-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Americans are preoccupied with an ailing economy, so what do Democrats do? Fire off another mortar round in the culture wars — even while claiming that Republicans are the party side-tracked by social issues. What better way to distract voters from unemployment and the Dow than bring up abortion?
U.S. Sen. Roland Burris (D-Blagoville) has introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would upend a long-time ban on abortions at overseas U.S. military hospitals. Soldiers would have to foot the bill for the abortions, but the procedures would be provided at taxpayer-funded facilities. Regardless of the logistics, it’s another way for Congress to give its stamp of approval to the destruction of unborn human life.
Unlike Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, I’m all for debating and acting on social issues, even in a poor economy. Especially in a poor economy, since social policy invariably impacts economic policy. And I’m not arguing Republicans are above using social issues as a political bargaining chip with conservative voters. But the timing could not be more ironic or more indicative of Democrats’ desperation.
Efforts to lift the military abortion ban — or, similarly, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military — are nothing more than Democrats’ grasping to turn out the socially liberal base in a nightmare election year. Trouble is, turnout in the base isn’t what they need. Instead, they need that slice of independent voters rallying to Republicans because they’re weary of “stimulus,” budget binges, and near double-digit unemployment. Even though these independents trend more liberal on social issues, they don’t care as much this year. Like other voters, the fiscal crisis dominates.
So, it’s worth a try on the part of Burris, et. al, but it won’t work. If anything, bringing social issues into the mix will energize the Republican corps even more.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/20/whos-pushing-social-issues-now
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Siegfried X| 9.20.10 @ 4:41PM
They also added amnesty and don't ask don't tell to that same defense bill. And the House just passed a bill requiring federal hospitals to ask the "sexual orientation" of their patients.
Which is why talk of a truce on social issues in nonsense.
Jim Hlavac | 9.21.10 @ 12:16AM
That House bill, which you say requires divulging "sexual orientation," is a great thing to hurl right back at the Democrats. It's not the government's business; wouldn't you agree? For what purpose could this law be? No gay person would want it. And you only would have to ask for "name of spouse" if gay "marriage" (by any name) were legal to figure that out, anyway, or it would be left unsaid by any gay person in the hospital; this I know, for I've never had to bring it up and was never asked. It sounds like the beginning of a round up of gay men, which socialist regimes all did, to imprison us. Tell this to Pelosi's gay constituents, to get rid of her. Why not point out that gay men with AIDS are the first on the ObamaCare Death Panel list to kill off to cut health care costs. Tell that to the gays of Barney Frank's district, and Pelosi's, and stir the pot right back at them. Point out that the Democrat Gov. Rendell in Pennsylvania is gathering information on gay organizations for the Homeland Security Dept. in his state, as reported just the other day. Socialists are just as anti gay as anyone, for sure.
For gayness is not a Democrat or a Republican issue, and Dems are no more for gay anything than Repubs. Just this past month here in Baton Rouge, our Liberal Mainstream Media newspaper saw fit to publish a full page ad by Democratic Black Preachers against so much as "tolerance" for gay people. The Leftist press & the Democratic clergy, both opposed to gay people, as surely as any God fearing Republican.
But sir, I assure you, gay people are no more Democrats than they are Republicans, and most of us don't vote at all, for our choice is between those who hate us and those who despise us, to use our tax dollars to do with as they please, and we're not included.
Booger| 9.20.10 @ 5:33PM
I don't want a truce, I want unconditional surrender. We've had a truce for over fifty years with North Korea and they're still a pain in the neck. We insisted on unconditional surrender from Japan, and they've behaved ever since.
Booger| 9.20.10 @ 5:33PM
And yes, I know we had to nuke Japan twice to get that unconditional surrender.
Siegfried X| 9.20.10 @ 6:38PM
It sounds like the Democrats don't have the votes to bring up Don't Ask Don't Tell or the DREAM Amnesty tomorrow. If that holds true, then they're dead. Another great goal line stand for Republicans.
David W| 9.20.10 @ 9:41PM
Take the social issues and whack the democrats with them. They have more to lose than to win, if done correctly. Call them the racists (where are most clinics located? Which group suffers more abortions than any other? Let Blacks understand that the democrats want their votes, but don't necessarily want them around). Throw their "we are the party that wants to be sure children don't go to bed hungry" back at them by stating "yes, by making sure they are never born."
Hit them on the hypocrisy of their wealth distribution by giving the people examples of the Chelsea Clinton mega bucks wedding, the Kerry yacht, the Al Gore mansions. Demand that Al sell all of his and live in a 2000 square foot house without a massage room. Demand that the Kerrys divest themselves of their many investments, including any related to “green energy”. How much of his book royalities has Obama given away – after all, hasn’t he already made enough money??
Thomas Poole| 9.21.10 @ 8:30AM
The Pelosi/Reed/Obama machine, in its full blown contempt for citizins of this nation, is again trying to do what democratic congresses have done my entire life. Endanger our warfighters by adding crass amendments to "must pass" defense appropriations so that they may claim Republicans "don't support the troops". I am inclined to call this 'treason', they of course call it "goverenance". This alone should be cause for impeachment of Barak Obama, his duty, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces requires him tro direct the politicians of his party to NOT impede necessary funding. For him to remain silent, or supportive, of such moves is misfeasance of the highest order.