Monday, August 20, 2007

WSGOP: The Mascara Begins to Fade

Actually, it's been fading for some time now and the person handing (actaully throwing buckets at) the WSGOP the Take it Away Total Make up Remover is Michelle at Life of the Party. If you are pro-life and want to know what is going on within the Washington state GOP on pro-life issues Michelle is the person you want to know and her blog is the one you want to read.

She's the one who first tipped me off to the done-up look of the state party on pro-life issues. I always sensed something wasn't quite right with the the state GOP but I couldn't put my finger on it. I'd read their fund raising letters and the life issues were never mentioned. I chalked it up not not wanting to be controversial. Besides, the GOP is pro-life. Right? Phrases like 'individual rights' and 'individual liberty' were over emphasized. They read like love letters to a member of your local Objectivist Society. Two and two just didn't add up to four when I heard them speak.

Her term for the republicans who claimed to be pro-life or who used code words like 'individual rights' was, 'cosmetically pro-life.' Basically, these politicians tart themselves up as pro-life, take the pro-life votes and then vote pro-abortion or do nothing to help the pro-life cause. Michelle's analysis brought it all in to focus and things became a lot clearer. A lot clearer.

Take for example a group I'd never heard of before talking to Michelle -- Mainstream Republicans of Washington. Here's their asinine statement on Life: We value life and seek to protect it - We should not attempt to legislate a definition of life.

Is anyone at MRW embarrassed by that statement? Do they even understand the implications of that statement?

Their executive director Alex Hayes has come out, somewhat out of public view as pro-abortion choice, as have many of their board members and sponsors. Some of them have aided and abetted the state's abortion industry for years but most pro-lifers are unaware of it. Yes, MRW may have individual members who claim to be pro-life but no American in their right mind would want to be associated with such a radical statement.

Rather than having the common decency of, oh say providing a list, or publishing a manifesto or other notice in their state owned newspaper classifying which lives are worthy or underworthy, this so-called 'statement of principle' actually takes it one step futher by saying no life is worthy by simply refusing to define what or who is a life. This one simple sentence excludes every human life from the expectation of basic and legitimate protection the state owes its citizens. At least the communists gave us a heads up on who was a target. A running start you could say. And the MRW have the nerve to call themselves 'mainstream'!

It should be apparent to all that the cosmetics of MRW and other GOP politicians resemble those of a two dollar hooker, not a super model.

But I digress.

Michelle has now informed us that Jennifer Dunn the former pro-abortion congresswoman has signed onto Mitt Romeny's campaign. This comes on the heels of cosmetically pro-life Dave Reichert signing onto the Giuliani campaign.

AIW wants to know -- Who will cometically pro-life republican Rob McKenna endorse after McCain tanks, and how will pro-lifers respond to his campaign for the next ring in his political career?


2 comments:

Doug Parris said...

Mr. McKenna's position on life is functionally identical to John Kerry's. They both say "Life begins at conception," for various political reasons, but then go on to explain why some people in some circumstances have the right to willfully snuff out other people. INNOCENT people. It is one thing for someone who is unclear on the facts of the prenatal human being to be confused, thereby, as to the nature of abortion. But to openly admit that it is killing an innocent human being and THEN assert a right to do it is Third Reich stuff. It is moral depravity, open and obvious.

DK said...

"We should not attempt to legislate a definition of life."

Ha, ha, ha. I guess we could take that two different ways. Science has known for a long, long time that a singular, self-developing human being begins at conception. Sooooo - we might assume that in the same way we cannot through legislation change the value of pi, (though in the early 1900's the Indiana legislature actually considered doing so) they're simply stating the obvious.

Or sadly, it could be typical politics over people.