I just came across 2 articles that didn't surprize me, but already have me saying BASTA!!!!! This is too early to seriously start looking at who will run.
In both states Shrillary Clinton is the leader on the Democratic side. Of course, she currently has the greatest name recognition. & the talk is already beginning that she will step down as Secretary of State in January after the inauguration (Pro-Abortion Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Step Down
) But will she run is another matter. In Iowa she had 58% support & in New Hampshire she had 60%. So for now it looks like she has the best chance to win. But let us not forget, the conventional wisdom had her winning over mostly unknown Obama back in 2007. & we saw what happenned in 2008.
As for the Republicans, 21% of those in New Hampshire support Gov. Chris Christie. In Iowa it is Gov. Mike Huckabee with 15%. Christie is tied for 2nd place with Paul Ryan & Florida Sen. Marco Rubio @ 12% each. However in New Hampshire Huckabee isn't even in the top 5.
So what does this mean????
The only reason I am mentioning it is to show what we can expect from the media who will be doing their best to manipulate what happens in 4 years.
The reality is, a lot can & will happen between now & then that will do more to determine the nominee than these polls.
We have no idea who will really run. & what may come out between now & then that might bring someone else to the forefront, in both parties.
Right now the Republican Party leadership has got to quit shooting itself in the foot by continuing to marginalize the Pro-life (aka social conservation) members of the party. Of course they are doing it through the pundits to give themselves cover.
The fact is, except for selecting Paul Ryan, Romney did very little to get the support of the Pro-lifers/social conservatives out there. In fact, his campaign did just the opposite. Starting with what I call the "Palin"ization of Ryan. Rather than letting him get out there, they pushed him to the background & silenced him, just like McCann did to Palin. Instead they should have turned Ryan lose.
While I hate to use this example, it best shows the point I am making. Despite how he is painted as a conservative, Richard Nixon was much more of a moderate. For all his faults & crimes Nixon did do one thing right in the 1968 campaign. He knew he needed a strong appeal to the conservatives. So he selected Spiro Agnew who, despite being somewhat moderate himself, knew how to reach the conservatives. Unfortunately, he too later turned out to be a crook. But he was a strong voice for the conservative wing. & Nixon turned him lose to speak out.
Not only did Romney not turn Ryan lose as he should, he totally avoided the social issues, the very thing the pundits had been saying all along. But now that that strategy lost, those same pundits are trying to cover their posteriors by trying to blame the social conservatives.
Well guess what? We know better. & we aren't going to be silent about it.
Lets start with what Romney actually did or didn't do.
What he didn't do is really campaign on the life issues.
What did he do? As Austin Ruse, president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute)
, points out in an article for Crisis Magazine, Romney’s Abandonment of Social Issues Contributed to His Defeat
. He says "What ads did he run? Perhaps they were thinking of the Romney ad meant to quell pro-choice concerns, the one telling folks they shouldn’t worry because he still favored abortion for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? And perhaps these conservatives could show us the ads Romney ran supporting historical marriage, because I missed those and I live in what was one of the hottest of swing states, Virginia
I might be able to understand these comments if Romney had actually run as a social conservative, but his race was first, last and always about the economy, smaller government, lower taxes, things to warm the cockles of almost any fiscal conservative. But where and when did he actually campaign as a social conservative?"
The answer is, he didn't. & those saying he did can't back it up. & they know it.
Ruse goes on to point out more evidence that Romney had followed their plan. & that is the real reason he failed.
When asked about the social issues Romney "would parrot some ill thought out talking points. He said while he was against abortion he favored the exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. He was so unpracticed on this issue that he seemed not to know that the health exception in Doe v Bolton was what got us to abortion on demand in the first place."
Additionally "He also said he had no legislative plans on the life issues but that he would reinstate Mexico City Policy and defunding of UNFPA. Is this really what his adviser gave him to say? I dare say that most rank and file pro-lifers have never heard of either Mexico City Policy or UNFPA. Such easy promises are held out as the tiniest of sops to pro-life leaders but in no way give anyone pro-life credentials.
Romney did say he would defund Planned Parenthood but he never said why. He could have pointed out that there are several thousand Title X clinics not connected to Planned Parenthood that do everything Planned Parenthood does except abortions. He could have pointed out that Planned Parenthood raises a billion dollars a year and in time of fiscal crisis perhaps our money is spent better elsewhere. He could have said Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms no matter what they say. He could have said losing federal funding would hardly close Planned Parenthood down. But he didn’t say any of these things."
Not exactly the hardline social conservative these people would like to paint Romney as. In fact, for many of us, this was 2008 all over again, holding our noses to vote for what we hoped would be a better opportunity to get our voices heard than we have now.
In fact, for many of us, myself included, it was very hard to not vote for the Constitution Party
candidate, Virgil Goode. Their party had an even stronger pro-life stand as well as even stronger stand on the other social issues than the Republican party. But many of us felt the best chance was to go with Romney.
& if Romney had been strongly pro-life, enough of those Pro-lifers who didn't show up very well might have, giving Romney the win.
I suspect things will be totally different in 2016 if the leadership of the Republican party doesn't stop trying to marginalize us. They think they can get away with it because we have stayed with the party for now.
But, maybe they better learn a little lesson from their own history. The Whig party was divided on the social issue of its day, slavery. By trying to avoid the issue through compromise with the pro-slavery contingency, the leadership drove the anti-slavery members to the Republican party, thus ensuring its death. The same could happen if the Republican leadership continues along a similar path of self-destruction. I know many people say otherwise, the 2 major parties are too ingrained. But aren't these mostly the same people who want to shut up the social issues people? Sounds to me like they aren't exactly unbiased on this issue.
Another reason I hear for saying we need to stick with the Republicans is that it would take too long for a new party to build strength. Again I point to the Whig/Republican story. The Republicans began in 1854 & Lincoln was elected just 6 years later. With the Constitution party already in existance, it could happen just as quickly.
Pro-life is an issue that will not go away any more than that of ending slavery did in the 1800s. The only real difference is that there is no free state/slave state equivalent.
The battle for 2016 has begun. In some ways it needs to. The Republicans have to take an honest look at why they lost. It wasn't the embracing, it was the abandoning of the social issues, like abortion, that is a huge part of the reason they lost. & if they continue to abandon us, it will be the reason they lose in 2016 as well.
Labels: Planned Parenthood