Editor’s note. This editorial appeared in the November digital edition of National Right to Life News at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsNov2015.pdf. The entire 41-page issue can be accessed at this URL. Please read as much of the “pro-life newspaper of record” as you can and pass along links to your pro-life contacts.
October’s digital edition of National Right to Life News placed a heavy emphasis on Planned Parenthood’s skullduggery. As always, we will pay plenty of attention to the largest “provider” (what an odd choice of words) of abortion in this the November edition, but if there is a major theme for this issue of the “pro-life newspaper of record” it is looking ahead to the 2016 elections.
Too early? No, as you can tell from the buzz about the multiple Republican debates and (to a much lesser degree) the two Democratic debates, it’s not just political reporters whose juices are flowing.
While it might try some/many people’s patience, the flip side is that all this activity signals that we are approaching the clubhouse turn on the eight bleak years of pro-abortion Barack Obama. While he will always be remembered as the first African-American president, my guess is that, unlike other presidents, history will not be kind to him.
Naturally with a dozen and a half Republican presidential candidates (now whittled down to 13 with the departure of Louisiana pro-life Gov. Bobby Jindal) competing, you would expect a disproportionate amount of attention to be pointed in their direction. This is especially so because two non-politicians- Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson-are ahead in the polls and because pro-abortion Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite to be the Democrats’ nominee.
But, ever and always, the tectonic plates are busy shifting beneath the candidates’ feet. If we know anything, it is that what we think we know a year ahead out from the election will likely as not prove to be vastly different from what we see over the next three or four months. What happened in Paris will send shock waves.
Let’s take Clinton, for example.
The former First Lady, senator from New York, and Secretary of State has impressive credentials, boatloads of money, and the backing of the party and many of the big donors. On the surface, she faces exceedingly weak competition, now down to former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (VT.) And, as we have already seen, at the drop of an imaginary hat, Clinton’s campaign will scream “sexism.”
But as last Saturday’s debate illustrated, Sanders no longer appears content to be Clinton’s punching bag. Granted, a more feisty Sanders is very unlikely to derail the Clinton presidential express, but it does remind us that there are gaping holes in Clinton’s resume that go beyond our single-issue focus.
Moreover, If you remember back in late September a USA Today/Suffolk poll asked for a single word that describes each contender. The most frequent response for Clinton was “liar/dishonest,” followed by “untrustworthy/fake.”
And with each month (sometimes with each week), Clinton seems bound and determined to give reasons to solidify that assessment. The latest is a story she continues (for reasons that make sense only to her) to offer up-that around1975 she tried to join the Marines. (And, no, I am not making that up.)
Paraphrasing CNN’s Jeff Zeleny we are to believe that at almost 27 years old, this Yale-educated lawyer, a woman who had worked for two anti-war candidates, who had just moved to Arkansas and whose husband, Bill, was about to become the state attorney general, walked into a Marine recruiting office to ask to join? The contempt for voters’ intelligence is palpable.
Things are going to pick up momentum over the next two months. You want to be prepared and we will do our best to help you.