(RIGHT) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Pro-abortion political consultants are pulling their hair out! Their script has gone off the rails!
You’ll remember that with the 2012 elections, some pro-abortion candidates ran on a campaign theme that claimed their opponents were conducting what they called a “War on Women.”
The media lapped it up and dishonest as it was, the theme actually helped some pro-abortion candidates.
Fast forward to 2014. Some pro-abortion consultants pulled the old playbook off the shelf and thought they’d make hay with another “War on Women” theme in 2014.
But a funny thing happened on the way to their dishonest forum of ideas. The theme didn’t work. In fact, this year, it might actually be hurting candidates who use it.
For example, pro-abortion Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) at one point had more than half of his campaign ads running on various “War on Women” themes. But since then, Udall has seen his lead evaporate and pro-life Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), his pro-life rival for the Senate seat, now has a 5-point lead in the polls.
Significantly, Udall’s lead among women voters has shrunk dramatically. The “War on Women” theme was insulting to voters. It’s been exposed as a lie. And it’s no longer working.
Even left-leaning newspapers like the Denver Post and Washington Post have torn into the Udall campaign for overemphasizing the theme. In endorsing Gardner, the Denver Post, Colorado’s largest newspaper, wrote: “Udall is trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision. His obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those he seeks to convince.”
But even as Udall’s consultants backpedal furiously to get away from their losing message, another prominent pro-abortion Democrat is apparently prepared to take up that “obnoxious . . . insulti(ing)” campaign theme and run with it.
Which brings us to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
On Tuesday, Clinton came to Colorado, ostensibly to stump for Udall. But at least one commentator wondered aloud in print if she wasn’t throwing Udall under the bus to get her own message out – one she thinks will win her the support of left-leaning delegates for the 2016 presidential nomination.
Andrea Drusch of the National Journal Hotline wrote: “Sen. Mark Udall’s campaign spent the last several months relentlessly talking about women’s health issues, but as his numbers sagged in the past few weeks, they’ve made a concerted effort to change the subject. That’s why it’s surprising to see Hillary Clinton doubling down on that message in her Colorado stump speech yesterday, even calling out critics of Udall’s “single-issue campaign.” As with any Clinton appearance, there’s a subtext of her potential 2016 bid, and in this case – it’s one that may have even trumped what’s best for the candidate.”
Clinton made another colossal blunder in that Tuesday speech in Aurora, Colorado. Even while touting elsewhere in her speech a so-called “right” to abortion, she pretended to be an advocate for the young: “I want everyone in this room to be able to look at any baby, any child, and truthfully say, ‘You have the same right to the American dream that I did and the generations before me.”
But Clinton – and the pro-abortion Senate candidates she’s supporting – routinely fights to take that “right to the American dream” away from millions of unborn babies. For those babies, the American dream ends at the end of a curette knife, a suction aspiration machine, a Sofer clamp – instruments abortionists use to violently snuff out their lives.
Pro-lifers recognize the rhetorical games Clinton is playing as part of the struggle to build and win a Culture of Life: Will America be a place where every human being is welcomed in life and protected in law? Or will the violent destruction of human life continue, and perhaps even increase because of those, like Clinton and Udall, Sens. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.), pro-abortion challengers Michelle Nunn (Georgia) and Bruce Braley (Iowa), and a host of other candidates who openly support the killing of unborn children?
Sex selection abortions are almost always performed to kill unborn baby girls – a real war on women. Candidates who support keeping this despicable practice legal have no moral ground to claim anyone else is conducting a “war on women.”_________________________________________
It’s worth noting that none of these candidates, when asked by National Right to Life in its candidate questionnaire, would affirmatively answer the question whether they’d support a “prohibition on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection.” Sex selection abortions are almost always performed to kill unborn baby girls – a real war on women. Candidates who support keeping this despicable practice legal have no moral ground to claim anyone else is conducting a “war on women.”
It’s good to see the credibility of the war on women theme fade. But as long as politicians like Hillary Clinton and her allies think they can make a credible argument that “any baby, any child” should have “the same right to the American dream that I did and the generations before me,” while at the same time advocating for the killing of unborn babies and children, then we still have a lot of education and persuasion to do.
Our movement is making great strides: abortion numbers are way down and the younger generation is more pro-life than those that preceded it. Calling out hypocrisy like that spouted by Clinton, educating the American people on the reality of abortion and the development of the unborn child, and legislating protection for the vulnerable – born and unborn – are the best answers to those who would degrade our culture and kill millions of innocent human beings in the process.
By Don Parker, NRL News Today