Obama campaign finally admits NRLC is telling the truth

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing...abortion/84059/

Complete crap explanation as to why he continued to oppose it, but they're facing the fact that their earlier explanation didn't hold water.

Jill Stanek, the registered nurse from Illinois that testified before Congress in favor of the Born Alive bill there, is calling B.S. on it as well:

Little did Obama know his own words would so quickly condemn him. He admitted what he did "defies common sense and it defies imagination." In fact, it was heinous.

While the Obama campaign tonight finally admitted Obama has misrepresented his Born Alive vote all these years, it had the audacity to offer a ludicrous excuse, an excuse Obama himself contradicted only 24 hours ago, as he has for years, that "I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported."

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08...ing_news_o.html

In other words, when Alan Keyes nailed him on this in the Senate debates back in 2006, Keyes was dead-on correct. Obama was slinging BS to make his vote look less controversial.

[autigeremt 6,970]

This is going to be fun to watch over the next few months! Obama is in for a ride, and not the one he expected.

[RunInRed 16,991]

Titan - I was thinking about JM's flips on this abortion issue throughout his career (he still says he's open to picking a pro-choice VP) and realized what a litmus test for national candidates this is. As you pointed out in another thread, no Democrat has won the party's nomination for President (although I did provide numerous pro-life Democrats - including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) without being inline with choice. Of course, I'm sure you also realize this wedge divides both ways - who's the last Republican nominee for President who has been pro-choice? In fact, the very reason McCain got beat by Bush back in 2000 was b/c he was "too moderate" for the evangelicals (hence the flips now).

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Titan - I was thinking about JM's flips on this abortion issue throughout his career (he still says he's open to picking a pro-choice VP) and realized what a litmus test for national candidates this is. As you pointed out in another thread, no Democrat has won the party's nomination for President (although I did provide numerous pro-life Democrats - including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) without being inline with choice. Of course, I'm sure you also realize this wedge divides both ways - who's the last Republican nominee for President who has been pro-choice? In fact, the very reason McCain got beat by Bush back in 2000 was b/c he was "too moderate" for the evangelicals (hence the flips now).

This isn't about JM. This is about a bald-faced lie. Not a flip-flop, not "changing one's mind." It's about seeing that you have a potentially huge problem explaining a vote to some voters you'd like to make inroads with, misrepresenting why you voted that way, getting called on it, continuing to lie about it, then finally admitting it when the indisputable facts nail your hide to the wall.

But to your point, you can't try to flip this back around. The original issue was that it's the Democrats and liberals that always try to take a swipe at Republicans for being "litmus test" voters on abortion as if making any single issue so important is a bad thing. Then, hypocritically, they do the same thing themselves. Republicans have never shied away from saying some issues trump other issues. It's the Dems that have tried to act as if they are above such things.

[RunInRed 16,991]

This one issue is really eroding your credibility and it's sad to see. Your strong feelings on this topic are respectable but your inability to see both sides of the issue puts you right in the middle of a camp filled with the neo-cons on this board.

In reality, it's a litmus test for voters who find this issue of uber-importance and it goes BOTH ways. For you to say that it's just the Democrats and liberals who take swipes at Republicans for this "moral highground" (quotes for sarcastic emphasis - not your words) finally paints your true colors. You continue to try to hide under the guise of an independent objective rational thinker but your comments around this topic prove that such a label is no longer (and probably never was) justified.

You have all but called the Democrats/Obama a baby killer, a liar, and immoral on this issue. Next time you see Karl Rove tell him these divisive games aren't going to work this time.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

This one issue is really eroding your credibility and it's sad to see. Your strong feelings on this topic are respectable but your inability to see both sides of the issue puts you right in the middle of a camp filled with the neo-cons on this board.

Says the guy who has no credible claim to objectivity. Forgive me if I file that motion in the trash.

In reality, it's a litmus test for voters who find this issue of uber-importance and it goes BOTH ways.

But that is not how it's portrayed by the left. And that was my point that you're now twisting around. The way this issue gets played in the marketplace is that "those narrow-minded evangelicals and social conservatives are single issue/litmus test voters and we're not." And the truth is, they are just as single issue/litmus test as the ones they try to paint with that brush.

For you to say that it's just the Democrats and liberals who take swipes at Republicans for this "moral highground" (quotes for sarcastic emphasis - not your words) finally paints your true colors. You continue to try to hide under the guise of an independent objective rational thinker but your comments around this topic prove that such a label is no longer (and probably never was) justified.

I know you find it hard to understand that I can be critical of someone, even harshly if the issue is important enough, and not be in the pocket of the opposing side, but all that does is reveal your inability to think critically.

Let's line up the people I've criticized for various reasons:

George W. Bush: selling us a bill of goods on the Iraq War, handling of the Iraq War, lack of fiscal discipline, surrounding himself with bad advisors, torture.

Obama: his stance on abortion and the lies he has told about the reasons he voted on certain bills.

McCain: his recent conversion to more conservative positions on various issues, the inept manner that he's handled certain questions, his openness to selecting a pro-choice VP, the way he handled the divorce from his first wife, his position on the Iraq War

Romney: his recent conversion to conservative positions on social issues, the feeling that he's a phony.

Giuliani: his deplorable handling of the divorce from his first wife (cheating on her, etc), his pro-choice stance, his position on torture

Hillary: I can't even list them all

I'm pretty much an equal opportunity critic. If anyone has gotten the lion's share of my ire, it's probably been a close race between Hillary and GWB. I've praised Obama on many occasions and shut down criticisms that I felt were over the line, baseless, outright lies or in poor taste. No one is perfectly objective, but there's not some ulterior motive here. I'm just calling a spade a spade. It just so happens that one of the most important issues to me is the sanctity of human life and Obama's stance on it is a bad one. I gave Giuliani the same amount of hell over it but his campaign fizzled very quickly. In fact, if he'd somehow have gotten the GOP nomination, I would either be sitting out this election, casting a protest vote for a 3rd party or voting for Obama (since there'd be no real difference in their stances).

I'm sorry that you don't like that I bluntly call it like I see it and that sometimes your man crush candidate is in the crosshairs, but that doesn't make me a neo-con or someone hiding under the guise of being an independent thinker.

[tiger88 934]

Wait this can't be true because texustiger and rir immediately (and blindly I might add) jumped in the thread yesterday and said that obama was right and the nlrc was lying. This doesn't make sense. I'd better sit down the world is starting to spin.

[RunInRed 16,991]

It just so happens that one of the most important issues to me is the sanctity of human life and Obama's stance on it is a bad one.

In YOUR opinion. Again, I think you have stepped over the line of fairness on this issue because of your personal beliefs. This type of politics is nothing new to many Republicans (hence, the neo-con grouping). The fact is, Karl Rove and gang have been very successful this decade by taking these types of wedge issues and simply casting any one who does not support their candidate or agree with their points of view as "immoral, a baby killer, a liar, blah blah blah blah." I'm not questioning your beliefs, but I am disappointed in your wililngness to play their game - I would expect this from some on this board, but not you.

And while we are talking about balance, if it was not for a handful of us, this board would have digenerated into the far right version of the Daily Kos, long ago.

[AURainman 6]

It just so happens that one of the most important issues to me is the sanctity of human life and Obama's stance on it is a bad one.

In YOUR opinion. Again, I think you have stepped over the line of fairness on this issue because of your personal beliefs. This type of politics is nothing new to many Republicans (hence, the neo-con grouping). The fact is, Karl Rove and gang have been very successful this decade by taking these types of wedge issues and simply casting any one who does not support their candidate or agree with their points of view as "immoral, a baby killer, a liar, blah blah blah blah." I'm not questioning your beliefs, but I am disappointed in your wililngness to play their game - I would expect this from some on this board, but not you.

And while we are talking about balance, if it was not for a handful of us, this board would have digenerated into the far right version of the Daily Kos, long ago.

Where is the form I fill out to get YOUR permission to have an opinion? Ripping TitanTiger is totally out of bounds. TT has an opinion, and he thinks Obama was in the wrong. Obama IS open to criticism. That is if runinred will allow it.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

BTW, nice sidestep. You make a charge, I show it to hold absolutely no water based on my history here, and you cherry pick one comment. Congrats.

It just so happens that one of the most important issues to me is the sanctity of human life and Obama's stance on it is a bad one.

In YOUR opinion. Again, I think you have stepped over the line of fairness on this issue because of your personal beliefs. This type of politics is nothing new to many Republicans (hence, the neo-con grouping). The fact is, Karl Rove and gang have been very successful this decade by taking these types of wedge issues and simply casting any one who does not support their candidate or agree with their points of view as "immoral, a baby killer, a liar, blah blah blah blah." I'm not questioning your beliefs, but I am disappointed in your wililngness to play their game - I would expect this from some on this board, but not you.

And while we are talking about balance, if it was not for a handful of us, this board would have digenerated into the far right version of the Daily Kos, long ago.

And if not for people like me, you wouldn't have the ability to bring said "balance." But long ago, in the interest of fairness, we (David, me and stoic) made Tiger Al and TexasTiger moderators so that no one could claim that only Democrats got their posts moderated or that Democrats had no voice in the upper hierarchy around here (not to mention both are levelheaded and fairminded). And I've cracked down on far more conservatives for posting Snopes-worthy bull**** about Obama than I have gotten on to your side for things said about Republicans. So forgive me if I'm bemused by this self-congratulatory nonsense.

To the point, ALL of this to one degree or another is opinion. When I argue against torture or the wisdom and rightness of going into Iraq, I'm arguing an opinion. I think Bush's stance on these issues is a bad one. We have plenty of conservatives here who jump in to breathlessly tell me how I'm wrong and his stances are right and blah blah blah all the time. But the bottom line is, it's still an opinion.

The abortion thing is no different. I think the stance that access to an abortion for virtually any reason should trump concerns over procedures like partial birth abortion or bills like Born Alive is a bad stance when it comes to the sanctity and sacredness of human life. Frankly, from the sanctity perspective, that's hard to argue. It might be a great stance if your perspective is that reproductive freedom trumps all, but that's not my position.

And none of this gets down to the core issue right now which is not that Obama voted the way he voted or holds the positions on the issue that he holds. It's that he lied about the reasons for voting that way. First he said that there was no neutrality clause and that he would have voted for the federal version since it had that. However, the 2003 version that came before his committee had that clause and he didn't let it out of committee. Lie.

Then he claimed that he didn't vote for it because an existing 1975 Illinois law already provided for this. However, Jill Stanek testified before his committee and spoke directly with him and showed that infants were being left to die in spite of this law and that no prosecution or curtailing of the practice was happening. The existing law was being interpreted so loosely that there was a huge loophole. He still didn't let it out of committee even with this knowledge. Lie #2.

Then he claimed the NRLC was lying about all of this in the interview to CNN. Now they admit that was wrong. Lie #3.

I realize it's a hard thing to explain when you're trying to win over the votes of people that hold this issue as a very important one. But he should have just been truthful about the reasons instead of casting blame or trying to make it sound like something different than it was.

[RunInRed 16,991]

BTW, nice sidestep. You make a charge, I show it to hold absolutely no water based on my history here, and you cherry pick one comment. Congrats.

I have not side-stepped anything but rather cut to the chase - that one comment is the crux of your entire debate across several threads. Oh yeah, I guess I should add in the fact that your opinion is that Obama is a liar as well. Happy now?

And if not for people like me, you wouldn't have the ability to bring said "balance." But long ago, in the interest of fairness, we (David, me and stoic) made Tiger Al and TexasTiger moderators so that no one could claim that only Democrats got their posts moderated or that Democrats had no voice in the upper hierarchy around here (not to mention both are levelheaded and fairminded).

How many neo-con moderators do we have on this board compared to liberals? By my count, it's at least 6:2 if not more. With all due repsect to Al and TT, this token gesture is equivalent to FNC's attempt at balance with Alan Colmes or the NYT's with their 1 or 2 conservative opinions.

Not too mention, there are some moderators (one in particular) who's opinion is not even close to levelheadded and fairminded.

I realize it's a hard thing to explain when you're trying to win over the votes of people that hold this issue as a very important one. But he should have just been truthful about the reasons instead of casting blame or trying to make it sound like something different than it was.

The difference is, you tried to find ways to poke holes and tear through his arguments/votes. I took him at face value that his primary reasoning for not supporting the bills is because he thought it was a measure aimed at ultimately eroding Roe. Again, he's a pro-choice guy, even after all this, I'm still not sure I get your beef ... you are clearly smart enough to know what you are going to get from Obama in regards to this issue.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I have not side-stepped anything but rather it cut to the chase - that one comment is the crux of your entire debate across several threads. Oh yeah, I guess I should add in the fact that your opinion is that Obama is a liar as well. Happy now?

No, you're getting all torqued over my criticism of Obama as if I'm trashing him while giving others a free pass. I demonstrated that to be completely, utterly and irredeemably false, based on my history across scores of threads, and you skipped over all of that to pluck on comment and run with it.

And by definition, when you knowingly say something that isn't true, you have lied. Now, I haven't called him a "liar" because I don't think he some serial liar. But on this particular issue, he has lied. Repeatedly.

How many neo-con moderators do we have on this board compared to liberals? By my count, it's at least 6:2 if not more. With all due repsect to Al and TT, this token gesture is equivalent to FNC's attempt at balance with Alan Colmes or the NYT's with their 1 or 2 conservative opinions.

Besides the fact that it's completely insulting both to us and to TT and Al, it's a non issue.

We're not running an affirmative action program here. This forum started as an Auburn sports forum. Moderators were chosen on that basis. Once the political stuff took off, we felt that it would be good to have a couple of Democrats who are very active in this forum to have mod rights so that they would have a voice. We weren't having a bunch of problems with Dems getting shut down while GOP folks were given free reign, we just thought since some of the discussions would get heated, it would be a good thing to do. Other than them, when making a decision to add or remove moderators, political views have never even been one scintilla of a factor. Zilch. None. Nada. Zero.

Neither you nor any other Dems are being treated unfairly. Not by me or any other mod here. In all the times I've moderated here, I've done far more to curtail conservatives or libertarians like Bottomfeeder than I've ever done to a liberal or Democrat.

The real thing is, you're just outnumbered, period, on this board. It's not about the moderating team because none of them have thrown their weight around over the political stuff. You just have a lot more rank and file members here that are Republicans than there are Democrats. Once upon a time, it was just Al and TT holding down the fort and I was a hard core Republican. Now, you still have Al and TT (who are now mods), I'm far from a reliable voice for the GOP, and we've got you, LegalEagle, arnoldo, WinCrimson, Justin5. All of you have a voice and other than some utterly off topic stuff, I can count on one hand the number of times a moderator has done anything with any of your posts. I've had far more arguments or mod interventions with CCTAU, JohnDeere or Drew for instance.

You're just not seeing things clearly.

Not too mention, there are some moderators (one in particular) who's opinion is not even close to levelheadded and fairminded.

I don't tell you what opinions to hold or express. Why would I ask any of them. I don't tell TT or Al not to forcefully defend or express their views, why would I tell any of the other mods to do that?

The difference is, you tried to find ways to poke wholes and tear through his arguments/votes. I took him at face value that his primary reasoning for not supporting the bills is because he thought it was a measure aimed at ultimately eroding Roe. Again, he's a pro-choice guy, even after all this, I'm still not sure I get your beef ... you are clearly smart enough to know what you are going to get from Obama in regards to this issue.

You cling to this notion about undermining Roe but utterly ignore the fact that he's said one thing and done another. He said he would have supported the federal version, but when handed an bill with identical Roe protections, he kept it from coming to the floor for a vote. So that explanation is BS.

[Tigermike 3,425]

Not too mention, there are some moderators (one in particular) who's opinion is not even close to levelheadded and fairminded.

And it does not matter what my opinion is you whinny ass little bitch. The fact is I have never moderated anyone based on political beliefs. NEVER!

"LEAVE BARACK ALONE!!!

"LEAVE BARACK ALONE!!!

[TexasTiger 13,556]

However, Jill Stanek testified before his committee and spoke directly with him and showed that infants were being left to die in spite of this law and that no prosecution or curtailing of the practice was happening.

You place a great deal of credence on this rather fanatical person:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/03...ful_condom.html

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Not being in favor of contraception, or believing that condoms give people too much of a feeling of invulnerability is not a reason to discount what she testified to. She's a registered RN and saw these things happen in Illinois hospitals. Numerous nurses worked with her and could easily contradict her testimony. Not one has suggested she's done anything but testify truthfully in over 5 years since the federal BAIPA act was passed with her testimony as a part of the Congressional debate.

She noted that other African countries that are promoting abstinence and monogamous relationships more heavily are seeing much more success in combating the spread of AIDS than those whose primary focus is on condoms and posted a link for people to donate for more of them. She's not even saying that they shouldn't or can't use condoms. She just noted that the three countries doing better at combating it have emphasized abstinence and monogamy more than condoms while Tanzania has done the reverse.

That's not radical. That's common sense.

[Ranger12 46]

RIR, you just showed a lot of ignorance by your accusations about the moderating team. By changing the subject to that and making such a ridiculous accusation, you just showed how you can't handle it when somebody tears down every bit of your debate with facts. You then go acting like a kid and pointing fingers and "saying it's not fair!". You then basically attack Titan and act like others must haver your permission to have an opinion. Give me a break. As I have suggested to you before, if you can't handle debate and rebuttals to your posts, then you may want to stop posting in the political forum. It was created for debate.

I wish you could please explain what the political make-up of the moderator's group has to do with the forum or your posts in particular? Nobody has moderated your posts or anybody else's post, especially any liberal's post. We love debate. As much as I disagree with Tex and TigerAl politically, I respect them and consider them friends on this board. It is politics and nothing personal. However, you seem to not be able to grasp that concept and you make it personal when you don't get your way. You sure don't help guys I respect like Al and Tex and do you ever wonder why the liberals on the board do not rush to your defense? Then you insult them by insulting the group they are a part of. Way to win friends there pal.

As Titan pointed out, the few times that a post made in the political forum has been moderated, it has been conservatives and libertarians that were guilty. Some made borderline racist remarks and the other just made some real outlandish remarks that would have painted the board in a very bad light for any visitors to the board. I can't recall any liberal having a post moderated, so before you go running that mouth about us "neo-cons" in the moderators group, you might want to know what the hell you are talking about.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

How many neo-con moderators do we have on this board compared to liberals? By my count, it's at least 6:2 if not more. With all due repsect to Al and TT, this token gesture is equivalent to FNC's attempt at balance with Alan Colmes or the NYT's with their 1 or 2 conservative opinions.

Colmes? That hurts. The fact is, this is largely a right-leaning board. But I say what I want, and you can, too, unless you go off the deep end. The sad fact is, the amount of meaningful, respectful discussion that goes on here is limited, but not because of how the mods are doing their job. There's just too darn many boneheaded Right Wingers spouting mindless crap.

I'm glad you're here, RiR. As a fellow "librul" I appreciate your passion for your beliefs. But your disagreement with Titan on this issue has nothing to do with his status on this board.

[AURaptor 1,137]

There's no out for Obama here. He lied. He's lied before and he lied about this.

Obama is a liar.

Americans won't vote for a liar.

[Ranger12 46]

Colmes? That hurts. The fact is, this is largely a right-leaning board. But I say what I want, and you can, too, unless you go off the deep end. The sad fact is, the amount of meaningful, respectful discussion that goes on here is limited, but not because of how the mods are doing their job. There's just too darn many boneheaded Right Wingers spouting mindless crap.

I'm glad you're here, RiR. As a fellow "librul" I appreciate your passion for your beliefs. But your disagreement with Titan on this issue has nothing to do with his status on this board.

I would have you know that my crap is not mindless. Nor is my mind crapless.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

There's no out for Obama here. He lied. He's lied before and he lied about this.

Obama is a liar.

Americans won't vote for a liar.

Then McCain is in serious trouble. His political life has been a lie for the last several years.

There's no out for Obama here. He lied. He's lied before and he lied about this.

Obama is a liar.

Americans won't vote for a liar.

RiR...you know that mindless Right Wing crap I was referring to...?

[autigeremt 6,970]

I think Obama has an issue with the people who wouldn't vote for him in November anyway (NRLC majority).

My advice to him would be to leave this alone and get on with his wealth re-distribution plans so we all can be 5 million richer

[AURaptor 1,137]

There's no out for Obama here. He lied. He's lied before and he lied about this.

Obama is a liar.

Americans won't vote for a liar.

Then McCain is in serious trouble. His political life has been a lie for the last several years.

There's no out for Obama here. He lied. He's lied before and he lied about this.

Obama is a liar.

Americans won't vote for a liar.

RiR...you know that mindless Right Wing crap I was referring to...?

TT... you're too morally and intellectually handicapped to deal w/ my comments. The best you can muster is some sycophantic reply as you remark to your grade school level intellectual buddy of some lame ass 'inside' joke, which is neither.

Obama lied when he said his father owes Ted Kennedy for being brought over here from Africa, because the Kennedy's helped sponsor Africans being brought over here to the states. Only one small problem. The claim that Obama's father was among those isn't true. He was over here a full year before the Kennedy's got involved.

Obama is a liar.

[Ranger12 46]

There's no out for Obama here. He lied. He's lied before and he lied about this.

Obama is a liar.

Americans won't vote for a liar.

I have to disagree with you on that one. Whether they knew it or not, Americans have been voting for liars for a very, very long time. Politicians since the 19th century have done nothing but that. They all have various degrees of lying, some worse then others, thus you just have to figure out who is the bigger liar and not vote for that guy.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

There's no out for Obama here. He lied. He's lied before and he lied about this.

Obama is a liar.

Americans won't vote for a liar.

Then McCain is in serious trouble. His political life has been a lie for the last several years.

There's no out for Obama here. He lied. He's lied before and he lied about this.

Obama is a liar.

Americans won't vote for a liar.

RiR...you know that mindless Right Wing crap I was referring to...?

TT... you're too morally and intellectually handicapped to deal w/ my comments. The best you can muster is some sycophantic reply as you remark to your grade school level intellectual buddy of some lame ass 'inside' joke, which is neither.

Obama lied when he said his father owes Ted Kennedy for being brought over here from Africa, because the Kennedy's helped sponsor Africans being brought over here to the states. Only one small problem. The claim that Obama's father was among those isn't true. He was over here a full year before the Kennedy's got involved.

Obama is a liar.

"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time."

That ambition led McCain into a moral lapse that appalled him. It involved an ongoing dispute in South Carolina over the tradition of flying the Confederate battle flag atop the state capitol, in Columbia. In a television interview, McCain said the flag was "offensive," and he appeared sympathetic to its critics. His aides were alarmed, fearing the consequences in the upcoming South Carolina primary, and they wrote a damage-control statement that McCain read repeatedly before television cameras. "I understand both sides," McCain said. "Some view the flag as a symbol of slavery. Others view it as a symbol of heritage. Personally, I see the battle flag as a symbol of heritage."

But that, McCain wrote a year later, was "a lie." The flag symbolized both slavery and the South's secession from "the country I love," and "should be lowered forever from the staff atop South Carolina's capitol."

"I had promised to tell the truth no matter what," McCain wrote in the book. "When I broke it, I had not just been dishonest, I had been a coward, and I had severed my own interests from my country's. That was what made the lie unforgivable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0103032_pf.html

When he starts to think he might lose, McCain gets desperate-- principles go out the window and he lies his a$$ off. Later, he can sometimes see it, like he did after lying so much in 2000. But make no mistake-- it's his default. But you don't really care that he lies, do you? I understand you far too well. You're a grossly unprincipled guy who is convinced he's principled.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Ranger is right on the money. They are human, just like we are. We all have something in our closet that we may not tell with all honesty. Politicians, however, make a profession out of it.

Obama made a mistake with this. He's trying to save face, and I can't understand why. The people he's trying to reach out too are not voting for him anyway. He's being "elementary"..............