The Quadrennial Anti-Christ
Every four years, as the presidential election nears, each side puts a lot of money and effort into demonizing the opposing party's candidate. So it's not surprising that partisans on each side come to dislike the opposing party's candidate much more than they ever did before. What never ceases to amaze me, however, is the willingness of movement conservatives to believe that the Democratic nominee--whoever it happens to be--is the The Worst Person Ever. It's not just that they become convinced that the Democratic candidate is wrong for the country or has misguided policy beliefs; it's that they come to believe that the Democratic nominee is a genuinely evil person, an Anti-Christ like figure who must be stopped at all costs. And I'm not just talking about low-information activists, I'm talking about prominent conservative writers and pundits.
Nowhere is this bizarre phenomenon more apparent than over at The Corner, where the National Review's writers are cranking out post after post breathlessly accusing Obama of one despicable act after another. Take Andy McCarthy for example. He's a decorated former federal prosecutor who, in non-election year situations, is actually capable of rational thought. His latest post is all about, in his words, "the close relationship between former 'community organizer,' hard-Left agitator, infanticide-facilitating Barack Obama and former terrorist, hard-Left agitator, proudly America-hating Bill Ayers." That's not an act. You can tell from reading the post (and other recent posts) that McCarthy has convinced himself that Obama is a radical leftist who is "pro-infanticide" and associates with like-minded, America-hating radicals.
McCarthy is clearly willing to infer the absolute worst about Obama based on a very skewed and selective set of data. Consider the "infanticide" charge. This accusation is based on a vote Obama cast when he was an Illinois state legislator with respect to an obscure bill put forth by anti-abortion activists. As Dana Goldstein at Tapped explains:
Equally absurd is the idea that Obama is some closet anti-American radical because he personally knows Bill Ayers. Obama was eight years old and living in another country when the Weathermen were engaged in radical behavior. By the time Obama became acquainted with Ayers--almost three decades later--he was college professor serving on the board of a charitable organization. To infer that that casual acquaintance says anything at all about Obama's political views is transparently absurd, especially in light of the overwhelming mountain of data from the rest of Obama's life indicating exactly what his views are.
There really must be something about the conservative psyche that makes these people so willing believe the worst about their opponents. Liberals are certainly willing to believe bad things about Republican politicians, but there's a limit. You may see prominent liberal writers and bloggers accuse Republican candidates of being callous or stupid or reckless or dishonest, but evil? That's very rare. It's one thing to believe your opponent's priorities are out of whack or his beliefs misguided; it's quite another to believe that he wants babies to be murdered or is secretly plotting to destroy the country. Does it ever occur to movement conservatives what an odd coincidence it is that the Democratic party just happens to pick The World's Worst Person as their nominee every four years?
Nowhere is this bizarre phenomenon more apparent than over at The Corner, where the National Review's writers are cranking out post after post breathlessly accusing Obama of one despicable act after another. Take Andy McCarthy for example. He's a decorated former federal prosecutor who, in non-election year situations, is actually capable of rational thought. His latest post is all about, in his words, "the close relationship between former 'community organizer,' hard-Left agitator, infanticide-facilitating Barack Obama and former terrorist, hard-Left agitator, proudly America-hating Bill Ayers." That's not an act. You can tell from reading the post (and other recent posts) that McCarthy has convinced himself that Obama is a radical leftist who is "pro-infanticide" and associates with like-minded, America-hating radicals.
McCarthy is clearly willing to infer the absolute worst about Obama based on a very skewed and selective set of data. Consider the "infanticide" charge. This accusation is based on a vote Obama cast when he was an Illinois state legislator with respect to an obscure bill put forth by anti-abortion activists. As Dana Goldstein at Tapped explains:
What is BAIPA [Born Alive Infant Protect Act]? It's not a bill about babies at all -- doctors are already required to save babies' lives, and any ethical doctor would do so. BAIPA is a bill meant to reshape the language we use to talk about abortion and mislead the public about the possible outcomes of typical abortion procedures.Now I'm sure McCarthy and others would take issue with this characterization of the bill, but the point is that--misguided or not--this is what opponents of the bill believe. To suggest that any politician is "pro-infanticide" is absurd. It's like if McCain's critics were to accuse him of being "pro-genocide" because he supported the Iraq War (a position which actually did result in the deaths of countless people).
Equally absurd is the idea that Obama is some closet anti-American radical because he personally knows Bill Ayers. Obama was eight years old and living in another country when the Weathermen were engaged in radical behavior. By the time Obama became acquainted with Ayers--almost three decades later--he was college professor serving on the board of a charitable organization. To infer that that casual acquaintance says anything at all about Obama's political views is transparently absurd, especially in light of the overwhelming mountain of data from the rest of Obama's life indicating exactly what his views are.
There really must be something about the conservative psyche that makes these people so willing believe the worst about their opponents. Liberals are certainly willing to believe bad things about Republican politicians, but there's a limit. You may see prominent liberal writers and bloggers accuse Republican candidates of being callous or stupid or reckless or dishonest, but evil? That's very rare. It's one thing to believe your opponent's priorities are out of whack or his beliefs misguided; it's quite another to believe that he wants babies to be murdered or is secretly plotting to destroy the country. Does it ever occur to movement conservatives what an odd coincidence it is that the Democratic party just happens to pick The World's Worst Person as their nominee every four years?
posted by A.L. at 9:44 AM
27 Comments:
I wonder if these jokers even believe half the nonsense they spew or if they just say whatever outrageous things it takes to rile up the hoople-heads.
- heretic
...By the time Obama became acquainted with Ayers--almost three decades later--he was college professor serving on the board of a charitable organization. To infer that that casual acquaintance says anything at all about Obama's political views is transparently absurd...
1. Obama has been lying by omission in his comments about this relationship.
At the Philadelphia debate Ayers was "a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago...".
At the Obama website their "Fact Check" pooh poohs the notion that they have a relationship.
In reality, they were certainly more than acquaintances - Ayers co-founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge dedicate dto education reform in 1995; Obama was the first chairman and both men were active with the group for the next five years.
And there is strong evidence suggesting they first met in 1987 in an earlier push for school reform - Obama's Developing Communities Project was part of the ABCs coalition led by Thomas Ayers (Bill Ayers' pere) and coordinated by Bill Ayers.
So as a first point, why is Obama lying and what is he hiding? And why should we dismiss as meaningless the Obama/Ayers relationship when we don't even know much about it other than the principals are concealing it?
2. The Obama/Ayers link has only a little to do with 1960's bombs and a lot to do with judgment and executive ability.
School reform is always a hot topic; Obama lacks extensive executive experience. Yet he chaired this group for four years - what did they accomplish in school reform?
Sad to say, the project was judged a failure - "limited impact" was the preferred phrase of the Annenberg team that evaluated it. Maybe that is why Obama would prefer to move on.
Or maybe the fact that Ayers is an unapologetic and unreconstructed hard lefty is a possible source of embarrassment - Ayers' 2006 speech to Hugo Chavez is a classic. His interest in education reform? Get 'em young, or "La educacion es revolucion!"
Do you think that is the sort of rhetoric soccer moms want to get behind?
As to the notion that it is "transparently absurd" that Obama and Ayers overlap in their views - maybe we can wait until we see the archives and board minutes to see what Ayers espoused and Obama believed. Oh, wait - the library housing them has just realized the public is not allowed to see them!
I'm sure nothing at all is being covered up, though.
Tom Maguire
Tom, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. What's the ultimate point of any of this? Does anyone really think Obama shares Ayer's radical views? Has he ever said anything in his entire life that gives any indication of that? It's not as if Obama disappeared off the map during this period of time. He was well known at Harvard Law. He wrote a best-selling book. People were well-acquainted with his views and everyone who knew him--including conservatives--have said that he wasn't a radical, that he was thoughtful and pragmatic and open-minded. Do you really think you're going to find something in these Anneberg documents that reveals Obama's secret leftist ideology? Please.
I swear to god, these people's heads would explode if they ever met a real leftist.
I don't think we should be too quick to demonize the repubs for demonizing libs. I think we're both to blame. I read dday/digby's hullabaloo frequently, from what I understand it is a fairly prominent blog, and just yesterday they had this statement on their website referring to Joe Liebermann:
"He's fine on the indiscriminate killing of live people, which conservatives are always for."
While I wholeheartedly believe the Iraq war has caused an untold number of civilian deaths, and was an epic mistake, aren't these kinds of statements very similar to the examples you provide from right wing bloggers?
One highlights infanticide, the other conjures up genocide.
Eric Clapton said it best, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself." I think there's a lot of demonizing going on with our side of the camp as well.
That doesn't mean we need to take the kid gloves off, but it should cause us to pause and think about the direction our discourse is going.
First off, the idea that abortion doctors are required to save babies' lives is untrue, since congressional testimony that was given during the hearings for the BAIPA showed that abortion doctors were allowing babies, born alive after a failed attempt to induce abortion, to die. Just wanted to clear that up.
Now I'm sure McCarthy and others would take issue with this characterization of the bill, but the point is that--misguided or not--this is what opponents of the bill believe. To suggest that any politician is "pro-infanticide" is absurd.
Why? There are plenty of politicians who believe it is OK to kill already born infants. Obama's record proves he killed off a bill that was designed to be the state equivalent of the BAIPA, with all of the same provisions that are in the federal law. The idea that Obama killed the bill because it didn't has been proven to be false, and Obama calling those people who proved those falsehoods liars was in fact a lie on Obama's part.
It's like if McCain's critics were to accuse him of being "pro-genocide" because he supported the Iraq War (a position which actually did result in the deaths of countless people).
I believe the number of dead babies since Roe v. Wade is 40,000,000. That's approaching Stalinist proportions.
steveil,
Thanks for making my point.
This post has been removed by the author.
It looks like abortion wasn't above Obama's pay grade back in 2002. He had full faith and trust that an abortionist would make an accurate decision as to whether the child he failed to kill was "viable". That's to say nothing of Obama's blithe disregard for the born-alive non-viable fetuses who gasped for air during the few hours they lived after birth.
Here is the audio of Obama arguing against the law.-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/obama_exposed_on_infanticide.asp
Then allow me to rephrase.
It's like if Obama's critics were to accuse him of being "pro-abortion", "pro-infanticide", or "pro-genocide" because he supported abortion on demand (a position which actually did result in the deaths of 40,000,000 babies, almost approaching Stalinist proportions).
When I read the comments of these people on Obama's votes in relation to this bill, or in relation to Ayers, the only thing I can suggest is:
Monomania - Noun. Definition:
1. Inability to think rationally, or exhibiting symptoms of insanity, relating to a particular subject.
2. Excessive or irrational concentration on a particular subject, especially when it interferes with other subjects.
"There really must be something about the conservative psyche that makes these people so willing believe the worst about their opponents. Liberals are certainly willing to believe bad things about Republican politicians, but there's a limit. You may see prominent liberal writers and bloggers accuse Republican candidates of being callous or stupid or reckless or dishonest, but evil? That's very rare."
Really? How many of you don't believe that Dick Cheney is evil? c2h50h, what do you think?
BTW, Brian Egan- well said. I think there might be a parable about a mote and a beam that fits well here.
MLS,
You really need to read "Eichmann in Jerusalem" by Arendt with an open mind. Evil is as evil does, and Cheney has done evil. I wouldn't see him as a particularly evil individual -- he's just been enabled by working for a president easily manipulated and unwilling or unable to hold his underlings accountable.
I'll say this: Cheney appears to be notably lacking in empathy.
One of the distinguishing features of the right-wing mind is a lack of empathy. This makes it easy to hold an abstract tenet, such as that if there is a 1 percent chance that some foreign government might mount an attack on the USA, then that government should be treated as if it had declared war on the USA, or that a blastocyte or embryo should be granted the same rights as a fully-developed human child, without regard for the woman involved.
I'll also say this (apropos of the original subject): when George Orwell wrote, in "1984", about the two minutes of hate, he must have been very familiar with the kind of people that become right-wing pundits.
@steveil
"Then allow me to rephrase.
It's like if Obama's critics were to accuse him of being "pro-abortion", "pro-infanticide", or "pro-genocide" because he supported abortion on demand (a position which actually did result in the deaths of 40,000,000 babies, almost approaching Stalinist proportions)."
This is where things get tricky, most definitely. To call Obama pro-infanticide would be rousing to liberals because it essentially means we're all pro-infanticide, when we have a different view on what a baby is and the role of the mother -- which is a very tricky debate and one I have no interest in going into detail about in a blog comment.
More to the point, it completely misrepresents what we care about, and makes us out to be baby hating murderers when we see it as protecting mothers -- which you may disregard in a number of ways, saying the child is "inconvenient" and therefore we want to kill it, but that to me dramatically oversimplifies the decision the mother has to make. But the fact that the decision is so complex and personal is why we're not "pro-infanticide" as we are pro-choice.
We don't want human suffering, Dems or Repubs. You have to accept that as a basic principle. Dems tend to focus on the quality of life and the ability to plan a family to bring a child into a good environment aspect. I personally believe family planning is essential, especially given the number of people the planet currently houses, and the estimated number it can house. Reproducing responsibly now will save us deaths in the future.
It's egregious for you to call us pro-infanticide, when it's clear both sides are trying to care for human life, but have different values and approaches on how to do that. That label will shut down the important debate about those values, and would be much more harmful to your cause than starting with the assumption that most of us are good people, but have different ways of expressing that goodness, and then working to resolve the value differences if possible.
I think AL said it best about your comment when he said, "Thanks for making my point." We're not evil, and that is the assumption you're making by calling us "pro-infanticide," which is utterly inaccurate, incomplete, and extremely insulting -- as though we don't struggle with the ramifications of abortion as well.
Ok, Cheney might have been a bad example. I can’t really fault you for believing the Cheney is evil. How about Karl Rove?
But really, I am astonished when the author of a blog which is largely devoted to asserting how bad Republicans and conservatives are makes the statement that I quoted earlier. I suppose I could go back over all of AL’s prior posts and see if they could support the characterization that he “only” accuses Republicans of being “stupid and dishonest,” but I don’t think it is worth the effort. Lets just say I was under the definite impression that AL thinks Republicans and conservatives are morally bad, not just mistaken.
The truth is that people in general have a tendency to demonize their opponents. Somewhat comically, they also have a tendency at the same time to suggest that their opponents are guilty of spreading “hate” or “negativity” or “personal attacks” or whatever. I don’t know what the solution to this is, as I suppose it is inherent in the human condition, but we would all do well to try to apply the same standards to ourselves and our ideological allies as we do to our opponents.
One final point. McCarthy’s post does not say that Obama is “pro-infanticide.” He says that Obama facilitated infanticide, which cannot reasonably be read to suggest that Obama favors or enjoys the killing of babies. If AL wants to argue that McCarthy’s rhetoric goes too far, at least use his actual rhetoric.
MLS,
Don't misunderstand. I think a lot of Republican politicians are jerks. I think many of them are deeply dishonest. But I don't think, nor have I ever said, that they are evil. I don't think they're murderers. I don't think they're secretly plotting to destroy the country. And I don't think you generally see too much of that from prominent liberal writers and pundits. But if you've been reading The Corner lately, you can see that they genuinely believe that Obama is a closet leftist radical who supports infanticide. If you doubt that last point, read through some of the other posts by McCarthy, K-Lo and others.
Brian Egan,
You make some thoughtful points. And I would like to respond in kind.
It isn't so much a problem with abortion, but with having a right to an abortion created out of whole cloth by Roe v. Wade. When you said the following:
...when we have a different view on what a baby is and the role of the mother -- which is a very tricky debate and one I have no interest in going into detail about in a blog comment.
that said a lot. And that is the problem; because of Roe, those who support abortion don't have to debate because they have a crutch to hold on to, and don't have to debate. Roe has been used for 35 years to find all kinds of new "rights" in regards to abortions, and to keep good judges off of the federal bench. If I were to be accurate, I would say that those who believe in the constitutionality of Roe are neither pro-abortion nor pro-choice; I would say they are anti-choice, since, as I've shown, Roe has been used to avoid debate. The Supreme Court's recent upholding of the Partial Birth Abortion Act was the first time since Roe that does allow for abortions to be regulated through the proper, and constitutional, legislative process outlined in Article I, which included debate. Plus, it makes our representatives, the people we can keep in or remove from office (as opposed to unelected federal judges or Justices), accountable. That extends the choice to all of us.
By the way, I've seen the Illinois General Assembly record, and everything about what conservatives have said about Obama's role has been proven true. He was more worried about the "burden" an abortion doctor might have in bringing in a second doctor if an aborted baby happens to be born alive and requires medical care. As the former nurse stated in her congressional testimony during the BAIPA hearings, some of these abortion doctors didn't bother providing the baby with medical care, preferring to have these babies thrown out and die. A second doctor seemed like a reasonable regulation for these circumstances. Obama's answers are very troubling.
Additionally, Obama has been saying that the reason he didn't pass the Illinois BAIPA through his committee was because it didn't have the language that was in the federal law. The bill didn't in its original form; however, it was added in as an amendment by Obama's committee. And then he killed it in the subsequent committee vote anyway. For Obama to refer to those who found this out as liars (and he did) was a huge mistake. And I don't think he's apologized for this egregious characterization (if he has, I haven't seen it yet).
MLS,
I do not regard Republicans, as a group, "evil" by nature, nor do I get the impression from A.L.'s posts that he does. Karl Rove participated materially in getting George Bush elected, knowing full well the kind of person he was. This was an evil act, in my guarded opinion, since George Bush's fecklessness has been the cause of much suffering. Those who voted for Bush I regard as at least a bit dim, unless they really like what he's done, in which case I think they're sociopaths.
Altemeyer's research indicates that the tendency to demonize the opposition is significantly more common on the right wing in the USA.
So long as his criticism is thoughtful, honest, and fact-based, A.L. can criticize whoever he pleases, as far as I am concerned.
Well, who am I to argue with Atlemeyer?
Just one question. Did Atlemeyer count it as demonizing if a liberal considered Bush supporters to be sociopaths, or did he view that as fact-based?
MLS,
Read Altemeyer for yourself -- no need for the rest of us to review it. And I didn't say "Bush supporters" -- I said those who like what the Bush administration has done. While you may wish to pretend this is black and white, the truth is that it's all shades of gray.
I think a lot of people continue to support the Bush administration due to an inability to understand that the government isn't the country, so they see support as patriotic. Then there are those who simply cannot abide anything Democratic. Their upbringing was suffused with hatred of the New Deal, reinforced by the activities of the Democrats in the sixties, hardened by the Carter administration, and finally fossilized in the Clinton administration, and they're simply not capable of rational thought on the subject.
While there are undoubtedly monomaniacs on the other side, A.L. is not one of them.
This year's election, with a clearly substandard GOP standard-bearer running against a dynamic, obviously capable Democrat, leaves the GOP cheerleaders little to work with, so they're relying on the old New Deal fears and the RWA's in the population. What else do they have?
"...when we have a different view on what a baby is and the role of the mother -- which is a very tricky debate and one I have no interest in going into detail about in a blog comment.
that said a lot. And that is the problem; because of Roe, those who support abortion don't have to debate because they have a crutch to hold on to, and don't have to debate."
I believe this misconstrues my argument, while once again supporting AL's original position -- that we need to do less straw-manning of each other and have more substantive debate.
The reason I didn't want to have that debate isn't because I'm unwilling, but it's something "I have no interest in going into detail about in a blog comment." That's an incredible discussion to have, but it would be very difficult in this forum, especially when it's off topic.
Furthermore, you also have to admit that you can't ignore the debate about the constitutionality of the laws banning abortion. That's an equally important debate to have.
Back to the point -- you want Obama to apologize for calling you a liar? People are calling him pro-infanticide, which find disturbing. You're trying to trap him for calling you liars about some very minor nuance, when I believe he was responding to the overall "Baby Killer" message with his own "Liar" message. That's the political arena, and John McCain has made some pretty incredible statements as well insulting Dems, but who cares? He's appealing to his base. His policies are crazy to me -- that's why I don't vote for him.
The problem you have is that you once again fail to recognize you're doing the exact thing AL said he wanted less of: Demonizing opponents. We have much bigger questions to answer than getting caught up in the tit-for-tat kind of argument you're trying to "nail" Obama on.
How can we insure 300+ million people? How can we improve our economy? How can we create a culture of fiscal responsibility? What's our VISION for the future? Then, WHO has the better plan to answer these questions. THAT's the focus. Obama is pro-choice, McCain is pro-life. That's that on the abortion issue. I wouldn't get caught up in the he-said she-said, my friend.
Best Wishes,
Brian
I want to enter the abortion debate and how it relates to the evil question. Regardless of whether or not you believe abortion is wrong the fact of the matter is that abortion restrictions can not be properly enforced without violating the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure. A woman should be able to go to a doctor to get medical services without any government prying. Since abortion restrictions are unenforcible without violating the Constitution these restrictions are not constitutional.
I am pro choice and pro life. I believe any time a woman is put in the position of having to make that choice is tragic and abortion is sad. However, I can't tell you you can or can not have one. It is your choice. An unwanted child born into this world does a lot more to cheapen human life than preventing the birth in the first place. Pro-life means not condemning a woman or her child to a life of misery.
BTW pro-life also means anti death penalty but that is another topic.
Brian Egan said:
Furthermore, you also have to admit that you can't ignore the debate about the constitutionality of the laws banning abortion. That's an equally important debate to have.
Here's where I stand on this. At the time Roe v. Wade was decided, there was something like a dozen (or more) states that had laws on the books allowing abortions for a variety of reasons (we're going back more than 35 years, and I don't know the wording of the exact laws). But, there were some states, Texas in the case of Roe, that had strict anti-abortion laws. In that exact case, the decision of elected officials to determine how far they could restrict purposely induced abortions, was taken out of their hands. I could understand if Roe had been ruled narrowly (e.g., to protect the life of the mother and other such exceptions), but not as broadly as it has become. So yes, there should be a debate about the constitutionality about laws banning abortions (the recent one in SD as an example, which was overtly restrictive), provided Roe isn't there to gum up the works. And, if legislatures have the cojones to pass a hugely unrestrictive abortion law, more power to them; they will have to take their chances at the ballot box, unlike federal judges and Justices. See, what Roe did was violate the basic tenets of both Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution (legislatures make the laws, not unelected judges), as well as Article V (Amending the Constitution), by creating a right that had never existed before, and was not part of those enumerated rights guaranteed in the 9th Amendment. That is my point on this.
Back to the point -- you want Obama to apologize for calling you a liar? People are calling him pro-infanticide, which find disturbing.
Let's look at the definition of infanticide. According to Merriam-Webster, infanticide is the killing of an infant. Also according to Merriam-Webster, an infant is a child in the first period of life, which would be the babies born alive after a failed abortion. Barack Obama voted against bills protecting babies born alive after a failed abortion while he was an Illinois state Senator. He claimed that he voted against the Illinois bill because it didn't have the appropriate clauses that were in the federal law. The NRLC called Obama on this saying those provisions were in the Illinois version of the bill. Obama responded by calling the NRLC liars. The NRLC showed the proof that the provisions were in the final bill that was voted on (Senate Amendment 001 of S.B. 1082), and Obama admitted the provision was in place. And yet, he voted against it. So, Obama's vote was clearly designed to allow for babies born alive, after a failed abortion, to die without receiving medical care or basic nourishment. That is infanticide. I'm sorry it's harsh, but there it is.
Anonymous said:
Regardless of whether or not you believe abortion is wrong the fact of the matter is that abortion restrictions can not be properly enforced without violating the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure. A woman should be able to go to a doctor to get medical services without any government prying.
I think you are correct in part, but wrong as well. And here is my argument. If certain abortions are being done in an illegal manner, they would not be considered medical services, and not subject to doctor-patient confidentiality, as would be the case if a doctor violated the Partial Birth Abortion Act. If probable cause is shown of an abortion doctor possibly violating such a law, then a warrant would be allowed. However, if an abortion law is less restrictive (for the example, assume an abortion is considered a medical service), and an over-zealous prosecutor attempts to show probable cause where no crime is being committed, then this would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.
I don't feel this back-and-forth is at all productive any more, as it has strayed too far off topic (do you really want to do a constitutional legal analysis here?).
This isn't going anywhere, and it is a bit fucking ridiculous to call someone pro-infanticide (by the way, thank you for the dictionary definiton... I love being insulted for stoopiditty while you stray off topic and never address the issue).
You're all for the war in Iraq, which has killed a confirmed 86-94 thousand civilians. You're all for mass murder then. Why do all republicans want to kill thousands of people?
Of course, you aren't pro mass murder, you thought it would be good to take out Saddam. If I started with the premise that "republicans are evil," however, then it wouldn't be hard to come to that conclusion (and I've heard my fair share of liberals call repubs genocidal manias -- which is why I disdain fanatics on both sides).
Obama isn't pro-infanticide, he was looking out for his constituents who felt the bill would in fact hinder the ability of some women to get abortions (because the wording of the federal and Illinois bill are slightly different, and legally tricky).
But you know what, you've proven AL's point OVER and OVER again... you view us as fundamentally evil. It's a simplistic assumption you start with, and paint many of your conclusions with that faulty premise.
I'm gonna go party it up in my evil, sinful hometown of Las Vegas now.
Mr. Egan,
You're right, this argument is going nowhere. You have your take on what Obama's vote was on this, and clearly have an opinion that is contradictory to mine. I will add though that mine is based on the real definitions of the words I use, along with the actual events that took place.
And for the record, I don't view liberals as fundamentally evil, nor do I hate them. Like many families across the country, mine contains a mixed bag of both liberals and conservatives, and we don't talk politics all that much. I do hate the policies they support, and am critical, sometimes harshly, sometimes unfairly, of those policies they support. Conversely, they do the same. But I love them dearly. Therefore, how could I hate liberals, yet love those liberals in my family?
For the record, I hated Saddam Hussein. I wish the U.S. could have quickly whacked him and his maniacal sons. But the U.S. wasn't allowed to because of liberal policies. I also wish those that made up his brown-nosing entourage of sycophants had shown the guts to whack Saddam themselves, instead of being the true cowards they showed themselves to be. But a war was needed to get him out, as he was a threat to the security of the U.S. It wasn't imminent (which was said by Sen. Rockefeller, not President Bush), but a threat nonetheless. Again, that is the harsh reality.
Obama's factcheck has a discussion of the BAIPA votes. I'd strongly suggest checking it out if you are interested.
That website is a very good idea. It won't, of course, help individuals who prefer to guzzle the kool-ade, but for the rest, it may prove valuable.
It's clear that the RWA mentality has no trouble encompassing "all human life, from conception to grave, is sacred" and, simultaneously, "these people are scum and our government should just kill them all." Similarly, the over-blown concern on all the imaginary people that might have been born in the absence of abortion, yet "a war was needed" -- said war which may end up killing millions of people before the region recovers.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home