That's the very appropriate SAT word Heather Wilhelm over at RealClearPolitics uses to describe this vote by Senator Obama, described by William McGurn:

Mr. Obama is for using tax dollars to fund abortions, and against restrictions on partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation protecting a child who was born alive despite an abortion.

It seems to me that Senator Obama's appeals to religious believers -- especially young evangelicals -- are premised on the idea that there are other issues that are important to us beyond abortion and marriage. That's true, and one reason young evangelicals are not as solidly in the Republican camp as our elders is that most GOP politicians miss this point.

But there's a huge difference between believing that there's more to public policy than two issues and believing that abortion is not a relevant issue. And given Senator Obama's extremist stand on the abortion issue, I don't see how anyone to whom a pro-life stance is even remotely important could support him. He's simply not even close to the center. You can't simply write him off on abortion, as if it's a wash that other issues can even out. His position is radical, and it is deeply offensive to God's law -- and I would even say, to common sense. I mean, killing children who are born alive?

It's worth noting, by the way, that while there is a clear generational divide on marriage issues -- and young evangelicals do want to hear something sensible about poverty, the environment, and other topics -- data have suggested that young evangelicals are just as pro-life as the Dobson generation.

None of this would bode terribly well for this adamantly pro-abortion candidate's outreach to us. But then again, at least he's trying -- which counts a lot for most people. (That's why there's hope for dunderheaded husbands like me!) Is his competitor? Well...