About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

White House Cheat Sheet: Obama, Notre Dame and Common Ground Politics



President Obama delivers commencement remarks at Notre Dame on Sunday. Photo by Jeff Haynes -- Pool/Getty Images

President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame University on Sunday served as a microcosm of his entire approach to governance: engage your enemies on difficult issues, find an area(s) of common agreement and urge compromise.

Obama arrived in South Bend, Ind. amid controversy as pro-life activists protested the idea of a president who supports abortion rights speaking at one of the nation's most prominent Catholic universities.

Rather than ignore those who opposed his presence on campus, Obama chose instead to directly engage his critics -- telling a story from his 2004 Senate bid in which a pro-life doctor had written to him asking that he tone down the the rhetoric on his campaign Web site that condemned "right wing ideologues" seeking to take away a woman's right to choose. Obama read the language himself and ordered it changed.

That experience taught him that "when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."

On abortion, the common ground Obama proposed was a joint effort by both sides of the issue to reduce the number of abortions in the country, cut the number of unwanted pregnancies and make adoption more available.

Obama's approach, as highlighted in the speech at Notre Dame, has been on display any number of times both on the campaign trail last year and during his short stint so far in the White House.

Though he was attacked for his proposal to engage our enemies -- even leaders of rogue nations -- Obama stuck by his guns. When the controversy around Rev. Jeremiah Wright arose, Obama delivered a speech on race that sought to use his own experience as a child of biracial background to point out the common hopes and struggles shared by white and black America. And, even in his early interactions with Republicans in Congress, Obama sought to use cocktail parties and sports -- common ground in Washington if ever there was any -- to court his rivals.

Obama's governing style provides a sharp contrast to the two men who preceded him. President Bill Clinton spent much of his time in office triangulating -- playing himself off of members of his own party to accomplish his goals. And, President George W. Bush campaigned on his record of bipartisan accomplishments but wound up defined by a sort of cowboy diplomacy that shrugged off doubts and concerns by insisting on the rightness of his positions.

"The Obama leadership paradigm is all the more striking because it is the polar opposite of what we have seen during the Bush years," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane.

Jim Margolis, one of the ad men behind Obama's successful campaign, suggested that the "more light, less heat" approach is a common theme not just in the president's time in elected office but his life more generally.

The strand that runs from Obama's years at Harvard to his work as a community organizer to his time in the state legislature, according to Margolis is "an ability to bridge -- to bridge race, to bridge ideological divides, to bridge partisan politics, to bridge the 'loud voices'."

The broader question about Obama's governing philosophy is whether it can work at the highest level of American politics and, if so, for how long.

Phil Singer, a Democratic consultant and former adviser to Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, said Obama's speech at Notre Dame was a "great first step toward extending a hand to those who are anti-choice and initiating a constructive conversation."

But, Singer added that bridging the gulf that exists between pro-choice and pro-life forces is the "tricky" part; "Will those who are ardently pro choice allow him to have a political dialogue with those who are just as ardent in their anti-choice views?" Singer asked.

The "what's next" question -- in essence, how can Obama turn rhetoric into reality -- is the challenge of his presidency.

His open-hand-rather-than-clenched-fist approach may get an early test as his nears a nominee for the Supreme Court. Assuming the nominee opposes the reversal of Roe v. Wade, will abortion opponents hear his words from Notre Dame and look for common ground? Or will they dig in their heels and fight?

What to Watch For:

Monday's Fix Picks: New life mantra -- WWTRD (What Would Tim Riggins Do?)

1. Peter Baker on Obama's New Foundation.
2. Dan Balz on Obama's willingness to disappoint his allies.
3. Interest groups in for a dime, in for $31.5 million in advance of tomorrow's ballot initiatives votes in California.
4. The Crist-less Florida governor's race takes shape.
5. A review of the "Saturday Night Live" season that was.

Obama an Issue in VA-Gov: Former state Del. Brian Moran is on the radio attacking former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe over his lack of support for then Sen. Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential primary process. "Terry McAuliffe led the campaign that ran the '3 a.m.' attack ad against Barack Obama," says the ad's narrator. "McAuliffe worked to put up the ads that questioned Obama's ability to be President. The fact is, if Terry McAuliffe had his way, Barack Obama wouldn't be our President today." McAuliffe was, unforgettably, campaign chairman and head cheerleader for then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. McAuliffe struck back quickly with a statement fro spokeswoman Lis Smith asserting that "Terry fought tirelessly after the presidential primaries to get Barack Obama elected." At issue is the critical African American vote in Virginia's Democratic gubernatorial primary; blacks comprise almost one-fifth of the state's population and have a far larger presence in a Democratic primary. Moran, McAuliffe and state Sen. Creigh Deeds are vying to be the party's nominee against state Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R) this fall.

Shuler Back on Radar for Senate Dems: After North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) said no to a challenge to Sen. Richard Burr (R) on Friday, national Democrats have begun to re-recruit Rep. Heath Shuler who has previously said "no" to the race. Shuler has the sort of profile -- pro life, pro gun -- that would make it difficult for Republicans to cast him as a "national" Democrat. He defeated scandal-tarred Rep. Charles Taylor in 2006 and won with a stunning 62 percent in 2008. Shuler also hails from the conservative western part of the state -- a potentially powerful base from which to run. Polling suggests Burr is vulnerable and the twin victories by President Obama and Sen. Kay Hagan (D) in 2008 suggest the ground is shifting in the Tarheel State.

Carbonetti, Henick Unite: Tony Carbonetti, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's longtime political consigliere, and Chris Henick, who served as a senior adviser to Giuliani's 2008 presidential bid, are joining forces to start a new unnamed (just yet) consulting company. Carbonetti said the company has already begun doing polling and consulting work for a Madison Avenue firm; "We have started a company to utilize our experience in government and national politics to provide strategic advice to corporations and individuals," Carbonetti added. While Carbonetti is leaving Giuliani Partners, the consulting shop the mayor started after leaving office, he is certain to be involved if Giuliani decides to run for governor. A decision on that race will come this fall.

Best iPhone Apps: Thanks to the MANY people who sent the Fix the Mashable link for the five best political apps -- asap-Politics, Politics -- The Essential Collection, Congress, Elections, and UK Politics.

Say What?: "Under the rules of the Senate, all things are possible." -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on the chances of a filibuster of President Obama's Supreme Court pick during an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 18, 2009; 5:10 AM ET
Categories:  Cheat Sheet Share This:  E-Mail | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Stumble Previous: Cutter to White House for Court Fight
Next: Huntsman to China: Winners and Losers


Add The Fix to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Fix! This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Fix.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

jakedass wrote: "Must be difficult to accept that "Nobody who cares to engage with you" has clearly been proven false."

A mosquito proud of being swatted at. How very lame this creature is.

Posted by: nodebris | May 19, 2009 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Down with the flu, JackeD? Hard to believe you're not doing a post every minute in a thread where abortion is a salient topic.

Or is it only interesting if you have to hijack the thread?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

JackeD protested:
LOL! Must be difficult to accept that "Nobody who cares to engage with you" has clearly been proven false.

==

Well if you count ridicule as engagement, I guess.

Seems pretty thin gruel to me

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"Careful, foxy, we might be blogging with the unabomber."

==

I think I can say with complete confidence that we are dealing with a completely ineffectual uh person with no capacity to effect change in the world around him other than by

(1) changing channels on the TV

(2) voting in presidential elections

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Must be difficult to accept that "Nobody who cares to engage with you" has clearly been proven false.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Careful, foxy, we might be blogging with the unabomber.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 18, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"please let me know"

==

Why do you keep posting this? Nobody needs an effing invitation from you to post. Only a moron would think they do.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

That's not true. If DDAWD, bsimon1, toritto, vbhoomes, newbeeboy, or mark_in_austin return, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Don't be lonely, jakey, you've always got the other 20% of the population that still admits they are republicans.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 18, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Nobody who cares to engage with you past correcting your many mistakes, JackeD.

People have you pegged as a moron.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Goodness, there really isn't ANYONE ELSE on-line?! Slow Monday, I guess.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Isn't vbhoomes your other online name, jakey?

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 18, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

go back to sleep, JackeD

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

For the record, it was "vbhoomes" who claimed to not know anyone who thinks that young women who get pregnant are trash.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

He must be having trouble with his wikipedia.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 18, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

""Who is demonizing who Drindl? I do not know anyone who think young women who get pregnant are trash.""

What a liar you are, jake. Someone like you who spends hours on message boards ranting about abortion would have seen thousands of posts talking about women "spreading their legs" and "getting what they deserve."

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 18, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Must be time for jake's afternoon nap.

==

I'm pawing the ground waiting for him to define "enough" for me

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Must be time for jake's afternoon nap.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 18, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else needs be to post the definition of "enough" let me know.

==

Is there ANY extreme you won't go to for attention?!?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Who knows, perhaps Reagan did help spur the turnaround in the abortion rate.

==

.. by making people lose interest in sex?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know what Nixon's position was on abortion? What about Ford or Carter?

Who knows, perhaps Reagan did help spur the turnaround in the abortion rate.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 18, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Clinton promoting oral sex was way better than little georgie promoting the crusade in Iraq. And it certainly cost less than the trillion $$$ georgie spent.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 18, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like a good program, for a number of reasons, including the potential reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies.

==

The prolife cult DOES NOT WANT a reduction in pregnancies.

They want all forty million of those "children" to have been born, and to grow up to be good liddle consumers, buying cigarettes an' gasoline an' Batman T-shirts and Whitney Houston CDs.

Corporate sales projections, don't you know.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

be = me (darn Spellchecker ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"Do you think that Bill Clinton "promoted" oral sex?"


Sounds like a good program, for a number of reasons, including the potential reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 18, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else needs be to post the definition of "enough" let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned because women will not go back to being forced to bear a child, especially that of a rapist or relative. All states that have tried to abolish abortion have failed. Because in the end, most women want the right to make their own personal medical decisions, not have the government do it for them.

We will not go back to being property, no matter how many men wish it.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Sorry foxy, jakey's going to need his little blue pill for that!

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 18, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

LOL! After convincing enough people to be "personally" pro-life, the easy part will be overturning Roe v. Wade.

==

Wasn't overturned under Reagan.

Wasn't overturned under Bush the Greater.

Wasn't overturned under Bush the Lesser.

Won't overturned under Obama.

You live in a fantasy world.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

jaked's poll shows that the majority of people who consider themselves pro-life also believe abortion should be allowed in some circumstances. He knows this. He just isn't able to assimilate information that contradicts his beliefs. Examples abound.

==

And he thinks that a drop in abortions at a time when STDs went from an annoyance to a possible death sentence, thereby encouraging the use of condoms, was instead attributable to a president's opinion on abortion ... well.

Reminds me of that Harry Browne guy, presidential candidate for the libertarians, who attributed a drop in crime during proserous times (under a Democrat, needless to say) to an incremental availability of handguns.

Fanatics.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

LOL! After convincing enough people to be "personally" pro-life, the easy part will be overturning Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

jaked's poll shows that the majority of people who consider themselves pro-life also believe abortion should be allowed in some circumstances. He knows this. He just isn't able to assimilate information that contradicts his beliefs. Examples abound.

What a tedious little gnome he is. I pity his wife, who probably delights that he spends all day locked to a keyboard somewhere out of sight. Her gain is our loss.

Posted by: nodebris | May 18, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

If you consider contraception and family planning aid that specifically does *not* permit spending US aid on abortions to be "promoting" abortion, your position might make sense.

For those interested on what US Aid in fact does and does not allow, this link is useful:
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/restrictions.html

Posted by: nodebris | May 18, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey JackeD, go out and find an attractive Asian guy and give him a BJ. If you still have any misapprehensions about oral sex after that, "let me know."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

GaryEMasters:

Are you saying that GWB was "right" to stay in Iraq?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Do you think that Bill Clinton "promoted" oral sex? It's a "yes" or "no" question. If "no" what do YOU think accopunts for the dramatic rise (no pun intended) in teen oral sex rates?

==

ARE YOU REALLY THIS CLUELESS?!?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox, yeah it happens. although with jake his defense of slaveholders being 'unfairly' acccused to abusing their female slaves makes me think it's probably just a lifelong wish to control women's bodies.

==

And when a woman gets an abortion she has taken control of her body and her fate from the man who impregnated her. How emasculating!

If the goal of the prolife cult was to prevent abortion one would think they would be on board with preventing unwanted pregnancy, but this ah happens to not be the case

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Heehee.

It wasn't until 1966 that a MARRIED couple (let alone a single person) could legally buy a condom in Connecticut - and it took a Supreme Court decision to accomplish it. I was already married three years and had to buy condoms in NYC>

Mother Church opposed condoms (remember Vatican roulette?) - and then birth control pills and all other forms of birth control.

Sherri Finkbein had to travel to Sweden for abortion of a Thalidomide fetus - with one arm and no legs and who knows what else wrong with it.

I support choice - but I also support birth control education including abstinence, easier adoption and financial/medical assistance for those women who decide to go forward with their pregnancies. I would pay increased taxes to support such a program - would you?

Posted by: toritto | May 18, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Do you think that Bill Clinton "promoted" oral sex? It's a "yes" or "no" question. If "no" what do YOU think accopunts for the dramatic rise (no pun intended) in teen oral sex rates?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I have never defended slaveholders "being 'unfairly' acccused to abusing their female slaves". If anyone else wants to discuss that, as well, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Yes, DDAWD, I guess Bill Clinton "reduced" the number of abortions (probably personally) because of all the oral sex he promoted.

==

heh heh heh spoken like a guy who never got any

nobody needs to "promote" oral sex, JackeD. A lot of people enjoy it, giving and receiving.

the whole idea of sex as something other than a procreative act seems to have whoosehd over your addled head.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox, yeah it happens. although with jake his defense of slaveholders being 'unfairly' acccused to abusing their female slaves makes me think it's probably just a lifelong wish to control women's bodies.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Yes, DDAWD, I guess Bill Clinton "reduced" the number of abortions (probably personally) because of all the oral sex he promoted.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Actually, looking at the AGI study, it looked like Bush did have an effect on reducing abortions. GHWB, that is. If you look at the chart, you'll see a very linear drop in abortion rate starting in about 1980. The drop is more precipitous in about 1989 to about 1993.

The line is almost ruler straight from the Clinton years through 2005. Yeah, abortions declined under GWB, but at about the same rate that they declined under Clinton.

Perhaps the first Bush administration provides some clues, or at least something associated with that time. The emergence of AIDS, perhaps?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 18, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you try actually READING the poll you keep posting, JackeD?

You'd find that a whopping 76% of Americans favor abortion being legal under some or all conditions.

Hardly the watershed you claim. Are you even literate?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

jake says he's 72. Isn't it weird and kind of perverse that an old man would spend so much time thinking about pregnant young women?

==

Robert A. Heinlein deteriorated to the exact same condition. I loved his early pulp stuff but "Time Enough for Love" made me wish I had never heard of the guy

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Double speak?

"that shrugged off doubts and concerns by insisting on the rightness of his positions."

He thought he could still win even when it was difficult in Iraq. They gave up and thought him irrational to not agree.

So he won and few that gave up will either forgive him or even accept that he was right.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | May 18, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"a new Gallup poll showing a pro-life majority on abortion."

another lie. if you're going to be on here all day ranting about abortion, your favorite subject, at least get your fact straight.

jake says he's 72. Isn't it weird and kind of perverse that an old man would spend so much time thinking about pregnant young women?

Well i guess that's what he's got left.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I gave you the link. Look it up yourself.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/09/23/index.html

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

1) permit -- to allow to be done or occur (but not actively engaged in)

2) promote -- to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further (e.g. TAXPAYER-funding for the abortions or punishing doctors who refuse to perform them)

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"Last January, AGI reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990 -- with half of that time period coming under pro-life presidents.

The number of abortions are now at their lowest point since 1.179 million in 1976, AGI said."

Which logically means half of that time came under non-pro life Presidents.

This is all meaningless to me without some long term data. What was the rate under Bush when he started? There has been a steady decline in the rate since RvW was ruled. How does the curve look under the Bush years?

Come back to me with some long term data. Otherwise I'm just going to take Obama's word simply because I feel like it.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 18, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

JackeD, are you in your teens?

You believe in God, you watch TV ... and you write like you're 14 (yet claim to be a Stanford summa cum laude).

(*guffaw*)

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

It is difficult to find common ground with people who are unable to distinguish between permitting and promoting something.

==

And impossible to find it with fanatics who insist on viewing their subject through anything but a cracked and clouded lens of obsession.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

(Dawn Johnsen is NOT the one from Miami Vice ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"policies promote abortions"

It is difficult to find common ground with people who are unable to distinguish between permitting and promoting something.

Posted by: nodebris | May 18, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Please, Obama, nominate Gov. Granholm to the Supreme Court or (better yet) Dawn Johnsen.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama's federal budget proposes the repeal of the Dornan Amendment, a longstanding law that has respected the will of Americans by preventing taxpayer-funded abortion in the District of Columbia.

"At Notre Dame, President Obama spoke of respecting the consciences of those Americans who are morally opposed to the tragedy of abortion. Yet his most recent budget proposal to Congress fails to respect the consciences of taxpayers who are morally opposed to funding the destruction of human life,” she said.

“Further, in working and advocating to fully fund abortions, the President undermines his own purported goal of reducing the ‘need’ for abortion," Dannenfelser continued.

“America deserves authentic leadership on the abortion issue – someone who will help find common ground through civil discourse. Yet there is no evidence of an open mind in President Obama’s recommendation that Congress fund abortion on-demand with taxpayer dollars," Dannenfelser added.

"No true leader on a ‘heart-wrenching,’ ‘complex issue’ would seek to set it aside publicly while advancing quietly to achieve his own goals, all the while positing that the two sides are irreconcilable. True common ground exists. He is just not standing on it," she told LifeNews.com.

During his commencement address at Notre Dame, Obama for policies that "honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion."

Dannenfelser noted that the statement is hypocritical because Obama has already proposed overturning the Provider Conscience Clause the Bush administration put in place to protect medical staff and centers who don't want to participate in abortions.

“President Obama and the pro-abortion majority in Congress are on a collision course with public opinion on abortion policy,” said Dannenfelser. “As Congress drafts the next budget, it would do well to respect the consciences of taxpayers and stop the agenda that amounts to an abortion industry bailout.”

The pro-life women's leader also noted that Obama's speech came two days after the release of the results of a new Gallup poll showing a pro-life majority on abortion.

She highlighted how Gallup officials noted that Obama's radical pro-abortion record has likely shifted the views of Americans to the pro-life side of the abortion debate.

"Gallup proposed that the shift could be due to President Obama’s overreach on the issue," Dannenfelser said.

If so, then Obama's call for common ground could be a recognition that he has moved too far to the pro-abortion side of the spectrum.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse


"Last January, AGI reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990 -"

So what is your problem? Since Roe vs. Wade, abortions have DECLINED, which would lead a rational person to observe that we should leave things just as they are, and abortion will continue to decline.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Last January, AGI reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990 -- with half of that time period coming under pro-life presidents.

==

Uhh, HIV, you idiot

People have been more likely to use condoms.

"prolife presidents" don't have squat to do with it, you moron

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Never mind, DDAWD. You posted on that other thread, so you didn't miss it. Maybe you missed this though:

Actually abortions declined to record lows under Bush.

Any claim that they increased doesn't square with the latest national abortion numbers put forward by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research firm associated with Planned Parenthood.

Last January, AGI reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990 -- with half of that time period coming under pro-life presidents.

The number of abortions are now at their lowest point since 1.179 million in 1976, AGI said.

More on this at http://www.lifenews.com/nat4141.html

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Eternal salvation is a gift that must be FREELY accepted -- so, I am not sure what "force" you think I want to apply to everyone -- back to the topic, however, I will go find you my "modest proposal" on the other thread for reducing abortions 100%.

BRB

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Let's not lump everyone together. Jaked wants to force his religion onto everyone else, but there are a lot of people who would rather others adopt voluntarily.

Posted by: DDAWD

==

If you're talking about Christians who would like to see more people believe as they do, I would agree.

If you are talking about the prolife movement, I stand by what I wrote. I've never read or heard anything from the prolife crowd that wished for voluntary reduction in abortion, they always want the police powers of the state to force people to follow their rules and punish when they don't preferably with death.

Culture of life, right?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"Actually it sounds to me more like they want their religion forced onto everyone else, not adopted by them."

Let's not lump everyone together. Jaked wants to force his religion onto everyone else, but there are a lot of people who would rather others adopt voluntarily.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 18, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Desperate for attention, JackeD shrieked:
"Anyone else?"

==

DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT, JUNIOR

When you post crap like you do about doubting Obama's legitimacy you lead readers to conclude (correctly) that you are a moron.

Thank you for enabling our time management, giving us the information we need to save time not engaging you.

Most of us will settle for ridiculing you.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Here's one of the protesters:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-259731

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"drindl" thinks it's acceptable to demand answers to questions when SHE refuses to answer them in the first place.

==

Try posing a serious question instead of the frivolous baiting BS that is your stock in trade here and you might be surprised.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"drindl" thinks it's acceptable to demand answers to questions when SHE refuses to answer them in the first place.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"chrisfox8" thinks that "Go march in traffic with your dead fetus picture" is a constructive argument.

==

chrisfox8 doesn't cast pearls before swine

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"chrisfox8" thinks that "Go march in traffic with your dead fetus picture" is a constructive argument.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"I don't even agree that Obama is legally the President of the United States. "

LOL. This guy is a loon -- why bother talking to him? Say Jake, do you beleive the earth is round and revolves around the sun, or has that not been proven to your satisfaction? How about gravity?

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

JackeD wrote:
I don't even agree that Obama is legally the President of the United States.

==

Hhahahahahahah

nutbar

Go march in traffic with your dead fetus picture

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"While people like jaked say they want a reduction in abortions, that is actually not the truth. What they really want is for their religion to be adopted by others. Abortion is only secondary."

==

Actually it sounds to me more like they want their religion forced onto everyone else, not adopted by them.

Abortion is a shibboleth, plainly. If the actual goal was to reduce abortion they would be on board with reducing unwanted pregnancy, e.g. making birth control pills and condoms freely available. But they're against that too.

It's not at all about "protecting the unbord," it's about controlling people.

I've been debating this stuff since I was in my teens and I have yet to see ANY pro-lifer offer a constructive argument. They are 100.00% punitive.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

I don't even agree that Obama is legally the President of the United States. Assuming he is, however, I have no problem finding common ground on the issue.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"P.S. to bsimon1: I also stated that the government should not be funding organ harvesting by actively killing off people in comas. I know, there are those "hard fast rules" again.

Posted by: JackeD"

==

Looks like abortion in reality isn't objectionable enough to evoke the hysterical reaction you seek, which is why you regularly indulge in this over-the-top hyperbole around slavery, the Holocaust, and now harvesting organs from the comatose.

"if anyone wants to discuss this, let me know."

What an attention w4ore.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"On abortion, the common ground Obama proposed was a joint effort by both sides of the issue to reduce the number of abortions in the country, cut the number of unwanted pregnancies and make adoption more available."


Right-to-lifers:
Do you agree with the President that we, as a country, should find common ground and work together to reduce the number of abortions in the way he described, or do you think it is morally preferable to maintain a de-facto stalemate because pro-lifers and pro-choicers can't agree on Roe v Wade?

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 18, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

You missed my "modest proposal" on the other thread for reducing abortions 100%?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

I don't ask you questions anymore.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

"JakeD is not interested in civil debate. Pay no attention. (I could have said he's a moron but I am trying to be civil myself :-0)"

The problem is that those people have different core values than the rest of us. For them, the issue is to spread their religious values to those around them whether through conviviality as your local pastor may use or through extreme coercion as jaked would use. The people who are arguing with him are more interested in what is best for society.

A more cogent debate would be between that hypothetical pastor and jaked. Their core value of spreading their religion would elicit a debate on strategy.

The problem with Obama's middle ground approach to abortion is that it is non-secular. While people like jaked say they want a reduction in abortions, that is actually not the truth. What they really want is for their religion to be adopted by others. Abortion is only secondary.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 18, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"This is such a rare occurrence that true data are unavailable ...""

answered your own question, jake.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

On the other end of the life-spectrum, Sen. Byrd was hospitalized again ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Which is why (to continue the quote where you left off): "If the organ to which the placenta is attached is removable, such as a section of bowel, then the placenta should be removed together with that organ. This is such a rare occurrence that true data are unavailable ..."

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

" Maternal morbidity and mortality from extrauterine pregnancy is high as attempts to remove the placenta from the organs to which it is attached usually lead to uncontrollable bleeding from the attachment site."

Right. You'd rather do something that's likely to kill the mother than sacrifice a blastocyst. I figured as much.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to bsimon1: I also stated that the government should not be funding organ harvesting by actively killing off people in comas. I know, there are those "hard fast rules" again.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

bimon1 (I am not a doctor, nor do I play on on the Net, but I am not giving medical advice based on religious beliefs -- that being said, medical advances are progressing every day -- from Wikipedia):

While a fetus of ectopic pregnancy is typically not viable, very rarely, a live baby has been salvaged from an abdominal pregnancy. In such a situation the placenta sits on the intraabdominal organs or the peritoneum and has found sufficient blood supply. This is generally bowel or mesentery, but other sites, such as the renal (kidney), liver or hepatic (liver) artery or even aorta have been described. Support to near viability has occasionally been described, but even in third world countries, the diagnosis is most commonly made at 16 to 20 weeks gestation. Such a fetus would have to be delivered by laparotomy. Maternal morbidity and mortality from extrauterine pregnancy is high as attempts to remove the placenta from the organs to which it is attached usually lead to uncontrollable bleeding from the attachment site. If the organ to which the placenta is attached is removable, such as a section of bowel, then the placenta should be removed together with that organ. This is such a rare occurrence that true data are unavailable and reliance must be made on anecdotal reports.

[For instance]

On 19 April 2008 an English woman, Jayne Jones (age 37) who had an ectopic pregnancy attached to the omentum, the fatty covering of her large bowel, gave birth. The baby was delivered by a laparotomy at 28 weeks gestation. The surgery, the first of its kind to be performed in the UK, was successful, and both mother and baby survived.

On May 29, 2008 an Australian woman, Meera Thangarajah (age 34), who had an ectopic pregnancy in the ovary, gave birth to a healthy full term 6 pound 3 ounce (2.8 kg) baby girl, Durga, via Caesarean section. She had no problems or complications during the 38 week pregnancy.

Heterotopic pregnancy

In rare cases of ectopic pregnancy, there may be two fertilized eggs, one outside the uterus and the other inside. This is called a heterotopic pregnancy. Often the intrauterine pregnancy is discovered later than the ectopic, mainly because of the painful emergency nature of ectopic pregnancies. Since ectopic pregnancies are normally discovered and removed very early in the pregnancy, an ultrasound may not find the additional pregnancy inside the uterus. When hCG levels continue to rise after the removal of the ectopic pregnancy, there is the chance that a pregnancy inside the uterus is still viable. This is normally discovered through an ultrasound.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

Although rare, with the continual increase of IVFs, heterotopic pregnancies are becoming more and more common. However, these pregnancies are still considered moderate to high risk. The survival rate of the uterine fetus of an ectopic pregnancy is around 70%.

Successful pregnancies have been reported even from burst tubal pregnancy continuing by the placenta implanting on abdominal organs or on the outside of the uterus.

The case of Olivia, Mary and Ronan had an extrauterine fetus (Ronan) and intrauterine twins. All three survived. The intrauterine twins were taken out first.

Treatment

Nonsurgical treatment

Early treatment of an ectopic pregnancy with the antimetabolite methotrexate has proven to be a viable alternative to surgical treatment since 1993 (though the literature dates back to at least 1989). If administered early in the pregnancy, methotrexate can disrupt the growth of the developing embryo causing the cessation of pregnancy.

Surgical treatment

If hemorrhaging has already occurred, surgical intervention may be necessary if there is evidence of ongoing blood loss. However, as already stated, about half of ectopics result in tubal abortion and are self limiting. The option to go to surgery is thus often a difficult decision to make in an obviously stable patient with minimal evidence of blood clot on ultrasound.

As a last report, surgeons use laparoscopy or laparotomy to gain access to the pelvis and can either incise the affected Fallopian and remove only the pregnancy (salpingostomy: DIRECT killing) or remove the affected tube with the pregnancy (salpingectomy: INDIRECT killing).

Let me know if you have any questions.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

jakey won't answer the questions now. I guess that's his way of throwing in the towel and raising the white flag on the discussion.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 18, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Did you see my posts to you?"

I did. You, as usual, missed the point. The point being: vbhoomes said taxpayers should never pay for a specific medical procedure; I outlined some instances that question the wisdom of such hard and fast rules. My point: Congress should not legislate medical matters. Medical decisions have to be made by the patients and doctors who know the facts of each case, not by people who give medical advice based on religious beliefs.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 18, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

FactChecker1:

If you have any "civil" question, I would be glad to answer. All I ask is for the same courtesy in return.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"Who is demonizing who Drindl? I do not know anyone who think young women who get pregnant are trash."

You must not know many people. Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to call them trash, but absent of all other information, I'm likely to have a lower opinion of a teenage mother. Perhaps its ill-informed prejudice, but I know quite a few people who think worse.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 18, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is not interested in civil debate. Pay no attention. (I could have said he's a moron but I am trying to be civil myself :-0)

Abortion is a decision only a woman can make in consort with her partner and her doctor. That it ever reached the public venue for debate is the fault of the mostly male lawmakers and judges who made it illegal in the first place.

Women have aborted since the beginning of time...it was only when we turned the birthing process over to the medical profession that people (Read: men) decided that we needed laws governing what a woman does with her body.

Everyone, EVERYONE would opt for abortion under certain circumstances. So why ANYONE feels that they have the right to make this most heart-wrenching of decisions for someone else is beyond me.

Posted by: FactChecker1 | May 18, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else (who will return the same courtesy) has a question, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Why are you being evasive and avoiding our question, Jake?

What is the alternative procuedure to abortion with ectopic pregnancy?

Answer.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"The government should be funding organ harvesting by actively killing off people in comas either."

you certainly have an active imagination.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Did you see my posts to you? This thread is about abortion, so you can't use the same excuse you used in "The House Line" thread.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The government should [not] be funding organ harvesting by actively killing off people in comas either.

==

Straw man. This is not happening.

People sometimes emerge from comas so this harvesting would be murder.

On the other hand, a brain damaged beyond any hope of repair leaves a shell that is only human by ancestry, and in those cases I say harvest away.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else ("drindl" and "chrisfox8" have refused to answer my questions to them, so I will be happy to return the same courtesy) wants to discuss the topic, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"Because DIRECT abortions are always morally wrong."

==

But denying a woman a medical procedure to save her life is the quintessence of morality.

You're sicker'n hell, JackeD

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

should be = should NOT be

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is NOT the only available "medical procedure" for an ectopic pregnancy.

Posted by: JakeD

==

Sure, we can always just let the woman die, right JackeD?

I've met plenty to "pro-lifers" who would much rather see the mother die than abort a fetus with no chance of coming to term anyway. They call themselves the culture of life.

Think about it for a minute .. seeing a moral equivalence between denying medical care to a woman of adult years with an individual mind and memories and experience, and aborting a blastocyst.

Sick.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The government should be funding organ harvesting by actively killing off people in comas either.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"Abortion is NOT the only available "medical procedure" for an ectopic pregnancy."

Really, Jake? You must be a doctor. Please explain to us what the alternative is.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"But when a woman is in the 3rd trimester, you are clearly taking a human life. No woman should be allowed an abortion in the 3rd trimester without a compelling argument it is necessary to protect her own health."

This is a straw man bhoomes. No woman has an abortion in the third trimester [in this country at least] unless there is omething horribly wrong.

"Third trimester abortions, after 24 weeks, are available for serious fetal abnormalities and genetic defects. Documentation from your perinatologist is required before a consultation is scheduled. "

Obama does not beleive in abortion on demand, anytime and neither do most people who call themselves pro-choice.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Because DIRECT abortions are always morally wrong.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

For the unaware, a little primer on ectopic pregnancies - when the fertilized egg implants in an area other than the uterus & endangers the health of the mother.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/ectopic.html

I can't for the life of me figure out why the gov't shouldn't pay for procedures that fix this medical condition in patients who are otherwise eligible for taxpayer-funded healthcare.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 18, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Abortion is NOT the only available "medical procedure" for an ectopic pregnancy.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

JackeD sure is confused. Abortion as slavery, abortion as genocide. Yawn. What tiresome hyperbole.

The neoliberals make the same idiotic comparisons with corporate taxation, the "moral issue" of our time.

Fanatics are boring.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"I do not even know how to respond to you BSIMON, because your logic has me totally confused."

Its pretty simple. If a low-income woman (who is therefore covered by medicare) is pregnant & the pregnancy puts her life at risk (perhaps the fertilized egg doesn't leave the fallopian tubes), why shouldn't the gov't pay for the procedure that would remove the fertilized egg from her body? By saying "taxpayers should never pay for an abortion" you're saying we should tell this woman "sorry sister, your life is not worth saving, because removing this fertilized egg from your fallopian tube amounts to an aborotion & taxpayers have refused to pay for abortions, therefore you have to pay for it yourself - and if you can't afford it, you might die when the fertilized egg grows large enough to cause damage to your internal organs - which is a real shame, because we wouldn't have saved the 'life' of the fertizlized egg - and would have caused your death at the same time, but, hey, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Say hi to God for me when you get to heaven."

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 18, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"These people won't even admit that providing free condoms promotes sexual activity. It's no use arguing with them."

==

Yeah and people really need encouragement to have sex. Without condoms, most people can't even get aroused. They'd rather eat potato chips and watch TV.

And we really need to put a stop to sexual activity, and pronto. Not just because of abortion, but because people who have sex tend to be peaceful and relaxed and we can't have that. Decent Churchgoing Americans should be all charged up with patriotic fervor and war fever and hate, not relaxed.

(/sarcasm)

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Of course, that was Hitler's "logic" toward the Jews too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"now, your taxpayer funding is used to PAY FOR abortions. That's the kind of "logic" we are dealing with here.

Posted by: JakeD"

==

So? Sounds like a good use of my tax money. If you want to make abortion more easily available I would be happy to pay more taxes.

Forty million abortions since RvW is that many fewer mouths to feed, that many fewer mostly unwanted kids who would grow up emotionally stunted, that many more taking out their unwanted upbringing by lives of crime and despair.

Cheap at the price.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I guess rescinding the Mexico City policy doesn't "promote" abortions either -- it required all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that received federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries -- now, your taxpayer funding is used to PAY FOR abortions. That's the kind of "logic" we are dealing with here.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I do not even know how to respond to you BSIMON, because your logic has me totally confused.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 18, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:

These people won't even admit that providing free condoms promotes sexual activity. It's no use arguing with them.

bsimon:

Dr. Mengele used "medical procedures" too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Heehee.

It wasn't until 1966 that a MARRIED couple (let alone a single person) could legally buy a condom in Connecticut - and it took a Supreme Court decision to accomplish it. I was already married three years and had to buy condoms in NYC>

Mother Church opposed condoms (remember Vatican roulette?) - and then birth control pills and all other forms of birth control.

Sherri Finkbein had to travel to Sweden for abortion of a Thalidomide fetus - with one arm and no legs and who knows what else wrong with it.

I support choice - but I also support birth control education including abstinence, easier adoption and financial/medical assistance for those women who decide to go forward with their pregnancies. I would pay increased taxes to support such a program - would you?

Posted by: toritto | May 18, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"And abortions should never, ever be taxpayer funded."

Why not? If a woman's life can be saved, why would the gov't deny her the life-saving procedure? If a 13 year old is raped & impregnated by her uncle, why would the government force her to carry the baby to term?

Seems to me like the gov't should never ever try to legislate medical procedures.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 18, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Thats an easy one"Shhhhh". When your position is that abortions with no questions asked anytime during a womens pregancy, is not going to reduce abortions as Obama states he favors. I am with the mainstream, keep abortions legal but with common sense restrictions. Abortions during the 1st trimester, Sure, no questions asked. But when a woman is in the 3rd trimester, you are clearly taking a human life. No woman should be allowed an abortion in the 3rd trimester without a compelling argument it is necessary to protect her own health. And abortions should never, ever be taxpayer funded.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 18, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Here goes the Moran campaign again. Since Moran apparently has no plan for moving Virginia forward, he attacks the other two candidates with lies and distortions. Terry McAuliffe is a great Democrat. He chose to work for Ms. Clinton in the primary. When she conceded, he immediately began working tirelessly for now President Obama.

Moran needs to figure out how smart dedicated Democrats best serve our great county and State. Case in point, during the election both Ms. Clinton and Terry McAuliffe worked tirelessly for President Obama's election. President Obama offers us an example of what it means to place the interest of the county first. He asked a superbly qualified person to be his Secretary of State.

Terry McAuliffe will surely ask Brian Moran to help move Virginia forward when Terry McAuliffe becomes governor.

Posted by: Willis3 | May 18, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad Obama is on the record though about "open hearts and open minds" right before he nominates a pro-choice Supreme Court Justice.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

The Mexico City policy PAYS for abortion. BTW: it's a little too late to "join hands" with the 40+ million unborn children.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes,

Please expound further on which policies you think promotes abortions. As if a pregnant woman is sitting at home thinking, "Oh please, give me an excuse, any excuse, to abort this pregnancy."

Posted by: shhhhh | May 18, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Kili writes: "I wanted to see an end to the culture war. It's going to take awhile for the entrenched warriors to drop their weapons, but this is how it's done..."

Kili- I'm pro-choice and the issues that I think are high priority for this country don't include the culture issues that some thing are, most notable abortion and gay rights. That said, if you are pro-life, there's nothing wrong with continuing to push that issue if it's important to you, and those people will disagree with Obama. Many in the Democratic Party think it's possible to find compromise on every issue. It's not, and it doesn't mean one side is evil or bad. Let me ask- since you want the "entrenched warriors to drop their weapons"... if Obama is voted out of office and a pro-life President is elected next, I assume pro-choice advocates, Emily's List, Planned Parenthood, etc. should drop their weapons? They are just as much warriors in this fight as the pro-life contingent.

Posted by: ChrisD4 | May 18, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Its civil Drindl,because I do not make it personal, I do believe his policies promote abortions, but I didn't call him a baby killer or any other nonsense, as you should know by now, I am not a social conservative, I do see both sides of the arugument. I am just calling out President Obama that his words do not match his policies. How terrible of me. I must be a really bad and evil person.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 18, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I supported Obama over Clinton and over McCain because I wanted to see an end to the culture war. It's going to take awhile for the entrenched warriors to drop their weapons, but this is how it's done...

Posted by: Kili | May 18, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Whoops. I misquoted vbhoomes. It should have read:

vbhoomes wrote:
"President Obamas rhectoric about slowing the rate of abortions, is just that, empty words intended to disguise the fact is policies promote abortions."


It is difficult to find common ground when people with whom you disagree won't even take your words at face value.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 18, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

WANTED: THE VELVET-GLOVED FIST


The Kumbaya Strategy can take Barack Obama only so far without starting to look like a pretext for appeasement.

Constant conciliation risks being interpreted as vacillation and weakness, the willing surrender of principle to political expediency.

Civil libertarians and human rights activists have been dismayed and disappointed by this former constitutional law professor's refusal to demonstrate his conviction to core principles.

Especially disappointed are the many domestic victims of the extrajudicial targeting and punishment "matrix" spawned or vastly expanded under Bush-Cheney.

A grassroots citizen vigilante army continues to operate behind federally-funded community policing and related volunteer programs to stalk, harass and persecute unjustly "targeted" U.S. citizens.

The abuses of the so-called "terrorist watch list" are just the tip of the iceberg. There vigilantes, operating with the full knowledge of law enforcement, use secretly-implanted GPS beacons to stalk their fellow citizens.

They also are believed to be equipped with silent, injury- and illness-inducing microwave radiation weapons identical to those being deployed under federal programs to law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Unfortunately, these Gestapo-like abuses continue under Team Obama. The conciliation strategy only enables tyrants who seek to impose their ideological will on America under the false flag of "keeping America safe."

Please, White House staff, read this. Your Bush holdovers already know all about it. What have they told YOU?


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 18, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
" if anyone in a cabinet department needs help and is understaffed, it is Tim G. The WH is really dumb. surely there must be someone else who could have done this. "


It is difficult to find common ground when people with whom you disagree won't even take your words at face value.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 18, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"President Obamas rhectoric about slowing the rate of abortions, is just that, empty words intended to disguise the fact is policies promote abortions. i gurantee you any health care reform signed into law by the dems will include the taxpayer paying for abortions for anyone wanting one, without any couseling."

How is this civil, bhoomes? You just tthrow a lot of baseless charges at obama, stuff you just pull out of thin air, and call that civility? Nobody is 'promoting abortions'-- that's an obscene charge to make.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Who is demonizing who Drindl? I do not know anyone who think young women who get pregnant are trash. I agree with Pres Obama, that we need to discuss this highly volatile issue in a civil tone. That means you need to quit demonizing people who are pro-life.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 18, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

I don't care if it's true.. just lie to me if you have to.. but, someone tell me this might be over after only one term!!

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 18, 2009 9:14 AM | Report abuse

off-topic but so illuminating on Bush's Crusade for Oil:

"In a lengthy article on Donald Rumsfeld’s rocky tenure as Defense Secretary, GQ published never-before-seen cover sheets from top-secret intelligence briefings produced by Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. Starting in the days surrounding the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the cover sheets featured inspirational Bible verses printed over military images, “and were delivered by Rumsfeld himself to the White House” to the president, “who referred to America’s war on terror as a ‘crusade,’” GQ writes. Below are some examples of the Bible quotes (view the images here):

“Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” [The quote appears over an image of a tank at sunrise]

“Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.” [The quote appears over an image of a soldier in Baghdad]

“It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” [The quote appears over an image of Saddam Hussein]

“Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, The nation that keeps faith.” [The quote appears over an image of tanks entering an Iraqi city]"

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 9:14 AM | Report abuse

"Carbonetti, Henick Unite: Tony Carbonetti, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's longtime political consigliere, and Chris Henick, who served as a senior adviser to Giuliani's 2008 presidential bid, are joining forces to start a new unnamed (just yet) consulting company. Carbonetti said the company has already begun doing polling and consulting work for a Madison Avenue firm; "We have started a company to utilize our experience in government and national politics to provide strategic advice to corporations and individuals," Carbonetti added."

Organized crime comes to Madison Avenue.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 9:00 AM | Report abuse

On a lot of issues, there are shades of gray and room for compromise. With abortion, while you can reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, etc etc the issue does come down to whether you think abortions should remain legal. Obama does, the pro life community does not. Period, there's no middle ground on that underlying issue. Obama will not appoint someone to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v Wade, he absolutely can't do that politically. If this is an important issue to you, you will be upset if you are pro-life when he makes his choice. RickJ- you talk about engaging all sides of the political spectrum and enough of taking sides and digging in... that's precisely what you do on issues like these where there are two, very clear sides. And, there's nothing wrong with that. It's ok people don't see eye to eye on every issue.

Posted by: ChrisD4 | May 18, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Abortion opponnts are apparently not interested in anything but demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with them, as you will see from any anti-choice comments that appear.

They also don't seem even vaguely interested in talking about ways that pregnancy might be avoided, or seem to have any sympathy whatsoever for young women.

Most young women who get pregnant are not trash, as the anti-choicers would have it, but as Mark said, lonely girls who wanted to be loved. Telling them just to be abstinent does nothing to help them.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama has it right. He's doing what elected officials should do. Engage all ends of the political spectrum so that issues are discussed (and acted on!) Enough of taking sides, digging in and seeing who can scream the loudest to get their point across without ever trying to see the other side... It's about time we had a proper leader!

Posted by: RickJ | May 18, 2009 8:34 AM | Report abuse

President Obamas rhectoric about slowing the rate of abortions, is just that, empty words intended to disguise the fact is policies promote abortions. i gurantee you any health care reform signed into law by the dems will include the taxpayer paying for abortions for anyone wanting one, without any couseling.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 18, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Those who see Obama as a 'bridging' agent are all on the other side of the bridge.. I see just the opposite.. he wants to act as some sort of modern day Robin Hood.. and the only thing crossing the bridge will be accumulated wealth.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 18, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

From biblical times until fairly late in the Renaissance, people married very young by our standards. 400 years after Romeo and Juliet was written, adolescence has been extended to a dependency term that lasts at least until age 22 in the middle class. For the poor there is no meaningful employment for prospective teen parents. For most, there is no training for the burdens and responsibilities of parenting.

When my youngest daughter, the 24 yr. old chemist, was in 10th grade and heard several girl classmates
wish they had a baby so that they had someone who would love them she responded with an essay that concluded "...if you want someone to love you, get a dog."

I am outlining a few of the social issues, in the briefest and most cursory way, that lead to unwanted pregnancies. I actually think they give us some clues about specific approaches that might work better than creating dead fetuses and a class of criminals after the fact.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 18, 2009 8:06 AM | Report abuse

McAuliffe did everything he could to destroy Obama, always just short of open racism, paving the way for Palin's crowds of bigots.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 18, 2009 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Good for Brian Moran! Terry McAuliffe's behavior in the 2008 primaries was disgusting. He's a sleazy loudmouth and is unfit for public office.

Posted by: uh_huhh | May 18, 2009 7:21 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2009 The Washington Post Company