Anybody here read The New Yorker? Get it this week!

Seriosuly great article on the Democrats and where they are going and their strategies to move forward and gain seats in 2006. This is a very good, snarkless and highly analytical article that deals with a lot tht is going on today. A very lot.

Given half a chance, it explains why the liberal blogs are so nervous, contradictory and angry these days. (Wel, it did to me anyway.)

I cannot recommend it high enough. Unfortunately, it's not on the free part of their website, so you have to buy it or steal it from the doctor's office. Sorry.

Anyone?

you when I finish the article. Thanks for the recommendation!

Strategy
Liberal base and why they tick me off (Hey, I'm a liberal.)
Chuck Schumer: uber-pol
John Kerry is wicked smart and prescient v1.78
"We need to have priciples"
"We need to move to the Center"
"We need to stand for things"
"Why aren't we killing the Rethugs on economic issues"
abortion politics, is it changing (or not)

and so forth. I can think of many more.

Peter J. Boyer
The Right to Choose
The Democrats compromise on a core issue.

Sen. Kerry's post-election positions are mentioned prominently. Most of the article, however, deals with the Democrats recruiting Bob Casey to run for the Senate in PA next year and how that changes the direction of the party. (And is damned interesting to boot.)

I can copy and mail or just send you the entire magazine.

I subscribe and will be sure to check it out this weekend.

Haven't read it yet, though.

Sorry but that is what the so called centrist stuff is. I had it forced down my throat at a convention this weekend. A friend is actually a founding member of the DLC and they were pushing Repuke lite and targeting candidates and dumping others over the side. This isn't 1992. The climate has changed and even the Republicans want a different choice. I just don't believe in pandering to the repukes. I don't think we should alienate them but I just don't see that trying to be like them is a winner.We have candidates in this state, Dems, who are still supporting the war! Our leadership in DC seems to have gotten the message and the election results should be telling us something but many DLC types still favor repug lite. I hope that isn't what this article is supporting! I love the NYER but I don't want to burst a blood vessel!

Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-environment Republicans. Force them to choose between Democrats and fundie wackos. I think Democrats are going further to the center than needed to do that. Kaine's position on abortion really concerns me, especially abstinence based sex ed. For crying out loud, everybody in this day and age needs to learn about birth control. I don't know what the answer is, but a Kaine win in Virginia doesn't mean anything for the national party if we just have another Green spoiler in 2008.

http://www.kaine2005.org/issues/abortion.php

I think it boils down the the local people and what they are willing to define their issues and politicians as. Not every Democrat is really left on issues like gay or abortion but they may be on board with environment, fiscal responsibility, healthcare, etc.

So sometimes, Democrats need a wide spectrum of opinions so people can no longer vote Repub. on just one or two issues.

One thing that helps is people being out talking to people and helping them see that Democratic policy actually helps them so much more than the Republican policy. And I do not believe the gay issue will be an issue next time, because after all is said and done, this Republican congress had one year to push a discriminatory ban through, yet they didn't even announce a plan. So we can say, "All talk, no action!"

We have a lot to point out and I think if we turn it around to their greedier nature, moderate Repubs, independents, and nonvoters will go out and vote Democratic! (We just have to make sure the Democratic Party maintains the fiscal responsibility, works for the poor and middle class, and I believe the tide will turn.

Often times, I say, "The old Republican Party doesn't exsist any more. The Democratic party is stronger on defense, stronger on fiscal responsibility, etc...and the Republican party stands for only three things: antigay, antiabortion, antimiddleclass. What has the Republican party done for YOU lately? You doing any better? How is your mom's medicaid and prescriptions working out for her? Got a college age kid? How are you coming out on Federally funding scholarships and loans?"

I'm saying make it personal, make it clear that most don't realize they're really dems about most 'issues', and make it clear it's ok to cross over to the Dems while the Republicans are not the Republicans of old.

What do you think?

as you said:

"Often times, I say, "The old Republican Party doesn't exsist any more. The Democratic party is stronger on defense, stronger on fiscal responsibility, etc...and the Republican party stands for only three things: antigay, antiabortion, antimiddleclass. What has the Republican party done for YOU lately? You doing any better? How is your mom's medicaid and prescriptions working out for her? Got a college age kid? How are you coming out on Federally funding scholarships and loans?"

They're the PARTY OF NO - defined by what they are against.

including the 'big wigs in front of the cameras' have to say that as well as give them HOPE. our plans..easy to understand (those sound bites you know!) hopeful plans on how we will improve their lives. This is even more important now than ever.

We are so close to a recession. The recession or depression will be the only way to convert the 'new republicans' to put their own lives and family in Democratic hands because they currently have money so they can be snooty and believe the lies the Republican party puts out about poor people being lazy or stupid or unwilling to better themselves. Those are the people who when they lose their houses, jobs, will see that they are not lazy, uneducated, rotten ect but they're losing everything.

Makes them look deeper then party spin.

Sadly, I've seen 4 beggers this week alone. Signs of the times. :(

That's generally what I do.

But at some level, there's some truths to get to sooner or later. There isn't any such thing as the old Republican Party, they've always been the party that put corporations before the people. This current bunch has just decided to to be blatant and unapologetic about it. I think to really move people away from the Republican Party, permanently, we have to start telling some truths about subsidies and tax breaks and how business is not all free market and benefits from the government just like the people do.

I also don't think gay rights is going away. I don't think the right will be satisfied with leaving Roe in tact, no matter how many other laws they get passed. San Francisco is confiscating guns. People still care about these issues, they still get torn between environment and jobs. Between the health care they believe the free market provides vs. VA style govt health care they fear universal health care means. Between federal taxes that never seem to go where they're supposed to and keeping it for the local level. A national candidate is still going to have to deal with these issues, I don't expect the GOP to continue to self destruct for the next 3 years.

So while saying this group isn't old school GOP is a good short term strategy, there's still a very real need for some truth telling about the issues that face us. That's why I'm not too thrilled with candidates like Hillary and Warner. I think they believe in Reaganism economic, social and foreign policy. I don't know when we're going to have a Democratic Party that stands up to all of it, and I don't think we're really going to make change in this country until we do.

That's too friggin easy. It's about how the Democratic Party supports and doesn't support candidates and how single-issue politics, as a 'business model' if you will, doesn't friggin work. (Liberal, Moderate or Conservative, as defined within Democratic Party parameters.)

We have to stop doing business this way, it doesn't friggin work. Last weekend in DU was illustrative of this.

"Hey, everybody to this side of the boat. This is the most important issue ever. If we all don't speak out on this in a fairly extreme way, we are all doomed"

Two days later:

"Hey, everybody to the opposite side of the boat. This is the most important issue ever. If we all don't speak out on this in a fairly extreme way, we are all doomed"

Two days later:

well, you get my drift. This business model doesn't work. It is destructive of the very ends the people who want change want. It is divisive, confusing and alienates the very voters we want. It paints a huge target on the backs of Democrats and says, "Come and get me. I am boxed in by these positions because the interest groups that we outsourced power to have me." Not good. We have to find a better way to keep our values and yet not be at the mercy of very friggin fad that comes along. (That is draining, divisive and stupid.)

That's what I meant. This goes beyond the DLC 'tempest in a teapot' stuff. (That is small potatoes in many ways. We will always have a DLC part of the Party, either named or unnamed. So what?)

Which is our own fault because that's the model that was chosen 30 years ago, correct?? Sounds like maybe the article is based on this Politics of Polarization report. I can't remember right now, but remember that report you posted a couple weeks ago? Was it this one, or a differentoen? I mean to respond because the two together seemed to be a wealth of info. If this is the one you posted, then I need to go find the other one I read.

http://www.third-way.com/news/tw_pop.pdf

Another thing, I remember when PAC's were created. My mom was very happy about it because she felt like she would be able to support some group that addressed her very specific needs. How is it the right is able to have as many interest groups as we do, but manage to put it all under "family values"?? How have we not managed to create a similar umbrella?

We are not talking about abandoning core values. (Isn't Third-Way and DLC and all that stuff a way of muting what we believe?) No, no, no, no.

It's about winning elections by bringing the coalitions back inside the Dem Party. We will never win by throwing over what we believe in. HOWEVER, there is a world of difference between saying, I am pro-choice and intend to stay that way, and admitting that de facto banning of abortion is going on in a huge number of states and Democrats are unable to stop this. (The 'purity wars' are not working. We are not making abortion 'safe, legal and rare.' There are a number of regions in this country that have no access to abortion and that is getting worse. And this is without any ruling from the Supreme Court. We are ineffective and are losing ground.)

One of the bitter and awful truths of politics that piss people off is that there are competing interests that sometimes conflict. We have to seek compromise. This is regarded as a dirty thing, rather than as the delicate art-form it actually is. Democrats, going forward, are going to prioritize and de-emphasize somethings and re-emphasize others. (Politics 101.)

We need more Democrats serving in Congress (and across the board.) Otherwise, what difference does it matter how pure we are or if we are DLC or Third-Way or Liberal or whatever. There will not be enough of us to prevent the aftermaths of more Katrinas. We will simply not have the horses unless we come up with a better way to elect Dems.

What say you?

I will have to read the article to get more specific about the points you're making.

How does your comment gel with my earlier ones in this thread? Are we on the same page?

No one falls into political power. Power is taken. The Democrats have to find a better way to discuss their issues, their values and their candidates so that they can seize power and reverse the declines of the last 30 years. (This is so much more than this. Again, this can encompass many threads.)

We need to beat the Rethugs about the head with their idiotic stands on issues. They have been allowed to turn the argument onto the Dems and sort of parade Dems around like a sort of circus freak. ("Don't feed them, they are dangerous.") Bite me! These bastards have perverted my adage that 'it's about them, the people.' They pretend that it's all about the people and then bait-and-switch. This is beyond DLC and Third-Way and so forth. (Even that group is about 60% in agreement and could be brought in even closer if we got our act together. Even the Nelson's in the Senate could be reined in with better Party management and issue control. The cover is there, we just have to use it.)

And I do love Chuck Schumer. Gawd, is that guy the consummate pol or what. I taped something on TIVO (DVR) and was playing it back at 4X speed. Schumer was right behind the main speaker at the podium and in fast speed you could really see Schumer. He was constantly scanning the room, looking for who was agreeing, who was paying attention, who was showing interest and such. He is just a good pol, through and through. He is just always looking for that advantage, that soft spot that he can exploit. I love the guy.

Blending the core values, the interest groups, into a more cohesive vision. Beachmom's post about whether we're going to send moms and doctors to jail, or whether a woman has to report the rape or incest within 7 days, talking about some of the consequences of criminalizing abortion. That's really good. That's a way to mphasize other things without losing our core values.

My little web site has been all about changing the way we talk about Democratic values and policies, trying to hone in on what we're about, as a party. So that we can elect more Dems. I'm certainly all for that. I don't particularly care about the labels either, as long as the policies reflect values that work for people.

Now, do the math.

What does this do to the liberal interest groups? What does this do to DU? This place had a minor melt-down last week over the difference between 'fraud' and 'stolen'? What about the changes we are talking about? People on lib boards like to talk tough, (We need a bastard in order to win, we need to be ruthless, blah, blah, blah.) Okay, that time is coming, can they live with it? Can they live with what the ruthless and the bastards have to do in order to win?

What is relevent here and what isn't? (And why is this place going to continue to drive people crazy for the forseeable future?)

Most will follow. But this is also why I saw we need a very strong Green Party. There are people who really need to accept that the Democratic Party is not and never will be the Green Party. But if those interest groups just refuse to budge on long-held views, then it's better for the Democratic Party that they advocate those views within the Green Party. That isn't to say the Democratic Party needs to become the Lieberman party, but that moving into the next century might look a little different than we expected.

Another thing. In looking for links, I've run across all kinds of people and groups who are actually doing the things that the activists are talking about. There's several true sustainable forestry operations across the country. There's green lumber. Up in N. Dakota there's some very interesting alternative energy work going on. There's organic farming groups in the south for chrissakes. I don't know the political leanings of all of these people, but it would sure be a "shame on us" if working shmoe Republican was out there doing, while we're still sitting back here whining about stuff they left behind years ago. Know what I mean??

because that weakens the progressives overall.

What I think needs to happen is the Extremes on both sides need to break away from Republican or Democrat. Let there be 4 viable or 5 viable groups out there, instead of 3. When you have 3, you make it easier for 1 party control.

So...my theory from talking to my Republican friends is to remind them their party is not the same, so they should try to empower the moderate ones and not just allow the whole party to go a-muck.

It kind of depressed me for a few reasons:

1. Have we really lost the abortion debate? The answer is among likely voters, yes. The problem is that the people most likely to be affected by abortion are single women, say within the ages of 16 to 35. Obviously, they can't vote until they're 18, and then they just don't bother to vote. And I don't want to be mean here, but if they don't bother to vote and their right to choose is taken away, who is to blame? They had a Democratic Party that stood up for them; and, by the way, may have lost a few elections for those convictions. And this demographic did not vote in good enough numbers. So now they're screwed.

2. John Kerry has been unequivocally and unabashedly pro-choice his ENTIRE political life. He was for the right to choose BEFORE Roe in the 1972 congressional race. I don't care what he says about his Catholic beliefs and life beginning at conception. I KNOW that he has full sympathy for women who are faced with this horrible choice, and would NEVER take those rights away to score a few political points. After all, he has two daughters. If this is the way Democrats want to go then he is finished in the national arena. If he attempted to move to the middle, that would be the ultimate case of "flip flop". His only option is to talk about it differently, but still have the same position. Will that work?

3. Is chucking abortion rights out the window worth it so that we can solve the infinite problems the Republicans have created in this country? My head says yes, my heart says HELL NO. I'm getting emotional just typing this, because all I can think of are those women across the country (and I have 2 little girls), and I don't want to wake up in a country that is the equivalent to Iran or Afghanistan as far as women's rights go.

4. I had NO idea of how pro-life Casey was. Jesus, he's against stem cell research. He is merely a lesser evil to Santorum. That's it. He looks at me as a woman, and doesn't see a real person, but only a vessel to create babies.

5. I believe in a big tent Democratic Party. No one should be turned away who agrees with us on MOST issues but just has a problem with abortion. But I feel less and less safe if I can't even express my views on abortion with fellow Democrats.

Maybe I am a "Merlot Democrat" like Rush characterized Dean. I'm willing to talk about different options in areas of the economy and foreign policy. But I am hopelessly liberal on the social issues. I am for gay marriage, abortion rights, and the more gun control to me, the better. What the Democrats are going to do with a person like me, I don't know.

The problem with the abortion debate isn't that the Democrats are pro-choice. It's that they have been cast as pro-abortion. (Which was Sen. Kerry's larger point at that NARAL event last December. And I give Kerry major credit for going right to NARAL and voicing his opinion on this.) No one is pro-abortion. Everyone I know who has ever had an abortion rather wishes they had never been put in that position. This is a wrenching emotional issue. The emotion is what resonates. It's what makes this issue so powerful. But we don't speak about it that way. We speak about it as an absolute and it's not working. (I know that most Americans are moderately to fully pro-choice. Then why are we hammered with this? What is wrong with out defense plan?)

I know Sen. Kerry is pro-choice and has a 100% lifetime NARAL rating. It's one of the reasons I voted for him. (All through the years.) But we also have to hear the stories about why abortion is necessary. The Democrats almost treat this as a theoretical discussion about legalisms. We HAVE to personalize this discussion. We have to have a full discussion about this issue. Casey, in that odd way that only exists in politics, provides an opening. The Dems are not averse to the discussion anymore. We are not absolutes. We are willing to at least discuss the topic and all the wrenching emotions that go with it. (I believe that pro-choice wins this argument.) IT's not about me and my beliefs, it's about trying to get this wedge issue out of the hands of the Rethugs and stop them from portraying the Dems as rigid and under the ruthless control of interest groups. (This is probably an unfair characterization and vaguely insulting to boot. Life and politics, however, are unfair.)

I found a lot of 'wiggle room' for Casey in that stem-cell position. (Ah wiggle room. Everyone hates wiggle room because it sounds like people are not saying what they mean. Not really. It's just a feature that comes with 'homo-politicanus.' People have to hedge their bets sometimes.)

I have no problem with the language (and I did really like Hillary Clinton's speech last December, about the "tragic" choice). But I don't want this translating into ceding away women's rights.

I am with you on the interest groups. I used to give the national Planned Parenthood a donation. But after the election I was so angry at them and their "clumsy diplomacy" that I wrote them that I wouldn't give them any more money. Now I give to the local Planned Parenthood which is less political and more a service provider for the region.

I hope you didn't get the impression that I was putting Kerry down. I 100% trust him on this issue. But I fear that he has been badly labelled and won't be able to recover. Once again, I hope that I am wrong.

the frame of "pro-life, pro-choice" because clearly that statement in itself is inflamatory.

I say, we MUST take back the words. We are PRO-TAKING CARE OF LIFE after birth, they are pro-fetus but tossing the lives to the gutters after birth.

What do you think?

But I guess in many ways that would make me a single issue voter. Maybe I am just selfish but I can't see supporting anyone who doesn't respect my rights, and if we have elect a lot of Dems who don't recognize my rights, what good does that do me , as a person? I wonder what some would say if this were a race issue and it were about denying African Americans Civil Rights? Would the same people say that electing anti civil rights Dems was okay ? As long as we get them elected?
I believe that there are more pro choice voters than not and it is only those crossovers that we have to worry about. They don't have anyone to vote for and we should be offering them a choice.What kind of choice is Casey offering pro choice women? They have a choice between nothing and nothing. In that case those repugs might just as well vote repug! Why go out on a limb for nothing? That is also the choice of the Dems. They will end up voting for Casey because they don't have a choice.
And as far as the "pro abortion" argument goes, the POV that no one is "pro abortion" and everyone thinks of abortion as this big tragedy is not necessarily true.I know many women for whom is was a "medical procedure". It is also a difficult decision to have a hysterectomy.We place way too much emphasis in recognizing a "guilt factor". This only reinforces the RW view that this is murder and defeats our own argument. I agree that "pro abortion " might not be the best choice of semantics but when it salvages the life of an unwilling mother, who would otherwise be subjected to a lifetime of misery, I can say I am "pro abortion."
Anyway, I just don't see how pro-life" Dems are a benefit to women in any way. Sorry, but I could never bring myself to vote for one. I would probably vote for a pro choice Repuke instead. I feel that strongly about it.

If the people who vote (as opposed to all Americans) are more pro-life or at least for restrictions on abortion, then can I really blame the Democrats if they move to the right on this issue? They've been losing and losing for years. Where are the young single female voters? It is their fault, in part.

I don't know. Maybe we need to follow the conservative model going back to the Goldwater days. They created a movement and think tanks and right wing media all trumpeting their values. And after a while their talking points gained traction with a sizable amount of the electorate, so that the Republican party could move to the right. If we want the Democrats to stay where they are or even move a little to the left, there first needs to be people who are NOT Democratic cheerleaders but instead liberal or progressive idealists who plug their ideas first. Principle over party, if you will. Right now this is all breaking down for the Republican party because * has betrayed many of the conservative values held dear, but let's face it. They've had enormous success. They did it in the following order:

1. Ideas
2. Come up with good talking points
3. Market those talking points on a right wing medium, while attacking the MSM as being too "liberal"
4. Sell it to candidates running in the Republican party
5. Win elections

But we Democrats are so impatient -- we want to win NOW. And it seems to me that we're going to continue to be labeled "doesn't believe in anything" if we continue to cater to these voters without TRYING to better explain why we believe what we believe. On the other hand, being TOO purist is also stupid, because no candidate is going to be perfect. I actually did vote for a pro-life candidate for lt. governor in the Dem. primary. He lost, and the liberal won. She lost in the general (although she did surprisingly well) against a rabid right winger. The pro-life Dem guy I voted for was no way as bad as the wingnut who was ultimately elected. As much as I am pro-choice, when it comes to the voting booth, I do try to think strategically. But I tell you it was a tough vote.

As I have said before, the media and now Democrats are succumbing to the pro-life propaganda that a 1 day old fetus is a person and to end the pregnancy is murder. This simply is not true in my view. I don't agree with Kerry's Catholic belief that "life begins at conception" (you may be interested to know that the Catholic Church used to say that the life began a little later -- what did God send the pope a memo on this or what?). I think that a first trimester abortion is not immoral. I am probably more concerned with prenatal testing or other genetic testing that leads people to abort later in the pregnancy (I ended up declining those tests because I didn't want to be faced with such a choice). My one exception to that is if the baby will surely die after birth. But even then, it's not abortion. They simply trigger labor, the mother has the baby and the parents can say goodbye. Once again, this is LATER in the pregnancy. But first trimester abortion is for me another form of birth control, albeit a very bad form, that we should reduce the rate of by working on sex education. Of course, the wingnuts are against that, too, which tells you that they're really against sex other than for procreation. And THAT is what it is mostly about.

to begin with. It split 'us' up while they became more cohesive and agreed to let the other have their own way.

Nope...I think it's time to split them up! Make the business people chose Dems because business (small especially) thrive under democratic leadership and let the extreme religious fundies on the Republican end have their own small unit. Move everyone else over to the side of jobs, economy, fiscal responsibilty, privacy, responsible government and a government that stays the heck out of peoples' personal lives.

It's an excerpt:

(snip) These are steps backwards in womens rights in the US. Mom's been telling me forever that she HOPED the more moderate Supreme Court justices would be able to hold onto health and office until Bush is gone, and here we've already lost two justices. The John Roberts nomination kind of slipped past me, i knew he was worrysome, but i hoped not THAT worrysome(alas, my hope was not enough).... but future "Justice Alito"? The man scares me! I don't know what his deal is, but if one reads even LITTLE bits of his legal writings, he treats women like KIDS! If we want an
abortion, we HAVE to talk to our husbands first or face criminal charges for destroying HIS child!!! Does it matter if we would have talked to our husband WITHOUT state intervention? Does it matter if our husband happens to beat us? NOOOOO, what matters to Alito is a husbands interest in his child, and a womans incapability to know the TRUTH of her economic or social situation, if it permits a child, and incapability to judge her own welfare. Thats why she HAS a husband! So she wont have to or be allowed to use her intelligence! And what about OTHER decisions about a womans body that might affect her husband? Should she be required to inform her husband before taking headache medication? Or vitamins? Or smoking or drinking? Why not just lock her in the house and let her husband get everything he feels is healthy for her and his child?
And dont even get me started on Roberts views on "market value". He criticized law guaranteeing women equal pay as men, saying that "market value" should be used to determine wages, sinse "women are prone to take long absenses from teh workplace, and do not have the seniority or market worth as men" Sounds like lovely incentive to keep women IN the marketplace, especially with SUCH fair hiring practices already in place. Last year i got worried, reading a newsweek magazine that said htat at MANY interveiws for GOOD jobs, women are asked about their relationship status, answering "i dont want to discuss it, and you are not legally allowed to ASK that" will lose them the job, as will the presence of a SERIOUS RELATIONSHIP or MARRAIGE in her answer, justification being that she'll never be in to work because they'll continually be on maternity leave, or whatever is left of it in todays antiworker economy... Now isnt THAT nice?!

This Casey guy running for the Senate is the SON of the Casey in that case that Alito ruled on. Casey's Dad was governor of PA and WROTE that law including spousal notification.

I hate to say it, but Santorum's strategy should be one thing and one thing only -- suppress the pro-choice vote. Encourage them to stay home. Because this Casey guy isn't mildly pro-life. He's BIG TIME pro-life. No matter what assurances he's giving I don't trust him on this issue. But I suppose if I lived in PA, I would try to garner all of my hatred I could muster of Santorum to make myself vote for Casey (who, by the way, is great on other issues).

Saracrat -- so you would vote for Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island? Because that's the scenario in 2006. He is pro-choice (and endorsed by NARAL) and his Dem opponent is pro-life. I don't know. I think it's all about strategy. Would you really sacrifice a potential Democratic majority in the Senate just for that issue? I probably would just hold my nose and vote for the Dem, hoping for the best.

what it would be doing, what good would it be to have a Dem majority in the Senate? If they didn't have the votes to protect me? Casey and these other Dem wingnuts don't represent me. I feel my rights are non negotiable. My ancestors didn't march in the streets and suffer feeding tubes down their throats , in order for me to give up my rights as a simple strategy to elect someone who will NOT vote to my benefit. I think not. The more anti-choice senators we aquire, from either party, the more votes they have to defeat us and the Democratic majority would be meaningless.
This is a basic human right we are playing with.if we are willing to treat human dignity so cheaply , we would have to ask what other rights are negotiable.

Because if I only allowed myself to vote for pro-choice candidates here in Virginia, I would have to stay home most elections.

And I agree with you. Pro-life means anti-woman. You are dealing with which entity's rights triumph. Pro-lifers say the fetus. Pro-choicers say the woman. And if you're a man it's EASY to be pro-life, I guess, since it's not your rights being trampled.

And I have seen during the last cycle all the moderate Repugs voted out of office. The GOP were high jacked by the right wing nuts. Mostly because many of the "real repugs" don't vote in the local primaries. Many of these people will now be fighting back and trying to regain their offices during this cycle. BTW, I got to know your current Governor, Warner, during a visit he made to Phoenix, and we had quite a talk on reproductive rights and while he said he was "concerned with late term abortions" he said he supported a woman's right to choose. I pointed out that late term abortions were rare and almost never a cavalier choice.He said he had had others talk to him about this and trying to educate himself. He definitely considers himself pro choice. And he seems to have an open mind. He and my husband really got along as my husband was involved in the development of Nextel.Mark is our Governor Janet Napolitano's favorite "governor friend ". I expect to see him again at the DNC Convention in December.

Gov. Warner because you thought you wouldn't like him. I like him very much, which is why I don't get upset about the '08 threads about him. He isn't my first choice for prez, but he actually is up there for me, other than the fact that he has next to no foreign policy experience. Glad to hear that he is pro-choice.

Anyway, I'm still trying to catch some of Tay Tay's spirit at the beginning of this thread. Once again, if it's about language and how things are framed, maybe I don't mind. But as far as action goes, this is a right that is not optional to me.

we do it, and I still think we should take a crack at reframing "them" more than ourselves!