Avoiding the Label

There’s a new Congressional candidate in town:

NAMPA — An Iraq War veteran plans to run for Idaho’s 1st District Congress seat as a Republican, meaning U.S. Representative Bill Sali likely will face a rival in the May 2008 primary.

Matt Salisbury, a 34-year-old Nampa resident, described himself as a “Lincoln Republican” who believes politicians should stay “out of your bedroom and out of your social mores.”

Idaho Chooses Life slapped down the candidacy while honoring his record as a military service man, they took exception to his comments:

It is obvious from his opening statement that he is committed to defending abortion rights in this country. This is perhaps his primary reason for running. He goes so far as to say that “government should stay out of our bedrooms”. That suggests he may also be a defender of gay rights and other social aberrations – but we’ll have to see what else he has to say.

We are most troubled, however, by his claim to be a “Lincoln Republican”. Someone must rise to defend the late President’s honor from modern social radicals who would cloak their agendas in his legitimizing mantle. (The gay rights crowd has long maligned Abraham Lincoln’s memory by organizing themselves as the “Log Cabin Republicans” – for reasons totally beyond a coherent retelling here).

There is absolutely nothing in the public record to support the notion that President Lincoln, were he alive today, would be a champion of abortion rights. If anything, his articulation of the proper and moral role of government qualify him for title as “First Pro-Life President of the Republic”.

Well, apparently this created some concern with Mrs. Salisbury who e-mailed Clayton Cramer’s wife:

Okay, it didn’t take long before my wife received an upset email from Mr. Salisbury’s wife (a former student) concerned about Bill Sali misrepresenting her husband. I won’t reproduce the letter (since I don’t know whether it was intended for publication), but my first reaction was that if Mr. Salisbury is pro-life, using an expression like that was a rather odd way of saying so. I asked for clarification from Mrs. Salisbury–and the response that I received left me unable to figure out what Mr. Salisbury’s position is on abortion–but it does not appear to be supportive of any sort of a ban.

I also haven’t been able to get a clear answer if the “government out of the bedroom” remark means that Mr. Salisbury opposes sodomy laws as a matter of public policy (a legitimate position, I think) or as a matter of Constitutional right (clearly historically wrong). I can’t tell if I am seeing muddled thinking, muddled writing, or an attempt at straddling the pro-life and pro-choice camps. (This is rather like trying to straddle a bull and a whale simultaneously–it takes remarkable legs).

Now, I think what’s trying to be avoided is the pro-abortion or pro-choice label. when I was 14, I was calling political candidates for a rather small office (County Government review board) to find their positions on abortion. One gave me a strictly pro-abortion/pro-choice answer. When the voter guide came out, the man was furious and called into the radio station complaining. Being labeled pro-abortion in Idaho is not the nicest label one can have. I might be wrong, but I think that’s what he’s he trying to dodge.

In introducing his campaign,  Mr. Salisbury carefully couched his position in nice-sounding language that is meant to appeal to the libertarian tendencies of many folks in Idaho. Problem is that he got pounced on early. The words used by Idaho Chooses Life “unacceptable” are quite damning. Of the two issues that were mentioned, the only other issue was the Iraq War. Congressman Sali stands firmly behind the Iraq effort and nothing in his voting record indicates otherwise.

Now, someone called “Angry Nampa Christian” (wonder who that is) made a comment over at Trishandhalli.com:

Wow. What a disgusting bit of unsupportable slander you’ve blindly published. Did you even THINK about asking Mr. Salisbury for a statement on his position?

Nothing in either of these articles supports these foul assertion that Mr. Salisbury supports abortion.

The most shocking part of this is that a wonderful Christian man with admirable integrity has been publicly maligned by supposed fellow Christians!

“Out of your bedroom and out of your social mores” is recognized code language for socially liberal. If Mr. Salisbury cares to e-mail or call me on the record and state that he supports a pro-life position. Call any of us. My name is in the book and I expect to be home late afternoon. Bryan Fischer stated that Boise had elected a complete slate of socially liberal Democrats. My Democrat Representative Branden Durst (D-18) didn’t whine. He called Bryan Fischer and explained his pro-life position and Bryan printed it. I’ll be glad to print Salisbury’s position if he wants to call me. I’m in the book. By no means will I support him, but if he’s really pro-life, I’ll clarify. I’d also like him to clarify why he used such an obvious canard of liberal pro-aborts. It’s a good way to tick of pro-lifers and in that Salisbury has succeed.

But who knows, he may just think we need change in Congress and the district he lives in is the most obvious to run in.

UPDATE

After a talk with Salisbury, David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life believes Salisbury to be both pro-life and a Christian but still Ripley is left with unanswered questions:

But this does not exactly settle the matter. I am mystified that Mr. Salisbury has chosen to anchor his campaign message in the philosophy of Planned Parenthood – you know, the rhetoric which claims that “the government has no business in our bedrooms”. Apparently it has something to do with his belief that Christians in public life ought not be very explicit about imposing our faith upon others. As the campaign develops he will have opportunity to better express his ideas.

We also know nothing about Mr. Salisbury’s position on specific policy questions. That may be where we will find the conflict. But on the phone, he was adamant that he found abortion “abhorrent”.

In any event, the biggest question that nags is why Mr. Salisbury is running at all. The media’s original description of his candidacy explained he was unhappy with Congressman Sali’s pro-Life politics. After our phone conversation yesterday, it seems that is not the issue. So now I’m left wondering why a pro-Life person would squander resources and enhance Democrat chances for taking the seat by challenging an incumbent with an unmatched pro-Life record.

See above named theory regarding a man’s got to run for Congress somewhere. It should be noted that despite all the excitement of Sali having a primary challenger, Butch Otter also had a primary challenger in 2004, Jim Pratt. Indeed, since Republicans gained control of House District 1, there has been a Republican Primary challenger to the incumbent every year but 2002.