Saturday, July 31, 2010

MCFL Hijacks the Word Prolife Again-- It is Time for The Change We Can Believe In

 As everyone knows, Jeff Perry is battling Joe Malone in the 10th Congressional district for the Republican nomination - Bill Delahunt's seat.

Bill Dellahunt was a trainwreck on all of our issues.  Prolifers are not sorry he is handing over his seat.  

I'm here to remind you that MCFL's 20 year strategy of advancing the political careers of proaborts included advising prolifers to vote for Bill Dellahunt.    

Like Martha Coakley, Joe Malone is a bad egg.    Jeff Perry is the better candidate for prolifers who feel called to continue to go to the polls and continue to feed the country the best proabort.     I am done with voting for proaborts.  They are anathema to me but I truly feel that people voting for the best proabort is a legitimate calling. I affirm it.  

This is not about Jeff Perry.

It is about MCFL's  strategy for the last 20 years, its honesty.   And, it is about what it means to be a 'prolife' candidate in the future.  

MCFL is once again not being honest about Jeff Perry.  Jeff Perry does not oppose abortion.

Here's what MCFL said about Perry:

According to Jack Rowe, Chairman of the Fed PAC,  "As a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Jeff Perry has been a strong advocate for life.  He even voted against state funding of embryonic stem cell research."

 Rowe further stated, "Perry opposes tax funding of abortion and takes a pro-life position on all important issues.

No.  He doesn't.

You remember the important issue of abortion?

Here are the positions of Joe Malone and Jeff Perry - see if you can pick out the one MCFL claims has "a prolife position on the issue" of *abortion*.   

1.   Abortion - I hope we can agree that there are too many abortions in America.  I support efforts to provide women considering abortion with resources and education to enable and empower them to choose life, including pregnancy care centers and programs which can increase adoptions.   I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion.  I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.

I support a woman’s right to choose under the guidelines set by the United States Supreme Court.  Certainly, many people disagree with this position and I respect their views.  I do oppose partial birth abortion and federal funding of abortions. I support parental consent requirements for minors and counseling to encourage adoption and would work to increase the number of adoptions.

You tell me - which one has a prolife position on the issue of abortion?

The entire purpose of our mission.  Abortion.  

Not to be a broken record, but let's go over again where has MCFL's strategy gotten us in the last 20 years:

Here in Massachusetts, we now have zero votes in the Senate and a bakers dozen in the legislature. Now that we are down to nothing, how many lives are being saved by this strategy?

When we want to advance life issues, we have zero people in the Senate.

People keep blaming this situation on the voters.   Here is the reality check:

We don't have a political machine that proactively seeks out prolifers, grooms them, endorses them and gets out the vote for them.   There is a way to be politically savvy and market our people proactively and win the vote.  Even, right here in Massachusetts.   

We have plenty of honorable people who want life defended from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death who will honorably represent our position on abortion while also taking other positions the American people are upset about.  

A political machine picks out charismatic, articulate people and puts a marketing package together that will resonate with things lots of voters are concerned about.   Running a campaign to win means putting your finger in the air and feeling the direction of the wind.  Finding things everyone can agree on and riding the wave.

In spite of the press, liberals are upset about Obamacare and illegal immigration.  They're tired of the political cronyism.  They're tired of having things shoved down their throat the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support.  We don't like the situation either.   

If ever there was a time when we had consensus with American people, the post-Obama world can be played to our advantage with some smart, savvy political strategy.    

This is what every political machine does that has a mission.  They package their candidates to create the soundbytes that gets THEIR OWN candidates elected.  They get out the vote for THEIR OWN CANDIDATES.

We do not have that political machine in MCFL.    There is no wisdom or political savvy.   Because they don't have the savvy and know how, it is a machine that has churned out proaborts for 20 years.  

Instead of grooming prolife candidates and packaging them, supporting them and getting out the vote for our own candidates, they are doing something else.  They are changing the 'word' "prolife" to mean you can be an outstanding prolifer but still support Roe v. Wade.

This is an outstanding prolife position to MCFL.    A warrior for the unborn can support Roe v. Wade.

We have a duty to protect what the word 'prolife' means for the next generation who will be victimized by it.  

Let's also be clear about what MCFL does when a prolifer approaches them for support in a race:    

They tell them they can't win and they will not lend their support.  They then go out and endorse a proabort and as the race picks up, MCFL throws the prolifer under the bus.  They will actually look past the candidates position that they believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death to find something to nitpick and circulate something saying they are not 'prolife'.   Or, they ignore the race all together as they are doing with Ed Sholley and Barney Frank.

There are national consequences to changing what the word "prolife" mean by MCFL and the strategy is being watched and covered in national prolife political circles.

After the dustup in the wake of its endorsement of independent gubernatorial candidate Tim Cahill, Massachusetts Citizens for Life has released a further statement helping pro-life voters understand its decision-making.....

MCFL says Cahill "made it clear" in two different meeting with officials of the pro-life group that, while he believes Roe v. Wade is "settled law,"...

After issuing an endorsement last week, MCFL came under fire from some pro-life advocates and Cahill and his staff responded in the press that he officially supports legalized abortions -- albeit with numerous pro-life limits...

The strategy of endorsing candidates who say killing the unborn is settled law and finding something we can bond with him on is legitimate political strategy for us, is it?

Settled law my eye.   Slavery was settled law.    The entire purpose of the prolife political movement is to overturn law that allows people to rip the limbs off of children until they bleed to death.    

There are liberties people take that victimize other people.  When a country settles its law to grant those people license to victimize other people, righteous people stand up and overturn those laws.  

It is sound political strategy to dance around the proabortion elephant in the room to find something else we agree with proaborts about?

How does this differ from Catholics United?

Why do the same prolifers who gripe about Catholics United turn around and defend this strategy when MCFL executes it?

It is intellectual dishonesty.  

I have plenty of gripes about the Republicans but imagine if they sat back for 20 years as a political machine endorsing and getting out the vote for the best of all the proaborts?

It is bad strategy.  I don't know anyone rational who would run a political machine this way.  It is indefensible. 

We are stuck with MCFL's harvest - zero votes in the Senate and a dozen in the legislature.

It is time for the change we can believe in.  

No comments: