Jason Altmire (D, PA-04): pro-life? Pro-choice? Try ‘pro-keeping his seat.’

Won’t work, but he’ll try.

You have to wonder whether the Online Left finds equivocators like Rep. Jason Altmire (D, PA-04) as insulting as we do (not that progressives have the courage to call their own hypocrites out, of course).  Let me set the background: in 2010 Altmire did his level best to look like a mighty pro-life champion, largely because he was running for re-election in a R+6 district (which he ended up winning with only 51% of the vote).  Back then it was all about how Altmire absolutely hated taxpayer funding of abortion, and how he’d never support such a thing, and the rest of the spiel that then-Speaker Pelosi graciously allowed him to repeat in order to keep his seat.

But that was 2010.  Since then the seats have been redrawn, and now Altmire is facing Murtha crony/replacement Mark Critz in a race for the redrawn PA-12 district that has been called ‘spirited‘ (read: ‘vicious’).  So, now that the pandering has to be to Democratic primary voters, how is Altmire pandering? Continue reading Jason Altmire (D, PA-04): pro-life? Pro-choice? Try ‘pro-keeping his seat.’

Cloture vote today on gun-grabbing, pro-lifer-hating Caitlin Halligan.

I got tipped this one by the Rick Perry campaign: surprised that I didn’t see this before.  Halligan is up for a judicial appointment to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC, and she’s… well, read [for some reason, the link didn’t work the first time]:

Ms. Halligan’s confirmation has been vigorously opposed by the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and Committee for Justice. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously rejected her confirmation earlier this year. In 2003, as Solicitor General of New York, Halligan attempted to hold gun manufacturers liable for criminal acts committed with handguns. She filed briefs in federal court arguing for the unconstitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which the National Rifle Association described as providing “essential protection…for the Second Amendment rights of honest Americans[.]”

Halligan also filed an amicus brief in arguing that federal RICO laws should be used against pro-life groups. She repeatedly attempted to hijack the federal court system in order to impose her own political beliefs on the general public.

Halligan’s hostility to civil rights and life issues is in fact fairly well-documented; and the cloture vote is todayCall your Senator if you want him or her to stand tough on this one.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

#rsrh Hey! Want to keep radicalizing me…

…with regards to adopting a more pro-life position?

Then have people keep writing passive-aggressive Kermit Gosnell-situation apologetics like this one.  Actually, the problem isn’t the writing; it’s the publishing.  Because every time I see a pro-choicer start off on this topic without admitting that the Gosnell story confirms the absolutely worst fears and suspicions of the pro-life movement*, I get just a little bit angrier.  And the angrier I get, the more I stop caring that people have a problem with me having a problem about being lied to.

But I hear that the other side wants to find some common ground?  Fine.  Let’s start with “Born-alive babies are not to be killed.”  Then the pro-choice movement can explain how they [expletive deleted] that one up, and what they’re doing to keep from [expletive deleted] that up again.

Also, Ms. Kuschmider?

And you do not have the right to impose your personal sexual morals on anyone else. You don’t. It’s rude. So please don’t try.

You go first.  Thanks in advance!

Moe Lane

*Fears that we were told were ridiculous, exaggerated, hyperbolic, and generally silly.

Bart Stupak (D, MI-01) cuts and runs.

(Via The Business Insider) No question mark on this: Marc Armbinder’s first mention has been expanded upon here, and CBS News is now reporting it as well.  This should surprise nobody: we’ve been expecting this announcement since Wednesday.  Particularly since the Tea Party folks are going to – justifiably – claim at least the assist on this scalp*.

So… Stupak betrays the pro-life movement and his district, then quits rather than face the wrath of either.  And don’t weep for him: he’ll segue right into the comfortable life of a DC lobbyist, which means that he’ll probably get a pay raise and will certainly enjoy the remainder of his term, free from the nagging terror beginning to fill the lives of his Democratic colleagues.  Because you cannot trust a ‘conservative’ Democrat.

Either side.

Moe Lane

PS: The Dan Benishek saga teaches us why we support as many candidates as we can, as much as we can, in as many districts as we can.  Three months ago this seat was deemed safe for the DemocratsNow it’s a pickup. Continue reading Bart Stupak (D, MI-01) cuts and runs.

#rsrh Pro-life groups don’t trust EO #hcr dodge.

The President can offer an Executive Order, but the groups that are watching – and scoring – the health care debacle on life issues are going to assume that such an offer is meaningless*.

You know what would be handy for the President right now? A reputation for doing what he said that he was going to do, come Hell, high water, or a recalcitrant Congress*. Shame that the President decided that such a thing was beneath his dignity, huh?

Moe Lane

*You know. Like George W Bush had.

Update on the Vatican Ambassadorship.

The Vatican is denying reports that it has formally blocked any appointments for US ambassador (via Don Surber, and previously mentioned here).  Guess that means that everybody in the Online Left who’s spent the last few days self-righteously whining about why we extend diplomatic relations to that particular country can stop pretending that they actually care.

Oh, I’m sorry: did I just type that out?  Guess that I did; and, shoot, my backspace key is inexplicably busted.  Looks like I’m stuck leaving it in.

Crossposted to RedState.

Liberal shocked, shocked! to find identity politics going on in the NY Senate pick.

Let the record show that I say the following without heat: I don’t think that I’ve ever met Robert Stein, and I certainly have nothing against him. But this plaintive question via (Hot Air) is a bit rich:

In Illinois, the future felon Rod Blagojevich appoints Roland Burris amid calls to retain the President’s seat for an African-American and now, with Caroline Kennedy gone, New York’s governor speaks publicly and privately about “the importance of selecting a woman to replace Mrs. Clinton.”

With the critical questions facing the Senate, when and how did substantive qualifications fall behind demographics in making choices for such high office?

The answer is “January of 2007,” which is of course the point where the Democratic Party took control of Congress. To evoke Fred Thompson / Admiral Painter, those guys don’t take a dump without reading a poll first.

Case in point:

Barack Obama Postpones Decision to Send Tax Dollars Overseas for Abortion

Continue reading Liberal shocked, shocked! to find identity politics going on in the NY Senate pick.