Sorry for the long blog post, but Sarah Palin really went after Obama on abortion in Johnstown, PA. I can't remember a politician spending this much time on life issues on the stump. This isn't just a single line, or story. It's a speech:

“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life.  I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves.  And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come.  At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding.  But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.

Yes, every innocent life matters.  Everyone belongs in the circle of protection.  Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance.  There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable.  In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us.  When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore.  We feel blessed.

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it.  So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.

I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions.  He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.”  He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it.  The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject.  Americans need to see his record for what it is.  It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record.  Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion.  In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice.  Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor.  In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.”  Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion.  These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.

In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion.  They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.”  This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.  Illinois had a version of the same law.  Obama voted against it.

Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act.  There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.

In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life.  He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive.  And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth.  In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life.  And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget.  Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.

But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level.  A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn.   As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America.  There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born.  We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for.  We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender.  And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day.  I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.”

"As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign.  What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history.  Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

"During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate.  George Wallace never threw a bomb.  He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.  Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

"As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all.  They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy.  We can do better.  The American people deserve better."

McCain issued this response:

"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

"I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."

Obama's campaign spokesman stopped short of apologizing for the remarks:

"Senator Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies.  But John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for President of the United States 'pals around with terrorists.'  As Barack Obama has said himself, the last thing we need from either party is the kind of angry, divisive rhetoric that tears us apart at a time of crisis when we desperately need to come together.  That is the kind of campaign Senator Obama will continue to run in the weeks ahead."

And the convergence of an economic crisis and complete Democratic control of Washington should alarm even those conservatives eager to wash their hands of the GOP. The best reason for even the most disaffected right-winger to root for a McCain victory is simple: To the extent that much of the progressive agenda is a program in search of a crisis to justify its implementation, an election that delivers a liberal candidate who's adored by the media to White House, gives him huge majorities in both houses of Congress, and presents him with a worldwide state of emergency in which to govern, has the potential to be not just another loss for conservatives, but a once-in-a-generation defeat.

We know from past history that economic crises are a major opportunity for expansion of government power. Robert Higgs' book Crisis and Leviathan is a good discussion of the basic dynamics. We also know that divided government tends to impede the growth of the state, while united government facilitates it. The combination of united government and a major economic crisis is likely to lead to a great expansion of government, just as it did on several previous occasions such as the 1930s. It only remains to add that Obama - and most of the rest of the Democratic Party - tend to be very pro-government ideologically. As far as I can tell, Obama proposes major expansions of government regulation and spending on almost every big domestic issue, and doesn't propose to retract government in any significant way, except on military intervention in Iraq. Obama's record in the Senate (where he was the 10th most liberal senator) and in the Illinois state legislature (where he was more liberal than 73% of his fellow Democrats) shows him to be a big government liberal, not a relative moderate like Bill Clinton during his presidency.

A founding member of the campaign finance team of Democratic presidential nominee Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has been working with state sponsors of terrorism to undermine the United States in the global war on terror since at least February, 2003.

Jodie Evans, co-founder of the leftist anti-American group Code Pink, has documented ties to governments on the State Department’s list of current and former state sponsors of terrorism including Iran, Cuba, Syria and the former Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein. She also has endorsed and worked with the so-called Iraqi resistance that has killed over three thousand American soldiers and thousands of free Iraqis.

Evans is listed on the official Obama website as a bundler of between $50,000 and $100,000 in contributions. According to FEC reports, the official Obama website and news accounts, Evans has personally contributed over $40,000 to the Obama campaign—$4600 to Obama for America and around $36,000 to the Obama Victory Fund.

Evans served as a co-host for Obama’s first Hollywood fundraiser right after he announced his long-shot bid for the presidency in February 2007, just weeks after she returned from Cuba where she and Code Pink worked with the Castro government to protest the terrorist detention center in Guantanamo. Evans and Code Pink, who market themselves as feminists and human rights activists, blew off the Ladies in White, a Cuban human rights group that asked the delegation Evans led to inspect Cuban prisons where democracy advocates were being held by the Castro government.