I am Kyle's self-indulgence

i was almost convinced. but i was ignorant of how abortions were performed, and though i thought the practice was wrong, i pictured babies being peacefully put to sleep, like sick pets, and thought, well, at least i know that soul is saved. i didn't know they were torn apart, with suction, curettage, or forceps, alive and literally kicking. i didn't know that they definitely feel pain by 20 weeks and can be seen scrambling to escape from abortion instruments at 12. i didn't know that a partial birth abortion meant they deliver everything but the head of a live baby (because since the head isn't delivered, it's still 'just a fetus') then jam scissors into it's head and suck out it's brain to kill it. i didn't know that 'live birth abortions' can happen, where the baby is actually delivered alive, but since it was supposed to be aborted, it is simply allowed to die, even if it is close enough to term to possibly survive. and i didn't know that obama has been against efforts to pass laws to protect these live born babies from suffering the fate of, 'well, you were supposed to die, so we'll just let you.' so now i am convinced, but it 's that i couldn't live with myself for voting for someone who's principles on this issue i can't even begin to comprehend.

Obama is pro-choice, but conservative groups' claims about his record are exaggerated: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html Beyond that, I would ask how long we should continue to give Republicans free reign of the government without seeing any real change on the abortion issue. In 2000 Bush was elected largely on the strength of his pro-life positions. Eight years later he has embroiled us in an endless foreign occupation that has compromised our military strength, he has allowed financial institutions freedom to engage in risky and self-destructive behaviors that have crippled our economy, and he has pursued tax policies that have caused the gap between rich and poor to consistently grow throughout his presidency. Meanwhile, there has been no substantive change to the legality of abortion and there is even evidence that abortions have increased over the last eight years. If John McCain is elected he will continue the policies of the Bush administration (by his own stated plans). In that event, I predict that eight years from now we will still have a military presence in Iraq, the gap between rich and poor will be even greater, Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, and abortion rates will be at least as high as they are now. So vote on a single issue if you must, but ask yourself if there's any real benefit from it. One last thing: Obama has at least said that he wants to initiate programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the incidence of abortion in America.

i don't disagree much of what you say - i basically view myself as a pro-life democrat - but i don't think it will be politicians who initiate change on the abortion issue, so i don't expect them to. i think it will have to literally be a nation-wide change of heart on the issue. but nonetheless, now that i know exactly how abortions are performed, i think there has to be something fundamentally fractured in a human being to be able to support and protect the practice of abortion. and on however many other points i think obama is good for the country, that alone makes me question everything else about him. personally, i think the country (and the world as well) is going to hell in a handbasket anyway. but i am going to choose the handbasket i feel more comfortable in when i feel the eyes of Christ upon me. it may be a single issue, but it is far from insignificant.

So Jesse if you see the affects of the war in Iraq and the possibility of war in Iran (which McCain is in support of) on both troops and civilians first hand, will that change your mind? It's silly to argue which is more horrible. If you truly value life you would consider that. I firmly believe the way to reduce abortions is through education and assistance to impoverished mothers, which is the root cause. The reality of it is that abortion will never be made illegal. Even if it is, there is no proof it will do anything. The number of abortions have gone down since Roe V. Wade was passed. That number is in danger of rising again because of abstinence only sex education policies of the republican administrations as well as cutting programs for teenage and impoverished mothers, which McCain and Palin will continue. If you really want to prevent abortion, go to the source, the causes. This is what Obama wants to do.

But Christians like you will continue to think you are doing the right thing for voting for the republican. Meanwhile people are dying around the world because of that parties' policies. I guess I am similar to your way of thinking in that I think anyone that supports war and oppression like McCain does is fundamentally fractured.

Ok, I don't have 38 minutes right now to watch, but I look forward to doing so.

Since the baby butchering issue has been brought up, I have been thinking about the idea of generational sin and cultural sin. The only conclusion I can come up with is that ours is a culture which could be harshly judged--abortion, this war, etc.

I really DO have a problem with Obama's liberal approach to the abortion issue, but I also question the value of having a "pro-life" president. One could ask which is the greater evil--being pro-choice or being pro-life and changing nothing?

On the economy and regulation, Andrew pointed out that when he was at Citigroup, his promotion to junior underwriter after only a couple of years with the company was evidence of the NEED for regulation. He had the authority to clear loans for up to 1.5 million dollars, and he only had that authority b/c the company was too cheap to pay people who were more qualified contract underwriters. And well, we've seen where Citi is now.

Great video. I don't like abortion, either, but I agree with Kyle and Brendan. It's one issue. Why don't we work toward a goal we can all agree on: reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies? Education and contraceptives are the way to do this. Anyone who fights those two things (cough * Sarah Palin * cough) is causing the number of abortions to go up. At any rate, a President has a much greater effect on our war policies than on abortion policies.

I didn't realize you are still opposed to abortion, Danny. I'd be curious to know what you think of it after your switch to atheism, and not in the atheists-have-no-morals way (I know you do). It's just that the only arguments against abortion I've ever heard are religious ones.

So if you believe humans are purely biological creatures without eternal souls, where exactly do you stand on abortion? Is a fetus a human? Should a woman be able to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses?

(Feel free to answer in an e-mail or your own blog post if you prefer)

I'll email you.

I agree with Kyle that the economy is a HUGE factor in the election. I also agree that much of the economy is due to improper regulation, especially of the banks that were making very risky loans (most importantly fannie mae and freddie mac). I just think that it is VERY important to realize that democratic party had just as much (if not more) of an impact in preventing this regulation from happening. These bad loans started in the clinton administration. The current administration (as much as I don't like it) provided frequent warnings and encouraged legislation to regulate both Fannie and Freddie. This legislation was blocked from even reaching the legislative floor. The most recent reform bill (s.190) was introduced to the banking senate subcommittee in 2005 was cosponsored by none other than John McCain himself (link provided: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-190). Add to this that Obama's top two financial advisors are Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines who were both knee deep in Fannie/Freddie and made millions off of the shady loans before they were practically charged with fraud. Finally Obama is one of the politicians who accepted the most contributions from these companies. I'd recommend you evaluate these facts for yourself and post another blog if you think the economy is only the republican's fault. Just for fun here is what McCain said in 2005:

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs—and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

I forgot to mention, I agree with you, it was a really good speech.

That's interesting, Sebastian. I hadn't seen that quote from McCain yet.

I'd still say his record on regulation is spotty at best. Despite some actions like the one you cite, he has also frequently spoken on the record as being opposed to regulation of banking and insurance institutions.

There was once a time when McCain would take principled positions against his party's overall ideology. A few years ago I may have even considered voting for him.

But in the last few years John McCain has come into lock-step with the Bush administration's economic and foreign policies. It may just be that he is saying what he has to say to get elected, but I'm not so sure.

So if he wins the election, who will we get as president: the John McCain who tried to reform Fannie Mae in 2005 or the John McCain who said "I am fundamentally a deregulator" in 2008? I really don't know.

Raines:

I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton:

This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth. Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything — ever...

"Top two advisers"?

I'll have to find my source on the Raines issue again . I think it was national media and somewhat reputable(washington post I think) but that doesn't mean that it is accurate. I'll research that more and get back to you.
br/
I do not agree about the lockstep perspective or the '4 more years' that Obama is trying to pin on McCain. I do agree that since the election he has become less moderate to regain the conservative base of the republican party, but the fact that they were so disillusioned (sp?) with him was because McCain has historically not walked in step with the party line and disagreed with them on several large issues-reform, campaign finance reform (I know, I brought up that topic, let the beatings begin), and immigration to name a few.
br/
I will admit that he agreed to go into Iraq (along with Hillary and the majority of the US legislature at the time). I have also seen that throughout the conflict he has focused on the troops and has supported the troops (although why he did not want to increase the GI bill still is a mystery to me). He also thought that the surge was going to be effective and supported that as well. I think that for the most part the surge worked (a fact the media did not like very much and tried to minimize). Whether we have improved to the point where we are able to 'visualize victory' like he is saying we can, well I am not convinced. I've heard that we were 'done' with combat operations in Iraq before. I do think that we will be able to start to switch the focus back to Afghanistan now that Iraq is more stable. I do not think he supported these positions to support Bush's policies, but because he thought it was the best thing to do at the time. To be honest, I think that he was one of the few politicians who were willing to stand up and support the surge and I think that takes a lot of character and moral fiber.

I don't think you're going to find a real source that says Raines was one of Obama's "top two advisers." I searched for the phrase and found nothing except rumors from blog commenters.

This cites anonymous sources, but it is a real newspaper: McCain's campaign manager's lobbying firm was working for Freddie Mac up until the takeover. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html?bl&ex=1222315200&en=47c6f0e27b93a6ef&ei=5087%0A

I don't think there was ever any doubt that we could send more troops to Iraq and create tighter security. Some said we should have sent in 500,000 from the beginning. The question that I have had about the escalation (sorry, I don't like using the focus-group marketing bullshit term for it) is can it make a difference in the long-term political situation? Can it move toward Iraqi-controlled security, reconciliation, peace and a stable democracy? Can it lead to our troops coming home sooner? That still remains to be seen. If a foreign power was occupying my country, I don't think tighter martial law would make me more likely to reconcile and support my government.

The Chenzecki thing (the general of the army who recommended 300-400k of troops in the beginning of the war and was forced to resign) really pissed me off. As far as stability for Iraq in the future I think its anyone's guess but I think they have a better chance now than a year ago.
In a way it is a little like this mortgage mess. Could the bailout work? Maybe... maybe not. If it works in the short run will it make a difference in the long run. If it we don't do it what will happen to our economy? Its a crappy situation with no real good answers to be found. Personally, I think 700 billion dollars is a load of money-too much money to be spent without oversight.

You're right, the mortgage crisis and the war are similar in that we're in a bad spot and have to find the best way to fix it. They're also similar in that we should work to understand why it happened and do what we can to prevent it from happening again. More executive power and less congressional oversight is not the solution in either case.

This is a follow-up to the question of Fannie Mae executives advising Obama. FactCheck.org has an answer:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_three_former_fannie_mae_executives_economic.html

"Claims made in a chain e-mail are false. Jim Johnson advised on non-economic matters but quit after a week. Franklin Raines says he took a 'couple of calls' but was never an adviser. We find no evidence Tim Howard ever had a connection to the Obama campaign."