Posted by How nice it is to live in the 21st century with an abundant amount of information at your fingertips? Any web bar will do, type, hit enter, and without too much effort the answers to your questions are right there for the reading.
I found a gold mine at the website addressed www.opensecrets.org, among many other useful resources, it gives one the power to type in the name of a political candidate and find out who is (reportedly) donating to their campaign and how much. I typed in Nan Hayworth, Republican candidate for New York’s Congressional District 19.
What that initial search led to will be disturbing not just to pro-lifers but to the community at large, and what’s sad here is that other people have this information too, but have failed to bring it to light because higher ups in the political arena are tip toeing around Nan Hayworth hoping she will either withdraw from the race without too much fanfare or worse, hoping that no one will notice if she doesn’t.
A top donor to the Hayworth campaign is political action committee “American Medical Group Association.” This group’s Chair Elect is Hayworth’s husband, Dr. Scott Hayworth. The PAC raises money for “pro-choice” Democrats at the rate of 80%. This is perfectly legal and a quick look by the average voter, its implication is not so clear.
From a pro-life perspective, however, it’s easy to make the assumption that husband Hayworth is more than just supportive of abortion rights but actively works to defend it by raising money to fund pro-abortion candidates – not very different from a Planned Parenthood PAC – and by association links candidate Hayworth with the powerful abortion lobby.
Also troublesome, husband Hayworth is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Mount Kisco Medical Group. The rumor is this group performs more abortions than it delivers babies, and the operative question is: How many abortions has Mr. Hayworth performed himself, and does District 19 really want a representative whose husband performs, actively advocates for and donates money to preserve legal abortion?
To make matters worse, Dr. Scott is Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. For seasoned pro-lifers it is understood that “Reproductive Sciences” is code-word for the study and implementation of abortion.
Mount Sinai defines the department as “heir to a tradition of progressive healthcare” and at the very end of its “About Us” page, they describe that tradition as “patient oriented research across the spectrum of women’s reproductive health as an integral part.”
No one not even those in the medical field like to openly use the term “abortion” because of the merciless horror of it all, but trust me, it is understood that “reproductive health” is tantamount to “abortion rights”.
Pro-lifers have worked too hard for far too long to let a pro-abortion candidate represent District 19 in the US Congress, a venue that, remember, wields a tremendous amount of power, just because the Republicans are too embarrassed with their choice of candidate in this race, and are too chicken to break the story, so I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but District 19 deserves to know the facts.
The Hayworth ship is going to sink hard and fast because the more information that comes out about her abortion ties, the more uproar there will be.
Mr. Cox – I have a message for you – jump ship!
Raquel,
Dr. Hayworth has never been reserved about her position of being pro-choice. I fail to see what is unusual about a PAC supporting a candidate it believes in, assuming your research and your source is accurate.
She also has been very clear that she is against late-term abortions, a position I believe Sir John Hall has not taken.
In fact, check http://www.appalledathall.com for detail and proof that Congressman Hall has covered up irregularities with his filing. In the coming days you can check back for detail of his donors, far more liberal than Dr. Hayworth’s. Yours truly,
Appalled
By Appalled on Feb 16, 2010
I do not doubt John Hall’s atrocious record and I am appalled by him too, and that is the very reason why District 19 is so important.
My source is about as solid as a brick wall, and I would not make such assertions if I didn’t believe them to be true. Note I had my questions about Nan Hayworth a couple of weeks ago at this blog, in Dede Deja Vu? but I never mentioned abortion. I didn’t because at that point I wasn’t sure. Now I am.
I am appalled by the New York State GOP who have pushed a candidate who’s husband works at a facility known for abortions.
As nice a lady that she may be, and as clear as her positions are, it doesn’t change the fact that many of her donors are abortion doctors.
For me, it’s personal, I have seen with my own eyes time and time again woman after woman walking into the abortion facility scared and alone, and walking out heartbroken and empty. It’s the kind of scar that never goes away.
I can never ever support a candidate who is heavily supported by the abortion lobby.
By Raquel on Feb 16, 2010
Raquel:
Please allow me to respond to some of the items in your post, specifically:
In your post you write “A top donor to the Hayworth campaign is political action committee “American Medical Group Association.” This group’s Chair Elect is Hayworth’s husband, Dr. Scott Hayworth. The PAC raises money for “pro-choice” Democrats at the rate of 80%.” You also assert in your post that I raise money to fund pro-abortion candidates.
While I am honored to be involved with the American Medical Group Association, (AMGA) I do not sit on the PAC Board, which is a separate entity. I have no control over whom the PAC chooses to support. I am not in the business of raising money to support ‘pro-abortion’ candidates.
As for your statement that AMGA has a pro-abortion PAC, I would like to note that the PAC has given generously to some very prominent pro-life members of Congress, including Dave Camp (MI), Ralph Hall (TX), Sam Johnson (TX), Nathan Deal (GA), Senators John Kyl (AZ) and Orrin Hatch (UT). The immediate past Chairman of the AMGA Board of Directors, Ronald H Kirkland, is pro-life, and is currently a candidate for Congress in Tennessee.
Members of AMGA include Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Lahey Clinic, Palo Alto Medical Group, Geisinger Health System, Summit Medical Group, Crystal Run Healthcare, Kaiser, Henry Ford, and Vanderbilt Medical Group. They represent 100,000 doctors in America, who treat 25% of the patients in America.
In your post you write “… Hayworth is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Mount Kisco Medical Group. The rumor is this group performs more abortions than it delivers babies, and the operative question is: How many abortions has Mr. Hayworth performed himself, and does District 19 really want a representative whose husband performs, actively advocates for and donates money to preserve legal abortion?”
I am indeed the CEO of the Mount Kisco Medical Group (MKMG). I don’t perform abortions. I have in my years as an OB-GYN delivered more than 2,000 babies. MKMG is not an abortion clinic. It is the largest provider of medical services in the Hudson Valley. We are proud to offer medical services, including ophthalmology, dermatology, internal medicine, pediatrics, pain managements, orthopedics, cardiology, gastroenterology, general surgery, neurosurgery and endocrinology to more than 250,000 patients of all ages. We employ 210 doctors trained at some of the nation’s finest medical schools. MKMG has no affiliation with Planned Parenthood.
In your post you write…”Dr. Scott is Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. For seasoned pro-lifers it is understood that “Reproductive Sciences” is code-word for the study and implementation of abortion.”
While I am an honorary member of the faculty of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, I neither teach, nor practice medicine at the facility. I have no role in the admission or treatment of patients or any say in school’s policies. In the medical profession, the term “Reproductive Sciences” refers to the medical-surgical specialty of fertility and reproduction. In other words, it is about helping women have babies.
If you have any other questions, please let me know the best way to contact you.
Dr. Scott Hayworth
By Scott Hayworth on Feb 16, 2010
Dear Dr. Hayworth,
Thank you for commenting at my blog. The clarifications you made are duly noted.
I hope you understand my concerns as I have been involved in the pro-life movement for many years and for me, whenever there is a hint of abortion promotion, my guard is up!
And because pro-lifers tend to get shut out of the conversation in the politics world of New York State (a conversation I am willing to have) my voice becomes a little angrier a little louder, I admit.
I will leave your response here so that my readers can see your side of the story, and in the future I will contact you if I have further questions, thank you!
By Raquel on Feb 16, 2010
Very interesting. It is great to get such an informative response from a candidate’s spouse on a blog. Thank you. KB
By KB on Feb 16, 2010
Newscopy.org is reporting on this story — FYI –
http://www.newscopy.org/2010/02/urban-elephants-poll-is-abortion-the-next-dont-ask-dont-tell-for-the-republican-party.html
By Raquel on Feb 16, 2010
But why hasn’t Nan Hayworth talked about any of THIS!!!???
Since when is Scott Hayworth running for Congress?
Either the pro-life movement in Westchester and Putnam counties are liars or this is some wiggle room on what Dr. Hayworth just shared with us that might be downright sneaky.
I checked that website and to my dismay I learned that most of this PAC’s bigger donors do in fact WORK for Mr. Hayworth and give to Charlie Rangel and Nita Lowey and a slew of liberal Democrats who don’t care one bit about the Republican Party.
Doctor Hayworth left out a LOT of important information. How much has he left out? It’s still a PAC. It’s still a PAC that his employees are financing. It’s still influence peddling and he sees no shame in that.
I’m fed up with the Republican Party allowing this nonsense to happen. I don’t believe Dr. Hayworth (I’m sending his letter to the proper authorities) and it sounds to me like Ms. Hayworth’s campaign has a mighty thin skin.
I wish the county leaders would do a better job vetting all these candidates who run for office.
She’s a pro abortion advocate with a healthcare lobby husband and that sounds more Obama-lite than the Republican Party.
The Conservative Party shouldn’t be endorsing and apparently they don’t want to either.
By Fed Up on Feb 16, 2010
I guess Nan Hayworth has no problem with liberals like Chuck Schumer, Henry Waxman, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray or Max Baucus.
Charlie Rangel and Nita Lowey are bad enough.
In 2008, this PAC was supporting Rahm Emmanuel and John Dingle.
This PAC predominately funds all these Democrats to influence HEALTHCARE POLICY. This is an Obama-lite PAC. Can Nan Hayworth explain precisely what policies her husband’s PAC supports and opposes?
Dr. Hayworth admitted involvement with the American Medical Group Association, (AMGA), though provided no explanation why so much of the PAC’s money comes directly from the Mount Kisco Medical Group or its associates.
Coincidence? Hardly. Most of the money comes from his employees or associates. This is Dr. Hayworth’s PAC.
Nan Hayworth’s husband has “no control over whom the PAC chooses to support” yet he has no problem with this PAC supporting ‘pro-abortion’ candidates either.
Perhaps we should all be as worried that this PAC supports pro-Obama healthcare policies, like socialized healthcare or less patient friendly legislation that benefits DOCTORS?
Forget about abortion for a moment.
Why is a healthcare PAC supporting so many Democrats who spent most of 2009 obsessing over ruining American’s private healthcare for PATIENTS?
Perhaps Nan Hayworth can articulate what healthcare policies this PAC supports and opposes, especially since she just happens to be running for Congress.
Pro-life activists in Westchester and Putnam openly claim no babies are delivered by the Mount Kisco Medical Group. Then what is happening here?
Has Nan Hayworth’s campaign basically called the pro-life movement in Westchester and Putnam liars?
By the way, did Nan Hayworth’s husband deny that an abortion has ever been performed at his hospital?
Are ANY abortions performed at (or referred by) the Mount Kisco Medical Group?
Finally, why did she allow her family’s finances and campaign to be so commingled with such an utterly complicated and conflicted PAC?
Doesn’t strike me as very smart.
The 19th deserves better.
By Show Me The Money on Feb 17, 2010
Fed Up: sources or you’re full of it. Seriously. Put up or shut up. Where is there any evidence of such funding or of improprieties? I won’t hold my breath.
Dr. Hayworth the candidate (both are doctors, neither is “Ms.”) hasn’t talked about this presumably because it relates to her husband and not herself. And to view her as Obama (light or full strength) would require, based on her views, a serious act of cognitive dissonance.
Raquel: It seems clear that you’re trying to establish some truth here, so I don’t mean this in a pointed way, but can you distinguish between Scott Brown’s views on this and Hayworth’s? As you know, you supported Brown (as did any right-thinking [pun intended] person).
By truth hurts on Feb 17, 2010
You’re right I wrote a favorable blog for Scott Brown even though he is “pro-choice” because that race was about one thing – killing the health care “reform” bill in its tracks.
I didn’t start the rumors about Mr. Dr. Hayworth, I am reporting on them and I shared what I uncovered. People can come to their own conclusions.
By Raquel on Feb 17, 2010
When it comes to PACS it is not unusual to donate to campaigns from both sides — the Democrat and Republican Party.
What I ask is that the reader take a look at who the PAC donates to most of the time, that will give you an indication of the type of candidates a PAC supports.
Newscopy.org is reporting on this story today, read here:
http://www.newscopy.org/2010/02/hayworth-tied-to-healthcare-pac-lobbying-liberal-democrats-husband-denies-running-abortion-clinic.html
By Raquel on Feb 17, 2010
Though I value the sanctity of life, this seems less about abortion and more about business as usual in Congress.
In D.C., being “involved” with a PAC that gets donations from your contemporaries to support the party in power is normal.
I guess the question here is how anyone feels about a candidate for Congress overlooking the fact that her spouse is “honored” to be “involved” with a PAC that supports a slew of liberal Democrats.
As for the abortion question, pro-lifers and conservatives in Westchester and Putnam consider the Mount Kisco Medical Group to be notorious as an abortion clinic.
If the Mount Kisco Medical Group does not perform abortions, they owe Nan Hayworth and her husband an apology. If abortions are performed there, Scott Hayworth and Nan Hayworth’s campaigns are liars.
Meanwhile, what healthcare policies did the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) PAC pursue when they gave money to Nita Lowey, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, Patty Murray, Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, Barbara Mikulski and Max Baucus.
News Copy stated that the NRCC called this PAC “pretty normal” but that doesn’t mean it is right.
It’s stunts like this PAC that have gotten Republicans like Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay in trouble. Why let history repeat itself?
By Show Me The Money on Feb 17, 2010
You make a good point Show Me The Money, as with any good story, the money trail is the proof in the pudding.
It’s a sorry shame that the higher ups in the Republican Party utterly failed to properly vet this candidate.
Dr. & Dr. Hayworth should have been answering these questions a long time ago, but no one asked.
I have to agree with Show Me The Money, I have been informed by different sources that Mount Kisco Medical Group is an abortion facility.
By Raquel on Feb 17, 2010
Boy, when confronted with some facts its funny how fast the conspiracy theories start flying. I think Dr. Hayworth’s response was to the point and addressed all the concerns expressed in Raquel’s original piece. It should put this discussion to rest. But instead some people seem to think not. Why?
Does anyone here really think he is lying? Some of you basically said so, without saying it. I especially loved one comment, “Most of the money comes from his employees or associates. This is Dr. Hayworth’s PAC.”
What about “I do not sit on the PAC Board, which is a separate entity. I have no control over whom the PAC chooses to support. I am not in the business of raising money to support ‘pro-abortion’ candidates” didn’t you understand?
And talk about guilt by double and triple association!! Are we really saying that Nan Hayworth is unacceptable as a candidate because her husband is part of a medical organization that also has a PAC, which he is not associated with, but which is supported by some of his associates, that gives to some pro-choice candidates, but also to some pro-life candidates?
Talk about a high bar to jump over. How do we expect to attract good candidates to run in moderate districts if we are going to be this vicious in how we treat them? Or do we like the Democrats being in charge?
By Robert Hornak on Feb 17, 2010
I disagree its a moderate district, first of all. And, yes, it is a high bar, it’s the US Congress for goodness sake. The last thing I want is a Republican representative of that District embroiled in the abortion lobby.
If Mr. Dr. Hayworth was my neighbor, shook my hand, looked me in the eye, and told me what he asserted above, I’d believe him. But I don’t know Dr. Hayworth, I don’t know what is true and what is false? That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
And, as you know, the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle, and I can’t help but think the Hayworths have blood on their hands.
By Raquel on Feb 17, 2010
I find myself stronlgy agreeing with Robert. The entry and the comments are full of statements that jump to conclusions and loosely string together half-truths supporting a false premise.
Raquel, “the Hayworths have blood on their hands”? Please admit that this statement is a poor use of hyperbole and is quite outrageous.
Yours truly,
Appalled
http://www.appalledathall.com
By Apalled at Hall on Feb 17, 2010
Clearly I am making assumptions in search of the truth, but where is the false premise?
It is not outrageous to say that someone has “blood on their hands” if they are embroiled in the abortion lobby.
By Raquel on Feb 17, 2010
It’s a doctor-dominated PAC on healthcare issues lobbying liberal Democrats at a time when the threat of socialized and/or less patient-friendly healthcare is threatening our economic well-being.
You bet we have a right to know what’s going on here.
Candidates for Congress shouldn’t be in the business of simultaneously balancing the business lobby of their spouses. That’s called a conflict of interest.
120 of the 176 donations to the AMGA PAC came from the Mount Kisco Medical Group or the Westchester Medical Group, 60 directly known to be working for Dr. Scott Hayworth and an uncounted more whose spouses or friends also gave.
Hayworth just happened to see so many donations from his business to one PAC. The Mount Kisco Medical Group just happened to find AMGA out in Washington State? Nan Hayworth just happened to take money from them and many of her individual donors that happen to be closely associated?
All coincidence?
All of a sudden Scott Hayworth is this political impotent spouse who has no idea why all this money was used to lobby the party in control of Congress?
They used it to indirectly lobby Republicans, just like most manipulative PACs. Isn’t that precisely part what Tea Party activists have been railing against all this past year?
How is she going to go after John Hall for his PAC mistakes when she is guilty of the same thing?
By Show Me The Money on Feb 17, 2010
Show Me,
I fail to see in the FEC filings where Hayworth intentionally covered up a fine as John Hall did. How can you say she is guilty of the same thing?
She was never fined by the FEC and there are no listings of fees to the FEC either.
Appalled
By Apalled at Hall on Feb 17, 2010
Okay, a couple of things.
Show Me: learn to read. The AMGA and the AMGA PAC are two different things, as was pointed out in Dr. Hayworth’s response. You must distinguish the two.
Secondly, what does the Westchester Medical Group have to do with Scott Hayworth?
Thirdly, the Mount Kisco Medical Group isn’t “his” business. If you actually ever bothered to look at their website, you’d know that they’re all physician partners in it. Like, you know, a medical group.
Raquel: if you’d ever studied logic and argument, you’d know that proving an assumption from an assumption is a classic fallacy.
By truth hurts on Feb 17, 2010
Hayworth initial FEC filings as she trudged through the process didn’t reveal the AMGA PAC.
It was filed separately as an amendment. It’s a minor observation but that’s probably why reporters and the NRCC missed it. They won’t miss it now.
Hayworth is the Mount Kisco Medical Group’s CEO, yes? I would imagine that classifies him as something more than just a physician partner. As a partner in a medical group, he benefits economically and I wonder if there is some economically reciprocal arrangement with the Westchester Medical Group that also demands examination.
Yes. I can read. A lot of doctors who know Scott Hayworth indirectly sent a lot of money to liberal Democrats through a PAC with a healthcare agenda that still has not been clarified by anyone here. Cool your jets.
We also don’t know for certain if abortions are done at Mr. Hayworth’s facility or if his facility might refer patients to another medical groups (Westchester Medical Group, perhaps?) for abortions.
The bottom line is that Ms. Hayworth should have been smart enough not to take any money from this PAC. I also find the way her husband is running away from this PAC to be disingenuous.
The only fallacy here is Federal Election Commission law does not classify such PAC’s as money laundering.
By Show Me The Money on Feb 17, 2010
Raquel, you know how highly I regard you. But I think you are way off base here. Do you really need to shake Dr. Hayworth’s hand to assume he is telling the truth. You seem to want to believe that he/they have “blood on their hands” in spite of every fact and statement that comes to light.
I personally found this statement very compelling:
“I am indeed the CEO of the Mount Kisco Medical Group (MKMG). I don’t perform abortions. I have in my years as an OB-GYN delivered more than 2,000 babies. MKMG is not an abortion clinic. It is the largest provider of medical services in the Hudson Valley. We are proud to offer medical services, including ophthalmology, dermatology, internal medicine, pediatrics, pain managements, orthopedics, cardiology, gastroenterology, general surgery, neurosurgery and endocrinology to more than 250,000 patients of all ages. We employ 210 doctors trained at some of the nation’s finest medical schools. MKMG has no affiliation with Planned Parenthood.”
Does this sound like someone “embroiled in the abortion lobby” to you? It doesn’t to me.
When we consider that he has no involvement in the PAC, regardless of what you think of the people it contributes to, how can you keep tying him to the actions of the PAC?
I do not know Dr. Hayworth but I have come to know Nan Hayworth. Remember her, the actual candidate here? I have been more than impressed by her and her commitment to the Republican Party’s core values. I strongly suggest you take an opportunity to meet her and perhaps her husband and judge for yourself, instead of being misled by people with personal agendas or axes to grind.
Frankly, I have never seen more disinformation spread around in a campaign than I have in this one. There really seems to be a very small but motivated group of people vehemently opposed to Nan’s candidacy at all costs. Even if it means we lose this opportunity to expand NY’s republican congressional delegation.
In the Scott Brown race we had our eye on the prize – stopping the Obama agenda. Brown, who is pro-choice, will be one of 100 and highly influential in US policy. If we used this litmus test in the Brown race we would be getting ready for the implementation of Obama-care.
Let’s keep our eye on the prize here too. Nan is an exceptional candidate in many ways. She is pro-choice, but with all the common sense caveats like opposition to late term abortion etc that should make her very acceptable to pro-life advocates like you.
This is no time to get sidetracked in our real fight here. I believe Nan would be our strongest candidate, by far. Let’s not take any chances. Too much is at stake, and we can really send a message to Washington that Obama is a lame duck by taking this seat.
As for the district not being a moderate one, I base my statement on electoral history and basic demographics. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I hope to see you tonight at the Reagan dinner.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 17, 2010
The Westchester Medical Group is probably a competitor. What else would you ordinarily conclude, outside of a conspiracy, about two businesses in the same geographic region?
I’ll cool my jets when you stop spewing utter BS about our only credible conservative candidate for Congress and thereby potentially hurting her chances versus John Hall.
Also, again, both Hayworths are doctors. Are you one? No? Use the proper title.
Finally, until you actually provide some credentials for yourself, you will remain as incredible as the misinformation you’ve spread so far.
By truth hurts on Feb 17, 2010
Dr. Hayworth did not write that the clinic does not perform abortions, he wrote that “MKMG is not an abortion clinic.” I am not saying he was being duplicitous, just that it is conceivable that the clinic performs abortions but that is not there main emphasis.
Nan Hayworth is not even close to a candidate I can support. She is cut out of similar cloth to Sue Kelly, a liberal republican with no commitment to restoring the Constitution and drastically reducing the size, cost, and influence of the fedgov. Mainstream Republicans are every bit as much the cause of our current woes as democrats. Holding the line on the inexorably advancing totalitarian state is not enough! We need a candidate who will fight to get the fedgov out of healthcare, education, welfare, abortion, marriage, and many other areas specifically left to the purview of the states. Most vitally, we need a candidate who will fight for a full audit of the Federal Reserve and consider abolishing it – as long as we allow the private bankers at the Fed to have monopoly control over the supply of money and credit to our economy, we are not a free nation. Listen as Peter Schiff gives sage advice to Republicans and Libertarians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ncLTFoTFa8
The 19th district is up for grabs if we run a statesman for John Hall’s seat. I caution all attracted to the healthy, fractious Tea Party clamor: focus on simple Constitutional principles and be wary of the attempts of mainstream republicans to co-opt our energy. Many will talk a good game, like Newt Gingrich, but closer inspection will reveal them to be political opportunists. Many will not have a track record like Newt’s to expose the truth, and we must watch them carefully. We need statesmen in Congress, but they are few and far between. Mere politicians will often have to suffice, and they will need to have their feet held to the fire. Freedom requires eternal vigilance. We have the chance of a lifetime to unite Tea Party folks, libertarians, and old school republicans – let’s have no more talk of supporting anyone who does not want to turn the tide of gov’t back towards individual liberty, at least on the federal level. If a statesman does not emerge to challenge Hall, I will get a website up this summer and offer my services to the district.
By Brian Kearsey on Feb 17, 2010
Mr. Kearsey, you clearly haven’t actually seen her website. She thinks, apparently, much more like you than you may have realized.
http://nanhayworth.com/nan-hayworth-first-principles.asp
http://nanhayworth.com/nan-hayworth-on-taxes.asp
http://nanhayworth.com/nan-hayworth-on-the-deficit.asp
Quiz question: what does she stand for? Hint: check out her website before critiquing her. It’s a good idea to actually understand someone or something you’re attacking.
By truth hurts on Feb 17, 2010
Brian, first I applaud you for posting under your real name. Most people are cowards who hide behind pseudonyms to spew their vile garbage.
I also appreciate your passion and beliefs. However, you can not have your own facts. Your statement “Mainstream Republicans are every bit as much the cause of our current woes as democrats” is ignorant of reality.
Are you going to seriously tell me that the Republicans running congress from 1994-2006 were mainstream (I assume you mean moderate?). And that George Bush was the same?
In fact, the Republicans that led us down this path to disaster, complicit with the democrats in congress, were all poster boy pro-life politicians fully supported by the religious right. THAT is who sold us out, my friend.
Every position of Nan Hayworth’s I have heard is fully consistent with the small-government constitutional values that bind the republican party together. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 17, 2010
There are far too many Republicans and or candidates (potential or otherwise) who sing the Republican song but act the liberal way which includes abortion. We need to closely scrutinize all candidates.
I, for one, would be very leery of any candidate who in any way is connected with planned parenthood.
Politicians and potential politicians are too clever at hiding the truth.
Brian you are right on.
Raquel thanks for bringing this up.
Show me the money made some really good points.
I see(read) too many concerns too consider NH a good candidate. When there is doubt throw the candidate out.
By Ruth Raabe on Feb 17, 2010
Ms. Raabe and others,
If you are leery of Republican Dr. Nan Hayworth, check out my analysis of John Hall’s left fringe donors.
Be carefuly what you throw out for fear of what you are left with. Yours truly,
http://www.AppalledAtHall.com
By Appalled on Feb 17, 2010
Good reply, Appalled. Ruth, there is no evidence whatsoever that Nan Hayworth or her husband have any connection to planned parenthood (fyi an organization I too strongly object to).
Let’s remember who was singing the Republican song the loudest in the last decade – all the big gov’t social conservatives (like Huckabee) who ran this country into the ground while enjoying the unfettered support of the religious right.
It was Bush and the very conservative republican congress that gave us budget-busting, pork-laden highway bills, the first new federal entitlement program since LBJ’s great society, and red ink as far as the eye can see. We didn’t cut a damn thing on the spending side, and in fact went on a spending spree – all the while justifying it as promoting conservative values. The only conservative value I am interested in having my gov’t promote is fiscal responsibility and restraint.
There is every indication that Nan would be a great congresswoman, with a strong belief in pro-growth fiscal policy, cutting the onerous tax burden killing our economy, opposing any gov’t takeover of healthcare, strong on the war on terror, etc etc. She fits the bill for all except the most strident, inflexible pro-life advocates.
And if you think you can close off the Republican Party to pro-choice conservatives, you should think again. It is not going to happen. We are here to stay and growing in numbers and power. Learn to share or find another Party.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 18, 2010
hate to tell you this, Robert – but “conservatives” are rarely pro choice (or pro abortion as I call them) – usually, people who love to spend money tend to liberal all around. Governor Huckabee send you his love!
By Alice L. on Feb 18, 2010
Robert just does not like pro life Republicans. There he goes, again!
By Alice L. on Feb 18, 2010
Incidentally, Robert: we are not a “faction” – we are the majority of Republicans and your numbers are not growing. Ours are growing. You should have seen all the young people at the March for Life. Also, note the great Lila Rose, the conservative young lady who has exposed Planned Parenthood for being the lying creeps that they are. You are in the minority in the GOP. And we will not be silenced!
By Alice L. on Feb 18, 2010
you know something. this gets kinda crazy. I have always considered myself pro life; however, like most pro lifers that’s because of the vindictive practice of partial birth abortions (late term abortions). I’m not against smart early birth control methods such as condoms or prescribed birth control pills, and yet I still say I am pro life. Now, it appears to me Nan Hayworth is at a very similar mindset. It’s a very important issue and we may not see exactly eye to eye but we are pretty close.
O, and Brian, some nice comments. The one in comparing Former Congresswoman Sue Kelly. Do you remember 2003? The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that she voted in favor of, that won by a few votes. To me that is the big picture. That act alone may saved more lives than any other act in the past 50 years.
By KB on Feb 19, 2010
Thanks KB I appreciate your input.
Let me point out that when the child is conceived at conception, life begins and it never stops, it’s a continuum, there’s no place during gestation that a specialist can ascertain when that “life” becomes worth protecting.
Should we start at 24 days when the heart starts beating? Should we start at 43 days when the baby has measurable brain waves? Should we start at 8 weeks when the child is well-proportioned, and every organ is present? Or, should we start at 10 weeks when the body is sensitive to touch, the baby squints, swallows and frowns?
You see alot of technology has emerged since the decision to legalize abortion, that the same arguments back then just don’t make sense now.
Why not, err on the side of life, and protect it from the beginning?
By Raquel on Feb 19, 2010
We can do better than a pro abortion amateur. Also, I wonder if Robert Hornak’s nastiness to people cost James Tedisco much needed votes. He really can’t help himself when he insults those of us who put a value on a life. “Pro abortion fiscal conservative” equals a liberal on a budget.
By Alice L. on Feb 19, 2010
I’ve read all the entries, and all the comments and I still fail to see the effectiveness in tearing down a pro-choice Republican candidate over that ONE issue.
She is against partial-birth abortions and she subscribes to all the other conservative values that we embody. Further, I don’t know of ANY candidate in any district in any race that 100% of the time campaigns on the entire platform of any party’s ideals.
The focus should be defeating John Hall.
We dare not rip defeat from the mouth of victory.
Yours truly,
AppalledAtHall
By Appalled on Feb 19, 2010
Appalled, if this woman’s husband is in anyway involved in abortions, you should be “appalled”. How would you feel if he were a slave owner? Would you give him a pass? As for Mr. Hornak’s unbridled attacks, that is very typical and true to form. Also, very sad.
By Alice L. on Feb 19, 2010
Alice,
Your comment using words like “if” and “slave owner” are indicative of someone with an agenda and someone who wants to use innuendo as fact and hyperbole to frame an argument.
You have shown your true colors.
Appalled
By Appalled on Feb 19, 2010
Appalled, when you defend a weak candidate, you have shown your true colors. You do not understand analogies. Do you work for Nan?
By Alice L. on Feb 19, 2010
TruthHurts, I appreciate your feedback, but I had read every bit of Hayworth’s website before my post. She gives lip service to small gov’t ideas designed to placate the old republican guard in the district that served Sue Kelly so well in her tenure. She is welcome to her platform and you are welcome to support it. In my eyes, she does make nearly a strong enough case for restoring the Constitution and drastically reducing the size, cost, and influence of the fedgov. She seems, with the subjective nature of that word stressed, to be content with holding the line on the inexorably advancing totalitarian state. Look at her foreign policy statements that you yourself linked to. It is not our job to “hold other nations accountable on human rights” and if you think or Hayworth think it is, I’d like to see just where in the Constitution it empowers the fedgov to do that, and I’d like to know why we aren’t holding China accountable or stopping the horrors in Darfur. We need a candidate who will fight to get the fedgov out of healthcare, education, welfare, abortion, marriage, and other areas specifically left to the purview of the states.
By Brian Kearsey on Feb 19, 2010
Robert, I appreciate your honest feedback, and don’t want you to pull punches (not that you would!). That said, I do not pretend to have my own facts; I am well aware that “facts” are tangible enough and necessary, but that they are used like Legos to build very subjective world views.
I have seen how semantics can cause apparent conflicts when people are sometimes not that far apart, and I am interested in your assessment of the people at the helm of the national Republican Party from 1994-2006. In my view, those people, from Newt Gingrich and George Bush right through Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were the “mainstream” republicans” who sold us out. Do you use the term “mainstream” differently?
If you are correct and “every position of Nan Hayworth” is fully consistent with the small-government constitutional values that bind the Republican Party together, then, respectfully and with no hard feelings, I do not want to be part of that party, for my reading of the Constitution is much closer to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Ron Paul’s. Hayworth does not even make abolishing the Federal Dept of Education and eradicating any all vestiges of federal involvement with the education of my child a plank of her platform, nor does she make auditing the Federal Reserve a central point. She does not advocate bringing our troops home from most of the 130 plus nations we have them in, or of halting most, if not all, foreign aid. She does not advocate disentangling the fedgov from healthcare and welfare (though we mush honor our promises regarding entitlements). I may well be more of a libertarian than a republican, but when I read Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater, I realize that it was the Republican Party who left me, and not the other way around.
I’m trying to find the most humane way to put a tiny private school out of its misery (it suffers from a lethal dose of socialism) so I can devote myself full time to restoring the Constitution. It will be this summer before that happens. I look forward to more in depth discussion at that time, but will be checking this thread among others between now and then.
By Brian Kearsey on Feb 19, 2010
Alice,
No, but I would.
Appalled
By Appalled on Feb 19, 2010
Re: The abortion issue.
What precisely can a Congressman do to change the
current laws of the land?
An aside: why don’t folks use their real names?
I give credit to Raquel, Brian, and Robert for doing so, but why does everyone seen afraid to
speak their minds openly.
By Carl Svensson on Feb 20, 2010
Carl,
To give credit where credit is due Ed Baker is a real person too — true identity people — don’t assume.
The reason why abortion is related to this particular race, is because the candidate is for one “pro-choice” and that in itself is an issue, not necessarily a qualifying one, but an issue nonetheless, and two, the candidate’s husband is CEO of a medical center in Mount Kisco that is known to be an abortion clinic.
This is important — why? The last thing the pro-life community in District 19 wants is a person in Congress whose husband is some way involved in the abortion industry.
Abortion is of course legal, I understand that, but for a lot of us the act is immoral and wrong, and the public has a right to know who is doing the abortions.
By Raquel on Feb 20, 2010
Raquel,
.
I completely respect your principled view on abortion as a moral wrong. I don’t agree with all you opinions, and I don’t expect you to agree with my more “liberal” views on if/when pregnancy termination should be allowed. I do want to bring up the fact that in the NorthEast, principled pro-life candidates generally never get elected.
.
What I like about Nan Hayworth is that she’s against the Demo-Lib takeover of the health care industry and is completely against requiring abortions to be subsidized by taxpayers who find the procedure repugnant/immoral.
.
Remember it’s not just getting everything we want in a Republic primary . . . it’s also finding a candidate who can beat the DemoLib incumbent and reclaim a Republican majority in Washington. With Nan Hayworth, we have a candidate who can do that.
By Doug R on Feb 21, 2010
Brian, first when I said “every position” I meant the ones I have heard her articulate. Don’t condemn her for positions she hasn’t taken (not that I am aware of).
I won’t speak for her but I can’t imagine she would have a problem with auditing the Fed Reserve. That kind of agenda is not going to win her an election however.
As for bringing home the troops, I disagree with you there. I support having a military presence around the globe helping to protect our interests and those of our allies. This is not the 1930′s where we can stay in our own borders and not engage in the rest of the world.
Nor do I support Ron Paul, who has proven that he has no understanding whatsoever of the threat of world terrorism. He too is an anachronism better suited to America of 100 years ago than today.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 22, 2010
As a political leader in the Conservative Party across the river in Westchester County (part of the 19th), I have a responsibility to the rank and file of my party.
Conservatives aren’t some wayward creatures off-base with the rest of reality. The principles of the New York State Conservative Party are drawn directly (and entirely) from the Republican National Committee platform. We’re a common sense bunch. We were into tea parties before there were tea parties.
And I personally resent the mischaracterization of modern conservativism to satisfy some “bait and switch” huckstering of a liberal view.
If you want to be a liberal, say you’re a liberal but please don’t pretend to be someone you’re not. Most Conservatives and pro-life voters in the Hudson — whether we’re aligned with Democrats or independents or Republicans — tend to end up voting with the GOP because we share the same beliefs on issues.
Seems to me that Nan Hayworth suffers from fear and self-loathing, as a Republican. Now isn’t that what we’re witnessing in Washington, D.C. these days? She shouldn’t make that our problem.
As a Conservative and a Republican supporter, I would like to see her better articulate her stands on abortion, healthcare and many other issues.
Just don’t hide under a desk or behind a huckster. As a huckster too, I know what that is all about … and it is only so long before we can ignore the man behind the curtain.
I want to know what the Mount Kisco Medical Center is and isn’t. I also want the pro-life community to show up and substantiate their claims. Finally, I wonder when any candidates in the 19th are going to talk about this issue.
I’m not holding my breath.
By Bob Fois on Feb 25, 2010
Robert, with all due respect, I’m not sure what you mean by this: “It was Bush and the very conservative republican congress that gave us budget-busting, pork-laden highway bills, the first new federal entitlement program since LBJ’s great society, and red ink as far as the eye can see. We didn’t cut a damn thing on the spending side, and in fact went on a spending spree – all the while justifying it as promoting conservative values. The only conservative value I am interested in having my gov’t promote is fiscal responsibility and restraint.” You use the phrase “very conservative”, and then go on to list the ways that Bush and his operatives were NOT conservative at all. Yes, Bush was “conservative” on the life issue (although there are also pro-life liberals and moderates who happen to oppose the summary execution of the innocents, so it really should be a non-partisan issue). In fact, exit polls indicated that was a big reason for his second term. However, many of his other positions were right in line with liberal Democrats, as you mention above. So isn’t it a contradiction to describe him as very conservative?
On a related note, I find it interesting how Republican lawmakers are labeled “moderate” when they deviate on the pro-life plank, but when their differences with the GOP platform are on fiscal or other issues, they’re somehow still conservative. ???
By Paula on Feb 26, 2010
Paula, Robert is no conservative and he is not even a “moderate”. His attacks on social conservatives prove that over and over. He thinks he belongs to a “growing group of pro choice conservatives”. Yes, all one of them – meaning himself. He is a liberal bombthrower who likes to call us part of a “fringe” group when, in reality, he is in the minority. Stay lovable Robert!
By Alice L. on Feb 26, 2010
Robert, some heavy hitters in the neocon circles such as Dinesh d’Souza and Larry Abraham agree with your view on foreign policy while strongly disagreeing with your unsupportable slur against Ron Paul. In the best case scenario, you posted a hasty remark (that will be readily forgiven if acknowledged and revised); in a worst case, you align yourself with the cast of neocons and assorted other mainstream candidates who shared the nomination process with Ron Paul. I can still see Rudy Giuliani grabbing the flag and draping it over himself rather than engage Ron Paul on any sort of intellectual level when he raised this question in the big debate.
I don’t mind anyone disagreeing with Ron Paul or me on foreign policy – there is plenty of room for healthy debate. Any given covert action or every single secret coup carried out by our fedgov over the last half century may be justifiable, but to malign Ron Paul, the only candidate in the last election and one of the few members of Congress who has any sense of our foreign policy over the last half century, for even raising the question that our meddling fostered the wave of anti-Americanism that resulted in 9-11 is to ignorantly deny history. You may wish to explore the valid counter arguments to Ron Paul’s principled foreign policy views – If you want to hear what respectable neocons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_eA1NWiwMQ
Are you aware of the 1953 CIA overthrow of the democratically elected gov’t in Iran (and that this was only one in a series of such covert actions last century? Democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh stepped on the wallets of British and American oil interests, so our CIA covertly toppled him. We installed our own puppet, Mohammad Pahlavi. Our fedgov unconstitutionally and ardently supported this despised despot and his torturing SAVAK team through a quarter century of demorepublicratian administrations. Iranian hatred of America stewed and simmered for decades until it boiled in the religious fury that created the rabidly anti-American fanatic Ayatollah Khomeini and resulted in the 1979 hostage crisis. The decades of an ever more dangerous Iran were the direct results of our unconstitutional meddling.
Here’s PBS documenting how the Iranian Hostage Crisis was a direct result of our immoral, unconstitutional meddling in the 50′s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE&feature=related
Here’s how Wikipedia describes the methods our puppet gov’t in Iran used to rule for decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
Here’s another clip that continues on to our sponsorship of Saddam – it shows how ignorant people like Rudy G and mainstream republicans are on the reality of our foreign policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE&feature=related
We funneled money and weapons to both sides of the Iraq/Iran war in the 80′s. Our gov’t admits we killed half a million children in Iran with our bombs and sanctions in the 90’s!: http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1KwVz_e1Gk and here http://youtube.com/watch?v=5S1YkQs5nXQ
I have read the 911 Commission Report. It documents the wisdom of statesmen like Ron Paul on this issue. There is a very strong argument to made that our foreign policy is the primary reasons why America was attacked, and not because we are free, as Bush/Clinton/Palin, and apparently you, claim.
Again, I am not saying that arguments justifying any given action or every action cannot be presented or have no merit; I am saying that we must reflectively question our actions and ponder how people in the Mid East view them. I’m open to anyone arguing to justify our actions, questioning the sources or accuracy of my perspective, or elaborating on missing or alternate explanations. But without a sense of the thousands of years of fighting in the Mid East in general and America’s actions there specifically last century, one is hardly capable of a sane foreign policy. Ron Paul has a keen sense of this history. So do I.
If you want to hear the great debate on this issue between Ron Paul, neocons Dinesh d’Souza and Larry Abraham, and anarchist Doug Casey, it’s here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_eA1NWiwMQ
Best,
Brian
By Brian Kearsey on Feb 26, 2010
Brian, radical Moslems hate us because we are not them. Period. The word “Islam” means submission, as in we are to supposed to submit to them. Can you tell me why Mormons, Christians, Buddhists and Jews do not blow themselves up in an effort to kill as many people as possible? These people cannot be appeased. I don’t like the word “neocons”. I don’t call Ron Paul supporters isolationists/Father Coughlin types. (Although that is actually what I do think of them.)
By Alice L. on Mar 2, 2010
Alice, I do not need to be edified on Islam in general, the specifics of the how the radical element in it manifests itself, or of the threat it poses; my stomach gets queasy and my American blood boils perhaps even quicker than yours just thinking about the video of Nick Berg having his still head severed from his still living body, his last breath of life spent gurgling though the blood hemorrhaging out of his body. Not only am I not defending or justifying that barbaric act or 9-11, I specifically noted that any given covert action we took or all of them may well be justifiable. What I was seeking, and what you fail to supply, is “anyone arguing to justify our actions, questioning the sources or accuracy of my perspective, or elaborating on missing or alternate explanations.”
Your vote counts every bit as much as mine – you have every right to join the dominant mainstream republican crowd and proclaim “Muslims hate us because we are not them. Period.” My experience has shown that most people who hold your view simply drape the flag over themselves and never ask the questions we must ask – they have no clue about our many decades of meddling.
You can debate my view, you can justify the actions themselves, or you can continue to just shut your eyes and cast your vote. It’s your call. To be clear though, I never came close to implying we should appease anyone – I am stating, vehemently, that due diligence demands we examine our actions to see if we were justified in stirring up the hornets nest the way we did. For stir them up we did, your ignorance of the facts notwithstanding.
I was not aware that anyone still finds the term “neocon” derogatory, though I certainly despise the shallow, emotional sales pitch the mainstream candidates used to sell their foreign policy to the general public, especially since intellectuals like d’Souza, Abraham, and others have a valid perspective. (They take the intellectual and moral high road in the debate with Ron Paul, refusing to even try to justify our decades of foreign policy debacles, instead acknowledging them and building the case that we have to work with the past we were handed.) The first to embrace the term and wear the mantle “neocon,” was Irving Kristol, who said the purpose of the movement was “to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” Unless I’m wrong about the connotation of the word, I suggest that if you embrace the neocon view on foreign policy, you should wear the label proudly.
You association of Ron Paul supporters with Father Coughlin or isolationism is both morally and intellectually bankrupt; I defy you to back up either slur. Unlike the question of the term neocon, there is obviously no legitimacy the Coughlin connection (the Marxists wore out that “guilt by association” trick a long time ago); “isolationist” is absurd on its face whether applied to George Washington, Charles Lindbergh, or Ron Paul – none ever suggested isolating America from the world. Travel and trade and the exchange of ideas with other countries is generally invaluable by any standard.
You can chose to back up your interventionist views with sound intellectual fodder (your own or suggestions on where I can learn more on my own), or you can continue to stay in the shallow end of the pool. It’s your choice.
By Brian Kearsey on Mar 2, 2010
Paula: “So isn’t it a contradiction to describe him as very conservative?”
Well, I would agree with you. But that is not a very commonly held belief. Bush is widely seen as a conservative, as is Huckabee. Both are perhaps religious conservatives, but not constitutional conservatives. I think that constitutional conservatism is the higher imperative, preserving that which the country was founded on, and what binds the republican party.
My republican role models are Reagan and Goldwater, both far more in line with my thinking than either Bush. And both would be ostracized by the religious right today in their attempt to impose a religious credo on the republican party.
Brian: “Robert, some heavy hitters in the neocon circles such as Dinesh d’Souza and Larry Abraham agree with your view on foreign policy while strongly disagreeing with your unsupportable slur against Ron Paul.”
What was my “slur” Brian? I said “Ron Paul, who has proven that he has no understanding whatsoever of the threat of world terrorism. He too is an anachronism better suited to America of 100 years ago than today.” and I stand by that comment.
I can go further if you like, but I suspect that will only inflame you further. Bottom line is while some of Pauls’ positions are positions I strongly support, he is the wrong person to be leading any sort of a credible movement.
By Robert Hornak on Mar 2, 2010
Ron Paul is backed by neo-Nazi groups. That is all you need to know about him.
By Alice L. on Mar 2, 2010
And he is very close to being a Truther.
By Alice L. on Mar 2, 2010
Robert, you ask what your “slur” was even as you reposted it. I consider stating that Ron Paul has “no understanding whatsoever of the threat of world terrorism” to be a definite slur that is demonstrably wrong. I backed up my view.
You claim that you “can go further” if I like but “suspect that will only inflame” me. If my passionate, articulate, detailed demolition of your ignorant, offhand, indefensible statement about Ron Paul is “inflamed” then I thank you for the compliment, for it is “inflamed” with the same fire that burned in the breasts of the Founding Fathers. I’ve already told you that “I’m open to anyone arguing to justify our (covert military) actions, questioning the sources or accuracy of my perspective, or elaborating on missing or alternate explanations.”
If that isn’t an invitation to “go further” than I do not know what is. As I told Alice, “You can chose to back up your interventionist views with sound intellectual fodder… or you can continue to stay in the shallow end of the pool.”
If you have something of merit for the readers of this discussion to consider, by all means serve it up and I will weigh it with an open mind. But so far, you choose to splashing around in the kiddy pool with Alice.
By Brian Kearsey on Mar 6, 2010
Alice, you have demonstrated the narrow breadth and shallow depth of your intellect and the low quality of your moral fiber quite eloquently. I’ll allow your testament to stand unchallenged – it speaks volumes about who you are.
You could try to redeem yourself by backing up your absurd claim that Ron Paul has any neo-Nazi leanings or supporting your inference that he believes our fedgov had any complicity in the 9-11 attacks. I doubt you have the integrity to even try, and I know you don’t have any facts if you do.
As it stands, you align yourself with the wingnuts on the fringes of both political parties, the left wingers who would make the same neo-Nazi assertion about Ron Paul because a David Duke might endorse him and the right wingers who claim Obama is a socialist because the Marxists support him. The former is a demonstrably baseless slur; the latter is demonstrably true. But the fact that Marxists embrace Oabama does not convict him of the charge – his socialist statements and policies do. I can make the accusation against Obama and back it up; you cannot say the same for the defecation you post.
By Brian Kearsey on Mar 6, 2010