Breaking news: RNC releases mailer attacking Obama on Born Alive
Sam Stein in the Huffington Post reported today that the Republican National Committee has released a mailer in NC attacking Barack Obama on his opposition as state senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
And it’s perfect…
Love the headline reporting on the mailer…
Yes, liberals are crying hyperbolic foul, like Scott Swenson at RH Reality Check:
The Republican National Committee has sent a mailer using the repeatedly debunked accusations that Sen. Barack Obama supports infanticide.
First, where does the mailer say “Barack Obama supports infanticide”?
And “debunked”? Let’s go through the mailer.
First, view the pdf of the testimony I submitted to the IL State Senate Health & Human Services Committee in March 2003. Here’s the relevant cut:
And yes, Barack Obama was the “committee chairman.”
And yes, Obama “defeated the bill with his fellow Democrats in a 6-4 party line vote.”
And yes, “the United States Senate passed a virtually identical bill by a vote of 98-0” and “not a single liberal voted against it.”
Finally, yes, “That’s right, even abortion rights activists like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for Born-Alive Infant Protection that Barack Obama opposed.”
Scott, HuffPo, retractions are in order, although I’m not holding my breath. That said, I loved Scott’s close:
There’s also a robocall going out in NC co-sponsored by McCain and the RNC that liberal blog TPM complained “dishonesty paints him as indifferent to the lives of babies.”
Actually, “indifferent” would indeed be a dishonest portrayal of Obama’s actions against abortion survivors.
Actually, he was ruthless.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I was thinking that the republican party might be saving this issue for last.
Well, Facts are Facts. (Bummer for you, Obama.)
kb,
With early voting, time’s a fleeting. Let’s get the facts out now for all those undecided voters.
[shaking head]
Excellent
You can’t handle the truth, can you Doug?
The baby that Jill held until he died was the victim of eugenics — just because he had a disability, he was sentenced to death.
This is going out in North Carolina, a state the Republicans should have had in the bag a long time ago. It worries me that McCain is defending territory he shouldnt have to, especially at this stage.
IT also worries me that Senate Republicans like Elizabeth Dole are in danger of being defeated by pro death challengers.
What are things coming to?
Will this nonsense continue after the election, or do we just have to endure two more weeks?
hal,
Welcome back from your short vacation. Two more weeks. Why did you vote so early? It’s not over yet. :-)
“Will this nonsense continue after the election, or do we just have to endure two more weeks?”
Hal,
If Obama wins, I’ll bet he will be picketed with truth trucks throughout his administration.
What are you calling nonsense Hal?
Why did you vote so early? It’s not over yet. :-)
Posted by: Janet at October 19, 2008 11:15 PM
We have to vote by mail in our county. I just decided to do it now, want to make sure my vote counts.
What are you calling nonsense Hal?
Posted by: Joanne at October 19, 2008 11:23 PM
The ENTIRE BAIPA issue. It’s nonsense. It’s not helping the McCain ticket (thank God) but it’s getting old. (heck, it started old. This is 2002 or 2003 news.)
So its “nonsense” to you that Nobama voted against BAIPA when we know its true.
However I unfortunately have to agree with you it does not seem to be helping the McCain ticket, which goes to show how little we regard human life, and how much this really is a society only concerned with “me”.
It also could be that it is so horrific that I think some people just refuse to believe it could be true. Rather than determining for themselves if it is right or wrong, they simply assume it’s a lie.
Nobama flatly stated in the debate that it was not true. HE LIED. And he apparently is getting away with it.
yeah, whatever.
My prayer is that people will open their hearts to the truth of who Barack Obama truly is: a rabid pro-abort, a friend of Planned Parenthood, the most liberal pro-abortion candidate for President ever in history, and a psycho-pathological liar willing to deceive not only non-believers but believers about his record and intent.
And yep, he can’t claim this about his lying ways, “it’s above my pay grade”.
No one is fooled. We actually like this guy for who he is. Who knows more about him than McCain?
“I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States,” McCain told a supporter at a town hall meeting in Minnesota who said he was “scared” of the prospect of an Obama presidency and of who the Democrat would appoint to the Supreme Court.
Hal:
Tell me what Nobama has accomplished in his 4 years in the Senate?
I want to know legislation he specifically put forward.
Also his voting record.
Oh and voting “present” doesnt count.
Voting this way is a cop out and in no way shows leadership.
I want to know specifically what Nobama has accomplished in those 4 years.
Has he ever challenged his party on anything, or demonstrated any independence or shown any leadership?
Of course, he has been running for 2 of those years, so it’s not likely to be a very long list.
But I am sure if you think long enough, you kool aid drinkers will be able to come up with a few accomplishments, which will prove Nobama is so “qualified” for President.
While you are at it, perhaps you can tell us what Nobama would do as President?
What are his policies and what will he do to make America better?
What are his promises and what will they cost?
“yes we can” and “change you can depend on” are not very specific.
I’d love to hear what your hero is going to do, and what he has accomplished thus far.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has asked that all the faithful pray the Novena of Faithful Citizenship in the 9 days leading up to the election. (beginning on October 26)
You can find the novena and further information on http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/
It is so typical of Obama supporters, proaborts, and flaming liberals that even when confronted with the facts about their hero’s BAIPA vote, they just shrug. They don’t really care that their hero voted to leave born babies to die. They don’t really care about born alive babies, or someone lying about their vote on them.
Jasper @ 11:22 PM
IF Obama wins, the truth truck drivers will be arrested and the truth trucks will be destroyed.
Any filings against such activities will eventually get the filers thrown in jail for threatening complaints.
After that…
Continuing the Culture War? You betcha.
I had not seen this mailer until encountering it here. As Jill Stanek indicates, the text of the mailer is accurate, except for one error that does not affect the substance of the matter. The U.S. Senate actually initially passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (as an amendment to another bill) on June 29, 2001, by a vote of 98-0. The committee meeting over which Obama presided, at which he killed a virtually identical bill, was on March 13, 2003 (not “the same year”).
The Senate gave final approval to the measure on July 18, 2002, by unanimous consent.
Obama now claims that he did not support the bill because Illinois already had a law to protect babies who are born alive during abortions. The claim is highly misleading, because the law to which he refers did not apply to most of the cases that were occurring. The claim also conflicts with statements he made at the time (2001-2003), which show that he understood that the bill would cover babies not then currently covered, and which he opposed on pro-abortion ideological grounds. More on all this here:
http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/Release101608.html
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
http://www.nrlc.org
Legfederal//at//aol-dot-com
To clarify my previous post immediately above, the bill which received final approval in 2002 was, of course, the federal bill. The virtually identical Illinois bill did not receive final approval in 2003, because Obama killed it in his committee.
yeah, death is always old, eh hal?
Keep cicling the block in your limo with your driver and rationalizing away your actions hon….
I think that it was a mistake to lead with the “when it comes to the right to life, Obama doesn’t share our values” statement. IMO most people who identify strongly with the phrase “right to life” will already not be voting for Obama, and this issue is about something beyond abortion, which is what the phrase usually brings to mind.
Like Doug, I am interested to hear what the other people who voted against the bill have to say about why they did so. But in general I think that Obama’s campaign is relying on people thinking that the issue is so unbelievable that it actually shouldn’t be believed. Making it sound like “just another” abortion issue allows that mindset to continue because it makes the whole thing sound like one more exaggerated hysterical claim.
I think that the ways in which this is separate from abortion, rather than the natural extension of this from the larger issue of abortion, should have been the focus, since that’s what I think would have reached the people who are most likely to change their minds at this point.
Thanks again. Oblahma can hide his socialist history activities but he can’t hide his public records.
Didn’t Colin Powell just endorse Obama… interesting..
“Has he ever challenged his party on anything, or demonstrated any independence or shown any leadership?”
Does Challenging the two most powerful leaders of his party (Bill and Hillary Clinton) count?
“While you are at it, perhaps you can tell us what Nobama [sic] would do as President?
What are his policies and what will he do to make America better?”
We’ve been through this a thousand times. It’s all on his website, in the endorsements, and in his speeches. He’s very concrete and specific. You just don’t like what he says. Please read the following, from only yesterday. I think you’ll like what you see.
Barack Obama soared to national prominence through the force of his remarkable oratory skills – the charisma and political rock-star appeal that attracted 14,169 people to Taco Bell Arena on a Saturday morning in February.
Over the ensuing months, the Illinois Democrat has shown American voters something more subtle, but something more important. He has demonstrated the superior intellect and the calm command our nation needs now.
The Statesman editorial board endorses Obama in the 2008 presidential election.
This is not an obvious choice for a newspaper in a historically Republican state. Nor was it a unanimous choice. But we have to think about what’s best for our nation, which is facing challenging and confusing times that call for even-tempered, clear-minded leadership. When the partisanship of this election finally subsidies, Obama is the man who can reach reasoned conclusions, reach across the political divides, and reach out to the common American.
In this partisan race, Obama has understandably – and, in many instances, rightly – laid much blame with the outgoing Bush administration. The economic collapse, Obama is fond of saying, renders “the final verdict” on eight years of failed policies. The costly war in Iraq, which Obama opposed from the beginning, now makes it more complicated for America to defend its interests in Iran and Afghanistan.
Obama’s campaign has exploited hindsight to full advantage. Yet he has also emerged as the candidate who will move the country ahead.
Obama better understands the real economic fears gripping the middle class – and his tax and health care policies reflect that.
Obama better understands the kind of regulatory reform required to prevent a repeat of the financial market meltdown.
Obama is better equipped to build a diversified, versatile energy infrastructure, arriving at a strategy something more nuanced than a “drill, baby, drill” mantra.
Obama is better prepared to restore America’s allies abroad, building the coalitions required in a turbulent world.
Obama has advanced an ambitious domestic agenda – and probably an unaffordable one. In fairness, neither he nor Republican nominee John McCain has been forthright about the tradeoffs required in the face of massive debt and deficit. We believe Obama can and will respond to fiscal reality, and apply reason and sound governing principles to the process of making tradeoffs.
After eight largely unproductive years, when a White House seemed unable to accomplish much with either a Republican- or a Democrat-controlled Congress, we believe either Obama or McCain will have a chance to get more done.
Campaigns may drag on too long for many of us, but the odyssey tests decision-making and temperament. Here, we believe Obama has passed.
When picking a running mate, Obama made a solid choice, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. Biden gives an Obama administration a seasoned hand on foreign policy and a 36-year Capitol Hill veteran. For all the seductive campaign rhetoric about the value of an “outsider,” the reality is that Obama is helped by having a running mate who can deliver results.
McCain countered with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who energized the GOP’s conservative base and wowed many Americans with her speech at the Republican convention. Since then, though, the Sandpoint native and University of Idaho graduate has not convincingly shown she is ready for the White House.
McCain made a splashy but impulsive pick designed to court voters. Obama made a smart pick designed to build an effective governing team.
Obama and Biden have largely stayed on topic and unflappable, in the face of last-minute campaigning that has turned ugly. At their worst, Republicans have resorted to fear-mongering. In what, by comparison, pass for measured moments, McCain and Palin simply insinuate that the Democratic ticket is out of touch and elitist.
It’s not only a bogus claim – given Obama’s and Biden’s backgrounds – but it’s a silly form of reverse snobbery. Our nation has to stop equating intellect with elitism and viewing intelligence with scorn and skepticism. Considering the problems at hand, there is no better time than now to change our thinking.
McCain certainly furnishes a strong resume, and he certainly has a longer record than Obama, elected to the Senate in 2004. In theory, McCain’s experience should translate into the serious, studied leadership the presidency demands.
In this campaign, however, it has not.
We applaud McCain’s courage and service to our country. We do not dismiss the Arizona senator’s 26-year tenure in Congress.
But we cannot dismiss what we have seen and heard during the long job interview that is a presidential campaign. Obama has earned our trust and our support.
They don’t really care that their hero voted to leave born babies to die.
Of course we don’t care about that lie. It was already illegal to let babies die in Illinois. Jill’s story about Christ Hospital triggered an investigation which found no evidence to back it up.
Jill lied as a nurse and she’s lying now. She has no credibility.
It is so typical of Obama supporters, proaborts, and flaming liberals that even when confronted with the facts about their hero’s BAIPA vote, they just shrug. They don’t really care that their hero voted to leave born babies to die. They don’t really care about born alive babies, or someone lying about their vote on them.
Posted by: Doyle at October 20, 2008 5:23 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why would people like Hal give a flying leap if Obama voted against BAIPA?
He and his wife murdered their first two children, so why on earth would he and others like him care?
The sad truth is babies are expendable, they have no worth other then if a parent says they do.
That’s how sick the world has become.
Reality,
You’re the one lying.
ANYONE who supports the murder of innocent children in or out of the womb is lacking not only in credibility, but in heart, soul and all things that makes one human.
McCain has hired the same robo call firm that so viciously smeared him in 2000. McCain 2008 has become everything McCain opposed in 2000.
well, PPC, he would really like to be president. It’s not “country first” at all. Ironically, that’s why he won’t win.
Sorry, I didn’t read Hal’s question carefully enough. Of course the pro-lifers will continue the fight against abortion after the election. There is a lot of misinformation out there and many hearts to change.
Janet, my question wasn’t meant to address broadly the fight against abortion. I assume that will continue, and I have no problem with that. Go for it.
My question about “this nonsense” is whether we can stop fighting the BAIPA issue after the election. The law has passed.
I’ve read some over-the-top comments comparing Obama and Hitler. Historically, absurd as it seems, there are similarities. Both came out of the liberal non-estabilishments of their countries, spent time in foreign lands, were community organizers (radicalizers), stood for radical change, and wrote books. Both had few specifics and changed with the winds public opinion.
They differ, in that Bozobama has no foreign policy experience (other than his self-agrandizing travel tour) or military sense. Bozobama’s response to a war is an unjust peace; Hitler’s response to an unjust League of Nations peace was war.
Finally, both would raise taxes in an impending financial catastrophe an duse the avergae person as fodder for personal gain.
God help us if Bozobama is elected
Hal,
My question about “this nonsense” is whether we can stop fighting the BAIPA issue after the election. The law has passed.
Good question. I bet you know the answer. My guess is that it will still come up now and then like any divisive issue.
Liz: You can’t handle the truth, can you Doug?
No, Liz, just seeing wacko attacks on Obama when it’s counter-productive to the McCain campaign, to say the least.
…..
The baby that Jill held until he died was the victim of eugenics — just because he had a disability, he was sentenced to death.
I didn’t know that eugenics had anything to do with it, and palliative care is not an issue as I see it.
If you think it is, okay….
Like Doug, I am interested to hear what the other people who voted against the bill have to say about why they did so. But in general I think that Obama’s campaign is relying on people thinking that the issue is so unbelievable that it actually shouldn’t be believed. Making it sound like “just another” abortion issue allows that mindset to continue because it makes the whole thing sound like one more exaggerated hysterical claim.
Right, Alexandra, and I’m not saying there really was that “good” of a reason to vote no, the last time.
They apparently had what they wanted as far as wording in the bill, so why the “no” vote?
If it was just politics, that’d be entirely believeable, and of course both parties do it all the time.
I wonder why the “virtually identical” bill failed 6-4 the first time around, and then passed by 100% the second time around. Seems that it might not have been so “identical.” Come one.
I think you might be confused, Anonymous 7:43. Jill’s “virtually identical bill” is a separate bill at the federal level. And I’m not sure whether Jill’s 6-4 vote refers to the original state bill or the amended state bill. You have to read and research carefully; you can’t ignore the details.