The American Spectator

Bob| 8.6.09 @ 12:13PM

Antle, I agree that this action shows a weakness in integrity. However, it also points to the weakness in the Republican party that in most places, you cannot win a Republican primary if you don't pass the litmus test of being anti-abortion. Those of us who are fiscal conservatives, but pro-choice increasingly do not have a place in the party. With the changing demographics, this will become an increasing problem and will make Republicans a permanent minority. For example, Tom Ridge would have made a great Presidential candidate -- but he knew he could not win the primary because 70% of the party are now social conservatives.

W. James Antle III| 8.6.09 @ 2:07PM

It is actually not terribly difficult for a pro-choice Republican to win a primary in a pro-choice area. Let's look at your example of Tom Ridge. Pennsylvania is actually more pro-life than most Northeastern states, but Ridge was able to win the party's nomination for governor twice. He was able to win the general election twice despite a viable social conservative in the race as a third-party candidate each time.

It's true that it would be difficult for a pro-choice candidate to win the Republican presidential nomination. It would be even harder for a pro-life candidate to win the Democratic nomination. Rudy Giuliani led in the national polls for a year despite being pro-choice. His abortion stance forced him out of Iowa and South Carolina, but it was his inability to gain traction in a pro-choice state -- New Hampshire -- that ultimately forced him to adopt an ineffective late-state strategy that turned him into an also-ran.

Colin Powell could have been competitive for the Republican nomination in 1996. It is hard to think of a comparable pro-life Democrat who could have come close, which is why pro-life Democrats invariably change their abortion position when they seek the presidency.

tonypal| 8.6.09 @ 2:23PM

The fact that one cannot be pro-life and be a candidate for high office in the democrat party has apparently done no harm to their electoral chances, in spite of the fact that recent polls have shown that more than half the public considers themselves pro-life.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

Fact is that abortion is rarely a significant factor in presidential politics. Sure, Evangelicals on the right and feminists on the left place a high priority on the issue, but the vast majority of the electorate places it much further down the line in terms of importance.

Bob| 8.6.09 @ 4:38PM

Antle, as the Republican party has gotten smaller, the percentage of social conservatives in the party has become larger. With Republicans now just 21% of voters, social conservatives are now more than 70% of the party. If my numbers are wrong, please show me the proper link, but I've taken mine from this last Presidential election.

When Colin Powell might have run, Republicans were more than 38% of voters and social conservatives were less than half of the party. I think the numbers show it would be far more difficult today for a Powell or Ridge to run -- even if they were the most fiscally conservative candidate to run.

And yes, it is true that a pro-life Dem would have a difficult, if not impossible time running for the Presidency. However, they'd have an easier time in local elections since the Democrats are now almost twice as large as Republicans (about 39% of voters). Furthermore, the Republicans have now so infuriated blacks and Hispanics, that minority votes will be difficult, if not impossible, to get.

Tonypal, if you ask the pro-life question in terms of whether abortion should be legal (in your same link), the numbers have not changed for a very long time. You've bought into the right wing chatter on this one without looking at the detailed results. Look again.