You will recall during the recent Grand Rapids mayoral campaign, incumbent George Heartwell solemnly explained that he would not declare his position on abortion because as mayor there is nothing he can do about it. Of course, the truth was that Heartwell wanted to keep his pro-abortion politics concealed from the strong pro-life constituency among voters in the city. Evidence of Heartwell's deceit was furnished this week when he asked two city commissioners to draft a resolution opposing the "U.S. occupation of Iraq".
Now it might occur to you that if Heartwell says he has to remain silent on abortion because as mayor he has no authority to address the issue, then he should also remain silent on the Iraq War for the same reason. But Heartwell's a hypocrite. His principle of silence applies only as needed to advance his political career. Silence reigns over abortion because that way Heartwell doesn't stir up a large group of voters in opposition to him. But sanctimonious drum-beating is the order of the day on the Iraq War because that motivates an outspoken fringe in support of him.
Not that Heartwell's hypocrisy is smart politics. I cannot fathom what can be gained by Heartwell, even with the City Commission's backing, pontificating with a lefty message on the Iraq War that: [1] Would have absolutely no effect on U.S. policy, while [2] alienating a large plurality of voters who either support the war or at least will take the resolution as a vote of no-confidence in our troops. While Heartwell may get hosannas from the fruitcakes who've got time on their hands to march around protesting on street corners, he will only get the disgust of those who want to know why he is wasting time on a useless resolution when the city government has big problems to solve.
I guess that's the way Heartwell's "mandate" is going to shake out over the next four years.
I agree with you 100% on Heartwell's hypocrisy, but I wonder...are all people who believe the Iraq war was a bad idea friutcakes, or just the ones who have time on their hands to march around?
Posted by: Steve Smith | Aug 21, 2007 at 06:59 PM
How can you group the right to life/choose with the war? The war came about because the president wanted this since the leader of Iraq threaten to kill his father. There was no WMD, and as all us Americans with more than 1/2 a brain know that the 9/11 so called terroists attrackes was an inside job. They want us to be afraid very afraid. Come on if this was all true, that the bad peole was on our door step, would this great leader of our country tell us to protect ourselves with plastic wrap and duct tape from more terriosts attackes? They are the ones using WMD to get what they want. Google Loose Change and please watch it with an open mind and get from it what you want, just please don't believe everythihng that is being fed to you.
Posted by: GR Person | Aug 22, 2007 at 03:37 AM
Hi, Steve.
The silly people marching around with signs are the fruitcakes.
Regards, Bill
Posted by: The Executive Director | Aug 22, 2007 at 08:09 AM
GR Person,
First, you should be ashamed of yourself for endorsing the 9/11 conspiracy theory filth of the "Loose Change" crowd. Second, your first sentence shows you missed the entire point of the article.
Bill Tingley
Executive Director, L.A.W.
Posted by: The Executive Director | Aug 22, 2007 at 08:41 AM
If anyone were paying attention, you would have known that Heartwell did declare his pro-choice position. His endorsement by the Progressive Women's Alliance and the fact that his 'army' of volunteers consisted nearly entirely of PWA volunteers shows his Pro-Choice stance. The Life/Choice issue is their political litmus test. Rinck's campaign filled out the PWA questionnaire and refused to answer the Life/Choice question. We received a call from PWA stating that they would not consider a candidate who did not openly support choice. Therefore, Heartwell = Choice. He was simply too cowardly to say so openly on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Jeff Winston | Aug 22, 2007 at 08:56 AM
Hi, Jeff.
I agree that the PWA endorsement revealed Heartwell's general position on the issue (as we have noted elsewhere). I also agree the Heartwell's concealment of that position from the general public was unprincipled.
Regards, Bill
Posted by: The Executive Director | Aug 22, 2007 at 09:18 AM