House Republican Leader Jason Mumpower's latest project is sending a letter of reprimand to Tennessee Right to Life for supporting the wrong candidate in the special election in House District 62:
Strong Right to Life House members, like state Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, took exception to the party telling the group how to conduct their business. Dunn asked if they planned to send a letter to the NRA because they have endorsed Democrats. Mumpower’s Right to Life letter has angered some of the hardcore conservatives, the small group of House members that remain Mumpower’s base of support. The effort may have been instigated by Republican House members who are facing shaky re-election campaigns, afraid a Right to Life endorsement for their opponent might finish them off.
Tennessee House Republican Leader Jason Mumpower (R-Bristol)
My Representative didn't sign that letter, and I am pleased that he did not. Tennessee Right to Life has as its primary goal the protection of the unborn. Contrary to popular belief, it is not an arm of the Republican Party, and it never has been. Tennessee Right to Life must cater primarily to the interests of its constituency group, just as organizations such as the National Rifle Association or the Chamber of Commerce must cater to theirs and act in the best interest of their group in the here and now.
The simple reality of the matter is that in District 62, Ty Cobb answered Tennessee Right to Life's questions completely and correctly, and pledged his vote to a pro-life Speaker. Pat Marsh did not, by at least one account, complete his questionaire, and those questions he did answer were not to the satisfaction of Tennessee Right to Life or its Board of Directors. If both candidates had answered similarly, Right to Life may have been compelled not to make any official endorsement, but by their own rules of procedure were left with no choice.
Readers might remember that I wrote a column explaining in detail the Tennessee Right to Life decision, but I later endorsed Pat Marsh and pointed to the many problems with his opponent. As the results in District 62 came in and began to be broken down, they showed that pro-lifers also supported Marsh, showing that voters can read the political tea leaves to know who will best serve them under certain circumstances. In short, pro-life voters are independent people with minds of their own. However, most pro-lifers that I know who support the movement place a tremendous value in our Right to Life groups and the work that they do, not just on the political front, but in helping to fund crisis pregnancy centers, assist those interested in abortion alternatives such as adoption, and help build a culture that respects life. Because the GOP is generally seen as the party nationally which is most likely to respect life, most pro-lifers roday are either Republican or tend to support Republican candidates whenever appropriate. Tennessee Right to Life was giving help to Republicans back in the days when other right-of-center interest groups in this State were trying to find ways to cozy up to the Democratic leadership because it was presumed that they would have the perpetual and eternal majority.
For Jason Mumpower to try and get the members of the House Republican Caucus to sign on to a letter "reprimanding" Tennessee Right to Life for endorsing a candidate that the caucus didn't support is akin to Mumpower and Glen Casada trying to tell their constituency groups what to do (in Casada's defense, I do not believe that if he were Leader, he would be stupid enough to do anything like this of his own accord).
Tennessee House Republican Caucus Chair Glen Casada (R-Williamson County)
Tennessee Right to Life does not care about the internal issues within the Republican Party, either. Those of us who are active or semi-active in the GOP who are also committed pro-lifers do care, but we have a vested interest since we are committed to party politics-Tennessee Right to Life is not, since it is a constituency organization, but is not affiliated officially with the Republican Party.
Tennessee Right to Life has endorsed many Republican House candidates, however, and some believe that support to have been critical in them winning and keeping their seats. One House member who talked to The Examiner this afternoon but asked that their name not be mentioned said "I made my opinion of this very clear to Leadership, that this is a terrible move and a bad precedent. It is not our place to tell non-partisan organizations who they can and cannot endorse."
My own Representative was even more blunt, and didn't care that his name get mentioned. "I don't really care who Right to Life endorses in other races, that is their business to do what they think is best for them," said Rep. Frank Niceley, (R-Strawberry Plains), "I am just glad that I have received their endorsement in all of my campaigns and that I continue to receive it."
Rather than take a page from How to Win Friends and Influence People, Jason Mumpower is shooting himself in the foot at a time when he needs to be building support rather than dividing his base. Unless Mumpower gets his head out of the clouds and back down to political reality, he will be much less likely to be Speaker of the House in 2011-and not because he would lack a Republican majority.
Comments
David,
I politely disagree. The fundamental problem is that allowing any group to set themselves up as the arbitrators on any issue of such size is dangerous to democracy. Such groups tend to pull the process to the extremes and to divide the parties in multiple directions, making the provess of governing far more difficult.
Think about the absurdity of allowing the American Civil Liberties Union to be the defining judge on issues of rights.
Or would you allow People for the American Way to set the standard for what it means to be an American?
Consider the absurdity of objecting to Marsh's pledge to vote for the Republican for Speaker. True, that is not pledging to vote for a pro-life Speaker (or TRtL's idea of pro-life) but who in the name of Margaret Sanger thinks the Republicans would nominate a pro-choice Speaker.
To say that any special interest can play politics with no responsibility to their allies or to the larger political environment is wrong and dange
The issue is not complicated. RTL is a single issue advocacy group that is bi partisan. Unlike other groups who weigh many issues, this group has one issue LIFE and people who take this issue seriously look to RTL to do the homework to define who represents the views. When running for office everyone claims to be pro life. But if you do your homework and get into the depth of the issue, you find out their definition of pro life is not yours.
I would like to ask the Republican party why they choose to run a candidate who did not live up to what is one of their core beliefs....the sanctity of human life. And for those who say that he never considered where he stood on the life issue and therefore was not well prepared to answer these questions....well if I was running for office, I think I would take the time to consider where I stood on such an important issue before I asked for an endorsement or got mad when I did not get the endorsement.
<i>"Such groups tend to pull the process to the extremes and to divide the parties in multiple directions, making the provess of governing far more difficult."</i>
Divide the parties? So what? The parties serve little purpose other than to divide the constituency in multiple directions.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
President George Washington's Farewell address, 1796
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!