Politico

Planned Parenthood Targets Ken Cuccinelli

A Politico article today revealed that Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest and richest abortion business, is coordinating with Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe to target Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in the article that

Cuccinelli's ongoing attacks on women's health and economic security should be a warning to us all: women's health will be on the Virginia ballot in 2013.

A website created by the coordinated campaign targets the Attorney General's positions on abortion, forced taxpayer subsidizing of contraception, abortion-causing drugs and President Obama's taxpayer-funded health insurance scheme. According to Politico, the website includes "a disclaimer at the bottom of the site [that] says it was authorized by the campaign of Terry McAuliffe."

Of course, it should come as no surprise that Planned Parenthood would coordinate with a liberal Democrat campaign. Its political entities have spent tens of millions of dollars on partisan activities while whining consistently that it doesn't have enough money to bring its abortion centers up to basic health and safety standards. It is, however, committed to forcing you, the taxpayer, to fund its operations to the tune of more than half a billion dollars annually!

I guess it's all about priorities.

The partisan political activity of Planned Parenthood and its targeting of Virginia should come as no surprise. But it should serve as a reminder of just how important this year's elections in Virginia are going to be. Because only Virginia has a potentially competitive statewide race, national interest groups are going to spend millions of dollars to influence the outcome.

It's also notice to pro-life Virginians that we have to communicate with everyone that we know the truth about the Attorney General's record, the truth about the fact that Virginia's abortion centers are the real threat to women's health and, speaking of threats to women, that the current federal administration's debt-ridden agenda is a horrendous threat to women's "economic security."

We are not going to have the resources of a billion dollar industry such as Planned Parenthood and we certainly aren't going to be able to rely on the "mainstream" media. But we will have the truth.

BREAKING NEWS: Politico Reports Bolling To Drop Out Of Race For Governor!

Politico is reporting that Lt. Governor Bill Bolling will announce later this morning that he will end his campaign for the 2013 Republican gubernatorial nomination, virtually assuring Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli the nomination and, most likely, a face off with Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the general election. The article cites two Virginia Republican sources who say the move is recognition that Bolling cannot win the nomination in a convention process, which is determined by the party's conservative grassroots activists, rather than a primary, which is open to any Virginia voter. Rather than showing up to vote as in a primary, conventions require a filing process and attending an all day event in Richmond in the spring, something in which only hardcore activists participate. Originally, the nomination was to be determined in a primary, but the GOP State Central Committee earlier this year switched to a convention after Cuccinelli supporters won a majority of seats on the party's governing body. Many observers, though, thought Cuccinelli was the favorite to win the nomination  in a primary as well.

This development changes the dynamics of the convention, which expected a huge draw of delegates (10,000-plus, rather than a few hundred thousand in a primary) to the Richmond Colisseum this coming May for the battle at the top of the card. Now, most likely, fewer delegates will attend, and the several candidates for lieutennent governor, and thee two for attorney general, who would've been campaigning amongst the delegates attending for either Bolling or Cuccinelli, must be able to mobilize delegates for their specific campaigns. Some of the seven candidates for lieutennent governor likely got into the race because of the relative cost effectiveness of such a campaign and multiple ballot dynamics at play which would make the nomination a crap shoot. Now, they must get their own people to the convention, which will favor the best organized candidate over the one who can make a pitch to a defined and limited universe of voters. The coalitions among LG and AG candidates also will be fascinating to watch. (Updated at 6:00 a.m. from original 5:20 a.m. post.)

Selective Justice From President Obama And His Justice Department

Last week, President Barack Obama directed the U.S. Department of Justice to relinquish defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress in 1996 defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  The positive I find in this announcement is that finally the Obama administration is being honest about its hostility toward DOMA — no more halfhearted statements. The negatives, however, are overwhelming.   As I told the Richmond Times-Dispatch last week, the president is responsible for defending the laws duly enacted by Congress. It's disappointing that President Obama would unilaterally make a decision to abdicate that duty. The job of the executive branch is to enforce and defend the nation's laws, not to selectively pick and choose. Thirty-one states have marriage amendments on the books defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Clearly, voters believe that the content of DOMA is a reasonable measure. This administration has been clear on its position on homosexual rights, but they stand outside the majority of Americans.   President Obama's directive could have far reaching consequences. This decision could potentially impact every yet-to-be-decided case related to marriage (including California's Proposition 8 appeal). Essentially, the fully compensated defense attorney is failing to show up for his defendant's court date, an action where the judge would sanction the attorney. In what other area of the law would this be tolerated?    With the president ordering the Justice Department to abandon its duties, the only course of action to defend DOMA is for Congress to intervene. According to Politico, House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican majority on Friday will announce a course of legal action to defend DOMA, perhaps directing the House's legal counsel to defend DOMA in court. (On a side note, this situation perfectly illustrates the importance of elections. Had Nancy Pelosi retained her position as House Speaker, it is highly unlikely that she would even consider defending DOMA in the Justice Department's stead and the fate of marriage would be doomed.)   A breakdown of DOMA ties to a breakdown of American families. There is a litany of statistics showing that a one-man, one-woman marriage is the best institution in which to raise children and to lower the potential for poverty, illiteracy and crime. Even if the president refuses to order the defense of the laws of the land, we must continue to push for the defense of a law that is good for our families, our churches and our communities.

Thanks, But No Thanks

So the fissure between some in the "Tea Party" movement and "social conservatives" continues to fester beneath the surface of American politics, revealing itself periodically, but not quite coming to a boil — yet. Yesterday, Politico ran a story about a letter sent by GOProud, a homosexual activist group, some tea party leaders and various bloggers, urging Republican leaders in Washington to avoid putting forward any legislation on those nasty little  social issues the Tea Party seems so bent on ignoring. Focus, they say, solely on limiting government. 

Mitch Daniels, your office is calling.

Truce. Let's bury the hatchet for a while and just focus on the issues where we agree. We'll get back to the "divisive social issues" later. There are more important things to deal with. 

We've heard it all before.

Now, there are many possible responses to this foolish line of thinking, not the least of which is the polling that shows an overwhelming majority of tea partiers as socially conservative, and the fact that pro-life and pro-marriage candidates dominate the class of new Congressmen that will arrive in Washington in January — many of whom ran campaigns that touted their socially conservative leanings. 

But you know all that already. 

I have some other reactions (not all printable!). For instance, this truce that's being pushed, does it include, say, GOProud's friends at the Human Rights Campaign and their state chapters like Equality Virginia? Or Planned Parenthood? Or NARAL? Will they cease and desist from pushing their agenda's during the "truce"? No more coming to the government for grants? No more money to Planned Parenthood? No more attempts to legislate same-sex marriage? 

Yea, that's what I thought. So we're being asked to just play defense? Sorry, I'll pass.

And why can't we focus on more than one issue at a time? Is it really that difficult? Honestly, social conservatives, who are also overwhelmingly fiscally conservative, have no problem working on lowering taxes and decreasing the enormity of government at the same time they seek to restore some ethical standards that once under-girded our culture. Is it so bad that our politicians can't think about two issues at once?

Don't answer that.

Frankly, this whole debate is wearing thin. News flash: social issues aren't going away. They aren't going away because for a large segment of the electorate, on both the left and the right, these issues matter. They matter a lot. They matter to those of us who believe that strong, stable, two parent families will reduce poverty a lot faster than any government program. They matter to those of us who understand that losing 50 million people from the population since abortion was made legal has had a $35 trillion negative impact on our economy (not to mention the fact that those are 50 million human beings we're talking about!). They matter to those of us who understand that our freedom to say what we believe and exercise our faith in the public square is threatened by the relentless march of secularism.

So no, I won't be joining any truce. The Family Foundation isn't joining any truce. We aren't going away. No matter how badly some in the "Tea Party" wish we would.

Virginia News Stand: March 24, 2010

Annotations & Elucidations It's Up To Ken

It's official as of about 3:00 today: Virginia law prohibits the federal government from imposing an individual mandate on Virginians to buy health insurance. That's when Governor Bob McDonnell signed the Virginia Health Care Freedom legislation into law. Now, it's up to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to defend the feds' assault on us.

Here are some highlights of today's News Stand: It's not a day old and already there are problems with the children's portion of the takeover — that portion doesn't start until 2014. Hmm. Perhaps read the bill next time. So much for all the "good things" that begin immediately, Mr. President. Also, if health care, AIG, GM, the banking and insurance industries, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are enough, pretty soon the federal government will be the sole proprietor of student loans. Isn't that great? While they're at it, the White House says Joe Biden dropping the F-word yesterday was a good thing. Pure class, this bunch.

In Commentary and Analysis: It's always a good day when we feature Walter Williams. Today, we have him twice, along with the great Thomas Sowell. Tony Blankley chimes in, as well, mincing no words: they're socialists. 

News

McDonnell to sign Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act today (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Cuccinelli sues federal government to stop health-care reform law (Washington Post)

Virginia, 13 other states sue over health-care law (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

University, local lawmakers file suit over health-care bill (Lynchburg News & Advance)

For Beach activists, a goal: Stop clinic from opening (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Richmond firm receives lottery marketing contract (AP.org)

National News

Abortion activists fired up for 2010 (Politico/Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Stem-Cell Health Care Must Put the Patients First (Roll Call)

Senate writing final chapter to health care bill (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Problems already with child health care coverage (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Banks losing student loan business to government (AP/GOPUSA.com)

White House, experts: Health care suit will fail (AP/GOPUSA.com)

White House embraces Biden profanity (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Judge: No school prom but lesbian's right violated (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Breyer, Scalia explain why they often disagree (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Protests cancel Coulter speech in Ottawa (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Analysis

Is Health Care a Right (Walter E. Williams/GMU.edu)

Commentary

Sunday's Socialist Triumph (Tony Blankley/GOPUSA.com)

An Off-Budget Office? (Thomas Sowell/GOPUSA.com)

Constitutional Awakening (Walter E. Williams/GOPUSA.com)

While Liberals Lecture Us, Look At How They Treat Their Own

It's as if you can't turn on the television without seeing one of those very cute Progressive Insurance Company ads. You know, the one with the borderline-nutty-clerk-who's-kind-of-endearing who helps equally quirky people find the type of insurance they need at the lowest market price possible? Cute, huh? What you may not know, however, is that Progressive Insurance, which ostensibly champions free enterprise, was founded — and not coincidentally named — by a big time liberal. His son, Peter Lewis (Accuracy In Media) has taken it much, much further. Not only has he been a powerful advocate for out-there causes, such as pot legalization (RightSideNews), but in recent years has partnered with his fellow billionaire buddy George Soros to fund with tens of millions of dollars (and not always ethically, see Politico), such hyper liberal groups as the ACLU, MoveOn.org and America Coming Together. (They ante upped $10 million each for ACT). In fact, they rank as the top two contributors to so-called 527 groups (Free Republic).

Of course, the whole idea of their support of these liberal groups is to get people elected who will institute government control over our lives — health care, anyone? — and tell us what to do because government knows exactly what's best for us, right? So, if he believes top-down is best, certainly Mr. Lewis (Foundation Watchtreats his employees exceedingly well, the system works flawlessly and they love it. Well . . . as it turns out . . .  not exactly.

According to JobVent.com, Progressive rates as the worst place to work — as judged by employees themselves — and not by just a bit, either. It outranks the second worst place to work by considerable margins in several statistical categories. It seems like Mr. Lewis runs Progressive as he would his vision of government-run utopia with the same predictable results.

    progressive girl

The Progressive Insurance Girl: You'd be a bit quirky, too, if your employer micromanaged everything you did and was bent on creating a "progressive America" as well.

Of the whopping 1,425 reviews left at JobVent.com, the leading site for employee job reviews, negative comments about Progressive outpaced the positive ones by about a 2-1 ratio. Here's one comment from a California claims representative that has an uncanny parallel to liberalism in general and government-run health care in particular:

I felt more respected by my professors when I was in college. You can generally expect to be talked to like a 5 year old. The micromanaging is insane. The sad part is, they take good people and promote them to management where they become these scary corporate robot people. Basically, they drink A LOT of kool aid.

They cut the benefits last year and we were told in a powerpoint presentation by HR that they were cut to "align" our company with the industry standards. You can expect lots of lies, and propaganda.

Is the first part not quintessential liberalism? Patronizing, arrogant and we-know-what's-best-for-you — and the people lording it over you are co-opted bureaucrats following the party line for the glory of state control. The second part is exactly how government-run health care will work — start you off fine, then the steady rate of rationing and, when the people inevitably speak up, we'll be told (like we are now) it's so much better than the old way.

Progressive's ads are fun, but odd. Now, we know why. Apparently, it's an accurate reflection of the company . . . on many, many levels.

Is Same-Sex Marriage An Eventuality?

One advantage I have as the Admin of a blog for an organization such as The Family Foundation is that we have thousands of well informed readers and supporters, many of whom alert me to noteworthy articles and subjects. There's so much out there, it's difficult to read everything, so to have a legion of supporting eyes and ears is superb. One great friend of ours, David Adams, gave me the heads up today on this post by Bill Pascoe on his In The Right Blog on CQPolitics.com about the supposed inevitability of legalized homosexual marriage in America (see here). Pascoe doesn't believe it is inevitable, but cites Ben Smith's post on Politico (here) where an unnamed Republican pollster said polling data proves the point: Those against same-sex marriage are old while those who support it are the young'uns. When the older crowd dies off (sooner rather than later under ObamaCare) the more tolerant and enlightened next generation will approve it. 

Pascoe perceptively notes, however, that snapshot polling can't take into account how people change their thinking over the years and how events change their life perspective. For example, unmarried and care free college kids now may have one set of (misguided) beliefs, but when by their mid to late 20s, married and with two children of their own, think more like their mid to late 40s parents do now.

I would add to Pascoe's acumen that while younger voters may now agree with homosexual marriage, they vote in, comparatively, puny numbers. So the age group in general, as it matures, will see its voter universe expand. In that larger bloc undoubtedly will be people who don't approve of redefining enduring standards and truth. Others simply won't be driven by such issues whether they agree or don't.

As Pascoe concludes his piece:

The fact is, it's too early to tell how the aging/maturation/growing through life process will affect attitudes on this issue — the issue hasn't been around long enough for good research to have been completed, for a pollster to have followed a group of younger same sex marriage supporters as they grew older, to see if they maintained their support, or if it changed with the arrival of gray hairs and the squawks of children in the household.

It's at times like this I'm reminded of an old saw, usually misattributed to Winston Churchill: "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart; but if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain."

Virginia News Stand: October 21, 2009

Annotations & Elucidations  The Final — Debate — Edition

The final gubernatorial debate took place last night at Roanoke College and almost all the coverage in today's News Stand is about it. Perhaps the biggest news coming from it, though, is that Democrat Creigh Deeds pulled another one — a post Fairfax debate-like meander to a reporter's question, which makes one wonder if he can say decisively anything about what he believes (see the video here). But the worst of it is that "friends" Bill Clinton and Terry (T-Mac) McAuliffe (remember him?) came to the upper and friendly reaches of the commonwealth yesterday, only to be met by a 100 or so people, and had to hear both the former president and the former rival repeatedly remind the faithful of Deeds' dismal poll numbers. (See the Politico, below.) So much for picking your friends.

News:

No clear winner, loser in final governor debate (The Daily Press)

Hopefuls hammer each other (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star)

In final debate, Deeds and McDonnell discuss health care (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Deeds, McDonnell sharpen attacks in final debate (Washington Post)

Gubernatorial candidates stick to scripts in final debate (Roanoke Times)

Deeds, McDonnell battle in final debate (Washington Times)

Clinton helps Deeds -- sort of (Politico.com)

Control of House will come down to few races (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Republican serving in Kaine's cabinet endorses Valentine (Lynchburg News & Advance)