|
|
|
|
Pro-Abortionists Feel
Walls Closing In Part Two of Three By Dave Andrusko Again, lots going on today, so I will combine two distinct although related topics… As the results of Tuesday's final round of primaries streamed in, they amplified a constant motif of the 2010 off-year elections: this truly is the year of pro-life female candidate. Two more pro-life women prevailed in Republican senatorial primaries, adding new names to an already impressive roster.
Kelly Ayotte, the former state attorney General prevailed in a cliff-hanger in New Hampshire. In Delaware Christine O'Donnell outdistanced her pro-abortion Rep. Michael Castle opponent by 6% to fill the seat once occupied by Vice President Joe Biden.
Already on board are two pro-life Republican women-- in California and Nevada. Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, is taking on an entrenched three-term pro-abortion incumbent, California Democrat Barbara Boxer. Sharron Angle, a former member of the Nevada state assembly, is competing against pro-abortion Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Worth noting is that all 17 current female senators are pro-abortion.
And, of course, this doesn't even address the separate campaigns by female pro-life gubernatorial candidates. Writing in the Baptist Press, assistant editor Michael Foust reminded his readers this morning of a column that ran a few months ago by National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru. Writing in the New York Times, Ponnuru observed, "Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster, says that her surveys have found that voters respond more positively to the pro-life message when it comes from women." Pro-life women, Ponnuru observed, "won't be suspected, or credibly accused, of opposing abortion because they want to keep women in their place." In addition, in Part One today, I wrote about additional sets of polling data that paints an unrelievedly grim picture for Democrats. Politically, they are burdened down by anchors, ankle chains, and albatrosses, While the dreadful state of the economy is always mentioned as the greatest burden, as we have discussed many times, what was pivotal in pealing off Independent voters from Democrats was the monstrosity known as ObamaCare.
POLITICO ran yet another in a lengthy series of stories today, filling in the details that document how Democrats are either explicitly distancing themselves from ObamaCare or espousing only the most back-handed support. "Democratic candidates are spending three times more advertising against the health reform law than they are in support of it," writes Sarah Kliff. The headline is actually more accurate: "Democrats spend on anti-health-reform advertisements." In fact, an earlier story written by another reporter last week is more revealing. "At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party's health care reform bill are highlighting their 'no' votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can't identify a single House member who's running an ad boasting of a "yes" vote -- despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March." (Emphasis added.) The single specific example Kliff cites today is the "tepid support" of Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wi.), whose "support of health reform briefly [is] sandwiched between other legislative accomplishments" in a television advertisement. Please be sure to pass this post along through your social networks. For instructions how to do this easily, check out http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Sept10/nv091510part2.html 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. |
