Dairy and investment magnate Jim Oberweis launched his campaign for U.S. Senate on Thursday, declaring abortion should be illegal and pledging to consider a constitutional ban on the procedure even in cases of rape and incest.
Just 21 months later, Oberweis insists it’s not a flip-flop.
“I think it’s a clarification,” Oberweis said. “I don’t think I explained my position very well two years ago.”
Here is his previous statement:
“I’ve been a lifelong Catholic–still am,” Oberweis told Dahl. “Obviously, I have concerns about that particular issue. However, I think that right now we’re getting a very, very strong symbol in the Taliban of what can happen if we try to impose our religious beliefs on others. So I really think that that issue is a choice that government should stay out of, and let people make that the way they see fit.”
Keeping from not imposing beliefs on others does not fit within the definition of a representative politician. Unless every vote comes to a 100% agreement, you are imposing beliefs on others especially with regards to legislation that addresses morals in some way.
…Oberweis made similar remarks to the Chicago Sun-Times and a Springfield paper. Throughout the campaign, he portrayed himself as personally ”pro-life” but supportive of others’ rights to the procedure.
“What I was talking about two years ago was the discomfort that I have in enforcing my religious beliefs on others,” he said.
Oberweis said it should be illegal for women to have abortions unless their lives were in danger. He said he would consider supporting a constitutional ban.
“There are circumstances under which America as a country can pull together and agree on certain issues,” he said. “If the right opportunity were there, phrased in the right way, I could support a constitutional amendment.”
Later, he told a reporter he would only support the amendment if the nation reached consensus that life begins at conception.
[Full Story]
First we had “personally opposed” and then we come to consensus. Phrases from the verbal toolkit of the modern Catholic politician. There are also some other linguistic gymnastics in this article; a flip-flop becomes a clarification. When Jesus asked the Apostles “Who do you say that I am?”, only Peter answered correctly. The consensus was that he was Elijah or one of the prophets. Seeking consensus is for those who do not have a clear moral vision and/or leadership abilities.
Maureen McHugh of A Religion of Sanity made an excellent point the other day when she compared the Tower of Babel and language today.
“Although we appear to share the same language, we are attaching increasing divergent meanings to the words we employ. “
1 comment
This fellow likes to blow with the wind. It’s just that his efforts at it are a little transparent.