It was one year ago today that Barack Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event, uttering the now infamous line, "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. [Applause.] That's the first thing that I'd do."
You can view the entire 24-minute speech here or watch this clip:
Obama made his remark in response to a question from the audience...
Um, as you were talking about earlier, the recent Bush Supreme Court's decision really took away critically important decisions from women and put them in the hands of politicians. And as a result of this, we're expecting, and have already seen, so much anti-choice legislation at the state level. Um, what would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?
Obama was answering that he believed FOCA would combat "anti-choice legislation at the state level" and take judges out of the abortion debate. That it would, on steroids. It would overturn all 300+ local, state, and federal abortion restriction laws, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
How can a candidate claiming he wants to prevent abortions want to overturn every common sense abortion restriction? That's like saying one wants to stop pollution by overturning all anti-pollution laws.
Don't believe me? Read FOCA for yourself. I'll make it easy (click to enlarge):
Note "health" is not defined in this bill, of which Obama is already a cosponsor. This would fly in the face of Obama's statement to Relevant magazine July 1 that he thinks the definition of "health" should be "strict, well-defined."
In fact, Obama's support of FOCA flies in the face of his entire statement to Relevant...
I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.
... since FOCA would overturn those state laws he says he finds "appropriate."
Here are 2 major flip flops Obama is still flipping and flopping on, depending on his audience. Where's MSM?
"Here are 2 major flip flops Obama is still flipping and flopping on, depending on his audience. Where's MSM?"
They're traveling to Europe and the Middle east with Obama. No kidding, (Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric)
John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor.Posted by: Jasper at July 17, 2008 7:51 PM
Newsmax listed 10 issues that Obama has flipped and flopped in the past several months. He's just about even with McCain in the polls.
And McCain hasn't even really gotten started yet.Posted by: carder at July 17, 2008 8:04 PM
Jill, you wrote: "How can a candidate claiming he wants to prevent abortions want to overturn every common sense abortion restriction? "
Because he believes in preventing abortions BY MORALLY PERMISSABLE MEANS. You do not seem to understand this but there are better ways to prevent something than government prohibition.
I'm sure you would like to prevent Christians from converting to non-religion as so many are doing these days. So do you support a law against Christians leaving their faith? Why not?
We all want to prevent divorce, especially in families with young children. Do you support increasing legal barriers to divorce? Why not?
We would all like to prevent alcoholism. Do you support prohibition of alcohol? Why not?
We would all like to prevent smoking. Do you support banning tobacco? Why not?
Come on, Jill. Show your readers you're not as stupid as you pretend to be.Posted by: SoMG at July 17, 2008 11:12 PM
Carder, McCain flip-flopped on torture. That's more meaningful than all Obama's qualifications and conditions on previous statements and even his genuine changes of position, which are much fewer than the qualifications and conditions and addition of nuance which are being falsely portrayed as flip-flops.
For instance. He says he thinks the mental health exception to post-viability abortion restrictions should be interpreted strictly, not include mere "distress", and the media say he's "flip-flopped on abortion". No. That's a FURTHER EXPLANATION of his position on abortion, a qualification, an introduction of a small degree of nuance, not a flip-flop. A flip-flop on abortion would be if he became a RTL or withdrew his co-sponsorship of FOCA or declared the issue should be left up to the states.
However, McCain's vote against a measure that would have required CIA to refrain from torturing prisoners IS a real flip-flop, and the most plausible reason for it is he was afraid his enemies on the Right would smear him as anti-CIA, which could kill his claim to be better than Obama on foreign policy and terror. If McCain can flip-flop on torture then he can flip-flop on anything, even basic things like child-labor. The only question would be what benefit he would be expecting to gain by doing so. In fact the only flip-flop of his that would still surprise me would be if he voted in any way against the interests of the government-pork/defense industry. What Ike called the Military-Industrial Complex, if you've been watching Letterman. (I guess you could say McCain's already flipped on the military since he says he wants to cut the Defense budget, but it doesn't count because everyone knows he's lying. How? He supports so-called missile-defense (currently known as "Strategic Defense Initiative" although the same idea has had other names in the past), even though he knows we're billions of dollars' and many years' worth of basic science and technology development away from even being able to think seriously about building (not to mention maintaining) a system that could take out an ICBM in flight in any but the most controlled model conditions. We currently can't even distinguish the target missile from the many decoys that would be sent up with it. Its strongest proponents know SDI is pure military pork popularized by a remote fantasy, like in the 1980s when Dr. Edward Teller told President Reagan we could shoot Communist missles out of the sky with X-ray lasers. Zap! An excuse to give government money away to companies that employ government cronies--people like Trent Lott--to arrange it. Just what McCain says he hates most (except torture). It's not necessarily all bad if it funds some basic science but it's definitely inconsistant with making DoD more efficient and reality-based, and with cutting DoD at all unless he has some other very big cuts in mind. Even the basic-science part is wasted on silly propaganda shows like shooting up one model rocket, knocking it out of the sky with another model rocket, and shouting "see it works!" (The technical phrase is "Proof of principle".) Sure--if you know in advance when and where it's coming from.)
Sorry about the long digression but it's definitely wrong to say Obama is in any sense a bigger flip-flopper than McCain. That line worked against John Kerry (he invited it by saying flip-floppy-sounding things like "I was for it before I was against it" which is in reality not at all an unreasonable thing for a Senator to say, Senators vote for a bill and then vote against it after it gets changed in conference, it's not at all unusual) but I don't think the voters are going to go for it this election.Posted by: SoMG at July 18, 2008 1:33 AM
One other thing about McCain: he's going around saying that Islamic terror is the greatest threat to our nation, and that it is an existential threat. He knows neither is true. Even if they nuked several cities (which is pretty implausible) that's no way an existential threat to our country or our civilization. Islamist voters are more dangerous to civilization than Islamist terrorists. For McCain to go around saying this blather shows he's willing to say whatever his campaign advisors tell him to say, no matter how silly.
Government bankruptcy and devaluation of our currency is a more serious and immediate short-term danger to the USA than Islamist terror. It would probably cause more deaths and it may be an existential threat to our country. In the middle- and long- term I'm not sure what the worst danger is because I don't know enough to evaluate global warming but I'd say loss of our scientific and technical superiority is a big one. We must not lose our status as the problem-solvers of the world. It's not necessarily an existential threat but it is a very serious one.Posted by: SoMG at July 18, 2008 2:12 AM
Obama said "cultural wars are so 90's. We are tired of fightin about the same old stuff."
Do you think he really believes the pro-life movement will ver just go away? NO he doesn't, but he sure knows how to pander.
"Truthseeker", I don't see how the line you quoted qualifies as a "pander". Please explain.Posted by: SoMG at July 18, 2008 2:53 AM
Cultural war, religious war, ideological war...whatever it is..if IT is happening, and is a threat to ALL americans and the free world, it should be fought.
What will happen to the Nation if a war drags on and on and Obama, as prez (heaven forbid) grows "tired" of it? What? You say hat up and leave?
He's not even president and he's already making that decision today...some backbone you have there.
And Mr. SoMG(yeh, you're a guy), that's the kind of man you want to be president?Posted by: RSD at July 18, 2008 7:03 AM
You guys know McCain doesn't know how to use a computer right? Should that be a requisite in the job description? Just saying....Leader of the free world?Posted by: PeachPit at July 18, 2008 8:38 AM
Off-topic but funny:Posted by: SoMG at July 18, 2008 10:25 AM
"We must not lose our status as the problem-solvers of the world. " - SoMG
Oh, you mean the "solutions" PP and other liberal American capitalists influence on the decisions of the UN, WHO and World Bank on third world countries to provide contraception, abortion and liberal sex education in exchange for aid?
And never mind that these so-called solutions DON'T work as proven in Africa (even here in the US)...contraception, abortion and sex education seems to be the only answer to Hunger, poverty, AIDS and so-called "over-population".
What? You mean after 35 years of abortion and sex education, the problem of abortion is still not solved?..it is still not "rare"..and is still not "safe"...and the solution is: More sex education!Posted by: RSD at July 18, 2008 10:59 AM
And more condoms!! More, More, More!!Posted by: Carla at July 18, 2008 11:14 AM
yeah Carla..in the business world..if a solution didn't work...the solution would have to be re-worked to get to the root of the problem.
It's insanity to keep implementing the same solution that fails to solve the problem.
Posted by: RSD
at July 18, 2008 11:48 AM
the solution would have to be re-worked to get to the root of the problem.
RSD, was that an intentional pun?
No, Doug...just turned out that way. I guess I remember reading it in a manual somewhere...Posted by: RSD at July 18, 2008 3:55 PM
Keep doing what you've always done and you will get what you've always gotten.Posted by: Carla at July 18, 2008 4:14 PM
RSD, you wrote: "Oh, [by "problem solvers of the world"] you mean the "solutions" PP and other liberal American capitalists influence on the decisions of the UN, WHO and World Bank on third world countries to provide contraception, abortion and liberal sex education in exchange for aid?"
No I mean things like: inventing the car, going to the moon, inventing nuclear power, inventing the laser, discovering superfluidity, creating new chemical elements with names like Americium and Californium, developing recombinant DNA technology and peptide chemistry, inventing combinatorial chemistry, developing new reproductive technology, and sequencing the human genome.Posted by: SoMG at July 18, 2008 7:57 PM
Also inventing the vaccine, and quantum electrodynamics.Posted by: SoMG at July 18, 2008 7:59 PM
And the computer. And the internet.Posted by: SoMG at July 18, 2008 8:49 PM
And Jesse Ventura.Posted by: Doug at July 18, 2008 10:11 PM
Government bankruptcy and devaluation of our currency is a more serious and immediate short-term danger to the USA than Islamist terror. It would probably cause more deaths and it may be an existential threat to our country. In the middle- and long- term I'm not sure what the worst danger is because I don't know enough to evaluate global warming but I'd say loss of our scientific and technical superiority is a big one. We must not lose our status as the problem-solvers of the world. It's not necessarily an existential threat but it is a very serious one.
Interesting line of thought, SoMG. Tell you what - the US is certainly in decline, at least relative to some other countries, and I see no way around this, for quite a few years anyway. We've just plain run out of rope, economically.
The devaluation of our currency, while profound in its extent thus far, has at least been fairly orderly. The Dollar still functions as the reserve currency for the world more than any other, and crude oil is still priced in Dollars too.
At some point I expect that to change, and when the Chinese, Japanese, etc., are no longer willing to suffer the losses involved in propping up the Dollar (to strengthen their exports by maintaining some of our power to buy), it could get "ugly" very fast.
Interesting times, as they say.....Posted by: Doug at July 18, 2008 10:18 PM