Soldier4Christ
|
|
« on: October 25, 2006, 04:55:20 AM » |
|
The Democrats' vote-suppression scheme Exclusive: Jill Stanek urges pro-life voters not to succumb to 'stay home' cynicism
The movers and shakers within the Democrat Party and mainstream media combined have conceded they can no longer muster majorities for their candidates based on party affiliation.
When did they concede? When they unveiled the Mark Foley scandal.
While the Foley October Surprise was partially intended to persuade moderates to vote Democrat, it was more intended to dissuade conservatives from voting at all. This was evidenced by the instantaneously spun news stories forecasting our suppressed vote, even before speaking with or polling us. Reported World Magazine, for example:
In the wake of the Mark Foley page scandal, [Concerned Women for America president] Wendy Wright certainly was surprised to hear that she was calling for House Speaker Denny Hastert to resign – especially since she said no such thing. … "We never even came close to that," Wright said.
Instead, reporters were apparently twisting Wright's words to fish for dissension among Christian conservatives. …
"The media has been prodding people along," said Wright of the Foley scandal. "The whole point of this controversy has not been about Foley's behavior. The whole focus has been on the Republican leadership with the intent on suppressing [conservative Christian] voters."
The other side long ago realized liberal views could not win elections, so they mastered agenda subterfuge and judge-stacking. Now those wells are drying up, and there may be no new wells to dig.
As Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks explained in the Wall Street Journal:
Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result.
According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41 percent.
Given that about 80 percent of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. …
It would appear liberals have been quite successful controlling overpopulation – in the Democratic Party.
But don't be lulled into complacency by stats or a conjecture that letting Democrats win in 2006 will garner us grander victories in 2008. As Fred Barnes wrote in the Oct. 23 Weekly Standard:
No doubt Republicans thought this in 1954 when Democrats won back both houses of Congress. But that was followed by 40 years of Democratic control of the House and 26 years of Democratic rule in the Senate. And for most of those years, Democrats held on to power in defiance of a rising conservative tide in the country. They know how to keep power once they get it.
For pro-lifers, it comes down to this difference between parties: Last month 93 percent of Senate Republicans voted pro-life (for the Child Custody Protection Act), and 87 percent of Democrats voted pro-abortion (against CCPA). That's the real clear bottom line.
Put aside all the rhetoric, like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry saying they want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare" while voting against CCPA, and put aside all the side issues, which pale in comparison to the Sanctity of Life.
"Make the most of every opportunity," said Paul in Colossians. If Republicans lose the House or Senate majority in November, it won't be the end of the world. But if so, it will likely be due to conservative apathy, as if liberals slipped Quaaludes into our drinks or siphoned gas from our cars – while we watched.
I just held my third grandson for the first time, and my fourth grandson is due in December. I have no patience for whiners or cynics. I choose to vote for a hopefully better America rather than not vote for a guaranteed worse America.
|