Barack Obama must be the envy of Senator Larry Craig, as his stance is so wide he fully occupies both sides of the political fence on several issues, but unlike Senator Craig, he’s here to take a dump: on you. We believe here that he’s willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, and then he’ll return to the liberal-left views he’s taken in every vote of his political career.
The Obama-friendly media is now collaborating on his Catholic-outreach, allowing him to fully occupy both pro-life and pro-legal-abortion stances. Sadly, this Bloomberg news/Barack Obama campaign press release fails to be the least bit inquisitive over how he’d take such a wide stance (link):
Obama Woos Abortion Foes With Platform Embracing Motherhood
By Kristin Jensen
Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his supporters are working to win over voters who want to ban or reduce abortions with a call for measures to help women keep their babies.
The party’s platform supports the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that made abortion legal and adds a twist, saying the party “strongly” backs a woman’s decision to carry a pregnancy to term. The compromise language is the result of behind-the-scenes negotiations with abortion-rights groups and religious leaders on both sides of the issue.
The idea is to frame abortion as less of an either-or issue by discussing both the need to keep abortion legal and the desire to provide programs for expectant and new mothers. It may help Democrats woo evangelical Christians, a core Republican constituency that backed President George W. Bush by a margin of 77 percent in 2004.
“Voters that this will win over are those that are looking for an excuse to vote for Obama,” said Joel Hunter, a Florida pastor who helped with the language and said he is a “pro-life” Republican. “They just needed one signal that, if I vote for him, more babies can be saved than if we keep wrangling over whether Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned.”
Hunter, 60, is undecided about his vote, though he said the language in the platform “is huge for me.”
No offense meant, “pro-life Republican” Pastor Joel Hunter (link) (looks like he’s an evangelical socialist, a discussion for later), but how would Obama’s props to pro-lifers in his platform reconcile with his view that government should fund abortions (link), his deliberate deception on his position on the born-alive abortion survivor legislation (link), and the reality of the meaninglessness of the “making abortion rare” position (link).
I have to wonder, when you look at the 2004 DNC party platform, what the bolded clause is about, and whether the Obamanation supports it (link):
We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we
believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose,
consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay.
I take that to mean that they’re looking at repealing the Hyde amendment, which forbade Medicaid funding for abortions. Because declaring on behalf of legal abortion should de facto take care of privately-funded abortions. The question is pretty simple, “does Senator Obama believe that a woman has a right to a government-funded abortion?” However, Ms. Jensen of Bloomberg may be too starstruck to ask.
Even if you’re not against abortion, this positioning should bother you. Because when it comes down to it, there is a black-and-white issue and someone’s not being honest about it. If you’re for it, you’re for it.
An even bigger concern than having a politician and his campaign deceiving people for votes, is that he has willing accomplices in the mainstream media. The degree to which this is happening should be alarming to all Americans.