From David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life

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.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.