Following the results of last week’s election, here comes the inevitable renewed call to oust pro-life principles from the Republican Party platform.

I almost want to tell the GOP to go ahead. Are pundits really that stupid? Never mind the 2012 Gallup poll, which showed the percentage of pro-“choice” Americans at a historic low…

Do Republicans really want to compete with Democrats for the 41%, leaving the 50% to wander off to a third party? This would be our only option.

The real problem for the GOP establishment is its players fall into one of three camps: terrified of the pro-life issue, Pro-Life in Name Only, or anti-life.

Would that the Republican establishment were to embrace the pro-life majority of their party as tightly as Democrats have embraced the pro-abortion majority of their party. Pictured below is Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood, one of many pro-abortion leaders who spoke at the Democrat National Convention. Click to enlarge….

But where were SBA List’s Marjorie Dannenfelser and AUL’s Charmaine Yoest to be seen at the Republican National Convention? I sat with one of them in a 5th floor sky box behind the stage the night Romney was nominated.

Were the Republican Party to embrace pro-life principles, one result would be pro-life candidates who are more adept at speaking on the issue. Instead of leaving pro-life candidates to fumble on their own (although there’s still no excuse, really), the GOP could integrate teaching talking points.

Another result would be to win even more people to the Republican Party. As Erick Erickson brilliantly pointed out the other day, the minority constituencies the GOP seeks to woo are already with us on social issues but not on fiscal issues:

In fact, if the GOP really wanted to expand its reach to minorities, it’d keep the social conservatism and thrown out the fiscal conservatism.

But no. We have Karl Rove, who wished Todd Akin dead, who counseled Nancy Brinker to re-embrace Planned Parenthood, and whose super-PAC only backed 6% of winners, planning to do even more damage. From Politico, today:

Where until now it battled only in general elections and against Democrats, Crossroads is considering whether to start picking sides in Republican primaries. The idea would be to boost the candidate it deems most electable and avoid nominating the kind of flawed and extreme ones who cost the party what should otherwise have been easy Senate wins in Florida, Missouri and Indiana.

That, however, could put Crossroads at odds with the tea party and other groups that devote their energies to promoting the most ideologically pure contenders.

Go for it, Karl. See how many more empty chairs there are at the 2016 Republican Convention.