The debate tonight was not exactly a well-oiled machine. Though it had not been noted in any of the media I saw or heard about it, the debate was put on by the Reagan Wing, a very conservative group that is actively hostile to Chris Vance (and, in the intrests of full disclosure, isn't crazy about yours truly). This made for some very interesting occurences. The event was a unique picture of the condition of the Washington State Republican Party behind the scenes, though how accurately the debate itself actually portrayed the party as a whole remains to be seen.
Read on for all the messy details
The debate didn’t coalesce quite the way it was expected to. The evening itself was not originally planned as a debate, and some people were unaware that a debate was happening at all. The original plan was for it to be a reception, a time for members of the executive committee to meet each other and the candidates. As such, the debate itself started very slowly. Rose Strong and Vance were each hosting their own event, and Sharon Bumala had dropped outof the race yesterday, endorsing Mark Hulst.
Vance was never, I think, terribly excited about attending a debate that was hosted by an organization that loathes him and has specifically called for him to not be reelected, and moderated by Doug Parris, the head of that organization and someone who sincerely and deeply dislikes Vance. Once Vance did appear, it became clear that such hesitation was very logical. Once Vance entered the room, Parris immediately devolved the debate into a rehashing of old grudges, and that was, unfortunately, the MO for much of the “debate.” At one point, over half the room, furious, threatened to walk out unless Parris would sit down and allow the candidates to speak. Good discussion of what the party needs to do to win elections did happen, but such discussion was continually giving way to people airing their complaints (some valid, some not) about various things Vance had done, from things he had said to the press, to the way funds are dispersed to legislative candidates.
The real interaction, though, should not get lost in the mess. The first real question asked each candidate for specific things they would do to grow the party. Vance’s answer boiled down to winning the revote, finding a good senatorial candidate, and finding good candidates for Congress and the legislature. Hulst’s main answer, and his message throughout the night was that Republicans need to have a “clear, concise message,” referencing the “Contract with Washington” from 1994 as a good example. He also described the need to recruit a good farm team at the lowest levels that can be eventually brought up to the higher levels. Strong’s points were candidate recruitment–specifically, institing a candidate recruitment chair in each county–voter registration–noting that Republicans in Washington had a very low level of new registrations–expanding the party–specifically into minority groups and neighborhoods–and forming a clear Republican message. She also pointed out that we will need more “black faces in King County” if we are going to be able to clean up the voter rolls there.
A question that was continually asked, mainly by members of the Reagan Wing, was about the “11th Commandment,” an agreement that has to be signed by Republican candidates to recieve party support, pledging to play nice with the other candidates. This has been a bone of contention mainly in the Reed Davis fiasco last year, but also in several other local races. Eventually, some good thoughts came out of it, when members of the Reagan Wing stopped accusing Vance of being a dictator. Vance admitted that there were problems with the rule, but said that the executive board could not agree on something to replace it. Strong took the opportunity to endorse the idea of contested Republican primaries (something Republicans here have been deeply afraid of since the Ellen Craswell fiasco eight years ago) arguing that they provide an opportunity to grow the party, as multiple candidates reach out to communities they have relationships with, and then ask those communities to support whatever candidate wins. Hulst said that anything in the public record should be on the table, and that the State party should keep its nose out of county races.
Vance eventually left to go back the the reception he was hosting, leaving Strong and Hulst to describe what they think should be done in consistently Democrat areas. They all pointed out that there needs to be a balance between spending money on candidates that can win, and preventing Democrats from walking away with any areas, sending money to competitive races. Hulst emphasized that the best way to win in heavily Democrat areas is to build a “farm team,” by having Republicans run for low level and nonpartisan offices, earning the trust of the electorate, before running for higher office. Strong said that the best way to win in heavily blue areas is to build relationships with community groups, and to run candidates from within those communities, and throwing full support behind them, demonstrating that the Republican Party truly does care about groups we are purported not to care about.
There might have been more good things to come out of the debate, except that it was designed by the Reagan Wing to be a “get Chris Vance” event. They did not appear to have planned much beyond that, and it is a shame. Hopefully, in the future a mechanism can be developed by the Party itselfso that when there is a certain level of undecided voters, these debates can happen in a more structured and neutral setting.
Cross posted at The Flag of the World, with analysis and pictures.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at January 28, 2005 11:45 PM | Email ThisUntil the WA state Republican party starts to act and work toward a common goal with a unified voice, they'll never root out the fortified strongholds that the Dems hold.
Posted by: BOrange on January 29, 2005 12:42 AMInteresting. I wish I knew more.
However, what I have read over the years is that republican political candidates have to sign the "pledge of life" contract which states that you must oppose abortion in every circumstance including rape and incest. Isn't this still a requirement before one can receive republican party support?
The central problem of the republicans seems to be that the religious right dictates the candidates such as Craswell and Carlson while the republican moderates who could win a state wide election are snuffed out.
It just seems to me that the republicans could have easily taken the governor's seat in 1992 against Mike Lowry (look at that guy will ya) with a Dan Evans candidate without breaking a sweat. Instead they sent in Ken Eikenberry.
The democrats have prospered by the self hobbling of the republicans : the religious right can have their candidate prevail in the primary but not in the general. Did anyone address this at the debate?
Posted by: Erik on January 29, 2005 01:23 AMI doubt such a pledge exists. Where do you come UP with this stuff???
Posted by: Michele S on January 29, 2005 01:38 AMhttp://thereaganwing.com/
They seem to dislike Vance because of Vance's ban on candidates discussing 1) property rights, 2) right to life and 3) business regulation.
Yes, I understand they are mad because of the losses in the legislature. However, in the state wide races Vance had Rossi avoid the issue of abortion completely and look very mainstream. I think he deserves some credit for this.
Vance also won the AG spot and nearly won the governor's seat. Vance did this when Kerry won Washington by 7 percent and Murray won by 11 percent. Can't fault Vance/Rossi here.
Like it or not, Vance is trying to avoid the another 20 years of failed Craswell and Carlson candidates. I guess the contrary argument is hes getting to moderate.
Here:
Pledge of Life
Well said.....very well said. Outside the Gov race, can't the GOP unify and kick some donkey? That would be a GREAT common goal.
Posted by: MB on January 29, 2005 06:03 AMThe central problem of the republicans seems to be that the religious right dictates the candidates such as Craswell and Carlson while the republican moderates who could win a state wide election are snuffed out.
Exactly, what ever happened to the true conservatives who embrace fiscal restraint and limited government but do not seek to legislate morality?
Posted by: Alan in Las Vegas on January 29, 2005 07:23 AMI read the Pledge for Life link you posted. It is a VOTER's pledge to support "pro-life" candidates. Interestingly, it is very UN-specific about what "pro-life" means. Nothing there about "opposing abortion in every circumstance," for example.
Posted by: Patrick on January 29, 2005 08:11 AMWe still exist. But I say that based on MY understanding of the term "legislate morality", an understanding that may not be yours. For example, I think it is an abuse of state power to prohibit abortion before the fetus is viable (because I don't believe that a Zygote should be a constitutionally or ethically protected life, any more that a skin cell or a cancer cell), but that it is within the state's power (and is, in fact, required, ethically, to limit abortion after the fetus is viable to only those cases where the mother's life (not mental health) is in danger. If this amounts to "legislating morality" in your view, and you believe it is improper, then I guess I'm not a "true conservative" in your view). But the real question is - where are the Republican candidates who can or will discuss the issue without parroting the Catholic position, or simply bashing Row v. Wade?
Erik -
Huh? You did produce The Pledge, a nice bit of propaganda from a pro-life PAC. But they don't even define what they mean when they say to "pledge to vote for life". Does it mean vote for candidates who believe abortion should be outlawed in all cases from conception on? Or some variation on the theme of Roe? The web site doesn't say (well, I can't find it). You have no basis for assuming it means "you must oppose abortion in every circumstance including rape and incest."
But more importantly, where is it said that a Republican candidate must sign this pledge in order to receive party support?
Posted by: srogers on January 29, 2005 08:17 AMWith the Governor's Seat is in the middle of a court contest and a possible revote in the works, is this really the time for the Republicans to start snipeing at each other? We are starting to sound a lot like the Democratic party. I believe that is the main reason that they lost so many races US wide.
Posted by: Gil on January 29, 2005 08:33 AMCandidates who are not a member of either of those parties stand a snowballs chance to get elected. The only candidates that get to run are those that are willing to be controlled by a political party.
What the people wind up with is not a government representing them, but one that represents a very small group of people.
If you will remember during the whole recount debacle Gregoire was pretty much silent. The Democrat party did all the talking.
I can think of several people that would make a good govenor. Some are D's some are R's. Problem is that they are independent thinkers. Neither party would back them. Without that party money you can't get elected.
Posted by: Vince Callaway on January 29, 2005 08:39 AMErik - Patrick is right. Don't confuse an interest group pledge with a party requirement. While Republicans commonly fill out questionaires for pro-life groups, as Democrats do for pro-choice groups, the only thing a candidate has to sign for the party is usually the 11th commandment if there is a competitive primary.
Mark - please tell me you're being sarcastic about Reed Davis. I can understand the debate about letting the guy speak at the convention but the last thing Reed Davis is is a good candidate. He's a nice guy but all ideas, with no performance or personal skills to back it up, as his record as King County chair showed.
Posted by: Eric on January 29, 2005 08:47 AMLook at the last election as an example. Who did the Republican Party offer the electorate as an Alternative to "Bagdad Bob"?
I listened to one of the debates that they had and, frankly, I was embarrassed for the Republican party. I was seriously asking myself if I could have voted for the Republican choice!
There was no talk of reforming Washington state from Chris Vance beginning at the local level. I do not believe the Republican party will amount to much of anything without starting there. Chris Vance seems to be focused on the National Level.
We seriously run the risk of becoming another California if we allow the Democrats to dominate the state and local governments. Look at the state of the California electoral process. I would bet anyone that their election system is now so corrupted that the republican party there would have little chance of gaining momentum.
Look at Washington state today and tell me that the Democrats hear have not begun to take us down the same road.
Fortunately, we have been given a chance to correct this with the fiasco that was the Governors Race.
Unfortunately, we still have republicans like Sam Reed that want to continue to "get along" with democrates. Meanwhile, the system is being changed to reduce the chances of any legitimate conservative movement getting any traction in the future.
The Republican Party in Washington State better wake up before it's too late.
Posted by: jaybo on January 29, 2005 09:01 AMThat said, I did not call you an extremist or say that your views are Catholic propaganda. I respect your religion and your views, and I think you should vote for candidates that hold those views whenecer you find them.
What I said was that the "Pledge" Erik posted was propaganda from a pro-life PAC. Propagandizing is what PACs do. That doesn't make your personal beliefs "propaganda;" at least not to me.
But, I also think that an argument calling for the government to ban all abortions, period, (if that is your goal), can be justified only by a religious belief that a fertilized egg is something sacred, a change that comes about through God. If the government were to do that, it would be imposing a religious doctrine on a majority of citizens who do not believe in it. If Republicans take that position, then I don't thinksthey will neve achieve the political power necessary to roll back the socia1ism that has become accepted over the last 60 years, to reduce entitlement spending, to balance budgets, to empower parents rather than the state to guide the education of their children, to maintain infrastructure, to combat rabid environmentalists, to encourage economic development here and abroad, to lower taxes or even eliminate the income tax in favor of a consumption tax that cannot be manipulated by congress to shape society according to its socia1ist agenda, . . . should I go on? A lot of good will never happen if Republicans insist on alienating reasonable people over personal privacy issues like gay rights and regulated access to an abortion in the first trimester.
Posted by: srogers on January 29, 2005 09:12 AMThese privacy issue which you list are social issues which have serious ramifications on the stability of the family and thus the state.
As I said before, the Republican are unrecognizable to me. The Revote effort has re-engaged me yet if srogers is in the majority, my interest will only last until Gregoire is removed.
Posted by: Elena Bresee on January 29, 2005 09:49 AMRegarding this event: On the one hand, I think that this sort of lively debate is what democracy is all about. It's best to let people air their views. The last think the Republicans want to do is get into the politically correct self-sensure that the Democrats try to impose on all Americans. I believe that this ugly aspect of the Democrats is exactly the reason they are loosing so many races.
But, having said that, I would hope the state Republican party can agree on some basic things that are required to win elections. I do not think that a candidate needs to be pro-abortion, but anyone that is overtly anti-abortion and starts quoting the bible to support her position, is just not going to win.
The other issues, such as business regulation and property rights, are big issues. Enough people have encountered bureaucracy to not want to have to deal with it. And, if it's explained right, I think most people can empathize with the rural areas of King County, where people are really getting screwed. I don't think that the King County Council or Seattle City Council really represents the view of the average person in these areas. Most people just are not that extreme. You can see it in the fact that King County regularly votes down taxes. They obviously have a sense of their own property.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 09:56 AMInfanticide is a legal term - look it up in the RCW. I assure you that there must first be an infant, not a zygote, before there can be infanticide.
I take back what I said - I'm losing respect for you. You don't seem to have a grasp of science or western history, yet you are sure government policy should be based on what you think is "Natural Law", and if I don't agree, I'm a barbarian.
From what I know of him, Dino wouldn't agree with me, but I don't beleive he would try to impose your view on me either. The Republican party is big enough for him and me - a "big tent", as Reagan liked to say. But I guess it isn't big enough for you. Enjoy life on the fringe!
Posted by: srogers on January 29, 2005 10:14 AMAs for the Reagan Wing, it's frustrating. I'm "no compromise" in my faith, but only someone that likes to lose would never compromise in their politics.
I don't mean flip-flop or change your beliefs, I mean: stand up for what you believe in, but not to the exclusion of getting it done. Share your core beliefs, but be willing to work with those who don't share them.
The Reagan Wing seems to forget the important distinction between opposition and mere rivalry. Allies can disagree and vie for the same position, that doesn't make them enemies. Allies can do things you disagree with. The RW has an all-or-nothing approach that's very alienating....
I think Vance's biggest weakness is his willingness to "write-off" certain commmunity segments, positions and seats. There's probably more to the story but that auditor thing is a huge bruise to our credibility, and I think there are better candidates out there that need guidance to get into a campaign.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 29, 2005 10:16 AMFortunately, like most democrats in their 20's, I never voted... :-) Nice how that works aye?
Then came my run in with family court and I saw half of my possessions get assigned to a gold digger. Then I heard what happens to fathers via our judicial system. The GOP is very weak on family, they get duped into fighting femi-nazi's on abortion when they should be trying to win over screwed over men who are forced to finance a woman's choice to be a single mom- for every broken family out there, the government is screwing over some guy who had sex once and was denied every choice beyond that night. That guy also has a mother and probably a sister who have seen him go through hell at the hands of DSHS. This is not a small demographic. See how that works?
I hear you Andy.
I do think that the various "bad" groups as defined by the Democratic totalitarians are starting to wake up to what has been done to them.
Chief among these groups are men and fathers.
I would like to see Republicans take up the cause of men and fathers a little more strongly. However, it is a minefield, because the feminist victim cult is very good at drumming up hysteria to paint any reasonable comment in favor of fathers as mysogony.
You're right that Republicans get too caught up in the abortion fight and loose sight of the enormous opportunity represented by the extreme attack on men and fathers that was innitiated during the Clinton administration.
This is also an opportunity to bring in more minorities. When the government goes on the attack, as it has on men for the past 10 to 12 years, it usually hits hardest on minorities, especially blacks and hispanics. In fact, some of the leading voices in the men's movement are black. Reaching out to them is probably the best oopportunity to bring minorities into the "big tent."
And, while it is a minefield, I believe that Republicans can present themselves as the party of "balance" on these issues, which for most part, is what men who have been put through the grinder of anti-male and father policies are looking for.
It is a growing issue, and if the Republicans don't take it, I think that there is a possibility that a third party will. One thing is for sure, we don't need to worry about the Democrats taking up the issue. They are owned by NOW.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 11:13 AMThe religeous fundamentalist and centerist wings of the party need to understand that their divisions harm the party.
Look at the Dems. Their party is just as divided internally between the centerists and the left and yet they are able to bite their tongues in public and sell a centerist message to the electorate.
Once elected, the left wing of the Dems gets a payback, but usually not very much and then only right after the election.
Most Washington Republican voters (not party members) are centerists. When the party runs centerist candidates it wins seats. When the party runs fundamentalist candidates it loses.
Chris Vance I believe understands this problem, but is not getting the support he needs from entrenched fundamentalists.
The fundamentalists can either learn from recent lessons (i.e. the Craswell candidacy) or they can contiue to see the Dem's in power.
Posted by: DeadWood on January 29, 2005 11:21 AMRegarding the rest of this thread, in summary, is the first Republican party principle then to defeat Democrats? It seems that the best that can be said, judging from this thread, is that Republicans are about conservative economic policy, and most other things are secondary, especially moral issues. The opinions expressed in this thread would seem to suggest that all other differences should be disregarded except this one. Why economics? I always thought it was the socialist world-view that said money/material was the driving force of history, and that conservatives centered on "righteous" ideals that were the driver of all the rest.
Posted by: Jeff on January 29, 2005 11:21 AMI hate to see the GOP fight amongst themselves. I have no problem with discourse to hash out issues, but petty fighting is pathetic. I haven't been a R for very long and it doesn't make me want to participate very deeply if this is what I have to look forward to.
Posted by: megs on January 29, 2005 11:44 AMI never said nor implied that Locke and "Natural Law" are more credible than the Bible. All I wanted to point out was that in representative government with a prohibition against establishing or promoting religion, the government cannot base public policy on religious grounds. It is impossible to believe that a fertilized egg is "human" in a manner different from other human cells unless you accept the religious dogma that says it is true. No scientific data supports any other conclusion.
I don't know for sure if human beings have souls (I think to believe they don't requires the same kind of faith that is required to believe they do), but if they do, then I believe a fetus becomes a protected human life when the soul enters at some time during its development. If not, then it becomes a protected human life when it becomes develops enough human characterstics, like tissue differentiation, reflexes, etc. But that is just my belief, its no more authoritative than yours or Elena's beliefs.
But ignorant I am not. I have seen more partially developed fetuses and ultrasounds than you ever will. I was premed in college; I am a few credits shy of a master's degree in Biochemistry, which I was working on at the same time as I was studying law. I also minored in history so I know something about western civilization. My father is pathologist, and my mother is nurse. If you want to debate me on prenatal science or the molecular biology of fetal development, bring it on.
Your argument that a cancer cell cannot develop into an embryo is simply irrelevant - if a zygote has no soul, nothing that we as humans have always wanted to protect is lost if the zygote is lost, either naturally or through the efforts of a mother an her doctor. If you believe it does have a soul, that's fine, but don't tell me its based on science, and don't tell me that that the people represented by our government have no right in that case to balance the individual rights of the mother in her favor over the single cell, just as they have the right to balance the right of the fetus against the mother's right once it does have a soul or develops sufficiently to be a protected human life.
Posted by: srogers on January 29, 2005 12:39 PMAfter reading the above, I agree with srogers. We can't bring the bible or GOD into our schools, or our goverment offices, so why should we ASK, REQUIRE, or even give a damn, what our elected official stance on a Religious and Intensely moral issue as abortion.
If GOD can't be present in the places mentioned above, then why should their(elected) opinion matter. IT IS A PERSONAL CHOICE. I do vote for the person whose integrity, and moral beliefs that are close to mine, but his opionion on such a personal matter really doesnt affect ME.
AND....I thought we elected people to do the BUSINESS of this state. I can't imagine a woman sitting at an abortion clinic, contemplating whether the person she voted for in the last election would "Think Less" of her for what she was about to do...... I doubt that is on the top of her thought list at the moment.....My goodness I am ranting....:)
I also agree, we need to get the "men" of this state involved. They have been bashed around too long....This needs to start from the ground up, in local communities and such.
Posted by: chris on January 29, 2005 01:01 PM
Germans who hid Jews in their attics were partaking of 'life on the fringe' too friend.
Given all of human history, I don't think you can necessarily tout 'being in the mainstream' or with the majority as a virtue (and incidentally, most Americans favor restrictions on abortion).
Are you a sheep?
The Spanish Inquisition was in the mainstream. So was the Reign of Terror. Hitler came to power by winning an election, doesn't get more mainstream than that. Owning slaves was certainly mainstream in the old confederacy.
Typical of those without a social conscience, you're a hateful, bigoted, ignorant, myopic closed-minded little twerp.
Conventional wisdom and common sense are often neither wise nor sensical. But you go on with your bad self and be conventional and common, I'm sure it's easier to conform than think for yourself. George Bush needs you.
"Anyway, as a result of all of this technology – looking at this baby, examining it, investigating it, watching its metabolic functions, watching it urinate, swallow, move and sleep, watching it dream, which you could see by its rapid eye movements via ultrasound, treating it, operating on it – I finally came to the conviction that this was my patient. This was a person! I was a physician, pledged to save my patients' lives, not to destroy them. So I changed my mind on the subject of abortion. There was nothing religious about it. This was purely a change of mind as a result of this fantastic technology, and the new insights and perceptions I had into the nature of the unborn child."
Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462
Sorry srogers, it appears YOU don't have a grasp on science... either that, or you are willing to ignore it completely.
At conception there is only one thing the new "zygote" needs and that is growth, for which it requires about 9 months of protection from people with your view of life so that it can safely be born. -Posted by Jeff at January 29, 2005 11:21 AM:
Embryonic Period: 14-21 days: The cardiovascular system is the first major system to function in the human embryo. Blood is circulating and the heart begins to beat at 21 or 22 days, and can be detected on ultrasound.
That's 14-21 DAYS.
A woman doesn't even KNOW shes pregnant at that point, let alone considering aborting her child. By the EARLIEST time she finally becomes aware and could consider aborting (6-7 WEEKS) there are already RECORDABLE BRAIN WAVES and the embryo bears the familiar external features and all internal organs of an adult.
Science has proven, and will continue to prove, exactly how murderous abortion is. Let's just hope the probort idealogues will uncover their eyes and ears.
I would hope that all the Pro-Lifers and Pro Abor would sit back for one minute, and realize that THIS ISNT THE ONLY ISSUE that our elected officals need to deal with. They have business to run that affects alot more lives than the number of people affected by the decision of "TO" or "NOT TO" have an abortion....
That is why the R's need to get their head out of the sand and understand. The vast majority of People who would like to vote republican would like to see a party that is unified, and not tied up in a decade(s) long battle within itself. If they would stick to the issues that relate to the Majority, they would find more support amoung the masses.
Make abortion a Personal Issue, not a Political One
Posted by: Chris on January 29, 2005 01:27 PMPerhaps the line SHOULD be drawn at one month or three weeks, and perhaps it is not practical to allow abortions if one month is too early for the mother to detect the pregnancy. I can be pursuaded with data. You can be sure that if such were the law, there would be a huge market for tests to detect pregnancy reliably within a few days of conception (if they don't exist already), and millions of people who would want access to the test often, just in case.
Which brings me to Jim's idiotic rant - I never wrote here nor have I ever argued in favor of unrestricted abortion. I am in favor of strict limits on abortion, even if it ultimately means the kind of limits I just described above. However, I will not agrue in favor of legislation based solely on religious beliefs, and that is the only basis I can see for a blanket prohibition agains abortion, no matter when or why.
And please go back and actually read my post to Alena - I admitted to being on the fringe myself. I do think I was a little unclear in my thinking with my parting words - if Alena has turned her back on the Republican party because it is not going far enough to outlaw abortion, then she will not find a home in the Democratic party either, or the Libertarian party, which leaves her . . . where? I can celebrate her willingness to stand up for what she believes in and still believe it is incorrect in the context of representative government.
The rest of what you said simply makes me laugh. Sticks and stones . . .
Posted by: srogers on January 29, 2005 01:33 PMAbortion was made political the moment tax dollars were used to support it.
Abortion was made political the moment Planned Parenthod and NARAL threw their support (which was willingly accepted, I might add) to certain (read: LIBERAL) candidates.
Abortion was made political the moment Planned Parenthood and NARAL were accepted as a legitimate lobbying groups.
Abortion was made political the moment they placed their "brochures" (read: PROPAGANDA) in schools and put on "information" programs in schools.
Abortion was made political the moment lawmakers and proborts attempted to remove parents from the decisions about the well being of their children.
DO NOT LECTURE OR WHINE ABOUT CONSERVATIVES MAKING ABORTION POLITICAL - WE WERE FORCED TO REACT TO THIS HEINOUS ATROCITY AND THE FACT THAT IT HAS BENN FORCE FED INTO MAIN STREAM "ACCEPTANCE.
Posted by: Cheryl on January 29, 2005 01:38 PMI am truly discouraged by comments from srogers, chris, and the like. Abortion is the "slavery" issue of our day - we can ignore it - but it won't go away - and yes - it may split the Republican party some day - as slavery split the whigs and launched the Republican party. I for one, want to speak out for the defenseless. As for "choice", I am all for choice - I know that there are many effective forms of birth control that can be "chosen" to be used if one doesn't wish to carry a child - but once a new life is concieved - that human life deserves choice also. 97% of all abortions are just "oops birth control" - nothing to do with rape, life of the mother, etc... Certainly as Republicans, and as humane humans - we can oppose "oops! birth control" and defend the defenseless. I vote Rebublican because it is the one "serious contending party" where this position is still viable. The day our party turns its back on the little ones is the day I leave this party.
Posted by: E Luebben on January 29, 2005 01:38 PMI can no longer hide behind the "it's my choice" argument as a woman. I've seen too many pictures of baby 'pieces' after being aborted...their fingers, toes, eyes, ears...all very human. It has less to do with God than it does with humanity. Seeing a fully formed human baby charred white and black from a saline abortion is too horrific. No society can sustain itself if it is willing to throw life away so casually.
I'm not against ALL abortions...but there are VERY few instances of medically necessary abortions. A coworker had one because her baby had no brain. It would not have lived for long outside the womb...but was it right to have it removed? I don't know. It was probably less painful for her and her husband to go with that option, but I'm not sure that having something be less emotionally painful is a good enough reason. But that's one of those rare instances when medical necessity would seem to dictate abortion as a viable option.
Just because you got drunk and had sex a few weeks ago and realized that you're pregnant does not make abortion a viable option. It means you should live with the consequences of your actions. Adoption is a viable option and should be more heavily promoted by organizations that are supposedly friendly to women like Planned Parenthood...which is nothing more than an abortion industry door...they've even admitted to closing clinics because it wasn't making enough money...how do they make money? Abortions.
Why aren't abortions covered on insurance? Because they are elective...medically unnecessary. We regulate all other medical procedures. You can't just walk into a hospital and say, please cut off my arm. Why? It's my choice? No ethical doctor would perform such a procedure without medical reason.
Okay...enough of that. Abortion is a hot topic, mainly because people don't know enough about it. It's not just about choice. There are a lot of choices that are taken away from us every day. I don't have the choice to drive as fast as I want without consequences. I'm not saying abortion should be illegal or totally outlawed, but it should be restricted and only used for medically necessary cases.
I will NOT support a candidate who openly and flagrantly supports late term abortions. Such a procedure is cruel, barbaric, and unacceptable for a civilized society. There is not even a religious argument for me here...if a child is inside the womb the minute before its birth, it is no less of a child than one minute after its birth. Killing it when the head is still in the womb still makes it murder in my book.
When we become so hardened that we accept such "procedures" as just, we start to look around at other non-productive members of society. If somoene is a vegetable should we kill them? What about Altzheimers (sp?) patients? Or simply very old people who don't do anything except sit in their wheelchair. Should we start killing off the severely mentally retarded??? When we get to the point that only the 'viable' and 'productive' members of society are allowed life then we become no better than Nazi Germany.
It's already starting to happen overseas...Norway? I believe. One of the European countries. They already have doctors who kill patients out of 'kindness' even without parental consent...up to the age of 12! So now a fetus apparently is okay to kill up to the post-fetal age of 12? Where does it end.
Okay, really, I'm done now.
Jim: That article you link to is amazing and led me to the horrible pictures that show actual aborted babies...most of them in pieces. Some as small as a dime but you could still see their fingers and toes. Some as large as a fully formed baby, pulled apart or burned. It was disgusting. Few things make me cry, but those pictures did the trick. It had nothing to do with religious beliefs or souls. It was strictly unhuman what was done to those babies.
I was formly pro-choice and even wrote an essay when I was as young as 6th grade. But again, it was lack of education and falling for the "choice" line.
Posted by: megs on January 29, 2005 01:46 PMThe Netherlands.
Here are two interesting sites that email me with pro-life/probort news from all over the world everyday:
http://www.lifenews.com/
http://www.lifesite.net/
What are you going to do with all the children who are BORN to:
1. Parents that dont want them
2. Can't afford them
3. Died giving birth to them
4. Or the mother who was raped,incest,or half beaten to death by her abusive boyfriend.
5 The child from the Drug using mother whose is born to an addiction that i am sure none of us on this blog have faced.
6. The teen age who "oopsed" during her first s_xual encounter
Options:
1. Adoption (Lots of people looking for babies)
2. Social Services (Welfare, but only for so long)
3. How about the fathers of these children, we need to give them jobs
4 Who is going to pay for the prenatal care.
5. Who is going to make sure they are properly cared for the REST of their lives.
6. Who is going to raise these Children and pay for the quality of live they deserve.
As cherly states, all these federal funded programs are paid for by us taxpayers, and frankly were shoved onto the Mainstream. I dont dispute that, but we cant even take care of the CHILDREN now as a society, how can we expect to take on MORE......
BTW-I dont believe in Abortion for any reason, but I won't deny another her CHOICE. This is AMERICA.
The only questions regarding abortion should be when is the fetus a human being or when does it constitute life?
If you think abortion equals the taking of life and yet you think a woman has that right, then quite simply you are a proponent of infanticide. No way around it. You are an enabler, and a knowing enabler is no less culpable than an executor. Are you comfortable with that?
If you don't believe a 'fetus' is life then you may be buying into all the propaganda of the abortion industry. I would strongly recommend examining the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence to the contrary--which by the way no one is profitting from monetarily.
Abortion IS NOT a religious issue.
As far as the moral and ethical business goes, society writes laws legislating value judgments all the time. Every law in some sense is a value judgment. Are you under the impression value judgments do not fall into the category of 'ethics and morality'?
Democracy itself is a moral precept.
People in favor of abortion rights should be honest and admit that the sexual revolution, radical feminism and eugenics take precedence over the for-profit and convenient killing of unwanted children.
Posted by: Jim on January 29, 2005 02:03 PM"Which brings me to Jim's idiotic rant - I never wrote here nor have I ever argued in favor of unrestricted abortion. I am in favor of strict limits on abortion, even if it ultimately means the kind of limits I just described above. However, I will not agrue in favor of legislation based solely on religious beliefs, and that is the only basis I can see for a blanket prohibition agains abortion, no matter when or why."
Cheryl sensibly responds:
"Abortion was made political the moment lawmakers and proborts attempted to remove parents from the decisions about the well being of their children."
One reason why I am not a democrat is their idiotic compulsion to hold a few ideas sacrosanct:
1) Abortion should be on demand, anytime, anywhere, apparently including postpartum, and paid for by us taxpayers.
2) Your money must be confiscated from you to pay for huge programs from which you will receive little benefit.
3) Any dissenting voice must be referred to as 'hate speech'.
Not an all-encompassing list, but you get the picture. In the end, the Republican Party has proven astute by steering a course through many issues which have hardline enforcers and opposers.
I think if Pro-Choice is what someone considers sacrosanct, the democratic party is where you will get a warm reception. However, be prepared to pay for all those choices.
Posted by: smegma on January 29, 2005 02:12 PMI thought you were combative and disrespectful earlier so I reacted.
Personally I am not sure where I stand on a fertilized egg.. but I know exactly where I do on a four-five week old 'zygote'.
Posted by: Jim on January 29, 2005 02:40 PMAnd yes, this thread started out to be about the debate for leadership of the party - but I think that a reasonable debate about how to deal with some of these social issues is very important.
Here's why - the majority of my friends and colleagues and their friends and associates are democrats. All of them are highly educated effective advocates for their views. Some are just shy of avowed socia1ists; these I just tolerate for social reasons, but most of them describe themselves as fiscal conservatives. They are not enthused about the democratic party, did not wholeheartedly support Clinton or Kerry; many did not vote for our pretender governor. But they almost universally say they won't vote Republican because of the party's position on gay rights and their perception that if Republicans have their way, all abortions, regardless of when or why, will be made illegal. I think that the Republican party could reach these people and millions like them if it would support very restricted abortion rights and state emphatically that the government is simply not interested in what people do in their homes or bedrooms (provided they do not hurt anyone). I think this is a path to a solid political majority that would enable the party to bring about a lot of change for the better. It would also help take us back to the kind of country we were when Reagan carried the banner for the Republicans - a lot more tolerant and a whole lot less divided.
Posted by: srogers on January 29, 2005 02:42 PMHave you ever lost a child prior to it's birth? Do you know what that feels like????? Do you know what they CALL IT!!!!
Have you ever been pregnant (of course not you are a male)and lost that child. Do you know what, you don'thave a clue what it feels like when that tiny body is expelled from your body. Do you know what they call it medically???? Spontaneous Abortion.... Kinda cruel word for someone who wanted the baby....But then I was just the Birther, I didnt have any right to my child, society held all the rights.
Don't you dare call me an executionist....Your beliefs are yours....
Your theory is that a birther give life to a "being", and the birther has no other responsiblity to that "being". That Society has that responsibilty. Don't you wish that we lived in a Perfect Society.... Are the Political parties prepared to be responsible financialy for all those "beings" when the birther turns it's back, or dies birthing. I am sick of hearing we need to protect the rights of an unborn child, when in most cases, that child (if unwanted) would have chose not to have been born, after it was raised in our "Society" where it really has no place to call "home"..... When we get real profient at taking care of our "own" then I say lets stop all abortions, but until then, let's take of what we have first.
Cheryl you are right, Abortion was made political years ago....
But the republican's need to find a balance within the party and not rely so heavly on the abortion issue. Put it on the shelf, but dont make it the first book to pull out. Find other issues that the "whole" can identify with, and go from there.
Posted by: Chris on January 29, 2005 02:47 PMThere is no such thing as a four week old zygote.
Posted by: srogers on January 29, 2005 03:04 PMThere is substantial middle ground.
Although my own personal opinion is more "extreme" than the middle ground position, I would be happy to see the Republicans support those 70-plus percent of Americans in the middle.
Posted by: Boonie on January 29, 2005 03:04 PMI hear the term 'zygote' thrown around a lot by the choice side. I should have known better than to take anything they say as terminologically precise.
You and Megs actually articulated further above what I think a lot of us in the anti-abortion movement think.
I personally do not believe conception or fertilization necessarily equates to the invoilable properties of a developing embryo. But where the embryo does exhibit dictictly human characteristics, I don't know how anyone can conscientiously argue that it is not a biological entity worthy of protection under the law and constitution.
This 'viability outside the womb' crap was always a bunch of ungrounded secular-humanist mumbo-jumbo.
Chris -
I'm sorry for your loss and heartbreak.
With all due respect my position is not what you stated. I believe a child belongs to both the mother (and father) and the society--though nowhere near to the degree liberals seem to think as evidenced by their Castro-like education policies. Consequently I'm a little more liberal on fiscal issues than most of my socially conservative brethren. In fact I do support some aspects of a welfare state--like paid maternity leave--as a safety net for the contigencies you bring up.
Posted by: Jim on January 29, 2005 03:48 PMI re-read your post. I may re-read it a few more times, it is so well put.
Let me echo Cheryl; Kudos, so poignant...
Posted by: smegma on January 29, 2005 05:30 PMBy the way, who won the race for state party chair? I would assume they have decided it by now.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 29, 2005 05:32 PMI have an idea - How about if you moderates do the compromising this time and surrender to the fact that if YOU want to have a part in winning elections, YOU will have to compromise?
The simple fact is that abortion is murder no matter how you slice it. All of the pseudo-intellectualism going on here is nothing but rationalization. Above Chris asked the tired old question about 'What about the unwanted children, what do we do about them.' Well, there are lots of options, but killing them shouldn't be one.
I and most pro-life people I know (I mean truly pro-life, not the almost pro-life "what about rape and incest" folks) will simply not vote for any pro-choice candidate, period. Am I a single issue voter? While there are no single issues that will give a candidate my vote, there are issues that will cost him my vote, abortion being one. I will no more vote for a candidate that is for the killing of unborn children than I will a candidate who believes in fraud.
So, how about it srogers, YOU join US.
Posted by: Jeff on January 29, 2005 06:29 PMOn the contrary, srogers, no matter how many times you use misdirecting phrases like "mass of several hundred cells floating in a woman's fallopian tube," it doesn't change its genetic, and uniquely human identity. You, my friend are yourself a mass of so many cells floating in an environment in which it is illegal to kill you.
The arguments I, and other pro-lifers in this comment thread and elsewhere have put forward are absolutely rational and reflective of common sense. It seems to me that all you've had to offer is creative word-smithing to create a false impression, and evading any logical reasoning in your position.
And the taking of innocent life should always be punishable by law.
Again I ask, will you be willing to compromise your position to that of your party's base?
You say "It seems to me that all [I've] had to offer is creative word-smithing to create a false impression, and evading any logical reasoning in your position."
I offer no false argument. I understand what you are saying, but it requires a leap of Faith to assign greater significance to a zygote, or a blastocyst, or even the emplanted blastocyst before it differentiates sufficiently to form human characteristics, than any other ordered and functioning structure of human cells (your gall bladder, for example). You are free to make that leap of Faith, but I do not believe the government should base public policy on that or any other leap of Faith.
I am not arguing for unrestricted abortion. I am simply saying that it you take the extreme position that says that a "child" exists from the moment of conception, and to do anything to interfere with it at that time is the same as murder, then you are taking a view that is not the "base" of the republican party. Its based on emotionalism, not rationalism.
To answer your question as to whether I will "join" you, I have already stated that I vote republican so as not to throw away my vote on a libertarian candidate and effectively vote for a democrat. I will continueto do so, but I will not join you in the republican party so long as you think that fundamentalist Christians are the "base" of the party. Your sense of self-importance amazes me.
In fact, if the party were to embrace a rational view and build an abortion plank that appeals to the 70% of voters that Boonie talks about above, then a small fraction of zealots like you may in fact "leave" the party, but what are you going to do then, vote for democrats? We don't need you, but we need Boonie's 70%.
See ya, I'll be in Maui for the next two weeks.
Posted by: srogers on January 30, 2005 06:23 AMI cant help but wonder if you step out of your house without fear of making contact with a Pro-Choice'r.
Do you query the clerk's, bank tellers, and gas station attendants on their stance on abortion? And if they are not Pro-Life, discontinue business with them?
The abortion issue will not be solved on this blog, but if you choose not to VOTE for a person who is not totally Pro Life that is your business.
BUT, if the R's want to become a STRONGER POLITICAL PARTY in this State, they must recruit the 70% Bonnie talked about. It may not be your CHOICE, But for the Republican Party as a WHOLE it is the most Rational Choice if they want Success in this State.
They need to take middle ground, as I said in earlier post, I doubt that a woman who is thinking about her "choices" is really thinking about her Political Associations.
In coming days I will put a blogosphere style boot on your neck at Digital Brown Pajamas. We can move our lively discussion out of these nice folks back yard and bring the DailyKos traffic to my house.
Suffice it to say, srogers, your blastocyst argument is absolutely stupid and ignorant. Do you really mean to suggest that the "product of conception" is no different from a fat cell sucked from your butt-cheeks? There is only one type of cell, that given nothing but time, protection, and nutrients will be born with the potential to make week rationalizations like yours, and that is the hated zygote. Your analogy is cliche and stupid and illogical, not necessarily in that order.
The thugs are coming.
Posted by: Jeff on January 30, 2005 10:07 AMhttp://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA013005.3H.brycecomment.4dafc5b2.html
The most salient points?
"How does one know if an unborn child is a baby or a fetus?"
"The question was highlighted by a gruesome crime that took place last month in Missouri. Authorities have charged Lisa Montgomery with strangling Bobbie Jo Stinnett, who was eight months pregnant."
"Montgomery, however, did more. According to one Associated Press report, she's also accused of "cutting out the fetus and taking the baby." "
"Ponder that feat of linguistic gymnastics. Was Stinnett pregnant with one child — the fetus — and Montgomery took another child — the baby? Or was there only one child involved and some transformative event occurred in the instant between being cut out and taken?"
"The answer, of course, is neither. There was only one child, but no transformative event. The child, a girl, was as much a baby before she was cut from her mother's womb as after. Miraculously, she survived and eventually was reunited with her father."
"People who are framing ultrasound photos of their unborn children will not succumb to the notion that their lives are a matter of "choice."
"A child ripped from its mother's womb at eight months cannot be a victim while the same child crushed in a surgical procedure is not. The act of being "wanted" does not confer life."
"Parents keeping vigils in neo-natal intensive care units will not accept that at 26 weeks of gestation a child is not "viable.""
Does he have a vision? Can he raise money? Can he find/develop qualified candidates?
It is on these questions alone that this issue should have been decided. Unfortunately for Chris, the answers are no, no, and no.
Let's remember, Chris became Party Chair after an utterly abysmal showing against Adam Smith in 2000. The Party was in turmoil, publicly illustrated by another abysmal and recently failed congressional candidate who couldn't win the primary even though she had raised, by far, the most money of any of the Republican candidates.
The candidates were Chris Vance; Don Benton, who had raised a stunning amount of money, and John Koster, who had come fairly close to taking the WA-2. Oh yeah, let's not forget the worst possible choice for Chair, Reed Davis.
Reed Davis was eliminated in the first vote, having garnered the total of, ahem, 3 votes out of 78, the multiple editorials of the Seattle Times endorsing him for Party chair having been the kiss of death.
You see, both Davis and Vance supporters seem incapable of apparently understanding that candidates need to be judged by what they do far more than by what they say.
Davis had been at the helm of the King County GOP for 8 years, which had become, under his "skilled" leadership, a total train wreck. As Party chair, he would have brought the same talents that have turned King County into a 150,000 vote-plus Democrat strong hold. Davis turned off voters by the thousands in his very public and inexcusable clash with the Party with his whiney demands to get rid of our primary system, cherished by the vast majority of voters across the state... going so far as to publicly demand that the state GOP either join the suit filed by the democrats or that he, Davis, would use King County funds to help the dems fund it... or join their suit with the KingCo GOP party. Idiocy. Michael Young will, if anything, do much worse.
Vance, otoh, having just got his ass caved in by Smith, (The ass-caving having consisted of Vance putting together an ASTOUNDING 34.95% of the vote against Smith and a total fundraising effort of under $400,000 against Smith) brought THOSE stellar talents to the table as Party chair.
He was, however, the darling of the Veda Jellen-Jennifer Dunn-Bellevue Mafia set, who, because Benton failed to be their lap dog, wanted him publicly and politically dead (Ever hear or see the results of the audit that was supposed to "expose" Benton's mishandling of party funds? You won't, either. I wonder why....)
Since then, what has Vance accomplished? Why, he's lost control of both Houses... done NOTHING in minority outreach.... increased the dem’s margin of victory in the presidential race…. continued his abysmal fund raising.... and accomplished zilch in the area of candidate recruitment/development. He implemented his idiotic “suburban crescent” nonsense that accomplished nothing except to make him out to look like an aspiring democrat…. Working towards keeping the party base home in droves. Have I mentioned that he’s done NOTHING in minority outreach?
But, he continues to be the darling of the people that Rossi has, quite mistakenly, I might add, surrounded himself with; those same, stellar individuals most responsible for making King County into a demo punching bag. Vance is a good little lap dog… positioned exactly and precisely where the “powers that be” want him to be and exactly where we cannot afford to have him… IF we want a Republican resurgence in this state… IF we want to turn this thing around… IF we want to do more than forfeit this state, at almost every level, to the democrats.
So, for Vance supporters, here is what you have to look forward to: Republicans will continue to lose at almost every level, but certainly at the legislative level, as long as Vance is running the show.
So, in the end, I need to remind you: be careful what you wish for… Because in this case… You’ve got it.