Countering the “conventional wisdom” on the Election Day results

By Dave Andrusko

In “A blatantly self-serving and mistaken ‘explanation’ of Election Night,” we continued a discussion begun late Tuesday night about the difference between what really happened on Election Day and the misleading narrative that has quickly settled in as conventional wisdom.

Ours is a single-issue focus, so we don’t get off our path to talk about what different roads (if any) the overwhelmingly pro-life Republican Party ought to take to win the White House and the United States Senate. However, here are a few additional observations we can make with  confidence.

#1. While every election is different and change is a given, there is one constant: every time pro-abortionists prevail, the Republican Party is counseled to keep its distance from those “extremist” pro-lifers, if not dump them overboard. Pro-abortionists keenly understand that if they can drive a wedge between the pro-life party and pro-lifers, their momentary electoral ascendancy could be cemented for the foreseeable future.

#2. We are all adults and we know that there is a blatant double standard in covering the abortion issue. As National Right to Life has so patiently and thoroughly explained, it is not the slightest exaggeration to say that President Obama is a radical on abortion. Do you think Planned Parenthood’s political arm would have spent over $12 million to re-elect him if it was not utterly convinced that its views and Obama’s views are identical? Ditto for the other major pro-abortion players. Do you think it was an accident that the Democratic National Convention was like a high school reunion for PPFA, or that in endorsing Mr. Obama, PPFA offered its supporters a long laundry list of his “accomplishments”? (See

#3. Integral to that double standard is that Obama’s extremist policies are (if mentioned at all) treated with a kind of respectful nonchalance. When it comes to presenting pro-abortion candidates to the public, reporters can’t swallow enough camels, but they gleefully strain at gnats when [mis]representing what pro-life candidates believe. There is nothing too small to distort, to blow up into something major (when there is any truth at all!).

That is the gigantic built-in advantage of uttering meaningless platitudes about “respecting a woman’s choice.” If reporters don’t ask what that means in practice—would a candidate find any endpoint at which she/he would say “no” to abortion? What about babies who survive abortions? Should parents be notified if their minor daughter is trying to obtain an abortion—the pro-abortion candidate soars, freed of the burden of explaining what worship at the altar of “choice” means. One other takeaway…

#4. If pro-abortionists are routinely given a free pass and pro-lifers gone over with a (sharp) fine-tooth comb, it means that pro-abortionists never have to answer the tough questions and pro-lifers always do. Indeed, that applies even when the pro-life initiative is commonsensical. For example, when pro-abortionists were trying to defeat a proposed law in Virginia to require women about to have an abortion to first have an ultrasound, the last thing they would want publicized is the fact that almost all abortionists already used ultrasounds! They turned this into “rape by instrument,” which even by pro-abortion standards was amazingly dishonest.

With that as background, it should have come as no surprise that pro-life candidates would be asked what their position was in a situation where a pregnancy results from a rape. Pro-lifers have been answering that difficult question with sympathy and understanding and compassion for decades. Unfortunately, some candidates were unprepared.

NRL News Today will continue to update you as events unfold. Please also read the stories we are running from our state affiliates. And please take a moment to read “A blatantly self-serving and mistaken ‘explanation’ of Election Night.”