There are a lot of things above Obama’s “pay grade”
posted at 8:30 am on August 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’ll credit Rick Warren with asking both John McCain and Barack Obama about abortion. I skipped the Saddleback Church non-debate, but Jim at Gateway Pundit captured what has to be the quote of the election. When asked the point when a human embryo achieves personhood, Obama said that the question is “above my pay grade”:
Q. Now, let’s deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. you know, as a pastor I have to deal with this all of the time. \Aall of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. 40 million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
A. Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I’m pro abortion, but because ultimately I don’t think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members.
And so for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground and by the way I have now inserted this into the democrat party platform is how do we reduce the number of abortions because the fact is that although we’ve had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.
Q. Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?
A. I am in favor, for example, of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother’s health. Now from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro life, I think they would consider that inadequate. and I respect their views. I mean one of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you.
What I can do is say are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions, and as an example of that, one of the things that I’ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need. have we given them the support services that they need. Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary. That I think can make a genuine difference.
First, the entire issue of abortion involves determining when a baby becomes a person. If Obama thinks this is above his pay grade, then he probably shouldn’t be running for political office. If a baby is a person at conception, then abortion is murder. If Obama doesn’t believe that abortion is murder, then he can’t believe in the personhood, the humanity, of an embryo or fetus — not unless he’s some kind of monster.
As President — even as Senator — Obama is expected to have an answer for this. Quite literally, there is no higher pay grade in the US government, and abortion is one of the issues he has to face. If he can’t face it, then he should go back to community organization and leave politics for people who can. John McCain had no trouble answering the same question. Obama dodged it — and for good reason: his answer would have exposed his radical views.
Even in his equivocations, though, Obama can’t be honest. His reference to the Democratic platform on abortion is laughable. He insists that it represents an effort to reduce abortions, but Obamas’ language pledges to oppose all efforts to limit abortion on demand while providing public financing for abortions. That language actually strengthens the pro-abortion position over the 2004 position, while paying lip service to reducing abortions through nore government-funded programs.
Has Barack Obama ever voted to reduce abortions? Obama never answered that question, but he hasn’t. He voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions, a bill that passed Congress on a bipartisan basis three times before finally becoming law. In Illinois, he voted to kill a bill that would have stopped Christ Hospital and other medical facilities from abandoning live infants from unsuccessful abortions so that they would die of neglect. Obama lied about this, too, in an interview on CBN with David Brody last night:
As the NRLC has discovered, the Illinois bill did have the “neutrality clause” attached as an amendment to S.1082 in the same committee session in which Obama later killed the bill, on a party-line vote. That goes beyond abortion to infanticide, which makes Obama’s position on the personhood of a fetus even more nebulous. He’s moved into Peter Singer territory — the most radically pro-abortion candidate ever to carry a major-party nomination for President.
Unless, of course, voters buy the notion that the issue is above Obama’s pay grade, and that he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. In that case, they’d still be better off supporting the candidate who understands the pay grade he’s already at and the pay grade of the job for which he’s campaigning.
Update: I didn’t think about this at the time, but isn’t Barack Obama a Constitutional law scholar? Isn’t a question of personhood supposed to be in that “pay grade”?
Update II: You can watch the unclipped version of the CBN exchange here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Hammer this home. For pro-lifers, his statement on face value is enough to withhold support. For pro-choicers, his shame over his beliefs and reluctance to speak directly can be useful too.
p40tiger on August 17, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Good grief! Barry is a hapless little twerp who has no business leading the most powerful country in the world! If women, spouses and doctors wrestle with this issue the American people have the right to expect our leaders to have given some thought to it! Barry is spouting left wing talking points showing himself to be an empty suit with no core beliefs of his own!
A human life is a human life, Barry!
sabbott on August 17, 2008 at 8:46 AM
If it’s all above his pay grade, why is participating in the discussion at all?
He never answered the question.
The question was “when does a baby have rights?”
drjohn on August 17, 2008 at 8:48 AM
You keep saying how Ludacris and preposterous Obama is.
Can he win? Why?
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 8:48 AM
that is, of course, my new stock answer to everything and anything being asked of me..
Abortion is one of many issues that the President WILL have to deal with and he scoffs it off as ‘above my pay grade’?
BHO skirted so many questions and talked his way around the answers, he didn’t really answer any questions..
I guess, ‘what is rich’.. he asnwered..
McCain delivered straightforward answers to pretty much all the question..
even though the ‘my friends’ drinking game took it’s toll toward the end..
DaveC on August 17, 2008 at 8:48 AM
“Above my pay grade” is the dumbest, most unintelligent copout remark any presidential candidate could ever voice. Abortion will not fit into the left’s “shades of gray” world; it’s a pure binary event . . . the fetus is either dead or alive and we all must decide which one of those two mutually exclusive events we can accept and live with. To imply that abortion is a moral judgment you are not qualified to make says more about your character and morality than a thousand sterile media debates.
rplat on August 17, 2008 at 8:50 AM
People would be wise to let OBama’s deeds speak and not listen to Obama.v.2008.election.
There is no one more pro-abortion than Obama.
100% rating from NARAL.
drjohn on August 17, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Because a significant portion of the population will vote for him simply because he makes them feel good.
trubble on August 17, 2008 at 8:50 AM
HEY MCCAIN CAMPAIGN:
CUT OUT THE “MY FRIENDS” CRAP. WE HATE IT AND DON’T WANT TO BE “FRIENDS” WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT. WE ALREADY HAVE FRIENDS. GOT IT??
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Obama is Mr. Partial Birth Abortion.
Write it down.
It’ll play.
drjohn on August 17, 2008 at 8:53 AM
“Above my pay grade” is the same, conceptually, as “Inshallah” (Arabic for “It is God’s will.”) In Christianity, we do not leave things for God to fix.
indythinker on August 17, 2008 at 8:53 AM
So what are you saving?
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Above his paygrade? He’s a United States Senator and the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States. And what does answering a question on abortion have to do with paygrades? My goodness.
SoulGlo on August 17, 2008 at 8:54 AM
I’m pro-life but even if you’re not you have to see how absolutely pathetic his response was. He supposedly taught constitutional law?!!?!?! What exactly was he teaching if the legal question of who is and who is not a person is “above his pay grade” ?
D0WNT0WN on August 17, 2008 at 8:56 AM
So Obama,as a Liberal, are champions of Human Rights
or at least thats what Democrats believe,or so they
say,
so,
a baby, doesn’t qualify under their definition of
Human Rights!
So then,the book “It takes a Village” is more about
making a book deal and money,than children,or their
rights!
Obama’s stance on Abortion,or as Obama would say,
generaly speaking!
Bloody Outstanding,eh!
canopfor on August 17, 2008 at 8:59 AM
I’m biased but anyone who watched that could never vote for Obama…If anyone says he won or did better they trying to score brownie points with someone or are just as stupid as he is.
tomas on August 17, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Worst answer ever. D O D G E of extraordinary magnitude.
Nethicus on August 17, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Above Obama’s pay raise!
so,
Is Obama admitting he’s
not qualified!
canopfor on August 17, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Fact checked, and FALSE.
Buy Danish on August 17, 2008 at 9:02 AM
We already know his views on abortion. We saw it in his opposition to a bill in Illinois that would have saved the lives of babies who survive abortions. Three times he opposed it I think. So a perfect ad would show him claiming this subject was above his pay grade, then showing his fighting against, not just the newly conceived, but the newborn as well.
thekingtut on August 17, 2008 at 9:02 AM
I didn’t watch the interviews, but was surprised that Warren went near the abortion issue. I expected wiffleballs tossed at the candidates.
I was wondering if this actually set some standard for the moderators in the debates (to which I’m sure Obama is sooooo looking forward). Warren asked some serious questions, and got serious answers, at least from McCain.
Wethal on August 17, 2008 at 9:02 AM
20+ years in Church and he learned nothing!
multiuseless on August 17, 2008 at 9:02 AM
No Harry Truman here.
Although I enjoyed this comment of Obama’s while watching the program, quite a clever comeback, ho, ho, ho, he’s referring to God and it’s a religious venue, the buck will apparently never stop “here” during an Obama administration.
Overall impression (in case you’re curious) Obama did well, McCain did better.
bongo on August 17, 2008 at 9:02 AM
BO will be president because lots of people will vote for him for reasons other than his ability to lead. He is a cult figure, a celebrity and for many a messiah. They will vote for him not because he is the right person for the job but because they like him. This is American Idol on steroids and a great many people will vote for him because it makes them feel good to do so.
jmarcure on August 17, 2008 at 9:03 AM
I’m taking the “pay grade” gig as a nod of the head to a higher power. Meh.
Still, his stammering and evasiveness are getting old. Quick.
Luckily, more and more of my left-leaning friends are starting to feel the same way.
yo on August 17, 2008 at 9:04 AM
I think Rev. Jeremiah “G****** the USA” Wright was on the board of directors of one of the hositpals at which infants were being born alive after abortions and left to die. somewhow I doubt that abortion ever came up during his sermons, unless is was a Whitey plot to decimate the black race (like spreading the AIDS virus).
Wethal on August 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Sorry I thought that said “saying” not “saving”. My old eyes are having lots of trouble theses days.
jmarcure on August 17, 2008 at 9:08 AM
This will make a wonderful commercial.
“Being the President is above Obama’s pay grade.”
drjohn on August 17, 2008 at 9:08 AM
That is extremely debatable.
Romans 12:20
John 21:22
Luke 12:22-40
p40tiger on August 17, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Don’t agree, but if you’re right, and it happens, for the reasons (or worse) that you say, I think that shows there isn’t much worth saving about our present society anyhow. So whatever consequences ultimately follow from the fatal decision to elect Obama, will be for the good.
After all, did you see the robust response from the E. Europeans to Russia, and the weak response from the W. Europeans? Which society is healthier? Why?
Same here. Why fight to preserve a society that would elect an Obama?
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:08 AM
oh, ok.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Bingo.
Obama has made so many gaffes, has so many bad associations, shows so much ignorance and has so little experience, anyone else would have been long out of the Presidential race by now. But, here he is. All because he is (1) (half-)Black and (2) Mr. Hopenchange.
And because most of the American public is either ignorant or apathetic or suffering from BDS or more interested in having their President make them feel good instead of know what he is doing, Obama will win. It also helps Obama that McCain is an absolutely lousy candidate himself. If I were ignorant and just casual follower of politics, I could see voting for Obama.
Michael in MI on August 17, 2008 at 9:11 AM
jmarcure hits the nail on the head, but let me just add a bit. You are looking at this rationally, is this man capable of doing the job? Many people don’t. Some will vote for him to assuage white guilt-”look how progressive I am!” Some will vote for him because, “George Bush is Hitler!” Some will vote for him because he has a “D” next to his name, and they always vote for the “D”. I don’t think he will win, but he could. If he does, this constituency of the naval gazers, the code pink wannabes, and those who wear velcro shoes out of necessity, will be his base because they cannot be reasoned with as they are not acting rationally. Their support will be unwavering.
trubble on August 17, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Obama did nothing….He says frigging nothing. It drives me crazy because It reminds me of a business where everyone says “Moving forward” and Our “Culture”.
It drives me crazy…Say what the hell you mean and quit being robots.
tomas on August 17, 2008 at 9:13 AM
POTUS is above Obama’s pay grade.
Anything bearing responsibility is above Obama’s willingness and ability. He always requires others to perform his work and think for him. Even at home.
maverick muse on August 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Double bingo. And how do you deal with your opinion of your fellow man? Isolated much? What’s the endgame? Any way out?
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM
I said saving.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:15 AM
And Obama uses his intelligence to WIN. That is another thing that pisses me off. You say he’s dumb because he makes no sense, yet he courts a constituency that wants no sense. Dumb??
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Exactly. I have been saying this for weeks and political pundits keep saying otherwise. I think the political pundits underestimate the ignorance of the American voting public and how we are now an American Idol society, not a society which makes its decisons based on facts and logic.
Also, as I said previously, it does not help that McCain is a horrible candidate himself. Of course, go over to NRO The Corner and they are singing his praises and saying how Conservatives can now feel good about voting for him. Yeehaw! Yeah, okay, he pisses on conservatism for 8 years, takes pride in his maverickiness, is Captain Amnesty, may as well be Al Gore’s right-hand man, and the NRO pundits think that 1 hour with Rick Warren is supposed to make me feel good about McCain? Give me a freaking break. What kind of delusional world do these pundits live in where 8 years of crap get wiped out by 1 hour with Rick Warren. Get a freaking clue.
Michael in MI on August 17, 2008 at 9:18 AM
I think someone posted this a while back:
A devout man was in his house during a hurricane and a flood. As the waters started rising, a neighbor came by in a car. “Hop in, and I’ll take you to safety.” “No, thank you,” said the man, “God will rescue me.”
As the waters filled the first floor of his house, the man moved to the second floor. He looked out a window and saw a man in a boat. “Climb down the drainpipe and get in. I’ll take you to safety.” “No, thank, you,” said the man. “God will rescue me.”
As the waters contineud to rise, the man was on his roof. A helicopter came by and lowered a line. “Climb on and we’ll take you to safety.” “No, thank you, ” said the man. “God will rescue me.”
The man drowned, and stood before God in Heaven. “Why didn’t you rescue me, God,?” he said.
God: “I sent a car, a boat and helicopter. What more did you want?”
Wethal on August 17, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Obama is running for the leader of a movement that already exists– a movement of cold-blooded, highly intelligent power hungry socialists and communists who use the lumps of this world to carry them to power.
It may prove insufficient to fight Obama the man without fighting the ideology and the methodology as well.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Obama’s new logo,is actually,the Liberals
symbol,of going in circles in answering
questions!
You’ll never get an answer from Liberals,
it goes in circles,like a twirling and
spinning Kabuki dancer!
canopfor on August 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Obama’s paygrade: political panhandler.
profitsbeard on August 17, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. I suspect, with a high degree of surety that God’s position on abortion is firm and leaves no room for moral debate. Therefore, this decision would be solely that of “Caesar’s”, or in this case Obama’s, who has elected to pass the buck rather than make a moral judgment. No, there’s nothing clever or coy about this remark . . . it’s simply a cowardly copout.
rplat on August 17, 2008 at 9:24 AM
How can any question — particularly a moral question — be above a Messiah’s pay grade?
It’s still a long way to November, but you can already see doubt in the eyes of April’s true believers. Even those still quite loyal now doubt Obama’s invincibility. Others — like my 18 year-old — doubt whether he’s the right guy to vote for.
We have a ballgame. Who could ask for more?
NCC on August 17, 2008 at 9:24 AM
because a lot of people think he’ll give them more money, jobs (unions) etc.
and all the so-called ‘christians’ who vote for him (see the black community) are putting their perceived self-interest above their morality.
right4life on August 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM
And his answer was: “I have no idea!”
seanrobins on August 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM
No doubt. It is right to do something when we see something that needs to be done (Luke 13:35), and the Bible even says that it is a sin to know what should be done and yet do nothing (1 John 3:10).
However, to say that we as Christians do not leave things for God to fix is a bold and arrogant statement that shows a lack of understanding of why we do not seek vengence and turn the other cheek; and why we are not to worry; and why we anticipate that people will hate us; and why we declare that this world is not our home; and why we cannot claim to be able to save ourselves from our sins. We depend on God to “fix” all things, from injustice to our very salvation. Of course we do what is right, but we cannot claim that we as Chrisitians do not rely on God to fix things.
p40tiger on August 17, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Isolated? In 2007 Amnesty was the biggest issue for the GOP, right? Whom did they nominate for President? Captain Amnesty. My respect for “my fellow man (ie Republicans/Conservatives)” went right out the f***ing window after that.
After that I haven’t believed one word about what Republicans and Conservatives voters say they give a sh*t about. In a span of one year, they went from saying illegal immigration was the top priority to nominating a man for President who spat on them with regards to that issue. So yeah, I have a *very* low opinion of the American voting public and it is well grounded, whether you think I am “isolated” or not.
To answer your questions, the “endgame” is Obama will be President and I don’t see any way to stop it. And even if McCain wins, we get amnesty, global warming legislation and maverickiness and “reaching across the aisle” for universal healthcare. Meanwhile, he will get none of his platform accomplished, because he will have probably a veto-proof Democrat majority in Congress. And he won’t be fighting for originalist judges against the Democrats and his friends in the media. Brilliant. Either way, we are toast for the next 4 years. But maybe people should have thought of that, before nominating Captain Amnesty for President.
Michael in MI on August 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Don’t judge Obama on the “quality” of his answers. His strength derives from the audaciousness of correctly reading his followers. Proof? Look for criticism of his performance on the lefty blogs and MSM.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM
I question whether it’s even a self-interest analysis, rather than - (please don’t kill me, I’m only the messenger) - a “color of the skin” analysis.
As for so-called christians: If you are Christian and you vote for someone with so little respect for life - (see, for example, BHO’s position on the Illinois “Born Alive” bill) - then, will all due respect (not much), you are no christian.
seanrobins on August 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM
“I don’t think women make these decisions casually”
Does he mean ALL WOMEN? Of course not. There are some who take it very seriously, and some who take it very casually.
This statement is a 100% joke since humankind is comprised of the classic normal curve.
His statement makes it sound like 100% of all abortions follow prayer, fasting, consultations with family and doctors.
Dpet on August 17, 2008 at 9:34 AM
You misinterpreted my “isolated” comment. I meant to imply that I have similar thoughts to you, and feel isolated sometimes because of it.
As for the endgame ques, I was thinking a little further into the future. I don’t think the only price we will pay for an Obama presidency is 4 bad years. Anyway, goodluck.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Obama quoted Matthew when it was convenient for him but somehow newborn babies don’t qualify as being “the least among us.”
That’s irony.
drjohn on August 17, 2008 at 9:39 AM
This is really hypocritical, since the pro-dead-baby Left fight tooth-and-nail against laws which require a 24-hour waiting period (Gosh! Women might actually reflect upon their decisions), or which require physicians provide medical information about the procedure.
As it stands, I doubt that more than a small fraction of decisions of women to dump their little inconveniences follow anyh reflection. More’s the irony, since the avoidanc of such reflection demonstrates the effect that any such “reflection” would have on the decision.
seanrobins on August 17, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Right, but when it comes down to it, do liberals have any other choice? No. Just like Conservatives don’t have any other choice, but to vote for McCain. Both candidates know this. Obama will not gain any conservatives and McCain will not gain any liberals. When it comes down to election day, liberals will vote Obama and conservatives will vote McCain.
Bingo. Exactly, exactly exactly. I have been telling my friends this for months now. And this is the main problem of the GOP and Conservatives. Instead of discrediting the ideology so that no matter how smooth talking a person tries to peddle it, the ideology will already be discredited with the public, so the candidate will fail. But, instead, the GOP and conservatives seem to always attack the messenger, instead of the message. This leaves the message/ideology alive for someone better to come along and peddle it in a nicer sounding way. Thus why we have Obama succeeding, even though he is a Socialist/Marxist/Communist himself. He makes it sound good, so even when I tell people he is a socialist/Marxist/Communist, they say ’so what?’ Just the mere mention that someone’s ideology is socialist/Marxist/Communist should turn people off. But it doesn’t, because the ideology has not been discredited.
Michael in MI on August 17, 2008 at 9:44 AM
What a stupid answer, totally nonsensical.
His specific answer for decreasing abortion is sex education for kindergartners.
peacenprosperity on August 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM
My apologies. I misinterpreted the “isolated” remark. After reading the drivel on NRO The Corner this morning, I was a little on edge and took it the wrong way.
As far as the price we will pay, I don’t know. We survived Carter and we survived Bill Clinton. And we have survived plenty of down times in the past history of this country. If people believe in this country and believe in its righteousness and believe in the Consitution and the fabric and foundation of what makes America America, then I believe we will come back to good, just as we have many times in our past history. It is simply a matter of when and how long we will be in the dark, before we get back to good again.
Michael in MI on August 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM
What a perfect soundbyte he giftwrapped and laid at our feet…right before the convention! This is a campaign buster, and should be sufficient to dog him all the way back to the streets of Chicago, or the classrooms of Harvard - if they’ll have him after this!
RushBaby on August 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Can you imagine McCain mentioning Saul Alinsky to Obama? LOL
(Btw, Alinksy was right in his methodology. But what’s good for the goose…)
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM
LOL! If they’ll have him? My guess is he’ll be President alright…of Harvard.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM
IIRC, he never actually has gotten tenure as a scholar. I think that’s in the tenure bracket and maybe in the senior scholar range not the apprentice scholar that Barack works in.
Besides, tenure or not, Barack still isn’t
expera strong enough scholar or legal thinker at this time to be able to decide. Getting 300 advisors to help him would probably be a good idea right now.Dusty on August 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Michael in MI on August 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Well, considering that the way the primaries work, by the time I got to cast my ballot, “my friend” Juan McRino was already the nominee (I live in PA), my vote didnt matter anyway. So, I protest voted, for Ru(Ron) Paul. Not because I supported his candidacy, but because I DIDNT support McVains.
mrfixit on August 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Heres the commercial,
The camera pans across newborns in the
hospital nursery,
“In Obama’s America,left or right,your
baby has ‘Has No Rights’”!
canopfor on August 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Obama thinks you should be able to kill babies. Period. He has the gall to compare himself to Clarence Thomas (’we both taught at University of Chicago’) but can’t answer fundamental questions because he will lose his supporters. Except those dyed-in-the-wool Marxists, who would stay on board.
Yeah, it reminds me of the story of the missionary who feels so sympathetic to the poor and who devotes her life to trying to save them, but also feels like she’s going it alone. When she dies she stands before God and asks why didn’t he send the poor aid, and he says, “I sent you - what more could they need?”
Plus, I don’t know if anyone mentioned it, but the Bible (I think it’s James) has the story of the poor, hungry brother-in-Christ to whom saying “Ah1 You’re hungry - God bless you, hope it all works out!” is useless; you’re supposed to help him yourself, showing God’s love. We’re the potter’s clay, the vessels of the Lord, etc.etc.etc.
emailnuevo on August 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Good commercial, but who is the intended audience?
It’s still hard for me to get my head around the idea that there are any Americans with even half a brain that would still require this info.
But maybe you’re right. Maybe the fight isn’t for the “independent” or “moderate” or “centrist”. Maybe the fight in America today is for the moron vote.
I guess if John McCain really wants to win, he ought to just tell people that whatever Obama promises them, he’ll give them $1 more.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Good commercial
JiangxiDad on Aug 17,2008 at 10:05AM.
JiangxiDad:Good point,hey I’m just the idea man,
but, I would say the morons!
Thats morons,not American morons!:)
canopfor on August 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Apparently for Barack a certain arrogance isn’t above his position.
King me.
Speakup on August 17, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Hey. No offense taken. Our American morons stand up well against anyones!
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 10:13 AM
AMAZING!
Doesn’t it bother ANYONE on the Left that Obama’s policies are SO radical that he can never tell the public where he REALLY stands? Millions of heads in the sand.
marklmail on August 17, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Think you have this backwards. It’s what endears him to them.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Exactly. People may disagree about when human life begins (at conception?, when the zygote becomes a fetus?, when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb?, etc) — but it is indisputable, morally and legally, that a baby living on its own outside the womb is a human being with all the rights attendant thereto.
The fact that Obama voted, more than once, to treat babies who survive abortion attempts as something less than human — allowing them to be discarded as trash and deprived of needed medical care — proves that Obama’s “we don’t know when life begins” argument is a red herring. Obama’s record demonstrates that his only concern is the “right” of the pregnant woman not to be burdened with the “punishment” of an unwanted baby. And in Obama’s world, that “right” trumps any right of the baby — even after it has been born alive. That position is so radical that most American voters, even those who identify themselves as pro-choice, would reject it — which is undoubtedly why Obama continues to lie about his voting record on the issue.
AZCoyote on August 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I don’t understand why this answer really shocks so many people.
Obambi saying this is just par for the Liberal course.
Liberals can’t, in fact won’t, take responsibility for ANYTHING let alone something which is controversial - especially in politics.
This quote is very illustrative of that and should be used to hammer that point home as others here have commented.
If this fundamental issue is “above his pay grade” - what else is? The Middle East? Energy? Economics?
And don’t expect this to have ANY impact on the Left. His answers are in keeping with the best of the Libtards.
catmman on August 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Amazing.
wise_man on August 17, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Great analysis Ed. No person with any pro-life leanings can support this weasel based on his position. He should stick to body surfing.
koolbrease on August 17, 2008 at 10:46 AM
His only concern is winning, the methods employed and positions taken vary on the situation. If he was a “conservative” candidate, he’d be against abortion. He’s pretty transparent, if pretty.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I disagree. While it’s true BHO won’t gain any real conservatives McCain will get lots of liberal votes who simply want an adult in the White House. Even dense libs can see that BHO is a hologram. Good ol’ Barry reminds me of every administrator I’ve ever worked for (I’m a teacher) who was promoted for reasons other than competence.
Mojave Mark on August 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I do agree that the pro-life side should use PR more to sway more people to their position.
BUT note in Obama’s answer about partial birth abortions, he just slides right by the answer and talks about the “when life begins” debate. I guess he believes that a baby is entitled to human rights only when it is born full term to a mother who does not wish to abort it! A viable 36-week fetus therefore has no right to life!
PattyJ on August 17, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Yeah, McCain - take the advise of people who hate you and don’t want to be your friend.
Makes perfect sense.
While Obama goes on with the “Ummmmm… ah…. umm.. Merrrr…. ammmmm,,, ummm….” in his replies, you’ve got McCain saying: “my friends.” Clearly McCain is making people upset when he says ‘my friends.’
Teh horrror!
wise_man on August 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Now Obama is not a doctor, but I would think in dealing with medical issues, the rule of “First of all do no harm” would apply. If he truly felt that he couldn’t judge on things above his pay grade (and since he is running for president shouldn’t he be ready to make those judgements?) wouldn’t the right and honest position be not to end a life as it may be an innocent human?
billhedrick on August 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM
It’s kind of obvious that he meant God when he said that, and it might be construed as clever in some circles. However, in this country, it’s a big time topic with many and he should have expected to be asked this question and had something more than a flip answer. It’s just more evidence that he does not “get it” and probably never will. Maybe, just maybe, Hillary’s memo was correct when it hinted that his background is simply not in tune with large segments of the American electorate. Makes me wonder yet again, why Hillary and company did not exploit this.
jeanie on August 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Huh, does that mean prescribing universal health care is above his pay grade?
terryannonline on August 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM
It’s condescending and insincere, and don’t put words in my mouth, my friend.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I watched the whole show and loved it. John McCain was great, especially when he said “my friends”. Obama…well he is “the one”…lost the election when he could not seem to say when life begins for a baby. All the christians must have said “hmmmmm” when he gave his answer. Too bad the democrats passed up on HRC who was their only hope…
kanda on August 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM
“I mean one of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you”…….Barack Obama
Just exactly what is “core issue” of your Christian faith, Mr. Obama? Are you greatful to God that your mother didn’t consider where life begins?
Rovin on August 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM
This is a huge blow against the liberal Catholics who think it’s okay to wink at a pro-abortion candidate as long as their “mistake” on abortion is counterbalanced by good intentions such as feeding the poor — a noble thing — or ending global warming — a delusional thing.
The reason it’s a blow to these Catholics is because their argument for Obama has always been that he is thoughtful and has come to his beliefs on abortion on the basis of sincere reflection in his “conscience.” (Conscience is the wild card liberal Catholics play when they want to get out of a sticky moral argument without explaining themselves).
But Obama revealed here that, not only does he not think deeply about when life begins, he doesn’t acknowledge his obligation to think about it. The deep one shrugged his shoulders!
My dear liberal Catholic friends, do you see any sign of conscience there? If you do, you have powers far greater than mine.
jeff_from_mpls on August 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
‘I skipped the Saddleback Church non-debate,’
The more I think of it the more it doesn’t make any sense. Who the hell else are we all talking about here? Some other politicians who are running for president? Sounds familiar.
I share the boss’s disdain for this grand pander so I won’t be watching,
Yeah, that’s what I thought I remembered.
I’m glad that I watched the “non-debate,” it got a lot of information about Obama and McCain. After watching this, I didn’t have any “distain” for the event. It’s interesting, as Byron York said:
And I agree. It was revealing. And there was no ‘cheating’ by the person who responded second.
As a matter of fact, I hope that in addition to the standard debates, that this style of interview of two people happens again.
wise_man on August 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM
yep. It’s funny how it’s only the MDS “Juan McPlantation Captain Amnesty” folks here who remain convinced that Obama is going to win. Their opinion of their fellow Americans isn’t exactly attractive either. You fellas may want to listen to Rush Limbaugh a few more times, and pay closer attention to him when he speaks warmly of his faith in the basic decency and intelligence of the American people.
You MDSers really come across as hateful folks with your descriptions of US voters and how “most” of them are drooling morons desperate to vote for hopeychange.
funky chicken on August 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Where do you live?
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2008 at 11:05 AM
His answer was flip and will most certainly offend some. In reading earlier posts I ran across the “we do not wait for God to fix things” and it gave me pause. I’m willing to bet that many here have done just that from time to time because there was no where else to turn. Granted, it is not, nor ever will be, an excuse for not taking appropiate action when needed—but I, for one, am delighted that it’s one option.
jeanie on August 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Can you do a thread with each of their responses about how we should handle “evil”?
That had the starkest contrast of the night. McCain said flat out “Defeat it” while Obama was all wishy washy and didn’t even mention terrorism. He talked about Darfur and abusive parents instead.
eski502 on August 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I didn’t watch it either because I don’t like Rick Warren. I assumed that his friendship with Obama would lead him to ask silly questions tailor made for The One to crush with his rote hopeychange routine.
I believe I owe Mr. Warren an apology. I still don’t care for his Oprahization of Christianity (I don’t believe Christianity needs a self-help text/movement beyond the Bible itself; don’t like these pastors who glom on to the White House; still remember his trip to Syria and the ludicurous comments afterward).
However, he far exceeded my expectations by asking serious questions, and the same questions of Obama and McCain. So, Mr. Warren, thank you for doing a good job last night, and I apologize for thinking that your would let your personal friendship with Obama lead you to turn your event into a coronation of Mr. Hopeychange.
The other person who owes Mr. Warren an apology, based upon having made the same assumption that I did? IMHO, Obama himself. He came in unprepared, and it showed. What a way to treat your friend and supporter.
funky chicken on August 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Yes please. I’d really like to see that.
funky chicken on August 17, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The idea that “we do not wait for God to fix things” is a very American Christian idea, but, IMHO, it is just wrong. Christians are to rely on God in all things, even when we are “doing” things.
p40tiger on August 17, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I caught a moment of CNN just to find one of their guests mentioning that it was a good thing that Obama mentioned that there was evil in America. On the other page that was the open thread about the event, I mentioned that we already have something in place to take care of that.
They are called “the Police.” And we have laws to deal with evil people. But the president of the united states, as commander in chief, in my opinion needs to focus more on the evil that IS in his “pay grade,” and the majority of that evil comes to us from the outside. outside. And the FBI is in charge of the ‘evil’ such as the oklahoma bomber, the unabomber, and other domestic terrorists.
wise_man on August 17, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Obama chose his words badly, and they will come back to haunt and taunt him through November.
His goal was to pick off a few percentage points from McCain among evangelical voters. I’m guessing his remarks were an attempt to put abortion lower in the hierarchy of issues that voters decide on. He is right that a President is limited in his ability to end abortion while Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. His answer was a bad one though and I’m sure his handlers are giving him a lot of homework for the fall debates.
A lot of American Catholics don’t listen to the their church on birth control. On the issue of abortion many probably feel that they have to balance their religious views on that issue with other issues affecting them such as the economy, national security, health care, and education.
dedalus on August 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM
And even NARAL stopped opposing the Born Alive federal legislation when the neutrality clause was added. BO continues to lie/dodge about the state legislation. This guy has no shame.
aikidoka on August 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »