Glenn says that to him, it's no big deal; he's given to Planned Parenthood, too. (But then Glenn is explicitly pro-"choice". Glenn continues:
I understand that the pro-life people, and the social-cons generally, are unhappy with this. But hey, a lot of gun-rights people thought that Bush was squishy on the gun issue -- and he has been. Nonetheless, he's been a lot better than Kerry or Gore would have been had they been elected; his support for the assault weapons ban, for example, was extremely limp.I think Glenn is WAY WAY WAY OF BASE here.
Likewise, the social-cons are crazy if they let this sort of thing keep them home on election day in 2008.
And I think that the Republicans' troubles started -- as I pointed out at the time -- when the social-cons overplayed their hand during the Terri Schiavo affair.
1 - Jeb Bush left office with INCREDIBLY HIGH approval ratings; he was staunchly pro-Terri and the issue didn't harm him one bit.Glenn arguing that this was when the GOP troubles began is revisionist nonsense - like the Democrats NOW claiming that the mid-terms were a referendum on Iraq - and that the result gave them a MANDATE to retreat ASAP!
2 - I'd bet if you polled the voting public that 70% wouldn't know who Schiavo was. It is years ago, and that is ANCIENT history - in politics.
The FACT is, without Foleygate and Maccacagate and Abramoff/Conrad Burns the GOP would have HELD both bodies of Congress. There as no "Iraq Retreat" mandate as the Dems dishonestly claim. Claiming it was an Iraq Retreat Mandate is lower than propagandistic revisionism. IT IS A LIE.
Glenn is as wrong about "The Schiavo Effect" (there was NONE!) as the Dems are about "The We're losing in Iraq Mandate."
REPEAT: Schiavo has had ZERO effect on any race. As little or less than embryonic stem cells.
I only agree with Glenn to this limited extent: Republicans should not become a single issue party; nor should they have an abortion litmus test.
The polls show they are not, and do not.