Was There Ever Any Doubt that Abortion Backers Don't Want You to "Choose Life"?

Look what has the pro-abortion crowd's panties in a wad:

Tim Kaine, the Virginia governor and President Barack Obama's hand-picked choice as the head of the Democratic National Committee, infuriated abortion-rights groups Monday by signing legislation that gives abortion foes an important symbolic win.

Kaine brushed off intense lobbying by abortion rights supporters in Richmond to sign a bill that allows Virginia motorists to advertise their anti-abortion views by sporting "Choose Life" specialty license plates.

If Kaine were merely the governor of the Old Dominion, the move might have been less notable. Kaine—a Catholic who says he is personally opposed to abortion but pledged to leave the right to choose intact—won office in Virginia partly by seeking to reassure social conservatives.

But he is now on a national stage. And his decision could echo among women's activists who are among the most powerful financial supporters of the party.

“It is surprising that Governor Kaine would do this, but it’s all the more surprising that he would do it as chair of the DNC,” said Paulette McElwain, the president of the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood.

McElwain exchanged numerous calls with the governor’s office over the license plates and organized a grass roots effort that logged more than 2,000 calls to the governor’s staff.

“We provided him with abundant information,” she said. “We’re terribly disappointed that he decided to sign it.”

In Washington, NARAL Pro-Choice channeled more than 17,000 emails and 200 calls to the DNC urging Kaine to veto the bill.

All of this angst over a license plate frame?

How much must NARAL Pro-Choice and Planned Parenthood hate babies to get this upset over license plate frames?

Look, according to the article if they can get 350 people to pre-pay the $25 license fee, they can get their own "Choose Death" plates authorized.

Abortion Rate at 30 Year Low - Planned Parenthood and NARAL Hardest Hit

This is a sad day for Planned Parenthood and NARAL as the Washington Post reports that the U.S. abortion rate has reached a 30-year low:

TUESDAY, Sept. 23 (HealthDay News) -- Abortions in the United States fell 33 percent between 1974 and 2004, but sizeable differences among racial and economic groups continue to exist as to who gets an abortion, a new report says.

While the number of abortions among teens has also dropped dramatically, down 50 percent, abortion rates are still high among older women with children and poor women, according to the report from the Guttmacher Institute.

"There's been a shift in the population of women obtaining abortions relative to 30 years ago," said Rachel Jones, a senior research associate at the institute. "They are older, they are more likely to be unmarried, more likely to be mothers, and they are more likely to be women of color."

One of the largest factors in the decline has been the drop in teenage pregnancies and abortions, Jones said. "We've done a lot of work addressing teen pregnancy, including comprehensive sex education, access to contraceptive services and providing kids with information to help them delay sexual activity," she said.

Most U.S. women having abortions today come from lower income groups, she said.

How are Planned Parenthood and NARAL going to be able to afford their political contributions to Barack Obama and the Democrats if his trend continues? They may have to apply for a federal bailout.

Slow Joe Biden Wants the Catholic Bishops Off His Back

With a number of Catholic Church leaders calling their wayward members on the carpet (for instance, Nancy Pelosi), Slow Joe Biden has apparently decided that he doesn't need that kind of trouble right now and has added "life begins at conception" to his ardently pro-abortion stance. Can you say "cognitive dissonance"?

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception.

While Mr. Biden’s views may not be new to Democrats in his circle, his comments, in an interview on “Meet the Press” on NBC, came at a time when his party is confronted with a new face: Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, whose anti-abortion stance and decision to give birth just five months ago to a baby with Down syndrome have revved up the conservative base of her party.

In the interview Sunday, Mr. Biden tried to walk the line between the staunch abortion-rights advocates in his party and his own religious beliefs. While he said he did not often talk about his faith, he said of those who disagree with him: “They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life — I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.”

So, if life begins at conception, how can he possibly justify his perfect ratings with the NARAL and NAG crowd? Willful taking of life is generally called "murder".

Slow Joe is a confused man.

Businessmen and Innovators Need Not Apply in Denver

Jim Geraghty notes the differences in the speaker line-up for the Dem and GOP conventions:

Looking over the complete list of speakers at the Democratic convention, I note... that there is not a single businessman, entrepreneur, or private sector innovator speaking in the entire four nights, barring some last-minute addition.

Groups represented include the SEIU, the NEA, AFT, NARAL and Planned Parenthood. But not one representative of any company - just politicians, representatives of unions, and leaders of abortion groups. (I suppose some wag will say that Al Gore counts, as the innovative inventor of the Internet and creator of that television channel.)

By comparison, the GOP convention features EBay CEO Meg Whitman and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. And this isn't even counting Mitt Romney, co-founder of Bain Capital.

Jim has the complete lineup of Dem speakers (not including all those "real people"). It's a real snoozefest and certainly no place for anybody who doesn't agree that government has all the answers.

Lieberman Being Vetted for McCain VP

I'd like to believe that that John McCain wouldn't be so dumb as to pick Joe Lieberman as his VP, but who knows what the "maverick" is going to do:

Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee who has endorsed John McCain, is being vetted as a potential running mate for the Republican presidential hopeful, according to an adviser to Mr McCain’s ­campaign.
Mr Lieberman, who has campaigned for the Arizona senator, has long been ­considered an unconventional but plausible choice for Mr McCain.

Although Democrats have rejected Mr McCain’s image as a maverick politician, Mr Lieberman’s support for the presumptive Republican nominee has, much to the chagrin of his former ­colleagues, helped to boost Mr McCain’s reputation as a bi-partisan legislator with friends on both sides of the aisle. Mr Lieberman, a staunch supporter of Israel, could also help Mr McCain win over Jewish voters.

“[McCain] loves Lieberman. And he is on the [short-]list because Lieberman has never embarrassed anyone, never misspoken. The first rule is, don’t take someone who costs you votes,” said one McCain adviser.

But not everyone would be enthusiastic about Mr Lieberman being added to the ticket. While Mr Lieberman has staunchly defended Mr McCain’s support of the surge, the escalation of US troops in Iraq, and the lawmakers have teamed up on legislative proposals to ­combat global warming, the registered independent is aligned with Democrats on most other issues.

“Conservatives would be pissed as hell – I think you would have a revolt, but sometimes John does what John wants to do,” the McCain adviser said.

The conservative vote will evaporate if McCain chooses Lieberman. Lieberman has earned a 100% approval from NARAL and other pro-abortion groups, and his other social policies are as liberal as Ted Kennedy. All the cajoling in the world by McCain supporters won't get them back. They'll just stay home in November.

I personally think Lieberman is an honorable guy, but he's a lefty in every sense of the word except for his position on Iraq. Other than the war, choosing Lieberman would make as much sense for a Republican as choosing Obama.

You May Be A Racist....

Peter Kirsanow at The Corner does a little Jeff Foxworthy number on the Obamessiah:

The tendency of Obama supporters to see racist impulses behind every criticism of their candidate has evolved into absurdity. Now even the first black president feels compelled to declare he's not a racist. By this measure, nearly every American is at risk of being branded a racist at some point in the campaign. To assess whether you're at risk just consult the list below ( apologies to Jeff Foxworthy ):

1.If you think Obama's the most liberal member of the senate you...may be a racist.
2.If you object to Obama raising your payroll, capital gains and estate taxes you...may be a racist.

3.If you'd prefer a president have at least some foreign policy experience you...may be a racist.

4. If you're in favor of drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants you...may be a racist.

5. If you think "Vero Possemus" is Latin for "Massive Ego" you... may be a racist.

6. If you wonder why Obama was hanging around William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn you...may be a racist.

7. If your pastor is nothing like Rev. Wright or Father Pfleger you... may be a racist.

8.If you don't want the majority of justices on the Supreme Court to be like Stephen Breyer you...may be a racist.

9. If you're not impressed with Obama's 100% NARAL rating you...may be a racist.
10. If you're not sure whether Obama opposed or supported FISA reauthorization you...may be a racist.

11. If you don't think America is a "downright mean" country you...may be a racist.
12. If you think Obama should've visited wounded troops at Ramstein and Landstuhl you...may be a racist.

13. If you think the surge is working and that's a good thing you...may be a racist.

14. If you oppose racial preferences in employment, school admissions and contracting you...may be a racist.

15. If you think "we are the change we've been waiting for" is a line from a Monty Python skit you...may be a racist.

16. If you prefer that a president have a smidgen of executive experience you...may be a racist.

17. If you're appalled that Obama voted against treating infants born after an abortion attempt the same medically as other infants born alive you...may be a racist.

18. If you were proud of your country even before Obama's candidacy you...may be a racist.

20. If you don't think American troops are just "air raiding villages" you...may be a racist.

21. If your grandmother isn't a "typical white person" you...may be a racist.

22. If you don't think rural, working class people are bitter and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" you...may be a racist.

23. If you're not sure invading Pakistan is a particularly good idea—what with their nuclear weapons and all— you...may be a racist.

24. If you don't want the president to meet without precondition with the leaders of state sponsors of terror you...may be a racist.

25. If you don't care how Hollywood or the European elite think you should vote you...may be a racist.

This campaign has, to paraphrase Moynihan, defined racism down.

That seems about right.

Get the Ladies Some Talcum Powder

According to this Politico piece, a VP nod going to anyone other than Hillary Clinton may "chafe" Hillary's supporters:

Many of the foremost activists in the women’s movement ardently believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton should be Barack Obama’s running mate — and primary wounds that are just beginning to heal may be torn back open should the Democratic nominee select someone else, as it seems very likely he will.

Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter who in 1984 became the first woman on a major party presidential ticket, said Obama should be “gracious” enough to offer Clinton the vice presidency, considering how narrow the race was.

Marcia Pappas, who heads the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women, believes that Clinton supporters “would be outraged to know she was not given that right of first refusal.”

“She is the only woman in history who has ever garnered this much support,” Pappas continued. “She is the only woman in history who was able to raise the kind of money one would need to run a presidential campaign.”

Pamela Sumners, who directs the Missouri chapter of the abortion-rights group NARAL, added that Clinton “is now seen as the reigning dean of the women’s movement. It’s sort of Moses gets all the way to the mountain and doesn’t get to the promised land — and I think there would be people really
angry about that.”

Wow. The Messiah and Moses on the same ticket. That's gotta be a winner.

More Angry Dem Women

The column below gives you an idea of the anger going on with Dem women over the NARAL endorsement of Barack Obama, and the language the "articulate" Obama and his supporters have been using lately.

In addition to the Emily’s List activists, many of NARAL’s own members are mighty upset about NARAL’s decision to endorse Barack Obama and dump longtime ally Hillary Clinton. If you had to think up moves designed to enrage Clinton supporters and make the healing process harder for Democrats, you’d have put this one near the top.

Meanwhile, Obama had to apologize for his “sweetie” crack. But this was not an isolated incident. Remember, this was the candidate who used phrases like “when the claws come out” and “when she’s feeling down periodically she launches attacks” in reference to his opponent. When language like this is part of the vocabulary of a candidate (one who is so exquisitely articulate), it is worth asking if there is something going on here.

The language and tone of the media have become so condescending and disrespectful toward Clinton that, I think, Obama’s camp has picked it up. When “she-devil,” “everyone’s first wife,” and “Fatal Attraction” become acceptable means of description in the mainstream media, why would the candidate hesitate to use them himself ? In short, Obama’s media fan club — those open-minded and inclusive liberals — have systematically removed inhibitions about the use of startlingly sexist language.

I understand as well as the next person that politics is tough business, but let’s do some thought experiments. First, had Clinton or McCain or their teams used phrases which could be seen as disparaging African Americans, they’d have been vilified. Second, had a Republican done the “sweetie” and “claws” routine, every NOW representative worth her salt would be on the air calling for heads to roll.You want double standards? Got ‘em right here. In this wonderful post-partisan, post-racial era, someone forgot to tell the liberal media establishment and their beloved candidate that sexism is passé.

You're kidding yourself if you think these women will rally to Obama in the Fall if Hillary isn't on the ticket.

Hell hath no fury like a women "sweetied".

The NAGS and Libbers Are Unhappy with NARAL's Endorsement of Obama

The fissures within the Dem party are widening thanks to the endorsement of Barack Obama by the pro-abortion group NARAL. There's a whole assortment of women's groups that are feeling betrayed:

The endorsement of Barack Obama by the nation's foremost abortion-rights advocacy group is causing major fissures and backlash within the women's rights community.

Hours after Obama received the support of NARAL's Political Action Committee, the organization's Washington branch felt compelled to announce its continued neutrality and disappointment with the endorsement.

"We strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America's decision to endorse at this time," a press release from the group read. "To endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton."

They weren't alone. In a hastily announced meeting late Wednesday night, several of Clinton's most high-profile female supporters lashed out against NARAL's PAC calling it "a betrayal," and "extremely unnecessary,"

"We feel abandoned by this organization today," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Elizabeth Malcolm, the head of Emily's List, called the move "disrespectful" to Sen. Clinton, "who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them."

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Martha Burke, the former chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, said she was "disappointed and think they are wrong. It feels like they are abandoning a known ally for a less committed candidate because they want to jump on a bandwagon. I think the pro-choice community should stick by a woman who has stuck by them."

And in a phone conversation, Marcia Pappas, the head of National Organization of Women, New York -- who famously accused Ted Kennedy for betraying women by endorsing Obama -- would not even commit to supporting the Illinois Democrat in the general election.

"It is disappointing that an organization that stands up for the rights of women would rush to this type of judgment, especially when we only have three weeks left. And I would wonder what criteria they used to make that judgment, based on the fact that [Obama] chose seven times to vote present," she said. "We certainly know that John McCain is not good on women's rights and we hope that Barack Obama is better on it, but it remains to be seen when we have a candidate who did not stand firm when he could have done so. "

Anyone who thinks there will be peace and harmony in the Dem party after Hillary is beaten is kidding themselves.

Pro-Abortion Group Backs Obama

The abortion promoters at NARAL have chosen Barack Obama as their guy:

NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama has won the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights advocacy organization that has supported rival Hillary Rodham Clinton throughout her political career.
The organization was set to announce the endorsement of its political action committee on Wednesday.

"Pro-choice Americans have been fortunate to have two strong pro- choice candidates in Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, both of whom have inspired millions of new voters to participate in this historic presidential race," NARAL president Nancy Keenan said in a statement. "Today, we are proud to put our organization's grass-roots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Senator Obama."

Officials said NARAL's political committee board was about evenly divided among Clinton and Obama supporters and that the decision to endorse was hard fought. Ultimately, the board voted unanimously to support the Illinois senator.

NARAL officials said the decision wasn't intended to be a snub of Clinton, who is running to be the first female president.

They said the board decided to back Obama over Clinton because he is overwhelmingly favored to win the nomination and to heal what the organization viewed as a growing rift between black voters and white female activists that the protracted Clinton-Obama contest may have caused.

Tell me again how all those evangelicals are going to flock to Obama?

Rudy's Judges Weren't Always Strict Constructionists

The Politico has a report on the many judges that were appointed by Rudy Giuliani during his term of mayor. Although he promises strict conservative judges should he be elected president, he record as mayor indicated otherwise:

When Rudy Giuliani faces Republicans concerned about his support of gay rights and legal abortion, he reassures them that he is a conservative on the decisions that matter most.

"I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am," he told South Carolina Republicans last month. "Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint -- Scalia, Alito and Roberts."

But most of Giuliani's judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito -- much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia.

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuilani's record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state's leading abortion-rights group. "They were decent, moderate people," she said.

"I don't think he was looking for someone who was particularly conservative," added Barry Kamins, a Democrat who chaired the panel of the Bar Association of the City of New York, which reviewed Giuliani's appointments. "He picked a variety from both sides of the spectrum. They were qualified, even-tempered, academically strong."

If there's one area that could undo the conservative support for Giuliani it's judges. He may have some explaining to do regarding this past choices. Although the president will never have that much impact on abortion or gay marriage, he will appoint a lot of judges who do have impact on those issues.

A New Candidate in Pennsylvania?

John Fund has some interesting news regarding the Senate race in Pennsylvania between the conservative Republican incumbant Rick Santorum, and the pro-life Democrat Bob Casey (from Political Diary):

Is abortion activist Kate Michelman blowing smoke with her public hints this week that she might enter the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race as an independent? Ms. Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, certainly wouldn't attract enough votes to win, but she might well tap a motherload of Hollywood liberal money to make her impact felt on the airwaves. She could easily pull enough pro-abortion protest votes to tilt the race back to Republican Rick Santorum, whom the latest polls show lagging.

Why might Ms. Michelman find it delightful to commit such mischief? For one thing, the Keystone race is destined to be among the most-watched in the country, pitting the conservative Mr. Santorum against Bob Casey Jr., heir to one of the most honored names in Pennsylvania politics, that of his late father, Gov. Bob Casey. In this red vs. blue showdown, both candidates are pro-life, and Pennsylvania just happens to be a closely divided presidential battleground state. What's more, as Ralph Nader can attest, Pennsylvania Dems are known for ruthlessly using ballot access rules to block last-minute independents. If she plays her cards right, Ms. Michelman could become a Democratic pro-choice martyr, offsetting ex-Gov. Casey's posthumous status as a Democratic pro-life martyr who was forbidden a speaking slot at the 1992 convention because he didn't toe the feminist line on abortion

Wouldn't that be entertaining? Would a staunch pro-abortion Democrat like Michelman really want to create a situation that would potentially hurt the Democratic candidate in the race? Quite possibly yes, if that Dem is pro-life. The pro-abortion crowd has been seething for months over the John Roberts and Sam Alito appointments (and subsequent confirmations) to the Supreme Court, and this may be there way of taking a little revenge against the Dem party for not successfully blocking either guy.

I hope she gets in the race, but that would have more drama and entertainment than Desperate Housewives.

South Dakota Showdown on Abortion

The South Dakota legislature has passed one of the toughest anti-abortion laws in the nation, and the governor is likely to sign it, which will set-up a court battle that the right wants and the left fears:

As the South Dakota House of Representatives gave final approval today to a bill aimed at banning most abortions and creating a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Gov. Mike Rounds said he’s inclined to sign it.

The House gave final approval to the bill with a 50-18 vote Friday afternoon.

At a press conference Friday morning, Rounds said he will sign the bill if he determines that it can save lives.

“I’ve indicated I’m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives,” Rounds said. “If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.”

This is almost sure to be overturned on appeal in lower courts, and I don't see how the Supremes can avoid taking it up on appeal. Although I'm not ready to declare Justice Sam Alito a sure anti-abortion vote, I think the pro-abortion side has to worry that Alito may not find all the special rights in the Constitution that lefty justices in the past have found.

Just looking at the news coverage tells you that a battle is brewing. NARAL and other pro-abortion forces were trotting out all their stern-faced hairy-legged spokesthings to tell how tragic this new law will be. Tragic for the abortion industry's bottom line, maybe, but not tragic for the country.

The 60's Cultural Divide Still Pollutes America

John Leo has a good piece at RealClearPolitics.com on the 60's cultural divide, and how it was on display front and center during the Alito hearings. My favorite line:

Republican Lindsey Graham expressed alarm at the threat of terror. Democrats Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold sounded alarmed by counterterrorism.

You can't say it any better than that. Here are some other gems:

We had some racial rhetoric, as well. Since the '60s, white ethnics have usually been denounced as crude and racist by the Democratic elites. This showed up in the rumor that Alito had made up a story about his father combating racism. The story was true. The rumor was false. Kennedy sounded the note of racism too, charging (falsely) that Alito had never written a decision on behalf of an African-American. He has written at least seven decisions supporting racial bias claims by blacks.

[...]

The Democrats appeared surprised that Alito opposed tailoring U.S. court decisions to those reached in foreign courts. U.S. elites chafe under the old-fashioned rule that federal judges should look to the Constitution for guidance rather than to elites in Britain, France or Canada.

[...]

Democrats also made clear that justices should rule in accordance with the size of plaintiffs -- "little guys" are always in the right, whereas big guys, particularly if they are corporate guys, are always wrong and frequently evil. As John Roberts said during his hearings, when the Constitution supports the little guy, I'll come down on the little guy's side. When it supports the big guy, I'll come down on the big guy's side. To sizeists, this is a revolutionary idea.

The Democrats spent a great deal of time fretting about abortion, even after Alito made clear that he had already said what he wanted to say. The technical term for the Democratic effort here is "fund-raising." Powerful pro-abortion groups like NARAL, NOW and People for the American Way channel a great deal of money to Democrats, who are thus heavily inclined to sing for their future suppers.

And finally, the ultimate violation of the liberal handbook:

The biggest news was that the Democrats made Mrs. Alito cry, a clear violation of the party's sensitivity rules. He will be confirmed.

Read the whole thing here.

NARAL's Anti-Alito Efforts Need Some Work

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos points out an effort by NARAL to obtain signatures to show their displeasure with Samuel Alito. Their efforts came up a little short:

NARAL's Goal:

"To Convince Enough Senators That Alito Is Wrong For Our Country, We Are
Setting A Goal Of Gathering 500,000 Petition Signatures To Deliver To
The Senate." (NARAL Email, "Just 5 Days Left!" 12/5/05)

NARAL's Result:

"With The Help Of More Than 50 Volunteers We Were Able To ... Enter
2,000 Signatures Into Our Activist Database From The 'Oppose Alito'
Petition Drive ..." (NARAL Email, "Thanks For Your Hard Work!" 1/10/06)

Keep up the good work, ladies!

Blogosphere Quick to Point Out Nonsense

The days of politicians from either party being able to spout whatever they want without someone checking are over. Just look at a small example from today's Alito hearings. On The Corner at 12:37 pm (EST) John Podhoretz posted this comment about Slow Joe Biden:

"I DIDN'T LIKE PRINCETON" [JPod]
says Joe Biden. "I really, really didn't like Princeton." But he had two kids who went to Ivy League schools. "But all kidding aside, I really wasn't a Princeton fan."

Just 20 minutes later Podhoretz posted a follow-up which demonstrated that Biden was at the very least blowing smoke about his dislike of Princeton:

BIDEN LIES ABOUT PRINCETON! [John Podhoretz]
Alert reader S.F. has just sent me a link to the audio of a speech Biden delivered at Princeton, the school he said he "really, really didn't like" -- in which he said, "I had been pushing Princeton" on his kids and "I tried to get all three of them to apply here."

Just like that the blogosphere fact-checked Slow Joe, and he came up wanting. Old time politicians - and even the new guys - are going to have a very tough time with a million fact-checkers out there.

And then, at almost the same moment, Kathryn Jean Lopez posted this:

DISINGENUOUSNESS II [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
"I don't care what your position on abortion is."--Joe Biden to Alito, a few seconds ago.

Another yeah, right moment. I wonder if he really wants NARAL and NOW to think he doesn't care about Alito's postion on abortion is?

And then, two minutes later Podhoretz added this little factoid:

BIDEN APPRECIATES JUDGE ALITO'S RESPONSIVENESS [John Podhoretz]
Alito spoke approximately 72 words during Biden's half-hour.

It's obvious that Biden is more concerned that America hear his views, and not Alito's. Also according to Podhoretz, Biden spoke for 15 minutes and 22 seconds before allowing Alito to respond.

Confirm Alito Coalition

Blogs4Bush has begun the Confirm Alito Coalition which I'm happy to endorse. Why should Alito be confirmed? Check out these quotes from some of our favorite lefties (from FoxNews):

"Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not strength." --Senator Ted Kennedy

"The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long, hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers. Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people."--Senator Harry Reid

"President Bush put the demands of his far-right political base above Americans' constitutional rights and legal protections by nominating federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor." — Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People For the American Way.

"It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us. This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people." — Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"Now the gauntlet has been, I think, thrown down. It was humiliating, it was degrading and it's a profound and distributing view of Judge Alito that he would uphold spousal notification as he did in the Pennsylvania case, and it raises concerns about his views of women." — Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL-Pro Choice America.

"Judge Alito is exactly the far-right nominee that the Republican Party's reactionary wing demanded after it 'Borked' Harriet Miers. Judge Alito is to the right of the existing Supreme Court on abortion, and he's to the right of all nine justices, even Scalia and Thomas, in advocating an extremely high burden of proof for employment discrimination cases." — Scott Moss, Marquette University Law School professor.

And now for some of the conservatives:

"Judge Alito's reputation has only grown over the span of his service. He has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions. This record reveals a thoughtful judge who considers the legal matter — marriage carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion. He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people." — President Bush.

"Judge Alito is unquestionably qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. And on the bench, he has displayed a judicial philosophy marked by judicial restraint and respect for the limited role of the judiciary to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench." — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

"Judge Alito is the best there is. The Democrat-controlled Senate recognized these qualities in Judge Alito when it unanimously confirmed him to the court of appeals." — Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network.

"The president has made an excellent choice today which reflects his commitment to appoint judges in the mold of (Antonin) Scalia and (Clarence) Thomas. Sam Alito, a 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals judge, has consistently embraced the original intent of the Constitution." — Kay Daly, president of the conservative Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.

"The president has repeatedly said that he is looking for someone with strong intellect, temperament and reverence for the Constitution to replace Justice O'Connor. Judge Alito is a triple play." — Adam Ciongoli, a former law clerk for Judge Alito and former counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"Of course, he's against abortion," 90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic (HT Powerline).

It looks like this time the president has picked a fight with his political enemies instead of his friends. Judge Alito is someone we conservatives can and should get behind.

Hugh Hewitt has a poll up on the nomination, which as you can expect from his readers, is overwhelmingly positive about the nomination. You can cast you vote here.


Samuel Alito; Alito; SCOTUS; Supreme Court

NARAL Aborts Communications Director

The communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice America has been aborted (or has resigned - I report, you decide). As Jonah Goldberg says over at The Corner, "I guess it was a big deal".

This is another sign that the false and misleading ad that was put together by NARAL hurt them far more than it hurt Judge Roberts.

NARAL Folds, Aborts False Ad

Under pressure from fair-minded people on both sides of the aisle, NARAL has aborted its false and misleading ad against John Roberts:

After a week of protests by conservatives, an abortion-rights group said Thursday night it is withdrawing a television advertisement linking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to violent anti-abortion activists.

"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America
"Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public," she said in a letter Thursday to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who had urged the group to withdraw the ad.

Specter, himself an abortion-rights supporter as well as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will question Roberts next month, earlier Thursday had called the ad "blatantly untrue and unfair."

In the old days they might have gotten away with this, but today it's just too easy to debunk this kind of nonsense and spread the word to millions. This one blew right up in their faces.

They had hoped to scare off the Bush Administration, especially when it came to future nominees who might be even more conservative. Instead, it will be NARAL taking the lumps, and their next ad better be clean as a whistle or they'll get decimated again.

Abortion Rights or Abortion Profits

Manuel Miranda, writing in the Wall Street Journal, has an interesting theory as to the real reason behind the NARAL campaign to smear Judge Roberts with false accusations. The real reason, as was pointed out by Orrrin Hatch in 2002, is abortion profits:

In September 2002, when Democrats first blocked Justice Priscilla Owen from a circuit court nomination over a Texas Supreme Court ruling that upheld a parental notice law, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah put it this way:

"I fear the opposition to Justice Owen from the abortion lobby is not at all about abortion rights, because abortion rights are not affected by a mere notice statute. The opposition to Justice Owen is not really about abortion rights, it is about abortion profits. Simply put, the abortion industry is opposed to parental notice laws because parental notice laws place a hurdle between them and the profits from the abortion clients--not the girls who come to them but the adult men who pay for these abortions. These adult men, whose average age rises the younger the girl is, are eager not to be disclosed to parents, sometimes living down the street. . . . At nearly one million abortions per year, the abortion industry is as big as any corporate interest that lobbies in Washington. They not only ignore the rights of parents, they also protect sexual offenders and statutory rapists. "

You've never heard this? Surely that is no surprise. Mr. Hatch's statement was reported in only one news story, by Newsday's Tom Brune. He noted that there was an audible gasp among the abortion lobbyists in the back of the Judiciary Committee room. I remember that gasp.

What Mr. Brune did not record is that no Democratic senator responded to Hatch's charge. Something very unusual. Not even Dianne Feinstein of California, who, as she always notes, ran for the U.S. Senate to protect abortion rights. Or was it abortion profits?

I think he's right.