« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Will the GOP Stand for Life?

By: Marjorie Dannenfelser (Diary)  |  September 3rd, 2010 at 05:59 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Many RedState readers probably remember 1994.

The GOP launched its “Contract with America” six weeks before the mid-term elections and took back Congress with a 54-seat swing on Election Day.

While the Contract had many good ideas, a family values agenda was left in the dust, and was ignored once Congress convened. Protecting women and unborn babies from the violence of 4,000 abortions per day was put on the back-burner.

Fast forward to today. The GOP is busy crafting a legislative blueprint much like that of the Contract and are expected to release the document to the American people shortly after Labor Day.

Jobs. National Security. Spending Restraint. Government Reform. Health Care. According to media reports, those are the planks.

But that doesn’t complete Ronald Reagan’s three-legged stool. Where is the Family Values plank?

Real leaders multi-task. The strongly pro-life GOP leadership should be able to respond to the economic crisis andenact pro-life legislation.

That’s why the Susan B. Anthony List launched http://www.LifeSpeakingOut.com, a grassroots campaign to encourage the Republican Party leaders to make defending the unborn and protecting women a real priority in its upcoming legislative blueprint.

I’ve interviewed nearly 100 candidates this Election Cycle. Judging from my interviews and a detailed analysis of what looks to be the incoming Congress, I am confident it will be one of the most pro-life in history. The votes are there.

And the mandate from the American people is there too.

Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life. And when polled on specific pieces of legislation, the broad support for common-sense laws becomes even more evident.

Consider these pro-life legislative initiatives that should be passed and would save lives:

  • Legislation such as the “Protect Life Act” which would ensure that no federal funds authorized under the health care reform law are used to pay for abortions. 67% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion in health care.
  • Legislation such as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” which would establish a permanent government-wide prohibition on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion. 61% of Americans support a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion.
  • Legislation establishing parental consent for minors seeking abortion. 69% Americans support parental consent for minors under 18 seeking an abortion.
  • Legislation such as the “Child Pain Awareness Act” which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain. 77% of Americans favor such legislation.

This shouldn’t be a heavy lift. All we need is a little leadership.

Join the cause today at http://www.LifeSpeakingOut.com to finish building Reagan’s three-legged stool of conservatism and to ensure the Republican Party speaks for all Americans — born and unborn.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • chihank

    GOP candidates are taking Mitch Daniels’s advice doing a “truce” on social issues and focusing mostly on economic issues.

    If the GOP gains control of the House and Senate, there could be tension between conservatives who want a “truce” on social issues and those that want to bring social issues to the front.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Some aren’t.

      Having promoted this diary, I clearly agree that pro-lifers should not be relegated to the back of the bus, since I don’t see the pro-aborts volunteering to give up economic issues when times are good.

      • mikejmoe

        After reading Marjorie’s post, I don’t think she’s necessarily asking that the issues are brought to the front. It sounds to me like they just want a seat at the table, and want to be included as a priority amongst other priorities.

        I’ve followed the SBA List for a long time. They’re a savvy group and I hope that GOP leadership listens to them.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        we on’t stand up for life, America will deserve to go to Hell, and will.

        • congressworksforus

          I am one of those folks improperly labeled as a pro-choice fiscal conservative, or a socially-liberal, fiscally conservative voter.

          I am not socially liberal; I am socially libertarian.

          You want to permanently bad federal funding of abortion — great, go for it. I can support that. (But then I’d also support a permanent federal ban on the funding of all healthcare, with the exception of what we provide for our troops…)

          You want to start dictating social policy, no matter how “moral” it is, by using the Federal Govt. to pass legislation to dictate how people live their lives, then you are no better than when liberals do this for their own purposes. You’re both scumbag politicians getting in the way of how I choose to live my life.

          This IS a state’s rights issue, because it is not something that is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution any more than mandatory healthcare is.

          Personally, I find most abortions to be reprehensible, but I take liberty seriously, and this is none of the Fed’s business.

          • SirGladiator

            It’s been widely known for a long time that many in the Washington GOP leadership either doesn’t agree with Pro-Lifers, or are simply annoyed by us. If only those pesky Pro-Lifers could see how important it is to ignore the abortion issue so we could elect more great men, like Arlen Specter and Mike Castle, then everything would be wonderful. That’s their attitude, and I for one am not interested in siding with people like that. Daniels seems to be taking that line, and we’ll see if he gets any farther than Rudy Guliani did with the whole ‘social issues dont matter’ thing.

            I for one won’t go along with something like that, I agree completely with the Diarist that the Pro-Life issue should be one of the planks in any 2010 ‘Contract with America’ style document. For way too long we’ve done the whole ‘go along to get along’ thing with the Washington GOP leadership crowd, if they don’t like us fine, if they don’t agree with us fine, but let’s hold them accountable for that, let’s not let them keep pretending that they’ll get around to supporting Life eventually, and of course never actually do it. Let’s get them out of office and replace them with folks who do support Life. We’ve done a pretty good job of that so far this year, but now is a great opportunity, let’s make it a part of the Contract, make them sign the contract or state the real reason why, and then if they sign it and don’t do it, we vote them out.

            Its time to force the pro-abortion folks in our party out of the closet, just like the former GOP Chairman recently came out of the closet, and admitted that he has secretly worked for years behind the scenes to defeat GOP efforts to protect Marriage. Many GOP leaders have been doing the same thing on abortion, publicly acting like they’re Pro-Life but behind the scenes keeping anything meanginful from happening to protect Life. Put the Life issue in the Contract, and force them to either live up to it or show their true colors once and for all, so we can get rid of them.

          • Gandalf

            Just Wow.

            There is nothing “reprehensible” about abortion unless it is terminating a human life, I.E., MURDER. Your use of the term leads me to believe you do, in fact, believe abortion is murder.

            Human life, particularly those of American citizens, is blatantly protected in the Constitution. The federal government has ALWAYS had a Constitutional mandate to require States to protect the lives of all humans within their borders (yes, even illegals are protected from straight-up murder).

            A right to murder is NOT an issue of freedom.

            Your position is sick, immoral, and seriously out of sink with logic on every level.

            Or you throw out terms like “reprehensible” way too easily.

            Either way, you need some time to reexamine your position.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            and no amount of reexamination is likely to change it.

            I too, think abortion is a horrible choice, I am not certain as you are that early abortions are exactly the same as murder, but I am certain that late term abortions are, after the child is viable.

            Nevertheless, i think FAR FAR MORE HARM is done by giving power over this to the Federal government.

            I think if you are looking to big government solutions to this problem you are skating on thin Ice and it is likely to come out just the opposite to what you desire.

            I cannot speak for the previous commenter but that probably mirrors his views.

          • Gandalf

            If abortion is murder, the federal government has the moral, Constitutional, and legal right to control it.

            If it isn’t, then it isn’t “reprehensible,” “a horrible choice,” or anything other than, at the worst, amoral. It should be viewed the same as having a tooth extracted or having blood drawn, in which case you have no right to feel uncomfortable about it anymore than the federal government has a right to control it.

            Of course, should you choose the above position, you also go against the vast majority of science and medical data on the subject, but at least you can be intellectually consistent, even if you’re just ignorant of the data.

            Please, all you “libertarian” anti-pro-lifers, answer me these question:

            Should a family have the right to off grandma when they decide she isn’t worth keeping around any more, even if she is perfectly healthy, full of life, and not wishing to die?

            Should I be able to gun down my neighbor for crossing the fence line to pick up his kids’ toys?

            Should a woman be allowed to cut up her 3 and 6 year old children and make soup out of them?

            Should an American citizen be allowed to hold non-citizen slaves, chaining them up, whipping and maiming them, and even killing them when they can no longer meet the physical demands of their American master?

            If you answered “no” to any of the above, you have no logical reason for saying government shouldn’t protect the lives of unborn children in the same way it should protect grandma, my neighbor, the young children of Mrs. Cannibal, and the non-citizen slave.

            If you answered “yes” to any of the above… You’re an anti-Constitutional, anti-American, anti-moral anarchist and, well, kyle8 is correct when he says no amount of reexamination is likely to change your views.

            You only have three logical choices:

            1) Stop equating abortion with murder (and therefore wallow in scientific and medical ignorance).

            2) Recognize that the government has a Constitutional and moral obligation to protect the unborn (and therefore enact legislature outlawing abortion).

            3) Admit to being an anti-Constitutional, anti-American, anti-moral anarchist (and therefore inform us that you are simply not worth others’ time and effort in discussion, since you’ll most likely be jailed and hopefully executed when you follow through on your belief system).

            There just doesn’t seem to be an option #4 logically possible.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Blah blah blah, You will get no converts with those over rehearsed talking points. You cannot say If such and such, then such and such, because I do not go along with your assumptions, and unlike you I am adult enough to understand that few things are as black and white as some fanatics believe.

            I am not constrained by your so called choices because I do not agree with your attempt to equate raw emotionalism with logic.

            And your hypothetical questions are just distracting constructs which I also have no obligation to indulge you in.

            I know you sincerely believe what you believe, but your insistence that there are no other legitimate views with even slight variance to yours is just wrong and boring.

          • Gandalf

            Ok

          • Doc Holliday

            I don’t agree with all Congressworksforus said nor how he said it. However, his main point was about Federalism and states rights, something you chose to completely ignore.

          • Gandalf

            I meant to address Federalism and States Rights in my first post:

            “The federal government has ALWAYS had a Constitutional mandate to require States to protect the lives of all humans within their borders.”

            I’ll reiterate: It is a Constitutional requirement that the federal government require States to protect human life, which is, after all, the most basic of Rights. Without protection of Life, there is no possibility of Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness. Even the most ardent of Federalists has never argued that a State should be able to allow it’s citizens to murder other citizens willy-nilly.

            We could be having a discussion about HOW the federal government should best go about doing this. That is a discussion I would eagerly watch but to which I could contribute only a thought or two in passing while greater minds (Doc Holliday’s being one of them) discuss the details.

            My first and probably only contribution to that discussion would be that I believe the first step is for Congress to pass Legislation recognizing when Human Life begins.

          • Doc Holliday

            It is a bit confusing to non lawyers though. I am sure the feds require states to punish murderers. But the states themselves actually do the punishing. As I understand it, only murders on federal property, or those involving some other federal jurisdiction can be prosecuted by the feds.

            But the original libertarian poster never said he was against state bans on abortion. You made it sound like he was against any anti-abortion enforcement.

            My philosophy, if it matters, is that we should repeal Roe first. Roe is federal overreach just like a potential federal ban is seen by many to be one. In the end, I doubt this debate is ever settled, then again, which ones ever are?

          • JSobieski

            There are degrees of murder and manslaughter. There are numerous mitigating factors which can prevent a death from being a murder. Many of the hardship abortion scenarios would likely be manslaughter cases. However, even when abortion was illegal, it was never a murder charge. It was a crime all of its own, with sentences less than a typical manslaughter charge.

            I am all for going back to a pre-Roe world. That is after all step 1, and its what unites most conservatives. Once that happens, there are a lot of different positions on this issue. I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to start killing eachother of what post-Roe overturned steps need to be.

          • Doc Holliday
          • Doc Holliday

            I can’t offhand see a hole in your argument. My only concern is the unintended consequences when government gets involved in people’s choices. See, there are always unintended consequences when government gets involved, they most clear and always bad in the financial sector. Issues such as this of course are much more complicated. For example, I am sure you feel so strongly about this you will not mind the consequences. Others will feel differently.

          • Gandalf

            Doc Holliday, for your complimentary analysis of my argument. I’m flattered, but I’m not a lawyer. I only took one law class in college, but I’ve read my Constitution, I’ve read the scientific data, and, well, 2 plus 2 equaled four.

            I agree that we should both overturn Roe (since it was always bad law). But that doesn’t go far enough if we want to be strict Constitutionalists. We must replace Roe with a federal mandate that States start protecting ALL Human Life within their borders, as the Constitution requires.

            And we desperately need articulate leaders to argue this in front of the American people. We need the Republican Party to take up this point as part of their 2010 & 2012 election strategies.

            What we absolutely do NOT need is for them to be told to sit down and shut up because this election is about economics, which seems to be what the libertarians to whom I was responding were suggesting.

            Regarding unintended consequence:

            I agree with you. I’m very much a conservative in the old-Traditionalist meaning of the word (as well as the more modern meaning), and I’m usually very squeamish about change unless we have been able to analyze most of the consequences.

            Let’s have this discussion (not this minute; I’m going to bed!); let’s analyze. Let’s set up barriers to future government overreach. Let’s discuss how it can be done in such a way that forces both the federal government and the States to start following the Constitution regarding Human Life while not giving Congress the power to “define” Human Life; they must only be allowed to “recognize” it!

            But in the end, we have to act, and we have to act quickly.

            And we have to get our libertarian-minded friends to understand that being pro-life is not even close to being the same as wanting the federal government to control our lives or serve as a Nanny State.

            Pro-Life does NOT equal Big Government.

            Pro-Life DOES equal Federalist Constitutionalism.

          • Doc Holliday

            I would never call someone that without proof lol. I am not a lawyer either. :)

          • Gandalf

            Thanks for the clarification.

          • aesthete

            this debate is actually ongoing in libertarian circles, with about a 55-45 divide breaking pro-choice. All of the elected libertarians in Congress are staunchly pro-life, and I think that a good argument can be made using the harm principle (as you did here) opposing abortion. Trouble is, a lot of the abortion debate centers on religious tenets and the like: you are quite literally preaching to the choir if you’re making the argument against abortion on religious grounds, instead of the grounds that you assert.

          • JSobieski

            I am not aware of any jurisdictions in the US for which abortion was considered murder. Abortion was always its own special crime with penalties that were roughly equivalent to manslaughter or less.

            You are presuming a legal conclusion that was NEVER true in the US.

            I suggest sticking with the first shared goal of overturing Roe v. Wade before shooting for laws that are far stronger than ever previously existed in the US.

          • aesthete

            Infanticide is typically considered voluntary manslaughter, not murder, under the judicial system. There’s no reason that abortion can’t be treated similarly. That said, from a moral standpoint, it is convenient to argue using murder as a catchall term to remind those on the fence that they believe that government should step in if harm is being done to another human being.

          • Anteater

            Federalism is good for many things but not the protection of life.

          • Superheater

            Deficiency of reasoning disallows you from seeing this?

          • ywhyvon1
          • sharonhanson

            If we are going to bring all these children into the world don’t we need to take care of them?

            How are we moral if we force women to have babies and then we don’t support the child when it arrives? In a way we force these women into a life of proverty and how can that be life sustaining? Weathly women will always be able to get an abortion.

          • furious

            …growing up poor? Better off in the dumpster with the other medical waste
            rather than not get enough attention from mommy (or daddy, if he’s even around)? That’s a pretty low threshold, if you ask me.

            We show greater mercy to serial killers and child molesters.

          • skorrent1

            To have babies?? What part of “actions have consequences” don’t you understand? The best protection from pregnancy is still the asprin tablet — held firmly between her knees!

            The collective “we”, as in “government”, as in the Feds have no responsibility to assume the burdens of irresponsible individual actions.

          • Doc Holliday

            just with myself. In the end, we need to decide on a platform and go with it, we can’t solve all the world’s problems before the election. I have no reason to believe the Republican Party is going to take the pro-life stance out of its plank.

          • haumea

            We win by framing the pro-life issue in terms of states’ rights.

            We lose by using the heavy hand of federal government.

            Legislation which frees the states to set their own policies: good.

            Legislation which coerces the states in any way: bad.

            Free the states, then if federal judiciary wants to throw down, wage war against the judiciary, going as far as constitutional amendment(s.) This is playing chess, not checkers. We absolutely must do it this way to force the hand of the judiciary on these issues. Show their disregard for the will of the people and check their power.

            Wage war on the leviathan if you really want to win. Anything else is ultimately ineffective moral posturing, something that should be left to the …well, left. We should just play to win.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I hate arrogant ignorance.

            Get educated before you spout off.

          • congressworksforus

            … but I will make comments on your other posts.

            1. Nowhere did I say that STATES didn’t have the right to legislate against abortion. (And I fully support this.)
            2. Our STATES create laws that ban murder. Federal laws only apply on Federal property. (Since we ban the Federal funding of abortion, one isn’t likely to take place on Federal property, right?) So let’s leave abortion laws to the STATES.
            3. Not all killing is murder. There are justifiable circumstances for killing an adult (self defense), and there are justifiable circumstances for killing an unborn baby (ectopic pregnancy). Which is why I don’t call it murder, because it is too broad a term and isn’t always applicable.
            4. You claim your argument isn’t based on religion — but your signature proves that is a lie.

            Most importantly though, as someone else pointed out quite eloquently, this is about not wanting to grant any form of power other than that which is EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Constitution — sorry but I am done with “interpretations” — to the Federal government because I don’t trust them, and they are clearly not accountable.

            If you are willing to blindly give that kind of power to the Feds, what other power are you willing to give them?

          • Bill S
          • Gandalf

            And don’t dismiss them! We need them on our side!

            Help them work through the inconsistencies in their thinking.

          • Doc Holliday
          • sharonhanson

            Where you can love the fetus and hate the child and somehow that makes sense to you.

          • Doc Holliday

            and an unfounded slur.

          • Doc Holliday

            because I find libertarians to be vital to our cause. Everyone needs a grounding, particularly those with strong beliefs about how people should live. The libertarian conservatives are a great check on governmental overreach and a reminder of our limitations. We can not create order and righteousness, if we could, it would have been done long ago.

          • Gandalf

            But we can create a society in which Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are protected. We even had it here in this country until around a half-century ago…

          • Doc Holliday

            We have to do our best. We can not create what we are incapable of, we can not create morality for example. Of course we must do our best to insure our unalienable rights.

            I think your argument about declaring the unborn to be people with rights is the way to go. As you said, there is a lot to discuss on this. I think we do best if we are able to take partial victories, to work to an end goal.

            So many want everything at once or nothing at all, it is those who I have trouble with. Look at the slavery issue, see how long that fight took. America set the wheels in motion for the end of slavery in 1776, not 1863. When we said all men our created equal, we set a standard that took some time to fully implement.

            But if the rights of the unborn are to ever be recognized, we need Republicans in power. The issue will sooner or later be sent to the Supreme Court, and only Republicans will appoint supportive justices.

            I don’t think the Republican Party will abandon its pro-life stance. At the same time, we must not trip ourselves up squabbling about the fruits of victory before the victory has been achieved. Now is the time to win the battle at hand, and our opponent is the left wing machine.

          • Gandalf

            I’ll just note that the only people talking about “legislating morality” or whatever variation of that term they want to use in this discussion, is the libertarians.

            This is a Constitutional, legal, scientific issue, not primarily a religious/moral issue.

            So I agree to a point; we can’t create morality through government policies.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            It had more to do with federalism and unintended consequences.

            But it had more to do with your arguing style. You attempted to abrogate my argument by insisting upon valueless hypotheticalsl and trying to reason me into a corner when I do not share your assumptions.

            Your subsequent arguments with Doc were better.

          • louisiana

            violating some new regs under a law passed this yr. Under the old law, they could still operate, pending appeals–now they can just shut them down. It’s not the answer to R vs W, but at least it’s slowing the executioners down a bit & might have them looking over their shoulders.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • louisiana

            newspaper article I read. I don’t really know the difference between the old law v. the new, other than not having to wait to shut down the clinics, which is the only difference mentioned in the article. The clinic was shut down for several violations, in particular those applying to safety measures regarding anesthesia.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • mikejmoe

            Is now going to regulate abortion clinics which is great news.

            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/ken-cuccinellis-end-run-on-abortion/62038/

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • ademintconservative

        How?

      • AceInTX
        • haumea

          Remove federal funding of abortion – fine.

          Remove obstacles to states controlling their own abortion policies (including a reform of the judiciary) – fine.

          One size fits all federal policies – terrible idea strategically. A long term loser. It is going to be difficult to convince fencesitters that we’re against big top-down government except, oops, in this one case because we really really really believe in it. A loser of an idea. It will put conservatism on the defensive when we should be putting liberalism on the defensive and keeping it there.

          We must maintain the high moral ground of states’ rights at all costs. Simply giving it away for an eventual loser is a truly misguided plan. I am really disappointed that some here don’t get the big picture.

          This battle will not be won with legislation but cultural war. We must maintain the high moral ground of being on the side of states’ rights. This is the way we roll back leftism, progressivism, Gramscianism for the long-term.

    • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

      Might even cost him his chance at the presidency one day. There is no such thing as a “truce” on social issues. That’s Obama talk. There is fighting for the unborn or not. And if we’re not, that’s capitulation. Does anyone think the abortion lobby will stop funding the left most candidates they have if we don’t fight? Does anyone think our values base will do anything other than erode and abandon the party if it disenfranchises them by not fighting for core issues like Pro-Life? Does anyone think the unborn babies will somehow stop being killed if we do not fight for them?

      I was there in Indiana when Daniels ran for Governor. I did my own small bit to campaign for him there. And he was not shy during his own campaign about standing up as Pro-Life.

      Tension there may be, but only if the party allows ambiguity as to where we stand. We are the party of life. The day the GOP forgets that is the day most of its foot soldiers leave it.

      • mikejmoe

        And his comments will definitely hurt him should he run for president.

        Romney lost Iowa not because he was a Mormon but because he flip-flopped, primarily on abortion.

        Conservatives were looking for a conservative alternative to Romney and there was Mike Huckabee.

    • drfrancisstocker

      The smart political move is to dance around the issue of abortion and call it a States Rights issue. I believe this is the plan for all of the major contenders for the presidential nomination. I hope that is what happens. This is an emotional issue for many Republicans. Everyone recognizes there are fiscally conservative voters who are pro-choice.

      There are many side issues to the abortion debate. One is the morning after pill. Another is the use of embryos which are to be discarded for research purposes. Besides early abortion on demand, there is the issue of fetuses know to have serious defects.
      drfrancisstocker

      • Trouble

        Our state governments should take the lead and pass profamily legislation protecting the unborn. The reasonable people that have not commited will be more swayed by states across the country passing reasonable legislation than all the polls and radio and tv sound bites combined.

        Best wishes !

        • Kyle-MI

          and are then cut down by activist judges. When it comes to abortion they always cite Roe v. Wade as an absolute right with less reasonable restrictions then any other right. If abortion was free speech then activist judges would be defending the right of people to yell fire in crowded theaters across the country no matter how many people get trampled to death.

      • Kyle-MI

        Actually there is a pretty good correlation between being lousy on fiscal issues and being lousy on social issues.

      • streiff

        they are proabortion decision.

        Abortion isn’t a states rights issue and hasn’t been since Roe. So that doesn’t require dancing, it requires a psychotic break.

      • acat

        Not because I don’t think bridging the gap between the social and libertarian and fiscal branches of conservatism is a bad idea.

        Taken together, there are more conservatives than liberals – by far. The only reason liberals keep winning is the wedge issues between the three branches.

        Saying “let’s declare a truce”, though, is not productive – especially since Daniels is, as has been observed, pro-life.

        Mew

        • aesthete

          Saying it aloud was pretty dumb.

          • streiff

            nt

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          that later. But also, Daniels is rather vague in what he means by “a truce”. Of course a truce requires TWO or more parties to remain INACTIVE. So that if libs that want to change the definition of marriage, etc stay ACTIVE, a truce means that conservative surrender.

          more later on why liberals win
          History doesn’t support claim that libs win due to issues like abortion etc
          quite the opposite
          the gop started winning majorities when Reagan brought in the pro-lifers like himself, etc

          • Dave_in_Fla

            Until the pro-life community gets off their butts and starts delivering a significant coalition at the ballot box, then they simply will not be taken seriously. You want to know what has destroyed the pro-life agenda? Bart Stupak.

            For years, this coalition of single issue voters thought they could play both sides of the fence and not take a stand for one party over another. This allowed for an alliance with the Catholic Church, which is politically very liberal except on the issue of life.

            But now that it looks like the Democrats are going to take a severe beating in November, who suddenly shows up at the table whining that their “issue” is being ignored? Well you had your chance. Despite one of the strongest advocacy groups in politics, you didn’t deliver votes in 2006 and 2008. Even worse, you voted for the wrong team. Meanwhile, the FiCons developed the Tea Party from nothing into a massive wave election.

            And you are surprised to find your issue has been marginalized?

            Welcome to the real world. The “three legged stool” is a cute analogy, but your legs hasn’t been holding up its weight.

          • JSobieski

            The fact that they are over-represented in terms of voting and in terms of actually volunteering for campaigns is well known. What is your source for sayhing that pro-lifers didn’t vote for R’s in 2006 and 2008?

            Just like with the NRA, single-issue voting is dangerous because it allows people to be fooled, see Stupak (abortion), Reid (guns). Unlike the NRA, the prolife groups don’t get suckered into endorsing democrats.

            Despite what the fiscal cons may say, there are far more pro-life Republican voters who actively want tariffs on foreign goods than there are pro-choice Republicans who are doctrinally conservative on economic issues.

            Pro-life is a key reason why Republicans can compete in a state like Pennsylvania. Take pro-life out of the package, and much of the midwest will be lost.

          • mbecker908

            Mike Huckabee, they may be the dumbest as well.

            Actually, pro-life groups do occasionally endorse Democrats. In fact they had on-going endorsements of Bart Stupak until he got outed. Both he and Bob Casey have, I believe, been endorsed by Catholic pro-life groups.

            The problem in the Republican Party isn’t “pro-life Republicans”, it’s “Single Issue Value Voters” who don’t give a rip one way or the other about any issue but “abortion”. Mike Huckabee supporters fell into this category. They railed about his pro-life bonafides and ignored the fact that he would likely appoint to SCOTUS people like Souter. They ignored the fact that he never met a tax increase he didn’t like and he flat out lied about his tax history even AFTER his history – and his lies – were posted on YouTube. Oh, and then there was his “I support the Human Life Amendment”. He never bothered to get beyond that, even though there are seven versions that have been introduced into Congress, they are vastly different, Huckabee couldn’t be bothered to define what he meant by “HLA” and not one so-called pro-life group took the time to ask him about it.

            Single Issue Values Voters are a scourge on the Party. Hopefully this time around the new primary rules will effective shut out any influence they may have in the process.

          • aesthete

            It was ridiculous how much Fred Thompson was excoriated for holding a federalist position on the issue. Mind you, I’m with Gandalf in the sense that if I were able to pass a federal amendment requiring states to protect the unborn, I’d do it in a heartbeat. That’s just not possible right now, and it’s idiotic to provide Dems an issue that distracts from their horrible running of the economy. Whatever else you can say about the Dems, they are on much stronger grounds on abortion from a political standpoint than they are on fiscal issues right now, and switching the focus from fiscal issues to life issues will make it easier for them to keep seats on the coastal seaboards and parts of the West by going for wedge issues.

          • mbecker908

            Rudy had a better record on abortion as mayor of NYC than Huck did as Gov of AR. That’s just a fact. He also had a more detailed and doable approach to dealing with abortion issues. Oh well.

            In fact, if you want a plan to stop abortion:

            • Overturn Roe.
            • Return abortion issues to the states.
            • A state passes a law declaring that “life” begins at conception. That makes abortion a due-process issue.
            • Convict an abortionist of murder.
            • Appeals go to SCOTUS, SCOTUS upholds the 4th Amendment argument.
            • No more abortion, no Constitutional Amendment required.
          • chihank

            Secular minded conservatives tend to favor a states rights attitude to social issues. Religious conservatives want social issues to be national policy in all 50 states. Huckabee gained traction in the 08 primary by attacking Fred Thompson as “pro-abortion” for having a federalist solution to abortion. Huckabee came out and supported a constitutional amendement to ban gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

          • mbecker908

            He pandered to SIVVs and not once did he even attempt to define what he wanted to do. He said “I’m for the Human Life Amendment”. Well gosh, I’m for apple pie. He never once defined which version of the HLA he favored and there are at least seven, most of which are nothing more than overturning Roe.

            Huckabee also never bothered to lay out a plan to accomplish that/those Amendment(s). Do you have any idea what it takes to add a CA? There is no way on God’s earth that you’ll get 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the state legislatures to approve anything like he proposed. Oh, and the President has exactly no input in a CA.

            The only way to stop abortion is to do as I laid about above or some close variant. There will be no federal solution.

          • chihank

            Huckabee and Romney are seriously thinking about running again. They are mobilizing their supporters in the early primary states. Also the Mormon church is running ads in battleground states in an attempt to dispel ideas about Mormonism being a cult. I imagine Huckabee will want to educate people on the role of religion in public life.

            I have a feeling a Huckabee vs Romney fight could be a proxy religious battle. Who does Jese favor – Romney or Hucakbee?

          • mbecker908

            One – who’s Jese?

            Two – I hope Huck and Mitt kill one another off. Neither is qualified to be cat catcher.

          • cactusjack

            “went after” any Evangelical candidates in 2008. But the opposite proposition is a little murkier to dispel, as Mitt found out. But since this is a conservative political commentary site which I treasure, here is a political thought on the above chihank. If there is a hidden “religious” current in 2012 and if it animates some (I said some, not all) to go to the polls thinking about a Repub’s religion vs. the secular nightmare that is Obama, who needs to be removed pronto – then that factor, going into the mix, will be enough to hand the election back over to Obama (or Hillary!) . In brief, we go into battle with this distraction, we’re cooked, and the Dems know it.

          • Gandalf

            Are a huge problem.

            But the problem is a failure to recognize and educate people in the fundamental connections between libertarian fiscal policies and other issues, particularly the Pro-Life issue.

            If we could convince our libertarian friends of the legitimacy, value, and necessity of being Pro-Life, we stand an excellent shot at helping our single-issue Pro-Lifers understand the legitimacy, value, and necessity of libertarian economic policy.

            As long as the libertarians keep shouting, “screw you, I demand the right to kill my children,” we have no alliance and no hope of convincing the single-issue Pro-Lifers.

          • gayrepublican

            While there are a lot of areas you and I probably won’t agree on this is one area we see eye to eye. I am a lifelong republican, veteran, pro life, pro gun, and gay. While I disagree with my party on the single issue of my sexual orientation I vote republican because I agree with the party on every other issue.

            In my experience when you vote based only on one issue you tend to regret the vote once your candidate takes office.

            lou

          • NewTexanDave

            Please note that. Most people are not 100% social conservative, 100% liberal, or 100% libertarian. I am not really for or against abortion. I would support gay rights but would not give it a higher priority than fiscal policy. I also have serious concerns in legalizing drugs. In order to win big, we need to focus on issues that most voters would agree with. Focusing on social issues would be a distraction especially when the dems are destroying the economy. The economy is their weakness. You will never win big by focusing on social issues. The media and the dems like republicans to talk about social issues so they can label them as….(something I don’t want to say to friends). Unless you consider yourself a single-issue voter, if so then I would like waste my time trying to convince you.

          • mikejmoe

            “Focusing on social issues…”

            If you read the post in question, you’ll see that Marjorie Dannenfelser — a national pro-life leader — isn’t asking for the GOP to *focus* on right-to-life issues. She’s just asking that it’s part of a broad agenda that includes fiscal and national security issues. You’re missing the main point here.

          • aesthete
          • JSobieski

            I think the problem you identify is far more of a Huckabee problem than a problem with the pro-life groups.

            A lot of social conservatives don’t understand that Huckabee, at best talks a paper thin fiscal conservative game, while simultaneously distrusting Fred for a career-long consistent approach to federalism.

            Those are the same folks who simply can’t see ANYTHING weak about Christine O’Donnell. Never saw this dark side thick headedness in Republicans prior to Huckabee. Saw it in the Dems my entire life though.

          • mikejmoe

            Poll after poll shows that an intensity on the abortion issue on the GOP side that isn’t matched on the pro-choice side.

            In PA, most Rs I know despised Arlen most becuase he was a pro-abort. And Toomey? A solid pro-life Catholic. And he’s doing just fine.

          • persiflage

            The center-right has to win first! Surely you life-zealots and social crusaders understand that? The first order of business is to regain a centrist majority from the progressives, and the message that will earn that majority is one of a limited., constitutional federal government, and an end to the insanity of over spending. Seventy percent of the adult population immediately identifies with that vision and will vote for it, so don’t muck it up!

            The progressives would like nothing better than an internecine battle on the center-right over “social issues”, and who is more true to the life-siders agenda.
            That skirmish is a distraction. We need to win the major battle first.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            that includes social conservatives.

          • mikejmoe

            When pro-lifer stay home, Republicans lose. Every successful candidate this cycle has been solidly pro-life. And it’s time Republican leaders recognize this.

          • acat

            In the meantime, a question to illustrate my point – why did the pro-lifers need to be brought back in? Who had removed them?

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Here is my latest inspired by meowing

            Before Roe v Wade, abortion has not been a national issue. Some Republicans had tried to tepidly after the early 60s SCOTUS cases on bible study and prayer in schools to make judges an issue and the Dems borked a couple of Nixon’s nominees, but Vietnam etc dwarfed those issues. You could argue that 1968 saw some social cons some over given the Dems hippies and certainly in 1972, but then Watergate and a supposed soc-con Carter became president, thus arresting the trend of so-cons over to the GOP.

            The GOP never lost the pro-life vote before they gained it. Before 1980 there was no need for social con activism.. Roe v Wade changed that and then Reagan forced the GOP to put the pro-life amend in the platform, where it has stayed ever since.

            more later

      • ywhyvon1

        During the formative days of our nation the real hot bed issue was Slavery.

        Luckily, the anti slavery side decided to capitulate so that we could form a nation and revist that terrible wrong and make it right.

        It’s taken 220 years, and we still seem to have a problem in this country regarding Blacks who were once slaves. I believe, at this day and time, alot(most? All?) of this problem is due more to race baiters who have an monetary hand in the game whether it be spokespeople for the cause or politicians that depend on perpetuating the “victimization” of blacks in for votes.

        Perhaps, if conservatives and or rebpublicans gain control by a LARGE majority vote, diplomacy, reason and education can be used to convince pro-choicers that abortion is not a simple surgery. That life does begin at conception and the fetus is not just a mass of cells. I feel if we can make people see that there is no such thing as being “a little bit pregnant” and being pregnant means being with child, the natural course will be that abortions will become illegal.

        Before we do that, we need to have a sound economy. We have to have freedom of speech. We have to have ground rules by which we can all play fairly. We have to be able to move about society at our will and expect to be protected by our police and DOJ. We have to have a majority of the people on our side.

        It sounds callous, but pro-life is not the current concern of the majority of Americans. That will have to be addressed after this election cycle.

        Currently, we need to vote for the republican. We can’t make any public policy if we are marginal.

    • AceInTX

      there is an element of the Republican Party that wants us to go away and will not tolerate our having our views represented. They preach tolerance and unity but they are intolerant and see people of character as superstitious rubes and hill billies!

  • http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

    In the debate vs. Boxer a few nights back, in a state traditionally supposed to be avidly pro-abortion. And it’s probably the blatant honesty about it that’s going to make fence-sitters trust her more and maybe even win a few over to the pro-life position.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Decade after decade the Republican Party , and most of its apologists, have pushed social conservatism to the back of the bus. It’s worked so well in capturing the middle, ya know……..

    The things we do to keep the left-wing marxist press from speaking ill of us…….

    Without a moral compass, conservatism is squat. It is crap. It is just a better form of bad, and with no true right and wrong to guide it. Embrace our better selves.

  • NewTexanDave

    I don’t like abortion and 100% against government funding for abortion. However, I am also 100% against big government. Be careful what you wish for. There are many people who are conservative themselves but don’t want to force their values to others. Advocating a big government that controls how people live their lives is very dangerous. You will end up with endless partisan wars. Liberals like big government because the y can force their liberal values to others. Some social conservatives who likes big government would also do the same. My take is you are free to advocate your ideology and by spreading your idea via religions groups, media(web sites…,etc.) and other means, you are more likely to achieve your goals without causing unnecessary tension. If you attempt to push it through forceful government policies, it will absolutely backfire. I know it is very tempting to rely on a big powerful government to achieve your idealogy. But that is the dark side…..It will not end up well..

    • Gandalf

      All civilized governments everywhere have always protected Human Life.

      It is the most basic of Rights. You cannot have “Liberty” without “Life.”

      Do I want a big government telling me what kind of hamburger to eat?

      No way!

      But do I want a big enough government to keep my neighbor from chopping my head off and posting it on a spike?

      Absolutely.

      I also want a government big enough to keep the most innocent of us from being ripped limb-from-limb.

      • NewTexanDave

        It’s a different perspective. You are free to believe in your religous values but not everyone agrees with you that abortion=murder. You can not force others. Even if you are right, the end result will not be good. You are causing more tensions and conflicts than achieving your goals. Even if you get the government to enact such policies, the next time dems take power they will try to repeal it. It will be an endless circle of war. You will not win this war permanently unless you convince the opponents in a non-forceful way.

        • Gandalf

          The majority of Americans defined themselves as pro-life.

          If one doesn’t think an unborn child = a Human Life, then, as I said above, at least he is consistent, even if embarrassingly ignorant of the latest in scientific and medical facts.

          I’m not ignoring how other people see it; I’m pointing out the massively huge flaws in their thinking and super-jumps in logic. Please feel free to do the same in mine where appropriate.

          No one has challenged my logic. The only responses (with the exception of Doc Hollidays) have been to sputter some post-modern nonsense about how Truth and Facts aren’t the same for everyone, how they won’t be constrained by logic and reasoning, how my scientific and legal and logical arguments are somehow emotionally based, how I’m a “fanatic” for believing I’m right (and therefore that those who disagree with me are wrong) about something, etc.

          I haven’t once raised religious reasoning in this discussion. My reasoning has all along been legal/Constitutional, logical, and scientific.

          Discussions like this are exactly how should go about change. We need you libertarian-minded allies on our side, not fighting against us.

          But you have to be willing to engage in the discussion, not simply snipe that we’re somehow Big Government Nanny-Staters and bail when confronted with reasoned discussion.

        • ywhyvon1

          In regards to the abortion(murder) issue, you cannot legislate moral.

          You will open up more hurt and a bigger , drawn out fight. We need to win control of house and senate and eventually oval office. Along the way, those that are pro-choice need to be SHOWN why abortion is wrong.

          Fed Government needs to stay out of it. States need to decide fore themselves.

          • Gandalf

            If abortion = murder, then being Pro-Life isn’t “legislating morality” anymore than telling the Black Panthers they can’t kill white people.

            And being “personally pro-life” (because you recognize it’s murder) but “wanting the government to stay out of it” makes about as much sense as John Kerry.

            But then again, we are a country of “Liberty” after all. Perhaps we should be allowed to kill whoever we want, whenever we want to do it.

            The whole Pro-Life thing isn’t anywhere near the issues of gay marriage, trans-fats, welfare, or any other arguably Nanny State “social issue” you want to mention. It has more to do with law & order (as in, you kill your neighbor, we execute you) than anything else.

          • discerningconservative

            If abortion = murder, then being Pro-Life isn

          • ywhyvon1
          • Gandalf

            But I’ve generally been attempting, throughout all my comments, to challenge the repeated mistake that many libertarians, including yourself it seems, believe that being Pro-Life somehow equals Big State Nanny-ism.

            We simply can’t be good Constitutionalists or Federalists unless we understand that the Constitution requires that the federal government mandate States to protect Human Life within their borders.

            I’ve written it so many times in the last two hours, but libertarians keep joining this discussion with the same nonsense about “we have to control the size of government” or “you believe what you want to believe, I’ll believe what I want to believe, and the world is filled with pixie dust and unicorns”.

            I’m not going to retread all of my arguments and discussion points AGAIN. I have a headache and am on my way to bed.

            But ywhyvon1, please, please, please think about the logical fallacies of so-called “pro-choice libertarians” (really anti-Pro-Life postmodernists). Read our Constitution. Read the latest scientific and medical research. Apply basic logical rules. It is, as their responses to my arguments have made clear, a completely untenable position.

        • aesthete

          Slavery did not cease to be moral simply because 51% of the citizenry deigned it not to be, or because the federal government decided it shouldn’t be. It was wrong from the moment it was practiced, and by implying that morals are up for debate you imply that slavery, murder, and others are wrong only insofar as “society” sees them as wrong. That is both appalling and antithetical to libertarian values, as it renders all of the arguments made by libertarians about the morality of “tyranny of the majority” moot.

          As GC might say, more later concerning the scientific backing behind the pro-life position.

  • indylawyer

    Obamacare is anti-life both in its funding of abortions and in the “death panels” that will inevitably be needed to control its costs. Repealing it would be a major pro-life victory.

    And yes, making the Hyde Amendment permanent and applying it to all federal programs would also be a major pro-life victory.

    But by far the most important political decision in the abortion battle is still appointing pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court overturns Roe, any legislative victory can only skirt around the edges of the issue.

  • wannabeanncoulter

    Because there is no credible third party in US politics, Republicans know that the GOP is the Family Values Voters’ only option. That gives Family Values Voters very little leverage, and it’s why Family Values Voters get played in every national election.

    Sad but true.

    • furious

      …GOP remain pro-life? Has that platform, by itself, ever cost it an election cycle, or even a marginal seat? vs. how many grass-roots Republicans
      would stay home on Election Day if the platform were dropped?

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2010/09/04/life-daniels-and-the-pursuit-of-conservative-election-victories/

    • http://www.incredibleco.ning.com Incredible
  • Oz

    I’m very strongly pro-life, but I also know that if I vote for people who want limited government and fiscal conservatism, that 95% of the time, I’m also going to get someone who is pro-life.

    If I vote Daniels for Prez, I’m pretty darn sure that I’m going to get the judgeships that I want and I’m equally sure that he’s not going to be spending federal money on abortions and that’s without knowing (till I read this article and the comments) if he was pro-life or pro-abortion on a personal basis.

    There are some pro-lifers who are terrible on big government (GWB, Huckabee for starters). It’s usually easier to go one direction than the other.

    • Gandalf

      It goes both ways.

      All you have to do is look at the amount of judges on the Supreme Court in the last 30 years who supported Roe v. Wade but were appointed by Republican/Fiscally Conservative presidents…

      And of course you can get loons like Rudy Giuliani who was fiscally-conservative and believed in limited government, but made Hillary look Pro-Life (I exaggerate slightly for effect).

      You gotta be cautious, man. Go for the candidates that can articulate clear positions on all three.

  • ywhyvon1

    It’s a states right issue and it shouldn’t be being played on a national level.

    Let the states decide how they feel. States that feel abortion is okay, well we need to get on the education train and convince them of the error of their ways.

    • Gandalf

      Again, it isn’t a States’ Right’s issue any more than whether States have the right to select people for medical “experiments”.

      The federal government is MANDATED by the Constitution to REQUIRE States to protect Human Life. In all forms.

      Now, it is arguably a States’ Rights issue about HOW they should enforce said protection.

      No State has the right to let its citizens murder their neighbor.

      No State has the right to let its citizens murder their unborn children.

      It’s just that simple.

      • acat

        Your argument is predicated on that truth.

        Remove it, and it falls.

        And that’s what the Libs have done.

        Mew

        • Gandalf

          They haven’t removed it at all. They all, almost to a one, use some variation on: “I personally think it’s horrible, but it isn’t the government’s place”.

          This is basic logic:

          It’s only “horrible” (or “reprobate” or “awful” or any the other words they want to use) if it equals the taking of a Human Life (I.E., Murder). Otherwise, it’s no more “horrible” than getting blood drawn or having a tooth extracted.

          So they want to have their cake and eat it too, just like John F. Kerry and Hillary Clinton. It’s a bizarre way to treat facts.

          And if they honestly don’t see it as the taking of a Human Life (murder), then we can have the discussion based on the latest in medical and scientific data that asserts that children are Human from long before birth. As I said, at least they are intellectually consistent and just ignorant of the facts.

          • acat

            Given your handle it’s a little surprising.

            They honestly don’t want to think about this.

            They’ve been given an excuse not to.

            They do not wish to hear your “discussion”.

            Mew

          • Gandalf

            I don’t view them as “enemies.”

            They are the Pro-Life movement’s natural allies. We all want government to go back to the basic principles on which it was founded and NOTHING more!

            Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and all that.

            There should be no division on any of these points.

            We have to remove their excuse. We have to force them to hear the facts, both scientific and legal, until they are forced by their own convictions to agree with us.

          • acat

            Those who tell lies, and those who believe them without question.

            The latter may be natural allies, but we must first reach them, and they’ve every reason to not want to hear our arguments.

            The former, I do hope you don’t mind my seeing as enemy.

            Mew

          • Gandalf

            But again, this is why we need the Pro-Life movement to have a voice in the upcoming legislative cycle; we need those who have simply believed the lies to be exposed to the truth and facts

          • aesthete

            on the issue of life, and many of the arguments favoring laws against the practice are incredibly poorly argued by our side (most of the arguments are made on purely religious grounds). There’s a lot of headway that can be made on the issue, especially with (believe it or not) libertarians and single women. I’ve been able to convince many in liberal Tucson using a secular argument, and the medical and biological evidence for the secular argument is hard to dismiss, as is the philosophical argument (which actually corresponds almost perfectly to libertarian principles of governance).

          • acat
          • aesthete

            I have a few things to do, but I’ll try to make the effort to post both today. (I’m a bit rusty on the standard Judeo-Christian tradition argument against abortion, as I didn’t really find it compelling when I heard it.)

        • congressworksforus

          It’s not whether life does or doesn’t start at conception; it’s about when a life form gains the protections offered by the Constitution.

          As much as people might like to try to interpret it so, the Declaration of Independence and the directives and amendments of the Constitution were never extended to unborn children.

          We can debate whether they should be.

          While I feel a Constitutional Amendment would be foolish (try writing one that a lawyer couldn’t drive a truck through), potentially it could be acceptable. Granting the Federal govt. the right to legislate against it though is not.

  • snowshooze

    But the Tea Party doesn’t give a ZIT about politically correct, and are pro-life.
    The Gutless GOP isn’t a party, no, it is a bust.
    So that’s why we are ditching them.

    • Bill S

      This is a Republican AND conservative site. Lose the GOP-bashing.

      • snowshooze

        And look at the GOP Heros.
        I would bet you completely forgot about McCain, Newt and Romney…
        So…where do you see conservative?
        All I see is middle of the road gutless poll watching dogs.
        No spine whatever.
        Yeah, this is a conservative site…agreed. But, none of the above are conservatives. Merely opportunist’s.
        What you say to the truth??

        • streiff

          I say you received some very good advice and decided that it was more fun to shoot your mouth off than pay attention. Your loss is our gain as it turns out.

      • acat

        Conservative, then Republican.

        And, in this case, the snow-covered one is right – the gutless D.C. wing of the party won’t touch this issue.

        Mew

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          We’re both.

          People who have a problem with that can find other places to rant. We insist.

          • acat

            “Conservative in the primary, Republican in the general”.

            At which point is it then appropriate to discuss the party planks that we’d like to see?

            Mew

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You control the party platform by controlling who gets elected to party positions, and you do that by becoming a precinct committeeman and working your way up.

          • acat
    • ywhyvon1

      because Congress passed a 700-800 bil stimulus package that no one read?

      • acat

        Beck seems to be turning that into some sort of new “moral majority movement”.

        Mew

  • aesthete

    Focus is (or should be) the name of the game here. The new “contract” is a general messaging agenda meant to indicate the broad direction of the new Congress. It is not meant to be a laundry list document detailing every public policy stance and procedural vote Republicans will take. Adding pro-”family values” agenda items (whatever that means in a practical sense) is a bad idea for the same reason that spotlighting the GOP’s stance on the “Free Mumia” would be: both would greatly detract from the message that the GOP should be getting out loudly, which is that they will be more fiscally conservative, willing to repeal ObamaCare, less elitist, and vigilant against the rest of his agenda. They should be proving that they are not Bush Republicans (even though they are), and that they will fight against the excesses perpetrated by both Bush and Obama. Like it or not, no one cares about life issues right now, and those pieces of legislation you point to will never get passed under Obama. I say that as someone who supports two of the pieces of legislation you’re promoting here. No discussion of new legislation matters until Obama gets voted out, unless you want Obama to look bad by having to veto or make a statement against a popular bill, or otherwise engage in imaging. The pro-life bills do nothing on this front. For that matter, neither would a marijuana decriminalization bill or Federal Reserve auditing, to throw out some popular ones for libertarians.

    Now for the good news: this emphasis on fiscal issues doesn’t mean that the party is ignoring its commitment to life issues. Quite the contrary: smart framing can bundle life issues with the general issue of judicial activism, which would tie into the themes that the GOP should be tapping into this election.

    • discerningconservative

      Like it or not, no one cares about life issues right now,

      I DO!!!! Also, about 4,000 innocent lives a day care greatly. I am sorry that you are so callous to ignore that fact, but that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

      • aesthete

        If Roe vs Wade were repealed, I would have a hard time not being a single-issue voter on that issue. I’m just not going to pretend that it’s a focal issue right now.

      • mbecker908

        and nominating conservative judges, just what is likely to be done by a new POTUS? Hint: nothing.

        As far as Senate/House candidates? Even less.

        Right now the push has to be to elect conservatives who might have a shot at beginning do defund and downsize the federal government. Moving toward effective pro-life legislation will go hand in hand with that. Downsizing government does not go hand in hand with pro-life rhetoric – see Mike Huckabee.

    • Gandalf

      But we MUST have the smart framing discussed by our candidates.

      If they simply appoint judicial nominees who overturn Roe and/or declare that States must protect unborn children, we’ll have a lot of Americans who are blind sighted and end up going, “where the heck did that come from?”

      We have GOT to keep communicating the Truths of the Life issue clearly, though agreed that it doesn’t need to be or even should be the central focus. Nevertheless, we need candidates who can do it rationally.

      Candidates like Carly Fiorni, for example, who has declared that she doesn’t see it as the focus point of the campaign, but that she is, in fact, pro-life. This is 100% the route we need to take.

      • aesthete

        I have no disagreement with any of your posts on the issue of life, and am in fact, strongly pro-life (though I’m not a social conservative). What is argued in the piece, however, is not that the pro-life issue needs to be framed and dealt with intelligently, it is that we should add it to a messaging agenda as a “me-too” set of bills. I think that Fiorina’s positioning on the issue is a sound one, as well. I don’t see what adding everything but the kitchen sink in a messaging agenda would accomplish, except to allow Dems to say that the GOP is just going back to cultural wedge issues, that they’re troglodytes who want to enslave women, etc. Let’s not allow them an out where they can distract the public from their fiscal record, while at the same time remaining the party dedicated to protecting the right to life of the unborn.

        • Gandalf

          1) How can we convince the American Public if we aren’t talking about it? And not just a one-on-one conversation, but a national discussion.

          2) I, personally, don’t trust the establishment of the Republican Party with unborn children anymore than I trust them with my money. I vote for them, don’t get me wrong. But there must be accountability for them, and part of that involves hard-and-fast goals and commitments.

          The Republicans 2010 and 2012 rhetoric should be centered around liberty and freedom: liberty to live as you like, freedom from economic irresponsibility, liberty to work hard and make a profit, and freedom to live. The latter fits nicely and, if the Republican Party will do it correctly, can have an amazing effect on many libertarians and moderates, helping them understand that being Pro-Life is the ONLY American solution just as being debt-free and having the right to build a small company are the ONLY American solutions.

          • aesthete

            Which simply called for the GOP to throw in a couple of pro-life bills without explanation in a messaging agenda, at a time when abortion is the farthest thing from voters’ minds. I do not think it should be the farthest thing from voters’ minds, but I can’t pick the issues that will be important to voters in ’10. We should concentrate on the ones that voters care about, and where Obama and co have shown themselves to be incompetent. If the OP were arguing in favor of a separate, secular outreach on the abortion issue, I would think better of it. As it stands today, the pro-life issue is essentially a tool that some of the GOP leadership uses to pander to religious voters. With that in mind, the OP seems to be more a desperate plea for the GOP to prioritize “family values” issues in an election cycle where it makes little sense to do so, and where there aren’t many gains to be made, realistically.

  • ademintconservative

    Look at all the senate candidates vetted by Jim DeMint and look at their stance on “social issues”.

  • gayrepublican

    Yes, I am one of those hated gay republicans having never voted for any other party since I proudly cast my first vote for Ronald Regan. I have also never been anything but pro life and was heavily involved in sidewalk counseling for many years. All of that aside I am also a pragmatist, we will never achieve the goal of overturning Roe if we are out of power. While social issues are important they are not the issues that get us elected and keep us in power. It makes sense at least to me to focus the election on the economic issues that are important to people at the moment.

    lou

    • mikejmoe

      Marjorie (the author of the post) isn’t asking that social issues dominate; just that they get a seat at the table. That is something I think all Republicans should agree on.

      • gayrepublican

        I don’t disagree that social issues should get a seat at the table. At the end of the day however, everyone knows that we are the pro life party. The question that will need to be answered at some future date is not whether the party will be pro life but how big the tent will be. Will there also be room in our party tent for pro choice Republicans? Will there be space for moderate Republicans? We are fighting to take back control of both the Senate and House this year, if that is going to happen some of our new office holders will be moderate Republicans in the Collins and Snow model.

        lou