Obama’s Deleted Notre Dame Remarks
And lastly, to the President and the Trustees of Notre Dame, I want to say a heartfelt thank you.
As you may know, I will be announcing my first nomination for the Supreme Court next week, and it will mark the first time as President that I will have to deal with the difficult controversy surrounding abortion. With that in mind, your invitation to give this speech could not have come at a better time.
Having the chance to stand here wearing the robes of the nation’s most prestigious Catholic university and make feel-good remarks about how open-minded I am on abortion offers me the perfect boost as I enter this difficult period.
This week, when I nominate a principled pro-choice ideologue to the Supreme Court, the nation will still have my remarks today on “understanding” and “common ground” ringing in their ears, and the image of me receiving an honorary law degree from this Catholic institution on their minds. I couldn’t have done it without you.
Now I know there are many who believe in following the leadership of the Church, especially when the Church states that Catholic higher learning institutions should not honor political leaders who oppose Church teachings. Thankfully, however, those people are limited to holding signs and forming prayer circles outside while I receive praise and applause inside.
This occasion also helps me with voters. Right now many Catholics in this country are torn between their desire to support myself and my policies and the obvious conflict this poses for their religious faith. But when those voters turn on the news tonight and see me wearing the robes of Notre Dame University, surrounded by this school’s smiling leaders, they will sense that their conflict has been assuaged.
Because of your example they will believe, in this era when over a million unborn babies are aborted each year, that there is nothing wrong with being Catholic and supporting an abortion rights leader. And this could not serve me better.
So thank you, leaders of Notre Dame, for giving me this opportunity. Thank you, students of the class of 2009, for applauding me like the starry-eyed bunch of cafeteria-Catholics that you are. I also want to thank those media institutions who are here for covering this in a way that is as favorable as possible to myself and as unfavorable as possible to those who have a problem with my being here.
May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
35 Responses to “Obama’s Deleted Notre Dame Remarks”
So, respectfully applauding the President of the United States while he delivers your college commencement address means that you are a starry-eyed cafeteria Catholic? Very interesting. How dare, I suppose, anyone treat this despicable Enemy of God with any respect.
When I graduated from IU, Senator Richard Lugar delivered our commencement address. I have always respected Sen. Lugar, even though I disagreed with the Iraq War. Catholicism teaches that unjust war is a sin, does it not? Yet the Catholics weren’t acting like immature brats when Dick Lugar spoke at IU. Instead, we had the fringe antiwar students to act like assholes instead.
Deference to a guest invited to your university to deliver your commencement address is perfectly acceptable, even if we don’t agree with everything that individual stands for. Sometimes, in life, politics should be put aside. Respect for politicians like Sen. Lugar or Pres. Obama is called for at formal occasions such as a university commencement.
This isn’t really on point, but I too was at that IU commencement, as you’ll recall Chuck. I generally agree with Sen. Lugar on most issues (though not on the war), but in spite of my general appreciation and support for Sen. Lugar, I thought his commencement address was one of the worst I’ve ever heard.
I think it was probably the level of the applause from the students, and also the chants of “Yes we can!” (in response to a protester shouting “Abortion is murder,” no less) that irked those Catholics who follow the Magisterium. Did anyone ever call Obama an “Enemy of God,” the words the so many liberal commentators have wanted to put in protesters’ mouths?
“the chants of “Yes we can!” (in response to a protester shouting “Abortion is murder,” ”
Are you kidding us? Did it really happen that way?
“Right now many Catholics in this country are torn between their desire to support myself and my policies and the obvious conflict this poses for their religious faith. But when those voters turn on the news tonight and see me wearing the robes of Notre Dame University, surrounded by this school’s smiling leaders, they will sense that their conflict has been assuaged.”
I doubt if you mean it this way, but isn’t that somewhat a slam on the intelligence of Catholics? They don’t know the difference between the leaders of Notre Dame University and the Vatican, between a commencement speech and a sermon or official church policy? They’re really so clueless to think that the abortion conflict has been assuaged just because they allowed someone with a different viewpoint to speak? Come on.
Excellent misuse of “myself”. You used the reflexive just as the Prez does, in place of the (correct) objective “me”.
I trust it was intentional.
[...] frequently on our “abortionist in chief.” John Brownson at In the Agora offers unhappy words for Notre Dame as [...]
Now I know there are many who believe in following the leadership of the Church, even over a cliff…
“Having the chance to stand here wearing the robes of the nation’s most prestigious Catholic university and make feel-good remarks about how open-minded I am on abortion offers me the perfect boost as I enter this difficult period.” Um, did you actually, like, _read_ the text of the speech? Your attempt to snark here fails badly, because you’ve simply mischaracterized the explicit portion of the speech. You’re trying to argue for a disconnect between the surface appearance of the speech and a deeper political reality, but you seem not to have understood what is actually plain on the surface: Obama made no representation of himself as having anything other than a decidedly pro-choice view, and no representation of himself as looking to have his mind changed on that matter. The relevant part of the text was about disagreeing in a mututally respectful & honest way, and using that context of respect and honesty to work together on policies where agreement can be reached.
And since a great many American Catholics do have moderately pro-choice views — and, relatedly, have zero interest in following the Church’s dictates on birth control — it would be more accurate to say that a vast number of Catholics _already_ believe that “there is nothing wrong with being Catholic and supporting an abortion rights leader”, and don’t need this “example” to teach them anything.
I initially thought the outrage over the invitation to Obama was misplaced. I could understand it if the invitation was to Nancy Pelosi or some other pro-choice politician (particularly a pro-choice nominally Catholic politician), but this is the President of the United States. Having the leader of the free world speak to your graduation is a privilege–it does not imply agreement with all of his political stances.
However, I was assuming Mr. Obama would respect his hosts enough to leave politics out of his speech, particularly the abortion issue. Although his abortion remarks ostensibly encouraged civil discourse on the issue rather than promoting the pro-choice position, as John notes it served as an opportunity for Obama to bolster a centrist image of himself and strengthen his political position for nominating a strongly pro-choice SCOTUS justice.
As the resident Romanite, let me add my two cents…
First, I strongly disagree with the notion that – simply because of his position on abortion – Obama shouldn’t have been allowed to speak at Notre Dame. Universities exist to give people with bad ideas – even wicked ideas – platforms.
What I disagree with quite vehemently is ND’s decision to honor the man with a degree. The obvious aside(qualifications? monumental achievements? err, ok…), it is clearly wrong to honor a man who is on record as supporting infanticide at a Catholic institution. From a Catholic moral perspective, this is no less heinous than heaping honors on one who supports genocide.
The uproar over having the President of the United States speak at a commencement ceremony was rather silly. The whole concept of an honorary degree is ridiculous, so who cares if Obama is collecting them?
President Obama’s remarks on abortion were totally meaningless, unnecessary, and out of place. I agree with the post author that Obama is hoping the image of him speaking at Notre Dame will help him as he appoints a pro-choice nominee to the Supreme Court, which he was going to to do anyhow, but why even mention abortion in the speech? Wouldn’t the press have given him the abortion coverage he needed if he just released a statement saying that he didn’t want politics to get in the way of a commencement ceremony that these people worked for four or more years to attend?
In addition, the post author’s (By the way, who is John Brownson? He’s not listed on the author’s page.) decision to deride students as cafeteria-Catholics is a colossal generalization. Not everyone who goes to Notre Dame is Catholic. Not everyone who is Catholic is pro-life politically. Several students skipped their graduation ceremonies to attend an alternative prayer ceremony as a protest.
“President Obama’s remarks on abortion were totally meaningless, unnecessary, and out of place.”
“President Obama’s remarks on abortion were totally meaningless, unnecessary, and out of place.”
Really? I thought emphasizing that there is common ground between both sides was pretty clear, and certainly not meaningless. After how many weeks of criticism of his appearance at ND being in the news, you don’t think that gives him a little license to mention it, especially when he said zilch criticizing the pro-life position or justifying the pro-choice one? I can’t help but feel that if Obama would have said nothing about it the accusations would be that he’s chicken, weak, and a coward.
As far as the assertion (via telepathy apparently) that Obama is hoping that his appearance at ND will help him politically, that’s not really saying much; you can ascribe such ulterior political benefits about nearly everything done or said by every politician.
“I can’t help but feel that if Obama would have said nothing about it the accusations would be that he’s chicken, weak, and a coward.”
Possibly. Although President Obama’s right that we have tended to focus on the extremes in the whole abortion debate, the extremes are all that is important in the context of a Supreme Court nominee. The President can push for programs and policies that lower unwanted pregnancy rates all he wants, but his nominee is not going to be able to avoid making binary decisions about abortion. Thus, his comments were just a political dodge if you accept the original poster’s premise that he went there simply as cover for his upcoming Supreme Court nominee.
“As far as the assertion (via telepathy apparently) that Obama is hoping that his appearance at ND will help him politically, that’s not really saying much; you can ascribe such ulterior political benefits about nearly everything done or said by every politician.”
I was commenting on the original poster’s assertion that Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame would help him with his upcoming Supreme Court nominee. If you consider reading the original post to be a form of telepathy, then I suppose I’m forced to agree with you. I also agree that this isn’t really saying much, but then again, most news outlets didn’t mention it.
“Thus, his comments were just a political dodge if you accept the original poster’s premise that he went there simply as cover for his upcoming Supreme Court nominee. ”
I don’t think I’m following you Aaron; it seems pretty clear that a political dodge would indeed to say nothing at all about it. Maybe you mean political ‘maneuver’, which is a somewhat fair accusation, he’s a politician and that’s evidence enough. I don’t agree that ‘he went there simply as cover’; about the only thing we can say for sure is that he went there because he was invited.
“I was commenting on the original poster’s assertion that Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame would help him with his upcoming Supreme Court nominee. If you consider reading the original post to be a form of telepathy, then I suppose I’m forced to agree with you.”
Technically, you said ‘Obama is hoping’ his appearance would help him, thus the telepathy comment, unless he’s made a comment to that effect which I missed. No matter, but let me ask for your opinion on something more basic. You’ve referred to his appearance ‘helping him’ as he appoints a pro-choice nominee, giving him ‘the abortion coverage he needed’, etc. What help or coverage does he need? I guess I’ve just considered it a foregone conclusion that we’ll get a pro-choice judge; assuming that’s what he wants, does he really *need* help given the make-up of Congress and the number of Americans who want abortion legal in general?
“I don’t think I’m following you Aaron; it seems pretty clear that a political dodge would indeed to say nothing at all about it.”
My use of the phrase ‘political dodge’ refers to the act of speaking about an issue without addressing the core concerns of that issue. If you want to call it a maneuver, that’s fine with me as well.
Incidentally, I actually think that he should have said nothing about it at the ceremony because that’s not the right setting for it. You could also consider this a political dodge, but it’s a graduation ceremony, not a Q&A session. If he doesn’t talk about it, then he just didn’t talk about it. He didn’t talk about a lot of other political topics. Plus, he had a fundraising event later that evening where he could have spoken at length about abortion. I’m sure he could have setup a press conference to discuss it.
I have felt that President Obama has a pretty good sense of the right setting for sensitive discussions such as abortion, but it failed him this time. He turned a graduation ceremony, which should have been about achievement, into a purely political news event. What’s worse is that he didn’t even address the real issue.
As for the ‘Obama is hoping’ telepathy thing, I don’t think it’s a big leap to conclude that Obama is hoping that the event would help him. Let’s set aside the fact that Obama’s entire Presidential campaign was centered on his idealistic ‘hopeful’ nature and look at some of the alternatives in this particular instance:
1) Obama is hoping that his speech will hurt his chances to get a pro-choice Supreme Court justice.
2) Obama is hoping that his speech will not affect his chances to get a pro-choice Supreme Court justice.
3) Obama is not hoping anything.
Given these alternatives, I think I’ll stick with my original claim. Oh, and actually, it isn’t my original claim. It’s really the claim made in the original, satirical post:
“This occasion also helps me with voters. Right now many Catholics in this country are torn between their desire to support myself and my policies and the obvious conflict this poses for their religious faith. But when those voters turn on the news tonight and see me wearing the robes of Notre Dame University, surrounded by this school’s smiling leaders, they will sense that their conflict has been assuaged.”
Finally, I also agree with later posters that he will need help to get a pro-choice nominee confirmed. In addition to their comments, don’t forget that Joe Biden was the Senate Judicial Chair for the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas nominations. There might be some in the Senate looking for payback…
“when I nominate a principled pro-choice ideologue to the Supreme Court”
If he nominates a pro-choice ideologue, I will fall off my chair (and owe him an apology). What I expect him to nominate is a pro-abortion ideologue.
“Sometimes, in life, politics should be put aside…”
In that case, Notre Dame shouldn’t have invited a politician to give the commencement address.
“They’re really so clueless to think that the abortion conflict has been assuaged just because they allowed someone with a different viewpoint to speak?”
Yes, it has been assuaged. Read William McGurn’s article in Tuesday’s WSJ.
“…does he really *need* help given the make-up of Congress and the number of Americans who want abortion legal in general?”
Yes, he does. Even Stalin needed the support of as many people as possible when he ruled by fiat.
“Having the leader of the free world speak to your graduation is a privilege”
Really? Serving as the leader of the free world is a privilege — a privilege that has been much abused of late.
“…does he really *need* help given the make-up of Congress and the number of Americans who want abortion legal in general?”
According to much recent polling data, yes:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
Mike, thanks for the link. I’m not seeing much that indicates he needs help in appointing a pro-choice justice though, as some of the polls seem to indicate that most Americans want a justice who does not think abortion should be banned. The majority want abortion legal under ‘certain circumstances’. The clear majority want (or did want in 2003) it legal within the first trimester. The majority does not want Roe v Wade overturned. Given those, and in the context of the SC and abortion much of the discussion revolves around Roe v Wade, those polls seem to support my contention.
I see that on one of the polls, more people responded they were pro-life (and then on another the opposite) and maybe that’s what makes you think that popular opinion has changed significantly. To me those terms are way too loaded and ill-defined, and the varying results on those two polls seems to support that.
Spartan, the poll I linked to shows that 60% want it either illegal in all circumstances (23%) or legal only in a few circumstances (37%). That’s 60% of the country who would like to see abortion at least greatly attenuated from where it is today. So if Obama wants to pick a strongly pro-choice judge without it affecting his popularity, then yes, I think he does need help.
Mike that’s true, but we’re running smack dab into what is meant by ‘few circumstances’; I can say that based on these poll numbers he has no chance whatsoever of getting a strongly pro-life judge if that’s what he wanted. That’s not to take away from these polls you linked, as the trend is interesting.
Heck, I consider myself pro-choice, but I wouldn’t mind further restrictions (or enforcement of current restrictions) on abortion. To tie this in with what Obama said, the whole debate is poisoned IMO by the extremes; you’ve got nutjobs asserting that a week-old embryo is a person and you have whackos asserting that an 8 1/2 mo. old ‘fetus’ is not a person. ‘Pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ are just too ambiguous, but in the context of the SC, I guess I take ‘pro-life’ to mean that they want Roe overturned, which the majority does not support. If someone wanted abortion legal only for health reasons, rape, and in the first two months of development for example, which label is accurate? (other than ‘reasonable’)
“My use of the phrase ‘political dodge’ refers to the act of speaking about an issue without addressing the core concerns of that issue.”
Okay, so you’re criticizing him for not addressing the core concerns of abortion if he was going to mention it at all, but ‘it’s a graduation ceremony, not a Q&A session’; gotcha. You really think that if he’s going to mention abortion at all, then he better go through all the debate points? And it depends on who’s defining the ‘core concerns’ of the issue; I consider the inability of the two sides to find common causes to be a very core concern.
“Incidentally, I actually think that he should have said nothing about it at the ceremony because that’s not the right setting for it.”
Again, given just this post’s tenor, I think there’d be plenty of criticism (admittedly just as illegitimate as this post’s) of him for not even addressing it at all. And I do have to wonder if you’ve actually read his speech and realize specifically what ‘it’ you think this was not the right setting for. He didn’t say anything controversial and said *nothing* defending the pro-choice position beyond his belief that a woman should have the right to choose, and instead talked of common ground, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and that despite the two sides’ differences progress is still possible. Yea, really radical stuff and completely inappropriate…
Again you can ascribe cynical political motivations to everything nearly every politician, and every president, says. The weeks of full-blown controversy concerning his appearance more than gives him the latitude to at least acknowledge it. If there hadn’t been a full-scale freak-out by Catholics, then I’d agree that bringing it up out of the blue and not discussing other political topics would be a pretty naked political ploy. But his speech has a lot of context that can’t be ignored; you can put as much ‘blame’ on the Catholics for making this an issue that he’d have to respond to at all.
As far as whether he needs help to appoint a pro-choice judge, you may very well be right, we shall see.
“And it depends on who’s defining the ‘core concerns’ of the issue; I consider the inability of the two sides to find common causes to be a very core concern.”
I believe that the abortion debate overshadows things like preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place or talking about adoption as a serious option. This is a serious problem, and it’s one that I think can actually be solved.
However, let’s be clear: these ideas do not solve the abortion debate. At best, they are an effective form of mitigation, but we’re never going to be able to prevent every unwanted pregnancy. We’re also never going to convince every woman that adoption is an alternative to abortion.
The embryo/fetus/baby is an individual with rights or it’s not. Abortion is murder or it’s not. I consider these to be the core abortion concerns, but I would welcome your thoughts on how something else may qualify for that distinction.
President Obama even recognized these core concerns in his speech when he said, “the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.” President Obama’s remarks were basically a call to ‘agree to disagree’ as respectfully as possible, which is hard to do and wholly unsatisfying in the best circumstances. In the worst circumstances, which are implied by the original post, Obama’s remarks are just a convenient political stunt to improve his support in getting a pro-choice Supreme Court Justice.
This is why I think he should have avoided the topic altogether. Shouldn’t a graduation ceremony be about hope for the future rather than a call to settle for disagreement and a defense of the speaker’s own Christian beliefs?
“But his speech has a lot of context that can’t be ignored; you can put as much ‘blame’ on the Catholics for making this an issue that he’d have to respond to at all.”
I completely agree. In my first comment, I said that I thought the uproar over having the President of the United States speak at a commencement ceremony was rather silly. The people causing this uproar did just as much if not more to hurt the ceremony. However, I have been focusing on President Obama’s role in this because that was the subject of the original post.
“The embryo/fetus/baby is an individual with rights or it’s not. Abortion is murder or it’s not. I consider these to be the core abortion concerns, but I would welcome your thoughts on how something else may qualify for that distinction.”
Anti-abortion people who frame the issue that way, or who let the issue get framed that way for them, are playing a sucker’s game.
Here is a conversation I had on this subject several years ago, as I remember it:
Me: No, I don’t think abortion is murder.
She: I’m glad you’re finally beginning to see the difference.
Me: Similarly, I would be glad for you to begin to see the similarities.
“As far as whether he needs help to appoint a pro-choice judge, you may very well be right, we shall see.”
There is a lot more to appointing a judge than nominating him, getting the nomination approved, and having him take him his oath. The fight (and the need for help) has just begun at that point. See Clarence Thomas, for example.
It’s the never-ending campaign. And since Obama has already signaled that he is going to choose a nominee on the basis of partisan politics, it’s going to be a knock-down, drag-out affair from here until kingdom come.
[...] Obama’s Deleted Notre Dame Remarks Posted by In the Agora- an interactive online journal focused on on current events, culture, faith, science and more. [...]
“However, let’s be clear: these ideas do not solve the abortion debate.”
Without question, agreed, Aaron. Nor is that his responsibility. I agree with your core concerns, with the addition of the question of the boundaries of a woman’s rights. What I’m responding to is your criticism of him, “speaking about an issue without addressing the core concerns of that issue”, which you called a political dodge. I inferred maybe incorrectly from the word ‘dodge’ that you meant it would have been preferable if he would have talked about the core concerns that you listed if he’s going to talk about abortion at all, which if so I definitely disagree with.
“President Obama’s remarks were basically a call to ‘agree to disagree’ as respectfully as possible, which is hard to do and wholly unsatisfying in the best circumstances. ”
I certainly didn’t take his remarks as ‘agree to disagree’; “understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.” and “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.” doesn’t sound like agreeing to disagree. You’re not objecting to ‘respectfully’ are you? And sorry, speak for yourself; I don’t find it ‘wholly unsatisfying’ to find respectful common ground with people I disagree with. Quite the opposite.
“Shouldn’t a graduation ceremony be about hope for the future rather than a call to settle for disagreement and a defense of the speaker’s own Christian beliefs?”
He didn’t say settle for disagreement, he said disagree but work together for shared causes, which is *hope for the future*. Do you really take the position that they shouldn’t? I do wonder if you’ve read his speech; quote me anything that is a defense of his Christian beliefs.
“I agree with your core concerns, with the addition of the question of the boundaries of a woman’s rights.”
That’s an excellent addition. I don’t what to mis-frame the debate. The Reticulator makes a good point about my questions.
“I inferred maybe incorrectly from the word ‘dodge’ that you meant it would have been preferable if he would have talked about the core concerns that you listed if he’s going to talk about abortion at all, which if so I definitely disagree with.”
You have inferred correctly. If you’re going to talk about abortion, then talk about abortion. At no point in the speech does he explain how or why he came to hold the views that he does. Everyone knows Obama is pro-choice. Everyone can see his voting record. How many people know the how or the why? Furthermore, why does he feel that his beliefs about abortion should be adopted nationally?
I may actually be moving into the realm of “what if” for a moment, but what if President Obama said his beliefs stemmed from a Bible-based defense of women’s rights? What if he had detailed the passages from which he formed these beliefs? He’s a Christian. Catholics were the ones with the problem in the first place, but how many catholics have actually studied this issue biblically? How many catholics have simply accepted the party line, so to speak. In addition, if he had said that, then he would have actually spoken to the issue rather than around it. This would have been a different story.
Of course, he *still* wouldn’t have been giving a commencement speech if he did that, which is why I think he should have avoided it altogether.
“I certainly didn’t take his remarks as ‘agree to disagree’;”
Looks like he’s saying that here:
‘That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.”‘
As you put it, President Obama is calling us to “disagree but work together for shared causes.” Sounds like agreeing to disagree about abortion, but then working together on, for example, preventing unwanted pregnancies. I like this idea. Of course we should work together on the things where we have some agreement. Why let our differences on one issue prevent working together on a different issue? That’s just silly.
Then again, it is also silly to claim that our ability to work together on one issue, such as education, makes it ok that we can’t work together on another issue, such as abortion. Clearly, making such a claim in a speech in an attempt to address concerns about abortion is a meaningless, unnecessary political dodge. It says nothing about how we should address abortion itself, and it has no place in a graduation ceremony. Unfortunately, that’s basically what Obama did.
“I do wonder if you’ve read his speech; quote me anything that is a defense of his Christian beliefs.”
Here are the five paragraphs from the speech where President Obama defends his own Christianity:
“I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.
It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help – to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.
And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.
At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads – unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, ‘You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.’
My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.”
Lastly, I have read the speech. I have watched the video. Please don’t claim that I haven’t. I am not accusing you of that despite the fact I disagree with your opinion of what he said. Respectful disagreement indeed.
“Are you kidding us? Did it really happen that way?”
Yep, sure did. Undoubtedly those were audience plants by Obama so that he had more cover to bring up his controversial message of working together on common issues despite our disagreements so he can gain support for his next Supreme Court nominee.
“Are you kidding us? Did it really happen that way?”
There was a youtube video of it that was going around the day after – basically a guy stood up in the nosebleed seats and started shouting “Abortion is murder!”; his shouts were drowned out by crowd noise, including the chants “We are ND!” and “Yes we can!”
To be fair, I don’t think that “Yes we can!” was a direct response to “Abortion is murder,” but rather just a showing of support for Obama against the protesters. I also doubt that there were any audience plants by Obama, as Spartan suggests.
Maybe more of a stimulus-response type behavior. They probably weren’t thinking about the meaning of what they were saying. After all, this was a university graduation day.
I doubt they were plants too Mike; my comment was sarcastic, but it just follows the snarky, cynical tone of the original post.
This transcript should clarify:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-barack-obama-notre-dame-speech,0,2951798.story
If you do a search for “obama notre dame ‘yes we can’”, you’ll see that it was mainly reported in conservative and Catholic news sources, not other news sources.
Hi Aaron,
I’ll start with your last comment. I meant no disrespect in wondering if you read the speech (I didn’t specifically claim you hadn’t); it’s the second time I’ve brought that up, and you didn’t say anything one way or the other the first time. Hell, I hadn’t read it all until we were a few comments in. I wondered only because I’m seeing now that the words we’re using mean different things to the two of us. And on the contrary, I think it’s remarkable that we’ve had this long of a discussion without the thread being dragged into the black hole of the abortion debate itself, and should pat ourselves on the back for that.
This is a good example of the interpretation differences I think we have; you said way above, “I have felt that President Obama has a pretty good sense of the right setting for sensitive discussions such as abortion, but it failed him this time.”. The obvious problem I see with that statement is that it is the core concerns of abortion that are sensitive, and not the idea that the two sides should work together on shared goals. Obama didn’t say anything that would make anyone on either side of the abortion debate squirm, except that he dare mention it at all, and there isn’t anything sensitive about what he said. Yes, you can say that he shouldn’t say the word ‘abortion’ at all in so close proximity to his SC nominee which I can see at least where you’re coming from, but I think the debate preceding his visit at least balances that, which I don’t think is that outlandish an idea either.
“If you’re going to talk about abortion, then talk about abortion. ”
Well we certainly disagree on this, and that’s in part because I agree with you that yes, obviously, a purely political speech that distracts from the graduation is inappropriate. If we’re going to view that as a spectrum, it seems that saying nothing is one end and getting into the nitty-gritty of specific points of his abortion positions is at the other. What he talked about is in the middle and almost tangential; he didn’t talk about abortion really at all, he talked about the abortion debate. If he would have gone into the details you suggested of how he arrived at his specific positions on abortion, which is delving straight into the abortion debate itself, I think it’s clear that the charge that he’s distracting from the graduation by using the speech as platform to expound on his controversial views would be more valid manyfold, and there would be things he said in that case that many in his audience would have sensitivity to. Instead, what he said wasn’t controversial at all.
As far as ‘agree to disagree’, I usually hear that term used as a debate or conversation ender; the debate goes round and round, and someone finally says, ‘we’ll just have to agree to disagree then’, meaning there’s no point in debating it any longer. That interpretation is the opposite of what he said, but I’m probably mistaken about what you meant by that. I think you and I are in agreement though that of course disagreeing sides should work together on common causes.
“Then again, it is also silly to claim that our ability to work together on one issue, such as education, makes it ok that we can’t work together on another issue, such as abortion. Clearly, making such a claim in a speech in an attempt to address concerns about abortion is a meaningless, unnecessary political dodge.”
Well it’s good then that Obama didn’t say anything like that. He said the exact opposite of, “…makes it ok that we can’t work together on another issue, such as abortion.”; he said explicitly that it’s not okay that we can’t work together. At most he said it’s okay that we have valid disagreements about abortion, which is non-controversial and self-evident. I’m unclear where you’re getting this from.
“It says nothing about how we should address abortion itself…”
Hey, if you’ve got the answer to that decades-old question, the country is all ears. I think reminding everyone that you can work together, a sentiment we both agree on and that I don’t think does get enough emphasis, is a good start.
“Here are the five paragraphs from the speech where President Obama defends his own Christianity:”
First, I’d have to ask what you mean by ‘defend’? Defend against whom or to whom? Not the protesters; they were primarily protesting having a pro-life president speak and receive an honorary degree, not that he had the wrong Christian beliefs (although I’m sure some accused him of that). It seems pretty clear that he’s discussing his Christian upbringing in your quoted section, and examples of Christians who inspired him and why he was drawn to the church; a testimonial that is not so unlike millions of other Christian testimonials. Isn’t discussing your Christian beliefs perfectly appropriate and non-controversial at a commencement at a Christian university? To discuss your Christianity and what it meant to you?
Again, no ill will intended to you personally, and enjoy the long weekend. (and I’ll definitely check out your blogposts on JFK; interesting stuff)