What is it with Obama and campaign promises? Is he senile? Blackberry broken? Or, a Pinocchio-in-Chief?

While seeking votes and charming the masses, Obama declared over and over that should he be elected, his administration would be TRANSPARENT. He also made a specific, pointed pledge to the American people (eight times to be exact) that he would BROADCAST the crafting of health care legislation on C-Span.

On December 30, 2009, C-Span’s CEO Brian Lamb wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid requesting that C-Span be allowed to broadcast health care negotiations. The request has been ignored.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked on Tuesday, Jan 5th about Obama’s standard for transparency and refusal to employ C-Span’s services on health care. Hear Gibbs’ non-answer at 31:12 – 33:00. Gibbs was also asked about the Nebraska Clause in the final H.C. bill at 45:33 – 46:16.

Legislation that will fundamentally change one-fifth of the American economy and the way you and I receive health care is going to be done informally (behind-closed-doors-no-Republicans-allowed). Much has been said the last couple of days on Obama’s tactics, but Obama-cheerleader Jack Cafferty’s denunciation of the President on CNN is of particular note:

From Let The Cameras In:

President Obama promised to make the Health care debate open and transparent. Stop your secret health care shenanigans and let C-SPAN cover the meetings. No more secret sessions. No more sweetheart deals. The American people have a right to know. If you don’t have anything to hide, you would welcome the light. Let the cameras in.

Let the C-Span cameras in! Take action. Sign the petition here.

Jack, come next fall, we will not forget! 

(Hat tip to Crystal – Jack Cafferty video)

Ho! Ho! Ho! Christmas Eve 2009 brings a Santa bag full of news: Senate Democrats voted to pass their version of Obamacare this morning which includes government funded abortion, Russia is developing a new generation of nuclear missiles, Ahmadinejad dismisses the West’s nuclear year-end deadline, Afghanistan suicide bomber kills eight people, slots casinos in malls may be the wave of the future, and delight of delights – top executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will receive $ 6 million year-end bonuses.

Seems like the perfect time to pull out the lock box and stow away the cares of the world.

 Christmas Time

Put your problems on probation
Run your troubles off the track,
Throw your worries out the window
Get the monkeys off your back.
Silence all your inner critics
With your conscience make amends,
And allow yourself some happiness
It’s Christmas time again!
Call a truce with those who bother you
Let all the fighting cease,
Give your differences a breather
And declare a time of peace,
Don’t let angry feelings taint
The precious time you have to spend,
And allow yourself some happiness
It’s Christmas time again!
Like some cool refreshing water
Or a gentle summer breeze,
Like a fresh bouquet of flowers
Or the smell of autumn leaves,
It’s a banquet for the spirit
Filled with family, food and friends,
So allow yourself some happiness
It’s Christmas time again!
~ Bob Lazzar-Atwood.

Day 11 of Twelve Days of Christmas offers three Christmas Eve videos.  The first reminds us of a ‘little old elf- so lively and quick’ by the Swingle Singers.

Here is the classic ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas:

The charm of the childhood Nativity Play is recalled as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra presents One December Bright and Clear.

Sarah McLachlan sings and strums a simple, sweet version of Oh, Little Town of Bethlehem.

Christmas Eve was a night of song that wrapped itself about you like a shawl. But it warmed more than your body. It warmed your heart… filled it, too, with a melody that would last forever. ~ Bess Streeter Aldrich

For centuries men have kept an appointment with Christmas. Christmas means fellowship, feasting, giving and receiving, a time of good cheer, home. ~ W. J. Tucker

The stench from Health Care bribes and favors offered to move Obamacare nearer to becoming the law of our land is wafting across America. Three particularly putrid elements involve Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Roland Burris, and Senator Harry Reid. Hold your noses – these stink!

The Dodd rot:

Health Bill Money For Hospital Sought By Dodd

The Associated Press – Sunday, December 20, 2009

 A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night.

The provision is included in a 383-page series of changes to the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined Saturday. Scattered throughout are numerous items sought by individual lawmakers, many of them directing money explicitly to programs or projects in their home states.

The one sought by Dodd provides $100 million for “a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services.” It must be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States “that contains a State’s sole public academic medical and dental school.”

 Read more here.

Fumes from Burris:

ACORN Qualifies for Funding in Senate Health Care Bill

TheWeeklyStandard.com
By John McCormack
Monday, December 21, 2009

Senator Roland Burris is claiming credit for a provision in Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” unveiled Saturday morning, that could funnel money to ACORN through the health care bill.

The provision he cites, found on pages 240 through 248 of the manager’s amendment, requires that six different agencies each establish an “Office of Minority Health.” The agencies are the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.”

According to a Senate legislative aide, the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now could qualify for grants under this provision. ACORN would also qualify for funding on page 150 of the underlying Reid bill, which says that “community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups” may receive grants to “conduct public education activities to raise awareness of the availability of qualified health plans.”

Earlier this year, Congress passed and the president signed into law a ban on federal funding for ACORN, but a judge ruled that that law was unconstitutional. If a higher court reverses that ruling, ACORN may be prohibited from receiving funds through the Office of Minority Health earmark. But according to the Senate legislative aide, ACORN would still “absolutely” qualify for federal funding through the provision in the underlying Reid bill because the anti-ACORN appropriations amendment would not apply to funds provided through the health care exchanges.

Read more here.

Reek from Reid:

Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill

TheWeeklyStandard.com weblog                               
By John McCormack
Monday, December 21, 2009

Senator Jim DeMint pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill–and it’s supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

“There’s one provision that I found particularly troubling and it’s under Section C, titled ‘Limitations on Changes toThis Subsection.’

And I quote — “It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” This is not legislation. It’s not law. This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules – to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.

Emphasis added by editor.

Read more here.

Video: DeMint Challenges Democrat Harry Reid

The confiscation of taxpayer money to revarnish tainted politicians, the obfuscation to guarantee ACORN not only survives – but thrives, and the utter gall to sneak laws into legislation that intend to make those very laws irreversible is evidence of how deep the decay in our democracy is. Who knows what else will seep out this malodorous bill?

Capitol Hill has become a dung heap of corruption. All the air freshener in the world can’t clear the air in Washington. It’s time to disinfect.

Kill the bill! Go here to sign the petition TODAY.

Barack Obama? Beaming. Harry Reid? Rejoicing.  Nancy Pelosi? Pleased-as-punch.

After working overtime in D.C. (trophies expected) Friday and Saturday (Dec 18^th and 19^th), Democrats have enough backing to set in motion procedural votes necessary to pass Obama’s health care bill.

After all the brawling and bawling, who was holding up the health care take-over party? Senator Ben Nelson (D- Nebraska), an opponent of taxpayer funded abortion, was the wet blanket playing hard-to-get with fellow Democrats and withholding THE magical 60^th vote. It was no surprise that at the end of the day, after bribes and benefits (picked from our pockets) were laid at Nelson’s baulking feet, a call for “hankies on the house” arose as Nelson caved, tears were shed, and all were gathered in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi group hug.

Assured that federal monies will not be used to pay for abortions, Nelson’s goodie bag for Nebraska also includes extra Medicaid funds for his home state.  Here’s how Senator Nelson justifies his about-face:

Nelson said the agreement would allow states to prohibit abortion coverage in the new insurance exchanges created under the bill and mandate that every state exchange include an insurance plan that does not cover abortion. It would require payments for abortion coverage be made separately with private funds.

“The plan that we’ve put together here, that we have agreement on, in fact walls off that money in an effective manner,” Nelson told reporters. “I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions.”

Really? House Republican Leader John Boehner posted this on his GOP blog yesterday:

Fixed it is not. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) latest health care “manager’s amendment” would STILL levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans under the Democrats’ health care plan. Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) and the last version of Senator Reid’s 2,074-page bill, this latest 383-page amendment levies an abortion premium and does not fix the problem of government funds being used to subsidize elective abortions.

Under Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange. Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41). Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services. The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22).

Read more here.

Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life Committee legislative director released this statement:

“The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.”

1.2 million babies are aborted in America every year. Middle of the night moves, arm-twisting and bribery, 2500 pages of legal-speak, and hush-rush tactics hiding abortion funding to pass a health care bill most Americans don’t want is an affront to democracy and decency. Another insult, the push by Democrats to vote for this bill during the week that Christians prepare to celebrate the miracle of a wondrous birth, is deplorable.

There is still time to let your senators and representatives know how you feel. Take a moment from your Christmas preparations to contact your elected officials here.

Our seventh installment of Twelve Days of Christmas was created as a result of a young missionary working in the 1970’s in a Serbian children’s hospital during that country’s civil war. Loving and serving the injured children, the young man left for a day to seek medical supplies for the severely under-supplied hospital. Upon his return, he found the hospital completely gone. It had been bombed. All the children he loved, including doctors and nurses, were killed. In his grief, he composed the lyrics and melody to this song as tribute to their memory. At this special time of year, may we remember suffering children everywhere and do all we can to protect those who are waiting to be born. That missionary’s name is Kurt Bestor. Here he is, with friends, singing The Prayer of the Children:

“Christmas is most truly Christmas when we celebrate it by giving the light of love to those who need it most.” ~ Ruth Carter Stapleton

Republican National Committee Health Plans Cover Elective Abortion
This is not a Friday the 13th hoax. This is a real scare. It is also embarrassing and wrong: (from Politico)

The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC’s policy has covered the procedure since 1991.
…
According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage – and the RNC did not choose to opt out.

Michael Steele states “Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” and that he would act immediately to bring the policy to an end. Um, yeah, you had better.

Marco Rubio for Senate Gets a Couple Big Boosts
The lowly conservative Marco Rubio is running against the Goliath Charlie Crist in Florida for U.S. Senate. Crist has name recognition galore, but is quite lacking in conservative credentials. Two recent events will give Rubio a HUGE boost in the race: The Club for Growth endorsed Rubio, and Rubio was just confirmed as a keynote speaker for CPAC 2010 in February. Good luck young Rubio. We shall watch your career with great interest.

Palin’s Book Launches on Tuesday
In case you’ve been on another planet the last few months here’s a reminder that Palin’s new book Going Rogue is on sale this Tuesday. Among the hoopla leading up to launch date, Palin will be on Oprah on Monday. Apparently her new book talks about “substantial tension” between her and McCain’s advisors, but not a single mention of Levi Johnston. Thank goodness.

Best for Last: Romney attends small PAC fundraiser in Boca Raton
A handful of people got together for an Italian dinner prepared by local businessman Mark Guzzetta. Check out the pictures here. Here is one of Romney taste-driving the sauce:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 22, 2009

ROMNEY SALUTES PRO-LIFE MARCHERS

Former Governor Mitt Romney today released the following statement:

“Today in Washington, many thousands of American women and men have proudly gathered on the National Mall for the March for Life. In a city of many competing political interests, these marchers have come to speak for only one cause: the goodness of every life, and the rights of the unborn.

Thirty-six years ago, those rights were denied by our highest court, in a decision that also denied the rights of all Americans to resolve the abortion issue through democratic debate and legislation. To their great credit, the organizers of the March for Life never let this anniversary pass without speaking to the conscience of America , and calling our nation to uphold its highest ideals in the protection of human life.

America owes these marchers a debt of gratitude for their perseverance in a noble cause. I am honored to count myself as their friend and ally. And because of their dedication and their goodness of heart, I am certain that one day this cause will prevail. “

Here’s what some people are saying about Thompson’s abortion lobbying:

NRO’s Yuval Levin:

On the abortion question, Fred Thompson has so far managed to gain the trust of pro-lifers without actually saying anything about either principle or policy—what specifically he believes, or what kind of laws or rules he might support or oppose…Today’s NY Times story makes it pretty clear the facts are true—which should make us worry about the Thompson team’s (though, to be sure, never the Senator’s himself) original adamant denial. It also probably means Thompson’s “my client, not me” line won’t be enough. This was lobbying work, not legal work, which means those 22 conversations with the group involved advice about how to fight the Bush (41) administration’s rule.

AmSpec’s David Hogberg:

Given the withering scrutiny Romney has endured for his flip-flopping, you’d think the Thompson camp would be extra careful on these things. Even successful campaigns have a few mishaps. But this will (and should) raise questions as to whether Thompson is ready for prime time.

Outside the Beltway’s James Joyner:

The story itself is rather innocuous; that his first instinct was to lie about it, though, says something about the man’s character. My guess is that this won’t seriously damage his candidacy. After all, most people think “lying politician” is redundant. Still, to the extent that Thompson’s appeal is that he’s not a professional politician, this hurts.

I want to start off by saying that I am generally satisfied with the Republican candidates for president. They are people with whom I find a lot of common ground and would vote for long before any of the Democratic contenders.

Still, there are issues that trouble me about each candidate. I’ve talked before about some of my qualms about McCain, most recently in discussing McCain-Feingold. Today, there is one question that still plagues me about Rudy Giuliani: How?

Giuliani’s position on abortion has been well documented and I have explained the fallacy of his constitutional reasoning for supporting taxpayer funding of abortions. More recently Giuliani has argued that he will increase adoptions and decrease abortions. It is one of his now famous “twelve commitments”. Giuliani has repeated the statistics from his tenure as mayor evidencing that phenomenon in New York.

Which brings me back to my question: How? What is it that will accomplish these two goals? What policies resulted in the success in New York? Or was it purely coincidence that took place during Giuliani’s How will that work on the national stage? I assume that Giuliani will explain as he gets through fleshing out his twelve commitments, but count me skeptical right now.

Mostly I find myself skeptical because the two issues do not necessarily correlate. Increasing adoptions does not necessarily decrease abortions. Conversely decreasing abortions does not necessarily translate into more adoptions. Thus, trying to merge the two issues confuses the listener.

Which brings me to a reason why I support Mitt. We have seen Mitt defend life. He understands the role that a strong executive can play in reducing abortions. It’s not just through strict constructionist judges. It’s not just through personal opposition. It is through the full exercise of executive powers. Right now Mitt understands and advocates that. Rudy does not.

Below are Governor Romney’s excellent remarks at the National Right To Life Convention. (In other new, who is the one candidate to not make an appearance at this event?)

This speech is a powerful defense of the life movement.

“Thank you Carol. We appreciate your many years of dedicated service to the cause of life.

“I was honored to accept your invitation to address the National Right to Life convention.

“I am humbled to be standing among the many who have toiled for the pro-life movement for so long, when I arrived at this place of principle only a few years ago.

“I appreciate the decades of dedication and the effective advocacy of people like Jim Bopp, the Special Adviser to my campaign on life issues.

“I know that it is not time but conviction that unites us.

“I proudly follow a long line of converts – George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde, and Ronald Reagan to name a few.

“I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit.

“Consider the double standard at work here, by the way. When a pro-life figure changes to pro-abortion, they get praised for their courage. But when someone becomes pro-life, the pundits go into high dudgeon.

“And so, I am humbled but also grateful to be welcomed so warmly by so many with whom I share a common dedication.

“Anyone here from the pro-life community in Massachusetts knows they were always welcome in my office when I was Governor. Together we worked arm in arm.

“I can promise you this – you will be welcomed, and we will work together, if I’m fortunate enough to be elected President.

“People often ask me how a conservative Republican such as myself could have been elected in Massachusetts. I tell them that there were three things that helped account for my improbable victory.

“First, the state was in a fiscal crisis. A meltdown, of sorts. State government couldn’t get budgets done on time. Another big tax hike looked like it was on the way. I promised to balance the budget without raising taxes. And together with the legislature, that’s what we did. We eliminated a $3 billion shortfall. And by the time I left, my surpluses had replenished the rainy-day fund to over $2 billion.

“Second, we were in an economic crisis. Massachusetts was losing jobs every month and our citizens were afraid of losing more. I went to work to bring employers back to our state. By the end of the recession, we added 60,000 new jobs. We got our economic development act together – which explains much of the economic growth that the Commonwealth continues to experience even today.

“And third, we were in the beginnings of a cultural crisis. Social values also played a role in my campaign success. My opponent said she would sign a bill that would sanction same sex marriage. I said that I would oppose gay marriage and civil unions. My opponent favored bilingual education. I did not. I said that to be successful in America, children need to speak the language of America. And my opponent wanted to lower the age of consent for an abortion from 18 to 16 – and I did not.

“And so, social conservatives, many of them Democrats and Independents, joined fiscal conservatives to elect a Republican.

“That being said, I had no inkling that I would find myself in the center of the battlefield on virtually every major social question of our time.

“The first battle came when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, by a one vote majority, found a right to same sex marriage in our constitution. John Adams wrote that constitution. I’m sure he’d be surprised.

“The Court said that traditional marriage – the natural union of one man and one woman – ‘is rooted in persistent prejudices’ and ‘works a deep and scarring hardship … for no rational reason.’

“No rational reason? How about children? Isn’t it clear that marriage provides the best environment for the development and nurturing of children? And isn’t a child’s development enhanced by having both a mother and a father?

“I believe that the Court got it wrong because it focused on the desires and perceived rights of adults.

“The Court should have focused on the needs of children. The ideal setting for the raising of a child is a home built on a marriage between a loving mother and father.

“Then came the ’slippery slope’ – not the argument but the reality.

“The implications of the marriage decision quickly went well beyond adult marriage. Efforts were made to change birth certificates by removing ‘mother’ and ‘father’ and replacing them with ‘parent A’ and ‘parent B.’ I said no to that. And parents of a child in second grade were told that their son is required to listen to the reading of a book called the ‘King and the King,’ about a prince who marries another prince. The school’s rationale was since same sex marriage was legal, the education system should advance the idea.

“And then another slide along the slippery slope. The Catholic Church was forced to end its adoption service, which was crucial in helping the state find homes for some of our most difficult to place children. Why? Because the Church favors placements in homes with a mother and a father. Now, even religious freedom was being trumped by the new-found ‘right’ of gay marriage. I immediately drafted and introduced legislation to grant religious liberty protection, but the legislature wouldn’t even take it up.

“When I was Governor, we took every conceivable step within the law to stop, block or slow down this unprecedented court decision.

“Our goal was to take the decision away from the Court and give it back to the people. But yesterday, the Massachusetts state legislature, at the urging of the new Democratic Governor, refused to allow the voice of the people to be heard.

“The fight is not over.

“We need to take this battle to Washington again. We need to explain the far-reaching implications of the push to dramatically change our marriage laws. Now is the time to pass a federal marriage amendment to protect marriage in all 50 states.

“In the midst of that battle, another arose. It involved cloning and embryo farming for purposes of research. I studied the subject in great depth. I have high hopes for stem cell research. But for me, a bright moral line is crossed when we create new life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.

“That’s why I fought to keep cloning and embryo farming illegal.

“It was during this battle that I began to focus a good deal more of my thinking on abortion.

“When I first ran for office, while I was always personally opposed to abortion, I considered whether this should be a private decision or whether it should be a societal and government decision. I concluded that I would support the law as it was in place – effectively, the pro-choice position.

“And I was wrong.

“What became clear during the cloning debate is how the harsh logic of an absolute right to abortion had cheapened the value of human life to the point that rational people saw a human embryo as nothing more than mere research material to be used, and then destroyed.

“The slippery slope was taking us to racks and racks of living human embryos, Brave New World-like, awaiting termination.

“What some see as just a clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and be loved. Human life has a profound dignity, undiminished by age or infirmity.

“My experience as Governor taught me firsthand that the threat to our culture is real and those in a position to do so must take action to defend it.

“Times of decision are moments of great clarity. Before I was Governor, the life issue was just that, an issue. But when responsibility for life or ending life was placed in my hands, I made the right decision. I chose life.

“Just like some others in the pro-life movement, a moment of decision became a defining moment.

“And so, every time I faced a decision as Governor that related to life, I came down on the side of life.

“I fought to ban cloning.

“I fought to ban embryo farming.

“I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation.

“I fought for abstinence education in our schools.

“And I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that gave young girls abortive drugs without prescription or parental consent.

“That is my record as Governor of Massachusetts.

“Recently, I was attacked by one of my opponents because when I ran for Governor I promised to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion in Massachusetts. Of course, I kept that promise. But in Massachusetts, that meant vetoing pro-choice legislation – as I consistently did as Governor. That’s why last month I was honored with an award from Massachusetts Citizens for Life in recognition of the actions I took as Governor to protect life.

“The next president, especially if faced with a hostile Congress, will be confronted with many legislative tests, such as challenging the Hyde amendment and advancing cloning. You can be sure that I will be bringing my gubernatorial experience – and my veto pen – with me to Washington.

“The larger problem is there are some people who believe that their pro-choice views must be imposed on everyone. More and more, the vehicle for this imposition is the courts.

“Some say that it is ‘OK’ for the courts to impose their personal public policy preferences on society. I am not among them.

“Make no mistake: the claimed rights of abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage are not in the Constitution.

“But the problem of an activist bench goes beyond the issue of abortion and gay marriage that.

“Slowly but surely, the courts have taken it upon themselves to be the final arbiters of our lives. They have forgotten that the essence of democracy is the right to govern ourselves.

“Chief Justice John Roberts put it best at his confirmation hearing, when he described the role of a judge. ‘Judges and Justices are servants of the law,’ he said, ‘not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them … and I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.’

“Now that’s the type of Justice that I would appoint to the Court.

“On the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Ronald Reagan observed that the Court’s decision had not yet settled the abortion debate. It had become ‘a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.’

“More than thirty years later, that is still the case. Numerous court decisions have not settled this question, but have further divided the nation. And Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society.

“This cannot continue.

“At the heart of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decisions should ultimately be decided by the people themselves.

“I certainly believe in treating all people with respect and dignity. You can’t be a pro-life Governor in the bluest of blue states without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question.

“It is our great task to persuade our fellow citizens of the truth of our convictions.

“Strengthening our country and our families, protecting marriage and human life and preserving for our children the true blessings of liberty; these are noble purposes. I am confident we are worthy of them.

“After all, we are a decent people who have a commitment to the worth and dignity of every person. This is ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose.

“Thank you.”

These updates from objective observers about the McCain hit piece:

From Michael Luo at the Caucus:

His [Romney's] campaign also released a longer clip from the same news conference:

Indeed, in July 2005, a few weeks after the press conference, Mr. Romney vetoed an emergency contraception bill that would allow pharmacists to dispense the so-called morning-after pill without a prescription and require hospitals to make it available to rape victims.

He penned an op-ed for the Boston Globe to explain his decision, writing in part:

I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

From Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic:

Contradiction? I wrote about Romney’s conversion for National Journal and came away with the impression that the Harvard incident began the process, rather than ended it — that it took time before Romney fully came to realize that the pro-life position was correct.

Also, Romney has always claimed that, even after his personal revelation, he never went back on his promise to Massachusetts voters.

Me: What McCain’s camp fails to divulge is that Romney’s defense of the “status quo” in Massachusetts was actually a win for the pro-life movement. As Luo explains, it was in response to a veto of expanding stem cell research that Romney cited his promise to Massachusetts voters about abortion. He was denying the legislature the ability to increase stem cell research and abortion rights. Romney was a foil to liberal legislation in Massachusetts, not a co-conspirator in it. As usual, McCain is wrong.