Sun Tzu, Ken Cuccinelli, and the 'War on Women' Gambit

Maybe we really have fallen through the looking glass.  Virginia's highly qualified and able Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, continues to trail shady political hack Terry McAuliffe in recent polls of the Virginia governor's race.  The gap consists entirely of women voters, with 53% favoring McAuliffe to 34% for Cuccinelli.  At least some of that gap comes from McAuliffe's active use of the "war on women" gambit, which the Democrats developed in the 2012 elections.  Of course, the whole "war on women" gambit is as phony as Obama's campaign promise to reduce the deficit (see here and here), but if the Democrats win with it in Virginia, we will be hearing nothing but in 2014.  (Not to mention that the Old Dominion will be stuck with an incompetent, job-destroying, tax-raising leftist as governor.)

Can we counter this newest variation on the Big Lie?  Yes, by using one of the stratagems attributed to the ancient Chinese military philosopher, Sun Tzu.  This is to "use the enemy's strength against him."  How could this be applied to defeat the phony "war on women" gambit?  Let's see.  What is the enemy's strength?  Clearly the leftists' greatest strength on the issue of life is that decades ago an activist Supreme Court wrote unborn children out of the Constitution.  Constitutionalists rightly loathe the Roe v Wade opinion, which rivals Dredd Scott as the worst Supreme Court decision in the nation's history.  Yet it stands, and decades of Republican Supreme Court appointees have not overturned it.  For now, why not use it? 

Here is how it would work in a debate or TV campaign spot"

"My opponent has devoted a huge part of his campaign to false accusations that somehow I am going to outlaw abortion.  I am morally opposed to abortion-on-demand.  However, in a decision over 40 years ago called Roe v Wade the United States Supreme Court said states could not prohibit most abortion.  Now, unlike President Obama and other Democrats such as my opponent, I believe in upholding all the laws, including the ones I believe are wrong.  [One inserts here the latest examples of Democrats' violation of their oaths of office.]  Unfortunately, there is nothing a state governor [legislator, member of Congress, etc.] can do to change Roe v Wade.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves, if this issue has already been decided by a Supreme Court decision, why is my opponent spending so much time talking about it?  The answer is one simple reason.  He is trying to divert attention from the real issues facing us, which are [getting more jobs, helping the economy with lower taxes and regulations, fighting crime, his shady past, etc.]"

The same approach applies to the even lamer charges that conservatives are out to ban contraception.  State laws against the sale of contraceptive items were ruled unconstitutional eight years before Roe v. Wade in a case called Griswold v. Connecticut. When George Stephanopoulos, a Democrat political operative masquerading as a journalist, kept throwing questions about contraception at Republican presidential candidates at a debate in 2012, someone should have simply said, "George, the Supreme Court has settled that as you well know, and no one is proposing to defy the Supreme Court.  You are wasting everyone's time with those questions."

Of course, this approach will not sway the hardcore leftists.  However, it can cut through the Democrat lies which seemed to have unhappily swayed too many moderate and independent women voters.

This is not a proposal that defenders of the Constitution turn into surrender monkeys on the vital issue of life.  However, constitutionalists will have to control the presidency and the Senate for a long time in order to appoint enough truly pro-Constitution Supreme Court justices to reverse this horrendous decision.  Many are pursuing "personhood" statutes, but in the end such statutes will still be subject to the Supreme Court.  The only sure way to permanently overrule Roe v. Wade and restore respect for life is a constitutional amendment.  To enact such an amendment we must first reform the amendment process to enable the states to initiate and enact constitutional amendments without having to go through either Congress or the unworkable and archaic mechanism of a convention. With that end in view, in the here-and-now let's use the leftists' own victories to defeat their "war on women" lies.

James W. Lucas is an attorney, entrepreneur and the author of Are We The People? Using Amendment to Take Back Our Constitution from Big Government, Big Business and the Supreme Court and Timely Renewed: Amendments to Restore the American Constitution.  He blogs at www.timelyrenewed.com.

Maybe we really have fallen through the looking glass.  Virginia's highly qualified and able Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, continues to trail shady political hack Terry McAuliffe in recent polls of the Virginia governor's race.  The gap consists entirely of women voters, with 53% favoring McAuliffe to 34% for Cuccinelli.  At least some of that gap comes from McAuliffe's active use of the "war on women" gambit, which the Democrats developed in the 2012 elections.  Of course, the whole "war on women" gambit is as phony as Obama's campaign promise to reduce the deficit (see here and here), but if the Democrats win with it in Virginia, we will be hearing nothing but in 2014.  (Not to mention that the Old Dominion will be stuck with an incompetent, job-destroying, tax-raising leftist as governor.)

Can we counter this newest variation on the Big Lie?  Yes, by using one of the stratagems attributed to the ancient Chinese military philosopher, Sun Tzu.  This is to "use the enemy's strength against him."  How could this be applied to defeat the phony "war on women" gambit?  Let's see.  What is the enemy's strength?  Clearly the leftists' greatest strength on the issue of life is that decades ago an activist Supreme Court wrote unborn children out of the Constitution.  Constitutionalists rightly loathe the Roe v Wade opinion, which rivals Dredd Scott as the worst Supreme Court decision in the nation's history.  Yet it stands, and decades of Republican Supreme Court appointees have not overturned it.  For now, why not use it? 

Here is how it would work in a debate or TV campaign spot"

"My opponent has devoted a huge part of his campaign to false accusations that somehow I am going to outlaw abortion.  I am morally opposed to abortion-on-demand.  However, in a decision over 40 years ago called Roe v Wade the United States Supreme Court said states could not prohibit most abortion.  Now, unlike President Obama and other Democrats such as my opponent, I believe in upholding all the laws, including the ones I believe are wrong.  [One inserts here the latest examples of Democrats' violation of their oaths of office.]  Unfortunately, there is nothing a state governor [legislator, member of Congress, etc.] can do to change Roe v Wade.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves, if this issue has already been decided by a Supreme Court decision, why is my opponent spending so much time talking about it?  The answer is one simple reason.  He is trying to divert attention from the real issues facing us, which are [getting more jobs, helping the economy with lower taxes and regulations, fighting crime, his shady past, etc.]"

The same approach applies to the even lamer charges that conservatives are out to ban contraception.  State laws against the sale of contraceptive items were ruled unconstitutional eight years before Roe v. Wade in a case called Griswold v. Connecticut. When George Stephanopoulos, a Democrat political operative masquerading as a journalist, kept throwing questions about contraception at Republican presidential candidates at a debate in 2012, someone should have simply said, "George, the Supreme Court has settled that as you well know, and no one is proposing to defy the Supreme Court.  You are wasting everyone's time with those questions."

Of course, this approach will not sway the hardcore leftists.  However, it can cut through the Democrat lies which seemed to have unhappily swayed too many moderate and independent women voters.

This is not a proposal that defenders of the Constitution turn into surrender monkeys on the vital issue of life.  However, constitutionalists will have to control the presidency and the Senate for a long time in order to appoint enough truly pro-Constitution Supreme Court justices to reverse this horrendous decision.  Many are pursuing "personhood" statutes, but in the end such statutes will still be subject to the Supreme Court.  The only sure way to permanently overrule Roe v. Wade and restore respect for life is a constitutional amendment.  To enact such an amendment we must first reform the amendment process to enable the states to initiate and enact constitutional amendments without having to go through either Congress or the unworkable and archaic mechanism of a convention. With that end in view, in the here-and-now let's use the leftists' own victories to defeat their "war on women" lies.

James W. Lucas is an attorney, entrepreneur and the author of Are We The People? Using Amendment to Take Back Our Constitution from Big Government, Big Business and the Supreme Court and Timely Renewed: Amendments to Restore the American Constitution.  He blogs at www.timelyrenewed.com.