Daily Kos

View Story | 32 comments

  •  It is possible to be more wrong, (none / 0)

    but you would have to work at it.

    Why?  Several reasons.

    First, as noted by others, it's not our issue, it's their issue.  Therefore, we must respond or be consumed.

    Second, when framed competently it's a big winner, not a loser.  Why do I say this?  Easy.  Combine abortion with privacy and birth control, and suddenly lots of women in Kansas, once in the privacy of the voting booth, decide maybe they don't want more kids.  The combination of abortion with the INSANITY about pharmacists' "choice" is an opportunity for us that should not be ignored.

    I wrote the following months ago in an abortion diary, and that was before the whole pharmacy mess ignited:

    Judicial Appointment Hearings- Right now, because Bush has renominated a bunch of his crazy judges, we have some wonderful opportunities.  Those hearings, and particularly hearings to replace Rehnquist, will garner a lot of press.  Most of what I'm writing here is with that in mind. I believe a national conversation could be started if Democrats on the committee asked, rather than 'do you believe in a woman's right to choose,' 'do you believe the Constitution protects individual privacy,' 'do you believe the Government has a Constitutional right to listen in on conversations between a patient and a doctor,' and the big one, 'do you support overturning decisions that made it legal for a woman to take the birth control pill?'

    Third, get over the last election.  Bush won by the tiniest margin in history for a President during a shooting war, and we won't be running against the incumbent next time.  2004 was not a seminal event.  It was a VERY close election during wartime.  If we jettison who we are, we lose the middle class that is NOT wealthy and is NOT religiously zealous, but merely voted "Bush" out of fear and a pretty normal feeling you don't change horses during wartime.

    Just my two cents.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:42:58 PM PDT

    •  I think that you missed my point. (none / 0)

      First off, prolife women voters in Kansas aren't going to suddenly change their minds about abortion in the voting booth.  Ain't happening.  If they don't want more kids, they'll take birth control.  They're typically married and not so pro-life that they're opposed to birth control.  The ones that are...  Well, they're pretty much beyond hope.

      Is it their issue?  Yes, and that's why Democrats bringing it up is stupid.  I would certainly agree that Democrats could do a better job of framing it, but that's not the point either.  They should frame it properly.  I was talking about what they emphasize.

      The crazy pharmacist issue is one of those hot-button issues of the day.  I don't really include it with abortion, even if it's part of the "culture of life" bullshit.  Abortion is old.  This phenomenon is new.  We should definitely call the crazies on it.  Even most pro-lifers probably find the practice unproffesional and moronic.

      Regarding the judges, I think that the Democrats could have gotten a lot more traction by emphasizing the pro-corporate stances that these judges have.  After all, while the far right was talking about how "anti-Christian" the Democrats were being, the really big problems with these judges were around issues like labor rights, the environment, and so on.  Their views on these issues are way out of the mainstream, and Democrats should have been talking about these views in particular rather than saying that the judges themselves were "out of the mainstream."

      Also note that saying the phrase "right to choose" is old hat.  It is not framing.  It is just rhetoric now.  Don't get me wrong.  Whoever first uttered it was a genius and did good things for the women's rights movement, but anymore, when someone hears it, they simply attach it to their pre-existing abortion rhetoric circuit.

      by nanoboy on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:07:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Church vs. non-church battles (none / 0)

        I think i know what you mean.  I think it kind of can be summed up as this.  

        Battles with republicans where the church is telling people what to do (such as abortion) are uphill battles for democrats.  Its kind of attacking a value system of people that is enforced over and over again by the church.  

        Battles with repulcians where the church is not involved such as those against corporations are downhill battles.  No one wants to be taken advantage of by a corrupt corporation.  

        Its not that abortion is an unimportant issues, it just is an issue that won't win votes (which ultimately impacts who sits on the supreme court).  

        Boycott Citibank/Citicards. They are corporate thieves and terrorists.

        by tri on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:23:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But why? (none / 1)

      First, as noted by others, it's not our issue, it's their issue.  Therefore, we must respond or be consumed.

      Why? They keep winning not by responding to our issues but by ducking them and redirecting to their issues. Why are we obligated to take the other side of issues they've chosen for us?

      by cdicely on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:23:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 32 comments