Erick, my good man, where is your apology to Deal and to GRTL for your misstatements about PP funding? I heard there was one, at least to Deal….

You’ve just sealed the deal for Handel for me.

It seems to me that both candidates are pretty much in the pro-life camp and I wonder whether it’s really worth spending time, money and political capital by endorsing in the primary when either candidate will face a pro-choice candidate in the general election.

Interesting tidbit: Roy Barnes, the Democrat nominee, was endorsed by GRTL in the 90s but has since become pro-choice.

If I wasn’t supporting Handel before (I was) , I definitely am now.

But conservatives want to be left alone; leftists want to control others. Anyone who works in government, lobbying, or politics is subject to a strong leftward pull.

I don’t know of any solution – even assassination squads have fatal drawbacks.

Its code for doing away with unwanted pregnancies.

I would like to point out that NRTL’s postion #1 is in direct conflict with NRTL’s postion #2.

You cannot be both. Words have meaning. Dave believes words have meaning. If Dave said ” I do not support abortion! That is what he means. All you have to do is ask Dave, which is what I did. I have asked both candidates in face to face to situations. Ron Johnson walked away from me, Dave Westlake answered ALL of my questions to MY satisfaction. There is much documentation on Dave’s postion. Little research is required to learn what Dave believes. His answers have not waivered.

You also did not give Dave’s statement from his web-site. Here it is:

Social Issues: Family and Life
Protecting all that we’ve been blessed with…

I believe that all human life is precious and is a blessing from the Lord. We are not the arbiters of when natural death occurs, and therefore I do not support abortion. Along related lines, I believe that the religious component of marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and must be protected. Deviation from the Lord’s intent on either of these issues seriously compromises the strength and integrity of society’s number one stabilizing force–the family.

You did not provide an example of Ron Johnson’s web-site postion on this issue. Where is it? There are no issues of any kind addressed on his web-site. I and friends of mine have written to him to get his statement on his pro-life stance. Here is the answer we received on July 19, 2010, a month after we sent our first request.

From Team Johnson:
We will be expanding the issues page of the website as time goes on. At this time we cannot state to a certainty Ron’s stance on those particular and specific issues that you mentioned. Please feel free to continue to check the website and email us with any further questions you may have. We understand this issue is very important to you and we are doing our best to give everyone as much information as possible as the campaign marches on.

Thank you again for contacting us,

Team Johnson

Why is Ron afraid to state his position? What does he not want us to know?

I also asked Barb Lyons, WRTL, in a phone call. Both candidates filled out their survey. She told me that Dave Westlake IS the 100% Pro-life candidate but her PAC decided not to endorse him because they felt he didn’t have enough money to beat Russ Feingold.

Pro-Life Wisconsin also sent surveys to both candidates, even though they cannot endorse candidates at the federal level, they still wanted to hear their views. They never received Ron’s response but did receive Dave’s and they know that Dave is 100% Pro-life,

If you are Christian, you cannot believe in or support NRTL’s 2 postions but you can believe in and support Dave Westlake.

www.davewestlake.com

to both people who responsed to my response to the post to Dave Westlake’s views on abortion. There’s a lot to response to but here goes.

1. Yes there is an inherent conflict between points one and two. That is, however, the line that the RTL movement and the GOP has made. I personally I am a #1 RTL person. I believe in the RTL period. That being said I am a reform Presbyterian (PCA)-former Catholic and I believe I have a pretty good idea of the moral/biblical issues here. There are Christians who believe in #2. They believe that is a doctor/family if faced with a decision to spare the Mother or the child can morally decide to save the Mother. I disagree with that (and pray that my family never faces that decision) but I respect the moral right others to disagree with me. That’s why the Right to life movement allows view #2. That is -you can be 100% pro life-but allow others to have the option to abort in the case of saving the mother’s life-rape-incest.

2. I have seen nothing to support the idea that Dave Westlake does not believe in the GOP platform that supports item #2. If he believes that no abortions should be allowed period-no exceptions by all means say it on your site. That is the view of the National right to life movement. They will support people who-like Bush 41-Bush43-Reagan–who are willing to allow for exceptions.

3. Ron Johnson obviousily is just fine with Wisconsin RTL so even as his website is unders contruction. He is 100% pro life.

4. you can disagree with Ron Johnson on other issues–I cannot address all of them right now but the RTL point–he is solid. I am sure if there is any difference at all between him and Westlake. I don’t see it.

No offense intended. Trust but verify, you know.

If this is provably true I would like to know.

his run for another term in Senate, and hers for the Vice Presidency.

I supported Senator Rick Santorum, attended his first victory party in Pittsburgh. I voted for Governor Palin.

The line can be drawn with compassion We should not let government coerce a parent of an impregnated tiny nine-year old girl raped. We should not let the government fiat birth in the hard cases of rape or at the ending of a mother’s life. The families must make these decisions. The stats on such cases are infinitesimal to the horrific amounts of abortions done for convenience or gender/poverty control.

I’ve heard Dave speak at least a half-dozen times at various events and vetting sessions. The abortion question nearly always comes up, and he always answers it.

It is not easy in progressive Wisconsin to take the stand that you don’t believe in exceptions for rape and incest. However, whether it’s fully reflected on his website or not, Dave has indeed repeatedly stated without reservation that while rape and incest are very difficult circumstances, a child has nothing to do with how he or she is conceived, and that God thinks every child is precious, regardless of the circumstances under which they came to be.

I would agree with rdelbov on the GOP stance. However, I do find WTRL’s stance odious.

I personally called Sue Armacost, WRTL’s PAC Administrator. I had a long conversation with her. Their priorities are off, and the messages that they’re sending are wildly inappropriate on two fronts.

First, both candidates were, in fact, vetted by WRTL. And they admitted to liking Dave Westlake very much. However, because he is running a non-traditional campaign and does not have the high dollar figures that Ron Johnson has at his disposal, they did not believe Westlake could win and threw their support to Johnson. They did this in spite of the fact that Sue Armacost flatly admitted that Dave Westlake had the superior position on abortion.

I asked Ms. Armacost why money was more important to her than principles. She said, “It’s about winning.” I asked her if she had considered the fact that WRTL’s endorsement of Westlake could potentially have helped him gain further momentum. She then said something very curious: “I think you overestimate the power of our endorsement.” If WRTL doesn’t think it’s endorsement is worth much, why are they endorsing at all? I asked her if her organization’s mandate was or was not to protect the lives of those who cannot speak for themselves? She replied that it was. I noted that if that was indeed her organization’s mandate, that it only made sense to support candidates who aligned most closely with that mandate. She again repeated her assumption that Westlake had no money and couldn’t win–and it was all about backing a candidate who could actually win. Yes, she said these things to me flat out.

At that juncture, I suggested to Ms. Armacost that WRTL was not only off- track but was, worse still, politicizing an issue in a way that it should not be politicized. How? By placing bets on who could get elected rather than on backing candidates who best aligned on principle. I find that wrong and shameful. Apparently WRTL cares more about being on the winning side than it does about its own mandate. Curiously, after this whole fiasco, WRTL chose to endorse for governor BOTH Neumann and Walker. I guess it got a little too hot in the kitchen for them after their decision on Johnson.

A very close friend of mine has done a tremendous amount of work for WRTL at the county level was, like many others, appalled by WRTL’s decision and politicization of life. She called and left a message for Barbara Lyons, who currently heads the organization here. Her call was not returned. However, my friend made another excellent point when she left that message. She noted that by saying that they would only support a candidate who could “win” and in defining ability to win around dollars-on-hand, WRTL was basically sending the message to voters that ONLY people with a lot of money who run traditional campaigns should bother to run for office. That, too, is a very poor message. We have been sending moneyed candidates to Washington for a long time because it’s easy. Sure…People who can self-fund save the GOP a lot of hassle. But where have those moneyed candidates gotten us? Here in Wisconsin, the resounding answer is: NOWHERE.

I find it astonishing that some of us have learned to think out of the box, while others of us are still playing according to the same rules. We have a country in dire trouble. We are deeply in need of true message and creativity in how to deliver it. Yet, we’re still looking to the same tired strategies, tactics, and markers when it comes to campaigns and candidates.

I say, “Enough already.”

STOP LOOKING AT THE MONEY! Find candidates of principle, then GET BEHIND THEM with YOUR CASH. The rest is laziness and folly.

WRTL will lose support over what they’ve done. They’ve compromised their reputation and sullied their mandate. They had a chance to do the right thing, but instead ended up playing the same political games everyone else does. I’m not sure how you justify that when you’re aim is, reputedly, to protect innocent lives. Of course, if Johnson wins the primary here, it will be a moot point. He can’t beat Feingold. That’s a virtual guarantee. So, in the end, it will still be Russ deciding that babies lives don’t matter–as opposed to Johnson deciding that only SOME babies lives are expendable.

Westlake was and is the right choice when it comes to life…and when it comes to beating Feingold.