NARAL and Other Conservatives Don’t Like McCain

NARAL president Nancy Keenan emailed her supporters early on Wednesday asking for money for a campaign to begin bashing John McCain for his pro-life voting record on abortion. She didn’t waste any time in launching the attack as, later in the day, NARAL issued a press release blasting the possible Republican nominee.

Keenan said she’s worried that some people on the conservative side who disagree with McCain on other political issues will make it appear to some voters that he’s not “extreme in his opposition” to abortion.

“John McCain has a 25-year record of voting against women’s freedom and privacy, and he has even gone so far as to call for the overturn of Roe v. Wade,” Keenan said.McCain served in the U.S. House for from 1983 to 1986 and in the U.S. Senate since 1987. During that time, Keenan said her organization has given him only a 4 percent pro-abortion voting record — including a rating of 0 from 2002 through 2007.

According to NARAL, McCain has voted pro-life 123 times out of 128 votes, for a 96 percent pro-life voting record.Keenan said McCain has a “documented record of hostility toward” abortion and that, on pro-life issues, “McCain is neither a moderate nor a maverick.”

“As we move toward the general election, NARAL Pro-Choice America will make sure that voters, especially pro-choice Independent and Republican women, know the truth about Sen. McCain,” Keenan promised.

Despite her criticism, McCain has said he’s proud of his pro-life voting record when it comes to abortion issues.

“I have many, many votes and it’s been consistent. And I’ve got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all those years,” he told National Review in March 2007.

“And I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little… misleading,” he added.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com)

by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor February 7, 2008 

 Strange bedfellows indeed. –Jay

Conservatives, “It’s About the Justices Stupid”

The economy is always a pressing issue for any President, but the nomination and appointment of federal judges, especially Supreme Court Justices lives decades beyond any Presidency. –Jay

The conservative movement has made enormous gains over the past three decades in restoring constitutional government. The Roberts Supreme Court shows every sign of building on these gains.

Yet the gulf between Democratic and Republican approaches to constitutional law and the role of the federal courts is greater than at any time since the New Deal. With a Democratic Senate, Democratic presidents would be able to confirm adherents of the theory of the “Living Constitution” — in essence empowering judges to update the Constitution to advance their own conception of a better world. This would threaten the jurisprudential gains of the past three decades, and provide new impetus to judicial activism of a kind not seen since the 1960s.

We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.

We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.

The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.

The Fine Art of Responding to Hecklers

In case you were wondering, I’m not a McCain spammer.  I just really like him lately.  I’ve been too busy to sit down and compose posts on the other things I want to talk about lately.  There’s a considerable backlog of drafts in my dashboard and in my mind.  Where does the time go?  I just thought the video above was great!  And it was a quick and easy post.  Have agood day. 

Talk is Cheap

Service.  Experience.  Leadership. 

Any questions?

A Christian Conservative’s Take On Immigration

“The point of my article today is that the illegal immigrant infrastructure in this country is and has been a danger to national security and human life. These people do not pay taxes, they are a drain on the social welfare system, and they have these dangerous terrorists among them.” (A Fort Dix, N.J. related post.)

I don’t believe that U.S. immigration (illegal or not) has much to do with national security or terrorism. Historically, the U.S. has not had much terrorist-type trouble (that I can think of) with open borders in Canada or Mexico going back decades now. My point is this: people like Timothy McVey or anyone else who wishes America harm will always exploit any system to inflict terror. (Wasn’t Mr. McVey a full-fledged U.S. citizen?)

Anyway, the economic problems in the U.S. are hardly the result of immigration (illegal or not). Rather the welfare system, other government-funded social programs, and bad laws have caused the problem by artificially interfering with free market economics that would otherwise adjust to new and various population increases.

The best answer is to change the laws in such a way to allow for easier legal immigration and documentation and legal U.S. residency and/or citizenship, and thereby get such people paying taxes like the rest of us. The idea that the best fix is to “ship all them illegals back to where ever the Hell they came from” is rather cruel. That notion is practically racist. If one has ever spent any time with the good, yet comparatively poor people of Mexico for example, then one also understands the desperation with which they seek new lives in the U.S. (Just like our own ancestors before us.)

Immigration issues today have little to do with terrorism. How are a few crazys in N.J. any different from gang members in Chicago or L.A.? No amount of legislation will ever stop violence, and it is unfair to characterize “illegals” as being more likely to cause any more “terrorism” than anyone else.