Carlo: Where the hell are you?
Palmer: I'm in LA now.
Carlo: What are you doin' out there?
Palmer: I'm going into the movie business - producing.
Carlo: What do you know about makin' movies?
Palmer: Producers don't have to know much.
Well, after reading this piece on crossover voters, I'm thinking of a new profession, too: Political Science Teacher. They obviously don't have to know much either. Tell me this Tony Campbell guy is ready for prime time:
Campbell, who claims to be pro-life, said he is not bothered by Obama's stance on the issue, because he doesn't think either candidate will change the status of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme decision that legalized the procedure nationwide.
"If abortion is such an issue with Republicans, why haven't Republican presidents over the past 30 years done something about it?" Campbell said. "Is it fair to ask a Democrat to do what the Republicans haven't done?"
So the appointments of Alito and Roberts don't count as doing anything about it. Or Thomas -- he did say 30 years. Oh, yeah... there was also the Bork-ing of Bork. But that had nothing to do with abortion How about Bush signing the Partial Birth Abortion ban? Clinton vetoed it twice. No difference?
Wow, you sure can learn a lot from teachers. Actually I heard that Laura Ingraham was going to have this guy on this morning, but I didn't catch the interview, so I don't know how many pieces she cut him into. But I googled his name to find these remarks. I'm sure he sounds convincing to those ignorant of recent political history.
I can see the point that many in the pro-life movement are always making that they wish that Reagan, Bush and Bush had done more for the cause, but to dismiss any contributions since 1978 should get anyone paying attention to scratch their heads, not to mention many hard-core NARAL types who continually make abortion an issue every four years. Honestly, the guy doesn't sound like any sane Republican I know, even a pro-choice one.
The other guy the article mentions, Peter Wehner from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was making more sense.
"(Obama) is completely an orthodox liberal," Wehner said, adding that most of Obama's speeches don't reveal much about his ideology. "I don't think it's well known where he stands."
and
Wehner predicts that by the time the 2008 election rolls around, it will be business as usual.
"I think the uplifting, airy appeal of Obama is going to dissipate, and it's going to become a more traditional campaign," he said.
I heard the interview on Laura, and I wanted to go through the radio and smack the guy upside the head, and it sounded like Laura wanted to as well. He evaded all the questions she posed to him, and generally spoke like every other Obama supporter: praisiing him for the most bland, generic reasons. Laughably, he claimed that we need to vote for Obama in order to get beyond partisanship. My eyes roll whenever I hear this trope, but it's more laughable considering that Obama is vastly more to the left than John McCain is to the right. Explain to me how in a pairing of McCain and Obama, Obama is the guy we're believing will lead us to bi-partisanship?
ReplyDeleteAnd as a near-Ph.D in Politics, let me just say: you're opening quip is right on the money. What a profession. No wonder I have little desire to teach after I get my degree.
Paul, thanks for commenting on this. I used to be a 365 subscriber to Ingraham, but I didn't have time to keep caught up on all my shows and live a healthy productive life.
ReplyDeleteLaughably, he claimed that we need to vote for Obama in order to get beyond partisanship.
This is such a great example of the general issue nonsense of Obamania. It's "magical politics". At best, it ignores the accepted staggeringly large issues to focus on tiny ephemera only deemed interesting by some myopics, e.g., that Obama is mixed race or that he knows how to motivate his throngs of supporters.
Paul, if you do decide to teach I'm behind you 100%. Be the next WFB at whatever you do, baby.