Archive for the ‘Republican Candidates’ Category

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 (

by Steven Ertelt 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.


Continue reading

Rush Limbaugh: The Irrelevant Conservative

As a young conservative years ago while listening to Rush Limbaugh one day,  it dawned on me that Rush Limbaugh with all his potential influence and self-claimed solid  “conservative viewpoints” has never put forth any ideas of his own to be tested and tried in the public arena.  In fact, I came to the realization that his whole career is aimed at hyping people up, tearing other people down that he personally dislikes, and generally making sure that the ratings for his radio network and program don’t slip.  He’s the leader of the anti-Clinton bandwagon.  I get that.  But if this guy really knows anything (as he seems to have all the answers or at least easily spots every bad one), why doesn’t he run for office?  Why doesn’t he stick his neck out there in the political arena and put it all on the line like a real candidate?

A: Rush doesn’t have any answers.  He is simply a loud critic.   

Interestingly enough, Rush’s Missouri lineage is steeped with close relatives who are or were attorneys and public servants.  One relative is a current Missouri Supreme Court justice, and another one is a Federal District Court judge in the Western District of Missouri.  So, what about Rush?  After two semesters and one summer of college, he dropped out. 

So now we have this seemingly popular “conservative” radio talk show host, telling everyone who will listen what it means to be truly conservative. 

But how does he know?  Well, he obviously doesn’t. 

Rush Limbaugh is absolutley irrelevant.  And the proof is when he throws his support behind someone like Fred Thompson claiming that Thompson is the only true conservative and basically that he is what the Republican Party needs.  Give me a break.  The OVERWHELMING majority of conservatives in the primaries and caucuses thus far clearly did not want someone like Thompson.  And even more embarrassing for Rush was the fact that he was dancing on the political grave of Hillary Clinton the night she came in third place in the Iowa Caucuses claiming that it “was a devastating and humiliating loss for Hillary Clinton” and mused that she may be done.  Who is Rush kidding?  There is so much more to being a thoughtful, independent conservative than Rush’s ideologically-driven version of hating the Clintons, or hating Democrats in general and all their ideas,  hating illegal immigrants, and dismissing any other conservatives with whom he might disagree. 

And being a self-described Reagan Conservative, Rush continually bashes McCain for his proposed immigration reform (which is not amnesty) all the while ignoring the fact that Reagan actually gave illegal immigrants real, no penalties, amnesty!!!   Republicans generally pride themselves in promoting various issues and conservative viewpoints that are grounded in realism, but Rush is obviously grounded in something else.     

Morality by Geography


Huckabee, in a recent interview, said it was not enough to support reversing Roe v. Wade and that candidates should also back a human life amendment to the Constitution.Huckabee said that “if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle.”“All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral,” Huckabee explained. “I think that’s very problematic.”

He said those who say Roe should be overturned but won’t support a human life amendment “are dead wrong” and following the logic that “slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts.”

Have you met Judy Riuliani?

Giuliani is a nice guy and was a successful mayor, but I wonder how someone who is openly Pro-Choice and has marched in Gay Rights parades can still manage to label himself a conservative Republican, rally conservative constituents, and even somehow manage to garner the support of social conservative Pat Robertson. 

It just doesn’t pass the smell test. 

And if one is concerned mostly about national security issues or the War in Iraq, I am at a loss to understand why independents and other conservative voters would overlook, for example, McCain’s experience and understanding of those critcal issues.  I sincerely doubt that McCain has ever been caught in “drag” for any reason, he has been much more consistent than Giuliani (or even Romney for that matter) on traditional Republican Party plank issues, and McCain has had tremendous foresight and understanding of the need for certain troop strategies in Iraq.

What say you?