More on Scott Brown and MCFL

MCFL sent out parables today (posted below my response).

In response to MCFL's email, here's another parable for your consideration:

A story in Maccabees of a martyred mother with seven sons. Greek King Antiochus tried to force a faithful woman and her sons to eat meat. The Jewish mother refused in her faithfulness to religious law that meat defiled the soul. Each one of them chose death rather than to be a spectacle in the public square of caving to the tyranny of governmental pressure to disobey God.

For the men and women who signed the Manhattan Declaration, this would the moment to apply the principle. These are the days.

I see our role here as faithfulness as this world decays around us. We have been going the wrong way. MCFL has been getting and giving terrible advice.

I believe voters have the right to accurate information to make up their own mind on what they want to do about Scott Brown. Most of them have not done their homework and are relying upon MCFL to classify him - calling him a "pro-life" vote is dubious, at best. Everyone has to live with their own conscience, according to their own principles . MCFL has made the decision for the prolife community here in Boston and is withholding information from the people while at the same time asking them send a candidate to Washington based upon what they think will happen.

In reality, it is not about what Jack Rowe, Ann Fox or anyone thinks or believes Scott Brown will do - it's about what Scott Brown says he'll do.

Here are quotes from articles from the last few days:

1.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Scott_Brown_Abortion.htm

Rep. Brown indicated he supports the following principles concerning abortion:

Abortions should always be legally available.

Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.

Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.

"Abortions should always be legally available" - It's perfectly clear there is no basis to believe Brown will ever be voting for a constitutional amendment.

2.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/needham/news/x1689190524/Brown-I-dont-owe-anybody-anything

While abortion coverage proved a sticking point lawmakers developing federal health care reform, Brown said the positions he and Coakley take on abortion aren't pivotal to the Massachusetts Senate race. Both support Roe vs. Wade, but Brown opposes late-term abortions and lowering the age of consent to have one.

"Abortion really isn't a large part of this race. It's not something that is important at this point, because the major issues are dealing with taxation, deficit spending and where our national security interests are in terms of keeping our country safe," said Brown.

Brown also noted that whether a candidate for a federal judgeship was pro-life or pro-choice holds "very little importance to me" and would have voted to appoint Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He would not want a judge "legislating from the bench."

Brown has said he supports Roe v. Wade and abortion is of very little importance to him. While he says he thinks it's unimportant whether a judge is prolife or prochoice - he also says he will not select judges who will "legislate from the bench. Brown will actually rule out selecting any judicial candidate who interprets the constitution as having a fundamental right to life by characterizing them as "legislating from the bench".

Do you see the difference between MCFL distributing her beliefs about what Brown may do without substantive soundbytes from Brown and drawing conclusions about what Brown will do from the substantive soundbytes Brown himself has said he will do?

Brown also says in this article that he wants to take the proposal for healthcare reform "back to the drawing board" -

The Republican candidate to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said he'd be a vote to take a proposal for health care reform back to the drawing board because he said the plan could worsen care already available to Massachusetts residents. On healthcare, Brown said each state should be left to handle provisions for its residents, like Massachusetts did when it required coverage beginning in 2007. He said the state could share its programs with other states and replicate them, and work with other congressional delegations if federal aid would be needed to get state-level health care plans in place. Imposing a federal-level insurance plan may mean Massachusetts residents could see lesser care and higher cost, he said

Scott Brown supported healthcare reform here in Massachusetts that actually included provisions to publicly funding abortions.

4.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/20/being_the_underdog_never_deters_a_driven_brown/

Brown supported Massachusetts health care overhaul in 2006 and favors elements advanced in the congressional debate about a national overhaul. But he said he would oppose the bills now moving through Congress because they would help other states at the expense of Massachusetts


What differences does it make to the prolife community whether he wants to reform healthcare by instituting this in 52 states? It trumps the Hyde Amendment. This is akin to Roe v. Wade only now we are publicly funding the abortions. For anyone on this circulation who doesn't understand why in processes, I'm happy to demonstrate how by using the Massachusetts healthcare reform Brown helped to implement. We just went through a terrible battle to protect our conscience rights being obliterated by our own chancery. We still don't have all the details of what the contracts say here in Massachusetts. What we do know is nothing at all changed except for large infusions of cash into Caritas. Procedurally, the abortion contracts Caritas made are still in effect and our employees still are being compelled to vet patients who are covered for abortion, want an abortion and have to be told what number to call to proceed with the abortion along with the instructions and we still have promised to make sure they have a ride to the abortionists. What entity is listed on paper as owning this structure is secretive.

Is it MCFL's belief that Brown's aspirations for our 52 states to institute this mess is some kind of prolife version of national healthcare?

What are MCFL substantive ideas about Brown's plan? It isn't enough to say he's going to stop national healthcare because he has other plans that are destructive to the country, to our conscience protections.




5.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/20/being_the_underdog_never_deters_a_driven_brown/

On abortion rights, Brown is basically in favor but with nuance. “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental notification law,’’ Brown said, adding that he would not apply an abortion rights litmus test in Supreme Court confirmations.

You've got to reach beyond what MCFL is circulating about what they think about believe Scott Brown will do and look at the evidence.

We are in a critical hour where we can influence what kind of candidates we get from the GOP going forward. The question is, do you want to continue use our prolife networks to lobby for candidates who are proabortion or do we have the courage, strength, faith and loyalto to Christ to tell them not to bother coming to us unless they're willing to put their money behind a candidate has a proven track record in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception to natural death.

Are you willing to throw away this chance to change our future for this candidate?

Do you think that MCFL will have any further influence with getting prolife candidates funded with the kind of money we need to win after they have proven that they'll categorize this man's record as sending a "pro-life vote" to the senate?

I don't relish having people upset with me - but I believe MCFL is giving terrible advice.

One more thing for your consideration. Brown claims that he would support laws protecting our conscience.

I'm here to remind you that in Massachusetts, Catholics Hospitals are being illicitly forced to hand out emergency contraception. Where was Brown when this was happening? What influence in helping Scott Brown get elected has protected our conscience rights?

What has Brown actually "done" to help us remove the illegal "interpretation" of law by Mitt Romney?

He's done nothing.

Here's todays Scott Brown soundbyte. He's going to be the swing vote for both parties. Yesterday, he said he wouldn't vote for a judicial candidate who "legislated from the bench". Today, he has another story. These are his principles and you don't like them, he has others

May God protect, guide and counsel us all.

In Christ, Carol McKinley

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100107scott_brown_vows_to_work_with_dems/srvc=home&position=also

Scott Brown vows to work with Dems

“I give you my word. What’s the Republican party gonna to do to me? They haven’t really done much for me now,” he said. “So all of a sudden I’m obligated to them? I don’t owe anybody anything.”

With 12 days to go until the Jan. 19 special election - and on the heels of a poll showing him within striking distance of Coakley - Brown said his stance on issues makes him “the most important vote down there potentially.”

“If I go down there, I’ll be the 41st (Republican) senator,” he said. “The Democrats have to come to me and say, ‘Scott, we know you’re an independent guy, can we have you on this issue?’

“That’s a great position to be in,” he added.

Brown continued to paint himself as a social moderate who is tight-fisted with taxpayer dollars and hawkish on national security. He said there may be cases in which U.S. citizens should be treated as enemy combatants if they have undergone terrorism training outside the country.

“Even though they hold the status of U.S. citizens, now they’ve gone to a different level,” he said. “They’re joining a known terrorist group and almost saying, ‘Even though I’m born here . . . I want to be (elsewhere) instead.’ ”

Brown ducked the label “pro-choice” while saying abortion should be a woman’s personal choice. In the next breath, he said he would vote to confirm a U.S. Supreme Court justice who opposed Roe v. Wade - but added he would have supported Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“The party’s never been behind me - I’m not the party guy,” he said. “That’s the beauty of me.”

*******************************

First Parable

A woman ran a large orphanage full of precious children. One day a terrible fire broke out. The woman ran for help. Her neighbors came and said they would go in to save the children. The woman asked, "Will you save all my children?" "No", said the neighbors, "But we will save as many as we can". The woman replied, "I don't want to have anything to do with you if you can't guarantee to save them all"

The firemen came and said they would go in to save the children. The woman asked, "Will you save all my children?" "No", said the firemen, "But we will save as many as we can". The woman replied, "I don't want to have anything to do with you if you can't guarantee to save them all"

The Fire Chief came and told the woman that her house had burned to the ground and all the children were dead. The woman replied, "At least my conscience is pure! I did not deal with anyone who would not guarantee to save all the children"

Second Parable

A flood arrives and the man is up to his knees in water. A truck comes to him. The people in the truck call out, "We have come to save you! Get in!" The man replies, "No thank you. God will save me"

The water rises and the man is hanging out of his second story window. A speedboat comes to him. The people in the boat call out, "We have come to save you! Get in!" The man replies, "No thank you. God will save me"

The man is on his roof clinging to his chimney. A helicopter comes to him. The people in the helicopter call out, "We have come to save you! Get in!" The man replies, "No thank you. God will save me"

Of course, the man drowns. When he sees God, he berates God for not saving him. God answers, "I sent a truck for you, I sent a boat for you, I sent a helicopter for you...

Third Parable

Matthew (25:13-30)

"It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them.

To one he gave five talents;to another, two; to a third, one--to each according to his ability. Then he went away.

Immediately the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five.

Likewise, the one who received two made another two. But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money.

After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them.

The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.'

His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.'

(Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, 'Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.'

His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.'

Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter;so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.'

His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter?

Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?

Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten.

For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'

********

I can 't seem to crack the code how these relate to voting for the proabort who isn't as bad as the other proabort.

Soon, prolifers will have a choice between Charlie Baker/Richard Tisei and Devil Patrick/Tim Murray..

This fool is gearing up for "the parables".

Scott Brown Finally Publicly Says He is Prochoice

Brown says abortion is of very little importance to him:



http://www.wickedlocal.com/needham/news/x1689190524/Brown-I-dont-owe-anybody-anything

While abortion coverage proved a sticking point lawmakers developing federal health care reform, Brown said the positions he and Coakley take on abortion aren't pivotal to the Massachusetts Senate race. Both support Roe vs. Wade, but Brown opposes late-term abortions and lowering the age of consent to have one.

"Abortion really isn't a large part of this race. It's not something that is important at this point, because the major issues are dealing with taxation, deficit spending and where our national security interests are in terms of keeping our country safe," said Brown.

Brown also noted that whether a candidate for a federal judgeship was pro-life or pro-choice holds "very little importance to me" and would have voted to appoint Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He would not want a judge "legislating from the bench."

For those of you who have been standing in front of abortion clinics saving lives, I'd be careful not to cross the buffer zones when you pass out Vote for Brown leaflets:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/?page=2

Not all of Brown’s votes are easy to classify, however. In 2007, he cast a vote to create a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics to better distance protestors from patients.

You'd have to have long arms to distribute flyers from 35 feet.

Well, you could always try paper airplaning them?

It's may be true if prolifers send Brown to Washington he'll vote "no" on healthcare this round.

The Republican candidate to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said he'd be a vote to take a proposal for health care reform back to the drawing board because he said the plan could worsen care already available to Massachusetts residents.

Brown is for national healthcare, he just wants to go back to the drawing board.

He's just said he supports Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue means very little to him.

Brown was a supporter of Massachusetts healthcare "reform" that provides abortion with taxpayer dollars.

Calling this guy a pro-life vote and lobbying for him is imprudent.

The reasons why we don't get prolife candidates to have succesful campaigns is because they're being sabotaged by prolifers by supporting prochoice candidates instead, calling it the lesser of two evils.

We've got to stop letting prochoice candidates use our leadership, our newtorking, our grassroots campaigning.

There was a candidate who supports the right to life from the moment of conception to natural death running opposite Brown in the Republican primary. Jack Robinson.

You know how MCFL is now saying there will be very little turnout and the pro-life vote can win it? Well, back in the primary days, they weren't willing to help Robinson win with the same votes they're now rounding up for Brown.

They had a different soundbyte back then.

Though Robinson answered he supported life from the moment of conception to natural death, Anne Fox sabotaged his campaign by saying - get this - Robinson was not pro-life because he wasn't for a constitutional amendment!

She ended the email by saying she would "keep you up to date".

How's she doing?

When will it get to the point where the pro-life community realizes we need new leadership?

There's a significant problem that we keep refusing to fix at the level of leadership volunteering our resources to prochoice candidates. By the time they get down to us, we feel desperate enough to vote for him.

Unless and until the GOP realizes we are NOT going to support a prochoice candidate, come what may - we'll continue on this collision course of compromise that is destroying our Nation.

If you're a prolifer, you better ask yourself in the face of the evidence whether Brown is a "pro-life" vote or whether he's going to "revamp" healthcare to exclude exploiting the poor, the elderly, the suffering and the unborn - and then ask yourself how you can sit on your hands while Anne Fox continues to take the unborn on this trajectory.

Cheers!

Calling Scott Brown "pro-life" is akin to calling Tiger Woods "mongomous"

For several months, there's been squabbling in Boston's pro-life community over MCFL's active campaigning for Scott Brown and their characterizations of him as a pro-lifer.

I've laid low publicly about the dust up because nobody in the pro-life community disputes that Martha Coakley is a greater threat to life and liberty than Brown. In fact, everyone is in agreement that Coakley's ideology on the sanctity of life is worse than Kennedy's.

I don't mean this entry to be discouraging to anyone who in good faith believes Brown will stop Martha Coakley and/or the healthcare bill. I fully understand and can empathize with that trajectory.

Early on, hardcore prolifers did their diligence on Brown's convictions on abortion. Brown was couching his language in writing because he was courting the prolife community, but was straight-forward verbally to many prolifers that he supports Roe v. Wade.

As Brown's campaign trotted along, in conversations with Massachusetts prolifers at large, it became clear to me that the lack of written verification of Brown's support of Roe v. Wade was causing some confusion. Apparently MCFL had invited Brown to put up a table at the Boston 2009 Walk for Life. Accordingly, people presumed the invitation and Brown's presence indicated MCFL had scrutinized his convictions about the sanctity of life, made the determination on behalf of the pro-life community that he opposed Roe v. Wade and did not do their own diligence.

I wrote to Scott, explained the situation and asked him to come clean in writing about his convictions on abortion.

This was his reply:


Hi Carol.I am against partial-birth abortion, for parental consent, and against federal funding for abortions. Hope this helps.

I noted the deliberate omission of his support for Roe v. Wade and asked not to proceed with this strategy.

I told him playing games with words would be perceived in the prolife community as his character being deceptive rather than honorable. I explained that because pro-lifers consider Coakley so culturally dangerous, I believed he'd be better off marketing himself with honesty. That way, prolifers would at least know Brown says what he means and means what he says, and he'll follow through with his campaign promises.

I told him I was very tapped into the grassroots, the actual people who "vote", and I believed garnering support with intellectual dishonesty would be detrimental to his campaign, the leadership of the people he was using in the prolife community to distribute misinformation and to the future unity of the Massachusetts prolife community.

I wrote him numerous times regurgitating the above soundbytes and asking him to man up.

He never responded.

He subsequently did say he was in favor of abortion rights in this Boston Globe article:

On abortion rights, Brown is basically in favor but with nuance. “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental notification law,’’ Brown said, adding that he would not apply an abortion rights litmus test in Supreme Court confirmations.

And, on his campaign website:

Abortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and 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.

The following is Project Vote Smart rating of Brown on abortion:


Abortion Issues

(Back to top)

2005 Senator Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts 50 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Brown supported the interests of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life 33 percent in 2004.

2000 In 2000 Massachusetts Citizens for Life determined Senator Brown to be 8.

In addition to Brown, there was another candidate in the Republican primary running for Kennedy's seat - Jack E. Robinson. Robinson claimed to be pro-life and tried to lobby prolifers saying that both Brown and MCFL were misrepresenting his pro-life credentials.

In November, Mass Citizens for Life acknowleded Brown's pro-life record was a "mixed bag" while seeming to admit Robinson was prolife:

Dec 8 Tue Special Primary election for Senator Kennedy's old seat;
All Democrats are Pro-Choice (Pro-Abortion) and Pro-same-sex marriage; STEPHEN G. PAGLIUCA, Rep. Michael Capuano (100% NARAL Pro-Choice rating), AG Martha Coakley (100% NARAL Pro-Choice) and ALAN A. KHAZEI.
You could at least exercise your Prudential Judgment with a vote for a Republican
Republican Scott Brown has a mixed Pro-Life/Pro-Choice record but is against same-sex marriage.
Republican Jack E. Robinson is Pro-Life but also Pro-same-sex marriage and Pro-Gay and Transgender rights. He was against the Stimulus and the Public option on Health Care.

Yet, on page 5 of the November/December issue of MCFL News, not only was Robinson excluded from the MCFL chart on where the candidates stood on the life issues, but the question of whether the candidates actually favored or opposed abortion was omitted!

Following the publication of MCFL's newsletter and just before the primary, MCFL responded to Robinson's claims that they and Brown were being less than forthright, by circulating an amazing email written by Anne Fox, throwing Robinson under the bus:

On the Republican side, Jack E. Robinson has entered the race. His campaign delivered cards to homes in the cities across the state. The cards claim that he is the only pro-life candidate.

Robinson was interviewed by Deborah Becker on WBUR Radio in Boston. She asked him where he stands on abortion. He answered, "Well, I would never vote for a constitutional amendment, if that's what you are asking me, but I'm personally pro-life."

This is an amazing and contradictory position for two reasons.
First, the "only pro-life candidate" obviously would want to guarantee the right to life of all by passing a constitutional amendment.
Secondly, the last time Robinson ran for the U. S. Senate he filled out the MCFL questionnaire. The first question, "Do you believe that the law should protect the right to life of each human being from conception to natural death?" Robinson answered "yes", which, of course, implies support for a constitutional amendment.

If you live in Everett, North Adams, Fall River or one of the many places where the cards were distributed, you need to share this information with everyone in your area.

We'll keep you up to date as the Primary approaches.
Anne Fox, President

The real question is here, in "keeping people up to date", why hasn't Scott Brown's contradictory position, support of Roe v. Wade and opposition to a constitutional amendment ever been distributed to the pro-life community?

In the past week, MCFL has escalated their campaign for Brown in the pro-life community using the adjective "pro-life":

The PAC is organizing this effort by state rep. districts. That means you can help close to home.

Jack says, "This is an unprecedented opportunity to send a pro life vote to the Senate. The turn-out will be very low. The name of the game will be getting out the vote. There are more than enough pro-lifers in the state to send Scott Brown to Washington - a pro-life vote from Massachusetts, no less!....

Jack and the PAC are working very hard. Thank you for helping!

Anne Fox, President

I'm not exactly sure why MCFL is convinced Brown is going to vote against healthcare. Seems to me, he supports national healthcare:

Brown supported Massachusetts health care overhaul in 2006 and favors elements advanced in the congressional debate about a national overhaul. But he said he would oppose the bills now moving through Congress because they would help other states at the expense of Massachusetts.

It's clear to me that Brown favors national healthcare but opposes elements that siphon money from Massachusetts. It should also not go unnoticed that in 2006 he was in favor of healthcare reform in Massachusetts that publicly funds abortions.

I wrote to Janet Callahan (of MCFL) yesterday, pointing out that most people in the prolife community have relied upon MCFL's representation that Brown is "pro-life" thinking that implies he opposes Roe v. Wade.

I explained that an honest campaign would have explained Brown is pro-choice but better than Coakley because there are many in the grassroots who are done with compromising. They have the right to accurate information from MCFL. I suggested they stop using the word "pro-life".

Never before in history of the authentic prolife movement has anyone used the word "pro-life" for a pro-choice candidate. We ought to leave that to the Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good crowd.


This was her response:

Hello Carol,



Thank you for you email. However, it is a misstatement to say that MCFL calls Scott Brown “pro-life.” In fact, we call Scott Brown “a pro-life vote.”



Best wishes for a New Year filled with blessings,



Janet

I wrote back and explained that the latest round of worthsmything still doesn't cut it because Brown is NOT a "pro-life vote."

He's admitted when it comes to voting, his support is on the side of Roe v. Wade, so it's a pro-choice vote.

I reiterated that they can't send people out into the streets or to the polls with the serious omission and commission of making them believe they're working for a pro-life candidate.

Last night, they circulated another email, still implying Brown is a pro-lifer:

Jack Rowe, Chair, Massachusetts Citizens for Life Political Action Committee tells us:

"People are terribly upset about health care and asking what to do.

Here is the very exciting part. We in Massachusetts can actually save the whole country from this awful health care.

Our PAC has been supporting Scott Brown because he will be a pro-life vote in the Senate. Scott Brown will also vote against the health care bill.

After the compromise bill comes out of conference, it must be approved again by each house. Brown will vote against the bill. That means there will not be 60 votes in the Senate! That means the bill will be defeated!

Can we do it? We certainly can! Turn-out will be very small. If each of you votes for Scott Brown and gets one other person to vote that should win the election. Also, be sure to arrange for your elderly or house-bound friends to vote. Call your town hall on Monday!

We must be very sure so we are doing a huge pro-life literature "drop" the weekend of January 16 and 17 - right before the election. We need your help! Please contact Janet at Mass Citizens to volunteer: jcallahan@masscitizensforlife.org or 617-242-4199 X 230.

We are the only state that can stop this health care! You and I are the voters who can do it. Contact Janet today!

I'm sorry to say this, but if you take a leadership position in the pro-life community, the duty comes with prohibitions against the violation of the word "pro-life".

There are many of us who believe the strategy of voting for the "lesser of two evils" has done a disservice to the unborn. By supporting the lesser of two evils, we keep circling in the same vicious cycle of empowering evil. It has destroyed our country.

It isn't spite and it isn't foolishness.

It's political strategy.

Let me explain.

We're in a unique position at this point in time in history.

The power of the GOP has been choked off. They didn't give us the right candidates.

The system is set up in a hierarchy. The GOP shoots candidates up the flagpole, lobbies initiatives with grassroots followings and networks to see if they'll salute. When a suitable candidate passes inspection we presumably will then provide leadership and ground troops to lobby voters for their candidate.

The system is designed to work so that the initiatives say "no" to the GOP when they come around with a pro-choice candidate. But that is no longer happening.

In 2008, the GOP cleaned Romney up thinking Romney's life-long opposition to us in the trenches would be forgotten if they taught him the right soundbytes. Romney had the best guidance and counsel money could buy.

Sadly, a number of loose cannons in that middle-management layer of pro-life initiatives said "yes" to Romney. But, when Romney was circulated to the ground troops, we refused to rally the ground troops to get the voter out.

We choked the power at the level above the voter.

So, here we are in 2010 and the GOP has lobbied a pro-life initiative to get out the vote for a prochoice candidate.

Here's why working for a prochoice candidate, and worse, giving him any kind of pro-life credentials, is political suicide:

• The entire structure of political power is based upon money and the power of networking.
• Every prolife candidate that comes along, we don't support because "he doesn't have a chance".
• He doesn't have a chance because he doesn't have the "money".
• Prolife candidates cannot make it without the people in the GOP with the money. It is a sad fact but true that we need money to get the message and our people out into the public square on the trains, in front of the boob tube, ads, on websites, commercials - etc.
  
• The GOP will never give our candidates the money, so long as we keep supporting prochoice candidates who are fiscal conservatives.
• Lobbying our POWER to the GOP who now knows we'll use our network and call their prochoice candidate "pro-life" is political suicide.
  

When Judie Brown or Fr. Pavone say a candidate is pro-life, we know exactly what that word means.

When Patrick Kennedy uses the word "pro-life", we know he's hijacked the word to give it a different meaning.

The pro-life community should not have to be second guessing what MCFL means when they use the word "pro-life". MCFL's dishonesty about the word "prolife" leaves me very troubled. The trust of the people is being violated and consciences are being deliberately misinformed.

I'm of the opinion that we have a real opportunity to get the GOP to give us authentic pro-life candidates going forward. The GOP needs pro-lifers. Frankly, I'm uncertain as to whether they are actually tapped in enough to the grassroots to know we're choking them at the level beneath the "pro-life initiatives" giving them less than savvy advice about who we're going to lobby, campaign and vote for.



For anyone thinking they'd like to take another crack at sending a prochoice vote to Washington, knock yourselves out.

Personally, I don't think campaigning for Scott Brown is playing our cards right and he certainly shouldn't be honored with the adjective "pro-life".


n.b. Oh, and in case you're wondering about the picture, that's Scott Brown in his "America's Sexiest Man" nude centerfold spread from Cosmopolitan Magazine.