The W
Views: 98946423
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.14 1844
The W - Current Events & Politics - Let's try this again: Bush nominates Samuel Alito (Page 2)
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.64
Pages: Prev 1 2
(641 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (23 total)
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 442 days
Last activity: 442 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.85
    Originally posted by BigSteve
      Originally posted by spf
      I can think of 15 states right of the top of my head where the legislatures will be passing abortion bans at the speed of light.

      Personally...I don't much care. As a political person, I think it could be the best thing possible for the Democrats if the GOP is able to turn abortion into even more of a holy crusade for the party, as it will inevitably IMO lead to them overplaying their hand nationally and making it into an issue that is impossible to ignore. Right now you can still vote for the GOP on the grounds that "well, I agree with their fiscal/defense policies, so I don't mind the abortion thing since 'nothing will really change' no matter what." Once things do change, the issue will explode. And since most opinion polls show 60% or so of the country are against complete bans on abortion, this cannot help them.


    I disagree with the extent that overturning Roe will hurt the GOP and help Dems. Unless something screwy and unlikely were to happen, all overturning Roe would do is send the issue back to the states. Now some states in the south and midwest (almost certainly less than 15, IMO) would ban abortion almost totally. Most all of them would probably still have health, rape, incest exceptions. On the other hand, some states, northeastern states and California among others, would have few if any restrictions on abortion. And then a wide swath, probably the majority of states, would enact sensible regulations (PBA bans, parental notification, possibly a limited post-viability ban) that are supported by a wide majority of Americans (if polls are to be believed).

    If that were to happen we'd have a democratically enacted solution, that satisfies the vast majority of American citizens. There's always the chance that one side would overreach, but I just don't see that happening.








Why does reading that just scream Kansas/Nebraska Act of 1854 and Stephen Douglas?
You want the dream Democrat '08 scenario: Roe gets overturned, placating the fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party and they stay home on election day because they've won their battle, after getting a Lindsey Graham type through the primary season. Fiscal conservatives are pissed at the GOP because of Bush spending to the point where he makes LBJ look like Calvin Coolidge and are willing to shop around. Democrats resist the urge to go to the far left or to the northeast for a Presidential candidate (this urge might be the only saving grace for the GOP in '08), nominate a southerner or a moderate, and flip Ohio and Florida while turning Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico into states resembling California rather than Texas.

(edited by redsoxnation on 2.11.05 2303)
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2997 days
Last activity: 210 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by BigSteve
      Originally posted by vsp
      I don't trust America's voters to be sufficiently motivated _even by that_ to reach a full-on "throw the moralizing bums out" fervor.


    Then that should tell you something - America doesn't like what you're selling. Maybe they think the whole "don't legislate morality" thing is a bunch of bunk (and hypocritical at that). Democracy is great like that.


Man, my bull's-eye was in New York and you just shot at Albania.

America's voters, as a general rule, are motivated only by things that personally affect them at that moment in time, or at least that they perceive will personally affect them. Things like tax increases get their attention, as everyone pays taxes (or at least should). "Vote for us or brown people will murder you in your beds" campaigning can get their attention from time to time. Right to abortion? Right to privacy? Gay marriage? Freedom of speech? Joe Average can get through a typical day without having to think about any of these, and thus Joe Average won't be sufficiently motivated to vote (or change his vote) because of them.

Sure, there are activists on both sides of all of those issues. THEY care. They're not the average Joes. A plumber in Iowa or an accountant in Houston or a secretary in Albany doesn't really care until they or someone they love has those rights challenged.

There are people who will have their eyes opened if states start shutting down abortion entirely. Will enough people be personally affected to make a significant shift in the electorate? I don't know, but I'll be damned if I want to find out by ceding that right without a hell of a fight.






Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
Crimedog
Boerewors








Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2673 days
Last activity: 2663 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Obviously, all states would accept and interchange traditional intergender marriages - they do now.


Why is that so obvious? I could easily see a state saying "hmmm...if we don't have to accept gay marriages from another state, then why should we accept traditional marriages? Let's make everybody get remarried HERE. Revenue for everyone!"

See, my problem on this whole brouhaha over gay marriage/abortion/whatever the right is all fired up about these days (and I'm more right than left, so don't go thinking I'm just some wackjob lefty who thinks Republican=Satan) is that when you start throwing around things like overturning Roe v. Wade and constitutional amendments to ban things you don't like, you're taking rights away from people.

From a purely legal standpoint, it could be argued that Roe v. Wade is on shaky ground. However, it's been the law of the land for a long time now, and I'm not looking forward to a Supreme Court justice _ liberal or conservative _ that's going to head off to the Hall of Justice itching to start overturning things that have been law for a long time and for the most part, don't have any impact on the vast majority of this country.

The whole political climate in this country right now is really starting to bug me. On the right, you've got folks who want to determine who I can marry and what I can do in the privacy of my own home. On the left, you've got people who are so wrapped up in the "stolen elections" that they're looking backwards, instead of forwards. It's enough to make those of us in the middle say "screw this. I'm voting for the guy that seems the least insane."
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 5.64
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: Idaho appreciates Napoleon
Next thread: Virginia Voters! Chick-Fil-A!
Previous thread: Adscam Report #1
(641 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
From a 1/21/04 Newsday.com article from this link: http://www.newsday.com/ mynews/ ny-etdean213634935jan21,0,2035966.story Mic Foley on Dean from the article:
The W - Current Events & Politics - Let's try this again: Bush nominates Samuel Alito (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.097 seconds.