I was reading an interesting essay at Democrats for Life the other day, in which it is alleged that abortion is the one issue that continues to sap the Abortion Party of its electoral strength. Somewhere else, I read that almost half the Democrat grass-roots rejects their party’s hardline pro-abortion stance. Which got me wondering…
Prior to the primaries, Dennis Kucinich was a reliable pro-life democrat. However, he crossed over to the dark side at the start of the primaries in order to give his campaign traction. At least, this is what was suppose to happen. Instead, he’s consistently found himself in a tight race with Al Sharpton for last place.
Which makes me wonder, did the abortion issue kill Kucinich’s campaign from the start? What traction would Kucinich have gained within the campaign among alienated pro-life Democrats had he stuck to his pro-life principles? He might not have been the eventual nominee, but would he have gained enough support to finally break the Abortion’s Party culture-of-death plank?
I think he might have. Unfortunately, he didn’t. Where he had a real opportunity to influence the party, he sold out instead. This is sad because pro-life Democrats consistently out-poll pro-life Republicans in elections. The results are even more devastating for the GOP where a pro-abortion Republican goes head-to-head with a pro-life Democrat.
Which brings me to another point: the only candidate for Casey Democrats in the upcoming general election is George Bush. Now is the time for pro-life Democrats (or their sympathizers like myself) to galvanize and send the party a message we will not vote for a candidate who supports the destruction of our children in the womb and of the traditional family. 2004 is gonna be one of the toughest campaigns in a long time, and a loss for the Democrats might finally awaken them to their bleak electoral prospects as long as they remain the Abortion Party.
So pro-life democrats should send the party a message by either voting Republican or sitting this one out.
10 comments
Comments are closed.
I wish it were true that he lost votes because of his change of support for abortion. But his views are also the nuttiest of all the Democratic Candidates and that probably turned off all but the most rabid of candidates.
It does make you wonder about the candidates that were pro-life at one time and how easy it was to abandon their views when seeking national election. Hopefully one day those in the mold of Governor Casey will return.
I doubt that Kucinich could have broken the pro-abortion plank of the Democrats at the convention. Though not a presidential candidate, popular then-Gov. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania was a very vocal pro-life Democrat who tried to make it an issue at the Democrat Convention in 1992 (I think that was the year). The party powers saw to it that he was marginalized and rounded ridiculed.
At the very least, Kucinich might have had the chance to make the topic visible at this year’s convention, but I guess we’ll never know.
I think it’s pretty obvious that ex-pro-lifers never believed in the cause in the first place. There’s a long, ignoble list: Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Algore, etc. ad nauseum. When it was expedient, they were pro-life; when it was expedient, they were pro-abortion.
That, and Kucinich was truly a nut-job. Casey was a governor of a big, populous state with a strong penchant for social conservatism and economic liberalism. He was a formidable man. Kucinich is a space cadet and always has been.
I’m a pro-life Democrat (who will likely not be voting this time ’round), and I didn’t even know Kucinich was pro-life. He was so liberal about everything else, I just assumed he was pro-abortion.
I was planning to support Kucinich up to the day he reneged – and every opportunity I had to send email or phone in to a show he was on, I harassed him about having wimped out on the abortion issue. As a New Hampshire voter, I had several opportunities and took full advantage of them to question him about selling out.
For me, it would have been a toss-up between Bush and Kucinich, since it would have removed most of the hard moral issues from the table. (I also think, had Kucinich remained firm, he would have forced Bush to take a tougher pro-life stance in order to compete for the pro-life vote.) I’m not sure what I would have done since, as a paleo-con, I remain against the war and exporting our manufacturing jobs, but on the other hand I owe Bush a debt of gratitude for the moral courage he and Jeb showed in standing up for Terri. Additionally, unlike most conservatives, his new immigration policy is very appealing given all the corruption and attacks against faith and civil liberties taking place in Canada.
Pete,
Before he began running for President, where did Kucinich stand on Gay marriage, civil unions, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and the Defence of Marriage Act?
Pete, you’re not a paleocon so much as you are a mercantilist. Dude, that ecoonomic mode of thought has been discredited for centuries.
And how you can put Kucinich and Bush on par in terms of fighting the war on terror is beyond me.
Kucinich is way too starry-eyed to be mayor of Cleveland (oops, he was) much less leader of the free world.
Still, if nothing else, staying pro-life would have made Kucinish stand out among the field of 9.
But, primaries being all about turning out the base, it would probably not matter much. Although, in a field of nine, and Tim reporting that currently 20% think Kucinich should return to a pro-life stand, a 20% showing among 9 choices would have been pretty darn good.