Pro-Lifers Celebrate Recall

californiaprolife.org ^ | Wed, 8 Oct 2003 | Brian Johnston, Executive Director of the California ProLife Council

[cpforlife.org]

ProLifers Celebrate Recall Statement of Brian Johnston, Executive Director of the California ProLife Council

Tom McClintcok put it well, "this is a great day for California." Gray Davis was the most ardently pro-abortion elected official to ever hold public office in the United States. The abortion lobby said so, and the facts bear that out. Even the egregiously radical Bill Clinton felt the need to mute his pro-abortion stance by calling for abortion to be 'safe, legal, and rare.' But Davis embraced all abortions at all times, going so far as to threaten the legislature to not even introduce a bill that would give any consideration to the legal rights of the child in the womb.

A sympathetic media covered-up some of the more outrageous aspects of Davis' pro-abortion administration. One of the most glaring examples being that Davis' key lieutenant, the individual credited with running his administration, was Susan Kennedy, his Cabinet Secretary. Because of media approbation of the administration, few people realized that prior to her appointment, Susan Kennedy was one of the principal players in the abortion lobby. She was the Director of the California Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL). Imagine if the director of the California ProLife Council had been appointed to a similar position in a Lungren or Simon administration; the media would have been unrelenting in their criticism. Would the ideology of that administration have been discussed?

Arnold Schwarznegger has self-identified as 'pro-choice.' But in supporting parental notification and opposing partial-birth abortions, he has taken a significant break from the monolithic abortion lobby. This has made him public enemy #1 at NOW and NARAL and CARAL. There are quite a few pro-life legislators that have rallied to Arnie's side. They are in a position to advise and influence him. He has said he wants that advice. He has appointed pro-lifers to his transition team. Perhaps most significantly, unlike the unpleasant tenor of the Wilson years, Arnie has said he doesn't want to create the internal Republican wars over abortion. He does not want to make war on the party platform. These are significant distinctions. Arnie's victory is a victory for those who want to move us away from the pro-abortion mentality ardently pursued during the previous six years.

One more observation: Several years ago a local Catholic priest, Msgr. Edward Kavanaugh, a sterling man and a pro-life leader, rebuked Davis for his unstinting pro-abortion position. Governor Davis made a point of not only dismissing the comments but then went out of his way to publicly embarrass and humiliate Msgr. Kavanaugh on a number of occasions. Last night the world watched Gray Davis being summarily removed from office. At that same moment Msgr. Kavanaugh was being publicly honored for his tireless work on behalf of defenseless orphans. Arco Arena exploded in cheers while at center court the Maloof brothers presented him with a check for $100,000. Pro-Lifers have thanked him many times, but it is nice to see him get rewarded in a more substantial manner.

And it's nice to see his pro-abortion nemesis get his reward. It was a great day for California.

[Delphinium]

Would have you supported?:

Bill Weld?

Christine Todd Whitman

Senator John Chafee

Rep. Tom Davis (VA)

Senator Susan Collins (ME)

Olympia Snowe (ME)

Rep Sherwood Boehlert (NY),

Jim Greenwood (PA)

, Amo Houghton (NY),

Mark Kirk (IL)

, Marge Roukema (NJ)

, Christopher Shays (CT),

and Rob Simmons (CT).

-- Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift.

etc, etc, etc.

[Delphinium]

This doesn't seem to bother you. but it does me.

Republican pro-choice Coaltion.

The Voice for Choice in the GOP

October 7, 2003

Arnold Schwarzenegger's victory is a big win for the largest pro-choice advocacy group in the GOP. The Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, sponsor of the successful Women for Arnold campaign in California, said this victory shows the new face of Republican politics - socially moderate, fiscally conservative candidates who win the trust of women.

"We pulled out all the stops in the last five days to ensure that women voters knew they could trust Arnold," said RPCC National Co-Chair Jennifer Blei Stockman. "Our direct mail campaign overcame the last-minute desperate sleaze attack attempting to alienate women and helped to close the long-standing GOP gender gap. Women voters listened when we reinforced Arnold's strong commitment to women's issues, especially the right to reproductive choice. We told our base that they finally had a Republican they could vote for, and they made the difference in this election.

"Even Republican county chairmen wised-up to the idea that this is the new winning strategy for the GOP. Every Republican leader should now accept this simple fact - When women can finally trust a Republican candidate on issues near to their hearts, the Republican wins every time," said Stockman.

RPCC formed Woman for Arnold in early September. The California committee quickly met all of its fund-raising goals and mailed a brochure to targeted Independent and Republican women outlining Arnold Schwarzenegger's strong support of women's issues. Women for Arnold identified and turned out over half-a-million voters in the course of the campaign.

http://www.rpcc.org/031007.html

[Prolifeconservative]

I'm used to it.

Everytime I invoke the name of God it offends someone somewhere. This time it happened to be you. I made a simple statement yet it seemingly offended you.

[Mr. Silverback]

This does not dimish in the least my argument that RFC will use any event to advance their silly claim that the GOP can only win if the pro-life plank is abandoned. Also, am I supposed to be surprised that RFC would like Arnold? Who would you expect them to back? McClintock? Bustamante? Camejo?

[ohioWfan]

How about Rush Limbaugh? He has a much larger audience, and he was a severe critic of Schwartzenegger as a non-Conservative from the beginning.

I don't think Hannity has the power to do what you surmise he has done.

The conservatives in America saw that Arnold could win from the beginning, and most of us made the decision that a partial win was better than a complete loss......and so, obviously did the conservative voters in California who helped elect Arnold.

What I think ended up happening, was that McClintock kept conservative principles at the forefront of the discussion, and perhaps moved Arnold to the right. He never had a chance to win. His numbers never moved above 13% in spite of his strong campaign. It wasn't the GOP's fault.....it's the basic make-up of the California electorate that created the reality that the only Republican who could win was Schwartzenegger.

[Mr. Silverback]

Your simple statement implied that your de facto help of a racist pro-abort would be pleasing to God and our de facto opposition to him would not be.

[Delphinium]

If all would have done as Rush did I truly believe McClintock would have won.

Even in California.

[Mr. Silverback]

Who would you have helped with your McClintock vote to avoid voting for Arnold?

Gloria Feldt?

Kim Gandy?

Robert Byrd?

Howard Dean?

V. I. Lenin?

etc., etc., etc.

We can play that game all you want, but it won't change the fact that politics is war by other means, and shooting your vote off in a way that helps the enemy is not the way to fight.

[Ol' Sparky]

Yes, it's just wonderful to have a pro-abortion Republican in charge instead of pro-abortion Democrat. This is sure to help the pro-life cause.

Too bad the pro-life organizations in California aren't as principled at the pro-aborts there and nationwide. There is zero chance of winning the battle with this level of compromise.

[Delphinium]

I really don't see the difference between Spector, etc and those you named.

[ohioWfan]

No, I'm not offended......especially by the name of the God whom I serve.

I'm merely amused by the self-righteousness of a handful of freepers who think that others......equally moral, and pro-Life.......are inferior to themselves, and use the name of that God to make their political point. (Is that not blashemy, if true?)

And I AM thankful that the ONE who is Holy and Omniscient.....the ONLY One who sees into our hearts......will be judging us based on HIS laws, and not our own...sometimes political.... opinions.

I guarantee that each of us has enough to be concerned about in our own lives without arrogantly judging others who have come to different conclusions based on the same Biblical values. Be careful.

[Prolifeconservative]

Days before the election McClintock was out there saying it himself: "if every person who said, 'you're a good candidate Tom, but you just can't win'... would actually cast their vote for me, I would win this election/recall."

This is my whole point about the GOP. They manufactured Arnold's momentum. And once he had all that momentun then came the drumbeat: Get behind Arnold he's out only shot at winning, don't throw away your vote, blah, blah, blah. I can't say for sure, but I suspect that had to play in the minds of some of McClintock supporters and made them switch their allegiance even furthering the momentum.

The GOP orchestrated the momentum for Arnold, they never gave McClintock a shot at the prize.

No Mr. Silverback I don't have a problem with you personally or your ideas. You have done much for the cause I hold so dear to my heart. I have grown so tired of the GOP and their spaghetti spines over the issue of abortion and I'm sick of hearing the incerementalism arguement. Where has that gotten us?

The bottom line is this: McClintock could have won, thank you GOP very much!

[Protagoras]

and shooting your vote off in a way that helps the enemy is not the way to fight.

But surrendering to and becoming the same as your enemy is?

It all makes sense to some. "Lets vote for a liberal so we can defeat the liberal."

[Prolifeconservative]

I need to be careful? Of what? Care to explain.

Look, I obviously hit a nerve with you. I used the word "woe" and it's has just set you off in a tizzy such as I have never seen. I wasn't even addressing you, but you felt compelled to jump in, what's up with that. I never judged you, Nor Mr. Silverback.

Do you have the same words for the Catholic Church who are now instructing Catholics on how to vote the Pro-Life issue, a political issue by the way? Do you believe the Church is judgemental by it's very instruction to it's lay people on a political issue.

Let me hear your outcry to the Church and I will quietly step aside.

(Read this twice before responding)

[ohioWfan]

You might be right. But by the end, it was clear that a vote for McClintock, while a vote of conscience, might indeed be a vote for Bustamante.

I still believe that Arnold may surprise us.....and I am very encouraged that he has chosen pro-Life advisors to assist him.

[Delphinium]

I am very encouraged that he has chosen pro-Life advisors to assist him.

First I have heard of this?

He seems so proud of his pro-abortion stand, and I can't forget that he called conservatives wackos.

[ohioWfan]

You did not hit any nerve, and I am not in any form of 'tizzy.'

What you need to be careful about, is assuming that you, personally, are capable of judging what's in the hearts of those who made the decision that the most viable pro-life position was voting for the candidate who would defeat the very pro-death positions of Davis and Bustamante, and who, before their Lord, valuing life more than anything, decided to vote for Schwartzegger.

btw, I am not a Catholic, but doesn't the Catholic Church instruct its parishoners to vote for the most electable pro-life candidate? I admire the Catholic Church's stance against abortion, but as a pro-life Protestant, believe that the only One in a position to condemn is God, Himself....... not church leaders, and certainly not anonymous freepers.

If you were not judging Mr Silverback as not being a pro-Life (and pure) as you are, with your 'Woe unto you' statement, I stand corrected.

And forgive me for 'jumping in' to your private conversation with him.....

[ohioWfan]

There are quite a few pro-life legislators that have rallied to Arnie's side. They are in a position to advise and influence him. He has said he wants that advice. He has appointed pro-lifers to his transition team.

Didn't you read the article you're posting to? Curious.....

(Oh, and I hate to break this to you, but there are a few 'wackos' among the conservative ranks.....did he call ALL conservatives 'wackos' or just a few of us?)

[Prolifeconservative]

I am Catholic. I try to humbly follow the teachings of the Church.

The Church teaches incrementalism with regards to the candidates on the ProLife issue. However, they also teach the moral and spiritual obligation to vote for the one who supports life the most regardless of the percentages or who has a shot at winning.

Let me explain. California is a great example. Even if McClintock was at 1% and "appeared" to have no shot at winning, we must still vote for the McClintock candidacy because he is the most Pro-life candidate.

Now lets say Arnold and Bustamante are the only ones running in this race and McClintock has dropped out. We would then be instructed to vote Arnold because of his somewhat softer stance on PBA. You take what ever morsel you can get on this issue.

Furthermore, Prolife idealogy is the only criteria used in determining which candidate to back. If both candidates' stances are equally the same on abortion (very rare) then the voter is allowed room to choose on other issues.

I hope I have not misrepresented the Church's teachings here. Any other Catholic out there willing to chime in, please do so.

[ohioWfan]

Thank you for a very clear explanation of what your church teaches. It helps me understand where you are coming from.

There is, however, an impasse which we will reach in the discussion, because I believe, as a Protestant, in the priesthood of believers, and that there is no mediator between God and myself other than Jesus Christ. Therefore, I must be obedient to His word, and to Him alone, and not to any church leader or teaching.

In this case, I believe that your church leaders are right in their strong and immutable stance against abortion......which is clearly and unquestionably the only Biblical position one can have. However, as to the exact rules on how to vote, I disagree. If I prayerfully ask for God's guidance and wisdom in this very difficult decision, and believe that God has led me to vote for the candidate who will save the most lives (in this case, Schwartzenegger, because he could win), then it is between me and God alone that any judgement lies......not in an outside source.

Keep in mind that I am neither a Catholic, nor a Californian, so my prayer (as a pro-life outsider) for the election was that God's will would be done in order to save more lives.......and I believe it was.