What would you ask Howard Dean?

Good to see you are back on Dean's bandwagon, Batman. You were a fish out of water in the Kerry camp.

 

Another great example of the Dem's failure to communicate their message in the past.

Abortion in America went down in the Clinton years and up in the Bush years. Most Americans don't know that.

NOBODY believes abortions are a good thing. NOBODY. Everybody agrees that it would be better to have less of them. The true debate is not who is for or against abortion -- nobody is for abortion. Nobody hopes abortions will increase. Hillary Clinton recently called abortion a tragic act and said we should do whatever we can to have as few of them as possible. The real debate is how we do that. Democrats favor sex education and making contraception available. Republicans favor an abstinence-only approach to sex ed and oppose making contraception more available. Which is a better approach to reducing the number of abortions in this country? As a pro-life voter, which of these approaches do you believe will reduce abortions in this country?

 

I hope you get your wish -- not just for this event but for the forseeable future.

 

Democrats are one wedge issue away from making the rainy day christians stay at home. Bush not going hard after the constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages would be a candidate for the wedge issue.

 

I'd engage him in a SHOUTING MATCH, Anchorman-style.

I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M SCREAMING!!!

 

That's reasonable. I think you're going to hear a lot more about vision for the future and Dem values over the next years, but you'll hear criticism of the other party too. On issues like Social Security, Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, N. Korea, budget deficits, judicial appointments, the environment, alternative energy, campaign finance, diplomatic relations with our allies, the Mid East peace process, taxes, health care and on and on, decisions are being made now that will have a very, very long term impact. It is the job of the opposition party to oppose, in as meaningful a way as is possible, moves that they believe will have a long term negative impact. But I certainly agree the D party needs to do a much better job of defining itself as more than an opposition party.

On abortion, I think you're going to hear more about the culture of life in general. At least, I hope so. I talked about this some in giddyup's abortion thread to little avail, but there is more to a culture of life than that one issue. It is reasonable to ask those who value a culture of life whether or not an elective, pre-emptive war was a good idea. Do pro-life people (and I'm defining this in a macro sense now) favor the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive wars? How do pro-lifers feel about the death penalty? What message does it send that we value the life of a woman whose doctors say she will always be a vegetable but we take people off life support when they can no longer pay their bills? How do we feel about executing r****ded people? And beyond the fact of living, what about the quality of life? Shouldn't those who value life also support broader access to health care? Shouldn't they place a premium on eliminating hunger and even starvation in our own country? Shouldn't they do everything they can to eliminate homelessness? I applaud the interest in preserving the lives of the unborn, but does the concern end there? What about the people dying from starvation, those who are freezing to death or dying of heatstroke from living on the street, from lack of medical attention? And aren't there cases where a strict pro-life policy might endanger efforts to save and extend lives in the future? Supporters of stem cell research, which comprise the majority of our country, would say yes. I personally extend valuing life to the lives of animals, too. Do those who value life only value the lives of humans (and, to a lesser degree, housepets)? Or do they also value the lives of cows, birds, pigs, fish? Shouldn't valuing life include valuing our environment, doing what we can to preserve the ozone layer and combat global warming? And on abortion itself, if we really want to meaningfully reduce abortion in this country, shouldn't we start with reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies? If it is truly important to do everything we can to reduce abortions, shouldn't we encourage sex education even for those who do not and will not choose abstinence? Shouldn't we make contraception more available rather than less available?

I don't suggest I have the answers to these questions, but I do suggest we have a national dialogue about them -- about the value we place on life in this country. There's much more to this issue than whether or not we should jail women for choosing abortion. And, in fact, banning abortion, jailing women for having them, will not eliminate abortion. That's a known fact. Rich women who want abortions will travel overseas to have them and poor women will use coat hangers as they did before Roe. I agree a change in the law would reduce abortions, but it would not eliminate them. The question we should ask when we talk about abortion then is how best to reduce abortions in this country. The GOP may be the preferred party of pro-lifers, but I think it is a fallacy to believe they are doing everything they can to reduce abortions in this country. Let's have this debate for real.

 

Batman, you should be a speech writer for the Democratic Party. Seriously. The only thing I would change would be the reference to the lives of animals when making your argument. It's not that I disagree, but that it's exactly the sort of thing the Rove Crew would seize on to muddy the rest of your points, and to alter the context of the message to suit their strategy of belittling anything that is clearly a Democratic position that could have traction.


Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Thanks, Deckard. I said in the "desired profession" thread in the Hangout that I was already doing what I wanted to do, albeit for too little money, but helping to explain core Democratic principles to the American people would be a dream job. Anybody know who's hiring? Unfortunately, I fear a few more years of school and a long trip up the party ladder would be required and at 36 years old less a week that seems a bit much. Anybody knows a fast track, I'm there.

 

p.s. I love Kucinich, but unless I was writing his speeches (and I expect he writes his own), I'd leave out the vegan stuff. I include it here because I value life deeply and my diet is one of the ways I 'live my faith.' And because, although I'm sure the Dept. of Justice (and by extension the administration, including Rove) is lurking here as everywhere, they're not posting. Yet.

 

Rocket Fan:

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I prefer a sincere discussion of the actual issues to handicapping the reactions of swing voters. Abortions will continue, so let's agree to focus on reducing them rather than eliminating them. One way they might be reduced is by the threat of prosecution. That's on the table. Another is through sex ed. Another is contraception. What else could we do? Rather than limiting the debate over a complicated issue to black and white solutions (abortion should be illegal; abortion should be legal), let's try and work together to improve the situation. I'll listen to the arguments for overturning Roe (and I have), but we'll have a more productive national debate if the other stuff's out there too.

When I talk about the death penalty, I don't seek to equate an innocent with a criminal -- I seek to identify the depth of the value those who count themselves among the 'culture of life' place on life. But when we talk about innocents, I don't feel I hear enough from pro-lifers about the lives of Iraqi civilians. I hear it from the Pope (as I hear about his opposition to the death penalty), but not enough from the Americans who count themselves among the religious right.

As for your point about immigration, I guarantee you the money spent on illegals is dwarfed by the amount of money spent on caring for Americans who, as a result of lacking health insurance, did not get preventative care. It is likewise fair to talk about how we should combat people who might seek to cheat the system with regard to assistance, but what about their children? Will those who value life continue to value the lives of homeless children and children living in poverty? Will they continue to value those lives when they are adults?

 

Rocket Fan, please post more about conservative issues. You have raised the standard of discussion from what it often becomes on this board. It would be great to discuss more topics you.

 

you raise many good issues, but the emphasis i've heard during this anniversary week on iraqi civilian deaths due to the war troubles me. where was your concern during the years the husseins were murduring their country men? i didn't see marches in the streets, demanding the genocide stop. where were you then? why does your concern only surface when a premptive war is being waged by a republican president? where was it during the bombing of the serbs? did no innocent serb civilians die?

given your concern about the homeless and their children, why are you against faith-based groups receiving federal monies to provide assistance to the very people you identify as in need? why must only the governement provide assistance directly? doesn't your ideology get in the way of one of the most direct and practical ways of getting assistance to those who are suffering the most?