Somebody Ought to Tell Lori Viars That It Ain't Right to Lie

OPENING STATEMENT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, in the course of this post, I shall endeavor to prove -- beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt -- that paragon of the community, defender of principles and values, spokeswoman for families everywhere -- one, Lori Viars, has lied to the American people in general and to you directly.

I shall do so with just three pieces of evidence. And we shall let you make the decision as to whether or not you wish to place your faith and or trust in this chalatan ever again.

THE EVIDENCE: I call to the witness stand, Froma Harrop, syndicated columnist, who writes in the Seattle Times on Saturday, June 21, 2008:

Ever since the religious right slimed him and his family in the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary — thus reviving the candidacy of George W. Bush, whom McCain had just clobbered in New Hampshire — McCain has been courting the very people he then called "agents of intolerance."

But years of carrying armloads of flowers to religious conservatives have engendered little reciprocation. Listen to the cold response of Lori Viars, an evangelical activist, when asked whether she and her colleagues would work for McCain as they had for Bush:

"I think a lot of us are in a holding pattern."

Emphasis added.

I enter this article in to evidence as Exhibit A.

I now call to the witness stand, Los Angelas Times staff writers Peter Wallsten and Bob Drogan, who on Friday, June 27th write:

Lori Viars, who heads the Family First political action committee, expressed her strong desire that McCain name a "consistent conservative" to be his running mate.

They end their piece with this statement:

But even as McCain charmed the group, several participants said he was far from solving his problems in Ohio or with social conservatives more broadly.

Viars said she was "holding out" to see who McCain picks for his ticket before she decides whether to volunteer for the campaign, as she did for Bush.

Emphasis added.

I enter this article in to evidence as Exhibit B.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I can tell that you are thinking that so far I haven't established my case. With that in mind, I ask that you pay very close attention to my next witness: Howard Wilkinson of the Cincinnati Enquirer, Lori's hometown paper where her friends will actually see her name in the paper. Mr. Wilkinson writes, on the same day as the LA Times piece above, the following in regards to Ms. Viars:

Thursday, McCain met for an hour with the conservative leaders at the Netherland Hilton Hotel; and, Friday morning; one of them – Warren County activist Lori Viars, executive director of Family First – called the meeting a complete success.

“It was very positive,” Viars said. “Everybody in the room took steps toward giving him their full support.”

And then there is this statement from later in the same article:

Viars, a volunteer for Huckabee during the Ohio primary campaign, said that while Christian conservative leaders have had differences with McCain in the past on issues like stem cell research, immigration and campaign finance reform, most believe he is solid on abortion and would appoint conservatives to the federal bench – two key issues for Christian conservative voters.

“He has a 24-year picture-perfect record on abortion," Viars said. “You can’t argue with that.”

This is Exhibit C.

CLOSING STATEMENT: So, Ms. Viars, which is it? Are you taking steps toward fully supporting McCain, as you told Howard Wilkinson of the Cincinnati Enquirer; or, are you still waiting to see whom McCain taps as his running mate, as you told the reporters from the Los Angelas Times? Are you still in a holding pattern as you told the syndicated writer from the Seattle Times? Does your answer depend which audience you are speaking to, Ms. Viars? Or are you a pathological liar?

6/30/08 UPDATE: The comments section has been very enlightening and entertaining at the same time. I'd like to address Ms. Viars' comments first:

To my knowledge, you & I have never met,

Let's stop right there... Whether or not we've ever "met" in the real world is irrelevant. We have "met" on the political battlefield, and in a multi-candidate primary, I can always count on you to shun a real fiscal conservative for some empty suit who manages to utter one of your shibboleths. Perhaps we'll get more in to that later...

I thought you might like to know some of the facts. If you are going to write about Thursday's meeting, you might want to actually talk with someone who was involved.

That's what the reporters did and apparently you couldn't get your story straight.

To believe everything you see in the press is naive.

You have the nerve to tell that to a blogger... Before this is over, I just might question your intelligence as well as your judgement.

I did NOT speak with Froma Harrop of the Seattle Times or anyone from that paper. I did NOT speak with Jake Tapper of ABC, yet he pulled an old quote from me from another paper, took it out of context, and made it sound like I said that on Thursday after meeting with McCain. I did not. It was dishonest journalism with a clear liberal bias.

That's fair... But answer the question... Are you, or are you not "in a holding pattern" as suggested by your comments reported in the Seattle Times?

I did speak with Peter Wallsten of the L.A. Times & Howard Wilkinson of the Enquirer. I told them basically the same thing but their stories came out very different.

Apparently, you didn't tell them "basically the same thing", because the stories don't resemble each other at all.

Here's the truth:

...or at least the version that you are going to peddle to my readers...

I was honored to be invited by the McCain campaign, along with Dr. John Willke, Phil & Vickie Burress, Mike Gonidakis & Chris Long, to sit down & talk face to face with Sen. McCain for about an hour. It was a good meeting, and I feel better about McCain on several issues than I did before.

Appointing judges, particularly Supreme Court judges, is the most important thing the next president will do. I believe McCain is a man of his word, and he told us Thursday that he will appoint justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts. I believe him. He supported Roberts, Alito and even Bork, so his past actions give his current words credibility.

I also feel more comfortable with McCain on protecting marriage now that I know he co-chaired the Arizona Marriage Amendment. Again, his past actions back up his current words.

So, what's not to like, Lori? Either you like the kinds of judges that McCain would put on the bench or you prefer Obama's picks... What does a Veep pick have to do with that?

I told Senator McCain that we conservatives hope he will select a running mate who is a "solid, consistent conservative with a good track record on our issues." Senator McCain did not show his hand on who he might pick, but he listened graciously.

The running mate is a big issue to me & other grassroots conservatives. I have every intention to vote for & volunteer for McCain (I've already done some volunteer work). However I've also been clear that his choice of running mate is a factor. If McCain picks a liberal, pro-abortion running mate, I don't believe I can support the campaign. But I don't expect that to happen. I fully believe McCain will pick a good running mate & that conservatives will start coming around & will support him. McCain may not share my views on immigration, ESCR, campaign finance reform & ANWR, but he has a good record on abortion, marriage, pork spending, national security & judicial nominees.

We all have issues with McCain...but he's significantly better than the alternative. In the way this system works, you're either with McCain or you're against him...you have to pick a side and get to it. There is no viable option for a third way...the third way leads to Justice Hillary Clinton...or worse.

BTW, he looks more athletic & "fit" in person than he does on TV.

I hope you weren't expecting me to be the Republican version of Chris Matthews...

That was a joke...

I have to say that to these types of people because they don't have a sense of humor.

Anyway...Lori needs to establish for herself a record of support for John McCain if we are to believe her. She needs to issue retractions for the statements she made that confuse the issue. She needs to decide whether or not a Veep really matters one way or the other...because if it does, than she's okay with Obama's judges...and that is not okay with me.

Now, on to the comments of Matt Davis:

Lori,

I have never met you either, but it was folks like yourself, Burress & others, (Chris Long not included) who didn't do squat to help Mike DeWine win in 2006. It was folks like yourself, Burress and others that was upset with DeWine's position on the Gang of 14, not supporting Issue 1 in Ohio (which is flawed and is being proved in the courts), etc.

Davis is essentially correct.

He also leaves out the part where the DeWine-loving establishment, RINO, blueblood types failed to show up for Blackwell. My point: Since we failed to work together as a coalition to support the Republicans, we're left to deal with Senator Charade Brown and Governor T-Shirt Ted.

Not exactly our finest hour...

UPDATE 2: Some pathetic little girl who refuses to use her real name came by today and smeared me. That's okay. I can take it. You want to know why I didn't support Tom Brinkman? He doesn't support the death penalty for terrorists. I suspect there is a great many weaknesses in the Brinkman platform on the national security front. And as for Bouncin' Bob McEwen, I didn't support him because he didn't live in the district, had an awful biography, and is highly involved in that double-dodecahedron scheme known as Amway Quixtar.

Now you can kindly go back to whatever hole it is that you crawled out from little girl...