Comments on Left Bank Blog: Howard Dean, Meet Jane Roe

You just don't understand, Joe.If they didn't ban ...

2006-04-09T12:40:00.000-05:00

You just don't understand, Joe.

If they didn't ban abortion in Dakota then the people would have choices. That wouldn't be American. What do you think this is, the land of the free?

If pro-choice people win then the terrorists will have won.

I say ban all choices and let some nameless bureaucrat in Washington make all our choices for us. That will protect us.

I left a really long comment but I think I messed ...

2006-03-16T06:27:00.000-05:00

I left a really long comment but I think I messed up and it did not post. In short, I agree with Joe. This issue needs to be hammered home. Voters need to be reminded of life pre-Roe vs. Wade. It was not pretty. Even staunch anti-abortionists enjoy secret, legal visits to the clinics when it is their family. Having the kiddo parade around church with the big belly poking out is more shameful then hauling her to the abortion clinic in secret. Remind the world what it will be like for rape victims, or families too poor to feed another mouth, and dead young women killed by coat hangers. Roe vs. Wade is in peril. Tennessee and Mississippi are looking to do what South Dakota did. States are wanting to take this to the SCOTUS, and we may be one Justice away from overturning Roe vs. Wade. One more religious zealot for President who is beholden to the evangelical vote and you can kiss Roe vs. Wade goodbye. Let's talk openly and loud. Voters never pick "nuanced" talk over "straight shooting." Shit, they pick Bush because he is a straight shooter even when every word out of his mouth is a lie.

Yes, I agree.....we should assert ourselves as com...

2006-03-09T10:17:00.000-05:00

Yes, I agree.....we should assert ourselves as completely pro-choice. Although I don't favor third trimester abortions, where the child actually has been proven survivable. In this circumstance, I only agree for the health of the mother.

But whether we like it or not, "liberal" has become an unpopular word with "mainstream" Americans. On the other side though, George W. Bush didn't openly run as a right-wing conservative either. He was a "compassionate."

Just political language masking political realities, but if the wrong word choice is attached to something, it leaves a negative connotation with the average voter.

"Openly liberal?"Do we have to come out of the clo...

2006-03-09T02:56:00.000-05:00

"Openly liberal?"

Do we have to come out of the closet, too? And then do we try to convert people to our sinful lifestyle? :-D

I'm joking, of course-- just thought your word choice was funny.

OK, I think I have a much better understanding of your point, thank you. As far as what the Democrats run on this fall, I'm totally with you on what you listed: Iraq, Katrina, corruption. (It seems like the Dems have finally gained the spine to campaign on Iraq, which is good to see, even if it only took them 4 years and a lot of blood.).

My point is that in addition to the themes of corruption, Iraq, Katrina, et al., Democrats shouldn't be afraid to campaign on abortion. I think history shows that when Americans think there's a concrete possibility of losing abortion rights, they stop taking it for granted and vote Democratic. Further, I don't think it will take a lot of spin for Dems to make the case that abortion is seriously under seige. So talk about Tom DeLay and civil war in Iraq-- just don't be afraid to proudly endorse choice. This will also help the pro-choice movement at large, and is just the right thing to do.

Joe...Unfortunately, I think you missed the point ...

2006-03-09T02:25:00.000-05:00

Joe...

Unfortunately, I think you missed the point of what I WAS saying.

I understand not to trust "nuance" in voters. And neither should you. The fact of the matter is, RNC talking points or no, the VOTERS are nuanced on this subject.

Yes, most of the country continues to value a woman's right to choose- even in SD. I am aware of this. But the majority of those voters are "nuanced" in that they DON'T personally condone abortion. This makes them inherently different from the majority of anti-choice advocates, who see the matter in complete shades of black and white- not gray. None. These people say no abortion, PERIOD. As in South Dakota, the particularities of the circumstances matter very little to them. They just don't want it.

Us on the other hand, while supporting it like we do, have reservations about what is acceptable, and when, and in what cases. This makes us weaker, because there is no real consensus. The weaker the particular demographic is, the less unified, the less likely they are to mobilize under the mantra of this specific issue.

Pro-choicers are just not like anti-choicers, because pro-choicers support choice without the same fervor with which the other side hates it.

This points back to my supposed "GOP" memo. Which although it may well be, also happens to be true. Look at the source of what is "motivating the troops" so to speak. A so-called higher power, on one side, an openly liberal organization on the other. People are going to listen to their higher power, every time.

So, then, to count on "CHOICE" as an issue to rally around, would be as I see it, a mistake.

State that you are 100 percent pro-choice. Point out the other side wants to take that choice away. But fight your battle around Iraq, fight your battle around corruption, hurricane mis-management, what have you. These are uniformly unpopular by those who dislike them- once again, most of the country.

But don't focus your entire campaign, or even such a large portion, around perhaps the most fickle issue there is. It's too risky a bet to plan for people latching on and voting on our side because of it.

Interesting points, Josh. Your mindset is basical...

2006-03-09T00:24:00.000-05:00

Interesting points, Josh. Your mindset is basically the one I set out to refute when I wrote this.

"In middle-America they're going to trust and respect the views of their faith more-so than a D.C. based lobbying group."

Sounds exactly like a weekly RNC talking points memo. My point is that even in "middle America," there's usually a majority for abortion rights. Even South Dakotans are pretty evenly split themselves. And if the law actually takes effect (which it almost certainly won't), and the reality set in that you couldn't actually get a safe abortion, people would turn against it. Only the really extremist states like Utah have a sizeable majority against Roe vs. Wade.

In all the places where Democrats can pick up seats, there's support for abortion rights. I think in a way you missed the point of what I was saying-- the anti-choicers will turn out to vote Republican no matter what the Dem says about abortion. The trick is getting pro-choice swing voters (of which there are many), excited about voting Democratic.

"Although we are pro-choice in the broader sense of the term, we are not advocates of abortion, per-se."

Catholics such as yourself are not unique to this viewpoint. No one actually likes abortion, for chrissakes, and we'd all like to see the numbers reduced. But my point is that we needn't bother saying this. When Kerry tried to say he was personally opposed to abortion, it didn't make him look reasonable and faithful, as he'd hoped. Instead, it played right into the image of him wanting it both ways, and successfully left pro-choice swing voters unsure and unexcited. When it comes to politics, never trust the voters to understand nuance. Sometimes they do, but generally they don't. Dems would be better off just saying simply, "I support the right to choose 100%. Women's bodies don't belong to Dick Cheney."

Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare... the t...

2006-03-09T00:02:00.000-05:00

Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare... the thing about this reasonable stance is that if Roe vs Wade is overturned abortions would again return to unsafe, illegal, and more frequent. That is the law of the vacuum. clickety clack

So, I think you're a little off here. I mean you'r...

2006-03-08T17:51:00.000-05:00

So, I think you're a little off here.

I mean you're right on a lot of things...I just don't think you're completely grasping their impact on the larger political context.

First, the things where I find you correct.

1992 was a good year for women, and the pro-choice movement in general. California's two senators come to mind, both passionately pro-choice, Feinstein and Boxer. They were each elected that year. Bill Clinton was also a setback to the RNC agenda of Pat Buchanan hoping to extend a South Dakota-style decision nationwide.

You are also right that most Americans favor upholding Roe.

Having said that, you need to keep in mind that the vast swath of the country most of us never visit, and would never care to visit, while sparsely populated, does hold electoral votes that make a difference- as we found out in 2000. And in these places, they are also far more likely to be ardently religious, and far less likely to be pro-choice.

So you have to consider the sources driving each movement. On the anti-choice side, you have fundie-Christians. On our side you have secular organizations. (NARAL for instance) In middle-America they're going to trust and respect the views of their faith more-so than a D.C. based lobbying group.

Of course, congressional elections have nothing to do with electoral votes, but the republicans have gerrymandered the districts to the point that the representatives have a greater chance of being thrown out in a primary by an opposing member of their own party than by a Democrat. And they'll probably talk about corruption, and inept execution of the conservative agenda more than an actual reversal in ideological policy positions.

Further, you need to recognize that many of that 66 percent who favor Roe v. Wade, DON'T personally support abortion. Like me, and Kerry, and all who espouse that exact view. It's an inherently nuanced issue. Although we are pro-choice in the broader sense of the term, we are not advocates of abortion, per-se. It would be impossible for us to fake being passionate about something we consider to be morally abhorrent in and of itself, even if denying someone the ability to decide for themselves is equally abhorrent. Neither are appealing ideas.

The "pro-life" people have no such dichotomous qualms and are therfore far more apt to be mobilized to vote on this one issue alone.

Most people agree with Roe v. Wade. But most people agree with it the way Bill Clinton termed it- "abortions in this country should be safe, legal and rare."

So the strategy of just hammering the topic home I dont believe would be responded to the way you might first assume...even if most people concur with our stance.

You're absolutely right. They need to distinguish ...

2006-03-08T02:45:00.000-05:00

You're absolutely right. They need to distinguish themselves on so many issues from the Republicans, like the environment and abortion. I think I heard somewhere that 79 million eligible voters did not vote in the last election. Imagine how many votes the Democrats could have gotten from them if they had stuck to their principles instead of wallowing in the middle.