of his original concern: it would “burden” the original decision.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1124 hrsI don’t think any details are going to emerge, Calvin. This all happened in the past and it’s been picked apart quite a bit already it seems to me. Besides, I don’t think anybody cares---at least nobody besides highly partisan people whose votes aren’t in play.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2008 at 1128 hrsAPC,
Yeah, critical scrutiny. I’ll defend my opinions in it as honest and reasoned, but my primary reason for linking to it was the convenience of having the information and links I’ve collected within it at one link.
And sorry the truth hurts, but “infanticide” is the specific term for the subject at hand. If you like, I’d be happy to exchange it for “newborn death by starvation....”
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1129 hrs"My guy very well may have refused to do anything to prevent newborns from being starved to death by their doctors, but that’s okay, because ‘nobody cares.’”
Ladies and gentlemen, the moral compass of the American Left and the Democratic Party.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1133 hrsI think that would have to be “alleged” newborn death by starvation, as after the Illinois attorney general--a Republican--investigated, it found the claim which ignited the entire thing totally unsubstantiated.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2008 at 1136 hrsCalvin, let me rephrase. it’s not so much that nobody cares, it’s that nobody believes your version of the story.
You don’t want to vote for Obama because he’s pro-choice? Fine. But let’s not muddy the issue by arguing over the meaning of something that’s already been investigated and is a matter of public record. If there was anything there that anyone but the most rabid anti-abortion people would consider genuinely scandalous, it would be front page news already.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2008 at 1142 hrsAn in-the-tank media hasn’t chastized their candidate for it; therfore, it coudn’t have happened? Try again.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1148 hrsIf you’re suggesting that the reason it hasn’t “caught on” is because the media has a liberal bias, I can’t agree with you there. It hasn’t caught on because there’s nothing there that the average American gives a rats behind about. They don’t see what you see. They don’t see Obama voting for infanticide, as you do. And I agree with them.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2008 at 1152 hrs...there’s nothing there that the average American gives a rats behind about. They don’t see what you see.
This is pure conjecture. Where’s the substantiation for it?
But again, facts are stubborn things. Obama’s original testimony, the inconsistency between the legislative record and the various excuses his apologists have put out....it’s all there, for all too see. Some just refuse to look.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1331 hrsIf there was anything there that anyone but the most rabid anti-abortion people would consider genuinely scandalous, it would be front page news already
And yet, somehow the United States Congress saw fit to act on a strong bipartisan basis, including a unanimous Senate vote. This was a no-brainer for even the most ardent pro-choicer, including Barbara Boxer:
“Of course, we believe everyone born should deserve the protections of this bill. Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that.…We join with an ‘aye’ vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous.” (June 29, 2001)
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1337 hrsThis is pure conjecture. Where’s the substantiation for it?
The simple fact that the story hasn’t got any legs except with ardent pro-life bloggers.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2008 at 1346 hrs...the story hasn’t got any legs except with ardent pro-life bloggers.
Are you serious? The story is everywhere—the AP’s picked it up, the liberal sites & publications are scrambling to discredit it, the conservative sites & publications have done meticulous work detailing the legislative details, and everyone from the AP and Politico to the Washington Post, Washington Times and Chicago Tribune has jumped into the fray. The Obama campaign deploys a new talking point as soon as an old one is discredited. All for a story that “hasn’t got any legs.” Huh.
We’ll see how much it resonates with the average American as the polls come and go, but the bottom line that you can’t escape is, again: facts are stubborn things. That’s the annoying thing about being a Democrat.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1405 hrsDude, fuck you and your lecture about “facts.” Seriously--save it. I’ve been trying to ignore it, but c’mon. Flat-earther Republicans have no honest leg to stand on when criticizing others for their lack of regard for facts. Puh-leese.
Back to the subject at hand. Is the story everywhere? I honestly did not know that. I don’t watch tv and I don’t get a newspaper, so my view of what the MSM is doing is filtered through blogs, cnn.com, nytimes.com, google news, bbcnews.com and maybe salon.com. I had no idea this was making the rounds, as the only place I’ve really seen it is, well, here.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2008 at 1411 hrsWell! It’s good to know facts are such a sore spot with you, Scott!
But no amount of profanity can change the fact that they’re there, and I’m not talking about the word of some conservative writer. I’m talking about the voting records, original legislation text, and transcripts, all straight from the Illinois State Senate. Audio, too.
You don’t care. That’s fine, but you really should think about the fact that it’s crap like this that makes you an embarassment to your side.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1419 hrsI don’t think you’d know a fact if it bit you right on your self-righteous ass. You put forth certain interpretations and certain facts--and not others. When presented with those “missing materials” you blithely go on lecturing me about how i don’t like facts.
Whatever, man. Obama’s a baby killer. Let’s see how that works for you in November.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2008 at 1424 hrsScott, I wish you could see me laughing my head off right now. I’m almost embarassed for you. You’re a hardcore partisan of the worst order, you pick and choose which bits of reality you’re going to acknowledge and which to ignore....and then you puff out your chest and sputter about your own superiority whenever anyone dares to notice it.
Don’t get me wrong, you’re oodles of fun, but debating you is also a profound waste of time. I hope you and the whopping seven non-lefties who take you seriously have a nice day.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1434 hrsCalvin, seriously, if a major party candidate was actually in favor of murdering babies, don’t you think at least Fox News would be running with it 24/7? Don’t you think the crawl across the bottom the screen would be nothing but “Democrat Introduces Legislation to Cruelly Starve Newborns” interspersed with Sean Hannity predicting the end of the campaign?
The hardcore, no-holds-barred right to life movement has been using such incendiary, inflammatory language for so long, it doesn’t realize how it sounds to the rest of the world.
Talk about chosing which bits of reality you’re going to acknowledge…
Posted by on August 22, 2008 at 1529 hrsdon’t you think at least Fox News would be running with it 24/7? Don’t you think the crawl across the bottom the screen would be nothing but “Democrat Introduces Legislation to Cruelly Starve Newborns” interspersed with Sean Hannity predicting the end of the campaign?
Interesting spin, apc. The first problem with it, though, is that it’s gotten plenty of coverage—in the outlets I’ve already mentioned, as well as Fox News and the New York Times. Look it up.
(And not to belabor the obvious, but Fox would only do as you suggest if it actually we’re the right-wing propaganda boogeyman of liberal imagination.)
The second problem is, it’s irrelevant. Senate transcripts, House Judiciary Committee reports, voting records, audio....all of it is what it is, regardless of who notices or mentions it. So are the glaring inconsistencies between it and Obama’s various excuses.
It’s all readily available (for convenience, I’ve just updated my post with the relevant links) for a smart liberal cookie like you to examine and discredit once you’re ready to take your fingers out of your ears. Unless you’re scared about what you’d find, that is.
Since you’re obsessed with the word “infanticide,” let’s try something: what word would you use to describe the procedure in question?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1705 hrsWhoops, stupid typo: “if it actually we’re” should be “if it actually were.”
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1706 hrsI might describe it this way: Obama voted against a law that he and others believe to be redundant, that the law in question was the camel nose under the tent for those wishing to further restrict abortion, and that the alleged event which prompted the bill to be written was investigated and found to be completely unsubstantiated in any case. Meanwhile people like yourself are sincerely but erroneously using it to damage Obama’s campaign, claiming he’s for infanticide. That’s pretty much how i’d describe it.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2008 at 1711 hrsI’m going to be referring to a number of things here--see my post for the weblinks:
http://rightcal.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-pro-infantic ide-candidate.htmlthat he and others believe to be redundant
The evidence doesn’t bear this out—for instance, see the points about Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn and the ambiguity of the “sustainable survivability” standard.
that the law in question was the camel nose under the tent for those wishing to further restrict abortion,
Strike two—Obama opposed multiple versions of the bill, with and without the deal-changing “neutrality clauses”
and that the alleged event which prompted the bill to be written was investigated and found to be completely unsubstantiated in any case.
Actually, according to the Senate Judiciary Committee report, Christ Hospital admitted they were performing live-birth abortions.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 22, 2008 at 1858 hrshttp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_an d_infanticide.html
Well, whaddya know? Scott and ACP’s candidate lied after all! (Granted, FactCheck gives Obama a pass on the line about preexisting state protections, but I’ve already documented the facts behind that.)
No wonder you guys run away from debates.....
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 28, 2008 at 1905 hrs
Ol' Army
