Romney fails to persaude pro-life constituency
“You change the constituency of the party,” Mr. Arkes said — either by showing that [pro-life] voters are not necessary to win, or by showing that [pro-life] voters are willing to subsume their cause to other issues, reports Robin Toner in a NYT story titled Anti-Abortion Leaders Size Up G.O.P. Candidates.
More accurately, find-replace the term [pro-life] with [conservative]: “You change the constituency of the party,” Mr. Arkes said — either by showing that [conservative] voters are not necessary to win, or by showing that [conservative] voters are willing to subsume their cause to other issues” … This is consonant with themes we introduced with in:
Toner’s melancholy account:
WASHINGTON, July 29 — After 30 years of political organizing within the Republican Party, the [pro-life] movement has won a series of victories in legislatures and courts and stands tantalizingly close to winning even more. But these are anxious days for the movement.
Six months before the Iowa caucuses, abortion opponents are trying to adjust to a strikingly different political landscape. For the first time in a generation, they face in Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, a front-runner for the Republican nomination who supports abortion rights.
Abortion opponents are dividing their support among several other candidates, including Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a relatively recent convert to the cause, and Fred D. Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee … more
Does anyone remember how Romney begged and pleaded for Dr. Dobson’s support and failed to get it? See:
PS: Romney Says Wife’s Donations to Planned Parenthood, “Not Relevant.” Comment: but they are relevant, Mr. Romney. They really, really are. What theory of personal integrity could compel you to believe otherwise?