The Early Objections...

... to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination leave something to be desired.
Megyn Fox was playing devil's advocate on Fox News this morning, but perhaps she was playing too hard for Mr. Franks, whose main argument seemed to be that he can read the president's mind. (Also, the issue of abortion, via that conveniently co-opted phrase "right to life," was, in his view, first and foremost in the minds of the nation's founders when they were drafting the Constitution.)

REP. TRENT FRANKS, R-ARIZ.: She, you know, has been touted as a bipartisan pick, but she is a reliable liberal on the Supreme Court. And I think Mr. Obama knew that, that she would probably very likely have a pro-abortion perspective that would overcome any right to life, that really is the whole foundation of the Constitution.

And there is clearly a liberal bias in her -- in her votes, and that's borne out in the -- in the record, across the board.

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: But where do you get that from? I mean, I've looked back at her opinions, and granted, it hasn't been that long that we've been poring over her history, but I see no pro-abortion ruling on there. I see one ruling she issued that was actually pro-life.

FRANKS: Yes, no, I'm not -- I'm not pointing out the life issue, in particular, in any rulings that she's made, but I'm convinced that Mr. Obama knows what her perspective there is.

"Health": "An Extreme Pro-Abortion Position"

... says McCain in last night's debate:

Just again, the example of the eloquence of Sen. Obama. He's "health for the mother." You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."

Watch it and weep at the thought that this guy could have been (uh, I mean, could be, in a worst-case scenario) appointing judges, whatever he may say about no litmus test. And on to the issue of health care, the fact that he shows such contempt for the idea of women's health, per se, is frightening as well.

Will this cost him moderate pro-choice Republican, Democrat, and independent women voters, Chris Matthews was asking on MSNBC today.
I sure as heck hope so.

Ron Paul: Good News and Bad News.

First the good news: His truly "maverick" (makes John McCain look darn establishment) campaign is now outraising Giuliani (already passed Romney.) But somehow his name will probably continue to be mentioned only in passing in most of the press coverage. And when it comes down to it, the ballots may back up the mainstream news outlets' decision to snub the Internet's favorite son. Still, it would be nice to find out what would have happened if Paul had gotten truly fair and balanced coverage from the outset.

Now, the bad news. Paul doesn't merely tolerate the pro-life vision, harbor a private revulsion to abortion based on his own personal faith or career in obstetrics, or object on principle to federal funding (in line with his general hardline stance against federal funding.)
He sponsored this bill, defining all fertilized zygotes as "persons" under the law. And this proactive step to define a key term in the abortion debate seems all the more glaring to me because of his laissez-faire attitude toward government putting its inflated two cents in.
This seems to be where Paul and many of his Libertarian supporters part ways -- no huge surprise, since he is, after all, a Republican congressman running for the Republican nomination.