Written by: Beck

David Brooks makes an interesting point: all the stars of the Republican party right now are pro-choice. The conservative wing of the party has shown lackluster performances all around at this convention. They may, of necessity, have to nominate someone who's pro-choice despite the fact that the Republican party is ultimately a pro-life party.

Such an event would be a major shift in the political landscape. For one thing, the Republican base would stay home in droves. In the case of Bush, he can only win by mobilizing his base. Karl Rove recognized that in 2000, and he recognizes it now. While many conservatives feel very strongly about the FMA, I think that at the highest level, they must recognize that it doesn't have a chance of succeeding. As such, it serves as a red herring whose purpose is to mobilize the base.

If a pro-choice Republican were to be the official nominee in 2008, the far right would stay home. They might even splinter off to jump on the remains of the Reform party or create some new third-party. However, a whole swath of moderate voters would swing to the Republicans. There are a lot of Americans who are basically Republican--they believe in personal responsibility, small government, and lower taxes. They just can't bring them to vote for a party which is so strongly social conservative on issues of religion, abortion, and homosexuality. These people represent a key constituency for Democrats, but they aren't by any means married to the Democratic party--not in the sense that many minorities regard themselves (re-read Al Sharpton's convention speech if you have any doubts about that).