Mrs. Veep?
2008 September 4
Two views of Sarah Palin as a VP choice by Washington Post writers:
- – - -
I got a note from a Louisiana reader who asks that we pray for all the people heavily impacted by Gustav.
Sniffing out the work of God in the world…
Subscribe
Office of Church Relations | (310) 506–4270
24255 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, California 90263-4270
AlGuy – QB – Couldn’t find it at WSJ. I googled “Peggy Noonan Palin” and got this site: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/2-republican-talking-heads-cau-1.html. It’s a YouTube clip of Noonan, thinking she was off the air, saying that McCain’s selection of Palin was “political bullxxxt.”
Is that what you’re talking about?
Daniel- Obviously you have recognized what an outrageous comment you made. Now instead of Christians, we are talking “right” and “left.” However, you are still a little confused on the facts. If you are honest, I think you’ll find that far less lives have been lost due to policies of the “right,” than those of the “left.” Do you have any idea how many children die of malaria each year thanks to the environmentalists worldwide ban on DDT? Has it ever occurred to you why we don’t have malaria in this country?
You left out assisted suicide on the list of the values of the “left.”
Now for the big question: What policies of the “left” have resulted in a reduction of lives lost? Surely, you can come up with several of these. I’ll settle for one good one.
AlGuy -
Given the predominant, ideological demographics around here, qb wanted to avoid pointing to this route…
…but what the heck. Go to Drudge, then scroll down to Peggy Noonan in the center column.
*donning asbestos skivvies*
qb
P. S. No, really: qb wears Birkenstocks, prefers hoppy microbrews, is exclusively and in every way iMac, and is looking to replace his erstwhile Suburban with a Subaru Outback L. L. Bean edition (yes, with a bike rack, natch).
Obama today was speaking of how awful the unemployment rate is and how 600,000 jobs have been lost. He also plans to raise taxes on business.
Can anyone on this blog tell me how raising taxes on businesses will create more jobs? Please be specific.
Whoah, troy… where you been the last 8 years? Ever heard of Iraq? Talk about wasteful government and total disrespect for human life…
To those who seem to find it hard to believe people can disagree immensely about politics and not remain human or Christian, you need to read this:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/robert-novak.html
Adam Smith, you won’t get a straight answer. What it comes down to is the premise that somebody besides me will be taxed-somebody who makes more money. Sometimes we cut our noses off to spite our face.
Just like Obama responded on raising capital gains tax even though it would decrease revenue-”In the interest of fairness.”
Doesn’t Sarah Palin look like the teacher in Van Halen’s “Hot for Teacher” video?
Gee, I guess if Sarah Palin takes the oath of POTUS, all those male egos in the church could be taken down a notch!
I find it interesting that all those believers who ascribe to Complementarianism are backing her with such spiritual language and political zeal for the office she is aspiring to, with the potential of becoming our CIC. Yet these same believers would deny her a strong position of leadership in would this be a calling that is far greater in God’s kingdom.
When she and her hoard of Secret Service agents decide to descend upon a church for Sunday worship so she can preach that day, what then? Are the elders and deacons and James Dobsons of the world going to barricade the doors?
There’s hope for female bishops yet…
(‘Hot for Teacher’ is way off-base, preacherman … totally puerile and in poor taste.)
I must say that this has been (is) the most outrageous and sad comments sections I’ve ever read.
Steve Sr. would you mind elaborating? I cannot tell what disgusts you? Is it the idea because one has called a VP candidate “hot,” is it because one has seen hope for female bishops, is it because some have criticized Obama or because some have criticized McCain?
This blog may convert me to Calvinism because of the angry outbursts , scarcasm and unkind expressions. Passion for a view is one thing but to attack each other is another thing. It may take irresistible grace to reconvert some. Just kidding about converting to Calvinism. A way to say , we may need to back off and approach this in a more civil way. Have fun but not at the expense of hurting someone. We can agree and disagree and still be gentlle and kind with each other. As far as Sarah Palin coming to church to preach, no use in barricading the doors. When it comes to leadership in in the worship assemblies , the men should do the preaching. She will have plenty of opportunities to speak on political issues. It was a mark of genius to select her.
Jim and others are right and obviously the most well-informed people on this blog. Obama is clearly a do-nothing. Yep. Way to go, Jim and friends, on being well-informed truth-tellers. Other people are clearly not taking seriously their responsibility to know what’s going on. Just look at how much nothing Obama has done… Absolutely nothing a Christian favoring ethical government, supporting the poor, or looking for justice could get behind:
Obama helped pass the 2007 Ethics Reform Law, which curbed the influence of lobbyists and was described as the “most sweeping since Watergate.” In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a “Gold Standard” ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill’s most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January: a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travelon corporate jets; full disclosure of who’s sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn’t all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they “bundle” – that is, collect or arrange – for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees. In January 2007, the Washington Post wrote in an editorial that “…Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package.” In September 2007, the AP reported, “President Bush signed a bill Friday that will require lawmakers to disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a measure that backers call the biggest ethics reform in decades… Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. who had pushed for the bundling provisions and was one of four lawmakers who participated in a Democratic conference call to reporters said the measure marks “the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate.” [S. 230, 110thCongress; S.1, Became Public Law 109-110-81, 9/14/07; AP, 9/15/07;TheWashington Post, Editorial, 1/21/07]
Obama passed the Illinois State Gift Ban Act. In 1998, Obama passed the Illinois Gift Ban that prohibited legislators, state officers and employees, and judges from soliciting or receiving gifts from a person or entity with interests affected by government. The Chicago Tribune wrote, “Gov. Jim Edgar signed into law Wednesday an ethics and campaign finance package heralded as the most sweeping good-government legislation in decades.” The law also required greater campaign finance disclosure and limited the uses for which raised money could be spent. Obama said, “I have seen a general cynicism from taxpayers about government. They believe they have no influence on the process since they don’t have the money of special interest groups. With the gift ban and the ban on Springfield fund-raisers that are contained in this legislation, I think at least some of this confidence will be restored.” [HB672, 3R P 52-4-1, 5/22/98; PA90-0737, 8/12/98; Chicago Tribune, 8/13/98; Chicago Independent Bulletin, 6/4/98]
The Illinois Ethics Bill was also a product of bipartisan work. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote of Obama’s bill, “The ethics restrictions would be the most far-reaching since the Watergate-era campaign financial disclosure law. They are the product of months of negotiations among two lawmakers of each party, other state officials and Mike Lawrence. He is an aide toformer Sen. Paul Simon, a Democrat, and used to be an aide to Edgar, a Republican.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/24/98]
Obama and Lugar passed a law boosting U.S. efforts to keep WMDs and other dangerous weapons out of the hands of terrorists. In 2006,Obama and Lugar introduced The Cooperative Proliferation DetectionAct, which was passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously on May 26, 2006 and was eventually incorporated into the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006 and signed into law onJanuary 11, 2007. According to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on its legislative activity in the 109th Congress, “The committee passed S. 2566, The Cooperative Proliferation Detection,Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006 by unanimous consent on May 26, 2006. The legislation authored by Chairman Lugar and Senator Obama enhances: (1) U.S. cooperation with foreign governments to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles aroundthe world; and (2) the United States’ ability to provide assistance to foreign governments aimed at helping them detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. The legislation, which garnered 26 co-sponsors (including 8 committee members), sought to energize U.S. programs to secure lightweight anti-aircraft missiles… The initiative was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. The legislation was signed into law on January 11, 2007, as a part of H.R. 6060, the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006.” [P.L. 109-472, 1/11/07;House Report 109-706, 9/3/06; S. 2566, 109th Congress; S.1949, 109th Congress; Senate Report 110-40, 3/29/07]
“Republican Sen. Dick Lugar (IN) today said an Obama campaign ad which features him is ‘accurate.’ The ad makes the point the Obama previously ‘reached out’ to Lugar to ‘help lock down loose nuclear weapons.’ Lugar is widely considered one of the most knowledgeable in the area of nuclear weapons proliferation and the coauthored of the 1991 Nunn-Lugar Act on cooperative threat reduction. ‘He did’ reach out, Lugar said. He explained that in 2005, Obama asked if he could join Lugar on a trip to Russia and other countries to visit sites under the Nunn-Lugar program. ‘After that, we had legislation that we cosponsored together which passed’ dealing with dangerous missiles.‘So I am pleased we had that opportunity to work together,’ Lugar said. ‘I’m pleased we had the association Sen. Obama describes.’ But Lugar made clear up front that while the ad was accurate, and he’s comfortable with the association, ‘There is no chance I will consider running with Barack Obama.’” [MSNBC, 7/15/08]
Obama and Coburn passed a bill creating a “Google-like” database for the public to search details about federal funding awards. In 2006,Obama and Coburn co-authored a bill to create a “Google-like” database of information on federal spending. The bill requires the OMB by January 1, 2008, to make available to the public a searchable, free website that includes the (1) amount; (2) transaction type; (3)funding agency; (4) North American Industry Classification System code or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number; (5) program source; (6) an award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action; (7) the name and location of the recipient and the primary location of performance; and (8) a unique identifier of the recipient and any parent entity. The site must allow users to conduct separate searches that distinguish between awards that are grants, sub-grants,loans, cooperative agreements, and other forms of financial assistance and awards that are contracts, subcontracts, purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders. [S. 2590, Passed by Unanimous Consent,9/7/06; Became PL 109-282, 9/26/06]
Obama sponsored a law ensuring that wounded veterans recovering In military hospitals do not have to pay for their meals or phone calls to family members. In 2005, Obama sponsored and passed an amendment to the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act ensuring that wounded veterans recovering in military hospitals do not have to pay for their own meals or phone calls to family members. The amendment was then passed in each of the following Congresses. Prior to passage of the amendment, service members receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services in a medical hospital for more than 90 days were required to pay for their meals. Obama’s amendment required the military to provide free meals for service members in military hospitals undergoing recuperation or therapy as a result of wounds sustained in Iraq or Afghanistan. The amendment was retroactive to January 1, 2005 in an effort to provide those injured service members who received bills for their meals with some relief from those costs. The amendment became law. [S. Amdt. 390, Passed by unanimous consent,4/14/05 to H.R.1268, Signed by the President, 5/11/05, Became PublicLaw No: 109-013; Obama Press Release, 5/11/05]
Obama’s proposals providing improvements in health care for recovering soldiers were passed into law, including requirements for post-deployment mental-health screenings and a national study on the needs of Iraq War veterans. H.R. 976, passed by the Senate on August 2, 2007,includes several provisions from bills originally sponsored by Senators Obama and McCaskill. The provisions would improve healthcare services and health care tracking for service members, and would require post-deployment, face-to-face mental health screenings for returning service members within 30 days. The bill also adopts other Obama-McCaskill legislation, the HERO Act, which would launch a major national research endeavor into the readjustment needs of returning service members, veterans and their families. The bill also included measures to improve and reform the disability rating process. [Vote307, H.R. 976, Passed, 68-31, 8/2/07; S. 713, 110th Congress; S. 1271,110th Congress; Obama Press Release, 7/25/07; H.R. 4986, Became PublicLaw No: 110-181, 1/28/08]
Obama worked with Republicans to pass legislation, which became law, improving and increasing services for homeless veterans. In 2006,Congress passed a Veterans Affairs Committee bill which included several provisions originating in Obama’s SAVE Act (S. 1180) and Homes for Heroes Act (S. 3475). “The legislation…includes a number of proposals from legislation Senator Obama had previously introduced (S.1180, the SAVE Act and S.3475 the Homes for Heroes Act) to expand and improve services for homeless veterans. The bill permanently authorizes and increases funding to $130 million per year for a competitive grant program to provide homeless services to veterans. It greatly increases a successful program to provide rental vouchers to homeless veterans. The legislation extends programs to provide treatment for veterans with mental illnesses and other special needs. And it permanently extends the VA’s ability to transfer property it owns to homeless shelters.” Obama worked with VA Committee Republicans Craig and Burr on the committee legislation that eventually became law. [S. 3421/P.L. 109-461; S. 1180, 109th Congress; S. 3475, 109thCongress; Obama Press Release, 6/26/06]
Obama passed bipartisan legislation that expanded healthcare coverage to 154,000 residents, Including 70,000 children. As a state senator, Barack Obama sponsored and helped pass legislation that expanded and made permanent Illinois’ KidCare program by raising eligibility from 185% to 200% of the federal poverty level. The legislation provided coverage for an additional 20,000 children and 65,000 more Illinois adults in the first year, and by 2007 had expanded health care to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In its endorsement for his Senate race, the State Journal-Register wrote, “Obama brings similar common-sense views to improving health care in America – for example, as a state senator he championed the successful KidCare program that assists thousands of children of the working poor.” The bill was sponsored in the state House by Sandra Pihos, a Republican, and passed 42-13. [93rdGA, SB 130, 3R P 42-13-2; Signed into law 6/30/03, PA 93-0063; ChicagoDaily Herald, 7/2/03; Blagojevich release, 1/9/07; Blagojevich release, 4/13/07; Kaiser family report, 5/07; State Journal-Register,10/29/04]
Obama passed a bill creating $100 million earned income tax credit as a member of the minority party in the Illinois Senate. In 1999, Obama was the lead sponsor of a bill making Illinois the 11th state to adopt an earned income-tax credit. The bill provided that each individual taxpayer is entitled to a credit against the tax imposed by the Act in an amount equal to 5% of the federal earned income tax credit allowed. Then-Gov. George Ryan opposed the move, but an unlikely political alliance – including Republicans and Democrats – formed to reduce the tax burden on working poor families. The AP wrote, “The new law, which offers about $105 million in tax breaks over the next three years, gives a state income tax credit equal to 5 percent of a similarfederal tax credit. For the average working family making less than $30,580, that amounts to about $55 a year, or 15 cents a day. The maximum credit for families with two or more children is $191 ayear.” [91st GA, HB 3939; 4/14/00, 3R P; 59-0-0; P.A. 91-0700,5/11/00; Chicago Tribune, 4/10/99]
Obama passed a near-unanimous death penalty overhaul package. Obama was the chief co-sponsor and voted for a bill creating the Capital Punishment Reform Study Committee Act. The proposal, which was approved on a 57-1 vote, was virtually identical to reforms pushed in 2002 by then-Gov. George Ryan. If passed by the House and signed into law by the governor, the bill would let judges rule out a death sentence for someone convicted solely on the testimony of a jailhouse informant, accomplice or single witness; let the state Supreme Court overturn a death sentence that was “fundamentally unjust.”; Reduce the crimes eligible for the death penalty by focusing on “inherently violent” offenses; Expand defendants’ access to genetic evidence used against them; Ban police officers from the police force if they committed perjury in a murder case; and Require juries to consider a defendant’s history of abuse or mental illness when deciding whether to impose the death sentence. Obama said, “As far as the Bill goes, it doesn’t address whether the death penalty is applied fairly to all races and in all regions of the state. And it doesn’t appease those who want capital punishment eliminated.” [93rd GA, SB 0472; 4/3/03,3R P; 57-1-0; 5/29/03, HA1 SC; 56-3-0; 11/5/03, OAV P; 58-0-0; P.A.93-0605, 11/25/03; Pantagraph, 4/4/03; Associated Press, 4/24/03]
By the way, Terry, to co-sponsor a bill means this:
Bills cannot be brought to the floor for a vote without sponsorship. Sponsors help to edit and revise the bills’ content, introduce bills to the floor, and help garner support for them among legislators. In short, sponsors take responsibility for getting legislation passed.
One hates to contradict the well-informed notion that Barack Obama is just a seat-warmer, but just in case the above list doesn’t catch the attention of some folks, here’s a summary of what Obama has done for the last 2 years in the senate. Not that as Christians and citizens we should do our homework or anything, and certainly spouting “facts” from Fox, and Rudy, and Sean, and Rush, and lots of others is way more fun, but…
110th Congress, Obama: (8 amendments)
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/11/2007) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/18/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 41 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/21/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 3/23/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 524 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/22/2007) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 3/23/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 599 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/23/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 4/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 905 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/24/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 4/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 923 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/24/2007) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 4/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 924 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/26/2007) Cosponsors (3) Latest Major Action: 7/26/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2519 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/31/2007) Cosponsors (8) Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2588 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
110th Congress: Bills Co-sponsored by Obama:
* S.761: A bill to invest in innovation and education to improve the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy. Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 3/5/2007) Cosponsors (69) Latest Major Action: 7/19/2007 Senate incorporated this measure in H.R. 2272 as an amendment. Note: For further action, see H.R.2272, which became Public Law 110-69 on 8/9/2007. Another note: Obama co-sponsor, along with basically everyone; no record of him playing central role, nor did he speak on its behalf.
S.962: A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize and improve the carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program of the Department of Energy and for other purposes._Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (introduced 3/22/2007) Cosponsors (15) Note: This bill and S. 731 became Title III of S. 1321, the Energy Savings Act of 2007, as reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. CR: “Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007, along with my co-sponsors, Senators DOMENICI, TESTER, BUNNING, SALAZAR, OBAMA, and WEBB.”
S.2488: A bill to promote accessibility, accountability, and openness in Government by strengthening section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes._Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 12/14/2007) Cosponsors (17) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 110-175. (CR: no indication that Obama played a major role.)
110th Congress: Amendments Co-sponsored by Obama:
S.AMDT.3 to S.1 In the nature of a substitute. Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 1/9/2007) Cosponsors (8) Latest Major Action: 1/18/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. A substitute for the big ethics bill. CR: “SA 3. Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Obama, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Durbin)”
S.AMDT.4 to S.1 To strengthen the gift and travel bans. Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 1/9/2007) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 1/17/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 88 – 9. Record Vote Number: 15.
S.AMDT.15 to S.1 To require Senate committees and subcommittees to make available by the Internet a video recording, audio recording, or transcript of any meeting not later than 14 business days after the meeting occurs. Sponsor: Sen Salazar, Ken [CO] (introduced 1/10/2007) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/10/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 15 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.31 to S.1 To prohibit former Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their cooling off period. Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] (introduced 1/11/2007) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/18/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 31 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.33 to S.1 To prohibit former Members who are lobbyists from using gym and parking privileges made available to Members and former Members. Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] (introduced 1/11/2007) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/18/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 33 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.529 to S.CON.RES.21 To increase funding for the COPS Program to $1.15 billion for FY 2008 to provide state and local law enforcement with critical resources necessary to prevent and respond to violent crime and acts of terrorism and is offset by an unallocated reduction to non-defense discretionary spending and/or reduction to administrative expenses. Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] (introduced 3/22/2007) Cosponsors (13) Latest Major Action: 3/23/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 529 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 65 – 33. Record Vote Number: 110.
S.AMDT.1009 to S.1082 To insert provisions relating to antibiotic access and innovation and certain enantiomer drugs. Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 5/2/2007) Cosponsors (5) Latest Major Action: 5/8/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1009 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.1169 to S.1348 To reduce to 200,000 the number of certain non-immigrants permitted to be admitted during a fiscal year. Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (introduced 5/23/2007) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 5/23/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1169 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 74 – 24. Record Vote Number: 175.
S.AMDT.2132 to H.R.1585 To provide and enhance rehabilitative treatment and services to veterans with traumatic brain injury and to improve health care and benefits programs for veterans. Sponsor: Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] (introduced 7/12/2007) Cosponsors (12) Latest Major Action: 7/12/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2132 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.2268 to H.R.1585 To provide for an increase in the number of nurses and faculty. Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 7/16/2007) Cosponsors (10) Latest Major Action: 9/17/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2268 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
* S.AMDT.2402 to H.R.1538 In the nature of a substitute. Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [MI] (introduced 7/25/2007) Cosponsors (51) Latest Major Action: 7/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2402 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.2467 to H.R.2638 To authorize the release of data used to determine eligibility for assistance under title IV of the Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 7/25/2007) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 7/26/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2467 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.2509 to H.R.2638 To mitigate the health risks posed by hazardous chemicals in trailers provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 7/26/2007) Cosponsors (5) Latest Major Action: 7/26/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2509 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
* S.AMDT.2719 to H.R.2764 To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 9/6/2007) Cosponsors (12) Latest Major Action: 9/6/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2719 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 – 41. Record Vote Number: 319.
* S.AMDT.2797 to H.R.3074 To prohibit the establishment of a program that allows Mexican truck drivers to operate beyond the commercial zones near the Mexican border. Sponsor: Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] (introduced 9/10/2007) Cosponsors (6) Latest Major Action: 9/11/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2797 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 75 – 23. Record Vote Number: 331.
S.AMDT.2872 to H.R.1585 To assist certain Iraqis who have worked directly with, or are threatened by their association with, the United States. Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] (introduced 9/17/2007) Cosponsors (17) Latest Major Action: 9/27/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2872 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.2893 to H.R.1585 To enhance the national defense through empowerment of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the enhancement of the functions of the National Guard Bureau. Sponsor: Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] (introduced 9/18/2007) Cosponsors (24) Latest Major Action: 9/20/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2893 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.2962 to H.R.1585 To implement the recommendations of the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health. Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 9/20/2007) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 9/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2962 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.2969 to H.R.1585 To provide for the establishment of a Center of Excellence in Prevention, Diagnosis, Mitigation, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Military Eye Injuries. Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 9/20/2007) Cosponsors (6) Latest Major Action: 9/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2969 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
* S.AMDT.2999 to H.R.1585 To provide for the study and investigation of wartime contracts and contracting processes in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sponsor: Sen Webb, Jim [VA] (introduced 9/20/2007) Cosponsors (31) Latest Major Action: 9/27/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2999 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
109th Congress: Bills Co-sponsored by Obama:
S.728 : A bill to provide for the consideration and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes._Sponsor: Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] (introduced 4/6/2005) Cosponsors (19) Note: On 7/19/2006, the Senate incorporated S. 728 in H.R. 2864. See H.R. 2864 for further action.
* S.1172 : A bill to provide for programs to increase the awareness and knowledge of women and health care providers with respect to gynecologic cancers. Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 6/6/2005) Cosponsors (45) Note: For further action, see H.R.1245, which became Public Law 109-475 on 1/12/2007.
S.2590 : A bill to require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds. Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 4/6/2006) Cosponsors (47) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-282. Note: though there are 47 co-sponsors, Coburn introduced the bill as follows: “Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators BARACK OBAMA, THOMAS CARPER, and JOHN MCCAIN, I introduced legislation to create an online public database that itemizes Federal funding.”
S.2703 : A bill to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 5/3/2006) Cosponsors (57) Note: For further action, see H.R.9, which became Public Law 109-246 on 7/27/2006.
S.4044 : A bill to clarify the treatment of certain charitable contributions under title 11, United States Code. Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 9/29/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-439 Summary: “Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Clarification Act of 2006 – Amends federal bankruptcy law with respect to calculation of the projected disposable income of an individual with regular income to meet the requirements for court confirmation of a plan for adjustment of the individual’s debts. Removes charitable contributions from the statutory formula used to determine what portion of such contributions is reasonably necessary to be expended for such purposes from a debtor’s current monthly income. (Thus allows full deduction of such contributions from current monthly income to arrive at disposable income, consistent with the requirements of the Religious Liberty and Charitable Contribution Protection Act of 1998.)”
109th Congress: Amendments Co-Sponsored by Obama:
S.AMDT.380 to H.R.1268 To provide supplemental funding for international food assistance. Sponsor: Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (22) Latest Major Action: 4/20/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 380 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.402 to H.R.1268 To address the avian flu influenza virus in Asia. Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 4/13/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 402 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.422 to H.R.1268 To make a technical change to the bill. Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 4/14/2005) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 4/14/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 422 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.560 to H.R.1268 To clarify funding for judicial security enhancements. Sponsor: Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] (introduced 4/19/2005) Cosponsors (3) Latest Major Action: 4/19/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 560 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
* S.AMDT.726 to H.R.3 To establish a program to award grants on a competitive basis to eligible recipients for the replacement or retrofit of certain existing school buses. Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 5/11/2005) Cosponsors (9) Latest Major Action: 5/12/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 726 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.779 to H.R.6 To eliminate methyl tertiary butyl ether from the United States fuel supply, to increase production and use of renewable fuel, and to increase the Nation’s energy independence. Sponsor: Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] (introduced 6/14/2005) Cosponsors (21) Latest Major Action: 6/15/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 779 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 70 – 26. Record Vote Number: 139.
* S.AMDT.791 to H.R.6 To establish a renewable portfolio standard. Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (introduced 6/16/2005) Cosponsors (14) Latest Major Action: 6/16/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 791 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 – 48. Record Vote Number: 141.
S.AMDT.919 to H.R.6 To enhance the national security of the United States by providing for the research, development, demonstration, administrative support, and market mechanisms for widespread deployment and commercialization of biobased fuels and biobased products. Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] (introduced 6/22/2005) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 6/23/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 919 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (Great big biofuels bill.)
* S.AMDT.1023 to H.R.2361 To prohibit the use of funds by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to accept, consider, or rely on third-party intentional dosing human studies for pesticides or to conduct intentional dosing human studies for pesticides. Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 6/27/2005) Cosponsors (12) Latest Major Action: 6/29/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1023 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 60 – 37. Record Vote Number: 162.
S.AMDT.1088 to H.R.2419 To maintain funding for the Department of Energy Clean Cities Program at is current level. Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 6/30/2005) Cosponsors (7) Latest Major Action: 6/30/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1088 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.1290 to H.R.3057 To make funds available for the African Union Mission in Sudan. Sponsor: Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] (introduced 7/19/2005) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 7/19/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1290 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.1345 to S.1042 To provide for expedited action in bid protests conducted under OMB Circular A-76. Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 7/21/2005) Cosponsors (6) Latest Major Action: 11/15/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1345 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
* S.AMDT.1380 to S.1042 To improve authorities to address urgent nonproliferation crises and United States nonproliferation operations. Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 7/21/2005) Cosponsors (44) Latest Major Action: 7/21/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1380 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 – 19. Record Vote Number: 200.
* S.AMDT.1654 to H.R.2862 To increase funding for Justice Assistance Grants. Sponsor: Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] (introduced 9/8/2005) Cosponsors (23) Latest Major Action: 9/14/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1654 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.1659 to H.R.2862 To increase the appropriation for nationwide legal services field programs and to provide additional funds to programs providing legal services to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] (introduced 9/8/2005) Cosponsors (10) Latest Major Action: 9/9/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1659 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.1703 to H.R.2862 To require the FTC to conduct an immediate investigation into gasoline price-gouging, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Pryor, Mark L. [AR] (introduced 9/13/2005) Cosponsors (20) Latest Major Action: 9/14/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1703 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.1864 to H.R.2528 To place conditions on the use of appropriated funds for reviewing or revoking approved disability claims for post-traumatic stress disorder and to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from using Federal funds for certain investigations until after the submission of a detailed implementation plan to the Committee on Appropriations. Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 9/22/2005) Cosponsors (3) Latest Major Action: 9/22/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1864 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.1865 to H.R.2528 To instruct the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct a veterans disability compensation information campaign. Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 9/22/2005) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 9/22/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1865 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.1886 to H.R.2863 To make available emergency funds for pandemic flu preparedness. Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] (introduced 9/29/2005) Cosponsors (11) Latest Major Action: 9/29/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1886 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
* S.AMDT.2283 to H.R.3010 To make available funds for influenza preparedness. Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] (introduced 10/26/2005) Cosponsors (15) Latest Major Action: 10/27/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2283 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.2413 to S.1932 To provide additional ProGAP assistance to certain students. Sponsor: Sen Warner, John [VA] (introduced 11/3/2005) Cosponsors (5) Latest Major Action: 11/3/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2413 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.2728 to H.R.4297 To provide tax incentives for the purchase of advanced mine safety equipment and the training of mine rescue teams, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Byrd, Robert C. [WV] (introduced 2/2/2006) Cosponsors (7) Latest Major Action: 2/2/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2728 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.2942 to S.2349 To strike the meals and refreshments exception for lobbyists. Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 3/8/2006) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 3/8/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2942 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.3018 to S.CON.RES.83 To restore funding for the Byrne/JAG grant program to the FY 2003 level of $900 million, offset with an across the board cut to administrative expenses, travel, and consulting services. Sponsor: Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] (introduced 3/14/2006) Cosponsors (24) Latest Major Action: 3/15/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3018 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
* S.AMDT.3048 to S.CON.RES.83 To increase the advance appropriations allowance in order to fund health, education and training, and low-income programs. Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 3/14/2006) Cosponsors (29) Latest Major Action: 3/16/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3048 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 73 – 27. Record Vote Number: 58.
* S.AMDT.3642 to H.R.4939 To provide an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. Sponsor: Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] (introduced 4/26/2006) Cosponsors (21) Latest Major Action: 4/26/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3642 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 84 – 13. Record Vote Number: 98.
S.AMDT.3777 to H.R.4939 To fund a U.N. Peacekeeping force in Darfur and to address the shortfalls in the U.S. Contributions to the United Nations for international peacekeeping missions in 13 countries. Sponsor: Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (11) Latest Major Action: 5/3/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3777 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.4177 to S.2611 To provide a substitute to title III. Sponsor: Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] (introduced 5/23/2006) Cosponsors (3) Latest Major Action: 5/23/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4177 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 59 – 39. Record Vote Number: 140. (Note: this is an amendment to the immigration reform bill; it replaces Title III, which concerns the unlawful employment of aliens. It is extremely long.)
S.AMDT.4242 to S.2766 To require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations. Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 6/14/2006) Cosponsors (21) Latest Major Action: 6/14/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4242 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 98 – 0. Record Vote Number: 170.
S.AMDT.4253 to S.2766 To require a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers. Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 6/15/2006) Cosponsors (8) Latest Major Action: 6/15/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4253 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.4342 to S.2766 To modify the time limitation for use of entitlement to educational assistance for reserve component members supporting contingency operations and other operations. Sponsor: Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] (introduced 6/20/2006) Cosponsors (6) Latest Major Action: 6/22/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4342 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.4526 to S.2766 To require the President to develope a comprehensive strategy toward Somalia. Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] (introduced 6/22/2006) Cosponsors (10) Latest Major Action: 6/22/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4526 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
[109th] S.AMDT.4561 to H.R.5441 To require that reports required in the bill to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations and the Department of Homeland Security’s annual justifications of the President’s budget request shall be posted on the Department of Homeland Security’s public website not later than 48 hours after such submission unless information in the report compromises national security. Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 7/11/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 7/12/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4561 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.4618 to H.R.5441 To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to take an action that would violate Executive Order 13149 (relating to greening the government through Federal fleet and transportation efficiency). Sponsor: Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] (introduced 7/12/2006) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 7/13/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4618 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.4784 to H.R.5631 To require the posting of certain reports of the Department of Defense on the Internet website of the Department of Defense. Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 8/2/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 8/3/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4784 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.4888 to S.466 To provide for the Herbert Hoover Dike Supplemental Major Rehabilitation Report. Sponsor: Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] (introduced 9/5/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 9/5/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4888 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
S.AMDT.4907 to H.R.5631 To enhance intelligence community efforts to bring Osama bin Laden and other key leaders of al Qaeda to the justice they deserve. Sponsor: Sen Conrad, Kent [ND] (introduced 9/7/2006) Cosponsors (11) Latest Major Action: 9/7/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4907 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 96 – 0. Record Vote Number: 235. (Establishes and funds a unit dedicated to bringing bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders to justice.)
Bill, that looks like a whole lot to me. I appreciate your documentation in showing how Senator Obama supports ethics in government.
I do have one question, if you don’t mind. What do you think about the ethics of voting against requiring medical attention for a baby that has survived a botched abortion attempt?
This is what CBS says about his record as an Illinois State Legislature (in the same article, CBS says there was little in his “slim” record in the Senate, in spite of the screen dumps provided by Bill).
“He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. . . . .
He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. . . .
One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus. . . . .
He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.”
Bill, that looks like a whole lot to me. I appreciate your documentation in showing how Senator Obama supports ethics in government.
I do have one question, if you don’t mind. What do you think about the ethics of voting against requiring medical attention for a baby that has survived a botched abortion attempt?
This is what CBS says about his record as an Illinois State Legislature (in the same article, CBS says there was little in his “slim” record in the Senate, in spite of the screen dumps provided by Bill).
“He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. . . . .
He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. . . .
One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus. . . . .
He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.”
I guess my question is at what point as Christians do we recognize the hypocrisy on both sides of the table? That anything will be done to get a vote? That hundreds of millions of dollars are used to promote one person, even if that means sending out hurtful messages against another? That the division in the political arena is splitting us as well as nations (ex: the replies everybody has been posting)? That the ends don’t always justify the means? That there is no grace in politics?
And most importantly, that our calling is to live out the message of Christ and not to force on somebody else?
Political policy (“moral” or “immoral”) is not what changes the world. Change comes from the bottom up and is not forced upon anybody. The message of the love and liberty that Christ speaks of seems to be backwards to everything that is being promoted at the current time. The early Christians seemed to be quite content with the freedom that Christ offered despite absolutely no say in the Roman government. You want to be great? Serve somebody else. Maybe instead of passing legislation that divides us, we should join together and love those who don’t know love while we bring Christ to the dark places of America and the world.
Grace and Peace
Who is Sarah Palin?
I don’t know anything about her.
Dustin, I think you’re right. That’s one of the reasons why Obama appeals to me–this is precisely what he did as a community organizer. And his exposure to Christians doing just what you plead for is what converted him from agnosticism to Christianity. The question of involvement in politics is a complicated one for those from churches of Christ. Some, like David Lipscomb and James A. Harding, thought we should stay completely out of it. Of course, they were also pacifists who opposed military service–one of the reasons Harding University had to move from Morrilton to Searcy after WWI (though this was rarely discussed when I was there–or since). Others have believed that we can work for change by being involved. And as for staying away from things that divide us, what doesn’t divide us? We used to believe that we could reason together and that reason would lead us to proper understanding (a founding principle of the Restoration Movement). Now–and this blog is often clear proof–many of us, like many Americans, have lost the ability to build a coherent argument, spot a logical fallacy, or do the hard work of research and study–whether it’s of the biblical text or the record of a candidate. That’s more than sad. It’s a shame.
Fred W., I’m happy to answer your question about Barack’s take on the value of life. But first, let’s concede that the issue is more complex than you’re representing. The current administration–and I’d include McCain here since he’s voted more than 90% of the time with the Bush agenda–is apparently “pro-life,” yet hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died at their hands (by the estimates of the International Red Cross), including many women and children, for a war whose rationale few can comprehend (recall that even by its own evidence, the government has found definitively no link between Iraq and 9/11 according to the 9/11 Report). Remember that the current pro-life administration has abandoned healthcare for tens of thousands of low-income children by abandoning SChip legislation and that poverty has increased every year for the past 8. Remember that our soldiers are not only dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that our troops returning home are suffering record percentages of suicide because our government is not providing for their care. Remember that these numbers dwarf the numbers of lives at stake in the legislation you describe. And remember that while Obama failed to support that bill–a disappointment indeed–he also helped push through a plank in the Democratic platform that aims at reducing abortions by providing education, healthcare, and poverty reform to those who most commonly choose abortion–the poor. Remember that legislation alone is unlikely to effect change since profound social issues–including poverty–are behind choosing poverty, and that prior to Roe v. Wade (when abortion was illegal), people still sought and had abortions, though since it was a back-room affair, many more of the mothers also died. Remember that Roe v. Wade is a US law 35 years old that (in spite of lots of campaign promises) no Republican–Nixon, Ford, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, or G.W. Bush (that’s 23 of those 35 years, if you’re counting)–have overturned. Remember that your own call for “self-defense” might be seen as contradicting your “pro-life” stance (as, indeed, do Republican calls favoring capital punishment)–that you, like those who favor abortion, believe some lives are more valuable than others (though you clearly disagree about which lives those are).
Given all that, I think the ethics of voting against medical attention for a baby born in a botched abortion are about as complicated as the ethics of voting in favor of the Iraq war… Or voting in favor of capital punishment… Or voting against poverty programs… Or voting against legislation that works to eliminate the conditions that lead to abortion in the first place.
Of course, all of those ethical issues are a lot muddier than the ethics of somebody who would think it was funny to sing “Bomb, bomb, bomb… bomb, bomb Iran” to a group of hungry-for-blood supporters. The ethics of the person who could do that (even in jest) are clear-cut indeed.
Don’t you think?
That’s supposed to say “Remember that legislation alone is unlikely to effect change since profound social issues–including poverty–are behind choosing abortion”
Many people might find this illuminating. It was delivered in 2006. .
Here are Barack’s statements on faith:
Ack. No links. I’ll try again:
Many people might find this illuminating. It was delivered in 2006: http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php.
Here are Barack’s statements on faith:http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaonFaith.pdf
I’ll add the statement of faith I most recently heard Obama answer: Uh, er, um, well, ur…scientifically or theologically…is above my pay grade.
Wasn’t she in that “I’m Hot for Teacher” video by Van Halen?
So if I understood you correctly, Bill, Obama’s failure to vote for legislation that would provide medical attention for an infant that survived a botched abortion is “a disappointment.”
Yes, I suppose it is.
I would say you are correct in that some on this list “have lost the ability to build a coherent argument, spot a logical fallacy, or do the hard work of research and study–whether it’s of the biblical text or the record of a candidate. That’s more than sad. It’s a shame.”
To call such a vote a “disappointment” is more than sad; it is a shame.
Fred W., so is voting for the Iraq war. So is voting to kill the born. So is voting to end care for the poorest in order to benefit the richest. So is authorizing torture. So is your failure to deal with anything substantive I said. When I said I’m disappointed Obama voted the way he did, I meant it. I guess that’s inadequate, though. So I should do what, precisely? Are you not disappointed in any of the other things I mentioned? Or do you favor all of them? If you do recognize the tragedy of all these other things, have you found a way to reconcile your support for those like Bush and McCain nonetheless? How do we as humans deal with the human frailty of our leaders? How should we?
Okay. Let me see if I can give you a response to match the tone and thoughtfulness of your posts. But it’s clear you don’t really want to think about the complexities of these topics. So let me try something a little spicier: sarcasm. Are you ready? Here goes:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They say we get the government we deserve. Fred, thanks for explaining the last 8 years. Abu Graib. Guantanamo. The violation of the very constitution that I recall some Texan swearing before God to defend. But after all, what does that really mean? It’s not like making an oath before God should count for anything, right? Like it’s okay to kill the born, to let them starve, to wipe them out so our President can claim he’s a “war president” (even as he fails to stop the Taliban or find those responsible for 9/11), right? I mean, Iraq was way more important than that, because unlike Afghanistan and Pakistan, it has OIL (remember, that was the first acronym for the Iraq war). Hmmm.
I suppose Bush’s oath is worth as much as all those Republicans promising to end the tragedy that is abortion — and as i said, it IS a tragedy (along with all those other things I mentioned) as soon as they get the presidency… or Congress… or the Supreme Court… Or all of them at once. Yep. They’re bound to do something any day now. Just wait. They’ve screwed it all up before, but this time, I believe you that they’ll get it right. They’ll stop paying all that attention to helping oil companies and Halliburton and Enron make record profits at the expense of America and enact the ethical, family values legislation we’re always hearing tell about whenever there’s an election… It’s a certainty. You’re right to feel smug about it, I admit.
And everybody knows that making abortion illegal will surely change everybody’s hearts and stop it right away! After all, it worked for the 18th Amendment, right? Yep. Only moon-eyed community organizers would think to end the need for abortion through anti-poverty legislation, education, and enhancing opportunities to work. Ha! Giuliani and Palin were right to mock community organizers… We need John & Sarah to continue the work of George and Dick.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fred, I don’t know if you can tell, but that was sarcastic irony. Irony is a tool for revealing inconsistencies. It’s a standard tool in satire, the purpose of which is to educate and reform. That may not be what you’re after as you cherry-pick things to be incensed about. So I try the sarcastic route to see if it can break through your monolithic vision… I don’t know if it’ll work, and I know some will accuse me of being unchristian (though Jesus also used this strategy sometimes), but there it is.
How’s it going? How are you feeling about things? A little hot under the collar? Even more convinced your righteous indignation is warranted? Ready for 4 more years?
I wish we could have agreed that things are muddier than your initial post indicated. I wish we could have talked like adults. But you do what you need to do.
I leave to you the last word… I’ll look forward to your own witty riposte.
You overlooked one fact-George W Bush isn’t running for president.
You also overlook the fact that 93% of abortions are performed for “convenience.” Working women, middle and upper class women, and certainly healthy women are having most of the abortions. I’ll take the odds of criminalizing abortion working over the status quo any day.
(I will leave Fred the last word on our little discussion, but I made no such promise to you, Keith).
Abortion is a tragedy. So is poverty. So is war. And when it comes to these, Bush IS running again. I hate all 3. And I, too want the status quo to go.
Here are the official stats (as of 1998): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/AGIAbortionReasonsBarChart.png
You might also consult the Guttmacher Institute, affiliated with the World Health Organization: http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php
Keith, I’d like to see where you got that adorably obnoxious and misleading statistic.
I would consider the CDC the most reliable compiler of abortion statistics in the US since they have no political bias or agenda in regards to the legality or illegality of the procedure. They just collect the information.
Reporting abortions is not mandatory, so the records that the NRLA have access to are far from complete and yield a very biased interpretation of the evidence. One of the things they count as “convenience” is “cannot afford to rear a child.” Real convenience, poverty.
This is the most recent information from the CDC:
25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other
Are all of those medically necessary procedures? Probably not. That’s not really for me to say. Are there plenty in that number that are? Yes. Adamantly so.
Also, I’d like to emphasize that voting pro-choice is NOT voting “pro-abortion” as some seem to believe. I vote pro-choice. I will continue to vote pro-choice and anyone who wants to discuss this further with me is welcome to e-mail me: quiara at gmail dot com.
Bill—Do you, by any chance, work @ MSNBC & hang out with Keith Olbermann?
helen of troy – Maybe you’re right. Maybe we should have followed the example of FDR with the Nazi’s, Carter with the Khmer Rouge, or Clinton with Rwanda. Then again, maybe not.
Quiera- Read you own post! I only see 2.8% that are not performed for convenience sake.
Bill- I think you have written more on this blog than Obama has written in legislation. He could use you on his Senate staff.
Troy, you have a really, really weird view of what “convenient” is. Poverty is convenient? Abusive relationships are convenient? Scared children taking the only out they know are doing it out of “convenience”? Read beyond the sterile lingo, Troy — there are people behind those numbers.
I am not “for” abortion — personally, I’m extremely pro-life — but all lives have to count, mother and child alike.
How many women considering abortion have you taken the time to sit and talk with, Troy? How many unwed teenage mothers have you had a chance to work with? How many kids are you out there adopting so that the unwanted ones will have somewhere to go? Do you have more children than you can feed? Will you lose your livelihood if you carry a baby to term? Or your life?
Until you take the time to sit, pray and cry with them, don’t tell me what choices are made out of “convenience.”
Troy, I hope you read Quiara’s posts. It seems to me some filter must be slicing out words in our posts. I keep typing “poverty” and “war,” but you guys keep seeing only abortion. Odd… Probably some corrupt .dll file.
(Again, I’ll leave Fred the last word in our little discussion, but I didn’t make that promise to you, either).
Troy, do you have any handy statistics about what percentage of the Iraq war was for convenience (way more convenient than a war against the actual terrorists, for example)? Cause I think I could pull a number from the same place you got yours. And when is that mission going to be accomplished again? I seem to remember someone about 5 years ago (and a few hundred thousand total lives ago) standing in front of a flag on an aircraft carrier and promising it was, but he clearly didn’t know what he was talking about. And I heard this other guy say he didn’t care how long we were there — heck, even a century would be just fine with him. And apparently, he’s a “maverick” running for president now, though it’s hard to tell a difference between them any more (though there used to be one for a while prior to 2000). Meanwhile, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of abortions both here at home and there in Iraq are happening with both of their hearty approval each year — only those abortions are happening well after birth (years after, in fact), and these 2 “pro-lifers” are cutting funding for doctors to help them, too (though they’re making a mint for the insurance and medical companies). And all of this makes it kinda hard to figure out what it is you’re trying to prove… Ah yes, it’s about that other tragedy that I’ve noted was a tragedy every time I’ve posted — a point on which we actually agree, though you seem never to notice it. So let me say it again clearly: ABORTION IS A TRAGEDY AND I WISH PEOPLE DIDN’T CHOOSE IT. It’s just that I’d like to end the disease (poverty, lack of education, etc. — look over Quiara’s list again) that drives people to abortion while you seem to be championing the treatment of a symptom instead, assuring me that that’s good enough.
Oh, and by the way, it’s kinda hard to say FDR didn’t try to handle the Nazis (you don’t need that apostrophe — only for possessives, right)… You might recall Lend-Lease, which was his only option prior to December 7th and which Everett Dirksen, at the time a Republican U.S. Representative, tried to derail while the Democrats were at lunch… And then there’s the whole 2nd World War thing that he did… And Carter did work to influence the situation in Cambodia (it had started under Ford in 1975), with Phnom Penh falling and Pol Pot fleeing in 1979 before Carter left office. In years since, unlike a few other ex-presidents we might mention, he’s worked tirelessly for world peace and justice — and he founded Habitat for Humanity, too. And you might remember that the Republican Congress also had a role in Rwanda, their howling about Kosovo and Somalia before making it harder for Clinton to react. Also, you forgot to add W and Darfur to your little list.
But other than that, great points, man. You really know your… stuff. And thanks for the compliment about serving on Barack’s Senate staff. But I don’t think he’ll need my help with that. On his Presidential staff, on the other hand… Well that would be an honor.
You beat me to it, Troy. Your statistics are every bit as “obnoxious” it turns out.
Quiara, if you were extremely pro-life you would probably wouldn’t choose the path that still results in over a million murders per year.
Using that logic, I guess I could say I’m pro-choice. A woman has a choice (in well over 98% anyway-I’ll exclude rape) to have (or not have) irresponsible sex.
How very considerate of you to exclude rape.
I’ll reiterate: until you’ve spent time with these women (NOT these “numbers”), I don’t care what you believe or don’t believe to be “convenient.” I’ve worked with many, many women and many, many scared little girls. I haven’t met one — not a single one — who had an abortion for the sake of her waistline, not one who did it because the “timing was suboptimal” and not one who chose that option lightly. And I’ve talked to plenty of other people who’ve worked with women in these same situations as well. Odd, none of them mention a recreational serial abortionist, either….
Maybe (maybe?) things aren’t as black and white as they look in your world.
Keith. Wow. what you don’t understand about poverty is a lot.
I may be more familiar with poverty than you think-maybe not.
Either way, poverty doesn’t exclude someone from the consequences of irresponsible sex.
But, even if I concede that being poor or scared justifies not raising a child, there is always the option of giving the child up for adoption.
I know people that have had abortions. I know people that have given their child to families that aren’t able to have them themselves. Bet you can’t guess which ones live with deeper regret? I also have someone very close to me who had his child killed. Why would he not have any say so?
I am not surprise that the decision is one “not taken lightly.” Does the fact that it was difficult to do justify it? Seems many think so.
Please allow me to clarify that the person close to me had his child killed by the mother, against his will. Although he was willing to raise the child, he had no say so in the situation.
Ah, Keith, see this is where we’re disagreeing. Have I even ONCE tried to argue that it was “right”? That it was the ideal? No. Not a single time. I have instead been arguing against all those who think it’s convenient, that its’ something done lightly and on a whim.
For those who are unaware, the scraping, ablation and cauterization (and subsequent scar tissue) during an abortion would be just as recreational and convenient a method of birth control as if our friends Keith and Troy here decided to ward off any future conceptions by abrading away their scrotums with a belt sander. Fun times.
I’ve never said that it was something done lightly or on a whim. I don’t see how deciding to kill your child could be.
You may say that it isn’t “right” or “ideal,” but you seem eager to defend a woman’s right to kill her baby. That speaks more than simply saying that it isn’t right.
We may not agree on the “black and white” ness of it, but I’m glad we both believe it’s murder.
Excellent so it’s only taken you guys 10 times to acknowledge what we’ve said from the beginning. With all this agreement in the air, is it possible we can get to that phony war Bush and McCain are so hot for that’s killing more than 100,000 per year, or are you going to continue pathologically to ignore it? Or how about the poverty issues we’ve raised (and a couple of “I know a few poor people” isn’t really going to give this the gravitas it deserves. I mean, I’d really like to know that you guys really care about protecting life and aren’t just the partisans you increasingly appear to be.
Oh, and let’s not throw around any of those silly liberal and conservative labels, since they make little sense here (after all, you’re calling for the government to interfere in people’s personal lives — technically a liberal position — and Quiana is articulating the conservative position of letting people make their own choices)… Okay?
You’re wrong, Bill. A woman can choose to have sex responsibly, she can choose not to have sex irresponsibly. She can choose fornication, or she can choose abstinence. She can choose to use contraception, she can choose not to. She can choose to raise a child that God created, she can choose to let someone else if she feels she’s not up to it. Those are all making your own choices-and not liberal at all. That was a poor attempt at a spin.
Besides, I somehow don’t think the babies are choosing to have their brains sucked out by their own mothers.
I realize defense of murdering our children is indefensable, so I figured it would only be a matter of time before somebody tried to shift the attetion to something else.
Dear Keith, wow. That’s something. So it IS a pathology with you. Let me ask: is it at birth that you stop caring about murder, or do you have some other arbitrary cut-off? What exactly are the mitigating factors that make murder okay for you? Is it money? Political party? Social status? I think we’ll all be enlightened by hearing.
(By the way, you talk about a “shift of attention” here; since I’ve been talking about the war and poverty since my very first post to you guys — trying to get you to talk even a little bit about how your “pro-life” stand is manifest there, and since you seem to be able to talk only about abortion, I’m assuming you’re talking about yourself. And I appreciate that; I really do. It shows a spark of self-awareness on your part that could, if nurtured properly, lead to some real progress for you. I’m pulling for you, friend. Heck, maybe one day you’ll even be able to understand the complexities surrounding sex in our culture — how men can pressure women or exert force over them — even if it’s not rape, how women driven by poverty or a lack of education can sometimes make bad decisions, how much Christian charity and genuine outreach should be coming into play in these situations. I hope so. That would be a good thing for everyone. In the meantime, good luck with the spelling. And the definitions. And keep practicing logic. It’ll come to you eventually. Little steps, little steps.)
You’re wrong again, Bill.
Nice logic assuming that anyone who is against abortion doesn’t care about murder. Too bad for you that simply isn’t true-regardless of how much better it would make those who feel who justify abortion.
If you’re talking about getting to the point where I feel murdering is justified once I’m enlightened about the complexities surrounding sex in our culture, you might as well give up. Not gonna happen. You may be right, I’m a simple man and like things in terms of right or wrong. But I do realize this: there are circumstances in every sin. Everybody always has an excuse.
As far as what you’ve been trying to say from your first post, I honestly didn’t make it through all of the Obama love letters enough to try to pick them apart. For that I apologize. I will add that if you’re waiting for a president to overturn a Supreme Court decision, don’t hold your breath. The president cannont overturn a court’s decision.
And I do honestly apologize if my spelling and use of definitions appalls you. I will take that to heart and try to improve upon it.
Thank you for the discussion Bill and your concern for me. It is appreciated.
I hate to butt in, but Bill, you have come across very arrogant here. I am trying to get my head around how someone who writes as if they are filled with so much hate can have anything very valuable to say to anyone in regards to the value of human life.
It seems when the abortion question comes up, you want to bring up the war in Iraq or something rather vague, but inflamatory, about taking from the poor in order to give to the rich.
Does murder occur during a war? Sure. Is abortion murder? It appears you say it is, but it should only matter as a political issue if someone agrees with your position on the war in Iraq and social welfare programs. That is an interesting position to take. You write extremely long posts. Do you write those because you are thoughtful (I know that is what you think) or are you just trying to make the abortion issue look more complicated and thus, cover up your equivocation on it. You seem much quicker to condemn someone of murder who votes to cut government spending than you do to condemn someone of murder who cuts a child out of the womb.
The link above about Peggy Noonan is telling, isn’t it? Don’t you know that lots of Republicans said “this is political bullxxxx” when the camera was off and then loyally lied right into the camera when it was on.
Here’s a healthy view:
Palin and McCain’s Shotgun Marriage
By FRANK RICH
SARAH PALIN makes John McCain look even older than he is. And he seemed more than willing to play that part on Thursday night. By the time he slogged through his nearly 50-minute acceptance speech — longer even than Barack Obama’s — you half-expected some brazen younger Republican (Mitt Romney, perhaps?) to dash onstage to give him a gold watch and the bum’s rush.
Still, attention must be paid. McCain’s address, though largely a repetitive slew of stump-speech lines and worn G.O.P. orthodoxy, reminded us of what we once liked about the guy: his aspirations to bipartisanship, his heroic service in Vietnam, his twinkle. He took his (often inaccurate) swipes at Obama, but, in winning contrast to Palin and Rudy Giuliani, he wasn’t smug or nasty.
The only problem, of course, is that the entire thing was a sham.
As is nakedly evident, the speech’s central argument, that the 72-year-old McCain will magically morph into a powerful change agent as president, is a non sequitur. In his 26 years in Washington, most of it with a Republican in the White House and roughly half of it with Republicans in charge of Congress, he was better at lecturing his party about reform than leading a reform movement. G.O.P. corruption and governmental dysfunction only grew. So did his cynical flip-flops on the most destructive policies of the president who remained nameless Thursday night. (In the G.O.P., Bush love is now the second most popular love that dare not speak its name.)
Even more fraudulent, if that’s possible, is the contrast between McCain’s platonic presentation of his personal code of honor and the man he has become. He always puts his country first, he told us: “I’ve been called a maverick.” If there was any doubt that that McCain has fled, confirmation arrived with his last-minute embrace of Sarah Palin.
We still don’t know a lot about Palin except that she’s better at delivering a speech than McCain and that she defends her own pregnant daughter’s right to privacy even as she would have the government intrude to police the reproductive choices of all other women. Most of the rest of the biography supplied by her and the McCain camp is fiction.
She didn’t say “no thanks” to the “Bridge to Nowhere” until after Congress had already abandoned it but given Alaska a blank check for $223 million in taxpayers’ money anyway. Far from rejecting federal pork, she hired lobbyists to secure her town a disproportionate share of earmarks ($1,000 per resident in 2002, 20 times the per capita average in other states). Though McCain claimed “she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities,” she has never issued a single command as head of the Alaska National Guard. As for her “executive experience” as mayor, she told her hometown paper in Wasilla, Alaska, in 1996, the year of her election: “It’s not rocket science. It’s $6 million and 53 employees.” Her much-advertised crusade against officials abusing their office is now compromised by a bipartisan ethics investigation into charges that she did the same.
How long before we learn she never shot a moose?
Given the actuarial odds that could make Palin our 45th president, it would be helpful to know who this mystery woman actually is. Meanwhile, two eternal axioms of our politics remain in place. Americans vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom. And in judging the top of the ticket, voters look first at the candidates’ maiden executive decision, their selection of running mates. Whatever we do and don’t know about Palin’s character at this point, there is no ambiguity in what her ascent tells us about McCain’s character and potential presidency.
He wanted to choose the pro-abortion-rights Joe Lieberman as his vice president. If he were still a true maverick, he would have done so. But instead he chose partisanship and politics over country. “God only made one John McCain, and he is his own man,” said the shafted Lieberman in his own tedious convention speech last week. What a pathetic dupe. McCain is now the man of James Dobson and Tony Perkins. The “no surrender” warrior surrendered to the agents of intolerance not just by dumping his pal for Palin but by moving so far to the right on abortion that even Cindy McCain seemed unaware of his radical shift when being interviewed by Katie Couric last week.
That ideological sellout, unfortunately, was not the worst leadership trait the last-minute vice presidential pick revealed about McCain. His speed-dating of Palin reaffirmed a more dangerous personality tic that has dogged his entire career. His decision-making process is impetuous and, in its Bush-like preference for gut instinct over facts, potentially reckless.
As The New York Times reported last Tuesday, Palin was sloppily vetted, at best. McCain operatives and some of their press surrogates responded to this revelation by trying to discredit The Times article. After all, The Washington Post had cited McCain aides (including his campaign manager, Rick Davis) last weekend to assure us that Palin had a “full vetting process.” She had been subjected to “an F.B.I. background check,” we were told, and “the McCain camp had reviewed everything it could find on her.”
The Times had it right. The McCain campaign’s claims of a “full vetting process” for Palin were as much a lie as the biographical details they’ve invented for her. There was no F.B.I. background check. The Times found no evidence that a McCain representative spoke to anyone in the State Legislature or business community. Nor did anyone talk to the fired state public safety commissioner at the center of the Palin ethics investigation. No McCain researcher even bothered to consult the relevant back issues of the Wasilla paper. Apparently when McCain said in June that his vice presidential vetting process was basically “a Google,” he wasn’t joking.
This is a roll of the dice beyond even Bill Clinton’s imagination. “Often my haste is a mistake,” McCain conceded in his 2002 memoir, “but I live with the consequences without complaint.” Well, maybe it’s fine if he wants to live with the consequences, but what about his country? Should the unexamined Palin prove unfit to serve at the pinnacle of American power, it will be too late for the rest of us to complain.
We’ve already seen where such visceral decision-making by McCain can lead. In October 2001, he speculated that Saddam Hussein might have been behind the anthrax attacks in America. That same month he out-Cheneyed Cheney in his repeated public insistence that Iraq had a role in 9/11 — even after both American and foreign intelligence services found that unlikely. He was similarly rash in his reading of the supposed evidence of Saddam’s W.M.D. and in his estimate of the number of troops needed to occupy Iraq. (McCain told MSNBC in late 2001 that we could do with fewer than 100,000.) It wasn’t until months after “Mission Accomplished” that he called for more American forces to be tossed into the bloodbath. The whole fiasco might have been prevented had he listened to those like Gen. Eric Shinseki who faulted the Rumsfeld war plan from the start.
In other words, McCain’s hasty vetting of Palin was all too reminiscent of his grave dereliction of due diligence on the war. He has been no less hasty in implying that we might somehow ride to the military rescue of Georgia (“Today, we are all Georgians”) or in reaffirming as late as December 2007 that the crumbling anti-democratic regime of Pervez Musharraf deserved “the benefit of the doubt” even as it was enabling the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. McCain’s blanket endorsement of Bush administration policy in Pakistan could have consequences for years to come.
“This election is not about issues” so much as the candidates’ images, said the McCain campaign manager, Davis, in one of the season’s most notable pronouncements. Going into the Republican convention, we thought we knew what he meant: the McCain strategy is about tearing down Obama. But last week made clear that the McCain campaign will be equally ruthless about deflecting attention from its own candidate’s deterioration.
What was most striking about McCain’s acceptance speech is that it had almost nothing in common with the strident right-wing convention that preceded it. We were pointedly given a rerun of McCain 2000 — cobbled together from scraps of the old Straight Talk repertory. The ensuing tedium was in all likelihood intentional. It’s in the campaign’s interest that we nod off and assume McCain is unchanged in 2008.
That’s why the Palin choice was brilliant politics — not because it rallied the G.O.P.’s shrinking religious-right base. America loves nothing more than a new celebrity face, and the talking heads marched in lock step last week to proclaim her a star. Palin is a high-energy distraction from the top of the ticket, even if the provenance of her stardom is in itself a reflection of exactly what’s frightening about the top of the ticket.
By hurling charges of sexism and elitism at any easily cowed journalist who raises a question about Palin, McCain operatives are hoping to ensure that whatever happened in Alaska with Sarah Palin stays in Alaska. Given how little vetting McCain himself has received this year — and that only 58 days remain until Nov. 4 — they just might pull it off.
Keith, I don’t see in your response a clear understanding of anything I’ve been trying to articulate. I’ve been trying — unsuccessfully, obviously — to engage you on pro-life issues beyond abortion, namely: the war in Iraq and a host of policy issues concerning poverty. But you won’t even mention the words, let alone discuss the issues, no matter how absurd I get in my rhetoric. There’s much that’s worrying in that disconnect.
I believe abortion is a tragedy. But it’s not the only one we as Christians need to be facing and dealing with regarding the sanctity of life. My purpose has been to illustrate this. Our political culture makes it quite easy to make sweeping determinations about abortion, but that same culture (as you’ve illustrated perfectly, in fact) fails to address the politically expedient but harder issues that are just as reprehensible as abortion. Put another way, we often hold disenfranchised groups — the poor, women, minorities — to a standard we refuse to enforce for those in power — Bush, Cheney, the middle and upper classes, industry. It has become easy in this country to say one is pro-life about abortion yet not even give a first thought to war, poverty, and class issues which are JUST AS IMPLICATED IN UNWARRANTED DEATHS if we are really taking a thoroughly pro-life stance. My point hasn’t been to minimize abortion, but rather to bring these other issues to the fore as equally worthy of attention in a pro-life discussion.
But what I see you and others articulating here in vivid detail is actually a selective-life agenda. Some lives are worth saving and getting riled up about politically; other lives simply don’t matter. That’s a troubling contradiction, and one that I find little way of justifying.
Luther, thanks at least for your cursory mention of these issues. I mean, at least you were able to say the words, even if you didn’t take the issues seriously. And yes, you’re right, I DO want to bring up “the war in Iraq or something rather vague, but inflammatory, about taking from the poor in order to give to the rich” whenever “the abortion question comes up.” That’s precisely my aim.
Of course, there’s really nothing “vague” about it. When the government decides to cut social programs, people die. When someone like Sarah Palin cuts by 1/3 the funding for a halfway house to help poor pregnant girls in Anchorage keep their babies (as she recently did as Governor of Alaska — an ironic choice), babies die. When Enron defrauds the people and turns off the power during the peak of summer and a chummy government looks the other way, people die. When the government fails to take poverty into account in a lackadaisical response to Katrina, people die. When you buy a sweatshop-made garment (like those from the Northern Mariana Islands) at Wal-Mart for prices that yield less than survival wages, people die. When you cancel health insurance for children, people die. I guarantee you there’s nothing “vague” about these deaths to the families who are losing their loved ones. And when a president pitches a war purely for the PR value to his own administration, people die. It’s not just that “murder occur[s] during a war” (talk about vague), it’s that this war IS murder — murder of 5,000 US troops and of 600,000 Iraqi women and children, all sanctioned and supported by a party claiming to be pro-life. I think that’s a problem. And I’m in the majority on this one.
My question for you — my question from the beginning — is how we as Christians can avoid the easy compartmentalization that this discussion clearly illustrates: either all life is precious, some life is precious, or no life is precious. If you’re not articulating the first position but are instead supporting the second, then please stop pretending that you’re exclusively “pro-life.” Furthermore, please let us know the ground rules for how you decide which lives are worth saving. What are your criteria? That’s all I’m asking. personally, I happen to think all life is sacred. And I want to protect it — unborn AND born. But that means a lot more sweeping agenda and a more thorough handling of the causes behind not only abortion, but injustice in our country.
Ending abortion would be great. It would be a true achievement if no one ever aborted again, if no one ever felt compelled to do so ever again. But that involves a lot more than legislation that addresses only the final symptom in a disease that plagues our society. In other words, it’s facile to say that legislating abortion is all we need to do, especially when we already know from history that legislation doesn’t keep people from doing it and doesn’t address the root problems. As Christians, it is those very root problems we are called to address. After all, how much of the New Testament is about caring for the poor, ensuring justice, recognizing as neighbor even those we find distasteful or believe to be beneath us? How can we keep ignoring this majority of scripture to focus on only a few hot-button issues?
I see a lot of righteous indignation by you, Keith, Troy, Fred W., and others on this thread. All I’m asking is this: your fervor for the unborn is good, but where’s your righteous indignation about the rest of it? Shouldn’t you have some?
Having even a little — or, at the very least, being able to admit that there are other issues we need to address (let alone being able to say the words) — would go a long way to making you guys seem credibly pro-life.
Your attempts to spin anyone who doesn’t support big government does little for your cause. I’m sorry you feel you have to label everyone who is against abortion as not caring about life. It’s almost as if it makes you feel better about throwing your support behind the only man with the stomach to vote for (more than once) throwing babies in the trash that survive abortion attempts.
Keep putting your faith in big government to solve all the problems-you’ll be dissapointed every time. Until then, you can be certain that it’s not your approval of my credibility I seek.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree I guess.
Good night Bill.