Urban Elephants Poll: Is Abortion The Next "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" For The Republican Party?

Urban Elephants, a website for New York City Republicans, has been feuding lately over abortion.

So they polled.  I found the wording a bit insulting to true conservatives.

Is there room for a strong faction of pro-choice conservatives in the Republican Party?

Yes, we need to embrace the "big tent" on social issues.

No, we need to maintain a strict litmus test to keep the Party socially conservative.

Pro-choicers can join the Party they just need to keep quiet on social issues.

That last alternative could be as rudely coined the "don't ask, don't tell" option on abortion, with nearly a quarter of those polled (20%) on Urban Elephants supporting an intolerable political muzzle on pro-abortion Republicans.

Madness.

Nearly 60% support supported this rhetorically deceptive "big tent" option and only 21% opposed a strict litmus test on social conservatives.

Why can't these knuckleheads accept calling each other liberals and get over it -- rather than pretending to be conservative?

Only 60 have voted so far at http://www.urbanelephants.com.  It's primarily a five borough crowd on Urban Elephants and its own litmus test does not always resemble the mainstream Republican Party.

What started the feuding was an open discussion on Nan Hayworth in the mid-Hudson Valley's 19th Congressional District -- though not just over abortion or the 19th.  Republicans have felt like orphans under Bloomberg and there are measurable concerns that they will get even less attention in 2010.

Meanwhile, Urban Elephants columnist Raquel Okyay identified a healthcare PAC, the Americican Medical Group Association (AMGA) that involves her husband Dr. Scott Hayworth and many donors from his Mount Kisco based medicial facility.

There is not much unusual about this PAC, except that is giving 81% of its monies to Democrats.  At least one official from the NRCC described such a PAC and such distribution of PAC dollars to the political party controlling Congress as "pretty normal" (it does seem pretty normal for D.C., actually).

Okyay came to her own conclusions.

"... It’s easy to make the assumption that husband Hayworth is more than just supportive of abortion rights but actively works to defend it by raising money to fund pro-abortion candidates – not very different from a Planned Parenthood PAC – and by association links candidate Hayworth with the powerful abortion lobby."

AMGA is based in the state of Washington, with donors who primarily come from New York, who either work for Hayworth's Mount Kisco Medical Group or practice comparable medicine in the tri-state area (including some of Hayworth's inidvidual donors).

Hayworth's husband defended himself last night.

"I am indeed the CEO of the Mount Kisco Medical Group (MKMG). I don’t perform abortions. I have in my years as an OB-GYN delivered more than 2,000 babies. MKMG is not an abortion clinic."

The list of Democrats receiving money from this PAC includes Nita Lowey, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, Patty Murray and many other liberal healthcare advocates to make the American Medical Group Association seem like Obama-lite.

Hayworth claimed no control over the PAC.

"While I am honored to be involved with the American Medical Group Association, (AMGA) I do not sit on the PAC Board, which is a separate entity. I have no control over whom the PAC chooses to support. I am not in the business of raising money to support ‘pro-abortion’ candidates."

But as the NRCC diplomatically explained, the whole idea of such a PAC is to influence the Democrats (the party in control) -- particularly powerful liberal Democrats -- and Hayworth's many employees and associates signed on without much difficulty.

While it may not be a purely pro-abortion PAC, a more serious issue might be what healthcare policies have been supported and opposed by AMGA -- particularly in a year where patients and doctors have been thrown about like chess pieces by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Comments

[Robert Hornak]

Bob,

Are you going to tell me that "don't ask don't tell" DOESN'T accurately describe what social conservatives think about the pro-choice faction in the party?

C'mon. You call the wording of the poll insulting then you dare to call republicans like me "pro-abortion" and then you say "Why can't these knuckleheads accept calling each other liberals and get over it..."

Well, my friend, I will tell you why I don't call myself a liberal, in spite of your desire to control the airwaves in the republican party on this issue.

I AM A CONSERVATIVE. I believe in small, limited gov't, a pro-growth fiscal agenda that includes low marginal tax rates and cuts in spending. I believe in a strong national defense and in not apologizing for being the world leader in military affairs. I believe in keeping our streets safe from criminals. And I believe that we should keep gov't out of people's lives as much as possible, including their personal lives. That includes, with reasonable restrictions, a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term.

And there are many, many republicans just like me.

My values are consistent and I am proud of them. I will not be told by anyone, even you, what I should call myself when I know where my core values lie.

There is nothing rhetorically deceptive about having a big tent for a party. The only problem with that is that some people seem to think that the party would be better off without people like me and that the tent should be taken down.

I respect the opinion of my pro-life friends in the party. I can live with the pro-life faction of the party. That respect however seems all too often to be a one-way street. Instead of pro-life republicans respecting me and my fellow libertarian republicans for our principled beliefs, we instead get called RINO, liberal, and worse.

Instead of following Reagan's litmas test (someone who agrees with me on 7 out of ten issues is 70% my ally, not 30% my enemy), you would rather impose an edict of ideological purity based on abortion. You are free to try, but you will destroy the republican party in the process.

[The Editor]

A Republican candidate for Congress shouldn't be fronting for a PAC that donates 81 percent of its dollars to Democrats.

Whether the PAC supports basket weaving or wealthy doctors, business as usual influencing Congress with PAC money has no place in the 19th Congressional District.

If you have a problem with how Nan Hayworth conducts her business, tell her to give all the money back -- but don't project your political frustrations with the failures of the liberal wing of the Republican Party on good Tea Party activists who mean well in their enthusiasm for civic reform.

The problem with Nan's PAC has to do with the way it was constructed to launder money -- sadly, legally -- to lobby Democrats in control of the House to help Republicans ... who in turn would scratch Nan Hayworth's back.

The scandal here is the backdoor way Nan Hayworth is trying to buy this candidacy.

It's everything Ronald Reagan fought against as a reformer.

You don't want a big tent. You want an influence peddling whorehouse in Washington. No thank you.

P.S. -- You personally are too gosh-darned obsessed with abortion, if you ask me.

[Robert Hornak]

Dear Mr. Editor,

The only time i am "obsessed with abortion" is when the pro-life faction of the party tries to destroy good candidates like Nan simply because they are pro-choice. I am quite certain that if she were taking a pro-life stance you and your cronies could care less about what her husband did and there would be no rumors circulating that a quality health care facility like the one he runs is an abortion mill.

Bob, I really think you are becoming a bit unhinged over this. You are now calling it "Nan's PAC" when she has absolutely nothing to do with it, other than perhaps having personal relationships with the people who run it.

And your comment "influencing Congress with PAC money has no place in the 19th Congressional District" is really over the top, although it did make me laugh. Are you seriously saying that no republican running in the 19th should accept PAC money? Seriously?

I have no problem at all with how Nan has conducted herself. I think she is an exceptional candidate. If you want to tear her down I hope you will consider trying to use facts to support your case instead of innuendo based on innuendo based on assumption. Guilt by association three times removed just doesn't really carry any weight.

[truth hurts]

Why would you expect reason from Bob Fois when he can't even distinguish between an organization in its own right and a PAC that it is affiliated with?

[The Editor]

Robert,

You forget that I managed Joe DioGuardi's campaign against Sue Kelly in 1996 and witnessed this madness firsthand. We watched House Speaker Newt Gingrich come in and order Joe not to run, not too different from what Gingrich did last year in the 23rd.

And the politics of the 23rd are still with us.

I did the opposition research on Sue Kelly; from her loans to her donors, right down to taking the first photographs of the illegal aliens congregating for work with contractors behind the Mount Kisco Library. I recognize the same names on Nan Hayworth's donor list, including the same doctors who supported Sue Kelly giving to the AMGA PAC.

It took a brutal primary in 1996 to get Sue Kelly to finally just support a ban on late-term partial birth abortion. It was like a trip to a political dentist and I can assure you that the same pro-abortion advocates players are more aggressively behind Nan Hayworth.

I also have listened to tea party activists who are begging for someone else to get into the race. They don't like how she shows up briefly for a photo op and just leaves. My humble sense is that they don't trust her, not yet at least, and they are hoping for someone more energized to get into the race.

I have listened to local party leaders in both the Republican and Conservative parties all five counties privately bemoan Hayworth as a candidate. They mean no ill will. She's a nice person but she's a terrible candidate. Some resent Sue Kelly's presence behind her candidacy and others genuinely have grown weary of Nan Hayworth simply not coming into her own.

I have heard both sides of the story from the NRCC, as much as the word of mouth in D.C. is that high level Republican operatives are afraid for their jobs -- so they won't tell you the truth. The lack of money on hand has created a more duplicitous environment for congressional races. What Dan Peterson and Raquel Ohyay have shared is true. The nuts and bolts of the NRCC doesn't like Nan Hayworth. They did like Greg Ball, despite his maverick personality, but they accepted him more primarily because he was a maverick.

Money bought Nan Hayworth contender status. Little else.

This seemingly insignicant PAC pumped over $50,000 down to Washington, D.C. to members of the party in control -- and $17,500 to Republicans. The NRCC described such a practice as "perfectly normal" but there is nothing normal about a bulk of donations from Westchester (120 of 176, at least) ending up in a healthcare PAC clear across the country lobbying predominately liberal Democrats!

It bought them something -- and isn't that at least part of what the tea party movement has been fighting now for over a year nationally?

This is not about abortion, as much as Dr. Hayworth apparently does run a facility that performs abortions. Though rock solid physical confirmation is not forthcoming YET, it does appear that Nan Hayworth's husband lied when he said that the Mount Kisco Medical Facility is not an abortion clinic. It rightfully is also a fertility clinic but the "fear and loathing" surrounding the facility has even kept Nan Hayworth from more openly discussing this wonderful fact.

It's about political fear and loathing. It's also about business as usual. Even the political players are the same as 1996.

Whether or not a better candidate gets in this race remains to be seen. I'm personally skeptical and I personally KNOW the prospective candidates. Sooner or later, one of more of them has to show up. Otherwise, Nan Hayworth will be the Republican candidate -- but I have an obligation to the Conservatives I loyally serve and lead not to endorse her for Congress.

Robert A. Fois
Eastchester Town Conservative Chairman
Westchester County Conservative Committee

[Appalled at Hall]

Robert,

I don't think it is realistic to list money as a strike against Hayworth's candidacy when most party bosses view access to money as a strength. You can't have it both ways, the political reality is that campaigns need money to win.

Don't you also have an obligation to the Conservatives to see that John Hall is removed from office?

Appalled

[Robert Hornak]

Well put, Appalled. Bob you can't seriously deride Nan for being a good fundraiser. It really seems you have not gotten over 1996 and are now taking it out on Nan. You and I are kindred spirits in many ways, but I think that is rather unfortunate.

Are you seriously going to tell me that because Sue Kelly is backing Nan and some former Kelly donors have contributed to Nan, you are really going to hold that against her?

Nan has pro-choice supporters. Is that a shock? You are spinning this entire thing way out of the bounds of reality. Resent that if you must, but reject pro-choice conservatives at your own peril. Then again, you are a Conservative, not a Republican.

Your NRCC info is clearly off base. In spite of the evidence you don't seem to want to back off the abortion mill thing with Mt Kisco. Btw, evidence is a word you seem to have forgotten as a journalist. You know, that thing based on facts and not twisted innuendo.

You say its not about abortion, but that seems to be your main objection with this candidate. Or is it her busy schedule and short appearances at events that would prevent you from eventually supporting her?

Bob, you have an agenda here. I have no problem with that, except that you are not being honest about it. You don't like Sue and by extension don't like Nan, who you see as her protege. You claim she hasn't come into her own but refuse to judge her on her own merits. You want to twist her husband's career, Sue Kelly's donors and whispers that only you seem to be hearing into what you hope will become a case against her.

Sorry, but I'm not gonna sit by while anyone tries to take down a good republican candidate simply because she is pro-choice.

[Alice Lemos]

I don't trust Nan Hayworth - and the fact that Robert Hornak is once again attacking pro life Republicans - is proof enough that something is wrong with Hayworth and her candidacy. Donations to Nita Lowey and Schumer? Major ugh! That comment "take down a good republican candidate simply because she is pro-choice" tells you all you need to know about Hayworth and Hornak. You should remove the adverb "simply" - abotion support is a major, major problem for Hayworth. And the fact that her supporter is so strident tells much about her and her candidacy. Kelly's last campaign was a disaster. She was attacking John Hall from the LEFT.

[Alice Lemos]

We are not a "faction", Mr. Hornak - the "pro choice" wing is a faction and a minority one at that!

[Appalled at Hall]

Alice,

Why is it you and Mr. Fois are giving John Hall a pass on his PAC affiliations and are going after Hayworth so viciously?

I suggest you read www.appalledathall.com for analysis on his donors. Yours truly,

Appalled

[Robert Hornak]

Well put Appalled. The answer is simple, there are a small group of fanatics in the Republican Party who feel far more threatened by having to share control with the strong, growing faction of pro-choice conservatives than they do by ultra-left wing socialists in Congress.

It is very sad they they never learned from the example that Reagan set. Most pro-life advocates are very good and reasonable people. They build bridges based on the 90% of the issues we have in common. But this small group of radical, unhinged fanatics will never be happy sharing the conservative movement with people who are moderate on abortion. Regardless of the success potentially at hand to push back the creep toward socialism we have experienced in the last 40 years.

And thanks Alice for chiming in. Your opposition and typical attempt to impugn my character only tell me I am right in my position. If you are against Nan Hayworth, then there MUST be something GOOD about her.

[Alice Lemos]

"Strong, growing faction of pro-choice conservatives" . . . besides yourself, Mr. Hornak, name another. You are in the minority and you will probably do to Hayworth's campaign what you did to Tedisco's - alienate people. And you did alienate supporters.

[Alice Lemos]

Mr. Appalled, nobody is giving Hall a pass - we just think we can do better than this lady.

[Alice Lemos]

Nan will lose based on the fact that Hornak is pushing for her and insulting people while doing it. I recall the support that was giving to Didi Scuzzy before the rug was yanked out from under her by the truth - she was a Far Leftist even more liberal than the Demo she was running against. Nothing "moderate" about Didi.

[Robert Hornak]

Well, I guess we can include Scott Brown in that group of pro-choice conservatives. I feel in good company.

[Raquel Okyay]

Here is the striking difference between Scott Brown and Nan Hayworth, Nan Hayworth's husband is the CEO of a clinic that is known for abortions. A candidate can have a soft "pro-choice" position and be likable to the conservative/pro-life supporter, but your candidate's husband's ties are too close to the abortion industry. No thank you. Can't the GOP come up with someone else?

[Robert Hornak]

"Nan Hayworth's husband is the CEO of a clinic that is known for abortions."

And your proof for this is what? I have scoured the clinic website and can find no sign of them offering abortions. Do they do this in secret in the dark of night? Can you produce one advertisement for this facility soliciting abortions, or one former patient? Can you show ANYTHING that would help your case? Or do we jettison this candidate based on the say so of a couple of disgruntled people who refuse to identify themselves and hide behind you?

[Alice Lemos]

Pro lifers in that neck of the woods know what is going on.