I Suppose Social Conservatives Should Feel Fortunate ...

... that at least it wasn't Rob Portman's daughter wanting to get an abortion that caused him to make a a social policy about-face :

Republican Sen. Rob Portman said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage – a surprise turnabout on a hot-button social issue, sparked by a deeply personal reflection that began two years ago after Portman’s son, Will, told him that he is gay.

[...]

Portman said his previous views on marriage were rooted in his faith.

But “the overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible . . . and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker . . . that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue,” he said.

That's right. Don't let those timeless truths of a pesky religious faith stand in the way of your own personal Jesus. Actually, Mollie Hemingway says it better:

Leaving apart the question of whether marriage law should be changed, this strikes me as a problematic approach. I mean, marriage law should be changed or it shouldn't be changed -- but it shouldn't hinge on the sexual attractions of one senator's son, should it?

What if a conservative senator said, "I'm reversing my views on whether abortion should be legal because my daughter got pregnant and wished she weren't."

One of the fascinating things about society today is that personal experience trumps everything else in argumentation. Very few people seem to care about fundamental truths and principles while everyone seems to care about personal experience and emotion. It's the Oprahfication of political philosophy.

Should a conservative determine good policy this way?

Angry Old White Man

John McCain railing against Rand Paul's appeal to "impressionable" kids in dorm rooms is so politically tone deaf and out of touch that it makes Clint Eastwood look like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Yesterday, in a textbook example of EVERYTHING that is wrong about John McCain, just after scolding Paul on the Senate floor, McCain lamented the retirement announcement of 78-year-old Democrat Sen. Carl. Levin who has been in the Senate FOR 35 YEARS ... since the Carter Administration.

McCain's world: young upstarts inspiring people to take our liberties seriously and challenging the perpetual war establishment ... bad; crusty old farts clinging to power and enriching themselves on the public teet until they're octogenarians ... good.

Remember ... John McCain got absolutely SLAUGHTERED in a presidential campaign in large part because his opponent was able to inspire young people to turn out in droves for him. Apparently, "Maverick" hasn't taken the lesson to heart. He and his girlfriend Lindsey Graham represent the hyper-militarist, neo-con old guard of the GOP. Hopefully, they are a dying breed.

National Review "Anti-Endorsements" - Only Establishment Types Need Apply [UPDATED]

We all know that National Review is in the tank for Mitt Romney, and has been for at least the last 5 years. But, as Paul Zummo notes, the editors don't even have the courage of their convictions to come out and actually endorse the RINO no one outside the DC establishment seems to want, but instead pen an "anti-endorsement" of the only 3 candidates who could possibly pose a challenge to their boy:

... National Review hasn’t officially endorsed Romney. What they have chosen to do instead is cast aside any candidate that might actually have a chance at winning the nomination other than Romney.

After spending the better part of its op-ed trashing Newt Gingrich, and doing so in the exaggerated fashion that has become the hallmark of the establishment set, (For a more measured and fair assessment of Newt’s ideology, see Dan McLaughlin’s post at Red State.) National Review sets its eyes on the rest of the field.

Gingrich is not the only candidate whom we believe conservatives should, regretfully, exclude from consideration for the presidency. Governor Perry has done an exemplary job in Texas but has seemed curiously and persistently unable to bring gravity to the national stage. Republican presidential candidates have not been known for their off-the-cuff eloquence in recent decades, but conservatism should not choose a standard-bearer who would have to spend much of his time untying his own tongue. Representative Bachmann’s rise early in the primary season reflected the public’s hunger for sincere conviction; her later descent, following among other things her casual repetition of false anti-vaccine rumors, its desire that conviction be married to judgment. Representative Paul’s recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence.

In other words, conservatives should ignore the four most popular candidates after Romney...

Paul then turns his attention to the 3 candidates left standing after National Review's self-appointed "winnowing":

... So who does National Review think conservatives should pay attention to:

Three other candidates deserve serious consideration. Governor Huntsman has a solid record, notwithstanding his sometimes glib foreign-policy pronouncements; his main weakness is his apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues. We still think he would make a fine president, but time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters’ skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record and his managerial disposition. Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience.

I have nothing but the highest regard for Rick Santorum, but this is a joke. National Review winnows the field to two moderate squishes, one of whom has no chance at winning the nomination, and its third “viable” candidate is a solid conservative who, let’s face reality, also has little chance at knocking off Romney. In fact including Santorum in this litany is almost insulting. It’s a sop to the conservatives reading this editorial, but that’s all it is...

Although I agree with Paul that Santorum's inclusion is little more than an insulting bone thrown to conservatives, I do think there is a little more to it than Paul gives National Review credit for.

If National Review has proven itself to be anything over the better part of the last decade, it has shown itself to be little more than a big-government-advocating organ of the inside-the-Beltway GOP establishment. And look at the 3 candidates that NR would have us choose from - all of them GOP establishment-type candidates. And, yes, that includes Santorum.

Of all the “true conservatives” in the race, Santorum is the one who is most firmly planted in the DC establishment wing. He’s certainly the most “Wilsonian” of the conservatives (in the sense of advocating foreign policy adventurism in the name of making the world "safe" for democracy), which appears to be the most important criterion these days to the inside-the-Beltway types. He was also a key figure in the GOP Senate leadership prior to losing his re-election bid. Most telling, Santorum has proven street creds among the establishment set by showing that he will do the party’s bidding even at the expense of his pro-life credentials. It was "for the good of the party" that Santorum actively campaigned and cut TV and radio ads for pro-abortion liberal Sen. Arlen Specter, leading to Specter's GOP primary victory over the conservative pro-lifer Pat Toomey. Specter later defected to the Democrats after being re-elected with Santorum's help. (It is supremely ironic that Santorum's support for Specter over Toomey was partly based on the notion that Toomey was "unelectable", in that Toomey now occupies the U.S. Senate seat that Specter once held and that Santorum can't even pull 5% support in a GOP primary field.)

At any rate, that Santorum is the only conservative to whom National Review bothers to tip its hat, in my mind, only further confirms my assessment that NR has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the inside-the-Beltway GOP establishment.


UPDATE
In contrast to Paul's piece (as well as mine), Creative Minority Report seems to find National Review's non-endorsement endorsement of Mitt "fair, balanced, and reasonable". A disappointing assessment of NR's blatantly intellectually dishonest blather from the usually spot-on Archbold boys (for whom I have the highest regard, even when they're dead wrong).

National Review's piece is nothing short of bought-and-paid-for-by-Beltway-insiders political hackery. And, as bad as Newt Gingrich is and would be as the GOP nominee, Mitt Romney remains the ONLY candidate in the GOP field for whom I will NEVER vote UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

All the Proof You Need That the GOP Did NOT Get the Message ...

... "After gains, Cornyn likely to stay on as head of NRSC".

So, the guy who backed Charlie Crist (soon-to-be-unemployed RINO-to-"Independent" turncoat and shameless flip-flopper extraordinaire) over Marco Rubio, and who backed Arlen Specter (soon-to-be-unemployed RINO-to-Democrat turncoat) over Pat Toomey, and who sat by and did nothing while Princess Lisa (RINO-to-Write-In turncoat) overtook Joe Miller, gets to keep his job?

Want additional proof that the establishment GOP is completely out of touch? Try this on for size:

"Former Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) has even floated Cornyn’s name as a promising presidential candidate in 2012."

Idiots. The whole lot of them.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Party Unity" is Only for Wing Nuts (Suckers)

The Archbold Boys Go Off on the GOP [UPDATED]

John Cornyn and the Rest of the Idiots at the NRSC Will Never Learn, Will They?

The "Stupid Party" is All the More Stupid for Having John Cornyn Among Its Ranks

Matt Archbold on the "Twin Relics of Barbarism"

An excellent post at Creative Minority Report:

When the Republican Party held their first convention in 1856 the delegates adopted a platform stating "It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery."

What I find most amazing about that is how consistent the problems this country faces are. Over 150 years laters we're facing the same crises now.

[...]

While there have been outrages and sins by the party there is little doubt that the party is the pro-life pro-traditional marriage party.

If the party adopts an agenda of some kind of truce on social issues it will cease to be a party many feel comfortable standing with. The moment the Republican Party accepts the twin relics of barbarism as negotiable it will be time for a new party and a new convention.

[Read the whole thing]

"Party Unity" is Only for Wing Nuts (Suckers)

The Washington Examiner notices the same trend of RINO Establishment backstabbing that I've written about on occasion:

In light of Tea Party candidate Ovide Lamontagne stumping for establishment candidate Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire after Ayotte beat Lamontagne in the primary, here’s a brief history of recent moments in party loyalty and disloyalty in the GOP, off the top of my head:

•1994, GOP nominates conservative Ollie North for Senate. Moderate Sen. John Warner, in response, recruited independent Marshall Coleman to run, and Coleman took enough votes from North so that Chuck Robb (D) held on and won with less than 50%.

•2001, conservative Bret Schundler pulls off an upset in the gubernatorial primary, beating Bob Franks, and the establishment leaves him out to dry and lose badly to Jim McGreevey.

•2004, Rick Santorum and George W. Bush go to the mat to save liberal Sen. Arlen Specter from a primary challenge by conservative Sen. Pat Toomey. Bush appears at a rally for Specter, and Santorum cuts multiple TV ads for him. Specter wins narrowly, and Toomey endorses him. Specter then doesn’t show at a Bush-Cheney rally in the fall, and Bush loses Pennsylvania. After the election, Specter warns Bush not to send any anti-Roe justices his way.

•2006, conservative Tim Walberg defeats liberal Rep. Joe Schwarz in the GOP primary in Michigan. In 2008, Schwarz endorses the Democratic nominee, who wins.

•2008, conservative Andy Harris knocks off liberal Rep. Wayne Gilchrest in the GOP primary. Gilchrest then endorses the Democratic nominee, who beats Harris.

•2009, GOP operatives choose liberal Dede Scozzfava to run in a special election. Conservative forces get behind independent Doug Hoffman. When Scozzafava's support collapses in the polls, she drops out and endorses the Democrat, who wins.

•2009, Pat Toomey again challenges Sen. Arlen Specter in the GOP primary. When polls show Specter badly losing, he switches to run as a Democrat. When Specter loses his primary to liberal Democrat Joe Sestak, he warmly endorses Sestak.

•2010, Sen. Lisa Murkowski loses her Senate primary to Joe Miller. Murkowski runs as a write-in.

•2010, liberal Gov. Charlie Crist, with the backing of the GOP establishment, still falls behind conservative Marco Rubio in the polls. Crist runs as an independent.

•2010, liberal Rep. Mike Castle loses his primary to conservative Christine O’Donnell. Castle refuses to endorse.

Noticing a pattern? The pattern is this: party loyalty is a lie used to make conservatives more obedient.

Read more at The Washington Examiner


Previous Pro Ecclesia post on this subject:
The Archbold Boys Go Off on the GOP [UPDATED]

John Cornyn and the Rest of the Idiots at the NRSC Will Never Learn, Will They?

The "Stupid Party" is All the More Stupid for Having John Cornyn Among Its Ranks

"True Believers" Unwelcome in GOP

Pat Archbold writes at National Catholic Register:

... As it turns out, the Republicans wanted the base to get involved—just not so much. What they really wanted is for real conservatives to turn out to vote but certainly not run. Newly involved fiscal conservatives are finding out that the Republican party wants their votes, just not them.

Welcome to the club.

This is the position that culture-of-life conservatives, like me, have found ourselves in for a generation. I know that many culture-of-life conservatives feel that the Republican party has expected us to get out and vote for candidates of their choosing in return for the privilege of lip service to the life issues we care most about. But many of us COL conservatives have come to the conclusion that much of the Republican leadership does not really care about these issues, at least not enough to really do anything about it.

Now fiscal conservatives find themselves in the same situation...

[...]

That is the problem, the Republican party has never been very comfortable with true believers. Culture-of-life conservatives know this from experience...

[More]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The Archbold Boys Go Off on the GOP [UPDATED]

The Archbold Boys Go Off on the GOP [UPDATED]

And I agree with them wholeheartedly. See "I Hate Republicans--A Disgusting FIt of Pique" at Creative Minority Report.

And you can read my solution to the problem in the comments over there, which can be summed up as follows:

They don't support us? Then we don't support them.


UPDATE
Don't miss my friend Don McClarey's post "Electoral Revolt".


UPDATE #2
I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan, but he's exactly right in taking the GOP-establishment types, namely Karl Rove, to task for being at war with the grassroots:



Rove, you magnificent bastard!


UPDATE #3
My gosh, but I despise these people (especially Lindsey Graham, who is particularly insufferable):

... Behind closed doors Wednesday, Republican senators tried to assess the damage. Several senators at the lunch, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts, raised concerns that the party has sent a message that it had no room for moderates, even from left-leaning states, according to people familiar with the exchanges. And others expressed frustration that the GOP had essentially given away a pivotal seat that Castle could have won.

[...]

Afterward, DeMint elaborated why he believed Republicans in Washington may not be ready to return to power.

“I was just putting out a question because if the idea is we’ve got to field people who don’t agree with us in order to get the majority, that doesn’t make any sense,” DeMint said in an interview. He later said he believed Republicans “might” not be ready to run the Senate. Asked to respond, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona said the GOP was “absolutely” ready.

While he says he’s standing up for conservative principles, he’s clearly gone against the grain in the tradition-bound Senate.

[...]

“This is a classic example of where defeating the most electable conservative candidate would be a bad move — in my view,” said the senior GOP senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, discussing the Delaware race in which he backed Castle. “It’s one thing to purify the party. It’s another thing to build coalitions. Ideological purity has to have some boundaries because the country is fairly center-right, that’s my view.”

[...]

DeMint insisted that Castle would have done more harm than good to Republican causes.

“What I hear all across the country is we didn’t do what we said we’re going to do” when Republicans were in the majority, he said. “If we do that again, if we are entrusted with a majority again, even in the House, and we don’t do it, I think what happens is when we have a few that vote with the Obama agenda, it defines the whole Republican Party.”

[Read more]

The other Senator from South Carolina - Jim DeMint - could not stand in more stark contrast to that pathetic milquetoast, Graham.

It's obvious why Graham and his ilk don't like the riff-raff rising up to overthrow the establishment's hand-picked candidates: he knows his day is coming. But rather than face the reality that the grassroots voters are no longer taking their cues from inside-the-Beltway and adjust his style and priorities accordingly, Graham would rather pout and cry and act as if his crowd has somehow been "wronged" because they lost an election.

Listen, jerk, the voters in the GOP primaries have spoken. You don't like the results? Tough! But it's time you learned that the voters are in charge of who represents us, not those who get elected. You serve at our pleasure; not the other way around. We don't take out marching orders from you; you take them from us (and if you don't, we can arrange for you to seek employment elsewhere).

Matt Archbold: Vote Your Conscience [UPDATED]

Matthew Archbold writes at National Catholic Register:

... I’m just a voter and I’m done trying to be smart. I mean it. I’m done. I’m done playing the angles and reading the polls. I’m voting my conscience. Every time. And it drives me crazy to hear people telling me to vote with my head and not my heart. It drives me crazy to be told to “be smart.” Smart gave Republicans Arlen Specter.

And we’re even being told to “be smart” in who we vote for in the primary because pro-lifers may vote for a candidate who can win a primary but not a general election. Are they kidding? Republicans have had that kind of majority before. How’d that work out?

We’re being told to ignore our conscience during the primaries and choose candidates who we’re told can in the general election. But why the heck shouldn’t I vote my conscience in a primary? If a majority of Republicans vote for a candidate they don’t really like what you’ll likely get is a candidate that nobody likes.

Their way gave us the disastrous Republican majority we had during the last decade. Their way gave us John McCain. I’m tired of their way.

I’m voting my conscience. Stop telling me to be a strategist. I’m just a voter who’s horrified at the number of unborn children being killed. I’m just a voter who worries about the collapsing American family...

[More]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

My sentiments exactly.

And we're seeing this a lot lately with people who generally tell us that we shouldn't vote for that pro-abort Democrat under any circumstances suddenly finding no qualms about supporting the pro-abort, pro-ESCR Catholic Republican Mike Castle over his pro-life opponent in the Delaware GOP primary election for U.S. Senate.

They keep telling us what a flawed candidate the pro-lifer is, but they seem to ignore just how deeply flawed Mike Castle is from a pro-life Catholic perspective.

They keep telling us that the pro-lifer can't win in blue Delaware, but that the pro-abort Mike Castle CAN win, as if just electing someone with an "R" next to his name is all this should be about for pro-life Catholic voters.

One blogger for whom I have a great deal of respect but with whom I couldn't possibly disagree more on this issue has actually gone so far as to argue that voting for Mike Castle - one of the most vocal and most active pro-abort and pro-ESCR Catholics in Congress - over his pro-life opponent will "limit the damage to the pro-life movement".

It all sounds so familiar (see, e.g., Toomey, Pat vs. Specter, Arlen, and the political wranglings of Santorum, Rick to get the latter elected).

Look, I can understand why someone identifying as a Republican might want to support Castle for purposes of achieving power. In order to gain power, you need an "R" next to the name. But I absolutely draw the line and call BS on any attempt to justify voting for one of the most egregious anti-life Catholics in Congress as being "more pro-life" than voting for his ... you know ... ACTUAL pro-life opponent. To try to justify such a vote as "limiting the damage to the pro-life movement" is a rendering of the words so as make them absolutely meaningless.

The chances of a Castle win being THE seat that puts the Senate in GOP hands is VERY speculative, at best. But the chances of Castle being a pro-abortion, left-wing thorn in the side of the Senate GOP (not to mention a scandal to the Catholic faithful as a high-profile, vocal pro-abort Catholic in the pro-life party) is 100%. Castle can do SERIOUS damage to the pro-life cause as the "bipartisan" go-to guy that Democrats will seek out for cover on issues like ESCR, abortion legislation, federal judges, etc.

There is absolutely NO pro-life argument in favor of Mike Castle. Because of his horrific record on the unborn, and because his identification as a Catholic makes his record doubly scandalous, I would NEVER vote for him under ANY circumstances, regardless of the shortcomings of his opponent.

In the end, I'm a socially conservative Catholic voter; I'm NOT a Republican. So I have absolutely no problem with seeing the U.S. Senate seat from Delaware stay Dem rather than having an outspokenly pro-abort, pro-ESCR Catholic sitting in the seat and undermining the pro-lifers within his own party and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Like Matthew Archbold, if I were a voter in the Delaware GOP primary, I'd be voting my conscience.


UPDATE
For those of you who see voting for Castle as part of an overall GOP "strategery" for retaking the Senate, Ed Morrissey puts that strategic gamesmanship into perspective:

... This seat matters strategically in one narrow set of circumstances, and one only: if the GOP picks up a net of exactly nine other seats. If the GOP nets eight or fewer Senate seats besides Delaware, then this election wouldn’t give them control of the Senate anyway. If the GOP picks up ten or more seats without Delaware, then this seat again doesn’t matter much either in terms of controlling the agenda. Netting enough seats to win the Senate is a long shot in any case, probably in the range of a 5-1 against, with or without Delaware...

(emphasis added)

Basically the same thing I said above regarding the speculative nature of the Delaware seat being THE seat that puts the Senate back in GOP hands, only Ed says it better than I did.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Mike Castle and the "Deadly Dozen"

Most Un-Self-Aware Quote of the Day

Prof. Bainbridge Takes On So-Called "Holier-Than-Thou Right"

Mike Castle and the "Deadly Dozen"

I suppose my posting this will place me among the "holier than thou crowd on the right" against whom Prof. Bainbridge recently ranted. Oh well, I suppose I can go on living, even if it is outside the good graces of my betters among the legal blogging community elite.

Yesterday, while standing in the parish vestibule with a crying Gracie (who chose the Consecration as the most appropriate time to begin demanding her pacifier, which we had not brought to Mass with us), I noticed this flier pinned to the bulletin board:


Upon a closer perusal, I noticed this:



Rep. Mike Castle (RINO, DE), who is currently running in the GOP primary for the right to run in a special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat that was vacated when Joe Biden became Vice President, appears on the "Deadly Dozen" list courtesy of his 100% NARAL rating (complemented by a 0 rating from National Right to Life) and his role as one of the most active and vocal sponsors of ESCR in Congress. (I'd venture to guess that even Joe Biden, who opposed partial-birth abortion, didn't have a 100% NARAL rating. So, his election would be a step backward, if you can believe it, for the pro-life cause.) And this isn't even taking into account Castle's support of economy-killing and large-family-punishing Cap-and-Tax regulations, which will have minimal - if any - effect on improving the environment while having devastating effects on those who can ill afford to pay for it.

Yet, this is the man who, the GOP establishment tells us, just MUST be elected in order for the Republicans to provide us with the conservative leadership that we need ... or something.

And those who desire to vote out of principle for Castle's conservative pro-life opponent are derided by the more "sophisticated" pragmatists as short-sighted, nuts, and/or (as Prof. Bainbridge would have it) "holier than thou".

Someone remind me again why it is we should return the Stupid Party to power?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Most Un-Self-Aware Quote of the Day

Prof. Bainbridge Takes On So-Called "Holier-Than-Thou Right"

Most Un-Self-Aware Quote of the Day

From some commenter at HotAir responding to a piece criticizing "the Ruling Class" for its attacks on conservative GOP candidate Christine O'Donnell, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Delaware against GOP-establishment-anointed RINO Mike Castle:

“I’m Ruling Class? Who knew?!” Vintage said, from his lofty perch as an overeducated, underpaid Office Manager at a non-profit in DC…

It's Vintage, Duh on September 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM

(emphasis added)

Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone could possibly think that someone sitting on their inside-the-beltway perch at some D.C. public-interest job might not be in touch with the rank-and-file voter in the hinterlands.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Prof. Bainbridge Takes On So-Called "Holier-Than-Thou Right"

Prof. Bainbridge Takes On So-Called "Holier-Than-Thou Right"

Really, Professor?

The holier than thou crowd on the right continues to excoriate Delaware US Senate candidate Mike Castle as being insufficiently conservative...

[...]

By letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, Riehl and his ilk are ensuring themselves of a pure minority. I guess it makes for good talk radio and blog posts, but it's a lousy electoral strategy.

But what if I live in Delaware [obviously, I don't] and don't want to vote for Mike Castle? What if Mike Castle is so far out of touch with my own values that I find the very thought of wasting one of my most precious rights - the right to vote as I see fit - on voting for Mike Castle repugnant in the extreme?

This commenter at Prof. Bainbridge's site, put it well:

And yet, this too easily becomes another kind of "holier than thou" argument. I wonder if the equivalent political calculation in 1980 would have given us nominee Reagan. Perhaps the "holier than thou" right should just vote in the Republican primaries for the available candidate whose views most closely align with their own and then do the same in the general election? You know, just like everyone else gets to do?

Exactly. It's a primary. Vote your conscience.

Or are social conservatives not allowed to do that? Only neo-cons and fiscal-cons, etc., have that luxury, right?

Let's pose a hypothetical question.

Assume that I'm exactly the same person, except that I live in Delaware. I'm not a Republican, so I feel no compulsion to vote out of fealty to the GOP. The issues I'm most concerned about are the issues social conservatives are most concerned about. In addition, I feel very strongly that Cap & Tax is not only economically harmful but is also anti-family in its effects (and perhaps even in intent). I am also opposed to the sorts of gun control measures for which Castle has voted over the years.

In addition, I just don't like nor trust Mike Castle, not only because his values - as evidenced by his votes over the years - do not match up with my own, but because the 70+ year old Castle, who has spent most of his adult life in politics, seems to me to be the textbook example of what is wrong with the GOP establishment, as well as the entire political system.

On the other hand, the challenger is VERY close to me in terms of her values. She represents my own set of political priorities.

Finally, my entire 5-and-a-half-year blogging career has been devoted to "voting your values".

For whom should I vote in the Delaware GOP Primary?

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Abortion: The Signpost at the Crossroads

Joseph Bottum writes at First Things:

... You travel the long road of religion in America, and you find the Bible chapels, scattered along the prairie like tumbleweeds that have somehow grown white vinyl siding. You drive past the green-lawn suburban churches with cutesy messages on the brick-framed signs placed out near the street. You pass the exhaust-stained marble fronts of the old city congregations, the yellow taxis inching angrily by. You visit the grand cathedrals and synagogues, announcing their people’s success in America, this newfoundland, and you see the pulpits and the choir lofts and the pews and the Sunday schools—the church basement halls, with their dented aluminum coffeemakers and styrofoam cups, their book tables, their after-service conversations burbling away. And somewhere down that highway you come, again, to the crossroads where the public life of the nation confronts you.

There is a marker at that place, naming its many promises and dangers for travelers, with the word abortion at the top. Even now, abortion remains what it has been for more than thirty years: the signpost at the intersection of religion and American public life.

Of course, there are those who think this shouldn’t be so. Personally, I cannot see how abortion could not rank first. We eliminate 1.3 million unborn children in this country every year, a number that dwarfs, by far, the impact of every other activity with which the moral teachings of the churches might be concerned. For that matter, the story of abortion is a tale of blood and sex and power and law—I do not know what more anyone could need for public significance. The people who say they are uninterested in the issue of abortion have always seemed, to me, to be trying to suppress the imagination that most makes us human.

Nonetheless, even in the churches some do not see things this way, and they want the whole issue simply to go away. But the fact that they wish abortion didn’t matter shows that abortion does, in fact, matter. It’s proof that the social observation remains true, for good or for ill. Whether one approves or not, the issue of abortion is here in America—the signpost at the crossroads...

[...]

... Abortion is here, and not to take a stand is to take a stand.

Every two years, we seem to go through this. Usually it comes after the election—and often from Republicans. There’s a good-sized section of the conservative commenting classes that seems to blame the pro-lifers if the Republicans lose, and dismiss the pro-life vote if the Republicans win...

[...]

And here we get down to it—the real reason, beyond all party politics, that no truce on abortion is possible. One can imagine pro-life absolutisms that are unhelpful and counterproductive. The refusal, for instance, to accept the introduction of pro-life counseling into pregnancy centers because those centers also counsel for abortion. Or the denunciation of small, state-by-state measures because they do not address the central problem of the insertion of abortion as a right into the Constitution by Roe v. Wade. A particularly wrong-headed example, wasting incalculable money and energy, is the attempt made by several states over the last decade to pass state constitutional amendments that ban abortions—hoping thereby to create the silver bullet that would force the Supreme Court to reconsider the abortion license.

But the rejection of Mitch Daniels’ truce proposal is not this sort of absolutism. We should not accept a truce on abortion because the pro-life position is, in fact, winning. With horrifying slowness, yes, but each graduating class of young people is more opposed to abortion than the last, and in the long run the great task of persuasion and argument will prevail...

[...]

No, we cannot halt. We cannot falter. We cannot pause. We cannot agree to wait. No truce—not now, not ever.

[Read the whole thing]

(Hat tip: Joe Scheidler)

John Cornyn and the Rest of the Idiots at the NRSC Will Never Learn, Will They?

You've heard the old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

But what to make of an organization so inept that they allow themselves to play the fool over and over and over again?

... If, as seems clear, the goal of the Committee is to defeat Democrats, why they should have any preference in a primary — especially one where two Republicans are separated by one percent — is beyond me. Drew counters that, as a sitting senator, Murkowski’s partly responsible for raising money for the NRSC and therefore should be able to call on its resources, but again, that’s not what the Committee is supposed to be for. If incumbents want to start a National Incumbent Committee and raise money for themselves that way, fine; as it is, fundraising on the NRSC’s behalf is ostensibly done for all Republican candidates in the name of the betterment of the party. How does Murkowski have a stronger claim to that than Miller? Besides, not all of the NRSC’s money is a product of incumbents showing up for fundraising events. They have an online donation page for small donors just like every other political group nowadays (note that the photos on the page are all of Democrats, not Republican incumbents), and in any event, given the enthusiasm among the base this year for “true conservatives” like Miller, I wouldn’t be surprised to find more support for him than for Murkowski among NRSC donors.

So no, I still don’t get why the NRSC is helping her out. Neither does Erick Erickson, who hears that she’s angling to make a deal with the Libertarian Party in exchange for a huge donation even as an NRSC lawyer is on his way up there to help her with the next steps in the GOP primary. Which, by the way, is still winnable for her: Fully 20,000 absentee or “questioned” ballots, most of them Republican, remain to be counted and she only needs to net 1,700 votes to win. (Remember, Miller surged late in the race so early absentee voters might favor Murkowski.) But in case the absentees don’t come through for her, old Palin nemesis Andrew Halcro has reportedly commissioned a poll for this weekend showing how Murkowski would fare in a three-way race if she joined the Libertarians. And the Libertarians themselves seem increasingly open to the idea...

For those of you who haven't been keeping score, here's the NRSC's recent track record in cases where they've gone to bat for the less conservative candidate over the more conservative candidate:

•In the 2004 and 2010 Pennsylvania GOP Senate Primary races, the NRSC endorsed Arlen Specter, not once, but twice, over the more conservative candidate, Pat Toomey. The second time the NRSC involved itself in trying to pick and choose Pennsylvania's Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Toomey actually had a sizeable lead over Specter and an arguably better chance of winning the general election. A month after the NRSC endorsement, Specter switched parties and became a Democrat.


•In the 2006 Rhode Island GOP Senate Primary race, the NRSC endorsed the perennially unreliable Lincoln Chafee over the more conservative candidate Steve Laffey. Chafee went on to win the primary but lose in the general election. A short time thereafter, Chafee abandoned the Republican Party to run as an independent for Governor of Rhode Island.


•In the 2010 Florida GOP Senate Primary race, the NRSC endorsed mushy moderate Charlie Crist over the more conservative Marco Rubio. When Rubio pulled well ahead of Crist, NRSC Chairman John Cornyn said he was sticking with his endorsement of Crist as a matter of "honor". With Rubio crushing Crist among Republican voters, Crist abandoned the GOP to run for the U.S. Senate as an independent. Crist has declined to say whether he will, if elected, caucus with the Republicans (unlikely) or the Democrats (quite likely).


And now, wouldn't it just be fitting for the NRSC to rush to Alaska to help Lisa Murkowski in her recount efforts against the apparently victorious (and Palin-backed) Joe Miller, only to see Miller remain the victor and Murkowski abandon the party and land on the ballot as the Libertarian nominee?

Jackasses.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The "Stupid Party" is All the More Stupid for Having John Cornyn Among Its Ranks [UPDATED]

Just Another One of My Occasional Reminders ...

... that I WILL NOT under ANY circumstances vote for Mitt Romney.

(And yes, that means staying home or voting 3rd party in 2012 if the GOP is stupid enough to choose Romney as their nominee, even if votes like mine assure The One's re-election.)

That is all.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Mitt Romney: Pro-Choice? Who, Me?

Time for Yet Another Periodic Reminder to the GOP Power Brokers and Pundits ...

Is Mitt Romney the REAL WINNER of the Massachusetts Special Election?

Have I Mentioned Lately ...

Regarding Mitt Romney, My Sentiments Exactly

A Theory [UPDATED]

Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?

You Stay Classy, Mitt

The Anchoress: "Convince Me of the Merits of Mitt"

Romney's Free Ride On Abortion

Romney and the Florida GOP Debate

InsideCatholic: "Why Mitt Romney Is the Best Choice for Catholic Conservatives"

Sam Brownback Says Mitt Romney Needs to Address Abortion Change

Massachusetts Conservatives Back Brownback Over Romney

Joe Scarborough: For Too Long, McCain, Kristol, Graham & Lieberman Have Defined GOP Foreign Policy

More on the Asscrackistan crack-up among conservatives:

... Anybody that understands how the conservative movement runs, how the Republican Party runs, there are columnists that people listen to. Ann Coulter is one of them on the hard right. And when Ann Coulter starts coming out, criticizing Republican foreign policy, policy that you can date back to George W. Bush and the second inaugural address . . . you know a real debate's about to begin in the Republican Party.

The party has been the party of endless wars now for the past five, six, seven years, with George W. Bush promising to export democracy across the globe and, quote, end tyranny across the globe. The debate's begun.

For too long you have had John McCain and you've had Bill Kristol, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman define what it meant to be a Republican when it came to foreign policy. When, in fact, historically, the Republican Party has usually been for restraint. They've been accused of being isolationists in the past and it seems like a small group of people want to fight every war at every corner of the planet and not good for the party. . . . This is a very important op-ed that Ann Coulter wrote yesterday.

And more here, as well.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The War Party Redux

The War Party [UPDATED]

The War Party Redux

I originally posted this as an update to my original post on the subject, but have decided that it merited a post of its own.

I don't normally go in for Ann Coulter ... her vitriolic brand of commentary isn't my style, nor do I believe it to be all that effective except in throwing some red meat to the true believers.

That said, I have to give the girl credit for knocking this one out of the park::

... But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?

Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!

Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.

(emphasis added)

Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The War Party [UPDATED]

The War Party [UPDATED]

John McCain has been severely screwing over conservatives, not to mention the Constitution via his ill-conceived campaign finance reforms, for roughly a decade now.

Yet National Review, in an extremely rare (and heavily criticized) move, recently endorsed McCain over his GOP primary opponent. McCain may be the better candidate, but he was likely to win anyway, so National Review's decision to involve itself is somewhat puzzing. Until, that is, you read their explanation, and then it becomes painfully obvious what REALLY matters to those who call themselves "mainstream conservative" these days:

... when McCain is right he can have a terrific impact. McCain has a credibility on national security that few other Republicans can match. It is entirely possible that without Senator McCain we would have left Iraq in ignominy. Few legislators ever accomplish as much good as McCain did through his leadership on the surge. Conservatives should be grateful for this service and appreciative of the wisdom and fortitude that made it possible. This accomplishment, in our judgment, more than makes up for McCain’s mistakes, the impact of which has also been major (as in the cases of campaign-finance regulation and interrogation policy).

(emphasis added)

Got that? Be as squishy as you want on pro-life issues, especially things like ESCR. Screw over your party's efforts to get qualified conservatives onto the judiciary by compromising with the Dems who are filibustering those nominees, making it that much more difficult to get originalists through the Senate confirmation process (and, thus, Roe v. Wade overturned). Quash political free speech by pushing for restrictions on campaign financing that are, in fact, efforts to shield incumbents from the criticism of politically active citizens. Play footsie with the media and the opposing party, while reserving your harshest language and criticisms for those in your own party and in the conservative movement.

But, as long as you toe the War Party line, that "more than makes up for" the afore-mentioned deficiencies.

Another example: Michael Steele.

Steele has been needing an ousting from the role of RNC Chairman for quite a while now. Poor fundraising in what should be a banner GOP year is just the tip of the iceberg. Steele has been guilty of political misstep after political misstep, and is prone to stick his foot in his mouth and alienate some segment of the party on a weekly basis.

Long ago, Steele fell afoul of social conservatives over his irresolute and ambivalent remarks regarding abortion. I called for his removal over a year ago after he seemed to admit that he was "pro-choice" on the abortion issue.

But for all the pratfalls that have bedeviled Chairman Steele throughout his tenure at the helm of the RNC, he is only now in real danger of losing his job. Why?

Because his most recent misadventure with foot-in-mouth syndrome just so happened to cross the War Party cheerleaders:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is under increasing pressure from within his own party to step down for saying the nine-year old U.S. military conflict in Afghanistan is a "war of Obama's choosing" that history suggests is "probably a lost cause."

[...]

But Rove didn't go as far as other prominent conservatives, including Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol, who are calling on Steele to resign.

"Everyone makes mistakes, but Mr. Steele has failed at virtually all of the tasks expected of him," Christian Whiton, a State Department official in the Bush administration, wrote in an opinion article for FoxNews.com. "He is gaffe prone, off message, and has repelled rather than attracted RNC donors."

"His comments on Afghanistan, reminiscent of isolationists who called World War II 'Mr. Roosevelt's war,' and who were kept out of office by voters as a result, ought to be the last straw," he wrote.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Steele's "irresponsible comments show him to be completely out of touch with the majority of the Republican Party."

"Time and again, Steele has demonstrated this disconnect," he said Saturday in a written statement. "His comments were not only tactless, but showed an unfortunate level of ignorance on such a significant national security issue."

Hunter added that Steele's comments were "as wrong as it is a disservice to our military men and women."

In remarks captured Thursday on camera and posted online, Steele criticized President Obama and his handling of the Afghan war and suggested the war cannot be won.

"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Steele said. "This is not something United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

[...]

Kristol, writing for The Weekly Standard, was among the first to say Steele should resign.

"There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they're certainly entitled to make their case," wrote Kristol, a consistent supporter of the Afghanistan war. "But one of them shouldn't be the chairman of the Republican Party."

Liz Cheney called on Steele to resign, telling Politico in a statement that Steele's comments were "deeply disappointing and wrong."

"I endorse fully Bill Kristol's letter to Chairman Steele," she said. "It is time for Chairman Steele to step down."

Whenever the GOP performs poorly, it is inevitable that the presence of social conservatives in the party will receive the lion's share of the blame. But it is inarguable that the GOP performed poorly in the last 2 election cycles because of the Bush Administration's war policy.

Unfortunately, the War Party tail is STILL wagging the Republican Party dog.


UPDATE (7 July 2010)
Damn. I hate it when I find myself agreeing with a vitriolic windbag like Ann Coulter. But she hit this one out of the park:

... But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?

Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!

Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.

(emphasis added)

Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Charlie Crist: Ultra-Sound Law is "Mean Spirited"

The shamelessly shape-shifting fraud, Charlie Crist, strikes again:

... Newly minted Independent Charlie Crist has faith to believe that aborted babies could be the ticket that delivers him a hotly contested senate seat over conservative Republican rival, Marco Rubio and Democrat, Kendrick Meek.

Although conveniently pro-life for over a decade, Crist took down the sanctity of life section from his webpage. By doing so, Charlie sent a message of non-support for a controversial Florida bill that wants to provide the opportunity for women to see an ultrasound of their baby before deciding in favor of abortion.

[...]

Crist threatened to veto the bill because he said, "On two fronts it disturbs me. That you would force a woman to go through this procedure . . . almost seems mean-spirited. To have your government impose on you, listen to a lecture, then on top of that, you have to pay for it."

[...]

Sporadic pro-lifer Crist doesn't seem to have a problem imposing abortion's monetary cost on pro-life taxpayers. Yet, the governor gets extremely perturbed at the thought of a bill that provides women with an image, to make an informed decision that might prevent the abortion Crist believes taxpayers should be "forced" to pay.

If it's about choice, shouldn't not having an abortion also be a choice?

The senate hopeful feels viewing an ultrasound image of an unborn child is "mean-spirited?" Does Mr. Crist believe kindness is demonstrated by burning and flushing a defenseless fetus from a womb? Charlie's pro-abortion position gives new insight into the odd spelling of the governor's surname, which explains why the "h" in Crist is nowhere to be found.

Former Republican, ex-pro-life advocate Charlie Crist must want that senate seat so badly he is willing to abandon both conviction and conscience. Governor Crist stands ready to fight for the right to keep the image of a baby, peacefully curled in the fetal position inside the womb, from it's mother eyes, heart and conscience. A picture so truthful it possesses the power to change minds and deter ignorant choices.

One must remember, dead babies aside, its the ignorant choices that are encouraged by frauds like Charlie Crist. Uninformed voters hold immense promise in elections for politicians that support life when convenient, but who willingly place innocent infants on the altar of abortion, exchanging live offerings for votes bought with blood.

(Hat tip: PewSitter.com)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Charlie Crist is One Shameless Piece of Work

The "Stupid Party" is All the More Stupid for Having John Cornyn Among Its Ranks [UPDATED]

Rubio Leads Crist in Florida

Pro-Life Catholic Rubio Pulls Even With Crist in Florida Senate Race

Charlie Crist Caught Lying About Support for Porkulus: Exposed by Rolling Stone

Charlie Crist is One Shameless Piece of Work

LifeNews reports that Charlie Crist, the RepublIndependeCrat candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida has scrubbed from his website any reference to his former dubious claims of commitment to the sanctity of life:

Tallahassee, FL (LifeNews.com) -- In the latest development in the race for the open U.S. Senate seat in Florida, Governor Charlie Crist is coming under fire for removing the pro-life section of his campaign website. This comes on the day the legislature sent him a bill that would allow women to see an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion.

Crist has already hinted he will veto the legislation, which also allows Florida to opt out of some of the abortion funding under the new national health care law President Barack Obama signed.

That he would potentially veto a pro-life bill will broad support from voters is another indication of his strategy to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent.

Knowing he may veto the bill, the campaign of pro-life Republican candidate Marco Rubio informed LifeNews.com today that Crist's campaign scrubbed his web site of a section touting Crist as a supposedly pro-life candidate.

"Now that he has left the Republican Party in order to win an election and is trying to attract liberal votes, the Crist campaign yesterday removed the 'pro-life/family' issue page of its website," Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos told LifeNews.com today. "In doing so, Charlie Crist eliminated any reference to being 'pro-life' in a transparent attempt to hide his position in order to win an election."

"Crist is flip-flopping again," Burgos continued. "When he was a Republican trying to win the Republican primary, Crist repeatedly stated he was pro-life and even said he would 'fight for pro-life legislation if he’s elected to the Senate.'"

"Will Charlie Crist flip-flop further, no longer call himself 'pro-life' and revert back to his 1998 pro-choice position?" he asks.

The Rubio campaign made a screen shot of the pro-life section formerly appearing on the Crist web site.

[More]

Ed Morrissey has more:

What does a man whose only political principle is his own survival do when attempting to distance himself from his former political party? If you answered “go pro-choice,” then you get the Florida kewpie doll...

[...]

Interesting and revealing, isn’t it, that “sanctity” disappeared from Crist’s campaign at the same time he’s reinventing himself?

[More]

My Comments:
I'll say it again: John Cornyn and the rest of the GOP establishment who endorsed this guy are the biggest idiots in politics today.


UPDATE
Laura Ingraham has a hilarious take on what else is missing from Crist's website.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The "Stupid Party" is All the More Stupid for Having John Cornyn Among Its Ranks [UPDATED]

Rubio Leads Crist in Florida

Pro-Life Catholic Rubio Pulls Even With Crist in Florida Senate Race

Charlie Crist Caught Lying About Support for Porkulus: Exposed by Rolling Stone