claim: 'Pro-lifers support war and the death penalty and thus are hypocrites.'
response: "This claim results from the following facts: Pro-lifers tend to support the Republican Party. The Republican Party supports the death penalty and drove the war in Iraq. This argument fails for a number of reasons. Pro-lifers support the Republican Party because the Democratic Party has aggressively supported the \"right\" to abortion on demand for decades. The argument ignores the fact that many pro-lifers generally oppose war and the death penalty on religious grounds. \n\nFurthermore, those who do support the death penalty and certain wars do so on the grounds of law enforcement and national security. There is a clear difference between the aborted child and the convicted criminal: The former is completely innocent, whereas the latter has been tried by law and found to be guilty of a crime. One could argue that there is no hypocricy in this. In fact, the pro-lifer should always remember that the pro-abort's position is more hypocritical—he opposes the killing of a convicted criminal but supports the killing of an absolutely-innocent baby—and he is attempting to project his own hypocrisy onto his opponents."

Republicans are for the rich — helping people become rich, that is.
Democrats are for the poor — making sure the poor stay poor, that is.

A response I sent to Chicks on the Right regarding this post.

So you are endorsing the increasingly-popular notion that the Republican Party must tell social conservatives in order to get lost to win? News flash: Science and technology have caught up with the pro-life movement, turning millions of Americans against abortion to some degree. I fully believe that science and technology will also validate the opposition to sexual activism. Already there is sufficient evidence to proclaim that the Sexual Revolution was a disaster for this country. The conventional wisdom wants us to discard the social movements precisely because without them, the radical transformation of our society proceeds without opposition and with free disregard of science or empirical evidence.

But by all means, tell the 30 million social and religious conservatives to shut up and get with the program. They won't shut up — true conviction never does — but they will grow tired of the partisan process. Mitt Romney lost because the GOP played the milquetoast game, not because it was "too conservative." With Republicans like these, who needs them? At least the Democrats are known quantities.

What our movement really needs right now is a unifying leader in the mold and spirit of Ronald Reagan. One who stands unwaveringly on a foundation of principle, yet communicates those principles boldly and clearly. There was none in the presidential race of 2012. And that's probably because our higher powers realized that we needed to learn these lessons the hard way.

The Democratic Party cares about democracy only to the extent that democracy empowers Democrats. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has rendered itself impotent and useless, providing only token resistance to the statists and progressives.