PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE SEEKS TO FILL SENATE VACANCY

By Bob Haran;

A candidate for appointment to the Arizona Senate to fill the vacancy caused by Pamela Gorman's resignation is found to be not the "Proven Conservative" she claims to be, unless being pro-abortion is now considered Conservative. Lori Klein, who listed her political views on face book as Libertarian/Conservative, seems to be more Libertarian then Conservative.

When I first heard that a Lori Klein was interested in the LD 6 Senate seat my first question was, who is Lori Klein. She is not a Precinct Committeemen from LD 6, not active in the district, never been to a district meeting that I know of. So who is this person Lori Klein?

Time to do some old fashioned research. What did I discover about this Lori Klein, whom both LD 6 Representatives Sam Crump and Carl Seel have been pushing as a replacement to Pam Gorman, a conservative Republican and certainly pro-life. I discovered she is what we conservatives used to describe as a RINO, a Republican In Name Only.

Oh, Ms Klein is for less government, what Republican isn't? Lori Klein is also for the right of a woman to kill her unborn child and backs it up with her money.

Looking at where people put their money politically can tell a lot about where they stand politically. Take for example Lori Klein, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's web site, on 9/10/04, she contributed to WISH LIST (Women In The Senate and House). On the WISH LIST web site, http://www.thewishlist.org/ they describe their MISSION with these words, "The WISH LIST raises funds to identify, support and elect PRO-CHOICE Republican women at all levels of government - local, state and national" Under the title "OUR VISION for the 21st Century" WISH LIST says, "Our vision is to create a powerful force of Political Partners whose financial support ensures the continuous election of PRO-CHOICE Republican women to positions at all levels of government across America." Sounds like a very militant PRO-ABORTION group to me.

You can also find Ms. Klein's contribution to the Pro-Abortion movement by going to the WISH LIST post-primary Election Report for 2004, her name is on page 4 just above Beth Meyer of Planned Parenthood.

So why is Sam Crump endorsing this supporter of abortion, saying that he, "believes her to be a strong conservative voice for our district and our state." Could it be Crump is supporting her because she owns a consulting firm specializing in fund-raising. By the way, Sam Crump will be resigning from the Arizona House to run for Congress.

Seems like some people will believe anything, if the price is right.

GOP NEEDS BUCKLEYS Not BIRTHERS & GLENN BECK

OPINION

By Will Munsil - ASU

I begin by clarifying objectives: Like you, I desire a vibrant, intellectually serious, politically ascendant conservatism.

In political debates, we are often grateful for aid, from wherever it may come. But in the current struggle — a necessary one, I hasten to add — against the political agenda of President Barack Obama, too many conservatives have fallen to the temptation to find no enemies to the Right.

This has meant we have accepted, tacitly or explicitly, the aid of Glenn Beck, Orly Taitz, Michael Savage and the thousand anonymous lunatics called “Birthers” who maintain, clear evidence to the contrary, that Obama was born elsewhere, and serves in violation of the Constitution.

We have accepted, tacitly or explicitly, the Godwin’s Law-flaunting ravings of those who would compare the president, with clever ambiguities, to certain historical dictators.

We have accepted the metaphor of politics as war, and we have accepted that we must fight, as in war, with whatever weapons are at hand.

It’s easy enough to denounce the insane ranting of the Birthers, and we should. They destroy our credibility and damage our better arguments against the president’s agenda.

But we must also realize that many of the voices that have led conservatism in the past are not the voices that must lead it into the future.

William F. Buckley, the man most responsible for creating the intellectual movement that flounders today, was once faced with a familiar choice. Before Bush, before Reagan, and even before Goldwater, he was confronted with the dilemma of the John Birch Society.

The members of the society, to draw an easy modern comparison, were the Birthers of the 1960s. They were convinced that 60 to 80 percent of the American government was communist, that Eisenhower had been their agent and that anyone who did not accept these arguments was a willing accomplice to the Soviets.

Buckley treated them like the menace they were, writing what he termed a “five thousand word excoriation” of them in National Review.

We can cast out our Birchers, but where are our Buckleys?

Unlike in the 1960s, there is an intellectual void in conservatism. The market has spoken, and in many ways we have the leaders we deserve. Our side of the debate is driven by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, the aforementioned Beck and by whichever congressman has most recently insulted the president. This is not to say these are bad people, or even that they’ve never contributed to the movement.

It is simply to say that a vibrant, intellectually serious, politically ascendant conservatism needs new voices, and that a modern American conservatism must take a new shape.

True conservatism, winning conservatism, is not afraid of argument. It is not angry or shrill. It does not call names. It does not denigrate the intellect. It is calm and measured. It is passionate in defense of great truths, yet reasonable in small differences.

We will discover new voices, ones that speak the language of our changing country instead of shouting at it for changing.

Until then, we race into uneasy exile when our country needs us most.

Reach Will at wmunsil@asu.edu.