An abortion of an election

[Therealbubba]

The front page of my local newspaper today says that Dubya Bush could beat anyone, anyplace, anytime.

Dubya's got alot of money, he's trying to play the moderate card, he's a good speaker but......he's very pro-life.

Well, I say that America will never elect a pro-life president. Ever. No matter how popular he is, no matter who he picks for his veep. It ain't gonna happen.

What's it going to be?

Therealbubba

[David B]

He's very pro-life? Says who? He has said, as far as I have seen, that he won't make it a criteria in selecting judges, for example.

And, in case you've forgotten, his father was elected as a pro-life candidate. As was Reagan. So, what, we elect a pro-choice guy twice and suddenly no pro-life candidate can ever be elected again? While this would make me happy, I certainly don't think it's true.

[Felinecare]

Well, I say that America will never elect a pro-life president.

The Ummurican people elected Reagan and Bush the Elder. You may recall Reagan asking the Surgeon-General to proclaim that abortion would permanently wreck a woman's health, and the SG replying he would be happy to announce that a normal uncomplicated pregnancy would cause more physical changes than an uncomplicated abortion.

I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote, but Molly Ivins said something to the effect of *Does anybody really think Bush cares if you get an abortion?*. Nevertheless, he toed the party line also.

I don't think Dubya really cares either (or Dole, for that matter)but I also don't see either of them using the pros and cons of abortion as an example of those sterling values of individual initiative and/or non-governmental interference.

[Therealbubba]

David, he did promise the good people of Texas that he would "do what ever it takes to stop abortion in Texas" when he ran for gov. And "I won't base a supreme court nomination on whether the judge is pro-life" doesn't fly with me, no more than I think it does with most moderates and liberals. How could he be held to that if he were elected? That's too vague to hold water with me.


And, yes, it is understood that the president cannot wave his or her magic wand and outlaw abortion. However, I feel that with women as the majority of voters today, a pro-life candidate doesn't stand a chance. With all of the pressing issues facing us, it's going to boil down to this one issue.

Therealbubba

[SterlingNorth]

I feel that with women as the majority of voters today. . .

And a lot of women are anti-abortion, too.

[aseymayo]

And a lot of women are anti-abortion, too.

And I can't imagine why. Why ANY woman would allow someone else to make that decision for her - especially some pinhead who was elected because he looked good on television - is beyond me.

[RFlowers]

<tt>
And a lot of women are anti-abortion, too.

------------------------------------------

And I can't imagine why.


----________---------_________------_-_-_-
</tt>
I dunno... ask my mom...

[Omniscient]

Hey, shitheads!

alot of women are anti-abortion

Yes, many are and great for them. Very few are pro-life, as in anti-choice. Not accounting for the bible thumping activists.

[SterlingNorth]

Hey, shitheads!
Yes, GREAT method to advance a dialogue!

Not accounting for the bible thumping activists.

Is this an assumption that all abortion opponents are fundamentalist loonies. A great many people I know would take offense at that.

I share aseymayo sentiments on the issue, but I'd refrain from calling names and making assumptions.

------------------
I know you understand what you heard me say, but what you don't understand is what I said is not necessarily what I meant.
[To steal another's sig]

SterlingNorth

------------------
To lying, cheating, stealing, and drinking.

Always lie to save a friend, cheat death,
steal your love's heart, and drink with good friends.
---Madison Michele

[SterlingNorth]

No, I take that back,
I meant what I said!

[David B]

Bubba said:However, I feel that with women as the majority of voters today, a pro-life candidate doesn't stand a chance.As several people have already pointed out, not all women are anti-abortion.

But even beyond that, you completely ignored what I said in my message, noting that before Clinton, we elected an anti-abortion president three terms in a row. You have not explained why you think there was some huge shift between then and now.

[David B]

Omniscient said:Hey, shitheads!Hey, Omniscient! Cut it out, take it to the Pit, or face deletions if you continue.

--------
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Therealbubba]

No David, I disagree. Demographics have changed. Soccer moms are the ones that got Clinton elected. They'll be there in November 2000 too. Over half of voters today are women and the majority of women are pro-choice. Let's not get pro-choice and pro-abortion confused here.

Therealbubba

[Polycarp]

I'm contemplating a woman my wife and I knew in our previous life (i.e., in NY not NC) who was strongly opposed to abortion on religious grounds. She was not a fundamentalist loonie by any means, and was very active in Birthright and supportive of Planned Parenthood except for their willingness to encourage abortions. (What I know of Birthright is that they are an organization that says, okay, you have a pregnant teenage girl and are telling her, "don't have an abortion; it's wrong" -- well then, what is she gonna do, and tries to provide her with all the help she may need to deal with her pregnancy, and without judgmentalism.)

[David B]

Bubba said:No David, I disagree. Demographics have changed.And you have the evidence to back that assertion, right? Let's see it!Soccer moms are the ones that got Clinton elected.Does "It's the economy, stupid" mean anything to you? Do you remember that slogan? They used it for a reason.Over half of voters today are women and the majority of women are pro-choice.How many? What percentage of voting women are pro-choice?

[kknick34]

I disagree that demographics have shifted towards pro-choice. Since 1994 congress has been pro-life republican. I don't think abortion will be a major issue in the upcoming election. The republican's are even making noises about removing the pro-life plank from their platform.

Here's how I think America veiw's abortion:
A few say no abortions ever.
A few say abortions anytime.
Most say abortions should be available but with restrictions.

I don't see a big shift in the upcoming election.

[Boris B]

What's a soccer mom?

[Polycarp]

A woman who has given birth to a soccer ball, Boris. I'm sure you've seen a couple just pre-parturition in stores and things. :)

[Therealbubba]

David, I've tried a couple of search engines, NOW and League of Women Voters, and I'm drawing blanks on voter demographics. You'd think that would be easy to find on the net. I'll try again later tonight or tomorrow.

Therealbubba

[David B]

Ok, if you haven't found anything that discusses the demographics, what made you think they had changed to begin with?

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

To get back to this thread's original point, Bubba, I think the country can elect Geo. W. Bush.
I predict he will beat Bradley by a comfortable margin, if not a landslide.
As for me, I have looked at the field and will vote Libertarian once again.

[SterlingNorth]

So it's true
A.) Al Gore is unelectible.
B.) The man with the most money and least substance will succeed

------------------
To lying, cheating, stealing, and drinking.

Always lie to save a friend, cheat death,
steal your love's heart, and drink with good friends.
---Madison Michele

[Therealbubba]

David...What makes you so sure the demographics haven't changed? Please help me know where you got your information regarding the electorate. Thanks.

Therealbubba

[tracer]

David B wrote:

As several people have already pointed out, not all women are anti-abortion.

Well, yes, this is true, but I'm guessing you meant it the other way around. ;)

[David B]

Bubba asked:David...What makes you so sure the demographics haven't changed? Please help me know where you got your information regarding the electorate. Thanks.You made the affirmative claim that it had changed, and used this to support your contention that an anti-abortion candidate could win. I called you on it. I want to see your evidence. You made the claim, you back it up.

Tracer: Yup, you're right. Too damned many "pros" and "antis" floating around! :)

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Dear SterlingNorth:
I don't think Gore is unelectable -- he does have a fair amount of kaboodle, the economy continues to remain fairly strong, our recent foreign adventures haven't blown up in our faces, and Gore is smarter than he looks, smart enough to know he has to kick his staff's collective ass and start hustling.
However, Gore does carry the albatross of being in Slick Willie's administration; I suspect that is why Bradley is doing as well as he is.
If Gore stumbles early, the Democratic leaders now supporting him will desert Big Al faster than a rat could get off the Titanic.
As for your remark about substance, I'm afraid you're right. This is America; why should character and ideas count?

[JBENZ]

You guys need to spend less time on the Dope Board and more time reading the news. As of today's reports, Buchanan is jumping to Perotville. He'll take the Republican 10% lunatic fringe with him. Whoever the Democrats nominate is gonna win in a walk and abortion won't be an issue.



------------------
JB
Lex Non Favet Delictorum Votis

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Dear JBENZ:
You ought to read the news more often yourself. That Buchanan was considering joining the Reform Party is nothing new. Robert Novak reported that as political gossip several weeks ago, and Cal Thomas got down on his knees in his column and begged Buchanan to stay with the GOP. Several other news stories and analyses have mentioned Buchanan's possible defection. I myself have expected for weeks that Rabid Pat would join
the reformers.
Buchanan's extremely conservative views clash with those of many Reform Party backers, including Jesse Ventura. He and many Reformers are united on their opposition to NAFTA and their views on other trade issues, but that is about all they are united on. The GOP's fringe element might not like being in the same tent with Ventura and other Reformers.
I don't think the Democrats are guaranteed a cakewalk. If the economy nosedives or more voters realize that Gore & Bradley's spending plans will eliminate the alleged surplus, the Dems will lose the White House.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Dear JBENZ:
You ought to read the news more often yourself. That Buchanan was considering joining the Reform Party is nothing new. Robert Novak reported that as political gossip several weeks ago, and Cal Thomas got down on his knees in his column and begged Buchanan to stay with the GOP. Several other news stories and analyses have mentioned Buchanan's possible defection. I myself have expected for weeks that Rabid Pat would join
the reformers.
Buchanan's extremely conservative views clash with those of many Reform Party backers, including Jesse Ventura. He and many Reformers are united on their opposition to NAFTA and their views on other trade issues, but that is about all they are united on. The GOP's fringe element might not like being in the same tent with Ventura and other Reformers.
I don't think the Democrats are guaranteed a cakewalk. If the economy nosedives or more voters realize that Gore & Bradley's spending plans will eliminate the alleged surplus, the Dems will lose the White House.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Sorry about the screwup, folks; something's wrong with this computer beside the bozo at the keyboard.

[divemaster]

As long as we're veering off course...

Many of Buchanan's views are not right-wing at all.

1) He is very pro-labor, usually associated with the left.

2) He is also very protectionist (anti NAFTA, anti GATT, anti MFN status for China, etc...). Protectionism is not the exclusive domain of either Left or Right, but it was mainly the Left that fought tooth and nail against NAFTA. Remember the heat Clinton got over that? NAFTA was passed with the support of congressional Republicans, despite the opposition from many Democrats.

3) Buchanan is probably the most anti-big corporation candidate in the entire field, Republican or Democrat. He is far to the left of the traditional position Republicans usually take toward business.

4) He opposed the Gulf War, supported by most on the Right.

5) Leona(?) Fulani, who is about as far from the Right as one can get, published an article just last week stating why she supports Buchanan.

The point I'm trying to make is that those who pigeonhole Buchanan as a right-wing candidate because of his social positions (which do tilt sharply right) are only looking at half the picture, and probably the least important half as far as campaign issues go for the next election.

[David B]

All I can say about Buchanan leaving the GOP is this: Woohoo!

I'd like to see all the social ultraconservatives leave and start their own little extremist party, like they've threatened to do (or take over the Reform Party -- either way). Maybe that would allow a crop of Republicans worth voting for to come forward.

[Therealbubba]

David, are you suggesting that as of right now, there are no republicans worth voting for? Not that I disagree with you on the quality of republicans, but what would Pat bolting do to allow a better republican to come forward?

Therealbubba

[David B]

Bubba, I was not just talking about Pat leaving. As I said, I would like to see all of the social ultraconservatives leave, which would open the door. It might do so because then the religious right wouldn't have such influence in the party, and Republicans with good ideas who didn't want to bow down to the RR could come forward.

[Therealbubba]

OK David, understood. I think you'd have a hard time convincing the RR that they don't own the GOP. It would probably be easier (and better) to get the moderates in the GOP to leave. They would draw alot of democrats in with them, wouldn't they? And I'm not talking about them going to the Perot party either. Imagine a genuine moderate party...

Therealbubba

[tracer]

David B wrote:

I'd like to see all the social ultraconservatives leave and start their own little extremist party, like they've threatened to do

They already have. It's called the Taxpayers Party.

[Boris B]

Actually, I have often thought the Reform Party has the potential to become a real political force, populated by those who are moderate on social and more or less [i]laissez faire[i] (pardon my inevitable spelling) on economic issues. Serious people have tried to make it in the Reform Party, without much success, but I hope that will change. It remains to be seen how serious I'll think Ventura is.

The point is, I think Buchanan is just the wrong person for my ideal of the Reform Party. It isn't my ideal because I would support it; it's my ideal because I support multipartism, and that requires the third and subsequent parties to have an identifiable platform transcending any single election.

So in other words, my vision has the Reform Party as home of the old-fashioned sound economics crowd, the kind of people who believe that failing high school students shouldn't be allowed to play football. The Republicans can continue to house Bauer's pro-clerical faction, Buchanan's protectionist faction, and Forbes' he-may-be-a-dork-but-he's-rich faction.

This is sort of the reverse of what David B proposed, which would be just as good for my nefarious multipartisan purposes.

By the way, I'm freaked out that Lenora Fulani supports Buchanan. Not that I really like either of them, it's just ... freaky.

[Polycarp]

"Politics make strange bedfellows."

[techchick68]

The problem with today's politics is, it's all a popularity and who has the most money contest.

If the average "Joe/Joesephina" could run for the presidential seat and win, he/she would be a moderate with skeletons in the closet. Someone who wasn't afraid to speak honestly about his or her past, and the American public could relate to.

There is only one majority in this country, and that is those that want to see the "politics as usual" and heavy government be sent to the wild blue yonder and return to the fundementals of what this country is based on.

Screw the right, screw the the left, we must find a candidate that speaks for all which isn't an easy task. I would gladly vote in an election again if I felt that someone (like Ventura) didn't try to pull the wool over our eyes and got to the business at hand, representation of all the people.

Without that, special interest will continue to rule our congress. Without that, so-called scandals will become more important than the children who are living in poverty. Without that the rich will continue to find loopholes in the tax law to avoid taxes. Without that people will continue to milk the welfare system for monies they don't deserve. Without that we become a bitter people that can't see beyond our own interests.

It's going to take a serious moderate candidate that can handle all that is apparent to create policy to make the US a nation like it was meant to be. We are a nation of extremes, and no Republican nor Democrat can handle the job.

Guess you would dub me a Libertarian? Sure, I don't mind that title, not a reformist, but a realist.

Abortion - up to the woman
Prayer in Schools - No way, only in private schools, and no tax subsidies for those schools
Welfare - only if one can prove they can't work after a two year period on it
Taxes/Charges for:
Driver Licenses
Vehicle Registration
Taxation for business equipment
Pet Licenses
Electricity/Utilities
Telephones
Garbage collection
(in some states) Food
etc....you know what I mean
These charges are all bunk!

You can imagine my list goes further, but to end this I must state, we all must quit looking only to the end of our noses and get to the country as a whole. Screw the extremes and realize that the more moderate you are the more tolerant you are of those who either are in need of help or those that have more than they need.

It's not a matter of us against the Jones, it's pretty much us against the government as we know it today.

[DSYoungEsq]

This thread reminds me again why intelligent debate on politics is basically impossible... < sigh >

[Boris B]

DSYoungEsq Why do you hang out with us peasants anyway? I can't really tell what you mean. Who exactly is being unintelligent? Being slightly paranoid, I imagine you could mean me. I have added to things to this thread, a question about what soccer moms are, and support for a strong Reform Party as a way of creating a multiparty system. You addressed neither of my points.

The less paranoid view is that you mean someone else, but as usual I can't tell who you're criticizing. A sigh is more or less a criticism of the entire universe. Could you be a little more specific? Most people on this thread want to have an intelligent debate on politics, and no, most of us aren't skilled in legal research. There is a specific profession of people to do that; the rest of us are allowed to vote anyway.

techchick68 I got confused about your list. You seemed to support abortion rights and welfare reform, then there was a list of what I thought were user fees you supported, then you wrote, "These charges are all bunk!" I thought "bunk" was a bad thing. Don't libertarians usually support user fees?

Not that you asked, but to me you sound more like a "new Democrat" than a radical independent. You know, someone who might support a President who is arguablya moderate with skeletons in the closet. Someone who wasn't afraid to speak honestly about his or her past, and the American public could relate to. On the whole, I agree with you that scandals shouldn't be considered more important than children in poverty, but I don't know if there is any point in seeking a candidate who speaks for all. It's more important for leaders to speak to the people than for them to speak for the people. Just my two bits.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Of course intelligent debate is impossible, DSYoung, when people will neither outline their own views in a thoughtful manner, nor will they offer constructive criticism, nor will they even bother to state what they find objectionable and/or -- frivolous, shall we say? after all, this isn't the Pit -- in other peoples' views.
You have to make a statement, not a sigh, to have a debate.