Will Democrats finally get a clue?

[BPSCG]

Looks like Bush is for civil unions as a states' rights issue, but in favor of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/

Which puts him in the same position as Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell"--too far left for the right, and too far right for the left. Compromise: the art of making sure nobody gets what they really want.

Took a course in collective bargaining when I was in college. Prof - an experienced labor arbitrator - observed that "You usually can tell you've gotten a good agreement when neither side is completely happy."

Compromise is the art of making sure everyone gets some of what they want.

I don't know how hard Bush is going to push for civil union legislation - he says he favors it as a states' rights issue - but this is hardly the reaction of a Bible-thumping fundie; in fact, your link says he's angered some of the obvious Bible thumpers who supported him.

A President Kerry would not have been able to support legislation like this without coming under a lot of fire. President Bush can, the same way that Nixon was able to open the doors to China.

 

[TragicMonkey]

President Bush can, the same way that Nixon was able to open the doors to China.

I think he might pull it off, politically. He'll lose some of the fundie support, but not all of it---by couching it in purely states' rights terms, he can say his personal feelings are against it, but it's up to the individual states, yada yada. Plus, not like he needs to worry about reelection now.

But IMO that approach won't work at all in the long run. Some of the states don't just have laws and amendments about not recognizing gay marriage--they have laws forbidding recognition of civil unions as well. Virginia law doesn't stop at not letting Virginians civilly unify, it goes on to invalidate all civil unions of anyone within its borders. We've already got civil union custody cases being fought here, with people exploiting Virginia's law to counter Vermont's.

Both the marriage and civil union question are going have to be decided nationally.

 

[Meadmaker]

The problem that I see is the Democrats are convinced that certain Republican positions are "extremist" when in fact, they are not.

For example, opposition to gay marriage.

If you are for gay marriage, then you are in the minority. The other side, by definition, is not extreme.

How about abortion? I believe that a majority of people in America still favor abortion on demand. However, a sizeable minority do not. I can't say that this position is "extreme".

The Democrats have labelled middle America as "extremists", and implied that they are dangerous people who are just plain unenlightened. And middle America decided that if Democrats thought they were dangerous, they would vote for Republicans.

I am a flip-flopper when it comes to gay marriage, myself. I support gay rights, and I support civil unions. On some days, I figure that gay marriage is the only way to get a legal institution that recognizes the reality of how people really live. On the other hand, I think there is something unique about two people getting together and making babies. Sure, that doesn't describe every married couple in America, but it describes the majority, and it doesn't describe any gays. (And don't bother with any references to IVF, or sperm donors, or adoption, or any other way that two people of the same sex could end up raising babies. You know what I mean, or if you don't, you should.) The fact that so many Democrats think that opposition to gay marriage is "extreme" is proof of how out of touch with normal people they are.

And for that matter, when did being openly Christian become "extreme"? Again, that describes the majority in America.

I would challenge anyone to cite a position that is adopted by the mainstream of the Republican party, and could reasonably considered "extreme". To be "extreme" it has to be outside of what average, normal, people support. There might be some positions that fit the criteria, but I don't think you can find many.

 

[zakur]

I don't know about getting a clue, but a lot of Democrats are now talking about "getting religion."

I find the idea of pandering to the religious to win votes repugnant.

 

[BPSCG]

I think he might pull it off, politically. He'll lose some of the fundie support, but not all of it

Early in his first term, someone asked him what the most important lesson was that he'd learned from his father's presidency. Answer: When you have a lot of political capital, spend it. That's what it's for.

So some fundies are unhappy with his compromise on the issue. They'll still look at him and say he's fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. They won't vote for Hillary in 2008.

But IMO that approach won't work at all in the long run. Some of the states don't just have laws and amendments about not recognizing gay marriage--they have laws forbidding recognition of civil unions as well. Virginia law doesn't stop at not letting Virginians civilly unify, it goes on to invalidate all civil unions of anyone within its borders. We've already got civil union custody cases being fought here, with people exploiting Virginia's law to counter Vermont's.

Both the marriage and civil union question are going have to be decided nationally.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it's going to take some doing and a lot of time. I'm guesing the baby boomers will have to have mostly died out before a generation enlightened enough to support it will be able to establish a national standard.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Agreed. Unfortunately, it's going to take some doing and a lot of time. I'm guesing the baby boomers will have to have mostly died out before a generation enlightened enough to support it will be able to establish a national standard.

Lol. The Social Security expenses problem would also be alleviated by a wave of deaths amongst the baby boomers....are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting? Wink, wink.

 

[merphie]

I read this in Ann Coulter's column today. Yes, I know, she's the She-Demon of the Right, but could anyone tell me whether this is accurate or not?
I mean did Bush say this (not did Ann say it)? Context? Certainly doesn't sound like the position that a Bible-beating fundie would take.

FWIW, Coulter wrote the above as criticism of Bush.

The point is minor. Oklahoma passed a ban on gay marriage by 73% and I believe the wording of it does away with any chance of civil unions. It states no couple would enjoy the benefits unless married and prevents same sex couples.

 

[easycruise]

The problem that I see is the Democrats are convinced that certain Republican positions are "extremist" when in fact, they are not.
.
..
And for that matter, when did being openly Christian become "extreme"? Again, that describes the majority in America.

I would challenge anyone to cite a position that is adopted by the mainstream of the Republican party, and could reasonably considered "extreme". To be "extreme" it has to be outside of what average, normal, people support. There might be some positions that fit the criteria, but I don't think you can find many.

As a republican, I'll point out that the Democrats advocation of partial birth abortion is very extreme. I'm sure that Kerry's position on this hurt him at the polls. As Clarence Thomas said to his fellow Supremes...it was something like "Do you actually realize what this partial-birth abortion procedure entails?"

 

[seayakin]

As a republican, I'll point out that the Democrats advocation of partial birth abortion is very extreme. I'm sure that Kerry's position on this hurt him at the polls. As Clarence Thomas said to his fellow Supremes...it was something like "Do you actually realize what this partial-birth abortion procedure entails?"

Both parties often paint these single voting issues as a bipolar question. Whereas, there are people who oppose abortion but accept in the case of rape an incest, there are people who support abortion but may oppose late term abortions. Furthermore, the use of hyperbole by both parties feeds into the extremes of both parties (e.g. "liberal", "fundie") when there is actually a lot more gray area.

I am most disappointed by a large portion of the electorate who do not appear to understand the complexity and depth of the issues and simply listen to the spin meisters of both parties and take it as gospel truth.

With that said, the democratic/republican form of government beats every alternative I can think of.

 

[Tmy]

As a republican, I'll point out that the Democrats advocation of partial birth abortion is very extreme. I'm sure that Kerry's position on this hurt him at the polls. As Clarence Thomas said to his fellow Supremes...it was something like "Do you actually realize what this partial-birth abortion procedure entails?"

As opposed to the other fetus freindly procedures???

Partail Birth is just a gateway to get all all abortion.

Im sick of Denorcats being painted as extremeists. Take Gay Marriage. Kerry wasnt for gay marriage. And even here in Mass. gay marriage wouldve failed as a ballot question.

 

[BPSCG]

I am most disappointed by a large portion of the electorate who do not appear to understand the complexity and depth of the issues and simply listen to the spin meisters of both parties and take it as gospel truth.

Get thee to my excellent poll "When Does Abortion Become Wrong?" and see the wide, intelligent range of opinion and thought on this issue.

I believe that 80%-90% of the U.S. population is not opposed to abortion in the earlier months of conception, but have severe problems with it in the later ones.

But all you ever see on TV or the front pages of the papers are the extremists on each side, marching with their banners and screaming their respective slogans at each other. It's as useful in advancing the debate as videotape of chimps hurling feces at each other.

Demonstrations and slogans - an easier substitute for thinking.
Filming demonstrations and slogans - an easier substitute for actual news reporting.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's as useful in advancing the debate as videotape of chimps hurling feces at each other.

As I've pointed out before, some honest feces-flinging would be a significant step forward in political debate these days. In addition to relieving pent-up feelings, the act is also extremely expressive of the public mood.

I cannot think of a single politician who would not benefit from the experience of receiving a face-full of monkey droppings, hurled with force. The only problem is, could we find enough monkeys?

 

[BPSCG]

As I've pointed out before, some honest feces-flinging would be a significant step forward in political debate these days. In addition to relieving pent-up feelings, the act is also extremely expressive of the public mood.

I cannot think of a single politician who would not benefit from the experience of receiving a face-full of monkey droppings, hurled with force. The only problem is, could we find enough monkeys?

I suppose, as a member of the hairy primate class, you are an expert in feces-hurling...

 

[TragicMonkey]

I suppose, as a member of the hairy primate class, you are an expert in feces-hurling...

I attended a very religious college and took a series of discussion classes covering the great books of Western thought. Yes, I am a grand master of coproaerodynamicism.

 

[AWPrime]

With that said, the democratic/republican form of government beats every alternative I can think of.

Dutch government.

 

[Upchurch]

Dutch government.

That's where everyone buys their own dinner?

 

[SlippyToad]

Nope. Kerry was almost universally described as "the most electable" back during the primary runs. He had the verteran record, the commanding posture and voice, and was seen by the primary voters as the guy most likely able to beat Bush.

Kerry lost because, well, he had flip flopped on the key issues and couldn't make up his mind which constituency he was playing to. Gay marriage IS a big issue in the U.S. and any politician had better be prepared to deal with it, consistently, every time it comes up.

He actually was not nearly as inconsistent as the Republicans were able to portray him as. He was just too windy to compete with simple, clearly-stated positions. And yes, out of the crop of duds we had he was the "most electable," partially because we felt like after the drubbing Clinton got over his draft-dodger days we needed to run a real veteran with shrapnel in his body to overcome that issue, and partly because he did have that commanding air. But running for Senator in a friendly community is different than running for President in a sharply divided country, and Kerry had a Senatorial strategy for a Presidential race. He would have made a great President, of that I have no doubt. Once past the task of trying to micro-manage his message to slip past the Republican attack machine, he would have shown people who have forgotten for the last four years what competent leadership is like. He was the wrong candidate to put against Bush. We needed someone who was as folksy and easygoing as Bush, but smarter. We got someone who was smarter, but without charm. I actually think Edwards would have wiped the floor with him. But we will never know.

 

[SlippyToad]

As a republican, I'll point out that the Democrats advocation of partial birth abortion is very extreme. I'm sure that Kerry's position on this hurt him at the polls. As Clarence Thomas said to his fellow Supremes...it was something like "Do you actually realize what this partial-birth abortion procedure entails?"

I'd like to point out that partial-birth abortion is a vaguely-defined procedure, of which examples are very rarely peformed. Banning it is utterly pointless in my opinion.

Furthermore, Republicans lack the cojones to really ban abortion, and I submit they never will, because around 60% of the electorate actually supports it. Once a ban took effect, it would immediately become the Left's rallying issue, and bring people out in droves.

As long as conservatives can straw-man abortion with things like partial-birth, they can use it to bludgeon the Democrats. It's a phony stance and the reason it doesn't advance any further than 40-45% into the electorate is because we can see that. There are reasonable middle grounds on the issue that the right refuses to reach for precisely because of its valuable wedge issue status. And I think that Democrats will eventually figure out how to reach for the middle ground themselves and jerk the rug out from under the issue.

 

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by SlippyToad

Furthermore, Republicans lack the cojones to really ban abortion, and I submit they never will, because around 60% of the electorate actually supports it.

I agree, to a point. However, about 50% of the electorate supports it, but thinks it is about the fifth most important issue on the list. Whereas only about 40% of the electorate opposes it, but within that 40% are some people who think it outweighs all other issues.

I have friends that are basically liberal on most issues. However, they will never, ever, vote for a pro-abortion candidate. That's a lost vote for the Democrats, because of the abortion issue.

There are also some people who will never, ever, vote for an anti-abortion candidate, but almost all of those people are very liberal anyway. So, that is not a lost vote for either party.

So, the Democrats are losing votes due to abortion. That might lead the Republicans to embrace it even more, and eventually win the fight.


Once a ban took effect, it would immediately become the Left's rallying issue, and bring people out in droves.

Probably true. Once the reality sinks in, the left might wake up.

 

[SezMe]

I'd like to point out that partial-birth abortion is a vaguely-defined procedure, of which examples are very rarely peformed. Banning it is utterly pointless in my opinion.

Furthermore, Republicans lack the cojones to really ban abortion, and I submit they never will, because around 60% of the electorate actually supports it. Once a ban took effect, it would immediately become the Left's rallying issue, and bring people out in droves.

As long as conservatives can straw-man abortion with things like partial-birth, they can use it to bludgeon the Democrats. It's a phony stance and the reason it doesn't advance any further than 40-45% into the electorate is because we can see that. There are reasonable middle grounds on the issue that the right refuses to reach for precisely because of its valuable wedge issue status. And I think that Democrats will eventually figure out how to reach for the middle ground themselves and jerk the rug out from under the issue.

But abortion is not the only wedge issue the Dems have got to get off the front burner. Based on the voting, the most obvious one is gay marriage. Dems have got to settle for civil unions and tell gays to wait another decade or two to call it marriage.

The second obvious one pains me, but it is religion. Sure Kerry was as overtly devout as Bush, but that did not overcome support for god in the pledge, the 10c's everywhere, etc. Don't misunderstand me. I don't think the Dems should forego these issues, but they simply have to stop highlighting them as key values.

Last one is guns. Again, Kerry the hunter could not overcome the Dems battle for gun control.

These are marginal issues with regard to the real problems facing the country. So if the Dems want to push the important agenda, they are going to have to stop pushing their own social agenda.