Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
#WarOnBabies?
The San Francisco Chronicle — no doubt to the concern of President Obama, who hates incendiary language in politics — is trying to resurrect the “GOP War on Women.”
The strategy largely worked in 2012, but flopped in 2014, especially in the Colorado Senate race, where Mark Udall argued that everything Cory Gardner said from “Have a nice day!” to “We must defeat terrorism!” was attack on the fairer sex. But the Chronicle — no doubt concerned with the GOP’s ability to be competitive — warns that attacks on Planned Parenthood might help GOP candidates in the primaries, but it will doom them in the general election.
So what tactic should the Republicans take? Should they shy away from defunding Planned Parenthood? Should they let female members take the lead on the issue? Or should they point out that the Democrats are continuing their War on Babies? While the Democrats rely on cartoonists to draw pictures of bad, white, Republican males with bazookas pointed at defenseless women, our side has documented photos and videos of real-life carnage on the unborn (or recently born).
Will the media use footage of Donald Trump calling women “poopy-heads” to smear all Republicans as Neanderthals this time around? Will they scream sexism every time Hillary is questioned? Will they — ironically — equate eliminating Planned Parenthood from the budget with the Holocaust?
Of course they will. But will it work?
Published in Law, Politics
Yes, though I think we’d be wisest to treat this as a wedge issue rather than as the first step toward winning the abortion debate.
That is, let’s make Hillary and the other Democrats defend the videos — and the government’s funding of Planned Parenthood’s activities — and use that to ask the American people whether they want to elect people who do so. The videos are powerful stuff, but I think we need to be careful not to mistake them as more powerful than they are.
All depends on momentary communication skills and courage, not on rote strategies that break down in the line of fire or otherwise sound like lifeless talking points. What Republicans talk about won’t matter if they fail to speak well.
Trey Gowdy, Ted Cruz, and Allen West win arguments not just by anticipation of challenges but by deft and bold maneuvering that prevents them from being played.
About half those murdered in the womb are women….
Who’s waging war on them again?
How do you shy away from trying to defund Planned Parenthood and still make the Democrats defend its funding?
I should have been clearer: I think we should defund PP and we should use it as a wedge against the Dems. I just don’t want us to get over-eager and have this backfire on us.
I would focus on the disproportionate number of black babies that are aborted, and try to convince the electorate that this is, in fact, one of the central purposes behind Planned Parenthood, using the statistics, the Sanger quotes, the excessive placement of PP facilities in black neighborhoods, and Ben Carson’s notion that Obamacare should be the go-to funder for all non-abortion related women’s health issues.
Dave Carter nailed it.
Republicans are the PRO CHOICE party!
[The replacement of “?” with “!” is my own.]
No idea. I don’t think Abortion is as toxic with the general electorate as the harder-core liberals seem to think. Most Americans are not pro-abortion when it really comes down to it.
Question, though, for the editors… the word “tact” in there doesn’t seem right. Are we thinking of it as being short for “tactic?” Or shouldn’t it, in that context, be “tack,” to imply the old nautical term describing the course of the GOP on this issue?
I think it was just an extremely common soloism.
It’s easy for Democrats to explain away Planned Parenthood’s racist founder. That was a long time ago. But Dave is right that Clinton would have a hard time explaining her expressed admiration for Sanger. If Republicans have any skill at all in rhetoric, they can devastate Clinton’s voter turnout with that.
Unfortunately, Republicans are generally terrible at this game.
What about taking a positive approach? Offer to provide funding to women’s clinics that will provide everything but abortion (contraceptives, mammograms, etc.).
I’d hope the current racial breakdown of abortion statistics could also be used to demonstrate the organization’s continuing commitment to its founder’s racist goals.
I’m not objective enough to give the GOP advice on abortion issues. I’m 100% pro-life and this is my number one issue. Thinking of the callus killing of voiceless, innocent, powerless unborn grabs me in the gut like no other. They are the least among us (See Matthew chpt 25). I hope they go as far as possible.
And yes, I think this issue can be used to fracture the dems, inasmuch as that’s possessible, and make Hillary look bad. It gives her an opportunity to comment, which is always a good thing for us.
Those who want to put the spotlight on Hillary’s admiration of Margaret Sanger have it right. Republicans should produce a commercial showing Hillary admiring Margaret Sanger, and then a few quotes from Margaret Sanger. If the commercial works, Hillary will plead ignorance-say that she didn’t know all the bad stuff about Sanger, which begs the question: if she is ignorant about the awards she receives, how much else is she ignorant about too?
from an article posted on the ricochet twitter feed. http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/03/catholic-bishops-call-on-senate-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-after-it-sells-aborted-babies/
a senate vote will likely require 60 votes to overcome filibuster.
My error. Corrected.
Never misunderestimate Republicans propensity to step on their own … elbows.
Tom Meyer, Ed.
My error. Corrected.
Nope, my error. Thank you both.