Another move to the centre by Obama
Another huge move to the centre by Obama. He has just come out against late term abortions unless there is a serious physical threat to the mother. He has specifically rejected mental distress as grounds for late term abortions.
A late-term abortion is generally regarded as being after 20 weeks, but this does vary.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: abortion, Barack Obama
July 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
As a Christian I wonder how he can reconcile his “beliefs” beside allowing abortion at all.
Abortion is state enabled murder FULL STOP
Life begins at conception, not at some doctor decreed 20 weeks
This is just another case, of another politician conveniently moderating his true beliefs for public acceptance.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
wow this guy changes his mind more than kerry!
Dave – you should have included your standard issue – “lets not turn this into a debate about abortion”
July 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I’m no fan of Obama but unfortunately I think he’s going to win. McCain looks past it.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
rather have someone that looks past it than never had it
obama is freakin scary.. way worse than kerry ever was.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
And so it goes- the very fact that he is moving to the consensus shows why he will be a competent president…
July 4th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I just can’t help feeling Obama was created by Bush.
Ordinarily a black man and a woman wouldn’t stand a chance in the United States of Condemnation
where a 15 y o’s back is considered on the verge of pornography.
Now, after eight years of Bush, The sheeples are merging for a man, black as he is.
But lets face it, without Obama Ron Paul still wouldn’t have stood a chance.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
so if obama keeps moving to centre, will the fanatical leftists turn on him?
or is it just an act???
although, i hear only right wing guys have secret agenda’s..
July 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Well, thank goodness for that.
But I disagree with both Lindsay and Grant – McCain will win, and because McCain is sticking to his guns on issues (excuse the pun). Obama is beginning to look the young and inexperienced fledging that he is.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Is it just me or does anybody else see a bit of Winston Peters in this Hussein Obama chap?, you know what I mean, all talk and little actual policy.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
The policies I want Obama to sign up to are free trade & a commitment to Iraq. Fingers crossed.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
NX,
Don’t hold your breath on Obama and free trade. He can only flip and flop so many times before he gets too dizzy and faints.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Democracymum, my best advice is don’t respond to JeremyR’s opinion.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
JeremyR / Stan / JesusCrux – I enjoyed Kiwiblog more after you were plying your trade elsewhere. Your brand of violent anti-Christian rhetoric and perverted sexual fantasies mixed in a deliberately attempt to offend really don’t fit well here. I guess you’re here ‘cos no one comes visiting your place. I wonder why that might be?
July 4th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
If you’d like to accuse other of being judgemental perhaps you could first look in the mirror. or change your style. or get help. or all three. you are judged by your own words.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
JeremyR – Your first post on this thread was to attack the character and values of the person whose views you seem to disagree with. Hardly “discussing the actual topic” was it?
Your style is the blogospheric equivalent of walking into a room filled with strangers and spitting their faces. And then you wonder why people, including me, don’t want to discuss things with you? Sad.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
JeremyR. Your quite a disgusting creep aren’t you. Read the sort of vile puss you are slinging around
“you could go find some teenage boy chat site to masturbate to. Or suck a size 8 black man’s dildo”
If you are getting your rocks off talking like this try a few 0900 numbers. They cater for your kind.
you quite obviously didn’t have any upbringing to speak of.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
JeremyR, you have the same writing style as fugley and stan.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
‘The policies I want Obama to sign up to are free trade & a commitment to Iraq. Fingers crossed.’
Depending on your committment to Iraq ideals, your fingers are either working or jinxing you.
Obama has just called for more Americans to be patriotic and join the military. Hinting at the draft?
He must want a committment to Iraq.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
The original poster has not said anything offensive. democracymum has simply expressed a view point differing from yours- (and probably mine) so what?
It is their right to do so without sickening and vile crap from you
July 4th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
eh….?
JeremyR has dissapeared?
[DPF: Yes his comments style was identical to Stan who is suffering a two month suspension and he only started commenting after Stan was suspended so I gave him a summary trial and execution]
July 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
quite so DPF, his comments put me off my breakfast last week!
must admit I was wondering who D4J was referring to earlier on @9.53
July 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Hey, here’s the Wall Street Journal Editorial a couple of days ago, DPF and everybody, highly relevant here………..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html
Bush’s Third Term
July 2, 2008; Page A12
“We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.
Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?
Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.
Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn’t an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.
Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright “was not the person that I met 20 years ago.” The Senator will learn – as John McCain has been saying – that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America’s strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he’ll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he’ll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush’s policy too.
Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for “everybody.” His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama’s protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can’t scare the business community too much.
Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority’s ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.
This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama’s campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.
All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush’s foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman’s Cold War architecture.
Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama’s political character – and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn’t want voters to believe that in November. He’s still the Obama Americans don’t know.”
July 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
DPF:
An excellent decision regarding JeremyR/Stan/Jesus Crux. I raised the issue (with supporting evidence) here:
I haven’t been following the US election coverage particularly closely. But, on specific issues like abortion, Obama’s surely going to alienate his (potential) constituent base by raising them for discussion – I’m not suggesting that fact alone would cause Democrat-leaning voters to support McCain over Obama. I’m wondering if (1) Obama’s being questioned on his core beliefs (proper media scrutiny), or (2) he’s the one introducing polarising issues into the discussion (arguably an ill-advised campaign strategy, if the main focus is on the US economy). Does anyone know?
July 5th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
As I said in an earlier Obama thread, from a purely “political arts” point of view I’m really beginning to warm to this guy. But where are those paragons of US political analysis – the people who coined the following quotes:
or this
or this
They’ll probably be in the same pub as all the bitterly disappointed National voters next year, wondering what exactly ‘victory’ meant!