From Rasmussen, on the top 10 key issues, Americans think Democrats do a better job of handling those issues rather than Republicans. Sixty percent of Americans know someone who has had an abortion. Of those identified as swing voters, sixty percent of those voters are pro-choice. What does this mean? Those individuals that actually elect the President are Pro-choice.
Despite these dismal numbers, the socially conservative pro-life wing of the Republican Party has made inroads, particularly regarding the primary process. Any candidate that wants to win the Iowa Caucus and South Carolina Primary, two of the earliest primary races had better be pro-life if they want to win.
How does this impact the choices of the average social conservative who wants to elect a pro-life president? It means that if we want to win the general election, and achieve anything more than a Pyrrhic primary victory, we have to swallow our bile and elect candidates who will attract swing voters and have a chance at winning the general election. Even if we are successful, and select the candidate that we think is the ideal social conservative in the primary, in the general election we will get beat like Nixon beat McGovern.
Examining recent legislative activity points indicates how weak Congress is when it confronts social issues. Every time, the GOP members in Congress willingly sell out pro-life positions in exchange for short term gains. One only has to look as far as Obamacare or the recent budget battle to see this in action. Our GOP members kept Washington open, funded Planned Parenthood and capitulated anent forcing a balanced budget for what amounts to one month of current government spending. Apparently, the House and Senate GOP members are more interested in getting along with their compatriots on the other side of the aisle than in protecting the rights of the unborn or balancing the budget and paying off the debt.
Where will our most important issues get solved? Well, we must turn to the Supreme Court since our Congress and its Milquetoast Membership so willingly reneges on the promises that sent them initially to the Capital. It is pretty much heresy to vote against a your party President's Supreme Court Nominations. That said, one must examine what kind of Supreme Court nominees a given President will select once in office.
Actions speak louder than rhetoric. If a particular candidate running for the primary nomination has traditionally been pro-life in his home state, and supported pro-life legislation, there is little reason to doubt that his or her nominations would not be pro-life, even if their election rhetoric appears for all intensive purposes to put any given social issue on the back burner.
If the social conservatives of the GOP want to remain relevant, then we must push for candidates that are electable in the general election, and ensure we remind them who was really behind the election when it comes time to make a Supreme Court nomination. That is the most effective way to return this Country back to its roots.
There is a growing and continual demographic shift ensuring a Democratic majority will into this century. Why would any reasonable and self-centered welfare recipient forgo entitlements or agree to have monthly payments reduced? They will always vote for those who ensure greater allotments. Further the election burden rests on the GOP persuading swing voters because they are naturally inclined to vote Democrat. If that means electing a candidate in the primary that at least appears to favor economic over social issues, so be it. I for one would rather take my chances on a GOP President that has traditionally been pro-life and talks centrist rather than any Democrat that traditionally has been a socialist, baby killing, coward in practice and talks as the most conservative centrist to get swing votes and blue dog Democrats. Anyone examining the current occupant of the White House can easily see the logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment