Washington Post reporter Shailagh Murray mastered the self-negating sentence on Monday's front page. Her article began:
As strong and consistent abortion foes, Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. and former congressman Timothy J. Roemer are anomalies in a Democratic Party that has overwhelmingly advocated abortion rights. Yet both are backing Sen. Barack Obama, whom one conservative blogger dubbed "the most pro-abortion candidate ever."
Dear Shailagh: If a politician supports the election of President Obama, who will nominate abortion supporters to the federal courts, doesn't the "strong and consistent abortion foes" line go directly out the window? But she stuck to the "firm opponents" fiction spin:
As firmly as Casey (Pa.) and Roemer (Ind.) have adhered to their opposition, Obama has never supported a single measure that would curtail access to abortion -- even under controversial circumstances. But Casey and Roemer have chosen to ignore Obama's legislative record, and are promoting the Democratic presidential candidate to their antiabortion allies as someone who could achieve a new consensus on the issue.
A "strong and consistent abortion foe" can work for compromise or consensus, but he or she cannot plausibly support a pro-abortion candidate as a "strong and consistent abortion foe" and then paper it over with how the abortion promoter will achieve consensus. Does Bob Casey Jr. really believe that President Obama will nominate abortion "consensus" builders to the Supreme Court?
As much as pro-life Democrats backing Obama could be seen as an intriguing factor in Obama's appeal to voters, reporters ought to also consider that pro-life Democrats backing an Obama (or a Hillary Clinton) waters down their "strong" pro-life credentials.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obama's consensus on the issue
April 14, 2008 - 08:33 ET by c5thenWould be that babies are allowed to be killed even after birth if that is the mother's wish. He blocked the "born alive" bill in the Illinios senate and sponsored an amendment that would have reversed the intent if passed. Obama's idea of compassion is that it's only for those who can defend themselves and voice their opinions.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
To say that both men are
April 14, 2008 - 08:48 ET by motherbeltTo say that both men are hypocrites would be a masterpiece of understatement.
If Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate can be touted as someone who can "bring people together" why shouldn't he in spite of his 100% NARAL rating, be someone who can "form a consensus" on abortion, too?
The Democrats are blind to incongruity. They truly believe that one can hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time.
That Obama can be a consensus-builder is the template; it's their story and they're sticking to it. They simply refuse to tolerate any facts that dispute it.
Casey
April 14, 2008 - 09:15 ET by cheesegraterCould it be that a politician like Casey touts his anti-abortion position to gain favor with his constituancy when he knows the majority of Dems will go the other way?
Cheap
April 14, 2008 - 10:36 ET by KC MulvillePublicly advocating a position, when you know that there is no chance of it coming to reality, is simply cheap politics. It’s like Obama’s pledge to “bring people together,” and yet remaining unshaken in his liberal politics. It’s cheap. It sounds good, but only for as long as no one gets into specifics.
It's difficult to find a
April 14, 2008 - 09:36 ET by Hero SquadIt's difficult to find a candidate that you support on every issue; however, when you've made it one of your defining issues, as Casey has with abortion (he and his father shared this view, and I believe it to be genuine), it's a tough to believe that his support of Obama is anything but for personal political benefit.
And probably to be the yin to Hillary supporter Ed Rendell's yang.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Casey and Barry
April 14, 2008 - 10:10 ET by iveseenitallObama wants partial birth abortion to be legal. Obama thinks having a baby is "punisment". Obama's a left-wing, big government guy who would take your taxes to fund abortions. And this guy Casey supports him? I don't know if he says he is a Catholic, but if he does, he's a Kenndy/Kerry catholic--no catholic at all. This is pure politics--abandon right and truth for political gain. I don't know who's worse--Obama who tells you his baby- killing ideas or Casey who lies about them. Casey can have Obama; they deserve each other! Scum!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Yea, punishment for having sex!
April 14, 2008 - 10:58 ET by PawpawNWhat was his statement about having child being punishment for having sex! This from a guy whose MIDDLE NAME we can't say in print, on TV, on Radio, etc!
out of touch
April 14, 2008 - 10:25 ET by paulnashtnThis may be a tad off this topic but I didn't see a more appropriate place to post it
Today Obama slamed Clinton & McCain for being out of touch because of their years in Washington. While that may be somewhat true, his 20+ years in an anti-American church have left him even FURTHER out of touch than Washington, DC
VOTE REPUBLICAN
Obama the blank slate.
April 14, 2008 - 10:54 ET by Missouri ConservativeThis is a perfect example of people using Obama as their personal rorsharch (sp?) test. He is whatever they want him to be. If they want him to be pro-life, then he is! At least "he'll consider their point of view" (a lot of good that 'considering' does when you support partial birth abortion).
What is crazy about this is that Obama is perhaps the most pro-abortion candidate EVER. More than Hillary, even. Obama was actually TO THE LEFT of NARAL in the Illinois Senate when he supported a bill to prevent doctor's from giving care to babies who survived botched abortions. If Obama is the nominee, I suspect that bill to be a big issue that the GOP will use to their advantage with respect to conservative Democrats and Catholic voters.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
Abracadabra
April 14, 2008 - 13:15 ET by ledurchiOne weakness of "liberals" is their inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy.
When a fetus is removed from a woman's body and the woman no longer is inconvenienced, everyone is happy. This is fantasy. The child is killed and then sucked from the mother’s womb or torn apart, while alive, and removed from the womb. This is reality. A “liberal” may wish that there is no difference between a tumor and an unborn child but that will never be the reality.
Obama’s presidential aspirations are dependant on capturing the votes of these weak minded individuals who dismiss the horror of murder as the imagination of religious zealots. Clever politicians, using convoluted arguments, have created the fantasy world where unborn babies and their mothers are ideas in the matters of private concern. The reality is that abortion is the murder of a baby with the consent of the mother and the sanction of society. This society, which refuses to protect the most innocent of victims, is the result of an electorate blinded by fantasy – unwilling to consciously reconcile the belief that murder is wrong with reality of the fact that it actually occuring.
Way Off on Casey
April 14, 2008 - 11:21 ET by Pete-PumaSorry Tim, but you're way off on the Caseys. Casey senior was the governor of PA when it challenged Planned Parenthood's unrestricted right to abortion, resulting in the landmark case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. PA had passed a law requiring spousal notice prior to having an abortion. Casey defended the law (and lost), resulting in the ridiculous trimester ruling.
No, the Casey family is anti-abortion, but they're also far more anti-Clinton. Ironically, the feud between the Caseys and the Clintons started when Bill refused to allow Casey to give a pro-life speach at the 1992 Democratic convention. (So much for the party of inclusion).
I don't see anything more mysterious here than the Caseys backing the leading nominee at the expense of the hated Clintons.
re: Way Off on Casey
April 14, 2008 - 13:01 ET by geoff.galeTake a step back, Pete. What Tim is driving at in his post is not so much about Casey, but about how the MSM labels them. For the reporter to continue to use "consistent" as an adjective describing Casey's stance, when he has obviously stepped off the the "consistent" bandwagon is worthy of lampooning.
I think we can all understand that Mr. Casey, like all of us, has his priorities, and that in his scheme of the evils of the world the Clintons come lower than abortion. But that doesn't alter the fact that supporting SnObama really does take him off the "consistent" anti-abortion team. It's not to say that he doesn't still take an anti-abortion stance. But it is to say that by supporting SnObama, he's supporting someone with a strong pro-choice reputation, ergo no longer "consistently" anti-abortion.
"All that is necessary for the trimuph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Forgive me for not having a clue
April 14, 2008 - 16:27 ET by radiofitz34Ms. Murray must have gotten a headache after writing that piece. At least, she should have. Strange how she slipped "a new consensus on the issue" in there. As if that made any sense.