Motivations of GOP Challenger Unclear
Yesterday’s posting about Matt Salisbury prompted the young candidate to call us to clarify his position on abortion. Regardless of quotations or press stories in which Mr. Salisbury uses Planned Parenthood’s language about abortion rights – he claims he is both pro-Life and a Christian.
I believe him on both counts, and appreciate his phone call. Certainly he is not the first politician to be manhandled by the press into appearing as something he is not.
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.
It is very curious, and perhaps we will learn more about motivations as Mr. Salisbury refines his message in coming months.
But we can at least take comfort in the knowledge that President Lincoln's sleep will not be disturbed by this challenger.
I believe him on both counts, and appreciate his phone call. Certainly he is not the first politician to be manhandled by the press into appearing as something he is not.
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.
It is very curious, and perhaps we will learn more about motivations as Mr. Salisbury refines his message in coming months.
But we can at least take comfort in the knowledge that President Lincoln's sleep will not be disturbed by this challenger.
Posted at 7/10/2007 05:43:00 AM Link to this article 
4 Comments:
I talked with Matt Salisbury, an acquaintance of mine, about this problem. Although he should (and will in letters to the editor) speak for himself, I'll share what he told me.
He said his comments about staying "out of your bedroom and out of your social mores" and "social engineering" were in the context of speaking against Grant, the Democrat. KTVB completely ignored that, totally misrepresenting Matt's intent.
He said he does not want to start "campaigning" until the actual campaign because Sali should not be distracted from the job we elected him to do at least until then.
I did ask why he is running at all. Basically, as I understand him, he believes Sali is too controversial and hard to work with and would not be able to win in November. He believes he is better able to work with people, including those with opposing views, as Lincoln did.
I told him it is nice to have multiple good candidates to choose from as long as the good ones don't split the vote so an objectionable person wins. He said he agrees.
Apparently Mr. Salisbury does not think that the citizens of the congressional district are being represented efficiently and effectively by Mr. Sali. Free elections mean that anyone can run, no matter who the incumbent is. Because he does not want to polarize his fellow Idahoans, he should be lauded, not condemned.
The more important question to me is this:
OK, let's assume the guy's pro-life and a Christian and a former Gideon and thinks abortion is abhorrent and supports the war and was talking about liberals when he mentioned social engineering, etc., etc...
Then what is the world is he doing running against Bill Sali? Why does he want to expend his own and other Republicans' resources taking out a pro-life Christian who supports the war?
If what Salisbury claims is true, then the only change if he won would be that he would be a congressman rather than Sali.
All of which puzzles me, since as a conservative, I think it's wrong to challenge an incumbent with whom you agree on the issues just so you can hold the office rather than him.
Anonymous raises an important question: is there no other office available for Matt Salisbury to run for? Perhaps a post occupied by someone with whom he has substantial differences? It sounds increasingly like Salisbury wants to unseat an incumbent in the primary (which is hard), which makes it that much easier for the Democrat next November to beat Salisbury (who won't be an incumbent).
I need to hear a lot better reason to vote for Matt Salisbury than, "A lot of people that regularly vote Democrat don't like Bill Sali."
I respect Mr. Salisbury's service to his country, and if there was a race between Mr. Salisbury and another candidate with similar qualifications and beliefs, service in Iraq is definitely a tie-breaker in Mr. Salisbury's favor. But Sali is already in position, and enjoying the benefits of incumbency.
Post a Comment
<< Home