Prez4Life

From RightReligionRightPolitics blog

Is anyone else bothered by Sen. Lincoln appearing at so many Catholic colleges? Everytime you hear about him now, he’s at some Catholic college. It’s as if he’s trying to pass himself off as the Catholic candidate. I don’t know about you, but I find that annoying and insulting.

Maybe it’s because his liberal friends won’t let him speak on their campuses. Or maybe he doesn’t want to go where he’s not likely to be welcome. After all, his liberal friends don’t seem to want him much more than we do.

But I also don’t understand why these Catholic colleges are so eager to have him. Granted, he’s generally prolife (although it’s not like he’s getting ratings of 100 from the prolife groups–he’s in the 60s and 70s, I think), but look at some of his other positions. He’s weak on contraception. I believe his sanctity of marriage position is suspect. What’s his stand on physician-assisted suicide? I believe he’s weak on stem cell research. And, bottom line, if he wants us to believe he’s prolife, why didn’t he leave the Party of Death?

Aren’t Catholic colleges supposed to teach the faith and avoid scandal? Perhaps that’s the most frustrating part of this whole situation. Why didn’t they just disinvite him?

Speaking at LaSalle University in Philadelphia, Sen. Thomas Lincoln addressed criticism of his prolife progressive orientation. “Some people will tell you that you can’t be both prolife and liberal. It’s like the liberal response to those bumper stickers that say you can’t be both pro-choice and Christian. That one, I’ll leave to others to hash out. I’ll stay with the secular argument.”

“Let me tell you some of my basic plans for when I become President,” he said, a smile breaking across his face as he says it. His audience chuckled as if they were in on a joke, but he recovered, “No, this is serious. I think my bona fides on the prolife side are good. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that.”

“On the progressive side? I believe that government can be a tool to solve the problems of people, and I believe that in recent years, government has only been used to solve the problems of big business and government. It’s padded the pockets of a few while ignoring the many. I will aim to phase out many of the tax cuts that the President pushed through for the rich, despite the war he also forced on us. The combination of war spending and reduced revenues wreaked havoc on the deficit and debt. Worse, it cut into services for people who desperately need them.”

“When the tax cuts are eliminated, I see that revenue going primarily to improved access to health care, education, and infrastructure. We need to focus on how we can strengthen our society at its most vulnerable points.”

“I will also do what I can through the executive and legislative branches to correct the wrongs perpetrated by the Supreme Court. Whether they call it states’ rights or strict constructionism or whatever works at the moment, the Court has seemed to take people out of the picture and consolidate power among the government and business. Whether it’s product safety, tort reform, workers’ rights, or privacy, the court seems to have forgotten that a democracy is built on people, not power.”

“And I will begin an immediate drawdown of US troops in Iraq. I don’t promise that it will happen overnight, but it will happen. This tragic mistake has torn apart that country and destabilized the region, and we’re obligated to try to keep it from descending into total chaos. But we need to show the world that we intend to change. When he was running for President, George Bush said he intended to restore humility to American foreign policy. Of course, it’s been anything but. That’s one Republican promise I could fulfill.”

“I don’t know if all that makes me a liberal, or if my position on one issue totally defines me as something else. I have to admit that I’ve always seen the idea of extending rights to the most vulnerable as being a liberal thing. When is the last time you remember a conservative wanting to expand rights or caring for the vulnerable?”

“On the other hand, I get complaints from the prolife crowd too. Some of those liberal positions are enough to blackball me from the club.”

Sen. Thomas Lincoln has spoken at numerous Catholic colleges since he entered the Presidential race as an independent candidate. The speeches have been designed to win voters for his campaign, but they’ve had an additional benefit: volunteers.

The campaign reports that after almost every speech at a Catholic college in a primary state, several students signed on to work for Lincoln. The students have done everything from stuffing envelopes to making phone calls in state nominating contests. The campaign estimates that nearly 100 volunteers joined up after about a dozen talks.

Lincoln campaign chair Dick Benedict said, “These students have been an unexpected blessing. An independent campaign struggles to raise the kind of money necessary in today’s political world. Every volunteer lets us go that much farther and reach more people with our message.”

Karla Wright, a student at the University of Dayton, explained why she volunteered for Lincoln, “I admit I didn’t know much about his history, but I liked what I heard when he spoke on campus. This country has so many problems that cause so much personal hardship for people, and I think much of it is caused by a basic lack of compassion or empathy on the part of the people in power. They don’t seem to care about the everyday person. I may not be quite as 100% prolife as he is, but I do think that the level of abortion here reflects that lack of empathy–or it’s a symptom of it. I think Lincoln has a chance to bring attention to the way things are, and maybe to bring about some change.”

A minister at one of the colleges, who asked not to be identified, noted, “I think the thing about Lincoln is that he combines the prolife message that our students are exposed to on campus with the social teachings of our faith–for the most part, anyway. You don’t get that from the major parties. Each party sides with some of the teachings, but not all. Lincoln comes the closest I’ve ever seen. That’s pretty appealing to young people.”

Sen. Thomas Lincoln’s campaign asserts that since the former Democrat entered the Presidential race as an independent, he has won nearly half a million votes. The votes came in caucuses and primaries of both parties.

Lincoln press secretary Kevin Rich noted, “We’re not candidates for the nomination, but hundreds of thousands of Democrats and Republicans are voting for us anyway. Mark my words, we’ve got nowhere to go but up.”

He added, “We will be a force to be reckoned with. We believe things will change in the way people see the issues that are important to our supporters.”

In one of those ironies of the publishing industry, two political magazine pillars published articles about Sen. Thomas Lincoln’s presidential campaign that carried identical headlines. The venerable liberal institution The New Republic and its sister TNR, the conservative The National Review, both published brief notes on Lincoln with the title “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?”

The articles had a similar theme: Lincoln supports some key aspects of each magazine’s principles and constituencies, but his opposition to other key elements makes him suspect. The New Republic praised his record and his stands on the economy, health care, and the environment, while criticizing his anti-abortion stance and his position on the Iraq War. The National Review similarly criticized him on the war and much of the rest of his progressive platform, but praised his abortion position. The notes agreed that Lincoln didn’t have a chance in the general election.

Lincoln’s media spokesman Kevin Rich noted, “This is amusing. It’s not quite like Bruce Springsteen on the covers of both Time and Newsweek the same week, but it’s a sign we’re getting attention.”

An unnamed volunteer for the Thomas Lincoln presidential campaign has brought the campaign under fire by some anti-abortion organizations for an off-the-cuff remark. The volunteer was speaknig to a reporter outside a rally for Sen. Hillary Clinton in Ohio when he said, “The difference between us and those right-to-life groups is that we care about people after they’re born too.”

The comment was published locally in Ohio then was picked up by several blogs that criticized the volunteer and the campaign. The refrain has been picked up by some national organizations, including Ban Abortion Now. Richard Cleveland, its executive director said, “This is just another slander on the prolife movement, and it may reveal something about Sen. Lincoln’s campaign and the nature of his supposed prolife stand. Just because our supporters don’t promote expensive government programs along with their opposition to abortion doesn’t make them unconcerned about other issues. They simply prioritize the right to life over others.”

Unfazed, some supporter have begun to sport bumper stickers bearing the slogan: “Lincoln Supporter: We’re for life after birth too!”

Sen. Thomas Lincoln seemed pleased to have been asked a question off the beaten path for him. After a recent speech at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas, an audience member asked him to comment on Fidel Castro’s retirement and replacement as president of Cuba.

 ”I hope this is an opportunity for real change in the hemisphere,” Lincoln answered. “You know, I think the U.S. has acted like a jilted lover in this relationship for far too long. Rather than looking to make inroads in Cuba, we’ve decided to give them the silent treatment because our feelings were hurt.” The comment drew a smattering of applause, laughter, and boos from the audience.

Reacting to the negative response, he explained, “There are blessings to being an independent politician. I can speak my mind about things without getting the rest of a Party in trouble.”

He added, “U.S. Cuba policy has been an absurdity. More than 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and a whole generation was shaken by that war, but now we have relations with that country, and last I heard they still call themselves communist. We’ve made efforts to negotiate with North Korea. We have full-fledged commercial ties with China. And none of this is to mention the right-wing dictatorships we’ve been in bed with. Yet we thought we brought Cuba to the dance, but she didn’t go home with us, and we can’t imagine any kind of relations with them. You know what they say, Hell hath no fury….”

Later, Lincoln returned to the topic, “I have to give Sen. Obama some credit for at least talking about talking with Cuba. It’s fairly timid, but by the standards of U.S. Cuba policy, it’s downright radical. On the other hand, Sen. McCain doesn’t want to believe the Cold War is over. He’ll continue with the idea that Cuba has to be more perfect than we are before he’ll consider relations.”

If it were up to Lincoln? “I would immediately relax the travel and financial and commercial restrictions, and I would establish both expectations for and incentives for liberty in Cuba. I would start talks at various levels.” He added, “We’ve been in bed with countries with far worse records. It’s just that Cuba kicked us out of bed, and that’s why there’s so much trouble.”

As a candidate identified by his prolife progressive stand, Sen. Lincoln hasn’t been asked many foreign policy questions, which he commented on, “It’s been unusual for me to get questions that aren’t strictly abortion-related, and I’m glad this issue was raised. There are very definitely life issues involved in most foreign policy considerations. One of our campaign’s goals is to expand the definition of prolife–not to diminish the abortion problem–but to raise up other important issues. For some it’s easiest to limit it to a single topic so the life issue doesn’t have to get messy with, well, life–and issues like poverty and a poisonous environment and war. For others, it’s easiest to pigeonhole all prolifers so we all sound as if we don’t care about life after birth. When foreign policies essentially stifle the growth of a country, there are life issues involved.”

He went on, “There are certainly more extreme examples than Cuba. The sanctions in Iraq after the first Gulf War had a horrible impact on everyday Iraqi citizens. Thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands died because they lacked access to food and medicines blocked by the sanctions or stolen by the regime. Were such people so much less innocent than unborn children that their deaths are tolerable? Just because their deaths occurred as collateral damage in the pursuit of the national strategic objectives of a country on the other side of the globe? As usual, the dictator consolidated power during the sanctions period. Again, that’s typical when policy tries to make the government cry uncle by twisting the arms of the average person. Those are life issues too.”

“I would suggest that this last perspective might be why some conservative prolifers are suspicious of Sen. McCain. I don’t recall him being opposed to the Iraq sanctions. But if I suggested that, I’d be accused of being insufficiently prolife because I’m clouding the issue. ut the right to life and the sanctity of life don’t end at birth.”

Independent Presidential candidate Sen. Thomas Lincoln welcomed the entry of Ralph Nader in the Presidential race. Nader announced his intention to run again on a Sunday news program last weekend. Nader ran in 2000, and many observers credit his candidacy with drawing enough votes away from Al Gore to deny him the victory.

Asked about Nader after a speech at the University of Dayton, Lincoln said, “I’ll be nice to have company in the independent lane of this race. Maybe we can share a cab now and then.”He added, “Nader’s entry may also mean that he’ll deflect some of the potshots I’ve been taking from Democrats. After all, they blame him—as did I—for giving us George Bush in 2000. What they’re neglecting in both of our cases is the level of discontent with parts of the Party platform that the support we receive represents. It helped defeat a candidate already, and there’s plenty of discontent on my side too.”

The questions surrounding the television ads supporting Sen. Thomas Lincoln’s Presidential campaign have swept up a political organization with ties to Lincoln. Briefly, about a dozen TV stations across the country aired the commercials, all of which appear to have been purchased by people with no ties to the campaign. The ads were found on a now-closed website, which was online briefly in the few days between Lincoln’s announcement and the formation of his campaign organization. While the Federal Election Commission continues to stress that no charges are planned at this time, the situation remains curious, if not controversial, so far.

At first, the individuals who purchased the airtime didn’t know why they’d received an anonymous email inviting them to run the ad. Further investigation has established that all of the ad buyers who have been identified had loose affiliations with some prolife liberal groups. The affiliations were no more involved than subscriptions to email discussion groups or newsletters or memberships in organizations. They weren’t all connected to the same organization, but Prolife Progress appeared in the profiles of most of the ad buyers.

Prolife Progress is a national organization made up mostly of prolife Democrats. Their goal, according to executive director Linda Smart, “is to raise awareness of the significant number of prolife people within the Party and support prolife Democrats running for office.” Sen. Lincoln was a board member of the organization during his Congressional career, and it was at a Prolife Progress rally in January that he announced his candidacy.

Smart has indicated that the organization was surprised by his announcement. Nonetheless, the connection to the ad buyers has raised questions about whether the organization may have provided help behind the scenes. Smart denied the suggestions.

“We have no connection at all with the Lincoln campaign,” she said. “We’ve done nothing to provide names or email contacts to the campaign.” Reminded that the campaign has also denied involvement with the ads, she added, “We haven’t given or sold our list to anyone, for this or any purpose.”

Asked to speculate on who might have done it, if not the campaign, Smart said, “We can’t explain how this might have happened, but, despite public perceptions, we’re not the only prolife progressive organization out there. There are some email discussion groups that have no connection to us. Maybe someone got hold of their list. Or maybe someone simply bought a mailing list. We didn’t have anything to do with it.”

So what is the stand of Prolife Progress on the Lincoln candidacy? “At this point, we have no plans to endorse any candidate for President,” Smart said. “We all respect and admire Sen. Lincoln. He’s a friend of our organization, but we’re not prepared to jump outside the Party.” She added that the organization’s primary interest is in prolife Democrats who are running for Congress and state offices. “We want to rebuild the prolife part of the Party, and to do that we focus more on the Congressional level, not the top, where the odds aren’t so good.”

On that issue, some supporters have criticized the organization’s priorities. One Prolife Progress member, who asked not to be identified, said, “I support the organization, but sometimes I think it focuses more on the Party and less on the issues we all care about. I understand the importance of the Party, and I think Prolife Progress needs to raise the profile of prolife Democrats, who are more numerous than most people think, but this is a special case and a special opportunity.”

Another supporter said he shared the first commenter’s thoughts but noted, “We have to be realistic. If we came out for a non-Democratic candidate, we’d lose the credibility we’ve gained with parts of the Party. It’s a long-term project to win the hearts and minds of the country back to our side. We all know that Tom Lincoln isn’t going to win. While his campaign may help our position in the public perception, we have to be practical and continue to work within the Party.” He added, somewhat ruefully, “I know it’s frustrating to some, but it’s the world we live in.”

From Left Is Right Now blog

Now we hear that Sen. Lincoln is campaigning in Wisconsin. Coincidentall, there’s a primary in that state. But it’s a primary to choose a party nominee. Lincoln didn’t bother to take his campaign to the people; he decided to nominate himself. And no wonder. His platform won’t fly. People won’t buy it. Good for him that he’s right–generally–on the war, the economy, and the environment, but when he’s so wrong on a fundamental right, he’s not going to get the support one would need to win a party nomination.

So it’s no wonder  he nominated himself. But it’s irritating that he keep showing up in primary state. Let me be clear. He’s not going to affect the election–I’m not worried about that. But I don’t want him drawing media or voter attention away from the important issues. His vanity candidacy is wasting our time.