My Advice to Romney for the Upcoming Debates
Things should prove rather interesting with the upcoming debates. Obama’s original plan was to avoid the economy as much as possible beyond his stale mantra of class envy and instead try to focus on foreign policy. Unfortunately for Obama his foreign policy is currently going up in flames – literally. Therefore he has no choice but to change tactics once again and instead try to refocus the debates on social issues. The assumption would be that he can attempt to paint Romney as some sort of extremist nut case that will drag us all back into the stone ages.
Obama originally positioned himself to make this debate about gay rights. However, he can no longer afford to take that angle. Not only are people’s opinions on the subject pretty much set in stone already, but his promotion of gay marriage is causing a backlash from amongst his own base of black evangelicals who are adamantly against it. Obama would therefore love to turn this directly into a war on women seeing as women make up slightly over ½ the voting population. The problem is that he needs a point of focus in order to do so. He attempted to do this through the whole contraception fiasco, but that has since backfired. Not only does Sandra Fluke now look like nothing more than a whiney oversexed 31 year old professional college student, but Obama now faces the ire of the Catholic Church to boot. He would like to use the whole equality for women angle except he’s got a problem there as well. As it turns out even Obama pays his female staffers on average 27% less than what he pays his male staffers. Oooops!
The only thing that Obama has left available is the good old standby of abortion. So what I’m going to do is offer up some advice directly to the Romney team to slay that beast as well. Obviously what Obama wants is for Romney to come out and declare all abortions out of bounds period so that Obama can then paint him as an extremist. After all, there are always the whole incest and rape scenarios that end up getting thrown into the mix to muddy the waters. My advice to Romney is don’t take the bait. There actually is a winnable political answer to this issue.
Romney’s best answer would be that we need a definition of life and that we should allow science to create that definition for us. Currently science is at a point whereby an embryo can exist outside of the host woman as soon as the early 20’s in terms of weeks of gestation. Therefore, if we declare any point where this becomes feasible as establishing the legal demarcation point where life begins it takes away the whole woman’s body, woman’s choice conundrum. At some point science is bound to take us all the way back to the point of conception and thus life will be legally, logically, and scientifically defined to begin at that point. In essence science created abortions and it will be science which ultimately bans them as well.
Taking this approach creates several advantages for Romney. First, it appeases his base because over time it gets us to the point that we’ve been striving for while at the same time banning late term abortions immediately. Second, it takes away the whole “choice” argument because now the discussion is no longer about the woman’s body. At best the argument can only be as a matter of convenience and as an argument that will never gain public support beyond anyone but the most ardent feminists who would never dream of voting conservative anyway. Finally, it paints Romney as being practical on the issue and Obama as the true extremist since he’s already come out in support of partial birth abortions. Ultimately we need to reframe this battle for what it really is simply by using truth as the best weapon we have in this debate. The truth is that this has never been about any war against women. It’s always been a fight to protect the lives of the innocent.