Replies

Thanks for the ping WW, I have been following this thread for the last 24 hours and there have been some very good points made, by a lot of people. If you haven't seen this one please read it. It says nearly everything that I would like to have said.

There are a lot of viewpoints that have been expressed here, but it can be summarized best by saying that there is no reason why, when ending a pregnancy early for the health of the mother, that the baby/fetus shouldn't be given every opportunity to live. Killing the baby for the sake of convenience is horrendous.

Further, while the PBA legislation is not as strong as many would like it to be, it was designed to pass the Supreme Court criteria for their interpretation of Constitutionality. Anything stronger would likely die in the Supreme Court and thereby serve no useful purpose. Should there be stronger legislation? Absolutely, but let's take what we can get and then ask for more. The job isn't over with this bill.

It is also important to reiterate the importance of changing the hearts and minds of the general population. I read the posts of Common Tator as often as possible, and have learned many things. He has said that if 70% of the population is for something, that both parties will rush to get in front of the parade and try to lead it. Such is the political reality of getting something accomplished. Educating the public to the stages of development in the womb is the best means of stopping abortion. When the public is convinced, then the laws will follow, not the other way around.

I have also read a most illuminating post by Southack from a couple of weeks ago. With the very slim majority in both the House and Senate, it has been necessary for President Bush, in order to garner enough votes on legislation, to molly-coddle the RINOs and DINOs in order to create a majority of votes to pass his legislation. The only way that he has been able to do that is by agreeing to sign questionable bills and spending our tax money on pork to mollify the most liberal of the votes needed. How conservative a bill is is directly proportional to the weakest vote needed to pass it, and how much pork had to be paid to get that vote.

This situation clearly speaks to the aspirations of Jim Robinson's determined efforts to add to the majority of both houses, by voting the 'rats out. Only when it is possible to easily have enough votes to pass the President's agenda is it going to be possible to tell the RINOs that no extraordinary deals will be cut to get their votes. The greater the majority on Republicans in the House and Senate, the more conservative the legislative result.

Hey, WW, thanks again for the ping, it is good to see you around again.

There are a lot of viewpoints that have been expressed here, but it can be summarized best by saying that there is no reason why, when ending a pregnancy early for the health of the mother, that the baby/fetus shouldn't be given every opportunity to live. Killing the baby for the sake of convenience is horrendous.
Further, while the PBA legislation is not as strong as many would like it to be, it was designed to pass the Supreme Court criteria for their interpretation of Constitutionality. Anything stronger would likely die in the Supreme Court and thereby serve no useful purpose. Should there be stronger legislation? Absolutely, but let's take what we can get and then ask for more. The job isn't over with this bill.

It is also important to reiterate the importance of changing the hearts and minds of the general population.

Great summary, thanks for posting.
There will come times, and it appears this is one of them, that incrementalism is the preferred approach, or the best we've got for the time being. Incrementalism works best when we keep our eyes on the next step.
However, there will come other times when the best approach will be to take the fight for the unborn into the teeth of their enemies. Those fights will be best fought when our arguments are steeled from within.

Educating the public to the stages of development in the womb is the best means of stopping abortion. When the public is convinced, then the laws will follow, not the other way around.

I agree .. educating the public is very important. It amazes me the number of folks that I have talk to about PBA had no idea what it was all about. Once I explained to them, their opinions did a complete turn around

I missed that post the first time around, thanks for linking it, old FRiend. Excellent. Yours wasn't too shabby either. :-)

How conservative a bill is is directly proportional to the weakest vote needed to pass it, and how much pork had to be paid to get that vote.

Very well put. This is the crux of the political debate, which JimRob fully understands and the sages in the League of Undistinguished Ruffians do not.

This situation clearly speaks to the aspirations of Jim Robinson's determined efforts to add to the majority of both houses, by voting the 'rats out.

It is self evident that neither the left or the right has a majority. If one side did they would win all the national elections. Poll after poll after poll has shown that roughly 1/3 on the voters are on the left and 1/3 more are on the right and 1/3 are in the center. The Center is made up of RINOs and DINOs. It does not take a big stretch of the imagination to see that neither conservatives nor liberals ever have control of the the Federal Senate. If the Democrats elect more DINOs than the Republicans elect RINOs the Democrats have the most power in the Senate.

I am always amazed by those that want to run the RINOs out of the Republican Party. They would just become DINOs and let the Democrats rule forever.

If the Republican have 45 conservatives and 10 RINO's in the Senate and the Democrats have 35 Liberals and 10 DINOs in the senate, the Republicans rule. NO the Republicans would not be able to hold all the RINOs on every issue. But they could always get a few DINOs to make up for the loss of some RINOs. They would not win them all, but they would win a lot more than they lose.

The Senate under FDR had a ton of Southern DINOs. But FDR could always pick up a few RINOs to win on his issues when the conservative southern senators went off the reservation. LBJ did the same thing.

Reagan constantly argued for tolerance for RINOs. He said it this way.. A Republican who is with you 80 percent of the time is not your enemy. Reagan as always used words that appealed with out invoking the wrath of buzz words. But describing some Republicans as "those who are mostly with you" is another way to say RINO.

My point is there is never a way to garner a conservative majority .... or a liberal majority for that matter. The reason is clear. About a third of the population is not ideological. They do not vote based on ideology. Thinking that people can be taught or educated to be ideological is like educating a left handed person to be right handed. It does not work well at all.

Surprisingly some ideological people can be changed from the left to the right and vice versa. But getting a majority to one side or the other has proved very elusive. It is must more effective to structure the arguments of the right so they appeal to the non ideological center.

Let me give you a couple of Reagan examples. When Reagan described his economic policy as letting people keep more of their own money, he was appealing to the non ideological voter. Telling the non ideological voter that cutting marginal tax rates is a good think, won't get their support. Letting them keep more of their own money will. Cutting marginal tax rates is an ideological appeal. Cutting government regulations is an ideological appeal. Getting Government off your back is the non ideological appeal. Cutting Goverment Regulations is an ideological appeal. To persuade the center, it is not so much what you want to do, but how it is described that makes the difference. Getting the votes of the non ideological center is the ONLY road to success. The left is quite good at selling the center. "Taxing the rich", "Special Interests", "Under the control of rich, fat, cats"... are ways the Democrats appeal to the center.

But if I make no other point, I would urge the consideration of the fact that at no time in our history has the ideology of the left or right ever enjoyed a majority. About a third of the voters and politicians are died in the wool DINOs and RINOs. The party that gets a majority of their support rules on nearly all issues. The ideology that rules is the one that learns to structure the arguments for policies so they appeal to the centrists. Failure to recognize the need to appeal to the center results in continuous defeat. Belief that the arguments that persuade the ideological will persuade the non ideological is political folly.

To rule an ideology must persuade the center using appeals that are attractive to the non ideological center.