Would his dropping out have made a difference ....who knows but it does tend to highlight a difference between Republicans and democrats. When a Republican dons a pair of golf shoes and steps on his crank in the full light of day, in front of God and the world they tend to fall on their swords. For better or worse that did not happen in this case and come what may we will have to live with the outcome. Democrats in similar circumstances will circle their wagons hunker down and hope to hold out against the onslaught ( think ted ( the swimmer ) kennedy and billy jeff clinton ) With Republican screw ups it is often we who lead the onslaught on our own while democrats start yelling HEY LOOK A SQUIRREL !!!!
Well the debate has come around to abortion and Paul Ryan and his so called extreme stance on abortion. Ryan believes in life in all circumstances and in a recent interview pointed out he is the V.P. pick and his positions are meaningless but even supposing Ryan was the top of the ticket are they any more extreme than the democrat position which is kill them all and let God sort them out and with a special focus on minority babies. Obama voted against born alive bills while in the Illinois Senate while in committee or present on the Senate floor. In other words he didn't have the stones to take a stand likely fearing it would affect future political opportunities. So I ask who's position is more extreme, Ryan's who believes in life or obama's who would allow a child born alive after a botched abortion to die. As I said the democrat position is kill them all and let God sort them out.
As a bonus however we are beginning to get an idea of the democrat platform for this election cycle 1 - abortion 2 - Romney's tax returns 3 - Romney's dog 4 - Romney's money 5 - Todd Akin 6 - skinny dipping ... I guess for the average democrat who has a difficult time with shinny things these are the defining issues of our times but I am left with the nagging feeling they might be missing a thing or 2 that need attention
SummaryAnti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he�s conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they�re "lying."
At issue is Obama�s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.
Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman�s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee�s 2003 mark-up session.