Why I Can't Stand RINOs

If you ever wondered how a one-time Mitt Romney supporter could possibly end up in Obamanation, look no further:

It won’t help now that the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) has endorsed Obama over Clinton. This is an endorsement that is deeply troubling unless the good Senator Obama intends to match it with the sobering acknowledgment that abortion is less “right,” than avoidable tragedy…

[Church teachings] obviously would preclude a Catholic voter from supporting a referendum providing public funding for abortion, but what about a candidate like Obama who is not pro-abortion, but of the view that the civil law best leaves this question to the mother in consultation with their own clergyman and doctor?

Catholic voters in this circumstance are asked to consider what other social goods Obama represents and whether they can honestly and openly say that they are supporting him for that reason and not his stand on abortion… The list is long: the death and economic waste associated with an unjustified war in Iraq; failure to be good stewards of the environment; promoting a tax code that favors the wealthy and undermines a family wage; perpetuating an immigration system that divides families and overlooks the exploitation of labor and more.

As you can see, calling Doug Kmiec a RINO is little short of feint praise.  How he ended up as co-chair of Romney’s committee on the courts is little short of baffling - especially given how supposedly rabidly pro-life Kmiec is and how Johnny-come-lately Governor Romney was to the cause.

Kmiec's association with BO is actually a lot more logical in a generalist sense - but NOT if he is rabidly pro-life, as Obama is Johnny-come-bloody-nothing to the defense of the unborn.  Which is presumeably why NARAL endorsed him.  So how does Kmiec rationalize supporting an orthodox backer of child sacrifice if this is his core, top-priority issue?

Incoherently, as it turns out:

As I see it, the “self-evident truths” of the Declaration [of Independence] have interpretative significance for the meaning of “life” and “person” in the constitutional text — and that meaning makes life unalienable, which means each life from conception is unique and worthy of constitutional protection…

Thus, as I see it, [the election] is a choice between two less than sufficient courses:

(a) the continuation of an effort to appoint men and women to the Court who are thought willing to overturn Roe through divisive confirmation proceedings that undermine respect for law and understate the significance of non-abortion issues in a judicial candidate’s evaluation; or

(b) working with a new president who honestly concedes the abortion decision poses serious moral issues which he argues can only be fully and successfully resolved by the mother facing it with the primary obligation of the community seeing to it that she is as well informed as possible in the making of it…

If it’s a choice between giving a boost to the work of my fellow parishioners who week after week in thinly-funded, crisis pregnancy centers, open their minds and their hearts and often their homes to pregnant women (and Obama has spoken approvingly of faith-based efforts) and a Supreme Court Justice to be named later who may or may not toss the issue back to the states, I think I know which course is more effectively choosing life. 

Would it be unkind of me to call this idiotic?  Kmiec speaks of (a) as though it were somehow the Republicans' fault, as though it were not the Democrats - including, since 2004, Barack Hussein Obama (who voted against both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito) - who have poisoned the confirmation process and actively defended the disregard of the rule of law by, among other things, shamelessly defending the criminal presidency of Bill Clinton.  As though the party of his candidate is not the source of the extraconstitutional oligarchist judicial philosophy that recognizes no limits upon the Judiciary's power to negate the democratic process and rule by diktat - the process that inflicted Roe v. Wade on the American body politic in the first place.

And since when does reconstitutionalizing the courts conflict with changing hearts and minds at the grassroots level such that there's a remotely either/or choice between the two?  Wouldn't it make more sense to back a candidate who supports both?  If, that is, ending abortion is truly that important, or important at all, to Doug Kmiec.

The exit question begs itself: Why wasn't DK a Hucker?  Mike Huckabee has the inside track to becoming John McCain's running mate, after all.  Yeah, that's not much of a reed to lean on, but it would be a lot less half-baked then AP's punchline:

Let me rephrase. Kmiec’s actually to the right of Scalia in believing that Roe should not only be overturned (which would leave it to the states to decide whether to ban abortion) but that the Court should find an affirmative right to life in the Due Process Clause that would prohibit abortion nationwide. His master plan for accomplishing this? Electing Barack Obama president and letting him appoint all the pro-choice justices he can get away with, because Obama “honestly concedes the abortion decision poses serious moral issues” and is super-keen about informing women of their choices.

Doug Kmiec is an f'ing moron.  Either that or an f'ing pinko liar.  Which means he should be feeling right at home in his new "revolutionary" digs.  Good riddance.

A pity he can't take the RINO ticket with him.