David Brody gets good access to Barack Obama. Obama, after all, is making superficial outreach efforts to the evangelical community (probably not for much longer).
As a consequence of this access, Brody has every reason to play it straight, even to the point of being unwilling to connect the dots himself regarding Obama's support of infanticide, dots that are abundantly obvious. By not doing so, his readers can reach conclusions that Brody will pointedly refuse to reach, lest he lose any access.
We all know that should a reporter reach a conclusion contrary to a particular candidate's statement of facts, that reporter risks exile. Brody, in the role of honest broker, does not want to risk exile.
Today at Human Events, I laid out the case that Obama has, without actually using the words, admitted he supported Infanticide in the Illinois legislature. Since then, Obama has done his best to obfuscate the issue, but he cannot and has not run from the central fact of the situation.
Barack Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. The law was pushed after State Senator Patrick O'Malley heard the horrific story about an infant born alive after an abortion from Jill Stanek, a nurse.
Stanek says her friend had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet. She offered to take him instead. “I couldn’t let him die alone,” she says. Stanek was horrified by this experience. This was not an abortion — it was something worse. Could it be legal to take a living and breathing person of any size, already born and outside his mother’s womb, and just leave him to die, without any thought of treatment?Hospital officials dismissed Stanek’s concerns. She then approached the Republican attorney general of Illinois, Jim Ryan, who issued a finding several months later that Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no ethical or legal obligation to treat these premature babies.
David Brody takes me to task thusly:
Barack Obama would rather see infants thrown, quite literally, into trash cans than dare encroach on the right to an abortion.”Obama is a father of two young girls. You can bet that attacks like that will get him or any father riled up. That language seems to be way over the top. His critics can paint him as a pro-choice liberal. That’s fair but to go any further is really beyond the pale. Is Obama really sinister, a monster? That narrative may fly in some conservative circles and in chat rooms but most Americans won’t buy it.
David Brody can play it as straight as he wants to play it. But, Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He said it was because the state statute lacked federal protections for abortion. Once the National Right to Life Committee proved that excuse a lie, Obama called NRLC liars until the campaign admitted that, regardless of the facts, abortion laws would have still been hindered by the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Barack Obama would not support legislation to require treatment of infants born alive after an abortion because the law might encroach on abortion rights. His vote allowed abortion providers to throw out living humans not killed in during an abortion.
You don't have to be sinister to be a monster. And David Brody can play it as straight as he wants. All I did is connect the dots Obama's campaign tries to obfuscate and Brody refuses to do for himself publicly.
On my side we have Barack Obama's record.
On David Brody's side we have "Obama is the father of two girls."
Margaret Sanger and Josef Mengele both had kids too.
P.S. - I'd also note what others have pointed out. Brody was willing to link to NRLC and Obama, but not to my full article. He wanted to point out what he, I'm sure, considers hyperbole, but wouldn't link to the full article for you to decide whether there was reason for the statement. I assume it's an oversight, but is it?