If you're jumping out of your seat with every vibration and high-pitched noise, waiting for Barack Obama's VP announcement to hit your cellphone, there is not really a whole lot to entertain and distract you in today's polls.
In Illinois, home of the 2008 World Champion Chicago Cubs, Barack Obama leads by 15 in the latest poll from Rasmussen. The only other time that Rasmussen had polled Illinois was in early July, at which point Obama led by 11. This, then, is a nominal improvement for Obama -- but since an 11-point margin seemed implausibly small before, this may be more reversion to the mean than any real sort of trendline.
Rasmussen also surveyed Georgia, where John McCain leads by 9. This is slightly better than Obama has fared in any prior Rasmussen poll of Georgia. But the more noteworthy characteristic is that polling in what we call the South Coast region -- states like Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia -- has trended within a remarkably narrow range. With the exception of a couple of oddball InsiderAdvantage polls, and Zogby Interactive's exercise in dart-throwing, all nine polls of Georgia in our database have shown McCain's lead in the range of 8 to 14 points. As we have expressed before, there may simply not be all that many swing voters in this region. Once you count white evangelicals, the overwhelming majority of whom will vote for McCain, and African-American voters, the overwhelming majority of whom will vote for Obama, there isn't all that much of the electorate left to divvy up.
Lastly, in New York, Siena has Barack Obama ahead by 8, a decline from 13 points last month. I would not read too much to this one, but it may indicate that the polling continues to be volatile in states with a large number of Hillary Clinton voters.
8.18.2008
Today's Polls, 8/18
@ 8:16 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
161 comments
I'll take Obama's team, the White Sox, please, for a world championship days before Obama's Electoral Landslide.
Nate, are the cubs relations of the Pumas or just bad friends?
(I also am predicting a landslide in November but don't tell.)
((p.s. I hear Putin is doing better in Georgia than Bob Barr -can anyone confirm this?))
SurveyUSA. 8/12-14. Likely voters. MoE 3.8% (7/11-13 results)
Coleman (R) 46 (52)
Franken (D) 39 (39)
No wonder Coleman would prefer not to be attending the Republican Convention. Run from the brand with the starry-eyed elephant humping the year. Makes sense to me.
Before today´s run of the simulations Nate´s model predicted results that were remarkably close to the actual (Rasmussen) poll results. This looks good, for both the polls and the model.
Georgia is very likely red now. Yet, the Obama campaign is not giving up on it. But there has to happen something really, really remarkable...
Landslide from what?
I agree Alex that something remarkable will have to happen. Obama would now have to win in order to turn the state blue.
Hah! The Cubs my ass. They'll get booted first round of the playoffs...or have their asses handed to them if they do make it to the WS.
I bet you picked the invincible Detroit Tigers in 2006...or the Yankees in 2003.
At least you're interjecting baseball stuff, as you're much better in that forum than in politics.
Landslide from your mom, dario.
Nate probably thinks I'm his sworn enemy/arch nemesis by the comments I've made about him.
Mule, Nate thinks you're an ass.
"At least you're interjecting baseball stuff, as you're much better in that forum than in politics." by Mule Rider
So why are you still posting here?
Interesting observation about polling volatility in states where HRC was popular. While NY and MA are out of reach, PA is up for grabs and OH has been gone from the beginning.
If the Rally in Denver opens wounds rather than closes them, further "volatility" can be expected.
What we are seeing in the South is an outgrowth of McCain solidifying his base (as has been pointed out last week on this site). Nothing has happened to upset that trend and we can anticipate further across the board gains for McCain in states that have not been polled in the last week or two.
The Saddlebrook forum was an absolute homerun for McCain. Pastor Warren was on Sean Hannity's radio show today decrying the notion that McCain cheated -- a position he will take I expect again on Hannity and Colmes tonight. The Evangelicals have a reason now to come home to roost.
Andrea Mitchell did McCain a favor by giving publicity to the way in which McCain was able to connect on TV to a large audience and how he bested Obama, the great communicator, in the process.
Obama is now on the defensive on three fronts: On Taxes (the TV ads), on Energy (McCain's public appearances) and on Abortion (the surrogate wars).
The latter is the most interesting as it is of maximum utility in painting Obama as a liberal extremist. His support for a bill that was tantamount to infanticide is undeniable. Obama himself has taken to lying about the language of the Bill, but has been caught in his lie.
Say what you want about abortion, but no one, no one, should be opposed to giving care and comfort to a dying child. That's within everyone's pay grade.
Nothing changes round here, does it? Obama is still 3 points up in Gallup, Mule Rider still thinks that he's witty, and PeteKent is still lying like a rug while hoping to find a boyfriend. Meanwhile, the GOP is peddling an adulterous, financially corrupt fraud who lies about his faith in front of a pastor. Must be August...
Hey Nate, a shout-out from Olbermann tonight. Guess you got a friend in Keith! Actually, a whole lot of shouting-out.
PeteKent said...
His support for a bill that was tantamount to infanticide is undeniable. Obama himself has taken to lying about the language of the Bill, but has been caught in his lie.
Source, please.
NY is safe dem, but the 8 points are very important.
"Mule, Nate thinks you're an ass."
Nate seems like a pretty knowledgeable guy, so I bet he knows the difference between an ass and a mule...er, wait, you said Mule, not a mule. Well, that might change things a bit...
regarding the infanticide smear. Please see this interview with CBN in which Obama goes on the record about this.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429313.aspx
How for can you possibly ride a "win" in front of all white, wealthy, pro-choice, republican, evangelical audience? OK so Mccain probably will lose less support among evangelicals than the GOP may have feared but you've got to get some perspective. Mccain was supposed to win this and I'll grant you he beat expectations - whether he cheated or not - but Obama going before this group is like McCain going before the NAACP. They get points just for showing up.
Not exactly sure where to post this, but this thread appears as good any any.
McCain has made a couple of statements/non-statements that have the potential to harm him significantly.
First there was the flap about the water compact in the SW. By even mentioning opening it up McCain raised hackles in Colorado and NM. Some otherwise conservative ranchers and farmers could get quite upset at that. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10218277?source=rss
http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=D98A03A4BBD860B061DE01FE78E0BBBF?diaryId=7052
I can just hear the comments - "He's going to shut doiwn our livelihood so they can have more swimming pools in Phoenix and Las Vegas and Los Angeles."
Figure it's worth a few percent in both NM and COLO. Obama won't need that in NM, but it could be enough to paint Colorado blue.
It may help McCain in NV, but CO's got more EVs.
Today I got my AARP magazine, and McCain apparently elected not to answer their questionnaire on some iossues imprtant to the AARP. I figure this will alienate a few voters in my age group. (Perhaps his answers would hae alienated even more people.) Obama, who did not respond on one part of one question, was in line with AARP's position on almost everything else.
Will it have a major impact? Probably not, but this is likely to be a very close election and every vote helps. Also, I can see Obama doing some targeted advertising - a lot of direct mail, for example, on this issue. This is a demographic that leans toward McCain, so this could possibly do some damage. Right now, of course, this is speculative.
Yeah, Nate, he quoted you a bit...liberally....
Wonder if you'll be integrated further into (what the masses think is) mainstream media. Though I think I feel safe in saying that we prefer you hear, with your amazing simulations, charts, and astute commentary.
OMG, you didn't? Yes, yes you did. You just predicted the biggest upset of Fall 2008. The Chicago Cubs to win the World Series? When you went on Countdown, didn't you say you couldn't predict against 100 years of history?
Can you tell we're all getting tired of this lull in between the end of the primaries and the conventions? Your quip about the Cubs got more reaction than anything else you wrote today...lol.
The latter is the most interesting as it is of maximum utility in painting Obama as a liberal extremist. His support for a bill that was tantamount to infanticide is undeniable. Obama himself has taken to lying about the language of the Bill, but has been caught in his lie.
Typical troll behavior - you just disappear for a bit and return saying the same old things you know aren't true.
Once again Pete The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 already protected all viable infants born from any abortion procedure in far greater detail than the bill you are talking about. The only reason it made it out of the Rules committee is it had a single clause that was designed to provide a federal challenge to Row v. Wade - that was it sole bit of new law. When it was amended to remove that clause in committee it then had NOTHING it provided that wasn't already present in Illinois statute. The bill was then appropriately sent back to the Rules committee for suitability evaluation (basic civics). It was never voted on on the legislative floor, it never provided any protection for infants (or prevented infanticide) that wasn't already present in greater degree. Voting for it or against it provided not one bit of protection or threat to any infant, let alone lead to 'infanticide'.
But you know this - you know it, I know you know it, and we know a Christian with such knowledge would never say it since it is a bald face lie.
Why do you?
Obama seems to be achieving what some Democrat commentators feared might happen, which is getting reasonably close in states like Georgia and North Carolina but not close enough to win, but at the same time not building up any significant lead in must-win states like Ohio and Michigan.
judas_priest,
That's just the tip of the iceberg of non-substantive gaffes McCain could be nailed on (another that comes to mind is the fictional "Iraq-Pakistani border" he once referred to).
It's unlikely these will hurt him, in my opinion, for two reasons:
1. Obama wants to appear to be running a "clean" (read: "losing") campaign.
2. The RNC and McCain have proven very adept at deflecting any attacks through the time-honored tradition of counter-attacking the attacker's character, thus successfully diverting the attention away from them and their alleged wrongdoing.
Iraq-Pakistani border?.
But he has "experience".
The most interesting poll of the day was Rasmussen's report of just a six point margin in the Georgia senate race, after high double digit margins in all previous polls. While it was generally agreed that Jim Martin was the most electable Democrat of the field, few considered this a real contest due in part to the lateness of the Dem primary; the previous 538 Senate Polling Update pegged Saxby Chambliss as a 20:1 favorite.
It'll be interesting to see if Martin continues to make this a race or if we're merely seeing a post-primary bounce.
Bob writes:
It was never voted on on the legislative floor, it never provided any protection for infants (or prevented infanticide) that wasn't already present in greater degree. Voting for it or against it provided not one bit of protection or threat to any infant, let alone lead to 'infanticide'.
But you know this - you know it, I know you know it, and we know a Christian with such knowledge would never say it since it is a bald face lie.
Why do you?
Peter Kent has a very limited readership. Why not go after the National Review which published this article just five days ago?
Well it's not as if that misstatement proves anything regarding McCain's ability to be a competent president. So really I think the media was right to treat it as the non-story it is.
BUT I highly doubt that, had Obama made the same gaffe, it would not be subject to unreasonably intensive coverage.
Food for thought, especially with regard to an earlier post on this website (forget if it was by Sean or Nate) which posited that the MSM coverage was Obama-centric, but not really pro-Obama.
Let's talk about what we know. One thing we know is that Obama will not pick John Edwards. We also know that John Edwards won't tell the truth about the kid he fathered.
And we know that the Daily Kos website won't allow anyone to discuss it there, which just might be connected to the fact that Elizabeth Edwards has endorsed Markos Moulitsas's book.
And we know that Markos Moulitsas won't tell the truth about the censorship at his website, which in that regard is no different than Free Republic and the myriad other right-wing sites that block dissenting commentary.
Anyway, as someone who liked what Edwards had to say but who always had doubts about the guy himself, it comes as a relief that Edwards won't be on the ticket.
"Volatile" is right... in 3 weeks, Obama's lead is cut in half? NY is safe Dem, but this is still not a trend he wants to see in other Dem states. What if Obama takes a hit of this magnitude in Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa, etc...
The convention better be a blockbuster for Obama, or he could be facing a serious rout by October. I'm sure he's not looking forward to the debates.
I say Obama picks Bayh Wednesday.
FWIW, Mrs. VC says Biden.
From Atlanta - I hear that the insider poll in GA shows Barr at 6.5%+ vs. 1 in Rass.
That plus the voter reg. turnout and lack of McCain enthusiasm and no ground org at all is the call.
If the Barr number is real or at least 4+ then I think we have a chance.
regarding the infanticide smear. Please see this interview with CBN in which Obama goes on the record about this...
Problem is, he's on the record with somewhat different explanations in various settings.
I expect he'll clear it up in the debates, if the moderators dare bring it up.
Peter Kent has a very limited readership. Why not go after the National Review which published this article just five days ago?
Because its the NRO - might as well go after Marvel comics for their erroneous physics information. :)
No, telling lies is a person moral issue - always better to confront the individual head on. As you can see from the then and continuing Illinois law such acts as in the article's opening narrative are illegal:
720 ILCS 510 6(2)(b) -Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.-
any problem was in enforcement of the existing law, not lack of it.
Do note the author vaguely pass over that the bill they are discussing in the NRO article is NOT identical to the federal statute and that Senator Obama's problems with the legislation as presented on the floor stem from the part that was not the same. Of course once it became the same via amendment in committee it added nothing to existing law and died a quite death in its return to the Rules committee.
I have no doubt the NRO author is being just as intentionally deceptive as Pete but Pete's here spewing garbage. Do spread the truth around though - every little bit helps.
Questions:
1. I can't see what the specific events are that are causing the Obama decline. Is it just the cumulative force of the Britney ads, exotic Hawaii, etc.? (No comments from PeteKent or other trolls, please.)
2. Citizen Grim -- check out Sean's discussion of the timing of the McCain VP announcement. Sit down first.
When Strickland pulled himself out of the running, Obama lost his best possible VP candidate. I know he has a personal relationship with Kaine but a pick of someone who has very, very minimal national experience would be a bad pick.
If he is considering Bayh, Biden, Kaine and Sebilius, then only Bayh and Biden make a modicum of sense. The other two have only one result .. McCain wins.
Well it's not as if that misstatement proves anything regarding McCain's ability to be a competent president. So really I think the media was right to treat it as the non-story it is.
Y'know. At first I thought the same thing.
The truth is though that McCain has oftentimes referred to Iraq and Afghanistan as if he thinks they are sort of interchangeable.
The al Qaeda in Iran thing was sort of the same thing. You could get angry at him for mixing up Sunni and Shiite but there does appear to be some evidence that he doesn't really understand the difference.
I oftentimes got the impression that Bush wanted us to think of all arabs as one big category. Sometimes I get the same impression from McCain.
I don't want to pile onto a guy for misspeaking but it is disturbing when it seems to confirm previous impressions.
I'd like to see an interview where somebody asked McCain to explain the middle east in detail. I am afraid he has an overly simplified view of the region.
And what does baby vircony say, pray? Maybe Obama will split the difference and pick "Bayhden"? ("Bayhden" combines both guys best characteristics - a lethal ability to bore while pretending to be Neil Kinnock and the ability to go off-message while having his head up Hillary Clinton's ass.)
eponymous,
I know Dems have been wondering why their candidates keep running high ground campaigns and losing. The reason is that negative campaigns are a bad idea for challengers.
1. Negative ads and challengers
Obama has pretty good name recognition, but is still ill-defined in a lot of voter's minds. McCain by contrast, is much more familiar to the electorate, having been a dominant figure in US politics for the past 8 years. So it is probably cheaper to swing undecideds towards liking Obama than it is to sour folks on McCain. Negative ads might make sense for Clinton, who is essentially an incumbent, but not Obama (not to mention that they would hurt his "new politics" image).
2. You need a theme
It is easy to think of little snippets that voters wouldn't like very much - but a lot harder to tie those together into a theme. I know the media theme was that a kitchen sink approach worked best for Clinton. Unfortunately politicos were just trying to keep a foredrawn conclusion exciting. Of course Clinton did well in March, April and May - the states up to vote had great demographics for her.
The celebrity attack was fairly effective because it tied together multiple attacks on Obama, while maintaining (especially in the web ads, which are better than the ones McCain is airing) a light/humorous tone.
*They attack Obama as being foreign (without being racist), implying he is "out of touch"
*They attack him stylistically as "all style no substance"
*They also bash the media indirectly, without whining about it Hillary style.
3. Different kinds
It strikes me that most successful attack campaigns (Windsurfer Kerry, Willie Horton, the tank ad, Daisy, and Swift boat veterans) are conducted differently. Daisy, the tank and windsurfer were part of a broad campaign to define the opponent with a central message, that got repeated by pundits (namely, Kerry is a flip-flopper, Dukakis is a weak leader, and Goldwater is not a guy you want with his finger on the button).
Swift boat veterans is sort of unique in that it was launched at the sidelines, and wasn't really meant to dominate the campaign (it mostly thrived on earned media anyway). It was aimed more at creating doubts in Kerry, and in particular in his war record - attacking a strength, that the Democrats had largely taken for granted.
Finally there is a third crop of ads that tries to play to the tenor of the times, and thus tie an incumbent to bad stuff. Clinton had some ads like this (eg. one about a closing textile factory), Reagan had the "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago" schpiel, and Nixon had some really effective ones in 1968 that transposed pictures from the 1968 DNC with images of chaos (I find Nixon's attack ads particularly effective - but I am a visual person, and they don't use words).
4. An Obama attack strategy
So if you ignore me and want to run an attack strategy anyhow, there are a few big themes you probably want to get across.
*John McSAME
*McCain is senile/old/stupid
*John McCain is a racist (in South Carolina I saw Obama do well with a "Northeastern strategy" of implying his opponent was racist - if you could do that subtly in an ad it would be a home run)
*John McCain is the super-rich kept man of a beer heiress snow queen
*John McCain is very right wing and hotheaded on national security issues
*John McCain is a flip-flopper
So first-off, have moveon run some piece of crap ads that impugn McCain's war record (claim the cross in the sand story is made up). It doesn't have to be true, as long as you have plausible deniability.
Then have somebody else challenge the straight talk express thing with an easily made video that has McCain flip-flopping on a bunch of stuff, interspersed with him saying "straight talk".
But the big thing is that you want to define McCain negatively in the media. Unfortunately the success of the surge kind of takes Iraq off the table - in 2007 Iraq would be great at combining a McSame attack with a John McCain is a warhawk sort of attack.
I think McCain's position on the Bush tax cuts is a good place to start. Why?
*It paints McCain as a flip-flopper
*it highlights domestic issues (which are better for Obama)
*you can counter disinformation about taxes from McCain
*You can point out or imply that McCain is rich
*You can tie McCain to one of Bush's central policy stances
You have lots of fodder you can throw together too...
-Footage of McCain opposing the tax cuts.
-Something about McCain forgetting about one of his houses
-the 5 million dollar question
-I don't know much about the economy
-stats about who would be affected by the tax policy of Obama vs. McCain (countering the claims of McCain's ads)
-maybe something about the deficit (Obama's plan would have less of an effect on the deficit)
-some Bush footage, plus the Bush-McCain man-hug
And we know that Markos Moulitsas won't tell the truth about the censorship at his website, which in that regard is no different than Free Republic and the myriad other right-wing sites that block dissenting commentary.
Huffington is no better.
I pointed out that Elizabeth Edwards was foolish to think that she could keep John's infidelity a private family matter and still have him wage a presidential bid, partly because it would involve knowingly lying to the American public. But that mild criticism was apparently just too mean to Elizabeth to actually be posted.
Thx Paul Bradford,
That was the very article I would cite in support of Obama's lies on this anti-infanticide bill.
That shuld answer Tito and Lat.
of course some will impeach the source. Truth can only be revealed at the Huffington Post these days!
Obama has lied and cotninues to shift in his lies. He knows he is in deep on this. The forces arrayed against him will not less this go. It is an example of his extremism and puts the lie to the notion that his is new politics.
Obama's politics is the same old liberal agenda pushed by Mario Cuomo on down (except maybe he is weaker on womenr's rights).
I will enjoy watching him twist on this.
Why can't you all get off this pro-abortion kick and admit that some limits are appropriate and at some point it becomes a baby and not a choice?
Pete Kent: 'I will enjoy watching him twist on this'
spoken like a true christian.
That was the very article I would cite in support of Obama's lies on this anti-infanticide bill.
Odd that article, even as slanted as it is, supports everything Seantor Obama's said - the author just disingenuously leaves out that Illinois law already protected viable infant births to a greater extent than the bill did.
Why can't you all get off this pro-abortion kick and admit that some limits are appropriate and at some point it becomes a baby and not a choice?
Wow a big strawman! Illinois has some of the most conservative abortion legislation in the US that Senator Obama supported while there. What more limits than Illinois has do you think are more appropriate?
Why can't you all get off this pro-abortion kick and admit that some limits are appropriate and at some point it becomes a baby and not a choice?
Why can't you accept that the bill was NOT written in the same way as the federal bill?
Why can't you accept that the bill was a trojan horse designed to define a fetus as a person?
Why can't you accept that 720 ILCS 510 6(2)(b) of Illinois law already gave the protections that you seek?
You guys do this repeatedly. You don't want to have a debate over the actual issue so you make up an extreme position for your opponent and have a debate with the straw man. Its an insult to the intelligence of the American voter and I think the American voter is sick of it.
Obama does support some limits on late term abortions but he will protect a woman's right to choose.
STOP LYING!!!!
PeteKent, does this mean that you are arguing with the sequence of events being described in the comments here? Ie: You don't believe that the bill was killed in the Rules Committee after the anti-RvW language was stripped?
Because it seems to me you'd have to be arguing with the actual facts on the ground. Either this is true or it isn't. Your opinions on abortion are worthless if this is a question of facts.
hosertohoosier,
Interesting thoughts on the "attack and define your opponent" strategy.
I'm not sure how difficult it would be to put together a coherent negative theme attacking McCain, but I do think Obama needs to change the way this race is being portrayed.
Part of the reason, in my opinion, he has been dropping in the polls is that McCain is shaping the decision the way he wants to shape it: it's becoming "do you think Obama would be a good leader?" instead of "between Obama and McCain, whose policies do you support?" The former McCain wins, the latter Obama does.
So in other words, I disagree with the idea that he can swing undecided voters just by making himself more appealing. No matter how hard you try to defend your guy, if nobody is paying attention to the other guy's failings you're going to lose.
By the way, thanks for the advice on putting together an attack on McCain, but I think you have me confused with someone who has any power whatsoever in the process... They do seem to agree with you on the Bush-McCain hug scene, they're shoving that into as many ads as they can manage.
OK, I'll bite on the infanticide issue:
If the defense for Obama's series of votes against affording the protections in the Born-Alive bill is that it didn't do anything that wasn't already law, why not vote for it? Why allow yourself to look more hard-line than even the NARAL position?
If there's no contemplation of enforcing the penalties in the 1975 law, as seems to be the case, isn't a new law clarifying what's appropriate behavior and aligning with federal law perfectly justified? States pass overlapping laws all the time.
The reason this issue is sticking around is it's another example of Obama being evasive about his true record and position. Such hair-splitting and dissembling isn't going to get it done.
The really hard-line pro-choice people do not support any penalty for the procedure commonly known as partial birth abortion. That's what the pro-lifers are trying to smoke out, and such limits are widely supported by people who are otherwise nominally pro-choice.
There has to be a line somewhere, and there needs to be a penalty for crossing it. Most civilized people are sympathetic to the difficult decisions sometimes faced in such cases, but draw the line at infanticide.
Rudy, I think the point is that the bill dies once it doesn't add anything new to the State's legislation. Obama voted against a particular piece of language that would've added something new. The bill died on its own after it was removed.
PeteKent said...
That was the very article I would cite in support of Obama's lies on this anti-infanticide bill.
That shuld answer Tito and Lat.
of course some will impeach the source. Truth can only be revealed at the Huffington Post these days!
Yes, I will impeach that source. That's the National Review and yes it is biased. It would, indeed, be the same thing as if I sourced something from HuffPo. I'm glad you can see that your sources are biased, but they fail to satisfy any serious debate - they only serve to perpetrate a weak argument.
Thanks for trying though.
The Bill died, Rudy, after Obama as Chmn of the Comm killed it. Ironic, if you think about it.
Please, any of you show me ONE instance where Obama took a SINGLE action to limit late term abortion or voted to give medical comfort and aid to a child born from an abortion gone awry?
You cannot, because he has not. He is an absolutist on abortion. He will bridge no divides from his vantage point on the pro-choice/pro-life debate. This amply demonstrates that he will not lead us to post-partisanship, but to further ideological divide.
Sadly, millions of human lives will be treated like medical waste in the process and Obama and his supporters do not give a damn.
PeteKent, please answer the question I asked above.
Obama's stance on abortion is beyond mainstream. Not only is he on the wrong side of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act but he also opposed the Partial Birth Bill that passed the House and Senate and is on record as saying he will advocate for the removal of limitations on abortion rights across all states. This is not mainstream and this is not lying.
And here come the conservatives, whining about abortion again. Thank you. Please attempt to make this election about your perverted viewpoint against choice.
Please. The American people are ready to hear all about your sick, twisted, pathetic opposition to personal choice. They want to hear you whimper and moan about the rights of the fetus while you cut food stamps and housing vouchers. They want to hear you cry about the number of abortions as you cut educational opportunities and mock families who are struggling. Americans are in awe of your ability to chant 'personal responsibility' instead of actually doing something to help those children you demanded be born.
Really. Keep it up. "Barack Obama is not anti-choice". Great line for McCain. Please use it.
If the defense for Obama's series of votes against affording the protections in the Born-Alive bill is that it didn't do anything that wasn't already law, why not vote for it? Why allow yourself to look more hard-line than even the NARAL position?
Because the bill that was identical to the federal statute was never voted on the legislative floor- it was amended to be identical, voted on in committee, didn't pass and was sent back to the Rules committee to see if it should even be considered (where admittedly flawed legislation rarely survives a second trip to a Rules committee in a single session of any legislature). No one who's paying attention to what really happened think he is 'more hard-line even than NARAL'.
He isn't being evasive - what's really happening is that they just build another strawman every time he explains. I mean Illinois has had this comprehensive Abortion Law that makes the proposed Born Alive bill absolutely pale by comparison since 1975!!!! What ethical person wouldn't point this out in any discussion about Senator Obama's record on the subject? He voted against a bag of hot air legislation that was designed as a political leverage tool, not to defend babies.
Senator Obama is really pretty conservative on abortion just as Illinois is. But when unscrupulous people tell lie after lie after lie about you it can get confusing to people not really paying attention.
If the defense for Obama's series of votes against affording the protections in the Born-Alive bill is that it didn't do anything that wasn't already law, why not vote for it? Why allow yourself to look more hard-line than even the NARAL position?
Rudy,
He has answered this question repeatedly.
The reason was that he thought that defining a person in that way was a trojan horse. A backdoor way to define a fetus as a person.
The existing law did not do that.
The real question is why the pro-life forces thought this was so important. They already had the existing law.
They had to insist on trying to backdoor the definition.
I know you are not a constitutional law professor, but Barack Obama is. How you define things and small pieces of language in laws are very important.
If the supporters wanted the same language as in federal law, they should have put it in there.
Tito,
Tommorow when I have access to the material I will quote Obama's own wrods on this. Surely you will find them to be aun unimpeachable source.
Bob writes:
Do note the author vaguely pass over that the bill they are discussing in the NRO article is NOT identical to the federal statute and that Senator Obama's problems with the legislation as presented on the floor stem from the part that was not the same.
The bill they were discussing was Senate Bill 1093 from the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly (3/30/2001). A transcript is here (see pp 84-88). Please look, as well, at #1094 (pp 88-89). Here is Obama's comment:
I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.
What's pertinent, from my perspective, is the fact that the General Assembly passed up a chance at compromise that might have allowed a bill to be passed which would have passed the constitutional test. (Obama, by the way, was the only senator other than sponsoring senator O'Malley to speak about the bill.)
There are ways, if people want to actually discuss these issues rather than demonize each other, to come to an accomodation where children are protected, abortions are reduced AND women maintain the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Of course, that would require pro-life people to trust pro-choice people and for pro-choice people to trust pro-life people.
For some reason, each group thinks the other is the devil.
Mordy - can you show me one instance of Obama actually supporting the limitation on abortion of any kind? Or do you want to hide in your analysis of arcane legislative procedure?
I have believed from the beginning that the primary purpose of the Obama operation in Georgia was to build up the party and benefit downticket candidates. There may be a very outside chance of winning it, but I suspect those factors are what distinguish it from other equally longshot states.
PeteKent, I don't understand how you can even keep up the guise of having an intelligent discussion without even answering a simple question like: Are you arguing with the fact that the bill was killed in the Rules Committee after the anti-RvW language was removed?
It's not a hard question, and I ask it to ascertain what you're arguing about. If you're arguing about facts, it's very easy to resolve the argument. They keep records of legislation. We'll go look it up. If you aren't arguing with that fact, then I think you need to express what your argument is. Articulately, and with thought and care, please.
Overrated, you can answer the question too. Are you arguing with these facts?
Please, any of you show me ONE instance where Obama took a SINGLE action to limit late term abortion or voted to give medical comfort and aid to a child born from an abortion gone awry?
You cannot, because he has not.
Can you name one instance where McCain has voted to outlaw murder. You cannot because he has not!!!
Jeesh. How many times do we have to say this?
It was already the law!!! If something is already the law, you don't need to make it the law again.
What Obama voted against was a backdoor attempt to define a fetus as a person.
I know that it offends you that a constitutional law professor would actually know something about constitutional law, but you're going to have to get over it.
overrank: have you ever heard Obama talk about abortion? Was it too difficult for you to follow what he was saying? I think it must have been so.
Bill P. said...
And here come the conservatives, whining about abortion again. Thank you. Please attempt to make this election about your perverted viewpoint against choice.
Exactly. Please McCain supports, make this election about abortion. Do everything you can, be rabid about it. Meanwhile, we'll discuss how to fix the economy, energy, foreign policy, etc. Independent voters are in the middle for a reason - they don't staunchly hold fundamental issues like abortion sacred. So go ahead and go for your base. And that's all you'll walk away with.
The South is a tough nut to crack for Obama. Go for broke in VA, save your money in NC and GA and make the Midwest (including IN with a Bayh VP pick) and the West (CO, NM, NV) your targets. IA will likely go Dem, so any combo of the West states I mentioned should do it.
Obama as brilliant legal scholar? Can anyone on this board give me one example of Obama's legal mind that is respected in the field? He has no published law opinions that have stood out nor did he ever obtain tenure while teaching. He was part-time for goodness sake. Nobody has ever seen or heard any legal opinion that has been rendered by Obama that has scholarly appeal or is presently held in high esteem in the legal community.
Overrated, Conservatives constantly complain that Liberals treat them like idiots and are arrogant. May I suggest that is because when you're asked a question you refuse to answer it?
My prior post - CO + either NV or NM should do it.
PeteKent -
Why tomorrow? I'm here. You're here. And there's a whole internet of information between us. Surely you could find a relatively unbiased source for these words of a man running for president. But, do as you will. I'll be sure to remind you.
Cowbat friend - Obama is running from his record on abortion - you know it and I know it. Spare me the "don't understand" crap
CJ: You wrote--The reason was that he thought that defining a person in that way was a trojan horse. A backdoor way to define a fetus as a person.
The law was fixed to eliminate this threat and Obama still voted against it.
He is simply an absolutist on abortion, the most extreme member of the US Senate when it comes to the issue.
It says to be there is a coldness within him that is to be feared and pitied in equal measure.
overrank: how about giving us an example of someone who has been president of the harvard law review, taught law and then gone on to run for president of the united states.
I need to go do the dishes, so if either PeteKent or Overrated answer my question, I might be slow in answering.
To paraphrase Jon Stewart tho, Can't we even agree on what reality is? There are a set of facts that we can determine by looking at legislative records. We don't need to partisan snipe at each other. The records are open and available. Let's figure out what the facts are and then we can discuss them. If you refuse to even discuss your position on facts, though, why should you be treated seriously in any forum of discussion? This is why discourse in America is so awful. People just don't have conversations - they scream their talking points at one another.
For the record, my question is: Do you think that after removing the anti-RvW language in the Bill, that the Bill was killed in the Rules Committee for not introducing any new legislation into the Illinois law?
Please, any of you show me ONE instance where Obama took a SINGLE action to limit late term abortion or voted to give medical comfort and aid to a child born from an abortion gone awry?
Limit limit late term abortions more than Illinois already limits it? They barely allow it as it is. And since Illinois already has possible the most supportive legislation in the US for 'a child born from an abortion gone awry' what more do you want? They get their own personal doctor at the abortion, they are mandated by law under threat of felony charges to be treated as any other infant born by any other method. How much more 'comforting' can you get?! Come on this is a strawman, a character assassination, promoted and perpetrated in part by you! Again, since you aren't a Christian why the obsession with abortion at all?
And Paul as you must know from your reading paragraph (c) of SB1093 was there solely to provide a federal challenge to Roe v. Wade and was the only part of the bill that added anything new. That is why it was resisted on the floor of the house. SB1094 was a redundant bill since it was already a felony to do as it outlined. These bills were pure political theatre promoted as partisan wedge issues - neither added anything new to Illinois' already comprehensive abortion statute. Once SB1093 was amended to basically remove paragraph (c) it did totally nothing new - why in the world should the committee send on this bit of egotistical fluff to the floor of the legislature to just promote another round of posturing and buffoonery? Once it was neutered it was sent back to Rules as it should have been. Doing so didn't promote infanticide, all it did was let the legislature get down to business that actually mattered.
Mordy - God forbid that a conservative have any intellectual substance. Liberals pride themselves on intelligence and nuance....too often the nuance is mere sophistry.
clarkjeffrey writes:
It was already the law!!! If something is already the law, you don't need to make it the law again.
What Obama voted against was a backdoor attempt to define a fetus as a person.
I know that it offends you that a constitutional law professor would actually know something about constitutional law, but you're going to have to get over it.
When you read the transcript (see pp 84-88) you get the idea that none of the senators (including Obama) were aware that the issue had been covered by the 1975 Act. As I pointed out before, Obama was attempting to find a compromise that would have been valid constitutionally, would have protected a woman's right to choose to end an unwanted pregnancy, and would have protected children born prematurely (due to abortion or whatever).
It's best to read his own words in their entirety.
This election is about a good deal more than abortion. it is about taxes, it is about energy, it is about the conduct of the war and the security of the US. It is also about protection of the innocents.
We Republicans have a buffet table of issues to use against y'all. We can pick and choose among them as it suits us.
Follwoing up on Mccain's game changing perfromace beofre the Evangelicals on Saturday it behooves us to talk about the sanctity of life.
We also will remind you that Mccain will keep all of our taxes low and will leave no stone unturned in weaning us off our dependence on foreign oil. Oh, and we will remind you that the US must continue to remain a beacon of freedome throughout the world.
Pete, Overrated:
The larger point you're very clearly missing here is-
It simply doesn't matter in this election what his views are on abortion. You're clearly ignoring facts and trying to create controversy where there is none, but even if all your points were ceded: so what?
The percentage of Americans that are single-issue pro-life voters is so small as to be negligible, and they have all decided long ago.
For anyone that really cares a whole lot about abortion, they will be voting McCain no matter what any of us say. That has been settled long ago. So what exactly are you trying to prove?
People who don't care all that much about abortion are far, far more concerned about economic and energy issues, and nothing you say about either candidate's position on abortion will affect them either way.
So again, what's the point of this debate?
The law was fixed to eliminate this threat and Obama still voted against it.
I've seen zero documentation of this.
Obama says he did not. The article says that he did this. All the article links to is a single handwritten page without any details on the new language. They can't find any better documentation. This was apparently a really big deal that the National Pro-Life people really wanted because it was so important and you don't have a copy of the final bill????
Frankly, you're asking us to believe he did simply because you said so.
I'd also note that 6 of the 10 senators in the committee voted against the bill that the article links to.
So 60% of this committee in the Illinois state senate (a fairly conservative legislature) must be far to the left of the most liberal member of the US Senate.
Why don't I believe that?
If you have any documentation to prove your claim, please provide it.
If not, please:
STOP LYING!!!!!
Cowbat friend - Is that why you are impressed with Obama? Harvard Law review? The legal community is littered with Law Review academics that never made a dent in the law community. You are impressed with Obama because he succeeded in an academic community. So what. Follow the line out. Why not tenure? Why not legal success in the real world? Indeed, Obama has been moving around all his life. Fittingly, he as been campaigning for President longer than he has been a US Senator. This is unprecedented, yet you are impressed with his academic credentials?
PK can't even spell basic words. Please, people, let him rot.
Bob --
There are ways, if people want to actually discuss these issues rather than demonize each other, to come to an accomodation where children are protected, abortions are reduced AND women maintain the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Of course, that would require pro-life people to trust pro-choice people and for pro-choice people to trust pro-life people.
You have basically described the goals of pro-choice people. If the so-called "pro-life" supporters were interested in any kind of compromise and reducing abortions rather than outlawing them, we would be haggling over details rather than having this discussion.
Roe v. Wade is a compromise; it explicitly recognizes that there is a compelling state interest in protecting the unborn, and a compelling state interest in not infringing on women's autonomy over their own bodies, and it determines at which point each interest is more compelling, balancing the two.
The pro-choice side's reaction to this compromise is to say that it may not give them everything they want, but they'll accept it. The anti-abortions side's reaction is to declare that the compromise is their opponents' position, that they'll never stop fighting it, and to continually declare that the only thing that would count as a compromise would be moving at least halfway from the current compromise toward whatever their current position is.
If you find any evidence that there is any compromise that would lead abortion opponents to accept that the issue is settled, I would be interested in seeing it. I have never seen any.
I've met very, very intelligent Conservatives, Overrated. When they have debates, they are willing to answer questions posed to them. They are willing to have discussions. They don't go onto forums trying to start controversy for the sake of an entertaining Monday evening. They have well-reasoned arguments and are able to defend their positions when questions are asked of them. They also don't try to change the subject whenever a question is asked to them.
It is very, very easy to be an intelligent Conservative. But it requires integrity, honor, and a willingness to engage in inquiry. From reading your and PeteKent's comments, I don't believe you are there. I think you could easily be there - all it would take is an instant decision to start having discussions and not simply being embattled and argumentative for their own sakes.
please do not feed PETE the PARROT when he behaves like such an ass.
Parrothead said;
"He is simply an absolutist on abortion, the most extreme member of the US Senate when it comes to the issue.
It says to be there is a coldness within him that is to be feared and pitied in equal measure."
even worse than his usual troll behavior. this is not the place to share your sick, twisted, irrational hatred, you punk.
DNFTT
When you read the transcript (see pp 84-88) you get the idea that none of the senators (including Obama) were aware that the issue had been covered by the 1975 Act.
Well to be blunt I see it as emotional pandering. Obviously the 1975 law was NOT being properly followed in some situations and some very emotional testimony to this fact had been presented. It wouldn't be political for them to bluntly tell them there was no need for the legislation. But you can tell by what they said that the problem was the language of the then paragraph (c). That was what was causing all the stress, acrimony, and, again bluntly, wasted time. Once the bill was amended to have nothing in it not already covered in existing statute of course it was returned to Rules by the Democratic majority. I think we all would do that with something that had become a major headache and the opportunity presented itself.
But we are missing the forest - the claim of a 'vote of infanticide' in the present day is an outright lie! No ethical person can say it knowing Illinois law. Which goes back to why we can't trust the people that do say these kinds of things and yeah, saying such things does make them a bit devilish.
Mordy -
Kudos, Mordy. I have been patronized by an "intellectual" on the Left. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Let me just post this for everybody to see.
This is from the National Review article that PeteKent has been using as a source:
But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama’s work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee — against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported.
Now, I want you all to click on the link to the document in question. If you can find me a single undecided person that will say that document DEFINITIVELY proves anything close to what the paragraph says it does, then I will write a check to John McCain for $2000.
This is the sort of crap Republicans pull all the time. They say that a document proves something. They know nobody will actually go and check. When you do go and check, you see it doesn't prove anything near what they claim.
OVERRATED and then some,
that was not patronizing behavior toward you. you are giving yourself too much credit as usual...
Overrated, I wonder if you think you're shocking me into reconsidering my beliefs about abortion. All I think is that you don't have the guts to say, "I know. The facts here aren't a smoking gun against Obama. But the truth is that I think all abortion should be illegal and I don't like that he tried to protect Roe V Wade. I know many people don't agree with my position, and so sometimes I make up disingenuous arguments rather than just say what I really feel."
Boohoo. You've been patronized. If you weren't such a coward maybe people wouldn't talk down to you. :( :( :(
OK, I understand the bone of contention as being the early trojan language, and then the procedural maneuver to kill the revised bill in committee later, with Obama's acquiescence.
Could be a situation of being too cute. Hiding behind the unenforced 1975 law looks like dissembling. Of course, the legislation was sponsored by pro-life types, mostly as a ratification of the federal law. that doesn't mean it should be opposed on partisan grounds.
Normal people (non-wonks) aren't going to go this deep in the weeds to try to unravel it, and from the pro-lifers viewpoint, they aren't lying, they're pointing out an evasion and inconsistency.
The bigger issue is the entire abortion debate, which is one worth keeping percolating even though people mostly have made up their own minds. One reason that's important is youngsters being indoctrinated constantly with pro-choice viewpoints in school and the media, and they deserve to understand the principled position opposing it.
DCM -
Hey dude! Thanks for the props. Did you adjust your tin foil hat for better reception on the "cone of silence" controversy. Rock on, man.
MORDY,
I think UNDERRATED believes he insulted you by calling you an "intellectual" ...
he is such a bad troll.
behave or be gone fool
Obama says he did not. The article says that he did this. All the article links to is a single handwritten page without any details on the new language. They can't find any better documentation. This was apparently a really big deal that the National Pro-Life people really wanted because it was so important and you don't have a copy of the final bill????
Total disclosure, Senator Obama makes it clear he is only talking about passage of the bill, not any procedural committee vote. AND the amended bill was word for word Identical to the federal bill - its just Illinois doesn't need the federal bill as their state statute already covers everything it does in even greater detail and measure. Senator Obama and other democrats on the committee did vote so it got send back to Rules once it had NOTHING in it that would really change Illinois law.
So the law that was identical to the federal statute was never put up for a vote on the Illinois legislative floor just as Senator Obama has said. His vote against the amended legislation was a procedural vote not on the legislation itself. AND again, the most important thing is this bill did nothing that existing illinois abortion statute didn't already do. There was no 'vote for infanticide' and that's the point that renders this whole strawman totally moot.
Mordy -
Coward? Talk me down?
Let me explain: You're a coward because you don't have the courage of your convictions. You should admit upfront that you don't have a Smoking Gun and try to argue your real point: That abortion is wrong under all circumstances.
And 'talking down to someone' is a colloquialism that us 'intellectuals' sometimes use. I was addressing your complaint that I was patronizing you.
As a Democrat, I am pleased to see the Republicans drag out the old abortion debate again. The American people are consistently pro-choice. Last poll I saw was 57% pro-choice, 38% pro-life. If this is what the Red team wants to run on, well, bring it on then!
MORDY -
UNDERRATED is playing you by getting you to feed him.
That is counter-productive as he has repeatedly proven he is nothing more than a contentious ass who refuses to be civil.
do not feed the troll...
Thanks DCM, but I can handle myself. Even a troll is a good foil against which to make points. Even if everyone else understands the point but him.
Of course, the legislation was sponsored by pro-life types, mostly as a ratification of the federal law. that doesn't mean it should be opposed on partisan grounds.
You mean the legislation shouldn't have been submitted on partisan grounds, right? Wouldn't the more reasonable non-partisan stance have been calling on the state justice department to enforce existing law, law much more specific than the partisan bill? Isn't wasting legislative time on nonproductive stuff like this one of the reason people have such a poor opinion of government now days?
Overrated, Obama was offered a tenured position and turned it down.
Well, Bob, it was in response to some horror stories over the 1975 law not being followed, which you yourslf pointed out earlier. Certainly a legitimate use of legislature time.
Rudy, the legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets them and the executive branch enforces them.
Normal people (non-wonks) aren't going to go this deep in the weeds to try to unravel it, and from the pro-lifers viewpoint, they aren't lying, they're pointing out an evasion and inconsistency.
Rudy,
I'm sorry but yes they are lying. They are saying that he voted against something that the Senate passed 98-0 because he is an extremist and that he wants to kill little babies that survived abortions. That is a lie and a big one at that.
He voted against it because it had trojan language. If it didn't have trojan language, he wouldn't have voted against it.
If he did vote against the amended bill (I still haven't seen first hand evidence on this), it was for a procedural reason because it was redundant.
Are they denying that?
I think it is morally wrong to blatantly lie about somebody and change their position is a much more extreme one than it really is because you don't agree with them.
If they want to argue that he is pro-choice and they think pro-life is a better thing to be, that is their right. I find it extremely offensive and not very Christian to imply someone holds a extreme position that they do not hold just because they disagree with the actual position.
Why not just say the truth?
Overrated,
Being President of the Harvard Law Review is different from success in academia.
1. It is an ELECTED position. Obama was elected in a climate of protests over a lack of minority faculty (where he presented himself as a moderate voice for change).
The selection process (from the Boston Globe):
"The law review president's election is a fussy affair, part intellectual debate, part frat house ritual. Obama was one of 19 candidates. As the 61 editors not running for the job debated the merits of the candidates behind closed doors on a Sunday morning in late February, the hopefuls cooked them breakfast, lunch, and dinner . Every few hours, the editors winnowed the list further, until just after midnight, when only Obama and a 24-year-old Harvard graduate named David Goldberg remained contenders ."
2. It is not an editorial position - there are over 40 (out of a second year class of about 5-600) editors. Those are selected by grades, and are generally top students.
3. Obama never published a single article during his tenure at the University of Chicago. Obama's only published works are autobiographical.
4. Obama was adjunct faculty at University of Chicago (a senior lecturer). Thus he was not on a tenure-track, nor did he likely intend to be (moreover he does not have the rank of professor, as he lacks a phd).
So this notion that Obama has a shining academic career, or that Obama was ever serious about academia is off the mark. Indeed, most academics in politics are not actual academics, but occasional lecturers.
Condolleeza Rice is probably the highest ranked academic in US politics, and even she had a piss-poor publication record. Her being hired by Stanford is inexplicable, unless it involved her use of political connections.
She had a phd from a marginal university (University of Denver is not an AAU school, and its political science program is not even ranked by the NSF, as you can see on phds.org).
Prior to her hiring in 1981, her publications included nothing. From what I can tell in google scholar she may have had one impending publication in air university review. That isn't the kind of CV that gets you a job at Stanford. Hell, it isn't the kind of CV that gets you a job much of anywhere in academia. And, unlike Obama, she wasn't a feel-good hire as a lecturer. She got a tenure track job.
Her productivity as a professor was decent, but not really up to Stanford's standards (especially after the fall of the USSR).
My point is that your attempt to paint Obama (or the attempt of Republicans to say this of Rice) as smart because they are professors vastly misrepresents their success, and in Obama's case, the degree to which he was part of academia. Obama is not even a public intellectual (another distinction non-academics tend to fail to make).
Other academics/semi-academics that did well in politics:
*Newt Gingrich (never published a thing)
*Dick Cheney (went ABD)
*Woodrow Wilson, was a very respected and central figure in American political science in his day.
*Al Gore has been a visiting professor at a number of places. That means he gives lectures, largely based on his experience in politics.
Well, Bob, it was in response to some horror stories over the 1975 law not being followed, which you yourslf pointed out earlier. Certainly a legitimate use of legislature time.
If they were upset at the 1975 law not be followed, they should have complained to the Attorney General. It sounds like they tried that and he gave them bad advice. I'd say their problem should be with the AG.
Redundant laws are not a legitimate use of legislature time.
Well, Bob, it was in response to some horror stories over the 1975 law not being followed, which you yourslf pointed out earlier. Certainly a legitimate use of legislature time.
Guess we see it differently - if people are going faster than the speed limit then I think you should increase enforcement not try and pass another law against speeding.
Eve,
1. If Obama was offered tenure, it was not based on his academic merits, but rather his political connections (and possibly as a diversity hire, as Chicago has a lack of diversity).
2. It is uncertain that Obama was offered tenure. This blog entry has relevant links:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/07/31/spat-over-obamas-tenure-gets-truly-academic/
I find it strange that the dean would offer tenure to Obama without consulting the faculty, and it seems rather tenuous to assume that the faculty would be 100% behind him because new hires take away money for raises (and because people prefer to make sure new hires reflect their own subfield and interest) - not to mention that Obama did not engage much with faculty members.
If they wanted to hire somebody with political experience, many much better options were available than somebody with a 4-year stint in the Illinois senate.
clarkejeffrey said...
If they were upset at the 1975 law not be followed, they should have complained to the Attorney General. It sounds like they tried that and he gave them bad advice. I'd say their problem should be with the AG.
Redundant laws are not a legitimate use of legislature time.
Interesting, isn't it, that the AG who gave them bad advice was a Republican? Jim Ryan, to be exact. Why didn't they shout and scream at the Republican AG to uphold the values of their party. Why aren't they doing so in now, even in retrospect?
Like you said, redundant laws are a waste of time. It's just more convenient for their argument to go after Obama and the legislature than it is to admit that one of their own started the whole ball rolling with errant judgment.
PeteKunt, you're full of shit. 2 weeks ago you declared McCain would be up 5 in the Gallup Poll. Never happened. And in the past 2 days you've declared McCain would be leading. Guess what? Ain't happening, squire.
Obama regains 3-point lead after a weekend being tied with McCoot.
Gallup: Obama at 46%, McCain at 43%
http://www.gallup.com/HomePage.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109639/Gallup-Daily-Obama-46-McCain-43.aspx
If McCain indeed had a home-run, surely it would be reflected in today's daily trackers, would it not? Afterall, Obama has been on vacation all week. Could it be that McCain scared a lot of moderates Saturday night? Or maybe the fact that McCain cheated at Saddleback is starting to circulate, even in the MSM. That's why Pastor Rick is backtracking, and Stephen Hayes was more animated than usual today when Jack Cafferty brought McCain's cheating.
Btw, that evangelical con-artist announced beforehand that his topics would include Poverty, HIV Aids and Climate Change. But instead he asked questions on the usual crap - Abortion, Stem Cells and the Supreme Court. He lied to his audience and, like McCoot, has been outed as a fraud.
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics. Its not about solving the actual problem. Its about putting a little bit of sneaky language into an otherwise unobjectionable bill and then saying "Omigod, Omigod, How could you vote against something so unobjectionable?!?!"
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama would have voted for the bill if it had the trojan language removed and wasn't redundant.
Btw, that evangelical con-artist announced beforehand that his topics would include Poverty, HIV Aids and Climate Change. But instead he asked questions on the usual crap - Abortion, Stem Cells and the Supreme Court. He lied to his audience and, like McCoot, has been outed as a fraud.
I like Warren. I wouldn't go that far. I give him a lot of credit for trying to increase the level of discourse. I also give him credit for emphasizing that both candidates are good people and that his congregation should carefully weigh all their issues and not just abortion and gays.
Jerry Falwell never would have done that.
I don't have any problem with religious conservatives being interested in religious conservative issues.
I only get mad when they try to make up bulls__t in order to demonize Democrats as far more extreme than they actually are.
hosertohoosier,
A couple of quibbles. First, your claim: "moreover he does not have the rank of professor, as he lacks a phd)." Depending on the institution, the rank of professor needn't be linked to having a Ph.D. Most professors have Ph.D., but it isn't a requirement everywhere. Perhaps someone can clarify, but I was under the impression that many, if not most, law school professors don't have Ph.D.s, since a J.D. is a terminal degree and few institutions offer a Ph.D. in law.
As for the offer of tenure, it is not clear that he was offered tenure, but he was unquestionably offered a tenure track position. (source: U of C Law School, as cited in FactCheck.org) Apparently, he was an exemplary teacher who was loved by the students. I don't know much about U of C Law School, but at some institutions teaching is very important.
It is safe to say that Obama is not a leading legal scholar. I think the comment, however, that sparked this debate, claimed that he had a great legal mind. One can have a great legal mind without publishing much, and one can certainly publish a lot without having a great legal mind.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama would have voted for the bill if it had the trojan language removed and wasn't redundant.
Ditto - Heck I think if it had been presented worded as the same as the federal law from the beginning he would have passed it even it was redundant - even abortion activists have no problem with the Born Alive Act.
I earlier posted about McCain's omitting responses to the AARP -I went back and reread the article - he merely omitted the summary section - he did submit answers, he merely did not give the summary answers the AARP had requested.
judas_priest -
Is the AARP survey online anywhere? I'm feeling lazy (actually, about to leave work) but would like to read through it.
Hoser-
Just to clear up a few problems with your post:
Obama never published a single article during his tenure at the University of Chicago. Obama's only published works are autobiographical.
Senior lecturers don't publish articles unless they want tenure-track positions. If they're doing well in their day job, why bother?
Obama was adjunct faculty at University of Chicago (a senior lecturer). Thus he was not on a tenure-track, nor did he likely intend to be (moreover he does not have the rank of professor, as he lacks a phd).
1) It's Ph.D. Learn to spell it correctly.
2) Law is a field in which the terminal degree is not a Ph.D. In law, the terminal degree is an S.J.D. It's also a "first degree" field like medicine, dentistry, vets. There are lots of professors out there with no more than J.D. or LL.M. What you really want is a J.D. or LL.M. Ph.Ds are nice for background in say, econ, or poli sci or something like that, but not required. Check out the Harvard Law faculty listing if you don't believe me.
3) Obama is a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law.
4) Lawyers are busy people.
5) From the University:
"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
6) From (2), (3) and (5) - Obama is quite qualified to teach law, and claim that he was a professor in constitutional law because he was regarded as one by his employer and his peers.
Oh... One other thing:
I bet his students considered him a Professor. In my limited experience, all of the good instructors were professors even if they weren't.
Since the University wanted to tenure-track him, I can only assume that the students loved him, and learned from him.
Glad to see abolishing anonymous posts has led to this heightened discourse on polling methodology backed up by solid facts and a notable absence of ad hominem attacks.
Oh - sorry - wrong thread.
Overrated:
Just a technical point. Only judges write opinions. Legal scholars write articles in refereed journals. Adjunct faculty (as Obama was) generally don't publish unless they are intending to become full-tiime faculty.
That being said, it is true that Obbama does not have any academic publication (as far as I know), which is meaningful only if one wished to evaluate him as an academic. I do agree with you that, while he may indeed know the law, he has not followed the path of a legal scholar.
It is in fact quite rare for scholars to succeed in politics in recent history (within the past 150 years, say). The only president during this period I can think of who would qualify as a scholar is Woodrow Wilson.
Enough about abortion. Did anybody notice that the Popular vote is now separated by less than 1%. Also, the survey USA Poll showing just a 2 point lead for Obama in Minnesota.
Nate really ought to put Colorado EV in McCain's column. This race is getting tight.
Well signing off until my post tomorrow. Would anybody like to guess what the Rasmussen Tracking Poll was on August 19, 2004?
Glad to see abolishing anonymous posts has led to this heightened discourse on polling methodology backed up by solid facts and a notable absence of ad hominem attacks.
Yeah sorry for my part in that. Just the wingnuts are test flying this 'Obama voted for infanticide' meme and I think its important to get the truth out there and make sure they get slapped down hard on this from every corner.
And I'm glad I did - the actual floor transcripts have been linked plus the odd revelation that they did approach the Republican Attorney General and he said the explicit existing legislation couldn't be applied even though it obviously can. Anyone smell a deliberate effort to set the stage for some political theatre on the legislative floor?
We now return you to your sponsored program ;)
Sedi,
Those are fair points - and I would never deny Obama is a smart guy (and much smarter than McCain). Great legal mind I am less certain of - definitely not a
Mason,
1. Wow, your knowledge and cunning are unsurpassed. Maybe U of Chicago law should hire you instead.
2. I was wrong, and didn't do my homework on that one. I assumed he just had an LLB.
3. University of Chicago law is one of the top 10 law schools in the United States/world. They have about 40 faculty members (if they hired 4 people in a year it would be an exceptional year). Throw in the other 9 top-ten schools and you have a market for about 400 academic positions. Harvard law alone produces more than that many law students in a single year. Obviously most don't go into academia, but Chicago can afford to be choosy.
4. Yes, but Obama's law career doesn't sound like it was particularly demanding.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article
From the Chicago Sun Times:
"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.
A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: Zero.
5. I wasn't outright disputing that he was offered tenure (though I was skeptical). I was wondering primarily about whether he was qualified.
6. You don't hire tenured faculty because they are "qualified to teach". Moreover, we are talking about a tenured position, not even a tenure-track assistant professorship.
I don't want to go through all of U of C law's faculty, so lets go through the first 8 assistant professors on the list (never mind associate professors). I'll wager they will all have publications.
Daniel Abebe - 1 publication (2 pending)
Anu Bradford - 6 publications
Adam Cox - 14 publications
Rosalind Dixon - 5 publications (plus some policy papers and review articles)
Jacob Gerson - 14 publications
Todd Henderson - 11 publications
Alison Lacroix - 1 book, 8 publications
Jonathan Masur - 5 publications
And remember these are people with worse jobs than Obama was offered, who do not yet have tenure (Michelle would have also gotten a job in the legal clinic).
For fun, Frank Easterbrook is also a senior lecturer. He has published two books, and over 100 articles (yes he is old, but if I take the date of Obama's hiring as his starting point, he still has over 35).
So Obama's great legal mind was mostly put to use in writing substantive memos and teaching three classes a year. Certainly Obama is intelligent (and smarter than McCain), but I think the defensiveness over any possible critique of this sort reflects a common need among Democrats to believe that their candidate is the smarter one.
I think stressing how smart Obama is by listing his job titles, etc. misses Obama's biggest talent. Consistently, in everything he has done, Obama has been able to be inoffensive, and has brought people together (in part because his audacity extends to the offices he seeks, and now how he exercises those offices).
Success in the presidency has a lot more to do with emotional intelligence than intellectual intelligence. After all, civil servants do a great deal of the work of putting together the plans that the president looks over. Moreover, the distinction between different candidates is often quite small. Bush is supposedly the dumbest president ever, but compare him to Gore and Kerry.
http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
Despite that, I'd wager Kerry would have made a better president.
Jimmy Carter was a first-rate intellectual, and a fundamentally decent human being. His presidency became a punchline. Richard Nixon was probably the most intelligent Republican president of the postwar era. He even managed to do great things, but was undone by his insecurity.
By contrast Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt were not shining pillars of academic brilliance, but led fairly successful presidencies.
Here is the source on the Bush-Kerry grades.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/
Tito:
That survey is not on the AARP magazine's website, although it may appear later. (They say the add articles almost every week.)
Darren,
I agree that this thread got off topic, though the abortion debate was relatively free of ad hominem attacks, compared to what often goes on here.
The polls today don't really seem to say much, which isn't surprising. Obama's big lead has been reduced, for sure, but it doesn't seem to be continuing to fall (though some like PeteKent predicted it would). I think everybody here is waiting for the VP picks and the conventions, assuming that whatever movement there is now will be washed away by events in the coming weeks. And isn't everybody waiting for another IN poll?
I do agree with that Nate's suggestion that Obama seems to be losing more in Clinton-friendly states right now. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the unity bounce he got earlier is fading as the convention draws near and some Clinton supporters start to think that she has a real shot again. Or maybe it's just noise. That's probably the explanation for most of the minor movements that get endlessly debate around here.
hosertohoosier,
Excellent observation: "stressing how smart Obama is by listing his job titles, etc. misses Obama's biggest talent." Your analysis here rings true and I think your comment on emotional intelligence is spot on. Good stuff!
The tenure issue at U of C, (which I think is totally irrelevant) is rather confusing. Mason (I think) and I were both contending that he was offered a tenure-track position, which the law school has verified. Whether he was actually offered tenure is certainly a different question. If he was, it sounds like it was a behind-the-scenes deal with the Dean. There is no question that, if such an offer occurred, it was because of his political, not his scholarly, work. Well, that and rave student reviews.
All in all, I think there is little question that his work teaching constitutional law undoubtedly has given him a deeper knowledge of many relevant areas than most politicians (certainly more than Bush). He shouldn't be portrayed as a leading constitutional scholar or lawyer, however, since he never really pursued either as a career. He is a politician by profession, and an exceptionally gifted one at that.
Being offered a tenure track position is quite different from being offered tenture.
Faculty members who are in non-tenure track postions know that they will not receive a tenure offer down the line (some are told they may be subsequently considered for a tenture track position). A tenure track position means that within a certain period of time the professor will be evaluated for tenure. Achieving it depends upon fulfilling the school's policies with respect to tenure, their being a tenure position available and the candiate having the ability to get along with other faculty and other aspects of internal politics of the department and the school. (I remember one case at a state university at which the academic vice-president spoke at a meeting and said they they had too many foreign born faculty and that this was hurting them with the legislature. I represented a foreign born faculty member in a lsw suit against the university who was denied tenure shortly after that speech.
At Yale in the early 1970s the Political Science Department one year had, I believe, six candidates come up for tenure review. (If tenure was not awarded by the sixth year of the appointment, the professow was given a seventh and terminal year) Unfortunately, the schol had only one slot available and so the others were sent packing, even though they all had favorable reviews.
Being offered a tenure track position is quite different from being offered tenture.
Faculty members who are in non-tenure track postions know that they will not receive a tenure offer down the line (some are told they may be subsequently considered for a tenture track position). A tenure track position means that within a certain period of time the professor will be evaluated for tenure. Achieving it depends upon fulfilling the school's policies with respect to tenure, their being a tenure position available and the candiate having the ability to get along with other faculty and other aspects of internal politics of the department and the school. (I remember one case at a state university at which the academic vice-president spoke at a meeting and said they they had too many foreign born faculty and that this was hurting them with the legislature. I represented a foreign born faculty member in a lsw suit against the university who was denied tenure shortly after that speech.
At Yale in the early 1970s the Political Science Department one year had, I believe, six candidates come up for tenure review. (If tenure was not awarded by the sixth year of the appointment, the professow was given a seventh and terminal year) Unfortunately, the schol had only one slot available and so the others were sent packing, even though they all had favorable reviews.
judas_priest -
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for it. AARP has actually been a very interesting outside group relative to the campaign this year. Usually it seems like mostly a lock for the Republicans. But the whole Divided We Fail initiative has got me interested, so I'd like to see what they asked and how the candidates responded.
Hoser,
I'm glad to see you admit that Obama is a very intelligent man. At first I thought that you were just posting talking points but I see you do admit he's smarter than McCain.
You mention emotional intelligence is more important than intellectual intelligence.
I think that a big part of that is the ability to remain cool and objective under fire.
It must have been hard for Obama not to fire back on Hillary during March but he resisted the temptation because it would have been counter-productive. Thats a tough feat. One I'm not sure I'd be capable of.
There are some legendary stories of McCain losing his temper. I think that is really a danger for a president. I actually think that Obama has a pretty good ability to stay focused on what is right for the long run, when all of your instincts say to lash out in the short run.
With today's SurveyUSA poll confirming Quinnipiac's and Rasmussen's findings that Obama only leads by 2-4 points in Minnesota, Pawlenty could give the state to McCain.
I'd go with Romney though because picking up Michigan would effectively preclude an Obaam win. McCain's Saddleback performance means evangelicals will cut him some slack now.
Note: As Nate's chart shows, despite the Siena writeup, Siena's most recent poll in NY was 18 points in July before today's reduction to an 8-point lead. A 10-point drop in NY in the last month is ominous for Obama, who is taking bodyblows without fighting back.
Well well well. McCain's support has dropped in the Georgia and Illinois Rasmussen polls as well as the Gallup tracker. I think we can put to bed the predictably lame arguments that McCain is on some kind of inexorable roll based on a couple of marginal news stories that most Americans are largely unaware of.
My prediction is that the Obama recovery will continue as more state polls are released this week, now that he is back in the country and on the airwaves dominating the news coverage. Rasmussen is due to release polls in OH, FL, PA, NM and NH within the next week.
Fellow Obama supporters: You are not doing Obama a favor by trying to prove how intellectual he is. Americans are anti-intellectual.
Obama and Infanticide: A Corpse in the Pan
Responding to those who will not see the truth of Obama's extremist position and his opposition to life and the sanctity with which he holds abortion, I post the following.
Many Democrats have turned the act of destroying human life in the womb as something of a sacrament. I read in the NYTs back in the 80s or 90s how feminists would get together in house parties and perform in-home abortions using catheterization to induce labor and destroy the life within the womb. This was considered a celebration of feminism.
Several of you have posted about how the IL Bill at issue that Obama voted against three times, despite it finally containing language that made absolutely clear that it posed no threat to a woman's right to choose and was only designed to ease the passage of these unfortunate children to natural death, actually was not needed b/c IL law already went far enough in that regard. That is 100% a post hoc rationalization and never entered the debate at that time, if in fact you are telling the truth about the state of IL law.
Being against protection of babies born alive when an abortion is bungled is akin to opposing the flag, being against motherhood and apple pie.
it has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose and everything to do with being a dangerous extremist who would lead this country in a direction the vast majority of people do not want to go.
Say what you want about first trimester abortions, the overwhelming majority of people oppose late term abortions and do not wish to see children that are born alive following a botched medical procedure, children who breath and cry and suffer, treated like medical waste.
Those of you who differ should be ashamed of yourselves. Certain matters of morality and human decency trump even the election of your favorite politicians.
Here now the words of Senator Obama and then commentary by David Fredoso.
“There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so … this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”
The absurd conclusion of Obama’s argument is hard to miss. He implies that “pre-viable” babies born prematurely, even without abortions, are somehow less “persons” than are babies who undergo nine months’ gestation before birth.
But even this is not the most important part of his argument. That would be his first sentence — the one about “caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.” He seems open to this idea. And he does not state explicitly that a pre-viable, premature baby is not a “person.” Rather, he is arguing that the question of their personhood is a moot point. Even if the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood might threaten someone’s right to an abortion somewhere down the road. That made the bill unacceptable to him. ”
“Most people, whatever their view on abortion, agree that the Constitution at least guarantees the rights of born and living human beings. Barack Obama does not agree. For him, the Constitution exists primarily in order to guarantee the right to abortion, and other rights of human persons — born and alive — are secondary. Beginning with abortion rights as his premise, he draws as his conclusion the unfortunate but necessary legality of infanticide.”
Quoting David Fredoso
Later the Bill was amended in his own Comm. to remove the constitutional objections that Obama claimed it posed and he nevertheless killed it.
For once we see Sen. Obama taking a leadership position on an issue: Death.
Some people love to say that a black person gets offered tenure or a job or admission to a school not on their own merit but only because they are black. So tell me, those who discount Obama's achievements on this basis, how does a person graduate from Harvard law school magna cum laude?
This as opposed to Bush who was turned down by The University of Texas law school.
Compare Obama's academic record to McCain's. McCain, like Bush, brags about how poorly he did.
When Obama is president we will have someone in office who understands the constitution and respects the rule of law. What we have now is a hot-tempered, backward ass who called the constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper."
With McCain we would get another hot-tempered relic of the past who is experienced... in being given a political career by marrying a rich woman whose father was well-connected in Arizona. It was a nice trade-off as it was helpful to Cindy in getting her off drug charges to have a husband in politics. What a team.
And for those who claim McCain did nothing wrong as a member of the Keating Five, you are misinformed.
Keating asked the five Senators to tell the feds to stop investigating him, and the five Senators, later known as the Keating Five, obliged, meeting with federal investigators twice and pressuring them to stop. In addition, McCain admitted to intentionally filing false income tax returns to defraud the IRS by not claiming thousands of dollars in gifts McCain and his family received from Charles Keating and Keating’s company.
Some republicans may find such unethical behavior just fine and dandy. Business as usual. Most people are not so happy to have Senators so caviler with ethics at the expense of the taxpayer.
Sedi-
These were my basic points:
1) He was quailfied to teach.
2) The university offered him tenure-track position and considered him a "professor".
3) Since no hiring decision is ever made at a University without consultation of the relevant academic commitees, his peers considered him a professor.
4) Since he never wanted the FT postition, he didn't write.
H2H-
Lots of lawyers do nothing but write "substantive" memos. The legal system runs on paperwork and that paper doesn't generate itself. It's not all trying cases.
Heck, a good enough memo may be enough to avoid a trial.
Yes pete, thanks for pointing out that the problem with the bill was its 'poison pill' paragraph (c) that did nothing to protect viable fetuses but was there to make a federal Roe v Wade challenge possible.
Again, that legislation would have passed if it were presented honestly, but it wasn't. And as such when it was amended by Republicans into irrelevancy according to Illinois law it was sent back to rules - it was never voted on for enactment on the legislative floor.
Illinois had and has some of the most stringent late term abortion laws in the US. It did and does have very explicit requirements for any child born alive from any pregnancy termination procedure whether it be a regular delivery or an abortion.
This whining of 'what about the children' is crocodile tears since the bill introduced by the Republicans was deliberate political theatre engaged in for crass political purposes.
If only the Republicans had called for an enforcement of the existing law which was already far more stringent than the new legislation.
If only any additional legislation proposed by the Republicans had been entered with protecting the children in mind rather than just as a tool to attack Roe v. Wade.
If only there were honest Republicans that would acknowledge that Senator Obama supports some of the most restrictive abortion legislation on the books in the US and even says there are limits on what 'welfare of the mother' means.
Again, this strawman the extreme rightwing Republicans keep trying to craft is so obviously and easily shown as flawed it will backfire on them if they continue. Keep crying 'wolf' so ineffectively and people won't be listening to you at all.
Bob, You wrote: If only there were honest Republicans that would acknowledge that Senator Obama supports some of the most restrictive abortion legislation on the books in the US and even says there are limits on what 'welfare of the mother' means.
Please find me evidence of this. Nothing in Obama's record has been uncovered demonstrating that he has been anything other than an abslute supporter of abortion in all cases, even to the point of opposing legislation that would require reasoable comofrt and convenience be given to victoms of the procedure that happen to survive a botched procedure.
Obama's supposed support for limits on abortion is apparently as phantom as Larry Sinlair's allegations of having engaged in drug and homosexual activity with him.
Shall we call it a draw?
Bob wrote:
Yeah sorry for my part in that. Just the wingnuts are test flying this 'Obama voted for infanticide' meme and I think its important to get the truth out there and make sure they get slapped down hard on this from every corner.
Bob, I want to thank you for taking the time to do so. I have struggled with this particular issue of Obama's on a personal level, and seeing the full context, including existing law worded unambiguously addressing the issue having been on the books for 38 YEARS, puts it under the spotlight for the political game the Regressives were playing.
Shall we call it a draw?
No, but I will go with calling you a troll.
It was the REPUBLICAN Attorney General that refused to enforce the already existing law. If he wouldn't enforce it why would he enforce less specific legislation if it was passed or not?
Illinois newborns were already protected by law, just sad the Republicans refused to enforce the law.
Mark, glad it help. Do print out the specifics and spread them around as widely as you can. My sister is easy swayed by emotional arguments like this but when I showed her the facts and pointed out she was being deliberately lied to by the Republicans - well, she doesn't like being lied to.
Evangelicals all depends. When 'life begins' isn't clear in the Bible - some point to a passages that says it requires blood, others point to passages that make it clear an unborn child was property and killing one not considered murder. Even a passage where a magical abortifact is given to a woman who might have been unfaithful with the pregnancy terminated if she was. St. Aquianas basically agreed with Roe v Wade and 12 weeks or so was when it became a person.
There are lots of people saying they KNOW what the answer is but really they don't - only God does, hence the Senator's answer at the forum.
I personally am very Roe v Wade which means I have no problems with escalating greater restrictions on mere choice after the initial 12 weeks just as I think you'd find most people share, including Senator Obama.
Sorry, Bob. there is no instance where Sen. Obama has ever acted to put greater restrictions on abortion. To him it is a simple issue: nothing should restrict the killing of life in the womb. He is in favor of turner that chamber into a charnel house and countenaces the slaughter of innocents. he has gone so far as to oppose even the giving of rudimentary comfort and support to those infants born alive where the procedure has gone awry.
This extremism is simply evidence of his fringe liberalism and why the great mass of people will ultimately come to reject him.
Puppies are given more respect in our society than unwanted human children. I for one prefer a candidate who stands against the holocaust than one who uses every intellectual fiber in his being to support it.
I'll await your proof of Obama's nuanced view on this issue, and will say no more until it is rendered.
Sorry, Bob. there is no instance where Sen. Obama has ever acted to put greater restrictions on abortion.
Well as an Illinois senator there would be no need to - it has some of the most comprehensive and restrictive abortion law on the books since 1975.
And since abortion post 12 weeks is a state regulated affair how do you suggest he should interfere in how other states choose to administer themselves?
To him it is a simple issue: nothing should restrict the killing of life in the womb. .
Hahahaha! Peter cries 'WOLF" "WOLF" "WOLF"
I'll await your proof of Obama's nuanced view on this issue, and will say no more until it is rendered.
Easy enough, he never tried to change Illinois very restrictive abortion laws, and since being in the Senate he has never tried to make having such kind of restrictive abortion laws illegal.
I mean when you are starting out with strict abortion control the proof that you are for it is you don't try and get rid of it, right?
It's a reach to say that Obama holds any semblance of pro-lifer values given that he's said that he would put Planned Parenthood-sponsored legislation at the top of his priority list, He may be among the more conservative of the rabid pro-choicers, but that's not a mainstream standard.
It defies logic that he would have sponsored any anti-abortion legislation, regardless of Illinois' existing laws.
Even considering Bob's helpful dissection, it's going to be hard for him to shake this because there's no easily understood (sound-bite level) rationalization for his position that isn't vulnerable to rebuttal. It takes gyrations to exonerate him, and ones that are in conflict with his extemporaneous statements.
Most people will be prone to believe that he's sincere in his future statements (as long as he doesn't equivocate) so I don't think this issue costs him a lot of votes that he would have had otherwise. But it will stay alive.
I meant contemporaneous, not extemporaneous. Oops.
I agree Rudy, it will be a continual brush fire stomping.
I guess the sound bite retort to the 'infanticide' meme would be:
"Not true - Illinois already had law protected all babies but the Republican Attorney General refused to enforce it."
The response to that would give those that would bother a chance to be educated - face it - for many like Peter its just an attack tool - that its not true is really unimportant, they'd claim he was a Martian if they thought it would sway voters away from him.
Tito, How about Obama as a source for his support of infanticide?
Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:
I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …
I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
The paragraph Obama refused to support was this one:
Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
His view, the completely wrong one, was that even if a baby was "accidentally" born alive, a parent should have the choice to kill that child, if they did not intend for the child to survive the birth.
That is infanticide. He is the only person in the Illinois or U.S. Senate to not support this bill.
But of course he wouldn't. To quote Obama, The decision of when a baby is alive is "above my pay grade."
Then when the senators proposing the bill sought to amend it to conform to the language Obama wanted in it, the exact Federal Language, he as chair of the Heath and Human Services committee killed the amendment, did not even allow it to go up for a vote.
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm
Of course, why would he, the decision on when life begins, even after a live birth, is "above his pay grade." If a mom has a baby born alive, and doesnt want it, minutes, hours, days, or even months later, why should we care, she is the mom that has to raise that child. We are restricting a mom's right to choose whether she wants to raise a baby born alive, when we tell her she cannot kill the baby, or set it on a shelf to starve to death after it is born alive.
Further commentary on the infanticide Bill:
During the March 2003 committee, Obama voted in support of adding the neutrality clause, but then led his colleagues on the panel in voting down the anti-infanticide bill on a 6-4 vote.
"Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion," NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson told LifeNews.com.
Johnson said Obama did so "even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion."
"Obama's legislative actions in 2003 -- denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions -- were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress," Johnson continued.
"The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose," he concluded.
Of course why wouldn't Obama kill a bill that says a baby born alive should have legal rights, that would be having to decide when live begins, and that is clearly "above his paygrade."
As to Obama's Intelligence. He is extremely intelligent. He is lawyerly in his intelligent thinking. He cannot define for himself any answers. Everything is neither right and wrong, but shades of grey to him. No positions, just intelligent posturing. It is a condescending intelligence, that says I am smarter than you, therefore elect me, because as a better thinker, my thoughts will lead to better decsions.
The problem is that Thinking and intelligence combined with decision making come from an internal source called a worldview. Obama's worldview is so distorted by his ego, that he isn't relevant to the average Joe. So his Worldview requires a sense of Social Justice that requires him to save mankind by doing things like offering to have the government pay for abortions on demand, practicing his Robin Hood Economic plan, reducing the armed forces to catastrophic levels to prove we are a peaceful nation, retreating from the conflicts of the world as a force, while offering our resources to solve world problems, creating a new United Nations type of organization that solves these problems, because the first one has done no good. All great intellectual ideas that great academic papers can be written on, but no real ability to implement these outlandish ideas without deteriorating our nation in every conceivable way.
Higglytown, put down that glass of Kool-Aid and do some research you've confused 2 separate instances.
The wingnuts are talking about two separate bills SB1093 in 2001, and SB1082 in 2003. Both were presented with the same poison pill verbiage with slight variations:
SB 1093: (3.5) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
and
SB 1082(c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
What you are leaving out is they defined a 'live birth' as any fetus with a pulse (among other overly broad criteria) which would include many fetus that had no hope to survive. This was the political agenda that both of these bills were really presented to foster since the rest of the bill required treatment regardless of their 'human person' status. Both of these lines were designed to let you assign a lawyer to the fetus and then sue to try and overturn Roe v. Wade.
In 2001 SB1093 passed with 34 ayes, 6 nays and 12 presents. You vote 'present' when you think a bill is flawed but you don't want to obstruct is passage. Senator Obama voted 'present' for these reason as he stated, and surprise surprise paragraph 3.5 was ultimately removed because it wouldn't be constitutional.
In 2003 The Born Alive Act that had previously passed at a federal level was introduced with the twist of paragraph (c) included once again trying to indulge in a bit of partisan political theater. But there was no need for the bill - everything that actually protected live births was already in the statutes, the only thing new this bill had was its 'poison pill' paragraph. Not surprisingly this time it didn't pass and was sent back to committee Chaired by Senator Obama. The Republicans themselves finally amended it to be identical to Federal statute but now that it was it had NOTHING new to add to Illinois state statutes. The committee voted accordingly and sent it back to the Rules committee where it passed away as redundant legislation usually does.
At neither time were born infants at any risk of 'infanticide' regardless of how the votes went on the bills, neither time did Senator Obama vote to allow any child to be allowed to suffer and die without medical care. He did stand against disingenuous partisan politics but then that's a good thing, right?
This is such an obvious strawman constructed by the Right its shows they know they can't win the election on McCain's merit honestly.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,整型,整型,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,學英文,英文社團,英語俱樂部,學習英文,英語會話,英文演講,English Club,學英語,學英文,美語社團,英語社團,英文讀書會,Toastmasters,Toastmaster,英語讀書會,拍樂得批發,拍樂得飾品,拍樂得化妝品批發,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment