Sunday, July 16, 2006

Full Article on Endorsements

From the Argus

After weeks of internal divisions and public controversy, the Livingston County Republican Party Executive Committee issued a statement Friday saying that all nine judicial candidates who responded to its endorsement questionnaire share the "core values" of the party.
"Based on their answers, we have found their statements of core values to be consistent with those of the Republican Party," the statement said.

I do have one correction that needs to be made.

On Friday, Wholihan declined to comment other than to say that he voted for the statement.

Actually my statement on "he voted for the statement" was "I didn't vote Nay." Take that how you wish.

Technically, the statement given in the press release would be issue advocacy if used in a broadcast ad. It did not use the "magic words" of endorse, support, for, elect, against, defeat, or reject. However, if this was federal and in a broadcast ad, this statement - "Based on their answers, we have found their statements of core values to be consistent with those of the Republican Party," - is viewed as an electioneering communication in support of those judicial candidates under the BCRA(McCain/Feingold) Act (unless it is a 527).

Technicalities aside - to the readers reading this, does that statement look like an endorsement?


bluzie said...

Sounds to me like this has all been much to do about securing a hold on our judicial system so that it fits with your core beliefs. Ever think of reading about the Salem Witch Trials?
This is why hate crime laws are needed. Think about it.

RKG said...

I've enjoyed following the discussion of this issue over the past few months and have expressed my irritation with the attempt to make judicial races partisan a number of times in the past and won't repeat my rant here. In the hopes that this issue will now die a graceful death, I'll offer a few closing comments, in no particular order. I thought the article in the Press/Argus about the propriety of the questionaire was interesting. A sitting judge thought answering it bordered on a violation of judicial ethics while the local republican party may have drawn some support and comfort from the comments of WSU Law Professor Bob Selder. The irony of it, though, is that Bob Sedler is a raging liberal who has actively advocated on behalf of issues and groups the local republican party would undoubtedly believe fail to reflect the core values of their party - affirmative action programs for college admission, domestic partner benefits, slave reparations, due process for incarcerated "enemy combatants," and on behalf of the ACLU and similar groups. Google him and see for yourself. It just goes to show that politics, indeed, makes for strange bedfellows. Second, it seemed in reading a bit between the lines that the local party really backed away from the hard line they first drew in the sand over this issue. I don't know if that's because cooler heads prevailed and wisdom won out or they just caved under the pressure of looking like idiots to the vast majority of the public that aren't nearly so strident in their partisanship. Hopefully, it was the former and not the later. Time will tell but it will be interesting to see if this issue pops up again in the next round of non-partisan elections. Third, I thought our beloved bloggers, "I didn't vote no" comment was pathetic. Principals mean nothing if you don't practice them. If you felt strongly about this issue, as you obviously did, then have the guts to vote accordingly. "I didn't vote no" tells me that you sacrificed principal for political expediency and for someone who speaks/writes so passionately about the need to elect candidates driven by principal I find that sad. Finally, getting elected is all about running an effective campaign. Am I the only one who thinks that, despite all the talk about how important it is to get Jay Drick on the bench, he's running a lousy campaign?

Dan said...

Bluzie - What do "Hate Crime" laws have to do with this? Or Salem Which trials. We are not out to burn anyone at the stake, and one of the reasons I'm a Second Amendment supporter is to avoid situations like that. We're pushing for judicial restraint and judges that follow the law, not

RKG - I agree with Sedler on this. Maybe he actually has a libertarian streak on some things as well as his liberal streak. (I did say that an ideal judge would be Alex Kozinski)

As to my comment that was "pathetic", I can not divulge the reasons for that comment on this blog as what happens in house, stays in house. I chose my words very carefully.

The tactics may have changed, but issue will still be around on these judicial races up till November.

As MacGuyver would say, "I have a plan."

Dan said...

To finish that one sentence - rWe're pushing for judicial restraint and judges that follow the law - not rewrite the constitution to mean whatever someone like Stephen Reinhardt says it mean.

Writer said...

Those witches were guilty!

bluzie said...


bluzie said...

There you go again Republican Michigander, following some idiot talking points to get one narrow agenda into office. For heavens sake... You are a bright person, I know you can do better than jump on the if only we didn't have gays and women who didn't want the government in their lives band wagon. We will always disagree until you are will to stand up for real freedom for all!
This is the United States of American. I do not want the Republican version of the Taliban.
Freedom, freedom, never ever surrender our freedom.
I live by this, we should agree. Why don't we?

Dan said...

You're putting words in my mouth bluzie. I have a rather neutral standpoint on gays. I just don't want my tax money paying for their domestic benefits, or it going into our schools or around kids. That's it. Other than that, I don't care. If it involves consenting adults, I don't care. It's a rather libertarian standpoint actually.

As to abortion - murder is illegal. Killing innocent unborn babies is wrong. It should be outlawed in all 50 states by each state legislature (therby following the constitution and 10th amendment). The fact that is legal is bad. The fact that it is legal by judicial fiat is worse.

Babies don't have any choice.

bluzie said...

Safe rare and legal. Keep the government out of it. It was illegal until 1972 and there were far more abortions then than there are now. I guess you think government control is best, it didn't work then and it won't work now. It works great for the Republicans to get out the vote though.
I don't like abortions anymore than you. I want them to end, now. Making them illegal takes us backward not forward in this area. But as long as you can rail on people like me for wanting to find a real solution, then we won't ever get anywhere on this issue. But you have a great get out the vote tool. I prefer to find real solutions. I will never give up on freedom. I want the government to have less control over people's lives, not more.
And that my dear makes me a Democrat and you are not.

bluzie said...

Republicans have control of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. No one has even mentioned a contitutional ammendment to make abortion illegal, know why? You and those like you wouldn't buy into being spied on, having healthcare become only for the wealthy, taking our troops to unnecessary wars, and have our good paying jobs sent off to other parts of the world. Instead they have you believe YOU are the only ones wanting to end abortions and the only way is to make illegal. Well that won't do a thing to end abortion and all rational people know this, and if you are a reader, history proves me correct. We have to have better education and birth control. It's plain and simple.
But follow the logic of those who want to stop sex education and birth control and those people claim to be against abortion. Weird huh? Takes me back to the Republican Taliban comment.
It's a wedge issue to use those like you to get out the vote. By the way, no one wants to take away your guns either. Democrats are hunters as well. They also like to skeet shoot and protect their homes. We also love our children, worship God and eat apple pie.
I don't like to pay taxes anymore than the next person, but I know the borrow and spend policy of the Bush administration makes us weak. I hate privatizing our infrastructure, having foreign countrie own our toll roads and bridges makes me angry. it should make you angry too.

bluzie said...

If we are going to gender neutral then you should not want to pay for anyone's family benefits. Otherwise it isn't freedom for all people, it's just those the Republican Taliban think are real families.
A friend of mine's father is a Baptist minister in West Virgina, he is applauld at how Christians treat the children of gay families.
That's why I call it the Taliban, because in theory they have a very similar rational, not as vilolent though. YET.

Mom of two said...

Bluzie: In response to your comments on abortion: I've attached some information from Janet Folger. She was the former Legislative Director for Ohio Righto to Life and is now the Director of the Center for Reclaiming America.
From its beginnings in Roe v. Wade, the campaign to legalize abortion in this country has been based on lies.

Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade admitted she lied about being gang raped -- a lie on which the Supreme Court based their decision, and the lie that led many people to accept the legality of abortion. Norma McCorvey is now 100 percent pro-life.

Doe v. Bolton, the companion decision to Roe v. Wade, is also based on a lie. Sandra Cano, the "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton, never wanted an abortion as the case claimed. She was pregnant with her fourth child and desperately trying to get her other three children out of foster care when pro-abortion attorneys offered to help her on the condition that she would allow them to use her case to try to overturn Georgia's abortion law. She made it clear that she had no intention of having an abortion and ran away to avoid keeping an abortion appointment arranged for by her lawyers. She never knew until 1988, that the case in which she was used as "Mary Doe" essentially tied up the loopholes in Roe, making it virtually impossible for states to prohibit abortion, even in the last three months of pregnancy, if the mother's life or "health" was endangered. "Health" was defined by the court as "physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age -- relevant to the well being of the patient". (Doe v. Bolton, U.S. Supreme Court No. 70-40, iv, p.113,January 1973.)

Bemard Nathanson, the founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), also admitted he lied about the number of women who died from illegal abortions in order to repeal this country's pro-life laws: "We spoke of 5,000-10,000 deaths a year ... I confess that I knew the figures were totally false ... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" Bemard Nathanson, who once operated the nation's largest abortion clinic in New York, is now 100% pro-life.

Planned Parenthood and abortion proponents lied about the scientific fact that abortion takes the life of a human being. For years abortion proponents have said that "no one really knows" if we're talking about a child in the womb. Yet in 1965, Planned Parenthood published a pamphlet which stated: "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun." Planned Parenthood went on to operate the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics, yet admitted the truth again during a weak moment on the Phil Donahue show, when former director, Faye Wattleton responded to the statement: "It's not a frog or a ferret that's being killed. It's a baby," with "I am fully aware of that. I am fully aware of that." (Donahue Transcript # 3288, 1991)

Now, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood (as well as other pro-partial-birth abortion groups) are struggling with how to continue to propagate the lie that partial-birth abortions are "rare" and done primarily on babies with "extreme fetal abnormalities," despite the fact that abortion clinic spokesman Ron Fitzsimmons admitted that he "lied through his teeth" when he said it.

The admission of Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers -- that partial-birth abortions are preformed up to 5000 times a year primarily on healthy babies and healthy mothers -- coincides with what we have said all along.


Bluzie, you stated: "I don't like abortions anymore than you. I want them to end, now. Making them illegal takes us backward not forward in this area." I guess I could say the same thing about rape and robbery. I don't like them anymore than the next person. Do you think making those illegal takes us backward as well? They are illegal for a reason. They infringe on the basic rights of human beings. The same could be said of abortion. A life, with no "choice" is being taken. I am all for solutions. I wish this tragedy of abortions would end. I wish every baby conceived would be born into a loving and nurturing home. I know this is not the case...and it's truly a tragedy. But, to say, "I don't like them" but let's keep it legal is insane.

bluzie said...

Well mother of two, I am a mother of 3. I am pretty sure I am older than you and do remember before roe v wade. Yes women did die, it wasn't that rare, they suffered hideous infections and a highly profitable black market was in place.
The fact is to end abortions is to make them unnecessary. I am not willing to go back to the days of coat hangers and back alley abortions for young women and older women who have thought their child bearing days were over. Yes the over 50 crowd have them as well.
I personally do not believe your statistic about the healthy full term babies, as when I have spoken to doctors they agree with me, partial birth abortions are to save the life of mothers and are almost non existent. Maybe you see different doctors, I don't know.
Anyway,I believe in working very hard to limit the need for abortions as no one wants them, no one wants their child to have one.
I find it insane to wish to make more laws against our citizens. I bet you think sex eduaction in middle school is against your morals too, but it isn't about you, it's about those who need help. Sorry I sound insane to you. Your logic doesn't add up to me. Let's agree that abortions should be rare, I want safe and legal and you don't. Because we tried it your way and we know it doesn't limit abortions, so what's your reasoning? You just want the government to be involved and to punish women and their doctors?
Now that sounds INSANE to me.

bluzie said...

Mom of two, I have a yes or no question.

Do you want women who have abortons to be charged with murder?

It's easy, YES or NO

Patrick Flynn said...

One can go on and on. You can publish volumes of excuses and politically spun visions of how things were in back alleys until Roe v Wade saved mankind.

You will never, NEVER jusyify the killing of the innocent to rectify our social mistakes.

Please stop trying. It makes you seem very cruel.

Mom of two said...

Actually, I don't disagree with sex education in middle school - as long as they stick to the facts. I think there is nothing wrong with the natural process of sex and what happens as a result of sex. I plan to teach my children sex education as I see it is relevant to their age and their questions. My oldest is 6 has begun asking questions about where babies come from. I tell him age appropriate facts. I am not sure where you get the notion I am against education because I don't believe a child should be murdered because his or her parents didn't take better precautions. There are so many ways to prevent pregnancy out there. I am all for those choices. However, I draw the line at murdering an unborn child for the sake of "not being ready, too old/young, not enough money, etc". My heart breaks for those who have had to have abortions for those rare occasions that it is absolutely necessarliy to save the life of the mother. I think you'll find most reasonable people, including myself, who would never condemn a person for having to make that heart-wrenching choice. In fact, I don't condemn those who have had an abortion, for other than those rare instances. That's not place. I believe in God. I believe children are a gift from God. I believe life begins at conception. I don't think a woman who has to make a decision to abort her baby for rare-life saving issues should be prosecuted. I'm sure she and the father probably do that to themselves. I don't think the federal government ought to be involved in any part of that decision. I do however, think it would be interesting to see what would happen if abortion legality were left up to the states. I think you'd find in an election in Michigan, abortion would not be legal, EXCEPT in the extreme case of the life of the mother.

bluzie said...

So yes or no? Do you charge these women with murder? I keep hearing about murder from you... but tell me yes or no?

When it's a law you cannot have it both ways, it's murder. Are you okay with this charge?

bluzie said...

Patrick, I maybe called many things, but cruel has never been one. Yes or no? Is it murder as charged or are you just one of the many using it as a political tool? Tell me Patrick. I am not a cruel person, but right now I would like to hear a straight answer from you or are you too afraid to say you would like women who have an abortion to be tried for murder. Yes or no? You cannot have a law that cannot be enforced.
I hope you have the backbone to answer this question, because I am going to insist you answer it.
Walk your talk or sit down and shut up.

Count Me Red said...

Having an abortion doesn't make you "un-pregnant", it makes you the mother of a dead baby. If they can kick, smile, suck their thumb, and respond to outside stimuli, they are citizens with rights but no choice. We should not be using abortion in place of birth control. You say abortions are rare?? Who are you kidding? There are clinics that do nothing but abortions and they are thriving, they can't do that by only performing them "rarely". Making up facts to support your case makes you a democrat.

bluzie said...

Hey Red, Simmer it down a bit and read what I say. I said I would like abortions to be rare, safe and legal. I have also heard that partial birth abortions are so rare they are a non issue. Most people agree it's only to save the life of the mother or it just CANNOT HAPPEN!
You can answer the question as well, Do you charge the mother who has an abortion with murder, yes or no?
I am sick of this murder charge being throw around, it is a murder charge you are looking for, if not sit down and shut up. You cannot ask for a law and not have it enforced.

RKG said...

Hey Bluzie, since you're name is a new one I haven't seen on the blog, I've got a bit of advise to pass along about this blog. The quickest way to end all rational debate on any issue is to use the word abortion in your post.

bluzie said...

Excellent observation rkg!

Patrick Flynn said...

Bluzie, because your intention is to divert the issue away from the spilling of innocent blood, you have no moral authority to ask the question about the enforcing of laws to protect humnan life.

You have no moral authority to receive an honest answer because you attempt to call into question the sensitivity of pro-life people regarding the charging of women while you, yourself intentionally ignore the cruel, scientifically proven brutality of abortion.

It is shameful that anyone can support the tearing apart of the human child in the womb and then insinuate that it is mean to hold people accountable for this action.

So yes, your intentions and position are cruel. That is why I hope you change them. After all, the best pro-lifers are former pro-abortion people like yourself who have come full circle in their hearts in understanding the horror of abortion.

Oh and yes, when abortion is mentioned anywhere it will be reacted to. Killing is like that. As long as killing is "legal" this will not change.

bluzie said...

Patrick, when you join a group or a cause it is wise to know where the group is taking you. What's wrong with answering the yes or no question? Do you want the mother to be charged with murder?
Step up, c'mon you can do it! Yes or no?

I am not cruel, I actually work to reduce the number of abortions. It's my goal to reduce the number of abortions my 95% or more, I know where I am going, the question is do you?

bluzie said...

Patrick, if you cannot answer, it's my opinion that you have no moral authority to run for office!

You certainly have copped a caggy attitude!

Be direct in your thinking and actions, you seem to be direct about what you think about my actions and intentions.

bluzie said...



Count Me Red said...


You actually sound like the bully. You seem off the deep end on this murder question and why on earth is the mother of anyone saying "shut-up" all the time? You really need to be a better example! If you are pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe it's okay to decide to kill a baby or you don't. What's the big deal with the murder question?? If you kill anyone, including a child, you should be charged with murder, unless it is to save the Mother's life, that would be self defense. Whaaaat do you mean that partial birth abortion is a non-issue? Is murder okay if it's only a few a year? What a looney bin you are. Maybe you could get your brains sucked out and see if it hurts, or if death is painless. Jeeze, that remark was so stupid it makes my blood boil. Murder should be a crime, punishible by our judicial system.

bluzie said...

As long as you are admitting that a murder charge will be filed for the mother of the aborted child, I believe you understand the direction of the anti-choice movement.
I have found it most unusual that most people of your ilk usually haven't thought it that far through. Sorry, it's been true for me.
And no one here actually came out clearly that yes a woman should be charged with murder. It more directed at candidates and the Democratic party because it truly is more a get out the vote tool for Republicans than a sincere effort to criminalize abortion.

bluzie said...

And if you truly wished to end abortion, you wouldn't chart a course that actually promotes abortion! Black market industries are horrible and very deceptive.
Try ending the need for abortions, instead, you seem to like taking a stand against birthcontrol and sex education. Doesn't seem too sincere to me.

Count Me Red said...

Well Bluzie, I am most sincere when I say I am not against birthcontrol. I just don't want to start at age 12 and I don't want it taught by YOU. Why do you think kids are having sex younger and younger, or that there is an increase in teen suicide, or that teen pregnancy is on the rise?? I think the pressure of sex at such a young age is too much. What is a 12 year old to think you expect him to do when you tell him how to use a condom and remind him to leave room at the top for sperm?? This should just be a no-brainer, but no, we have to argue over our right as a parent to teach our children such things. It is just NOT your job. Just because we don't want YOU teaching our kids something doesn't mean we don't want them to learn it. We just don't think you are in any way a substitute for a parent. Even if a parent does not do a good job, you still are not a parent substitute. Some things are for families to teach. Why do you always assume sinister motives and smartmouth responses?? Do you see how hostile you sound? Go back and read all your comments on this blog and you will find that you sound very hostile. You said:

"most people of your ilk usually haven't thought it that far through".

For heaven sakes, you don't honestly think a sane person would buy that you are the only ones with all the right answers do you? You must surround yourself with some real weirdos if that has been your experience. Can it be possible that all of us can be intelligent and be somewhat right on most issues? If I don't agree with you, I must be wrong? Republicans, true republicans, DO think that abortion is murder. We think that having an abortion does not make you un-pregnant, it makes you the Mother of a dead baby, which should be a crime!!!!! I don't think you have any Republican friends and you are just guessing what we think. You couldn't be more wrong. We don't use aborted babies to get votes, we grieve the loss of aborted babies, especially the partial birth ones that undergo a horrific experience at the whim of some irresponsible mom. If you don't want to have a baby, don't do the deed. If you do the deed anyway and get pregnant, should you then just have the right to kill that life to correct your error? You don't see that this is barbaric? It's like eating our young. It is an especially disturbing thing for a "teacher" to dismiss a child like that. May be one reason why we don't want you teaching that to our kids, thank you. It is more our right than yours to teach our kids anything we want. Even if you don't agree, it is still our right, not yours. If you want those rights, have a child of your own to raise. How arrogant to think that only teachers make good parents. Some of you don't make good parents, good spouses, or even good teachers, and some parents don't do a great job all the time either. A partnership would be good, but this agenda thing is very worrisome and makes us not trust you with our most precious family members. Dialogue is good, hateful speech is not.