Politics: A new beginning

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
local press in Boston probably isn't where you should look to see the reaction. I mean Mass. probably will stay blue.
and if the Senior Senator from Georgia (D- Miller) knows anything, the whole fight is all for naught- I don't usually quote much but this is all good
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...02miller.html#



Did Dean know the part about not being seen as "looking down" on them?
.......

And just in case my stomach is still preventing me from articulating a point clearly, I'll have at it again.

The more you highlight the demands of one racial, ethnic or religious constituency, especially as a demand for another to suffer a burden or insult, the more you are begging one or both constituencies to bolt.

Seriously, if I were a Dem with any influence, I would be absolutely screaming at these jackasses for having the conversation last night.

As it applies to Hank's article, the more you attack the southern good ole boys for the confederate flags in their pick-ups, the more you push the boys from Bridgeport and Back of the Yards away who, in many cases, have that same confederate flag hanging on walls in their living room.

Again, for the sake of maintaining even the semblance of a two party system, I hope people like Bubba are on the phone today screaming at the hacks for fomenting racial and ethnic division in the party. In fact, I would admire him or others with influence if they did just that.

Hello

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Lot's of stuff about Dems and the South.......

The increasing Republican domination of the South IS the political story of the last fifty years. The short term solution has always been to find a candidate from the South who could play in the rest of the country, and in this election that would probably be Clark.

The Democrat who solves the issue for a longer term will be the next FDR, leaving a mammoth legacy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The short term solution has always been to find a candidate from the South who could play in the rest of the country, and in this election that would probably be Clark.

The Democrat who solves the issue for a longer term will be the next FDR, leaving a mammoth legacy.

yes. yes. all the Dems problems will be solved and the people will return to the party. but to be safe, just to cover all eventualities, maybe you should have Hollywood option Westwing for 4 more years so you can keep seeing a Democrat somewhere with some input into how things are ran.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The increasing Republican domination of the South IS the political story of the last fifty years. The short term solution has always been to find a candidate from the South who could play in the rest of the country, and in this election that would probably be Clark.

The Democrat who solves the issue for a longer term will be the next FDR, leaving a mammoth legacy.

As the GOP is increasingly dominated by Southerners, they lose support in other places -- e.g., the Northeast and California. The new GOP cannot win in California, barring freakish circumstances like the recent ones.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
As the GOP is increasingly dominated by Southerners, they lose support in other places -- e.g., the Northeast and California. The new GOP cannot win in California, barring freakish circumstances like the recent ones.

Excluding Florida, which remains a swing state and if anything is increasingly Democratic, the Southern states are approximately twice the electoral votes of California (which, you are right, is now about as solidly Democratic as the south is solidly Republican, especially in a national election). But the Northeast is not so solidly Democratic, with CT, NH and ME all being potential red states, and with NY requiring more of a fight than it used to in a national.

So turning a few southern states still seems particularly important. It would be nice to figure out how to crack Texas, though I don't think that is possible until Bush is gone.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

The PBA law has already been temporarily enjoined. (D. Neb.)

Linky http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Nov5.html

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The PBA law has already been temporarily enjoined. (D. Neb.)

Linky http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Nov5.html

and when the Supreme Court finally decides this aspect of abortion, I believe the law of the land will be something like:

>>While we again decline to fully address the question of when a human life begins, we believe there is no circumstance where a living infant, delivered or partially-delivered unto the world, is not properly subject to the protections afforded to human life<<

I think the lawsuits are only going to give the courts room to roll back a bit more of Roe. Which is to say, I think the pro PBA crowd is shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The PBA law has already been temporarily enjoined. (D. Neb.)

Linky http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Nov5.html

Hardly surprising - it's flatly unconstitutionally broad under well-established case law.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Hardly surprising - it's flatly unconstitutionally broad under well-established case law.

How so?

Is this one of the health of the mother issues? Because, if so, I'd guess that the 98% of abortionists that refuse to perform PBAs would agree that a PBA has never really been the necessary option to save someone's life.

Of course, if anyone can stand up and truthfully declare that "I am alive today only because a doctor could and did perform a PBA", I'll eat my hat.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
How so? Is this one of the health of the mother issues?

Yes, mostly. Additionally, it is drafted broadly enough to, in some circumstances, ban procedures that aren't PBA and have otherwise been found constitutionally protected. But basically, its undoing is that the thing is drafted like a piece of shit. It is not difficult to draft anti-PBA legislation that would pass constitutional muster, they just, inexplicably, didn't do it. I'd like to think the congressional pro-choicers got very devious and figured out some way to sink this through extremism, but I frankly don't give them the credit.

Because, if so, I'd guess that the 98% of abortionists that refuse to perform PBAs

I agree with what you are getting at here - this is so miniscule and marginal it is basically a non-issue.

would agree that a PBA has never really been the necessary option to save someone's life. Of course, if anyone can stand up and truthfully declare that "I am alive today only because a doctor could and did perform a PBA", I'll eat my hat.

I'll bet there are some. My vague understanding is that, in fact, they are usually performed only in fairly severe emergency circumstances. In terms of someone willing to stand up and take a bow about it in the current political climate ... I doubt we'll find that. So say hello to your hat for me.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Yes, mostly. Additionally, it is drafted broadly enough to, in some circumstances, ban procedures that aren't PBA and have otherwise been found constitutionally protected. But basically, its undoing is that the thing is drafted like a piece of shit. It is not difficult to draft anti-PBA legislation that would pass constitutional muster, they just, inexplicably, didn't do it. I'd like to think the congressional pro-choicers got very devious and figured out some way to sink this through extremism, but I frankly don't give them the credit.
I agree with what you are getting at here - this is so miniscule and marginal it is basically a non-issue.
I'll bet there are some. My vague understanding is that, in fact, they are usually performed only in fairly severe emergency circumstances. In terms of someone willing to stand up and take a bow about it in the current political climate ... I doubt we'll find that. So say hello to your hat for me.

as compared to saying good-bye to my hat?

Two things:

If something isn't PBA and has "otherwise been found constitutionally protected", then I would very much like to strangle the drafters. If "otherwise... found constitutionally protected" means something beyond a single doctor's assertion that a PBA is necessary, then our definitions of "constitutionally protected" coincide. Which leads to my other point.

My understanding is that they are "usually performed" by the same doctors in, mostly rural states, for completely inexplicable reasons.

A few years ago I'd swear that I read something like 80% are performed by only 5 doctors. And it wasn't like people were travelling out of state to find these doctors in emergencies. It was basically a large part of their practice.

I'll try to find an article though to support my suggestions here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Yes, mostly. Additionally, it is drafted broadly enough to, in some circumstances, ban procedures that aren't PBA and have otherwise been found constitutionally protected. But basically, its undoing is that the thing is drafted like a piece of shit. It is not difficult to draft anti-PBA legislation that would pass constitutional muster, they just, inexplicably, didn't do it.

Cynically, one can surmise that the backers cared more about the fight than the result, and would be happy to see the courts strike the legislation down.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
as compared to saying good-bye to my hat?

Yeah, since I presume you won't be eating it.

If something isn't PBA and has "otherwise been found constitutionally protected", then I would very much like to strangle the drafters.

If you support a ban on PBA, you should call your rep and strangle him, the whole thing is incompetent. It doesn't specify the actual medical procedure at issue, and instead identifies what is "banned" by a rather vague (non-medical) description that effectively includes what actually happens in the course of a number of of D&C (or D&X? I can't remember) procedures in the 2nd tri.

I think you're right that most are performed by a handful of practitioners. I think there are a few hundred performed a year.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So turning a few southern states still seems particularly important. It would be nice to figure out how to crack Texas, though I don't think that is possible until Bush is gone.

Ten to fifteen years and my raza will have won Texas back from the gringos by sheer numbers. We tend to vote Democrat, though we have our anomolies every now and then. With Austin, Houston, San Antonio and the Valley sympathetic to the Dems, I wouldn't count on Texas being a Republican stronghold forever. That's why the whole redistricting fight was so nasty.

Hell, until Clinton appointed Bensten to secretary of the Treasury back in '92, we were pretty evenly split in the US Congress, state-wide offices and the legislature. The whole Bensten nomination caused a massive reorging by the Dems and they weren't able to hold on to that Senate seat, and then later the governorship, and then the rest of statewide offices. It wasn't until last year that the legislature fell into Replublican hands.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
and when the Supreme Court finally decides this aspect of abortion, I believe the law of the land will be something like:

>>While we again decline to fully address the question of when a human life begins, we believe there is no circumstance where a living infant, delivered or partially-delivered unto the world, is not properly subject to the protections afforded to human life<<

I think the lawsuits are only going to give the courts room to roll back a bit more of Roe. Which is to say, I think the pro PBA crowd is shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

I thought the threshold question in PBA cases was whether there were adequate protections in the law to balance the health of the mother? My understanding is that is why the Nebraska (?) law was struck down, and Congress tried to get around that by unilaterally declaring in the law that the health of the mother is not in question in these cases.