Richard Viguerie’s open letter to John McCain

Third Party Watch owner and Libertarian National Convention keynote speaker Richard Viguerie offers the following advice to John McCain in an open letter sent to various Christian and right-wing Web sites:

Dear Senator McCain:

The buzz in recent days has been that some of your key aides were calling national and state GOP leaders to alert them to the possibility that you were seriously considering a pro-abortion running mate and to take their temperature on such a selection.

As Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal asked: Are you politically “stupid” or do you care little for conservative principles?

It also shows that you don’t understand why the Republican brand has taken a massive beating in recent years. You clearly don’t comprehend why millions of conservatives are off the Republican reservation and sitting on the political sidelines.

Your indication that you’re willing to put a person who has a clear, unequivocal pro-abortion record within a heartbeat of the presidency is alarming.

Pro-life conservatives understand that, to change the laws to protect innocent life, first and foremost, we need good, articulate leadership–from the president and vice president.

To put it as simply and clearly as I can, most Republican leaders at the national and state level have betrayed, abandoned, and sold out the principles that define conservatism. Talk of selecting a pro-abortion liberal Republican (Tom Ridge) or, even worse, a pro-abortion liberal Democrat (Joe Lieberman) drives the Republican brand lower and lower.

Your apparent interest in selecting a running mate who is out of sync ideologically with the vast majority of conservatives reinforces the image of the Republican Party as a party without principle and dedicated to one proposition above all others – the seeking, acquiring, obtaining, and holding onto power.

Senator McCain, you are exceedingly proud of being a political maverick – you wear it as a badge of honor.

Well, poke the base of the Republican Party – the conservatives – in the eye one more time by choosing a pro-abortion vice presidential candidate and conservatives will show you that two can play the maverick game.

Conservatives are people with proudly held principles. We’re now waiting to see if you share our principles.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Viguerie
Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

20 thoughts on “Richard Viguerie’s open letter to John McCain

  1. Arthur Torrey

    Gee, and maybe he hasn’t figured out that being anti-choice is one of the many reasons that Libertarians don’t support Barr?

    Given that I’ve never seen a pro-choice Libertarian that wants to force someone to have an abortion that doesn’t want one, I consider anti-choice *legislative* campaigning to be a 100% total violation of Libertarian principles and a major strike against an otherwise good candidate.

    (Note that I don’t hold a *personal* anti-choice stance against a candidate as long as they pledge to keep their opinion out of their voting…)

    ART

  2. G.E. Post author

    I’m a pro-life anarchist. I find this letter repulsive on the grounds that nominating a “pro-life” choice — of which, Romney, who is “faux-life” is the only man in the running — would excuse all of the other aggressive crimes of McCain and his fascist running mate, whomever that may be.

  3. Dylan Waco

    And then there is fact that Romney is even more liberal than McCain, so much so in fact that even Glenn Beck says he “flirts with socialism.”

  4. langa

    Also, there’s the fact that we’re just finishing 8 years under a pro-life president, and yet abortion is still legal. The majority of justices on the Supreme Court have been appointed by pro-life presidents, and yet, when given the chance, they refused to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    Things couldn’t get much worse from a pro-life standpoint, no matter how who the next President (or Vice President) turns out to be.

  5. G.E. Post author

    Because the GOP and the mainstream pro-life movement does not want to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is a bulwark of nationalism. Nor do they want to nationally ban abortion, because this would be unpopular. The “threat” to a woman’s “right” to butcher a fetus in her womb is nonexistent.

  6. Brandon H.

    I once read that the minute Republicans get Roe v. Wade overturned, they can no longer use it as a campaign issue.

    If McCain picks a pro-abortion VP though he might as well forfeit the election. (Not that either McCain or Obama deserve to win in the first place.)

  7. G.E. Post author

    I once read that the minute Republicans get Roe v. Wade overturned, they can no longer use it as a campaign issue.

    Exactly.

  8. Trent Hill

    I’v been involved with many of the National Right to Life folks,as well as the American Right to Life Folks–etc. And I’d say all of them passionately care about life and dont view it as a political asset,but as a political liability. The Republican candidates they support PROMISE to do something, but dont—and it pisses them off.

  9. pdsa

    GE; then you support the great expansion of the 14th amendment past its textual meaning, defining a fetus at conception as a “person”?

    What about ectopic pregnancies?
    What about anacephalic fetuses?
    What about conception through forceful rape?

    The fourteenth amendment states:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    Yet you, the avowed ‘libertarian’, would impede a medical decision made by a US citizen, and greatly expand this definition of a lawful person far beyond its original intent without a constitutional amendment, simply because of your own personal version (per.version) of morality?

    Additionally, you support for the coercive banning of all abortions would necessarily ban terminating ectopic pregnancies which would make you a party to the pre-meditated homicide of some women. Yet if it is ok to abort an ectopic fetus, then a fetus is assuredly, not a lawful person.

    This is not an easy subject, but your thoughtless ravening serves no purpose other than polarisation, and is an attempt to greatly increase the reach of the government into the private affairs of its citizens without even use of the legitimate Constitutional amendment process.

  10. G.E. Post author

    pdsa – I don’t accept the 14th Amendment AT ALL, because it wasn’t ratified, and if it were, it would be among the worst amendments ever (along with the 12th, the 16th, and the 17th).

    Why the hell would someone have to accept a bad amendment in order to be pro-life? The Constitution is not the source of my values, and in fact, I am not a constitutionalist, but a fan of the Articles of Confederation.

    You call me a “libertarian” with quotes because I have the belief that an individual has the right to be free from aggression and that, yes, it is my opinion that that includes unborn individuals? It is unlibertarian to believe that life begins at conception/implantation? That is not a question of the state, and therefore, it is not a libertarian issue any more than whether global warming exists or whether 9/11 was an inside job is a libertarian issue.

    I care not if a person is a “U.S. citizen,” for I do not believe that distinction to be legitimate and wouldn’t care if it were. I don’t consider murder to be a “medical decision.” You’re annoying me right now, so I should abort you?

    This has nothing to do with the Constitution, you raving moron. The Constitution is not the basis for morality, nor for laws dealing with acts of physical violence. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to deal with the issue of murder in general, nor abortion in specific, and thus the issue has NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS. Are you such a libertine centralist Nazi that it’s beyond your mental capacity for someone to think something is wrong and yet not be for making it a federal crime?

  11. G.E. Post author

    By the way, Trent: Instead of putting their faith in politicians, pro-lifers should mount educational campaigns geared not at the choir, but at people who are pro-abortion out of ignorance. Logic-based rational appeals for life geared toward college educated people would be best, for these are the opinion makers. Making abortion illegal now would wound the country as greatly as making it illegal in ’73 did.

  12. Trent Hill

    GE,

    False. Making abortion legal in 1973 led to over 40 million deaths by abortion.

    Illegalizing it might lead to polarization and thousands of back-alley procedures–but this is far preferable to the genocide currently happening. Life for life, it does not compare.

    With that said, I believe a state-level campaign should be waged in every state. In those states that are strongly pro-life, legislation should be put on the books that will take effect the minute Roe v Wade is overturned or removed from the books. In states where the pro-life ethic is less widespread…education campaigns should be the focus of those groups like Right to Life, Citizens for Life, Rock for Life, etc etc.

  13. Steve LaBianca

    Genocide – per Wikipedia

    “Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

    . . .the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”.

    Trent, you are obviously principally opposed to abortion, and I respect that. However, your use of the word “genocide” to characterize Roe vs. Wade and the whole ending of the prohibition of abortion is completely erroneous. There is no “conspiracy” to intentionally wipe out some group. Abortions are performed one at a time, with the decision to have it done made one at a time by the parent(s). Now, in China, where the state makes the decision to perform abortions because of the number of children “allowed” . . . THAT is genocidal in nature!

  14. Steve LaBianca

    I should have said “principled in being opposed to” as opposed to “principally opposed to”. Totally different meanings.

  15. G.E. Post author

    Trent – You’re taking the reactionary, short-term view, and one that doesn’t really even logically follow if you think about it.

    Yes, Roe v. Wade led to a great increase in the number of abortions — also a great increase in unwanted pregancies, out-of-wedlock births, and a huge increase in sexual promiscuity.

    Secondly, overturning Roe v. Wade would not “make abortion illegal” except where the people in certain states wanted it to be illegal. This is perfectly acceptable, but being an Abortion Lincolnian is not. Is that where you stand, with Chuck Baldwin and against Bob Bird and the Constitution?

    But let’s say Baldwin’s dream came true: Roe v. Wade nationalized tolerance for abortion, and making it illegal isn’t going to make that go away. There’s no way that we immediately, or even EVER, return to the level of abortions, unwanted births, and sexual promiscuity pre-Roe without a change in culture. What’s more, this would rally the left on an even greater scale and would have greater ramifications than one could imagine — trust me, a national abortion ban passed tomorrow would not last for very long and would set back the freedom movement (as well as the pro-life movement) by decades if not centuries. Just think about it honestly.

  16. Trent Hill

    Steve LaBianca,

    I’d be happy to use the word infanticide, if it makes you feel better. Mass murder could work.

  17. Trent Hill

    “False. Making abortion legal in 1973 led to over 40 million deaths by abortion.

    Illegalizing it might lead to polarization and thousands of back-alley procedures–but this is far preferable to the genocide currently happening. Life for life, it does not compare.

    With that said, I believe a state-level campaign should be waged in every state. In those states that are strongly pro-life, legislation should be put on the books that will take effect the minute Roe v Wade is overturned or removed from the books. In states where the pro-life ethic is less widespread…education campaigns should be the focus of those groups like Right to Life, Citizens for Life, Rock for Life, etc etc.”

    GE–please read before responding. Nowhere did I say I supported national legislation. In fact, I specifically stated that “I believe a state-level campaign should be waged…etc”.

    “Secondly, overturning Roe v. Wade would not “make abortion illegal” except where the people in certain states wanted it to be illegal. This is perfectly acceptable, but being an Abortion Lincolnian is not. Is that where you stand, with Chuck Baldwin and against Bob Bird and the Constitution”

    I never ever said anything like that and I’m not even sure where you are getting it from. I am opposed to national Lincolnian abortion legislation and held this position BEFORE you did,so I’m not sure where you are coming from. While overturning Roe v. Wade would not illegalize abortion nationwide, it would illegalize abortion in about 30 states that already have laws on the books on this subject. Here in LA we have a “trigger law” which basically means that the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned,our anti-abortion legislation takes effect. 7 other states have this.

    “trust me, a national abortion ban passed tomorrow would not last for very long and would set back the freedom movement (as well as the pro-life movement) by decades if not centuries.”

    This is a non-sequiter. I dont want a national abortion ban, but this is still a stupid statement. “A national abortion ban will set back the pro-life movement decades”….sure. Just like ending a war will set back the anti-war movement for decades…

  18. Steve LaBianca

    Trent Hill // Aug 29, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Steve LaBianca,

    I’d be happy to use the word infanticide, if it makes you feel better. Mass murder could work.

    First off, it isn’t a matter of making me feel better. It’s a matter of characterizing Roe vs Wade and abortions as being directed from a single source.

    Infanticide and mas murder characterizations fail the same test of “centrally directed”.

  19. G.E. Post author

    Centrally directed? What do you think Roe v. Wade’s nationalism is?

    Look, you don’t have to be a Christian or a conservative of a “family values” type to see the effect of Roe V. Wade in undermining the family, promoting sexual promiscuity, and immunizing Americans to the culture of death — all of which benefits the centralist state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *