Catholics Against Rudy, which is headed up by Georgia lawyer Steve Dillard, is barely off the ground, yet has been the talk among pro-lifers all week, and is getting a wide range of press coverage like here, here, and here. Video on Chris Matthews can be seen here (part 1)and here (part 2). The website is currently under construction and will officially launch on July 4, 2007.
Rudy is being targeted by the group for not only his pro-abortion position, but also the fact that he is Catholic and violates the tenets of his own Faith with this position. Life of the Party considers this a good cause for both reasons, but remains opposed to nominating any Republican candidate who does not recognize and respect that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life that cannot be infringed.
Please view the information on the candidates linked in the sidebar for information on where they all stand. It's not always as it appears.
From the Team Tancredo website (And that doesn't necessarily answer the question. You've gotta love how it's never all about himself!):
(Feb 22, CONCORD, NH) -Conservative author Phyllis Schlafly urged New Hampshire Republican activists to test the conservative bona fides of the 2008 presidential candidates, especially those of the three Republicans leading in polls.
"New Hampshire is the front line of the presidential race, and as I go about and talk to the conservative movement, they're in disarray," said Schlafly, who led opposition to the failed Equal Rights Amendment more than 25 years ago. "They don't know what to do, who to back. We're told by the media that we have a choice of one of three, (Sen. John) McCain or (former New York mayor Rudy) Giuliani or (former Massachusetts governor Mitt) Romney. Each one of them is capable of raising $100 million. I'm not happy of being told that at all. I don't think that any of the three are acceptable."
She spoke yesterday at Newick's Restaurant in Merrimack before about 50 people, including members of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, the National Right to Life Committee and staffers of Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's presidential campaign. She told them to ask hard questions of each candidate so that each would commit himself. But she made clear that she thought that McCain, Romney and Giuliani lacked credibility on issues important to her - immigration, gay marriage and abortion.
She
disagreed with McCain's choice to co-sponsor legislation with Sen. Ted
Kennedy that would give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
Instead, she supported building a fence and fortifying the border
patrol on the country's southern border.
Romney didn't impress her when she saw him speak in Missouri.
"Mitt Romney's very handsome, very attractive, a wonderful speaker with a wonderful resume," but he didn't focus on conservative issues, she said.
Instead, he focused on his turnaround of the 2002 Winter Olympics, she said.
As for Giuliani, Schlafly said his standing at the top of polls won't last. "The polls also say that people don't know that he's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and anti-gun," she said. "I think those polls will change when people find out."
McCain, Giuliani and Romney are the top three candidates in the latest poll of likely Republican primary voters by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
Schlafly, 82, visited New Hampshire to stump for issues she has long supported. Yesterday, she urged state legislators to fight the repeal of the parental-notification abortion law at a press conference in Concord. Schlafly, reviled by feminists for opposing the constitutional amendment calling for equal rights for both sexes, also spoke to a women's studies class at Southern New Hampshire University. Tuesday, she met with Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican candidate from California also visiting the state. Schlafly has backed iconoclastic candidates before, including Barry Goldwater, Steve Forbes and Ronald Reagan.
Her books include The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It, Feminist Fantasies and A Choice, Not an Echo, which criticized the Republican Eastern establishment and was distributed by Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. She is the founder of the Eagle Forum, a St. Louis-based conservative volunteer group, and has fought for a pro-life plank to be included in the national GOP platform since 1984.
Those who attended Schlafly's speech echoed her call to confront candidates and to make sure voters listen to everyone running, not just the poll leaders.
"If McCain proved nothing else (in 2000), he proved that everybody has a chance from going to 0 percent in the polls to winning the primary," said Charlie Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy and a former state GOP chairman.
Several activists wore stickers for Tancredo, whom Schlafly lauded for opposing McCain's immigration bill.
"There are groups who will not vote for those three, because like Phyllis said, they don't line up with them on the right-to-life, gun control and immigration," said Shelly Uscinski, who is managing Tancredo's New Hampshire campaign and was handing out stickers yesterday.
Near the end of her speech, Schlafly tried to buck up Republicans dispirited by losses in the November congressional election. She likened the atmosphere today to when the press and some conservatives didn't believe her 1979 declaration that the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated.
"Conservatives didn't believe we could win anything at that time," she said, noting that the amendment hasn't been ratified. "We're kind of back to this defeatism again. We need to rebuild it."
The NY Times ombudsman (public editor), Byron Calame may be out of a job for his taking the paper to task on it's flawed abortion in El Salvador magazine cover story. His term is up in May, but the NY Times may be doing away with the position altogether. Michelle Malkin again has the story.
I guess this is the risk we run when we become pesky truth tellers.
While the government and their friends in the mainstream media would like to silence the blogosphere that's sweeping the nation with a different perspective on the news; While the movement is afoot through a variety of laws to restrict free speech on the internet; the King County Republican Party feels just as threatened by pesky truth-tellers closer to home.
To our knowledge, thus far, this news has not yet been reported elsewhere.
On Saturday, Dec. 2. The King County Republican PCOs after sheepishly re-electing its liberal leaders who led us to defeat in November, went on to pass bylaws that would subvert the will of Republican voters by giving top-down power to the executive board to place sanctions on and prevent their ELECTED PCOs to do the business they are elected to do, including preventing participation in caucuses and conventions, if the executive board deems them guilty of "Egregious, flagrant and continued violations of the Fundamental Principles of Republican Conduct that risk doing damage to the Republican Party." No objective criteria required.
Here are the particular articles that gives them this absolute power:
19.1 Principles for Imposing Sanctions. Egregious, flagrant and continued violations of the Fundamental Principles of Republican Conduct that risk doing damage to the Republican Party may be appropriate cases for imposition of formal sanctions under this Article.
19.2 Resolution of Formal Repudiation. A Resolution of Formal Repudiation may be proposed and adopted in accord with the following procedures. (a) The Elected Officers of the Central Committee, acting as a committee, shall develop and propose the Resolution, which shall specify the activities being repudiated in sufficient detail to allow a response; (b) the proposed resolution shall be provided to the individual or organization that is the subject of the resolution, together with notice of the meeting at which the resolution shall be considered, which shall be not less than ten days from the date notice was provided, (c) the individual, or representative of organization, shall be entitled to be present at the meeting of the Executive Committee considering the resolution and shall have a full and reasonable opportunity to present his reasons in opposition to the resolution, (d) the Executive Committee shall vote on the resolution by recorded vote, and (e) passage shall require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present and voting.
19.2.1 Any adopted Resolution of Formal Repudiation shall be communicated as the Chairman or Executive Committee shall determine.
19.3 Denial of Good Standing Status. Precinct Committee Officers and other Republican party activists may be denied the status of "good standing" by the action of the Elected Officers of the Central Committee acting as a committee pursuant to the following procedures; (a) a written complaint signed by a Precinct Committee Officer shall be presented to the Elected Officers who shall consider whether the complaint justifies further investigation, which decision shall be communicated to the complainant, (b) if so, the Elected Officers shall appoint a fact-finding committee, consisting of not less than three individuals who shall investigate the charges and make findings of fact germane to the charges, (c) the fact-finding committee shall provide the individual who is the subject of their investigation with a copy of the complaint and shall provide the individual with an opportunity to meet with them and provide evidence, (d) the factfinding committee shall engage in reasonable efforts to receive evidence from other individuals who may have relevant knowledge, (e) the fact-finding committee shall provide a written report of its conclusions to the Elected Officers, (f) a copy of the report shall be shall be provided to the individual who is the subject of the complaint, together with notice of the meeting at which the report shall be received and considered, which shall be not less than ten days from the date notice was provided, (g) the individual shall be entitled to be present when the Elected Officers meet to receive and consider the resolution and shall have a full and reasonable opportunity to present his reasons in opposition to the resolution, (h), The Elected Officers shall consider the report and by motion vote by recorded vote to determine whether the individual shall be determined to be not in good standing, (i) passage shall require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total number of Elected Officers.
19.3.1 Any individual found not to be in good standing with the King County Republican Central Committee shall have no further voting rights in any meeting of the Central Committee, or any of its constituent parts such as Legislative Districts and committees, shall be ineligible to hold a precinct caucus or to serve as an automatic or elected delegate to the King County Republican Convention, or any District Conventions, shall be ineligible to be elected to represent King County Republicans at any convention called by the Republican State Committee of Washington, and shall be ineligible to serve on any other committee established by or under the authority of the Central Committee.
These disabilities shall survive a subsequent election or reelection of the individual as a Precinct Committee Officer and shall last for a period of not less than two years, nor longer than six years, as determined by the resolution of the Elected Officers, and whichmay be reduced by subsequent action of a majority of the Elected Officers.
Why does this matter? These bylaws give absolute power to a small number of individuals (the executive board) to override the election (and even reelection) of PCOs and/or convention delegates whom they deem guilty of "Egregious, flagrant and continued violations of the Fundamental Principles of Republican Conduct that risk doing damage to the Republican Party." Without an objective criteria, PCOs stand the chance to be judged based on a subjective criteria of the executive board. This is very similiar to the former policy of the Washington State Republican Party Pre-Primary Censorship Agreement. Candidates running in Repubilcan primary elections were told they had to sign an agreement to not criticize their fellow Republican (including their primary opponent) with penalty of expensive fines, or else not receive access to party events and support. After a grassroots outcry, the WSRP killed it. It seems now that corpse has been exhumed to come after any Republican who dares to criticize party leaders.
