There are a lot of Republican candidates to consider come the primary on August 10th, and it just so happens that all of them claim to be pro-life. Is there a difference? Personally, I believe there are many large and important differences between the various candidates, but more importantly, CRTL (Colorado Right To Life) has published some unfortunate findings as regards expoused Pro-Life positions. CRTL's Blog has a lengthy explaination that is very good - but, lengthy. So, below, I have condensed the info as much as possible, and kept it to the Republican Candidates in the Senate and Governor's races. If you want to read the rest of the candidates mentioned, feel free to read the original article. I hope this is helpful for you in making your decisions for the August 10th Primaries.

About CRTL

We do not assume any candidate is pro-life unless they've responded to our candidate survey, or we have some other reason to trust their positions are sincere. CRTL does not officially endorse candidates for any office, but we will let you know which ones are NOT pro-life, and try to offer guidance on the rest. Please, NEVER assume a candidate is pro-life because of their party affiliation!

U.S. Senate Race

Republican Ken Buck is a credible candidate we consider very strongly pro-life and pro-Personhood, based on conversations with him. He is on record supporting Personhood, though we have not received his candidate questionnaire.

Republican Jane Norton has supported "abortion exceptions" in the past (i.e. for rape & incest, which is from our perspective "pro-abortion with exceptions"), and for some time refused to support Personhood. She was scheduled to meet with someone about Personhood, but the meeting hasn't happened yet despite every effort. However, she has apparently endorsed Personhood recently, along with the other Republican candidates for U.S. Senate. Questions to her campaign to confirm this went unanswered, and she has not responded to our survey, sent by certified letter, and she's had enough time to respond.

Again, we must question Jane Norton's sincerity on this issue, because she has seemed more reluctant than willing. She did participate in Gov. Owens' cutoff of Planned Parenthood from state funding, and we applaud her actions on that (as a cabinet member).

Governor's Race

Scott McInnis (R - Former Congressman) is the establishment candidate who the GOP thinks is "the man to beat Hickenlooper." He is running as a pro-life candidate, but is short on meaningful specifics. He was formerly a ranking member of the pro-abortion group Republicans for Choice, and is known to have supported some pro-abortion legislation (including taxpayer funding for abortions) and to have opposed some pro-life measures. He claims to have "changed his mind" about abortion, and has even expressed support for Personhood, but he has not responded to CRTL's survey (sent by certified letter 2 weeks ago, and also several times by e-mail), and we have real doubts about his sincerity. Don't believe his claims that he has a "pro-life voting record" -- HE DOES NOT. [...]

We were impressed when Dan Maes (R) became only the second major candidate to respond to our candidate survey. We had a question about his original survey, and in time and after some dialogue he responded with support for 7 of 7 of CRTL's central points, as explained in our candidate survey. We consider him 100% pro-life, and are happy that he is doing so well in the Governor's race -- no one gave him a chance early on, but he's turned out to be a strong and credible candidate.

[None of the emphasis above was added by me, but reflects the original article]

Thanks for your interest, and don't forget to vote on August 10th!

Change You Do Not Believe In

Here is some excellent commentary on Obama's current and future actions. Really good, especially since I've been having withdrawal symptoms from Rush not being on the air for the past two days... Get Well Soon!!

Anyhow, here 'tis:

Brace for the Change You Do Not Believe In
A Commentary By Tony Blankley
Wednesday, December 03, 2008

From The Huffington Post and Daily Kos to National Review and The Washington Times -- and all the mainstream media in between -- commentators are puzzling over who the dickens President-elect Barack Obama really is. On the progressive left, they are beginning to fear he may not be for "redistributive justice." On The Wall Street Journal free market right, they are seeing in his economic team the possibility that he is really as safe for capitalism as a banker. Karl Rove has concluded: "(The) announcement of Mr. Obama's economic team was reassuring. He's generally surrounded himself with intelligent, mainstream advisers."
Those impassioned by the anti-war slogan "no blood for oil" are getting nervous. According to Politico, Jodie Evans -- a CodePink co-founder who, with her husband, helped raise a lot of money for Obama during the primary and general elections -- recalled her interaction with Obama: "It has gotten to the point where he sees me coming and before I am close he just keeps repeating, 'Jodie, I PROMISE, I will end the war, I promise I will end the war.'"
The mainstream media, still warmed by the success of their work electing Obama, comfortably headlined an article on the topic in the National Journal: "The president-elect's appointments reflect his confidence in his own idiosyncratic blueprint and his ability to hold together an eclectic administration."
It is a pity the conversation about what Obama might actually do as president didn't begin in the media until after the election. But not to worry. As Emma Goldman, a 20th-century anarchist and Marxist, is reputed to have said: "In America, elections are the opium of the people." Well, we have had our fix, no matter how uninformed we were during the injection.
There is something degrading about serious, prominent political people of the left or right (to say nothing of the broader public) being forced to play policy hide-and-seek with the president-elect of the United States. And there is something presumptive about a president-elect who is very satisfied to keep the public guessing about what he stands for and what he plans to do. It is redolent of the most cynical of 19th-century European politics. But if he wants us to play the guessing game, I'll play.
I suspect that free market advocates need to be careful not to jump to early conclusions about Obama. The fact that he has selected a senior team of credible, centrist financial men and women does not mean he is committed to free markets. As a cautious, shrewd man, he understands that he must steady the markets and the economy before he can start on his more ambitious, redistributive policies. As he said last week, don't worry about the centrist, experienced Clinton appointees he is selecting; it is his job, as president, to be the change.
Unlike some of his supporters, I take Obama at his word. In my reading of history, men with his level of intentionally displayed self-confidence should be believed when they earlier have asserted grand -- even grandiose -- goals. Whether they are actually that self-confident or tormented by secret self-doubt, it often leads to efforts at grand and "heroic" public policies once in office.
And as long as the president-elect will not declare himself publicly, these foolish psychological games are necessary. So I rather doubt that a man with his self-image is likely to be content to leave the White House eight years from now having been a mere steward of Republican capitalism and military policy. I suspect he wants to play for the history books and do something dramatic with America. I suspect, as he says, he intends to be the change -- and not merely of the "can't we all just get along?" variety. In fact, I suspect he doesn't want to get along with his philosophical opposition; he wants to overwhelm us politically.
On the foreign policy front, likewise, solid appointments may not lead to solid policies. Remember during the campaign when he was on his way to Iraq and he was quite dismissive of the role of the top generals? Once again, he used the phrase "my job, as president," and he said it is to make the policy. He said the generals' job is merely to carry out his orders. That was a very unrealistic view of the relationship between civilian and military leadership -- even by the example of such towering civilian leaders as FDR, Churchill and Lincoln.
Here is my suggestion to those who disagree with what, during and before the campaign, Obama seemed to be saying about economics, diplomacy, culture and foreign policy: Do not take too much comfort from his appointees. Brace for the change you do not believe in.

Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
See Other Commentaries by Tony Blankley
See Other Political Commentary
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.

[and not necessarily those of the.joyful.one, but I'd say a large part of them are :-) ]

Federal Friday: Polls vs. Election Reputation

I know it's Wednesday, but since I will be campaigning from either Thursday night or Friday through Tuesday of next week, I have to put up this week's Federal Friday rather early. (Besides, there's something I want to write about)

The Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll released today puts us at a 3 point race: Obama 50% McCain 47%. This is a large improvement for McCain. As the report explains,

"Prior to today’s update, Obama had been ahead by four-to-eight points every single day for 33 straight days..."

This poll also has some other interesting numbers, including:

-One percent (1%) of voters prefer a third-party option and 2% are undecided
-Among those who have already voted, it’s Obama 54% McCain 45%
-As for those who have not yet voted but are “certain” they will do so, the race is tied at 48%
-Two percent (2%) of these “certain” voters plan to vote for a third party option while 2% say they are undecided

Why this sudden change? Rush has been saying for the last two months that the polls would tighten as we got closer to the election. Interpretation: the pollsters must hedge their bets. Remember in the Bush/Kerry race? They had practically called the election for Kerry by noon (citing poll numbers that had been played with) trying to get the remaining republicans from 'bothering' to go vote. Then, Bush won. All the pollsters looked like fools... and they don't want that to happen again. So, since you can't prove by actual vote counting what actually happened in the weeks leading up to an election, but you can certainly prove what happened just before and during the election, they're straightening out their act.

And to further ensure that their reputation doesn't get further tarnished, this was included in the Rasmussen report:

"It will take another day or so to determine whether today’s numbers
reflect a lasting change or statistical noise."

Now, I really can't blame them for further hedging their bets, but I do think it helps prove the point.

Conclusion: This race is terribly tight, and every little bit of volunteering, and certainly every vote will, does, and must count!

(Also see Polls vs. Us, and particularly the Stoplight video included)

Campaigning and Snow - An Excellent Combo!

So, the night before last, it snowed! We had about an inch of accumulation, although if it had all stuck it would have been much more. Then, last night, it snowed again for about an hour! (no accumulation, but we're so happy to actually be seeing snow when winter ought to be starting that we don't really care!)

We realized that the only one of us that had boots that fit was Buddy, so Birdie and I had to go and get some. Of course, we went to Walmart. But before we left, Birdie said something about the two of us maybe getting matching boots, and that if we did, she would succeed in getting me to wear "girlie" boots. Well... it just so happens that the opposite took place :-). The women's boots were all terribly un-functional (is that a word?). I had entered the store knowing that I was getting men's boots (women's shoes aren't fitting right these days, so I get small mens instead). Well, after about 10 minutes, Mom and Birdie come find me in section where all the heavy boots are. Here's the punch-line: Birdie ends up getting the same pair I got (in a smaller size) - matching boots, right? - and they are VERY not feminine at all!! I found it quite funny.

So, since I'll be working on one of the Gen-J SAT's (Student Action Teams) and we've already had snow, I am hoping and praying that God will give me two of my favorite things at once - a snowy campaign! I think that would be SO fun! I know a lot of people, including Dad, would disagree, but that's what I think.

Oh, and a number of people that we know from back east are coming to run some of the teams, which will be a blast!! (JL and DN in particular, and all the others!)

Oh, and if you all would pray for my health and particularly my energy level to hold up during the campaigning, I would really appreciate it (My knees could use some prayer too... make that my legs... make that all my joints). Everyone keep praying for all the campaigns all over the country, especially for McCain-Palin!