Last night, David Bereit, the national director of 40 Days for Life, addressed the large crowd gathered from all over Washington, including leaders of all 4 Washington locations where 40 Days for Life campaigns are being held and where David visited earlier in the day (Everett, Olympia, Seattle and Tacoma). In today's daily campaign update and devotional, which is received by thousands of 40 Days for Life participants across the nation, David recounts the enthusiasm and determination of Washington State pro-lifers:
Today, record numbers of believers across our nation are taking to the streets, holding coordinated prayer vigils outside of Planned Parenthood centers and other abortion facilities. Tomorrow, the 40 Days for Life campaign draws to a close, with events and celebrations in many cities.So, where do we go from here?
The abortion industry believes that we are going to simply fade
away.They fully expect us to settle back into complacency, leaving them
free to continue their deadly business without hindrance.Last night I spoke to a large gathering of enthusiastic 40 Days for Life
participants from across the state of Washington in their capital, Olympia,
and I addressed that exact question. The intensity in the room was
electrifying. I want you to take a few minutes -- right now, or before
40 Days for Life ends tomorrow -- to listen to the audio recording of that
event in its entirety:http://40daysforlife.com/blog/?p=44 <-----------------
I must add, that from a political perspective, the Republican party in Washington State should take note. When presented with the very real possibility that both major political parties might nominate openly pro-abortion-choice candidates for president, the sentiment from the crowd was overwhelmingly against voting for either of the two.
If you're a Republican who isn't as concerned about the abortion issue, but want a Republican in office, you should work hard to make sure that pro-lifers have a pro-life Republican to vote for.
Posted by michellemcntyr at November 03, 2007 06:15 PM | Email ThisI appreciate the sentiment, but as Michael Medved often mentions on his show regarding third party candidacy and support, how would this ultimately help the cause?
If large numbers of people don't vote (which I think is ultimately unlikely) it will probably assure that we get Hillary. To me, that's a far worse nightmare than say, Giuliani when it comes to abortion. I think most adults of voting age today have a good grasp on Nader and Perot and won't be fooled again. That said, there appear to be large numbers of activists pushing for Ron Paul or Kucinich candidacies. I think most of those people are left operatives who know that will benefit Hillary.
But to the point of abortion, I don't think we get to a more pro-life world by making a left turn. And not turning right in a two party world is effectively turning left.
There are a lot of things for which WA Repubs need to learn to show principled support. And they need to stop walking on eggshells amongst the entrenched Progressive power structure. But I don't think that we will be better off in any way, and especially in trying to turn back the tide of cultural hedonism by abandoning Republicans.
My .02 cents.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 4, 2007 09:39 PMI didn't say anything about a third party or about making a left turn. But in effect, it would help us get Hillary.
I'm telling you that committed pro-lifers (for whom the pro-life issue is what drives their politics), will risk the short term "nightmare" of Hillary, to keep us from having both major parties be entrenched by pro-abortion leaders, and setting the pro-life cause, which has made great strides, back 20 years. They realize that electing Rudy will do that.
You don't believe me? You need to spend some more time around pro-lifers and take heed.
Posted by: Michelle on November 5, 2007 06:55 AMFFN, closely aligned with Joe Fuiten, has been very "moderate" on social issues, even while working to assume a leadership role among social conservatives. To mention just two examples, Fuiten, himself, went out of his way in 2006 to assure the primary victory of a pro-abortion-choice nominee for U.S. Senate over pro-life alternatives and worked hard to deliver pro-life votes to that candidate, and, recently, a Fuiten-connected delegate to the Evergreen Leadership Conference openly promoted supporting a Giuliani nomination in a forum there. Fuiten has worked, consistently, to assure that the constituency that most believes in the sanctity of human life and the natural family will vote for politicians who don't.
So, when it came to exalting principle over pragmatism, I didn't expect much of a poll associated with him and the poll, when I found it, was inexpertly worded. The outcome, however, was very telling. It asked, very broadly, "Should people of faith vote for someone who is not pro-life?"
The results are a cautionary tale for those of you who are willing to support a Giuliani candidacy based on alleged "viability." I think, if you are willing to set aside your emotions for a minute [Swatter], it would lead you to understand the peril and disaster Rudy's candidacy portends for the Republican Party. This is a local Washington State organization with a local readership:
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/index.php?action=results&poll_ident=35
I think the facts speak for themselves over and above the alleged "morality" on either side.
A vote for Giuliani is a vote for Hillary.
And another point, is that there is more than one path to Hillary. We could nominate the most pro-life guy in the world, but if he can't get elected face to face with Hillary, that still leaves us with Hillary and thus abortion on demand.
To me, job one is to make sure Hillary doesn't get elected. Then we can worry about how best to combat fanatical Islam, and minimize abortion.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 5, 2007 10:30 PMIf job 1 to you is to make sure Hillary doesn't get elected, make sure pro-lifers have a pro-life Republican to vote for.
Posted by: Michelle on November 5, 2007 10:57 PMWhat I'm saying is simple, and I think you keep trying to change up the meaning to justify your position. Let me use an example instead. If a pro-abortion, or less than fully pro-life candidate gets the Republican nomination, through no fault of mine, or yours, that person is still going to be who I vote for, and hopefully who you vote for. Because, if not, and you take a principled stand by not voting, you are going to be effectively voting for Hillary. And when Hillary gets into office, she's will do everything she can to make abortion more prominent. And the biggest thing she is going to do is appoint new Supreme Court justices, and especially when several very left leaning judges who are holding out for retirement, retire and open their seats.
So to me, that's the real danger.
Look, I share your sentiment of a pro-life culture. I think it's good policy, and more importantly it's good for our culture which is ailing. But I want to make the most practical decisions to make that happen. I think principled statements often backfire, especially at the national level.
Finally, I don't think it's fair to say "make sure pro-lifers have a pro-life Republican to vote for." The reality is that everything right of center is a big tent. And you won't find total agreement. And it's not any one person's responsibility.
So when the chips fall where they may, there's going to be someone who is the better of two choices.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 6, 2007 06:11 PMIt seem that you want those of us who will not vote for a pro-death candidate to take responsibility for the actions of others out of fear of what might happen if the lesser evil doesn't win (Guiliani). That is, "if you don't vote for Guiliani you are effectively voting for Clinton and if Clinton gets in, it�s all over" (paraphrasing). What voters need to do is vote for principal knowing that is the only thing they can do in good conscience. If Clinton wins it won�t be due to some people that did the �principled� thing, it will be due to those that didn�t do the �principled� thing.
Imagine if everyone voted their conscience without fear. I believe the political landscape would be far different. Instead though, we�ve become accustomed to voting out of fear, fear of the bigger evil, while letting the lesser evil wreck nearly as much havoc.
Posted by: TedR on November 7, 2007 05:25 PMIt seem that you want those of us who will not vote for a pro-death candidate to take responsibility for the actions of others out of fear of what might happen if the lesser evil doesn't win (Guiliani). That is, "if you don't vote for Guiliani you are effectively voting for Clinton and if Clinton gets in, it's all over" (paraphrasing). What voters need to do is vote for principal knowing that is the only thing they can do in good conscience. If Clinton wins it won't be due to some people that did the "principled" thing, it will be due to those that didn't do the "principled" thing.
Imagine if everyone voted their conscience without fear. I believe the political landscape would be far different. Instead though, we've become accustomed to voting out of fear, fear of the bigger evil, while letting the lesser evil wreck nearly as much havoc.
Posted by: TedR on November 7, 2007 05:26 PM