Why I’m going to a Jim Ryan fundraiser [Stanek endorses Jim Ryan]

I thought after the primary I would just ignore the governor’s race this year. My guy, Patrick O’Malley, didn’t win and I had a big problem with the guy the Republicans of Illinois picked, Jim Ryan.

I also had a big problem with conservative leaders and groups that I thought should have supported O’Malley during the primary but either didn’t or put their feet in both camps to hedge their bets. I blamed them for O’Malley’s loss.

I thought to myself, “I can’t support Ryan. To do so would be to compromise. To do so would be to say that everything I said about him during the primary was a lie.”

And as the scandal of corruption within the Republican Party was exposed, I felt somewhat vindicated and also thought, “I’ll just let the Party and those groups suffer the consequences of their actions.”

The problem I had with Jim Ryan was the way he handled live birth abortion at Christ Hospital. Rather, how he didn’t handle it. He didn’t do anything. He punted the politically volatile football to the Illinois Department of Public Health.

This can now be confirmed as true due to information just received this past Friday from Attorney General Jim Ryan’s office via the Freedom of Information Act, which makes this piece even harder to write.

The AG’s office admits it never opened an investigation of Christ Hospital. There is no investigation number. There is no paperwork.

And strangely, the AG refuses to hand over any opinion he may have rendered on the two-part constitutional question, “Is a live aborted baby a legal person, and if so, is it legal for Christ Hospital to leave live aborted babies to die?” The AG’s opinion is ever more important now that the federal Born Alive bill is law, because we need to know the AG’s thinking so as to begin enforcing this law in Illinois.

I think the reason the AG refuses to hand over its opinion is because there is no opinion. Contrary to FOIA law, a law that the AG himself helped write, the FOIA response took two months, three certified letters, and several phone calls to obtain from the AG's office.

So, I think it will be awhile, or maybe never, before we find out what the highest legal official in the State of Illinois was thinking when his office said on July 19, 2000, “We have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.”

I continued to work at Christ Hospital for two years after first alerting the AG about live birth abortion there. I continued to work at the hospital because I thought it was my duty before God to do everything I could to try to save those babies and defend the honor of His Son’s name that the hospital bore.

But it was torture to stay. And it came to be that every time I heard the department was aborting another baby; every time I walked past a room where one of those abortions was being committed; and every time I heard whispers of another death of one of those babies, I began to say to myself, “Jim Ryan is The One who could stop this now if he wanted to.”

I developed very bad feelings toward Jim Ryan way before I knew that he would run against O’Malley in the 2002 gubernatorial primary.

That is why I, to this day, have a hard time with Jim Ryan. He says he is pro-life, but when it comes down to it, I believe he has let babies die for political expediency.

So, after the primary I thought I would focus on the 2004 and 2006 elections and just let this one go, because I couldn’t stomach it.

But a few weeks ago, a friend began bugging me to attend a fundraiser he is hosting for Jim Ryan, which is tonight.

My friend supported O’Malley in the primary, but he is pragmatic. He can’t stand Blagojevich for three reasons: he’s a rabid pro-abort, he’s pro-homosexual, and he’s anti small business. Hence, my friend has thrown his support toward JR

I tried to ignore my friend and his fundraiser, but he wouldn’t give up. Finally, I spelled things out. I said, “If I attend a fundraiser for Jim Ryan, I feel like I’ll have to walk over dead babies from Christ Hospital to do so.”

My friend pragmatically responded, “Jill, it may very well be that Jim Ryan let 50 babies die at Christ Hospital for political gain. But Rod Blagojevich will gladly let thousands of babies die if he’s elected governor.”

I know this is true, because Blagojevich is as bad a pro-abort as a pro-abort can be, even favoring partial birth abortion.

My friend's statement got me thinking. I began to wonder if I would bear responsibility before God if Blagojevich wins the election, and I sat on my hands beforehand.

I began thinking about the concept of “the lesser of two evils.” That phrase gets thrown around way too much and often inappropriately, but at some point one really can be forced to decide between the lesser of two evils.

I began to feel a sense of responsibility for lots of other little babies who will die if Blagojevich wins and I did nothing to stop it.

If Blagojevich is governor, he will welcome pro-abortion legislation. He may even think some up. He will veto pro-life legislation, that’s for sure.

If Ryan is governor, well, I’m not sure. But I hope he won’t think up pro-abortion legislation. And he says he’s pro-life, so I hope he will veto pro-abortion legislation.

If Cal Skinner were governor… sigh… but there’s no way Cal will be governor.

I know people will say, “But you are choosing politics over principle if you abandon Cal. You’ll be doing the same thing that those other people did to O’Malley.”

Well, I know in my own head that I’m not, and actually my decision couldn’t be farther from that.

This three-way race is different than that three-way race. For one thing, this is a general election, not a primary - a completely different animal. And, whereas O’Malley was at 28% and stood a real chance of winning, Cal is at 5%. I know, I know. If everyone voted for the right person, instead of hedging their bets....

I have one vote for governor. I got this vote by the grace of God, who blessed the United States of America because it was founded on His principles. So I bear great responsibility for my vote.

My foremost consideration with every vote I cast is the pro-life issue. This is the issue of our time. If a candidate is not pro-life, his or her heart and mind are flawed at the most basic level.

There are three gubernatorial candidates. And because this is a general election and not a primary, I have to place my vote in front of the candidate who I think not only stands the greatest chance of winning but who will also be the most helpful to babies, or perhaps, the least harmful.

This is why I can’t vote for Cal. He’s a great candidate and friend. However, a vote for him might make an important statement but will in the real world of life and death cost babies their lives by taking away from Ryan’s plus column and aiding in a victory for Blagojevich. For the same reason, I cannot write in my wished-for candidate; nor can I leave that spot blank on the ballot.

So, I have to swallow my anger and swallow my pride and for the sake of the babies say, I endorse Jim Ryan for governor. And I’m going to his fundraiser tonight.

Interesting op-ed piece from Jill Stanek. I did not expect her to endorse Jim Ryan, although she did finally use the exact phrase "I endorse Jim Ryan" at the end of the article. Still, it's one of the most bitter "endorsements" I've seen.

I understand much of her sentiment and it does seem the Illinois GOP is making the same mistake the national GOP made with Bob Dole. I don't get why she thinks Cal Skinner is "principled" by joining up with a party overrun with pro-abortion politicians (namely, the Illinois LP). He may personally be pro-life, but that is irrevelvant when you think about how many LPers would be given positions of power if Cal somehow won.

Stanek, though a great leader for conservatives, is very much a single issue pro-life lobbyist. It has always been my observation that the single issue pro-gun people have always been less willing to support the GOP than the single issue pro-lifers. Single issue pro-lifers will support a candidate who stands with them 51% of the time on that issue. Single issue pro-gun people sometimes sit home even if the candidate is 99% pro-gun.

Single issue pro-gun people sometimes sit home

My experience in Chicago's NW Suburbs, and in updating our database, is only slightly different. I find the pro-gun people more willing to be part of multi-issue coalitions. In the O'Malley campaign, pro-gun people did not question his committment to the 2d amendment when he ignored the topic to speak on some other issue.

But when O'Malley raised any topic other than pro-life. the pro-life people questioned whether he was really pro-life and they were just being used. They insist on making their candidate a one issue candidate, as Jill Stanek made herself in her race, and as they did in making O'Malley a one issue candidate, which was neither the intent of either Dan Proft, nor of strategists in the O'Malley camp not close to Proft.

In short, the one issue obsession of the pro-life activists hurt O'Malley.

"Single issue pro-gun people sometimes sit home even if the candidate is 99% pro-gun."

Sometimes must be in the ppm range. The pro gun folks I know that are left in IL (most are gone already) are pro active to the extent of their resources and abilities. In the Chicago area most of the remaining shooters are working hard to gather the resources to leave the state and stay quite 'till they do. They remember salvi and fitzgerald, the ones that made promises one day then did a 180 later.

IL politicians do not promote gunowners as decent citizens, they do their best to demonize them, harass them and limit their ability to shoot. Pro-life folks don't run the risk of direct action by the state, because of their interest.

Yes, this is a well written piece. The only major thing I'd like to add is that voting doesn't mean volunteering of even contributing.

In a race like this, let's just vote. It's better to find a close local race betweeen pro-life and pro-child-killer and invest our time, energy, and dollars there. Grass roots efforts are minimized in media campaigns like a race for governor. We're significantly more effective when it comes to State Rep. races, for example.

Also, let's see what we can do, to help get good voter information sheets distributed among our fellow (Bible-believing) church goers --the sooner, the better.

AW

>> they will attack you even if you AGREE with them but are not OBSESSED with issue like they are <<
>> Sounds like pro-lifers <<

You mean SINGLE ISSUE pro-lifers. Big difference, Bob. I am a solidly pro-life voter and I don't attack candidates who quietly agree with me on the issue over abortion. I do tend to attack candidates who are too wimpy to tell people WHERE THEY STAND on the issue at all, but that's a whole difference story. (I also go after candidates who CLAIM to be pro-life but have a record of OBVIOUS, solid support for the pro-choice cause, like when Jim Oberweis said he supported keeping the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, but somehow we're supposed to believe he was "pro-life")

Contrast this to single-issue drug legalization people. If you say you're against the WoD but it's not a top priority, they tell you to drop dead. If a Republican candidate told me he was publically against Roe v. Wade, but didn't think he would be able to get it overturned, my responce would be "You have my vote and my complete support, sir. Good luck".

It's very unlikely that I will vote for a pro-abortion Republican in the primary, but since I am NOT a single issue pro-lifer....I WILL vote for a pro-abortion Republican in the general election over an ultra-liberal Democrat. Witness my support for Kris Cohn. I didn't think she was the best choice the GOP could have gotten in the primary so I cast a write-in vote against her. But when it comes to her vs. Jesse White, she needs all the support she can get.

When you see the single-issue gun people for Skinner, the single-issue drug legalazation people for Skinner EVEN THOUGH HE DOESN'T SUPPORT THEIR CAUSE, and the single-issue pro-life for Jim Ryan as the "least of three evils", I think it's a good example of who's the most pragmatic. The real LPers abandon their "principles" just to get a famous name on the ballot. The single-issue pro-gunners find 99.999999% of candidates "unacceptable" since they don't agree with him on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, and the single-issue pro-life people, though stubborn, are the most pragmatic.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

>> Not true. I am a rabidly single-issue pro-gunner who will be voting for Ryan and contributing some campaign contributions, as well as trying to volunteer for the campaign. <<

Exception noted and I offer my apologies.

To be honest, (as a pro-2nd Amendment voter myself) I can understand why alot of gun owners are angry at Jim Ryan. What I DON'T understand is when "freepers" like USConservative take their wrath against Jim Ryan and use it to PUNISH the ENTIRE Republican slate, including the pro-gun Republicans. (I asked him why he wasn't voting for the NRA-backed Joe Birkett, and he responced with some rant about JIM RYAN'S record.) Geeeeeeesh...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.