Obama and the "Pragmatic Center"
Over at Vox Nova, Gerald Campbell pens another flowery schoolgirl-crush of a love letter to the great and godlike Obama (PBUH).
Rick Garnett, another Vox Nova contributor, is having none of it, and calls Campbell on his nonsense:
“The Pragmatic Center”(emphasis added)
In what sense — to use Gerald’s term – does Obama’s good showing on Super Tuesday indicate the “resurrection” of the “pragmatic center”? Seriously. Sen. Obama — who is clearly, in many ways, an attractive and decent person — was recently rated the most “liberal” (scare quotes used to anticipate Morning’s Minion’s objection to the term, which is not mine) Senator in Congress. He’s down-the-line, 100%, for (what in America goes by the name of) the left-liberal line. Even his (very good) speeches do not promise centrism and non-ideological compromise; they promise efforts to unite America around his own, 100% left-liberal views. If those are your views, great. But if not . . .
And, of course, unlike even Jerry Nadler, Obama voted against — and gave deeply troubling reasons for voting against – the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Where’s the evidence (besides the nice speeches) that Obama takes us beyond “ideological politics”, or that he is “willing to exchange ideas and strategies”?
Now, as it happens, there is a candidate in the race, also a Senator, also with an inspiring life story, who actually does have a record (for better or worse) of compromise and collaboration “across the aisle”, who (unlike Obama) has actually taken political risks in opposing torture and nativism, and who (unlike Obama) does not think there should be a constitutional right to snuff out a helpless newborn who manages to survive an abortion. I’m just sayin’ . . . .
My Comments:
We've seen this game before. Short and simple: the election of Obama would not "end divisiveness" nor "heal" all our Nation's "wounds"; rather, an all-out effort will be made to paint those who oppose or disagree with Obama as being "divisive" and/or as being "haters". We'll hear about "hate radio" and "hate blogs", etc., etc., ad infinitum.
But Obama will make absolutely no effort to deviate from his 100% left-liberal views, and yet will be called a "centrist" who is "reaching out" to "unite" all of us and "heal the divide".
In other words, the stuff I used to shovel while growing up on a ranch.
UPDATE
Read "Heart of Darkness. [Moloch] Obama's abortion stance".
UPDATE #2
Definitely read "And Obama Wept".
UPDATE #3
The Obamessiah.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Cutting Through the Crap
Some Good Posts at Catholics in the Public Square
Sen. Moloch H. Obama Celebrates Abortion, Warns Supreme Court Could Reverse Roe
National Catholic Register: "Religious" Democrat Barack Obama Sticks to the Abortion Line
Litmus Test: Democrat Candidates Demand Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices
Obama, Clinton Slam Supreme Court on Abortion Ruling
Labels: Catholic Social Teaching, Elections, Hypocrites
posted by Pro Ecclesia 8:59 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Apparently, Mr. Campbell's remedy for policy failure is fairy dust.
And to claim that "policy has failed" for the past 50 years is, to put it charitably, horse hockey. The fact is, our nation's constitution was built with the legislature in the forefront. To call Obama's record in this respect "thin" is another act of charity.
Yes, the Presidency can be used as a podium for inspiring and moving the nation. But the President also has to be someone who does more than repeat high-minded slogans through a pep-rally bullhorn.
Remember that Obama announced on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade that he would "pass the "Freedom of Choice Act" as president."
I'm not sure what are the chances of such legislation passing the desk of a Democratic president (they've been trying to put it through for some time now, and have re-introduced it in response to the SCOTUS upholding of the ban on partial birth abortion.
According to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), were it passed the effects are troubling:
The promoters of the FOCA sometimes claim that its purpose is to "codify Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. But the key binding provisions of the bill would go further than Roe, invalidating all of the major types of pro-life laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decades since Roe.
"The claim that the bill would ‘codify Roe' is just a marketing gimmick by the proponents," explained Johnson. "The sponsors hope that journalists and legislators will lazily accept that vague shorthand phrase – but it is very misleading. The references to Roe in the bill are in non-binding, discursive clauses. The heart of the bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade, including the ban on partial-birth abortions and bans on government funding of abortion."
The bill flatly invalidates any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."
This no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer's words, "the absolute right to choose" prior to fetal "viability."
The no-restriction policy would also apply after "viability" to any abortion sought on grounds of "health."
And whatever Gerald says, last time I checked, that qualifies as "policy."
Post a Comment
<< Home