Above Obama's 'pay grade'
When I watched the presidential candidate forum at Saddleback Church the other night, I took notes with a certain perspective in mind: which of Obama’s responses were going to be used against him by the right? Maybe I haven’t been reading enough conservative blogs lately, because I didn’t see the angry response to this remark coming:
Obama went on to explain how (and why) we can reduce the number of abortions in this country, and why he’s pro-choice.
And yet, it was that “above my pay grade” line that seems to be getting all the attention. To hear Obama’s conservative detractors tell it, there’s no one above a president’s pay grade, so the answer didn’t make any sense.
Maybe the right is being deliberately coy here, and looking to manufacture another controversy, but I thought it was pretty obvious Obama was referring to God
Over at BeliefNet, Steve Waldman understood the message, but seemed to think Obama’s response was confusing.
[Gary Bauer] hated Obama’s line that determining when life begins is “above my pay grade.” I agree that this was a poorly framed answer. If he was going to make this argument, he should have been more direct and say, “Only God really knows that. But since we have to pick someone to make this choice, I believe the choice should rest not with the legislature or the courts but with the women in consultation with her pastor.” He was too clipped and cryptic.
Maybe. Obama has a bad habit of treating voters like adults, and not talking down to them. He assumes, perhaps incorrectly, that Americans want to be spoken to as if we’re grown-ups. He doesn’t spell things out for us, because he believes his audience is fully capable of understanding what he’s saying.
But given the response, that’s apparently not the case. When dealing with weighty philosophical, scientific, and moral questions such as when an embryo or fetus is a “person,” with “human rights,” Obama suggested God knows more than a policy maker, but went on to talk about abortion policy in a more practical way.
Ann Althouse criticized Obama’s response on Sunday, but took a more measured line today. (emphasis in the original)
[T]hinking about it this morning, I’m pretty sure he meant to refer to God.
“Above my pay grade” is an expression of humility and submission to God: I don’t purport to answer the question that belongs to God. He’s trying to be folksy, coining a phrase akin to “the man upstairs.” When someone says “the man upstairs,” you don’t start railing about how we’re on the top floor, but that’s because we know we’re dealing with a folksy expression. People are too touchy on the subject of abortion to process the less common “above my pay grade” as an expression.
Obama may have thought that, in a church, talking to a pastor, with religion hovering around every question, listeners would understand that he was putting himself beneath God. But I didn’t pick that up last night….
How did all of you perceive this when you heard the line?
There shall be no religious test for office.
"but I thought it was pretty obvious Obama was referring to God"
Or the American people who the people we elect work for. The Wingnut mafia likes to forget that.
Please...these are wingnuts we're talking about. If it isn't simple and plain and obvious, they won't get it. Such stretches of the mind would be considered 'arrogant'...
There is no logical way of discussing issues like this with the right wing nuts, because they are intellectually and morally dishonest. They will twist everything you or I or Obama have to say into their twisted logic and attack you. If Obama comes out and says that he was referring to God, they will say, see Obama IS the anti-Christ because he thinks God works for money. So, there's no point in discussing anything with them.
Since he made references to both theology and science, I assumed he meant he was not an expert in either of those fields.
The right wants a dictator slash authoritarian figure to answer all their questions for them etc etc. John Dean wrote a great book detailing this phenomenon titled "Conservatives Without Conscience" Highly recommended to understand the viewpoint of these people and the historical values of that movement. Anyway. I'm glad Barack is the man and I hope people get to the bottom of John McCain and whether he had listened to the answers before hand and whether he made up that story about some cross in the sand.
Damn. I also hope the election machines get plenty of scrutiny this cycle and etc etc etc... Damn.
THE CHURCH OF THE PRESIDENCY.
I'm sort of shocked at the obviousness of Ann Althouse's realization that when Obama said that the question of when a fetus becomes a person was "above his pay grade," he was referring to G_d. Now, via Andrew Sullivan we find out that the Pope doesn't have an answer either. Nevertheless, Mark Hemingway at NRO insists that "There's not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States," including unilaterally deciding the answers to questions that stump religious leaders across the world.
This is in line with the emerging Right Wing view that in the President is not merely vested with the authority of the state but the heavens as well. That is, as long as he's a Republican. At least they're consistent. Since we're finding that there are no laws made by man that a Republican chief executive is bound to respect, it was only a matter of time before the President's authority absconded its earthly limits.
Back of the Saddle…
After the candidates’ Saddleback ride, I have a few points to make.
1) Why the heck must there be some religious test for the Presidency? And who the heck bestows this “celestial” authority upon Rick Warren? Last time I checked, Jesus wore crocus bag robes and sandals and preached his sermons to millions for free, didn’t sell books, and never claimed the BS clichéd disclaimer – we need this money to cover the cost of spreading the word. Besides, Jesus didn’t much care for politicians; and because of that they crucified him.
2) I want to be in a “cone of silence” for my entire semester. F**k undergrad, MS here I come!
3) WTF is up with these political pundits saying Obama’s answers were too long? Here’s why they aught have been so.
a. He’s on this side. All the audience and interviewer, whose house he’s in, are on that side. He has to say where he is, acknowledge where they are, and offer a compromise where everybody can meet. McCain just had to say what they want to hear him say.
b. The economy, health care, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, social issues (abortion, supreme court/law, and all the “isms”) and all that other crap is COMPLEX. Your answers must be long because each issue requires the depth of thought and measure of intellect comparable to a thesis. Last time I checked, a thesis was long and McCain does anecdotes, not theses.
c. It was supposed to be a Q&A interview session and Rick asked Obama to refrain from using stump speeches. “So my friends, we must drill here and drill now!” Hey, you said NO STUMP SPEECH. “When are you gonna ask me about the judges?” Hey, you weren’t supposed to know the questions. What A Joke!
We eagerly await the forum on FOX News where McCain will be placed in another “motorcade of prep.”
I understand Obama is going to allow the Dem 527's to go ahead and Do Their Thing.
Release The Hounds!
I am sure he meant God. But unless I am mistaken, I did hear "gasps" from the crowd when he said this, so I did see some backlash coming.
I read the headline as "Obama's Gay Parade." Wha--?! chuckle
The question was ridiculous, as were most of Warren's questions.
"When does a baby get human rights"?
There's only one accurate answer: whenever the society into which it is born chooses for that baby to get human rights. Before slavery was abolished, black babies in America never got some human rights, even if they lived to be 100. That situation changed because people chose to change it. Neither science nor god had anything to do with it.
Ohferchrissake. These people will attack him no matter what he says. He can't spit on the sidewalk without them attacking him for it.
Memo to Obama:
When you are asked a question about a moral issue, take a principled stand. Don't invoke mealy-mouthed phrases like "above my pay grade." It makes you sound like jellyfish with no backbone.
Just once I'd like to hear a candidate say, "The level of street crime has dropped in conjunction with the advent of legal abortion. The facts prove it, there is no question. So, what do you want, more people mugged, murdered, and lost on drugs, or less of the same? Make your choice. I already have, that is why I support abortion." The day that non-issues like this and prayer in schools and what imaginary invisible men in the sky a candidate supposedly believes in are irrelevant can't come soon enough for me.
I thought it was a well-crafted response. It brings to mind "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." Surely the evangelicals know of that saying, and can appreciate Obama invoking its sentiments.
I suspect, however, that the Republicans are pissed that Obama somehow got ahold of one of their dog whistles.
Right wing authoritarians, the proper scientific title for wing-nuts, don't believe anything except what their authority figure says. Even though they claim to be Christian, they don't accept the teaching of the Bible unless their authority figure tells them to. I agree with Orangutan that Dean's book Conservatives without Conscience should be required reading for voters. His discussion of the research on right wing authoritarians is easily read and understandable and spot on. I've dealt with them is a number of venues and, from experience, cannot vote for a Republican candidate.
I didn't give a shit to watch because you don't mix church and state and the sooner these retards get the memo the better.
Inappropriate venue.
Obama must have gotten a demotion since 2001, where during a debate in the Illinois legislature on whether a child who survives an abortion has rights and should live, Obama said:
“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable 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 — a child, a 9-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 anti-abortion statute.”
So Obama does not think life begins at birth, but it is a belief he denied on Saturday. Obama was in the pay grade before he was not in the pay grade. Where's his moral courage?
These bastards will crank up the faux outrage at the drop of a hat, and they bring their own hats.
Kathy@9 has the answer. After the Corsi book, there's no longer any reason to rein in the 527s.
Ah, yes, the most important question: who can best pander to/communicate with America's irrational, paranoid core?
When will McCain and Obama be brought together to discuss the Greek Myths? The Hindu wheel of life? The cult of Ba'al?
If this election gets down to gay marriage and abortion, we're fucked. Hard.
ha-ha, he fooled all of you. "Pay grade" is code for "gay parade." He's going to make America gay! Ha-ha...you will all soon be gay.
Oh wait, that means me too...oh no...put down that penis...aaaaaaaahhh!
For a second there I thought it said Above Obama’s ‘gay pride’
Middle-aged eyes be fun!!!
ronnyg @ 23:
lol
Proof there is a god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=939rmCw87no
Kathy at number 9 says:
"I understand Obama is going to allow the Dem 527’s to go ahead and Do Their Thing.
Release The Hounds!"
I soooo hope you're right. Let them accuse him of being a flip-flopper; that'll die down in 2 days or less, and the attacks that need to happen will happen. The difference will be, the Dem 527's can actually attack using Facts (TM), while the repub 527s will continue their ad hominems.
Actually, my take was that he was making a subtle suggestion that we, including Warren, don't know the answer to that. And I thought it was a very good point.
Philosophy is above a presidential candidate pay grade?
You mean all those philosophy graduate students working at Barnes & Noble make more than Obama does?
23 ronnyg Says: ha-ha, he fooled all of you. “Pay grade” is code for “gay parade.” He’s going to make America gay! Ha-ha…you will all soon be gay.
Oh wait, that means me too…oh no…put down that penis…aaaaaaaahhh!
Monica?
The way I prefer to understand what he meant by "above my pay grade," is simply that it is not his area of expertise. He is not an embryologist. He knows little about embryo development. He is not a scientist. The question, in short, should not be asked of him, but should be asked of professionals in the field of embryology. It certainly shouldn't be asked of pastors or priests. What do they know about it? Nada.
@7-TX
1 -This is in line with the emerging Right Wing view that in the President is not merely vested with the authority of the state *but the heavens as well.
2 -That is, as long as he’s a Republican.
3 -At least they’re consistent.
4 - Since we’re finding that there are no laws made by man that a Republican chief executive is bound to respect, *it was only a matter of time before the President’s authority absconded its earthly limits.
__________________________________________________________
This is why people think Americans are arrogant!
Did McCain Cheat at Saddleback Evangelical Forum?
Slip of the Tongue Seems to Indicate He Knew About Supreme Court Question in Advance...
OF COURSE he was talking about God.
Does anyone actually think that a candidate for President would be answering a question by implying "oh, the president shouldn't be offering an opinion on that". It's too important for the President, so it should be left to the courts or the legislature."? Do we actually think that Obama doesn't fully grasp the notion of checks and balances and how all three branches of government are equal and therefore nothing would be "above the pay grade" of one, but not another?
He was absolutely 100% referring to God, and it's true. Pro-life, pro-choice, anyone. Nobody can say with certainty when life begins.
"I thought it was pretty obvious Obama was referring to God"
It was obvious.
Memo to Obama:
When you are asked a question about a moral issue, take a principled stand. Don’t invoke mealy-mouthed phrases like “above my pay grade.” It makes you sound like jellyfish with no backbone.
Thank you.
tx @ 7:
The answer was pretty clever, considering that Obama was treading a minefield by even being there. And yes, it's an utter DISGRACE that the country that PIONEERED the idea of separation of church and state is now the only country this side of IRAN that only accepts political candidates after they've been vetted by holy men! Can somebody please name any industrialized country that does this?
But we're losing track of the fact that Obama's purpose in 'entering the lion's den' in the first place was to A) demonstrate that he's a man of faith in a faith forum, and B) demonstrate that he's not a Muslim. He was there to swing moderate values voters, not the hardcore nutcases. If he'd been invited by a popular preacher to an event like this, and declined, the right wing would have gone into full swing about how he has has all three of NO FAITH/TOO MUCH *RADICAL* Rev.Wright FAIT/MUSLIM FAITH. (Ironically, only the right wing smear machine could make all three of those contradictory accusations stick at the same time.)
So, as far as this event is concerned, it was a success for Obama. Nobody expected him to beat the Republican candidate on the Republican HOME FIELD of religious conservatism. But just by showing up he won a victory. He won another victory by talking about Christian values, and proving that he's not a Muslim, and (to a lesser extent) not a radical liberation theologist. As far as actually managing to convince the audience that he's the more conservative Christian than the Republican candidate, that would be too much to expect.
McCain, on the other hand, had the opposite problem. If he didn't answer the questions 'conservatively enough' he'd start to lose his wingnut base, and if his answers leaned too much to the wingnut side he'd start to lose the moderates. Bush used to get around this by using dog whistle politics, and he was a master at it. I didn't hear any examples of dogwhistle politics at this event. Did anybody else? If anybody else heard any dogwhistle politics, we should compile a list.
Obama's answer was a typical politicican's non-answer.
Have some balls, Barack, there's a large number of Americans who feel they have the right to determine their lives more than simply being slaves bred as the plantation owner's see fit.
the carpenter Says:
I didn’t give a shit to watch because you don’t mix church and state and the sooner these retards get the memo the better.
Hey, "the carpenter"? Some of us find the use of the word "retard" to be especially offensive. Maybe you could lay off that bullshit, please?
It makes you sound like Michael (Weiner) Savage.
Only ones looking for fault in the response, will find fault. They want to try to make you think that they know what he thinks. Stupid!
In a setting like this, Obama should have replied "One moment please", rolled his eyes up to show only white, trembled, shook, uttered babbling vocalizations, drooled, then snap back up straight, to finally spout some cheesy prepared answer "straight from God."
Ruth @ 28:
it was a good point and they know it. obama is the cerebral candidate....vs. mccain. mccain has/requires more coaching and is like bush in that he is a gut response thinker. mccain's points were just that conservative (R) wing linguistic framing words/phrases.
he got them all in there..'petraus'..'marriage'...gates of hell'...obama did well and was understood this is a possible spin for people that need/want a spin to dislike this guy.
Just goes to show the authoritarian mentality that has been developed by the right these past few years. Their knee jerk response is to assume there is no one higher than the president... his power is supreme. But what do I know... I have an IQ higher than 85.
I think what Obama really really wanted to say is, "I'm running for president, not pope."
someguy @ 35:
Yes, but to the right wing noise machine, it's not about what he meant, or about what's obvious. It's always about how the words can be spun. In this case they're obviously trying to turn it in to another John Kerry 'GLOBAL TEST' moment, to make Obama seem 1) slippery and evasive, and 2) indecisive, inexperienced, and likely to rely on other people to make his decisions for him.
But they haven't really thought it through. At this point, the right wing machine is running on automatic, without anybody approving the talking points. If they make an issue out of this to the extent that somebody asks him to EXPLAIN what he meant, it just gives him another chance to give a soundbite about his belief in god.
This is a simple one....It was a cute avoid-the-tough-question answer. I'm sure they had that one planned out well in advance.
Obama: "What if they ask about the beginning of life"
The Prep Team: "How bout this: Just say its 'above your pay grade'"
Obama: "Oh, good one, I like that..Let me write that one down...Above my pay grade...Nice"
ysbaddaden @ 43:
But had he said that, all the evangelicals would have gotten their panties in a bunch saying that he's obviously pushing a dogmatic pro-Catholic agenda, just like those damn Kennedys.
Richard @ 31:
That's how I first took it, too...That's how I would have meant it
But since the venue was an evangelical blow-job, and in the face of much more faith-oriented impressions than I would have experienced myself, I have bee forced to revise my opinion, that he was indeed referring to "God," and trying to avoid making any statement at all. I prefer that to having been lied to, but only just...
Honestly, I don't think Senator Obama should have been in this "forum" at all. We are not electing a religious leader, we are electing the President of the United States. I am sick and tired of our politicians feeling they need to embrace this unconstitutional religious litmus test. It is too bad Senator Obama doesn't it see it my way.
How did I view that comment?
The idealist in me viewed it as meaning that the choice of the individual is above the choice of the president and is the embodiment of the Constitution's separation of church and state.
The cynic in me saw it as a backhanded reference to the Judeo-Christian god, and that made my stomach churn. What's with the religious tests for the office of the president? I thought Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibited that sort of thing?
Grow up, rethugs.
Oh, piffle; look who I am talking to. NEVER MIND.
QuakerDave @ 38:
I prefer the more suggestive, less explicit, but still telling "rightards," personally. The advantage is that it alludes to a slur, but avoids it expressly for the point of the comparison...
These egocentric religious freaks actually think they "know" God??? What a bunch of self-absorbed lunatics.
Sorry! Obama's response was right on the mark! Humble and truly a man of faith. McShame pandered to the right-wing masses with his answer just for votes. Plain and simple.
Religion has no place in politics. PERIOD.
Ann @ 5:
Science was what came to my mind. To me he was saying that he wasn't able to say when life began because that was not his field.
It's not the president's job to make blanket statements such as when life begins, his job is to make life better for everyone in his country if he can.
Becca @ 49:
What is the "Constitution" of which you so blithely speak? Can you show us this "Constitution" thing? For to prohibit the Faithful from electing one of their own must truly be a wondrous, powerful thing...
Brad @ 40:
Well, that would certainly lock up the evangelical and snake-handler vote. They sure duz luv a showman!
Well, I clearly understood Obama to be saying that he was deferring to his god.
However, if Obama is unclear about that question, all he has to do is ask John
The Omnipotent.
He Knows all, because he was a prisoner of war, and he know for Certain that a baby gets human rights at its conception. Problem with that is, it ain't a baby at that point - it's a blastocyst. Doesn't get to be a baby until it is BORN.
greg @ 37:
And that "large number of Americans" ought to be able to tell that Barack is pro-choice and McCain is anti-choice when it comes to abortions and they should vote accordingly while Barack does his thing to gain some more voters in the religious community.
Orangutan. @ 33:
Here's another.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/17/02247/6361/368/569146
It really doesn't matter. Seems to me their attacks and arguments are so hollow and vacant that they have to resort to just collectively picking a line or piece of video or a still photo and simultaneously pretending that the bit is offensive or controversial or a dealbreaker.
I think it's time to refer to Republicans as Politically "Special" because this is really getting retarded. They really do live in their own little mental universe where tire gauges are mockable and veterans are unamerican and George Bush can lecture another country about "bullying" and invading a smaller country for oil.
Not only was the question stupid and was allowed to be asked by a con artist who parasitically feeds on the sick emotions of delusional fools who fear reality so much they hold a belief in an imaginary Big Daddy in the Sky, the answer given by Obama was also stupid.
Human rights are are given by legislators, they are defined by the laws we make, so existing LAW mandates the time a baby has rights. I might add that there are no such things as "unborn babies" or "unborn children." The word "baby" or "child" correctly applies ONLY after birth.
Obama should have never agreed to participate in that forum and neither should have McCaine. All it accomplished was to lend credence to the fraud constantly perpetrated by the parasite Rick Warren and his ilk and to the evil Middle Eastern superstition of Christianity, along with further weakening of the separation of church and state.
46 TimV Says: ysbaddaden @ 43:
I think what Obama really really wanted to say is, “I’m running for president, not pope.”
But had he said that, all the evangelicals would have gotten their panties in a bunch saying that he’s obviously pushing a dogmatic pro-Catholic agenda, just like those damn Kennedys.
Evangelical transvestisism in lieu of transubstantiation?
The whole culture of the "Child" is a chilling one.
The idolatrization of one's off-spring; the fearful, oppressive 'guardianship' which foams the child's hands with anti-bacterial glop every time they come in feom outside--if the coddled dears ever GO outside; the instantaneous fulfillment of EVERY childish whim and fancy; the whole edifice of 'protection' of children from any adult experience or condition.
This is dangerous, my fellow adult humans. "The Children" will be more and more used to circumscribe our legitimate adult pleasures and designs. Kiddie-fascism comes looking very cute...
When do babies get human rights? Obama might have answered: "How do you define "Rights"?
"The "right" to affordable quality medical care? The "right" to plentiful nutritious food? The "right" to a decent home? The "right" to quality education? The "right" to equal opportunity for well-paying jobs?" The list goes on and on.
Personally I'd say after the 1st Trimester, unless the Mother or Fetus' life was at stake. That's pretty much how it is now, anyway.
Either life begins at conception, or you are pro abortion.
That's how Warren and his ilke see it.
I love to see the grasping at straws that the GOP does to find anything to criticize.
It's so absurd that Carlin couldn't come up with this stuff. It wont be long before we see:
Q: Which direction does the sun rise in the morning?
Obama: The sun rises in the east of course.
GOP: OH MY GOD... he's advocating Islam because the middle east is in the east and the sun obviously symbolizes God. See he's a muslim!!!
Woody: The Child "Culture" is a false one. In our country "the child" is just another consumer to be exploited for every penny possible.
Che's Lounge @ 64:
moi? I'M PRO-ABORTION...On demand, unrestricted, and except medically, unsupervised...Any woman, any time, for any reason.
They, they repubs, are so quick to jump on bs like this because they know their candidate has absolutely nothing to offer, so their job is just to try to tear the other candidate down. How often do you see these same people praising something about McCain? From my own experience, not very often.
so I guess your country wants to drive abortions underground? I have news for all the right wing nut bars out there...... ppl have been having abortions since the beging of time and if they are made illegal they will be done in back alleys and bedrooms again
Johnny2Bad @ 45:
maybe your right but i saw as i will let individuals make their own decision.....i thought (R) like the individual/non- government involvment......maybe this is part of that i'm an individual if it's on my terms....we want the social programs/safety nets when we want them....i guess the government is better at deciding peoples rights/choices vs. individuals. it makes me think of the recent bail outs from the government....what happen to less government/fiscal responsibilty. instead we get this bread and circus routine from the (R).
I didn't hear it (since I didn't watch it) but as soon as I read it, I knew exactly what he meant.
It does not surprise me in the least that the forever-stuck-in-the-concrete-operational-phase-of-development right-wing religious zealots didn't get it, and took offense. In addition to their underdeveloped capacity for processing abstract concepts, they went into the thing just looking for something to hyperventilate over.
I can't say I would have anticipated the response specifically, because I don't respect them enough to want to try to predict their destructive, idiotic behavior.
The local republican politicians running for office in my area are ginning up the anti abortion thing this year more than I can remember in past years in this area. They are making big points about it in their political ads. Freakin' frightening!
The way I heard it meant to me that he is not knowledgable enough in terms of biology and chemistry to dictate when life begins as a person and in the theological sense he was not equipt to answer that question because he is not either a a religious leader or god.
so let me see if i got this straight. and, mind you, i'm far from the brightest of this-here bunch:
1. a pastor wants to chat with candidates
2. the pastor does it in a church
3. the pastor does it in a church in front of a congregation
4. the pastor does it in a church in front of a congregation, and on the subject of faith
so one of the candidate's responds, in part, to a question of public policy that involves faith by saying that the specific answer is "above his pay grade." and people think -- suddenly! shockingly! -- that he was referring to god.
now, what was your question, exactly?
it's pretty easy -
they hate Obama, so anything he says will be used against him even if they have to twist his statements into gordian knots.
pissed off patricia @ 72:
have you heard some of the talking heads of the (R) persuassion.they try to say it's not an issue with this generation. they want to overturn roe/wade and try to change certain states. this will be talked about more after convention.
as we all know 2-3 judges will be retiring soon.
The hateful clowns inhabiting Wingnuttia wanted Obama to say things like "I want to control women and their sex lives." and "Women who have sex should be punished." And "women who have abortions should be killed." and "Amurka is a place where wimmens should be kept home, barefoot and pregnant." and "there's no place in Amurka for people who respect a woman's right to her own body." and "Amurka and Gawd owns wimmen's bodies and wimmens are too dumb to know what to do." and Wimmens aren't as smart as mens, so we should control them." (in essence)
THAT's the sort of answer the ChristianRightHateBrigade wants to hear from a Preznit candidate. THAT's why they're all shitting themselves sideways, because those people aren't all about freedom in this country. They're all about getting a gubmint that'll sniff up people's crotches and force religion down our throats and all kinds of other misuses of the religion they claim to be following.
Luckily, Obama didn't give those answers. I would have preferred that he say "It's between a woman and her doctor" or some such. But at least he didn't scratch the venomous itch that these ugly assbiters wanted him to attack.
McCain is lying his ass off about everything... and didn't Cindy McCain lie and claim a recipe as her own a few months ago as well. These people are as fake as the day is long.
Obama’s answer was a typical politicican’s non-answer.exactly it was a copout
I thought it was obvious he was referring to God and that he was evidencing humility. Perhaps the right doesn't recognize humility not heralded by "Behold my humility!"
Obama, who brought it on himself, is going to find that his desire to be the religion candidate is not going to work for him. Nuanced answers aren't going to play in the black and white world of religion.
There are a number of things about Obama that concern me, but his religiosity turned me off at the Democratic Convention in 2004 and it still does -- more than ever.
I don't respect his religious beliefs. I don't care about his religious beliefs. Bush has all the right religious beliefs and none of the morality that is supposed to accompany such beliefs.
In the end, if Obama loses, he will probably find that his religious gambit didn't work for him. He can't possibly measure up when there is a candidate (and with Republicans there always will be) who is willing to publicly espouse beliefs that he doesn't live by and present his views in a stark (and thus easily understandable format for the intellectually challenged in the audience) and simplistic way.
Someone has to begin to wean the political process from its wrongheaded and dangerous obsession with Christian religiosity. I would include Jewish, and Muslim, and every other religion if they played any meaningful role. Since no Republican in the foreseeable future will take the lead, it is up to the Democrat. In a year with so much running in favor of the Democratic candidate, Obama could have taken great strides in that direction. Instead, he chose to go the other way. His affiliation with a specific church and a specific minister has been a decided net negative, much to his surprise, no doubt. His appearance with at Saddleback is being widely reported as a triumph for McCain. What a shocker?
Obama never had a chance with fundamentalists, but I think he could have done just as well with more mainstream adherents if he had convincingly presented himself as a person with deep and abiding moral values. Instead he has tried to play the Republican game and he's losing badly.
Why didn't he just say I'm for a women's right to choose! It's law and I follow the law. Period. Take the boo's and move on. He can't win in a mega church on this issue. Seriously why wasn't he assertive here. Instead he dodged around and looked like an idiot....Another big mistake for Obama. He's making a lot of blunders these days....
ysbaddaden @ 26:
I was hoping that was the video where Kirk Cameron explains why evolution is false because the Banana exists. I was disappointed.
it was i'm not GOD and i will leave that discussion for individuals.
trying to box obama on an issue that is not as important as others. it gets me that republicans talk the individual walk and talk until they want the government in people's lives. kind of like the financial institution(s) bailout. certain people can't handle obama not being a black and white sound bite thinker/communicator
Unitary Executive is all the political philosophy they need, animism the only religion
Of course the conservatives thought Obama was ducking the ultimate respnsibility for absolute rule of the universe which they believe resides in the presidency. God's not even in the running for master of the universe in ther way of thinking, so of course they wouldn't interpret his remarks as deferring to God.
As this particular trumped up non-issue continues, and they have a chance to devote a bit more of what passes in them for thought to this matter, we are bound to hear from them about the second-most profound blasphemy Obama's statement entails. They don't think of God as being in charge because they already know exactly what He wants, which is, of course, exactly what they want. A God whose will is not exactly and completely known, whose thought in any way exceeds their own compass, ihowever limited, is an outrage to them. Far from being above the president's pay grade, the God of their universe is meaner than the least of them.
I have to agree that I think the reference is to God and no one else.
I don't think Obama's answer was a copout at all. Why is it a copout to state, basically, that when life "begins" is a matter of faith and that he doesn't know when life begins?
As for all the religiosity, for better or worse, that's where we are. I don't mind it -- and I'm a non-believer -- so long as it's thoughtful, recognizes where the lines between faith and public life are, and doesn't involve human sacrifice.
Okay, that last part was a joke, and I recognize that someone as thoughtful and brilliant as Sen. Obama is the exception rather than the rule, and that the safer and wiser course would be to simply exclude religious discussion from running for office. But, given that we are where we are, I'm okay with what we've heard so far.
Bruce H. @ 83:
He answered the question he was asked. He was asked when he believed that life began. If he had answered by saying, I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose, it would have sounded disconnected.
pissed off patricia @ 89:
WRONG. He was asked "at what point a baby gets human rights." That's a very different question. A lot of people here seem to have missed it.
I have heard that he had to think too long before answering the questions. Might it be that he was actually thinking instead of just spouting off what the people there wanted to hear. He appeared to me to be sincere with his answers. McCain was more like a talking action figure. It comes loaded with about a dozen phrases that it repeats in a loop.
Why didn’t he just say I’m for a women’s right to choose!
Actually, he did say that. After he answered the question he was asked.
Rusty The One Shackleford @ 90:
You are so right! My mind is on the approaching storm and it free wheeled out of control. I'm wearing my dunce hat now and sitting in the corner.
WRONG. He was asked “at what point a baby gets human rights.” That’s a very different question. A lot of people here seem to have missed it.
He was also asked when life begins.
you have to see what redstate and powerline websites are saying about this. what a bunch of grassholes. what barack said the other day about republicans being ignorant? it is the truth.
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 76:
they may" hate" obama but really i believe they hate us because they perceive and/or are told we hate them because of their church/religon/political affiliation. this is part of the great division among cultures. they get empowered off these defensive/superior feelings. there is de facto leadership that plays into this........
constituent @ 71:
He's a Christian. He reads and believes in the Bible (I assume). If he can't muster response based on his faith he's not going to get the Christ vote. He can't just say "i'll let others decide that for themselves."
Remember the question was: "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?" Warren ends the question with "...in your view."
Obama reply starts with, “Well, eh, eh, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a, uh, scientific perspective...uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.
Cute but wrong. The law of the land (Roe v. Wade) though it didn't directly address the "life begins" argument, it does address (with specificity) when "human rights" begin:
"Roe did not make abortion an absolute right. Instead, Roe acknowledged the state's interest in protecting "potential life" as a pregnancy progresses, and the Court set up a trimester framework for state regulation. that in the first trimester, the decision to end a pregnancy is left up to a woman and her doctor. In the second trimester, states may regulate abortion to protect the health of the mother. At and after the point of "viability"—when the fetus is able to survive independently outside the mother's womb—a state may ban abortion, except to preserve the life and health of the mother."
Not only did he drop the ball on a question he knew was coming...He fumbled the opportunity to answer by sounding human instead of a "Kerry-esque" egghead.
Grade: D-
pissed off patricia @ 93:
Sorry patricia, didn't mean to yell at you. I was frustrated, not so much by your comment as by the fact that Warren's question was a bullshit question. And Obama, in my opinion, fielded it poorly.
I hope Fay gives you a miss!
In that response, Obama tried to be too clever and too middle of the road, and ended up sounding like a guy hoping to win a vote. It's not a HUGE deal, but for a guy that will absolute destroy McCain in a debate, he didn't need to try and be clever.
He should have come right out and said what he believes and then take the hemming and hawing from the right that he's going to get anyway.
That answer was BELOW his intelligence grade and made him seem too coy.
Rusty@90: I believe you are wrong. He was asked two seperate questions.
Bad answer.
A fetus becomes a baby when he/she is birthed and separated from his/her mother.
The "baby" gets human rights. A fetus doesn't because it hasn't existed independently of the mother.
Obamessiah brought this on himself and I think his religion-on-his-sleeve posture will lose more votes for him than it will gain. That said, given he started by mentioning science I thought he missed a tremendous opportunity to promote the idea that not all opinions are equivalent - it's above his pay grade in terms of his scientific knowledge and unlike this administration he's not willing to politicize science (medicine). If he does believe (and I don't know how much of his belief is for political purposes versus actual fantastical belief) the definition begins at conception (which from a scientific standpoint gives abortion a whole new meaning) he should have the guts to say so but also acknowledge that believing in something does not make it so.
When a baby gets human rights would require defining human rights. If you mean under the law, that happens at birth. Before that what you have are the interests of the state in potential life, the interests of the parents in their unborn child, etc. Plus some property rights if you're in utero at the time of a parent or grandparent's death and are then born live.
But again, if you're talking about human rights that attach when life begins, then you're talking a matter of faith as to when life begins.
Obama tried to be too clever and too middle of the road, ...
Not to me. He was speaking as someone who makes distinctions between rights under the law and matters of faith. He could've explained that, I suppose, and maybe it would've helped. Then again, maybe he would've sounded too much the law professor.
ysbaddaden @ 24:
Ditto. Strange, that.
How about this answer: "A baby gets human rights at birth."
Simple, straightforward, logical and understandable.
Doggiebobo @ 100:
I'm sorry. I just went from the posted video.
Lynn Dee @ 103:
That's the answer he should have given.
How about this answer: “A baby gets human rights at birth.”
Simple, straightforward, logical and understandable.
Better answer: "A baby gets legal rights at birth" or "A baby gets human rights under the law at birth."
I think you can't just say "human rights" without defining what you're talking about.
Johnny2Bad @ 97:
it's been decided and there is no reason to make this an issue. it's wedge strategy at best. again i don't believe the government especially the federal government should be involved in this any longer. the bible is left to individual interpretation. personally i'm not smart enough to offer an absolute answer to these questions maybe you can. if you can offer absolute answer(s)/response to those questions good for you. to me there are different interpretations and religions of this country/world.....it's an individual choice. you give the grade you want....but i don't think he can hear you just like you couldn't hear him.
constituent @ 110:
I don't really care nor did I think he could hear me (or you) but thanks for re-granting me first amendment rights. Thats big of you.
By the way, citizens of the United States are not legally given all their rights until after their 21st birthday.
last i heard having a pro-life philosophical administration hasn't changed anything. another attempt to rally the evangelical troops
looking for a reason to hate this guy. the law has been decided. if you don't believe in abortion don't get one........instead send 18
kids to iraq and afghanistan to look for weapons of mass destruction.....you know those 16 words he says shouldn't have been the presidential address. personally i'm tired of this issue being used every fxxking election.
Johnny2Bad @ 111:
hey.......i know when i've out done by someone in the know. i'm into that crazy thing of letting people make their own decision(s) regarding this issue.....if you want it to be an issue when thousands of people are getting killed iraq,afghanistan and africa........go ahead enjoy your rights.
the bible is left to individual interpretation.
You believe that. And I believe that. But not everyone believes that. And those who believe life begins at conception of necessity believe that abortion is murder. And that's where their faith intersects with public life, at least from their point of view.
Obama understands that and tries to speak to those people as well as to those of us recognize that abortion operates as a wedge issue. He tries for consensus by saying: "Surely we can agree on the importance and value of minimizing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions."
People on both sides of the issue who want a black and white answer come away disappointed. I suppose that, during the midst of a debate or pseudo-debate, he should shelve the consensus-building side of himself and just say what he thinks. Or, he could state more clearly, "Here's what I think -- blah blah blah, and here's where I think we can at least find some agreement -- blah blah blah."
Lynn Dee,
I think that Obama would have been better off with my answer because Obama can always define "human rights" later, if the need arises.
Bringing up "legal rights" vs. "human rights" would have made him seem to pedantic or parsing.
I'm betting that Warren deliberately phrased the question because "human rights" leads people to believe that he's not REALLY trying to outlaw abortion. Bonus points for Warren: the fundies can appropriate the "human rights" of babies frame when discussing terminating pregnancies.
Lynn Dee @ 115:
we see it the same way......i'm not say i'm right but i feel no one is.....i'm pro-choice let people make their own choice. i tired of this being a strategic wedge issue.
I'm pro-choice for the simple fact that making it illegal will result in back-alley abortions. Rich women will still be able to find doctors that will perform an abortion and fly to wherever to get it done. Poor women will try to abort the baby themselves or see quack "doctors". I don't see why a president has to define when life starts - you're either for choice or not.
we see it the same way……i’m not say i’m right but i feel no one is…..i’m pro-choice let people make their own choice. i tired of this being a strategic wedge issue.
I know what you're saying. I think Obama's goal, because he's running for President, is a little different. Cynics, particularly those on the right, seem to want to say he's pandering, trying to have it both ways. But I think he's utterly sincere in his understanding of both sides and in wanting to find consensus and solutions.
The outcry over this answer is instructive, though. He probably needs to spend a little more time formulating an answer that, even if thoughtful, is also clear! Then he could (maybe) bring more people with him, whatever their point of view.
Philosophical thinking concerning ideological ideas?
Too many words. Make Grog brain hurt.
I think that Obama would have been better off with my answer because Obama can always define “human rights” later, if the need arises.
I disagree. I think even those of who are pro-choice recognize that there is more to having an abortion than having an appendix removed. (And in fact, one of the huge dishonesties from the right is the claim that women have abortions casually or would if given half a chance. I think that's ridiculous.) I think we all respect human life. It's part of who we are. And we all know women -- and men -- who have lost babies who were wanted, and who grieved for that loss.
So, even if you don't mean it (and I'm sure you don't), saying that babies don't acquire human rights until birth, and leaving till later to define what you mean by human rights, will seem -- to those ever ready on the right to be affronted -- as if you are completely negating what a potential life is and how that belief resonates in what it means to be human.
Anyway, if all you want to do is spar on a BB, then you can do that, and the loss is minimal. But again -- Obama is running for President and, unlike McCain, he's looking to be the President for everyone, not just those who agree with him. And what's more, it's part of who he is to understand that faithful point of view and to want to find agreement.
How delightful. I got to see Obama pander to the Religious fruitcakes AND learn about his stance on gay Marriage (he's against it).
Lost my vote....
Brad @ 11:
haha! i read it as obamas gay pride.
just searched.. lots of people saw similar things. disturbing.
How delightful. I got to see Obama pander to the Religious fruitcakes AND learn about his stance on gay Marriage (he’s against it).
Lost my vote….
So who will you vote for?
But was he possibly referring to the publics perceptions? He does serve at their pleasure...
I would rather get a high pay grade than get high at a gay parade.
Hmm. No word from ifthenwhy on who he’ll vote for now that Obama has proven not to be sufficiently full-throated in stating his gay rights and pro-choice bona fides? Why, I’m at a loss what to think! ;)
Declaring precisely when life begins was a Republican trap set for Obama.
You see, Bush talks to God (Although I question if he really listens.) and McSame is older than God (He even has God's email address, if only he could figure out how to work that inner tube thingy.)
Meanwhile, Obama is forced to rely upon information and intelligence, which in American political circles have become arcane and mysterious materials. Making use of these properties, is, therefor suspect.
Of course the evangelicals prefer McCain. Folks who choose a religion that tells them exactly what to do so they never have to make a moral choice, just do what the preacher says, are folks who most certainly do not want change. And of course the Republican 'strategery' is what it's always been - scream about everything, keep people afraid and lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
Ever seen a picture of McCain coming out of a church?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Me neither.
Pro-choice is the moderate stance - It's legal, people decide for themselves if they want or don't want an abortion. The fundies have made it so no federal tax dollars are spent so insisting that your religious viewpoint become law seems extreme to me.
Librarian @ 13:
Spitting on the sidewalk is a disgusting habit, that's how SARs was spread in Japan. Spitting on the sidewalk seems like more of a george bush thing anyway.
OBAMA 08!!! Cause he doesn't spit on the sidewalk like george bush.
Pro-choice is the moderate stance - It’s legal, people decide for themselves if they want or don’t want an abortion.
Ultimately, this doesn't work though. Imagine saying: "Personally, I could never kill my neighbor. But far be it from me to tell you you can't kill yours. It's your choice." IOW, for those who believe life begins at conception, abortion is murder. I think we need to recognize that.
I think there are two things we can do: First, help define the area(s) of disagreement by weeding out those who don't really think abortion is murder. For example, for those on the right (or anywhere along the political spectrum) who think abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest, point out that they don't really think abortion is murder. They just find it troubling -- which is fine -- and are arguing where to draw the line. Whenever you have that kind of discussion going, I think there's at least a greater chance for coming together on something.
Second, you find places of agreement. As Obama and countless others have said, we can seek to minimize abortion by minimizing unwanted pregnancies and providing support for alternatives such as for adoption, having the baby (which includes child care and other forms of support), etc.
Lynn Dee @ 133:
Your missing the overall and most important fact of this. It's the right to make that decision for your self.
People will have to live with the repercussions of their decisions.
1. there is no higher pay grade then president so his answer makes no sense.
2.if he doesnt know when life begins then it would be safer to say conception therefore his answer makes no sense
3. constitution allows for life, liberty etc therefore his answer makes no sense
4. someones comment that we decide who is human in this country--then refers to black people during slavery...makes no sense.. black people were humans we americans were wrong...
5. im not sure why anyone says his answer has to do with God...this is simply a constitutional issue....we just better be sure we get it right as we have gotten it wrong before--ie blacks during slavery, american indians in early america, jews in germany, etc many times in history the powerful have called the less powerful non-human..but however you look at it a human is a human and you better be right.
6. being a physician i find his stance on late term abortion quite assanine...he says sometimes it is necessary for the 'life of the mother'. well he either is ignorant or he is being deceitful as this argument makes no sense... if the mothers life is in danger deliver the baby and your done..maybe baby lives maybe baby doesnt...but the worst thing you could do is partially deliver baby then perform a surgical procedure on baby....all the while increasing the risk to a critically ill mom....this would only increase the danger to the mother....dang this seems even intuitively obvious unless you have an agenda
84 Mr. Anon Says: ysbaddaden @ 26:
Proof there is a god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=939rmCw87no
I was hoping that was the video where Kirk Cameron explains why evolution is false because the Banana exists. I was disappointed.
I'd like to see Deborah Harry in her hay-day eating a banana.
ysbaddaden @ 136:
: )------
Your missing the overall and most important fact of this. It’s the right to make that decision for your self. People will have to live with the repercussions of their decisions.
I'm not missing that at all. I'm saying, if you happen to believe it's murder, you can't leave it to choice. It'd be like saying: "You can kill your neighbor if you like. It wouldn't be my choice but..."
Those who are interested in finding common ground and not simply in being right may find it helpful to try to see how the other side views it, and then try to figure out how to deal with that. If it can't be dealt with, then that's fine. At least recognize it.
there is no higher pay grade then president so his answer makes no sense.
He was referring to God. Think outside the box. That's particularly good advice when the box you've got yourself wedged in appears to be the size of match box.
As for the rest of your post, your Constitutional argument is completely bogus. Where did you get it?
Actually, in a strange sort of way, the Bible in Genesis 2:7 says when life begins.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
With all the emphasis on Evolution v Creationism, the disputers are missing the obvious. Adam wasn't a living soul while he was still under construction; he became a living soul when he began BREATHING.
And tom t you'd be more convincing as a physician if your wrote grammatically, with correct spelling and punctuation. For example: the spelling of one word you used is correctly asanine, unless you happen to be a proctologist.
And as for the guarantee to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness there's a historical basis for this. In England, a highwayman who has never killed anyone, could be arrested, and find himself facing the possiblity of the gallows, despite the fact that no highwayman had been hung for awhile, simply to make him an example to others. Additionally, that's not found in the Constitution or its preamble, but in the Declaration of Independence. It was culled from the French
Vie, liberté et propriété (life, liberty and property.)
But our Founding Fathers thought the last term was less exalted sounding, but clearly the Constitution was written to protect one's property from both the criminal element and the government.
He was referring to God?
No, Obama was saying that he is neither a theologian nor a scientist.
What is this referring to God shit? There is no data to support that.
I haven't seen anyone point out the inconsistency of McCain's comments. Rick Warren's question was "At what point does a baby get human rights?" McCain responded with certainty that it was at conception. Then later he said he was in favor of embryonic stem cell research. If McCain believes that an embryo has human rights, how can he possibly be in favor of embryonic stem cell research?
Wait, God has a pay grade? Why does he need to be paid?
137 mudshark Says: ysbaddaden @ 136:
84 Mr. Anon Says: ysbaddaden @ 26:
Proof there is a god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=939rmCw87no
I was hoping that was the video where Kirk Cameron explains why evolution is false because the Banana exists. I was disappointed.
I’d like to see Deborah Harry in her hay-day eating a banana.
: )——
?
Last I heard the presidential pay was $200,000.00 a year. What's odd is we're voting for people who would spend millions upon millions of their own money, and/or the money of millionaires, for such a paltry amount.
Of course that's one reason I want boosh impeached. Otherwise, unless there's been a change in the law, he'll draw that amount every year from OUR treasury, and upon his death, pickles will receive the same sum until her own demise, unless of course she's the one responsible for his death.
And what do people mean by "at conception?"
First breach of the egg by the sperm? First penetration of the corona radiata? First entry to the zona pellucida? Initiation of the cortical reaction? Completion of the cortical reaction?
These are important questions. I can't help but notice that when Jesus was here, he didn't clarify this for us. Since this is the mostest mostest importantest Christian issue EVAR!, you'd think he'd find a moment between mustard seed musings to say "look, it's precisely at midnight at the beginning of the second trimester...that's when we put the soul in..." or something like that.
You'd think. You'd also think he would have told us about dental floss. A lot people died of bad teeth before we stumbled upon that one for ourselves, oh Mighty Healer of Mankind(tm).
He was referring to God?
No, Obama was saying that he is neither a theologian nor a scientist.
What is this referring to God shit? There is no data to support that.
There is no data to support what? God's existence? Or that Obama was referring to God? If the former, you'll get no argument from me. If the latter, I think you're wrong, but you're just being too literal.
Scientist and theologian are not above the pay grade of President. I think it's obvious he was speaking metaphorically and, by referring to God, was simply saying that when life begins is a matter of faith.
"What’s odd is we’re voting for people who would spend millions upon millions of their own money, and/or the money of millionaires, for such a paltry amount."
$200,000/year + secret service for life + pension + housing + free meals + comp travel + the fundamental constitutional right, nay, responsibility to to whatever you want to whoever you want whenever you want so long as you can say either "war on terror" or "executive privilege" before the opposition party can murmur "strongly worded letter." All this and you get to spend 1 day at your ranch clearing brush for every day you go into the office?
Maybe this is paltry to some ivory tower Berkeley tree-hugging gay-marriage-supporting tire-inflating elitist, but to some of us this is actually an attractive package.
The correct answer is when you can detect that the fetus is a male.
Another question could be "At what point does a female get human rights?" Answer: Never! That's why we want to ensure babies can be born regardless of the impact to the female vessel!
148 JasonS
I was referring to what they keep after leaving office. The $200,000.00 is the pension, and it's my understanding that the automatic secret service detail for retired presidents ended with Bubba Clinton. The rest comes to an end when they leave office either serving full terms or being impeached.
Comments are closed on this entry