Senate Conservatives Fund Endorsement [IMPORTANT]
- Thread starter LibertyIn08
- Start date
phazespace
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 128
Done.
WorldonaString
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 400
done. c'mon everybody!
K466
Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,321
He's the most pro-life candidate in the race.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
Doesn't matter. They don't endorse candidates in every race, and I just don't think they're ever going to endorse an avowedly pro-choice candidate.
LeifEiriksson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Messages
- 204
Done!
"Avowedly" pro-choice? Why this choice of language? It almost sounds like you hope he doesn't get the endorsement.
The SCF lists these as their primary goals:
Nowhere is abortion brought up. You'd think that if this were a concern it'd be pretty high up on that list. You will notice that they do possess the goal of defending the Constitution, which would indicate that they understand that rational public policy is what truly matters to them. In terms of public policy, Pete fits the bill perfectly by supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade - something that McMahon does not support.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
I chose the language that's most accurate. He calls himself pro-choice. That's what the phrase "avowedly pro-choice" means.
I don't hope he doesn't get the endorsement. I just don't think anyone should get their hopes up about it. The most important reason for my thinking that is the fact that Schiff is avowedly pro-choice. His opposition to the Iraq War is another strike against him. He just doesn't fit the SCF profile.
Last edited:
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
Didn't the SCF endorse Rand "I would've voted against going to Iraq" Paul?
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
Yes. But that's all he had against him. As they say about him in their profile "he's 100% pro-life." If he weren't you can bet they wouldn't have gotten involved. Like I said, the abortion issue is a deal breaker. Every SCF endorsed candidate is avowedly pro-life, without exception, and in most cases they tout the candidate's pro-life stance as part of the reason for their endorsement. But the Iraq War is a secondary one that definitely counts against him, and it's probably a big part of why they didn't endorse Rand until Rand pretty much already had the election locked up.
In Indiana they endorsed Stutzman over Hostettler explicitly because of Hostettler's opposition to the Iraq War.
Last edited:
Daamien
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,254
The abortion issue is always the dealbreaker because fanatical idiots make sure to wedge it into every race. No pro-life candidate is going to get elected to state-wide office in Connecticut anytime soon. It's fine if you are pro-life. It's fine if you want your politicians to be pro-life. It's not fine to refuse to endorse any candidate despite their overwhelming qualifications and need due to your pro-life stance. It's a perfect example of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
/rant
It's their prerogative if they want to act illogically. Unfortunately that doesn't help us and we'll just have to look for endorsements elsewhere.
/rant
It's their prerogative if they want to act illogically. Unfortunately that doesn't help us and we'll just have to look for endorsements elsewhere.
Last edited:
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
I think you're ranting in the wrong place. The SFC mailbox is probably a more appropriate place than RPF.
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
Would it also be illogical for the National Right to Life Committee to refrain from endorsing Schiff?
If not, I don't see the difference. What's the use in demanding that the SCF should endorse candidates who are different than the kinds of candidates they want to support? I wonder how much money the SCF has gotten from the people emailing them telling them to endorse Schiff.
Judging from the fact that you're "friends" with Theocrat, I can deduce that you're against the woman's right to choose. This is clouding your logic.
It would be completely illogical to want an endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee. Connecticut voters are overwhelmingly pro-choice - whether the voter is Democrat, Republican, unaffiliated, or third party. On the other hand, an SCF endorsement would be huge among GOP voters, no matter what state we're talking about.
DeMint is a popular figure, especially now. Despite his complete partisan views and contradictory (unprincipled) voting record, he is one of the loudest voices presently in the fight against Obama's spending. Schiff's association with DeMint would be a positive for his public image, and would obviously result in additional cash flow from several angles.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
My rhetorical question wasn't about whether or not we should want him to get the NRLC endorsement. It was about whether or not the NRLC would be acting illogically by not endorsing him. Somebody above made the comment that it would the SCF would be acting illogically it they avoided pro-choice candidates. But if it wouldn't be illogical for the NRLC to avoid pro-choice candidates, then I don't see why it would be illogical for the SCF to.
Daamien
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,254
Nice try with a strawman argument by bringing up the National Right to Life, but I'll address it for the sake of conversation.
National Right to Life is an organization that explicitly states it supports pro-life candidates and policies. Its whole existence is founded on promoting a pro-life agenda. Meanwhile, the Senate Conservative Fund does not even list "right to life", "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" as part of their agenda as G-Wohl pointed out. Schiff is quite clearly the most conservative Senate candidate in Connecticut and the only one who has said he would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. If the Senate Conservative Fund is holding out on making an endorsement because of the abortion issue (which we don't know), it's a rather weak reason and doesn't fit with their stated agenda. It would indeed be an illogical decision as I stated.
Given that we don't know if Peter's stance on abortion is the reason why the SCF hasn't or won't make an endorsement, why is abortion even being discussed here? Oh, that's right... because just as I said people (including on this forum) love to wedge it into every race. Congratulations on discouraging fellow supporters from seeking useful endorsements by bringing up abortion.
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
It really doesn't matter if they list it. We know for sure it's a criteria. Just look through the candidates they endorse and see how often they say that the candidate's pro-life stance was one of the reasons for their endorsement. None of the candidates they endorse fail the test of being explicitly pro-life. There are other criteria as well, such as taking Demint's anti-earmark pledge, telling him he has their vote for Senate Republican leader, supporting the Iraq War, and being able to win the primary, that do not appear on their list of goals but that nevertheless are factors in their endorsement.
It really doesn't matter if he's the most conservative in the race. They don't support candidates they consider non-conservative just because they happen to be the most conservative in their race. Since the SCF is a pro-life group that, much like the NRLC, wants to support pro-life candidates for Senate, and not merely candidates who happen to be more conservative than their opponents, I still don't see how it's illogical for them to refrain from endorsing pro-choice candidates. It's their prerogative to do that.
Obviously we're not going to be privy to private meetings of the SCF board. So we're not going to know "the reason the SCF hasn't or won't make an endorsement." But we do know that they don't endorse pro-choice candidates and that Schiff is pro-choice. We could go on not mentioning abortion. But if we did that, it would merely be the elephant in the room. Those who think Schiff matches the profile of an SCF candidate and think that abortion is not a serious issue to them are kidding themselves.
I'm not saying that it's a waste of your time if you want to inundate them with emails saying, "Hey, I've never given you any money, and I know you only endorse pro-life candidates, but I think you should endorse this pro-choice candidate, Peter Schiff, because I support him and I'm trying to use your endorsement to pump up his level of support." Just don't stake too much hope in them taking you up on the offer. While you're at it, you might as well send a similar email to the Eagle Forum.
Last edited:
Similar threads
