Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sigh. It wasn't you in particular, but conservatives on this board were pleased to impute the actions of a twit college student pie-thrower to the entire Democratic Party, so forgive me if your claims of media liberalism as the cause of these problems leave me unmoved.

FWIW, it seems that the conference apparently included
members of Congress as well, so I doubt that WaPo was pulling homeless folks off the street to report on a conference that wouldn't otherwise exist.

When you find this, together with the public statements of the House Majority Leader and two GOP senators condemning "judicial tyrrany" marinated with observations about violence against judges, it's probably time to find a different excuse to explain how what we're seeing isn't really today's GOP.

Rather than argue, I'll grant you this. Its totally time for us to get rid of DeLay. I'm writing my people tonight.

But maybe all the others were just in the audience to make sure they take in a variety of viewpoints? That's what we do you know!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I wish I understood what the fuck Hank's trying to say in these posts. If it doesn't contain the handy signposts of math, or Bush Lied!!, somethimes it's difficult for us neophytes to tell if his masterpiece is again misunderstood, or if he's simply playing with feces again.

Well, it started with my posting two stories that read serially show a bias at Reuters IMHO. If you didn't understand that part, I really can't help- by the way- did you grow up in Stepford?

Then Hello said the guy from my stories had film of several attacks- Ty said that i think any guy who has pictures of insurgents is per se unamerican. See he was playing with a thread I started last week. i said not per se- prima facia- now this is lawyer talk Gatti, and it would take alot to explain- you should smile like you understand the terms and then ask when you get back to bar review in June. Then Ty said "no! just shoot em"- see he was being sarcastic so then I said you're right cuz god didn't make em christian so they can't be good guys- see I was being extra sarcastic.

Sometimes on anon lawyer chat boards you have to think harder, or just shut up when someone smarter is posting stuff past you.

Hope this helps!

ps would this help you?


its from DU!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I sorta agree with one or more of these, but...

[Stop reading here if you know where this is going and don't want to hear it again]

Abortion: Surely a majority of Californians don't want abortion to be made illegal, but estimates by NARAL or whoever are that the day Roe is overturned, something like 30 or 35 states will be on the brink of banning it. There is a way to phrase the issue so that people in California aren't threatened with a ban, whereas people in Indiana aren't threatened by California feminists and activist federal judges. Namely, leave it up to the states. Just like how it was before Roe. It was legal in California before Roe. Sounds like the California Republican party has to take this bull by the horns and frame the issue in a way that doesn't sound personally threatening to the majority in California.

In California Abortion is not a policy issue (at least for the first trimester) but a strategic issue. The California Supreme Court has ruled that the California Constitution Protects the right to have an abortion. They even went so far as to say that a law requiring minors to get parental consent to have an abortion was unconstitutional. The problem is that right to lifers won't shut up. Every time they open their mouths about murder etc. we lose votes. Its that simple. The whole idea about letting states decide is another issue, but one the public doesn't really grasp or care about. When you say everturn Roe all they hear is making abortion ilegal. Every time Republicans bring it up we lose votes in California.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me Assault weapons: Agreed, though there are at least a few Democrats who are affiliated with the gun nuts too. Not sure what Warner's big-picture positions are on this, but he was governor of VA, land of the NRA.

OTOH, permitted-concealed-carry is something that I don't really see too many strong arguments against. So its not like the Rs should be coming out entirely anti-gun. Anti-assault weapon I don't have a problem with, and I don't think most Americans do either... at least as long as it doesn't seem like the beginning of a wider ban on everything.

In swing districts and blue states, the Republicans just need to drop the issue. Anytime a Republican leaders talks about Gun Rights, it is taped, turned into a commercial, and used against Republicans in swing districts.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me Contraception: Hillary Clinton has this right, at least in her public remarks. The country needs to focus more on getting people out of the position where they "need" to have abortions. No way should the Rs be seen as opposing anything along the lines of contraception, unless its on funding grounds, but certainly not on morality grounds.

OK.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me Televangelism: Generally agreed..

OK

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me Death penalty: I understand that the country doesn't have a big problem with the death penalty as a general matter. But the issue of putting to death juvenilles, the mentally retarded, and the innocent, is not something either party wants to be on the wrong side of. And the issue has come up in a few contexts where the Rs could actually use it for gain, instead of letting the Ds keep the public focused on the problems in Texas under Bush. Michigan, Virginia and Illinois all come to mind.

A great example is Illinois. Dozens and dozens of innocents put on death row in Cook County. Overwhelmingly Democratic, and overwhelmingly corrupt. There is no way a majority of the country doesn't have some level of concern about all of these cases. The Ds have just managed to steer the issue as a R problem in Texas...

I understand the probloms with the Death Penalty, but in California, the only thing that California agree on more than abortions rights, is keeping the death penalty. It is Ok to talk about cleaning up the system, but every time a Dem. proposes banning it althogether they get slaughtered.

What they do to the Dems is when the talk about banning it a mailer goes around with a picture of Charles Manson that says, a liberal Dem. saved his life. My opponent wants to save more like him, is that what you want for the future of California? - game over.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me ETA the first "don't"

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
In California Abortion is not a policy issue (at least for the first trimester) but a strategic issue. The California Supreme Court has ruled that the California Constitution Protects the right to have an abortion. They even went so far as to say that a law requiring minors to get parental consent to have an abortion was unconstitutional. The problem is that right to lifers won't shut up. Every time they open their mouths about murder etc. we lose votes. Its that simple. The whole idea about letting states decide is another issue, but one the public doesn't really grasp or care about. When you say everturn Roe all they hear is making abortion ilegal. Every time Republicans bring it up we lose votes in California.

Your first point about the California Supreme Court is one step in support of my point, but the second is two steps back.

I don't have a problem with the Right to Lifers not shutting up about it in a California context. However, as you note, the overturning Roe thing is another issue.

The fact that the public doesn't really grasp or care about the issue is because we (you, me, US) have not framed the issue for them. Instead, we've let NARAL and the NOW and others frame the issue for them. So they hear "making abortion illegal" in a way that threatens them (i.e., on a national level). We can either let them keep thinking that, or we can re-frame the issue in its proper context.

The fact is, if Roe is overturned, and the California Republican party is hurt because Californians all wrongly think that abortion is suddenly banned in California... well the California Republican party is being hurt because it hasn't performed its role in framing the debate.

I see it as almost a near-certainty that Roe is getting overturned in the next 4-10 years. That's plenty of time to frame the issue properly so the California middle doesn't feel threatened.

One more thing. I would argue that the "we lose votes" thing applies only in places like California, but not in the country overall. The largest group of single issue voters in the nation is the pro-life single issue bloc. I'd imagine this is not true in California (though I can't prove it), but by "we" I hope you are only referring to "California Republicans" and not the national Republican party. There was a reason that Bush was a bit more direct in his pro-life positions than Kerry was in his pro-choice positions in the debates; I hope you aren't operating under the misconception that neither did their homework.

Hello

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Your first point about the California Supreme Court is one step in support of my point, but the second is two steps back.

I don't have a problem with the Right to Lifers not shutting up about it in a California context. However, as you note, the overturning Roe thing is another issue.

The fact that the public doesn't really grasp or care about the issue is because we (you, me, US) have not framed the issue for them. Instead, we've let NARAL and the NOW and others frame the issue for them. So they hear "making abortion illegal" in a way that threatens them (i.e., on a national level). We can either let them keep thinking that, or we can re-frame the issue in its proper context.

I don't think you can reframe the issue. And even If you could, I see the whole thing as a waste of time. What do you accomplish by reframing the issue. There is other stuff that can be focused on where you can make a change and doesn't cost you votes.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me The fact is, if Roe is overturned, and the California Republican party is hurt because Californians all wrongly think that abortion is suddenly banned in California... well the California Republican party is being hurt because it hasn't performed its role in framing the debate..

The CRP has limited resources. And again, focusing on abortion is just a waste of those resources. We need to let the issue go and focus on other stuff.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me I see it as almost a near-certainty that Roe is getting overturned in the next 4-10 years.

That is one of the craziest predictions I have ever heard. I don't think Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned in at least twenty years if ever. What makes you think it will overturned in the next four to ten years.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me That's plenty of time to frame the issue properly so the California middle doesn't feel threatened.

Plenty of time for who? Frame the issue properly? This isn't a debating society. Trying to educated the entire California Republican on the nuances of Roe v. Wade and abortion would take massive amounts of money all to what end?

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me One more thing. I would argue that the "we lose votes" thing applies only in places like California, but not in the country overall. The largest group of single issue voters in the nation is the pro-life single issue bloc. I'd imagine this is not true in California (though I can't prove it), but by "we" I hope you are only referring to "California Republicans" and not the national Republican party. There was a reason that Bush was a bit more direct in his pro-life positions than Kerry was in his pro-choice positions in the debates; I hope you aren't operating under the misconception that neither did their homework.

The prochoice position is much stronger in California (76% of Californias thinks the laws on abortion are fine the way they are - that is about the only issue 76% of Californians agree upon) but across the Nation the majority is strongly in favor of legalized abortion in the first trimester. You will notice that Bush hedges his abortion statement significantly. He states that he wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion but does not think the country is ready for it yet. That is will be a while before it is.
He certainly does not make the abortion thing a centerpiece of his campaign. And if you remember he lost the popular vote in 2000 and I think he won because of the war in 2004.

Seriously though - what makes you think Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next four to ten years?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think you can reframe the issue. And even If you could, I see the whole thing as a waste of time. What do you accomplish by reframing the issue. There is other stuff that can be focused on where you can make a change and doesn't cost you votes.

Sure you can reframe it. I've already done it for you. Roe gets overturned [does not equal] federal abortion ban.

I appreciate that you see it as a waste of time, but do you really think you are going to get pro-Lifers to shut up by telling them they are costing you votes in California? I don' think so. Which leaves you to your fate (i.e., losing votes) unless you do something to educate those voters who the pro-Lifers are costing you.

Or are you thinking of some other alternative to praying that they'll shut up?

Originally posted by Spanky

The CRP has limited resources. And again, focusing on abortion is just a waste of those resources. We need to let the issue go and focus on other stuff.

You can let it go, but will they? Where in this country is this not an ongoing issue?

Originally posted by Spanky

That is one of the craziest predictions I have ever heard. I don't think Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned in at least twenty years if ever. What makes you think it will overturned in the next four to ten years.

Yo a Bilmore!

This is easy to me. Even if its not reframed at the California level, the groundwork for reframing the issue at the national level already started last year. You have an aging Supreme Court, a fundamental shift in national electoral politics, 60 R Senators in sight (should that even be necessary) next year for a confirmation hearing.

Basically, I think the idea of a liberal "litmus-test" being applied to a Supreme Court candidate anytime between now and next year is far fetched, but the idea of a candidate with Federalist tendencies being nominated is almost a certainty. Afterwards its a bit harder to predict, but the trend is my friend here, and the electoral trends have been looking better and better since 1996.

Originally posted by Spanky

Plenty of time for who? Frame the issue properly? This isn't a debating society. Trying to educated the entire California Republican on the nuances of Roe v. Wade and abortion would take massive amounts of money all to what end?

To what end? Its not all that complicated, and you are the one complaining that this talk is costing your party votes.

Or we can continue to accept NARAL's demonization.

Originally posted by Spanky

The prochoice position is much stronger in California (76% of Californias thinks the laws on abortion are fine the way they are - that is about the only issue 76% of Californians agree upon) but across the Nation the majority is strongly in favor of legalized abortion in the first trimester. You will notice that Bush hedges his abortion statement significantly. He states that he wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion but does not think the country is ready for it yet. That is will be a while before it is.
He certainly does not make the abortion thing a centerpiece of his campaign. And if you remember he lost the popular vote in 2000 and I think he won because of the war in 2004.

Seriously though - what makes you think Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next four to ten years?

*Some* people are in favor of all kinds of things, but good luck figuring out if they are more in favor or reduced taxes than they are in favor of legalized first trimester abortion. The only ones you can reasonably pin down to voting are the single-issue voters.

And it ain't so much the popular vote that I'm watching. As far as anyone could tell from his record as of 2000, we basically were running a poorly trained monkey against the Ds wooden puppet. The numbers that really matter for Roe are the Senate and House totals, and those numbers have been trending our way for 10 years.

Anyway, I think the central disagreement we are having here is how the California Rs should address the abortion issue (or whether they should address it at all). As you seem to acknowledge, whatever you've been doing so far doesn't seem to be working so well. And I don't think staying mum and praying it goes away will fare much better.

Hello

[Adder]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Given the stark contrast, I disavow each and every one of these people. Who are they again? Did one of them run for president a la Dean or Kerry? Is one of them killing off America's third largest city al Daley? Who Gatti, who?

What's a "doyenne" anyway? And who the fuck is the Washington Post to say that this "doyenne", this "lawyer-author" and this "chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association" are "conservative leaders"?

Liberal media anyone?

It ain't only a river in Egypt.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The people who are attacking the judiciary now -- DeLay, Santorum, Cornyn, etc. -- come from a different place in the party. These are cultural conservatives, who both dislike the judiciary's function when it acts as a check on legislative or executive action and clearly enjoy use the actions of the courts as a foil to rally the troops. When you control 2.5 of the 3 branches of the government, it's hard to adopt the pose of a victim of those in power, but these guys have found a way to do it.

The beauty part is the tension caused by tort reform. They hate the federal judiciary when they decide that sharia isn't the law of the land, but they love them when they are a way of conrolling the run away jury.

Incidently, they are right in the latter scenario.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well, it started with my posting two stories that read serially show a bias at Reuters IMHO. If you didn't understand that part, I really can't help- by the way- did you grow up in Stepford?

Then Hello said the guy from my stories had film of several attacks- Ty said that i think any guy who has pictures of insurgents is per se unamerican. See he was playing with a thread I started last week. i said not per se- prima facia- now this is lawyer talk Gatti, and it would take alot to explain- you should smile like you understand the terms and then ask when you get back to bar review in June. Then Ty said "no! just shoot em"- see he was being sarcastic so then I said you're right cuz god didn't make em christian so they can't be good guys- see I was being extra sarcastic.

Sometimes on anon lawyer chat boards you have to think harder, or just shut up when someone smarter is posting stuff past you.

Hope this helps!

ps would this help you?


its from DU!

Ah. A Self-Referential Masterpiece. Sorry, Hank, my bad.

Don't forget to wash afterwards. Use soap.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[i]Originally posted by Spanky You will notice that Bush hedges his abortion statement significantly. He states that he wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion but does not think the country is ready for it yet.

Bush wanted the votes of people who care about abortion, but he doesn't want to spend political capital on the issue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
The beauty part is the tension caused by tort reform. They hate the federal judiciary when they decide that sharia isn't the law of the land, but they love them when they are a way of conrolling the run away jury.

Incidently, they are right in the latter scenario.

Who's "they"? I don't think the cultural conservatives care a whit about tort reform.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who's "they"? I don't think the cultural conservatives care a whit about tort reform.

Ahem! Cultural conservative here (well, as close as this board is getting 'cept for Penske), and I think I've been the most vocal advocate of tort reform.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ah. A Self-Referential Masterpiece. Sorry, Hank, my bad.

Don't forget to wash afterwards. Use soap.

I wish I understood what the fuck Gatti's trying to say in these posts. If it doesn't contain the handy signposts of math, or Bush Lied!!, somethimes it's difficult for us neophytes to tell if his masterpiece is again misunderstood, or if he's simply playing with feces again.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The people who are attacking the judiciary now -- DeLay, Santorum, Cornyn, etc. -- come from a different place in the party. These are cultural conservatives, who both dislike the judiciary's function when it acts as a check on legislative or executive action and clearly enjoy use the actions of the courts as a foil to rally the troops. When you control 2.5 of the 3 branches of the government, it's hard to adopt the pose of a victim of those in power, but these guys have found a way to do it.

It is not just the cultural conservatives. The Schiavo legislation passed faily handily.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The fact is, if Roe is overturned, and the California Republican party is hurt because Californians all wrongly think that abortion is suddenly banned in California... well the California Republican party is being hurt because it hasn't performed its role in framing the debate.

I see it as almost a near-certainty that Roe is getting overturned in the next 4-10 years. That's plenty of time to frame the issue properly so the California middle doesn't feel threatened.

Hello

A couple of points here. First, there really isn't a viable GOP presence in CA. Organizationally, the party has been completely decimated. Arnold is an anomoly, but I don't think he has coatails. Northern CA has always been a DEM stronghold. The GOP relinquished Southern California in the mid-1990s, and given demographics in LA, it is not coming back anytime soon. The only region that the GOP controls is Central CA, but that is a very small part of the population.

Second, while I use to believe that those seeking to overturn Roe just wanted to leave the decision to the states, it's hard to believe that's the case given the current landscape. It appears to me that the right wants to use the courts the same way that the left has used them for years, so framing the issue as you suggest is really disingenuous.