Making Peace With The Moderates

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I'd like to preface my remarks by saying I have no desire to reach an accord with right wingers.... They are and will always remain our opponents but I am willing to reach out to moderates...


I think on choice and gay rights an accord can be reached with moderates...

I agree with Bill Clinton that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare"... To that end I would work with moderate folks to expand family planning with an emphasis on abstinence for minors....I would also favor a ban on late term abortions as long as there was a provision for life of the mother...


I support gay marriage but would support civil unions in the interim period....I think most folks aren't homophobic but at this moment in our history gay marriage is too much of a break from tradition for them... Even in Europe most nations offer civil unions not gay marriage...

I think the Democratic party is right where the nation is at on defense and the economy as long as we are able to neutralize terror as a weapon that the Bush Team uses to wield control...

[Truman01]

1. I agree with you.... nt

[Albert Einstein]

31. However right-wngers call themselves moderates.

They label those of us who are moderates liberal. Kucinich is a moderate but they try to claim he's too far to the left because they don't want peace or health care or jobs.

[Racenut20]

2. U sound like a "Real" Democrat to me.

[WyLoochka]

3. "abstinence" - "late term abortions"

These are right wing positions you say you will go along with, not moderate.

Moderates favor education for minors, not the with holding of education. Abstinence is theocratic right wing. I would imagine almost every parent teaches her/his children abstinence. The focus is already on abstinence. Some parents are equipped to actually educate their children on these matters. Many are not. Schools should educate. Only theocratic right wingers think they shouldn't.

Late term abortions aren't performed in any statistically significant numbers. And when they are, they are performed for real medical reasons, not simply "oh, now I have decided, after carrying this child for 6-8 months, I don't want to go through labor afterall." Doesn't happen. They are way too risky to a woman's overall chance of survival to be employed casually. So doctors will not do them unless absolutely necessary.

We don't need legislators to intrude on the doctors' bona fide turf and make a law altogether banning late term abortions. A ban on them is a right wing way to get a foot in the door to later banning all abortions. It's yet another one of their "Trojan Horses."

If legislators, can interfere in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship and strip doctors of their right to perscribe what is is best for their patients in the third term, they can do it in the second and finally, at long last, in the first term too. That is the goal.

Nope - not supportive of "abstinence only" sex education and not supportive of legislating a ban on late term abortions. Both are entirely unneccessary and do not need to be codified, especially since there are ulterior motives, driven by the right wing theocrats - not moderates, in codifying them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Kids Shouldn't Be Having Sex....

They are unprepared to have sex physically or emotionally..

Ask any physician or child and adolescent psychtriatrist...

If that makes one a right winger than there are a lot more right wingers than any kind of wingers..


It has nothing to with a belief in God or lack thereof but is a matter of simple physiology...



As for late term abortion you are arguing with a straw man ... I favor an exception for the life of the mother... Obviously that decision is made by a medical professional...

I don't buy the slippery slope argument or the parade of horribles argument either..

If I accept your slippery slope argument then I should oppose the federal income tax... If the government has the right to tax me at say ,30% why doesn't it have the right to tax me at 95%?

Because reasonable people can make reasonable policy...

[WyLoochka]

8. No where did I advocate

encouraging children to have sex. I support the education of children and "abstinence education" with a focus on "only," which is all the rage in the theo right circles, doesn't accomplish that.

And I really don't care that you don't "buy" that the purpose of unneccesarily legislating a ban on something that happens at very low occurrence rates and, at that, are only done - already - to preserve or save the health of the mother is the top of the slippery slope into a ban on all abortions.

The fact of the matter is - that is exactly the way the theocratic right wing has designed their attack on abortions - all abortions. Because such legislation obliterates the Fourth Amendment altogether - in it's statements as to the inalienable right of privacy. Pass such a law and within a few years - Roe v Wade is gone.

Legislators should pass laws ONLY when necessary. A ban on late term abortions is entirely unnecessary. And a law to teach abstinence is entirely unnessary too. We can and do already teach abstinence, we don't need no stinkin law to do it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. You Need To Read Roe v Wade

The Fourth Amendment says a "person shall be secure in their person. place, or things from unreasonable searches and seizures."


There's not a constitutional scholar in the land who thinks certain limitations on abortions will lead to the obliteration of the Fourth Amendment...


Go back and read Roe v Wade which was based on the Fourth and Ninth Amendments... It already includes restrictions on abortion for different trimesters...


How could the architects of Roe have "obliterated" an Constitutional Amendment they based their decision on....

[WyLoochka]

33. "person shall be secure in their person...

place, or things from unreasonable searches and seizures." 4th Amendment

It IS unreasonable for federal law enforcement officers to search and seize private records of her visits to her doctor's office.

That would be an invasion of her right to be secure in her person, place and things. (NOTE - her "person" is FIRST. Think about it).

Unless, of course, you change the law so it designates her and/or the doctor as possible/probable criminal suspects.

Get a bunch of theo righties packed onto the federal judicial benches for life - and down the slide we go - and it won't be fun.

NOPE - not moving one millimeter to the right.

In fact - I think we have to make a big move to left - right now - to even have a shot at getting back to the all hallowed CENTER any time soon.

[Solon]

5. That's ridicilous...

You said, I agree with Bill Clinton that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare"... To that end I would work with moderate folks to expand family planning with an emphasis on abstinence for minors....I would also favor a ban on late term abortions as long as there was a provision for life of the mother... Emphasis is mine.

Where the hell is the provision for the health of the mother, also, why is it up for debate at all? Late term abortions are so rare that they are already only performed when the health or life of the mother is in jeopardy, or the fetus is already dead, so why legislate something that isn't needed in the first place?

On the emphasis on abstinence in schools, well that has already been demonstrated as a disaster, yes it should be mentioned, but so should all other methods of birth control, from the pill to the rhythm method. If moderates are pushing for abstinence only education, I will not compromise, it makes absolutely no logical sense to say to teenagers with raging hormones that they should wait till marriage, and give them no additional information on that subject. I oppose legislating stupidity, thank you very much.

As far as gay marriage debate, I say let the courts decide to the best of their ability, and also to fight the republicans against the gay marriage amendment that Bush is espousing. That is all, claim state's rights and all that if you wish, but just make sure that we don't cripple civil rights for a generation or more for political expediency.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Did I Say I Support Abstinence Only Education?

Nope...



Did I say to support the Gay Marriage Amendment?


No again....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. of course when i said life of the mother it was meant to include health...

eom

[Solon]

9. The point being that we need to frame the debate...

Look, honestly, these, all of them, are non-issues, they are only issues that are used to fan the flames of right wingers and their ilk. We legitimize these positions by actually treating them as if they mattered at all. That is what the whole "Culture War" is all about, all three issues that you mentioned require little to no intervention by the legislature, because they are NOT REAL PROBLEMS that can be solved by making new laws(yes even gay marriage, except trying to overturn the stupid amendments to state constitutions<--judges can do that.). What we should do, as moderates and liberals, is make these issues irrelevant in the public sphere, and to make the Republicans look like the rabble-rousers they are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I Agree...

By occupying the middle you force the Republicans to take more outrageous stands...


I support equal rights for all and gay marriage with every fiber of my being but I am willing to settle for civil unions if it puts a stake in the heart of the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment...


Don't forget eleven states voted for that god awful amendment to their own constitutions...

[Solon]

12. I think part of the problem is the ill defined middle....

I think we need to move the middle to the left, so to speak, the Republicans, for years, have moved it to the right, successfully, by appealing to fearmongering, mostly. What we need to do is stop being on the defensive, go on the offense in the debate and shift the debate and the terms used for it to the left. In the example of gay marriage as you said, you are for it, and admittedly "far left" position, we can make it a moderate position by framing it within "common sense" grounds. Kinda like this.

Potential Voter: "Don't you worry about all those Gays getting married?"

Potential Politician: "Hell no, just because they are getting married to each other, does that mean that I have to marry one too? Of course not, I don't give a flying fuck what they do to their lives, why would I want to interefere with thier lives?"

Granted my Politician is rather crass, but this is only an example as to how to frame the debate to appeal to moderate voters, even though the position itself may be percieved as "far left". Its common sense, and can appeal to a large range of voters, with the exception of the Religious Right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Tsk, tsk. You're advocating telling the truth to the voters? How silly.

Why, what do you think might happen if politicians started doing that? Informing the voters might just lead to (shudders) democracy!

"Framing", "moderating", "selling", "message", etc, all just nice cover words for lying.

[Solon]

14. Actually, that would be a refreshing change, now wouldn't it?

You can tell the truth in a variety of ways, I just propose one way that would actually fit in the "soundbite" world we live in. There is a difference between telling the truth by telling about every little detail and running on for pages, and simply stating the facts as they are within two sentences. Simple, isn't it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Refreshing? It would be downright miraculous.

Things like:

I support a woman's right to an abortion.

I support gun control.

I support fair taxes for all.

I support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

I support laws that protect the environment.

I support gay marriage.

etc, etc.

Perhaps even mustering up the courage and honesty to say "I'm a liberal".

Who knows? Maybe voters would respond favorably to someone who doesn't fill their ears with weasel words and smoke and mirrors.

Like if Clinton had merely said, "Piss off. What I do in my private life is none of your goddam business".

Alas, the prospects of politicians telling the simple truth is in the same catagory as McDonnel Douglas abandoning arms production for the public good.

[Solon]

21. See, there are other ways to say those things...

that will appeal to a larger group of people.

In order as you presented it:

I believe the government does not have the right to interefere with ANY medical decisions(BTW: This would include Euthanasia as well).

I believe in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, and why the hell would you need an auto that fires 20 rounds a second to shoot a damned deer? Are you that blind? <--make it a joke :)

Yes I support a progressive tax system, why the hell should the rich, who get more police patrols(give an example) pay the same rate as a family living in an apartment building with a hundred other tenants? Doesn't that cost more to protect the rich guy's assets? Hell no he shouldn't pay the same rate, he should pay MORE because it costs more to protect him than the family.

We have men and women dying over there for a lost cause that was doomed by the incompetence for the "Commander in Chief" and they should be brought home NOW!!!

Do you trust GE to do whats best for the enviroment? Hell no, and I will not be in their pockets, I will do everything in my power to ensure ourselves, children, and grandchildren can have clean air to breathe and fresh water to drink.

I already gave my example for gay marriage. The point is to make it personal for the voter, to actually tell them how it affects THEM. That way you can develop a relationship with the voter that will make them and you happy. This will be even better if you can actually deliver on your promises.

[Starlight]

35. "make it a joke"

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Solon. I've been thinking that for a long time. Why do politicians & the media respond to totally insane right wing propaganda, ideology & outright lies in a serious manner as though they're legitimate positions worthy of debate? Where are their gonads? I say respond with total shock & disbelief! LAUGH AT THEM! Use words like "insane, crazy, screw loose, screwball, touched, unbalanced, unglued, unhinged, wacko, loony, preposterous" to describe their irrational statements. Make it very clear that crazy extremist ideas, if taken seriously, are UN AMERICAN and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Surely they must be joking? Or they're clinically insane? Because NO ONE in their right mind would take these things seriously, right? Otherwise, WHY DO THEY HATE AMERICA?? Make the statement quickly, laugh hysterically, shake your head incredulously, and then MOVE ON. Don't dwell on discussing the merits of crap like the swift boat liars.

I think that was a big part of the Kerry campaign's problem. They allowed the right wingers to choose the talking points. They wasted way too much time defending themselves against lunatic accusations and discussing the merits of extremist ideas. Responding to nonsense in a serious manner just legitimizes it. I say look incredulous, LAUGH and make it clear that you couldn't possibly take these ridiculous points seriously.

[Starlight]

19. I don't think your fantasy politician is crass at all.

I would be *THRILLED* to vote for someone that refreshingly honest, forthright & courageous!! :loveya: Give me some politicians with integrity who dare to stand up for principles & justice PLEASE! I have absolutely no patience with all these spineless charlatans in our government. :puke:

[Solon]

22. Why thank you...

maybe I can run for office around here, I do actually talk that way and people would respond to it.

[Solon]

23. Just thought of another way to take on the Gay Marriage debate...

Reverse Phsychology: "Why the hell do Gays wan't to be married? Do they even know what type of hell they are asking for? I say give it to them, why should straight people be the only ones to suffer from marriages?"

[Starlight]

34. LOL

:yourock:

[UpsideDownFlag]

15. how well were gay rights advanced under clinton?

ask any gay military member if they liked 'dont ask, dont tell'.

[proud patriot]

16. There is far more that unites us then divides us

we need to focus on that IMO.

[sandnsea]

17. Let's just stick to the truth

Women don't need laws to know when their life or health is at risk. I resent the very idea. I don't want doctors worrying about murder charges when treating my daughter.

We can reframe it though...

Reproductive Responsibility. It could mean alot of things. A woman has the final responsibility over her reproductive organs. Responsibility for reproduction starts before the pregnancy. Responsibility for reproduction continues after the pregnancy. It is the utmost reponsibility of any society to consider the health implications of reproduction. Finally, men have reproductive responsibilty too.

[quaoar]

20. What has always saved abortion and Roe v. Wade from RW attack

Has been the idea that it is a matter of individual freedom. It is something the government has no business legislating.

But like other freedoms, there are "excesses" that crop up that people are willing to compromise on. We tolerate restrictions on free speech, for instance, to prevent someone from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

The fundamentalists will never be satisfied with anything other than a total ban on all abortions for any reason whatsoever. They are hopeless.

But the reasonable middle of the country wants to see compromises. They don't like the idea of late-term abortions, even if they don't understand that they are very rare and only done in extreme cases. They don't like minors having abortions and they don't like people casually using abortion as a substitute for responsible birth control.

Forget about the fundamentalists and focus on the reasonable middle. If they see that the left is unyielding on any of that, it will just push them to the fundamentalists.

[sandnsea]

25. Abortion is a medical right

The very idea that women are having late term abortions, willy nilly, is ridiculous. It's a bullshit argument launched by the right and as far as I'm concerned, people who don't see that are flat stupid. I can understand some who haven't been given the medical facts about D&X and D&E, but once they have and refuse to understand, then they're just stupid. Since Roe v. Wade only applies to the first trimester and since abortion as birth control only happens in the first trimester, your argument might be valid if those were the abortions that were being debated right now. They aren't, but keep going with this right wing bullshit and they will be.

Forget about the fundamentalists is right. Focus on the middle is right. With MEDICAL FACTS and reproductive responsibility.

[quaoar]

26. The facts regarding late-term abortion are on our side

But the Republicans have won the PR battle. In politics, perception usually trumps reality, so we have to focus on changing the language of the debate.

[sandnsea]

27. But not the policy

They got away with it because of Democrats who were afraid to talk about the medical facts of D&X and D&E. Reproductive rights and responsibility, they belong to women and doctors and nobody else. If we frame it based on medical facts, intelligent people will listen. We never did that, we just stuck with the pro-choice, slippery slope nonsense. As soon as some wingnut's daughter or wife dies because her doctor was afraid to intervene, the whole issue will be over anyway. I just wonder how many other women will have to die before that happens.

[quaoar]

28. Actually

I think we'd do better -- from a PR perspective -- if we made the argument from the standpoint of an actual case of a woman who would have died without one. Most people can relate to that a lot better than the medical facts. And, let's face it, a lot of voters are either not that intelligent or they make up their minds from snippets they get here and there and never take the time to read up on it.

[sandnsea]

29. Here's some

Scroll down. I think these people should have the right to make their own medical decisions and it's why I've come to the conclusion the whole late term abortion issue is completely fraudulent. I wish we had some Democrats with enough guts to just say so.

http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_partial_birth_abortions.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. In Florida There Was A Parental Notification Amendment On The Ballot..

It passed with about 65% of the vote....


Of course I voted against the amendment but I can see the point of view of a parent while nominally pro choice wants to know if there minor daughter is having an abortion....


I am willing to find common ground with those folks against the folks who want to go back to the days of the coat hanger and back alley abortion...


I am pro gay marriage but I am willing to find common ground with folks who favor civil unions in a common front against the 35% of Americans who want to recriminalize same sex sodomy...


I also wonder how many of them practice heterosexual sodomy in their marriages...

[Gayla]

24. Bingo..

There's our message to unite.

[ieoeja]

32. Screw the moderators! And Skinner too!

:evilgrin: