Senator Chris McDaniel To Appeal Judge’s Decision

Chris

Today lawyers for Senator Chris McDaniel have filed a notice of appeal, indicating that they are, in fact, sending the case to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  Senator McDaniel has vowed to fight on!  And we are glad to hear it.

In the Clarion Ledger today, Geoff Pender discussed the crux of the case:

“An appeal of the lower court ruling in an election challenge by law goes to the state Supreme Court.

“McGehee agreed with Cochran attorneys that a 1959 state Supreme Court ruling is ‘still good law,’ and imposes a deadline of 20 days after the election for filing a challenge, first with the state Republican Party.

“McDaniel attorneys argued that election laws had been changed since 1959, particularly with a 1986 overhaul, and the 1959 ‘Kellum’ ruling was moot. The judge disagreed, saying the laws on challenging primary elections were substantially the same as at the time of the ruling.

“McDaniel lead attorney Mitch Tyner on Friday said: ‘We continue to be confident that when Senator McDaniel’s challenge is heard on the merits it will change the results of the Republican primary. Republicans should be allowed to choose their nominee without influence or raiding by Democrats. We are disappointed Senator McDaniel’s challenge has been delayed, but since we followed the current statutes in filing the challenge, we expect the Supreme Court to allow us to proceed on the merits.'”

After the announcement, the Senator posted this picture on his Facebook page:

10418205_251411861735394_1925519661927803975_n

And when he did the rats crawled out from under their rocks!  Senator McDaniel quoted a great man of God, which captures his resolve to fight on against any and all obstacles, and now he is being slammed for it, though it is from the same group of hacks who hate him anyway, so nothing really new here.  (By the way Y’all Politics, it’s Adolf, not Adolph!)

But seeing the criticism this picture sparked reminded me of something Senator McDaniel said on the campaign trail, speaking of his many critics:  “If they saw me walking on water, they would say it’s because I can’t swim!”

Imagine the flaming darts this man has taken throughout all these many months in his quest to defeat Thad Cochran.  And people have the gall to say he won’t fight in Washington!  He’s fought harder than Thad Cochran ever has and the fight goes on!

Read the notice of appeal here: McDaniel v. Cochran Notice of Appeal

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Fight, Chris, fight!!!! Remember Mississippi!!!

  2. frank gordon says:

    A politician consults. A politician compromises. A STATESMAN never quits. A STATESMAN stands his ground and NEVER YIELDS.

  3. I CALL ATTENTION TO THE UTTER SHAMELESSNESS AND SHAMEFULNESS OF THE USE OF THIS BONHOFFER QUOTATION. WHAT AN INAPPROPRIATE USE OF A STATMENT MADE BY A MAN WHO DIED AT THE HANDS OF THE NAZIS. THE USE OF THIS QUOTATION AS THOUGH IT HAS AN APPLICATION AT ALL TO THE MS SENATE RACE AND TO HIS SUIT AGAINST SENATOR CHOCHRAN SHOWS IGNORANCE OF BONHOEFFER AND A GREAT LACK OF MORAL SENSE. ANYONE WHO KNOWS BONHOEFERS LIFE KNOWS THAT THIS USE OF THE QUOTATION IS DISRESPECFUL OF A GREAT MAN. TO DEFEND HIS USE OF BONHOEFFER, ONCE ONE KNOWS BETTER AS THE OWNER OF MISSISSIPPI CONSERVATIVE DAILY NOW DOES IS TO DOUBLE DOWN ON WHAT IS INDEFENSIBLE.

  4. Just a simple matter of honesty, that’s all, Nobody appointed me the morality police. Maybe you don’t care about the historical significance of Bonhoeffer, what he said, what he did, and how he died. I do. You would think a candidate had talked about honesty and integrity and right as much as McDaniel has would have more respect for Bonhoeffer that this despicable use of what said. More and more I think it is time for someone to say to McDaniel, and to you, if you defend his use of the quote, what Joe Welch said when Joe McCarthy attacked the US Army: “Sir, have you no shame?”

    • Well that’s how you are acting! And yes we do know about Bonhoeffer and we care very much! One of our writers has been to Germany, studied there, and visited the death camps. We here at MCD have a hatred of Nazism and all forms of tyranny but there’s nothing wrong with using that quote.

      • William Smith says:

        Frankly I still wonder if there are grownups there. When you double down on something so clearly indecent there has to be something wrong. Maybe it’s just judgmen overcome by anger.

  5. Janie Gebheim says:

    “William Smith” — you obviously don’t understand why Rev. Bonhoeffer said this. He was reminding Germans that they were complicit in Hitler’s evil, because they were guilty of not acting or saying anything against the evil present in Hitler and his administration. Just as you are guilty of trying to keep the truth hidden by not saying anything about the evil present in today’s Establishment GOP. Have YOU no shame?

  6. frank gordon says:

    There are no “shades” of Evil. There is not some lighter type of Evil that can be negotiated or compromised with. Evil must be purged. Evil must be annihilated. There can be no pity for Evil. The only terms for dealing with Evil is that Evil MUST CEASE TO EXIST.

    Chris McDaniel is fighting EVIL. He is fighting the most diabolical force in existence in this universe since the beginning of time. And he will not yield an inch or a millimeter. This is not the time for compromise. This is the time for complete Victory and complete DESTRUCTION of the EVIL ENEMY.

    • Hey Frank:
      What is the evil “most diabolical force in existence in the universe since the beginning of time” to which you refer that Chris needs to be fighting? And what does such a force have to do with a MS primary election contest?
      Pappy

      • frank gordon says:

        I will attempt to explain. Did you ever think that John the Baptist did not have to die? He could have been a politician. He could have compromised with the King and Salome. He might have justified in his mind and said “Yes, these are bad people. But maybe they are not TOTALLY bad. So maybe we should all just get along”. And then his head would not have ended up on the bronze dinner plate.

        What they have done to Chris McDaniel is simply despicable. Never has a Statesman been treated so unfairly. What they did is worse than a lynching. What they did is a crucifixion.

  7. Frank, I hope you wrote that in the heat of the moment. To compare John the Baptist a Prophet and forerunner of our Lord and his mission which included confronting the Herod, with Sen. McDaniel and his poliical campaign is to misundersand John the Baptist’s place God’s saving work and the evil he confronted. To say that what was done to McDaniel (however you conceive what that is) is worse than a lynching trivializes the sad and despiscable murdesr of Black people. To compare that to the crucifixion of our Lord borders on the blasphemous. To think that the evil Bohoeffer contfronted and which executed him is comparable to what McDaniel’s challenge of the election is lacking in both historical and moral understanding. I understand you are angry, but I do hope you will think about the way to express that anger in your quote above.

  8. What the McDaniel campaign did was to triviailize what Bonheoffer said and show disrespect for the man, his life, and his death. This cannot be dismissed by saying people differ about theology or that the quote can be lifted out of its historical conetext and applied to any conflict of our choosing. The fact is that Bohoeffer was speaking about the Nazi regime, and he would ultimately be executed by that regime. The great majority of McDaniel followers do not know that. They read “evil” as “Thad Cochran” or “stolen election.” They read “to speak” and “to act” as what McDaniel is doing with his challenge. McDaniel who, I understand, is a religious man, should not countenance this use of Bonhoeffer by his staff. That is, unless he has convinced himself tha that comparions are apropos. In that case he has deluded himself perhaps because of his anger which he believes is righteous anger. At any rate, a little wisdom would have led him to order his staff to take the quote and picture down, and, a brief statement to the effect that he is sorry that his staff made this mistake and that he respects Bohoeffer and that he is sure that his staff meant no disrespect. Instead it appearst that whoever is in charge, whether McDaniel or his staff, has chosen t double down on the inappropriate use of Bonhoeffer. 

  9. Mary O'Gwynn says:

    I’ve quoted Bonhoeffer in my newspaper column. Gee Whiz … I forgot to consult William Smith before I did that. Hurrumph …

  10. McDaniel has become a man without shame. He has now removed from the comments section the comments of those who questioned the appropriateness of his use of the Bonhoeffer quote, including he comments of a rabbi, while leaving up the comments of those who assured him that he was right to use the quote. It looks more and more like this is a campaign lacking a moral rudder.

  11. Verbose…thy name is William Smith. You are distorting all the facts; denying the truth and condemning all who believe strongly in Conservatism. And who also believe in the democratic process that each person shall have an equal vote. That does not include all illegal votes. We were robbed and we are attempting to find someone within the legal process who will recognize the dangers if this wrong is not righted.
    To see the obvious people(names, etc.)of those who voted in the June 3rd Primary and then voted in the GOP ONLY Run-off is the same as voting twice. Can’t you just understand that simple truth and not try to deny it? The MS GOP has been hijacked by those who are benefitting financially by corporate contributions and government contracts…they have sold their soul for the $$$$$. We who support McDaniel have not. So where does that put you?

  12. Catty, you are right. I am verbose. You ask where this puts me. I have been a conservative all my life, having registered as a Republican when I first became eligible to vote which was about 45 years ago. I supported Goldwater before I could vote. I am a Reagan conservative, but not a McDaniel conservative. I care a great deal about MS and about advancing conservatism. I am not for an insurgency that tries to overnturn the hard work done by the conservatives who built the GOPi in MS. I think Thad Cochran has done a pretty good (not perfect) job for MS and for the US. I do not think the election was stolen. I am troubled by way McDaniel and those who call themselves the “true conservatives” (whose self-designation I do not accept as accurate) have turned an intramurral argument (that is, among Republicans) into a religious/moral war.Whoever runs this website thinks that makes me a liberal.

    • Having read your post on doubling-down, it seems clear you are not a liberal; my apologies that some folks here are calling you names. As you may have gathered by now, people here are VERY upset over the entire 2014 cycle. As a person who backed Goldwater and Reagan, certainly I must say I am surprised that you are not in the McDaniel camp. You sound like one of the “true conservatives” to me, but that is mostly a meaningless phrase (every repub thinks they are a “true conservative” just like everybody thinks they are an above-average auto-driver … grin).

      As to your larger point, though, you are simply wrong. The current battle is, in fact, no longer just an intramural scrimmage between the tea-faction and the insider-faction, as you call the pro-Barbour folks in the repub party of MS. There was a point at which the contest did become larger than one seat: in my mind, that point was reached when Henry Barbour, young lobbyist nephew of Haley, who cut his teeth making pork from Katrina, doubled down. Although at first he denied involvement, once he was caught funding the race-baiting adverts, he doubled down: according to Henry Barbour, not only did he pay for adverts saying the tea-party inherently racist, and intent on keeping minorities from voting, he now says those adverts were truth, not falsehoods. In other words, the “untrue” things the dems have been saying about the tea party, are now in fact “true”.

      McDaniel is a fighter. He does not back down. Those smears are false, and McDaniel knows it, and even Henry Barbour knows it (despite refusing to admit it). McDaniel likes to quote Churchill, because just like himself, the man was a fighter, who refused to back down. McDaniel has now quoted Bonhoeffer, in a way that you say is “inappropriate” because presumably you don’t like the implied comparison to the Nazis. Your unhappiness with the implied comparison is not amiss; but do you also get uncomfy when Churchill is quoted? Or when people quote Thomas Jefferson, for that matter, about the blood of patriots and tyrants? In other words, you are complaining that pro-McDaniel folks are taking this whole thing too seriously. After all, what are a few little allegations of vote-buying, amongst friends engaged in a jolly little intramural scrimmage? (Okay: that was probably a bit unfair. But I hope you take my point, that those are SERIOUS allegations that ought to be investigated seriously, not laughed off, not bypassed on a procedural technicality, and *certainly* not tacitly accepted as “just politics” in the Mississippi style.)

      At the same time as you complain that pro-McDaniel folks are taking things “too seriously” you yourself are taking things too seriously. Just take the quote from Bonhoeffer at face value: all it says, is that if you see something wrong, don’t sit silent while it happens, speak out. That is a fine sentiment. Falsely smearing innocent people as racists is evil. Doubling-down, and saying the smears are true, is evil. Cf, bearing false witness. Buying votes — if the allegations turn out to be true — would also be evil. Those actions are not just things I disagree with, in the way that I disagree with the Farm Bill as being too full of pork to deserve an aye-vote. Reasonable people can differ on whether the Farm Bill is a ‘good’ compromise with the dem-controlled senate and presidency, or a ‘bad’ surrender-disguised-as-compromise. Cochran says the former, McDaniel says it is more like the latter. But it would be pretty unreasonable to call the Farm Bill flat-out evil; it is money wasted, and it is immorally driving future generations deeper into debt to pay for us to live high on the hog, but it is not “true evil” methinks. Calling me a racist, when I am not, is evil, especially when you only double-down after getting caught. Encouraging illegal double-votes, and invalid absentee-votes, and violation of the intent-law (MS only has semi-open primaries despite your claim that they are fully open) might be forgiven if it were corrected, and ideally apologized for, but instead it has been allowed to stand: that is injustice, because the bad guys win.

      You are not a bad guy; voting for Cochran, in the primary, or in the runoff, or even this November, does not make you bad. But you have to take the quote at face value, and stop pretending it is about the Nazis, when it is just a quote about passively permitting injustice to occur. Part of the reason the quote makes you uncomfy, is that you feel it is aimed at you, personally. Well… to be frank, it is aimed at people who supported Cochran before, and support him now, and care not about justice. That is NOT moral behavior. So at the end of the day, there is a battle for the soul of the party, and it is ongoing. Either the champion of liberty & justice for all will be defeated, or the champions of pork & bipartisanship for insiders will be defeated. You and I are not those champions; we are just supporters of opposite factions, at present. This is not a battle to OUR deaths; but it is a battle, and the stakes are high. Not to speak out against evil, is a choice. Not to act to thwart evil, is a choice. I’d

      The battle between the factions really is about defining the soul of the repub party; it is the difference between what Reagan said in 1980, and what Reagan had to do with a solidly-dem-controlled legislature. If you supported Goldwater, then you are probably a fan of what Reagan said, not necessarily of every single thing he did (some of his compromises were good but others were not so good… as Reagan himself was careful to point out in his farewell address and RNC’88 speech). That makes you an allied force for The Good, in my book. The repub party will be renewed during the coming decade: more and more Reaganites will appear, most of them too young to remember Goldwater personally, or even Reagan, but in tune with their ideology, in a way most youngsters of the 1960s were not (you being the exception that proves the rule). As part of that renewal, many of the people who ran the repub party during the time from FDR through the time of Obama, will fall by the wayside. Thad Cochran did pretty well, in the 1980s and 1990s, given the hand he was dealt. But he is no Ted Cruz, he is no Rand Paul, he is no Tim Scott, he is not even a Marco Rubio… the younger generation of Senators are tea-party-types, and Thad Cochran is not that. The younger generation of grassroots folks are tea-party-types and thus McDaniel repubs.

      Does that mean that McDaniel was chosen by the lord, to be Senator? Nope. Does it mean he will win? Nope. Does it mean he will never make mistakes? Nope. But the slogan that folks should speak out against evil, and that folks should take action to thwart evil, is a GOOD slogan. It is appropriate, even if you don’t like the historical backstory. There were some things that happened in Mississippi during 2014 that I can properly characterize as evil, things I never *ever* want to see in a repub primary, in the years to come. Falsely smearing entire subfactions of the repub party as racists, and doing so with the intent to pervert the election-process by spreading fear and hate. Those are NOT tactics of the party of Reagan, and those tactics must be fought against, even if it would be “wise” in some realpolitick sense to just fold the cards. We know full well the deck is stacked against us. We know full well that chances of success are slim. So does McDaniel, for that matter! But just like Churchill, he will fight on, and never surrender, because the cause of liberty is worth fighting for.

      You personally need not join this fight, if you think McDaniel is the incorrect champion, or if you do not believe the battle can be won and would rather devote your efforts elsewhere. It is still (mostly) a free country. But please, do not choose to be silent: you saw a quote that you thought was inappropriate, and you spoke out. That is a good thing. Have you seen the hundreds of pages of evidence, and spoken out about them? Have you asked your local county committee to investigate the charges, or your SREC member? Do you believe all tea-party folks are racists? If not, say so. That is not just fair and morally right, it is enough to heal the rift, if done well. None of the champions on the pro-Cochran side have had the gumption to say, one way or the other, that using race as a wedge-issue is wrong, and that drumming up racial fear is wrong, and that the tea party is not composed entirely of racists. If you believe those things are just peachy, stay silent. If you think those things are inappropriate, or bad tactics, or morally wrong, or flat-out evil, then step forth and say so. It would help.

      p.s. You are not the only one who can be verbose! I hope that my long missive helps explain things to you, and I do appreciate your trying to calm the storm a bit here, because sometimes the commentary gets out of hand with frustration. But this is a storm that will rage on for many years yet methinks. The party is changing, no doubt about it — either to root out the Goldwater types as happened after 1964, or to root out the Cochran types, and see a rebirth of constitutionalism. Reagan must not be the last hurrah for the ideology of limited government and maximized individual liberty. Best wishes to you, until we meet again.

  13. Oh, now we are subverting the stolen election into a religious war! Obviously you have never been successful at putting across a point or in knowing how to debate an issue. All you do is confuse, accuse and try to ride the high horse out of town. Stick to the facts: Most Republicans in MS voted for Chris McDaniel in the Run Off. Many votes were illegal votes…other issues like not running the money from the Republican Senate Committee through the Cochran campaign and instead the money was doled out to Democratic operatives to use as race-baiting to get people to vote twice in the primaries is a clear violation of the FEC. According to your description of yourself you should be as outraged as the rest of us at what happened in the Run-Off. You should have been suspicious that the Democrats knew that Thad would be a lot easier than McDaniel to beat in the general election because they held a DC fund-raiser for him!!!!!!!!!. Repeat: The Democrats(see Podesta of Clinton’s era)held a fund-raiser for the incumbent Republican candidate. Doesn’t that tell you something is up? To the seasoned political writer this is a big, big clue but obviously you have chosen to ignore it and to try to discredit the actual facts. More Republicans in MS prefer Chis McDaniel and he would have been the winner if the Run Off was conducted within boundaries of our election laws. All of this smeared Cochran and exposed his age….nobody from McDaniel’s campaign ever said an unkind word about him. Now he won’t ever be a chairman of anything if the GOP takes the majority in the Senate. And we know he will resign soon and that his voters have no clue for whom they voted as the next senator from MS. What a mess!!!!

    • I suppose that seems to you to be rational and convincing, but it seems to me a lot of heat and little light. Invective and bare assertion, assertion does is not proof and invective is not rational argument. I am not as a Reagan-Goldwater Republican outraged except by the behavior of Senator McDaniel. I think what happened is that in accord with the election laws of MS Sen. McDaniel lost. I know that is disappointing and painful for him and for you. but we all have disappointing and painful things happend. I don’t know how much you have read of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan’s lives or political postions, but I am certain that neither would be a McDaniel man. He was just not their kind of candidate. I am all but certain they would both have come into MS to support the incumbent. But, the suit is now going to the Supreme Court, and I am happy to leave it there and see what happens. If the overturn Judge McGehee and order the case to be heard, then I will live with that and see what happens upon trial. How about you?

  14. Yes and no. The no comes with the knowledge of what did actually happen and how unlawful, how immoral the Barbours were in the campaign and how their actions have shamed our state. The no also is the decision by most of us not to support Thad based on the unacceptable conduct of the Barbour campaign. Thad is to be admired but knowing how much he is out of touch; knowing that he has become the puppet of Barbour changes the game. Those of us who vote Republican for everyone except Thad in November will be sending a big message to Barbours and all the so-called establishment(which we know to be expedient Progressives only interested in money and not the welfare of our state) that we would prefer the Democrat over the bully Progressive hiding as a Republican.
    Gov. Perry thinks he has hired a sharp political operative with fund-raising coattails but eventually this too may end up being very, very painful for Perry. The same distrust for Left-leaning populist Jeb Bush. We’ve had enough of their insistence on Dole, McCain and Romney….we want a true leader who is a Conservative instead. Reagan would be ashamed of them all and would call them out!

    • I am sorry you feel the way you do. It is obvious you do no know much about Reagan and how he conduced himself as a politician and Republican. But the Reagan record makes no difference to people who are angry and bitter and who are wlling slam any Republcan who does not agree with them. As I said you engage in invective, assertion, and now name calling of good solid Republicans. I think wha you and other McDaniel followers to not realize is that your principals are not conservative but radical – very different from Reagan who made nice will all Republicans and never supported insurgents like McDaniel and who was a real but pragmatic conservative. Reagan was a man of strength and goodwill who was willing to work with others in his party and even outside his party. McD and you are willing to burn down in order to show how mad you are. You won’t succeed in taking over the party but you may do a lot of damage that will have to be overcome by wise and solid Republicans. It’s one thing to lose. It’s one thing to be sad about it. It’s another thing when malice makes people irrational. This will just have to play out how it does with the Supreme Court and the general election in November. I trust that cooler heads will prevail in the end.

      • Let us say, for the sake of argument, that I know nothing about Reagan and Goldwater. You seem to be implying that he was a “cool head” of some sort, who worked with all repubs of all sorts, and never was anything but a “normal” repub who toed the party line. Is that what you are saying? If so, how do you reconcile that description, with the Reagan of 1976, who entered the primary to challenge a sitting repub incumbent POTUS? That is the party we want to see once again, the party of Reagan’76 and Reagan’80. To me, that is not “taking over” the repub party, that is retaking the party to the proper ideological roots. Rockefeller was the one who took over and shifted the party towards progressivism, interventionism, and so on, in my book. Am I wrong?

        As a related question, do you think Reagan would have approved of the ACU score of Thad Cochran, and Reagan would have disapproved of the ACU scores of Cruz/Rand/Lee/Scott? Methinks the opposite is true. (Or if you don’t like ACU then pick Heritage or ClubForGrowth or FreedomWorks or some other.)

  15. Re Reagan: the basic difference between Reagan and McDaniel is that Reagan was a pragmatic conserative while McDaniel is a purist conservative. Reagan was willing to negotiate and, yes, even compromise in the pursuit of his conservative priniciples and goals. A few examples. When he challenged Ford, he asked Richard Schweiker a moderate to liberal Senator from PA to be his running mate. He never tried to “cleanse” the party of those who were less conservative than he. He supported Ford when Ford got the nomination. When he got the nomination four years later he chose George H.W. Bush, whom he fought for the nominaion and whom the “real” conservatives today regard as a RINO, to be his VP. Reagan often reminded people of the 11th Commdandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” Of course, he did not mean you could not debate with or disagree with fellow Republicans but he believed in working with all those in the Party and he supported he Party nominees. He believed in Party unity.

    He worked with Democrats to get things done. He and Tip O’Neill, the Democrat Speaker, attacked one another in public statements, but they met in private, seemed to like one another, negotiated, struck compromises, and got things done.

    There is no doubt that he would never have joined in denoucning those who are being denounced at this site – Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, the two Bush presidents, Dole (BTW, Goldwater, late in life said to Dole: “Did you think we would live to be called “the liberals in the Party), McCain, Thad Cochran, etc.. Would he have agreed them on everyhing? Of course,not. But they are Republicans, and conservatives, and he would not denounce them. He would not want to cleanse the Party of them.

    What would Reagan think about Thad Cochran’s conservative ranking? He would recognize Thad as a conservative and ally. They would not have agreed on every issue, but I am sure he would have endorsed Thad and worked for his re-election.

    It’s worth noting that there no more of the old moderately liberal Republicans in the party: Hugh Scott, Ed Brooke, Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefelller, etc.

    I might note this, too. In 1960 there were great voting irregularities in the voting in IL. IL made the difference between Nixon and Kennedy winning. Nixon could have challenged the results and asked to be named the winner. But Nixon said he would not put the country thought that. He accepted the result and went back to private life.

    The Party that is wanted by the McD supporters is in my view not at all the Party of Reagan. Reagan made his speeches, laid ou his principles, worked for his goals, but he was not a supporter of insurgencies and he was a supporter of party unity. He was not an angry conservative but as had often been noted about him he was a sunny conservative.

    • Hey Guys:

      As to his pragmatism, let us not forget that when Reagan was governor of California, he signed into law the most sweeping pro-choice legislation on abortion in America because as a conservative, Reagan was concerned about promoting and protecting the liberty interests of women so that they would be able to choose how they should live and what medical decisions should be made regarding their bodies. He loathed having the government involved in the medical decision-making process, the same way most of us conservatives loathe having the government involved in our medical decisions today under Obamacare.

      Pappy

  16. Reagan changed on abortion. See Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation. Nancy no, RR yes. I think he was right when he changed.

    • Hey William:
      Actually according to his son, Reagan never changed in truth. Rather, Lee Atwater, Lyn Nofsinger, and Ed Rollins convinced Reagan to make his unholy alliance in 1980 with the Christian Collectivist Community, he pandered to the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. It was a cynical political ploy on the Gipper’s part that worked very well to insure that the Evangelical/Dixiecrat wing of the Old Democrat Party switched to the Republican Party. To be sure, it had short term success. However, as the last 6 Presidential election cycles, as well as the statewide elections continue to prove, the GOP has been paying for our sacrificing of a woman’s individual liberty right in order to reach out to those who would rather impose their moral views on the mainstream of society. Remember, Reagan was a professional actor and public spokesman for several large corporate entities before he ever entered the political field. Thus, even before he entered politics, RWR was in fact an accomplished panderer. He knew exactly how to address his audience and his listeners. Therefore, in reaching public office, he was able to apply his considerable people “handling” and communication skills, particularly in his appeal to evangelical Christians and other members of the Christian Collectivist Community. He was clever enough to tell them what they wanted to hear, but realistic enough to comprehend that their radical agenda would not fly in the political/real world. If my memory serves me correctly, it was Reagan’s gift for pandering that caused Ralph Reed, Falwell, and other Christianists to express their dissatisfaction of RWR’s administration toward the end of his second term, because of his failure and refusal to impose their radical social agenda on the nation as government policy.
      Pappy

  17. In May 1967, the Therapeutic Abortion Bill began to take shape. It was a measure to allow pregnant women to terminate embryos prejudicial to their “physical or mental health.” Reagan had to admit that he agreed with “the moral principle of self-defense.” If 100,000 California women were desperate enough to undergo illegal abortions every year, he could at least make it safer for some of them.
    He signed it into law. Only as abortion became an extension of welfare, would he wish he had paid more head to the bill’s manipulative language. The very word “Therapeutic” was a medical euphemism, sanitizing essentially bloody procedures. It defined “mental health” as at-risk if a pregnant teen went out and smashed windows. In common with the more liberal laws it was to spawn at state and federal levels, the Act ignored the feelings of fathers.
    Reagan was left with a sense of guilt. “If there is a question as to whether there is life or death, the doubt should be resolved in favor of life.”

  18. “I call America–a good nation, a moral people–to charitable but realistic consideration of the terrible cost of abortion on demand. To those who say this violates a woman’s right to control of her own body: Can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all Federal funding for abortion and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Our Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right of taking a life in self-defense. But with that one exception, let us look to those others in our land who cry out for children to adopt. I pledge to you tonight I will work to remove barriers to adoption and extend full sharing in family life to millions of Americans so that children who need homes can be welcomed to families who want them and love them.” RR

  19. “Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The “Dred Scott” decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain suppressed.”

  20. To think that Reagan was an actor who cynically hypocritically appealed to the moral-right based on political calculation is beyond belief. He changed his mind and, while some on the moral-right think he did not do enough, his sincerity cannot seriously be doubted. I am not a Falwell man or a religious right man, but I have no doubt that human babies are babies (persons) and that to take their lives is unjust and immoral. It’s not a question of imposing morals on someone unless you believe it imposes morals on someone to have laws against stealing or murder or a host of other things based on “values.” What you want to do, Pappy, is to elevate the right of a woman to terminate her pregancy for whatever reason she deems acceptable over the right of her baby to live. Reagan was not an absolute purist on abortion as he allowed for abortion if the life of the mother was threatened, but he leaned very far and hard to the side of the rights of unborn babies to live. I tend toward being a libertarian on a bunch of issues but not on making the decision to end a life. That is a bridge way too far.

  21. Hey William:
    Mui bien! You provide some excellent quotes by RWR. But again, at the risk of offending others, the Gipper knew how to pander to his audience. As you know, in politics, as in much of life, perception is everything. Therefore, we must ask ourselves, why did over: 1) 60% of single women; 2) 70% of Hispanics; and 90% of African-Americans vote for BHO on Nov. 6, despite his
    abysmal record? Was it the “classical” conservative messages of: freedom and liberty; or paying down the national debt without raising taxes; or making American healthcare available and affordable in the free market; or reforming Social Security and Medicare in order to keep them solvent for the future; or ending crony capitalism? OF COURSE NOT!! The answer is simple: the
    republican voter turnout was hampered because the conservative messages
    once again became entangled by the socialist conservatives and their kamikaze-like insistence in banning abortions, in opposing gay marriage and in pushing a return to so-called “traditional” values. To single women, people of color, and conservative libertarians, these are perception issues which
    strike at the very heart of what it means to live in a free and open society.
    Why is it that we conservatives are so determined to resist liberty for all of our fellow living, autonomous, and breathing women, even up to the point of threatening our own political extinction, before we are finally able to evolve and adapt accordingly? As to a cluster of cells or a fetus rising to the legal
    status of a “person” in order to be entitled to the protections afforded by the Constitution, please be advised that issue is a non-starter legally. To the best of my knowledge, every state that has considered defining fertilized egg or a fetus a “person”, every state INCLUDING MISSISSIPPI has refused to extend
    legal status accordingly.

    And yes, that sometimes involved telling them those things that he knew that they liked to hear. It’s called “POLITICS”. You may also recall that when President Reagan testified under oath about Oliver North and the Iran-Contra
    debacle, that he not only denied knowing anything about any aspect of the
    operation, he testified that he didn’t even know the identity of many of the participants, even though the whole operation had been planned and
    overseen by Col. North in the White House basement. The phrase “plausible deniability” was therefore a stretch even for RWR. So yes, it is very believable
    that Mr. Reagan would say one thing in order to pander to the Christian
    Collectivist Community, while on the other hand, believe and act differently. This is clear since during his administration, RWR made no effort to promote
    by executive order any efforts to impede a woman’s right to have access to
    safe abortion services. Again, for Reagan to have taken any affirmative action
    against women would have been contrary to his passion for liberty.
    I suspect that my comments are not shared by all of the readers of this site. However, we cannot stack Obamacare and the Left’s Progressive, liberty-squelching policies on the one hand, and then turn around and promote our own form of anti-liberty agenda. Perhaps, MCD will even sponsor an online debate on the topic of abortion since it can be so divisive among conservatives.
    Pappy

    • Hey Guys:
      Sorry, but my reply to William got garbled at the time of the posting. The site was going through some type of repair. Hopefully, you will understand the gist of it.
      Pappy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: