Mitchell’s Liberal Extremists Running Scared

Liberal special interest groups just hit the panic button in the race for Congressional District five.

In a 48-Hour Notice report just filed with the Federal Elections Commission, the Mitchell Campaign disclosed that the political action committee of America’s largest abortion provider (Planned Parenthood of America) donated $2,000 in blood money to Harry Mitchell on Friday.

That’s because Harry Mitchell has been a lapdog for the abortion industry for years. When Mitchell was in the legislature, he voted against providing critical information to women about abortion, its risks and its alternatives. He even voted against a bill that established standards under which abortion clinics must operate cleanly and safely. (Abortion clinics are not regulated.)

Then he voted against a parents right to give consent or even be informed about their minor daughter seeking or undergoing an abortion. You can’t even give a teenager an aspirin in school without parental consent!

Harry Mitchell is no friend of reasonable Supreme Court-approved restrictions on abortion. Just look who is protecting him and who is writing him checks so they can continue their violent abuse of human rights.

Planned Parenthood wants Harry Mitchell back in Congress. They need Harry Mitchell back in Congress -especially if they want to continue the wanton business of killing of unborn babies.

So when Harry Mitchell trys to sell himself as a moderate to the voters, don’t be fooled. Harry Mitchell is extreme as they come and that $2,000 “investment” by Planned Parenthood will go a long way to protect an abortionist’s right to make a killing, literally.

One other interesting note about the 48 Hour Report is that the unions are also panicking about losing Harry Mitchell. They’ve also donated $10,000 to Mitchell.

(SA is verifying voting record on PBAB)


Comments

  1. Wow! $2,000! That’ll buy, what? 20 seconds of ad time? Please.

    Schweikert opposes abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. It’s fuzzy on whether or not if the mother’s life is in danger, but since he got the nod from AZ RTL, we have to assume that as well.

    The prestigious Cook Political Report just upgraded AZs 1, 5, and 8 to Likely Democratic.

    No one’s panicking over here.

  2. One of the claims here strikes me as a little odd. The claim that Harry Mitchell voted against the Partial Birth Abortion ban. Since the ban was passed in 2003 and MItchell has been in the House since 2007 that doesn’t seem to be possible. Or is this in reference to a bill that came before the AZ Senate?

  3. I wish I could say that Mitchell is running scared but as Klute said the Cook report updated this to a likely democrat. Also the DCCC is pulling out of this race along with DC-8. They do not think Schweikert or Bee have much of chance anymore.

    So while I wish I could believe Mitchell is running scared that just is not based in reality.

  4. Sorry, I know Kim’s going to be concerned about my level of posting, but it’s amusing to see who also gave $2000.00 to Mitchell.

    The Veterans of Foreign Wars are also “Liberal Extremists” by your yardstick, SA. As are the world’s largest publicly traded copper company and the Associated General Contractors of America…

    Those three seem pretty conservative by my standards, especially the last 2 as they are dependent on a strong economy to make money.

    At this point, is anyone to the left of Francisco Franco a “liberal extremist”?

  5. kralmajales says

    As the Klute and Rachel note, this race is about over. The verdict here, in the end, will be that ya’ll should have worked to find a candidate in CD1 and put your money and effort into holding it as an open GOP held seat. Instead, you spread your dough in races like 5 and 8 which were no win.

    This poor strategy has put Shaddegg into jeopardy too.

    I think the one thing in this post that you might agree with is this:

    You need to fire your State party leadership…and county leadership…and now.

  6. Capo di Tutti Capo says

    I am a life-long republican voter. What about Barry Goldwater and other great GOP leaders makes you think that we are the anti-right to choose party? No one who supports Planned Parenthood, as I do, wants abortion. We want a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body. Come on, my party’s leadership – get out of my wife’s bedroom. When is my party going to get back to being the Republican Party??

  7. Annie Hoyle says

    How brilliant it was to call it a “choice”. You all buy into that! Semantics! Choose what?! Choose to have a baby or kill the baby through abortion. Choose life or death. As I’m sitting here in my kitchen looking at my 13 year old daughter, I could swear she is not at all my body! “Right to choose what happens to her body” my foot! We all know better…The Good Lord knows better!

    Oh, and Klute, David Schweikert is an adopted person who is very close to this issue.. his brother, sister and father were all adopted as babies, praise God! His sister is the product of a date rape and she AND her birth mother (who regrets nothing and would do it again) talk about what a gift she is to this world! His family is fabulous and they are HERE!

  8. GOP Boomer Gal says

    I have a letter from Barry Goldwater from 1979 stating he was for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Roe V Wade. As Republicans, we may disagree on the abortion issue, but Planned Parenthood wants NO restrictions, parental consent, informed consent, etc.

  9. Annie Hoyle says

    And then there was Ronald Reagan!

  10. 2 out of 9…not bad! 🙂

  11. James Davidson says

    Capo: I personally heard Senator Goldwater say that he was pro-life and anti-abortion when talking to supporters who came up to greet him after a speech he gave in October 1980 at the Adams Hotel in Phoenix. This was when he badly needed the help of pro-life forces in his very close race against Bill Schulz, a race he lost on election day but narrowly pulled ahead to win when the absentee ballots were counted. I didn’t believe him then, and thought he was pandering for support. Nonetheless I heard him say it.

    The Republican Party welcomes people on both sides of the issue, but the majority of Republicans clearly is pro-life. A pro-choice politician might get elected in Republican districts in Blue States, but not likely in Red States.

    If the Supreme Court had stayed out of it, as it should have done, we would not have this political issue bedeviling us for the last 35 years. The abortion question would have remained with the states, where it belongs and where it had been for the first 197 years of this country’s existence. Some states would have liberalized their laws, as California had done before Roe was decided. Others would not have done so. I suspect Arizona eventually would have allowed unrestricted abortion in the first three months, and little after. In any event it would have been settled by majority rule rather than by little judicial emperors.

    I respect Schweikert for his stand on abortion. In that district, comprising much of Tempe and Scottsdale, I doubt it helps him much. Mitchell is pandering.

  12. People,

    The point of this post is that the pro-abortion extremists – yes, that is what they are because they fight EVERY reasonable restriction on abortion – is going all out to protect Harry Mitchell who will vote their agenda at every opportunity. This is one issue that could not be more black and white or in this case, good and evil. Harry Mitchell will vote to promote, protect and preserve the culture of death through abortion. David Schweikert, if elected, will vote to promote, protect and preserve the culture of life. The voters can take this information now and do the right and good thing or they close their eyes, sing a little louder and re-elect someone who will further the agenda of the radical pro-abortion extremists. I pray that the voters of CD-5 still have a conscience and can tell the difference between right and wrong.

  13. The problem DSW is that Schwiekert opposes any reasonable *exception* for abortion.

    Raped? Carry the child. Father molested the daughter? Carry the child. Carrying the child will tear open your uterus causing you to bleed out and die in agony? Carry the child.

    I’m sorry if that sounds unpleasant and “extreme”, but these are what David Schweikert wants for women in these circumstances. As soon as the anti-abortion groups understand that without these really common sense additions to the legislation, then you can expect to win some fights. Until then… Expect to lose.

    And I love how $2,000 is “going all out”. I’m sure Nathan Hale is looking down and thinking “they believe writing a check is going all out?”. I sure the VFW would love to hear how they no longer “have a conscience”.

    Annie, I’m not going to disrespect Schwiekert for having his beliefs, the problem is he wants to force his beliefs on everyone else. I know several women (my friend Kat, for instance) who absolutely would not want to carry a rapist’s child and they sure as hell don’t want David Schweikert telling them what they should do.

  14. Klute,

    You have got to be joking right? You mean to tell us that you’e rather send some woman to some money-hungry abortionist and tell her to get her uterus vacuumed out after she’s gone through hell? An abortion is the last thing a woman needs after being raped. It will only exacerbate her situation. Do you really believe it is in her best interest to have her baby killed right after she’s been horribly victimized by a violent act? Great logic. Fix one violent act with another one. The last thing she needs is the guilt of an abortion on her after being violently abused. What about all the wonderful individuals amongst us whose mothers gave them up for adoption after being raped? I challenge you to walk up to them and tell them they should not be here. Why don’t you tell that to Angelina Jolie whose adopted daughter Zahara was the product of rape?

    $2,000 may not be a lot of money to you Klute but it probably cost five babies their lives.

  15. The difference to me is pretty clear.

    I’d rather have an elected official making policy that errs on the side of saving lives rather than taking it.

    Harry Mitchell would vote for abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all throughout all nine months of pregnancy; without parental notice or consent; without spousal notice or consent; without providing any information to the woman (really anti-choice); and ask the taxpayers to pay for abortions domestically and oversees.

    David Schweikert would vote in favor of protecting women and their unborn babies; in favor of fully informing women of all the risks and alternatives to abortion, in favor of prosecuting perpetrators like Scott Peterson who kill their wives and unborn children; and protecting taxpayers from paying for abortions here and abroad.

    I’ll take any candidate who pledges to protect the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness any day. That’s a candidate who is looking out for everyone’s best interest regardless of race, color religion, national origin, age and even location – in utero.

  16. DSW,

    I think you are missing the point of your post. You were talking about pro-abortion groups hitting the panic button. With Mitchell raising 285k last quarter $2,000 from this pro-abortion group is less than 1% of the money he received for the quarter!

    The post as to these groups panicking is disingenuous at best. Charlie Cook updated this race to “likely democrat” because Schweikert has run an inept campaign. The DCCC is pulling its money out because they think Mitchell has the race in hand and the NRCC is not helping Schweikert out. Attacking Mitchell for being pro-choice is not going to turn this around. Taxes and the bailout should be the focus of Schweikert right now.

  17. The discussion is central to the difference between liberal and conservative.

    A liberal government should not ever tell me what I can and cannot do; smoke pot, have an abortion, and be friends with a guy who blows up police stations and then become POTUS. Yet should be there ALWAYS to make sure no one gets in my way and gives me the money to do it, even if I do not pay taxes and want to raise yours.

    A conservative says you are responsible for your actions and happiness is yours to pursue not a handout. You do not have the right to take someone else’s happiness, money, or derail their pursuit because you will not do what it takes to get your own. This includes unborn children who did nothing but exist, offers no physical harm or obligation beyond allowing them to live with you or without you.

    No spreading the wealth but you earn your money and I earn mine, take care of your family and I will take care of mine, no killing babies but get some much deserved counseling and offer another family the gift of a child. And if along the way one should stumble or fall, we will be there to give you a hand-up while you dust yourself off and get back on your own road.

  18. Ann,
    There are two things which problematize the conservative government philosophy you explain. The first is, money and wealth give power to the people who hold them. Those people then will use this power and influence to game the system to increase their power and decrease others’. Whether this is through plain greed or through some belief, as John Jay put it, that “those who own the country should run it,” this is a situation which has been seen time and again throughout history – you wind up with plebes and patricians.

    The second problem is inherited wealth. You may earn your money but what of the wealthy class that have inherited. This wealth and power than accumulates and becomes held in the hands of a few. This is why people from Adam Smith to Teddy Roosevelt have supported “spreading the wealth” through inheritance taxes (the GOP dreaded “death tax”).

  19. I really am done trying to rebut all this, other than to suggest that JoyD go back and find the post where my friend Kat spoke of her rape and abortion, to remind Joe G. that the average pro-life person (as evidenced here) is emphatically against offering an exclusion for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and to hope Ann keeps propogating those sterotypes, because it can do nothing but help the American people see the real divide between them and conservatism.

  20. Just curious – Obviously the original post has been edited to take out the claim that Mitchell voted against the PBA ban – just wondering how the verification of that claim is going. I am also curious if it is false, what the source was.

Leave a Reply