Yesterday on dialykos Tom Schaller posted a possible wedge issue that the Dems have at their disposal. This issue is a Constitutional ban on abortion as a way of finally settling that issue once and for all. As he points out, it could finally spark that civil war within the GOP and really puts Bush in a pickle as he presents two scenarios: While I don't like the idea of using the Constituion as a political football, the GOP opened up Pandora's box with the gay marriage issue so this would be fair play. Thoughts from either side on this idea?
Interesting thought. But I have gained way too much respect for the political acumen of the republicans to think they would bite on this one. repubs may have used the gay marriage thing on the democrats, but their advantage was that most dems would get up and say what they believed in (individual choice, state's rights, whatever) instead of what most americans wanted to hear. I think most repubs are now smart enough to say what gets them elected, instead of their actual thoughts (well, except Keyes). It might work though. Good idea. But it would need an equally adept leader. Good idea+bad execution = bad results. I ain't seeing any democrat with the savvy to lead this one to victory, unless the GOP goes completely powermad.
It will never happen because even the most staunchly pro-life Republicans wouldn't allow it to come for a vote in either House. It's much better strategically for them to wait for the opportunity to overturn Roe, and *poof!* some 20-odd state laws banning abortion just magically come back into effect without a vote. They can then pretty much table and jettison any efforts to overturn those existing laws. Remember from your Schoolhouse Rock days that it's much. much easier to kill a bill than to pass it, especially one like this. Once Roe is gone the GOP is going to go into stealth mode over this issue.
If I was a Republican in congress, and the Democrats brought this up, I would do everything possible to shift the debate to late term abortions, where public opinion might benefit them more. That is, if I was cynical, which of course we know that politicians are not.
High risk gamble. I wouldn't recommend it now, but wait a few months, it might be prudent then. 1. First of all, it shows that the Dems are learning to be just as destructive of the process as the GOPs have been since ~1993. I, personally, think the dumbass mainstream media will salute them for that. Better, fairer media coverage is crucial for the Dems going forward. 2. The people who just castrated Spector aren't gonna let Frist or Hastert bury this without making a list of names. 3. It could get that crazy Alabama judge on the ballot in 2008. If he siphons off just a few votes in Iowa and Virginia and Ohio and Florida and Colorado, you tell me how the GOPs can win in 2008. Sure, he'll get most of his votes in the Deep South, but that'll just make those states reddish-purple, not blue. But tipping those 5 states gives us smoooth sailing.
Well said obie! I hope several read the above as it is exactly what will happen! Roe v. Wade should have been a state issue and returning it there is a prime directive and has nothing at all to do with Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. I am against Roe. V. Wade. for numerous reasons and among these are States rights. Abortion should be banned at the State level not at the federal level.
They've done well with that on the limited abortion procedure front, but I don't think they could do that for some wide-sweeping amendment that banned all abortions. It's more politically prudent to just kill it and not take that chance.
Ohio v Akron Ctr. for Reproductive Health essentially passed the responsibilty back to the states. The central issue remains though - the gov't (state or federal) cannot deny funds for medically necessary procedures, abortion being among them.
... and an overwhelming majority of women in those states vote Democratic in '06 or '08. You see, GOP strategists don't want Roe overturned because it's been a hugely successful source of grassroots organizing and fundraising. They like the idea of picking at it continuously, and letting Christian conservatives believe that they're being victimized by the liberal elite. But the ball's already rolling, and there's almost no doubt that we're going to get another "strict constructionist" on the Court who is going to look for an opportunity to kill it. And at that point the moderate suburban women are gone. As cynical as it sounds for the women who need their privacy rights, in the long-term overturning Roe is the best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party.
Why gamble on something that is a proven energizer of the right? Same-sex marriage was a proven ambivalence maker of the left, as plenty of moderate lefties were not about to lay their political lives on the line to try and win on that issue. The better strategy is to find something that moves the needle on the ambivalent middle. Stem-cell research for example is an issue where the political position of those on the far right who seek to ban it is blatantly morally wrong. Find a way to put the funding of stem-cell research on the ballat and see what the reaction is.
This is the consensus thinking, I suppose. But I think it drastically overstates the importance of abortion rights to women who now vote Republican. If it were an issue of overriding importance, they would already be voting Democratic in national elections. I see no reason why the Republicans can't continue to win elections while being firmly pro-choice.
Yawn. Stem cell research is a technical issue that will never motivate a movement or drive political leanings in the way the abortion does on the Right.
Even though Republicans wish to overturn Roe v. Wade moving it to the states is preferred far more! There it will be a state-by-state issue and woman can object to it there... making it a Gubanatorial issue rather than a Federal issue. Women are going to feel passionate about it either way!
Overturning Roe v. Wade does move it to the states, you silly goose. Do you understand the decision at all?
monop_poly: Suggest you investigate the jurisdictional aspects of Supreme Court Cases... overturning it is only half the battle; settling state vs. federal jurisdiction on such a case is the larger matter for if it is not, there will be another Roe and another Wade just down the judicial street... getting the states rights to dominate judicial jurisdiction (as the Constitution states) is critical.
It's pretty astounding to get 3 stupid things in 1 short post. 1. Reagan was president, and therefore had no role in Amendments. 2. How do you know if it didn't hurt him? Because he won? Well, that's like saying, Clinton won in '96, so the health care fiasco didn't hurt him. 3. Being for it when it would never pass Congress is one thing, being for it when it does pass is another. The whole point of the movement is to get moderate GOP voters to think twice about supporting DeLay and Frist by electing GOPs.
You manage it daily. Right. Dave - the "quintissential pro." It didn't. He won. You're learning. The Right-to-Life Amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance. If it did, Bush would support it quite vocally. You don't understand this issue or George Bush.
It's not technical if it starts having results. Not to mention that abortion is actually a technical issue too given that we're talking about intepretations of substantive due process under the Constitution. It's only the political strategy of obscuring the legalisms and making it a moral issue that makes it an effective mobilizing stratgey. The stem-cell moral issue is obvious, and would clearly drive political leanings: Are you in favor of trying to heal the sick or not? This is the same style the question was phrased in the same-sex marriage amendments that essentially made people ask whether they were for or against marriage. Given that there is a clear moral answer, it drives the opposition to start with the technical mumbo-jumbo about partial funding, non-embryonic stem cells, blah, blah, blah. Before you're done explaining why you hate healing people the vote is 80-20 against you.
Don't forget that ITN is a freaky, freaky, freaky right winger. He could be following the line of some Montana Militia (or disgraced and disbarred Ala. Sup. Ct. Justice Moore) argument that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't count.
Come on, Superdave. We all know that every position Kerry took cost him the election, and every part of the Republican platform gave them a landslide earth shattering victory, unprecedented in the history of American democracy.
I see your point, John. And I'll grant you the rough analogy. But I do not believe that emotion will ever be there to make stem cell research an "effective mobilizing strategy." Not only emotion, but the clear moral polarization is not present either - not like one side favoring the fetus' life and denying a right to choice and the other side favoring a Constitutionally given right to privacy and denying any personhood for a (non-viable) fetus. Everybody favors some version of stem-cell research.
Because Bush loves fetuses more than power. Bwahahahahaha. That's some funny sh** right there. Tell me, how often does Bush go to church? I'd love to get him in a scriptural knowledge contest.* I'd kick his ass back to Cokeville. *Provided he's not wearing a bulletproof vest or ill-fitting suit.