![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lydyHere's the deal. You can have abortions or gun control. Pick. No, don't complain to me, I didn't write the rules, and I don't like the rules, but for heavens sake, Democrats, would you _look_ at the situation? Which one is more important? Which one is going to get you more votes? Which one has a greater moral imperative? Pay Attention! One or the other, but you can't have both.
We elected a Republican governor, this time around. I miss Jesse already. So, now, four months into his administration, we have a 24 hour waiting period on abortions and a shall issue concealed carry law. We got The Deal. We got shafted.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the concealed carry law. There aren't any honest statistics that show an increase in crime after similar laws have gone into effect elsewhere in the nation. 34 states have this kind of law, now. More than half. I'm dubious about the statistics that show a drop in crime after the law's been passed, too. It doesn't look like having more citizens on the streets permitted to carry handguns is likely to make anyone less safe. I doubt it will make anyone more safe.
The ability to get a safe, confidential, prompt abortion is, in my opinion, a matter of serious public health. A 24-hour waiting period puts pressure on rural women, poor women, and women who are dealing with abusive situations. I don't expect the statistics will be much help here, either. As with the guns, both sides lie, and both sides do questionable research. As with the guns, there's a lot of good research out there, also, but it's darn hard to sort from the flummery. At this point in my life, I'm more likely to get shot than get pregnant. (Hell, I'm more likely to get killed by a terrorist than get married, which is a pretty funny statistic all by itself, but move along, move along.) If I get shot, it will almost certainly be by someone carrying a gun illegally, and probably purchased illegally. Damn shame. A carry permit more or less won't change that. If I get pregnant, though, I've got one more obstacle in my path if I decide that abortion is the right thing. An additional walk down the gauntlet with the Christers pressing bloody tracts at me, and weeping at me to "save the baby." Someone besides my doctor trying to tell me what this procedure is like, as if I'm underage and have to be made to do my homework. How many doctors will decide that this is yet one more way to be sued for malpractice and decide to stop doing abortions? Not many, but I'd guess not zero, either. In an atmosphere where access is the biggest problem women face, losing one or two can be catastrophic, depending on where they're geographically located.
So we got The Deal. Even my beloved refused to vote for the Democrat because the candidate was in favor of handgun control. My sweetie voted third party. After asking around, I think that guns was a significant (though not overwhelming) reason why enough people didn't vote for the Democratic candidate. Hell, I didn't like him, either, I understand their pain. But I really, really hate this Deal.
You can't have it all, Democrats. Choose. Trying to hold onto both is losing you too many elections, and we've run out of time. Stand up and take a stand.
Do not use the comments section for debating gnus or abortions. I've heard it all, and so has absolutely everyone else. It's boring. Talk about real politique. Talk about mutually contradictory requirements. Do not repeat the old arguments about life and death. I reserve the right of wholesale slaughter of posts that I think are unpleasant, nothing but trouble, or downright boring.
We elected a Republican governor, this time around. I miss Jesse already. So, now, four months into his administration, we have a 24 hour waiting period on abortions and a shall issue concealed carry law. We got The Deal. We got shafted.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the concealed carry law. There aren't any honest statistics that show an increase in crime after similar laws have gone into effect elsewhere in the nation. 34 states have this kind of law, now. More than half. I'm dubious about the statistics that show a drop in crime after the law's been passed, too. It doesn't look like having more citizens on the streets permitted to carry handguns is likely to make anyone less safe. I doubt it will make anyone more safe.
The ability to get a safe, confidential, prompt abortion is, in my opinion, a matter of serious public health. A 24-hour waiting period puts pressure on rural women, poor women, and women who are dealing with abusive situations. I don't expect the statistics will be much help here, either. As with the guns, both sides lie, and both sides do questionable research. As with the guns, there's a lot of good research out there, also, but it's darn hard to sort from the flummery. At this point in my life, I'm more likely to get shot than get pregnant. (Hell, I'm more likely to get killed by a terrorist than get married, which is a pretty funny statistic all by itself, but move along, move along.) If I get shot, it will almost certainly be by someone carrying a gun illegally, and probably purchased illegally. Damn shame. A carry permit more or less won't change that. If I get pregnant, though, I've got one more obstacle in my path if I decide that abortion is the right thing. An additional walk down the gauntlet with the Christers pressing bloody tracts at me, and weeping at me to "save the baby." Someone besides my doctor trying to tell me what this procedure is like, as if I'm underage and have to be made to do my homework. How many doctors will decide that this is yet one more way to be sued for malpractice and decide to stop doing abortions? Not many, but I'd guess not zero, either. In an atmosphere where access is the biggest problem women face, losing one or two can be catastrophic, depending on where they're geographically located.
So we got The Deal. Even my beloved refused to vote for the Democrat because the candidate was in favor of handgun control. My sweetie voted third party. After asking around, I think that guns was a significant (though not overwhelming) reason why enough people didn't vote for the Democratic candidate. Hell, I didn't like him, either, I understand their pain. But I really, really hate this Deal.
You can't have it all, Democrats. Choose. Trying to hold onto both is losing you too many elections, and we've run out of time. Stand up and take a stand.
Do not use the comments section for debating gnus or abortions. I've heard it all, and so has absolutely everyone else. It's boring. Talk about real politique. Talk about mutually contradictory requirements. Do not repeat the old arguments about life and death. I reserve the right of wholesale slaughter of posts that I think are unpleasant, nothing but trouble, or downright boring.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-30 07:54 am (UTC)Winning the election is not a matter of pandering to the people on your side; it's a matter of pandering to the people in the middle--like DDB.
B
no subject
Date: 2003-04-30 09:31 am (UTC)I think the time for pandering is past. I think that the Democrats should pick their core values, and stand up and defend them with vigor. Never mind the middle, what about the apathetic? That's a much larger number, and I believe that if there was something out there to energize them, they'd vote. The Democrats need two things. They need a workable platform, one that is noticeably left of center but not frighteningly so, and they need to learn to speak in a human voice. Yes, we think that we should raise taxes on the rich, not the poor, and that we should use that money to help people who are poor. Redistribution of wealth? Yup, it is, but it is also a good way to _create_ wealth, which the rich people are best situated to (pardon me) capitalize on. Against the war? Damn betcha. We were lied to and misled, and we want to get out gracefully and in such a way as to repair our relations with our allies and protect the Iraqi people from another terrible government. Universal health care? Which would you rather, paying for it by hospitals closing their emergency rooms because the poor are forced to use it for normal care, or pay for it as part of your taxes, and have emergency rooms and doctors and clinics which are readily available? Pick, choose, tell the truth.
I honestly do not believe that all politicians are corrupt liars. I think that there are opportunities to stand up and be the good guy, and that we should encourage those opportunities, build them if we can. Time to fish or cut bait. Who was it who said that a voter presented with the choice between a real republican and a fake republican will choose the real one every time? The Democrats have to be different, have to have something real to offer.
We're the good guys. Let's make the Democrats behave like the good guys, too. It's our party, if we want it. All it takes is work. A lot of work. Money helps, too.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-30 03:37 pm (UTC)In your original post, you say that the Democracts have to be practical and not idealistic. I agree with you. You disagree with me by saying that the Democracts need to be idealistic.
Actually, I think we agree with each other.
B
Violent agreement
Date: 2003-04-30 09:06 pm (UTC)Re: Violent agreement
Date: 2003-05-01 06:49 am (UTC)B
Re: Violent agreement
Date: 2003-05-02 05:52 am (UTC)Democrat: I believe in policy X.
Voter: I agree with you; I believe in policy Y.
Democrat: No you don't; X is not Y in these important and uninteresting ways.
Voter: Okay, then I'll vote for someone else.
Republican: I believe in policy X.
Voter: I agree with you; I believe in policy Y.
Republican: Great. Now you can stop worrying and mindlessly vote for us.
Voter: Works for me. Yay for America!
See the problem?
B
Re: Violent agreement
Date: 2003-05-02 03:16 pm (UTC)Voter: I agree with you; I believe in policy Y.
Democrat: No you don't; X is not Y in these important and uninteresting ways.
Voter: Okay, then I'll vote for someone else.
Yeah, well, I'm a Democrat due to duress.
What the Democrat ought to say is, "The Republicans are opposed to Policy X. I want you to vote for me so that I can do Policy X." If the voter says, "What about Policy Y?" the Democrat has a couple of different options. One is to say that he understands how the voter feels, but that the Democrats feels that Policy X is more important to pursue at this time. Careful on that one, though, don't diss the voter, don't imply that his concern is unimportant.
The Democrat needs to expand on why Policy X is such a good idea, and get the voter excited about Policy X. The key here is that the Democrats can not be against something without being for it, if they word it properly. Don't explain why Y is a bad idea, or how Y is worse than X, or related to X. Acknowledge Y, say that Y is not on the Democratic agenda right now because X is more important, and move on. If the voter won't move on, then they're not going to vote for you, anyway.
No way the Democrats can become pro-gun, nor would they be believed if they tried. But they could decide to be neutral gun, say that they feel that state and city governments should make decisions based on local conditions, and just move on. Quick, out of the quagmire! This way, this way! (Lydy shakes her head sorrowfully and places it in her hands. There goes another perfectly good candidate, slowly, slowly into the mud.) One of the things that the Republicans have taught us is that you don't have to answer every question put to you. Indeed, you don't have to answer any questions at all, it would seem. Silence can be golden.