Peter Lawler is of course right about the 2012 Democratic platform’s provision on abortion. It is about as far on the pro-choice end of the policy spectrum as you can get. It also happens that President Obama is, and always has been, very far on the pro-choice end of the spectrum. His positions on partial birth abortion and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act are just waiting to be used. These kinds of issues are perfect for well produced, persuasive media for changing people’s perceptions of the Democratic Party and the incumbent. A simple question by Rick Warren put Obama on the defensive. But the Republicans have refused to play a winning hand on these issues.
John McCain was all too glad to run a culture war campaign against Obama. It is just that McCain wanted all the bitterness of a culture war fight without the bother and principle of culture war issues. So it was hockey moms and rural/exurban identity politics. Romney is trying to stay focused. Judging by his convention speech, focused means complaining about the economy, reassuring us that he loves his immediate family (for those possibly nonexistent people who were staying up nights worrying about that), not dividing us with talk about real policies, and hoping that the Bureau of Labor Statistics awards him a narrow win. It might work out for Romney, but this is not making the best of the situation or maximizing his chances of winning.
By the end of this week, tens of millions (and probably a majority) of voters will have no idea of Obama’s record on partial birth abortion or the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. They will have no idea of how much Obama proposed to cut Medicare in his latest budget proposal or the centralized government board he proposed to implement those cuts. But we will have warm memories of that rose that George Romney used to give his wife. What is Romney trying to do here? Is Romney under the impression that radical pro-choicers, central planning enthusiasts, and supporters of allowing newborns to die are going to vote for him? There is a point where risk-averse cynicism veers off into self-destructive madness.
September 5th, 2012 | 9:09 pm
Pete, the RINO’s and the Neocons are really statist and thus Democrat lite. I’ve been identifying the Democrat Party as baby killers for a very long time. There’s literally no difference between the Democrats and the Nazi’s and Communists in their goals and objectives. That’s why, morally, I can’t vote for a RINO like Romney.
September 6th, 2012 | 6:33 am
Robert, not voting for Romney is giving power to a man who wants to force those who oppose abortion to pay for abortions for others. You cannot refuse the burden of citizenship, including accountability for the results of your choices.
September 6th, 2012 | 9:29 am
People don’t want to think about abortion, they don’t want to hear about abortion, they just want to pretend it doesn’t exist, but that if “other people” “need” an abortion, it should be available to them, within limits far beyond what is currently allowed. Talking about how nutso the Dems are on this issue is NOT a way to reach voters who might still be undecided. The Dems are making a big mistake talking about abortion, abortion, abortion. The GOP needs to focus on the debt specifically and the economy generally. Period.
September 6th, 2012 | 9:35 am
Raymond, the problem with your analysis is the assumption that Romney will appoint judges to reverse Roe v. Wade. There’s no guarantee of that. The primary moral obligation in voting is to cast one’s ballot for that person that represents the best political order, which is, of course, republicanism. I’ll vote for the Constitutional candidate….again! I’m not refusing ‘the burden of citizenship’ in any sense.
September 6th, 2012 | 9:35 am
Raymond: “not voting for Romney is giving power to a man who wants to force those who oppose abortion to pay for abortions for others.”
No, it’s not. You can’t possibly believe this. No single vote is decisive in this way, and it’s absurd to say so.
“You cannot refuse the burden of citizenship, including accountability for the results of your choices.”
Not voting, or voting third party, or voting write-in, is a perfectly valid practice of “the burden of citizenship.”
September 6th, 2012 | 6:18 pm
Brian, you’re right that most people don’t want to hear about abortion. It is probably just as true that most people would not approve of a politician who voted to allow doctors to allow newborn infants to die. (in practice.) Now there are smart and stupid ways to go about making this point. It isn’t something you bring up on a Sunday morning talk show and drop. I think you need to set the scene with a i minute to 90 second ad. In any case it isn’t the path of least resistance. But sometime the path of least resistance (hockey moms don’t ya love em! and Gosh I live my kids!) isn’t your best path.
September 6th, 2012 | 10:25 pm
Pete, we’re not talking about some federal spending on a program whose value is debateable, we’re talking about the systematic slaughter of innocent, I repeat innocent, human beings, in the womb. If we are not prepared to fight against those that would harm these innocents, what worth have we in the eyes of God.
September 23rd, 2012 | 7:13 pm
[...] to make against Obama on Obama’s Medicare record and current Medicare proposal, and even on abortion. Romney was actually doing pretty good when the debate was focused on Medicare policy. Then it all [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact