The Tape--Obama and the PLO

From Texas Rainmaker--but you can find the story on almost any right-wing blog:

Shameful and disgusting.

John McCain’s presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist.

Apparently it was newsworthy enough to spawn an article in the paper, so we have to wonder what’s on the tape that is so newsworthy the paper (who has endorsed Barack Obama) does not want the world seeing before the election.

Maybe because the man Obama was heaping praise upon was a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and served on the PLO “guidance committee”…
Mr. Khalidi was at that time “a director of the Palestinian press agency.” That would be Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija, or WAFA, the PLO press agency, where Mr. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, was chief English-language editor in 1976-82. Mr. Friedman quotes Mr. Khalidi in his official capacity saying that the Israelis are out to “crush the P.L.O.” … he served on the PLO “guidance committee” at the Madrid conference, along with such figures as Faisal Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi and Sari Nusseibeh.

And yet the L.A. Times has a video of Obama praising Khalidi and refuses to release it. Makes you wonder just what they’re trying to hide for their endorsed candidate.

That's a specific instance of media bias--but there's a general trend too. Here are some results from a recent Pew study of major media coverage of McCain and Obama over the six weeks between the conventions and the final debate (Sept. 3-Oct. 16):

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.

I'm pretty convinced that the media are pulling out all the stops to push their chosen candidate over the finish line. Don't let them discourage you--they will probably be even more negative about McCain over this final weekend. I wouldn't be surprised to see polls showing a big Obama lead after they've been tightening all week. Just remember what the media bias is, take it all with a HUGE grain of salt, and go vote!

Good News from Iraq

This will probably get lost in the election news, but there is great progress to report from Iraq:

October is on track to be the first month in which no U.S. troops have died in combat in Baghdad...

The news comes in a week in which the troops have already made headlines. Their latest milestone? Two days ago, the U.S. military had handed over control of yet another province to the people of Iraq. This is the 13th of the country's 18 provinces to be placed back in Iraqi control, a sign of the tremendous dedication of the men and women of our military.

Remember, Obama opposed the surge and even said that he still wouldn't have supported it, even knowing in hindsight that it worked. McCain was an early supporter of the surge and helped push Bush into doing it. I think what it says about their foreign policy judgment is pretty clear.

Charles Krauthammer: The case for McCain

Here’s a great piece by Charles Krauthammer explaining why John McCain is the wise choice to lead our country through dangerous times.

The Right Gets it Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get it

By Rich Bordner

(The title of this post borrows a book title from left-leaning author Jim Wallis. I don't buy the guy's views really, but the title fits this blog, so I'm stealing it.)

Ever since McCain picked Palin as his running mate, I've been getting more into politics. It is interesting stuff.

One thing I've noticed is that, though the left is crossing the ethical line in campaigning more egregious ways, the right is as well.

Those familiar with my views know that I'm a conservative. Not only are my views conservative, aligning much more with Republicans than Democrats, but I also think that McCain will make a much, much better president than Obama. However, I am disappointed not just with some of the things the McCain campaign has done and said, but I am disappointed at the conservative commentators as well.

Do you ever get the feeling that both sides are playing this shell game, trying to make their base super-confident while making the other side uncertain? I can understand the strategy, on the one hand, but on the other hand, this can backfire; when folks see the shell game for what it is, the gig's up and it hurts you more than helps.

Then again, most of the time the public falls for pretty silly stuff, so whatever.

Some of the things the Obama campaign and democratic commentators have done is pretty below-the-belt. It seems like they are stopping at nothing to smear Palin, make McCain sound panicky, and make Palin sound like a fundie nutjob without a clue. One skimming of the Daily Kos, or the Atlantic, or one look at the full text of Charlie Gibson's interview with Palin (the edits are astounding) will show that in spades. Palin's personal email has been hacked. The AP has info on who did it but is refusing to cooperate with the feds. In fact, they blame Palin for the crime! Obama's dodges of Gianna Jessen's ads (saying she is lying) are despicable.

But the right doesn't have completely clean hands either. McCain waaaay overplayed the "lipstick on a pig" line. It wasn't a malicious attack. At worst for Obama, it just revealed inexperience; he should have known how his audience would interpret it, but I don't think he was intentionally targeting Palin. Even if he was, McCain/Palin came off as a bit whiny by making such a big issue about it, rather than just plain ignoring it.

The conservative commentators are even worse. Some make a big to do about Palin smears, but then they call names and make insinuations as well. For example, I'm on Michelle Malkin's blog every day. She has some good stuff. But boy can she be downright nasty! Go to her blog and scroll down the side. Notice how just about every picture she has of Obama and/or his wife depicts them in the most ugly fashion? Just about every picture of Michelle Obama is of her snarling her face. That, or she looks like trailer trash. The pics of Obama are no better. Malkin knows what she is doing. It might be an effective tactic, but its manipulative.

Others call Obama names like Obumble or Dalibama.

One Conservative Canadian blogger wrote a great post about the tactics of the far left...or at least it was a great post, until he said the following about Arianna Huffington and her appearance (opposite Chuck Norris) on Larry King Live:

"..she is just jealous of a woman who worked to get where she is instead of making the journey on her knees and back (you heard me right, she married rich). I just wish Chuck Norris, who was also on Larry King, would have nailed her with his signature roundhouse kick (a dream yes, but one I wish would have come true)."

So the far left's attacks against Palin are out of bounds, but an assertion that Huffington used sexual favors to climb the ladder of success is a-ok?

Huffington might be pretty astonishing in the drivel she writes, but what the heck is wrong with Canadian Conservative?!

At the end of the day, my vote is still solidly conservative. No matter how bad the cacophony gets, that won't outweigh the bad effects an Obama presidency will have on this country.

But I want to say to both sides: what good does it do you if you "gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul? (Matthew 16:26)"

Understanding the Financial Crisis

Yesterday the House voted down the $700 billion bailout bill. The stock market tanked (although it's gained back about half of what it lost as of 1.30 pm today). No one really knows what will happen next.

I'm not an economist and I don't really know what to think about all of this. On the one hand, I'm horrified by the idea of handing out taxpayer money to banks and individuals who made bad investment decisions. As a friend in HR is fond of saying, people will keep doing what you reward them for doing. If you bail people out after they made risky investments, they have a pretty good incentive to do it again, and hope for another bailout. I'm also generally against increasing the reach of government and against government intervention in the markets. The bailout package reads to me like creeping socialism.

But. A lot of very smart people, including a lot of conservatives, are pretty worried about this crisis and are absolutely convinced that the government needs to intervene to prevent a worldwide crash. I don't know, maybe they're right. Maybe things will get a little clearer over the next few days, as Congress is on a break over the Jewish holidays and there won't be any legislative action.

For now, I'm just trying to learn a little more about where things stand, how we got here, what happens next. I thought I'd share a few useful links along those lines.

On how we got here: I'm pretty convinced that a large share of the responsibility lies at the feet of Democrats in government and elsewhere who forced banks to make high-risk mortgage loans to low-income, mostly minority populations. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a major part of this system and fueled the risky subprime mortgages by securitizing the debt. Of course, there is blame to go around, and there were points at which Republicans were in the majority and could have pushed harder for better regulation of Fannie and Freddie. For the record, Bush and McCain among others worked hard to reform Fannie and Freddie but didn't manage to get anything through Congress. Links on this topic:

• Boston Globe
• Matt Lewis on Townhall
• Jay Tea on Wizbang
• Ed Morrissey on Hot Air

What the bailout actually contained: The Wall Street Journal has a fairly complete explanation, although it seems like a few of the details are a little thin. But I think that's because Treasury Secretary Paulson hadn't quite figured out how everything would work, not because the WSJ omitted details in its reporting. Ilya Somin has some thoughtful analysis and links on whether it was a good idea.

Playing politics: Like Glenn Reynolds said:

You know, it would be easier for me to believe this was a crisis, if the people in charge were acting like it was a crisis, instead of just an opportunity for graft. Then again, to some of these people, everything is just an opportunity for graft.

Other bloggers with good thoughts on the politics of the vote include The Anchoress and Besty Newmark. In particular, Nancy Pelosi and some other House Democrats seem to have gone out of their way to make the vote more, rather than less, partisan.

And don't miss the ACORN angle: ACORN, a liberal community organizing group with a record of voter registration fraud, actually gets government (taxpayer) money to help low-income people get mortgages. Over the past two decades they seem to have be part of the problem of encouraging the system to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. The original Democrat-proposed bill would have directed a bunch of the bailout money to ACORN and similar groups. ACORN has significant ties to Obama and other prominent Democrat politicians:

• Mona Charen on Townhall
• Ken Blackwell on Townhall
• New York Post, here and here

One Issue Voter?

By Rich Bordner

There's a common thought afoot in evangelical circles when it comes to the current political climate:

"We shouldn't just focus on abortion. We need a more holistic approach to politics and social justice. Poverty, AIDS, etc. are 'life' issues too."

In fact, I just talked with two members of my church recently on this very topic. Both are voting for Obama. Both claim to be pro-life. Both will vote for Obama for economic, environmental, and global (i.e., anti-Iraq war) reasons.

As its stated, the statement is true. Poverty, et al, are things we evangelicals (actually, Christians of all stripes) need to battle. However, the upshot of this has been to put abortion on the back burner, treating it as less important than the other concerns. This has steered many evangelicals towards voting for Obama. This is a problem, for several reasons:

1) This presumes that the Democratic solution (traditionally, it has involved some form of bigger dependence on government) to poverty and such is the best solution. This is far from obvious. Liberals and conservatives alike both care about the poor and the ill. What is up for debate is which has the better solution. Far too often, it is assumed that liberals are the ones who care because they are for a government program dealing with the problem.

2) Imagine we are in Germany around 1940: "Hey, Hitler is doing wonders for this country's economic stability. Yeah, what he's doing with the Jews is sad, but hey, we gotta put food on the table! Our nation's pride and economic stability are important concerns too, not just 6 million Jews being slaughtered." That would be horrendous. Protecting innocent life should ALWAYS be front and center.

3) Similarly, around 40 million babies have died from abortions ever since Roe v. Wade. Given this, putting abortion on the backburner is the least compassionate thing we can do; it will show that we really don't care about "the least of these."

4) Obama is crazy when it comes to abortion. Not only has he pledged that he will do everything in his power to uphold and solidify Roe v. Wade, but his voting record is about as extreme as it gets. In fact, in Illinois, he led the opposition to the Infant Born Alive Protection Act, which would have secured medical care to babies born alive after botched abortions. He swears that the reason why he voted against it was because it lacked "neutrality language" in regards to Roe V. Wade, but he shot down the attempt to put such language in the bill!

5) Some prefer to talk of "reducing the number of abortions" through caring for women in crisis pregnancies (mostly through some form of government funding) rather than attacking the law head on. This eases their conscience in voting for Obama. Of course, reducing the number of abortions is a laudable goal, but that shouldn't be the only thing we do. As Melinda Penner at Stand to Reason has pointed out in a recent blog, this leaves a very odious doctrine ensconced in our law: that the unborn are not fully human and are not worthy of protection under the law. That, my friends, needs to be shown for the evil it is. Therefore, if we do not relentlessly attack that plank of our law with everything we have (including our vote), we must ask ourselves just how pro-life we really are.

6) Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if McCain is likely or not to completely topple Roe v. Wade. Most likely, he will not, given that he will probably be working with a Democratic legislature. What matters is: who is likely to make progress, any progress, towards outlawing abortion. McCain: certainly yes. His voting record alone speaks to that truth. At the very least, he will keep us from moving the other way, towards entrenching Roe further in our law and societal soul. Obama: certainly not. He will move us in the other way, both through perhaps vetoing anything that remotely smells pro-life, through funding the industry of abortion, and through appointing judges that play fast and loose with the Constitution. That's how the problem started in the first place, after all.

Therefore, if this was the only issue/reason I had for not voting for Obama (in actuality, the reasons are many), I wouldn't think twice about it. Despite the public chiding one issue voters get, my conscience would be clean.

Democrats and the Housing Mess

If you follow politics at all, you've probably seen the clips of Obama attacking McCain and the Republicans over the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But he's not being very honest with these attacks. The truth is, Bush tried to reform these agencies in 2003, and McCain cosponsored a bill to provide more oversight in 2005. Democrats in Congress killed both attempts.

Ace of Spades has a GREAT post explaining what the Republicans have tried to do about this crisis over the past 5 years, and how the Democrats prevented any meaningful reforms. And don't miss the fact that at least 4 key players in the subprime mortgage industry are now top Obama advisors:

Penny Pritzker, "the Michael Milken of subprime mortgages," is Obama's Finance Chair.

Jim Johnson, disgraced former CEO of Fannie, was Obama's vice presidential search chairman, at least until he resigned under fire due to his role in providing subsidized sweetheart loans to Democratic Senators during his stint at CountryWide.

Franklin Raines, who participated in the accounting scandals to fix Fannie's books and deliver unwarranted bonuses to its top executives, is a top Obama adviser.

Obama Economics Adviser Austan Goolsbee continued defending and lobbying on behalf of the mortgage industry's no-money-down-no-credit-check policies at least until September of 2007.

Finally, Ace mentions that the Democratic Congress plans to adjourn for the season without doing anything to address the issue:

Congress Adjourning! Harry Reid admits he has no idea what to do. So he's packing it up, leaving yet another crisis on the table for more responsible people to figure out.

Actually, Harry Reid and the Democrats always knew what to do. They knew the problem was this trillion dollar giveaway to credit-poor homebuyers. They further knew that by making money for homes so cheap and so artificially plentiful, they were driving up the cost of homes to astronomical levels. That's the way it works -- the more cheap, devalued dollars chasing after goods, the more the good rise in price.

Ultimately people who were simply not credit-worthy enough to buy houses at all were not merely buying houses -- they were buying houses that were well beyond their means to purchase even in a normal market, but furthermore, were inflated in price to double their fair value. So ultimately these legions of bad-credit-risks found themselves paying mortgages valued at 150% or 200% or even more of what their actual homes were worth.

So what did they do? They did what anyone would do: They walked away from the mortgages.

They both hyperinflated the housing market and created the bubble, and put the American taxpayer on the hook for all the excesses they created. And would not check -- because they were too busy appeasing ACORN and taking money from Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Raines, Johnson, and Pritzker.

They created the housing bubble. They created the financial meltdown -- which occurred, inevitably, when the bubble burst.

And now they want to go home.

For more background on this crisis, check out Investor's Business Daily editorials here and here. In my opinion, IBD is a great source for economic news that doesn't get reported in the mainstream media. If you want to learn more about economic issues--including housing, oil, financial markets, government regulation of the economy--it's a great place to start.

Patriotism vs. Nuance

Bill Whittle is one of my favorite writers. He has put out some really amazing essays on his blog about American exceptionalism, patriotism, the emptiness of the left, etc. (Fair warning--He does occasionally use some rough language.) Just found out he is now writing for National Review and turned out some interesting thoughts about the convention. Read the whole thing--it covers a whole range of issues, from Republican values to Sarah Palin to McCain's time as a POW. But this part brought tears to my eyes:

And a final thing: I had heard before that John McCain had been beaten in prison, and I admired him for it. But when he said he had been broken . . . I gasped. When this sometimes cocky, arrogant old man told me he had once been a cocky, arrogant young man until he was “blessed by hardship,” until he had been broken and remade — and in that remaking discovered a love of country so fierce and pure that even as a patriot myself I will never approach it — well, in that moment John McCain won my heart, to add to the respect and admiration he had already had.

When John McCain told me what I and untold millions of Americans have always believed, what others tell me to be ashamed of and mock me for — that I live in the greatest country in the world, a force of goodness and justice in dark places, a land of heroism and sacrifice and opportunity and joy — to me that went right to the mystic chords of memory that ultimately binds this country together. Some people don’t know what it is, but there is such a thing as patriotism — pure, unrefined, unapologetic, unconditional, non-nuanced, non-cosmopolitan, white-hot-burning patriotism. John McCain loves this country. I love it too. Not what it might be made into someday — not its promise, always and only its promise — but what it was and what it is, a nation and an idea worth fighting and dying for. (italics in the original)

Everything wrong with the left, everything I believe about this country, right there in one paragraph.

Why does world view matter?

Michael Medved at Townhall on the importance of worldview in the presidential race:

Barack Obama acknowledges the existence of evil – but the three examples he cited in the televised Saddleback Forum with Rick Warren involved child abuse and street crime here in the United States, as well as the violence in Darfur. He never even mentioned Islamo-Nazi terror as the most obvious and menacing evil of our time – a form of monstrous depravity that elevates suicide, and the slaughter of innocent children, into a holy act.

More than any American leader since Reagan, McCain emphasizes the moral dimension in international conflict, and the importance of core values. And like Reagan, he understands that evil must be called by its name and, ultimately, defeated.

You should also check out this related Hugh Hewitt post on moral equivalence:

Here's what Obama said yesterday about China:

Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a coporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option."

On many levels, this bit of Obama oratory is as troubling as Obama's moral equivalence posture on the invasions of Georgia and Iraq. Obama's praise for China's Olympics building binge ignores how those structures were assembled, the source and conditions of the labor, the lack of pollution controls in Beijing and throughout China, the many complaints that Chinese infrastructure outside the Olympics zone remains shoddy, the recent record of Chinese manufacturing scandals, including the heparin fiasco which killed many Americans, and of course the catastrophe brought about by Chinese building standards in the region rocked by the recent earthquake.

McCain's faith as a POW in Vietnam

Check out this story about John McCain:

Sen. John McCain, who is known for his reticence and even discomfort invoking faith on the campaign trail, was once dubbed a "Hell's Angel" for rioting against his captors in Vietnam in order to hold Sunday church services.

There's a lot more detail in the stories, including a summary of McCain's first lesson as the group's unofficial chaplain and a description of a Christmas service he organized. It's a pretty moving story. I think it's an interesting read partly because McCain doesn't talk about his faith as openly as some other candidates in the recent past, but stories like this do suggest that his Christian faith is an important part of his character.

Obama: Lying about Abortion

I wrote here about Barack Obama's position and actions with respect to abortion. Frankly, I don't understand how any evangelical Christian could vote for him on this issue alone, but of course that is my opinion. Anyway, there is some controversy about the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and his position on that bill. Here's what Obama told CBN (video at the link):

And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.

So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.

To put it bluntly, I believe Obama is the one who's lying here, because he knows that the truth will hurt him with a lot of voters. He voted against a bill protecting infants who survive an abortion while in the Illinois Senate. I don't understand how he thinks he can pretend that didn't happen. Please, check out the facts for yourself and make sure you know what is going on here.

David Freddoso reviews the relevant bills and votes in detail and comes to this conclusion:

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

One more thought--Saturday night, Obama and McCain both appeared at Saddleback Church and answered questions from Rick Warren. I have my differences with Warren's theology, but it sounds like he asked some interesting questions (for example, does evil exist and what should we do about it?). You should definitely read some coverage of the event and the candidates' answers to faith & values questions (including this from Victor Davis Hanson, highlighting Obama's postmodern worldview: "There are no absolutes, just nuances and contexts that preclude certainty."). The question that is relevant to this post is this:

When asked "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?," McCain answered "At the moment of conception." Obama's answer here was flaming-dirigible bad:

Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.

Transcripts for both candidates at Saddleback church are available here.

Election Update: Evangelicals for Obama?

If you're paying attention to the presidential election, you've probably seen more than one news report about how Obama is reaching out to evangelical Christians and how evangelicals are planning on voting for him in large numbers. Personally, I don't know how any Christian who cares about abortion and life issues could vote for him, but that's just me. What do the actual data say?

How many pieces have we read in recent months about how evangelical Christians are falling over themselves in a mad rush to support presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama? Every discovery that evangelicals care about more than just the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage is met with hopeful accounts about how the Republican Party is losing these voters to the Democratic Party.

Now, it may be true that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has failed to get many folks, including evangelicals, excited about him. But given all the coverage to the contrary, I was somewhat surprised to see the results of a new Pew study that indicates that Obama is getting slightly fewer — that’s right — fewer white evangelical supporters than John Kerry was at the same time four years ago.

If you follow the link, there are a lot of examples of media coverage saying evangelicals are supporting Obama. It's definitely not a trend that people are imagining.

Here's something interesting, though: voters aren't buying it. About half of Americans believe the media are trying to get us to vote Obama, and the numbers are growing:

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.

Interesting. It's heartening to see some sort of evidence that people are catching on to media bias. And this recent, spectacular example should help even more:

If you doubt the media are in the tank for Obama, doubt no more. The refusal of the New York Times to print McCain's op-ed on Obama after an Obama piece was published has nothing to do with editorial judgment and everything to do with protecting the media's heartthrob.

One final note of interest to political junkies: Dr. James Dobson is considering an endorsement for McCain, because he disagrees so strongly with Obama. It's a pretty big deal because up to now, Dr. Dobson was very opposed to McCain's candidacy.

"Barack Obama contradicts and threatens everything I believe about the institution of the family and what is best for the nation," Dr. Dobson said in a statement to The Associated Press. "His radical positions on life, marriage and national security force me to re-evaluate the candidacy of our only other choice, John McCain. I have not endorsed him, but … I have concluded for the first time that I might. If that is a flip-flop, then so be it."

John McCain: Right on Life

So it took longer than I thought, but I've finally done the research about John McCain to contrast his positions on abortion with Obama's (see "Obama is Far, Far Left on Abortion"). Here's the good news for conservatives: McCain appears to be solidly pro-life.

Starting with his own website:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."

There's a lot more at the link, including encouraging views on adoption, marriage, and stem-cell research.

One of the reasons you may not know much about McCain's views on abortion is that many pro-life groups resent his campaign finance bill, which restricted what they could say about candidates in pre-election advertising. So they aren't solidly behind him, and they aren't out there stumping for him. Here's what National Right to Life has to say:

National Right to Life PAC strongly supports Senator John McCain for United States President and we have supported him in all of his U.S. Senate races.

Even while National Right to Life disagreed with Senator McCain on campaign finance reform, Senator McCain did not waver in his votes against abortion.

Senator John McCain has a solid voting record against abortion and has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997.

Since pro-life groups are a little lukewarm due to the campaign finance issue, some of the best information actually came from NARAL. NARAL, which wholeheartedly endorsed Obama, considers McCain to be "solidly anti-choice" and gives him a 0% score on abortion votes in the past 6 years. If NARAL doesn't like him, that's a pretty good reason to vote for McCain right there.

One last thing--John McCain doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk. From a Karl Rove editorial in the Wall Street Journal (most of the article is a fellow POW, Medal of Honor winner Col. Bud Day, talking about McCain's time in Vietnam, and that's a good read too):

The stories told to me by the Days involve more than wartime valor.

For example, in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris, is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.

"We were called at midnight by Cindy," Wes Gullett remembers, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport." Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care.

Contrast that with Obama:

Obama said the battle for abortion rights should be fought from the offensive, instead of a simple defense of what activists have achieved thus far.

And he reiterated his opposition to the two justices appointed by Bush who sit on the Supreme Court--Roberts and Samuel Alito. Obama voted against both.

“It is important for us, obviously, not only to get a Democratic White House as well as a stronger Congress to protect these rights,” Obama said.

I have to admit I'm not thrilled with all of John McCain's policies and proposals. Like a lot of people I know, I wish he was more conservative. But at least he's got this one right. and it's a big one.

Warning to Conservatives: don't boo McCain

Politico's report today on the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference):

During registration last night at the Omni Shoreham a registrant was asking to upgrade his CPAC package and then proceeded to ask what time GOP front-runner John McCain was going to speak today. “Oh good,” he said to the response -- answer: 3 p.m. today-- “I hope they boo him out of the room.”

“No, no no no no” came the reply from the person registering him. “We’ve been instructed to tell participants not to boo McCain.”

“Are you kidding me?” the shocked CPAC-goer asked.

One thing is clear: A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain.

As Hugh Hewitt reflects on the last debate:

Romney's problem sat at the end of the stage --Mike Huckabee, the conservative coalition splitter. Amiable, smart, and ambitious for the vice presidency, Mike Huckabee is staying in the race not to win it --Huck's far too smart to believe that fantasy-- but to keep the conservative opposition to McCain divided.

Huckabee knows he can’t win. But he can still be a kingmaker, and in the deal, get the VP nod from McCain.

The reality is, Mitt Romney is the only candidate who can represent all three bases of what has been called “the Reagan coalition”: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and pro-military conservatives. (Watch video.) This ability to unite all three bases of the party – not to mention his considerable personal wealth to finance his campaign – make him the only "acceptable" and "viable" Republican presidential candidate who can have a chance against the Democrats in the general election. (In contrast, both McCain and Huckabee represent only parts of the Reagan coalition; also both have cash flow problems.)

Audio: Social Conservatives need to take charge and hold strong. listen

John McCain is not a true conservative.

Short audio clips:

• The real John McCain

• The McCain-Clinton love fest
  

The case can be made – and needs to be made -- that John McCain is not a true conservative.

Can someone say, “Bob Dole II”? (I guess I just did.)

Yes, he is a brave American war hero. But being courageous and loyal to one’s country is not the only thing someone needs to be qualified to lead our country. They need to have the right ideas as well. Simply stated, John McCain is a moderate, not a conservative.

“He is not a conservative,” say real, leading conservatives like Senator Rick Santorium, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and Judge Robert Bork. (Bork, as you recall, was President Reagan’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 80’s but was denied the bench because liberals in the Senate thought he was too conservative). McCain was endorsed -- by all things -- the New York Times, which above everything reflects his non-conservative positions.

As a case in point, the Politico’s Jonathan Martin presents in a piece following the Michigan primary, exit poll numbers contrasting McCain and Romney:

McCain won Democrats 41-33%. McCain won pro-choice voters 39-35%. He won among those who never attend church by 11 points — 39-28. The “architect of the surge” won with Iraq war disapprovers 36-29.

For crying out load, McCain cares more about global warming than he does about abortion! That right there should tell you where he is ideologically.

Martin continues:

Even while campaigning in Christian conservative-heavy western Michigan, McCain was content to stick with the economy, spending, the war and climate change. Not once did he ever bring up the fact that he, unlike his top rival, had a consistent pro-life voting record.

I asked a top McCain adviser why the senator would never raise what would seem like a beneficial issue and didn't really get much of an answer.

The reality is -- to borrow Rudy's favorite phrase -- is that McCain is only comfortable talking about that which he really cares about.

And he's much more passionate about global warming than he is about abortion. The problem is that most of his own party takes the exact opposite view.

Moreover, McCain has been criticized for possessing no consistent, principled ideology or philosophy; rather his views and positions on issues seem to be guided more by what I would call a narcissistic pragmatism – a worldview that sees that the right policy is whatever works in promoting John McCain, the candidate for President.

McCain’s record:

• McCain-Feingold (The infamous campaign finance “reform” law that birthed MoveOn.org.)

• McCain-Kennedy (The proposed immigration "reform" package that would have provided amnesty for illegal immigrants.)

• McCain-Lieberman (He believes global warming is a serious threat requiring drastic action now! This legislation would economically disadvantage the U.S. in the world economy.)

• He voted against the Bush’s tax cuts.

• He voted against ANWR. (He opposed drilling in Alaska.)

• He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would have constitutionally protected marriage from being redefined out of existence).

• Led the Gang of 14. (McCain wasn't a fan of Justice Alito.)

• He has supported pro-life measures, but has taken no real leadership amongst his colleagues in Congress.

McCain v. Romney (who is endorsing whom)

John McCain Endorsements:

• The New York Times
• The L.A. Times
• Rudy Giuliani
• Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Rick Perry

Mitt Romney Endorsements:

• Rush Limbaugh*
• Glenn Beck
• Sean Hannity*
• Former Senator Rick Santorum
• Laura Ingraham
• Judge Robert Bork
• Mark Levin
• Hugh Hewitt
• Michael Reagan
• Dr. Bob Jones III
• Dr. Wayne Grudem
• David Wheaton
  
  * Will vote for him.

Dr. Wayne Grudem:

"'Romney’s positions on social, economic, and international issues are all soundly conservative. On major issues such as protection of the unborn, a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, strong national defense and victory against radical Islamic terrorists, securing our border, a signed pledge of no tax increases, promoting school choice, and appointment of Supreme Court justices who will interpret law, not make new law, Romney holds solidly conservative positions. His positions are the ones the majority of evangelicals have supported in the past.'" (Evangelicals Rally to Romney to Stop Giuliani Monday, October 22, 2007 10:28 AM)

McCain's pro-life credentials called into question

-- OneNewsNow.com