Changing Their Tune

Sorry I'm posting this a bit later than I had hoped to, but this will be in reference to a NY Times article published on Feb. 16, 2005. Please feel free to read the article & drop me a line with your input. "For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks" (The link wouldn't post here, sorry!)

Okay so it's happening. We all knew that this day would come...
The Democrats have lost control of the nation, and of their party. They are being viewed as out of sink with the country and their constituents. People no longer want to associate with their leftist thinking. So, what do they do? First of all, they elect Howard Dean as their chairman... By any normal standards, this would seem odd. This guy didn't get the nomination for President because he was so far gone, now they want him to run their party?
Richard Perle made a great point this weekend at Pacific U when stating, "How appropriate that the Democrats elect a physician as the leader of the Democratic Party. They need one."
Anyway, I digress. Back to my original point.
The NY Times wrote that several leaders at the DNC and in Congress are encouraging a more moderate view on abortion and women's health issues. NARAL is publishing an ad in the conservative "Weekly Standard" magazine asking for help in reducing abortions, by providing more birth control options.
Hillary Rodham-Clinton (who coincedentally has voted 100% of the time AGAINST anything remotely related to Right to Life) and Chairman Dean suggest that they "recalibrate the party's thinking on new restrictions on abortions." And even Minority Leader Harry Reid votes pro-life 80% of the time (for a Mormon, I would think it should be 100%). I found it to be interesting that there are several staunchly pro-death candidates, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (his voting record also states a 100% opposition to Right to Life issues), that are actually RECRUITING pro-life democrats. (Bob Casey, Jr. To oppose Rick Santorum). Coincidentally, Jr.'s father faced opposition from the Dem's in '92 when he could not speak at the convention because of his pro-life stance. (Thanks, Bill & Hill.)
The upside for the Dems is that they regain part of their base, which is the staunchly pro-life, yet very Catholic community, which tends to lean towards the Democratic Party on most other issues. For many pro-lifers, it is that one issue that sways their vote. Especially when you stand with the Pope. The Pope has condemned war. George W. Went to war and many Catholics did not want to vote for him, but the issue more near and dear to their heart: Sanctity of Human Life. It is because of the conservative vote that we as Republicans are in power in Washington, and on the home front.
Once the DNC even opens up to the idea of changing their party platform, or taking an easier view on abortion they will re-gain many of their faithful. I believe that the Catholic church will begin to support more candidates, as best they can as a 501(c)3, anyway.
This is where the downside for the Republicans comes into play. I believe that we need to continue to prove that Hillary is becoming a softy for reasons that will be layed out over the next three and a half years. How can a woman that promised us 2,000 abortion clinics by the year 2000 all of the sudden believe that abortion is not the answer? How can someone who continues to praise Planned Parenthood, claim to be moderate on the life issue?
2008 is not far off. It is time that the Republicans kick it into high gear. Conservative values are the values of the Republican ticket and we need to make sure that we keep our focus. We cannot afford to have the nation sway towards an iffy candidate, especially one who's word means nothing at best, especially when we've come this far.