Culture,  Politics

Barack Obama’s Audacity of Infanticide

When I wrote my previous post about Obama’s refusal to defend infant survivors of abortion, I didn’t know that former Senator Rick Santorum had just penned an opinion editorial on the same subject. Santorum uses language that is even stronger than mine. He writes:

‘Let’s be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide – I wonder if he’ll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: “Yes, we can.”‘

Read the rest here:

“The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image” – by Rick Santorum (Philadelphia Inquirer)

(HT: Justin Taylor)


  • Andrew Walker

    Thanks for the link. This article is very telling. It just goes to show that justice is not equally distributed in American, but is unjustly cloaked in myopic statements of “hope.”

    I am really at a loss of words how we can ever evoke God’s blessing over this land when we allow such atrocities as this to occur while our benchmark slogan is “libeary and justice for all.”



    That’s so demented and depraved … and that coming from a sinner like me!

    Those dastardly sneaky right-wingers are always bringing voting records to the discussion. What’s up with that?!

  • Trent G.

    It’s so sad and ironic, because someone like Brett actually thinks he is being open-minded and looks with disdain from his lofty tower on all those pathetic rightwingers. But the truth is he has become so blinded by his own ideology (whatever that may be) that when faced with cold hard facts all he can do is place his hands on his ears and run around saying “right wing agenda, right wing agenda”. Obama’s record and words are crystal clear on this issue, and yet Brett refuses to believe it (see the comments in the previous post). And yet he has the audacity to accuse others of pushing their own agenda. Of course, what else would you expect from such a reasonable, open-minded individual?

  • celucien joseph

    Some evangelical Christians in America tend to equate being a republican with being a Christian. In this respect, those who do not favor the main tenets of the Republican Party are quickly dismissed in political conversation. Issues such as abortion and marriage perhaps reflect the evangelical voice in American politics. I wonder why issues such as poverty, social justice, racial reconciliation and harmony, immigration, war, etc are belittled by the Evangelical voice, and not given a fair treatment in their on-going political discourse. When would the church learn to be “scripturally truthful” not “politically correct”?

    How does one weight these issues above? What criteria should we use to measure these factors? Must we continue to contend that pro-choice /pro-life and traditional marriage are more important than other social issues? Should we elevate them above other shared concerns? If we are going to be the people of God reflecting divine justice and righteousness, should we not raise our voice about other public matters?

    We need to be a people who not only fight for the baby in the womb and traditional marriage but citizens who are committed to transforming culture and lives, confronting issues that are basic to every human existence and society by showing acts of kindness and compassion, and being more committed to social issues and taking a stand for those who are demoralized, subjugated and disinherited. In a sense, all issues should be weighted on the same scale respectively and be given an equal hearing. On the other hand, we need to be wise in our assessment as we seek to glorify God in all things.

  • MatthewS

    The paragraph before the one Denny quoted:
    “Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn’t kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee’s chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.”

    It is amazing that someone could be against a bill that makes it illegal to kill a living baby.

  • Euphranor


    Pro-life isnt just another issue. It is a foundational issue. Without sanctity of life, why care about the poor or about genocide? So for this reason it is primary. Another reason it is a proper rally point for Christians (not just evangelicals) is that sanctity of life is an issue that has little nuance. At conception, there is human life. So while with war, race relations, environmental issues, national security, etc. there is a wide variety of acceptable christian positions to be had there is only one acceptable christian position on abortion and from that position comes (logically) other positions (and visa-versa).


  • Trent G.

    The problem really is that, as hard as it is to say, people (even evangelical Christians) like Celucien and Brett just don’t get the importance of the issue. Sure, they’ll give lipservice to the issue, saying that it is “bad” or “a shame”, but their comments leave no doubt that they lack an understanding of how serious the destruction really is. Sadly, they have bought into the lie, that the rest of society has, that somehow the child in the womb is less of a human than others. How else could you explain their ambivalence towards such an issue? They say such things like, “Sure it’s bad but really is it the main issue?” or “There’s no point in trying to fight the issue because no president has had an effect in 40 years” or “Is this really worse then global warming or big business.” These are the arguments given in defense of someone who approves of murder. If we had naked adults being shuffled into gas chambers surely there would be more of an outcry by our “liberal” brethren, but alas all we have are children being executed in the womb. And a presidential candidate who approves of such an atrocity is readily defended by the likes of “evangelicals” such as Brett and Celucien. It really shows a lack of a grasp of the issue.

  • Euphranor


    Bad form bro. Celucien doesnt appear ambivilent on the issue at all, saying:

    We need to be a people who not only fight for the baby in the womb and traditional marriage but citizens who are committed to transforming culture and lives, confronting issues that are basic to every human existence and society by showing acts of kindness and compassion, and being more committed to social issues and taking a stand for those who are demoralized, subjugated and disinherited.

    Unless I missed something, he or she isnt questioning the life of the unborn, but just how to filter all the issues and not be myopic.

  • Trent G.

    The reason I use Celucien’s name in my comment is because he says such things as “Must we continue to contend that pro-choice /pro-life and traditional marriage are more important than other social issues?” and “In a sense, all issues should be weighted on the same scale respectively and be given an equal hearing.”

    Would we use such rhetoric if, on the corners of our streets, we saw every naked baby crying and standing in a line waiting to be executed? I think not. However, somehow it’s different. For some reason, the arguments of “Well, we should also think about taxes, global warming, and health care.” in a society that has their citizens standing naked in front of gas chambers certainly ring hollow. But that’s just me.

  • Barry

    Here are a few numerical facts for those who insist on reiterating Darfur and the Iraq war, as if those things are worse than the abortion issue. I beg to differ, since sheer numbers don’t lie.

    The numbers below are telling, and for all of you wanting to sideline abortion as “important, but not REALLY that important” citing the atrocities in Darfur and (mistakingly) arguing that “Bush has done nothing for Africa,” please let the sheer numbers here sink in, and then compound that with the fact that these babies are the most helpless of humanity.

    I do not discount the gravity of what’s happening in Darfur for an instant. I hate it, in fact. What I do want to say is that when strong pro-lifers are berated here, we “one-issue voters” are supposedly undermined by the retort, “But what about Darfur? Africa? The innocent Iraqis?” Those are good questions, but I think that 1) The only one of those that is specifically a US political issue is Iraq. 2) No one in the US has caused the problem in Darfur, while we HAVE caused millions of abortions in the US. Again, I do not condone genocide in any part of the world, but the logic I see in many of the respondents seems to be along the lines that I should care about Darfur etc. MORE than US abortions. That’s backwards for two other reasons: As mentioned, 1) the US did not cause the Darfur conflict, though I truly want us to do something about it, and 2) many many many more lives are lost in US abortion clinics than in Darfur. If you expand that to the global abortion numbers, then the simple fact is that there is no issue in the world at this time that is responsible for the killing of more people than abortion.

    Revolutionary War – 4,435 deaths.
    Civil War (both sides) – 498,332 deaths
    World War I – 116,708 deaths
    World War II – 407,316 deaths
    Korea – 25,604 deaths
    Vietnam – 58,168 deaths
    Operation Desert Storm (Combat – 147)
    Operation Iraqi Freedom to the present day (3,500+)
    Iraqi Freedom Civilian Deaths (80,000+)
    Darfur (these numbers are debated regularly, but I keep seeing 200,000 and 400,000)

    US only abortion numbers since 1973: 48,000,000.

    Global abortions are 50,000,000 per year.

    Shouldn’t these numbers help the discussion? Not at all to downplay any loss of life, but all of the numbers of Iraq and Darfur simply pale in comparison to abortion. This is the greatest of all of the specific evils listed in the many comments on this blog.

    We in the US deserve the judgment of an Obama presidency. All possible 8 years, in fact.

    Truth is, I am not at all jazzed by McCain. But these numbers speak volumes to me–and I will cast my vote for anyone, regardless of party, who has a commitment to lowering the most staggering number that we in the US are indeed responsible for–the US abortion rate.

    Barry Joslin

    All of you ought to go read a little of the link Denny posted regarding infants dying on metal utility tables while gasping for breath in their final hours of life (

  • Trent G.

    I hate to beat a dead horse, but I want to make this as clear as I can. Let us imagine that a presidential candidate said that it was the right of every father to rape his two year old son (As a father I apologize for this gross analogy). We would all agree that this would be horrible and would rightfully be dismissed. However, for some unknown reason a presidential candidate who says that it is okay to kill a child is not rightfully dismissed, even by Christians. Why? Because there are more important issues? In my opinion, this makes no sense and the only reason I can surmise is that we just don’t understand how significant the issue is. Somewhere along the way, we as Christians decided that the baby in the womb isn’t worth as much as the baby outside the womb. Honestly ask yourselves, could you see any Christian arguing for a presidential candidate who believed it was okay to rape a child? And yet somehow we don’t blink an eye (and even defend them) when Christians argue for presidential candidates who think it’s okay to kill a child. Do we not see the inconsistency?

  • D. Taylor Benton

    I’m sorry for this but honestly, talking about children that are being put to death everyday like it is the same as debating about pork barrel projects, big oil greed, and global warming (see this article – ), is disheartening to say the least and
    down right disguisting and should honestly be repented of..

    the heart with which we address such an issue is brokenness and sorrow and honestly I could care less what the war is about in comparison to abortion. at least in the war there are two sides fighting, this abortion that is going on is a true life massacre.

    how dare any of us come to this topic with prideful ridiculous arguments about partisan politics! I am sorry but if you even give any ground when it comes to politics and the abortion issue I would really doubt one’s salvation. I know that sounds harsh but I think that if one cannot stand up for the un born “as the least of these” how can one even begin to understand the Gospel and the sacrifice in which paid for our salvation? This is irreconcilable, truly they are, I know some people make bad decisions in their lives and that has been paid for by the blood of Christ if they are saved, but the nominalize, coalesce, marginalize, or ignore the fact that the innocent and defenseless are dying everyday in the name of liberty is disgusting! take my liberty, take my freedom, in the name of even just one child!

    please, please don’t turn such a serious issue into a partisan, bureaucratic, Red versus Blue discussion.

  • Naum


    Deleted my post (as well as others) that was made in civil tone (no profanity).

    As a former card carrying conservative Republican who tilts more liberal with each passing year, I find the difference in liberal v. conservative blog comments and forums quite striking. While each share segments of bottom dwellers who seem eager only to fling feces at eachother and mock naysayers, the liberal side is much more open to debate. Posting in response to conservative blogger missives, I’ve encountered unexplainable and unjustifiable comment deletion.

    I’ve unsubscribed to this blog and I pledge to unsubscribe to any blog (liberal, conservative, libertarian, green, etc.…) that only permits comments from like minded individuals who agree with the writer.

    If you’re not going to respect your audience by discriminating against those you disagree with, then disable the comments feature.

    It is a sad state as I wish to stay abreast of both concurring and especially opposing viewpoints as it sharpens my own thinking on matters. But it seems conservatives just want to construct echo chambers.

    It appears that the real purpose here is to band together and enjoy tribal unity

  • Hoey

    I’d like to bring a few facts to the discussion so that people have a more complete view of what is actually under scrutiny in both Denny’s post and the Santorum article linked.

    First of all it is important to recognize that Obama was not a sitting senator when HR 2175 (the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002’) was put forward. This bill was passed. It was, as Mr. Santorum correctly points out, a bill that “simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive”. Language was included to specifically keep the bill’s reach from Roe v Wade. It’s scope was actually quite narrow. Barack Obama did not vote against this bill. He wasn’t in the Senate when it came to the floor.

    Mr. Santorum then says that a year later “identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate”. This is not true. The bills in question are readily available online in full and summary (I’m sorry, I don’t know how to include links in a post). They may deal with the same general issue, but the wording and structure are very different.

    Mr. Santorum’s quote of Mr. Obama suggests that he was referring to the babies that are covered in HR 2175. This is because Mr. Santorum incorrectly states that the Illinois Senate Bill (SB 1093) contained the same language as HR 2175. In fact Mr. Obama was arguing about the constitutionality of SB 1093 (which was not limited to late-term abortions), saying it would “define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution” and would be a large-scale restriction on all abortions. Here is the full quote:

    “Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

    Let me be clear, I am not here agreeing with his statement or position on SB 1093 or on his general abortion stance. But what is being discussed is a far more nuanced issue than has been portrayed by both Denny and Rick Santorum.

  • Thomas

    In his opinion piece of 2-27-08, “The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image, Mr. Santorum has taken an emotionally complicated issue and spun it so it represents his own personal agenda. The Illinois bill that he refers to, and that Barack Obama cast votes of “present” and “no” the second time around, included no protections for the health of the mother. (Funny how the protections for the health of the woman always discounted?) And as far as providing medical help for a live born fetus, laws addressing that were already on the books in Illinois. Why add more laws when all we have to do is enforce the ones we have.

    Here is the interview of Barack Obama when he was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004 by Jeff Berkowitz a Chicago discussion show host. Berkowitz covered the interview about abortion on his blog Public Affairs:

    Jeff Berkowitz: Switching over to abortion, you have said that you would vote in support of, if you were a [U. S.] Senator the federal law that came up that passed [the U. S. Senate] 98 to 0 and that was known as the Live Birth Infant Protection Act.

    Barack Obama: That is exactly right. Because there was a different bill than the one that was introduced by [then] Senator Patrick O’Malley here in Illinois and we actually offered amendments that would have provided assurance that Row. v. Wade [U. S. Supreme Court, 1973] was still respected even as we dealt with what I think actually were some very anecdotal evidence that there might have been some problems although there has never been any hard evidence that there were. Unfortunately, Mr. O’Malley wanted to make a broader point because he does not believe that a woman should exercise a right to choose in any circumstances.

    Berkowitz: But, if that happened in Illinois, if there were some abortions- so called abortions that went wrong- a live fetus was born. Would you seek to have legislation that protected those fetuses?

    Obama: I would if there wasn’t already legislation. Unfortunately [sic?], there is existing legislation-

    Berkowitz: On the state level?

    Obama: On the state level that says if there is a fetus that is determined viable and there has to be a second doctor who assists in determining that that fetus is viable- they are required by current Illinois Law to provide that fetus with assistance to make sure that they can live outside the womb. The law already exists. That’s not what Senator O’Malley’s law was about. What Senator O’Malley’s law was about was identifying all fetuses as human beings as a way of going after the right of women to choose to have an abortion pre- viability and that’s the reason that I, like a number of other senators, including Republican senators, voted either present or against it.

    Nobody thinks that abortions in any form are a good or desirable thing, but they are very emotional. We all should take a moment and look a little deeper when someone like Rick Santorum tries to use it as an issue to rabble rouse.

  • Zach Nielsen

    There is a news story making the rounds about a youtube video showing a military officer horribly mistreating a puppy and then throwing it off a cliff. You can read about it here if you want. The thought of it kind of makes you sick doesn’t it? Yeah, me too. Our nation is a nation of pet lovers. We have a TV channel (Animal Planet) that is dedicated to them. I love animals to. We have a dog and I’m sure I’ll be very sad when she dies. Her name is Molly and she is a spaz, but very sweet.

    Here is the kicker:

    Should we not be all the more outraged that this kind of abuse and murder happens to human babies thousands of times a day? Should not this puppy story awaken us to these atrocities and show us how backwards are values are? The problem is that we don’t see abortions on youtube. Most doctors don’t even want the mother to see the ultrasound. Reason? The eyes don’t lie. If abortion is not wrong, why not put it up on youtube? Maybe we should. Why not?

    But let me break it down for you like this… Ask yourself an honest question: Would you vote for a president that was in favor of legalized animal abuse? A president who said, “Who cares, they are just animals. Have your way with them!” Consider the outrage at Michael Vick for killing those pit bulls and the fury that is coming from this story. That candidate would never make it past the first primary.

    But this is worse yet. We have a presidential candidate that is most likely going to get elected that votes for infanticide. Not puppy abuse, infanticide. (At least he is the only one who is honest about the logical outworking of abortion… infanticide) Most of us would never vote for a candidate that is in favor off puppy abuse, but for some odd, backwards reason we are goo goo nuts over Obama who would allow a mother to kill her baby even after the abortion failed and the baby was still alive outside of the mother. If you are voting for Obama, please explain this to me.

    Think about this long and hard and don’t tell me that presidents can’t make any difference about abortion either way. Presidents = supreme court judges. How did we get abortion legalized in the first place? Supreme court judges, in 1973 with a little case called, Roe vs. Wade.

    Our selfishness and backwards values are on full display with this story my friends. Think long and hard about what this says about the values of our country which is reflected in those we elect.

  • Trent G.

    This is extremely comical. Brett sees himself as so impartial and undiluted by any “agenda” and blasts others for believing something just because they read it. All of the documentation Denny provides Brett quickly dismisses (not to mention fails to interact with any of it). However, one person comes along and writes something contrary to what Denny says and what does Brett do. Verify it? No. Interact with it? Of course not. Critique it as he does everything else? Nope. He immediately claims that it is “the truth”. Why? Because it fits his agenda. So transparent. So sad.

  • sb

    Ted, I am so glad you brought up the puppy story b/c I just heard about it. It’s awful what the soldier did, but the craziest part of the story that I just heard on the news is that he has been getting death threats. Hmmmmm…kill a man for mistreating a puppy, but congratulate others for supporting to kill innocent babies. Pretty nuts.

  • Brett

    It’s amazing how we will believe anything about a democrat when it is negative, but when another side of the story comes up we won’t acknowledge it. I knew there was probably untruth to Denny’s claims, that’s why I didn’t believe him.

    I guess I’m just not as “enlightened” or as “Christian” as you Trent. Your ideologies get proven wrong and you seek to slander those who disagree with you. So transparent, so comical, so sad, so amazing, so predictable, so right-wing.

  • Paul

    Here’s my question:

    How often do live births happen as the direct result of a late term abortion?

    While I have a hard time agreeing with Obama on this one, I can see where he’s coming from. This essentially ends up being a restriction on abortion, in the abstract. And if you’re vehemently pro-choice, you’re not likely to want to see any restrictions placed upon it.

    Not necessarily the best decision from the standpoint of the sanctity of life, and most certainly not a great political decision, but I understand it, even if I don’t at all agree.

  • Hoey

    “Obama who would allow a mother to kill her baby even after the abortion failed and the baby was still alive outside of the mother”

    Are we completely ignoring the clarification of Obama’s actual vote and position on this particular issue?

  • Hoey

    Never mind, I found the post.

    There is nothing in there that I haven’t contended with already.

    I’ve tried to the best of my ability (on this and another thread) to explain – with reference to that same public record – how his views are being misrepresented.

    You obviously disagree with my interpretation. Fair enough. I bow out graciously.

  • Bryan L


    Are there any sites or places on the internet that discuss this issue in more detail from the perspective that you are arguing?

    BTW are you sure it is SB 1093? What General Assembly was it? I can find SB 1082 in 2003, the 93rd General Assembly but not SB 1093.


  • Paul

    none of the right wingers wanted to address this the first time, so I’ll repost the question and statement in its entirety…

    Here’s my question:

    How often do live births happen as the direct result of a late term abortion?

    While I have a hard time agreeing with Obama on this one, I can see where he’s coming from. This essentially ends up being a restriction on abortion, in the abstract. And if you’re vehemently pro-choice, you’re not likely to want to see any restrictions placed upon it.

    Not necessarily the best decision from the standpoint of the sanctity of life, and most certainly not a great political decision, but I understand it, even if I don’t at all agree.

  • Hoey

    Hi Bryan.

    I’m not sure about other discussion sites. I had to dig a bit around the internet. I know the Washington Times did a piece along the same lines as the Rick Santorum article, and Media Matters critiqued it. There was a post on a blog (2politicaljunkies I think) that dealt with the issue in a very partisan manner. There is also the discussion between Jeff Berkowitz and Obama which can be found at I think. That one is from 2004.

    The summary and full text of SB 1093 can be found here…

    Hope that helps Bryan (by the way – I enjoy your blog! The BBQ post was particularly edifying!)

  • Trent G.

    I’m not quite sure what you’re wanting here? Do you want me to say that I “get” why Obama voted the way he did. Will that help in any way? Technically, I think I “get” why Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews and other “imperfects”. Recently there was a man in our state who murdered and raped a little girl and then cut her dead body to pieces. In court he explained, in a very cool manner, why he did it. It was as if it made sense to him. Is it going to help in some way if I say, “Yeah, I can see where he’s coming from.” Obama’s “reason” is he wants us to be able to murder the child earlier in the pregnancy. It doesn’t really help me or bring me any relief to “get” this.

    As to your question, I don’t really know statistics, and frankly I don’t care. Since I see no distinction between the life at 3 months pregnant and 3 months old after birth murder at any is stage is just as sick and grotesque to me. It doesn’t really matter to me if this happens often or not, it is still just as devastating. Does that seem clear (or even coherent :)?

  • Paul


    I was more looking for an answer to the question. And here’s why:

    much like the late term abortion ban, if this is a procedure that is performed one time out of 100,000 or 1,000,000 abortions, then it’s really just a political hit job more than it is a bill to protect the sanctity of life. And, frankly, people need to know when bills like this come up for the sake of cynical political bickering as opposed to the sake of really trying to save lives. Especially if Obama was correct to say that doctors already legally have an obligation to take care of an infant that survives the partial birth procedure.

    To tell the truth, I don’t know all of the particulars, and that’s why I am asking.

    Thanks for the response.

  • Bryan L

    Thanks Hoey for the info and the nice comment.

    After looking at it one question does come to mind and that is whether the bill Santorum is referring to is is SB1093 (from the 92nd General Assembly in 2002)as you were saying, or SB 1082 (from the 93nd General Assembly in 2003).

    To me it appears to be SB 1082 as it fits the description of being a year later as Santorum mentions in his article and the wording of the bill is similar to the Bor Alive Act of 2002. The major difference is Section C of the bill which differed. But then it appears there was an amendment proposed that fixed the difference (plus added a little more). The question is then whether Obama did kill the bill as some have stated.

    What do you think?



  • Hoey


    Yes, I think that question is very important. And it has crossed my mind too. In short, I don’t know what to think.

    It would seem that if he was so enamoured by the language in HR 2175 he would surely be in support of a bill that contained the same wording. If he opposed that amended bill (SB 1082) I’d want to know why.

    It’s been reported that he didn’t allow SB 1082 to be called for a vote while he was chairing the Health & Human Services Committee. He actually did push the bill forward for a committee vote, but that’s where it was killed – defeated 6-4 along party lines. Now I’m curious as to why the federal bill 2 years earlier was unopposed yet this one was defeated along party lines. I’m not sure. I don’t have enough information to make up my mind fully. But it would appear to me that there was something about SB 1082 to set it apart from HR 2175. Otherwise I don’t see why it wouldn’t have passed without opposition as the whole Democratic party were behind the federal bill.

    I’m sorry if I’m a little incoherent on this one. It’s late over where I am!

  • Trent G.

    I get what your saying. We have to choose our battles. From what I understand the people who were really pushing this bill to be passed were nurses who had witnessed failed abortion attempts in the late stages of pregnancy and the horrific outcomes. These nurses were devastated by what they saw and wanted a law in place that prevented it from happening again. So, from what I can tell, it’s not just an exercise in “cynical political bickering”. I think those who had experienced the absolute horror of a failed abortion wanted to make sure it never happened again, despite how few times it may actually happen in the grand scheme of things. At least, this is the way I understand it.

  • Bryan L

    Thanks Hoey. I was just wondering. Ultimately it seems like this may be just like what Paul mentioned: a political hit job (although it may not be). Something that people could look back later on without taking into consideration everything that took place or that was said and paint the politicians in black and white terms. Politics are a lot more nuanced than people think and there is generally a lot more going on on both sides.

    BTW I found Jeremy Pierces analysis of this issue on JT’s blog really interesting as well as his thoughts on his own blog and the interaction in the comments of his blog.

    Bryan L

  • Hoey


    Thank you for the link to Jeremy Pierce’s blog. It’s engrossing! The discussion there is very helpful. I’m enjoying the in depth analysis of the legal arguments.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.