Posted by Much has been written here and elsewhere about yesterday’s blog post entitled Congress, Abortion and District 19. The topic is whether Republican Nan Hayworth is worthy to be the top contender vs. progressive Democrat John Hall in this year’s Congressional race in New York’s District 19.
My attention was focused on Hayworth’s husband; Dr. Scott Hayworth because of his relationship with the political action committee “American Medical Group Association” and his position as CEO of Mount Kisco Medical Group (“MKMG”). I questioned whether these personal connections – via a money trail — would have an impact on Hayworth’s decision-making if she were to be elected to Congress.
Dr. Scott Hayworth gave a lengthy response to the assertions made in my blog post, and in all fairness, I urge you to read it so that you can see things from his perspective.
Yesterday, some alleged that my blog post was un-sourced, assumption based on assumption, contained misinformation and conspiratorial theories. I maintain all of this is false. Here are the facts:
A review of the on-line record of donors to the Hayworth campaign indicates that a majority of them are affiliated with MKMG either through a political action committee or individually, and while there is nothing illegal about this, the implication is that Hayworth is beholden to this medical group in whatever lobby they may be a part of.
The evidence shows that Hayworth has not received campaign donations from grassroots donors at any significant level. This is the same complaint that I received via a reliable source that someone at the National Republican Campaign Committee is concerned with. Hayworth is not resonating with the grassroots swell in the District and because of her “pro-choice” stance and OB/GYN husband this may pose a problem with the pro-life faction of the Republican Party.
I made the connection that MKMG and its related PAC could be pushing a pro-abortion agenda because I was told via a reliable source that the MKMG facility is known for abortions, but not so known for delivering babies, and because 80% of PAC donations (which is affiliated with MKMG) were allotted to “pro-choice” candidates totaling $50,000 in bundled funds, it’s easy to assume a quid pro quo developing.
I question the semantics surrounding the phrase “reproductive health“or “reproductive services” and submit that the medical industry and politicians have difficulty in calling abortion – abortion. They oftentimes hide behind more, softer sounding words like “choice” and “rights”. It is well known that fertility doctors (Dr. Scott Hayworth is one) frequently perform “selective abortions” on their patients, so I was surprised to learn that Dr. Hayworth says he does not do abortions. A selective abortion is when a woman is injected with fertilized eggs, and when too many actually implant, a removal– or the forcible killing of the unwanted embryo(s) — from the womb is common place. This is an abortion too.
Another issue is that the same “business as usual” attitude that pervades the Republican Party in New York State is exactly what New Yorkers are rejecting. Something is different this election cycle that some would like to ignore – the voters don’t want the same old – same old, they don’t like the Democrats and they don’t like the Republicans in Name Only (“RINO”). For many of us, Hayworth represents the RINO because she is socially liberal and has at least some personal ties to the medical group that is a major funding source to her campaign in what appears to be a conflict of interest. This, my friends, is baggage, not an invented theory out of thin air.
I make the case in Dede Déjà Vu? that Republicans in charge are about to make the same mistake they made in District 23 (the Dede Scozzafava vs. Doug Hoffman fiasco) where the Party supported the liberal pro-choice Republican instead of the pro-life conservative Republican and got burned by the liberal and lost the race to the Democrat.
I called out to State Chairman Ed Cox to ask him to see what is staring him in the face: The Tea Party movement is more analogous with the pro-life and conservative movement than the “pro-choice” big tent Republican one; Mr. Cox would be wise if he opened his eyes.
A couple of my readers complained I was in attack mode when I made the following comment:
“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.”
In response to such complaints, I repeat and reiterate the same now. If time reveals that the Hayworths are indeed embroiled in the abortion lobby and are calculating on using this Congressional seat to satisfy a personal agenda, the “blood on their hands” label is more than appropriate.
My message to the voters in District 19: There are people out there who are better qualified with alot less baggage than Nan Hayworth who can represent your interests in Congress. Be patient — more candidates will emerge!
This woman is a loser. As they said in On the Waterfront, “She is not a contender.” Shame on the people who defend her.
By Alice L. on Feb 18, 2010
Your commentary is sure to provoke a strong response and stoke controversy. Perhaps with the attention being shown this campaign, the political establishment will become more attentive to right leaning Republicans; at any rate what’s to follow is sure to be compelling. I look forward to the next installment in this unfolding drama.
By Nasir Muhammad on Feb 18, 2010
I still don’t understand why someone thinking of running for Congress would have wasted her time playing with such PAC monies.
$50,000 to Democrats is a lot of money. It bought these doctors something. Nan Hayworth and her husband gained something from the AMGA PAC or they were pretty clueless.
The D.C. types can say this is “pretty normal” but that’s precisely why tea party movement is mad as hell about “business as usual” in Congress and not going to take it anymore.
By Show Me The Money on Feb 18, 2010
Raquel, I am rather disappointed. Even here, you cling to assumptions that have either no proof at all or very weak partial truths in order to make your conclusions.
Let’s break down your arguments here and discuss them First: “The evidence shows that Hayworth has not received campaign donations from grassroots donors at any significant level. This is the same complaint that I received via a reliable source that someone at the National Republican Campaign Committee is concerned with. Hayworth is not resonating with the grassroots swell in the District and because of her “pro-choice” stance and OB/GYN husband this may pose a problem with the pro-life faction of the Republican Party.”
First argument is just a matter of political reality. How many candidates raise early money from the grassroots in their district? Answer – none. You and I have both run for office, Raquel, and I’ve worked on campaigns for a decade now, and we know that the early money every candidate raises is from their personal rolodex. Raising money from the grassroots doesn’t kick in until the candidate has the resources to do that, and we know how much money really comes from the grassroots anyway. Not nearly enough to win. Candidates who don’t have a very strong personal donor base don’t have a shot in hell. You know that Raquel, so don’t believe what your “source” is telling you. I’ve heard same from certain “sources” wrapped up in this debate and they back down very quickly under some direct questioning.
As for her not reasonating in the district because she is pro-choice, well that may be true for a certain faction of people, but she will no doubt do well once the campaign really gets going. It is only February, again how many candidates have large swells of grassroots supporters this early? Answer – none.
“I made the connection that MKMG and its related PAC could be pushing a pro-abortion agenda because I was told via a reliable source that the MKMG facility is known for abortions, but not so known for delivering babies, and because 80% of PAC donations (which is affiliated with MKMG) were allotted to “pro-choice” candidates totaling $50,000 in bundled funds, it’s easy to assume a quid pro quo developing.”
MKMG is not “related” to the PAC. The PAC is related to a national organization, and only loosely so. The PAC is its own independent organization. And MKMG is only a small local member of the larger organization. That organization also includes the Mayo Clinic, and is one of the largest doctor networks in the country.
Again, you are quoting a “reliable source” for information about the business of MKMG. Dr. Hayworth himself responded and debunked your source. The you “made the connection” that MKMG “could” be pushing a “pro-abortion agenda.” What os that based on other than a handful of donations and your imagination? Do you have any written information that any of the organizations in question, MKMG, AMGA, or the PAC have any agenda at all relating to abortion? If so please produce them so we can judge them in context.
“I question the semantics surrounding the phrase “reproductive health“or “reproductive services” and submit that the medical industry and politicians have difficulty in calling abortion – abortion.”
You can question it all you want, and in some cases your assumption may be correct. But that doesn’t mean that everyone that uses these common words is hiding something. In this case it seems very clear from what I’ve read on the MKMG website and what Dr. Hayworth wrote that your assumption is unfounded. Perhaps you should seriously rethink your assumptions here and don’t let your passion cloud your judgment.
“It is well known that fertility doctors (Dr. Scott Hayworth is one) frequently perform “selective abortions” on their patients, so I was surprised to learn that Dr. Hayworth says he does not do abortions.”
First, what is surprising about his statement. It seems pretty straight forward, he doesn’t perform abortions. Second, where do see that he is a fertility specialist? He is an OBGYN. Again, I refer to a satement in his letter:
“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.”
You next statement: “Another issue is that the same “business as usual” attitude that pervades the Republican Party in New York State is exactly what New Yorkers are rejecting.”
True, but that business-as-usual attitude relates to the disorder our fiscal house is in, not over abortion. And not over candidates receiving donations from PACs. This is where republicans go awry over the tea party movement, they want it to represent everything they believe and think they can claim it as their own. In fact, the attitude you refer to is a non-partisan, multi-party affiliated coalition of people fed up with government screwing with their lives. I’m sorry, but abortion is not part of that agenda, as much as you might wish it did.
“For many of us, Hayworth represents the RINO because she is socially liberal and has at least some personal ties to the medical group that is a major funding source to her campaign in what appears to be a conflict of interest.”
Really? So a pro-choice conservative is now a RINO? Is Scott Brown a RINO? Am I a RINO? Nan appears to be very strong on every other issue important to Republicans (you know, the issues that unite the Party), like national defense and the war on terror, limited gov’t, pro-growth fiscal policy, etc etc. Do you really want to drive everyone like Nan, Scott Brown and me out of the Party?
To end this very long piece, let’s just look at two phrases you used before and at the end of this piece. “I can’t help but think the Hayworths have blood on their hands” and “If time reveals that the Hayworths are indeed embroiled in the abortion lobby and are calculating on using this Congressional seat to satisfy a personal agenda, the “blood on their hands” label is more than appropriate.”
I simply ask, what evidence do you have that Nan has any agenda at all relating to abortion? Please share with us. That she took money from a PAC connected to a group that her husband’s company has a once-removed association with is not evidence of anything other than a personal relationship. We’re talking about a few grand in a campaign that has raised a few hundred grand so far. This is where this argument starts to become conspiratorial in nature, and much more so by some others then you, Raquel.
Again, if you have some real evidence of some radical, pro-abortion agenda then please share it with us. Follow the money just doesn’t work here. It does not show intent. In fact, the argument would be far more convincing if Nan and Scott had no personal connection to the PAC and instead she received the donation out of the blue. Friendship does not a conspiracy – or an agenda – make.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 18, 2010
One final thing Raquel. Your comparing Hayworth to Sozzafava is way off base. Dede won the nomination over Hoffman for many reasons, some of which became evident in the final days of the campaign (with Hoffman going essentially loco in the last 4 days). But that is another conversation.
But the big problem with Dede was not on social issues (well, maybe for a few people it was). It was on her positions on issues like cardcheck and the unions that sank her with the national figures that descended on that race. That issue may be as bad as Obama-care, and Dede was on the wrong side in that fight. I couldn’t support her either based solely on that issue.
So let’s be clear this has no relationship to Dede’s race, not to mention that Dede was chosen in a party nomination process. No primary was possible. Now we have an open process, and should another candidate step forward they will be judged accordingly. However, we should put up our strongest candidate, and that does not mean we judge solely on social issues. Produce a candidate stronger across the board and who can also raise hundreds of thousands of dollars (because money = viability) then we can talk.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 18, 2010
Hoffman went loco in the 23rd?
I seem to recall a former House Speaker named Newt Gingrich causing undue confusion by sticking his pedantic nose in New York’s political business that last week.
I also recall a Republican named Dede Scozzafava endorsing a liberal Democrat in the campaign’s final days, just about as certifiably LOCO as one can find in the United States.
—
The money:
Over $50,000 to Democrats, most of it from people working in Dr. Hayworth’s facility. Donations from Hayworth and his contemporaries comprised two-thirds of the AMGA PACs war chest.
It bought them something.
The point is that they tried to BUY Congress.
The money was primarily local to Mount Kisco and affiliated medical groups; giving to Nita Lowey, Chuck Schumer and Charlie Rangel and Rahm Emanuel too!
Mind you, Scott Hayworth is “honored” to be associated with this PAC.
You sound honored too by all this. Good for you. Just don’t ask me to stomach these D.C. games.
By Show Me The Money on Feb 18, 2010
Wrong, Robert: Scozzafava the scuzzball, did not win the nomination – she was never nominated – five or four men in a room gave it to her. I supported Hoffman, who was a much more viable candidate. The fact that Scuzzy backed the Demo is all you need to know about her. It is an outrage that anybody would think that Hayworth is a viable candidate.
By Alice L. on Feb 18, 2010
There is a backstory to the Hofmann-Scozzafava race, Money, that you are either unaware of or don’t acknowledge.
Yes, Hoffman went loco and that is why he lost. First, when Dede withdrew, Hoffman claimed he had her endorsement. He did not. He lied. She then issued a statement saying she did not endorse Hoffman but was simply stepping out of the race. Hoffman went loco and continued to attack Dede, personally, while she was no longer in the race.
That was what prompted her to endorse the Dem. I don’t agree with that decision, but I certainly understand it considering Hoffman’s conduct. He was not gracious in any way, and instead was openly hostile.
Then, by every account I;ve heard, Hoffman stopped talking about the fiscal issues that garnered him so much support and instead spent the last 2-3 days of the campaign talking about the “moral crises” we face on social issues and ranted essentially about imposing christian values on America.
That is why he lost a race we should have won. He went off the deep end in the final days, making me think he is either a little unstable or just didn’t really want to win but did n’t know how else to get out of the race at that point.
On the money, stop making up facts. First, most of the PAC money DID NOT come from MKMG employees/partners. Second, what PAC DOESN’T raise money in NY, where most of the wealthy donors are found? We are not talking about millions of dollars like the unions use for lobbying, but a paltry 50k.
So you think that “buys” something in DC? OK, what? Please tell me what they “bought.” You and your faction keep saying that statement, trying to make it sound like the boogeyman.
Ooooh, they “bought” something for their money. Chances are they “bought” themselves a meeting with some staffer who handles policy and they discussed something – maybe stopping the socialization of healthcare. Not if that is the case, and I would suppose that is the most likely case, then how bad would that be?
Of course, all this is not the point here as neither Nan (remember her, the candidate??) or Scott Hayworth has any relationship to the PAC. Your statement “Scott Hayworth is “honored” to be associated with this PAC” is completely fabricated. He has made no such statement and has in fact distanced himself from the PAC.
You can spin this to sound really bad, until confronted with the simple fact that you have no facts. In the end, after all this discussion. all that remains is still innuendo based on assumptions based on flimsy partial truths.
Come back when you have something more solid, Money. In other words, show me the money.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 18, 2010
Hoffman lost because Didi’s name was still on the ballot and the confused RINOs voted for her.
By Alice L. on Feb 18, 2010
Mr. Hornak,
That is a comprehensive and lengthy response. Well thought out and well drafted.
However, in short, why are we Republicans/Conservatives focused on this ONE issue of the most viable Republican/Conservative candidate to beat John Hall.
Jerry Maguire, why does John Hall get a pass on his PAC affiliations?
I posted details on Hall’s filings and his donors on my blog and hope it makes its way to the mainstream. John Hall should be exposed for his fringe left tendencies and overtly liberal voting record. Yours truly,
Appalled
http://www.appalledathall.com
By Apalled at Hall on Feb 18, 2010
Thanks Appalled. You are right we should be far more concerned with getting rid of John Hall and exposing his record so that who ever is the nominee, we can rally around that person and also help oust Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. The reign of terror by Pelosi/Hall must end.
Honestly, I can not tell you why this one issue has become central in this race. I can only assume that a handful of fanatics are so threatened by the idea of a strong, growing faction of pro-choice conservatives that they will do anything to undermine those candidates. Even if it means undermining the potential success at hand to push back the creep toward socialism we have experienced in the last 40 years.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 18, 2010
A “strong, growing faction of pro-choice conservatives” – name one, Robert! Oh, you mean yourself, of course.
By Alice L. on Feb 18, 2010
Alice,
Scott Brown didn’t get elected to the U.S. Senate because he and his views are in the minority.
By Apalled at Hall on Feb 18, 2010
Robert,
Again, my sources are credible. You can imagine all you want but I won’t be impugned just because you say so.
“MKMG is not “related” to the PAC,” to hell its not, the CEO of MKMG is chair elect of the PAC I am referring to. Most of the donors of this PAC come from MKMG.
I’m not making this up. My readers can see for themselves.
It’s not enough to say Hall is a worse candidate, it’s not enough to say grassroots support will come, it’s not enough to try and debunk my credibility, the fact remains, no one in District 19 wants a candidate who is married to an abortionist, I’m sorry. That is the one point that distinguishes her from other candidates.
Can I say with 100% certitude that Dr. Hayworth performs abortions? No, because I am not there in his office. But all of the evidence I have collected suggests that he does or at the very least is involved in the promotion of abortion, so I stand by every single word I have stated.
By Raquel on Feb 18, 2010
Scott Brown got elected and the support of just about everyone on our side because he was the 61st vote against healthcare “reform”. His election stopped it dead in its tracks, the people understood this.
By Raquel on Feb 18, 2010
Apalled at Hall,
Do you take any offense to the fact that donations to Hayworth’s campaign are interconnected with her husband’s Hospital and PAC?
By Raquel on Feb 18, 2010
Either you have an opinion on an issue, or you don’t. One should not look the other way on something he or she feels strongly about just because one particular race is perceived as more important than another. Scott Brown has a place in this party regardless of his stance on abortion.
I’m not offended by a candidate for Congress accepting a donation from an organization that believes in her. Winning costs money. Once again, look at Hall’s donors, you be the judge.
Let’s all keep our eyes on the prize. Removing Hall and all his liberal cronies from office.
By Apalled at Hall on Feb 18, 2010
Appalled, I contributed to Brown’s campaign and he won because of a confluence of events, and yes, opposition to abortion in the health care bill is one of them! hayworth is a no go and the fact that a pro abort such as Hornak supports here speaks volumes.
By Alice L. on Feb 18, 2010
Robert, we don’t like being called “fanatics”. You just lost a bunch of potential supporters with your name calling and your obvious intent to marginalize us.
By Alice L. on Feb 18, 2010
Raquel, I am not trying to impugn you in any way, I am saying you are offbase and don’t have any facts to back your assertions.
“Can I say with 100% certitude that Dr. Hayworth performs abortions? No, because I am not there in his office. But all of the evidence I have collected suggests that he does or at the very least is involved in the promotion of abortion, so I stand by every single word I have stated.”
What evidence? Please share with us.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 18, 2010
First of all, Raquel, Scott Hayworth is chair of the AMGA, not the AMGA PAC. You have been confronted with this fact time and time again. Either you are too stupid to acknowledge the truth or you simply to do so. I’m not certain which would be more disappointing.
And you no longer have my presumption of good will. You continue to assert, assert, assert baselessly. It’s awful, and it’s tantamount to libel. Hell, it IS libel.
Furthermore, the Mount Kisco Medical Group is a medical group, not a hospital. They’re also not an abortion or a fertility clinic. They’re an association of doctors.
Alice, people like you are ruining and isolating the GOP with one-track minds on social issues. Again, what happened to the Reagan principles? His 11th commandment (“never speak ill of a fellow Republican”)? His idea that somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is 80% your ally, not 20% your enemy? Frankly, you are a fanatic. And you’re part of a losing battle.
It’s also really, really charming that you’re willing to sacrifice your principles when the circumstances demand it. Again, significantly differentiate between Scott Brown’s and Nan Hayworth’s stances on abortion.
By truth hurts on Feb 18, 2010
Its amazing to look at the myths being perpetrated by the neoCons concerning the Hoffman vs Scozzafava debacle:
Myth 1: Scozzafava is a far left liberal. Fact: She held abhorrant positions vs organized labor, but on other issues she actually has a more conservative voting record than most of her Republican associates in the NYS Assembly. Fact 2: She has been endorsed by the local Conservative Party in each of her Assembly elections (7 times I think) and has run on the Conservative line of the ballot. Fact 3: Scozzafava’s voting record was rated 100% by the NRA for pro 2nd Amendment rights and her statements on other social issues are strongly pro-Liberty and individual rights (with the exception of her pro-Union stances). Myth 3: She was selected by the party Chairs in a closed process. Fact: The candidates participated in open meetings where they spoke to local Republicans who were later canvessed by the party chairs to select the candidate. Hoffman is a terrible public speaker with little knowledge of the district issues and ran far behind many others who sought the endorsement.
Now to Mr Hoffman: One of his major problems was that he does not live in the 23rd District and is essentially being promoted by outsiders and downstate Conservative party bosses based on his philosophy. When outside groups can introduce non-residents and pump in millions to buy elections, voters will object. Also, when local media did interviews asking about high profile local issues concerning federal polici, Mr Hoffman didn’t have a clue on any of those issues – not one! He was and is clueless about the region.
So sad to see all the mischaracterizations and twisted analysis from talking heads who truly have limited understanding of what went on.
By Dave S. on Feb 18, 2010
Truth hurts you don’t have to name call to prove a point. And I am not stupid, AMGA has a political action committee arm called AMGA. Are you saying that Dr. Hayworth’s position at AMGA has nothing to do with the decisions involved in the political action committee, when alot of the donors come from the clinic that he is CEO? No connection??
This is the advocacy page of American Medical Group Association http://www.amga.org/Advocacy/index_advocacy.asp.
These are the donors to the PAC http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00408120
By Raquel on Feb 18, 2010
This is a free country and its not libel to question whether Dr. Hayworth is involved in the promotion of abortion rights, particularly when his wife is a candidate for US Congress. You can’t stifle free speech you don’t like.
By Raquel on Feb 18, 2010
Congratulations Mr. Hornak, on creating the most moronic oxymoron in human history. A professedly conservative pro-abort is more of a danger to America than unabashed Marxists in Congress. To legitimize the complete dismantling of America’s founding principles is far more destructive than any attempt to implement socialism.
The moral nihilism inherent in pro-abortionism—what a coward of a man would call pro-choice—can not exist without a complete repudiation of the fundamental recognition of American principles which hold that truth is innate and inviolable, that natural law is intrinsic to our human condition, and human rights, the right to life preeminent, are divine endowments, not political inventions. All such foundational principles were frequently iterated by Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Lewis, and Washington, among others, and it is what conservatives have sought to conserve.
To advance moral cowardice as a political vision, as you have clearly decided to do, may garner votes and money, but fails to set you apart from the ongoing destruction of this nation.
By Ed Baker on Feb 18, 2010
Semantics.
Political Action Committee = PAC
PAC = American Medical Group Assocation (AMGA)
Before McCain-Feingold made such massive bundling of money from entities legal, a company funneling so much money together into a PAC would have been called money laundering.
The Tea Party movement to a lesser extent has been driven by STOPPING such hypocrisy in our elections. Whether it’s corporations or wealthy doctors or unions or special interests, these PACs violate the primacy of the individual in American democracy.
How cute that Scott Hayworth is honored to be associated with such rogues but he has no idea that there is any gambling in his establishment.
What kind of lobby purposely targets over 120 doctors for donations to a healthcare PAC, with most of it coming from facilities described as performing abortions?
Ignore that man behind the curtain. He’s performing an abortion!
But please don’t ignore the woman running for Congress taking money from him. Of all the gin joints, she had to take money from the one PAC that just happens to be a smoking fun for the abortion lobby.
I can’t wait to see Nan Hayworth take money from the eye doctors PAC.
By PAC Politics on Feb 18, 2010
Truth, you are way out of line here. Raquel is right, there is no need for personal insults or name calling. We can disagree and have a civil conversation. And one thing I know for sure, no matter how much I disagree with her here, I know she is a very smart cookie.
I do have to say though, Raquel, that in his boorish manor he has a point, it has been pointed out time and again that AMGA and AMGA-PAC are run separately, as they must be by law. You are trying to infer some sort of guilt by association, but I’m not even sure what that guilt would be.
What does AMGA-PAC lobby for that disturbs you so much? Do you have any clue?
As for the advocacy page on the AMGA site, I linked to that on Urban Elephants the other day so people could see for themselves what their priorities are. However, that is for AMGA, not AMGA-PAC. I see nothing in there about abortion. I see a lot about healthcare reform, medicaid, and political awareness. It is also mainly designed as a resource for their member organizations, like the Mayo Clinic. It is not a lobbying agenda.
As for the donors, so what? What does it infer that the members of MKMG contributed to the PAC? Do you expect that a bunch of rich doctors in Westchester WOULDN’T give to the PAC affiliated with their parent association? Especially in this time when doctors are under assault from the liberals in DC and threatened with a gov’t takeover? This is exactly how I would expect a non-partisan organization to defend its’ industry.
But just for fun I counted all the $1000 and up donors by geography and found that 13 of them were from NY and 19 were from outside NY. That hardly seems conspiratorial to me. especially when most of the NY donations were made in March 2009, many on the same date, indicating some sort of fundraising event.
Again, I’d like to see a little evidence, just a little, to support all these assertions.
I understand you probably feel like you’re being attacked and want to dig in your heels and defend your beliefs. But this has gone way beyond beliefs to unsubstantiated accusations of disingenuous motives and secret agendas. You are spinning this out of whole cloth. No facts, only loose associations to back your claims.
Please take a deep breath and think about what I am saying here. Then get your facts together and consult both sides before throwing a match on the fire.
Ed, I guess I should say Thank You. I don’t really get the point of your diatribe, other than you somehow equate America’s founding principles with your personal beliefs. It seems people will always read into things what they want to.
Nevertheless, I don’t think I’ve ever been insulted quite so eloquently. So if I’ve impressed you by creating what you believe to be “the most moronic oxymoron in human history” then I guess I should be proud.
Of course, I still totally reject your opinion that legal abortion somehow equates to an undermining of our founding principles.
I also reject your description of my position as being pro-abortion, or that it is cowardice to call it pro-choice. Sorry, but you don’t get to define the terms of the debate, or what I stand for.
I am pro-choice because it is consistent with my strong belief in personal liberty and limited gov’t, which I believe are principles the founding fathers may have said something about.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 19, 2010
Forget the ideology for a minute, forget the fact that I am 100% pro-life without exception, forget the fact that I agree with Ed that the founding fathers never intended that man could forcibly remove and kill infants in the womb legally for any reason at any time during a pregnancy — this “right” was bad written majority law. There’s no liberty in abortion rights, Robert, no liberty at all!
Nan Hayworth’s husband it seems is interconnected with the abortion lobby. I didn’t look for this, I didn’t start a rumor, I don’t have an agenda against Dr. Hayworth, “pro-choice” Republicans or the Republican Party.
My only goal is to search for the truth. Abortion is pure evil, and if Nan Hayworth has ANYTHING to do with this industry, I don’t want any part of her — and I guarantee you, Robert, neither does District 19.
By Raquel on Feb 19, 2010
“Nan Hayworth’s husband it seems is interconnected with the abortion lobby.”
How do you draw that conclusion????? Show me one bit of evidence to support this?
We’ll save the constitutional argument for another time. Just one clarification, the “right” was not majority law, it was a supreme court decision interpreting the US Constitution. It says the right of a woman to determine her reproductive fate trumps the right of a fetus to life (until the fifth month).
By Robert Hornak on Feb 19, 2010
Robert you can go back and read what I have written. You don’t have to agree with the conclusions I have made, but I don’t see the need to repeat them again.
Doe v. Bolton trumps Roe v. Wade, and in the Doe case abortion became legal up until the moment of birth for any reason whatsoever — which is where the law stands now — except in the case of the partial birth abortion method.
By Raquel on Feb 19, 2010
When I say majority law I mean the US Supreme Court’s decision. It was a majority opinion. There was dissent in this decision, and those Justices who disagreed are exactly the type of conservative Justices you would support.
By Raquel on Feb 19, 2010
Raquel, I’ve read everything you wrote, and can not find the facts here to back your claim that Scot Hayworth is “interconnected with the abortion lobby.”
Please just explain that one point. It would clarify a lot here.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 19, 2010
It’s not one specific thing here, Robert, it’s a bunch of pieces to a puzzle. A puzzle that is not complete. My readers are sophisticated enough to know this and reach their own conclusions for now.
Nothing I have said is made up in my head for the purpose of knocking down a “pro-choice” Republican in a race.
By Raquel on Feb 19, 2010
Let’s not forget, Raquel, who cast the first stone by using the word “fanatic” and stating that his view is that of a “growing pro choice/conservative movement”. The facts speak against Hornak’s suppositions. He is a minority within the GOP. We remain the Party of Life. He prefers to attack those of us who actually go out and vote. He prefers to alienate us with his nastiness.
By Alice L. on Feb 19, 2010
Hornak does not even understand the Doe case. A woman can abort in the USA up until the moment of delivery. I don’t where Hornak got his “fifth month” nonsense! It proves that he does not have the facts. Let him continue to shill for pro abortion RINO groups who want to infiltrate and destroy us.
By Alice L. on Feb 19, 2010
Fortunately, Robert can’t ban me on this site! The truth must sting. If the local RTL group has something on Nan’s husband, I would take their word for it. As for Didi, she was a disaster who proudly accepted an award from Planned Barrenhood. She also tried to muscle a reporter for asking her questions and had the nerve to call the cops on him. She was unhinged. She was also the left of the Demo on many issues. She was and is a disaster. That anybody on this site would defend her tells you much about that person.
By Alice L. on Feb 19, 2010
No Alice that’s not what I’m saying about the local RTL, it just means that I am familiar with the pulse of the community, and you’re right I will never ban you.
By Raquel on Feb 19, 2010
Because you have more integrity than a couple of people whom we know. The bullying is awful. I would like to know what the local RTL group says – they are usually on top of stuff.
By Alice L. on Feb 19, 2010
Fanatic: A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
When I used the word fanatic, I specifically had Alice in mind. Raquel I know to be a reasoning and reasonable person who knows how to have civil conversation even when in the midst of extreme disagreement. But I am glad that you haven’t lost your obsession with me, Alice.
Raquel, if it is a puzzle then please lay out the pieces just to support that one assertion. That, after all, would seem to be the basis for your entire argument, so let’s just cut to the chase and get to the heart of the matter.
Your reluctance to do that is puzzling, as is the way you dance around it. Let’s just lay it out so we can move on.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 19, 2010
Mr. Hornack:
Your Remarks: We’ll save the constitutional argument for another time. Just one clarification, the “right” was not majority law, it was a supreme court decision interpreting the US Constitution. It says the right of a woman to determine her reproductive fate trumps the right of a fetus to life (until the fifth month).
Response:
Authentic rights are never and can never be in conflict. The Supreme Court has no authority to invent a human right, not even through an unfounded or direct falsification of the Constitution, what you and other liberals call “interpretation.” The Constitution does not even designate the Supreme Court as an arbiter of the Constitution, contrary to what seems to be a prejudice worthy of never having advanced beyond a third grade education, much like journalists, most professional academics, and Democrats claiming to be Republicans.
Your Remarks: I guess I should say Thank You. I don’t really get the point of your diatribe, other than you somehow equate America’s founding principles with your personal beliefs. I also reject your description of my position as being pro-abortion, or that it is cowardice to call it pro-choice. Sorry, but you don’t get to define the terms of the debate, or what I stand for.
Response:
Sorry, The Declaration of Independence, were you to read it, and were you to learn enough about American history to know that The Declaration is America’s founding document, which the Constitution was created to honor, is more than my personal beliefs.
What I pointed out, and what The Declaration points out, is obvious enough for anyone with common sense to understand, but I suppose I’ll have to explain it so that even someone like you can understand.
First, who designated you to define the terms of the debate? Taking refuge in a childish phrase like “pro-choice,” the short version of the silly and redundant phrase “freedom of choice,” defies rationality, common decency, and common sense. No matter how much we prefer to lie to ourselves, no one is for or can be for unlimited human willfulness and for reasons that should be obvious. Arsonists do not have a human right to be arsonists. Human rights are never arbitrary human inventions. Any ephemeral legal privilege is subject to a rational application of principles that are a priori endowments to our human existence and therefore eternally true. They are innate and benevolent principles of right and wrong transcendent to human culture. They are true not based on whether they are able to receive the social sanctions of popular acceptance, intellectual movements, or whether they receive enshrinement in statutory law, but are true because they are inherent to the nature of being a decent human being. Legal rights are subordinate to human rights.
As a Democrat masquerading as a Republican, it may well be the case that your attention span can not handle a long list of books I could recommend, but I will be happy to buy you a DVD version of the miniseries on John Adams so you can see how the founders clearly expressed the understanding that only permanent truths set us free, which requires that a nation submits to and respects an innate and divinely endowed condition of transcendent human rights. We fought a civil war over this. Remember?
If you have a problem with me implying your cowardice, I’m sure you know there are legal fight clubs in the city that allow such matters to be settled. (With 16 oz gloves and helmets of course. I used to be a professional sparring partner, but I am also 60 years old, so it will be a fair fight.) These clubs call themselves pro-choice too. Keep in touch.
By Ed Baker on Feb 19, 2010
Wow, again, such a verbose and eloquent sounding attack. I’ve never had someone insult me with so many multi-syllabic words. Did it take you all 60 years to become so long-winded?
First, the Declaration was not our founding document. That was our divorce from England. Nothing more, nothing less. It did not create America, not was there any guarantee that the colonies would unite into one country. All your insults about my knowledge of history are falling on deaf ears. You clearly just have clue what you are talking about, no matter how fancy a vocabulary you use.
Then you have the nerve to say the phrase “freedom of choice” “defies rationality, common decency, and common sense” and you question why I don’t let you set the terms for the debate? That statement is so patently foolish and nonsensical it defies any logic.
Nor does it imply “unlimited human willfulness” as you call it. We know that no right is without limits. Of course you can only prove your case by implying the most extreme scenario.
Then after a few sentences of showing off your knowledge of legalese, you mention human rights. Exactly!!! That is the basis of my position. It is a basic human right for a person to have control over their own body, whether for work or reproduction. THAT is what we fought the civil war over.
I’ve seen the John Adams program, so I suggest you rewatch it since you clearly didn’t quite grasp its meaning the first time. I’m sure you will enjoy it.
You appear to be the coward here, hiding behind long-winded overly complicated diatribes that don’t really address the point at hand. I think some might consider that a bully tactic, but I don’t back down easily. I also think you are the liberal here (what we call a big gov’t republican, but in your case it sounds more like big brother gov’t), asserting some right for the government to exercise control over family planning decisions. Talk about the worst kind of gov’t intervention is people’s private lives.
As for settling this in a nonverbal manor, I have no problem meeting you anywhere you like. However it does seem like a losing proposition for me. Kicking the crap out of an old man is hardly honorable. My fighting days are long behind me but if you really don’t feel capable of settling this intellectually, name the time and place.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 19, 2010
Why is Nan Hayworth taking any PAC money?
120 doctors in the Westchester area, more than half of them directly connected to Scott Hayworth, were responsible for two-thirds of $50,000+ donation Democrats.
It bought them something. It bought them influence.
We could be talking about the ethics of auto exahust, it’s still about PAC politics.
Isn’t the tea party movement about stopping such corrupt nonsense?
By PAC Politics on Feb 19, 2010
You do not have to wear your misinformed mind on your sleeve. Someone calls your bluff on a knowledge of American History, and all you can do is characterize it as verbose and legalistic without either addressing or rationally examining the arguments advanced. I never asked your permission to set any term of any debate, and I have not sought to set them for you. And I don’t need your permission to criticize an inherently irrational term like “pro-choice.” Unlike you, I have clearly presented a basis for whatever term I use. I clearly do deny that you have any basis for using irrational terms and calling them rational on no other basis than mindless assertion.
If you disagree, than present rational arguments. What is the nature of a right? Where does a right come from? Is there ever such a thing a false claim to a right? Are human beings ever phony in their claims for a right? Are human beings ever evil? Do they ever use the language of rights to justify doing evil things? What is meant by a crime against humanity? Are you personally capable of recognizing a crime against humanity? What is the legal and moral basis for describing a human act as a crime against humanity? What is the distinction between a legal right and a moral right? What is the distinction between a legal right and a human right? Do people ever conflate the two for reasons that are foolish? For reasons innocently foolish? For reasons inherently evil? Does the judiciary, any judiciary, ever engage in the usurpation of democratic processes by arbitrarily invoking a made up right? If so, on what basis would a democratic response have to argue against such an abuse of judicial power?
Your invincible ignorance aside, The Declaration of Independence clearly did express America’s foundational principles with a very clear description of what a right is and where they originate. Got it? It is a rather foolish trivialization to characterize this as a divorce decree. When you build up a personal library of two thousand books on American history alone, such as my own, I’ll consider tolerating being talked down to.
The Civil war was hardly a promotion of personal autonomy as you maintain. The Union cause was abolitionist. The American experiment is one of rights, Lincoln held, and slavery was a complete repudiation of American principles. The Confederacy was a rebellion not at all built upon universal rights of equality and liberty. Lincoln condemned the Confederacy for its denial of the truths embodied in the Declaration of Independence while premising such denial on the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which made slaves sub-human, and the Confederacy’s advancement of the doctrine of essential sovereignty, which allowed states to deny universal truths about human dignity and rights, with the right to life preeminent.
I implore you to someday actually read the Declaration. It might save you the public embarrassment of presuming superior knowledge yet remaining so ignorant as to be unable to grasp that it is you who apparently missed the defining vision of John Adams affirming everything I’ve been saying. In the very first Act of the film you may recall his remarks: “Let it be known that liberty is not the grant of prince or parliament. Rights are inherent and essential, self-evident maxims, established as preliminaries even before parliament existed. Our rights are derived from our creator. They stand on the principle that even the lowest are by the unalterable and indefeasible laws of God and nature well entitled to the benefit of the air to breath, light to see, food to eat. This is liberty!”
Unlike you, and with all your irrational presumptions notwithstanding, you are talking to an authentic conservative. I do not favor a federal government acting on powers not enumerated, such powers properly reserved to the states. But only a fascistic, Rino would act so gleeful and confident about his support for crimes against humanity such as abortion, crimes that include the snuffing out of babies who, after surviving attempts to crush their skull, get thrown into a cold metal container where they expire from neglect, dying the most excruciating painful death humanly possible. How is this the realization of their entitlement to the benefit of “air to breath, light to see, food to eat.”
The denial of the most preeminent human right, the right to life, and the support of mass murder is an act unworthy of a man. I publicly permit Raquel to forward my email address to you to arrange personal communication to establish a “time and place” so that we can both determine just what kind of man you are.
By Ed Baker on Feb 20, 2010
“Isn’t the tea party movement about stopping such corrupt nonsense?”
In a word – No.
First, there is nothing corrupt about taking PAC money. Every candidate does and it is perfectly legal.
Second, the tea party movement is about is and has been about oppressive taxation and gov’t debt run wild. Nothing else. Don’t try to tack on something like this for your own purposes.
Third, you keep repeating that they bought something. Finally a little clarification, you think they bought influence. Great, now we’re getting somewhere. Influence for what??
It seems most likely it was influence in the healthcare reform debate. That’s the kind of influence I support 100%. If they can turn a couple of democrats for a paltry 50k then I say more power to them. Go AMGA-PAC!!!
By Robert Hornak on Feb 20, 2010
Ed there is no point trying to have a civilized discussion with you, you are not civilized. Your tactics of name calling and bullying do not lend themselves to having an intelligent conversation, no matter how big the words or long the paragraphs you spew out.
Your knowledge of history is pathetic, almost as much as your analysis of same. Trying to talk to you is about as productive as listening to someone say, “I know you are but what am I?”
So, since you are unable to engage in any kind of rational discussion, I guess we are left with the only thing you seem to understand. I give Raquel permission to give you my home address and you can come down to the city where I will give your arrogant, pompous ass the longest ride back to Westchester you’ve ever had.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 20, 2010
Ed. don’t count on Robert being civilized. He has a long history of personal attacks and backbiting. He does not like it when you hit back, typical of a bully. And he is obsessed with social conservatives. His hatred is well known.
By Alice L. on Feb 20, 2010
Oh Alice, when will you learn its not social conservatives, it’s just YOU. And it’s not hatred, it is pity.
Although I can see you and Ed are like kindred spirits in your vitriolic hatred for anyone who dares disagree with you.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 20, 2010
You indulge many characterizations of my remarks, but can not address them. I can see you are a typical vitriolic hate-filled liberal, typical coward, and typically ignorant of American history.
And typically presumptuous. I live in Queens, not Westchester. And don’t be so sure about kicking the “crap” out of an old man who still bench presses 400 lbs. I look forward to meeting you.
By Ed Baker on Feb 20, 2010
Struggling to find a way to address your limited attention span, I’ll just break it down to
Reproducing the one series of questions I raised above, the sort of questions Adams would examine. If you’re a champion of liberty, define it coherently.
What is the nature of a right? Where does a right come from? Is there ever such a thing a false claim to a right? Are human beings ever phony in their claims for a right? Are human beings ever evil? Do they ever use the language of rights to justify doing evil things? What is meant by a crime against humanity? Are you personally capable of recognizing a crime against humanity? What is the legal and moral basis for describing a human act as a crime against humanity? What is the distinction between a legal right and a moral right? What is the distinction between a legal right and a human right? Do people ever conflate the two for reasons that are foolish? For reasons innocently foolish? For reasons inherently evil? Does the judiciary, any judiciary, ever engage in the usurpation of democratic processes by arbitrarily invoking a made up right? If so, on what basis would a democratic response have to argue against such an abuse of judicial power?
By Ed Baker on Feb 20, 2010
I have been reading these blogs for some time, and like the newspaper columns that they had sprung from, and the source materials used to maintain their sensabilities, sometimes the responders go over the edge. But for a responder to have a ghost writer pen a response for him is way over the limit, because his other responses are not in the same style, not even in the same use of language, Somehow or other the responder had even forgotten the terms of his very own response. I think that you have gotten a HIT from the source of the big lie , being in, that if they say it enough, if it appears in print enough, then it must be true. Their comments to you, will end up in emails, and snail mailed missives, denoting their stand on issues that they are not involved in, but for blogged responses. Raquel, keep it up, your getting on their nerves, forcing them out in the open, and now they can become the targets. They have to watch out as more supeonas are on the way, in other matters they felt they had to get involved in. They have to understand that good lawyers aren’t free, and disbarment can be a curse for lawyers of all ages.
By the way, the RTL line in a race where the incumbant was unopposed didn’t make much of a diffrence, but if the candidate had an opponent, it was worth minus 5%, unless everyone in the district was a staunch RC.And the voting population was in the upper 10% of the country, in other words, not poor, not minority.
By Mitch Schwadron on Feb 21, 2010
Abortion is such a divisive issue that people of good conscience can be 100% sure that their position is absolutely correct.
.
Nan Hayworth, like so many of us and so many of the voters in NY’s 19th, is probably in the middle. We shudder at partial-birth, late-term abortions (but may accept that they are better than putting the mother’s life in danger). It’s an awful form of birth control, so we hope/wish that education and alternative methods of preventing pregnancy are available. And yet in the case of incest and rape, we hope that some sort of morning-after pregnancy termination is legal and available.
.
As a fiscal conservative and someone respects the principles of my neighbors (even when I don’t agree with them), I don’t expect that taxpayers should subsidize abortions or any other medical procedure that that they don’t agree with.
.
For all of the above reasons, I like Nan Hayworth for Congress. Like Scott Brown, who presented a principled, primarily laissez-faire opinion (let States decide), it appears that Dr. Hayworth does NOT favor government subsidization of abortion via a national demo-lib health care takeover.
.
It’s all about 51%, yes? So unless you live in Texas and Mississippi and can assemble candidates who, reflecting the general consensus of their State or District, a strict pro-life no-abortion-allowed ever candidate will probably NEVER win in the Northeast.
.
Nan Hayworth CAN win a seat in Congress and then work towards a health care system that is more affordable but also reflects the personal conscience of everyone. Given politics is the art of the possible, I think she’s a great choice.
By Doug R on Feb 21, 2010
Robert, give it up. Your hatred for social conservatives is well known in Queens County. And, we feel pity for you – you tossed away your morals and your values a long time ago when you began your crusade against a valuable part of the GOP coalition. And, I have it on good authority that Ms. Hayworth’s husband doth protest too much.
By Alice L. on Feb 21, 2010
We are sick of RINOS such as Hornak trying to call the shots. He will do for Hayworth what he did for Tedisco – sink her with his vitriol and nastiness. The boy can’t help it.
By Alice L. on Feb 21, 2010
Thanks for your comment Doug.
I think the district is ripe for a pro-life candidate this time around.
Sue Kelly’s tenure may have worked out well with an official “pro-choice” position, but I think this eletion cycle has people motivated in a way they weren’t before, including within the pro-life community.
The chances of electing a pro-life — conservative to Congress are greater now and I think the better option.
By Raquel on Feb 22, 2010
Raquel, there is an old adage in politics, you have to have someone to beat someone. If you have a candidate you like better, I strongly support your right to get out there and help that candidate. That’s what primaries are all about.
But it should be about promoting your choice (see, I am consistently pro-choice) and not about tearing the other candidate down (or the candidates husband). Using a scorched earth campaign against fellow republicans is what the democrats love to see.
Then who ever wins the primary should enjoy the unity of the republican party to push him or her over the top and win one for the team.
Alice, I have many, many friends who are social conservatives. It is not them, it is just you. You and only you. And its not hatred, once again, it is pity. I’ve tried to make peace with you numerous times. You refuse and continue your obsession with me and my pro-choice beliefs.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 22, 2010
Ed, you can’t have it both ways. Either you are a supporter of liberty or not. Only a true liberal immediately resorts to threats of force to back up his positions.
Choose, do you want to have a civil debate or an insult match or a fight. I don’t back down easily and am not frightened by how much you bench press. The bigger they are the harder they fall. Or maybe you win the fight, don’t worry I’ll get my good shots in. Either way, what have you proven? Other than you don’t respect another persons freedom to express their beliefs. I know it’s rather childish, but I will sink to your level if you prefer.
Or we can have a civilized debate. I will respect your right to your opinion if you respect mine. Choose.
By Robert Hornak on Feb 22, 2010
Robert, I never stopped any debate. I have consistently and repeatedly described the specific antecedents necessary to examine the meaning of liberty, as well as some questions, values and arguments expressed by the founders, who were well grounded in the history of Western philosophy and examined questions related to the very meaning of liberty at great length in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and that document you trivialize as “a divorce decree.” (I hope you don’t ever plan to run for political office. Even Democrats know the founding document of both America and conservatism is more than a divorce decree. Imagine if the press got hold of your trivialization?)
The definition of liberty is not what some of today’s shallow adolescents might describe as “doin what ya wanna do.”
I repeatedly invited you to encounter some very specific non-frivolous thought of America’s founders. I doubt that you read my remarks because you certainly avoided examining them. You did not respond to a single specific argument but merely indulged broad characterizations of the arguments.
You repeatedly insist I am ignorant of history while avoiding my questions. (Incidentally, My 12 seven foot bookcases half filled with texts of American history alone would tend to disagree with you. So would my former students. So would my very specific arguments.)
Let’s see if we can pare it down to a very few simple questions. Are there such things as universal wrongs, and can a civilization legitimately protect itself from the consequences of universal wrongs? (Example: Does a civilization have a right to stop an arsonist from pursuing what he might believe to be his art form?)
Is there such a thing as natural law or a divinely endowed human condition? You say I failed to understand the life of Adams from having read 14 books about his life alone and that I must yield to your superior knowledge based on your having watched television.
Tell us all precisely what you think he meant when he said: “Let it be known that liberty is not the grant of prince or parliament. Rights are inherent and essential, self-evident maxims, established as preliminaries even before parliament existed. Our rights are derived from our creator. They stand on the principle that even the lowest are by the unalterable and indefeasible laws of God and nature well entitled to the benefit of the air to breath, light to see, food to eat. This is liberty!”
Finally: Does a living breathing baby surviving an abortion, then thrown into a container to die a painful death, have any human rights?
By Ed Baker on Feb 23, 2010
Robert, your attacks on pro lifers (“a radical fringe”) show where you are coming from. You have never attempted a “friendship” because you continued your attacks. What you don’t like is when people respond to you. This is called bullying. And you show a lot of contempt for people and disrespect. People have problems with Hayworth and her spouse. Get used to it. The person with the obsession is the one who keeps calling pro lifers “radicals” and a “fringe group”. We happen to be the majority of the GOP and the majority of American citizens now. You are in the minority. It is very puzzling why you cling to your “pro choice” beliefs. I keep saying that people who are so vehemently “pro choice” have personal reasons for it. And that is sad!
By Alice L. on Feb 23, 2010
The CEO of the Mount Kisco Medical Group, Dr. Scott Hayworth, has denied that the facility he manages is an abortion clinic.
Many other questions have been raised here that demand greater attention. I’m worried that Republicans have nationally lost sight of Reagan and his populist edge. Sadly, the tea party movement is being maligned ruthlessly by the liberal news media and Democrats. Worse, it is being maligned by some Republicans too politically correct to trust their own shadows.
And that’s why the 19th is so important.
That’s also why the issue of directly responding to questions about abortion can be as important.
People in New York and throughout the United States want responsive candidates and public servants. They want a comfort level with the message and the mission. They want to believe that the “To Do” list with be finished by those they elect.
Nan Hayworth could be talking about the politics of leachate and be a rabid environmentalist and if she can’t find the “through line of action” to communicate the endgame, people aren’t drawn to her.
She stumbled this way over her membership in the NRA. She was scripted, carefully, and she carefully spoke … and there was no gravitatas.
Now we have an issue of abortion leaching into the conversation and Nan has not responded. She’s frozen, obviously, or been advised to shut up. That’s control freak politics at its best and worst. It’s something else too.
It’s fear and self-loathing.
I am always amazed how many Republicans don’t like being a Republican on the issues that matter to their neighbors and friends and family. It’s as if a split personality comes up, like a dual set of financials for a business, a “bait and switch” on the reality that substitutes a convenient perception.
It doesn’t make it true.
PAC money bought contemporaries of Nan Hayworth something …
Also, abortion may possibly be an integral part of her livelihood. Now that might not be an issue but she makes it an issue by being unable to articulate an answer.
Her husband’s letter was not an answer. It was Clintonesque, probably written by his wife’s political consultant and danced around the issue.
If there is one thing we know about the voters right now, they are sick of politicians dancing.
Is it an abortion clinic or not?
By Bob Fois on Feb 25, 2010
I can’t agree with you more Bob.
New York State Republicans are dancing around faster than the energizer bunny.
Who are we to dare question their authority?
This is not the election year to be acting like Kings of a Monarch. What they need to do is Shut Up and Listen for once.
I second your question Bob, and I call on the People to respond as well:
Is it an abortion clinic or not?
By Raquel on Feb 25, 2010
I see nothing wrong with pointing out a potential conflict of interest, even if it ultimately proves to be false. For me, the issue ultimately comes down to which candidate best represents my values (purely theoretical in this case, since this isn’t my district). Even assuming every word Dr. Hayworth wrote is true, I would never vote for any candidate who supports unlimited abortion. Period. Even if her opponent supports unlimited abortion later in pregnancy, I would think there would be someone willing to represent the district who respects life at ALL stages. I don’t expect to agree with any candidate on every issue, but for someone like me who view the willful destruction of a million innocent lives a year as unspeakably evil, this is not an issue I can overlook. I have admitted elsewhere in Raquel’s blog that I would vote for a tax-and-spend pro-lifer before I pulled the lever for a fiscal conservative who values convenience over life and has no problem with an annual body count of one million. I don’t expect everyone to share my values, but certainly there is a faction within the Republican party that does. Just my 2 cents!
By Paula on Feb 26, 2010
Excellent post, Paula – as usual. Robert and his ilk just do not value life very much. And apparently neither does the Hayworth family.
By Alice L. on Feb 26, 2010
This reminds me of the time when, on the awful UE site, the three women took on two “gentlemen” whose names will not be mentioned. It must have been difficult for them to not be able to run over me. Hornak is into bullying and intimidation.
By Alice L. on Feb 26, 2010