Okay people, let's all stop saying "ROE IS DEAD!"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Last I checked, we still have Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens, and Souter. By my fuzzy math, that still adds up to 5 votes.

Is it more tenuous now than ever? Yes. Is it more important than ever to fight? ABSOLUTELY, which is exactly why I can't fucking stand seeing these defeatist "woe is me the sky has fallen" threads.

[Moochy]

1. GOP wont touch roe v. wade

As many others have pointed out the GOP aint going after Roe v. Wade, their #1 fundraising trick.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I don't buy that one bit.

Eventually, they're going to have to deliver or the base will kill them. Not to mention NARAL seems to do just fine with fundraising and abortion is legal.

[blondeatlast]

35. It will come up when Dobwellerson can no longer deliver the warm

bods to the booth. that may take some time--these people are easily led.

When the facade cracks, though, look out.

[NewInNewJ.]

3. You are right

They would never touch that!

[onenote]

22. why wouldn't they "touch" it

If Roe is overturned, then the issue of whether and to what extent to regulate/ban abortion goes to the states. Now the repugs have an issue that they can use to raise money and challenge dems in statewide races (governors, state senate, elected state judges) in 50 states.

In some states, they won't be able to get a majority; but they will be able to keep their base energized.

onenote

[incapsulated]

23. You're right

They can still use this in local races, which will be just as contentious. I didn't think of that.

[incapsulated]

5. That is a *theory*

Why everyone seems to be hanging their hat on this idea as if they know it for a fact is beyond me.

Who knew they could drive everyone insane with their gay-bashing? There are plenty of issues to create wedges with, probably most they haven't even thought up yet.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I don't know what happened to all of OUR wedge issues...

[incapsulated]

9. It means taking it to the opposition

Whatever your wedge issue is. The Democrats don't seem eager to do this, and haven't for a while.

It takes effort and research and thought. The rethugs didn't create their spin machine overnight.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Well, what ARE our wedge issues?

[incapsulated]

12. To me...

A wedge issue is one that will push emotional buttons, get people worked up. The Dems go the economy, which in a general sense doesn't get people riled unless it's very specific. Like gas prices could be one, people go nuts on this issue. Tie the repukes in with big oil and the Saudis and make them look like the fucking robber barrons that they are, screwing the american people. The disapproval of the war is another, but they are reluctant to touch, maybe it because of their own IWR votes, although that shouldn't mean shit. Or they are stupid and still think this makes them look attractively "moderate".

I'm sure we could think up plenty, but would the Dems use them?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. I don't see the economy as being a wedge issue.

Like it or not, we don't own that one completely. Yeah, Americans generally trust us more with the economy, but a lot of them don't. It's not like abortion at all.

As far as the war goes, yeah, that could be a short-term wedge issue, but that's not exactly the perpetual "cash cow" that abortion is. Eventually, this war will end. Eventually, a Democrat will be forced to declare a war of our own. So that's not really going to work.

Our key wedge issue used to be civil rights. But too many people feel like that problem has been solved now. It doesn't rally the troops like it once did. We need something along those lines to counter the anti-abortion and anti-gay rights wedge issues that Republicans keep using.

[incapsulated]

15. Well, I agree

I said the economy is too general. That's why I brought up gas prices.

It's difficult to find a long-term wedge issue like abortion, because it's unique. It's a law. It can be battled in the courts a million ways for decades without resolve. I can't think of anything similar with the democratic issues that would push buttons.

But I don't think we need this, all we need is short-term, right now. We just need to regain control and win elections and stop the free-fall. The rethugs are weak right now, it's time to go for the jugular with topical issues that the majority of americans can get behind.

[Czolgosz]

20. OUR WEDGE ISSUES -- peel the true conservatives away from the neo-cons!

BushInc's repeated failure to adhere to conservative views on economic matters and the failure to make effective use of the government services within the traditionally accepted realm of the government's role are critical fracture lines within the Rove-manufactured Republican coalition. Here are some graphs:




The "enterprisers" on this list are the Halliburton/Enron-style corporatist neo-cons, and they have different economic priorities than the rest of America and even different priorities than the rest of the Republican Party. Yet BushInc kowtows to this tiny neo-con minority. I think we stand to gain from reminding other conservatives that Bush does not support their conservative agenda in most regards.

[incapsulated]

21. Although this is true

This doesn't translate into votes for democrats, these people will just vote for more moderate republicans or stay home (good in itself, though). It's an internal split. If the RNC goes sane and nominates a non-neocon, they will be happy. What we need is something to drive people to our side.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. And more importantly,

we need something that is going to drive us to stand for 6 hours in the rain to cast their votes for us.

[Czolgosz]

34. Wouldn't we all stand in the rain to raise the minimum wage and to expand

health care insurance coverage?

I thought that was a given . . .

[Czolgosz]

28. These issues accomplish two goals: they motivate our base and they split

the Reptilican coalition.

When you see Shrub's approval numbers tumble, it is the true conservatives who are peeling away from him (at least that my experience -- whenever you meet an ex-Republican isn't it some who grew frustrated with the deficits and the lack of leadership on spiraling health care?).

I think there is room for crossover appeal on issues like the minimum wage, health care reform, tax equity for debt relief, environmental protection, and issues like job exportation.

[Moochy]

18. Well I'll be there with a torch and a pitchfork

I take your point about it being a theory, If Roe v. Wade is threatented, if this theory proves to be incorrect, I'll be there with torches and pitchforks! Time will tell, and please don't mistake my theory as complacency. :)

As to why I'm hanging my hat on this theory is that it seems imminently reasonable. You are right that they'll have other issues to use as wedges though and your point is taken.

Peace

[incapsulated]

7. delete, double post

[Orangepeel]

36. fundraising will be 50 fold when it's a state-by-state battle

[Selatius]

4. Roe v. Wade is too good of a wedge issue to sacrifice

It will be used until the end of time if the Republicans have their way in order to keep Democrats off balance.

[ramapo]

11. They don't want to piss off women

A lot of women I know have voted GOP while saying in answer to the abortion issue, "Oh no, they'll never revoke Roe v. Wade". And if it does go down, then the issue reverts back to the states. That would be very interesting. I think a number of states of made abortions all but impossible to get as it is so the actual consequence may not be that great but the political fallout could be huge.

[shenmue]

8. Good point

Now that you say it, that gives me a little bit of hope. Just a little, but nevertheless. I've read some polls that say over 90 percent of Democrats and two-thirds of Republicans are pro-choice. So if the right doesn't want to listen to even its own people, they are setting up their own problems.

Besides, the only place the phrase 'right to life' appears is in the Declaration of Independence. Last I checked, a declaration of war against another country has nothing to do with the context in which the religious right uses it. I'm pretty sure the people in question were not talking about abortion.

[texpatriot2004]

14. Could you cross-post this in the General Discussion forum too?

There is a thread there that could use your counter.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Well, I try not to post dupes in different forums

But if you PM me a link to a specific thread, I'll post there.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. Gut reaction

The poll numbers are for abortion, they won't mess with it. They just keep promising to keep their 30 mil fundies excited. And they are a major block of votes, BUT THEY AREN'T THE WHOLE COUNTRY! WE CANNOT FORGET THAT!!!

[LittleClarkie]

17. Noooo! We're dooooooooomed!

(runs around in a circle with her hands in the air) IIIIiiiieeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

[Czolgosz]

24. You are a bit on a limb to count Kennedy as solidly "pro-choice." I agree

he's the best hope for holding onto Roe v. Wade, but his opinions on the issue fall into a gray area.

True, Kennedy voted pro-choice in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But Kennedy abandoned the Casey voting block and filed a dissent along with Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas in Stenberg v. Carhart, a five-four case that overturned Nebraska's late term abortion law which would have criminalized the dilation and extraction procedure. Kennedy’s dissent indicates a suspicion against allowing physicians discretion to allow their patients exercise their reproductive freedoms and an inclination to defer to state legislatures over the judicial protection of reproductive freedoms.

This term, the Court will hear Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood and decide the constitutionality of New Hampshire's parental notification law, which does not include an exception for the health of the mother. Don't bet that Kennedy will vote with the pro-choice majority (or minority) with respect to the parental notification law in Ayotte.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. That's NARAL's limb, not mine.

[Czolgosz]

29. I only said you were out on a limb because you said we still have Kennedy

to vote in favor of reproductive freedoms so Roe v. Wade is safe. All I'm saying is that your statement puts a lot of faith in a leaky bucket.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Again, that's NARAL's list.

I got that from NARAL's own biographies.

[Czolgosz]

32. That's odd because I have NARAL stuff raising concerns about Kennedy's

"reproductive rights decisions" which NARAL says "show that his support for the right to choose is the most tenuous of the three 'swing' justices on the Court" because "he accepts the most severe restrictions on the right to choose."

Here are some excerpts:

A History of Hostility to Reproductive Freedom

• Kennedy began his career by voting with the plurality in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, supporting the constitutionality of a statute that prohibited the use of public facilities and public personnel to provide abortions. Justice Kennedy joined Justice Rehnquist’s plurality, which included an attack on Roe: “We have not refrained from reconsideration of a prior construction of the Constitution that has proved ‘unsound in principle and unworkable in practice.’ . . . We think the Roe trimester framework falls into that category.”


• He dissented in part from the majority opinion in Hodgson v. Minnesota, arguing that a statute requiring notification of both parents of a minor’s decision to have an abortion should be upheld as constitutional with or without a judicial bypass.


• Kennedy reiterated his support for limits on minors’ access to abortion in Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. In this case, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion upholding a parental notice statute against a facial challenge that the burdensome judicial bypass procedure did not meet constitutional requirements.


• Voting with the majority in a 5‐4 decision, Kennedy upheld a federal regulation that prohibited Title X health‐care facilities from informing pregnant women that abortion was an option, and prevented personnel from offering counseling or referrals to women seeking abortions (the notorious “gag ruleʺ ).

follow this link for much, much more:

<http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/facts/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=5555>

[Rambis]

25. I agree it keeps the fundies hungry but...

They have a thug congress and thug president and now a thug court when are they going to deliver!!! Answer, they aren't, result lose fundie wacko base. The fundie wacko base they claim put them over the top in the election but in fact it was a weak argument they used to shave 3 million votes at least off the Kerry total. I have never bought the mythical fundie base bullshit. The are and have always been a small cadre and now they will go away but not quietly.

[skipos]

31. 2004 exit polls show why Republicans don't want RVW overturned

Abortion should be...
Always Legal (21%)+ Mostly Legal (34%) = 55%
Mostly Illegal (26%)+ Always Illegal (16%) = 42%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[Zynx]

33. Exactly, they would lose so many moderates they would be finished

as a national political party. They would never win elections again in PA, WI, MI, IA, MN, OH, FL, and other moderate states that are generally swing states.