The Life of Pro-Life: A Review of Like Always

The following is a review of Robert Elmer’s novel Like Always:

Synopsis

Will and Merit Sullivan and their two daughters move to small town Idaho in an attempt to escape from Will’s stressful job to the peaceful serenity of a rural America. Will and Merit leave behind a son in California who has returned from Iraq with scars he’s trying to hide.

In the midst of this, the Sullivans are hit with a double whammy. At 44, Merit becomes pregnant and is diagnosed with Leukemia. Her choice to refuse an abortion and treatment is tested by family members and eventually political activists and the media.

The Craft

I would be remiss if I didn’t praise Robert Elmer’s knowledge and skill in his craft. He had an incredible grasp of description. He has mastered the art of unobtrusively showing us settings, giving us background information on people in a way that keeps and stirs our interests.

His main characters come alive magically. Will, Merit, their son, Michael, and their neighbor Stephanie are well-developed . The innocence and kindness of the young Sullivan daughters often serves to punctuate the story’s most important moments.

Elmer avoids stereotypes with the main characters. When I read the first scene with Stephanie Unruh, a twenty-something home schooled preacher’s daughter with a love for animals, I braced myself for a stereotypical “weird” home school kid that pops up from time to time in popular literature. In the course of the story, we find her to be a unique, loving, kind, and hard working girl who becomes vital to the Sullivans as they face a crisis.

Perhaps, the only shortcoming was minor characters that were a little flat. Merit’s sister, Sydney is the embodiment of the new age vegetarian liberal with teas, herbs, and wild conspiracy theories. The only way she could have been more stereotypical was by placing a “Kucinich for President” sticker on the back of her trailer.

At 304 pages, the story could have used about fifty more to add some depth to a few minor characters, as well as give us a chance to better enjoy Elmer’s excellent leading characters.

The Message

The book is pro-life, and I don’t just mean that it’s anti-abortion. The book is life affirming, because the ultimate focus is not abortion, but love.

The book is the story of a mother’s love for her child and her fears as she faces her own mortality. It’s about love within a family and all the confusion and pain that surrounds that. It’s about the love of a small community for its newest citizen.

Without preaching, the book spoke volumes. Faith and Love are revealed through trials, not in spite of them. Through the darkest time of her life, Merit Sullivan becomes a stronger person, whose love for her husband and son changes their lives.

Like Always is an uncommon and powerful story that will keep your attention until the last page.

Open Letter to Senator Lindsey Graham

Senator, I’m not one of your constituents, but I’ve followed your career for years. Let’s be honest, I’ve disagreed with you quite a few times, but I’ve never disrespected you. Certain folks have shown themselves people of good will and I can respect that no matter how misguided they might be, they truly mean the best.

While I disagreed with your vote against impeaching Clinton for perjury in a civil suit, I understood why you did it. You eloquently and ably represented the case of the House Impeachment managers on the articles that were sent to the House. Then, I read Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-Ok.) book, “Breach of Trust” where he described how you faced down Newt Gingrich and the Republican leadership over spending in 1997, as they prepared to bust the budget caps.

Yes, there have been some poor decisions and some votes I strongly disagreed with. Your support for McCain-Feingold and your membership in the gang of fourteen come immediately to mind, but there have been others, but I have never questioned your good intentions. Until now.

You’ve been going across the country identifying opponents of the illegal immigration bill as “bigots” and comparing concerns about illegal immigration to negative attitudes towards Blacks and Jews. Many questions run through my mind.

First, do you actually believe what you’re saying? Do you think that your fellow South Carolinian, Jim DeMint, is a bigot? Do you think your old comrade-in-arms in the House, Senator Coburn, is? While you can undoubtedly find anti-Hispanic bigots, they don’t represent the mainstream of this movement.

When I talk to people about the border, I find many have no problem with immigration provided that it’s done in accordance with the law. The great thing about America is that it is a land that takes people from all over the world and through the process of assimilation turns them into Americans.

There are many concerns with this bill. Senator Graham, why are those who oppose tearing down the rule of law through amnesty bigots? Our prosperity and safety rests on the respect for law in our country. When we tear that down through amnesty, we begin to chip away at the very foundation of what makes this nation worth emigrating to.

Senator Graham, why is it that people are bigots if they oppose the creation of a permanent underclass (i.e. guest workers) that will feed the corrupt Mexican government? Having once ended a system in this country that thrived on an underclass that did “the jobs Americans won’t do,” why are we now set to re-create it? Is this a bigoted question to ask? Were those folks against the African Slave trade really just anti-African bigots who didn’t want Blacks in their country?

Senator Graham, is it bigoted to expect that those who’ve waited in line and faced the insufferable US immigration bureaucracy be given first opportunity to come to our country rather than those who’ve broken the rules to come into our border? Is it racist to oppose punishing those who try to follow the law while rewarding those who break it? Am I a bigot because I think there is no way you can dump 12-20 million (or 30-40 million, who knows?) new applications for Visas from illegals and get anything other than a massive backlog that leads to permanent amnesty without punishment or accountability?

These are legitimate concerns, but it seems to me you’re so dedicated to passing this amnesty that you’ll declare all legitimate concerns to be nothing more than bigotry. In the process, you’re destroying the Republican Party. Do you want to be in the same party as “the bigots”? Do those who oppose amnesty want to be in a party with those who will demagogue and demonize us in order to make their point? Senator, to me it appears you’re acting like a child, throwing a tantrum with a hammer, not even understanding the damage you’re doing.

If you can actually listen to us long enough to stop demonizing us, maybe at last you’ll understand why we oppose this bill, and address our concerns in a serious and substantive way, rather than with name calling and personal attacks.

Sincerely Yours,
Adam Graham

(no relation)

US Border security

Apparently, I’m the Issue

Well, it only took three days for Julie Fanselow to fire back on the whole Dan Popkey-Larry Grant story in which Popkey suggests Grant lost because he didn’t listen and was too stubborn too liberal.

Julie writes:

I wasn’t at all surprised to see Bill Sali apologist Adam Graham (pictured here, from left, with Sali, Larry Craig, and Norm Semanko) pounce with a lengthy diatribe hours after Popkey’s piece appeared. Absurdly calling Popkey’s work “the real story of the Grant campaign” – even though Popkey interviewed few if any of us on the staff and named none of his Democratic sources – Graham could hardly contain his glee in dancing on what he is sure will be Grant’s political grave

I was curious why she saw the need to post the picture. I’ve not been hiding my support for Sali. I guess the picture just makes people happy. Who knows?

Popkey claimed to have sources, Dan Popkey at times may be wrong and a bit of gossip, but a liar? I doubt it. He spoke to some folks “close to Grant” according to the article. Given that what happened when Grant spoke to General Contractors (key points in the story), spoke to the DCCC (key point in the story) doesn’t require campaign worker validation.

As for dancing on Grant’s political grave? Hardly. I enjoyed the vindication primarily. I’ve spent the past year or so being told that up is down and down is up and that I’m just a radical right winger who has no clue. I’ve been fighting 12:1 odds and to at last have it exposed, “This is the real Larry Grant,” was what I enjoyed. I doubt Grant’s totally dead, but it is bringing a healthy dose of division to the Democrat party. Grant will have to spend hundreds of thousands in the primary, Lewis will have to explain why Grant doesn’t deserve a 2nd chance. If Lewis starts to gain or even become a leader, Grant will have to go after him. The result a divided Democratic Party that’ll beat up its nominee before the Fall, while Sali will probably sail to re-nominatio without serious opposition.

We’re Idaho Democrats; we’re not organized enough to anoint anyone, and even if we were, Popkey hardly does our bidding.

Yeah, that’s why Popkey knew about the Republicans for Grant website in advance and wrote an article about it timed to coincide with Dick Cheney’s visit.

I will give Julie that, given the sorry state of the Democratic Party in our state, it’s hard to believe they could organize much else than a 3-on-3 basketball game, but even that’s a stretch. However, I doubt it’s all Idaho Democrats, just quite a few.

Despite all this late quarterbacking, the fact is Larry Grant isn’t the issue. Bill Sali is, and he got less than 50% at the polls last November (and 26% in the primary). The majority of 1st District voters didn’t want him, and many who chose him were simply picking the “R” guy as usual, perhaps because they were too busy or too distracted to research the candidates.

49.94% with 1.06% to the Constitution Party Candidate. Come on, give me a break. You had the media repeating every Bill Sali story, ripped out of context time and time again. And what do they have to make things different? “Out of the Mainstream” votes on bills that Idahoans couldn’t care less about. Bill Sali will be in Congress a long time.

Competence and the Court

Reading Dan Popkey’s latest shrill screed, one would think that Idaho is headed for the 19th Century:

Idaho has a chance to turn back the clock and make the Supreme Court an institution of white males — just like the bad old days.

Gov. Butch Otter will soon chose among four white men nominated to succeed Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder. That’s in part because of 19 applicants for the first of two vacancies, only two were women and not one was a minority.

Those bad old days predate the enlightenment of 1992 when a woman joined the court, forever shattering the male dominance of the court and guaranteeing freedom and equality for all, but according to Popkey, it’s all at risk because a woman’s not being appointed. Indeed, only two applied, and why:

Gutierrez told me he will apply for Trout’s seat. “When you lack diversity,” he said, “there is an erosion of trust among those who look to the work of the court, whether as a litigant or as one who pays taxes and has never walked through the doors.”

Sadly, Gutierrez’s colleague on the Court of Appeals, Karen Lansing, told me she will take a pass. Why? First, she likes her job. Second, she’s reluctant to face an election challenge in May when voters get their chance to affirm the governor’s appointment or elect another candidate. Lansing has twice been elected, without opposition, because judges on the Court of Appeals haven’t yet attracted challengers. Women on the Supreme Court, however, have faced the only challenges to incumbent justices since 1970: Trout once and former Justice Cathy Silak twice.

Yeah, that’s right, Idahoans are sexists if they dare even think about challenging or not voting for a woman justice. Here’s the truth, I’d be all for a woman justice if she strictly interpreted the Constitution and had the right judicial temperament. That’s what it’s all about.

Justice Gutierrez is wrong, we don’t need different perspectives on the Court, we need competency and adherence to the Constitution and the law. The law is not Black, White, Hispanic, Male, or Female. If our law means anything, it means the same thing regardless of who is interpreting it.

I believe in merit, I believe in the best person for the job. If it’s a woman or minority, great, I’m 100% for it. If it’s a white man, that’s great as well.

A society of equal opportunity is just that. It’s based on merit, not other considerations. Popkey’s suggestion that we ought to use affirmative action with seats on the High Courts and disqualify good potential judges because they’re white males is itself asking us to discriminate on race and gender. And that I’m against.

Bush Discovers the Veto

President Bush’s promise to veto federal government spending bills comes too late for the Republican Majority. We need leadership that opposes big government out of principle, not just when there are partisan points to be scored.

Click here to download. Click here to add my podcast to your I-tunes.

Related:

Washington Post:

Bush Veto Strategy