Bozell Column: Notre Dame Pacifier?

Photo of Brent Bozell.

President Obama came to the campus of Notre Dame armed with all his usual arrogance. Despite his radical abortion record – which includes championing a policy in Illinois wherein aborted babies who manage to survive are tossed aside, to die – he posed as the national moderator of "common ground." And he did it by plugging a yellowed old tale from his campaign memoir "The Audacity of Hope." All he left out were the words "Order now on Amazon.com. Just $16.50 in hardcover."

Obama is loaded with nothing more than audacity. His speech no doubt pleased liberals, who love to pretend they’re for all the mushy inclusiveness Obama pretended to favor – "Open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words." This, from the politician who spent twenty years listening to the rantings and ravings of Jeremiah Wright? This, from the politician who unleashed more than 100,000 negative ads on John McCain?

Not unexpectedly, the networks embraced Obama’s pose as the pragmatic pacifier of the "culture wars."

On Sunday night, ABC anchor Dan Harris proclaimed: "Today President Obama walked right in to the heart of the abortion debate and essentially told both sides to lower the volume." NBC anchor Lester Holt framed the controversy as "President Obama today stepped squarely into the middle of what may be this country’s deepest cultural, religious and political divide."

It’s outrageous enough to give Obama credit for showing his face at Notre Dame. He certainly wasn’t going to stop campaigning for the votes of liberal Catholics. He saw the Notre Dame speech as an opportunity to confuse the public about his abortion extremism on the cusp of his first Supreme Court nomination, sure to be on the radical left.

But it’s not just outrageous, it’s also ridiculous to place Obama anywhere near the "middle" of the abortion debate. His actual record and his policies as president belie any notion of Obama disappointing the abortion lobby in any way.

In the first 100 days, Obama delighted people like Cecile Richards, the head of the Planned Parenthood abortion empire. On the Huffington Post, Richards announced there were "champagne corks popping" over Team Obama’s early record, adding "there is no way to overstate the revolutionary change that is taking place."

Her list included how Obama lifted the "global gag rule" to allow aid to international abortion advocates, "restored affordable birth control for women and girls," supported the stripping of funds for abstinence-based sex education, and lifted any restriction on the over-the-counter sale of Plan B "emergency contraception" for "women 17 years and older." He also placed fierce, feminist, in-your-face favorites in the important abortion positions, like Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. That’s not to mention the pro-abortion extremists appointed in the sub-cabinet ranks.

Continuing the outrage, we are told that Obama’s position is one of "humility." In a bizarre column headlined "Conciliatory Fighting Words," Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne insisted Obama’s opponents want to "reignite" the culture wars and "see theological arguments as leading to certainty. He opted for humility."

Abortion advocates like Richards have hardly been humble in their ongoing campaign to increase the availability and government funding of abortions. They’ve never shown a lack of moral certitude, either, even as they lie on government documents to hide their intentions as their nasty clinics are built. Their war for "choice" and profit has never needed to be "reignited."

Obama infamously bowed before Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate and promised to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" – a radical bill that would crush every state regulation that would attempt to restrain untrammeled abortion. Only nine percent of Americans support this hideous venture. How on Earth can Obama be both an advocate of FOCA and the man calling for "common ground"? He can’t. But his pliant press corps doesn’t dare to point out the schizophrenia of his rhetoric and his record.

His forthcoming Supreme Court nominee inevitably will support the infallibility of Roe vs. Wade, which in itself was not a "common ground" initiative, but a top-down federal order used to scrap every state’s ban on abortions. There was certainly no judicial humility in Roe: the liberal justices acted like legislators without shame, and imposed their will with great haughtiness.

Obama’s liberal arrogance extended to suggesting to American Catholics that the real Catholic tradition is to serve as those "common ground" moderators, to show theological "humility" and work together on common social problems. He came to Notre Dame not simply to speak, but to attempt to help liberals redefine Catholic teaching and Catholic tradition. That’s a pretty audacious position for a man to take when he never dared to object to or redefine the sulfurous gospel of Jeremiah Wright in twenty years in the pews.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

<sound of duct tape ripping off roll>

"Common ground" to Obama means "you agree with me."

What the H is "common ground" in the abortion argument anyway? 

He came to Notre Dame not simply to speak, but to attempt to help liberals redefine Catholic teaching and Catholic tradition. 

And that is not audacious, that is downright arrogant! The man has not a humble bone in his body.

He can anyone expect him to give an inch on anything, when even a born-alive baby can't soften his heart?

This is just his latest attempt to cast himself as a centrist; one who is willing to work with the other side.

Note to President Obama:  You're not that smart.  And we're not that stupid.

Except to the media, who continue to proclaim him a "moderate" no matter what he does.  Keep calling that tail a leg, guys!

When he is ready to admit even the possibility that life begins when a newly born infant is in the doctor's hands (even if the woman wanted it dead) , then he can talk about MAYBE being willing to hear the other side.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

Amen, and Thank You!

"Note to President Obama:  You're not that smart.  And we're not that stupid" 

Brilliantly said and right on the money!

Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."

mb...

mb...

Note to President Obama:  You're not that smart.  And we're not that stupid.

Amen to all of your post, but I love that line.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

→ Excellent Brent!

But it still amazes me the abortion debate rarely has inserted into it, the 50% abortion rate among African-Americans.

Rather than stand up against the genocide of a race Mr. Obama identifies himself with, he embraces the sacrificing of strange fruit to Molech.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Bring this up to a liberal

Bring this up to a liberal and you will get a twisted answer.

My guess is something along the lines that this is because African-Americans are victims. They are denied adequate and equal access to health care ( ie. contraceptives ) and education. This, of course, is the fault of people like you and me who don't care about and are exploiting them. bla bla bla....

The answer is always the same, no matter the reality of the results. More government, more PP, more womyn's "reproductive" services.

Abortion's Blackest Secret

"We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the (Black) minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger
Founder, Planned Parenthood

"Although black women constitute only 6% of the population, they comprise 36% of the abortion industry’s clientele. The leading abortion providers have chosen to exploit blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations.

This high rate of abortion has decimated the black family and destroyed black neighborhoods to the detriment of society at large.

1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion.

3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child.
"...For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama became a "minister" of Planned Parenthood a long time ago. He's so good at carrying out their racist, murderous, agenda against Afro-Americans and society at large, they gave him a 100% score on his voting record.

Planned Parenthood is following the strategy of their racist founder, Margaret Sanger, to the letter. Planed Parenthood is saying, “We have our poster boy!

Get him out in front as a lure for their women and men. Get them into our abortion clinics and dismember their children by the millions!”

You say absurd? No Way!

Planned Parenthood’s Valentine cards were sent out to hundreds of thousands of young people in the nation.

Whose face is plainly seen waving to them with a big smile?

Whose endorsement is given to this racist and calloused organization?

Who is used to lure children to give credibility to its hideous plot?

Barack Obama, that's who!..."

By Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.,
March 5, 2008
http://www.blackgeno...

Reasonable

So much of the abortion debate is characterized by angry protesters, in-your-face shouting, and insults hurled through spittle. But there's another group that calmly, pleasantly, and quietly discusses abortion.

Great. But does the lack of spittle make the arguments any more logical? No.

Speaking calmly and showing respect is a matter of courtesy, but not logic. A calm speaker can be just as wrong. Just because you're not shouting doesn't make what you say any more intelligent. I absolutely agree that we should be more civil to one another, but that's just the style of debate. It has nothing to do with the substance. Obama is asking us to change the style of debate, but he's giving absolutely no compromise on the substance. And he's passing the style off as if it was substance.

This is a guy who voted against John Roberts' and Sam Alito's confirmation, even after admitting that they were qualified. He voted against qualified nominees for ideological reasons. Does he expect his nominee to sail through with Republican support? Sure he does, and he'll get it, because the GOP has no spine.

Besides, has this guy ever admonished Planned Parenthood to keep the debate civil? Did he ever go to NOW and reprimand them for being shrill? Does he plan to go to NARAL and tell them that their strident press releases against John Roberts and Sam Alito were obnoxious? Why is it that the pro-lifers are the ones who are being asked to be more quiet?

 

Of course he's full of

Of course he's full of audacity and arrogance.  He, like all liberals, is not operating in the same philosophical realm as we are - on the so-called "right."  

He is preaching a religion, not a political viewpoint.  It's a religion where man is god and politicians are the priests and everyone else is a subject, and the goal is an ordered society regulated and controlled by them. 

Human life means less than the achievment of their utopian dream, so a few million abortions here and there don't bother them at all.  Yet the mere objection to the most hideous form of abortion sends them into flying fits.  How dare we object to post partum infantacide - the state wants it, and that's all you need to know.

Liberals count on stupidity!

They count on a large percentage of Americans being too stupid or lazy to understand what Obama and his ilk (no libs, an ilk is not a big deer) are doing to our country!  That is why they have conservatives so much! 

Angry White Dude

www.angrywhitedude.c...

What are you telling us

What are you telling us Bozell that is new?  We know the sordid history of abortion "rights" in our country.  We know the leaders of the movement, their supporters, and their apologists. 

What we don't know is who are our leaders that are pro-life?  What do they say about Obama's speech and the subject as a whole?

We need to know who these elected representatives are now not a couple of days before the next election when it is too late anyway because the media and the liberal political machine has all but picked our candidates for us.

Bozell, you have the "bully pulpit" to draw out our representatives and those that seek legislative and executive elected office.  We need to prepare for 2010 now.  

It is no longer enough to just point out the liberals and their, in this case, murderous ways.  That didn't work for us in the last election cycle.  With the immense apparatus that is the liberal propaganda machine, we don't stand a chance unless we began preparing now.  

Republican representatives, if you are reading this blog, how about weighing in?  Make your views known.  If we don't know who you are, we can't know to vote for you in the next election.  

Help me out here.

Help me out here.  I've been trying to recollect which one of the Founding Fathers supported the establishment of the office of Secretary of State by arguing it would be an "important abortion position". 

Anyone?

Jer

Rhetoric

When the foreign aid programs either fund abortion and contraception programs, or stay silent - and dictates whether Americans pay for them - that's a significant part of the abortion debate.

Your move.

→ Good get KC

It's nothing short of meddling in Church affairs when the US tries to convince Mexico's poor they should follow in the footsteps of the worshippers of Molech.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

The American

The American taxpayer--liberal or conservative--has always been required to help subsidize programs which may be personally distasteful from his or her own ideological or moral perspective.

My comment was directed more at Brent's over-the-top descriptive flourishes via his reference to"fierce feminist in-your-face favorites installed at important abortion positions such as Secretary of State...."  That long-held view of Hillary Clinton was consistently debunked by a host of Republicans who knew her and worked along side her in the Senate.  But perhaps Bozell was only referring to some of her supporters and not Hillary herself.

Jer

As a user of rhetoric myself ...

I don't begrudge anyone using rhetoric. I just feel free to point it out when I see it, and as always, caveat emptor.

Thanks Brent - I guess what bothered me is the total

absence of media coverage of the thousands of students, family members and faculty who took part in a prayer service separate from the president's speech.  They weren't out trying to be arrested or hollering in the graduation ceremony, they were simply living by their religious beliefs.

As a Christian and a believer in the sanctity of life, I do take offense that this Catholic institution would honor a man who, as an Illinois state legislator, would repeatedly vote present rather than take a position - that is, until he took the position that it was definitely okay to leave a baby who had survived a late-term abortion to die all alone in a cleaning closet!

To award an honorary degree to someone who is so opposed to the church's teachings is blasphemous.

If the college administration isn't changed after this fiasco, I will certainly look at the Vatican and the church leaders in America in a different light.

 I believe it would have been ever so much better for everyone - the church - the students - the university - the country had the president turned down the request. However, since the president is known for his ME ME ME attitude, I guess he could not see the 'big picture' and gracefully decline.

This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise known as a RWRE!!   It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams

For the record:Catholic Bishops response...

Monday, May 18, 2009
Bishop Finn Interviewed on Notre Dame Commencement
Kansas City - St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn agreed to an interview today with Catholic Key Editor Jack Smith on the subject of yesterday's Commencement exercises at Notre Dame. The full text follows:

Dialogue was the big theme of the Notre Dame commencement. Is it possible for the Church to dialogue on abortion?

There are many associated elements that have to do with taking care of women in distress, offering alternatives to abortion. We have to work together, discuss and study how best we can provide for the needs of women and families. How can we reduce the number of abortions? These are elements for dialogue. But the rightness or wrongness of abortion – this is an intrinsic evil. The direct taking of an innocent life can never be negotiated.

Dialogue is a means to an end. The purpose of dialogue has to be a change of heart. If I listen well and we each speak the truth, then the dialogue may have a chance of being productive. But I have to have some authentic principled goal in mind.

President Obama asked in his address, “Is it possible to join hands in common effort?” Can the Church join hands in common effort with the administration?

As a country we want to see an end to racial prejudice. We want a more secure peace in the world. We want sound economic justice for people. So we can’t give up on working with the administration.

But we’re fighting for our lives – literally. We are attempting to protect real unborn children by the thousands. We’re fighting for the right to exercise a rightly-formed conscientious difference with public policy. We shouldn’t underestimate the danger of dragging our feet in this effort, or taking a “wait and see” approach. If we are not ready to make a frontal attack on the protection of conscience rights, the overturning of Roe v’ Wade, and the primacy of authentic marriage, we will lose in these areas. I think the rug is already being pulled out from under us. If we sit back and allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of peace and cooperation in regards to these things, then we will lose these battles and, later, wonder why.

Without identifying any person or group, Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins in his introduction of the President warned against a tendency to “demonize each other”. Were the bishops who spoke in opposition to an honorary doctorate of law for President Obama “demonizing” him or Notre Dame?

I think the bishops (and many others) were pointing out the hurtful nature of the invitation. As I reread Fr. Jenkins’ remarks I found it fell into three parts. In the first part Fr. Jenkins himself uses a whole series of very, very hard words. He uses the words - division, pride, contempt, demonize, anger, distort, hateful, condemn, hostility. And one might wonder whether he uses these words as a kind of a caricature of the 60 to 70 bishops who have spoken out against his invitation.

The center part is all about dialogue. He uses the word dialogue, I think, six times. And he quotes it from Pope Benedict, and he quotes it from Ex Corde Ecclesiae and he quotes from the Second Vatican Council.

And in the third part, he expresses his admiration for the President. So this seems to be the way he sets up the President’s talk for him – to speak in a very negative way about anyone who appears to be contrary to the decision they made, and then to stress the primacy of dialogue, and then offer his admiration of the President. Dialogue is important, but the question is fairly raised, “May we negotiate about things that are intrinsic evils?” and I think the answer is no.

The President also spoke against reducing those with differing views to caricature. Is that what these bishops have done with regard to the President’s actions on life?

The bishops realize the very destructive decisions that President Obama promised to make concerning the life issues, and now has been making in connection with abortion and human embryonic stem cell research. This is serious business; it is about life and death. If in speaking out on these things, we are characterized as being angry or condemnatory – then so be it. Such actions are worthy of condemnation.

This is part of the scandal of Notre Dame’s invitation to the President - that it has the potential of confusing people concerning the Catholic teaching against abortion, and on the priority of abortion among other issues of public policy.

Was there an overriding message to the commencement proceedings that came through strongest?

I think the message of the day was this – that the President of Notre Dame said that they had invited the President of the United States and decided to honor him for the sake of dialogue. And then the President got up and said that the differences that we have on abortion – namely the Catholic Church’s staunch opposition to abortion and his staunch support of abortion were “irreconcilable.” And at that moment, it would seem to me that the dialogue came to a screeching halt. Father Jenkins’ expressed desire for dialogue, whether it was well-founded or justified, at that point got thrown back in his face. The President shut the door on dialogue by saying that there was not going to be any change in his position on abortion and he understood that there was not going to be any change in the Church’s position on abortion. To me, that was the lesson of the day. I am glad that Mr. Obama was so clear.

And then, amazingly, everybody gave him a standing ovation. The perception unfortunately was that this was a completely acceptable position of his and, because he is a bright and talented man, this trumps the destructive decisions that he’s making day after day.

Is President Obama’s call to work together in reducing unintended pregnancies a new way to find common ground?

I fear that the specific way that the President frames this in terms of “reducing unintended pregnancies” is through the promotion of Planned Parenthood and contraceptive services. The President has supported the Prevention First Act bill that’s going forward. This is not about abstinence education. This is about promoting contraception and giving Planned Parenthood a huge blank check. If Catholics don’t see a problem with this then I don’t think they understand the threat it represents to the meaning of marriage, to fidelity, to chastity, to the very sanctity of human life and intimate love.

He's Just Pissy Because Daddy Tried To Storm An Abortion Clinic

An excerpt from the Time Magazine article: "The Anti-Abortion Campaign
Monday, Mar. 29, 1971"

"None of the angry words have equaled the angry action of the ultra-right Sons of Thunder in Washington, D.C. Dressed in khaki shirts and red berets, they invaded a Washington clinic last May to protest the abortions performed there; among the invaders was L. Brent Bozell, brother-in-law of William F. Buckley and, along with Buckley's sister Patricia, an editor of Triumph magazine. Triumph's editorial support of such activism caused William Buckley last week to write that 'such analyses discredit the anti-abortion position.' It is the gentler arts of persuasion, so far, that have won some victories for the anti-abortion forces. Liberalized abortion has been thwarted either in the courts or legislatures in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, North and South Dakota, Indiana, Kentucky and Massachusetts."

The full article can be read on the following link:
http://www.time.com/...

I imagine, as William F. Buckley watches over his spoiled-brat nephew up from heaven, is this the type of editorializing that's going to win the pro-life side any sympathy?

Already

The Liberal agenda is

The Liberal agenda is personal and is based upon hatred gained through life experiences. 

Didn't get picked until last on the playground?  Fight against the establishment.

Limped along through school with C's even though you knew you were smarter and more creative than everyone else?  Get a dopey Liberal arts degree or one in educational theory and change the system to the way you would like it to have been when you were in school.

Unpopular?  Go to law school and join the ACLU and get back at the 'in crowd'.  Support terrorists and criminals as pseudo-underdogs.

Had bad experiences with men/made poor choices by sticking with losers and abusers?  Domineering, cruel father?  Become a lesbian...join N.O.W...advocate aborting the spawn of the hated Male.

Grew up with a domineering mother or women with no father around so you now despise women?  Bad relationships with females?  Get another guy to sodomize you.  

God didn't give you everything you wanted?  Become an atheist.

Too lazy or afraid to join the military?  Become a pacifist.

We all have disappointments and have experienced injustice. We know there are those that will scam us at every opportunity.  We know that there are those who abuse their authority, that there are those who profess Christianity and yet are evil.

But I think we Conservatives treat these as exceptions and not the rule.  We have the capacity to be grateful for what we have and unabashedly desire more wealth, Liberty and happiness. 

We're willing to help somebody when they stumble.  But if we have to carry them, they better be missing their legs.

We want all peoples to be free, content and well-fed regardless of race, etc.  But we have little tolerance for the idea that one race deserves more than some other.  We recognize that sometimes injustices take time to be righted, but ultimately this can only be done when people stand up for themselves.  We've always liked the fighters...we don't like whiners and self-proclaimed victims.  We'll help, but we don't take kindly to ingratitude.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).