By Ned Barnett
This article was originally published in American Thinker on May 3, 2008
"The dog that didn't bark"
is the central clue in the Sherlock Holmes story, "Silver Blaze." This
oddly quiet watchdog's silence told Holmes that the horse-theft was an
inside job - pulled off by the horse's trainer. The canine guardian who
was supposed to sound an alarm - but who instead didn't make a noise -
was the final clue that fingered the guilty culprit.
Today's
"dog that didn't bark" is none other than the political media. For more
than a month now, the media has effectively covered up a potentially
damning statement made by Senator Barack Obama. No trivial matter, his
single sentence, if widely known, could be the "deal killer" that
destroys Obama's quest for the American Presidency. It was March 28th
when he answered a Pennsylvania voter's question at a campaign
whistle-stop, yet four weeks later, this potentially explosive "stealth
position" remains less widely known than Senator Obama's taste for
waffles.
The
issue is abortion which - along with Social Security - has long been a
deadly "third rail" in American politics. In spite of 35 years under
Roe v. Wade, Americans remain deeply conflicted over the abortion issue
- their opinions are nuanced and variable, often depending on
case-by-case circumstances. Politically, any position favoring
on-demand abortion has been potentially deadly. Then, in the early
1990s, President Clinton popularized a low-risk pro-abortion position -
abortions should be "safe, legal ... and rare." This artful sophistry,
with the emphasis on "rare," seemed acceptable to the majority of
Americans.
However,
going beyond "rare" to justify "convenience" abortions remains
politically unacceptable. For example, the "Roe at 30" ABC/Washington
Post study found "57 percent (of Americans) oppose abortion solely to
end an unwanted pregnancy - ‘if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby."
Other recent studies find more than 65 percent of Americans oppose convenience abortions.
Americans
clearly do not favor abortion on demand. Since Clinton first
articulated "safe, legal ... and rare," no prominent pro-abortion
politician has dared go further, and none has risked advocating on
demand "convenience abortions." That is, none dared until Senator Obama
demolished "safe, legal ... and rare" during a Pennsylvania
whistle-stop more than four weeks ago - an action that, to date, the
media has chosen to ignore, along with Obama's several rather shocking
conclusions.
In response to a Pennsylvania voter's question about elementary school sex education, Obama said:
"Look, I got two daughters - nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
This
makes two things clear. First, Senator Obama supports abortion on
demand -- even "convenience" abortions -- for minors, including his own
daughters; and second, Obama considers babies a "punishment" he'd
rather spare his daughters, even if those daughters have to abort
Obama's own unborn grandchildren to avoid that particular "punishment."
That
unguardedly candid public statement is political dynamite -- or it
would be, if the media had reported on it. Instead, four weeks later,
America remains widely unaware of Senator Obama's explosive position
favoring on-demand convenience abortions for minors, or his equally
explosive view of babies as a "punishment."
Senator
Clinton can be forgiven for not raising the subject -- while she's
dutifully stuck to her husband's "safe, legal ... and rare"
formulation, she knows her feminist base agrees with Senator Obama. Her
late primary hurdles have been high enough without challenging her
base.
Senator
McCain -- who continues to steer clear of anything that might smack of
a personal attack -- has also refrained from commenting; and from his
position, that too makes a kind of sense. Unless he prefers to face
Hillary in November, raising the "on-demand convenience abortions for
minors" issue will have more power in reaching Independents during the
general election, four months from now.
However,
the media has no such excuse. Their job is to dig out the controversies
and challenge the candidates -- in short, to report the news. Instead,
perhaps recognizing the divisive nature of Obama's abortion stance, the
media has become the dog that didn't bark. In his
controversially-direct questioning of Senator Obama during the recent
debate, ABC's George Stephanopolous avoided the abortion-on-demand
question entirely. Just this past Sunday, in an often hard-hitting
36-minute interview, Fox News' Chris Wallace -- though he asked Obama
about partial birth abortion - completely avoided the more
controversial "on-demand convenience abortion."
Earlier in the campaign, Saturday Night Live
accurately and effectively lampooned the media for being "in the tank"
for Senator Obama. Now, on the abortion issue, political reporters are
not only in the tank, they are AWOL.
Even
the talk radio community -- as well as conservative columnists and
online bloggers -- have been remarkably silent. Obama's position -
advocating on-demand convenience abortions, even for minors -- is
explosive, especially for conservative talkers' and bloggers' largely
pro-family, anti-abortion audiences. The idea of children being a
"punishment" pours gasoline on an open flame. By personalizing this, by
speaking about his own daughters - and by speaking approvingly of them
possibly aborting his own future grandchildren - Senator Obama's
position becomes even less defensible ... and far more explosive.
Yet the media's silence echoes like the dog that didn't bark.