I think it's incumbent upon Republicans and those who are not in favor of the gay marriage agenda to be ready to raise the money they need to win elections in the future.
Don't expect the GOP to do the right thing and put up candidates who are pro-life and pro-family unless you've got the funds to back them.
Posts
3 comments:
The comment didn't mean the GOP wouldn't run pro-life and pro-family candidates. Luke Esser, who was one of the most actively pro-family members of the legislature, was targeted for defeat by rich national pro-gay marriage activists during his bid for reelection last year. His point was that unless citizens who care about life and marriage get involved with the same vigor as our opponents, we'll lose.
Money matters in politics, and left wing activists are spending it to promote their agenda. Unless family activists get involved with the same vigor, the left will win more victories.
Hello!
I’ve reviewed your blog and share your commitment to spreading information about the importance of a pro-life stance. I found your information at Pro-LifeBlogs.com.
Would you be interested in participating in a book review blogtour? Like Always by Bob Elmer is about a family making a difficult decision to ensure the safety of their unborn child.
Please respond to this query by Wednesday, May 23 if you’re interested in participating. I’ll provide a complimentary copy of the book, so please include your mailing address in the reply.
Thank you,
Kelly Blewett
WaterBrook Press
Hi republican --
I think we agree on what Esser what trying to say: "those who care about life and marriage" need to put up the same vigor i.e. money, as their opponents. Yes, we can have a pro-life candidate but we need to pony up the cash.
And if we don't...then what? Is the GOP putting up a "for sale" sign?
Pro-life-pro-marriage voters I doubt will be able to match the financial contributions that the homosexual and abortion lobbies can raise. It will be compounded by the fact that, at least in the case of the abortion lobby, it is an industry that earns money from the sale of abortions and baby body parts that can then be turned into donations to democrats (or republicans). The pro-life movement has no such source of income. The homosexuals just have lots of disposable income and time on their hands because they don't have kids.
The other thing you have working against you is a poor track record. The WAGOP legalized abortion in this state and much of its leadership continues to toe the "pro-choice" line. The politicians tell the public they are "pro-life" but then vote pro-choice. When they were in power they did nothing to promote life or protect kids and women from the abortion and homosexual lobbies. What you have now is a huge pool of dissatisfied voters who have started to see that the GOP had no intention and has no intention of actually getting through pro-life legislation.
The GOP either needs to go pro-life or pro-abortion. If they go pro-life, they'll get votes. If they go "pro-abortion" (speaking to NARAL, promoting pro-abortion legislation) they'll get the money. There are neither votes or money in the "middle ground". You need to choose.
I disagree with you about Luke Esser. I don't know about his record in the legislature but he refused to help the pharmacists with the conscience clause and then agreed with the radical, pro-abortion governor Gregoire in denying conscience rights to pharmacists.
Being cosmetically pro-life will no longer work.
Post a Comment