National Right to Lie.

Here comes the Republican attack machines right on que.

These people are just fucking obnoxious.

It hasn't work before and it won't work this time.

America has bigger problems to solve than engage in your stupid "cultural war" obsession of yours.

Let the lawyers work it out. I assume the Obama Camp has lawyers on call and this is something that should be opposed on legal grounds. They're trying to break law without breaking the law.

The only people who this works on are those already in McCain's camp, the ones that think George Bush is still doing one heck of a job.

Well, we all knew this was coming. But I really doubt that people will care that much about this, considering the current economic crisis. Also, Obama dispelled a lot of people's worries that he was an extremist during the debate.

Excuse me while I vomit. I hate hyperbole, but if we can't beat these people this time I may well be tempted to burn my passport and stay in the UK permanently. Disgusting.

Everyone is pro life, these woman are such puppets.......

The problem w/ these right-to-lie groups is that they're preaching to the choir. The only people who are interested in their kind of garbage are McCain supporters. Again, the problem with republicans is they like to fight on social issues. Rightnow, the country is not concerned about pro-life issues, its the economy stupid! And that is why McCain is doing so lousey.

Yes, of course the "lack of coordination" with the McInsane campaign is a transparent fiction. When you're still having to try this hard to shore up the base on Oct. 2- well, you're in the kind of shape the polls are showing you're in. Good riddance, sicko Repuke losers.

It wasn't a stand alone bill that asked the question in black and white. This is the same gimmick McCain is using with "Obama voted against funding the troops" because it's always attached to other measures that politicians are really voting against. It's a game all politicians from both sides play with their bills.

Maybe I'm giving folks too much credit, but I don't think folks will believe Obama has said "kill any babies that survive attempted abortions". Folks who will believe that about him are already voting against him anyways. Putting it up nationally is a waste of money as well, however I assume they have to do that so they can skirt the rules. If they only went up in battleground states it would be starkly obvious what they were doing.

"Anti-choice" is more accurate in more ways than one. If these folks are "pro-life," they firmly oppose the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and all conflict because those conflicts produce LOSS OF LIFE. Right? Well, how many "pro-lifers" oppose the Iraq War?

This will stir up the whack jobs and Kool-Aid drinkers. I wouldn't worry about the rest. It's just ugliness on top of ugliness and it isn't playing all that well any more.

mphillip,

I can only speak from my own experience, but in my encounters with people across the midwest--mainly Il, In, and Mo--there are still many voters who are "single issue" abortion voters. Many of these voters do vote Republican only because of the party's "commitment" to overturning Roe vs. Wade. But one advantage for Democrats this election cycle is that the Bush Administration has proved so corrupt and inadequate (even with respect to it's base's issues--think Harriet Miers, etc.) that these voters no longer really "trust" the pro-life bona fides of the party in a way they once did.

I do have to say, though, that my hunch is that the Democratic party would only gain from an overturning of Roe versus Wade. This is because, once the issue is devolved to the states, the Republicans would be forced to accommodate themselves to the people's will on the issue, and thus make it impossible for them to appeal to, without having to work for, the "pro-life" platform that has served them well electorally.

Enter the kitchen sink.

I knew it would get dirty and would get dirtier the further behind McLame fell.

It's not like I didn't expect this -

It's just that this is a very volatile subject AFAIC. There's nothing clear cut about it - no bright lines.

And it tends to make feminists really angry when it comes up. Or so I've found.

Must we be reminded what Pro-Choice means? It allows a woman to exercise her own moral code in deciding whether to bear a child. choice means that a woman is capable of bearing the responsibility of pregnancy and child rearing. It allows women to be mature actors on the stage of life.

Choice does not, nor has it ever, meant favoring, or even choosing an abortion.

I certainly does not have anything to do with the health care services given to live births, regardless of the circumstances of those births.

Let's keep the law enforcement out of the hospital room!

Next ad from these folks: Barack Obama likes eating puppies.

I don't see anyone making the connection but the irony in all this to me is that the people who are always the most vocal in support of banning abortions are no where to be found when it comes to the social issues that would ensure those same children have a quality life based on healthcare, education, fair and equal opportunity in life, not using criminal laws to destroy families, etc, etc.

It's usually the most callous, cold-hearted bastards on social welfare issues who are harping the loudest and longest on protecting the sanctity of life. Seems to me that if you really gave a damn about life you'd care about what TYPE of life these children live as well as just them having an opportunity to do so.

That being said, I wish all fetuses became healthy babies but I don't think it's my or anyone else's place to make that decision for the woman who has to carry and care for that child.

I know i'm fairly extreme in my view on this but I think that whomever's body it is should have the authority to decide for themselves what to do with it. That goes for pregnancy all the way to suicide. If you want to blow you're brains out, it's your life not mine. I wouldn't agree with you or think it's a good idea but I don't think I have the right to decide for you. I don't think anyone does.

Unlike you there are many people who adamately oppose abortion yet support illegal poorly thought out policy that kills many. Where some call their prolife stance antipatriotic.

I agree with Atreideshawk. I believe it is called "personal responsibility" and it is a fundamental freedom of human life.

As an evangelical Christian, its my belief that the vast majority of those who are screaming about abortion are missing the point. The Bible is a guidebook for believers. The idea that we can force unbelievers to accept our interpretation is silly. I dont believe that life begins at conception. I believe God knows us BEFORE we are ever conceived. That said, I cant force my belief on other people. In what may be an honest attempt to be Jesus' messengers, people dont study how Christ got the message out. He didnt do it by picketing abortion clinics. He didnt sway 'wayward' women by pointing accusatory fingers in their faces. He witnessed. The Samaritan woman is a perfect example in the Bible of how to convey the message that Christians are trying to spread. Trying to legislate our perception of morality is not the way and ultimately what a woman does with her body is between she and God. It was specifically Obama's pluralistic views that drew me to him when he started running. He understands this isnt about drawing lines and sides. Its about understanding your opposition.

This post is quickly devolving into poorly thought out reflections on abortion. Somebody stop it quick!

and I say that as a (NOW) pro-life person who has had abortions in my past and who believes in everyone else's right to choose.

Atrios has talked in the past about how the "icky" factor complicates the choice discussion. That's why the right loves to highlight the very infrequently performed late term abortion procedure - because it is icky. They hope that emotions overwhelm the facts - that it's a very rare procedure and, while icky, it may sometimes be necessary. (eg - an incest victim who waited until late in her pregancy to visit a doctor for fear of reprisal from her abuser)

The idea that babies born alive are left to die passes the "icky" test. But I doubt anybody believes - outside of the wingnut pro-lifers (not all pro-lifers are wingnuts - I'm talking about the "bombing abortion clinics is OK" crew) - that doctors in this country are letting babies born alive die.

People will note that this ad is being run by the NRLC and factor in the bias of the folks paying for the ad. They'll also, as others have noted, conclude that there's no way Obama would do something that would allow babies to die without receiving medical treatment.

And if all that fails, well then somebody(NARAL?) needs to expose the wingnut goofball - Jill Stanek - whose lies and ulterior motives were the primary - perhaps, only - reason this unneeded and duplicative (Trojan Horse) legislation was even introduced. But I don't think it will come to that - this ad and others like it will hardly register a blip on the electoral radar.

This ad is completely ridiculous.

First of all, Obama isn't responsible for the deaths of babies, nor is he or the doctor who perfomed the abortion responsible. The guilt lies at the feet of the mothers who decided to abort their pregnancy; and, since none of us know the reasons for all their decisions, none of us have the right to judge them.

Secondly, even if these allegations were true, Obama was not the only person who voted down such a bill. I'm sure that the entire decision didn't hang on his vote.

Third, even if abortions were illegal in this country, many women would still seek to end their pregnancies, and they would do so in an unclean, unsafe manner. Making abortion illegal would not be the end of abortion, but it would lead to persecution of women--women who considered abortion out of desperate circumstances, often due to them being victims of rape or incest. Why anyone would want to persecute a victim of such a henious crime is beyond me.

Sadly, most of the electorate in this country can't think their way out of a paper bag, let alone get beyond this emotional issue.

This is why you can never underestimate the republicans--they will do anything to win.

I don't care what the polls may say, this will be a close race--and the reps, I'm sure, have some more nastiness ready--and we need to get out and Vote!

Thanks wj and hootowl and KY YellowDog:

It 's really interesting if even the selection of Palin does not allay deep-seated suspicion of McCain; e.g., he's not "conservative" enough/can't be trusted to pick the right SC judges.

I do remember a little noticed item a couple of weeks ago when Dobson (or Reed, I get the 2 mixed up. I probably shouldn't), issued what I heard as a warning to McCain: We expect for Palin to be an active VP, not just window-dressing. I remember reading that, and thinking...

WHOA!!!!

But I can also see how the economy trumps everything this year.

I also wonder about the grassroots mobilization power of the mega-churches/Christian Right that was so important in 2000 and 2004?? I know they still buy anti-Obama books in bulk so they may have reading groups (smile), but I don't know if they can turn people out the way they did before...

Just wondering...

mphillip,,,,,, in Ohio they are really nasty again this time around, again,,,, the ghost of Ken Blackwell lives.

I think their grassrooting is being cut short by the economic/credit distaster,,,, a lot of those folks are the 'po whites' that are really at the nasty end of things. Ralph Stanley's spot will also do a lot to turn the ones that are not simply racists who will pick shit with the chickens before they vote for a nigger,,,, in just those terms.

I'm in SE Ohio, the land of too many children and too few teeth, and the Obama signs are sprouting up recently,,,, whether or not people can read them.

For those who may have missed it, watch Joe Biden, who's Catholic, give the best answer to the abortion rights question I can remember ever hearing from a Democratic politician.

[The video is from Joe's September 7th, 2008 appearance on Meet The Press.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3_mATe3uY

I seem to remember reading in the Washington Post, about 20 years ago, that they were going to stop using the terms pro- and anti- choice and life. They said they'd refer to the two sides of the issue as "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights", which seems about as fair, neutral, and accurate as you can get. Plus concise.
Missouri voter, I really admire the way you consistently respond to hostile and occasionally bigoted remarks with unflappable politeness and reason. You handle these guys like Obama handled McCain! And you are so spot on about the Republican party not really being out to stop abortion. Indeed, it'll be a dark day for them if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. It's the only thing really gluing the social conservatives to the party. They want to keep the issue alive so they can use it.

I can't stress enough that this claim is just patently false. I am a criminal appeals lawyer in Illinois, and our criminal code has protected babies born alive in botched abortions since 1975 -- two years after Roe.

I have written a long blog post about this with links to the bill, the law, the legislative debates, etc. Please visit, and please forward the URL to any friend who might be persuaded to believe these base lies.

http://enough2008.blogspot.com/2008/09/born-alive-babykilling-bs-obamabiden.html