|
|
|
|
Pro-Life: A Recipe for
Electoral Success Part Two of Three By Dave Andrusko
At least every other day I write one or more pieces in this space or in "National Right to Life News Today" that carefully documents how as the mid-term elections rapidly approach the prospects of Democrats grow progressively dimmer. Democrats are fighting not to give into the pall cast by polls that show the electorate dusting off their brooms to sweep them out of office in large numbers. There are umpteen reasons why they may be headed for a thumping. We would argue that, collectively, Democrats are paying a price for being almost monochromatically pro-abortion. There is not a single--not ONE-- Democrat in the Senate who voted against ObamaCare, and many Democrats in the House who had voted pro-life, self-exiled themselves by voting for ObamaCare. As we've talked about many times in this space, ObamaCare started the voter exodus out of the Democratic column, a journey which Democrats have been unable to convince people to reverse. In addition, it is hugely important that the United States House and Senate Democratic leadership is pro-abortion, the exact opposite of the Republican leadership.
Republicans are benefitting enormously from the over-reach of pro-abortion President Barack Obama and the heavy-handed tactics of House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, who, like Obama, are in thrall to the Abortion Establishment. Think about what this trio has already done, domestically and overseas. It didn't start with ObamaCare and it won't end there, so long as Reid and Pelosi are setting the agenda in conjunction with Obama. There will continue to be the river of federal money to Planned Parenthood, to take just one example. If they are unchecked, we will also see the Obama administration interjecting the abortion poison around the world--whether that is in places like Kenya, where they helped ensure that the new constitution was pro-abortion, or in trying to turn every UN initiative into a new front to advance the legalization of abortion in the developing world. This election cycle Republicans have run a bevy of solid pro-life Senate candidates: Rubio, Fiorina, Angle, Raese, O'Donnell, Buck, Miller, Ayotte, Blunt, Paul, Johnson, Portman, and Toomey-- to name just a handful. Their pro-life credentials are there for all to see. Almost all are, at worst, running even, most are ahead, only one is (for now) down in the polls.
But there is no temptation more common in politics than trimming your sails supposedly because the winds are blowing in a certain direction. It's notable that these candidates are not weakening, but some others advocate taking the "safe" road. Since the economy and economically-related issues are at the top of the "most important" issues cited by voters, some say let's not get "distracted" by the abortion issue. This misses three important truths that, if ignored, will help snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Pro-abortionists, such as incumbent California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, have already gone to DefCon 4 in trying to annihilate Carly Fiorina with an onslaught of outrageous statements. I had a chance to watch their debate online after it took place. Fiorina did not backtrack one step. She calmly stated her pro-life views and pointed out that if anybody qualifies as an "extremist" on abortion, it's Boxer. So, Point #1, pro-lifers need not fear when their all-abortion, all-the-time opponents go crazy.
Point #2. Voters can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can be both pro-life and fiscally conservative; or pro-life and believe the government can never get big enough; or pro-life and devout; or pro-life and indifferent to faith; or pro-life and White; or pro-life and a person of color. Point #3, and a lesson that is [re-]learned every election cycle. The electoral game does not belong to the timid. It belongs to those who state where they stand, and why. Pro-lifers--and there are a LOT of them--cast their ballots based on where a candidate is on abortion. But there are a ton of voters--famously called the "mushy middle"--for whom abortion is not decisive but for whom an extremist position on abortion won't work. And psst, guess what? More people are closer to where the typical pro-life candidate is on abortion than the typical pro-abortionist. Fiorina versus Boxer? Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire or Paul Hodes? Please. These are very good times for Republicans. I'm assuming they are smart enough not to throw that advantage away. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today todaveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
