now it seems some major Republicans are scared to walk the walk.
[quote]The GOP's Abortion Anxiety
The pro-life movement is on a roll. So why are the Republican Party's top guns suddenly so shy on the subject?
March 20, 2006 issue - When South Dakota approved a law sharply restricting abortion last week, many pro-life Republicans around the country sounded a loud hallelujah. But at least one very senior Republican did not seem at all eager to join in the chorus. As Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, flew to Memphis to attend the first gathering of potential GOP presidential candidates for 2008, a NEWSWEEK reporter asked him if he had anything to say about the South Dakota law. "No," he said. Did he plan to make a statement on that topic at the Republican gathering in Memphis? "No" was the answer. Would he ever be willing to comment on the topic, other than to say that it's up to the states to make their own choices on abortion? Again, the answer was "no." The look on his face was more expressive. It appeared to ask, "Are you kidding?"
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
Why such reticence to embrace glad tidings? After all, the abortion issue has been good to the Republican Party. It has energized Roman Catholic and evangelical grass-roots activists and allowed the GOP to paint pro-choice Democrats as cultural extremists, out of step with Main Street and the heartland. But a recent flurry of activity on abortion is making Republican politicians nervous. With states moving to restrict abortion and the Supreme Court drawing closer to the day when it might actually reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion, GOP leaders see big political risks.
They may be in the awkward position of getting more than they asked for. The South Dakota law, for instance, would allow abortions only to save the life of the mother, not in cases of rape or incest. That is further than most Americans want to go. By a roughly two-to-one margin, polls show, people want to uphold the basic abortion right enshrined in Roe v. Wade, even if they approve of some restrictions, like parental notification. "I'm pro-life, but you can't wear the thing out," says Clarke Reed, the legendary architect of the GOP in Mississippi. "I'm worried about it." With reason: his own state legislature is moving in a direction similar to South Dakota's.
"Republicans are going to be the ones who look like extremists," says former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his seat in 2004 after being beaten up on the abortion issue for years. That does not mean, however, that Democrats are rushing to call attention to the Republicans' dilemma. In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats don't plan to spend a dime on ads highlighting the abortion issue, according to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the savvy Chicago pol who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He wouldn't spell out the reasons, but a top party staffer (who declined to be quoted out of deference to his bosses) told NEWSWEEK: "These guys are gun-shy because they're used to getting clobbered on the issue."
Indeed, the Democrats are going through some soul-searching of their own over abortion. Four years ago, says Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life, she couldn't get other Democrats to return her phone calls. But today, a prominent pro-lifer, Bob Casey, is running for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. The Democrats' rising star, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, prefers to cast abortion in terms of parental responsibility. "Even as we defend this right," he says, "it's important for us to acknowledge the moral dimension to the choice that's made."
Some of the Republicans' most ardent right-to-lifers are not embracing the South Dakota law. "It could backfire," says Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, if the courts strike it down
the bill does go way overboard by not allowing a provision for rape or incest. while i support the political stance of the SD bill, i wouldnt ever vote for it for the reason given above, and i dont blame any national republican for not backing it either. its just smart politics.
oh, and where does it say that some republicans are scared to "walk the walk?" mccain said that he'd support it if the bill followed his personal beliefs about incest & rape. brownback said that he'd support it. george allen said he'd vetoe it. sounds like a fluff piece to me.
dfarr Wrote:oh, and where does it say that some republicans are scared to "walk the walk?"
I think this is a good example:
Virginia Sen. George Allen, a former governor, is firmly anti-abortion. But he told NEWSWEEK that if a similar bill had come through his own state's legislature, he would have vetoed it.
Sarahbelle18 Wrote:dfarr Wrote:oh, and where does it say that some republicans are scared to "walk the walk?"
I think this is a good example:
Virginia Sen. George Allen, a former governor, is firmly anti-abortion. But he told NEWSWEEK that if a similar bill had come through his own state's legislature, he would have vetoed it.
thats b/c he, like me, probably believes that exceptions should be made for rape and incest. thats not being scared to "walk the walk," thats vetoing legislation that he doesnt believe in. i bet if he were asked if he would sign a similar bill if it made provisions for rape & incest you'd get a different answer.
What I can't figure is why republicans refuse to put that provision in. They should know that there is no way in hell (nor should there be) that it will ever withstand judicial review without it. (It probably won't withstand judicial revew no matter what.)
It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the supreme court.
Here's where the rubber really meets the road. You've got a Republican controlled statehouse in Missouri that's cutting all funding for family planning and contraception services in state run public health clinics.
Let's see... we oppose abortions, but we'll close the clinics that provide family planning and contraception services to poor people. Not just teenagers in school mind you, but married people as well. Do you seriously think that people will quit having intercourse? Do I think that the state is going to provide any increase in children's services and welfare for the babies that will inevitably result?
Gawd.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity...098907.htm
UAB Band Dad Wrote:The SD Governor's approval rating has dropped from 72% to 58% since he signed that bill. Conversely, his disapproval is up from 23% to 38%.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrac...b98295658a
i'd have disapproved of him too. im not a fan of the bill.
This is just another example of republicans being conservative in all the wrong places. They need to quit worrying about abortion, gay marriage and terry schiavo and start worrying about the swelling deficit, increased spending, overtaxation, failing social security and the mass of other issues that actually matter. Sarah, if you are reading this...this is why I'm not a republican.
BatesUAB Wrote:This is just another example of republicans being conservative in all the wrong places. They need to quit worrying about abortion, gay marriage and terry schiavo and start worrying about the swelling deficit, increased spending, overtaxation, failing social security and the mass of other issues that actually matter. Sarah, if you are reading this...this is why I'm not a republican.
ditto. there's a difference between being conservative and being a republican. its pissed my gf off when i tell her this too since she's a republican political consultant.
BatesUAB Wrote:This is just another example of republicans being conservative in all the wrong places. They need to quit worrying about abortion, gay marriage and terry schiavo and start worrying about the swelling deficit, increased spending, overtaxation, failing social security and the mass of other issues that actually matter. Sarah, if you are reading this...this is why I'm not a republican.
Frankly, I line up right beside you on all of that stuff. Creeping theocracy is pushing the Republican toward the right fringe in a way I find every bit as objectionable as I do the far left wing of the Democratic party. Our "representative" politicians posturing on these social issues while ignoring serious problems at the core of American society like the huge deficit, the coming implosion of Social Security and Medicare, the crumbling infrastructure of things like bridges and interstates, playing games with energy policy, no scratch that, this country
does not have any form of serious energy policy with the possible exception of making sure the oil companies make huge profits.
There are abundant serious issues confronting this nation that are glossed over with lip service legislation or outright ignored while much sound and fury is expended over contraversial social issues that let the pols play political theater for votes. Screw 'em all, whether its Al Sharpton or Rick Santorum. Go to work and handle the country's business and quit playing to the cheap seats.
**edit** migawd, I just agreed with Bates and dfarr. Maybe the end times are near after all!
Quote:I just agreed with Bates and dfarr. Maybe the end times are near after all!
THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm really not a screaming liberal, although I'll sometimes play devil's advocate to get debate going. Socially I'm pretty much a progressive, while I'm fairly conservative on matters of national defense and fiscal policy.
I'll never, ever be a person who can walk in and just pull a single party lever. I'm going to look at the races and try to pick the person I feel I most agree with or trust, party be hanged. My mother, bless her skeptical soul, taught me that if I didn't know about the race or the people involved, it was generally good policy to vote against the incumbent on the theory that the new guy wouldn't be as wired into the system and corrupted yet.
I find a lot of bones to pick with both parties. However, since the R's currently hold the house, senate, and the presidency, I hold them responsible for most what is happening in the country now. Probably the thing I hate worst about the Bush administration is that the party idealogues are in charge. Every White House in my memory has always had something of a tug of war between the policy wonks who really knew about ideas and their areas of specialization and the party political guys who want to decide everything on the basis of party ideology. In the Bush White House, there are no policy wonks, the party guys seem to decide virtually everything on the basis of Republican political theory. There's no one who understands the nuts and bolts, no elder statesman who takes the long view, no wise men. Instead, you have Rove and Cheney, and frankly I see very little from them that is not politically spun.
I'm very afraid that in years to come we will look back on how things were handled by the Bush team and wonder what the hell they were thinking.
UAB Band Dad Wrote:I'll never, ever be a person who can walk in and just pull a single party lever.
Better be careful... there are some on here that don't know what you mean when you say pull a lever for voting. I remember going into the booth with my father when he voted Republican for the first time (Reagan 1) and he pulled the lever. Sort of odd compared to the scan tron sheets of today.
The doctor I work for can do it. He walks in the booth and pulls the straight Republican ticket lever. (Or colors in that dot, as may be. I'm getting to be an antique artifact I guess.) The problem I have with that is that as more and more things have gone to hell under Bush he's become far less willing to debate and defend him and the various people caught with their hands in the till. He's now down to "I can't vote for a Democrat because they'll just raise my taxes and take my money."
That's not principles, that's greed talking. I liked him a lot better when we could wrangle and agree to disagree over political positions and the like. Nothing wrong with wanting to keep as much of your money as you can, we all have to fill out that tax form and we all do what we can to keep all we can, but we're talking about a guy with two houses, 5 cars, several motorcycles, a couple of water scooters, god alone knows what in various investment accounts. He works hard, brutal godawful hours to get it... but he can afford some of it going to the public good, same as you and I.
I looked him square in the eye and told him "You put more in your 401k deduction than I take home in a month" and let it go at that.
Having done taxes for people and helped out a friend who is a doctor. He probably pays more in taxes every month that you make. Of course, my friend went to school, interships, fellowships, and post doctoral studies until he was 32 years old. He has over $200,000 in student loans. He pays an incredible amount in malpractice insurance. I say... let him make the $190,000 per year for the long hours he puts in. If I were him, I would want to keep as much from going to the government as you do.
My friend also pays nearly 15% in social security taxes. He has to pay the full amount (as do I) because he is self employed.
Where I have a problem is with familes who pay zilch in taxes all year long and then at the end of the year get a $3000 tax refund. That isn't a refund! That should better be called a handout. Before you say that those are not common. Let me assure you that MOST of the taxes I have done fall into that category. They pay nothing all year long a then get a tax refund.
UAB Band Dad Wrote:I looked him square in the eye and told him "You put more in your 401k deduction than I take home in a month" and let it go at that.
If you are saying that he puts in more every month than you take home a month. You don't make much money.
For 2006, the maximum amounts you can contribute to your 401(k) plan, as set by the IRS is shown below:
2006 401k Contribution Limit: $15,000
2006 Catch-Up Contribution Limit (only for those over 50 years old): $5,000
It's an exaggeration, but not by much, not when I'm talking take home pay after all the various cuts to my check. I work for a family practice - if I worked at the hospital I'd make more money, but I'd be subject to being on call, as well as having to deal with wrestling patients from stretchers onto the x-ray table (bad backs are an occupational hazard for RT's), catheters, iv's, etc. I chose to earn less working with walking, talking patients. I might add that I enjoy what I do.
I also only work four days a week, because if I worked more they'd have to pay overtime, and they really really hate that. I virtually never see a forty hour check.
I don't resent the money he makes, because I know better than most how hard he works and how crushingly long his hours are. What disillusioned me was finding out that when it got right down to it, the many hours of spirited debating politics we've done were basically academic. When it gets right down to nut cutting time, his vote is based on tax avoidance, and I think that's sad.
BatesUAB Wrote:What I can't figure is why republicans refuse to put that provision in. They should know that there is no way in hell (nor should there be) that it will ever withstand judicial review without it. (It probably won't withstand judicial revew no matter what.)
a living child and that is only justified- as with other killings-in self defense- that is when the life of the mother is demonstrated to be at risk. The baby is not responsible for the circumstances of its conception so rape or incest can't be used as cover for killing the child. If the emotional torment of conception is allowed, they fear that will open up a whole line of arguements that they want considered irrelevent.
What bothers me is that prolife people seem only interested in getting the child birthed, and then they want no part of the health care consequences of the living child. They seem to oppose guaranteeing that child health care and the right to be brought up with gov't protection of its life and its physical and emotional nourishment. "Just get it whelped and then it's on its own" seems to be the conservative mantra.
its not the job of the government to physically or emotionally nourish anyone.
dfarr Wrote:its not the job of the government to physically or emotionally nourish anyone.
preamble to the Constitution. If that doesn't suggest that gov't has a role in at least the physical nourishment of the life of the population then what does it mean? Maybe it was just the right use of gov't to abandon those elderly that wound up dieing in NOLA, or maybe FEMA should be criticised for being too diligent in helping the people there. You may well have stated the real American Creed: "Those who are rich enough to survive are the only ones fit to survive." I believe Marie Antoinette said something like that when she was quoted as saying "Let them eat cake!"
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:dfarr Wrote:its not the job of the government to physically or emotionally nourish anyone.
preamble to the Constitution. If that doesn't suggest that gov't has a role in at least the physical nourishment of the life of the population then what does it mean? Maybe it was just the right use of gov't to abandon those elderly that wound up dieing in NOLA, or maybe FEMA should be criticised for being too diligent in helping the people there. You may well have stated the real American Creed: "Those who are rich enough to survive are the only ones fit to survive." I believe Marie Antoinette said something like that when she was quoted as saying "Let them eat cake!"
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
funny, the guys who wrote this didnt start government welfare programs. that wasnt till FDR (i think). promote the general welfare doesnt mean "pay for people to live, even if they can work but are too lazy, or even if they make some bad choices that bite them in the *** b/c its the government's job to provide for everyone." they believed in this thing called personal responsibility. if you had a kid, it was your job to support it, not the governments. i know personal responsibility is a hard concept to grasp for the always oppressed/offended/discriminated liberal mindset, but try and think about it for once.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:dfarr Wrote:its not the job of the government to physically or emotionally nourish anyone.
preamble to the Constitution. If that doesn't suggest that gov't has a role in at least the physical nourishment of the life of the population then what does it mean? Maybe it was just the right use of gov't to abandon those elderly that wound up dieing in NOLA, or maybe FEMA should be criticised for being too diligent in helping the people there. You may well have stated the real American Creed: "Those who are rich enough to survive are the only ones fit to survive." I believe Marie Antoinette said something like that when she was quoted as saying "Let them eat cake!"
"Promote the general welfare"
How can you construe that to be a guarantee that every need in someone's life is met by the government? Promoting the
GENERAL welfare implies providing those basic needs on a broad scale that helps everyone in society. That would encompass providing grants for disease research, making sure the foods and drugs consumed by the people are safe, requiring safe work enviroments, having minimum safe standards for products that affect us (i.e., automobiles), minimizing pollution to the enviroment, etc., etc. These are things that promote the general welfare.