Anybody read "Take it Back" by Carville and Begala?

[alarimer]

I am only 50 pages or so into it and they have already managed to piss me off. In the section I am reading, they are discussing how we should compromise on abortion. That we should all agree that abortion is bad. I'm sorry by I disagree with that characterization. By saying that abortion is always bad is to instill guilt in everyone who ever has one. I do not think it is necessarily something one ought to feel guilty about. Sometimes it's the only option. But there are other options like Plan B and Ru-486 that should make a lot of surgical abortions unnecessary. Of course the right wingers demonize those options as well.

Obviously they wrote this book before the South Dakota law passed. Whether that would change their view or not is debatable. They obviously see abortion rights as a political football. Something that, depending on the political winds, is on the table for restriction. I disagree with that. My position (and I recognize that it may not be the mainstream view) is that it is a matter of individual choice. It is not up to me or the Democratic Party to decide for people what their choices should be.

And it also clear to me from watching the NOW program the other night, that the right not only wants to eliminate abortion, but they are going after contraception as well. Something that this book so far does not address.

Now I recognize that these guys are political strategists and maybe their strategy is one that would lead to the Democrats winning again. But I am not so sure. Perhaps what the Democrats need to do is emphasize that the right wants to restrict access to birth control, leading to even more unwanted perhaps abused, children. Because the right wing is all about getting in our personal business. Clinton was correct in that he said that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. They would be rare if everyone had access to whatever form of birth control they wish to use.

[alfredo]

1. It is bad in that the woman is in a situation she may not

want to be in, having to make a choice she may not like.

They are talking about winning, not philosophical purity.

[alarimer]

2. I realize it is about winning

I just wonder how far they are willing to go in order to win? Now I have only begun this book. There may be a lot in it that I agree with. But how much do we compromise with the American Taliban?

[alfredo]

12. You got to go far as you can without losing your soul. That's

where the Republicans went wrong. Learn from their mistakes.

[alarimer]

13. The book actually has some good ideas

Now that I have read a little further. But something sticks in my craw. They make the point that Democrats needs to talk more about faith. So, if they don't have any, are they supposed to fake it? That's no good. And what about those of us who want religion out of the public sphere completely? I appreciate that some people need religion in their lives. I just don't want it in the government.

So I feel alienated most of the time when it comes to political candidates. I recognize that most of them are not going to agree with me all the time. But mostly I just vote for the lesser of the evils.

[alfredo]

14. Politics is compromise. There's some things you can't surrender,

and some you can. If you want the good guys in power, you have to adapt. When working a campaign, don't put yourself into a situation where that becomes an issue. During a campaign you don't talk, you listen. Let the ones who's job is to speak speak. If you don't want to have to speak of faith, work in the headquarters, do data entry, collate packets for lit drops, empty the trash, answer phones, deliver signs. Go with your strength.

the most important lesson you will get from the book is, "never give up."

[tularetom]

3. Stop reading now or you'll get more pissed off

These guys 15 minutes of fame was over 10 years ago. They are prime examples of beltway democrats who are more interested in invitations to "A" list cocktail parties than getting dems elected. They had their brief moment in the spotlight when Clinton was first elected and they've been sucking off it ever since. And they had relatively little to do with Clinton's success at the ballot box - he got elected because he was Clinton not because of anything these doofuses did. If you ever watchd Carville's thoroughly whipped performances on Meet the Press with that hag he married or saw Beluga kissing Ted Nugents ass ("I'm a hunter too Ted")on crossfire, you'd puke at the thought of any democrat hiring these two losers.

[alarimer]

5. Yes it has not been inspiring so far

Interestingly, in the author bio on the back, they do not mention Mary Matalin by name. I guess they think most people know who Carville is married to.

[Jigarotta]

4. It is bad because

the social safety net does not accept the true village think. It is bad because women feel alone in this decision.

[alarimer]

6. Yes I agree with this

But I don't think that's what they meant by the word "bad". Like robbing a bank is bad or something like that. Probably I am just reading too much into it.

[Wetzelbill]

7. I don't believe in compromising core moral convictions for strategy

That's not plausible. Sell women's rights up the river just to win a few seats here and there? It's an ugly slippery slope to start on.

But you hit on the biggest problem with political strategists. They start treating issues, especially what are perceived as "problem" issues, as political football. I'm sure Begala and Carville are good guys, pretty compassionate and so on, but they tend think of issues in a strategical way, and not always as a matter of moral conviction.

You know, I wrestle with the idea of abortion, myself. I'm a religious person,yet I also have basic humanist tendencies. Abortion isn't a good thing, nobody is "for" abortion. Abortion rights are a recognition that women end up in different situations in life. Some feel they cannot keep a child for socioeconomic reasons, or for reasons such as rape, incest etc. Or a doctor will perform one to save a woman's life. Those are situations that need to be taken into consideration when evaluating this issue, because they are real life possibilities. They are why women have abortions. To dismiss this and demogogue the issue as the Right has is not a valid point of view, whether you are religious or not. To demogogue the issue and call people "murderers" etc is to deny reality. That's what the anti-choice position is based on. A denial of reality.

I, personally, have never fully been comfortable with the "Woman deciding her own health care" argument. I believe that a woman should decide her own health care, but it's only a part of the moral argument in this debate. The kicker for me is this. Over one million women around the world die in a year from nonmedical abortions. To ignore that is again a denial of reality. The reality is, women in certain situations are going to have abortions whether they are legal or not. The choice here is not a "Pro-Life" or a "Pro-Choice" one, those are archaic terms, which aren't all that accurate, imho. The choice in this debate is are we willing to allow women to have safe and legal abortions, while we work on socioeconomic problems, cultivate sex education, and develop other options such as adoption, or do you want to demogogue the issue and subject women, which include loved ones - daughters, mothers, sisters, friends- to the mercy of somebody with a coathanger or a bicycle spoke. I could never ever support the latter. I would rather make abortions "safe, legal and rare," than subject women to back alley tactics so they can be killed and maimed. Not an option.

[alarimer]

11. I agree

Reducing abortions is a good thing. Contraception needs to be avaiable to everyone and easy to get. We cannot allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions. Plan B needs to be readily available. The full range of options, as well as realistic sex education, not this abstinence-only crap. Support services should be available should they decide to keep the child. And there are groups working towards this goal. Many "pro-life" Democrats would agree that all these things need to be available.

As long as it is just an academic issue, people won't take it seriously. I am a firm believer in putting a human face on these issues.

[juajen]

8. Abortions are always bad, eh?

Obviously these two have never had their body taken over by an alien being intent on sucking every bit of energy, vitamins and bodily functions out of their host, not to mention future dreams and plans going up in smoke. I know, I know, motherhood is sacred. It's also downright scarey and life threatening.

Nothing changes your life like a pregnancy and an infant. You are on call for the rest of your or your child's life twenty-four, seven, not to mention the enormous cost of everything this new being needs. Add this to perhaps not having a partner willing to share all of this, and you certainly do not usually have a woman who is sad to have an abortion. Well, maybe momentarily, but not for long.

I'm sure some women go through trauma deciding on and having an abortion.
No, I never have had a procedure medically. However, for ten years I had regular miscarriages. I could not use oral birth control and had allergy to latex. Every time I was late and had a heavy period, it was back to the doctor. We did not want to be pregnant in these early years, so I felt enormous relief every time I miscarried. I know many other women who also were never traumatized by an abortion; almost all felt overwhelming relief and joy.

We women lie a lot about this, because we feel it casts doubt on our maternal instincts. I know there are exceptions, so don't jump my you know what. Just sayin'.

[Jigarotta]

9. aiy, yes.

we can't usually get away from it like men.

it's forever and ever.

[alarimer]

10. It's all about strategy for them

I have a hard time accepting certain things should be thrown overboard in order to win. I wouldn't compromise on gay rights, for example. I know some people were upset at the timing of the gay marriage laws in Massachussetts. "This will cost us the election". "Now is not the time for this" etc. I would not throw over the rights of anyone in the name of political strategy. I think there are ways to sell the idea to the American people. And we might have to accept that some people will never go along. Start telling stories like the one about the police officer in New Jersey who was dying of cancer and whose partner would have lost the home they shared if the city council had not changed the rules at the last minute. Maybe people would understand more if they heard these stories, if they could put a human face on these issues whether it is about abortion, gay rights, outsourcing, whatever it is.