Arizona Right to Life Endorses....McCain? Huh?

Despite my prediction days ago that Arizona Right to Life PAC would endorse the far more pro-life JD Hayworth over John McCain, sadly AZRTL PAC did not. 

As a former Chairman of the PAC, I can only wonder if some untoward influences came into play that lead to this misguided endorsement.  For instance, one of the members of the PAC is a member of a law firm that represented McCain in legal matters. And at least one member of the PAC has personal ties to the McCain campaign.  Further, the Senator has also been a long time financial contributor to AZRTL, generosity that's always appreciated, but was appropriately discounted in 2008 when I was Chairman and the PAC endorsed Mike Huckabee.  

In its press release, AZRTL PAC states, "Under the AZRTL PAC criteria for endorsing candidates, if the incumbent candidate and the challenger both have a pro-life voting record, AzRTL PAC will endorse the incumbent over the challenger."  That language never existed in any document I ever saw as Chairman, and is ridiculous on its face as any incumbent could be found to be pro-life on some issue.  Would AZRTL PAC endorse an incumbent with a 2% NLRC rating?  I hope not. It's the level of their commitment, and the consistency of the candidate's positions that count, not their mere incumbency. After all, we're working to save lives here, and each one should matter. Moreover in 2008, like now, John McCain had an inferior pro-life record to a more committed opponent. The PAC did the right thing then in endorsing the stronger pro-life candidate, why not now?

Ironically, the press release from AZRTL PAC states, " Those who serve in public office have a duty to use their office to protect and defend innocent human life and ensure that laws are passed to protect the defenseless in our society."  Yet John McCain has made many questionable statements about Roe v. Wade, and supports embryonic stem cell research.  McCain has a 75% approval ranking for National Right to Life Committee.  JD Hayworth, on the other hand, has a 100% ranking, and by any objective standard, deserved the endorsement from Arizona's oldest and largest pro-life organization.   

Arizona Right to Life has had troubles over the last few months with several key people resigning.  It is my understanding as well that a member of the PAC resigned after being unable to convince other PAC members to endorse Hayworth. (In the interest of full disclosure, she does work for the Hayworth campaign, but has for many years questioned McCain's pro-life commitment, and was instrumental in endorsing Huckabee over McCain in 2008.)  In addition, I'm being told that other key supporters of the organization, including former Board members, are distancing themselves from the organization as a result.

I'm a fan of AZRTL, and I hope the organization gets its act together, but this endorsement is a black mark on the 30 plus year legacy of pro-life leadership. The pro-life citizens of Arizona might just be better served by a new organization, unadulterated by political ties and financial donations from the people it may endorse.

Comments

[Jen]

Interestingly enough that "policy" is different than what I was *repeatedly* told, over YEARS of employment there. It was ALWAYS stated that incumbency only matters when ALL OTHER FACTORS are equal.

They've also said that a candidate WITH a voting record, who votes against measures to protect life from infanticide, abortion, euthanasia, etc, will lead them to question said candidate's commitment to life.

You're being kinder than I am in saying that you're a fan of them. For my part, I am embarrassed of my former association with them, as I don't want to be guilty by association of ever having such absurd logic or such low standards in making life or death decisions like this.

[Patrick]

AZRTL is an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. They should follow the directives of the national organization. They have deviated from them in a very serious matter here. It is incumbent on the NRLC to put that right and to hold those responsible to account for this egregiously un pro life act. It is also grossly unfair to a staunch pro life politician like Heyworth. NRLC, please take the necessary action.

[OperationCounterstrike]

There will be PAYBACK for the murder of Dr. Tiller.

There will be COUNTERTERROR against right-to-lifers.

operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com

[Larry]

Thanks operation counter striker! Your comment just proves the evil nature of your satanic, racist and murderous movement. Keep helping us!

[Bob Enyart]

Well, according to the Exceptions Calculator link at http://prolifeprofiles.com/cwa
McCain has only advocated killing 15,469,000 innocent kids. Guess Arizona right to life has a high genocide tolerance.

[Karen S.]

Such a shame that an organization such as AZRTL has been infiltrated by compromise, towards the very beings, by their vulnerability, who should never fall victim to such.

McCain's liberal record speaks for himself. His past campaigns have been funded by George Soros. He is dangerous, especially to the 15,469,000 (and counting) Bob E notes above.

[Mike Lane]

First, I think the comment by OperationCounterStrike should be reported to the police. It is clearly a threat.

Second, Patrick, NRLC is notorious for endorsing candidates in the same way ARTL has done. It has no set standards. They will endorse the candidate who is a mere .01 percent more anti-baby killing than the opponent.

It seems there should be a basic, minimum standard before an "endorsement" should even be considered. Otherwise, it cheapens the word. Maybe pro-life groups could do "endorsements" AND "preferences." In other words, candidates who don't meet the minimal standard could get some sort of label that shows them to be slightly better than the other guy but not worthy of an official and actual endorsement.

Why is the pro-life movement the only one that operates in such an ineffective way? This is one time where we can learn from the opposition. Our endorsement should be WANTED--almost begged for. It should be hard to get. Not handed out so cheaply. After all, Jon Kyl and John McCain would both get the same "endorsement" but Kyl is FAR more pro-life than McCain--if McCain can actually be called "pro-life," since the definition of that word has been cheapened, too.

[Refurbished computers cheap]

The blog provides helpful information regarding the topic and it also gives a vast knowledge as well which helps us in our studies and in practical life.

[Nike Dunk High Heel]

In its press release, AZRTL PAC states, "Under the AZRTL PAC criteria for endorsing candidates, if the incumbent candidate and the challenger both have a pro-life voting record, AzRTL PAC will endorse the incumbent over the challenger." That language never existed in any document I ever saw as Chairman, and is ridiculous on its face as any incumbent could be found to be pro-life on some issue. Would AZRTL PAC endorse an incumbent with a 2% NLRC rating? I hope not. It's the level of their commitment, and the consistency of the candidate's positions that count, not their mere incumbency. After all, we're working to save lives here, and each one should matter. Moreover in 2008, like now, John McCain had an inferior pro-life record to a more committed opponent. The PAC did the right thing then in endorsing the stronger pro-life candidate, why not now?