Romney, Rape and the Republicans

Hi all, sorry for my long absence. I have been busily posting political thoughts over on Facebook and getting into lots of conversations but have not gotten around to posting here for much too long.

But now that the race is near the end and there is a very real possibility that Romney might manage to win the presidency with his sudden turnaround to Mr. Moderate, I felt I needed to write more about what a Romney presidency would mean.

It seems Romney's plan all along was to veer hard right for the primaries and then, as one of his advisers memorably said, use the "Etch-a-Sketch" and get rid of all that in time for the fall campaign when moderates and independents become important in the race. At the time, the comment was seen as a gaffe, but it turns out that is exactly what he had in mind all along. And the Democrats didn't see it coming. No doubt that is one reason President Obama seemed so flummoxed in that first debate; he came prepared with all kinds of anti-far-right rhetoric and there was Romney, blithely making statements supporting moderate positions on subjects he had previously been "severely conservative."

Or at least, he made it seem that way. His dissembling was particularly noticeable in his claims about his stance on health care. Contraception? Oh, he's for it. All women should have access to contraception. But he, and unfortunately, President Obama, did not point out that the whole difference was the President's plan requires women's insurance to cover contraception and Romney's plan would not.

Pre-existing conditions? Oh, yes, a Romney plan would cover those. But of course he didn't say that his plan was simply a return to the current situation we already have - people who have already had insurance can continue being covered despite pre-existing conditions. It doesn't help anyone who hasn't been insured already, although the individual states could choose to cover them - again, no change from current policy. The pre-existing conditions lie was such a whopper his spokespeople had to explain it after the debate - when all the undecided voters had stopped paying attention.

So who is the real Mitt Romney? Apparently there isn't one. Mitt Romney is whoever he needs to be to get elected. The real question is, who are his masters? Who is he beholden to? It seems pretty obvious - The far right. Grover Norquist. The Tea Party. Right-wing evangelic Christians.

Heck, Grover Norquist himself said it doesn't really matter who is president as long as he signs the legislation that comes to his desk. And, if he wins, that person would be Romney.

"All we have to do is replace Obama. We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget... We just need a president to sign this stuff."

So whatever Mitt's real beliefs, if he has them, he will be kowtowing to the far right end of his party. He chose Paul Ryan as a running mate to do just that. Ryan's positions are what are "severely conservative." Ryan's proposed budget would change the tax structure, lowering the top bracket to 25% from 35%, as well as making Medicare into a voucher program and making Medicaid into a block grant program administered solely by the states.

Romney has distanced himself from the Ryan budget, coming out with his own budget. However, his budget includes a large increase in military spending, as well as lower taxes, which he said could be covered by getting rid of unidentified loopholes. According to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, in order for Romney's budget to work, it would require cuts in many programs that help the elderly, veterans, disabled people and poor children.

"For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs.  But if policy­makers repealed health reform (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) and exempted Social Security from cuts, as Romney has suggested, and cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other entitlement and discretionary programs by the same percentage to meet Romney’s overall spending cap and defense spending target, then they would have to cut non-defense programs other than Social Security by 22 percent in 2016 and 34 percent in 2022...  If they exempted Medicare from cuts for this period, the cuts in other programs would have to be even more dramatic — 32 percent in 2016 and 53 percent in 2022."

Then there is the "war on women." For some reason this year the Republicans have been very focused on rape. Legitimate rape, forcible rape, other kinds of rape. Many of these discussions about rape pertain to the issue of abortion and pregnancy that occurs as a result of rape. And in Pennsylvania, there is proposed legislation requiring mothers on welfare to prove they were raped before they would be allowed to collect additional funds to support a new baby.

So, why are Republicans so fixated on rape? Because in their eyes, if a woman is raped, it wasn't her fault she got pregnant. She didn't have sex in order to enjoy it, heaven forbid. It was forced on her - and it better have been done forcibly, because after all, "some girls rape easy."  If she just had sex voluntarily, out of desire, then she should reap what she sows, even if she was being responsible and using birth control that failed. She made her bed, let her lie in it. And of course the man had nothing to do with it, did he? No blame falls on him. It's all about controlling women.

Republican Richard Mourdock, who was recently criticized for his comments saying that pregnancy as a result of rape is something God intended, is just one of several Republicans, including Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan, who don't believe in abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. But you know what? I don't really have a problem with that. If their belief is that life begins at conception, then an exception for rape or incest makes no sense at all. Either it's a life or it isn't. And if that's what you believe, fine - just don't impose that belief on everyone else.

Again, even the rape/incest exception is an example of the blame game against women - if the woman didn't mean to have sex, then it's OK to kill the fetus. Otherwise the woman should be forced to have that baby because again, she should reap what she sows.

Unfortunately, the idea of making the exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, is now being construed as a "moderate" position in the Republican party. As Gail Collins points out in today's New York Times,

" One of the truly disturbing parts of our current politics is that we have begun to identify people who want to impose their religious beliefs on millions of women who don’t share them as moderates as long as they’re O.K. with the rape exemption."

The real shame of the whole "pro-life" stance in the Republican party is that they only care about that baby before it's born - afterwards, that baby and its mom are on their own. Don't expect handouts from the government to support that kid! Oh, and if he turns out to be a criminal, they have no problem with the death penalty. This has never made any sense to me either.

If anyone thinks Romney doesn't endorse these antediluvian positions on women's right to choose, remember he said he would support amendments to the constitution proclaiming life begins at conception and that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also pledges to take away federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which provides needed health care to many low income women.

And if he has the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices - which is extremely likely - he will appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and who would be favorable to a constitutional amendment supporting marriage as being only between a man and a woman. According to his own website, "As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito."

Then there's the whole issue of racism in the Republican camp. Every time I try to believe that racism isn't at the core of many Republicans' antipathy toward President Obama, another reminder smacks me in the face that yes, obviously, that is part of it. The coded and not-so-coded words (Sarah Palin, "shuck and jive"??? Really???) - Obama being hanged in effigy - and now, most recently, John Sununu, co-chair of Romney's campaign, accusing former Secretary of State Colin Powell of endorsing President Obama due to racism. Of course, he later backed off of his comments - but that is the Republican way: put it out there, send your signal, then say, "Oh, I didn't mean it like that."

Don't even get me started on climate change and the environment. Suffice it to say that Romney says he loves coal and would love to drill for oil and gas on public lands and in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and wants to gut environmental regulations.

So what is the upshot of all this? A Mitt Romney presidency would be bad for:

Women
The poor
Children
The middle class
The elderly
LGBT people
The environment

The only people it would be good for is the richest 1% of the population, and the military-industrial complex.

We are better than this. We must ensure that President Obama gets another four years to enact his policies.

Now we have the "storm of the century" bearing down on the eastern coast of the U.S. Let's hope it does not disrupt these elections. Voter turnout for President Obama's supporters is key. Let's make sure everyone gets to the polls and votes! This election could not be more important!

A Cat's Eye View - of Ron Paul

Baxter here. Sorry to have been Silent for so Long but I am at the Mercy of the Humans in terms of when I can Blog or not. Luckily my Female Human has taken it into her Head to get back to the Business of Blogging again and is giving me the Access I deserve to expound on My Opinions here. It's not that I can't Type, but I am not Very Good at the management of Software and I don't know HTML so my Human has to help a little when I want to do things like make things bold or whatever. And I have Strong Opinions so I need some bold now and then!

OK, so where was I? Oh yes, Ron Paul. The so-called Libertarian among the GOP field. As a Cat, I am sure you would understand that I like the idea of being a Libertarian. There is no one more Libertarian than Cats. Dogs are certainly NOT Libertarians. They do whatever their Masters want, or at least they try to. Sometimes their Brains are Too Relaxed to understand what is Wanted. But if they figure it out, they'll do it. Well, maybe except That Dog they call Diva. She tends to do what SHE wants. But the New One, Angel, she tries to Please; except for one thing - she still wants to chase Me and Bark. But I digress.

Many Humans who usually think Progressively tend to kind of like the idea of Ron Paul. Not Ron Paul himself, mind you, but their IDEA of Ron Paul. They think of him as Someone who would get Government out of their Hair and Leave them Alone. They also know that, unlike front-runner Romney, he thinks legalization of Marijuana should be left to the states and there should not be a federal law against it, which they think is kind of Cool - and that he was against the War in Iraq, also a Good Thing in many People's Eyes. But they may not have read the Details of his other ideas on the issues. If they did, they would be Much More Concerned about Mr. Paul. For instance:

He is "Pro-Life," saying he believes Life begins at Conception and Roe vs. Wade should be reversed. In addition, he opposes any Government Funding for Things People Don't Believe in - which in this case means:

"Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program."

Now, as a Neutered Cat, issues of Contraception have No Interest to Me. But I'm sure there are Many Progressive Female Humans who would find these Ideas Alarming. I also wonder, if Conservatives think the "American People" should not have to have their Taxes go toward Things they Don't Believe In, why does that only apply to Things Conservatives Don't Believe In? Shouldn't Liberals and Progressives have the Right to refuse having their Taxes go toward Things They Don't Believe In either? Like, for instance, My Humans would Choose not to have their Taxes go toward Wars and Military Spending. Why should the Consciences of Conservatives be the Federal Government's only Concern?

Ron Paul has More Ideas. Lots of them. For instance, he wants to Abolish the Income Tax, the "Death" Tax, the Capital Gains Tax, and the Federal Gas Tax. Oh, but he also wants to Balance the Budget. I Wonder how he would Do That? Sounds Confusing to Me; but of course, I am Only a Cat.

As for Energy, Paul is of the Drill, Baby, Drill! mindset. More Oil! More Gas! Nuclear Power! Coal! Oh, and Abolish the EPA - that's just a Lot of Troublemakers Ruining the Economy and keeping our Energy Prices up!
"As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington."

I particularly Love the idea that Property Owners would have to Go to Court to get Polluters to pay for the Damages they create. How would that work, exactly? My Humans would have to sue the owner of the local Gas Station or the nearby Industrial Brownfield for the contamination of the Groundwater? And wouldn't that Clog up the Courts indefinitely? Or better yet, for Mr. Paul, I guess he figures People would get Tired of having to Sue to get anything or wouldn't be able to Afford the Lawyer Fees and Big Polluters would just Get Away With It.

Home-Schooling? He's all for it.

"Ron Paul believes no nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family does.

And the truth is, no big government spending program can or will solve our nation’s education problems."

Personally, I would rather the Human Children be Taught by Professionals and not a bunch of Evolution-Denying, Anti-Intellectual Parents who will Brainwash the Kids to grow up thinking Just Like Them. And the More People who Homeschool, the fewer People will be paying for Public Education (Mr. Paul, of course, wants these Parents to get a Tax Credit for Homeschooling their Kids) and Public Education will Continue to Go Downhill.

What about Guns and the Second Amendment, you may ask. Well, of course, Ron Paul is all Pro-Second Amendment and Pro-Gun!

"With our gun rights under constant attack from our own government and the anti-gun United Nations, as well as the threat of rising crime due to our country’s economic woes, Congressman Paul believes it has never been more important that our President be 100% committed to defending our God-given right to keep and bear arms."

(Of course we All Know how much God likes us to have Guns; that's why it is our God-Given Right to have them!)

True, some Progressives and Liberals will like some of his Ideas on the Military. After all, who Among Us would argue that there is a lot of Waste in the Military Budget, and that we probably don't need to give Money to "Rich Dictators." And it probably IS a Good Idea to follow the Constitution and have Congress Declare War before actually going to War.

But to Me, as a Liberal Cat, his other Ideas are Just Too Dangerous. I hope my Fellow Liberals and Progressives will read Mr. Paul's positions Very Carefully.

So that's It from Me today. I hope you Enjoy Your Weekend and Have Enough Catnip to Get Through this Election Season. It's only going to Get Worse before it Gets Better!

"Santorum? Really?!"

Well, the much-touted Iowa caucuses are over, thankfully, but the Republicans still haven't managed to admit they have to choose Romney. Sure, Romney won Iowa by a whopping 8 votes, but the fact that Rick Santorum nearly tied him should give all sane people pause. When I first heard that Santorum was even running, I couldn't take it seriously. The man was voted out of office in Pennsylvania by 18 percentage points in 2006 for a lot of good reasons (see link for a number of lapses in integrity and episodes of crass hypocrisy) and his history of homophobia was (and still is) so rabid that his opponents, led by Dan Savage, actually made his name a definition for an unsavory type of substance, which shows up pretty close to the top of any Google search you do on his name. (No, I won't link it here, but feel free to Google if you are one of the few who has not already heard about it).

So I may be forgiven if I thought we'd seen the last of him. But strangely, he's baaaack! Santorum is running for President and has managed to promote himself as the sole keeper of family values competing for the Republican nomination, thus siphoning off all of the hardcore right-wing evangelical Republicans in Iowa and managing to nearly topple Romney. You almost have to feel sorry for Romney; he's doing everything right and yet the GOP voters still don't want him.
Just in case anyone has forgotten what a nutjob Santorum really is, let's revisit a few of his positions. This link will take you to a site that lists a number of quotes by Santorum on various subjects. A few choice examples:

• “The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don’t have enough workers to support the retirees. A third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion.” - Rick Santorum on how abortion is responsible for Social Security’s problems, 3/29/11

• “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people’.” - Rick Santorum on President Obama’s race and pro-choice beliefs, 1/19/2011 

• “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?" - Rick Santorum comparing his love for his mother-in-law to the love that same-sex couples share, 5/22/2008

In case you wonder whether he really believes some of the things he says, you can see his beliefs on his own website, where he states he will do the following things, among others:

• "Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion 
• Reinstitute the Mexico City Policy to stop tax-payer funding or promotion of abortion overseas
• Ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research 
• Restore conscience clause protections for health care workers 
• Defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court 
• Ban military chaplains from performing same sex marriage ceremonies on military bases or other Federal properties
• Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans... 
• Veto any bill or budget that funds abortion or funds any organization that performs abortions including Planned Parenthood 
• Call on Congress to abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 
• Advocate for a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution... 
• Advocate for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution 
• Call on Congress to reinstitute Don't Ask/Don't Tell 
• Call on Congress to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act 
• Call on Congress to reinstitute 2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education program 
• Advocate for a federal law permitting schools to allow prayer at graduations, football games and other school functions." 

Anyone who cares about a woman's right to choose - including the choice of using birth control - should be very afraid if Santorum ever got elected. And forget separation of church and state - such as it is - this guy would love to see a theocracy.

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart used a great analogy to point out that in the end, the Republicans just have to pick Romney. I'm just hoping he's right, for the sake of the country. While I do feel that Romney may have the best chance of beating Obama, which is not good from my perspective, on the other hand, the voters in this country are just crazy enough that they might actually elect a Santorum or some other equally unsuitable person as president, and that would be so much worse than having a President Romney that I can't even think about it.  Of course, there are a lot of reasons Romney should not be the next president.  We can get into that next time!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Romspringa - Rick Santorum's Surge
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Opinions on a Lot of Stuff

You may think that because I haven't posted anything here this week that I have no opinions on the various things that have been happening. Oh no, that isn't true. It's just that whenever an opinion struck me about some topic, it was not the right time to be blogging. And by the time I had time to blog, the will to blog had become weak.

So I thought I'd spend today catching up with the various things that I've wanted to post about all week.

Let's go backwards in time starting with the most recent news first.

In regard to the decision to try the 9/11 masterminds in civil court in Manhattan:

I'm totally in favor of this decision. It shows that the our country will stand up for its principles of justice and try these men fairly in a court of law. Of course, not everyone is in favor of this decision. According to the NY Times, opponents included members of Congress, some 9/11 victim's families, and neighbors near the courthouse.

"They argued that Qaeda suspects did not deserve the protections afforded by the American criminal justice system, that bringing them into the United States would heighten the risk of another terrorist attack, that civilian trials increase the risk of disclosing classified information, and that if the detainees were acquitted they could be released into the population."

TomCat over at Politics Plus has a good post about this. As he says,

"While it is true that these terrorists do not deserve the protections afforded by the US criminal justice system, look at the statement that giving them these protections anyway makes about the US before the world. Dispensing justice in full transparency can go a long way toward undoing some of the damage that eight years of torture and abuse of prisoners under Bush and the GOP did to our world prestige."

He also points out how the GOP, represented by Boehner, is once again showing no support for the American principles of justice. Sure, these people aren't citizens. But their crimes were committed on our soil and they should face our type of justice.

And if anyone is worried they may just get off and be released into the United States? Think about it - if you let them go in downtown Manhattan, how far do you really think they'd get? No worries there. (Yes, I know that is not a nice way to think about it. But I can't help it).

Onward to the health care debate.

I am glad the health care bill passed in the House. I know there are many progressives who feel as if this is a Pyrrhic victory, given Nancy Pelosi was forced to allow the Stupak Amendment that will effectively eliminate the possibility of coverage for abortion for a large number of women.

I understand and agree with the disappointment and outrage on the part of progressives and women. But I am practical, and believe that "the best is the enemy of the good." Sometimes it's better to get part of what you want even if it's not perfect. Opposing the bill and refusing to pass it is probably not the right answer.

First of all, this is not the final bill. The Senate needs to pass their version, and then the two versions have to be made into one. A lot can happen during that process.

Secondly, even if the final version includes these abortion restrictions, providing all Americans with health care will still do more for the greater good than if the abortion amendment were left out, but the legislation didn't pass. Having health care coverage will save money for poor or currently uninsured families if someone in the family became ill and incurred large medical bills. Ongoing well care will also ultimately help them stay in better health overall.

Third, whatever passes is not set in stone. When Medicare originally passed, it wasn't the same program as we have today. Later legislation can amend the terms if we have the will to force this to happen.

That said, I have grave concerns about the way the right wing and religious groups are slowly but surely chipping away at a woman's right to choose. Please, go over to Utah Savage's place and read what she has to say on the subject. She has forcefully reminded me of what it was like in those dark days before Roe v. Wade and also made an impassioned plea to the current generation to take up the cause and not take women's rights for granted. Please, read her most recent three posts (starting with the one entitled "My Abortion in 1968"), as she tells it better than I ever could.

The last issue I'd like to talk about today is the defeat of gay marriage in Maine on Election Day. Naturally, I was very disappointed that the voters of Maine voted for this miscarriage of justice. To me, it is ridiculous that basic human rights for our citizens are being put to a majority vote. If this had been done in the past, there would still be a number of states that would have had miscegenation laws on the books - and be enforcing them. Heck, there might even still be slavery!

Why should the majority get to rule on the rights of a minority? It doesn't even make sense. This is a constitutional issue and rightly should be decided by the courts. This is not activist judges at work - this is exactly what the courts are meant for - to enforce civil rights even when it's not something the majority may want.

Of course, the real solution would be for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions for all - let your religion dictate whether it's called marriage. That way religious groups that didn't want to marry gay couples wouldn't have to, and those that do, could. Either way, you could be married, whether you were gay or straight.

This evenhandedness should extend to benefit designations as well. If a person has medical or other coverage from their company or organization, they should be allowed to designate anyone as their beneficiary: spouse, domestic partner (male or female), relative, even friend. We pay extra to add spouses/families to our benefits anyway - why should the company care who you designate? It's all ridiculous to keep basing everything on whether someone is married or not, in this day and age when there are so many different types of households. It is time to move past this antiquated way of judging everything.

That said, the interesting thing is that we are even having these conversations today about gay marriage. A decade ago the idea of domestic partnerships or civil unions was what was setting off the right wing nutjobs. Now even they are hedging and saying that civil unions are OK, but marriage is another story. Change is happening - too slowly, yes - but happening nevertheless.

So, I think I'm all caught up on being opinionated. Baxter will be back next with his own thoughts on the latest news. In the meantime, I'll start trying to catch up with all the blogs I'm behind on reading!

Figuring out Obama

There has been a flurry of disapproving blog posts about Obama's recent positions on the death penalty, FISA and late-term abortion. He spoke in support of the death penalty in the case of child rape; he voted "yes" on the FISA compromise, and commented that he felt late term abortions should only be allowed when the health of the mother was at stake - not for mental distress.

Many feel he has swerved rightward now that he has become the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party; or as Bob Herbert put it recently, "lurched with abandon."

But has he really? Or is he simply being the same Obama he has always been, but now that the fog of the primary campaign has lifted, we can now pay more attention to what he's actually saying about the issues, rather than the "he said, she said" of the primaries?

Obama has said all along that he will reach out to the other side of the aisle. He has operated as a consensus builder all his life. He has said he will be different from other politicians. Perhaps one way he is different is that he can actually see more than one side of an issue. What a concept!

Take FISA. Yes, he was opposed to the bill but changed his mind and voted for it. But he apparently felt he had a good reason. Here is what he says about it:

"This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses..."

"But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues..."

"Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future..."

"I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country....Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course."

I believe that Obama felt that not passing any bill on this issue would be a worse situation than passing the compromise bill. Many may not agree. But I am a firm believer in the old adage, "The best is the enemy of the good" - sometimes you can't always get what you want but if you don't take the second best choice, you get nothing.

Obama may be looking at the big picture here - if the FISA bill didn't pass at all, many of the things being done to watch potential terrorists would end completely - leaving us vulnerable. And let's face it - the Republicans would have happily used his "no" vote to paint him "soft on terrorism." An absurd claim, but somehow these claims always manage to stick. Remember, if the man doesn't get elected in the first place, he won't be able to make any of the other changes we want him to make.

A recent Op-Ed piece in the Times by Morton Halperin explained further why the compromise bill may not be such a bad thing:

"Because I rejected the Nixon administration’s use of national security as a pretext for broad assertions of unchecked executive power, I became engaged with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when it was proposed in the early 1970s. And because I reject the Bush administration’s equally extreme assertions of executive power at the expense of civil liberties, I have been engaged in trying to improve the current legislation.

The compromise legislation that will come to the Senate floor this week is not the legislation that I would have liked to see, but I disagree with those who suggest that senators are giving in by backing this bill.

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate had already passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

What’s more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.) Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.

As someone whose civil liberties were violated by the government, I understand this legislation isn’t perfect. But I also believe — and here I am speaking only for myself — that it represents our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties. For that reason, it has my personal support."

I still don't like the whole idea of the legislation, believe me. But Obama's explanation does make sense when you think of him as a consensus builder, which is exactly what he has said he'd be. He's someone who tries to work within the system to make change, not be a revolutionary. The change may have to be done in small increments, the way most change is accomplished.

Regarding the death penalty, he had never said he totally opposed the death penalty. In his book, "The Audacity of Hope," he said:

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006"

Admittedly, saying the death penalty would be appropriate for child rape, where a murder did not take place, takes it one step farther. But he's never had a completely anti-death-penalty stance. Personally, I do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. But it's not as if he has changed markedly on this issue.

His recent statement about late-term abortion alarmed many pro-choice people as it seemed to indicate that he believed it should only be allowed to protect the physical, but not mental, health of the mother. He later clarified that he meant simple distress should not be a reason but a diagnosed mental condition would be. (Depression would then qualify).

But this position isn't something new. According to Ontheissues.org, Obama said back in April during an interview:

"On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done."

He also said:

"I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion."

Some may be alarmed at the idea of him talking about reducing pregnancies. But I think even the most rabid pro-choice person (and I am one) would admit that having an abortion is not an ideal situation. Yes, it is often very much so the RIGHT decision, the BEST decision, and the most empowering decision to be made. But wouldn't it always be better if it didn't have to happen at all?

As for late-term abortions, they are extremely rare and usually only done for very good reasons; his wish to keep them limited to those very good reasons is understandable, in my opinion.

I urge you to go to this link and read the full section on Obama's positions on contraception, women's right to choose, and sex education.

What I'm seeing is that Obama is not a left-wing idealogue. He is open to other ideas. Maybe some of us would rather he would be more of a left-wing idealogue. But that's not who he is. He sees nuances. He sees shades of gray. I think this is all part of his persona, someone who came from two worlds and had to make peace with both.

What he has to watch out for is muddying his message. Up until now his message has been very simple: Change. Given the unpopularity of Bush and the ineptitude of the McCain campaign, that simple message has been working well for him.

If he starts dabbling in nuance and trying to explain complex moral opinions on hot-button issues like abortion, he is going to lose his advantage. Obama is a brand: he has to remain true to that brand. The media are not able or willing to indulge him in long explanations about his thought processes. They deal in short, succinct messages and are always looking for a headline.

This is something he will need to watch out for as the campaign progresses, especially if the McCain campaign gets on track and the 527s start their shenanigans.

I am still supporting Barack Obama with enthusiasm. I am also still trying to figure him out, and reserving judgment on some of these issues that have raised concerns among many of us.