Why wasn't the CLC more involved?

Paul Tuns, the editor of the interim criticizes the Family Coalition Party for "acting like politicians". Paul reminds the FCP that party was founded by Campaign Life Coalition with its purpose being not necessarily to elect candidates to the provincial parliament, but to raise awareness of the abortion issue. He says that the party efforts to drum up support for proportional representation went overboard, especially when Giuseppe Gori began criticizing the CLC and the REAL Women of Canada for their opposition to the proposal.

Maybe so. It's easy to say it now. But why wasn't there more involvement of those organizations in the FCP before the election? If Paul Tuns thought the FCP was headed in the wrong direction, why didn't he come to one of the party's policy meetings or AGMs, so he could say that directly to Mr. Gori? Those policies have been around for years; I remember them being discussed at the AGMs and policy meetings which I attended in 2004-2005. But I don't recall Mr. Tuns or anyone else for that matter speaking against them. If there had been enough volunteers from the CLC and the REAL Women attending those meetings and proposing a better strategy for the FCP - their proposals would have been voted in quite easily.

Same thing with the candidates. Family Coalition Party was determined to run full slate and, while it didn't succeed to nominate a candidate in every riding, the party came up with 83 candidates. That was more candidates than ever before, with much greater share of Ontario voters having FCP candidate on the ballot. Paul Tuns is disappointed because some of the candidates provided nothing more than a name on the ballot and sat silently during the campaign, while others tried to downplay the abortion issue, pretending FCP was nothing but yet another fiscally conservative party.

I agree with Paul - this shouldn't have happened. But my question is - where was the CLC when Giuseppe Gori was looking for candidates? If Paul Tuns checks out the FCP candidate list, he'll notice that some 15 candidates came from just two devoted families. They were there, because nobody else would.

And the question is - why? How come there weren't enough volunteers from the CLC and the REAL Women available to run as FCP candidates? If there had been - then the FCP could have run full slate of candidates, without nominating those who tried to downplay the abortion and family issues. It could have been arranged that the most active candidates ran in the ridings with no pro-life candidates from the mainstream parties, while other constituencies could have a "ballot only" FCP candidate - so that pro-life candidates from the major parties followed their conscience, rather than their socially perverse leaders...

Paul Tuns suggests the party must return to its roots.

With new leadership that is more adept at using the internet and viral campaigns that will focus on the injustice of abortion, the FCP can once again become an important teaching tool in the public square. It can educate the public and put pressure on politicians in regards to abortion.

(Source)

Well said, but where is that devoted pro-life politician, who is ready to commit himself to the job? Where are the pro-life organizations when a pro-life party needs their help? It's easy to say that one does it all wrong. But is there someone ready to get out and do the job right?