December 5, 2011

Wenstrup v. Schmidt in OH-02 GOP Primary: Why?

Filed under: Life-Based News,OH-02 US House — Tom @ 10:12 am

This (issues page at Brad Wenstrup’s site) doesn’t explain it.

If Jean Schmidt isn’t sufficiently conservative for Mr. Wenstrup, he needs to say how and why he would be different and better. He hasn’t. At least Mike Kilburn articulated a couple of genuine beefs in 2010 and had a decent political track record.

Meanwhile, Mr. Wenstrup has a “funny” way of demonstrating that he is “prolife” — except that those who believe in the sanctity of life aren’t laughing.

Mark at Weapons of Mass Discussion has been all over this:

  • Nov. 29 — Supposed Pro Life Conservative Brad Wenstrup Approves of Giving Kids Birth Control Without Parental Consent
  • Nov. 28 — Wenstrup Doesn’t Get His Pro Abort Excuse Timeline Right….
  • Nov. 23 — Greater Cincinnati Right to Life Doesn’t Agree with Dr. Wenstrup
  • Nov. 23 — While Wenstrup Gives Grants to Child Rape Cover Up Artists at Planned Parenthood, Jean Schmidt is recognized as actually being pro life
  • Nov. 23 — Supposed “Strong Conservative” Wenstrup Uses Soros Attack Dogs to Smear Jean Schmidt. That would be CREW, which pretends to be bipartisan but “somehow” goes after conservatives far more often than libs for ethical lapses.
  • Nov. 21 — COAST Chooses Vendetta over Its Own Principles…
  • Nov. 14 — Dr. Wenstrup Has a Funny Way of Being “Pro”-Life
  • Nov. 17 (my sum-up, quoting Mark) “This ‘doctor’ who claims to be pro life and is running against incumbent Jean Schmidt, who actually is pro life, by the way, voted to give money to an organization that openly violated the law.”

That organization would be Planned Parenthood, which routinely flouts the law when it comes to killing preborn babies carried by minors as a result of adult-child sex (aka “statutory rape”) by failing to report it to authorities as required, and which therefore — even proaborts should agree with this (but they don’t in practice, because killing preborn babies trumps all other considerations with them) — should be getting no public money of any kind for any reason, “targeted” or not.

Look, I get it if you think Jean Schmidt, despite her strong conservative ratings from the likes of Club for Growth (100% in 2010) and others, has made some mistakes, and that perhaps someone else could do better.

But if you do — yeah, I’m talking to you, COAST, and you, Anderson Township Republicans — you need to come up with that “someone” who has demonstrated that he or she could and would do better. Brad Wenstrup isn’t that guy.

In the meantime, could you please stop acting as if Jean Schmidt is evil incarnate, and that anybody with a pulse would be preferable? That six-year routine in the face of Schmidt’s consistent voting record as a solid conservative has moved from embarrassing to disgraceful. Please — Let the anciently-based, long since proven baseless bitterness go.

Share

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.