Sunday, August 17, 2008

Maybe we should ask Michelle?

Last night, both Presidential candidates appeared in a forum with Rick Warren. Obama was posed with the following question (h/t Ed Morrissey):

Warren: Now, let’s deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. you know, as a pastor I have to deal with this all of the time. \Aall of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. 40 million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Obama: Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

So let's get this straight: a host asks you for your OPINION on a hot-button issue throughout this country. . .and you say that providing that opinion is something you can't do because you aren't in the right job?

Or is it that you don't HAVE an opinion because you haven't read enough to form one? Maybe you're waiting for a PDB--you know, the ones that are so famous thanks to the 9/11 commission?

Which is it? Arrogance? Ignorance? Or is it more apt to call you "reckless" (since you've participated in legislation regarding this topic. If you did so without having read enough material to form an opinion. . .then shame on you!) How do you want to play this one, Senator?

Keep in mind, Warren wasn't asking for what Obama thought the SCIENCE said about the issue; he also wasn't asking about what Obama's faith said. Warren asked, flowery as it may have been but still good enough for inquiring minds, what Obama's view was regarding when a baby deserved to receive human rights.

And apparently, Obama isn't paid enough to have an opinion on this topic.

Obama did eventually answer the question, by the way--poorly though it was. Obama said he is pro-choice, "believ(ing) in Roe v Wade". (Sounds more like a religious statement than a legal opinion) But then he says he is in favor of limits on late-term abortions--a kind of abortion that isn't subject to federal protection AT ALL under Roe v Wade. Is Obama saying that he would be in favor of legislation that overturns Doe v Bolton? Now THAT would be a blockbuster admission, especially from a Con-Law scholar who UNDOUBTEDLY knows the specifics of what he's talking about. Right?

But I am not too hopeful that such is the course that Obama was trying to strike last night.

For once, the answer is all in Obama's record.

And since we're not going to get to say this very much this campaign season about him, we should relish the opportunity to bring it up.

By the way, is POTUS a high-enough paygrade to have an opinion about, literally, life and death? Because apparently Senator isn't--which maybe explains why he has done such little work there.

I ask again: have we seen enough of this guy yet?


Post a Comment

<< Home