Update: Republicans for Choice President, Ann Stone pays Life of the Party a visit in the comments. Gotta love this gem from Ann, "It is following the advice of folks like you that has taken the GOP to the brink of anihilation." Does anyone have anything to say to her? Since the "Republicans for Choice" website is not open for comments, here is your chance.
While the McCain scandals are just now breaking out in the mainstream media, and as Michelle Malkin points out, "if you lie down with MSM dogs, you wake up with stories like these," conservative Republicans still have their own beefs with McCain. The MSM scandals and the conservative beefs are sure to keep coming from many directions.
For instance, from Republican National Coalition for Life (RNC for Life):
Some prominent pro-life Republicans have endorsed John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. Visit the McCain for President web site — you will see some names that may surprise you http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/. They will surprise you because, while John McCain claims a pro-life record, he supports research that involves the killing of human embryos and he justifies abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest. Those are not pro-life positions. He voted to expand taxpayer funding of embryo-killing research, and he joined other Senators in signing a letter to President Bush asking him to expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines to be used for research.
The pro-life Republicans who endorsed John McCain should be embarrassed to find themselves on the same side as Republicans for Choice, the organization created in 1990 by Washington, D.C. fundraiser Ann Stone with the stated purpose of removing the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform. They support Roe v. Wade and oppose a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ann Stone and her supporters also understand that abortion will remain legal in this country as long as the human embryo is denied respect and protection under the law. Many pro-lifers don't "get it," but you can be sure that Republicans for Choice supporters do.
While their "first choice" Rudy Giuliani did not win, their second choice is John McCain. In asking their supporters to consider McCain in a message posted on the Republicans for Choice web site (http://www.republicansforchoice.com/) they say: "We know we can work with him to create common ground that will allow moderates and conservatives to come together to rebuild the GOP." That is code-language meaning that they think John McCain will work with them to rewrite the Republican National Platform to remove the principles that we have worked so hard to maintain since 1980.
The Republican National Coalition for Life came into existence in order to defeat the efforts of Republicans for Choice. We have done so successfully at every Republican National Convention since 1992 and we plan to do it again. If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, he will exert tremendous pressure on the Platform Committee to bend to his will on many issues. John McCain has poked his finger in the collective eye of conservatives throughout his career. His campaign for the presidency has not been supported by social conservatives but rather, it has been buoyed by the entrance of Independents and Democrats in open primaries. If he gets the nomination, to whom will he listen? Will it be the smattering of pro-lifers who endorsed him, whatever their reasons? Or will it be to Republicans for Choice and Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lew Eisenberg, and the rest of the Eastern seaboard establishment who are bankrolling his campaign?
Life of the Party came into existance, largely inspired by RNC for Life, to do what they do on a state level, but as a private citizen and blogger. While there is no "out" Republicans for Choice in the State of Washington, the pro-abortion-choice forces are alive and well within the state GOP, and are constantly pressuring the party to weaken the platform on life, and even to pressure pro-life candidates to not campaign on the life issues. This way, they figure, the argument can never be made that it's a "winning issue". Instead, pro-life Republican candidates constantly get killed on the life issues when the Democrats attack their "anti-choice" position, and the candidate is handicapped to respond for fear of losing the support of party leadershp. For these and other similiar reasons, the Washington State Republican Party is in the tiny minority with almost no end in sight. The candidates do not defend Republican Principles.
As the campaigns get rolling here for local offices, I will try to report to you where the candidates stand, but meanwhile, the focus is still on the presidential race.
As the media and the GOP Establishment are closing in, and calling the nomination "sewn up" for McCain, grassroots Republicans, need to give a close look, and determine whether or not we have it in us to defeat the "inevitable". Remember that it was a "done deal" when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Remember that it was "inevitable" that Rudy Giulianin would be our nominee. But the determination of the grassroots defeated those two "inevitables".
Can we do it again? Yes, if we unite the coalition.
Huckabee is not the answer. While he says all the right stuff on the life issues, he cannot win the nomination or the presidency by being pro-life alone. Grassroots conservatives who come to the GOP because they are activists for other good causes like fiscal conservatism or fighting illegal immigration, will not rally behind Mike Huckabee (much like they won't rally behind McCain), because they know his record. Further, Huckabee has publicly stated that he could support McCain and that anyone who says they can't "is not a conservative". That's an insult.
I call on my fellow pro-lifers and conservative Republicans to resist a McCain nomination, which will be a disaster for the Republican Party, not to mention, a loss to Barack Obama. There is still time, and there is still a Republican alternative: Ron Paul, the ultimate non-McCain candidate.
Ron Paul is solidly pro-life. As a congressman, he has introduced legislation that would define life as beginning at conception and turn Roe vs. Wade on its ear. His proposed bill has largely been ignored by the "cosmetically pro-life" politicians in D.C. As president, this proposed legislation would be given much more publicity and suppport from the grassroots to pressure Congress to pass it. To learn more, visit his Life and Liberty page.
Ron Paul opposes amnesty for illegal immigration. Further, he wants to restore the original intent of the 14th Amdendment and remove birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, and remove the welfare incentives that drive illegal immigration here. It should also be noted, that Ron Paul is not interested in punishing churches or private charities who give aid to illegal immigrants. Visit his Border Security and Immigration Reform page to learn more.
Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget. He has much to say about inflation, run away spending and our fraudulant and unconstitutional monatary system. No other current or previous candidate in this presidential race has addressed these issues the way Ron Paul has. Visit his Debt and Taxes and Inflation Tax to find out more.
Ron Paul supports our right to keep and bear arms. He has offered legislation that would guard our second amendment rights, including repealing the Brady Bill and the "assault weapons" ban before its sunset in 2004. You can read more on his Second Amendment page.
Yes, Ron Paul voted against the war in Iraq. Is this a deal breaker for you? Perhaps you should have a look at his perspective, in his own words, on Iraq. Despite his detractors calling him a pacifist, he is strong on defense, and his biggest contributors are active duty military from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force. If after reading his position on Iraq, you are still not won over, are you willing to give up all of the other Republican Principles (and give up restoring constitutional principles) to stay in Iraq?
On just about every issue conservatives care about, Ron Paul is a champion. (You can learn more on his issues page.) It's a wonder the conservative movement as a whole, hasn't caught on yet. Though he does already have a movement of supporters ready to carry on the fight, whether he gets the nomination or not, and mostly within the GOP.
McCain is leading now for a few reasons: 1) The MSM media has given him help, 2) Democrats have been able to vote in our primaries, working to give us the weakest nominee, and 3) conservative opposition has been divided among the other candidates.
I urge my fellow conservatives to join me in doing everything we can to defeat McCain with the real non-McCain candidate: Ron Paul.
Note: New updated information has been added to this post concerning the potential candidacy of former U.S. Senator from Tennessee and actor, Fred Thompson.
The following is taken from the Republican National Coalition for Life's "Fax Notes". RNC for Life is the leading organization responsible for ensuring a pro-life Republican platform at the national level and is a valuable source for finding out who really is pro-life and who is just pandering with "cosmetically pro-life" speak.
(LOTP notes that because of Sam Brownback's position on illegal immigration amnesty, conservatives need to carefully consider whether or not he is worthy of support. In addition, the news of his being fickle on the human life amendment to the Constitution should give pro-lifers pause as well.)
2008 Presidential Candidates' Positions on Life Issues
SAM BROWNBACK Senator Brownback is the pro-life leader in the U.S. Senate. He has sponsored numerous pro-life bills including the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, and the Assisted Suicide Prevention Act. He has held hearings on life issues, among them the Impact of Abortion on Women. Senator Brownback is a sincere and dedicated champion of the right to life from conception.
JIM GILMORE A former Governor of Virginia, Jim Gilmore supports legal abortion until
the 13th week 8.57 weeks ("60 days") of gestation pregnancy (the first trimester), and in cases of rape or incest when necessary to save the life of the mother. He has
supported an informed consent law and a 24-hour waiting period for abortion.
NEWT GINGRICH His book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" said virtually nothing about abortion. John Lofton, who interviewed Gingrich for American View asked, "Do you think abortion should be a crime?" Gingrich answered tepidly, "I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I'm not sure."
RUDOLPH GIULIANI "I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights," Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortion. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded. — CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec. 2, 1999. Now that he is running for president he says he would support it, but only if it has a life-of-the-mother exception, (Hannity & Colmes, 2/5/07) even though there is clear evidence that killing a baby during delivery by stabbing him in the back of the neck and sucking out his brains is never medically necessary.
In a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue, Giuliani said he would "uphold a woman's right of choice," and "oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal." When Donahue asked what advice he would give his daughter if she became pregnant, he said . . . "if the ultimate choice of the woman — my daughter or any other woman — would be that in this particular circumstance she had to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
MIKE HUCKABEE The former Governor of Arkansas thinks abortion should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered. He would eliminate public funding for abortions and public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortions. He supports "A Woman's Right to Know" legislation.
DUNCAN HUNTER Rep. Hunter is a committed pro-lifer and chief sponsor of the Right To Life Act (H.R. 618) to extend Fourteenth Amendment protection to the unborn child. He is now serving his 14th term as Congressman from the 52nd District of California.
In an interview with Human Events (12/4/06) Rep. Hunter was asked, "What would you do about abortion if you were President?" He responded, "I'd do everything I could to work toward doing everything we could to eliminate abortion." When asked, "What sort of people would you name to the United States Supreme Court?" he answered, "I would name people who have a sensitivity toward human life."
JOHN McCAIN Sen. McCain has voted to restrict or regulate the practice of abortion but, although he says Roe v. Wade should be overturned, he supports abortion in cases of rape and incest and has endorsed legislation that would expand federal funding for research that kills human embryos.
RON PAUL Rep. Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988. His libertarian views have conflicted with his pro-life stance on many occasions. From 2005 - 2006, Paul had just a 56 percent pro-life voting record as he voted four times against a federal law protecting teenagers from being taken to other states for secret abortions in violation of the parental notification or consent laws of their home state. In previous years, Mr. Paul had a 73 percent, 81 percent, and 79 percent voting record going back to 1999, according to the National Right to Life Committee. He doesn't think federal law should cover abortion issues. He opposes using taxpayer funding for both embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research. (LIFENEWS.com)
MITT ROMNEY Mitt Romney ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate in 1994 as a pro-choice candidate. As a candidate for Governor in 2002, he answered Planned Parenthood and NARAL questionnaires saying he supported "the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade" and, "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose . . . Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (The Weekly Standard, 2/5/07) Now that he is running for President, Mr. Romney would like us to believe that, after 34 years of legal abortion in this country and an entire political career as an enthusiastic pro-choicer, he has just seen the light and is now "pro-life."
Romney supports killing human embryos left over from IVF treatments for research purposes as long as the parents give their consent.
TOM TANCREDO Although he is best known among conservatives for his leadership on immigration policy, Congressman Tancredo is solidly pro-life. NARAL gives him a 0% score on legislation related to life issues. (http://www.issues2000.org/House/Tom_Tancredo.htm) His website says this: "Throughout my public career I have always maintained a deeply held conviction that abortion compromises the sanctity of human life. Tragically, our nation has ignored our founding principle that all individuals have a right to life and in doing so has failed to protect the most vulnerable among us, unborn boys and girls. I do not support federal funds going to Planned Parenthood or any other organization that promotes abortion. I will continue to do everything in my power to protect the defenseless, and to end the practice of abortion." (http://tancredo.house.gov/issues)
FRED THOMPSON In a March 11th interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News, Sen. Thompson described himself as "pro-life" and said he thinks Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. "I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html)
We have not located information on Fred Thompson's views on life issues other than abortion. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) voting record for the 105th, 106th and 107th congressional sessions shows that he voted pro-life on every bill to restrict or regulate the practice of abortion. He did not receive a 100% score from NRLC due to his consistent support for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.
Where Fred Thompson stands on respect and protection of the human embryo, embryonic stem cell research, or abortion in cases of rape or incest is unknown to us. When we locate that information, we will certainly report on it.
TOMMY THOMPSON The former Governor of Wisconsin and Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bush administration, Tommy Thompson supports abortion in cases of rape and incest, and endorses embryonic stem cell research, while claiming to be "pro-life."
Update: LOTP received the below correction from the Jim Gilmore campaign. I have corrected what was false above and provided the notice below to show what was not reported. Details are important:
Good Morning Michelle,We hope you and your family are well. We wanted to request that you correct the following incorrect information posted on your Life of the Party blog:"JIM GILMORE A former Governor of Virginia, Jim Gilmore supports legal abortion until the 13th week of gestation (the first trimester), and in cases of rape or incest. He has supported an informed consent law and a 24-hour waiting period for abortion."Governor Gilmore's has a long history of protecting life. Governor Gilmore has always steadfastly opposed public funding of abortions and his leadership as Governor led to successful legislation which he signed into law that created a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, required parental notification for minors seeking an abortion and banned partial birth abortion. Jim Gilmore created the Virginia Abstinence Initiative and dramatically increased funding for adoption services.Jim Gilmore signed into law legislation banning human cloning and went to court to try to prevent the removal of a feeding tube and save the life of coma victim Hugh Finn. The Governor's long held position is that abortions may be allowed during the first 60 days or pregnancy, but after 60 days he opposes ALL abortions except those which are necessary to save the life of the mother.
Thank you for what you do to protect the life of the unborn.
The Gilmore Campaign
Dear Gilmore Campaign,
I have corrected the information regarding Jim Gilmore's positions at your request and am cc'ing Colleen Parro of RNC for Life, who was my source. I know that RNC for Life is a trustworthy source for information on life issues and candidates' positions, and I'm quite certain that this was either an honest mistake on her part or somewhere along the line, either a source she quoted was wrong or positions have evolved. It's important that voters have accurate information on the candidates.
Nevertheless, I find that justifying abortion at any stage of life to be immoral and there are credible pro-life medical experts that say it is never necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother. I hope Mr. Gilmore will reconsider his positions. We need leaders who will protect all innocent life.
I thank you for your kind letter.
Update: Upon further review, it appears the information came from Jack Yoest's blog, Reasoned Audacity, who according to his report, formerly worked for Governor Gillmore, serving as Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services. The source was even linked in the RNC for Life report that was cited at above.
Posted at 06:44 PM in Abortion, Candidate Information, Duncan Hunter, Election News, Fred Thompson, Illegal Immigration, Jim Gilmore, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Party News, Public Funding of Abortion, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)