US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

there's gonna so much shadowy citizens united money flooding the airwaves it won't matter if the gop runs ben quayle, they're probably gonna win

this is OTM btw - Citizens United ruling =

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4RAEqLj4g00/STWUSsexuMI/AAAAAAAABoM/CcK7Ak0IKgo/s400/Gameover-web-final.jpg

will mitch daniels sign it?

― goole, Thursday, 28 April 2011 17:46 (27 minutes ago) Bookmark

otm i mean if dannyboy signs it he's the PRO-LIFE CANDIDATE going into the gen, if he doesn't he's got a target on his back all through the primaries

he can let it become law w/o signature, too

the important thing to remember is how the national Democratic party remains largely mute as states continue restricting the constitutional rights of women to choose abortion, with a nice "what do you expect them to do?" response always ready for people who think it's cowardly & unprincipled to just look the other way as GOP states assert states rights on a matter of settled constitutional law

has the national democratic party remained largely mute?

Reid and the WH fought off the Planned Parenthood thing but I see that states are now taking on Planned Parenthood. I get ocassional e-mails re this from the Democratic party as I once gave them money.

occasional press releases don't count - there's a concentrated state-by-state rollback going on, the Indiana story is just the latest one; Michigan, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North Carolina: total assault on a matter of settled constitutional rights. Press conferences held by the President to address the non-issue of his birth certificate should be the Democratic President speaking out on the right of a woman to choose abortion. Not "to choose." To choose abortion. Not holding my breath for that, but until Obama & Pelosi & Brad Woodhouse are able to say "abortion" in front of a live mic once in a while, they're mute as far as I'm concerned on this issue - which seems pretty plainly the Democratic strategy: just keep giving away abortion rights, move that shit to the fine print ASAP

clemenza, do you live in Canada?

Yes, Toronto. Scott's friend...I thought you'd know that.

The 2000 election was enough reason for me never to stunt vote (or not vote) ever again.

Because the 2000 election proved that the electoral process was not a sham? LOL

here's two articles, at least, indicating that abortion rights are still central to democrats' self-conception:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/us/politics/07abortion.html

http://nationaljournal.com/muted-response-on-abortion-speaks-volumes-20110408

i think the state-level stuff is happening because state democrats got absolutely destroyed in 2010. MN, for instance, has solid GOP majorities in both houses. can you imagine what it's like in redder areas?

that said, i just took a look at the DNC and DCCC websites (for the first time ever, lol) and abortion isn't really featured at all. it's basically all medicare/ryan plan ish all the time...

the important thing to remember is how the national Democratic party remains largely mute as states continue restricting the constitutional rights of women to choose abortion, with a nice "what do you expect them to do?" response always ready for people who think it's cowardly & unprincipled to just look the other way as GOP states assert states rights on a matter of settled constitutional law

― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 28 April 2011 18:26 (24 minutes ago) Permalink

this is a total oversimplification/misreading of the situation. as a gen. rule pro-abortion rights activists have pursued a path of not challenging the smaller chips at abortion because theyve been afraid of roe v wade being overturned if it went to the current supreme court. imo, they should take the risk, and play chicken w/ the court over it. but its not bcuz the D's are 'wusses' or w/e, per se

its also not an 'easy answer' type situation; both approaches could wind up w/ very negative outcomes (i happen to believe the current path is worse tho)

as a gen. rule pro-abortion rights activists have pursued a path of not challenging the smaller chips at abortion because theyve been afraid of roe v wade being overturned if it went to the current supreme court.

speaking of oversimplification! the reason abortion-rights activists mount fewer challenges is because they know they're on their own & won't have the support of any Democrats outside of a very tiny handful, whereas abortion opponents are well-funded, organized, and backed by seated members of both houses. maybe you're talking about NARAL, with whom I work, who actively support the Democratic party, but "abortion rights activists" generally speaking know that they are more or less their own party. Certainly the last several years have proven that for most Democratic politicians, abortion rights are there to be traded away for short-term gains.

glad to hear you say that you think the current strategy is misguided, don't get me wrong. but from a moral standpoint it is an easy decision imo. you have to support the Constitutionally settled right to privacy as enshrined by Roe v. Wade, and treat all attacks on it as attacks on the Constitution.

not gonna derail the whole politics thread for my hobby horse yet again everybody knows where I stand on this and nothing I say or do here or anywhere will persuade the party to defend this right, just lettin off steam as usual

deej i don't think anyone believes the current court would overturn roe

lol in fairness k3vin I wouldn't go to Vegas with my chances on that one, this court is fuckin crazy

aero, if you're going to refer to yourself as 'Morbs Jr' I demand to see your birth certificate.

Roberts is conservative as all hell, but after watching him six years and noting the kinds of decisions he likes to write he's much more interested in chipping away at precedents than overruling them -- a move which, by the way, has provoked more than one scabrous Scalia dissent or concurrence.

yeah there are 3 justices on the court who would probably overturn roe if given the chance; roberts is probably a tossup and kennedy I doubt - i guess in theory those 5 dipshits had a chance with carhart but chose to make a relatively less terrible decision

"scabrous Scalia dissent or concurrence" is redundant, I now.

*know

an actual vacating of roe is just not going to happen anytime soon, though more dilutions are unfortunately probably in store

i honestly think there would be few one-off events better for the country than roberts or alito choking on a pretzel, so to speak

The few interviews Roberts has given shows a guy with one eye fixed on history. Were some miracle to happen and Obama got to replace two of the conservatives on the court I don't doubt Roberts would shrewdly try some Charles Evans Hughes type maneuvering and show a heretofore suppressed liberal inclination.

speaking of oversimplification! the reason abortion-rights activists mount fewer challenges is because they know they're on their own & won't have the support of any Democrats outside of a very tiny handful, whereas abortion opponents are well-funded, organized, and backed by seated members of both houses. maybe you're talking about NARAL, with whom I work, who actively support the Democratic party, but "abortion rights activists" generally speaking know that they are more or less their own party. Certainly the last several years have proven that for most Democratic politicians, abortion rights are there to be traded away for short-term gains.

― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 28 April 2011 19:00 (19 minutes ago)

this is an amusingly biased argument. 'people who agree with me about the situation are pro-abortion activists; people who disagree are weak-willed democrats.'

the reality is, dems & activists (which have a huge overlap) are in disagreement over strategy, which is the real situation here

actually, i'll backpedal slightly & suggest that the truth is in between / inclusive of both of our arguments here

when your strategy is "concede parts of woman's constitutionally protected right to choose abortion," that's not strategic, it's platform. what part of "I work with NARAL" did you not read? I work for them, their whole fuckin shpiel is get people to vote Dem, don't worry, your beloved can count on the votes of the people they constantly betray

meant to write "beloved party," which only dials back the snot by 1/4 but anyway.

when your strategy is "concede parts of woman's constitutionally protected right to choose abortion," that's not strategic, it's platform. what part of "I work with NARAL" did you not read? I work for them, their whole fuckin shpiel is get people to vote Dem, don't worry, your beloved can count on the votes of the people they constantly betray

― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:34 PM (31 seconds ago) Bookmark

disingenuous. the strategy is 'change the courts electorally but dont let us lose roe v wade until we're stronger there' vs. 'challenge now, gamble that court wont overturn it.' it must be weird to live in a world where everyone who disagrees w/ you about strategy secretly wants to kowtow to the opposition

i mean, realize that im saying i agree w/ you about strategy, i just think your interpretation is unfair to many pro-abortion ppl who may have been doing this for what they thought were good reasons

as a gen. rule pro-abortion rights activists have pursued a path of not challenging the smaller chips at abortion because theyve been afraid of roe v wade being overturned if it went to the current supreme court.

And if overturned, authority over abortion would revert to the States. This should be a fight everywhere.

yeah man it is very difficult for me to accept "good reasons" for women presently in Indiana who learn in, say, the 22nd week, that something is wrong with the fetus they were hoping to carry to term and now it's either abort or carry a guaranteed stillborn birth to term and they can't do shit because of "strategy." This strategy, which the Democrats have now been practicing since Reagan, has the practical effect of denying poor women the right to abortion. If it weren't for NNAF who knows how fucked women in Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, NC, Nebraska, I know I'm missing some too, would be. I am really tunnel-visioned about this. I work closely with some of these abortion-rights orgs and hear directly the stories of what the immediate costs of this "strategy" is. They are human costs and it is unconscionable to tell these women that their stories are part of some broader abortion-rights narrative when most Democrats, again, won't even put the word "abortion" in their campaign lit. There is a time to place your principles right up front or admit that they're not your principles; that time, with abortion, for the Democratic party, was thirty years ago, and they took a pass on it.

i guess i just get tired of everything being made into a real left vs. sissy dems fight -- for the left to be successful imo its easier to not call names & instead convince the 'weak-willed' members of the party that the sensible thing to do is the one we're right about by, like, reasoning, rather than deriding them as panderers.

what if they're panderers tho

yeah man it is very difficult for me to accept "good reasons" for women presently in Indiana who learn in, say, the 22nd week, that something is wrong with the fetus they were hoping to carry to term and now it's either abort or carry a guaranteed stillborn birth to term and they can't do shit because of "strategy." This strategy, which the Democrats have now been practicing since Reagan, has the practical effect of denying poor women the right to abortion. If it weren't for NNAF who knows how fucked women in Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, NC, Nebraska, I know I'm missing some too, would be. I am really tunnel-visioned about this. I work closely with some of these abortion-rights orgs and hear directly the stories of what the immediate costs of this "strategy" is. They are human costs and it is unconscionable to tell these women that their stories are part of some broader abortion-rights narrative when most Democrats, again, won't even put the word "abortion" in their campaign lit. There is a time to place your principles right up front or admit that they're not your principles; that time, with abortion, for the Democratic party, was thirty years ago, and they took a pass on it.

― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:43 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i agree w/ all this btw, i think

what if they're panderers tho

― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:45 PM (16 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what does that even mean? they're happy w/ the status quo? imo it just means they're scared roe v wade's overturn would have negative consequences that would be worse. which, i think the risk is worth it, you dont have to convince me. but this seems like a misread of their motives

Understand also that the level of my passion on this issue is extreme and I lose all my fuckin marbles when I think about Democrats selling out abortion rights, which is exactly how it has looked to me since the health care bill, which was the foot in the door that has led to this state of actual abortion-rights peril in so many states. It's not pansy dems vs real left or anything for me at that point. It's people who support the right to choose abortion on this side, and I don't care who else over on the other side.

that is it I have said my piece on this I said I wasn't gonna derail the politics thread with my single-issue business!

^^^i'm basically the same way, + death penalty

i get pretty unreasonable about strategy/politics/etc and am inclined (perhaps unfairly) to think that anyone that doesn't share my zeal is toady and a sell-out

deej i assume you're referring to not voting for democrats -> republicans choose court members and not we shouldn't challenge new anti-abortion laws in court because the supreme court could overturn roe. because again the latter is not going to happen

otherwise i don't get what "risk" you're talking about?

http://www.slate.com/id/2291596/

^^good piece

because again the latter is not going to happen

― k3vin k., Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:50 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i agree i dont think it would, although you're far too certain imo

There's talk itt about the two party system falling somehow. It will not. If one of the parties fail (the Whigs), most of their voters will join some newly calibrated bloc (the Republicans). Look at the South. As the Democrats (in league w/liberal Republicans) started to address Civil Rights, the South turned to the Republicans. As long as they were sufficiently racist or turned a blind eye, the Democrats could be the party of farmers and 'ordinary men' in the Dixie but when that changed, they lost their old bastion.

k cool read 300 posts ago

deej got to the Lithwick article before I did -- a good read indeed.

we shouldn't challenge new anti-abortion laws in court

Regardless, I'd like to see some real politcal opposition.

i get pretty unreasonable about strategy/politics/etc and am inclined (perhaps unfairly) to think that anyone that doesn't share my zeal is toady and a sell-out

― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:50 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i dont think its an issue of 'degree of zeal' though, its simply a matter of disagreeing over the smarter way to accomplish your goals

that slate piece is making a smart argument for 'our side' on this issue, and hopefully that becomes our CW about these debates going forward. but notice how it doesnt frame the debate as being about toady moderate dems

well toady mod dems do exist, which is another issue completely

i dont think its an issue of 'degree of zeal' though, its simply a matter of disagreeing over the smarter way to accomplish your goals

yeah but understand this - my imagined 22-week pregnancy that has run into disaster above, that is presently real in a number of states for a number of women, today. Actual people who can't get the abortions they need on 4/28/2011. So the other side has accomplished their goal of denying actual live women, today, their right to an abortion. The goal to protect these woman's rights is the exact place where the line in the sand ought to have been drawn.

im certainly no advocate of ends-means morality, but i do think ethical dilemmas like this -- where either option has the potential very bad outcome -- it makes sense that ppl who believe as strongly as you might disagree here