« Test Your Ideology
Liberating Hostages from the FARC Frees Every Colombian … »



Obama Changes His Tune on Late-Term Abortions

July 5th, 2008
By MARK DANIELS

Print Print

Ann Althouse asks:

Does he think we won’t notice?

That’s a good question, not only on this issue, but on a whole host of others where the Illinois senator appears to be tuning up for the fall campaign.

How much of this pandering to the hard ideological bases of their parties do Obama or McCain think that they need to do at this point?

Someone needs to take both of the presumptive nominees and point out that they each give cover to the other. In the end, 95% or more of the hard core base of their parties are sticking with them and will not defect.

Now is a great time for both candidates to build on their maverick appeal and do something only a few presidents in the past century–Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon in 1972, and Ronald Reagan in 1980–have done: expand the base of their parties. The candidate who breaks away from the minimalist, bring-out-the-base strategies favored by Paul Begala and James Carville in the Democratic Party and Lee Atwater and Karl Rove in the Republican Party, will have an opportunity to forge an era-dominating political coalition. Both the war and the economy, which foster the desire for change, create that opportunity for them.

In the past, both have demonstrated an ability to appeal beyond their own parties. Now, it’s gut check time. They need to ask themselves if they’re willing to bet everything on cracking the power of partisan gridlock and moving beyond creaking incrementalism to bring a wholesale change in Washington atmospherics and coincidentally, to grasp the opportunity for true presidential greatness that comes to very few chief executives.

For McCain, the answer to that question should be easy. The political landscape is stacked against him this year. He should have the freedom of a condemned man, the freedom to be himself, the freedom to ignore conventional wisdom. The neocons in his party may sit on their hands this fall, but they won’t vote for Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, McCain, with his position on the war and economic issues, doesn’t threaten Obama’s chances of taking the votes of most Democrats.

But both Obama and McCain are signaling a retreat to bland caution or worse yet, to outright flip flopping.

This year, I think, the candidate seen to flip flop the least or, given that changing one’s mind can be a sign of strength of maturity, thought to flip flop for the best reason, will get the most credit with an electorate ready for change and an end to the meaningless partisan kabuki dance.

Both McCain and Obama would do well to heed the lesson of Mitt Romney from earlier this year: Your changing positions to be more palatable will, in the end, make you less palatable.

[Mark Daniels’ personal blog is here.]



This entry was posted on Saturday, July 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, John McCain, Barack Obama, 2008 Elections, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 16 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Every time Obama talks like a sensible, thinking person, someone gets upset.

    The voices of the people are beginning to scare me, because every single topic is discussed in an upside down and extremely shallow fashion. Is this really how the president is going to be elected? Gawd!.

    The most important thing about Iraq is that the candidates get it right, not how they said something or when they said it, but that they get it right.

    Similarly, abortion is one of the most controversial and most difficult decisions a woman and her family may ever have to make. The important thing is that the policy is right, not when a candidate said it or how he said it or whether he used different words one day from the next.
    We should talk about abortion, and what is the right policy, before we talk about politicans. and the words they used about it.

    Late term abortions are different from early stage abortions, not only in law, but in essence, because the vialbility of the fetus comes into play. Who should make the decision is not disputed among pro-choicers, except for the gray area of mental health.
    We should be discussing that, instead of playing 'gotcha' games. Then we can decide if Obama's policy stand is right.
    Severe mental problems are different than feeling blue, or simply changing one's mind, just like a few days of the blues after giving birth do not necessarily develop into full blown post-partum depression, Complicating the matter is that a pregnant woman can't take all the medicines available, because of the effects on the fetus. So let's talk about that.
    It appears that Obama is at least thinking about all these factors. Instead of pandering to any one group, perhaps he's listening to a number of of voices and learning. What a blot on his reputation that is, that he may actually listen as well as preach!
    .
    Once again, Obama gets it right. He is talking about it in depth, instead of the knee-jerk slogan and ideology driven language of the opinionators .

    In fact, Obama is being exactly the kind of different politician he promissed to be, i.e. one that would be inclusive and listen to all voices. If some people now want to impose their own definition of 'different' on politics, it's a problem created by them, not Obama.. it's a very dangerous problem, to boot, becasue the result is that we're playing horse race games instead of discussing the issues so vital to the furure of this country. I DO NOT thank them for it.

    The theme of this post is absolutely wrong.
    Mavericks should not be mavericks just for the sake of being mavericks, and being different should not mean being different for the sake of being different. Pandering is not a synonym for listening.
    What should matter is how thoughtul politicians are when arriving at policies and how they plan to implement those policies.

    BTW, three cheers for flip-!flops. The worst thing any poltiician or leader could do is to stick to something just for the sake of sticking to it, even when he realizes he's been wrong.
    I wish Bush had flip-flopped on his Iraq policy and fired Rumsfeld years beroe he did. I wish he had flip-flopped on his Axis of Evil rhetoric long before he knda sorta did.
    • ^
    • v
    It goes back to the core of who he is. He poppped out of the woodwork. Has been a member of a politically active church that seems to hate America for 20 years and now were all surprised that what he says aint exactly consistent.

    And now were questioning what he says and were deemed as idiots for not accepting the grand vision of Barak Obama and his nuances.

    I stumbled upon a website that put forth a definition of the word Nuance as the left has come to use with Barak Obama to try to keep up with his ever changing positions.

    # A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
    # Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.
    # Bullshit meant to explain Barak Obama’s ever changing policy positions.
    • ^
    • v
    Neocon:
    ""Has been a member of a politically active church that seems to hate America for 20 years and now were all surprised that what he says aint exactly consistent."

    Are you for real? What woodwork would the author of such BS have sprung from.?

    You forgot to mention that he is a Muslim, hates whitey, and eats children for breakfast. An did you metion that he is black?


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



    "
    • ^
    • v
    Are you for real? What woodwork would the author of such BS have sprung from.?

    I guess that would be the Rev. Wright and copy and pasted from their own website:

    The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology

    What is the Black power and Black Theology?

    Black Theology and Black Power. Based on the preeminence of "black experience," Cone defines theology as "a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ."[19] Cone's theology asks (and seeks to answer) the question, "What does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men whose existence is threatened daily by the insidious tentacles of white power?"

    Doh what was I and about a billion other people thinking.

    http://www.tucc.org/cis.htm
    • ^
    • v
    You forgot to mention that he is a Muslim, hates whitey, and eats children for breakfast. An did you metion that he is black?

    Doesn't work anymore Runasim. People are getting wise to the far left who accuse themselves of something then blame it on the right. Those are your words. Not mine. I guess it is you who have problems and questions in this regard. Not me.
    • ^
    • v
    Duh, what were you thinking, Neocon? That people don't turn to religion when scared, oppressed, ill, heartsick, angry or frustrated?
    How unusual for the blacks to do what every other peoples have done since time
    immemorial.
    You find social justice to be subversive?
    What were you thinking when supporting Hillary and her national health insurance plan, a case of social justice if there ever was one?

    To be clear: The questions i pose are rhetorical and don;t require an answer.
    In fact, I find your thinking so bizarre that I will be scrolling past your comments in the future. I don't intentionally waste my time.
    • ^
    • v
    And everyone is also wise to those who accuse every non-Republican of being a member of the far left. Those being deemed as idiots because the only thing they comprehend or desire is the same kind of politics that Rove, Bush and company have brought us deserve the title.

    What is the evidence to claim that Obama's former church hates America? How many minutes out of 20 years worth of sermons and talks are being used to make that broad claim? Yes, Neocon, you have lots of problems when it comes to actually looking at the candidates and issues.
    • ^
    • v
    click the link I supplied. Its a link directly to the church that Obama used to belong too. There you will find a church whose mission statement says lets register to vote people right after church.

    It is the printed mission of this chruch that condemns itself. Not me. I just provided a cut and paste of their church. They condemn themselves. I only have to ask you to read what THEY say. It was so bad that Barak Obama had to leave the Church in order to save his candidacy. Let us not Forget that Oprah Winfrey left the church too when all this came to light. A Woman I admire and greatly respect.

    I made a point it was a church that was political and for the most part supported an America is evil mantra. I supplied not the insane ramblings of some partisan hack but their own website that concluded the same thing.

    I am not sorry that you will scroll past my posts. The fact that you never have a rebuttal for pure facts only shows me the partisan that you are. Obama can do no wrong in your mind and I am out to destroy him.

    Wrong. He is out to destroy himself because of what he has done in the last 20 years. I only point out facts and let you decide. You have decided to scroll past my posts because you cannot stand to see facts presented in clear and concise ways.

    From Barak Obama's FORMER Church.

    Deputy Voter Registrar Training Class
    So that you can register citizens to vote in the City of Chicago and Cook County.

    When I make the case that Barak Obama's church was politically active I am not lying. I put forth evidence to support my claims.
    • ^
    • v
    OK, if you backtrack far enough you can find the original Q&A that Althouse refers to.

    Here is the section on abortion.

    Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

    Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

    The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

    Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor