Robin Weirauch Takes Stealth Campaigning to the Next Level: Part 2 — The Horrific Hidden Endorsement
Part 1 — Intro
The Toledo Blade, which endorsed Robin Weirauch in her 2006 congressional run, did a non-endorsement endorsement of Weirauch for Congress in Ohio’s 5th District Sunday morning. The Blade noted that she unsuccessfully challenged the late Paul Gillmor twice in the past three-plus years, but that there is a difference this time:
Unlike her previous quests, the Liberty Center native has sufficient financial resources to put up a respectable television campaign.
Her financial situation indeed sharply differs from her previous runs.
I’m not even sure Weirauch had a web site in her prior efforts, as a Wayback search on her domain name came up bone dry, even a wild-card version, and various Google web searches surfaced very little. I did come across a news story of a late-October 2006 dustup between Gillmor and Weirauch over what appears to have been a Weirauch home-cooked poll. I also found a campaign info site with financial data about her 2004 and 2006 runs, indicating that she raised about $79,000 and $117,000, respectively, during those two campaigns.
So Weirauch is relatively flush.
Where’s the money and support coming from? Sabrina Eaton of the Cleveland Plain Dealer provides one detail:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent $243,748 on Weirauch’s behalf, including an ad that attempts to link Latta with former Gov. Bob Taft and disgraced ex-GOP fund-raiser Tom Noe.
I suppose that Weirauch’s money situation, combined with nationally high-powered if typically unimaginative help (Bob who?), means that this race could be close, and may even be ripe for an upset.
If voters knew Weirauch’s true issue positions, it would be a Latta rout. That it might not be is a testament to a time-honored saying of the ever-observant Rush Limbaugh:
The left doesn’t have the guts to tell us what they believe. They don’t have the courage to be honest about it. They’re all about masking who they really are.
Robin Weirauch clearly doesn’t want 5th District voters to know what she really believes.
Okay, there are the usual big-name Democratic politicians, including the governor, lieutenant governor, Sherrod “Charade” Brown, and the congressional delegation — including Tim “I’m Lying about the Food Stamp Challenge, Even Though I Know Better” Ryan (see last few paras at post). Then there are the county Democratic Party organizations, and a dozen or so unions — mostly local, but a few national.
But a Great Biggie is still missing. I believe it’s missing because if this organization’s endorsement became widely known, Robin Weirauch wouldn’t get past 30% on Election Day.
Here’s this organization’s endorsement (bolds are mine):
November 19, 2007
EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest political action committee and financial resource for women running for elective office, today announced its endorsement of Robin Weirauch in her bid for Ohioâ€™s fifth congressional district.
….. “I am honored to have earned the support of the thousands of women and men who are members of EMILYâ€™s List,” said Weirauch. “Ohioans want a change in direction and leadership that will truly understand and focus on needs of these communities. In Congress, I’ll fight to bring home the help we need to create jobs, invest in education, and strengthen public safety. I’ll also fight to bring home our soldiers from Iraq.
With more than 100,000 members across the country, EMILY’s List is the largest political action committee in the nation.
Hey Robin — If you’re so “honored” to have the EMILY’s List endorsement, why isn’t that endorsement on your web site’s Endorsements page? And why don’t you address your position on abortion anywhere on your web site?
That’s easy — Weirauch would prefer that 5th District voters not know what a candidate’s issue positions MUST BE to get EL’s endorsement.
First, here is EL’s mission:
EMILY’s List is committed to a three-pronged strategy to elect pro-choice Democratic women: recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation.
EL is thus a single-issue organization dedicated to candidates who would advance abortion rights.
But how far? Here’s how far, per Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post in April of 2002 (article copied to BizzyBlog host from ProQuest library database, for fair use and discussion purposes only):
A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY’s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or ‘partial birth’) abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.
If you doubt how serious EL is about enforcing its “qualifications,” consider this:
In 2002, EMILY’s List Withdrew Its Support Of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu After She Came Out In Favor Of A Ban On Partial-Birth Abortion. “The organization was heavily credited with getting Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., elected in 1996 in the closest Senate race in the country that year. But the PAC withdrew its support after Landrieu came out for a ban on controversial late-term abortions, referred to by opponents as ‘partial birth’ abortions.” (Chuck Raasch, “Pro-Abortion Rights Group’s Fund-Raising Power Could Be Wave Of PAC Future,” Gannett News Service, October 25, 2002; accuracy of original article text verified by reference to ProQuest library database)
“This is a call to arms,” said Ellen Moran, executive director of Emily’s List, a Washington group that supports Hillary Clinton for president and raises money for Democratic women who back abortion rights.
Grasp the impact, folks: EL only supports candidates who want reinstitute a practice that is so barbaric that ardent pro-choicers and cowed reporters like Gannett’s Raasch can’t even work up the nerve to unequivocally use its proper and widely-accepted name — partial-birth abortion, a term used for at least two decades. Instead, they prefer to whitewash it, “describing” it as “a certain late-term abortion procedure.”
Yeah, right. A description of partial-birth abortion (WARNING: contains graphic and likely upsetting language) is here (begins at third paragraph).
Therefore, make no mistake: Robin Weirauch has accepted EL’s “call to arms,” but wants their endorsement and support kept as quiet as possible within the 5th District. By accepting EL’s endorsement and considerable monetary support, she has agreed to do everything she can to return a procedure that should remain in the house of past horrors back into the mainstream of medicine.
And she knows damn well that the vast majority of 5th District voters would be outraged if they knew what an EMILY’s List endorsement really means.
Ohio’s Old Media and the national press have mostly protected Weirauch. A Google News search on “Emily’s List Weirauch” (not in quotes) done at 11:15 p.m on December 9 had only four stories, three of them from Ohio. Two were in the Toledo Blade. In this December 1 Blade article, an EL mention was saved for the second-last paragraph, while its December 7 coverage mentioned EL in paragraph 14 — as the subject of a Republican committee statement. The only other Ohio mention is in a November 28 Cleveland Plain Dealer blog post that did not get into its print edition.
Robin Weirauch is surely hoping that “someone” won’t try to go around her and Ohio’s Old Media and give her Emily’s List endorsement the attention it deserves. “Someone” just has.
Robin Weirauch’s failure to disclose her EMILY’s List endorsement is BizzyBlog Dealbreaker Number 1 (A BizzyBlog Dealbreaker is â€œsomething that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your stands on the issues.â€).
If she had been as proud of it as she was at the time of EL’s endorsement and visible about it during the campaign, it wouldn’t have been a Dealbreaker, just a major point of disagreement. But Robin Weirauch, as the post title says, is taking stealth campaigning to the next level.
Part 3, with Exhibit B, elaborates further.
UPDATE: Robert Novak recounted some important history, while indicating just how utterly indifferent to horror the pro-aborts and EMILY’s Listers are, in a column written shortly after the Supremes’ decision:
Delivering a fetus and then crushing its skull, a procedure called “partial birth” abortion by its critics, is massively unpopular. Its prohibition is favored 61 percent to 28 percent in a Fox News poll from March 2006. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a pro-choice Democrat, called the practice “infanticide.” But the abortion rights lobby is adamant against any erosion of Roe v. Wade.
The leading Democratic presidential candidates — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (who voted against the ban in 2003), Sen. Barack Obama, former senator John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — lashed out against Wednesday’s ruling.