The Occasional Observer

This will, IMO, be a nettlesome issue for the GOP in '16.   No one will get nominated without earning the support of (at least a meaningful slice of) the evangelical/socially conservative wing of the party.  The leverage of SoCons in the early states, esp. Iowa, SC, FL is just too large.  That said, a message of "the gays are after your kids' minds" might fly in an Iowa GOP straw poll, but not in a general election (again, IMO).

How to negotiate these straits?

...as per Gallup (see here). This is the first time since Gallup began polling in 1995 that the percentage of people who self-identify as pro-life (rather than pro-choice) is higher than 50%.

It's bad enough when you vote to uphold infanticide. But to then lie about it outright, and get caught in the lie--well, that ain't gonna help the Baummer.

Here's the lie in question:

Mr. Obama contended that he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported," but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level." Except that it was.

As it turns out - and as even Mr. Obama's campaign admitted Monday to the New York Sun - the National Right to Life Committee wasn't lying; Mr. Obama was. The specific difference cited by Mr. Obama in the CBN interview was that the Illinois bill didn't contain the federal legislation's language explicitly stating that it would not "undermine Roe vs. Wade." (This was not merely off-the-cuff, as the campaign had issued a written statement to CNN in June offering the same rationale.) Not only did the bill contain the exact provision from the federal bill, but Mr. Obama voted in favor of adding it as an amendment. After the state bill was changed to be almost identical to the unanimously passed federal law, Mr. Obama voted against it.

I actually saw the interview with Brody that the article references. It's not like Obama just tried to lie in passing. He got very heated, and basically accused his opponents of smearing him. It turns out he was lying right along. This vote will haunt him.

ht: Kavon

See here. Key part:

Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?

If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

...aborted.

Great news, indeed. Which reminds me, there is no phrase that irritates me more than, "a woman's right to choose." Huh? First, why are women given the "right" to choose to end a life? Why would this ever be the case in any society that has any respect for life? Second, last time I checked, it takes a man and a woman to create a life, so even if you weren't against abortion, why would this be a "woman's" right and not a "couple's" right? The whole thing reeks, but luckily it reeks just a little less today.