Sunday, May 08, 2005

Rockefeller Claims He is Now Pro-Life : Is He?

By Mark Moore (click 'comments' below for article).


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

The Democrat-Gazette has reported that Lt. Governor Win Rockefeller has sent out a letter that repeatedly stresses that he is now "pro-life". He says that the conversion occurred somewhere between 1998 and 2002. In the same letter, he attempted to take credit for the pro-life legislation passed by the Arkansas Senate. As Lt. Governor, Rockefeller does on occasion preside over the senate , but it is unclear what if anything he did to help the pro-life bills pass.

Understand that I am not taking sides in the Republican Primary for Governor. I have serious doubts about both of the candidates. It is just that I know something that bears on this situation. I think you ought to know about it to.

After the 2002 elections, I had lunch with a former state legislator who was a fan of Win Rockefeller. I told them that I could not support a politician who was not pro-life. In an effort to convince me to support Rockefeller, this person said Rockefeller had told her that if he were Governor and a pro-life bill came up then he would neither support it or oppose it. He would leave it on the desk unsigned until it became law.

If he indeed had a conversion on this issue "between 1998 and 2002" as he claims, I find it mighty odd that his supporters would be out shopping the idea, in late 2002, of him taking a strictly "hands off" position on the issue. It sure looks like he was trying to see how little pro-life support he could get away with and still get the GOP nomination.

I was once a Republican, and a Republican candidate. The State Executive Director told me to "Just say you are pro-life and don't say anything more about it." The reasoning seemed to be that this would get you pro-life support without offending too many middle-of-the-roaders (and big GOP donors) who back abortion. After all, he said of the pro-lifers, "Where else are they going to go?". (I eventually went, in disgust, to the Constitution Party

It just fits the pattern too well. Say you are pro-life when talking to pro-lifers, then don't say anything else about it, and certainly don't do anything. That way pro-life voters can feel good about themsleves and the abortionists can keep killing babies and everyone is happy- except the babies.

I am not looking to make enemies. I am looking to tell the truth, and if that gets me enemies then they are well-gotten indeed.


9:01 AM, May 08, 2005  
Blogger celtie said...

I received Win's campaign contribution letter recently, telling all about how pro-life he and his wife were, and how they had always been pro-life. I thought, "Yeah, right!" and threw it in the trash.

3:11 PM, May 08, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I belive Rockefeller to be pro life why? because he says he is ,
beware of pointing unfonded fingers or you may just wake up to a Mike Bebe /jimmie lou Fisher administration who will be whith out question Pro Chice, all Im saying is that its either Rockefeller or Hutchinson, you have to support one or just sit it out which makes no sense at all, Yea all this 3rd party stuff makes sense on paper , but we must first become a 2 party state before a 3rd even stands a chance , The Republican party looks pretty good to me , if you disagree get out of the 3rd district for a while and see that being non Democrate is blasphemy

10:42 PM, May 08, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Hey Anyonomous,

I will try to keep my fingers "unfonded". You seem to have a great capacity for trusting others. I am a little more jaded myself- I think a fellow who
1) held a planned parenthood fundraiser in his home....and

2) takes credit (in the very letter he tells us about his change of heart) for pro-life legislation that I know he had nothing or next to nothing to do with...and
3)discretely shops around a position that is short of being pro-life in a clear effort to ride the fence during the same time periodhe latter claims he had his "change of heart"...and
4) has supported the killing of babies throughout his career

.....might be willing to lie to me. Yes I can believe that. Or maybe he is lying to himself, as so many are. Because being "pro-life" in today's GOP has become merely a feeling in your heart, not a commitment to any action. It just means that you 'feel bad' that so many babies are getting ripped up, not that you would spend any precious political capital trying to stop any of it. In fact, you only mention your feelings when it will GAIN you political capital.

I can see him thinking "I can be 'pro-life' by saying I am pro-life when it helps me, I don't have to actually work to pass any laws that would stop women from getting their precious abortions, because in the GOP today 'being pro-life' just means you SAY you are pro-life.

I have lived out of the 3rd district (El Dorado, 9 years). I agree that we are not really a 2 party state. We are a 1 party state with the name of the party changing with the region. In NWA the 3rd party is Republican. In the rest of the state it is Democrat. So why couldn't the Constitution Party be the second party in each area of the state?

Why does there have to be a statewide 2nd party before there can be a third party? I don't follow your logic.

7:12 AM, May 09, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

basicly if the state will not accept a main stream party such as the republican a 3rd dosent stand a chance I am very pro life myself and people can change , Our president was once pro choice back in 1978 , It is important that our leaders be pro life , but on the state level what legislation can make a diffrence , we have to change it on the national before anything can be done on the state , my main concern is that we may give our state over to the democratic party if we have a very ugly primary this race will be won or lost in the primary both theses guys can beat bebe , Rockefeller has answered the carge I have no reason to doubt him , yet, living

11:38 AM, May 09, 2005  
Blogger jimmie said...

Rockefeller may have changed on the abortion issue. But I was offended by his pasted actions. And a borther offended is harder to win that a fenced city. I once hire Hutchinson for a job and he quit to take a better job. I can't trust him. If that is all the Repub's offer there best be a third party or I won't get to vote for my next governor.

3:18 PM, May 09, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe Im not seeing it , but you guys would rather give our state over to the libreals , its never alright to just sit one out ,

4:01 PM, May 09, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

There is always some point at which the moral person must 'sit it out' as you put it. I would put it "when given a choice between two evils, refuse to choose".

Let me ask you this anoyomous, If Hitler and Stalin were running against each other, which of them would you support? Everyone has SOMEPLACE they draw the line and say "I will not legitimize either of these with my vote".

And by the way, I don't intend to 'sit it out'. I intend to collect enough signatures (10,000) next late Winter and Spring to get the Constitution Party on the ballot.

6:55 PM, May 09, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hitler and stalin thats a little much , you seem to be reasonable and somewhat loyal I just feel the same way about the Republican party as you do the constitution party , It is your right to get a 3rd party canidate on the ballot , but you know they simply dont stand a chance. I live by the Republican party and ill die by the Republican party , My family and friends have been through to much down here in the 4th to ever abandon The party so call me a party hack , its the cold hard facts if your going to change our world the only vehicle remains the Republican Party

8:32 PM, May 09, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

I believe that the Constitution Party of Arkansas should find a Independent Candidate for Governor.
A candidate who believes in God, and will uphold the Constitution.
Arkansas really needs a Governor that supports true political reform.

9:21 PM, May 09, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I DON'T want to call you a "hack" or any other demeaning name. I understand your feelings, even if I cannot accept your logic. After all, conservatives who are lifelong Democrats frustrate us both. You know the people who are pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax etc....who vote Democrat every time. They express feelings very similar to yours. They just have too much emotion invested in a given party to ever change.

I am not like that. It is all about ideas and principles. If the Constitution Party ever abandoned those ideas (in word or in deed while prentending in word) then I would lose them. I strongly believe that NO political party, in and of itself, can change the world for the better. I believe that God can change the world for the better, and He does it through various vehicles. Since the Constitution Party acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus Christ, it is my hope that it will be used by Him for His purposes. There is no gaurantee, for He is sovereign. He also acts one heart at a time, but once enough hearts are acted on then they need some way to unite to do things.

As for another parties chances, I'd say they are a lot higher than you can imagine. In NWA I have seen it go from Democrat-dominated to GOP dominated in the last 30 years- and that was before the internet. Both parties are really tuning people out on critical issues like illegal immigration.

Before 1854, there were no Republicans. The GOP started as a third party. Six years later Lincoln was the first Republican President. (He greatly expanded Federal government btw). How do you KNOW that we are not living in times of historical change where that kind of thing can't happen again?

7:26 AM, May 10, 2005  
Anonymous Rocko9 said...

I really think this country is ready for a 3rd party however ridiculous it may sound it may have to be formed mainly from disenchanted Dem. and Rep. . Yeah bring it on , I'm on board for that

2:50 PM, May 10, 2005  
Blogger jimmie said...

Last election was the first election that I have been involved with. I was the Crawford County Coordinator for Jim Holt’s U.S. Senate race. During one of the Republican committee meeting one of the committee members told us that it was our job to get republicans elected to offices It didn’t matter if we didn’t like the candidate or that he was an immoral man. We as good republicans had to help get him elected. That was the final nail in the coffin. I can’t willing work in a organization which requires me to support ungodly men simply because they are republicans. In George Washington farewell speech, he warned about that mentality concerning the developing political parties.

To put it bluntly, I would rather be a Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, or Azariah: and serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon than be Ahithophel in Absalom’s reign.

3:04 PM, May 10, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Win is a Christie Todd Whitman Republican He wants to raise the severance and property taxes, he may say that he is pro-life but he is not for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. If the whole party were like Rockefeller, I would support a third party but they are not. Where does the constitution party and Asa disagree.

2:34 PM, May 19, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Asa believes in big government. He served as Undersecretary of Homeland Security, and had high hope of becoming Secretary. The creation of Homeland Security brought this nation one step closer to becoming a police state.
That is difference between Asa and the Constitution Party.

7:42 PM, May 20, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"Where do the Constitution Party and Asa disagree?"

In most cases, the difference is that the Constitution Party MEANS it. They are not just using say, the abortion issue, to get votes. They actually intend to restrict abortion even if it means conflict.

The CP differs with Asa on securing our borders and globalist interventions. We would secure our borders at home and leave the Iraqis, Afaganis, and others to guard theirs.

As far as the "Department of Homeland Security" and the so-called "Patriot Act" go, we would rather be less safe and more free.

I THINK Asa disagrees with the administration's big spending on social programs. Not enough to say anything about it though. We mean to act decisivly to reduce the size of government.

8:37 AM, May 22, 2005  
Anonymous Maumelle03 said...

Asa has fought big government all his life - check his voting record. The same with abortion, he has been consistent his whole public life and has fought for it. The illegal alien issue is one that Asa can only now share his feelings on and again there is no disagreement. Rockefeller is a " rockefeller republican" which is why there is a need for third parties. Check Asa's record before you just speak.

3:41 PM, May 24, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is another interesting blog for Christian conservatives where this same issue is being discussed.

3:43 PM, May 24, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

What in his record testifies to anything other than what I have said?

7:53 PM, May 24, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asa voted repeatedly for tax cuts and to cut the budget, he even voted to shut down the government to keep spending in check. During his time in Congress, they balanced the budget. He will be criticized by Rockefeller for cutting important programs. With regard to Homeland Security - you criticize him for not single handlely closing our borders - well that would require billions of more dollars - you can't have your cake and eat it too. He is a true conservative who has a voting record to back it up. The burden of proof should be on those who say otherwise.

7:28 AM, May 25, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who started this abortion discussion with Rockefeller?

10:49 AM, May 25, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rockefeller started the discussion with his recent letter trying to justify his recent conversion.

11:17 AM, May 25, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sound familiar

ROMNEY: Position Aborted?

Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) told USA Today this week that he's "in a different place" on abortion than he was in '94, when he pledged to keep the practice "safe and legal" during his SEN bid against Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Romney, 10/94: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. ... I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." Romney, to USA Today: "Understand, over time one's perspective changes somewhat." He "declined to elaborate."
Romney spokesperson Julie Teer 5/24 "refused to explain how Romney's position has changed, saying only that it has 'evolved over time.'" Teer "emphasized" that his commitment to MA to "maintain the status quo" while he is gov "has not changed." In recent months, Romney "has played up his personal opposition to abortion in out-of-state speeches." MA Citizens for Life says it considers Romney an abortion-rights supporter (Greenberger, Boston Globe, 5/25).
(Back to Contents)

12:24 PM, May 25, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

I noticed the other night on Fox, Romney was calling himself a Conservative. He is a typical politican who says what he thinks is popular at the time. I consider people like Roy Moore and Jim Holt as true Conservatives.

6:53 PM, May 25, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a new website - rockefeller supporters defend Rockefellers hosting of a Planned Parenthood fundraiser by suggesting that PP is not really an abortion advocacy group. It is ridiculous. They also attack Jim Holt relentlessly.

7:10 PM, May 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought this started with an email someone sent out. Do ya'll know anything about that?

1:13 AM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you find it? Interesting read » »

5:51 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoyed a lot! video editing schools

1:50 PM, March 17, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home