We agree.
The NRA, National Right-to-Life, and similar organizations are single-issue advocacy groups. Sometimes a long-term Democrat incumbent can be very effective on gun issues or abortion or whatever. I don't dispute that — pro-gun Democrats have historically been critical to killing anti-gun legislation and there was a point that pro-life Democrats were providing necessary majorities to keep important legislation from being derailed by Democratic Party leaders. It's pretty hard for the Senate or House leadership to keep a bill bottled up in committee when it's not just Republicans but also high-level Democrats who are demanding a vote.
But Romney has a track record of telling abortionists and homosexual marriage advocates that he wanted their endorsement because he'd be an effective advocate for their views in the Republican Party!
Also, we're not talking about the general election. I can understand why NRTL might back Romney over Obama there as the “least bad” candidate. But somebody explain to me why these organizations decided to back Mitt Romney when 1) he probably doesn't need their endorsement in the primary, and 2) the nomination fight isn't over yet.
I'm not happy at all about the National Right to Life endorsement. I believe all it did was antagonize conservatives by giving “cover” to Mitt Romney. and for no good reason since at this point there's a good chance he's going to win the nomination anyway without their help.
I really can't see any good reason for this Right-to-Life endorsement of Romney at this point. It seems like the endorsement risks damaging the organizations without providing meaningful help to the candidate they're endorsing.
Did Newt Gingrich do something decades ago to torque off Right to Life and the anti-homosexual marriage lobby? I can see no good reason for this endorsement, even from a single-issue perspective.
Darrell
You're missing the point.
The Republican Party has made a calculated decision that it can win without Social Conservatives...or, more correctly...without pandering to Social Conservatives.
They are right.
Social Conservatives, by limiting themselves to JUST a couple/three issues have so marginalized themselves that they have become more of an election liability than asset.
Think about it.
"Social Conservatives" have, historically, NOT been reliable Republican voters. The Reagan years were an anomaly.
In fact, as many Social Conservatives vote Democrat today as those who vote Republican.
Why would the Republican Party make a special place for them? After all, their power is the primaries, NOT the General Election.
SoCons need to get over this idea that they will determine who the GOP nominee and POTUS will be. They are 10% of the general election vote. They hold less clout then blacks in the Democratic Party...and don't have even 10% of the sympathizers of the blacks.
I'm not SoCons should reduce their voice or demand. I'm saying folks are waking up to the numbers and calculating otherwise.
We'll see if they're wrong.
I don't think they are.
SoCons that are conservatives will vote GOP. SoCons that are liberal will vote Democrat.
I can’t think of anything Newt did against those issues in particular.
I know for certainty that Romney is totally on the wrong side.
Maybe he paid them off? He seems to pay money to those who endorse him.