My name is Dan Frost. I live in Kokomo , Indiana . I'm 45 years old, a Christian, a husband, a father, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas ' - but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics.. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life.
They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job.
I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process.. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change'.
Change what?, I ask.
Well, we're going to change America , they say.
In what way?, I query.
We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.
So, someone who's not a politician?, I press.
Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama, they state.
So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?
No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.' Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois , so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth- other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change..
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the mostliberal media can explain why he should be elected.
Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements?
Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton , look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago?
Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time.
My son has grown from a fourth grade child to a high school freshman.
Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep.. 6, 000 meals, give or take.
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'
I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America , and there's a huge difference.
Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough..' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President whose qualified to lead. I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.
Semper Fi,
Daniel L. Frost Jr.
GySgt USMC Retired
Kokomo , IN
76 comments:
Amen
So does this guy own as many houses as John McCain, or can't he keep track of what state he lives in? Is it Indiana or Illinois?
Does that mean you agree with the rest of his email Anon?
What don't I agree with? Where to begin...
Maybe with the fact that "Daniel Frost Jr. GySgt USMC Retired" didn't actually write this ramble.
Maybe you should get a non-plagiarized email to post. Then we could talk about it.
I have no idea who wrote the email. I don't think I ever hinted that I wrote it, I simply posted it as I had received it.
However, I think the sentiments are more or less correct. I have asked Obama supporters personally these same questions, and gotten very similar responses. So while you may not like the anonymity of this email, I think the heart of the email is still worth addressing.
It's not anonymous.
It's signed by "Daniel Frost Jr. GySgt USMC Retired."
And it's goofy anyway.
Sure there are people who "just want change." But most of us want specific things like affordable health care, tax cuts for the middle class (instead of millionaires), responsible withdrawal from iraq, less bellicose foreign policy, serious reductions in GHG, gay rights, generous support for veterans, affordable education.
Are you suggesting that the differences between Obama and McCain aren't real? Are you suggesting that people *really* favor Republican policies more than Democratic ones--they just can't tell the difference?
And, goshdarn it, people do want a change from the bush years. And McCain ain't the guy to bring it.
You could easily post another email by someone (just pick a name and sign it as a veteran) who talked about the McCain/Palin mobs who won't vote for a "terrorist" or a "Muslim" or a guy who "we really don't know where he was born." They aren't voting out of any vague sense of who is the better candidate. They're voting based on really stupid and dangerous lies.
BTW, in general, Fox "News" viewers are the least informed members of American society, and the most loyally Republican. So if some Obama supporters are a little fuzzy about the "change" thing (a fuzziness I don't condone), when we've run out of insults to hurl at them, at least we'll always have even more of the Fox News people to make fun of.
Semper Fi,
Oliver Twist, Supreme Allied Commander, ret. Terra Haute, Indiana
It's really hard for me to take serious a complaint about identity from someone who hides behind "Anonymous".
My point to this post was the text. There are real differences between McCain and Obama. Some of them are scary. Obama is for abortion up to and including after the child is born, McCain isn't. Obama is for giving everyone a welfare check, then raising taxes on most Americans. In his mind, that is a tax cut. McCain isn't for that. Obama is for negotiating with Ahmadenijad without preconditions, McCain isn't. These are very substantial changes. I don't agree with McCain on every policy. I disagree with him on a number of them. However, I agree with him more than Obama. I think most Americans do as well.
And one more thing...
I am for Gay Rights. Sarah Palin is as well. However, if by Gay Rights you mean changing the definition of the word "marriage", then I am dead set against that. So is Sarah Palin. So is Joe Biden. So are many Americans.
Andy's wrong about Obama and abortion. Obama supports a late term ban on abortions--as he said in the debate just last night.
And Andy is ridiculously wrong that Obama wants to raise taxes on most Americans. Let's see Andy cite a source on that. That's absurd.
Give everyone a welfare check???!!!
Is this what happens when a conservative gets addled? You just start saying the same phrases over and over?
There are real differences between Obama and McCain, but Andy seems utterly unable to articulate them.
I can understand people not supporting Obama because they disagree with him. But Andy doesn't even know who or what he's talking about.
That's sad, b/c the big point of this posting was supposedly that Obama supporters don't know what Obama stands for. It seems like that actually describes Andy perfectly well.
Have a debate with the real Obama, not some evil fantasy you've created.
Obama says he supports a ban, but he hasn’t voted for a ban. Twice he voted against a ban. He even said why last night. He voted against it (or voted “present” to be more precise) because these bans don’t allow for the “health” of the mother. I wrote about this once before here. If you don’t trust me, do a Google search for Obama, medical care, and abortion and see what you get.
Obama wants to give everyone a $1000 check. If he sends it to everyone, regardless of if they paid taxes or not, it is simply a government hand out, or a welfare check. Again, do a quick search. I found an article from the NY Post talking about Obama funding it with a windfall profit tax on oil companies.
If you would like a source for my “raise taxes on most Americans” statement, here is one example. In case you don’t want to read the entire article, I will cite the most “damning” paragraph:
Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Dividend and capital gains taxes will take money from all those. Those Americans on Main Street who own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase.
Take some time and review these articles. I have been watching and studying Obama for some time now. I wrote my first article on him on this site in December of 2006. I never thought he would make it this far because I have never thought he has what it takes to be a President. I have always thought his policies are too liberal for most Americans. He believes in Wealth redistribution, and taxing the “rich” even if it lowers the federal government’s money because it is the fair thing to do.
It is hard to know which comments on here you have posted or which you haven’t because you post as Anonymous. However, one Anonymous post demanded a number of apologies from me and other writers here because of a perceived mistake. I assume after you reread your last comment, and then read the articles I cite, you will apologize to me. You may agree with Obama, and that is your decision to make. But don’t accuse me of being “addled”, or that I don’t know what I am talking about, or that I have created some “evil fantasy”. My critiques of Obama are accurate. If you want to support his policies that’s fine, just admit that you support them and let’s debate the policies on the merits of those policies.
Have a real debate with the real McCain, and not some evil you have created.
Just a quick math thing,
health care for everybody it going to cost according to Senator Obama's website around $50 billion. I guess that is a year.
I have seen that Obama wants to raise taxes on households making over $250,000 a year adjusted income.
with about 350,000,000 people in the US and an average household of 2.59 people and with 2% of those households making more than $250,000 a year that means they will have to pay about $18,500 more a year. Now I am not going to say they should not pay it because they can not afford or they should not pay it because it is fair or not fair.
For one thing, I do not think that even the great, awesome and God like Obama can rally the congress to vote for such a tax hike, on themselves.
Another thing, that is 18k to cover just one of the proposed programs. I suppose the war in Iraq will save some money. Enough to cover those programs? I don't know for sure but I am looking at what happens when he realizes that it does not? I think those making less than $250,000 a year are up next.
Funny how people condemn people for not seeing in the the future of Iraq but yet they cannot see into the future of Senator Obama's tax plans.
OK Andy. You got me. Someone told me about this post and I had to check it out.
And once I read it, of course I couldn't let it go.
First of all, the e-mail writer's (and yours) assertion that Obama is running on a platform of Change yet no one is able to articulate what kind of change is bogus.
There are clear differences between the candidates on many policy issues. I think anonymous provided a pretty good list of them - affordable health care, tax cuts for the middle class (instead of millionaires), responsible withdrawal from Iraq, less bellicose foreign policy, serious reductions in GHG, gay rights, generous support for veterans, affordable education.
I'm not here to argue the merits of Obama's policy positions. I'm merely saying that these positions do represent a very definite change of course and Obama has articulated them very clearly, while many of McCain's positions are very much in line with the Bush administration.
So the change Obama talks about is not just change for change's sake.
The e-mail writer then goes on to reference Michelle Obama's senior thesis from when she attended Princeton. He does not site anything specifically about the paper, but seems to imply that somehow this paper is problematic.
I read the entire paper tonight. It is a very thorough and well researched paper about how racial attitudes of black students at Princeton change over time in relation to their time at Princeton. There was nothing the least bit controversial or radical in the whole paper.
I have to wonder if your e-mail writer even read it.
Or maybe it's just a Princeton educated first lady he's objecting to?
As for John McCain, the man who's running for President because he's a man of great character who puts country first. Here it is in John McCain's own words from "Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir"
"I didn't decide to run for President to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be President because it had become my ambition to be President. I was sixty-two years old when I made the decision and I thought it was my one shot at the prize. I thought my military and political experience made me better qualified for the office than the other candidates. I had watched Bob Dole's campaign and thought I had learned enough about running for president to do a credible job and make it interesting."
Wow, that doesn't really sound like country first does it? Sounds more like John McCain first.
John McCain's actions during his time of captivity in Vietnam were undeniably heroic. During this campaign season he's been a jerk.
And finally to the list of things I hope will change I'd like to add a President and a Vice President who can both pronounce the word nuclear.
I want smart, intelligent, well educated people in the offices of President AND Vice President.
I knew you couldn't stay away family, welcome back.
I will see your McCain quote with an Obama quote:
I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.
From The Audacity of Hope. I am glad both you and Anon feel there are concrete policies of Barack's you support. Many people I know who support him will tell you the number one reason they support him is because he represents "Change".
If the correct pronunciation of the word nuclear is so important to you, then you must be very proud of Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's counting skills.
Well, as usual you want to take the argument somewhere else so you don't have to respond directly to what I'm saying.
Your e-mailer was going on and on about what a man of moral strength and character McCain is and how he is the best person to be President. So I quoted the man himself saying that his bid for President is nothing more than personal ambition. How your Obama quote is a response to that I'm not sure.
As for the change issue -
There are a lot of people hurting in this country. Over the last eight years they've seen the economy get worse and worse. We've been involved in Iraq WAY longer than the Bush administration led us to believe we would be.
There may be a lot of people who are not able to articulate exactly what kind of change is needed, but ask these people if they want more of the same or if they want change, it's not unreasonable for them to say they want change. And another Republican President doesn't exactly scream change.
Now, your response to my comment about wanting a Pres and VP who can pronounce "nuclear" -
This is an excellent example of why I get frustrated arguing with you. I can't even believe I have to explain the difference.
He said, "...it's a three letter word, jobs..."
He obviously mis-spoke there. That was a one time slip up. If you show Joe Biden the word "jobs" on a piece of paper and ask him to tell you how many letters it has he isn't going to say three.
People mis-speak all the time. Biden, Palin, Obama, and McCain are out there giving speeches all day every day. They are going to mis-speak occasionally. I'm sure I could find plenty of instances where Sarah Palin slipped up and said something dumb. Like the other day when she said that New Hampshire was in the Great Northwest. That's why I try not to play this stupid game of "Ah HA! He just said something wrong. He must be stupid!"
But this issue of mispronouncing the word nuclear is a little different. For example, in the VP debate, Palin pronounced it wrong every time she said it. It wasn't a simple slip of the tongue. Either she doesn't know how to say it correctly or she chooses not to say it correctly. I would like to think that when the VP is in a meeting with leaders from other countries he or she doesn't look like a rube because they can't pronounce a relatively simple and important word like nuclear.
I'd like the rest of the world to respect our leaders not scoff at them for their lack of intellectual rigor.
ANDY SAYS -"Obama is for abortion up to and including after the child is born."
ANDY SAYS - "Obama says he supports a ban, but he hasn’t voted for a ban. Twice he voted against a ban. He even said why last night. He voted against it (or voted “present” to be more precise) because these bans don’t allow for the “health” of the mother."
Andy, this is the stupidest, most irresponsible thing you've ever said on this blog.
Are you seriously trying to say Back Obama is for killing babies after they are born? That is so incredibly idiotic!
Please do not even argue with me on this. Don't tell me if I Google it I will find the true story on how Obama is in favor of killing babies. I could also use Google to find out that Elvis is still alive.
Saying things like that about Obama is not only stupid it's dangerous. Because whether or not you are sincere, there are people out there who are going to believe this kind of crap. And then after Obama gets elected you end up with lunatics out there who think we have a baby killer in the White House.
How is that fostering reasonable discussion and debate? All that does is foster unreasonable fears.
Familyman, I only allowed this comment because it is very important for you and others to understand exactly where Obama stands on this issue. Your attack passed the point of debating my argument, and crossed into an area I would typically moderate. However, I want you to understand this.
None of the quotes you copied of mine are wrong. I am talking about a very specific bill, and a very specific vote by Obama. The bill was commonly called the “Born-Alive” bill, or “Born-Alive” act. It as formally known as Senate Bill 1095, and came up for a vote while Obama was an Illinois Senator.
The bill simply required, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” The bill spelled out what was defined as a child and an abortion. It didn’t try to infringe on Roe v Wade or any other abortion law. It tried to spell out that a child who had been born was to be afforded the same medical treatment whether it was a natural birth, c-section, or the child survived an abortion attempt and was born. This bill came about because the Illinois Senate heard testimony that suggested as many as 20% of all late-term abortions resulted in a live birth. If you want sources for this, I will be more than happy to provide them.
I am not trying to paint Obama as pro-abortion, or as some sort of radical. I am simply telling you what the law was, and how Obama voted. You can make your own choices about what implications that means.
This is reasonable discussion because it is Obama’s record. I am not citing some weird website, or some right wing talk show host. I am citing Obama’s voting record in the Illinois Senate. If it makes you uncomfortable, you are more than welcome to pretend it doesn’t exist, and that Obama is perfect. However, don’t attack me or anyone else on this site because you can’t tolerate your candidates voting record.
Jobs as a three letter word is hardly a one time slip for Biden. It may be the only time he said that, but it isn't the only time he has said something silly like that. You may not like the way Bush, or McCain or Palin say nuclear. That's fine, but do you really think that should be a deciding factor in how you vote? And are you really saying that we should vote for or against some one simply because of how they talk? That doesn't sound like the tolerant view point the Democratic Party is suppose to cherish.
Once again Andy I will preface my remarks with your words. You say, "Obama is for abortion up to and including after the child is born"
You site the fact that he did not vote yes on the “Born-Alive” Senate Bill 1095 when he was in the Illinois Senate. I guess your logic here is that since he didn't vote for this bill then he must be OK with letting babies die if they happen to survive an abortion.
But if you actually listened to Obama at the debate you would have heard him explain that existing Illinois law already required doctors to provide medical care in the event that a baby is born alive during an abortion.
So therefore the fact that he voted present on Bill 1095 in no way proves that "Obama is for abortion up to and including after the child is born"
Read this from the Chicago Tribune - Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]
Also from the Chicago Tribune - “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]
So please Andy stop saying "Obama is for abortion up to and including after the child is born."
You may disagree with Obama's policies, but as John McCain himself has said, Barack Obama is a decent family man. And for you to sit there and say he's voted to support infanticide is not just misinformed. It is character assassination of the worst kind.
Show me where I said that we should vote for or against some one SIMPLY because of how they talk?
I never said that.
I do think however that the way a person speaks says a lot about them. And if I am electing someone to the position of President or Next-In-Line for President then yes, ONE of the things I look at is how they speak. If they speak intelligently I put a check in the plus column. If they can't pronounce simple words correctly then I put a check in the minus column.
And again, I'm not talking about the occasional gaffe. I'm talking about an inability or unwillingness to speak correctly.
Andy, I can't even follow the convoluted trail of your thinking here.
Barack Obama supports a late-term abortion ban.
He wants protections for the health of the mother in all cases.
McCain and Palin refuse to include protections for the health of the mother.
These are *facts*. Get over it.
This dogged loyalty to the Republican brand--logic and facts be damned--is part of the reason people are flocking to Democrats this cycle. Democrats certainly have their problems. But they haven't made flat-out deception their standard mode of communication.
It is heartening to see that actually being *honest* about things is helping them gain votes. Its renewing my faith in America after eight years of some real national stupidity and arrogance.
Sarah Palin wants to make it illegal for a girl raped by her father to have an abortion.
Wow, I didn't expect this post to turn into an abortion discussion.
There was nothing in the Illinois Senate Resolution that would have been able to attack Roe v Wade. That is simply an easy way out. I don't think Obama is some sort of evil genius bent on destroying all the children of the world. I do think that Obama refuses to go against a number of groups on the left, one being the pro-abortion groups. Because of this, Obama couldn't let himself be seen as voting for any sort of measure having to do with abortion, even if the bill didn't deal with abortions directly. The bill would have required doctors to provide medical care to a baby who survived an abortion as if it were any other baby. That was the sole intent of the bill. Obama took the courageous act of voting "Present".
Anon, I think you have done a disservice with the way you represented that clip. As a Sarah Palin supporter, I encourage everyone to watch it.
Sarah Palin has a very well thought out position on abortion and on when life begins. She said a number of times that she would counsel someone in a horrific situation (from incest, etc) to choose life. She also noted that she doesn't think someone should go to jail because they had an abortion.
You may disagree with her, which is fine. But don't present your argument as a slander. She at least has taken the time to look at the subject and make a decision on abortion and when life begins. In contrast, Obama simply says that when life begins is "Above his pay grade."
OK Andy. That's fine if you want to disagree with his vote.
But can we please have your word you will stop saying that his vote of "present" means "Obama is for abortion up to and including after the child is born"?
Because to make an accusation like that IS the same as saying he's for letting babies die, which IS accusing him of being an evil person, which hopefully we can agree that he's not.
Family, a vote of "present" in the Illinois Senate is the same thing as a vote for "no". The senate requires a certain number of "yes" votes for the law to pass. I am sure Obama understands this. So in response, I will not stop saying that a present vote was the same as a no vote.
Obama voted "present" against a bill that required hospitals and doctors to provide medical care to infants that survived abortions. There was no law in Illinois requiring this already. Hospitals and Doctors were allowing these babies to die.
A better question is not if I support or disagree with Obama on this issue. I am quite clear, Obama was wrong to vote anything but "yes" to this measure. This is one of the few cases that are truly black and white. Keeping babies from having medical care after they survive an abortion is terrible. I am not accusing Obama of being evil, I don't know what has motivated his stance on abortion. I am saying it was a terrible action for him to vote "present" on this bill.
Andy, are you actually reading the words in my posts?
I did not ask you to "stop saying that a present vote was the same as a no vote."
I asked you to stop saying "Obama is for abortion up to and including after the child is born"
I think I've demonstrated very clearly that the passage of that bill was not necessary to save the life of babies born during an abortion. LAWS ALREADY EXISTED TO COVER THAT EVENTUALITY.
So even if he had voted no, there were never any babies that were going to die as a result.
Why are you unwilling to just say "Obama is NOT for abortion up to and including after the child is born"?
Tell me what I got wrong. You said, “…stop saying that his vote of “present” means “Obama is for abortion up to and including after the child is born.” As I said in my last quote, a vote of present is the same as a vote of no. That means he voted to prevent the protection of babies born after an unsuccessful abortion. He did not want to force doctor’s of hospitals to protect babies born after an abortion.
You said there were laws that already covered it. According to the Illinois Senate, the Illinois Department of Public Health and Attorney General Jim Ryan, there was no law that made this practice illegal. A doctor / hospital could perform and abortion. If the baby survived, and the mother didn’t want it, the doctor / hospital could (and in some cases did) lay the baby aside and let it die. In a case that brought this practice to light, it took a baby 45 minutes to die.
Barack Obama voted “present” to legislation that would make this illegal. These are facts. In my opinion, this means Barack Obama doesn’t wish to make this practice illegal. What does it mean to you?
First, if there was a law already in place, why would the Ill. Senate bring it up again?
Second, I am against partial birth abortion. Obama clearly said he was against partial birth abortion, as long as there is a provision allowing it for the health of the mother. Otherwise, he will allow partial birth abortions to continue. Those are the facts, and exactly what he said in the debate. Mccain and Palin are against such a provision. This is not a dogged loyalty to the Republican brand, this is a fundamental difference between the two parties.
I am also against such provisions. I think "except for the endangerment of the mother" is way to vague. What constitutes endangerment? Sure, you would say now if her life were at risk, but how long before someone challenged it to say it would cause undue stress for her to have the child because she didn't really want to have it to start with. Also, I would think if the mother's life is in danger, they should be able to tell in time to not have to do a partial birth.
My last point. On this issue, you are either for it, or against it, there is no in between. Therefore, if you don't vote yes, then you are voting no. As I said earlier, based on his own words, Barack Hussein Obama is absolutely for partial birth abortion if someone, somewhere, says it best for the mother.
If you are getting your information about the IDPH and Jim Ryan from the writings of a guy named David Freddoso then you are getting erroneous info. There have been a couple times when he has written about this subject and he has misquoted Ryan's office in order to make this very case against Obama.
I know the case you are talking about. It was alleged to have happened at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn Illinois.
The allegations were brought to the attention of then Attorney General Jim Ryan by 2 nurses who worked at Christ Hospital. The nurses said that they had seen babies left to die after surviving abortions.
The hospital was not prosecuted, NOT because the laws didn't exist.
It was because Jim Ryan's office was unable to substantiate the claims.
You can deny it all you want Andy, but as the Chicago Tribune made excruciatingly clear in the excerpt I sited earlier. The laws did already exist.
Do your research man.
I have to admit I am torn here. This has gotten enough attention that I would like to create a new post on Abortion so that we can put this discussion on it's own. On the other hand, there is a part of me that would love to see another 100 comment post. Choices, choices.
I have read David Freddoso's material. It is incredibly sourced, and points to a number of Obama's own statements in the Illinois senate and in the US senate for support. However, I would never rely on one source to post something on here.
I feel like Saint has a very good point. If you are correct, and there were already laws that covered this, why would the Illinois Senate even take it up? If it was already illegal, why would only 12 of the 59 state senators vote against it? And if it were already illegal, why would Obama vote against it?
You keep saying your articles have proven your point beyond any shadow of a doubt and I just don't see that.
How does this leave room for doubt?
Read this from the Chicago Tribune - Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]
And your question of why would the senate take up the issue if there were laws already covering it?
That's a good question. But that question doesn't lead me to believe that the Chicago Tribune must be lying. It leads me to believe that the supporters of the bill maybe had motives beyond the obvious. It leads me to believe that Obama was right to be suspicious of the fact that the measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade. Why would they introduce a bill when there were already laws on the books making the bill unnecessary?
As for your well sourced guy David Freddoso.
I'll give you this one example of him misquoting someone to bolster his case against Obama.
In a letter about the Christ Hospital allegations, a letter from Jim Ryan's office read -
On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not INDICATE [emphasis added] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.
No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.
When David Freddoso quoted the letter from Ryan's office in his book, he wrote -
On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not INCLUDE [sic] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act. No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution
This has obviously led to some confusion because Freddoso's misquote completely changes the meaning of the sentence. By simply changing the word "indicate" to "include" Freddoso made it sound like Ryan's office was saying there was no applicable law when in fact they were saying they could not find any evidence that the laws had been broken.
SIDE NOTE: I won't get into a discussion of abortion in and of itself if you start a separate post. I'm not interested in debating abortion with you.
I'm just interested in getting you to admit that Obama's views on the subject are not as extreme as you say they are.
Come on Andy just say it. Do it real quick. Like taking a bandage off. Do it fast and it will hurt less. Say, "Obama is NOT for abortion up to and including after the child is born"
Andy, you defend Sarah Palin by saying that she would "counsel" a girl raped by her father to go ahead and bring that baby to birth.
1) That's some interesting universal "counsel."
2) Palin assumes that the girl has a "choice" about whether or not to have an abortion.
3) If Palin believes the girl should *have* that choice, then Palin is as at least somewhat "pro-choice."
4) If Palin is indeed against exceptions in cases of rape and incest, then she wouldn't need to counsel this girl at all. The law would simply forbid the girl from having an abortion after she was raped by her dad.
This position--like so many Bush-era Republican positions--breaks down under sustained inquiry. The party depends upon us not thinking very deeply. On that count, we've had great role models on the national GOP ticket.
Saint:
You need to do some research; there are more than a few medical emergencies that can crop up during mid-late term pregnancy that can endanger the mother's life -- emergencies there are no way to predict (especially in a first pregnancy).
Senior Lady - you may be correct. But, in those cases, is partial birth abortion the only solution? Or is there another way than partial birth?
Let’s see…trying to catch up to the assortment of comments:
Senior Lady, welcome back. I consider myself somewhat extreme in my views of abortion. I believe abortion should be illegal. The only exception I would make would be if the mother’s life was endangered. I would hope, like Saint, that there are other solutions that late into the pregnancy, but if there isn’t, I would want that option on the table for a family to consider.
Anon, I am very confused by your comment. Palin said she would counsel her to bring the baby to life, because currently abortion is legal (hence the choice aspect). I don’t think Palin said that she should have the option of abortion, but she did say that she doesn’t think the girl should be thrown in jail for having an abortion. She was describing what Palin would advise in today’s world. The break down isn’t with Palin, it is with your logic. You are confusing the world as it is today with laws that Palin would support.
Familyman, on September 5, of this year, Rick Winkel wrote in the Chicago Tribune trying to clarify this issue. He noted that he sponsored Senate Bill 1082 because of, “…a nurse’s claim that abortions at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn resulted in living infants whom hospital personnel then allowed to die without medial or comfort care.” Surely Rick Winkel knew what the law in Illinois was when he introduced the law, but let’s continue to examine his piece.
Senator Winkel says that, “Opponents of the bill believed it was an attack on Roe v. Wade, so I added neutrality language identical to the 2001 federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act that the United States Senate approved 98 to 0.” Senator Winkel then presented the neutrality amendment before the Health and Human Services Committee. This Committee was chaired by Obama. Winkel writes, “All 10 committee members voted to add the amendment. Nevertheless, during the same hearing, the committee rejected the bill as amended on a vote of 4-6-0. Obama voted no.”
So Senator Winkel tried to protect the interests of Roe v Wade defenders. He notes this language was acceptable in the federal version to Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry. These people are hardly pro-lifers.
Just in case you still think Illinois law at the time protected babies already, Senator Winkel also notes that in 2005, he and 116 state representatives and 54 senators voted for HB 984. This bill accomplished what he had originally set out to do, “…protect a newborn baby’s life.” It sounds to me, based on an article in the Chicago Tribune, written by a Senator at the time Obama was in the Illinois Senate, that existing law didn’t protect a new born baby who survived an abortion.
Winkel explains why he thinks people voted against it, and I think this applies to Obama: “…[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than a concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”
Should I expect you to admit that perhaps Obama was wrong to vote against this bill?
So Sarah Palin wants it to be illegal for girls to have an abortion if they get raped by their dad.
In the world Palin would create, a girl wouldn't need any advice about having an abortion if they got raped by their dad--the government would tell them what to do, i.e. have the baby. Let it get to know its dad/grandfather and its mom/sister.
And Andy apparently supports that.
(Palin isn't clear about what the punishment for doctors or children should be, should they violate that law.)
I do agree with you on this Andy: your view is extreme.
Andy:
I, too, think your stand on abortion is extreme. To deny the option of abortion to a pregnant victim of incest or rape is beyond my capacity to understand.
I do not like abortion. I don't believe it should be used as a method of birth control. I would counsel any pregnant teenager to consider all the options before choosing abortion. I support some restrictions on late-term abortions. We have to do a better job teaching birth control and responsibility to our children--male and female.
Having said that, I never want to return to the days before Roe v. Wade.
*Long post here Andy. Don't skim it. Read all the words.*
Andy, you are making me laugh.
You quote almost the entire article by Rick Winkel except the one sentence that supports my side of the argument.
You quote the article like this -
“…[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than a concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”
Of course as you know, the sentence you chose to take out at the beginning of the paragraph is this -
None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.
So Andy, since even the great Rick Winkle is willing to admit it, will you please stop saying "Obama is for abortion up to and including after the child is born"?
-------
Also, in the article you are quoting, nowhere did Winkel say anything about there not being laws on the books dealing with this issue already.
But, in an article from August of this year, Chicago Tribune reporter Jeremy Manier (someone who has nothing to gain by taking sides in this argument unlike Winkle) wrote this-
Abortions in which the fetus is born with brief signs of life are rare, occurring in some cases when a doctor administers drugs that cause premature labor. Such "induced labor" abortions account for less than 1 percent of abortions in the U.S., according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Since 1975, Illinois law has contained explicit protections for babies that might survive an attempted abortion. Abortion opponents say that law did not protect severely premature fetuses, which might survive briefly but could not live for long outside the womb. Other advocates say the law applied to all babies born alive.
"Illinois law always made it clear that in late-term abortions, if the fetus is born alive, that fetus has to be given every chance to survive," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of Illinois.
In 2002, testimony from abortion opponents about the procedure's use at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn led the U.S. Congress to pass a federal law that is similar to the bills Obama voted on in Illinois.
Gotcha, Obama? Abortion opponents are highlighting a specific Obama vote in 2003, in which he came out against a "born alive" bill that was before the Illinois legislature.
Obama has said he opposed that bill because it lacked assurances that it would not affect women's existing rights to choose abortion. He said he would have supported the 2002 federal version of the bill because it had a provision saying it would not "expand or contract" the rights of fetuses prior to their birth.
That language was absent from most versions of the "born alive" legislation that Illinois lawmakers considered and rejected between 2001 and 2005. But last week, the National Right to Life Committee released newly uncovered records showing that in one committee meeting in 2003, Obama voted against a version of the bill that did contain the key language.
The committee said in a statement that the find "[sheds] new light on Senator Obama's four-year effort to cover up his real record of refusing to protect live-born survivors of abortion."
In an interview Saturday with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Obama said he opposed the Illinois measure because the federal version "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."
In fact, records show that at one point the two bills were nearly identical in wording.
On the other hand: Supporters of abortion rights say Obama was right to oppose the 2003 bill, even though it had the same wording as the federal measure. The wording could have had a different effect at the state level, they say, by undermining Illinois' legal precedents on abortion.
Once more, the key is the 1975 Illinois abortion law, which contains language that's similar but not identical to the later bill. The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications.
The groups opposed the entire group of "born alive" bills that were introduced starting in 2001, saying they could ultimately threaten the physician-patient relationship and increase civil liability for doctors.
In 2005, Illinois lawmakers inserted an extra provision asserting that the law would not affect "existing federal or state law regarding abortion." The measure passed without opposition from Planned Parenthood and with the support of groups opposed to abortion.
So, come on Andy. I know you can say it - come on, We'll all say it together, "Obama is NOT for abortion up to and including after the child is born"
And while you're at it you can admit you are wrong about the law too.
Senior Lady, good comment. Family has already voted against a separate post dealing with abortion, what are your thoughts? I think it is an important issue that should be discussed. If I tackle it, I am going to try and do it without referencing any specific candidate.
Family, I read the entire post, and attached article. I quoted the article the way I did because I thought it made the same point. The Sentence I quoted asserted that the opponents of the law were more concerned with “their zeal for pro-choice dogma” than anything else.
I think what offends you is the way I am phrasing what I take from Obama’s record. Would you be more comfortable if I said, “Obama is a staunch believer in pro-abortion rights. Obama has voted to protect partial birth abortion, and will not support any legislation he believes could in some way infringe on a woman’s right to choice?”
Back to your article. I am going to leave it to everyone else to make their own decisions about what it says. The basic message I take is that there was a law on the books that some would argue protected children who survive abortions. In some cases abortions were being performed and a live baby was delivered. Some people felt that baby deserved a chance at life, others argued that if the physician didn’t believe the baby was viable, the physician shouldn’t be required to attempt life saving medical care. Eventually, a law was passed in Illinois that changed this. Does that sound like a fair statement? In other words, I believe the problem may have been how doctors and physicians were interpreting laws at the time.
Well, I still don't agree with what you are saying, but at least you aren't coming right out and calling him a baby killer anymore.
As for the abortion debate post you are contemplating - The reason I don't want to get involved in that is that as a man I really don't feel qualified. I don't think any man should be in a position to tell a woman what to do when it comes to reproduction.
Carrying a baby is obviously something that no man will ever truly be able to empathize with. And as such I really don't think men should be involved in writing or voting on legislation pertaining to reproductive rights.
Male Federal and State representatives should be allowed to participate in the debate, but only women reps should be allowed to write the bills and vote on them.
If that was the case, can you imagine how many more women we'd have in congress? Both parties would be clamoring to get women elected to office.
Andy:
It's your blog, your decision. Abortion is the toughest issue for many of us today. I'm sure you'll get a lot of response.
Saint:
I believe in many cases there are other options, so I'm doing some research and will get back to you.
Familyman, hold onto that idea. If I write the post, I want you to bring that up. I think that is a concern many men have and if I open up a discussion on abortion, I want that to be in the discussion.
Senior Lady,
Thanks for the feedback. I think I am going to make the post. The problem I am struggling with is how to keep that post from really turning ugly.
Familyman, I couldn't disagree with you more. Based on what you are saying, men would have no voice on if their children are born or not. Is that really what you think? I understand the whole debate about it's the woman carrying the baby, but the child still has a father, and the father should have a say if the child lives or dies. And yes, it should be an equal say. Just because a woman is carrying the child, doesn't mean she is more of a parent than the man.
This question is for all of the fathers out there: remember your joy and excitement when you found out your wife was pregnant and you were going to have a family? Now imagine that she aborted the baby, even though you wanted it.
Saint, I'll respond to your question.
The births of my two (unplanned) children are definitely highlights of my life and I treasure every day I spend with them. My wife and I never seriously considered choosing to abort them. The thought is almost unthinkable to us now.
But that's not what's at issue. You should really ask us to imagine the government *forcing* our daughters to give birth to a baby after they've been raped by their uncle or grandfather.
The entire event would be agonizing beyond what I can imagine. But I believe in most cases an abortion would be the least of a number of evils. The radical position we are taking is that in such cases people should have a choice. You and Andy and Sarah Palin apparently disagree.
I believe that the reason you all keep subtly changing the subject on this is that you know your position is wrong. But it's very difficult for you to enter moral questions that are not framed as black-and-white.
As odd as it may sound to you, many of us still are pro-life and believe also in limited choice regarding abortion. So we are both pro-life/anti-abortion and pro-choice.
Saint. I did not say men would have no voice on if their children are born or not. A marriage would be a pretty poor one indeed if the husband had no say in whether or not a child is born or aborted.
I was specifically speaking of the situation at the state and federal level. If the government is going to be in the business of writing laws concerning reproductive rights, I think that women should be doing it.
In cases of reproductive rights, I think the rights of the woman who would be carrying the baby far out weigh the rights of the man.
Sorry Andy, saint is making me talk about it. I'm trying to hold my thoughts.
Andy, I'm going to jump back to the original e-mail. This guy references Michelle Obama's senior thesis form Princeton apparently as a reason she's not fit to be first lady.
I read the WHOLE thing. It's not any big deal. I mean I'm sure it's a fine thesis, But not even close to radical or anything.
The e-mailer's comments about her seem to be part of the right's ongoing attempt to portray the Obama's as people we should be wary of. Who knows what they're up to with all their thesis writing and community activising!!!???
I haven't read Michelle's thesis, and probably won't. I also don't personally reference it as a reason to vote against Obama. I am more worried about the policies he has articulated. I think those are more than enough reason to vote against him.
Quote "I also don't personally reference it as a reason to vote against Obama."
No, you just post it on your blog and let it go unquestioned.
You said in the very beginning of this post that this guy's email' "was interesting, and it really illustrates our choice for President without all the hype from either campaign."
When in fact it plays right into the McCain campaign's strategy of baseless attacks on the Obamas' character.
I think there are a number of very real questions about Obama's character. He has a number of associations he has never fully answered or addressed. He has put out lies in campaign adds that he hoped no one would pick up on, and the very wording of his "tax cuts" are questionable.
I don't agree with McCain on a lot of issues. However, if you are going to vote in this election based on character, there is no way you can vote for Obama.
What associations has he never fully answered or addressed?
John McCain himself called Barack Obama a decent man. And said he was someone we should not be scared of having as President.
It's this talk about how Obama can't be trusted that divides this country and is going to make it difficult for everyone to come together after the election.
I don't think there has ever been a campaign in modern times (or ever maybe) where the candidates haven't all tweaked the facts now and then to suit their message. But in this campaign, Obama has come much closer to running the respectful, issue oriented campaign that McCain promised, than McCain has.
I'm just curious, Andy -
I hear you and other anti-Obamans say that there's all these *associations* that Obama hasn't explained fully.
What exactly is it that you think Obama is hiding?
He litigated for ACORN in favor of the motor-voter law in Illinois several years ago. As a result, in Illinois, you can register to vote at the DMV. Do you think that "association" was something positive or negative?
As a former community organizer himself, he has supported an community organization that makes an effort register voters from groups of people (the poor, inner-city people, etc) that are normally disenfranchised.
Getting disenfranchised voters active in the system - positive or negative?
As far as I know, ACORN has not been accused of trying to persuade those voters to register one way or another - Rep. or Dem.
That group then turns around and gives their endorsement to him - not really a big scandal or surprise.
I've also heard the assertion that ACORN receives federal funding.
From ACORN.org - "The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now does not apply for nor does it receive any federal grants."
So, as I understand it, they have the right to endorse whomever they so choose.
And as for the Ayers association - What is it that you don't think Obama hasn't disclosed there?
Really. I'm just curious. Do you really think that he's a "secret" terrorist because of this association? (just for the record, I don't think you do, but I really want to know what all the fuss is about.)
I'm going to guess that you, Andy, are involved in some way in your community - maybe you or Mrs. Andy is involved in the PTA. If you serve on the same PTA board as someone who was a drug dealer 25 years ago, does that make you a drug dealer, or show that somehow you have a lapse in judgement?
I just don't follow the "UNEXPLAINED" associations rant. Is it at all possible, from a conservative perspective, that maybe, just *maybe* there isn't anything more to explain? That it could be that simple?
McCain's ads are far from shining examples of Truth. His campaign, via Sarah Palin's comments about "palling around with terrorists", and fear- mongering mailers, among other things, is behaving deplorably, and overtly trying to divide our nation. But I don't see you questioning McCain's character.
Really- I'm just curious. What IS it that you think Obama is hiding?
John McCain's chaotic and angry campaign didn't make sense to me until I read this article.
I had always thought McCain was a hero. But he's always been an incurious, spoiled, angry jerk. And that's the way his *friends* describe him.
Character? I knew Obama had it. John McCain's "character" is rash and selfish. I want it nowhere near the Oval Office.
Read it and weep.
(And before you critique the source, I challenge you to dispute any fact or claim in the article.)
I think it is fair to address this comment to both familyman and mrs. Familyman. If I miss something you think I should have addressed from either of your comments, let me know.
For the record, I don’t think Obama is a terrorist. I do think he has some very radical associations that speak to his judgment.
He has lied and backtracked on his association with Ayers. No one disputes Ayers is an unrepentant terrorists. Obama himself discusses being introduced to politics in Ayers house. Ayers isn’t simply someone who served on the same PTA as Obama. He is someone that Obama has had an ongoing relationship with.
Obama has had questionable dealings with Tony Rezko. Franklin Raines has advised Obama on economic policies. Raines is the guy he ran Frannie Mae, and left with a $90 million. Raines and some of his associates have been forced to settle with the Justice Department for cooking the books. This is the same kind of thing Democrats were attacking the Enron CEO for. Obama says he isn’t an advisor, but Obama has discussed economic policies with him.
There is also Jeremiah Wright. If we take Obama’s story of not knowing about Wright for 20 years, we have to at least question Obama’s judgment in people. And remember, Obama only disavowed Wright when Wright threatened his campaign.
As far as Obama’s adds, look up the Spanish language ones that quoted McCain and Limbaugh intentionally out of context. Surely that isn’t an example of a new kind of politics?
I don’t believe Obama is a terrorist. I do believe he lacks character judgment at a minimum. I also think his views are further left than any other candidate who has ever seriously been considered for the Presidency before.
The Ayers association is an open book. It's been looked into from every angle. Everyone knows the facts and the majority of America sees it for what it is - inconsequential. Whatever Ayres may have done in the past, he's now a respected university professor. He was named citizen of the year by the City of Chicago for his work on Public School Reform.
---------
Rezko is a joke.
Check out this article from the Chicago Sun-Times to get all the facts on the Obama/Rezko relationship.
If that's the worst "scandal" Obama is ever involved in, he'll be the cleanest politician in history.
---------
About Raines From The Washington Post.
The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.
---------
And of course we couldn't forget Rev Wright. If we are going to fault Obama for the words of his pastor, does that mean we have to hold Sarah Palin accountable for the words and actions of her Witch Doctor minister? The one who put his hands on her and prayed for her to be safe from witch-craft. The one who accused a Kenyan woman of causing car accidents through demonic spells and so he rounded up a mob and ran her out of town.
-----------
And as for being left of center. Take a look at where the right has taken us in the last 8 years. I say the further left the better.
-----------
Ah, once again, the chosen one can do no wrong.
Familyman is ok with Obama having Ayers as a friend. Ayers who is an unrepentant terrorist and was even reminiscing over his days of killing cops after 9/11.
Raines is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in today. If he had been an adviser to McCain, you would want Raines in jail, and McCain off the ticket.
I also enjoy the equivalence you give to Wright and any questionable preacher out there. Wright is one of a few who are in a class of their own. The "witch doctor" you mention (which he isn't) is a silly story at best. I can find no instance where he asks God to "d-mn America", where he accuses the government of intentionally killing minorities, or where he preaches that we deserved the attacks of 9/11.
You are going to vote for Obama, and that is your choice. But don't pretend he doesn't have some very questionable ties.
Andy - once again you don't answer my questions and you miss my point.
1) What do you think Obama is hiding? What is unanswered?
2) Litigating on behalf of ACORN for the motor-voter bill - Is that positive or negative?
3) ACORN's "get out the vote" campaigns that target disenfranchised voters - Is that positive of negative?
4) Do you think John McCain (who promised to run a clean campaign) is running a campaign that is an example of strong character, and truly "putting America first?"
Obama strongly condoned the violent actions of the Weathermen group that happened when Obama himself was 8 years old. But according to you Andy, Obama must be lying about that.
Andy - You obviously see this as a black or white issue. Once a violent anti-war activist, ALWAYS a violent anti-war activist.
According to you, since Ayers was part of the Weathermen in his twenties- the guy is obviously still "out to get the governement" when he's in his 60's. There's no way that this guy could actually be a positive, well-respected, productive member of society in 2008.
If Ayers isn't reformed, shouldn't he be in jail? Shouldn't he have his 1997 Citizen of the Year award revoked?
if he isn't reformed, how is that he is a professor of EDUCATION at the University of Illinois
Chicago (a highly respected institution), with not one, but several masters degrees in Early Childhood Education? Not, Bomb Making, not Radical Propaganda, not How to Start a Terrorist Cell - but Early Childhood EDUCATION.
Obama was named to the Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors to oversee the distribution of grants for education reform in Chicago. Ayers was one of three authors of the proposal and I believe served on the same board. So please tell me how THAT association leads you believe that Obama has a *shady* relationship with Bill Ayers?
You say "Ayers isn't simply someone who served on the same PTA with Obama."
You're right, it wasn't like the PTA, it was like the PTA on STEROIDS.
To suggest that there was something wrong with Ayers holding a "coffee" at the start of Obama's run for office in Illinois is just another political smear.
So if you or Mrs. Andy has coffee with that reformed drug dealer on your PTA or school board, that must mean you're a drug dealers too, or at least, you condone drug dealing. So you both must have questionable judgement. Right?
Its ridiculous.
Rezko - Yep, he's a slimy one all right.
Are there points to criticize in Obama's dealings with Rezko? Definitely.
Is it as bad as the right-wingers make it out to be? Hardly.
Andy you and I have gone round and round on the Wright issue. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I think Wright has some crazy ideas, but that doesn't necessarily make him a horrible, evil person. But I'm not going to debate that ad nauseum with you.
It can be pretty easy to demonize the candidate whose views you disagree with. But to expect ANY politician, Democrat, Republican, Indepedent or otherwise to have a sterling record with respect to every person they've ever dealt with personally, professionally, and politicially is unrealistic and naiive. Especially politically. Politics is a game and as a result, all politicians make deals with all sorts of people who have their own agendas. Politicians also happen to be human. Humans make mistakes. I haven't gone off on this side rant to excuse a few bone-headed mistakes that Obama has made. But I'm looking at the bigger picture. Ayers, Rezko, Wright and Raines are not now nor have been any part of Obama's team of advisors. (If you want to dispute that, you're going to have to come up with a *credible* source to prove it - please, no op-ed pieces.)
Contrast that with Mcain, whose own list of economic advisors includes Phil Gramm. You know, Phil Gramm who was involved in the "Enron Loophole" legislation, repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, and fought against regulation of derivatives trading - derivitative such as Credit Default Swaps - which as I'm sure you're aware, have a little something to do with the economic crisis facing the U.S. today. You might argue that he's no longer a "senior" advisor. But the fact that he was on the list AT ALL is disconcerting.
I'm going to save my outrage for those *associations* which DIRECTLY effect policy. McCain's choice of Phil Gramm as an advisor is certainly a tangible example of a reason to question McCain's judgement. That one *association* is more telling about Mcain, than the flimsy Obama *associations* his bashers are constatnly pointing to.
The guy who *prosecuted* Ayers and put him in jail has called b.s. on Andy's charges against Obama.
Let’s see:
1) I don’t know that he is hiding anything. I think his relationships show a serious flaw in judgement.
2) Don’t know. I am not familiar with the motor-voter bill.
3) If done legally, I have no problem with it at all. If done illegally, then it is a serious problem.
4) I think beyond a shadow of a doubt McCain has been doing what he thinks he needs to do to put America first. There are many, many times McCain should have attacked Obama harder on positions and McCain hasn’t. Look at McCain’s ad the night Obama won the Democratic Nomination. If that isn’t an example of character, then nothing is.
Obama has condemned the actions, but Ayers never has. It has often been reported that as recently as 2001 Ayers was saying that he and the weathermen didn’t do enough. Do you think anyone that supports planting bombs in Washington DC and killing cops is a productive member of society?
I know Mr. Familyman doesn’t like David Freddoso, but he makes an excellent point: Bill Ayers has never renounced his work with the weathermen. Obama and Ayers have had numerous connections. David Axelrod has called the Ayers / Obama relationship “friendly”. Freddoso writes: Without going any further – without overstating the connection between these two – it is a remarkable relationship for a presidential nominee to have. Surely we can all agree that for any nominee of a major party to have ties to a known terrorist is highly unusual.
The prosecutor is welcome to his opinion. I don't think Obama is responsible in any way for the actions of Ayers years ago. I do think Obama is responsible for having ongoing relationships with Ayers today.
Donald Rumsfeld had a more serious relationship with Saddam Hussein than Obama did with Ayers. And, believe me, Saddam and Rumsfeld weren't talking about improving public schools!
Thomas Sowell says it best today in Townhall:
"Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well"
Wow Andy -
Your arrogance is really amazing.
You've done it here and you've done the same thing on other posts. When confronted quotes from someone who has actual first hand knowledge of a person or situation in question, you very casually dismiss it.
(I'm referencing your recent post about ACORN where you dismiss the first hand accounts of
a Republican Prosecutor, a Political science professor and a Justice Department lawyer.)
You do it again here with the prosecutor who has first hand experience with Ayers. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you've probably never met Ayers.
But as Familyman said, "I guess you know better."
Apparently its also impossible for you to hold two antithetical ideas in your head.
I doubt you'd bother to read it since you've already made up your mind, but Ayers own blog says that his comments about "not doing enough" were misconstrued. He was talking about the collective "we," the citizenry of the United States for not stopping our own government from perpetrating acts of terrorism in Vietnam. He knew that OUR OWN GOVERNMENT WAS COMMITTING TERRORIST ACTS, and took radical action to stop it.
I'm NOT saying that I support that kind of thing.
Let me state that again, just to be clear:
I'm NOT saying that I support that kind of thing.
But, Ayers actions were not about creating terror and hating America, they were motivated to get the American government to STOP COMMITTING TERRORIST ACTS. Isn't part of the rationale of the "right to keep and bear arms" so that the citizenry can keep the government in check?
So, 40 years later, does he regret trying to stop our own government from committing terrorism? Maybe, maybe not.
Is he behaving in radical violent ways today?
No.
Andy I know you call yourself a Christian, so could you forgive someone even if they didn't ask for it? If they had shown a 180 shift in their behavior, could you forgive them then?
Obviously, for you this is a pretty cut and dried issue. As for those of us who thought Vietnam was a huge mistake, we don't see it quite so black and white.
Due to my harsh comments at the beginning, I will probably be kicked off, but its probably just as well.
Andy - re: your quote from Thomas Sowell -
Its a good thing that the ministry is not your chosen profession. It seems that you only know how to preach to the choir.
I dismissed the comments by the prosecutor for the following reasons:
1) He was responding to another article in the nytimes that I have not read.
2) I am not trying to link Obama to the activities of Ayers 40 years ago, which is what Mr. Ibershof commented on. I am trying to point out the relationship between Ayers and Obama today, and Ayers’ continued mindset today.
3) It is Mr. Ibershof’s opinion that Bill Ayers has become a responsible citizen. Based on quotes of Ayers, quotes from Ayers 2001 book, and Ayers visits to Venezuela to meet with Chavez, I don’t share that opinion.
4) I have not studied the trial case involving Mr. Ibershof, so I have no opinion as to whether he did a good job prosecuting the weathermen or not.
I don’t dismiss his opinion because it is different from mine, I dismiss it because at face value it offers no new insight.
I have read a good bit on the Vietnam War. I don’t support the idea that you and Ayers seem to share that the United States was conducting Terrorist Acts in Vietnam. The second Amendment was not put in place for citizens to take up arms to prevent our government from using the military overseas. It was listed in the Bill of Rights so that we as citizens could protect ourselves. I am a Christian, and Ayers has done nothing to me for me to forgive him for. However, forgiving doesn’t mean you pretend it never happened. I continue to question Bill Ayers motives, and I continue to question Obama’s judgment of associating with him.
I am hurt by your characterization of my reference to the Thomas Sowell quote. I admire Sowell and think he is a brilliant man. I would think by now that you would know I am able to preach to the choir, other pastors, the man on the street, and the lost souls. I just don’t know how many converts I have gotten.
Andy -
One last time on this - because I'm going to stop beating my head against the wall...
Just because someone has "radical" ideas now or in the past does not disqualify them as a productive, positive member of society. Especially when by simple observation their life's work is now devoted to large scale reform of education of young children in a city as large as Chicago.
Do you absorb ALL the beliefs and ideas of co-workers, neighbors, and fellow board members? That reasoning is just plain illogical. You raise the guilt by association argument again and again.
Please answer this question: Do you believe that guilt by association is a valid or invalid argument?
I don't doubt you believe the quotes you read about Ayers comments wrt 9/11. Because, by your own admission you always look at things through a conservative lens. But I've looked at Ayers own account of how his words have been misconsrued. I give more credibility to his first hand account than a second hand one.
If you see this as a black and white issue (as in cut-and-dried) then just come out and say so. It will help others who comment here understand just how rigid you are in your beliefs.
I see this issue as definitely more gray.
Putting all that aside, as for the depth of the ties he has to Obama they are EXTREMELY flimsy. But I suppose that'll be one of those agree to disagree things. I'll be glad when the election is over - I'm looking forward to the finger-pointing, hype and Republican hysteria to die down.
Well, Andy - if I hurt you, we're even then.
I'm pretty irritated about such comments as "Ah, once again, the chosen one can do no wrong."
Though this comment was not directly made to me, the insinuation that anyone who supports Obama is a naiive, ignorant, unquestioning, star-struck and/or just following the herd is extremely insulting.
In light of the comments I've made here, you can easily find that I've been critical of Obama on several issues.
My point in making the comment about your quote from Sowell was that, in my opinion, as someone from the opposite side on many, many, many, issues, you DON'T do a very good job of converting those with opposite views because you tend to quote those like Sowell whose opinions already agree with your own. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but...Make an effort to present a less partisan case from time to time, and you just might get some conversions.
I have not read all 66 comments on this post because I really just don't give a damn. I saw 66 comments and just decided to read the last comment to see how far off topic this has skewed. Andy's comments caused me to read back up to at least find the quote by Mr. Sowell and read all posts after that.
I have a question for Mrs. Familyman. If Andy had put that quote up but left off the author and replaced the word Obama with politician would you disagree with the quote?
Additionally, while Ayers' actions (according to him) were not about creating terror or hating American you have to look at the end result. He was part of a group that used bombs to get their point across. If you are not scared of a bomb I guess you are more manly than I, but to me bombs = terror.
The rationale of the second amendment is not to keep the government in check by use of arms, regardless of what Ayers, you or the NRA says, but (like the rest of the bill of rights) to show the government that, while they can make laws and enact laws, they cannot keep you from having arms, or practicing a religion, or or having a fair trail.
Additionally, I know you are all about forgiveness and such, me too, and for people turning 180 degrees in their life but do me a favor and check out this website out and see what you think about letting your daughter/son/neice/nephew/grandkids/future kids run around in your neighborhood.
"Anonymous" your comment was rejected. Think of a different way to say it without accusing me of inciting people to violence and I will post it.
People who spread murky and unfounded innuendo about a U.S. presidential candidate's personal relationships with terrorists are guilty of shouting "terrorist" at an NRA convention.
People who want to be *responsible* about their doubts about a presidential candidate clearly and specifically enumerate what they are worried about. For example, are they worried that Obama will start blowing up U.S. government buildings when he becomes president? That Obama will become an English professor? That he will end the Vietnam war before we achieve "victory"?
In short: vague, murky, innuendo is dangerous and, no matter who does it, risks inciting violence. Specific concerns, however, are able to be debated.
I find it ironic that Andy would reject a comment that worried about people inciting violence against the U.S. government.
The whole point of the Ayers smear that Andy repeats is to make us worried about Obama's connections to violence against the U.S. government.
So it's OK to accuse Senator Obama of connections to violence against the U.S. But we can't suggest that nasty, misleading, innuendo has any connection to violence.
Pack - The point is that Sowell's comment isn't about politicians in general, its specifically about Obama. Its not a surprise that he's being demonized by those who don't support him.
Its an election year.
Pack and Andy - you seem to be selectively ignoring the phrase that begins the second amendment: "A well regulated militia...."
A quick check on dictionary.com gives this as one definition of "militia":
"a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government."
So you're arguing that the right to bear arms is only about defending oneself.
Since I'm not ignoring the phrase about a "well-regulated militia," I take it to mean that the citizenry also has a right to take up weapons if the federal government should go completely off the rails.
Ayers view was that the American government was slaughtering innocent people in Vietnam - and our government had gone seriously off the rails.
Just to be clear -I'll state for the 3rd time -
I don't agree with the actions of the Weathermen in the 60's.
But Andy's right - it doesn't mean that it gives citizens the right take up arms to prevent our government from using the military overseas.
Huzzah! Andy! We agree on something!
But it does raise the question, (as is also raised by the second amendment) when would it become necessary to take up arms against one's own government?
What do you think would qualify as our government "going seriously off the rails?"
(With respect to these last questions, I'm not talking about Ayers anymore... I'm just asking...)
Anon:
I thought I had been very clear on this post. I don’t think Obama is a terrorist. I do think his associations call into question is judgment of character. Being President is as much about judgment as anything. We can’t possibly know all of the challenges the next President will face. I doubt Obama’s judgment, and therefore doubt his ability to handle unknown challenges.
Mrs. Family,
There is a quote that is often attributed to Ben Franklin (though I doubt he actually said it) that goes something like, “Democracy is a group of wolves and a single sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. In a Republic, the sheep has a gun.”
Our founding fathers believed that the government and the king had crossed a line that forced them to take up arms. Many in the South believed the same before the civil war. A totally honest answer to your question is, “I don’t know what the government would do that would cause me to take up arms against it.” In all honesty, I hope I never find out.
Speaking of wackos acting on bad information...
Very well stated, Anon.
Andy -
You still haven't answered this question:
Do you believe that "guilt by association" is a valid, logical argument?
Way after the fact by now, I realize, but all along I've said, to people and on the Internet, that I believed many would vote for Obama based on his charisma only. I still think that was true. I overheard a conversation where McCain was called 'dry'. Our President-elect's emphatic, clear-spoken presentations were what many responded to, it seemed to me. I wonder if, half the time it even mattered what he was actually saying.
Post a Comment