60 Comments - Rake at the Gates of Hell - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:09 am: I love how Sneed wonders if “this is a classic case of tit-for-tat?” implying that Blago is getting back at Obama for shutting the Gov out of the Convention. Like anyone in Obama’s camp gives a rat’s ass (can I say that on this blog) if Blago comes to the Springfield announcement or not. Actually, I am sure they are as happy as can be that Blago won’t be showing up there. - wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:16 am: I give the governor credit for staying away. Unlike the convention, Obama absolutely had to invite governor of his state, a member of his own party, and an early supporter, to an event in the state capital. The awkwardness was handled tastefully and with good manners by both of them. Emil shouldn’t stay away. He made Obama and deserves his day in the sun where he did it. As things stand now, I seriously doubt Jones would become an issue for Obama in the presidential race. What would the issue be? Pay raises? Nepotism? Not enough juice for the national press and it would take too long to explain. Only Sneed would buy the spin that the governor is somehow snubbing Obama. - Ghost - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:18 am: Now all we need is for Obama to pass Blago on the convention floor, look at him, and ask “Who are you?” - 47th Ward - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:21 am: Rich, I was hoping you were ignoring the infantacide debate completely. Is there anything to say that hasn’t been said already? - wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:23 am: Post-trial motions, eh? While they’re preparing those complex, time-consuming and no-doubt earth-shaking motions, perhaps there are other reasons why the defense would want to delay sentencing. I take it the government didn’t object. - Ghost - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:26 am: Word, it is almost unheard of for a court to not grant such an extension if requested. Particuarly when you are dealing with criminal convictions. - Spanish Inquisition - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:30 am: The Rezko sentencing delay; albeit perhaps not the specific timing of the new date, was at the request of the Rezko defense team. I am wondering whether the additional time was not requested so that they can more carefully lay out for him the potential cumulative sentence to be served consecutively for all counts, and compare that against a future calendar of milestone life events for his wife and kids that he is likely to miss as a result. Perhaps there will be an early “trick or treat” in store for those awaiting the proclamation of time to be served. - Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:30 am: - Ghost - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:18 am: Now all we need is for Obama to pass Blago on the convention floor, look at him, and ask “Who are you?” Or mistake him for “Da Mayor”. - wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:33 am: Ghost, I don’t doubt that. I just think Rezko might have other reasons to delay sentencing that he might not want to talk about in open court yet. Post-trial motions could be a convenience. - One of the 35 - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:34 am: I’ll wager Blagojevich has convinced himself that turning down the Obama invitation will make him look important? “Hey, I’m too busy doing the people’s work to bother with this campaign event!” - Loop Lady - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:53 am: maybe for once Rod is thinking about someone other than himself…naw, never mind… - Anon - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:55 am: Well, all you Blago-haters who claim the man is 100% delusional and egotistical, eat crow! If you were right, he would be in Springfield in the expectation that Obama was going to chose him as the vice-presidential candidate. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:59 am: ===100% delusional=== Nobody is a hundred percent delusional. We all have our moments of clarity. - Levois - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 11:13 am: I wonder if the sentencing of Tony Rezko would be big news by October. I would agree that it won’t be good, but would it be national news. - Captain America - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 11:16 am: Looking forward to my Saturday round-trip commute to Springfield. It’s a nice consolation prize for us “regular guy” (no sexism intended) party activists, who have to miss all the pomp, circumstance, and parties in Denver. Unfoturnately, I won;’t be able to take advantage of the BBQ party in Springfield, since I have to return to work Saturday evening. - Capitol View - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 11:50 am: why does everyone assume that there will not be another sentencing hearing delay, this time until after the November election? If Fitzgerald wants to continue on in his current position as federal prosecutor after Obama is elected, he should want to postpone that hearing for another few weeks and not look like he is attempting to tamper with the presidential election — even if the Bushies might want him to do so. - anon2 - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 11:51 am: This general election will spell the end of the national Democratic party as we know it. An election only a blind rat of a party could lose—mostly because of their radical stance on abortion “rights”. Yes, they’ll say it’s “the evangelicals” who put McCain over the top, but in fact it will be many, many voters who otherwise would vote Democratic but can’t reconcile themselves to the party platform. I wonder what parties will emerge after the great implosion. The Democrats have just tried to please too many niche groups and the big tent is flapping in the breeze, the poles holding it up are swaying violently and the clowns, jugglers, acrobats and kool-aid sellers are running around like blind rats while the elephants just stand and watch the mayhem. Will Bill & Hill start their own party? Will the National Pro-Abortion Party emerge? The Dems have blown it—Hillary was right—-and Obama can’t win. It’s race, yes; it’s national security, yes,; it’s the economy, yes; but the Dems (and Obama’s) stance on abortion will just alienate too many (Democratic) voters. The party has just steered too far left and Captain Obama can only watch as moderate and pro-life Dems desert a ship that has hit the reef. - anon - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 11:57 am: anon 2, are you testing Rich’s theory that nobody can be 100% delusional? Your last post puts you pretty close to 100% out there in tin-foil hat land. - anon2 - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 12:14 pm: So, you’re saying it’s going to be business as usual for the Democrats after President McCain is elected? - Rob_N - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 12:57 pm: That should read…. Is a manufactured controversy (aka, “infopimping”) really a controversy at all? I suppose only if you’re the one who gets to define “controversy” as the national media figures who keep quoting the extremists seem wont to do. (Language warning in some of the following links…) The central figure in this is a nurse who may have lied about her former employer, a suburban hospital; who compares state legislators to porn stars and claims they commit genocide (see #12 mid-page)); who runs a program to put up billboards in Africa telling folks in AIDS-ravaged areas that condoms kill people; who believes Chinese people eat babies; and who thinks that black people have sex like animals. Yet hardly anyone in the national media bothers to even look up this rather easily found info… Not when there’s something sensational to generate the infotainment du jour. Sen. Obama’s self-declared nemesis may be the nicest person in the world — Rich likes her — but she’s also pretty far out there on just about every issue related to the birds and the bees. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 1:52 pm: I think a few months from now we’ll look back and see two big tactical Obama blunders these past few weeks: the above-my-grade comment on abortion, and bringing up McCain’s houses. Taking on Jill Stanek over infanticide a debate Jill’s going to win. Bringing up real estate brings back Rezko long before that Oct sentencing date. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 1:53 pm: ===bringing up McCain’s houses.=== McCain brought up McCain’s houses, didn’t he? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 1:53 pm: And wasn’t he referring to God in that other quote? - True Observer - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 2:18 pm: “And wasn’t he referring to God in that other quote?” Even if that’s what was going through his mind, which is doubtful, 99.9% of the viewers didn’t think so. It was only the media people trying to cover for him that came up with that escape hatch. Assuming for the sake of argument that that’s what he was saying, it is truly strange that a Harvard Law Graduate would say “it’s above my pay grade” instead of “only God knows”. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 2:45 pm: Oh please, If TO is to be believed, then 99.9% of viewers are either complete idiots or blinded by partisan zeal. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:03 pm: Also, you gotta figure that McCain would use the Rezko house thing eventually. He’s now using it in response, but he’s responding. Big difference in the way it’ll come out. - South Side Mike - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:04 pm: Gee, Rob, Did you pull all of those links from the Obama campaign, or did you do some of them all by yourself? Stanek says some things which I disagree with, but some of the links you posted are pure bunk. Read her actual post when she’s accused of racism, for starters. I’ve noticed a lot of Obama supporters really trying to assassinate her reputation, when even Zorn admits Obama voted against the very bill he said he would have supported. - ChampaignDweller - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:18 pm: I understood that “above my pay grade” comment to mean God, but I thought the comment really unworthy of someone running for national office; and I thought it made Obama look evasive or unwilling to address the subject. As far as the house thing goes, one millionaire accusing another millionaire of having a lot of houses doesn’t seem to be a very good way to score political points. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:27 pm: I watched Carville on CNN a few days ago talking about the Priest at Christ Hospital questioning Stanek. That’s not the way to go. My impressions are of the big social issues: abortion and same sex marriage, the culture is moving to restrict abortion and allow same sex marriage (google Political Arithmetik for the graphs on marriage). My evidence on abortion is just spending time with very liberal people who can surprize me with their doubts on abortion (the Stanek story from years being the classic moment when these doubts reflected). Obama’s managed to get on the wrong side of both trends as far as I can tell. Regarding the house: Rich, I don’t know who first brought it up, but everyone is going to know McCain got his money the old fashion way: he married into it. Give him flak all you want over it though and he still is not going to come off as a guy born with a silver spoon though. He’s POW experience and not talking the offer on early release insulates him from that kind of criticism. So I think inviting any talk about Rezko and how that big ole house in Hyde Park was aquired not too smart. I think the notion that Obama has to play some kind of hard ball in response to unfair swift boating is really going to be a mistake. It makes him sound the whiner and his best bet is going to be to talk over and over again on bread and better economic issues. Not that he’s going to hand out welfare (like Blagojevich) but do everything he can to create jobs. PS I thought the above my pay grade comment was to make himself sound a bit military. - South Side Mike - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:28 pm: “…above my pay grade” was quite possibly the worst way to answer the question. He may have meant it humorously, but it flopped, big time, and was completely evasive. What burns me about the answer is that, as President, his beliefs about human rights will directly influence his policies. If he knows he’s in hostile territory, acknowledge the difference of opinion. He’ll win more respect that way. Dodging an issue like this (When do human rights begin?) belittles those who believe the topic to be paramount. - ArchPundit - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:30 pm: —Gee, Rob, Did you pull all of those links from the Obama campaign, or did you do some of them all by yourself? Err..they are collected from me over several years. I don’t know about the racism one, but I’d love to know how I’m doing anything besides pointing out how wacky she is. Futhermore, she is central to the entire argument. Her claim that she saw infanticide and we need additional laws to protect against such instances. However, Ryan’s office found that they could not substantiate her claims and that if they had, the actions would have been illegal already. Soooooooo…what were the laws introduced to do? Be redundant or to intimidate doctors from performing abortions? I think we all know the answer to that question. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:41 pm: Arch…whether Jill truthful or not, what advantage is there to arguing against a law criminalizing infanticide; even if it is not needed? I just don’t see the gain? Or the morality… Why not just say if she was right, I admire her drive and so glad Illinois has these laws that made the Federal law uneeded? Why attack a Jill Stanek over this… she’s not running for Prez. - archpundit - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:47 pm: Bill,it shouldn’t be hard to understand that the AG’s office under Jim Ryan said two things. 1) They did not substantiate Stanek’s claims. 2) If they had substantiated the claims, Illinois law in 1999 would have made the actions illegal Her entire argument is pointless. She could argue that somehow the AG’s office under Ryan was either incompetent or corrupt and so ignored evidence, but she cannot argue that the law didn’t already outlaw the sorts of things she alleges. Everyone agreed that the law in Illinois in 1999 already made such actions illegal. It’s just that the IDPH and the AG’s office found no reason to substantiate the claims by Stanek. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:50 pm: === what advantage is there to arguing against a law criminalizing infanticide=== There’s a whole lot more to this, and these black/white arguments and mindsets don’t help. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:54 pm: Arch… a smart Pol doesn’t argue with a woman describing holding a new born at end-of-life because the Hospital denied the child palliative care. Even if the women’s story pure fantasy and the smart Pol knows it. Christ Hospital pays high price lawyers to do that for them, they shouldn’t need Obama for it. A smart Pol thanks the woman for bringing this tragic story to attention. I’ve never thought Obama that smart a Pol…he’s just awfully lucky. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:55 pm: You put a lot in this one, didn’t you? 1.) Obama in Springfield - I hear he will be bussing in Germans to fill the Square. 2.) Blagojevich - It is pretty nice of him to avoid showing up at Obama’s event. I just don’t think Rod could stomach that lethal combination of jealousy and rage watching Barack and Evan taking the jobs he wanted. I could see him with his head in his hands as those two galavant around the media, “I’m the Illinois governor! He’s just a Hoosier! That could have been me!” 3.) If the weather is an issue, expect Obama to stand above the crowd waving his arms and commanding the oceans to lower, the clouds to part, and the pidgeons to constipate. Then he’ll pass the fish and loaves… 4.) Partial-birth Candidacy - He brought this on himself by not being honest. Voters can accept a sincere stand, but are wary of a guy who tries to have it both ways. When he got caught pandering to both sides of this issue, all he had to do is admit a mistake. But you know how much Obama seems to hate admitting mistakes by now, don’t you? Pass that buck Senator! I can’t feel sorry for the mess he made since he had two easy shots to avoid it. The fact that he is having this mess right now shows a lacking of maturity. - archpundit - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 3:57 pm: This isn’t hard. If the claims were true, the actions would have been illegal. It’s not ignoring her to point out: 1) No law is needed because the actions claimed to have occurred are already illegal 2) The new law may well have further implications than simply being redundant–which is exactly what Obama argued. The bill was packaged with another bill explicitly written to make all abortions less likely by imposing conditions on doctors regardless of when the abortion took place. - South Side Mike - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 4:05 pm: ===2) The new law may well have further implications than simply being redundant–which is exactly what Obama argued. The bill was packaged with another bill explicitly written to make all abortions less likely by imposing conditions on doctors regardless of when the abortion took place. === And bills are called individually, not as a package. You can pass one of a triplet bill and vote down the other parts. That’s not what was done here. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 4:08 pm: There’s a whole lot more to this, and these black/white arguments and mindsets don’t help. And that’s sort of the point Rich… Obama didn’t say he was grappling with tough stuff. He would have been so much better off saying he’s struggled with the question and he knows many others of good will grappled too, including Jill Stanek… - VanillaMan - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 4:09 pm: I didn’t expect abortion to become an issue. It has been pretty low on the list of election issues for a generation. You don’t want to touch it while debating everything else during a presidential campaign. But it is an issue because Obama misplayed it. How many times have we seen him get baited by Hillary and now McCain when something he should let drop and take a little hit goes wacky and out of control because he just can’t be honest enough? Bill Clinton in 1992 was outstanding. He could walk on water. Everything ended up being believed. Obama is no Bill Clinton, so he needs to be that differently new politician he claimed back in ‘07. What is it about him that can’t just say he was wrong, or made a mistake? Arrogance? Pride? Sounds trite, but when you see him falling on his face over this crap and over Reverend Wright, you have to wonder how he can be baited and bottled up by his opponents so easily. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 4:12 pm: Bill Clinton was a very smart Pol. - archpundit - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 4:13 pm: ===#And bills are called individually, not as a package. You can pass one of a triplet bill and vote down the other parts. That’s not what was done here. And there were concerns, as Fritchey pointed out in Zorn’s column, about the wording on the bill standing alone. Of course, the amendment was only submitted on the 11th of March when everyone knew the Rule 3(9)a limit was on the 14th. This wasn’t a consensus building effort, but an effort to show people up–of course, when someone really wanted to pass one—it passed because they worked on the language together instead of creating a last minute amendment. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 4:18 pm: ===Voters can accept a sincere stand, but are wary of a guy who tries to have it both ways. === In doing some research on my post I learned that McCain has just flip-flopped and now he’s opposed to changing the GOP platform. Just sayin - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 4:20 pm: ===Bill Clinton in 1992 was outstanding. He could walk on water. Everything ended up being believed.=== And he won with 43 percent of the vote. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 4:36 pm: Rich, A flip flop is a change of mind. Having it both ways at once is thinking disorder or duplicity. Obama is showing the progressivess disorder of vanguardism. The masses of clingers haven’t quite reached political maturation and the job of the vanguard is to lead them there. Progressives do that with incremental steps that eventually sound a mass of contradictions. At first it sounds confusing as Obama did at Saddleback. Eventually he’s going to sound duplicitous. For some of us, he’s already there. - Rob_N - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 5:30 pm: [Warning - this post contains themes of an adult nature. Some parents may wish to cover their children’s eyes til they’re 30.] – Bill, Is it hard to type while spinning so fast? And a basic chronology of the events indicates that Nurse Stanek chose to attack Sen. Obama, not the other way around. She’s only getting away with her baloney because the national media is too lazy to actually find out who she is and how extreme and radical her claims and tactics are. She makes some noise at World Net Daily and a few folks in the right-wing echo chamber pick it up and amplify and away she goes to CBS, the New York Times, etc. (so much for the myth of those sources being liberal bastions). – South Side Mike, Arch has been collecting “The Worst of Jill Stanek” for years now. It’s not difficult to remember some of her lowlights. As for her racist comments about black people having sex like animals, the context was based on her ranting against Sen. Obama’s Father’s Day speech about men needing to take responsibility for their actions and their children. Her essay included complaints about black people having ‘relations’ out of wedlock and black children growing up essentially fatherless because of it. Her conclusion damned Obama with praise: – The rest of Obama’s speech was very good, the ad libs particularly (”Any fool can have a child.”), except for the incredibly missing Most Important Point: prevention. Men can avoid being absentee fathers and women can avoid being single mothers if both will respect themselves and each other enough not to have sex like animals, driven purely by sexual urges. Obama neglected to mention that. Why in a speech full of the travails of single motherhood and the harmful effects to children raised in fatherless homes was there no mention how to avoid this tragedy in the black culture altogether? – Essentially, she blames “black culture” for men and women of that culture having sex like animals. …If it’s not a racist comment it’s at the very least overly stereotypical and inflammatory (not to mention vile) rhetoric about black people. White folks and Latinos and Asian people and more have ‘relations’ out of wedlock. Does she consider those races to also be doing it like animals? (For all I know, she may, given her other equally acidic columns.) In reality, after you peel back all the billboards about condoms killing people and the blogposts about this or that abortion issue and the media columns and quotes about her extreme point of view all you’re left with is that fact that Ms. Stanek has a real big problem with people who do the deed out of wedlock; as her commentary on black people illustrates. What sex and Sen. Obama have to do with each other in the good nurse’s overactive imagination is unclear. - Rob_N - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 5:33 pm: [Another Warning - necessary because of Jill Stanek’s past over-the-top writing. Suitable for mature audience only…] Sorry, meant to link to Nurse Stanek’s post about black people having sex like animals. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 6:35 pm: What a high level debate. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 7:59 pm: Rob…if Obama’s spokespeople chose to engage Stanek, whether she attacked first or not, over infanticide, Obama loses. A woman talking about holding a dying child is just not someone a politican should confront. Obama needs to figure out an out… that’s my only point… go an attacking Stanek and what ever and let the rest of the Obama crowd do the same… it’s just that McCain is the going Obama’s running against…not the Nurse. It’s awfully poor judgement if Obama can’t figure that out. It’s a lot like the appeasment comment Bush made in Israel… smart thing would have been to agree with Bush about 1939, and then explain what you’ll do with the threats of 2008. Why pick needless fights. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 8:34 pm: Sorry, I must have missed Obama’s spokespeople attacking Stanek. They’ve responded to her recent appearances on national news outlets, but she’s the one leveling charges. I noticed she also recently used the Willis family tragedy to advance her cause of outlawing all abortions. It was the kind of thing that makes even those who agree with her cringe. And that is exactly her style. To suggest this is somehow Obama’s people making her a target is intellectually dishonest. Even by your standards. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 8:36 pm: That should have said “Dear Bill Baar” at the beginning. - Sweet Polly Purebred - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 8:36 pm: I don’t think you will hear Pat Fitzgerald complain about the motion. Just gives the feds more time to let Mr. Rezko get a real feel for long term incarceration. Never know, Mr. Rezko just might decide that watching his family grow up means more than misplaced loyalty. Be the first to sing and get a pretty choice deal or hold out, miss out on his kids growing up and let someone else score the deal with the feds. - South Side Mike - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 8:49 pm: 47th, ==I noticed she also recently used the Willis family tragedy to advance her cause of outlawing all abortions. == You mean how she got their permission to recall Obama’s cowardly cancellation of a “Choose Life” license plate hearing that the Willis’ were going to testify in favor of? Try using facts, son, before you going shooting off your mouth. - Sweet Polly Purebred - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 8:53 pm: According to the SUN-TIMES, McCain and the RNC have wasted no time in linking the OBAMASSIAH and REZKO. They have just launched the following web site: http://www.gop.com/ObamaRezkoShadyDeal/ and its a doozy. I’m a Hillary girl and probably always will be who rarely agrees with the RNC, but this site is QUITE comprehensive in its detail. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 9:16 pm: Sorry Mike, You’re right. I wasn’t there to witness how and whether she got permission from the Willis family. I have no facts to back up my claim that she shamelessly exploited their tragedy to advance her cause of outlawing all abortions. But I did read this: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=71571 I don’t know how to paste links, but I hope this works so others can see my reference. - Blogopster - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 9:23 pm: Are Tickets Available for review stand-lawn area, at Old state Capitol Com or info? - wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:34 pm: McCain’s got a lot of houses. So what? Shoud he be broke? There have been, oh, a few, rich presidents. He married a woman 20 years younger, with hundreds of millions and a Budweiser distributorship. Way to go John, this Bud’s for you! Does she have a sister? Obama said leave abortion to God. So what? Who would those who disagree leave it to? Themselves? Or would that be the same as God? Abortion has been around since the crust cooled. Accept it, hate it, I don’t care. Abortion as a public issue is nothing more than the biggest direct mail fundraising appear for both sides. They all laugh to the bank. For God’s sake, it’s 2008 — there’s pharmacology, books, all sorts of stuff. Ignorance! - South Side Mike - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 6:57 am: 47th, Good! Now read this (about the 7th comment in): http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/new_stanek_wnd_49.html Carla, the column grieved me to write. I had to spend a lot of time on the phone with the Willises the last couple days, first of all getting their permission to write the story, and secondly making sure facts were straight and that they approved of the final product. I hated the thought of making them relive incidents they might not on a per chance peaceful day. They are such good people. Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 6, 2008 3:47 PM By the way, as to your “Ms. Stanek has a real big problem with people who do the deed out of wedlock” statement. It’s true. And most of society’s problems would go away if everyone waited until marriage to have intercourse. Unrealistic, yes. But true. If you want to debate the last point, let’s head over to another website. I know this is why Rich hates posting on topics like this. - Bill Baar - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 8:26 am: Obama said leave abortion to God. So what? Who would those who disagree leave it to? Themselves? I had the job of counting spontaneous vs induced abortions in the State of Wisc. Induced ones didn’t count for Fed Match under Madicaid. spontaneous ones (the vast majority) did. There are limits to what you can kick over to God and Nature. When people do things you have to decide for yourself if it’s moral (and if you’ll pay for it). God speaks to some people on it. Others he doesn’t, so they’re on their own. Either way I suspect God annoyed when someone passes the buck to him as above-their-pay-grade. Believer or secular humanist, we’re all called as voters to decide. - Rob_N - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 10:56 am: Bill asks, “Why pick needless fights.” Because liars should be called out and held accountable. Drop the spin. And as 47th points out, Obama’s camp is simply responding to her over-the-top claims. They’re not attacking her (unless you think pointing out the truth is an attack, which it seems many partisan conservatives do in fact believe). There was no evidence that what Stanek claims happened in the hospital actually ever happened (and a pro-life Attorney General, Jim Ryan, even says so) so you repeating that urban legend as a reason to simply leave her alone and not respond to her ridiculous antics isn’t exactly grounds for believing your statements either. Beyond that, Stanek has gone on to make many other wildly bizarre cuckoo claims as her “fame” and funding have grown over the years. And Bill, you’ll have to blame the Founding Fathers for not including your definition of “what God says” in the Constitution and instead putting in rights like privacy and freedom of expression, religion, etc. (And don’t tell us there’s no “right to privacy” in the Bill of Rights. There’s no right to own a handgun specifically enumerated either, but the Supreme Court recently interpreted one of the amendments to declare it so, just as the Supreme Court earlier decided in Roe v Wade that we Americans have a right to privacy in the medical office and, more recently, our bedrooms.) – Mike, I’m the one who wrote “Ms. Stanek has a real big problem with people who do the deed out of wedlock” — not 47th. I’m also not in the habit of telling consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their ‘business’ which it sounds like you are (even though you claim to acknowledge “reality”). Acknowledging reality would not include putting up billboards claiming condoms kill you. But, it would include telling people how to properly use prophylactics (in addition to the benefits of abstinence and monogamy), something folks like Ms. Stanek and perhaps you appear to strongly disagree with for some reason. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.