1

Joe,

Every time you put about a reasonable post like this other one and I start to become convinced you are not just a shill for Karl Rove, you follow it with one straight from Rove's fax machine.

Fortunately for the Democrats, most people are unaware that abortion on demand is the law of the land.

You have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens if you think they are that stupid.

In the meantime, Democrats in Congress secretly pray that the Roberts Court will overturn Roe and send the issue back to the states.

And with this statement you make clear that all that really matters to you is not Christianity but partisan hackery. In doing so, you energize those who would believe there is a powerful rightwing religious force which, if it can, will impose its view of the world on everyone, Constitution be damned.

Your party has given us Delay, Foley, Hastert, Reynolds, Duke Cunningham, Brownie, Abramhof, Ney, Rove, an illegal war than has killed nearly 3000 Americans and wounded 20,000, driven the deficit to astronomical heights, brought a culture of corruption to Washington the likes of which have not been seen in a century, undercut science, promoted torture, increased terrorism, let Osama Bin Laden run free, failed to support the forces for democracy in Iran, failed to give our troops the support they need... All that, and you have the hubris to continue the lies that have become your staple. Well, I guess at this point no one should be surprised.

2

Joe,

This is an area I think we can see eye to eye. Not so much on abortion, obviously we see eye to eye there. Moreso on your observation.

I too observe that many folks I know, even the Democrats, won't vote for people who are pro abortion. A good example of this is a buddy of mine who's family is Mexican. They tend to always vote for the Democrat here in California but they are vehemently opposed to abortion and are very strong Catholics. Some candidates do well to hide it, or to keep it out of sight as an issue during a campaign, but anytime it comes up and is put before the voters that candidate struggles to get elected in a balanced constituency.

I'm sure this wouldn't be the case in someplace like San Francisco, but in most of the country voters are turned off by politicians that support abortion on demand.

This is something that drives values voters to the polls to vote for Republicans. Lately it has been more the war on terror but there is still a very large crowd of voters who are saddened very deeply by the number of children we kill in this nation every year and drag themselves to the polls year after year in a small effort to combat the infanticide.

3

Andy,

you sound like a partisan hack yourself. A very boring one.

4

Andy,

Based on the bitter, vitriolic nature of your post, I assume you are an abortion supporter. Naturally, people differ on this deeply moral issue. I do find it interesting that both Roe and Doe themselves have repudiated the SCOTUS decisions that put us where we are today.

However, the gist of your post implies that somewhere in the Constitution itself is a right to abortion. Both of us know, or we should, that this is false. This "right" is nothing more than lit. crit. as applied to the Constitution. From the postmodern perspective that leads to such "interpretations", "penumbras", and "emanations", anything can be construed to say anything, so everything means nothing. Stanley Fish and the late Derrida tell us so themselves. If that's the tack you wish to take, then why bother to invoke the Constitution, a document written by white male slaveowners, at all? Isn't that the moral equivalent of citing the Protocols of Zion as the base authority?

5

Hello all,
What hard numbers do we have that abortion has damaged the Democrat base? I see polls saying 50% of people support abortion. Recent elections swings have been attributed to "moral" issues, but is this the issue?

6

"Once the dust settles, though, the result will be the same as it’s been for a decade: the Republicans will still be in control of the House and Senate and the Democrat’s will wonder how they managed to blow it yet again."

I love the smell of whining wingnuts in the morning. Dream on, Joe. You're standing in front of a screaming, pounding locomotive charging down the tracks at you and you're holding up a cardboard flower with Karl Rove's latest talking point on it. The disgust and outrage with the GOP that's building in this country is not to be so lightly dismissed with wishful thinking.

You guys are gonna get hammered in November and it's gonna be very ugly and brutal for any sad clown with an "R" behind his name. People want change. The only slogan the Democratic party needs now is: Had Enough?

I've had enough of this craven bunch of greedy, powermad plutocrats and I've got lots of reasons to send 'em packing. And you bring up a "hot-button" issue, thinking maybe Roe v. Wade will save the day for you? Don't make me laugh. Ain't gonna work this time. You won't be able to "fire up the base," amigo. Abortion won't save you. Gay marriage won't save you. You're out of bullets. Oh, and one more thing...

Look out for that train.

7

But by 1992 the Democrats had so thoroughly embraced abortion that Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey was not allowed to speak at the convention because he didn’t support the platform’s abortion plank.

I know this has been pointed out to you before; I don't know why you keep mis-stating it.

Casey was not refused a convention slot because he was anti-choice. He was left out because he refused to endorse his own party's candidate and had also stated that he would use his speaking time to actively oppose his own party's platform during the convention itself. There were other anti-choice speakers at the convention - but they were supporting the candidate and the platform. Casey was actively opposing both. Of course he wasn't asked to speak - but it was his own childish and obstructive behavior that was the reason.

8

Ah, the usual rhetoric from the left in evidence. Perhaps this election will go poorly for the Repubs; goodness knows they deserve it, and the American people deserve the Democrats; we are a wicked people, after all.
But Western 'liberalism' is doomed to be a momentary aberration in history. It carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. Consider this:
~80% of children will grow up to share their parents worldview and politics, basically. Its hard to reproduce when you abort many of your offspring, encourage same-sex 'marriage', and have one designer baby at 39. If you think the world is overpopulated, you don't have babies. So guess who does? The ones who don't think so, who don't abort their babies, and the ones who encourage marriage between people who actually are capable of reproducing. Thus, in 20 years, we may have to declare the American liberal an endangered species. Meanwhile the religionists of one stripe or another will inherit the earth. All the angry libs had better hope that its the fundie Christians at the helm in their neighborhood i/o the Religion of Peace...

9

Kevin,

Who were the other "anti-choice" speakers at the convention?

10

What if the dems had a plan to provide education on birth control, and supply to all who needs ?

11

Joe:

I would be interested in knowing why you think the Dems have gone so radical on abortion. I think it's hatred for anything Christian (specifically religious right). If the religious right is for it, then the secular left is against it. I believe that hatred for the Christian religion is the overriding glue that binds the secular left together.

I wish I could be as confident as you that Republicans will hold on to Congress. Oh, listen to me, as if it will make much difference. But as with many things, it's the lesser of two evils. It is amazing how goofy the Dems have gotten lately. Whenever Hugo Chavez, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Ahmadinejihad, etc. speak, they sound like Democrat talking points. They want to fight the war from Okinawa, they want to impeach Bush, they want to raise taxes, but they don't really dare to say it aloud--just like abortion, they support it, but no one knows just how rabidly.

12

Most honest people take a look at Washington and realize it is populated by career politicians who have a primary interest in power, self, fame, money, and probably hedonism, in general, just to avoid the slimier side of things.

However, when you hear the lefties shout on the airwaves and in the blogosphere so loudly and emphatically, it is without an ounce of recognition that the corruption permiates the party they love just as much, or more, depending on the topic at hand.

Maybe the Rs will get beat in November, but no contemplative conservative, or moderate can look at today's Democratic party as a viable option. Perhaps staying home could happen, but actively pulling a lever for the likes of Kerry, Hillary, or fill in the blank just ain't gonna happen.

Do Americans want change? Maybe. Do Americans really believe the democrats will usher in the kind of change they crave? Unlikely. The most the lefties can hope for is that conservatives and moderates are just too worn out and cynical to cast a vote for anyone.

When you have people who can only be critical, especially to the point of blatent hatred, toward one party alone, you know they cannot see the forest, or the trees.

But Joe is correct, in that as long as the Dems. represent abortion on demand as their calling card, many, many people will never cast a vote in their favor.

13

Care to back up your assertions with actual evidence, Joe? You appear to be guilty of one of the fallacies you have warned against. You are taking two trends (Republican control of Congress and increasing tendency of Democratic politicians to be pro-choice) and assuming that one cause the other. Can you actually demonstrate that control of Congress depends on this issue? Can you demonstrate that a single Congressional race was determined by this issue? Can you establish that if a given Democratic candidate had changed his position on this issue he would have won? It seems possible or even probable that any votes the Democrat might gain would be offset by others who switched and those who became disaffected and didn't vote.

From the polls I've seen, abortion ranks as an extremely low concern of most voters. As I recall, something like 2% cite it as the key factor in their decision-making.

I do agree that the abortion debate has for too long been dominated by the extremists on both sides. Only 20% of Americans support abortion in all circumstances, and only 20% oppose abortion in all circumstances. 60% of Americans see no problem with the morning after pill but do have a problem with a late term abortion for convenience. It's time for some party or politician to make an appeal to the vast majority who believe that this is not the black-and-white issue that the radicals on both ends insist it is.

14

Wow, between AndyS and The Raven, it's like an elementary school playground fight in here.

Hey Doc: awesome point. The liberals are aborting themselves out of existence!

15

"Hey Doc: awesome point. The liberals are aborting themselves out of existence!"

Best of the Web over at WSJ's Opinion Journal website has been calling this "The Roe Effect" for years.

Question is, how much damage will they do before they become extinct?

And will this lead to desperate measures (like seizing power while they still can)?

16

Try these out from pollingreport.com

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 8-11, 2006. N=1,357 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
-----------------
"As you may know, South Dakota adopted a law that would ban all abortions, except to save the life of the mother. Do you approve or disapprove of the South Dakota abortion law?"

(% Approve > Disapprove > Unsure)
ALL adults > 34 > 58 > 8
Democrats > 24 > 69 > 7
Independents > 27 > 67 > 6
Republicans > 52 > 42 > 6

Other similar stats don't seem to support Joe's contention, but his contention is worth considering. But I think the Dems have a bigger problem - they are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as:

- not having solutions to societal problems other than bigger gov't programs
- being weak on crime, weak on terrorism
- the party of complaints, but not vision or solutions
- supporting anti-family values and poor morals like teen promiscuity and abortion on demand

While they are seen as strong on the environment, this is not enough to carry them.

17

The fact that the poor and ignorant (and religious) tend to have far more children than the wealthy and well-educated (and less religious) has been observed since long before Roe. This is why 99% of the world's population growth today is coming from Third World countries. Even in the religious USA, population would be in a decline if not for immigration and the higher birth rates of first and second generation immigrants.

I don't think liberals will become extinct, unless people stop becoming educated and wealthier. The further someone goes in school, the more liberal they become. Conservatives like to attribute this to the pernicious influence of liberal professors, but the correlation holds even at conservative schools. The best way to ensure conservative political dominance would be to abolish universities and prohibit access to birth control.

18

Seeker, those are interesting stats but they don't prove that if Democratic politicians changed their position, they would win. In fact, they suggest that if Democratic leaders switched, their followers might create a third party that would attract many independents as well. If anything, the numbers show that the Democratic leadership is far more representative of the public opinion on abortion than the Republican leadership.

A Newsweek poll just released has discouraging news for Republicans. Bush's approval has slipped to an almost unbelievable 33%.

The article concludes:

"Democrats now outdistance Republicans on every single issue that could decide voters’ choices come Nov. 7. In addition to winning—for the first time in the NEWSWEEK poll—on the question of which party is more trusted to fight the war on terror (44 to 37 percent) and moral values (42 percent to 36 percent), the Democrats now inspire more trust than the GOP on handling Iraq (47 to 34); the economy (53 to 31); health care (57 to 24); federal spending and the deficit (53 to 29); gas and oil prices (56 to 23); and immigration (43 to 34).

"And even if the Republicans manage to bail out their ship before the midterms, they’ll have a hard time matching their one-time strengths to voters’ priorities. A third of registered voters, 33 percent, say the single most important issue that will decide their vote will be Iraq; compare to 20 percent who say the economy and only 12 percent who say terrorism, which ties with health care."

I wonder where abortion is on that list.

19

Hello,

This is a great blog. I'm going to be sure to link yours to mine. Would you mind doing the same for me?

Thank you very much.

My site:
www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

Take care,
Mark

20

AndyS:
"And with this statement you make clear that all that really matters to you is not Christianity but partisan hackery.

Uhm. Do you seriously believe this about Joe?

LOL.

...

Kevin T. Keith:

I, too, would like to know who the anti-choice speakers at the Democratic National Convention were.

21

I just took a poll. 80% of respondents agreed that NEWSWEEK polls are less accurate than extended weather forecasts. 10% felt NEWSWEEK polls show less integrity than their dogs daily back yard business, while the remaining 10% said they wouldn't read NEWSWEEK even if it was the last magazine left on the proctologists coffee table.

This just in: ZOGBY still has Kerry by a landslide in 04'.

22

Eric & Lisa and Giggling:

And then God said, "let there be Google." And lo, there was, and it was good. A total of eight pro-life speakers, although they did not make pro-life speeches at the convention.

23

"Bush's approval has slipped to an almost unbelievable 33%."

Yeah, ex - it's really hard to believe that 33 percent of Americans are oblivious to the fact that we have what is unquestionably the worst administration of all time.

By the way, as an aside here, speaking for the liberal half of the country, I don't vote for politicians who are pro-choice because they support "abortion on demand" or because they say they're "pro-abortion." In fact, I've never heard of any Democrat or Republican say any such thing. What I do support are politicians who feel that medical decisions - abortion, death with dignity, etc. - are best made by the patient and physician. The overarching principle is privacy, and that's underscored by freedom.

By the same token, I don't vote against a politician because they claim to be "pro-life." I vote against them because they wish to intrude on what should be a personal matter.

24

Oh, and since I forgot to point out the elephant in the room on what's wrong with Joe's logic, adopting a pro-life platform would clearly cost the Democrats more support than it gained them. I mean, come on, who here seriously believes that people who previously voted Republican would magically start voting Democrat if only the Democrats changed their position on the abortion issue (while leaving all other positions the same). That premise is simply risible.

Couple that with the fact that so-called "swing voters" are generally far closer to the Democratic position on abortion than the Republican one, and you've got a lot of hot air. Move along people, nothing of substance to see here.

25

Gee, Raven, I guess your idea of "death with dignity" includes late term and partial birth abortions. Nice, very nice. Very dignified, too; check out the pictures.

Nobody wants to invade your privacy or inhibit your freedoms. When a life other than your own is involved, it is something else completely. Planned Parenthood profits by ending human life. Oil companies profit by producing a product that helps you move about the world. Which do you find contemptable?

26

Thanks for the mention, Joe.

W/r/t to the Democratic spin on Gov. Casey's exclusion from the Democratic convention in 1992, check out either the late governor's book, Fighting for Life, or my own, The Party of Death, which tracks how that spin has changed. Suffice it to say that yes, he was excluded because he was likely to make the case that the Democrats should return to their tradition of protecting the vulnerable.

27

Ho hum. Harry Reid. Bob Casey.

The only thing this post shows is that Stirling Newberry is dead on: When it comes to "sex issues," the subject ain't going to change.

Democrats aren't being "killed" by "abortion," but rather hypocrisy about "moral values" is surely killing the Republicans. The subject won't be changed until after the elections: on every single area of relevance to Americans: from keeping their pages safe to keeping us safe from nuclear conflagration, Republicans have made a mess.

And it's time for the rest of us to clean it up.

28

Ramesh Thanks for the mention, Joe.

I should have mentioned before that all of the facts in this post are taken from Ramesh's excellent book, "The Party of Death." As I wrote in my review a few months ago (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/002959.html) this is the seminal work on abortion in America. I can't recommend it enough. It should be required reading for anyone--whether pro-life or pro-choice--who wants to be truly informed on this issue.

29

"In the meantime, Democrats in Congress secretly pray that the Roberts Court will overturn Roe and send the issue back to the states."

The unstated corollary is that Republicans are secretly praying that the SCOTUS will NOT overturn Roe v. Wade.

30

I don't think liberals will become extinct, unless people stop becoming educated and wealthier. The further someone goes in school, the more liberal they become.

Oh, puh-leeze! Can we stop this canard once and for all?! There are highly educated people on both sides of the political divide, and there are extremely stupid people on both sides. (Ever read Democratic Underground or Daily Kos for examples of the latter?)

I'm as conservative as they come, and I have a graduate degree from an Ivy League university. Read the likes of J.P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, J. J. Budziszewski, just for starters and then see if you can continue to make such silly statements.

31

Of course, that should just be J. Budziszewski, not J.J. My keyboard must have hiccuped (or else J. Buds is going hip-hop on us!).

32

A recent Angus Reid poll for CBS showed 70% want more restrictions on abortion - this is in line with the figures Joe put forth:

5% not allow abortion at all
17% allowed only to save a mother's life
33% rape, incest, mother's life
15% permit abortion, but increase restrictions.

27% abortion should be permitted in all circumstances.

From this poll, abortion views can be seen as a continuum. But only 27% truly want abortion on demand. This is the current Democrat position, and the reason abortion is a losing issue for them. Republicans have positioned themselves with 70% of the population.

33

Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule, but if you look at any reputable poll that breaks down political opinion by education level, you will find that those with graduate degrees are far more liberal than the general public on virtually every political issue. I'm not saying that every conservative voter is ignorant or that every liberal voter is well-educated, just that the general tendency is for opinions to become more liberal or progressive as one gains education.

Go to any recognized poll (even Barna) and look at the numbers on issues such as same-sex marriage, acceptance of evolution, abortion, belief in God, whether the Bible is God's Word, gun control, national healthcare system, role of women, immigration, you name it and highly educated people are more liberal than the general public.

34

Another way to look at those numbers, pizzaman, is that only 23% adhere to a purely pro-life position. As I said, the vast majority of Americans are not on either extreme.

35

gene,

I'm as conservative as they come, and I have a graduate degree from an Ivy League university. Read the likes of J.P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, J. J. Budziszewski, just for starters and then see if you can continue to make such silly statements.

Just a couple of points: GWB graduated from an Ivy League university and clearly didn't learn much. And, golly, you read 3 different authors? Now there's an intellectual; your bookshelf must be at least three inches wide. And what a broad and stimulating selection: two Christian apologists and a Discovery [sic] Institute Fellow.

Let me guess: that grad degree is an MBA, your parents are conservative, and your family is well off. And for the bonus round: your father is an alumnus at the school you attended.

Okay, I'm being snarky. But, giving a single counterexample to prove a general trend false is hardly the sign of a sharp, well-educated individual.

36

Make that 22%. Damn it, Jim, I'm a historian, not a mathmetician!

I get the 22% by adding the 5% who say no abortion under any circumstances to the 17% who would allow it to save the mother's life. Both of these are pure pro-life positions.

The 33% who would allow it in the case of rape or incest are not purely pro-life. A consistent pro-lifer would have a real problem with allowing murder just because a woman was raped or had sex with a relative. Under their logic, that would also mean there is nothing wrong with killing an already born child whose father was a rapist or family member.

And clearly the 15% who would allow abortion, but with greater restrictions are not pro-life.

Using pizzaman's logic, we could say that Democrats have aligned themselves with 78% of Americans.

37

EX:"Using pizzaman's logic, we could say that Democrats have aligned themselves with 78% of Americans."

That's why the democrats control the house the senate and the Whitehouse...oh, wait, guess that's some other party.

Well, it's been clearly established here, and we've read it here first. Education cleary does not automatically lead to enlightenment. Thanks for pointing that out.

38

I hope you are wrong about who will stay in power. Abortion is the card, and rightfully so, that can make or break a politician, but this time it is different. People have a few other things to chew on, like 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians and secret torture prisons run by the CIA. I have tried to find statistics and they hard to come by, about the rate of abortions compared with Clintons term and Bush’s. Correct me if I’m wrong but there have been many more abortions in Bush’s. If one studies the causes of abortion it makes sense. Things like poverty and job insecurity have a role in decisions about abortion.

39

Just a couple of points: GWB graduated from an Ivy League university and clearly didn't learn much. And, golly, you read 3 different authors? Now there's an intellectual; your bookshelf must be at least three inches wide. And what a broad and stimulating selection: two Christian apologists and a Discovery [sic] Institute Fellow.

Let me guess: that grad degree is an MBA, your parents are conservative, and your family is well off. And for the bonus round: your father is an alumnus at the school you attended.--AndyS

Okay, a couple of points: GWB had a higher GPA at Yale than Kerry. He also had higher SATs. And he has an earned MBA from Harvard.

Two, my graduate degree is in philosophy (as is my undergrad). My father never went to college. And my house is overflowing with thousands of books. I gave three examples as, well, examples. And you commit the classic genetic fallacy of dismissing authors simply on the basis of who they associate with or, allegedly, what they write. (Moreland and J. Buds have earned doctorates from big name universities and teach philosophy of science and philosophy of government, respectively, not "apologetics.")

You do prove one thing, though, Andy. The classic condescension (and ignorance) of those who think they're better than others. YOu simply prove my point for me--there are stupid people on both sides of the political divide.

40

ex-preacher,

You're right, a consistent pro-lifer would not want to allow abortion in any case. But pragmatic Republican politicians don't have to be true pro-lifers. They only have to appear reasonable to the majority of the population - by advocating reforms that are widely supported (for example: ban partial birth abortion, require parental notification, etc). These positions are clearly supported by the majority.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have pinned themselves in a corner. They have to advocate abortion on demand - the NARAL crowd demands it. This is particularly true for Democrat politicians with presidential ambitions. That's why it's so rare to even find a Democrat who will advocate common sense restrictions.

You would be hard pressed to find many Democrat politicians that would line up even with the last 15% who want a few restrictions. And that's why their losing on this issue.

So your argument is absurd. For Democrats to line up with your 78% figure, they would have to advocate banning abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and life of the mother. This is clearly not the position of the national democratic party.

41

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that the Democratic position on abortion rights can be shown to be the cause for Republican control of Congress. Can someone show me a single race in the last 20 years where it can be reasonably concluded that the Democrat would have won if he had switched his stance on abortion?

42

How Evangelicals are being used:

CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in...

MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?

CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. They live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't share their values.

MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?

CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out

43

Another thing many liberals don't realize is just how many abortions are being performed. When I share the numbers (approx. 1,200,000 per year in the USA), they at first accuse me of being ludicrous and ask for my source. When I tell them the figure is supported by data from the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC, they are dumbfounded. These are typically other teachers who are college-educated and as well-informed as the MSM allows them to be.

44

From WP/ABC News Poll released today:

7. What will be the single most important issue in your vote for U.S. House this year?

10/8/06 RV
Economy 23%
Iraq 12
War on terrorism 11
Immigration 7
Health care 5
Ethics/corruption 3
Education 3
Party affiliation 3
Gas prices 2
Medicare 1
Abortion 1
Same-sex marriage 1

All other answers had less than 1% each

45

the potential life inside her--The Raven

Yes, the ultimate dodge: call the undeniable life in her womb only a "potential" life to justify killing it. The first step in justifying killing another is first to dehumanize it.

But by the very definition of the word "potential," if it's a "potential" life, then it must also be a "potential" something else. What precisely, Raven, would that be? In your world, the only other potential for it is death.

Nowhere in your little rant do you mention adoption, by the way.

46

Joe, I trackbacked to this article earlier today, but it looks like your trackback isn't working.

47

You know damn well there are NO unbiased polls that support a majority as anti-abortion. (What you call "pro-life" because it sounds good.) Why do Christians think it is OK to LIE? Is it that the end justifies the means if it SERVES GOD? I know that the 8th(?) Commandment doesn't actually
forbid lying per se. (But I would take a close look at the 2nd.) Really, is it only us secular liberals that think lying (& deception et al), is immoral, and just plain wrong?

I also read your post on the FRC Christian folk faux pas, and basically heard you say the same thing that the Repub's are saying about Hastert and George Allen. "They may be assholes, but their our assholes", so it's OK.

Hate to tell you this Joe, but I was a Christian for forty years, and you just don't qualify.

48

Thanks for the link Tgsirch.

So it looks to me like it is alright in the Democratic party to be pro-life as long as you shut up and do nothing about it.

Sometimes I think this is a fundamental disagreement between Republicans and Democrats, although my common sense says certainly this cannot be the case.

Democrats seem to think they are for or against someone/something by speaking their support or opposition. While Republicans believe we are for or against someone/something through our actions.

The coincidental thing here is that Dennis Prager was making this very point about a month ago on his radio show in regards to Mel Gibson. His point was pretty much that he does not believe that words spoken are so much an indication of what is really inside a person as opposed to actions committed. He gave the example of Richard Nixon vs Jimmy Carter (If my memory serves correctly). If one was to go on words spoken, it would appear that Carter was pro-Israel while Nixon was anti-Israel but by actions clearly Nixon was pro-Israel while Carter was anti-Israel.

This is probably another one of those distinctions when it comes to abortion. If a democrat (Let's recall Kerry here during the 2004 campaign) says they are against abortion, they are therefore pro-life, even though they vote for laws that allow women to kill their children while still in the womb. When a Republican says they are pro-life, they either behave as though they mean it, or they are a hypocrite.

49

If one was to go on words spoken, it would appear that Carter was pro-Israel while Nixon was anti-Israel but by actions clearly Nixon was pro-Israel while Carter was anti-Israel.

Denis Prager is looney-tunes; under Carter a peace was signed with Egypt, which has always been honored. Under Nixon instability in the Middle East forced us to go to Defcon 1. In Nixon's actions or inactions, the whole world almost was nuked.

Stop listening to Republican propagandists and start reading up on history.

50

When a Republican says they are pro-life, they either behave as though they mean it, or they are a hypocrite.
__
Like Tom Delay in the Northern Mariana? Forcing women to have abortions for money seems a bit hypocritical. Also saying that killing a person just at the womb is a sin and then making them open season the rest of their lives seems to me illogical, Bush as Governor of Texas has 173 people executed. One was a born again Christian.
.

51

~80% of children will grow up to share their parents worldview and politics, basically. Its hard to reproduce when you abort many of your offspring, encourage same-sex 'marriage', and have one designer baby at 39.

Nice pseudo-social Darwinist/eugenicist spin on this but when you talk about children growing up that share their parents worldview you're talking about an amazingly fuzzy concept.

1. While to a sheltered and myopic person like you the difference between a Republican and Democrat may seem night and day the fact is in the big scheme of things they are so close that they basically fall into the same 'worldview'. To you being for or against legalized gay marriage might seem like the difference between Hitler and Churchill but the fact how civil marriage law applies to 1% of the population is hardly a major issue.

2. Observe how dramatically culture has changed in the last generation. A while ago my father-in-law hauled away a dumpster from a house that was being cleaned out. The woman there had thrown away old newspapers she had saved from the 60's. I found them interesting because these were local papers, not major ones like the NYT.

I was stunned to see how just about every page had something about race. There was no recent riot or other major event on the day the paper was printed but just about every page had an editorial or article about what would be good for race relations. What the politicians were saying about race etc. Even the lighter section of the paper carried an article about a doctor in South Africa who had developed a skin bleach to whiten the skin of blacks who suffered a skin disease....but since the procedure would allow a black person to pass for white there was a racial angle to it!

It was amazing to see how just about 30-40 years ago all people seemed to think about was race on both sides of the spectrum. However today it barely makes a blip anywhere. But how could this be if your theory is right? If 80% of children adopt their parents worldview and their parents thought race was the most important issue ever then why don't they think so today?

seeker:
But I think the Dems have a bigger problem - they are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as:...

- supporting anti-family values and poor morals like teen promiscuity ...

Right or wrong I think the GOP has more or less sunk that boat by having Mr. Foley in charge of the 'exploited children' subcommittee.

The more serious response to this is to question what the GOP means by being an advocate of 'small gov't.' Government, especially the Federal Gov't, should not be a major player in the decisions individuals make about their sex lives and other personal matters like marriage, divorce etc. While most people probably do lean towards a semi-traditional view of things (I say semi because let's face it, premarital sex and divorce are the norm for people even in the deepest parts of the Bible belt) I think they strongly object to a overbearing gov't presuming to 'help' them have successfull marriages and so on.

In this regard the Democrats have a strong advantage if they hone their message. It's not 'big gov't' to give someone an unemployment check if they get downsized out of their jobs or even subsidies to go back to school. That sort of thing is relatively simple and easy for gov't to do. It is, after all, simply printing checks and putting them in the mail. It's hard to get gov't to print them for the correct amount and mail them to the right as opposed to wrong people but its not impossible.

What is not possible, though, is for gov't to play the role of relationship counselor keeping people from getting divorced or convincing them to marry early and so on. When you get gov't into this business you're just going to get very crude, meat cleaver type policies (like 'let's tax single people and give married people a big cut!').

As for abortion, what Joe fails to note is that abortion is one of those issues that many people have an opinion about if asked but few really care about. Maybe 10% of the people will actually vote one way or the other on the issue of legalized abortion. Yes people may feel much stronger on the topic in their personal lives. They may tell their daughters never to get one on pain of being disowned, for example, but it is somewhat rare for them to vote solely on that issue.

However in a close race, and many races are very close, 5% or even less is the margin of victory. So it makes sense that the two parties have gravitated to the opposite poles on the issue of abortion. If you think of an election as a game then the first pieces you need to grab are the 'easy votes' who are devoted to a single issue. Since most people don't really care about abortion it's a good single issue to grab some easy votes without alienating other voters to much.

I do find it interesting that the Democratic Party is solidly pro-choice but the Republicans are only solid pro-life in their official platforms and Presidential nominations. Even there they sometimes waver such as Barbara Bush sending signals to pro-choice Republicans that she is really on their side etc.

This would indicate the opposite of Joe's hypothesis. That being solidly pro-choice does not hurt the Democrats except among the solidly pro-life who could never be motivated to bolt from the Republican party except by alienating many, many more Democratic voters. On the other hand, being pro-life does hurt the Republicans to a degree hence the need to make a show of 'tolerance' for pro-choicers and sometimes giving them token positions of power in the party and little winks and nods here and there.

52

The party’s leaders feared that letting Casey speak would draw attention to the fact that pro-lifers weren’t welcome at a time when 61 percent of pro-life Democrats were unaware that their party disagreed with them.

Just out of curiousity where does this come from? I don't see any poll of pro-life Democrats indicating that 61% are under the delusional mistake that the Democratic party is pro-life and the Republican Party is pro-life. If you wanted to accuse anyone of trying to fool their voters you should accuse the GOP who often trots out pro-choice speakers to demonstrate how the 'Big Tent' 'tolerates' different points of view on abortion.

I think what Joe is doing here, and it won't be the first time he has used polls to tell lies to us, is that he took a poll indicating that about 60% of the public would support some type of restriction on abortion that hard line pro-choicers would reject. This would include not only your standard pro-life position of wanting to outlaw abortion period but also other measures that such as parental notification or outlawing late term abortions. Yet while Joe would never call a politician who supported Roe but also wanted parental notification pro-life (that, I believe, was Clinton's position and I don't recall evangelicals calling him a pro-lifer) he would call people who respond that way to a poll as pro-life. Why? Simply because he wants to lie with numbers to make the pro-life position appear stronger than it really is.

The second error I believe Joe is making with this logic is then to assume that because 60% of the general population supports some type of abortion restriction (ranging from outright bans to just modest speed bumps) therefore 60% of Democratic voters also fit into this category AND those voters are somehow confused. Even leaving aside the error of assuming a poll of the population in general mirrors a niche population a more reasonable explanation is that while 60% may support some hypothetical restriction on abortion they do not consider the matter important enough to trump other issues therefore they 'tolerate' the disagreement they have with the people they vote for the same way Pres. Bush 'tolerates' the Gov. of California even though if you really believe what Bush says he must therefore believe the Gov supports murdering innocent humans.

53

About Casey, Kevin T. Keith wrote:

Of course he wasn't asked to speak - but it was his own childish and obstructive behavior that was the reason.

Some more background from Wikipedia:

Casey wrote to DNC Chairman Ron Brown a week and a half before the convention, again asking to address the delegates, but Brown never responded to the letter. Instead, Kathy Taylor, a Republican from Pennslyvania who had worked for Casey's 1994 GOP opponent, Barbara Hafer, delivered a pro-choice speech. After her speech DNC officials sent a camera crew with Taylor to seek out Casey and "humiliate him" on live television. Casey, having been tipped off to the plans, was able to get out of the arena before the cameras arrived. Vice Presidential candidate Al Gore called Casey the next day to appologize.

I suppose "childish and obstructive behavior" is in the eye of the beholder.

54

I'm not exactly sure I follow your quote berean77. How exactly would Casey be 'humiliated' by a camera crew showing an aid of his former Republican opponant giving a pro-choice speech? Would he be humiliated because a Republican would be shown to be more pro-choice than he was? If so that's hardly unfair, in fact its just honest. In that case the Republican was pro-choice and the Democrat was pro-life. Voters who were dedicated to either side of the abortion debate had every right to know that.

The page this seems to have come from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_National_Convention) appears to have only received two edits since its creation and while there is a footnote referencing the paragraph you cited I don't see any actual source on the page.

55

pizzaman:

Another thing wrong with your poll that I don't see anyone else remarking on: There's an option missing, which is "preserve the status quo." The only options given in your poll call for either tightening or loosening the existing restrictions; there's no choice for those who would keep the existing rules but neither tighten nor loosen them.

A great deal of abortion polling seems to have to do with how the questions are phrased. As such, pro-lifers prefer polls that use wording that favors their cause, and pro-choicers prefer different wording. Look at the spectrum of polls here, and it's clear that between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans favor some sort of pro-choice position, provided you don't play the semantic game of saying "pro-choice = supports abortion-on-demand." And in polls asking people to self-identify as either pro-life or pro-choice, those who self-identify as the latter almost always outnumber the former.

So why is it, as someone asked, that the legislature seems to be considerably more "pro-life" than the public at large? Several reasons. For one, people in rural areas tend to be pro-life, whereas people in urban areas trend pro-choice, but rural areas have massively disproportionate representation in the senate. In theory, Senators representing 18% of the US population could constitute a Senate majority. Gerrymandering is also a problem, as evidenced in places like Texas, Ohio, and California.

But ultimately, the biggest reason is that pro-life voters are much more likely to be single-issue voters than their pro-choice counterparts. Anecdotally, I know several people who self-identify as "pro-choice," but who voted for pro-life candidates for reasons having nothing to do with abortion (e.g., taxes, national security, etc.). I don't know anyone (literally, not one person) who self-identifies as "pro-life" but voted for a pro-choice candidate.

Finally, as Rob pointed out above, the Republicans secretly like the status quo with respect to abortion law, because it gives them a drum to beat come election time. They know that by speaking out against the "evils" of abortion, the can automatically attract 25% of the electorate (more in rural areas, less in urban ones) without deterring too many swing voters, so long as they pander carefully enough. But if Roe were ever overturned, or if abortion law otherwise became too restrictive, they'd lose key swing voters over that issue, especially a good chunk of the "soccer/security mom" demographic they count on.

If you want evidence of this, go back a few years, when the Republicans killed a Democrat-sponsored late-term abortion ban, ostensibly because the ban "wasn't restrictive enough," but actually because the ban would have been Constitutional under the litmus test given by Justice O'Connor, who was then the swing vote. By scrapping that bill and instead pushing one they knew was unconstitutional, they got to have their cake and eat it, too: they could claim to be trying to "do something" about abortion, without actually changing abortion law.

TXteacher:
Another thing many liberals don't realize is just how many abortions are being performed.

I don't know which liberals you talk to, because most of the ones I know are well aware of the numbers. You throw out the 1.2 million number (actually, it's closer to 1.3 million as of 2002, maybe you have more recent figures), but ignore the fact that the abortion rate is the lowest it's been since the mind-1970's, and that the rate experienced its most dramatic decline during the early years of the Clinton presidency, when you had a pro-choice president and a pro-choice legislature, both of whom were also in favor of comprehensive sex education.

Let's also note that 88% of those abortions occur during the first trimester, a period during which most Americans support legal abortion-on-demand. And that for all the hype about late-term abortion bans, barely 1% of abortions are "late-term." And that as "pro-life" forces actually have won restrictions at the state level, these have had the effect of causing most women seeking abortions to delay abortion rather than forego abortion (over the past few years, the share of late term abortions has increased somewhat).

See, ultimately, this is my problem with the pro-life position: I can understand why some people find abortion repulsive. What I can't understand is why these people think making abortion illegal is more important than actually reducing the number of abortions. They generally oppose the very things that are most likely to reduce abortions: comprehensive sex education and widespread promotion of contraceptive use. They view these as giving "free license" to have "sinful sex," which kind of tells me that they view the sex as a bigger sin than the abortion, which simply makes no sense to me. They also don't seem to care that people seem to be having the "sinful sex" at huge rates anyway (or, at least, they don't seem to be willing to adjust their preferred policies based on this reality). There seems to be no room whatsoever for pragmatism in the movement.

If you really want to fight abortion, then criminalizing it is simply not the answer. And, in fact, evidence from other countries suggests this may even be counterproductive. Instead, you need to get behind the measures that meaningfully reduce unintended pregnancy and thus abortion.

56

Eric & Lisa:
So it looks to me like it is alright in the Democratic party to be pro-life as long as you shut up and do nothing about it.

That example would seem to suggest that, but I'm not so sure that's the case. If anything, speaking in general terms and not specifically about abortion, part of what has helped the GOP and hurt the Democrats in recent years is that the GOP is much better at presenting a unified party front. That is to say, deviation from the party platform is tolerated less within the GOP than it is within the Democratic party. And the GOP has masterfully painted this tolerance for differing views within the Democratic party as "lack of moral conviction," "flip-flopping," etc.

This isn't to say that there's not dissent within the GOP. Of course there is. But the GOP is a lot better at "shutting up about it," and has a recent history that hasn't been too kind to those who vocally dissent. Mind you, both parties are guilty of this in varying degrees, but the GOP has been much more guilty of it, at least in recent years.

57

The clearest indication of just how bad it is for the Democrats: Bush is at a low point in the polls, we have an unpopular war, the base is mad at the Republican party, and scandals galore.

And yet the Democrats are still not assured of carrying the House and Senate. No national polls show a landslide to the Democrats. Most polls are leaning toward the Republicans keeping control of both houses, though the margins are slim. Even Kos is now having doubts on Democrat ascendancy.

The strength of the Republicans (so far) is that they are on the correct side of most issues:

Most Americans think there are too many abortions. The idea that the Democrats want abortions to be rare is difficult to prove. 1,200,000 abortions a year ain't rare. How do you make them rare? Apparently not by passing laws. No Democrat has come out for more restrictive laws.

Most Americans want to close the borders, even more than the Republicans seem to want it, but way more than the Democrats want.

Most Americans are uncomfortable with homosexuality, and have concerns about marriage and the family. They don't want their children exposed. Outrageous displays of gay pride observances turn most people off.

Most Americans don't want to raise taxes, period. The Democrats talk about taxing the rich, but the are going to spend on the poor. Redistribution of wealth is a non-starter.

58

Boonton, I doubt seriously that Foley is going to do the moral Republicans in. Certainly he doesn't help. Most of us are well aware that he is a scum, but he ain't our scum. He was condemned by the Republicans.

Most people know that the only reason that the Democrats condemn him is because they hope to gain a political advantage. The questions of how long the Democrat sat on this, putting other children at risk, is also being asked. It looks like they were aware of it for about a year, but found the opportunity to be shocked, shocked, I tell you, six weeks before the election. I'm wagering it will be a non-issue by November.

59

Boonton,

Can't vouch for the 100% accuracy of the Wikipedia entry. However, if they Democratic leadership turned Casey down and invited someone from the opposing party, from his own state, to speak instead - and to specifically focus on abortion rights, in repudiation of Casey's stand... well, that sounds like they were trying to humiliate him. Even without the film crew thing. If Al Gore did in fact apologize, he must have been apologizing for something. I remember that convention, and the general sense of the punditry at that time was that Bob Casey had not been disrespected by his own party.

60

Scott, Would you site your source on the fact that Democrats knew about Foley's e-mail and lurid chats.

61

I think it's worth noting the position on abortion of the three current favorite potential GOP presidential candidates for 2008.

The leading candidate, Rudy Giuliani, is unapologetically pro-choice. Nevertheless, Republicans feel favorably toward him by a 63-17 margin.

John McCain, the number two guy currently, calls himself pro-life, but has made some statements that diehard pro-lifers do not like. In 2000, McCain said he would let his daughter decide whether to get an abortion. He has said several times that he favors abortion in cases of rape or incest, a position that is repugnant to hardcore (or one might say "consistent") pro-lifers. When asked how one would know whether a young woman had really been raped, he said he would take her word for it.

The number three GOP candidate right now is Condoleeza Rice. According to the site I checked, she has never made a statement as to her position on abortion.

I'm still waiting for someone to point to a single Congressional or Senate race where it can be reasonably concluded that the Democrat would have won if he or she had changed to a pro-life position. Is there not a single instance in the last 20 years? If not, I think Joe's argument fails due to lack of evidence.

62

ex-preacher,

"I'm still waiting for someone to point to a single Congressional or Senate race where it can be reasonably concluded that the Democrat would have won if he or she had changed to a pro-life position. Is there not a single instance in the last 20 years? If not, I think Joe's argument fails due to lack of evidence."

I certainly cannot provide this. But as someone who has lived in Va, Pa, Oh and now MN, I can say for certain that people do not vote Democrat for the sole purpose of being against abortion. I know a good 10 people at work alone that voted Republican though in other respects they are quite liberal. It's not proof but regardless of your opinion, Joe's comments strike a truth that I have experienced over and over again. If Democrats became pro-life, they would win 60-40 margins with ease. That doesn't mean that they should (although I think so), but the circumstantial evidence in my experience is overwhelming.

63

World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million.

3,500 per day / 1.3 million per year in America alone.

50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.

A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.

And 2% had medical reasons.

That means a stagering 98% may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.

64

"It looks like they were aware of it for about a year, but found the opportunity to be shocked, shocked, I tell you, six weeks before the election. I'm wagering it will be a non-issue by November."

Why wouldn't they have waited until ONE week before the elections? This assertion of yours seems rather weak.

65

Time line: A 52 year old Mark Foley, in August 2005, asks page for improper information of which freaks out page and who then informs Rodney Alexander, who had sponsored the page program. The teenager wrote it was “Sick, Sick. Sick……….”
The board which oversees the page program was was informed of the e-mail but fails to inform lone Democrat. Foley is not even stripped of his co-chairmanship of the House Caucus on Missing and EXPLOITED Children.

66

Boonton, I doubt seriously that Foley is going to do the moral Republicans in. Certainly he doesn't help. Most of us are well aware that he is a scum, but he ain't our scum. He was condemned by the Republicans.

True but he was condemned after the fact when there was clearly no choice but to condemn. What is not good is that it is starting to look like the flag was raised a while ago and warnings were ignored because Foley was part of 'the club'. It leads one to seriously question whether a GOP congress has any relevant impact on morality. I don't think it does and most Americans know instinctively that morality is personal. If you aren't behaving it isn't because congressmen 500+ miles away aren't writing the proper tax codes on charitable deductions into the law.

The questions of how long the Democrat sat on this, putting other children at risk, is also being asked. It looks like they were aware of it for about a year, but found the opportunity to be shocked, shocked, I tell you, six weeks before the election. I'm wagering it will be a non-issue by November.

Your behind the times.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/10/10/ap3081275.html

Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe said Tuesday he told the House official in charge of the page program as early as 2001 about Rep. Mark Foley's "creepy" e-mail to a former page.

Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican in Congress, said a former page he had sponsored contacted his office to complain of e-mails from Foley and that he "passed along" the complaint to Foley, R-Fla., and then-House Clerk Jeff Trandahl. Kolbe said he did not take the matter to other lawmakers.

If some partisan Democratic group sat on this a year it looks like the morality mafia of the Republican party sat on this for nearly six years! And to boot it was a gay person that raised the flag first!

berean77
Can't vouch for the 100% accuracy of the Wikipedia entry. However, if they Democratic leadership turned Casey down and invited someone from the opposing party, from his own state, to speak instead - and to specifically focus on abortion rights, in repudiation of Casey's stand... well, that sounds like they were trying to humiliate him. Even without the film crew thing. If Al Gore did in fact apologize, he must have been apologizing for something. I remember that convention, and the general sense of the punditry at that time was that Bob Casey had not been disrespected by his own party.

Well this entry does not give us any specifics in its footnote and has hardly been edited so we have to wonder if Gore really did apologize or if this played out as it did. Even if it did, though, why is this improper? If the party was committed to abortion rights what better way to make that perfectly clear to voters? Yet Joe is saying that voters are confused and think the Democratic party is pro-life. Seems to me its the Republicans who are trying to confuse voters putting on pro-choice speakers to supposedly demonstrate 'tolerance' when the fact is they have a very pro-life platform. Party conventions are not free for alls where everyone gets to express their views, they are for the party to present themselves to the voters.

67

I agree with the Republicans on abortion but disagree with them on everything else.

68

If the Republicans are in power for 100 more years, there will be still be legal abortion. "moral values" is just a campaign tool for them as shown by the Foley scandal, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abrahmoff and many others. At least the democrats actually practice what they preach.

69

ex-preacher:

I'm still waiting for someone to point to a single Congressional or Senate race where it can be reasonably concluded that the Democrat would have won if he or she had changed to a pro-life position.

The problem with changing your direction on a fundamental issue like abortion is that it brands the politician as a flip-flopper, which in itself tends to weaken his or her popularity - neither side trusts him.

But if you want a reasonable example, look at the current Pennsylvania senatorial race. A lot of pro-life folks that have voted for Santorum in the past are likely to go for Casey, who has a consistent pro-life reputation. Would Casey win anyway? Maybe - no way to tell. But according to the latest polls, that race is tightening and the pro-life aspect may end up making the difference.

70

Which proves the point, if you happen to have a niche issue it can be great for you as long as it doesn't alienate other voters. If, say, you're a noted advocated for Ebonian independence that's great if it catches you the 1% of hard-core Ebonian voters and doesn't cost you anything significant among the 99% left.

The equation is complicated with abortion because either way you will alienate some, either pro-life or pro-choice. It sounds like in the PA race the Republican Party being 'tolerant' of those who disagree with their pro-life platform may end up costing them an election if you're right but nationwide the Republican Party probably would lost a lot more races if they insisted on a uniform pro-life position among all their candidates. I certainly couldn't imagine Republican governors in NY and CA and a Republican mayor in NYC getting elected on a pro-life platform.

That the Democratic party does seem much more uniform tells us not that being pro-choice is costing them but that it is a good deal for them. For the most part the only people they are alienating are people who wouldn't vote for them anyway.

From an ethical standpoint, though, it is the Republican party that is in the wrong. If they really believe abortion is murder then how could they pat themselves on the back for welcoming pro-choicers into the 'Big Tent'? Think about it, they have more tolerance for those they believe support murdering babies than they do those who support gay marriage which has never killed anyone.

Also why tolerate pro-choicers in massive abortion centers like CA and NY? As has been pointed out half of abortions are caused by faulty or improper birth control. The local government, which is much closer to regular people in terms of public health, could probably prevent quite a few abortions with very little effort simply by pushing effective education...hell simply by telling people to read the directions on condom packages more carefully!

What's wrong IMO with the pro-life movement is their single minded obsession with legalities. We all know here the day Roe.v.Wade is overturned is the day 75% of the pro-lifers declare victory and go home without even bothering to check if abortion rates actually go down. Of those that are left the day their states pass anti-abortion laws is the day 50% or more of them go home. We know, though, from experience abroad that abortion rates do not always follow a country's abortion laws. There were countries where abortion was illegal or very difficult that nevertheless used abortion more than countries where abortion law was much more liberal.

I always thought the pro-life movement would be much more successful if they dropped their demand for anti-abortion laws and concentrated instead on trying to find common ground for policies that actually reduced abortions. While this would never actually eliminate abortion it could probably prevent a massive number of them. It would certainly be easier to do that than to use the government to try to get people not to divorce as much as they do....a project conservatives have not rejected in this strange age of 'compassionate' (aka big gov't) 'conservatism'.

71

You may have something there with the Casey-Santorum race, berean77. As you say, it is very hard to establish a clear link.

It would seem to me that the hardcore single-issue voting pro-lifers will stick with Santorum as Casey has favored the morning after pill and the exception in cases of rape or incest. A September 2006 poll of Pennsylvanians found that self-described conservatives approve of Santorum by a 70-27 margin. Liberals and moderates, on the other hand, disapprove of Santorum by overwhelming margins.

There are many other factors in the race, most importantly, the Iraq War. Santorum has also earned infamy for his positions against birth control and for teaching intelligent design, among other things. As he is widely considered the poster-boy for the Christian right, his defeat might represent a real turning point in American politics. Perhaps it could be the end or at least the beginning of the end of the religious right's power over the national political scene. But now I'm getting my hopes up. Mustn't do that.

I noticed today that Gallup Poll, no friend to liberals, has named what they consider the top ten issues in the voter's mind. Abortion does not make the cut. Neither does same sex marriage.

According to Gallup, these are the issues that Americans would most like their representatives in Washington to focus on:

1. Iraq
2. Terrorism
3. The economy
4. Energy
5. Illegal immigration
6. Healthcare
7. Education
8. Social Security
9. Fixing government (corruption, ethics)
10. The federal deficit

72

It would seem to me that the hardcore single-issue voting pro-lifers will stick with Santorum as Casey has favored the morning after pill and the exception in cases of rape or incest.

The niche rule, I think, applies here as well. There are plenty of pro-choice republicans but in areas where there are niche pro-lifers they are unlikely to win their party's nomination UNLESS being pro-life offends other voters. In PA, like most areas, I suspect most voters don't care about abortion so they aren't offended by Santorem being pro-life...hence a pro-choice republican has a handicap of trying to win when he has given up the, say, 1-5% of voters who are hard core pro-lifers. Again since many races turn on just a few points that's a huge burden.

But now look at a place like New York City. There are niche hard core pro-lifers there too but the difference is that there are also hardcore pro-choicers. Being pro-life may get you the 3% of pro-life voters but you may alienate 3% pro-choicers so the whole thing may be a wash...worse if you got 4% pro-choicers you hurt yourself. So in those districts you're likely to find hard core pro-choicers on the Democratic side but on the GOP side you'll find few lifers but you may find moderates who will attempt to win the lifers votes by being for a few strategic things like parental notification.

73

On that subject of taxes:

Y'know, I really don't get this one. I talk to people. I'm in the media business. When you talk about the MSM, or the LWM or the RWSM, you talk about me. I'm a trend-spotter, I follow the polls, I'm interested in the Zeitgeist. And no matter how many people I talk to, no matter how much I read, taxes aren't the topic du jour.

Nobody gives a damn about taxes, except the property owners. But they're yelping about property taxes, which are a local matter. Income tax, federal tax, is a whole different story.

So. Are you complaining about payroll taxes? I'm not. But maybe it's a problem for you. Let's look at what taxes do: Pay for defense. Pay for public welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security, and the government itself.

But when people talk, they complain about Iraq and high gas prices and lowered home values and the stock market and freaks killing kids - taxes never come up. The only time I hear about taxes is when some right-wing radio host, like Sean O'Hannity, says, "Democrats will raise your taxes!" Right. Like we'll repeal Bush's tax cuts.

You bet we will. Why? Because the concept of cutting taxes, reducing taxes, eliminating taxes, is stupid and selfish. You see the headlines - you know we're spending $500 billion on Iraq - and you think that we can pay less and keep getting more and more services?

Maybe you're intelligent and work the stock market. Then you know that the value of the dollar and our trade deficit and lowering value of the dollar and national debt and falling home prices are all related to the rate of inflation and that we can't just print more money and solve the problem that way.

Or maybe you're an adult and have to balance the household budget at the end of every month. Should you be in this class, you realize that you have to pay as you go. You can't continue to run a deficit.

Economics isn't magic. You can't dream and pretend and have faith that everything will work out great and spend spend spend spend spend spend and never pay anything and everything will work out great and you'll be rich at the end.

You'll go to jail.

It's time for the adults to take charge. Fiscal discipline is mandated now. We have to pay for what we're spending. We have to strengthen our dollar and restore confidence in our economic system. That means balancing our budget and living within our capital means. And if we have to make some sacrifices and cut some programs and raise some taxes on billionares, well, into a few lives some rain must fall.

But if you're a child, if you're an infant, then this is some kind of cause celebre for you. Cutting taxes is a voting point. Fair tax. No tax. Zero tax. Permenent tax cut. Tax repeal. Whatever, you're an enemy of America and a stupid, idiot child. Grow up or shut your damn pie hole. The adults are coming.

74

Read "temping faith" by david kuo. He used to work for the Bush administration and tells in his book what they really think about christians. they think christians are a tool for votes and insult them behind their backs.

75

Raven,
You mean the kind of adults that have time for intern administered BJs in the Whitehouse, and then lie to the American people and the courts about it when caught with his cigar in the cookie jar? And the kind of adults that steal from Airforce one, and vandalize taxpayer purchased computer equipment on the way out? Yeah, just can't wait for those adults. I think your use of 'adult' must refer to something else.

Ryan, perhaps the Republicans should concentrate on pandering to the 15%, or less of athiests and agnostics, that would be a much better strategy. Give me a break.

Polls suggest the dems peaked about a week ago. Hope you adults have some good deoderant.

76

Hey, Harry Reid just hung up on me. Now that's just rude!

77

Raven, you're half-right.

The Republicans have shown themselves to be devoid of any fiscal responsibility, in that they have continued to spend, spend, spend (as you put it). But you can't blame the lower taxes. Tax receipts are at record levels.

78

Berean: "Tax receipts are at record levels."

I'm well aware of that, berean. Even though I'm a liberal, I've got a sizable portfolio to manage and the WSJ is daily reading. The point is, as you know, that tax receipts are insufficient to pay for expenditures.

Somehow, I thought we all understood that Reagan's "VooDoo economics" were not sound policy. I thought we'd all agreed that you can't increase payouts and eliminate taxes. In any event, this isn't a populist issue - the people are not crying that they are being over-taxed.

79

You mean the kind of adults that have time for intern administered BJs in the Whitehouse, and then lie to the American people and the courts about it when caught with his cigar in the cookie jar? And the kind of adults that steal from Airforce one, and vandalize taxpayer purchased computer equipment on the way out? Yeah, just can't wait for those adults. I think your use of 'adult' must refer to something else.

Amazing isn't it how your side fails to meet the bar even when it has been dramatically lowered. I'm leaving aside the fact that the whole vandalizing story turned out to be hot air and that I am unable to locate anything in the Constitution that gives me a right to know about other people's sex lives.

80

Boonton,
You can take that one up with the grand jury and the folks who did the investigating. And apparently, character doesn't matter to you, unless it's something you choose to beat a Republican over the head with at will. What's really amazing is your child-like trust of democrats, and your knee jerk reaction to defend them no matter what's at stake. If we lived in a country that insisted upon decency, the only proper action that a president who committed adultry with an intern while on the job, and purjured himself while on the taxpayers dime....well, gee resignation, indeed. If you feel strongly compelled to defend the scummiest actions of BC, that really just shows how out of touch you are with ethical behavior.

By the way, where does the Constitution say that it's OK to diddle a subordinate in a publicly funded official office of the government? Guess what would happen to me if I did that at my place of employment? I guess there's a lot of things the Constitution doesn't specifically address, aye?

Incidently, I don't have a side, unless you consider the concept of conservatism as a side. I'm an independent, and I don't see conservative policies as inherent to either of our fine parties. However, the dems have not a shred to offer in this area, and the folks who do get kicked out of the party.

81

You can take that one up with the grand jury and the folks who did the investigating.

Hmmmm, those people refused to convict. You'll recall the vote to convict Clinton failed. You'll also note that despite the presence of a Republican chief law enforcement officer there was never even an official charge of vandalizing or theft in the transition from the Clinton White House to the Bush White House. If I recall the story, after months of pestering and hounding for actual documented incidents the best that was produced was a photocopier whose power cord was ripped.

82

Hmmmm...and yet he was impeached and let off the hook by the democratically controlled senate. Would you like to talk about the disbarment, too? Apparently people get disbarred for doing nothing wrong, right?

If you're going to try and argue that the dem politicians can claim an ethical highground; it's a loosing battle.

83

Actually the Republicans Controlled the Senate, 55-45 and even then 7 Republicans voted for Clinton meaning that even a majority wasn't convinced he was guilty (2/3rds are needed to actually convict).

84

All that means is that the majority voted neigh. Has nothing to do with whether they really thought he was guilty. If you believe that, then bless your sweet, naive heart..oh, never mind, I know O.J. was innocent, too..

Why was he disbarred again? Why did he have to pay off those women? You're spending a lot of time defending a slimy individual, why? Do you ever ask yourself why you feel inclined to defend people like that, just because they're in your party?

If Foley were a democrat, he'd still be in office, he'd be surrounded by 6 democratic high-priced lawyers, and after they got him off on a technicality, he'd get a standing ovation from the democratic chamber, and then he'd get a new leadership position. And, guys who think like you would be arguing with guys like me about how it was all a republican smear campaign in the first place.

It is sad when party loyalties cause eithical blindness by choice.

85

The point is, as you know, that tax receipts are insufficient to pay for expenditures.

Can't argue with you there.

Somehow, I thought we all understood that Reagan's "VooDoo economics" were not sound policy.

Calling something a name doesn't refute it. In any case, we're not talking about Reagan here (although the same thing happened during his term - increased revenue and unfettered spending).

The problem is not with how much is coming in - it's with how much is going out. You don't have to believe in the Laffer curve to realize that there is a point of diminishing returns connected with increasing tax rates. 0% tax rates and 100% tax rates produce the same result - no revenue. In between, there is a point where revenue can be maximized. The recent adjustments have increased revenue. Maybe you think reversing course will increase revenue more. I don't.

Would some people feel better if taxes on the rich were increased, and total revenue went down? Undoubtedly. There are some who would like to soak the rich, just on principle.

Others, also on principle, ask the question, "Whose money is it?" The answer to that question reveals a lot.

The federal government is a like a spendthrift with a credit card and no spending limit. That's the problem. How do we restore some sanity in the control of government expenditures?

Marvelously off topic, of course, we have drifted. But am curious to hear what you think.

86

First this tripe: "If Foley were a democrat, he'd still be in office, he'd be surrounded by 6 democratic high-priced lawyers, and after they got him off on a technicality, he'd get a standing ovation from the democratic chamber, and then he'd get a new leadership position."

Then this: "It is sad when party loyalties cause eithical blindness by choice."

Congratulations! I nominate you, RB, for the Ironic Comment of the Thread Award.

87

Again the Republicans did not get rid of Foley. The evidence that is mounting is that Foley's antics were well known among the gossip circuit in DC and at least once the speaker or his office ignored a warning sign that leadership was required.

Foley is gone only because he resigned. It's doubtful the Republicans could have expelled him as a member but they almost certainly would have removed him from his laughable leadership position on the 'exploited children' committee. If you want to praise Foley for resigning that's all well and good but that has nothing to do with the Republican Party unless you want to say Foley represents the GOP....which I don't think you really do.

All that means is that the majority voted neigh. Has nothing to do with whether they really thought he was guilty.

Hmmmm, previously you stated:

You can take that one up with the grand jury and the folks who did the investigating.

As far as the impeachment is concerned the people whose job it was to do this investigating and judging was the House and the Senate. You have asserted that the Senate was under Democratic control at that time. That was false. Now you are asserting that they really decided Clinton was guilty but just voted the other way for other reasons. Sorry, game over RB. The majority of the Senate as well as the American people did not think Clinton did anything that rose to a high crime and they were right about that. You may think that was a bad call as I and many others believe finding OJ not guilty was a bad call but there you would be in disagreement with most sensible people and that is because you are wrong.

88

berean: "How do we restore some sanity in the control of government expenditures?"

Since you're asking, I'll venture a thought: We need to change direction. The current path we are on, with a Republican president, Congress and Senate, and just about a Supreme Court, and the head of every agency, we can call "business as usual." We've seen what this looks like. I don't like it. Seems like most Americans don't like it. When you let industry and corporations come up to Washington and draft legislation for themselves, the consumer (you and me) get the roughshod run over us.

So we need a change in direction.

If the electorate this November causes a huge turnover in Congress, this would send a "message," one that says, "we are not happy." It's probably the only thing that can get their attention. And that message would indicate that a continuation of "business as usual" will result in more electoral bloodletting until the direction changes - that we'll continue to elect people who have a different mindset and who appear willing to effect change. One change being, of course, fiscal responsibility.

For those who would argue this point, I offer an illustra