Life of the Party

Welcome New Readers

Glad you're here.  Please take a look at the Welcome Page, where you will find the purpose of this website stated in two posts, when it was launched in September of 2006:

1) To inform pro-lifers in Washington State of where the candidates stand on the pro-life issues, early enough in the campaign season, that you aren't duped into supporting the establishment's choice, rather than letting them hear from you who your choice is in the primary and 2) To make the case to the Republican Party as a whole, that we must stand up for the unalienable Right to Life because it is a winning issue when presented correctly, but most of all, because it is the right thing to do! 

Life of the Party, since its launching, has existed through one full even year political season, when we elect legislative and executive offices for state and federal level and announced a statewide list of endorsements based on objective criteria: their stated support of the protection of the Right to Life, from conception to natural death, without discrimination of any kind (such as rape, incest, life or health of the mother, the percieved need to destroy a human life for cells to cure another's disease, etc.).  Any interested Republican who does not see their favorite candidate(s) listed on the endorsement list, should know that either a) the candidate chose not to answer the survey of Human Life of WA or the RNC for Life or b) they answered the survey and did not meet the objective criteria for a Life of the Party endorsement.

As the author of this blog, I reserve the right to make this material public for all of WA voters and interested readers from outside of WA as well, particularly for pro-life Republicans and pro-lifers in general, to make informed choices.  At times, there may be candidates that I personally support that fall slightly short of an endorsement here, based on my close discernment and evaluation of the candidate to be trustworthy and their openness to consider the points I make here, as well as their position on other important issues.  An endorsement from Life of the Party is not automatic for all Republican candidates, no matter how popular they may be among Republican leaders and their followers or the media.

Michael Steele's Negative Associations

The race for the RNC chairman is heating up and many are touting Michael Steele.  Republican National Coalition for Life urges caution. 

Life of the Party on the Radio

Last Friday, I was on the radio live with Bob Enyart of Colorado and of American Right to Life Action again.  It was Part II of our discussion.  In Part II, we focused on our one area of disagreement: Ron Paul and his Sanctity of Human Life bill and its implications.  Here is Part I if you haven't heard it yet, and here is Part II. 

Some highlights were:

 Our Agreements

Personhood must be defined as beginning at conception/fertilization in order to restore rights to preborn children

National Right to Life has mislead the pro-life movement, via compromising on foundational pro-life principles and rubber stamping approval of pro-abortion-choice Republican candidates

Abortion is not justifiable for any reason and any proposed bill that does, should be rejected by pro-lifers

 John McCain is not pro-life (He favors embryonic stem-cell research, abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and has never proposed or supported a bill to make abortion illegal)

Our Disagreements

Ron Paul 

Ron Paul's Sanctity of Human Life Act as a means to define human life as beginning at conception and restore the right to life to preborn children

Would removing the jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court (as Paul's bill would do) thereby remove due process as provided in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?  Even though a State Supreme Court could still hear cases covering this issue?

Do states and nations have authority to use force on other states and nations to abide by "thou shall not murder" or any other bibilical mandate?

____________________

After the show, we spoke some more, and I raised the question of why we're still debating about Ron Paul since he is no longer a presidential candidate, and suggested that he get Chuck Baldwin on, since he is running for president and supports Ron Paul's Sanctity of Human Life Act.  He said he would try to do that. 

Just a little background: back when there were only two men left in the race for the Republican nomination--John McCain and Ron Paul--American Right to Life had thus far, not raised any criticism of McCain's position on the right to life, but had dished out plenty of criticism of Mitt Romney (which I lauded here) and of Ron Paul (which I refuted here).  I had raised the question back then, "why no criticism of John McCain and why knock down the only pro-life candidate left?"  They eventually did criticise McCain after he became the nominee, and then Bob wanted to have me on to discuss our disagreement over Ron Paul.   

Dino Bunts on Stem-Cell Research Softball

There are at least 4 actual sub-categories of positions to this issue of which both candidates seem to purposely avoid one or more when criticizing their opponent or stating their own position:

1. Supporting state funding of stem-cell research
2. Opposing state funding of stem-cell research
3. Supporting the legality of all stem-cell research, including the kind that uses and destroys embryos (tiny babies).
4. Supporting the legality of stem-cell research that doesn't use or destroy embryos.

Gregoire has two ads on the subject.  The one with the man with Parkinson's actually states the distinction of embryonic stem-cell research and rightly says that Dino opposes it.  I give Gregoire credit for that, and I actually called it a "pro-Dino ad".  In the other one with the woman speaking of her son, Gregoire chooses the vague approach and misleads with the claim that he opposes it, as if to say "all of it". Of this one, I called it a "softball" and hoped Dino would hit this one out of the park and use that as an opportunity to state his real position clearly and persuade others in the process, attracting more voters to him, but most importantly speaking the truth about what the destruction of human life. 

But he chose to bunt.  At best, he's made his die hard supporters happy by calling his opponent a liar.  At worse, he's confused some fiscal conservatives into believing that Dino thinks Gregoire should have kept her promise to use state funds to support stem-cell research, and some social conservatives wishing he would champion the right to life by stating why he's against embryonic stem-cell research, all while emboldening the "pro-choice" crowd that supports Gregoire.

Even though he doesn't say he supports government funding of stem-cell research, it gives the impression that he does, when he criticizes her for breaking her promise to increase state funding of it.  And her promise did include embryonic.  He also failed to make the distinction in his own position, that he opposes embryonic stem-cell research. 

Like I said, he could have hit this one out of the park, but he chose to bunt.  Or did his coach instruct him to bunt?  Who is his coach, anyway?

Abortion Friendly Republican Candidates on the Ballot

UPDATED AND BUMPED

(This post was originally titled "Abortion Friendly Republican Candidates on Primary Ballot".  All of the candidates listed below advanced to the general through the top two vote getter primary. 

One more abortion friendly Republican added to NARAL WA endorsement list: Marcia McGraw (R) for Lt. Governor, running against incumbent pro-life Democrat, Brad Owen.  (Interestingly, this took place after she advanced to the general.)  Thankfully, a couple of my neighbors caught this while doing their own research before filling out their ballots.  Thanks, Ray and Casey!

Don't be deceived by party label.

Statewide Races

Sam Reed-Secretary of State (Incumbent).  See here. 

Rob McKenna-Attorney General (Incumbent).  See here and here. 

Doug Sutherland-Commisioner of Public Lands (Incumbent).  See here.  Sutherland also has a sexual harassment scandal hanging over his head (see here and here), and many who've worked closely with him aren't surprised. 

State Legislature

Steve Litzow 41st District.  See here.   

____________________________________

And so you won't be deceived by Republicans who have endorsed these non-partisan candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction:

Terry Bergeson and Randy Dorn are both endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. 

What About Judicial Candidates?

If you live in Washington State, where we elect our judges, you might have found it frustrating, how very little information is available about the judicial candidates.  And if you attend any political meetings or forums, where judicial candidates are given an opportunity to campaign, you have probably found it even more frustrating, that when you ask a judicial candidate a question about his perspective on an issue, you are told he can't answer that question.  This is an exaggerated statement used to dodge your questions. 

Dean Isaacson, former Snohomish Co. Republican Party chairman, author of Judicial Forum, and my fellow contributor to The Reagan Wing under the name "cominus", has offered some background on what you can ask and what they can answer.  Make sure you know this if you anticipate having the opportunity to talk to a judicial candidate.  But since time is running out for the primary election where many of these races will be decided, you can take a look at Dean's evaluation of all of the judicial candidates in WA state.  I found it to be a valuable resource.

Words of Wisdom for Dino

In response to my plea last week, the Tell Dino website has had comments pooring in from readers here who believe that Dino ought to take a more clear and forthright stand against abortion.  Most of them are citizens of Washington State, but Dino also heard from Catherine Marshall the wife of Bob Marshall, a Virginia State Senator who has sucessfully campaigned as a 100% pro-lifer, and who launched an impressive campaign earlier this year against two big names, and came within a hair of defeating a former Republican Governor for the nomination to defeat the Democrat incumbent, without the help of the party machine:

My husband is a state legislator from Northern Virginia who has won 9 elections in a district that has nearly doubled in size since he was first elected in 1991.  He is unabashedly 100% pro-life, including against abortion in cases of life, rape and incest.  After each election he gets letters from voters who disagree with him on abortion, but who vote for him for other reasons such as integrity, working for his constituents, etc.  The Republican "experts" who suggest pro-life candidates cannot win if they express their pro-life views, fail to recognize that those who want to keep abortion legal are not single issue voters as are pro-life voters. Further, pro-lifers are super dedicated campaigners who work day and night for candidates who shares their beliefs.  This fact was again proven by my husband's recent close race (lost by .63% -- less than 1%) for the US Senate nomination in a state-wide Convention against a former Govenor, Attorney General and Republican National Chairman.  My husband was also outspent 11-1 and had months less to campaign due to his duties in the General Assembly!

I urge you to be firm about your pro-life commitment that "all men are CREATED (not born) equal" and endowed by their Creator with "life."  Take the side of the woman in crisis - she deserves better than abortion which leaves the man scott free and the woman with a lifetime of regrets. Ask how anyone in their right mind could condone partial birth infanticide/abortion?  Stand up, and voters will stand for you! 

Imagine what Dino could do with the help of the party machine if he were to take a stand like Bob Marshall!  He already has their help.  The GOP would have a PR disaster on their hands if they were to begin withdrawing support once Dino started taking a strong stand against abortion.  And like Mrs. Marshall says, even folks who disagree with him on abortion, will support him anyway (so long as it's not their only issue), because of his integrity and committment to representing them.   

By the way, it's not too late for you to tell Dino what you think. 

We Need This Man In Congress

Have you heard anyone make it more clear, or present the legislative solution in this way?  Go to Michael's website and find out more. 

Help Me Help Dino

Yesterday, I posted a link to the recent interview that Dino did with King 5's Allen Schauffler and Seattle Times chief political reporter David Postman.  In that interview, Postman cornered Dino on the abortion issue and the "Plan B" issue (the right of pharmacists to object to dispensing drugs that violate their conscience).  Postman framed his question by pointing out that these are issues Dino doesn't like to talk about and asked, "aren't the voters...entitled to ask...these questions...and entitled to know where you stand?"  Unfortunately, Dino continued to dodge, and would only give his personal moral conviction as a devout Roman Catholic, but insisted that his job as Governor wouldn't have much to do with this issue.  It would be "out of his control," he said.

Dino is obviously

Message to Dino: Voters Want to Know Where You Stand

Update: If you wish he would answer the questions, tell him so.

________________________________________________________________

Not just on the issues you want to talk about.  We really do want to know where you stand on abortion and on the right of conscience for pharmacists, and what you'll do about it as Governor.  We're entitled to answers.  This is an election afterall. 

Pro-lifers: check out the King 5 Up Front Extra: Candidate Rossi on Tough Issues video.  Starting at about 3:56, David Postman to Dino, "Let's talk about the issues you don't want to talk about...like abortion...the pharmacy board."