Skip to comments.Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats
Posted on 06/22/2007 12:50:09 AM PDT by neverdem
I KEEP reading about a universe in which social conservatives are warming to Rudy Giuliani. But this would have to be a place where his estranged children and three wives and multiple appearances in fishnets were irrelevant to the Republican base. Where the nice gay couple he moved in with between marriages would be asked to appear in the film montage at the nominating convention in St. Paul.
Even in the real world, a pro-choice Republican nominee would be a gift to the Democrats, because the Republican Party wins over so many swing voters on abortion alone. Which is why Fred Thompson, who is against abortion rights, is getting so much grateful attention from his party now. And why, despite wide opposition to the war in Iraq, Democrats must still win back such voters to take the White House next year.
Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into 08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because security moms saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion.
Why would that be, given that Roe v. Wade was decided almost 35 years ago? Opponents of abortion rights saw 2004 as the chance of a lifetime to overturn Roe, with a movement favorite already in the Oval Office and several spots on the Supreme Court likely to open up. A handful of Catholic bishops spoke out more plainly than in any previous election season and moved the Catholic swing vote that Al Gore had won in 2000 to Mr. Bush.
The standard response...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Abortion-on-demand is one of the sacraments of the liberal church. They will not abandon it, at any cost. Which means that Senator Fred Thompson has a better than 50% chance of being the next occupant of the White House, IMO.
It is not even a question any more that most people would favor significant restrictions that would make more than half of all abortions unlawful!
We know this because, like the poll cited in this article, in poll after poll taken by liberals public opinion does not embrace the current law of abortion on demand.
The (extremely liberal) CBS News poll consistently demonstrates that, depending on the date you take the poll, anywhere from 47% to 56% of the people surveyed think that abortion should be allowed not at all or only in cases of rape (a tiny fraction of all abortion) or when the mother supposedly would die if the baby is not killed prior to delivery (a situation that most doctors will tell you is virtually non-existent in 2007).
So, according to perennial CBS News data: HALF THE COUNTRY ARE "EXTREMISTS" WHO WOULD OUTLAW 95% of ALL ABORTIONS!
Those are tough numbers. Combine them with some other demograhics, I don't see how they win. Nevertheless, never underestimate your enemies.
Notice how CBS only allows persons to give 4 responses, but then breaks down “rape/ioncest/life of the mother” into two categories?
Why do they do that?
Because they want to mask the huge percent who fall into this, the largest category (ALWAYS over 42%, and sometimes over 50%!) They apparently think they are fooling us, and that we won’t notice that consistently only 25-31% support abortion-on-demand!
This link is a delicious survey of quotes about abortion from all sides of the issue:
Go there - you will want to bookmark it for use in blogging debates in the future - some of the best lines come unwittingly from pro-aborts.
All I can say is that the NYT is junk.
Look at my data above for the NYT/CBS poll.
The author of this NYT piece used old data.
Now, the data she used is more favorable toward the point she was making (and I am a die-hard pro-lifer), but the point is that she either: a) misleads the reader by making it seem that she used the most recent data, or: b) is not competent and thorough enough to find the most recent data from her own paper’s survey that I easily found on the internet.
Its typical shoddy work from the NYT. The Gray-Lady-Dowager-Epress continues to walk around wearing no clothes - while the sycophants keep pretending otherwise.
polling data source:
Where did you get that number from? Bush barely won the last 2 elections, and now we have 3500 dead soldiers and no end in sight in Iraq. You must be on amphetimenes.
Something doesn't ring true here.
Why are they "first-time" defectors, if abortion is their most important issue?
It's not like Al Gore in 2000 was a pro-lifer, or William the Conqueror before him.
It's not like the R's haven't had a consistent position on the issue for 35 years.
You must be on about 32 PSI. George W. Bush isn’t running for reelection. Bush won his second term in a landslide. The military operations currently being conducted in Iraq is a stunning success by your own admission that only 3500 soldiers have died in over four years (while, by comparison, over 26,000 teenagers have died on American highways during the same period). I think you hope to have us believe the tripe you and the MSM serve is less than fantasy and dark wishes.
Fred Thompson will win the next election and it will be a cakewalk.
As to Thompson winning, I hope you are right. A Hillary Klinton presidency would destroy this country. The Iraq war is a concern and Bush needs to get that accomplished before 2008 elections. If not, it will work against the Repubs.
No, it won’t be the “war” that decides who sits in the White House next. The deciding factors will be truth, justice, and the American way - and we all know darn good and well there are no democrat Supermans.
Government should have nothing to say about whether or not a woman has an abortion. The real objection most people have regarding abortion is that government is forcing those who do not approve of abortion to pay for it.
I will wait while someone tells me why I should pay for someone else’s abortion.
Many of them, Catholic women in particular, are liberal, deep-in-their-heart Democrats who support social spending, who opposed the war from the start and who cross their arms over their chests reflexively when they say the word Republican. Some could fairly be described as desperate to find a way home. And if the party theyd prefer doesnt send a car for them, with a really polite driver, it will have only itself to blame.I certainly know such people myself. They don't vote for Dems anymore because of values issues. We used to make a big deal of them until Giuliani came along and the pundits decided values didn't matter any longer.
I was stunned during class discussions this year to find the OVERWHELMING majority of students (90%+) think abortion is murder.
During these discussions I was outwardly impartial and presented the best arguments for both sides.
I have long suspected that the belief that most Americans are pro-choice is a bogus media creation.
While Henneberger’s words may sound reassuring to some of us, her writing will have less impact on the libs than the next fly to hit your windshield on the freeway. It will be fun to go to DU and debate them there (my ‘evil’ alter-ego there often tells them what they want to hear, but not on this issue) but if history is any judge, they will insult me, and tell me that they cannot believe that an atheist can be anti-choice.
Abortion is probably the main reason I went from D to R those many years ago. Eventually, I came to see that the Ds also hated God, freedom and this country, but it was abortion that was the switch that turned on the light.
Cakewalk? Maybe in Texas, but what state is Thompson gonna pick up that Bush didnt?
Sorry, the public is mad (do you read the blogs or conservative newspapers?) and there are only 2 parties to blame, one of which has held the Presidency for 8 years . Things could turn decisively in Iraq, Thompson could pick a winner of a running mate, or whatever, but the odds are less than 50 %, IMO.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I agree. Fred Thompson represents a confluence of rightness that overshadows every other candidate in the GOP field, and which will thrash the Dimocrat candidate in 2008, whoever she is.
Wisconsin and New Hampshire, definitely. Possibly also Oregon, Minnesota, and Maine. He'll keep Pennsylvania, Ohioh, Florida, Iowa, and New Mexico, as well.
You said: Government should have nothing to say about whether or not a woman has an abortion.
Few people have a problem with a woman having an abortion, IF the baby is not killed in the process. This is the root of the problem: Pro-choice thinks of this as a woman’s freedom issue, and Pro-life thinks of it as the unborn child’s right to life issue. Pro-choice people are often willing to concede that the fetus is a human life, but still have no problem with abortion because of the woman’s so-called right to “her own body.”
If the fetus is not a human life, then I, too, would willing agree that a woman should be able to abort at will.
For the record (assuming I'm remembering correctly), Bush didn't win PA last election, though it was very close. I think though that Fred could win if he can appeal to working-class folks here that are traditionally registered Democrats, but have realized that the Dems don't have anything to offer. I think he also has a shot if he can convince the elderly here that their Social Security and Medicare are safe.
Government should have nothing to say about whether or not woman have slaves.
The real objection most people have regarding abortion is that government is forcing those who do not approve of abortion to pay for it.
No, the real objection is the killing of human life. You may not understand that but it is the truth nonetheless.
You're absolutely right, my bad! I had meant to put PA in the "possible" category, but messed it up royally. Fred will need to appeal to the suburbanites especially, and he should have Pennsyltucky all locked up.
no contest against a clinton will be a cakewalk. these people are not to be underestimated.
Apparently, you don't understand what Op-Ed Contributors for the NY Times do. They write guest opinion/editorial columns. They're not on the Times payroll. Their Op-Ed Contributors come from all over the political spectrum, so I check them out from time to time.
IIRC, Victor Davis Hanson wrote 24 OpEd columns for the Times in the last 11 years. Folks would be well advised to scan their Op-Ed Contributors periodically. You can't expect what you will find.
That author appears to agree with your sentiments on abortion, so why do you want to cast aspersions on the source? The NY Right To Life Party lost its automatic column status on Election Day in November 2002 because it failed to get 50,000 votes for statewide nominees, just as the Green and Liberal Parties failed to do so in NY, IIRC.
The author tried to make a convincing argument on a single issue. I was surprised that the argument against abortion could be that strong with respect to poll numbers. I'll take all the single issue voters that I can get. Second Amendment types have similar attitudes.
From time to time, Ill ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
I think it’s better than 50%, with the current from running Dem candidates.
Personally, I’m a Thompson-Hunter guy, but I want Bolton as Sec’y of State, with a mandate to really clean house. As a bonus, we get the confused/stoned hippie vote.
Need more coffee.
The NYT editor-in-chief is responsible for ALL content in the paper.
This particular column was not properly fact-checked.
This is a consistent weakness of the NYT.
BUT! BUT if Kerry had won by the same margins it would have been a landslide. Kerry winning by 5 million popular votes would have meant the nations intended for him to be King. I am in the habit of using liberal yard sticks.
“****If Fred’s the nominee I certainly hope you’re right. I would however warn you to guard against overconfidence.****”
I’ve never been wrong about a presidential election....ever.
Abortion-on-demand is one of the sacraments of the liberal church. They will not abandon it, at any cost
Along with (cue the ominous music) Global Warming.
You don’t have to be stupid to be a leftist...but it helps.
Coalitions of anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life collectivists and other perceived "victims".
One issue voters are not necessarily the indicator of who will win an election. And the truth is that a President is very limited on the effect he/she can have on the abortion issue. The courts have usurped the issue taking it away from the legislative branch and the states. Roe vs Wade will probably not be overturned any time soon.
I am young enough to have only been involved in one presidential election so far - 2004. My final prediction was Bush 50.5 (296 EV) and Kerry 47 (242 EV), which in retrospect was scary close. I’m not sure what all this means but I would once again caution against overconfidence (we are likely going up against the Clintons afterall); and I congratulate you on your perfect record. ;-)
Interesting, thanks NeverDem.
IMHO, that does not give the NYT editor-in-chief the liberty to change the author's text, only to accept or reject. They may have a liberty with the title from what I've noticed with syndicated OpEd columnists.
This particular column was not properly fact-checked.
"But in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 41 percent of respondents favored stricter limits on abortion, with an additional 23 percent saying it should not be permitted at all."
That combined tally of 64 percent from last March has been the highest since November 2004 according to the first table of results that you provided in comment# 3.
This is a consistent weakness of the NYT.
IMHO as a general rule, the consistent weakness of the NYT is the failure of omission, i.e. ignoring inconvenient stories, as opposed to the stories they deem fit to print. With the left controlling 90 - 95 percent of the main stream media, I wouldn't be looking gift horses in the mouth.
You mean besides killing off around 1.5 million potential Democrat voters every year? Do they need a second reason?
Pennsylvania would be a pickup, not a hold.
Thanks for the ping!
When I saw the article, I was hoping to read something I have suspected for the past twenty years: if conservatives keep their babies and liberals abort theirs, there will eventually be a shortage of liberals. I guess they haven’t figured out the demographics of the “Roe Effect” yet.
There’s also the old slogan, “women’s liberation is gonna get your mommy”, and it applies also to kids in public school when equated to what it really refers to, which is abortion. Abortion on demand is portrayed (correctly, I believe) as a dealbreaker for the left, and judging from the recent revival of “comparable worth” propaganda, abortion on demand appears to be the only political victory of “women’s lib”.