Democrats often tout a looming “blue wave” in Texas every election cycle. Yet, as seen in the recent victory of Republican Pete Flores in Texas’ dark blue Senate District 19, it may prove again to be nothing more than tough talk. Now, with less than two weeks until early voting, some are claiming a “blue wave” might be hitting a reliable voting block of Republican candidates: evangelical women.
According to exit polls from the 2016 election, President Trump received an unprecedented 81 percent of the white evangelical vote in the U.S. The share was even higher of Texas, at 85 percent. However, a recent New York Times article claims an increasing faction of white, evangelical women in the state are changing sides due to disapproval of Trump’s policies.
Specifically, the article titled, “Beto O’Rourke May Benefit from an Unlikely Support Group: White Evangelical Women,” looks at how this alleged anger toward Trump could affect down-ballot races, including Texas’ U.S. Senate race between El Paso Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz.
The claim is primarily based on an interview with five evangelical women in Dallas, all in their 30s, who—in an “act of rebellion”—have recently become vocal about their support for Cruz’s challenger.
The travel ban and “disrespect of women” were briefly mentioned as reasons for the switch, but the separation of families and children at the border is what they named as their hot-button issue.
“I care as much about babies at the border as I do about babies in the womb,” said one of the women. She goes on to confess that she was “mortified” at how she used to vote since the only policy she considered was abortion. “We’ve been asleep. Now, we’ve woke up.”
The article goes on to state: “The women described Mr. O’Rourke as providing a stark moral contrast to Mr. Trump, whose policies and behavior they see as fundamentally anti-Christian, especially separating immigrant children from their parents at the border, banning many Muslim refugees and disrespecting women.”
It’s worth noting that O’Rourke is running against Cruz, not Trump.
The claim that “white, evangelical women” might be turning their backs on the Republican Party based on the opinions of a handful of women in Dallas is hardly reliable. But, there’s no doubt liberal Democrats are working to pull on the heartstrings of Texans – and in some cases are succeeding.
However, when Election Day passes and the campaign rhetoric subsides, the policies supported by O’Rourke simply aren’t good for taxpaying Americans.
While O’Rourke’s rhetoric in TV ads is moderate in tone, his stated positions on the campaign trail follow those of the far left. And not just on the abortion issue, which has long been a hot-button issue for evangelical men and women.
O’Rourke has vocally supported raising taxes on corporations, small businesses, and Texas families. In 2016, for example, he defended Obama’s push to effectively raise the gas tax by 24 cents, which would have directly raised every family’s cost of living – meaning less money for food, clothes, charitable causes, and tithing.
The New York Times article demonstrates how O’Rourke has painted Texas’ border security problem solely as a humanitarian issue. But it’s also a public safety crisis, putting the safety of Texas families at risk.
Since 2011 – according to Texas’ Department of Public Safety – there have been over 606,000 criminal offenses in Texas committed by 228,000 individuals with illegal status. Many of the crimes are violent in nature. Of the 606,000 crimes in total, 1,273 were murders, 72,203 were assaults, while 6,516 were sexual assaults. Also often unreported are the thousands of minors exploited and abused by human traffickers in Texas – an epidemic that is exacerbated by poor border security policy.
Not mentioned in the article is the fact that Cruz immediately introduced legislation to address family separation concerns. But Democrats, including O’Rourke, conflate that issue with border security and use it to wrongly argue that law enforcement agencies are the problem and need to be eliminated. They are not.
What’s needed are common sense measures to streamline legal immigration, secure the border, and protect Texas families. This has been an ongoing issue and debate and is certainly not new to the current administration.
Sen. Cruz wants to empower Texas families and defend their rights. His entire career, both before and after entering the political stage, has been dedicated to defending the free speech, privacy, and religious liberty rights of Americans. As a fiscal conservative, he’s also defended their pocketbooks.
Throwing more money into the hands of D.C. politicians will not solve the challenges faced by Texans today. But that’s precisely what O’Rourke has supported, in concert with “progressives” inside his increasingly liberal party.
Aside from lofty rhetoric, O’Rourke has little to offer Texans – especially evangelicals. Cruz, on the other hand, has a strong record of fighting—both in the courts and in elected office—to defend and advance tangible policies that actually help Texans, including the unborn.
And shouldn’t results matter more than rhetoric?