The Candidates Debates

[Usually Lurkin]

[eyeroll]
so we've gone from whether or not McCain is good representative of conservative values, such that a vote for Obama is a referendum on conservatism, to whether chumdawg thinks he is a conservative.

you guys can't keep from shifting the topic around, can you?

[chumdawg]

The topic we are on right now is how conservative McCain is. You offered this up. Someone pointed out that McCain's views appear to match the standard conservative boilerplate. It's up to you to support your claim in the face of a challenge.

[Epitome22]

I too would like to know just why John McCain isn't a conservative. How his politics differ from Conservative politics, and if he isn't a conservative just what he is then. Is there any core plank of the conservative value system, not a tertiary issue, but a primary one that McCain is not conservative on? The only thing I can think of is Immigration.

[Epitome22]

And regardless of how conservative he is or "if" he is conservative, the idea that a MORE conservative candidate would be doing better is wishful thinking. Conservatism as an ideology is definitely on the defensive these past two election cycles.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The topic we are on right now is how conservative McCain is. You offered this up. Someone pointed out that McCain's views appear to match the standard conservative boilerplate. It's up to you to support your claim in the face of a challenge.

that is not the topic that came up. That's the topic mavdog (and now you) are trying to shift to. Matching a boilerplate is your idea. And I did not offer this up. Mavdog said that the election is a referendum on conservative politics. I said that McCain does not represent conservative policies.

To turn it into a policy list (which anyone could google if they cared to do more than try to win debate points) and then argue some goofball argument about how many policies it takes to be conservative is not the point. I will concede gladly that McCain is more conservative than Obama, and more conservative than both chumdawg and mavdog. And if that's your definition of conservative, then go ahead and apply it to McCain, and you'll get no argument from me, except for saying that it's stupid to treat the concept as relative and the label as categorical.

But whether or not he is a conservative (or even "is conservative") is not the issue mavdog brought up. The issue is whether he represents conservative policies in such a way that the election can be defined as a judgment on conservative policies.

Even without talking about immigration and campaign finance and the role of the government in buying peoples mortgages, or any of the other issues that people on the right quibble over, it's obvious that McCain is not the standard bearer for conservative politics. If he were, then his running mate wouldn't have given him a boost among conservatives.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

that is not the topic that came up. That's the topic mavdog (and now you) are trying to shift to. Matching a boilerplate is your idea. And I did not offer this up. Mavdog said that the election is a referendum on conservative politics. I said that McCain does not represent conservative policies.

To turn it into a policy list (which anyone could google if they cared to do more than try to win debate points) and then argue some goofball argument about how many policies it takes to be conservative is not the point. I will concede gladly that McCain is more conservative than Obama, and more conservative than both chumdawg and mavdog. And if that's your definition of conservative, then go ahead and apply it to McCain, and you'll get no argument from me, except for saying that it's stupid to treat the concept as relative and the label as categorical.

But whether or not he is a conservative (or even "is conservative") is not the issue mavdog brought up. The issue is whether he represents conservative policies in such a way that the election can be defined as a judgment on conservative policies.

Even without talking about immigration and campaign finance and the role of the government in buying peoples mortgages, or any of the other issues that people on the right quibble over, it's obvious that McCain is not the standard bearer for conservative politics. If he were, then his running mate wouldn't have given him a boost among conservatives.

the point is that mccain is representitive of conservative principles of american political thought, and his running mate is also a candidate that reflects those principles.

the list of conservative policies that mccain incorporates in his platform is pretty darn complete. the fact that you refuse to indicate where mccain deviates from those core ideals exposes the hollow claim that he isn't a conservative, or that his campaign is not based on conservative ideals.

mccain is hitting those conservative platforms hard in an attempt to stay competitive, and so far it is not bringing any success, even more of a statement that the nation is rejecting those planks and voting for the liberal alternative.

coupled with the clear liberal philosophies proposed by obama and his running mate, this election can be viewed as a juxtaposition of conservative and liberal ideals...and it is clear that the country is embracing the liberal candidate, not the conservative candidate.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the list of conservative policies that mccain incorporates in his platform is pretty darn complete. the fact that you refuse to indicate where mccain deviates from those core ideals exposes the hollow claim that he isn't a conservative, or that his campaign is not based on conservative ideals.

that you would say this while quoting from me the list you requested suggests you are ignoring stuff (didn't you just do that a few posts ago, too?). That you still want to list conservative v. nonconservative policy positions as evidence of how well McCain represents conservative policies suggests you aren't thinking very deeply about this issue you are putting forth.

mccain is hitting those conservative platforms hard in an attempt to stay competitive,.

yeah. If he really represented that platform, he wouldn't have to work so hard at convincing people, and he would have more success at it.

coupled with the clear liberal philosophies proposed by obama and his running mate, this election can be viewed as a juxtaposition of conservative and liberal ideals...and it is clear that the country is embracing the liberal candidate, not the conservative candidate.

except McCain has yet to excite his base to the point that they are energized to go out and work for him. Palin did, and there were effects in the general polls. Obama's leftism has energized his base, and it has had an impact in the middle, but only to the extent that his extreme leftism on topics like socialism and abortion have remained hidden from those in the middle. Go over and listen to the interviews from the Howard Stern show. Many, many, many people have no idea who Obama is, they just know his celebrity.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

that you would say this while quoting from me the list you requested suggests you are ignoring stuff (didn't you just do that a few posts ago, too?). That you still want to list conservative v. nonconservative policy positions as evidence of how well McCain represents conservative policies suggests you aren't thinking very deeply about this issue you are putting forth.

no, it illustrates how much you want to avoid directly addressing the crux of the argument put forth. the primary platform positions of the mccain campaign incorporates core conservative ideals, and you want to dismiss those planks as non-evidence of mccain running as a conservative.

other than to look at the platforms and positions of the candidate, I don't understand how one can say of they are or are not a conservative. do you?

yeah. If he really represented that platform, he wouldn't have to work so hard at convincing people, and he would have more success at it.

unless of course the public rejects those planks and platform....which (ahem) is the very point being made.

except McCain has yet to excite his base to the point that they are energized to go out and work for him. Palin did, and there were effects in the general polls. Obama's leftism has energized his base, and it has had an impact in the middle, but only to the extent that his extreme leftism on topics like socialism and abortion have remained hidden from those in the middle. Go over and listen to the interviews from the Howard Stern show. Many, many, many people have no idea who Obama is, they just know his celebrity.

there you go again, blaming a lack of knowledge by the voters as why obama is ahead in this race. that is a pretty thin and fragile board that you're walking out on.

almost 1/4 of the us population watched the debates between obama and mccain, it's pretty ridiculous to try and argue that they couldn't understand what the candidates said.

that is not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars each candidate has spent on ads, so your argument that the voters are just not well informed doesn't pass the test.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, it illustrates how much you want to avoid directly addressing the crux of the argument put forth. the primary platform positions of the mccain campaign incorporates core conservative ideals, and you want to dismiss those planks as non-evidence of mccain running as a conservative.

I'm trying to avoid the useless garden path you are desperate to drag us down. I'll concede that McCain is running as a conservative. Again I concede that he is more conservative than Obama. And if you want to label his list of positions as "conservative" then go ahead. That's all a separate argument. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether he is, in this election, a good representative of those positions.

almost 1/4 of the us population watched the debates between obama and mccain, it's pretty ridiculous to try and argue that they couldn't understand what the candidates said.

that is not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars each candidate has spent on ads, so your argument that the voters are just not well informed doesn't pass the test.

Political ads are not a good way to get informed. Neither are the debates. Both, at best, are topic lists, and at worst are flat out lies. For example, it wasn't till the last debate that McCain even brought up Obama's skethcy associations and his extremist position on abortion. Obama lied through some explanation. If they don't go look something up, they will go away with a half-truth at best because it's not going to be laid out for them in the nightly news or by Jay Leno or John Stewart.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'm trying to avoid the useless garden path you are desperate to drag us down. I'll concede that McCain is running as a conservative. Again I concede that he is more conservative than Obama. And if you want to label his list of positions as "conservative" then go ahead. That's all a separate argument. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether he is, in this election, a good representative of those positions.

let's take it one step futher...and I'm glad we aren't arguing anymore if mccain is a conservative or not...if the republican party nominee were someone more rigidly on the right, they woud not be as close as mccain finds himself today. mccain is as close as he is because he can appeal to those in the middle who overlook his conservatism with admiration for his "mavericky" (thanks for that snl) positions.

if romney or huckabee were the republican candidate the obama lead could be double what it is now imo.

so yes, this election is a denial of the conservative platform.

Political ads are not a good way to get informed. Neither are the debates. Both, at best, are topic lists, and at worst are flat out lies. For example, it wasn't till the last debate that McCain even brought up Obama's skethcy associations and his extremist position on abortion. Obama lied through some explanation. If they don't go look something up, they will go away with a half-truth at best because it's not going to be laid out for them in the nightly news or by Jay Leno or John Stewart.

the ads and the debates do draw clear distinctions between the candidates, and if you truly believe that it was only this past week that the obama/ayers connection has been brought up you are deceiving yourself. it was first mentioned in the democratic debates by clinton months ago, in newspapers since then and has been mentioned repeatedly in republican's speeches and ads, it is not a recent item at all.

as for the continued matra of obama's "extreme position on abortion", again he supports the women's right, and it's really as simple as that. there is a distinct and clea difference in the two party's candidates positions on this issue, and as much as you don't like the answer, the voters are supporting the candidates that say yes to the right to choose.

as for "lied through some explanation", please expand on that and show what facts you have...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

let's take it one step futher...and I'm glad we aren't arguing anymore if mccain is a conservative or not...if the republican party nominee were someone more rigidly on the right, they woud not be as close as mccain finds himself today. mccain is as close as he is because he can appeal to those in the middle who overlook his conservatism with admiration for his "mavericky" (thanks for that snl) positions.

(again), his numbers went up when he picked Palin for a reason. If a candidate excites the base, then they get out and work for that candidate. If not, they don't.

if romney or huckabee were the republican candidate the obama lead could be double what it is now imo.

nice guessing. Who's going to win the NBA championship? Both Romney and Huckabee, like McCain, would have done a fine job partially representing conservatism.

as for the continued matra of obama's "extreme position on abortion", again he supports the women's right, and it's really as simple as that. ..

most people do not support parial birth abortion, and are for protecting the lives of babies that have been born. Obama is not.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

(again), his numbers went up when he picked Palin for a reason. If a candidate excites the base, then they get out and work for that candidate. If not, they don't.

There is mounting evidence, as in the case of Powell's interview today, that McCain won a pyrhhic victory with this asshatted move.

most people do not support parial birth abortion, and are for protecting the lives of babies that have been born. Obama is not.

Most people support a woman's right to choose. McCain does not.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

There is mounting evidence, as in the case of Powell's interview today, that McCain won a pyrhhic victory with this asshatted move.

I don't think that's very good evidence.
From August
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08...-barack-obama/

Most people support a woman's right to choose. McCain does not.

most people know McCain's position.

[chumdawg]

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you trying to say? That was the most nonsensical post I've seen in a while.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

(again), his numbers went up when he picked Palin for a reason. If a candidate excites the base, then they get out and work for that candidate. If not, they don't.

well, the base is going to get what they deserve if they sit on their hands and not support the candidate that mirrors their principles.

nice guessing. Who's going to win the NBA championship? Both Romney and Huckabee, like McCain, would have done a fine job partially representing conservatism.

it's not a guess, it's logical. those candidates would not have the level of support from the non-conservative middle of the electorate that mccain does reach.

and the mavs are going to win the championship.

most people do not support parial birth abortion, and are for protecting the lives of babies that have been born. Obama is not.

most people, just like obama, do not want a mother's life to be at risk if an intact dilation and extraction is prohibited.

to repeat, the majority of americans support obama's position on abortion rights, and the majority of americans do not support mccain's, and even more so the extreme position of palin's, stance on the right of a woman to choose.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's not a guess, it's logical. those candidates would not have the level of support from the non-conservative middle of the electorate that mccain does reach.

I will absolutely agree that McCain better represents non-conservative policies. But 1) getting the base excited is absolutely vital, and either of those might have done better, and 2) any rep nominee would have represented a different part of the conservative middle.

most people, just like obama, do not want a mother's life to be at risk if an intact dilation and extraction is prohibited.

to repeat, the majority of americans support obama's position on abortion rights, and the majority of americans do not support mccain's, and even more so the extreme position of palin's, stance on the right of a woman to choose.

most people are shocked and disgusted by his willingness to let born babies die just to protect the political position of abortion. Most people, unlike Obama, don't want "health of the mother" to cover things like her mood at the time. Most people, unlike Obama, would be against teenagers getting abortions without their parents knowing about it. Most people, unlike Obama, are against late term and partial birth abortions. Obama is far, far, far to the left of most people on abortion.

and (again), most people know the position of McCain and Palin, and are free to judge those positions as they see fit. I don't think most people are aware of the extremity of Obama's position.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I will absolutely agree that McCain better represents non-conservative policies. But 1) getting the base excited is absolutely vital, and either of those might have done better, and 2) any rep nominee would have represented a different part of the conservative middle.


most people are shocked and disgusted by his willingness to let born babies die just to protect the political position of abortion. Most people, unlike Obama, don't want "health of the mother" to cover things like her mood at the time. Most people, unlike Obama, would be against teenagers getting abortions without their parents knowing about it. Most people, unlike Obama, are against late term and partial birth abortions. Obama is far, far, far to the left of most people on abortion.

and (again), most people know the position of McCain and Palin, and are free to judge those positions as they see fit. I don't think most people are aware of the extremity of Obama's position.

There's nothing more "extreme" than the position that women shouldn't have the right to an abortion. And that view will only be more extreme the more time goes on in this country.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

There's nothing more "extreme" than the position that women shouldn't have the right to an abortion. And that view will only be more extreme the more time goes on in this country.

I'm not real sure what your point is. Leaving babies in a storage closet to die seems more extreme to me. Especially when it's done simply to justify someone's decision to kill the baby earlier. Anyway, (again) I think more people are aware of the position on abortion taken by McCain and Palin. If anything, there are people that don't trust McCains rightiness on the subject. Relatively fewer people know how extremely left Obama is.

[rabbitproof]

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'm not real sure what your point is. Leaving babies in a storage closet to die seems more extreme to me. Especially when it's done simply to justify someone's decision to kill the baby earlier. Anyway, (again) I think more people are aware of the position on abortion taken by McCain and Palin. If anything, there are people that don't trust McCains rightiness on the subject. Relatively fewer people know how extremely left Obama is.

"rightiness"???

anybody who wants to know obama's position on abortion can easily find that information. I do not expect anyone who supports a woman's right to choose will find disagreement.

from the 3rd presidential debate:

MCCAIN: Senator Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that.

And then, on the floor of the State Senate, as he did 130 times as a state senator, he voted present.

Then there was another bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the state of Illinois not that long ago, where he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, one of the late-term abortion, a really -- one of the bad procedures, a terrible. And then, on the floor of the Illinois State Senate, he voted present.

I don't know how you vote "present" on some of that. I don't know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America. And that's his record, and that's a matter of his record.

And he'll say it has something to do with Roe v. Wade, about the Illinois State Senate. It was clear-cut votes that Senator Obama voted, I think, in direct contradiction to the feelings and views of mainstream America.

SCHIEFFER: Response?

OBAMA: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. The -- here are the facts.

There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.

And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.

And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that's why I voted present, because I'm willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.

The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

OBAMA: We should try to reduce these circumstances.

[jthig32]

It's interesting that he didn't mention "there was already a law on the books" in the transcript of the vote in the Illinois Senate.

Also interesting that he didn't address the Judiciary Committee at all, which is the more damning of the two, imo.

I'm not naive enough to think that stuff like this doesn't go on during every election, by every candidate. I know it does. But that's a bold faced lie on national television, concerning an issue that I really care about, and it bugs me.

[dude1394]

If you had a 100% rating from the NRA would that be an extreme viewpoint? Probably..

If you have a 100% rating from (whatever the dang pro-abortion lobby is) you probably have a very extreme viewpoint as UL is pointing out.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I do not expect anyone who supports a woman's right to choose will find disagreement.

if repeating this really convinces you, then you are the most gullible person in the world.

from the 3rd presidential debate:

. . . and if there was already a law that handled it, it's really, really weird that the attorney general would go ask the senate for a law to cover this. Just because Obama says some stuff and nobody questions it doesn't mean he's right.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

if repeating this really convinces you, then you are the most gullible person in the world.

no, not "gullible", the correct phrase is realistic. not to mention accurate too.

. . . and if there was already a law that handled it, it's really, really weird that the attorney general would go ask the senate for a law to cover this. Just because Obama says some stuff and nobody questions it doesn't mean he's right.

ok, just keep telling yourself that you have a good handle on what is factual and what is not.
hint: you don't. obama is right.

For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when "there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support," an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes "it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique "most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus" and perform the abortion in the presence of "a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion."

2004 column about the issue

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

If you had a 100% rating from the NRA would that be an extreme viewpoint? Probably..

If you have a 100% rating from (whatever the dang pro-abortion lobby is) you probably have a very extreme viewpoint as UL is pointing out.

45 senators have a 100% rating from naral, and 3 others have a 90% rating.

in case you're counting, that is almost half the senate.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

45 senators have a 100% rating from naral, and 3 others have a 90% rating.

in case you're counting, that is almost half the senate.

I would expect that they are extreme then. As evidenced by this statement on Partial Birth Abortion by NARAL. Just like the NRA imo, nothing is allowed to get one toe on a slippery slope.

WASHINGTON - October 21 - The following is a statement by NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman on abortion legislation:

"Today, women's right to privacy is being sacrificed to politics by the United States government. The Senate took its final step toward substituting politicians' judgment for that of a woman, her family, and her doctor. President Bush has vowed to sign this deceptive legislation, which will make him the first President ever to outlaw safe medical procedures, and the first to sign an abortion ban since Roe vs. Wade. No one should be fooled as to the real intentions of this bill's sponsors: they want to take away entirely the right to personal privacy and a woman's right to choose."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I would expect that they are extreme then. As evidenced by this statement on Partial Birth Abortion by NARAL. Just like the NRA imo, nothing is allowed to get one toe on a slippery slope.

naral is right. there are medical reasons for the intact dilation procedure to be used.

[kg_veteran]

Wow, just read the last couple of pages of this thread since I was on vacation for the past few days.

Either Mavdog and Chumdawg are being purposely obtuse (which wouldn't surprise me, since both of them do that quite often), or they are really a lot less informed politically than I previously thought.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Wow, just read the last couple of pages of this thread since I was on vacation for the past few days.

Either Mavdog and Chumdawg are being purposely obtuse (which wouldn't surprise me, since both of them do that quite often), or they are really a lot less informed politically than I previously thought.

You want to point to specifics, or just throw that personal charge out there?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You want to point to specifics, or just throw that personal charge out there?

Sure.

If John McCain were a strong conservative, do you think his candidacy would have been opposed by the likes of James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, etc.? I think you derisively refer to folks like that as "far right", but the fairer (and more accurate) label for those men would be "conservative".

[chumdawg]

I think you have hit on the real issue here, which is: What does it mean to be a "conservative?" Insofar as the Republicans are concerned, there are three competing camps, each with their own claim to the mantle. There are the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives, and the pro-military-deployment conservatives. What we are really talking about is not whether McCain is "conservative," because clearly he is. What we are talking about is whether McCain is a strong "Republican." Those two are not the same thing. Not these days, anyway.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Sure.

If John McCain were a strong conservative, do you think his candidacy would have been opposed by the likes of James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, etc.? I think you derisively refer to folks like that as "far right", but the fairer (and more accurate) label for those men would be "conservative".

"fasr right conservative" would be accurate.

btw, you mean james dobson who says he is "on board" with backing mccain?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

ok, just keep telling yourself that you have a good handle on what is factual and what is not.
hint: you don't. obama is right.

it's easy to sound right when you give more reasons than are reasonable. Here's a few disparate reasons Obama has thrown out there:

“I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”

Obama questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies.

… I just want to suggest … that this (legislation) is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm

Originally Posted by Mavdog

2004 column about the issue

obviously, there is testimony that babies born alive weren't being protected under the preexisting law, and your linked article discusses that.
from that link:

Those bills were attempts to bypass court rulings and mandate lifesaving measures for any aborted fetus that has a beating heart, pulsating umbilical cord or movement of voluntary muscles.

Such a fetus would be deemed "born alive" and granted full human rights under the rejected legislation.

Yet the definition pretty much covers "any fetus at any stage of development, including before viability," noted the Illinois State Medical Society in a memorandum opposing the 2002 legislation on grounds that "medical practice and standard of care issues should not be legislated."

If you don't try to save them, how do you decide which is 'viable'?
Here's word on what the Illinois Attorney general thought:

But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate. It only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/vi...fanticide_.xml

Surely Obama knows this as he sits there and tells you that he didn't vote for infants because the law already protected them. He sat there and listened to nurses tell him about holding the aborted babies till they died.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What we are really talking about is not whether McCain is "conservative," because clearly he is. What we are talking about is whether McCain is a strong "Republican." Those two are not the same thing. Not these days, anyway.

they aren't necessarily the same things, but what we've been talking about is whether McCain represents "conservative policies." If he were to represent all three of those branches you listed, and he were still losing, I'd be a lot more tempted to agree with Mavdog that this election is a referendum on those policies.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

it's easy to sound right when you give more reasons than are reasonable. Here's a few disparate reasons Obama has thrown out there:

so having more than one simple reason negates all the reasons?

that's unreasonable.

obviously, there is testimony that babies born alive weren't being protected under the preexisting law, and your linked article discusses that.
from that link:

If you don't try to save them, how do you decide which is 'viable'?
Here's word on what the Illinois Attorney general thought:

Surely Obama knows this as he sits there and tells you that he didn't vote for infants because the law already protected them. He sat there and listened to nurses tell him about holding the aborted babies till they died.

doctors, who opposed the 2002 bill, should be the ones to determine if a fetus is viable, not an attorney.

we should let the doctors make the medical judgement. period.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so having more than one simple reason negates all the reasons?

when he says, "I would have voted for it, except for reason A." Then says, "I didn't vote for it because of reason B." You should get suspicious. Especially when the reasons he promotes most publicly turn out to be lies.

doctors, who opposed the 2002 bill, should be the ones to determine if a fetus is viable, not an attorney.

we should let the doctors make the medical judgement. period.

you mean the doctor that failed at killing the child on the first attempt? Seems to me that if you can't kill a baby on the first try, that's evidence for viability. edit: I can see, though, how saving a baby's life after first trying to kill it might expose a doctor to more lawsuits, as Obama has reasoned.
But more to the point - the AG wasn't able to enforce the law in the case of abortions, as Obama sometimes suggests. And he knows that.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

when he says, "I would have voted for it, except for reason A." Then says, "I didn't vote for it because of reason B." You should get suspicious. Especially when the reasons he promotes most publicly turn out to be lies.

just because you disagree with the conclusion does not make them "lies".

you mean the doctor that failed at killing the child on the first attempt? Seems to me that if you can't kill a baby on the first try, that's evidence for viability. edit: I can see, though, how saving a baby's life after first trying to kill it might expose a doctor to more lawsuits, as Obama has reasoned.
But more to the point - the AG wasn't able to enforce the law in the case of abortions, as Obama sometimes suggests. And he knows that.

a mind reader now huh?

there was a valid reason that several fellow legislators opposed the new law, as well as the illinois hospital association and the illinois medial association.

in my book the doctors are much more knowledgeable about medicine than attorneys and attorney generals. I say leave it to them to decide what can or cannot be done for the fetus.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

just because you disagree with the conclusion does not make them "lies".

The construction of his denials is suspicious. And the fact that the facts don't line up with what he's saying makes them lies. When he says he didn't vote for it cause it didn't look like the national law - it's a lie because he also was not for the proposed illinois law that looked just like the national one.

a mind reader now huh?

nurses told him about allowing babies to die. In public hearings. He knew that they weren't being covered by the old law. To say that he was against the new law because the old law protected those babies was a lie.

there was a valid reason that several fellow legislators opposed the new law, as well as the illinois hospital association and the illinois medial association.

well, the only reasons that have stood the tests of logic are that 1) they don't want more lawsuits for doctors, and 2) they were afraid that the new law would be a political pushback against Roe v. Wade. If you think those are legitimate reasons for infanticide, then I guess you can call their reasons legitimate.

in my book the doctors are much more knowledgeable about medicine than attorneys and attorney generals. I say leave it to them to decide what can or cannot be done for the fetus.

You don't see any conflict in allowing someone who tried and failed to kill someone to make the legal decision about whether that person should live? I suspect that you are raising your faith in doctors just so you can cling to your abortion argument here.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

The construction of his denials is suspicious. And the fact that the facts don't line up with what he's saying makes them lies. When he says he didn't vote for it cause it didn't look like the national law - it's a lie because he also was not for the proposed illinois law that looked just like the national one.

don't have them to compare, but it seems there were differences.

nurses told him about allowing babies to die. In public hearings. He knew that they weren't being covered by the old law. To say that he was against the new law because the old law protected those babies was a lie.

interesting that these witness's veracity is assumed and not challenged, while you choose to challenge those who are on the other side.

well, the only reasons that have stood the tests of logic are that 1) they don't want more lawsuits for doctors, and 2) they were afraid that the new law would be a political pushback against Roe v. Wade. If you think those are legitimate reasons for infanticide, then I guess you can call their reasons legitimate.

or 3) they already do what they can and do not want non-medical professionals interjecting themselves into the arena.

You don't see any conflict in allowing someone who tried and failed to kill someone to make the legal decision about whether that person should live? I suspect that you are raising your faith in doctors just so you can cling to your abortion argument here.

why would you have more faith in doctors than attorneys in this situation?
I view the medical profession as predominately honorable. apparently you and i disagree about that.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

interesting that these witness's veracity is assumed and not challenged, while you choose to challenge those who are on the other side.

Obama didn't seem to question the veracity of the witnesses. Why would it be helpful for you or I to do so when we are trying to figure out why Obama voted the way he did? (I think Obama's solution was to build "comfort rooms" so they would have a nice place to refuse to treat the baby, rather than leave them in a linen closet.) And I'm not questioning anyone's veracity except Obama's. If the attorney general were to stand up and say, "we'd been prosecuting people for letting babies die after failed abortions." I'd believe him. But he didn't say that. He said something more like, "under that old law, I can't prosecute them for letting babies die after failed abortions."
That that was public record, and was the reason that the new law was proposed leads me to believe that Obama knew about it. If you want to believe that Obama didn't know about it, then you must think that Obama is just about the worst legistlator in the history of legistlators.

I view the medical profession as predominately honorable. apparently you and i disagree about that.

[eyeroll] First, this isn't the argument Obama keeps repeating to the public. This had nothing to do with the paragraph he said it requred, and was never part of his, "there is already a law" argument. From the debate you quoted:

If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. The -- here are the facts.

Obama's position is incredible, which is why he's been trying to obscure it with different stories.
Second, I view it as beneficial to have laws protecting the lives of innocents. You obviously don't want any laws governing medical practice. (oooh, that is an easy tactic!)

I think that the fact that you are having such a hard time rationalizing Obama's votes is pretty good evidence of just how far to the extreme left he is.