Replies

Evangelicals may not have turned out in bigger numbers for Republicans this year...

...but Catholics did. For the first time ever, actually, unless I'm mistaken.

And yeah, they were very much appealed to from a pro-life angle.

I'm not totally on the other side here, don't get me wrong. I am -very- pro-life, I don't think it's overheated to compare it to a Holocaust, etc. But I do recognize that there are other issues as well, and I don't think inter-party threats like in this thread serve a useful purpose.

That said, I'm just trying to inform you that attempting to claim that the pro-life vote "isn't needed" isn't accurate, either. There's constituencies we could afford to thoroughly piss off, but the pro-lifers aren't one of them.

Qwinn

You are correct about the Catholics, from what I have read; "droves" is how I've seen it described. :-)

But my point to the "do what I say or we'll leave" people is that the time is fast approaching when that will simply be an empty threat; this country moved solidly to the right, as Peggy Noonan said, on November 2nd.

And not all of them moved there because of the abortion issue.

My other problem, of course, is that the rabid pro-lifers demand that the GOP listen to them, all the while objecting to most other "groups" that may come into the "big tent."

I'm just trying to inform you that attempting to claim that the pro-life vote "isn't needed" isn't accurate, either. There's constituencies we could afford to thoroughly piss off, but the pro-lifers aren't one of them.

You know, I'm not sure what constituencies we really can offord to throw away. (err, except for maybe the log cabin republicans.).

What I don't like is groups suddenly drawing a line in the sand. Some in the pro-life crowd seem to be very fond of demanding lip service often and from everyone.

For instance I know people that wouldn't support Arnold for Governor of California cause he wouldn't come out Strong pro-life. Maybe I'm mistaken (it's rare but it happens) but as Governor is he really going to be able to further a strong pro-choice agenda? no. So basically they were for throwing California to the dogs because he wouldn't pay them lip-service.

The president is obviously strongly pro-life. The problem is that if he has to constantly come out every week and say that he is pro-life to make pro-lifers happy then he will lose support on other fronts.

I'm strongly pro-life, but it isn't my main sole issue. I don't really have a sole issue. I think that we need to push back the liberal front everywhere we can. Even I would get irritated at the president suddenly his entire focus was on abortion. No, that doesn't mean we can give an inch on the abortion side, but there are lots of other places we can't afford that inch either.

What I'm getting at is that some pro-lifers won't be happy until the republican party does the political equivalent of saying "we will give inches anywhere and everywhere we can if it means reduce abortion on demand in this country". The sad thing is this is probably a non-issue, because we can and should advance the conservative front on all sides. But even so some will try to drag the party over the coals on it.

To advance our policy we have to stand together. We have to fight smart against the liberals. Fortunately we have been, and as they can't even admit the reasons to themselves why they lost, they don't stand a chance. But now we are finally a majority party, a large majority, for the first time really since FDR, and we need to quickly learn how to handle that position.

-paridel