Rudy Guiliani, one of the Republican frontrunners for the presidential election in 2008 said recently that the Republican Party has “to get beyond issues like that.”
“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against.”
What’s the issue? Abortion. Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com noted:
the GOP has nominated pro-life presidential candidates in every race since 1980 and it has won five of the seven contests — all against pro-abortion Democrats.
Pro-abortion Republican President Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976 in part because Carter was seen as more conservative on abortion and other social issues.
Polls have also shown that abortion is a winning issue for GOP presidential candidates.
Post-election polling after the 2004 presidential elections found that President Bush’s pro-life stance gave him an edge over pro-abortion Sen. John Kerry.
A 2004 Wirthlin Worldwide post-election poll found that 42 percent of voters said abortion affected the way they voted for president. Twenty-four percent of voters cast their ballots for President Bush while 15% voted for Kerry, giving Bush a 9 percent advantage on the issue of abortion. (April 16, 2007 — full article here)
Well, with all due respect to Rudy Guiliani, I do believe that we as conservatives can say what exactly we are for — life. I doubt Guiliani will get far — though he may with his stance on being strong on war and other domestic issues. As for me, my main concern is not about economics or even the war on terror. My issue is, “What value does life hold for you?” If a candidate is soft on protecting the innocent and unborn, then no thank you.
What do you think? Do we need to get beyond this issue? Should it be a deal-breaker?
powered by performancing firefox