Obama is to the LEFT of NARAL, given his Live Birth Abortion record.

jp on June 16, 2008 at 8:37 PM

His live birth abortion record, his partial-birth abortion record, his entire record.

Any person who claims to be pro-life and yet advocates voting for Obama — a man who supports the “right” to stick a pair of scissors into the brain of a fully formed baby on its way out of the womb — is either a liar or a fool, or both.

Unfortunately, some conservatives have completely misread history and especally the history of Reagan and I think this includes Noonan and Kmiec. They are looking for “another Reagan” and they see Obama as that man, because they really believe that Reagan’s success as president and as founder and leader of the modern conservative movement was somehow based on the sheer force of his personality that inspired millions to follow him.

Many Boomers seem to long for a “movement” to be part of, and a “leader” to follow. Maybe this is a leftover legacy of JFK, that sense that this generation had a leader to follow and behind him they were going to change the world, but it all ended when he was killed. Many of us who served under Reagan felt a sense of great excitement and camaraderie, and exhilaration that we were changing the world. I distinctly remember asking a fellow Reaganite once if he thought these were the best jobs we would ever have in our lives.

Most of us are satisfied having had that experience once and are not really looking for it again. But to some, I guess it is such a powerful thing to experience that they want to experience it again, and they see Barack Obama as that same sort of inspirational leader they can follow again and recapture their youth.

They could not be more wrong.

Reagan’s force was the force of ideas, forged over decades of real-life experience with communists, labor unions, and the heavy hand of government that he saw choking off innovation and freedom. He inspired millions because he stood for and delivered real change, not just rhetoric about change. His personality certainly helped bring some people along so that his ideas could enlighten them and change their vision of what America and the world could be. But it was not the end – it was the means to the end.

A personality cult like that of Barack Obama can only lead to disaster because it is grounded more on the personality of the leader than his ideas. When I see a huge Obama rally, I do not see A Shining City On A Hill, I see The Triumph Of The Will. People who follow such leaders are sheep, and they are lazy sheep at that – they think that the act of supporting and voting for him makes them a change agent. They don’t want to do the hard work of real change. Obama promises them an easy way to make history.

It turns out the next day, I see Obama’s birth certificate online…guess what, he too was born on June 6th. More specifically, he was born on the 6th day of the 6th month of the 6th decade of the 20th century…coincidence…I think not.

jnrz on June 17, 2008 at 6:46 AM

Sorry. He was born August 4, 1961. See here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html

Fourth day of the eighth month. And 1961 is in the

seventh

decade.

You got the century right, though.

Okay, so this Kmiec character loves Obama despite the fact that he can’t really square Obama’s positions with his own deeply held views, and resorts to strange rationalizations and circumlocutions. Isn’t this almost literally the definition of a cult of personality?

Travis Bickle on June 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM

(my emphasis)

Yes, from the very start of the Obamania it was clear that the Obambi had become a Pied Piper to a host of naive and gullible Americans, from youthful idiots (pardon the lisp!) to “tingle up my leg” media figures. Read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer. This is a very dangerous phenomenon, one which could literally overwhelm the Republic if we’re not careful.

We may end up being very glad that the Founding Fathers left us the Electoral College.

but determined efforts to talk women out of it

So barry is for women viewing sonograms before an abortion is done?

The biggest irony is that if you look at the demographics of abortion, most of them would grow up to be Democrats. My theory is they’re in love with illegal immigration to make up the difference.

malan89 on June 16, 2008 at 9:43 PM

I can’t believe it was on a “bong hits for Obama” thread.
Oh well…

I always pictured him as Dwight Schrute, FWIW.

Back on topic, this article clearly meant to take the abortion issue off the table. “See, they’re both the same!” Clearly disturbed.

Obama opposed the Infants Born Alive Act in the Illinois Senate.

This means Obama thinks that every abortion started should be finished, even if it means leaving an “accidentely birthed” baby to die on a cold, sterile table.

Obama is THE most pro-abortion candidate EVER. If you can’t vote against him based on the reality that he thinks infanticide is legitimate, vote against him for many of the other myriad reasons he would be a fatal disaster, such as economics, foreign policy, domestic issues, national security, or high scores in bowling.

Obamicans

I call them NooNuts, after Peggy Noonan who seems to slide into different register when she talks Obama up.

I can’t get the sticky stuff off me when reading Noony gush over Obama. The first article I find in web search

As for Sen. Obama, his victory is similarly huge. He won the five biggest counties in Iowa, from the center of the state to the South Dakota border. He carried the young in a tidal wave. He outpolled Mrs. Clinton among women.

He did it with a classy campaign, an unruffled manner, and an appeal on the stump that said every day, through the lines: Look at who I am and see me, the change that you desire is right here, move on with me and we will bring it forward together – Noonan 01-04-08

Yuck

The gush attack starts every time Noonan shifts into Obama

I must have been out of town the day Obama hypnotized these people.

The solution: Self-persuasion through argumentation that the most liberal member of the senate is somehow the more responsible choice this year for a conscientious pro-life voter.

Change “persuasion” to “delusion” and you’d be more accurate. These paragraphs are the tell:

While I think a Catholic voter should still pray and work for the reversal of Roe, I don’t think that’s a sufficient position for a presidential candidate who sees himself or herself as pro-life. When a self-described pro-life presidential candidate argues only for the reversing of Roe, rather than an aggressive campaign for the human life amendment or the appropriate interpretation of the Constitution in light of the Declaration of Independence, and the very same candidate seeks to justify an unjustified war and ignores other matters of social teaching such as pursuit of a family wage and responsible assistance to the poor, that does far too little.

…snip…

Obama said he earnestly wants to “discourage” the practice of abortion. Describing the abortion decision as a “difficult, deeply moral one,” Obama said he shared the aspiration being expressed at the table “to reduce the incidence of abortion.” How? Obama is committed to encouraging “responsible sexual behavior,” discouraging unwanted pregnancies, and promoting adoption by making it less administratively daunting and more affordable. He would also prohibit late-term abortions, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution as interpreted by the Court. Such requirements usually entail an exception for the health and life of the mother.

Kmiec demands that a pro-life candidate not only support overturning Roe v Wade, but he/she must also commit to a constitutional amendment banning abortion — and he bases this on his Catholicism, earlier quoting the Catholic Bishops and papal encyclical. There is no such directive or requirement, regarding amending of the constitution, in either of those documents. This is strictly Kmiec’s personal interpretation.

He then goes on to laud Obama, who has voted consistently in favor of abortion rights, and against banning partial-birth abortion, because of a private conversation in which Obama says he will “discourage” abortion, and will prohibit “late term abortion.” Aside from the fact that the POTUS has no such authority, the line that “Such requirements usually entail an exception for the health and life of the mother” is absolutely ignorant. In all the debate about the barbaric practice of late term abortion, there has never been a case where the life of the mother has been a consideration, due to the simple fact that the fetus is viable and can be delivered safely in late term pregnancies without jeopardizing the mother, as we’ve seen time and time again in accident victims.

The final kicker — and probably the key to Kmiec’s disordered thinking is that McCain “seeks to justify an unjustified war and ignores other matters of social teaching such as pursuit of a family wage and responsible assistance to the poor, that does far too little…” So it’s not really about abortion, in spite of the all the verbiage. Kmiec has fallen into the social justice trap that far too many Catholics use to rationalize voting for Democrats — and Obama’s his man.

highhopes on June 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM

Thank you for the clarification.

I disagree in part. I am not overly enthusiastic about McCain’s picks, but I fear Obama’s. I believe he would go as far to the left as he possibly could.

I want to be sure I understand you. Do you believe that there would likely be any difference between a McCain nominee and and an Obama pick?

hillbillyjim on June 16, 2008 at 9:36 PM

In two words: Very little. Neither Obama nor McCain is going to tinker with this situation where everything comes down as a 5-4 split. Even if Ginsberg isn’t replaced with another radical, her voting pattern will be maintained by whomever either one puts up.

McCain isn’t going to change the court because, frankly, he probably won’t have the opportunity to mess with the reliable conservatives and he agrees with much of what the liberals have done- after all they were the ones who signed on to outlawing our First Amendment freedoms per McCain’s legislation, they were the ones who handed terrorists the US judicial system per McCain’s demands about GITMO, etc. John McCain would give us a Souter not a Scalia and I’m disappointed with that.

Obama, at least initially, isn’t going to put up a nominee overly controversial because that would be a huge political nightmare (as in “see what happens when you put a black in office” or “see what happens when you put an inexperienced moron in office.”) He will play it safe.

Doug Kmiec is clearly not sane and these posts are in very poor taste. He is obviously mentally ill.

malan89 on June 16, 2008 at 9:42 PM

But I think I had answered that already with some personal analysis.

malan89 on June 16, 2008 at 9:12 PM

I’m curious. When did Indy get banned?

terryannonline on June 16, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Half past six. Here’s AP’s final ruling.

I disagree with the prevailing myth that we KNOW John McCain would make better SCOTUS picks. His part in the Junta of 14 means that he would find somebody acceptable to Democrats and that isn’t going to be any jurist that I read about and get excited that the court is going to undergo real ideological change.

highhopes on June 16, 2008 at 9:26 PM

I want to be sure I understand you. Do you believe that there would likely be any difference between a McCain nominee and and an Obama pick?

Uhh… what?

Hollowpoint on June 16, 2008 at 9:31 PM

Pack the courts with socialist moonbat judge and it doesn’t matter how many laws those social conservatives and Jesus freaks make in Congress.

“Not to understand that there is more than one rather indirect and elusive judicial way to address an intrinsic evil understates the ingenuity of the devout.”

Uhh… what?

ThePrez on June 16, 2008 at 9:17 PM

I’m curious. When did Indy get banned?