As soon as he was given the opportunity in last night's debate Obama did what one would expect of Obama - he lied, exaggerated, pandered and tried to demagogue the issue of Roe v Wade hoping that if all else fails, fear will convince Clinton voters concerned about Roe that he is their only salvation and so they had better vote for him. His biggest lie was his typically self-centered self-serving over the top statement that "Roe v Wade hangs in the balance" with regards to his getting elected. Yes and so does the sun rising in the east.Roe v Wade doesn't hang in the balance but Leave It To Obama, the Eddie Haskell of American politics, to make that absurdly exaggerated claim and try and use it to get wayward Clinton voters to get with the program. It isn't the first time Obama has been willing to say anything to get people to vote for him. He's been doing it since he started running. The question is how many will believe him now?
The answer, given his track record and his willing assault on common sense is that no one should believe him. And as is always the case with Obama, there are nothing but good reasons not to. But he is counting on millions of voters, most of whom were Clinton voters, to shudder in fear at his statement that in this election "Roe hangs in the balance", and flock to him as the guardian of their reproductive rights. And he will say anything to scare them into believing it. And as usual, he won't let facts stand in his way.
McCain was clear that he feels Roe was wrongly decided. But so did Bush. And so did Reagan. And Roe is still standing. So having a President who feels Roe was wrongly decided means absolutely nothing. And what exactly does "wrongly decided" mean anyway? It means to those who argue the Constitutional validity of the decision, that the underpinning of the decision, the legal reasoning and Constitutional interpretation behind the opinion was wrong. But that doesn't mean the outcome was wrong ( legally or Constitutionally). And it doesn't mean that it would be overturned even on that basis.
There is also the point to be made that even if the virtually impossible happened, and that hypothetically there was somehow an entity that had the legal standing to challenge Roe ( something that everyone should realize has never happened) and it was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court ( a process that could take years in itself) and the case had enough unique ( and improbable) characteristics to allow the Court to even agree to hear the case, and, contrary to court history and inclination with regards to precedents, the Court struck down Roe, even that wouldn't make abortion illegal.
The entire Constitutional question over Roe is whether it was a federal issue or a states rights issue, meaning that hypothetically even if the virtually impossible happened and a case challenging Roe actually made it to the Supreme Court and Roe was struck down, it would only mean that each individual state would then have the right to construct its own laws regarding abortion. Kansas tried to pass a law not too long ago that would challenge Roe and many in Kansas considered it a laughing stock..And it didn't get very far.
Obama's fear mongering about Roe and his intellectually dishonest statement that in this election "Roe hangs in the balance" is Obama saying whatever nonsense he feels he has to say to get elected. This is Obama not caring about women's health but his own political health.
There is another point with regards to Roe and why its virtually impossible that it would get overturned which doesn't get a lot of mention. And that is the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. Those who argue that Roe was wrongly decided point to the majority opinion basing the decision on an "implicit right to privacy" in the Constitution which on the face of it, can't be found in the actual words of the Constitution. This is their basis for Roe being "wrongly decided". But the outcome of Roe still wouldn't change even if you could argue that the reasoning used in the opinion was faulty because an equally strong case can be made that laws banning abortion especially in the first trimester,violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The amendment is clear that the laws must be applied equally. and there can be no doubt that any wholesale law banning abortion discriminates against women and their right to make these decisions for themselves and so violates the equal protection clause. Why Roe wasn't decided on those grounds I don't know but accepting a "right to privacy" isn't necessary to uphold Roe no matter how many conservative judges are on the court.
And with regards to judges, another one of Obama's fear mongering tactics is this idea of appointing a Supreme Court judge that would protect Roe ( as demonstrated, based on the 14th amendment you don't have to accept the "right to privacy" argument to uphold Roe). But there would be no way to know if the next President will have the opportunity to nominate another judge in the first place, so on that point as well, Obama's statement that "Roe hangs in the balance" is absurd. Besides, if McCain were elected its unlikely that a Democratically controlled congress would confirm a judge that has a paper trail that would indicate he or she is sympathetic to overturning Roe(based on the "right to privacy" opinion cited). And even Scalia has stated he is not inclined to overturn court precedent unless there is a compelling reason. Given that the outcome of Roe would be the same based on an equal protection argument ,its not likely the Court, any court, would even hear a challenge to Roe in the improbable event that someone could mount one.
The most important thing to keep in mind about Obama's attempt to demagogue Roe with his statement that "it hangs in the balance" is this -- all the legal arguments and the history of the decision prove otherwise. We have had a conservative court for the last 8 years. We had a conservative leaning court even before Roberts and Alito, were confirmed. And the simple proof of that is the 5-4 decision in 2000 that gave Bush the Presidency,which many people thought was an abortion in and of itself.
Given a conservative leaning majority on the court for the last 8 years, if there hasn't been a challenge to Roe during the Bush presidency, it is not going to "hang in the balance" now. No matter how hard Obama tries to fear monger otherwise. What hangs in the balance is Obama's candidacy, not Roe.And that is all he cares about. And that is the song he is singing.
Posts
39 comments:
This is such a dishonest analysis and only highlights your ignorance of the law and hatred of Obama. For starters who exactly is Obama pandering too? The 5% of Clinton holdouts who, if the current trends play out, will have zero effect on this election's outcome? Next, John McCain, on his own website, writes that he will make it a priority to overturn Roe v. Wade. More importantly, unlike Bush and Reagan, he would most likely be the first president to have the opportunity to do so.
Let's be clear with your readers here. There are two ways in which Roe could be overturned. The first being through the legislative branch. Be it a Reagan, Bush, McCain or Obama administration, at no time would a law outlawing abortion ever pass through the Congress. That leaves the Supreme Court as the only viable means to challenge Roe. Once again, regardless of whose administration it has been the votes to overturn Roe have never been there. Bush replaced two conservative justices with two younger conservative judges. The court make up remained 4 "conservatives", 4 "liberals" and 1 "centrist" who has mostly voted with the liberal block in subsequent abortion related decsions. Knowing this, Ted Olson, the Solicitor General and a staunch pro-lifer, has never placed a case, directly challenging Roe in front of the Court. Had he done so it would have been catastrophic for the pro-life movement since the court, as presently comprised would vote 5-4to uphold Roe using a better rationale than the original decision. The next president, however, will most likely be in the unique position of replacing at least 2 of those liberal justices. If McCain wins, he has made it clear that he will try to appoint judges who will vote to overturn Roe. It is indisputable that that the term "strict constructionist" is now code for pro-life and McCain has said he will only appoint a strict constructionist to the Court. No candidate ever has nor would they ever admit to having a per se litmus test. Make no mistake about it, if McCain succeeded in doing so, a 7 -2 conservative majority would swing the Court in drastic ways and most likely include the overturning of Roe. It's funny how you sit here and judge Obama yet write so dishonestly about this and other issues.
This is such a dishonest analysis and only highlights your ignorance of the law and hatred of Obama. For starters who exactly is Obama pandering too?
Obviously he is pandering to people like you. And it's "to" not "too". And speaking of being ignorant Im sure you will enlighten us to where you got the figure of 5% regarding Clinton holdouts and back up this claim with proof. Until you can prove that, (you know, prove -- that thing that people who arent ignorant of the law do in a courtroom) nothing you say can be taken seriously.
I have better writing skills than the first "anonymous" and will not make-up a fictitious percentage of Hillary hold-outs. I believe the point that "anonymous" was trying to make was that Obama is well ahead in the polls even without those Hillary supporters (whatever percentage of voters they actually are). I completely agree with what anonymous wrote, am well-versed on the law of the land, and would really like to know your actual response to the arguments that "anonymous" put forth. Please stop being evasive and just respond to his/her comment.
The 5% of Clinton holdouts
- lol. Keep on lying to yourself.
I guess you think that if you tell a lie long enough, people will start to believe it.
There are a lot of Clinton supporters who are going to vote for John McCain, including myself.
I am an African-American woman that sees right through Obama and his abortion lies.
He is a liar and a con artist, and trying to scare me into voting for him is NOT going to work.
Get over it.
Obama is well ahead in the polls even without those Hillary supporters
- This is another lie.
Those polls are biased and inaccurate.
The way they poll people is extremely deceptive.
They call voters, and instead of asking them who they support, they ask them if they supported the war in the beginning, and if they say no, the poll then says that they support Obama, even if that voter tells the pollsters that they are voting for McCain.
lol @ your false sense of security based on polls!!
** chuckles**
You are going to be in for a rude awakening on election day.
"I have better writing skills than the first "anonymous" and will not make-up a fictitious percentage of Hillary hold-outs. I believe the point that "anonymous" was trying to make was that Obama is well ahead in the polls ..."
with all due respect,I honestly believe psychiatrists would have a field day with Obama supporters and their perceptions of reality. In your case,I have no idea what polls you are talking about or what reality you are talking about but as of today, which is when you placed your post Gallup has it a statistical dead heat 49-47 Obama, and yesterday Zogby had it a statistical dead heat. It seems like the candidate you support, you and other Obama supporters seem think something is true simply because you say its true. Its not true when Obama says it and its not true when his supporters say it but his supporters seem to think it is, which is why the Democrats who don;t support Obama shake their heads and refer to his supporters as drinking the Kool Aid. Like annonymous before you who makes up a figure of 5% of clinton holdouts to try and make his point, your claim on which you base your opinion, that Obama is well ahead in the polls, is, well, completely false so Id refer you to the Gallup poll web site and to Zogby which, as Ive said, are both now saying their polls show a dead heat.
Actually I will do you one better and simply print this from todays Gallup web site:
"The "traditional" likely voter model, which Gallup has employed for past elections, factors in prior voting behavior as well as current voting intention. This has generally shown a closer contest, reflecting the fact that Republicans have typically been more likely to vote than Democrats in previous elections. Today's results show Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain using this likely voter model, 49% to 47%,this is within the poll's margin of error. -- Frank Newport"
" It seems like the candidate you support, you and other Obama supporters seem think something is true simply because you say its true. Its not true when Obama says it and its not true when his supporters say it but his supporters seem to think it is..."
Okay...coming from you THE above paragraph is simply laughable. Let me, once again, give you a DIRECT QUOTE from McCain's own website.
"John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.
Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion."
Right from the source wouldn't you say? Yet you dismiss it because it doesn't jive with YOUR argument. The same way you find the ONE poll that supports your argument and ignore all the others. It also didn't go unnoticed that you conveniently left out the fact that TODAY'S Zogby poll shows Obama leading by almost 6 points.
Okay, so here are the polls I am relying on to shape my reality:
Rasmussen = Obama +4
Reuters = Obama +5
Hotline = Obama +8
Gallup expanded = Obama +6
GW/Battleground = Obama +6
IBD = Obama +3
LA Times = Obama +9
CBS News = Obama +14
USA/Gallup = Obama +4
USA/Gallup expanded = Obama +7
Pew = Obama +7
Ipos = Obama +9
By the way, I don't believe I have a warped sense of reality. I never have said that Obama is guaranteed to win this election. I believe I said he CAN win without the Hillary hold-outs, not that he definitely would win. Who is distorting reality to try to make their own points?
Also...perhaps you should look over your own grammar before criticizing someone else's grammar (or is it just that you think apostrophes are Obama supporters and therefore unworthy of your attention? -- we won't even get into the paragraph I quoted above which is replete with grammatical errors)
Marc:
Your blog is always good for a laugh and you are clearly confused by legal theory. There are countless ways to gain standing to challenge Roe and certainly the easiest would be a facial challenge to a state law outright banning abortion. If you think that some of the more conservative states (for instance, South Dakota, which recently passed a law requiring doctors to inform patients that they are ending a life) would not try to enact such laws the moment a 5th solid vote to overturn Roe is confirmed to the Court, you're deluding yourself.
As to your contention that Justice Scalia sits squarely with precedent, please note his last sentence in his dissent from Stenberg v. Carhart: "Casey must be overruled." Lest we forget, Casey v. Planned Parenthood was the last case to uphold Roe. And it would be wrong not to mention Justice Thomas, who has no issue with pushing aside the doctrine of stare decisis when he disagrees with a prior ruling.
Your comment that what Mr. McCain "thinks or feels or wishes" with regard to Roe is puzzling at best and outright delusional at worst. Politicians are elected precisely on that basis.
Lastly, it seems manifestly unfair to call someone out for a claim that at most 5% of Clinton supporters agree with your views. I'd certainly expect that number to be lower but regardless, 5% of 18 million is about 900,000. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative but I think some good evidence is the sheer difficulty you all have in raising money - sure, some of those people are maxed out to Hillary and can't retire her debt - they could sure give plenty of money to you all. Let's even assume that 10% of that 5% really care about your cause and agree with you (and would therefore donate a small amount - like $100) - that's $9,000,000 in your pockets to blast your messages. Unless there's something I'm missing, you all don't have it.
"Okay...coming from you THE above paragraph is simply laughable. Let me, once again, give you a DIRECT QUOTE from McCain's own website...
Im sorry to see you are off your Prozac. This is the third time you are trying to make the same useless point to shill for Obama so I will try and explain this for the last time.
No President can over turn Roe or any other law or any consitutional decision. What McCain thinks or feels or wishes about Roe is irrelevant and a non starter. It is a non issue. We've had 8 years of a conservative President who ALSO said he thought Roe should be over turned. Has Roe overturned? And did Bush appoint two conservative judges in the last 3 years? Has there even been a challenge to it by anyone since we've had a conservative President with two new conservative judges and a conservative majority?
You keep trying to fear monger Roe ( this is your third post trying to make the same flimsy argument) and like the candidate you support and its not working. It doesnt matter what McCain puts on his web site or what McCain says it's what the law and the Constitution says so instead of quoting from his web site try spending more time reading the Constitution and getting a bit more in touch with reality.
October 16, 2008 9:06 PM
I would gladly overturn Roe v. Wade than have a president who is as corrupt, deceitful, arrogant, deceptive, narcissitic, unqualified, inexperienced, racist, as Obama. This country will not fall apart if the abortion question goes back to the states. But if Obama and his thugs, crooks, radical associates and terrorist friends control the world, abortion won't matter. There has never been a more deceptive candidate than Obama - $800,000 paid by him to ACORN and now the voter registration fraud is obsessive in 12 states. If this is his version of a different kind of politician, I'll take John McCain any day (and yes, I am one of the angry, bitter, disappointed, disgusted, Hillary Clinton suporters who will never vote for Obama). See you at the polls!
I just want to point out that the "anonymous" who posted the last comment was NOT me! Apparently I am not the only one who thinks your argument is flawed.
You know better than to state that we have had 8 years of a judicial majority. We have not had 8 years of having a judicial majority willing to overturn Roe. It is well-known that Justice Kennedy is a swing vote, and in fact, he voted with the majority in Casey. Even Bush would not be stupid enough to try to raise a challenge to Roe knowing that Kennedy would most-likely not be on board. In fact, here is part of the majority opinion in Casey. Again, Kennedy helped write this opinion. Does this sound like a justice or court whose majority would overturn Roe?
"(Written by O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter; joined in part by Stevens and Blackmun)
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet, 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned.
We are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed, in three parts:
The right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability.
The State may restrict abortions after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s health.
The State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child."
And before you mislead your supporters into thinking the court is so different because O'Connor and Blackmun are no longer in it, let me be clear that the conservative members of the CURRENT court are Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito. The liberal members are currently Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens. Kennedy is still the swing vote. Nothing has changed. When it comes to Roe the current court does NOT have a conservative MAJORITY. Kennedy is not a guarantee. Perhaps it is you who should do some extra reading-up on history and facts.
I'm not sure why you removed your latest response to anonymous but I'd again like to point out how dishonest you're being. One, President Bush has done everything a member of the executive branch can do to ensure the overturning of Roe. He replaced Justice O'Connor, who believed the right to an abortion was a constitutionally protected right, with Justice Alito, a "strict constructionist" who does not believe such a right exists. Two, Justice Scalia has repeatedly voted and written that he does not believe Roe is good precedent. In the 2007 Carthage decision, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, specifically wrote that they believed both Casey and Roe were wrongly decided and should not control future decisions of the Court. Furthermore, both Scalia and Thomas refused to join Justice O'Connor's and Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in Casey which stated that abortion is a protected right under the 14th Amendment. Three, there are numerous ways a person can gain standing to challenge Roe, the easiest if a state were to ban abortion.
I'd also like to point out that limiting this discussion to abortion rights downplays the significance of the Supreme Court. Gay rights, capital punishment, gun control and torture are just a handful of other issues on which the Court is divided. The Supreme Court currently consists of 4 conservative judges, 4 liberal judges and Justice Kennedy, a conservative judge who is considered the "swing" vote on these and other social issues. The next President will most likely have the opportunity to replace at least 2 members of the "liberal" block of justices. If replaced with "conservative" judges it would alter the landscape of the Court for years to come.
This is not a scare tactic this is fact and I'm sorry that the facts don't fit with your agenda but sometimes life is unfair. It is also one of the reasons why the Clintons and millions of other Democrats who may not agree with all of Obama's policies, do agree that it is essential he gets elected.
I'd like to apologize for both the grammatical error and my conjecture that only 5% of Clinton supporters are withholding their support from Obama. According to an October 10th Newsweek poll, only 88% of Clinton supporters now support Obama.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163339
Now would you please answer my questions?
Wow and they call us Democrats without Principles alarmists! Susam - Yeah, Mc Cain is a real prince. Did you see the great picture of him speaking at the ACORN rally in 2006? They really captured his good side don't ya think?
To the anonymous Obama supporters, take your reasoning to his sites. I for one have followed events in this primary and understand Obama stands for no one but himself. So get over it and stop scaring people. I have voted along party line for democrats in the past couple decades. This time, I am voting for a better and more honest man, who unfortunately is not Obama.
Bush who I despise didn't overturn Roe. I'm Hillary supporter and now supporting McCain will never vote for Obama even you dangle this fear of overturning Roe. It's a matter of principle and trust and BO got none of these.
Can someone start debating the FACTS instead of making this personal? Why can't you disagree without bringing prozac, psychiatrists and ignorance into it? If you have valid points make them.
"I haven't been in the trenches for 35 years on behalf of children and women and families and health care and all of the other causes that I care passionately about to see another Republican administration squander our hopes and undermine our future," said the former first lady and current senator from New York.
Please stop referring to yourselves as Hillary supporters, you're not. You may have been at one time but you no longer have any right to use those words. You are now actively campaigning for and endorsing everything that Hillary has worked against. How dare you claim to be a Hillary supporter when she would feel nothing but contempt for your ignorant positions.
I'm commenting here not because I'm an Obama supporter but because I AM A HILLARY SUPPORTER. I believe in Hillary's postions and share her political viewpoints. Whether you choose to admit it to yourself or not, a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against these very policies. This isn't a scare tactic, this isn't a threat and I'm not a kool-aid drinker, THIS IS REALITY! A vote for Obama is no longer a vote against Hillary but is a vote with Hillary Clinton, a vote in support of her positions and a vote to honor her historic candidacy. Come November 4th I will face reality and proudly be voting with Hillary Clinton in support of Barack Obama.
Dear dsabatini: Vote for Obama if you must, but if you believe Hillary Clinton is "proudly" voting for Obama, then you are as deceived and deluded as the rest of the Obama-maniac/zealouts (Not all Obama supporters are nut-cakes, some of my best friends and relatives are sadly voting for him) but many out there have been brain-washed to think Obama someone other than he is. If you are/were a Hillary supporter and I take you at your word, then you know FOR A FACT she is not proud of what she has to do (perhaps vote for him - we will never know since no one will be with her in the booth), and she is not proud of the corruption of the DNC, the disenfranchisement of voters in FL and MI, the stealing of the caucus states by Obama, rampant voter fraud/registration by ACORN to aid Obama in stealing the election, the phony roll call vote in Denver, and all the lies, race-baiting and deceptions of Obama and his surrogates. If you honestly believe Hillary is proud of any of these things, then I worry about you, dsabatini. She is only trying to survive.
Anyone voting for Barack Obama has their head completely in the sand.
The fact that Obamabots (sadly including those with law degrees, whom one would've thought could think for themselves) are reading Marc's blog is a good thing. They obviously value his opinion and his analysis enough to tune in and check-it out. Marc's not yet singing like the fat lady for McCain and that's got the Obamabots freaked out. I am a bitter Clinton democrat, who completely does not get Obama, think for myself, and will be voting McCain at the top of the ticket. I'll be voting for Clinton democrats down the line. When unsure, I'm voting republican. By the way, I'm also an african american, and I believe Obama is self-serving. What exactly did he give to Chris Matthews for that tingle up his leg? Ditto the MSM? Perhaps we'll get our independent press back after the elections. So, to you Obamabots reading this pro-Clinton and pro-honesty in democracy blog, I suggest you stop drinking the kool-aid long enough to see the blatant MSM and polling bias.
It's obvious that the Obama Thugocracy is already in the works. He directed his bots to attack and challenge, to "get in their faces" and they're doing exactly that. But, what they don't know is: we will not be moved.
Tom in Paine has given the best analysis yet as to why Roe v Wade will not be revoked under John McCain than I've seen yet. But as per usual, Obots start off using the words "hate" and trying to initimidate rather than logically discuss - just like their thug leader.
Most importantly, the Farrakhans and Wrights and Black Liberation groups who have fostered Obama do NOT believe in abortion rights! Neither do the Christian coalitions and evangelicals that support Obama.
You're in for a rude awakening. Obama will destroy Roe v Wade with his extreme justice choice. The likes of JJJr, Al Sharpton, and other right-wing supporters who used to be for Bush but are now coalesing around Obama will make sure Roe v Wade is overturned. After all the eliet will always have the means for safe clean abortions but not the Joe hte Plummer class. That's who Roe v Wade was for, not the rich.
Obama will destroy Roe v Wade.
You want to talk about corrupt leaders, have any of you even bothered to look at the FEC information regarding The Denver Group? If so you'd see that as of October 1, out of the $68,000 the group has raised, Heidi and Marc have seen fit to pay themselves $12,960.19 for consulting and professional fees! This figure doesn't even include expense reimbursements or the $2400 in computer costs! Before you throw stones about drinking kool-aid maybe you all need a mirror.
Of course anonymous agrees with anonymous, you are either birds of a feather or you are the same bird. Do any of you anonymous' have a surname or is that your surname? I am going out on a limb here, but I think your name is either Anonymous Obama of Obama Anonymous. I give up, which one is it? I guess you could also be Obamabot #1 or Obamabot #2, #3, or #4. Only you know for sure since you all sound alike.
I surmise the basis of your anxiety and subsequent attacks on this blog are in direct relation to the tightening poll numbers and the fact that The Chosen One is running behind in expectations. Perhaps voters are coming out of their Obama-induced stupor and are waking up to the fact that an Obama presidency would destroy this country economically, physically and spiritually. I don’t fear Obama personally as I’m not sure there is a real person behind the mask; what I fear most are the people that programmed him for their own agenda.
There has been a conspiracy brewing every since Bill Ayers seemingly gave up his nefarious underground agenda. Bill Ayers realized that he was a flea attacking an elephant and decided to stay underground and orchestrate the biggest fraud in American history - - - it took him over 40 yrs. but he laboriously planned and plotted the downfall of America and the rebuilding in a scenario of his own making. He has been radicalizing, training and brainwashing youths for years and most likely has an army well on the way to equaling Hitler’s Youth Army. He and his followers have trained the parents who are now training the children.
Sound crazy? Don’t say I didn’t warn you!
"I just want to point out that the "anonymous" who posted the last comment was NOT me! Apparently I am not the only one who thinks your argument is flawed. "
apparently your knowledge of Constitutional law, legal procedure and common sense is all about at the same level as your insight into what it takes to be President.There is nothing about what you had to say which wouldnt get you rejected as an applicant by every law school in the country.
"You want to talk about corrupt leaders, have any of you even bothered to look at the FEC information regarding The Denver Group? If so you'd see that as of October 1, out of the $68,000 the group has raised, Heidi and Marc have seen fit to pay themselves $12,960.19 for consulting and professional fees! This figure doesn't even include expense reimbursements or the $2400 in computer costs! Before you throw stones about drinking kool-aid maybe you all need a mirror."
Obviously this is the same Obama supporter who is still off his Prozac.
If you think there is anything illegal or unethical going on file a complaint with the FEC. Of course then we will know who you are since we will get a copy of it. If we do not receive notice that a complaint has been filed everyone will know you are as phony as your candidate. So we will wait to see if you file one and I will be sure to let everyone know one way or the other.
Your concern is really about the effect we are having so you must feel everyone contributing is getting their moneysworth out of our commercials. And they are. We are running a commercial today comparing Obama's dishonesty to Nixon and its running in Columbus, Ohio, the heart of the Obama voter registration fraud so our timing couldnt be better ( on tonight;s 7 pm news if you;d like t see it) And based on your worry and the time you spent checking FEC reports,( or maybe the time you were TOLD to spend) its obvious to all our contributors we are having an effect that is making you and a lot of other people very nervous.
By the way, since you want to mention campaign finance, the gross hypocrisy of Obama and his supporters couldnt be more evident. After all, this is the candidate who ran in the primary PLEDGING to take public financing if he were the nominee and then reneged as soon as he became the nominee. And as the investigtion in Columbus is now showing, the Obama campaign is in violation of FEC laws since they have been accepting contributions from people with names like "test person" living in "someplace USA": so those contributions are illegal and are being investigated and people from the Obama campaign may be going to jail, something our anonymous friend seems to be oblivious to. Or maybe anonymous is one of Obama's illegal donors and is worrying. That could be the reason he was trolling around the FEC web site.
"Your blog is always good for a laugh and you are clearly confused by legal theory. There are countless ways to gain standing to challenge Roe..."
thank you once again for showing how incredibly dumb, ignorant and out of touch with reality Obama supporters are.
I will be waiting for you to refute this by telling us all the challenges to Roe there have been in the last 40 years since the decision. The answer is zero. None. Which of course doesnt stop you from telling us that there are "countless" ways Roe can be challenged. Obviously you are the only legal mind in the country for the past 40 years who knows what they are. So thank YOU for the laugh. You have no idea how many people enjoyed it.
"I'm not sure why you removed your latest response to anonymous but I'd again like to point out how dishonest you're being..."
since I didnt remove it but edited it for space and did not change the content Id like to point out how dishonest youre being and also that you have the powers of observation of a drunken sailor on a Saturday night.
"I'd like to apologize for both the grammatical error and my conjecture that only 5% of Clinton supporters are withholding their support from Obama. According to an October 10th Newsweek poll, only 88% of Clinton supporters now support Obama. "
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163339
I checked this link. The headline of the article is that Obama is pulling away with a double digit lead. Of course as of yesterday Gallup and Zogby have it a statistical dead heat. You have a lot more to apologize for. Next time try using actual facts to back up what you have to say, instead of swallowing all the nonsense you read like a trained seal.
"Your blog is always good for a laugh and you are clearly confused by legal theory. There are countless ways to gain standing to challenge Roe.."
I dont mean to pick on this poor Obama supporter and legal giant but his statement was too much to resist as a poster boy for Obama supporters, their ignorance disguised as intelligence, and their attempts at fear mongering and either their being brainwashed or not having the capacity to think to begin with.
For the last 8 years we've had a President who on moral and religious grounds, and, so he has said, Constitutional grounds, been adamantly opposed to Roe. He's appointed two new conservative justices to the Supreme Court and we've had a conservative Department of Justice that has been politicized in the name of conservative Republican causes. We are told by this Obama supporter and supposed legal and constitutional mind that there are "countless" ways Roe can be challenged by someone with standing - "countless ways". Yet with a conservative President adamantly opposed to Roe, two new conservative justices to add to the ones already there, and a conservative politicized Justice Deparment we have had not one single attempt to challenge Roe now or anytime in the last 8 years.
This is why Obama supporters really do drink the Kool Aid and why they cannot and have never been able to mount a single cogent argument based on any facts to support a thing they or their dishonest and unqualified candidate has to say. It's why they can vote for Obama for their own corrupt reasons or out of fear,or for their own racial reasons, but why they can never win an argument or even approach common sense.
Since I have not had the time before today to read some of the comments this post has attracted I felt compelled to answer some of those that were the most off the cliff but this one ought to put the exclamation point on Obama's supporters, and their comments here and who they are, what they think, and this one can serve as an example that either they have given up their brains to support Obama, their ethics or both.
This country has had 8 years of a Republican presidency that has all but destroyed everything good about it and I'll be damned if I'll vote for another 4 years. After 9/11 we had the whole world on our side. Now we have a 10 billion dollar a month misguided war in Iraq that needs to end. We have an erosion of our constitutional freedoms in the name of homeland security. We have an economy that is in the toilet. And yes, we have supreme court justices who are waiting to retire when they see who will be the next president. Roe vs. Wade is not the only constitutional issue that can be swayed by a lop-sided supreme court. So the bottom line is that I am a Democrat for a reason. I am going to vote for my principles. There is no way you can convince me that any Republican will support my political views. Mr. Rubin, though you seem to be intelligent, you also seem to be an angry, bitter person suffering from delusions of grandeur.
"If you think there is anything illegal or unethical going on file a complaint with the FEC."
I don't think it's vile, I just think it's immoral. At a time when people are struggling to pay their bills and support their families, yet still a find a way to contribute to your "cause", Heidi and yourself are taking nearly 20% of those contributions and using them for your own enrichment. Again, there's nothing illegal about it, it's just illustrative of your real priorities.
"Obviously this is the same Obama supporter who is still off HIS Prozac."
"I dont mean to pick on this poor Obama supporter and legal giant but HIS statement was too much to resist as a poster BOY for Obama supporters, their ignorance disguised as intelligence, and their attempts at fear mongering and either their being brainwashed or not having the capacity to think to begin with."
(Emphasis added to all single sex quotes.)
I am shocked and dismayed to see the level of misogyny that this site has shrunk to. In two separate posts, you clearly demonstrate that not only do you not believe women can think for themselves, you don't even believe that they can turn on a computer or type.
It's this type of misogyny that Senator Clinton has fought for years and I am overwhelmed that someone like you, who claims to rail against such things, would knowingly make these posts.
As someone who voted for Hillary and hope she runs in 2012 so I can try once again to get her into office I just want to say...I am appalled that Democrats cannot be civil to one another. Just because both sides have a difference in opinion about whose "facts" are accurate doesn't mean that you can't have a healthy debate about things.
Marc I am surprised at you. How can you be upset that Obama is running a corrupt and negative campaign and then make personal attacks against people, fellow Democrats no less, instead of focusing on the issues?
Come on guys, please try to stick to the issues and drop the personal insults. Though I agree with you that Obama is not the one for the job, I will never read this blog again because I am appalled by your "Principled" behavior.
"I am shocked and dismayed to see the level of misogyny that this site has shrunk to. In two separate posts
"I am overwhelmed that someone like you, who claims to rail against such things, would knowingly make these posts."
What I am against is hypocrisy,intellectual dishonesty and fear mongering and gender has nothing to do with it. I think its significant that you ignored the substance and chose to focus on my use of the word "his" in referring to you and, in using the same degree of logic that was present in your original criticism, make accusations of misogyny based on the use of the word "his" in referring to you when you choose to be :"anonymous" and never once identified yourself as a woman as many people who choose to remain anonymous do. Instead you expect people to be mind readers or automatically know you are a woman when they dont you take exception to it, Like Obama';s slinging the accusation of racism at anyone who substantively attacks his position, you use the completely unfounded accusation of misogyny in referring to you as a male when you never identified yourself as a woman, because you cant or wont defend the substance of your position.
I would suggest that if you want your point of view to be seen in the context of being a woman, then it might be a good idea to identify yourself as such instead of making it the responsibility of others. And if for some reason you did identify yourself as a woman somewhere in your post I certainly didnt see it in the version I read, and it should have been obvious. The real issue is the substance of what you had to say and my reply to it which refuted it and THAT is what you have a real problem with.
"This country has had 8 years of a Republican presidency that has all but destroyed everything good about it and I'll be damned if I'll vote for another 4 years."
I couldnt agree more except that it was Obama who said Republicans are the party of ideas, take the same position as Bush on faith based government spending, takes the Republican position on off shore drilling, sided with the Republicans on retroactive immunity in the FISA bill, reversed his position on the DC gun AFTER ti was struck down by the Supreme Court and has proved he will lie his head off to anyone anytime to get their vote. And he doesnt come with a warranty or a refund so better read the fine print before you buy.
"I don't think it's vile, I just think it's immoral. At a time when people are struggling to pay their bills and support their families, yet still a find a way to contribute to your "cause", Heidi and yourself are taking nearly 20% of those contributions and using them for your own enrichment. "
This is why Obama supporters are the biggest collection of moral hypocrites in the country. Obviously you didnt see our commerical attacking Obama for spending $3 million of his donor's money just so he could give a speech at a football stadium at a time when people were being thrown out of their homes. Or maybe you did see it and that is the reason for your pointless and ignorant comment.
You also are quite obviously ignorant of the fact that Obama didnt even bother to show up to vote in June for the Housing Foreclosure Assistance Bill designed to help people who were losing their homes because he was too busy spending his donors money on his campaign.
Really calling you a moral idiot doesnt do you justice.. You also cant read an FEC report since you even got the percentage wrong.
Scroll down at look at our commercial ( which our donors helped finance) exposing Obama for spending the $3 million for a football stadium speech while people were being thrown out of their homes. We're going to be running it in battleground states and if people have the kind of moral outrage you only pretend to have, Obama will lose.
Mr. Rubin:
I think the real problem here is that you refuse to address what truly appear to be legitimate concerns (that's not to say that all of the posts above are entirely civil). Some of the posts quote from actual Supreme Court jurisprudence that negates your points like Scalia having the utmost respect for precedent and polling numbers that are contrary to your points (though you are correct to point out the poll that had the race a statistical deadheat).
Overall, your site focuses on a great deal of bullying and name-calling - as you clearly know, people disagree with some (and apparently many) of your positions - that doesn't necessarily make them idiots, as you're quick to accuse.
Rather than attack someone and change the subject, why not explain the rationale for you and Ms. Feldman taking such a large share of donated funds for yourselves? Why not address the fact that there have been challenges to Roe (including but not limited to Casey and the two Carhart cases and even the original Ms. Roe's attempt to have the decision set aside) rather than falsely stating that there have been no challenges in the past 40 years.
The amount of money you and Ms. Feldman have raised is impressive and speaks to the power of the internet to raise incredible sums (as both Senators Clinton and Obama have made clear). That carries over to your blog, which would be a much greater vehicle for change and discussion were you not to refer to your own opinions as facts and were you to address legitimate inquiries.
Post a Comment