|
|
|
|
Why Being Pro-Life is Such
an Advantage Part Four of Four By Dave Andrusko It's funny how often threads from different sources can easily be woven into a fascinating tapestry. Yesterday, I wrote about a column from Dick Morris, another in a series making the faulty claim that championing the right to life of unborn children is bad business for the Republican Party (http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Oct10/nv102110part4.html).
Earlier this week I had meant to write about the results of a poll, the nub of which is that with rare exceptions, the public is simply not biting this year on the tiresome "extremist" label. That attack has been launched against a lot of candidates, many of whom are pro-life, and often specifically targeted to the pro-lifer's resistance to the culture of death. So you're the typical pro-abortion Democrat, what do you do in a year in which the political tides are not running in your favor? Well, to take a step back, there are candidates who are not "typical" in their sweeping embrace of abortion, even for Democrats. California's Barbara Boxer (running even with pro-life Republican Carly Fiorina) and Wisconsin's Russ Feingold (running behind pro-life Republican Ron Johnson) were unequivocally opposed to the ban on partial-birth abortions. They really WOULDN'T draw the line even at birth (http://www.nrlc.org/NewsToday/FeingoldAntiLife.html)! But what about your run-of-the-mill pro-abortion Democrat? Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg published a fascinating piece yesterday in Roll Call headlined "Memo to Bennett and Conway, Meet Mr. Deeds." He invokes the lessons of what happened last year to pro-abortion Democratic Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds to suggest to pro-abortion Colorado Senator Michael Bennett and pro-abortion Jack Conway (running for the Senate in Kentucky) that they are barking up the wrong tree. In trouble, both are invoking "cultural" issues in an all-out last-ditch assault against pro-lifers Rand Paul in Kentucky and Ken Buck in Colorado. Abortion is not mentioned in these two contests in Rothenberg's piece, but it was prominently in 2008 when Deeds hammered pro-life Republican Bob McDonnell, day in and day out. For his trouble--and because he misread the electorate--Deeds was convincingly defeated. Rothenberg's point is that "strongly emotional social issues" are always "percolating below the surface," and that they will come to the surface for a host of reasons even in a year when the economy supposedly is the be-all and end-all for voters. One of those reasons is the Democratic candidates think they can undermine their opponents with (yes, again) the label of "extremist." Rothenberg doesn't believe enough voters are interested in these social issues to make a difference. As I say, abortion gets short-shrift in Rothenberg's column. But abortion IS an issue that can and will be definitive. Pro-life candidates in almost every contest will come away with a net advantage among those voters for whom abortion is the issue on which they base their vote. This "pro-life increment" is the 2% to 4% net advantage a candidate typically enjoys because he or she is pro-life and his or her opponent is pro-abortion. In a close race, this has been and will be the margin of victory. Click on this, and you will be linked to a piece that appeared in the 2010 NRLC Yearbook, proof-positive it helps candidates to be pro-life. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
