2nd District (OH): Local Prolife PAC's Selective But Unexplained Endorsements (Adm Mod-This is

BizzyBlog ^ | June 2, 2005 | Tom Blumer

[bizzyblog]

The Ohio 2nd blog reports that The Cincinnati Right to Life Political Action Committee (CRTL-PAC) has endorsed three candidates in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District Primary: Tom Brinkman, Bob McEwen, and Jean Schmidt.

I have looked at the candidates' answers to the questions on the PAC's survey. The following candidates answered "Yes" to all seven questions, which would clearly earn each of them a description (by CRTL-PAC's definintion) as prolife:
- Steve Austin (R)
- Tom Bemmes (R)
- Brinkman (R)
- Pat DeWine (R)
- McEwen (R)
- Eric Minamyer (R)
- Doug Mink (R)
- Jeff Morgan (R)
- Charles W. Sanders (D)
- Schmidt (R)
- Jeff Sinnard (D)
- David Smith (R)

Some candidates supplemented their answers, but none of those listed above qualified their straight "yes" answers in any way.

CRTL-PAC has not explained why they endorsed some candidates and not others. CRTL-PAC owes the people of this district an explanation.

[bizzyblog]

The prolife movement is endorsing some candidates, but not endorsing other with identical views and as much as can be discerned identical "walk the walk" voting records. Without an explanation as to why, this is a disgrace, and the prolife movement turns into just another bunch of political hacks.

[NeoCaveman]

What do you want? Them to endorse everybody?

[Dan from Michigan]

Tom Brinkman, Bob McEwen, and Jean Schmidt all have voting records on this issue.

The rest don't. That's why the endorsement.

[shempy]

Given the fact that DeWine's daddy sold out the Republican effort to confirm pro-life judges, I am happy to see they have not endorsed him.

[bizzyblog]

No, I want them to ACTUALLY SAY WHY they selected certain candidates over others.

If lack of a voting record is one of the reasons the BLEEPING SAY SO.

Endorsements without justification aren't worth squat when the only evidence we can actually see appears to make the candidates look equal.

[bizzyblog]

If DeWine's dad is a factor, they should cite it.

[JohnnyZ]

What DfM said. Even Mary Landrieu puts 100% pro-life on the questionnaires she gets. Voting records are important.

Also, organizations like to pick one candidate to endorse to maximize the effect of the endorsement, and in practical terms if there are two candidates with identical views and records and one is well-known and popular and the other is disliked and hardly campaigning, it's obvious that you endorse the popular one that has a better chance at winning.

These Ohio folks are stretching the point to endorse 3, but they're 3 that have a reasonable shot at winning.

[bizzyblog]

If voting records were considered, they shoud say so, and what the differences are.

The fact is, wording of the endorsements is generic, and only the surveys are presented as evidence.

All I see is a 12-way tie. How did they break it, and why?

[bizzyblog]

If having a shot at winning is a factor, they should bleeping say so. Until they do, it's a 12-way tie based on the evidence presented.

[JohnnyZ]

Don't get your panties in a twist just yet. If you look you can see they have already given some explanation, though one wishes they would fashion an honest-to-goodness press release.

Fifteen PAC members studied the surveys and voted on the endorsements, based on the responses and "their own personal knowledge'' of the candidates.

McEwen was added later, Westwood said, "because the PAC wanted to acknowledge his solid pro-life record when he was in Congress.'' link

They don't sound incredibly organized, but that's not exactly a mortal sin.

[Scholastic]

Good point. I noticed that myself when I checked the questionniares. Personally I am supporting Brinkman because he favors no exceptions for rape, incest, or the so-called and misunderstood "life of the mother." That is my understanding of his record -- he has introduced legislation outlawing all abortions in Ohio as such, the Constitution Party of Ohio endorsed his effort. I wish the NRLC would make thier questionniare more comprehensive and explain why they made the endorsements they did.

[JohnnyZ]

It's possible that "their own personal knowledge" of the candidates would include doubting how much Pat DeWine really cares about children's lives and believes in family values considering he just ditched his wife and three kids for another woman. If they considered that I agree that they should make a point of communicating the message that Pat DeWine is a sleazy faithless betrayer of his own wife and children.

[bizzyblog]

Thanks for finding the link. They should state what the other factors are on their site. No, it's not a mortal sin, but they should update their site soon or go to confession. :->

It's interesting that they specifically did not mention that they have "personal knowledge" of McEwen. Maybe they don't. How could they? He's been in Washington the past 12 years.

And yeah, "personal knowledge" is a code word in DeWine's case for adultery, etc., which again is why CRTL-PAC should post personal knowledge as a factor. Many of those who would read an endorsement would implicitly understand. Or are they so squeamish about the "Big A" problem with DeWine that they dare not articulate it, even vaguely?

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Here's the deal. They don't endorse who can't win because they don't want it on their record that a pro-choice person beat their endorsee.

Right To Life has lost a lot of members and money over this policy.

[Prov3456]

I know that Missouri RTL endorses only ONE candidate (including during primaries) in a party, for the simple reason that they do not want to split the pro-life vote amongst equally-qualified candidates.

It's as simple as pooling all like-minded votes with one endorsed candidate. That increases the likelihood that an RTL-endorsed pro-life candidate will win the election (primary), and thus have a better chance of defeating the pro-abortion opponent in the general election. (When both general election candidates are pro-life and if all things are equal, MoRTL endorses both.)

[bizzyblog]

Thanks for the point.

As long as the candidate with a chance to win is as prolife as the candidate without a reasonable shot, that's a logical position to take, and it should be explained as such. Sometimes it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but choices need to be made.

[Scholastic]

FYI

http://www.prolifepac.com/

http://www.prolifepac.com/html/canbrinkman.htm

[Dan from Michigan]

Right to life is like the NRA(and I'm a member of both organizations) when it comes to endorsements. Oftentimes they get it right, but a lot of times political games are played, particularly in downticket races.

Right To Life has lost a lot of members and money over this policy.

There's two RTL groups (Lifespan is the other) in my county at least partly because of one endorsement(by the state chapter) in a neighboring state rep district(Fenton/Grand Blanc). They endorsed incumbent dem Pat Lockwood (who is pro-choice at least to some extent) over Dave Robertson who is 100% pro-life(and even had a record since he was state rep pre-92 redistricting). Roberston won anyway. I know there was other issues involved as well, but I do not know all the internal politics that went on there, nor do I want to. I don't let endorsements make my voting decisions. I look at them as 2nd opinions, and get my guard up

I like how the Second Amendment PAC - SAFR-PAC (which I'm on) did things for the 04 general. It's not perfect, but it rates surveys(no survey - no endorsement, period), records, and public statements. The ratings are no response(survey), acceptable, mixed, or unacceptable. If they are good, then it is compared to the opponents (major parties). We are willing to endorse longshots, especially against hostile opponents. We didn't usually endorse in races where it was close, unless one candidate had a record, and the other didn't.

We looked at NRA and GOA's ratings to make sure we doublechecked some records, but that didn't make our decision. We endorsed some NRA "B's" and gave other "B's" (and I think one "A") unacceptable ratings based on voting records and surveys. We gave one NRA "F" a mixed rating. He got the F for one bad vote on dove hunting. We still endorsed his opponent, but the candidate deserved a "C" not an "F".

Our PAC was brand new in 04, but I think we did well for a first effort.