True Blue, Red Blooded Conservatives in a “Blue State”

Big_washington_red_blue_2Ever since Matt Rosenberg‘s column Blue City Republicans appeared in Seattle Weekly last year (before the existence of this blog), I’ve been meaning to write a counter piece to the many frustrating elements in it.  The column’s subtitle was “Meet Seattle’s Biggest Closet Cases: The Republicans Next Door” and this was more than just a clever pun.  At the top of his list of “closet cases” was blogger Brian Ballard of Gay Neo-Con.  The list featured several Seattle Republicans who feared being known as such, but all were featured to dispel not only the Republican stereo-type created by liberals, but what many genuinely associate with the Republican party:  conservatism, namely social conservatism–pro-life and pro-family conservatism. 

At the time, our family was living in Seattle’s 46th District.  At our Republican district PCO meetings, we rarely ran across the kinds of Republicans Rosenberg was presenting as some kind of majority in the local party.  But even more to the point, in my broader travels around the city of Seattle and its suburbs, the Republicans I knew were true conservatives in every way.  Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but his is too, and so, I am compelled to present mine.   

Coupled with the Blue City Conservatives column, my motivation comes from the “re-branding” of the state Republican Party by former state party chairman Chris Vance, who insisted on dictating (against party rules) how candidates were chosen, using his “suburban crescent” theory that came out of the “crescent conference” of which I have not seen evidence of its existence.  This “re-branding” has infuriated conservatives on all issues, far and wide.  He named the top issues that we most cared about, and said if Republican candidates want to run on these, “I ain’t helpin’ them.”

The crescent conference, he asserted was a “focus group” of the political mood of the Seattle suburbs (from Snohomish Co. through East Side King Co., to Pierce Co.)  The “focus group” was supposedly conducted to determine why it was that they were beginning to “lean more towards Democrats”.  I wonder if anyone bothered to figure out if voter turn out was lower, perhaps due to dissatisfaction with both parties. Instead, we get this kind of mentality: “You’ve got to make sure what you’re saying fits the Crescent,” says Vance. “That means you’ve got to focus on issues that matter to suburban voters: transportation, education, health care, taxes.”  The “hot button” issues like abortion and marriage that excite the base enough to want to work hard for candidates needed to be avoided at all costs, for the sake of attracting “suburban voters”, particularly women. 

Ironically, my first installment in Life of the Party’s new feature Pro-Life Profiles, will be…..a suburban woman.  Enjoy!

Advertisements

True Blue, Red Blooded Conservatives in a “Blue State”

Big_washington_red_blue_2Ever since Matt Rosenberg‘s column Blue City Republicans appeared in Seattle Weekly last year (before the existence of this blog), I’ve been meaning to write a counter piece to the many frustrating elements in it.  The column’s subtitle was "Meet Seattle’s Biggest Closet Cases: The Republicans Next Door" and this was more than just a clever pun.  At the top of his list of "closet cases" was blogger Brian Ballard of Gay Neo-Con.  The list featured several Seattle Republicans who feared being known as such, but all were featured to dispel not only the Republican stereo-type created by liberals, but what many genuinely associate with the Republican party:  conservatism, namely social conservatism–pro-life and pro-family conservatism. 

At the time, our family was living in Seattle’s 46th District.  At our Republican district PCO meetings, we rarely ran across the kinds of Republicans Rosenberg was presenting as some kind of majority in the local party.  But even more to the point, in my broader travels around the city of Seattle and its suburbs, the Republicans I knew were true conservatives in every way.  Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but his is too, and so, I am compelled to present mine.   

Coupled with the Blue City Conservatives column, my motivation comes from the "re-branding" of the state Republican Party by former state party chairman Chris Vance, who insisted on dictating (against party rules) how candidates were chosen, using his "suburban crescent" theory that came out of the "crescent conference" of which I have not seen evidence of its existence.  This "re-branding" has infuriated conservatives on all issues, far and wide.  He named the top issues that we most cared about, and said if Republican candidates want to run on these, "I ain’t helpin’ them."

The crescent conference, he asserted was a "focus group" of the political mood of the Seattle suburbs (from Snohomish Co. through East Side King Co., to Pierce Co.)  The "focus group" was supposedly conducted to determine why it was that they were beginning to "lean more towards Democrats".  I wonder if anyone bothered to figure out if voter turn out was lower, perhaps due to dissatisfaction with both parties. Instead, we get this kind of mentality: "You’ve got to make sure what you’re saying fits the Crescent," says Vance. "That means you’ve got to focus on issues that matter to suburban voters: transportation, education, health care, taxes."  The "hot button" issues like abortion and marriage that excite the base enough to want to work hard for candidates needed to be avoided at all costs, for the sake of attracting "suburban voters", particularly women. 

Ironically, my first installment in Life of the Party’s new feature Pro-Life Profiles, will be…..a suburban woman.  Enjoy!

Graphic Abortion Pictures–Are they necessary in pro-life demonstrations?

Photo courtesy of Pro-Life Action League

Truth01_1

Here is what Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has to say about the subject:

One of the key reasons the pro-life movement is not making more progress is that we so often assert before the public that abortion is an act of violence, but do not produce the evidence which would lead people to this conclusion. Photographic evidence is the most trusted source of information in any discipline. It transcends language and logic, and goes straight to the heart, where people are motivated to take action, instead of merely to the head, where people passively entertain all sorts of concepts without any commitment necessarily following.

He further delves into the idea by siting a few examples of other social reform movements including the following:

As long as segregation was hidden under the veils of euphemism, or was discussed in words alone, it could not galvanize the opposition required to overcome it. But when the injustice of it was brought before the TV cameras of America as our black brothers and sisters were attacked with dogs, hoses, and other forms of violence, people saw the evil that words alone could not convey.

Other examples include the use of photographs to expose the injustice of industrial exploitation of children, the use of the film, Schindler’s List in schools to educate the young about the holocaust, as well as disputes over using photographs as evidence in prosecuting murder cases and disputes over showing photographs from wars.  You can read more of this reasoning here.

I bring this all up because Show the Truth Washington State brought their Truth Tour to University of Washington on Wednesday.  They aren’t the first pro-life organization to hold such a demonstration.  (Warning: These links will bring you automatically to graphic images of abortion) The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform has held their Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) in the past at UW as they have at college campuses all over the country.

One thing is for sure:  This activity makes the other side very uncomfortable!  And that simple fact seems to have Dan Sytman rethinking his own position about the use of such a tactic in making the pro-life case, as he indicated on the conservative Sytman and Boze Show Thursday morning. 

But Matt Rosenberg of Sound Politics is not so convinced.  He supports full protection of their constitutional right to demonstrate, and “air their views and show gory photos” but…believes “Writ large, abortion is a losing, wedge issue for Republicans in 2006 and years to come.”  Any idea what that has to do with the price of brown eggs in Walnut Grove?  (Sorry, it was “movie night” at our house tonight.) But really!  Was there any mention of this demonstration having anything to do with the GOP?  Has anyone heard even one Washington State Republican candidate make this a campaign issue?  No.  It seems that Mr. Rosenberg was looking for an excuse to try and make his case that abortion is a losing issue for Republicans like he used the Foley scandal to say to the GOP “stop pandering to evangelicals”.  It’s too bad that in this election cycle, atleast in Washington State, he won’t have the opportunity to make his case or be proven wrong on the issue.  (Mary E. has some further thoughts on Matt’s discussion of being “moderate” on abortion.)

All that said, I think Father Pavone, Show the Truth, and The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform just might be onto something and the pro-death movement, on both sides of the aisle know it.

Graphic Abortion Pictures–Are they necessary in pro-life demonstrations?

Truth01_1

Here is what Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has to say about the subject:

One of the key reasons the pro-life movement is not making more progress is that we so often assert before the public that abortion is an act of violence, but do not produce the evidence which would lead people to this conclusion. Photographic evidence is the most trusted source of information in any discipline. It transcends language and logic, and goes straight to the heart, where people are motivated to take action, instead of merely to the head, where people passively entertain all sorts of concepts without any commitment necessarily following.

He further delves into the idea by siting a few examples of other social reform movements including the following:

As long as segregation was hidden under the veils of euphemism, or was discussed in words alone, it could not galvanize the opposition required to overcome it. But when the injustice of it was brought before the TV cameras of America as our black brothers and sisters were attacked with dogs, hoses, and other forms of violence, people saw the evil that words alone could not convey.

Other examples include the use of photographs to expose the injustice of industrial exploitation of children, the use of the film, Schindler’s List in schools to educate the young about the holocaust, as well as disputes over using photographs as evidence in prosecuting murder cases and disputes over showing photographs from wars.  You can read more of this reasoning here.

I bring this all up because Show the Truth Washington State brought their Truth Tour to University of Washington on Wednesday.  They aren’t the first pro-life organization to hold such a demonstration.  (Warning: These links will bring you automatically to graphic images of abortion) The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform has held their Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) in the past at UW as they have at college campuses all over the country.

One thing is for sure:  This activity makes the other side very uncomfortable!  And that simple fact seems to have Dan Sytman rethinking his own position about the use of such a tactic in making the pro-life case, as he indicated on the conservative Sytman and Boze Show Thursday morning. 

But Matt Rosenberg of Sound Politics is not so convinced.  He supports full protection of their constitutional right to demonstrate, and "air their views and show gory photos" but…believes "Writ large, abortion is a losing, wedge issue for Republicans in 2006 and years to come."  Any idea what that has to do with the price of brown eggs in Walnut Grove?  (Sorry, it was "movie night" at our house tonight.) But really!  Was there any mention of this demonstration having anything to do with the GOP?  Has anyone heard even one Washington State Republican candidate make this a campaign issue?  No.  It seems that Mr. Rosenberg was looking for an excuse to try and make his case that abortion is a losing issue for Republicans like he used the Foley scandal to say to the GOP "stop pandering to evangelicals".  It’s too bad that in this election cycle, atleast in Washington State, he won’t have the opportunity to make his case or be proven wrong on the issue.  (Mary E. has some further thoughts on Matt’s discussion of being "moderate" on abortion.)

All that said, I think Father Pavone, Show the Truth, and The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform just might be onto something and the pro-death movement, on both sides of the aisle know it.

Missourians Learning the Truth About Amendment 2! Limbaugh + Pro-Life Campaigns Turning the Tide

(The following is a message from RNC for Life)

Rush Rush Limbaugh, the popular radio talk-show host whose program boasts a listening audience of 10 million people, blasted efforts by Democrats and other liberals to defeat incumbent pro-life Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) and, at the same time, urge passage of a constitutional amendment that would legalize human cloning in the state of Missouri. Rush, in response to a television ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson’s disease, asking Missouri voters to cast their votes for Talent’s Democrat opponent, Claire McCaskill, claiming that Mr. Talent would “criminalize” stem cell research.  Talent_2

Rush jumped into the fray, pointing out that the information in the Fox ad is misleading at best, given the fact that Senator talent supports, as do most reasonable people, adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research which has already yielded successful therapies for more than 70 serious maladies. What Mr. Talent opposes is unethical research that kills living human embryos for their cells. Senator Talent along with the rapidly growing majority of Missourians, opposes Amendment 2, the ballot initiative that would legalize human cloning in Missouri. The Michael J. Fox ad, in which the actor appears showing the effects of his disease (he admittedly omits taking his medication before testifying before legislative committees or doing commercials of this sort in order to demonstrate the tremors associated with Parkinsonism) is designed to lead people to think that voting against Talent and for Amendment 2 would somehow help patients like him, a message that is totally false.

Thanks to Rush for bringing this matter to the attention of his 10 million listeners. In doing so he has put the human cloning issue on the front burner and people are getting the message. His involvement in revealing the truth of what the anti-life forces are up to in Missouri, coupled with the heroic campaigns of pro-life organizations and individuals, has begun to bear fruit.

In response to the Fox commercial, a new ad produced by Vitae Caring Foundation of Jefferson City, MO, http://www.vitaecaringfoundation.org/ will run statewide on World Series Tonight. You can view it here: Caviezel_2

The ad features Hollywood celebrity Jim Caviezel who is most well know for his portrayal of Jesus in “The Passion of the Christ,” Patricia Heaton, the popular star of the long-running TV show “Everybody Loves Raymond,” St. Louis Cardinals start-up pitcher Jeff Suppan, Mike Sweeney who plays for the Kansas City Royals, and former St. Louis Rams quarterback, Kurt Warner, who currently plays with Heatonthe Arizona Cardinals.

The most recent SurveyUSA poll has support for Amendment 2 below 50% for the first time.

In the 9/14/2006 poll, Amendment 2 was winning with 52% Yes, 24% No, and 24% Undecided.

On 10/12/2006, Amendment 2 was favored by 57%, with 27% responding No and 16% Undecided.

The latest numbers (10/24/06) show a dramatic reversal, with Amendment 2 at 45% Yes, 36% No, and 18% undecided.

We have said over and over again that the fate of the human embryo will determine the destiny of mankind. Will human beings at the earliest stage of existence be respected and protected under the law in America? Amendment 2 must be defeated if the answer to that question is to be yes.

Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for exposing the perfidy of the anti-life groups supporting Amendment 2. To all those who are working so hard to defeat it, thank you! For those who wish to help defeat the cloning initiative with a financial contribution, contact Missourians Against Human Cloning and Vitae Caring Foundation.