To the left of Hillary [UPDATED]

By Erick Posted in | | | | | Comments (105) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Hillary and Barack are scrambling to get to the left of John Edwards on a host of issues, but there is one issue on which Barack Obama has been consistently to the left of Hillary Clinton — the birth of children.

In partial birth abortion, a baby is born while the doctors are careful to leave the child partially in the birth canal. Then an incision is made in the back of the baby's head and its brains are vacuumed out. The child, being old enough, is aware and feeling.

Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a supporter of the procedure.

In 2004, as a candidate Barack Obama sent out a fundraising appeal against it.

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.

Michelle called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure," and wouldn't supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to stop it?

In 2003, while in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama chaired the Illinois Senate committee that dealt with the Born Alive Infant Protection Act ("BAIPA"), a measure beyond the PBA that any sane person should support. The act mandating live saving medical treatment for infants born alive, as some children are born even though an abortion has been attempted. Obama refused to allow the committee to consider the legislation. He *refused* a hearing and shelved the legislation.

That's to the left of Hillary Clinton's position and NARAL's position, which was neutral on consideration of the BAIPA.*

And some of you people would rather Obama than John McCain. Pitiful.

*Updated: As SIConservative notes here, I made the mistake of equating the PBA and BAIPA. Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc. supported the BAIPA, though Obama opposed it. Both Clinton and Obama opposed the PBA. I have fixed the post to resolve the confusion and correct the error.

Put another way, Hillary and Obama agree that until a baby is fully from the womb, it can be slaughtered. But, Hillary believes that once the baby is all the way out, you cannot slaughter it. Obama disagrees and supports killing fully born children.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Being John McCainComments (39) »
To the left of Hillary [UPDATED] 105 Comments (0 topical, 105 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

It didn't stop anyone from saying they would sit out the general or devising insane theories of how Obama or Hillary would be better for us.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Thirty-four Senators, including Sen. Clinton, voted against banning partial-birth abortion in 2003. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act passed by unanimous consent, and it was similar legislation in Illinois that Sen. Obama opposed. Like Obama, NARAL opposed the ban on PBA, but the organization did not take a position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

This is why the party is much more than just the talk radio people, and the idiot known as Ann Coulter. This issue especially, John McCain should hit Obama on relentlessly because it is simply immoral, even by most pro-abortion activists. This would be the equivalent of standing up against the Kelo vs. New London ruling were about 96% of the population strongly supports one side. Can you imagine a commercial starting off with Michelle's words and then showing doctors perform this "legitimate medical procedure"? That would be swift boat X 100.

that it's many of the Values Voters that are planning on sitting this one out. If ever there was an important election for us (yes, I'm one of you) it is this one.

FDT's Principles

...that there are people like my wife, who was originally going to vote for Obama until she found out his abortion views. Now, not only can she not countenance a vote for him, but she's said that she'll vote for McCain (however reluctantly).

I don't know if any siginificant portion of the electorate thinks like she does, but hopefully it's at least as large as the single-issue Republican voters contemplating staying home.

There have been some people who tried to push us into *irrelevance* but I won't name names.

Don't you remember when some folks told the bible thumpers "Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out" when discussing not voting for Giuliani?

They were quite willing to do without the SoCon vote when it came to Rudy. Now not so much?

At least there is a chance McCain will stand firm on issues like this. I beleive he will.

It's like I've said before, once McCain gets to 1191, I think he will get the bible thumpers because he, unlike Giuliani, is better than the Dems. Until then, I'll support Huckabee.

Jim Tomasik

What I saw was Giuliani making pledges on judges that were pretty clearly aimed at calming SoCon nerves -- which is quite different from saying "Ah, screw you guys...who needs ya?"

Giuliani's campaign was always a gamble that SoCons would hold their nose on the premise that he was their best shot of having anybody even remotely sympathetic to their causes in the White House (which, BTW, I still consider the case...his clumsy and miscalculated campaign notwithstanding).

In the end, I don't think it was a lack of SoCon support that did Rudy in -- but a poor calculation for what the new primary schedule meant.

Giuliani who was saying it. It was his supporters.

Jim Tomasik

home this election. While I do not agree with John McCain as our nominee I will vote for him in Nov. At least he will not roll back the prolife Mexico city policy, which is crucial.

It is time for conservatives to accept the fact that McCain is going to be our nominee and consider other options to focus on.

I have chosen two pro-life conservatives to support for election in the house. If we would focus on that we could make considerable progress in having a conservative house.

Get the word/images/video out, do it well, and we will come.

Should Obama win the nomination, he's going to get a rude awakening to the fact that not all Republicans run as poorly as Alan Keyes.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

however I have mentioned this little nugget dozens of times on here at Redstate, and so I believe I deserve a hat tip, though frankly the real hat tip goes to Amanda Carpenter at Human Events who wrote about this a couple years ago.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

about Obama I pointed out that he was to the left of Planned Parenthood on abortion, and I even referenced Carpenter's article everytime I said it. I can find any of the dozens of threads in which I reference what Erick just put on the front page.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

in this discussion I am the fifth commenter...

among other things, I point out that Obama is to the left of planned parenthood on abortion because he voted for infanticide, which is what Erick just referenced.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

You didn't exactly break that story. I'm sure Erick knew about Obama's views on partial birth abortion without your comment. I certainly already knew about it.

Of course, you might just be joking, which is then just going to make me look stupid.

I typed PBA when I meant to type BIAPA.

"Fred's my conservative guru, but McCain's my President."

I said I had mentioned it a bunch of times here before Erick did. I said if Erick were to give a proper hat tip it should go to Amanda Carpenter.

My comment was mostly in jest, however you ought to read my comment before making a counter.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

When we had a lot of people on here supporting Rudy, it was said that the President really had little say on any of this abortion business other than the judges. I don't know that Erick ever said this, but quite a few people did.

Is it different now?

I am absolutely certain that mccain would appoint liberal judges, in his attempt to cross the aisle and work with the oppostion. He will have plenty of excuses.

We are in a very bad position right now. McCain can't and won't fix it.

We need to do what is best for 2012. But say after me:

"The Judges are already lost." You lost them when you nominated mccain, whether he can win or not.

Maybe you're content to throw up your hands and cry, but some of us are going to fight.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Fight for wasted hope and sure defeat.

In fact, I'd probably say that most any of our possible candidates this year were more likely to lose in November than win. That's just reality when you're the in-power party with an incumbent sitting at 30% approval and a weakening economy to go along with him.

But, whether he wins or loses, for conservatives to not support him is simply nuts.

Actually Bob Frazier, I've said all along that the President's executive picks are as influential, if not more influential, than judges on a day to day basis regarding the culture of life.

And I think McCain's picks would be infinitely better than Obama's or Hillary's.

Fight On!

...if you don't think that his judicial picks would be markedly better than the picks of Obama or Clinton, then you've outsmarted yourself.

The same would've gone for Rudy Giuliani, had he gotten our nomination.

Have you gone utterly mad?

you exhibit the height of arrogance. Rudy said one million times he would appoint judges like Alito and Roberts and McCain has said though not one million yet. That is not good enough for you, and your only agenda is to sabotage this election. You exhibit the height of political hubris, and whenever you show up anywhere on this site and exhibit I will be there to point it out.

You don't like McCain, fine. Once you have an agenda in an election that is not about winning, it is an agenda born out of naked arrogance. That is all your entire line of thinking is about. This is NOT about 2012, but 2008.

No one did anything wrong when they nominated McCain, they just dared to nominate someone you didn't like. You just simply cannot take that and live with it, so instead you try and sabotage him, rather than doing what you are supposed to do which is show up in November and choose the best candidate out of the group available. That is what you are supposed to do in an election. You aren't supposed to look to the next one, or to try and sabotage this one. That is the height of hubris, a character flaw.

I wrote about folks like you, and it never ceases to amaze me how you can possibly think your own personal agenda is more important than winning the Presidency.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Wow, I didn't know I had such power! And I have a character flaw because I don't like McCain and won't vote for him?

My friend, I think you need to bring it down a few notches. Just because a man has an (R) after their name does not give him a divine right to my vote. My, the hubris you have to say it does.

And a personal agenda? I would say electing a republican regardless of where he stands on issues is a personal agenda. You are way out of line for making a comment like that, but since I don't even know you, I'll let the comment speak for itself.

... you honestly believe he would be a better President for your country than the available alternative (McCain). In fact it would indicate a character flaw if you had that belief and failed to vote for Obama*.

So your argument is that you believe America would be better off with Obama as President?

* Standard exception, leaving aside cases where the election is so obviously lopsided, there's no chance the outcome could be affected by the votes of you and similar thinking voters

I don't understand why you see any election as more than just a decision between two candidates where the voter just picks the one that will be less bad for the country.

What's going through your head that a candidate has to meet a certain level of conservative purity before you will vote for him?

For example, if I had to, I'd vote for Obama over Fidel Castro any day, even though neither are decent political leaders, because I couldn't sit home and think I could have helped Obama beat Fidel Castro, but I didn't and so we have a legit communist at the helm.

Politics is about choices to me, not perfection. And my choice will always be for the better in the long term. And I don't see McCain as worse in the long-term. Do you?

If it were possible in our two party system for one party to keep the other party out of power indefinitely then your argument might make sense. But it's not possible. The pendulum always swings and people grow fatigued with the talking points of the party in power.

Therefore it is important that the leaders of the party you favor actually believes in, and tries to implement the values which the party upholds. Otherwise, you get a leadership which enacts policies of the opposition party, gets blamed for it, and then the opposition party gets into power and gets even more of want it wants.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

Seems like deh's a whole lotta hubris goin' on roun' heya. Look, the Conservatives, establishment or not are going to pull the lever for McCain. Even though I think he is a crud ball for a lot of reason, I will vote for the man because it will give me so much joy to see the D party spin with the heiress apparent getting trounced by the neophyte and because Barak is well, a full blown socialist idealist which is pretty dangerous for the country in my estimation (I have posited before that Americans have become more inclined to ask Uncle Sugar what he can do for them). It is the same deal as Rush, clearly the establishment you vilify, points out when he says the MSM will pull the lever for Hillary all the while making nice sounds about Barak. I'd like to like the president, but life is like a box of chocolates.

And as far as your essay about the establishment. Let everyone blow off some steam - it is only the playoffs - and many are trying to vet out some issues rather than see who can get the most faintings at a political gathering. What are McCain's plans for the tax cut he would not support? Are they different than the D side? Are we really going to treat combatants who did not sign to and have not followed the Geneva Conventions like US citizens? Can our borders be secured? Since you have been in the machine for so long, will you now be forceful in bringing some fiscal discipline to our government who is recklessly spending our money for their own aggrandizement? If our financial system begins to teeter even closer to major, systemic problems, what is the proper role of your government in dealing with it? Should we continue to ignore the social security crisis or just wait and raise the heck out of taxes with sad images of the elderly eating dog food? Do we do anything at all about depending on peoples and governments who spend millions to kill our citizens here and abroad for a great portion of our energy or will we come up with something a little more sophisticated than a Prius and a windmill? Since the government has established a track record for handling entitlement programs, will it be wise to move towards placing it in charge of our health care? Will you support a state's right to allow it citizens to use the tax revenue being sent to failing schools to another school of the parent's choosing? Since our civilian and military intel communities have proven yet again their ineptness, will you as CinC do anything about it? Is it ok that Russian President for life, Putin, controls not just Russia but one of the world largest conglomerates, Lukoil? Back to energy - if it becomes evident that we simply cannot solve the energy issues with corn alone while taking it off of subsidies and dealing with the food inflation it has led to, will you be willing to deal with the political forces that keep this up? Can we talk about building some nuke plants and a refinery or two accepting that maybe technology may have improves in the past 3-4 decades?

Give me some time, and I can polish that list up a bit and maybe even remove my own wishful thinking. The point is, some of us know where our man stands on most of these issues and it hasn't been good in our estimation. So we vocalize our disagreement hoping we will be heard when we dare suggest that he better not take us for granted because if we do not show up or vote the spoiler, he cannot win. Who was the last President that lost the Conservative voters in the South? We know he doesn't like us - he never has. He wants our votes, though. We just want to hear from him. That's all.

...Lean not on your own understanding...

2012 by Risky

How do you assume that you get to win in 2012. Given the advantage of being a sitting president you have to seriously think that 2016 is your next shot.

Then again if you believe that the McCain is goign to appoint more liberal Judges than Clinton/Obama, you probably believe all sorts of things......

...I predict the following will happen during their first term, due to having their way with a democrat congress.

1. Iraq and Afghanistan will fall to Al Queda and/or Iran (especially if it's Obama).
2. We will be attacked by terrorists on our own soil.
3. The economy will look more like that during Jimmy Carter's days than Bill Clinton's.
4. Rapidly rising interest rates will create a housing crisis that will make the current one look like a boom.
5. Unemployment will rise over 10%.

Do you really think the democrats could hold the White House under such circumstances?

FDT's Principles

is your thirst for power really that demented? First, all predictions are taken with a grain of salt. Second, let's say you are right. Do you want to lose all over the world, have our economy fail, so that we can win a future election. Are you saying that is the best coures of action?

You just described a nightmare, and it appears that you find this nightmare to be a good thing.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

I'm wholeheartedly supporting McCain, even though I disagree with him on many issues.

I think it would be a terrible mistake for any conservative of any type not to completely support McCain.

FDT's Principles

2. We will be attacked by terrorists on our own soil.

Didn't that happen during Bush's first year in office?

Eight years of Clinton decimating our military and intelligence capabilities and refusing to respond to repeated attacks on our military and civilians emboldened the terrorists.

The same thing will happen again under Hillary or Obama.

FDT's Principles

It's true that the federal government doesn't have general jurisdiction over abortion. But as Erick's post shows, there has been recent federal legislation regarding certain extreme forms of abortion and infanticide. And since so few doctors perform these procedures, there is an arguable inter-state basis for federal jurisdiction; there is evidence that many women travel across state lines to obtain partial birth abortions.

Since the immorality of partial birth abortion is so clear, the fact the Obama supports it is indicative of just how hard he will push to appoint judges who will declare that there is a constitutional right to abortion and uphold Roe v. Wade. If you are certain that McCain will appoint liberal judges, then you know more than Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, and Ted Olsen. These are serious men who are fully dedicated to the pro-life cause and to appointing judges who will respect the constitution. When (1) they say that they know McCain personally, have worked with him behind the scenes on judicial appointments, and have discussed these matters with him in private, and (2) on this basis they endorse him as trustworthy on judicial appointments, they're not just whistlin' dixie. (If you haven't seen Adam C's carefully researched post on McCain's position on judges, I'd recommend it.)

The President also affects abortion policy with regard to executive and foreign policy and matters of tax-supported funding for abortion. On Bill Clinton's first day in office, he rescinded the ban on federal funding for promoting abortions overseas. On President Bush's first day in office, he reinstated the ban, to his lasting credit. You can be sure that Obama will again remove that ban very soon after he is elected, if not the first day. And his overall position on abortion, which is more extreme than the Clintons, would suggest that he will aggressively promote executive and foreign policies that promote the pro-abortion position, and that he'll use our tax dollars to do it.

..unless by some divine act, the wheels fall off the McCain wheelchair.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...if you insist on putting it that way. Abortion is not an issue that particularly motivates me politically.

when other classes of people are identified for slaughter?

FDT's Principles

"Fred's my conservative guru, but McCain's my President."

Dude, McCain's age, is one of his best selling points (assuming that he picks a solid conservative VP).

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Rush reads this post. It demonstrates how outrageous his contention is that it doesn't matter whether McCain wins or not.

I hope McCain trashes Obama with this issue. I know some people don't like it when McCain gets angry, but I hope for the nation's sake, that McCain gets furious over this issue and slams Obama with it. Because Obama and the rest of the nation should be ashamed to be a supporter of this sick procedure. I hope McCain literally sends Obama home crying after the first debate. Assuming that Obama gets the Dem-nod, of couse.

Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but also as a determination to live decently.

Quote form John McCain

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

Only the rhetoric is different. A vote for McCain tells the Republican party that abortion will now be a non-issue.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

You pulled one quote out of a 30 year record. Here is his whole record with votes, quotes, and promises. That link is really for others, because it's pretty obvious you don't actually care about McCain's record just your own petulant fight against the Republican Party.

Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Clearly an opportunist. Where's his heart? Just like Hillary, he'll say anything that gives him an immediate political advantage. Classic example is McCain with religion - when it suited him he said the religious right hijacked the party -when he thought he needed the religious right he made kissy with Falwell. I have no grudge against my Republican party, my grudge is with McCain.

it was certainly opportunistic of McCain to reach out to Kennedy during the Republican primary to make controversial illegal alien legislation. It was certainly opportunistic of McCain to reach out to Feingold to make controversial campaign finance reform legislation. It was certainly opportunistic of McCain to stand up for the surge while everyone else ran away from it, to vote against the Bush tax cuts. Give me a break. Of all the things that you can call McCain even his biggest detractors can agree that opportunistic is not one of them.

If during a thirty year career you have one example then get real, he isn't opportunistic.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

but were those election years? nope..... this diary/post/article is about abortion. On abortion McCain is a democrat. I don't want to look anti-McCain -I'm voting for McCain because I'm a fiscal conservative and there is no better man than McCain when it comes to fiscal conservativism. One thing I don't like is someone trying to blow smoke up my arse pretending McCain is some kind pro-life warrior -BECAUSE HE IS NOT.

McCain may not be a pro-life warrior (neither was George Bush 41 or 43, for that matter), but he's a heck of a lot closer to that than a Democrat. At least that's what Planned Parenthood seems to think:

"McCain received a zero percent rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the lowest rating in the U.S. Senate."

The NARAL concurs in giving him a zero rating:

yes, they were. He reached out to Ted Kennedy just as the primary heated up. He stood up for the surge just as the primary heated up.

Look, legitimate criticism is one thing, however calling McCain an opportunist is beyond the pale. One thing McCain has shown over and over is a pattern of doing things that are politically risky. Calling him an opportunist is a total distorition.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

mike volpe, the beginning of my post below sounds eerily similar to years, but I didn't see it until I had already posted. I hope Hillary doesn't accuse me of plagiarism!

That's why McCain promised ethanol subsidies in Iowa, a bail-out of Big Auto in Michigan, and the national disaster fund in Florida. That's why, when everything looked dark in Iraq, McCain joined the chorus calling for withdrawal. That's why, when talk radio could talk of nothing but amnesty and the vast majority of the conservative base came out against immigration reform, McCain backed away and promised to deport all the illegal aliens. McCain did all of that because, "Just like Hillary, he'll say anything that gives him an immediate political advantage."

Look, I'm not going to defend the above statement on abortion. I'm not going to claim McCain has never flip-flopped and never said something insincere to please his audience. But when a presidential candidate repeatedly risks his ambitions and the viability of his campaign by taking unpopular standards in a primary year, give the man a bit of credit.

By the way, McCain did not say the religious right hijacked the party. He did call Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" in 2000. But in the same speech he said this:

"Let me be clear, evangelical leaders are changing America for the better. Chuck Colson, head of Prison Fellowship, is saving men from a lifetime behind bars by bringing them the good news of redemption. James Dobson, who does not support me, has devoted his life to rebuilding America's families. Others are leading the fight against pornography, cultural decline and for life. I stand with them.

I am a pro-life, pro-family, fiscal conservative, and an advocate of a strong defense. And yet, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. They distort my pro-life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters. Why? Because I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message. I believe in the cause of conservative reform. I believe that because we are right we will prevail in the battle of ideas, unspoiled by the taint of a corrupt campaign finance scheme that works against the very conservative reform of government that is the object of our labors. The Republican Party will prevail because of our principles--because that's what it's about, my friends--principles, not special interest money or empire or ego."

Whatever you think of campaign finance reform, this was a big part of his dispute with some members of the religious right. (McCain had always had a perfect voting record with the NRLC until they started counting his votes for campaign-finance reform as a mark against his pro-life record.) Of course McCain later famously mended fences with Falwell and spoke at Liberty University. It's interesting that many conservatives demand that McCain make overtures to them and reconcile himself with the base. But others apparently refuse to accept the steps he's made.


Go back and read some on who promised what and when.

I think you'll find that you've got it wrong, and therefore some of the premise of your screed. I'm sure you won't care to actually get it right.

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

My efforts at satire have failed.

I believed it, too. ;-) I guess satire doesn't work when you're confronted all day by some of the crazy people the primary season tends to bring out.


Turn on the SNARK.

SNARK On......SNARK OFF. Helps us really clueless readers.

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Ok by Turin

I'll remember that--I'm pretty new here.


No problem at all. I thought you were serving some Huckaberry Pie there or something, and I was wrong.


Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

and I don't think even Hillary could possibly try and make it plagiarism.

I played it straight whereas you took a sarcastic tone. The judges rule no plagiarism.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

However, if this was the ONLY one, it would be more than enough to fight him tooth and nail all the way to the White House.

Senator McCain is prolife and has been since the beginning of his political career. If anyone considers stabbing a baby with scissors to end the baby's life like Michelle Obama says, "is proper medical procedure". What does her husband think?

Abortion should NOT be in the discussion of political candidates at any level of governance. Roe v Wade should never have happened. Abortion should be between the woman, her husband, her Doctor and her faith counsellor ONLY.

The main reason conservatives should vote for Senator McCain to win is the possibility of appointing two to four Supreme Court Associate Justice's to the Court who will abolish Roe v Wade law to the "dust bin" forever.

Judges are really the people who control governance from the Circuit to the Federal to the Supreme Court. Senator McCain should select his VP or trot hints out for his prolife short list as soon as possible.

If McCain is nominated and elected POTUS I believe it will be for only one term mainly because of his age (72 in August). This job ages the person who has great and small responsibilities for the most powerful country in the world.

McCain's selection for VP will be of utmost importance for the race to the Whitehouse. The Republicans want a staunch conservative in all principles of governance for "We The People...". Would McCain select Romney for VP? Would Mitt Romney accept for the good of our country?

McCain should name him VP or Chair of the Republican National Committee. This would please Rush Limbaugh's 20M listeners. Mitt Romney has 4M votes and 253 delegates. Selecting Mitt for either position would keep him in the media at no cost for 4 years. If VP, Mitt could manage the economic situation for Senator McCain who has over 7M votes and 903 Delegates.

He should certainly select a VP who opposes fuel from food and someone who is FOR drilling for oil in ANWR and anywhere else it is, liquified fuel from coal, oil refineries and nuclear enegy plants as Mitt Romney does.

"Whatever evolves was first, created" - Jason Leverette, Patriot

As a die hard 6 votes (house total) will vote for Mac. I cannot wake up with Hill or Obama sitting in the WH. The unborn will not be the only problems we will face come Jan 21 if these slugs get to be POTUS. Wake up America and stop this killing and don't let the Far Left bring this country down.

Only you and me can make a difference and now is not a time to get weak kneed or get "your buttocks" off your shoulders. It's bigger than you or I. Life of the unborn, National Defense, Taxes, big social issues, judges, future energy policy and any other left wind social issue you want to list.

I would rather have Mac sitting in the I can keep an eye on him (along with Congress).

For a community that's supposed to be based on reality, we're grossly misinterpreting the legislation Obama supported. This isn't going to stand up under scrutiny; it isn't going to stick any more than the stuff Hillary's tried to use against him.

Your comment wasn't there when I dug up the links for my comment. I'd have let him live long enough to answer you had I seen you, heh.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Four comments, all pro-Obama? And you're saying 'we'? Give me a break.

Obama supporters don't even have the courage to stand up and be counted for their man, eh?

I hate mobies. It's just lying with a weird name.


HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Still not a unicorn though.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I think you and everyone will enjoy and find this email response illuminating. I had a friendly back and forth with a liberal friend of mine about Obama and here is how he ended it. This is both the reason that Obama will be difficult to beat and frankly the reason he will be easy to beat...

Ahhh, I like the sense of desperation I hear in your email. If the choices narrow down between Clinton, McCain and Obama we are all going to be in much better shape over the next 4-8 years.

$5K is a small price to pay in order to restore our global credibility and to put in place a president that not only thinks for him or herself but is willing to fight for the average American. Remember, with Obama we are talking about a once in a lifetime candidate.

The five k is in reference to his own taxes being raised as my buddy is quite successful. The belief that Obama is some mythical figure by his supporters is both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness. What McCain needs to do is move beyond rhetoric and into policy. This was my buddy's response to my attack on Obama's jobs plan. He had no response to the specific policy, but rather he sees Obama as some sort of messianic figure and frankly could care less if one or two, or all, specific policies make no sense.

McCain needs to move the campaign away from his rhetoric into specifically what Obama will do. Make this campaign about the infanticide he supports, into meeting with our enemies, quasi socialist economic policies, and his utter lack of experience, and then McCain will crush him, because once the gloss is worn off his supporters won't have their mythical figure anymore.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Well, I'm convinced.

I WAS going to stay home. But not now.

I know Obama criticizes Republicans for being single-issue voters, but that's because he doesn't understand that this is not a random piece of economic ideology--it is the single most barbaric act committed by our society.

Obama is a barbarian.

Do you really think the democrats could hold the White House under such circumstances?

Under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Democrats extended a simple downturn into a decade-long trauma with statist non-solutions, and won re-election 3 successive times. Read Amity Shlaes' THE FORGOTTEN MAN for the full political history. The same thing - a political version of the Stockholm Syndrome - has been done over and over by leftists in power, once they start affixing new client constituencies with their statist non-solutions to problems that they themselves either create or deepen. Neither President Obama nor President Hillary would have much difficulty putting forth their claims that every one of the horribles in the parade was really the fault of the evil Bush and his cronies.

No one knows what the future holds or how things might play out. Giving your support - actively or tacitly - to the other team on the basis of unpredictable events is a fool's game. At the very least it's letting a mandate be claimed for policies I think that all of us here abhor. To think it can be done without cost, potentially very severe cost, is truly naive.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Even McCain's critics on judicial appointments generally admit that the worst we can expect from him is an appointment like Justice Kennedy. In that light, it's worth noting that Kennedy was the swing vote in the 5-4 decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), which upheld Congress's ban on partial birth abortion. With an Obama-appointed judge in Kennedy's place, the law would have been struck down.

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the case, and he includes an eye-opening description of partial birth abortion. Kennedy first quotes a medical doctor and then a nurse who uses more straightforward language. Here is an excerpt from the opinion:

"[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient."

This is an abortion doctor's clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... .

The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .

He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used."

The opinion is available here:

This proposal makes Fidel Castro look like Barry Goldwater in comparison.

"But, Hillary believes that once the baby is all the way out, you cannot slaughter it. Obama disagrees and supports killing fully born children."

Assuming what you say is true (and I have no reason to think otherwise), then Obama is a monster. And we have a duty to get this out to everyone.

Well, Bob Frazier, their votes speak for themselves.

Hillary voted *for* the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Obama did everything he could to kill the same law.

Fight On!

And some of you people would rather [vote for] Obama than John McCain. Pitiful.

I don't go to bed with no whore, and I don't wake up with no whore. That's how I live with myself. I don't know how you do it.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

It's looking more and more like Barack Obama now.

You can't have truly supported Thompson and now seriously lean toward Obama. You either aren't being truthful or are completely ignorant politically.

Since I don't want to label you with either of those, I will just assume that you are joking.

McCain would be a bitter pill for me to swallow. I do like voting, but voting for a third-party has always felt like a cop-out to me. Voting for Obama and allowing him to fail may be the best thing in the long-term for the Republican Party.

You are not to use Red State to promote Barack Obama. That is all.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

And looking to have Redstate endorse Obama.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Two more months of this and nobody will be able to remember who is really supporting whom.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Especially when someone decorates in plaid.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...citizens and above. Please report for voluntary emergency reactor shield replacement duty.

Have a nice day.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!


So put you down for self abuse?

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

I'd always heard that "Politics makes strange bedfellows," but I think this is the first time I've seen someone take the metaphor so seriously.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Insulting those poor women like that.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service