Quick. What comes to mind when I say, “EMILY’s List”?
Radical pro-abortion feminist PAC which distributes its considerable largesse only to pro-abortion female Democrats who toe EMILY List’s extremist line.
What you might not know is that they are already loaded for bear, 21 months out from the 2016 presidential election. Thanks to Real Clear Politics’ Caitlin Huey-Burns, we have some insight into what they are planned to do to smear pro-life Republican presidential candidates.
First, the “war on women” may have been an unmitigated disaster for them in 2014, but that doesn’t mean they don’t intend to resuscitate this misleading and dishonest slur. They will just expand the range of differences on issues which they will insist constitutes a second-generation “war on women” and then feign indignation when their targets fight back.
Second, according to Huey-Burns,
With the help of EMILY’s List, Democrats are already laying down markers on GOP candidates. This week, the group that supports pro-choice female Democratic candidates launched a new campaign that will document each time a Republican candidate “ignores, insults, or offends” American women. The “Insult & Injury” initiative, first shared with RealClearPolitics, includes digital advertising and graphics that can be shared via social media.
(Pictured: Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush)
To put it mildly, EMILY’s List and its fellow pro-abortion Democrats have incredibly thin skin. Ignoring, insulting, or offending “American women” means any comment that pro-abortionists can take out of context, magnify, and distort (which, of course, was par for the course for the phony baloney “war on women”). Or if you simply disagree with them, that’ll suffice.
And, third, as NRL News Today has written about extensively, the abortion issue will be stuffed into a duffel bag of issues—“contraception access and pay equity” and opposition to Planned Parenthood, for example—with an “economic security” label slapped on the side. Why? For the same reason support for abortion rarely stands alone: it’s a losing proposition for pro-abortionists.
There is potentially a huge field of Republican presidential candidates. Huey-Burns mentions only some: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, all of whom are pro-life.
Is there a chance of overkill? Is their likelihood of overkill? I would say yes to both. Why?
Think of some of the attack dogs pro-abortionists have used, such as Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. At the drop of a hat—or an imaginary “insult”—they go nuclear.
And look what happened in Colorado. Pro-abortion incumbent Senator Mark Udall (D) was so over the top that the Denver Post (no friend to Republicans) threw its editorial weight behind NRLC-endorsed Rep. Cory Gardner (R) who won last November.
Lynn Bartels of the Post affixed the moniker “Mark Uterus” to Udall and joked that if the race were a movie, it would be set in a gynecologist’s office.
As for the Republicans, they did not seem particularly worried, according to Huey-Burns, “arguing that such attempts failed in the midterms. Hillary Clinton spotlighted many of the same issues while campaigning for Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky, but the Senate hopeful lost to Mitch McConnell, even among women.”
Nothing was or is more predictable than that pro-abortionists would smear pro-life Republican men (and women, for that matter). When you got nothing to offer the American people, slinging mud would be, for them, taking the high road.
By Dave Andrusko, NRL News Today
