Let me know via freeper mail if you want on or off the Calgov2002 ping list!
calgov2002:
 calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Posted on 04/28/2002 11:33:29 AM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
You're right about that - he even signs his messages - "The Evil One"
A conservative candidate crucified on the cross of compassion and bi-partisanship.
I can easily see how someone wants nothing to do with a candidate who favors abortion. But the opposite? What is the deal with these people? Why is it so important to them that babies be aborted? In this case it doesn't even make any difference if Simon supports abortion or not. He can't overturn Roe-vrs-Wade. So what gives?
Because he's not fighting, CyberAnt. When a "pro-life" politician is attacked for his position and runs instead of fights, that tells me he is timid on the issue. That tells me that he will not fight for the cause when in office, because the political realities that made him timid in the campaign will still be present when he's elected.
But abortion is popular in California, you say? Well, partial-birth abortion is not. Why doesn't Simon respond by attacking Gray Death on this issue? It's politically safe and would advance the pro-life cause in California by forcing people to face the violent and vile nature of abortion. In fact, the congressional PBA debate actually caused a substantial increase in pro-life support nationally, even though no legislation went into force. The mere debate over late abortions changes minds in our favor, but politicians like Bill Simon won't talk about it at all because he is afraid.
As an example of those politicians who fight, I'll offer George Allen of Virginia. In his recent senate race against Chuck Robb, he was attacked on abortion. How did he respond? Why, he launched retaliatory ads that attacked Robb for his extremism in supporting PBA and opposing every reasonable abortion restriction. He won. And, do you know what's ironic about this? Allen wasn't even officially pro-life! He supports legal abortion in very early pregnancy. So, I say, if a pro-life politician won't stand by his position and defend it by turning the tables on a vulnerable pro-abortion extremist, he deserves to be doubted in his claimed pro-life allegiance.
There we are. Read my posts before offering your gems, sir.
I can read in #7 your rationale for claiming that Simon has "reversed his stance", namely the fact that he has shockingly insisted that abortion is a settled issue over which the governor of a state has no say. The problem with this, aside from the fact that it doesn't make Simon pro-choice at all, is the fact that it's the truth. The governor of a state cannot outlaw abortions.
In #16 you elaborate some: No, you realize the governor of a state cannot outlaw abortion, but there are things he can do. Parental notification, and the like. That sounds great; send a parental notification bill to a Governor Simon's desk and I reckon he'd sign it. (Leaving aside for the moment that with the current and foreseeable makeup of the state legislature this won't happen...) Presumably you think he would veto it (what else can you mean by accusing him of having "reversed his stance"?). This, I deny.
Either he does not care about the issue, or he is a coward who does not wish to take the political risk.
There is a third option: perhaps as the governor of a state with a Democratic legislature there's very little realistic chance of even getting such bills placed on his desk in the first place. You think?
And there are plenty of non-restrictive policies that could be put in place right now, by either the state or federal governments, that would break the back of the abortion culture. That's all I ever ask for.
"Plenty", huh? Wow, that sure sounds like a lot. Can you name some other things on this long list besides a strengthened parental notification law (which stands no chance of being written, currently)?
Here's one example:
But abortion is popular in California, you say? Well, partial-birth abortion is not
Perhaps not. Are you implying that Simon is in favor of partial-birth abortion and would not ban it given the opportunity? Then just what exactly is your complaint? (Remember, you started this by claiming he had "reversed his stance"...)
Why doesn't Simon respond by attacking Gray Death on this issue?
This is a different question, related to election strategy, and has no bearing on Simon's "stance" on abortion, per se.
Perhaps he simply decided that doing this would not be a good way to get elected. You think? Now, in so deciding he could be wrong. But it still wouldn't mean he had "reversed his stance" on abortion. Not Using Abortion As An Election Issue is not the same thing as Reversing One's Beliefs About Abortion.
but politicians like Bill Simon won't talk about it at all because he is afraid.
Oh, that's why he isn't talking about it. Not because of a conscious decision to say and do things likely to help him get elected, but because he is "afraid". You sure are a mind-reader!
So, I say, if a pro-life politician won't stand by his position and defend it
In what sense is Simon "not standing by his position"? I still haven't seen cited the press conference in which Simon came out and said "I'm pro-choice after all".
Again, all that happened is he acknowledged the reality that the governor of a freakin' state can't outlaw abortion. Does acknowledging reality make him less pro-life? That would not bode well for the pro-life movement....
However, I'm not so sure that Bill Simon faces the same situation today that Ronald Reagan did in 1966. Regretably, the California that produced Reagan and Nixon is long gone. Middle-class Anglos and Asians, bedrock of the CA Republican Party, have left the state in droves for nearly twenty years now. In 1966 Orange County and Bakersfield defined California; now Marin County and East LA fill that role.
Nonetheless, it appears Simon is doing a good job with the hand that's been dealt him. Perhaps he'll stop California's decline and prevent it from becoming "Massachusetts with palm trees." That's a tall order, but I'll keep my fingers crossed.
By the way, although I recognize that California has changed dramatically over the past twenty years, I am not one of those who suggest that Republicans "moderate" their views to fit the new "reality." On the contrary -- it's our duty to present an intelligent, practical alternative to the base leftism promoted by the Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans. Bill Simon seems reasonably comfortable doing that, and I wish him well. Perhaps California is not yet as far gone as I fear.
...send a parental notification bill to a Governor Simon's desk and I reckon he'd sign it. (Leaving aside for the moment that with the current and foreseeable makeup of the state legislature this won't happen...) Presumably you think he would veto it (what else can you mean by accusing him of having "reversed his stance"?). This, I deny.
Here you show how narrowly you evidently view the abortion conflict. Abortion is much more than a war over legalities, bans, restrictions, or policies of the state. It is also, and perhaps primarily, a cultural struggle, which can be influenced by discussion and debate. In a previous post, I pointed out public opinion gains that the pro-life movement enjoyed during and after the national partial-birth abortion debate. The pro-life congressmen who fought for the ban on PBA were very aware that the Supreme Court would likely strike the ban down if passed. They also must have known that, even if the ban had gone into effect, the doomed babies that had been scheduled for a partial-birth abortion would simply have been rescheduled for an alternative abortion procedure just as vile. They would still die. But true pro-lifers fought for the ban anyway because they knew that the debate would move the focus of the abortion debate to ground where the pro-life side was strong, and also that discussing the vile procedure would change people's minds about all abortion. They were absolutely right, a fact easily confirmed by reviewing most recent polls done on the subject.
So, what I mean when I say that Simon is not truly pro-life, is that he will not fight the battles that will advance the pro-life cause politically and culturally -- because he has, himself, given every indication that he will not. Why, then, should pro-lifers enthusiastically support his candidacy? When he will be nothing but a neutral force? And, yes, yes, I know he will sign pro-life legislation that comes to him. But he will not fight for it, and that makes all the difference! He will not move the pro-life cause by attacking pro-abortion extremism in the legislature and in his political opponents. He could do this easily by calling for a ban on PBA, or for other mainstream pro-life policies, and aggressively fighting for them. Would these bills make it through the legislature? Of course not. But the debate would be devastating to the abortionists culturally and, ultimately, politically as well! So, to advance the pro-life cause, which is what I expect pro-life politicians to do, they must fight by attacking the pro-abortionists where they are weak. Simon has not shown he is willing to do that, and I refuse to close my eyes, cross my fingers, and hope that he will.
"Plenty", huh? Wow, that sure sounds like a lot. Can you name some other things on this long list besides a strengthened parental notification law (which stands no chance of being written, currently)?
I'm so glad you asked. I have suggested several cultural initiatives in the past that could be sponsored by government to reduce demand for abortion. Now, before I start, I will warn you that nearly all of the following involve expenditures of tax money. If you see a problem with that, then you can blame the Supreme Court for forcing it to this. But spending money can be just as effective as passing statutes, so it's not really so bad. If you are at all familiar with the crisis pregnancy center establishment, you will know that they already do an excellent job of dissuading women from having abortions. The problem is that they lack sufficient resources to do this on a large enough scale where it would have a profound impact on the numbers. This should be the first position any pro-life candidate for anything should commit to -- supporting government funding, either state or federal, for CPCs at a level that would allow them to discourage abortion to substantial effect. This can be done with no intervention from the courts, since the Supreme Court has made it clear that the government is within it's rights to favor childbirth over abortion, so long as abortion remains legal. Another policy that could have profound cultural effects in reducing abortions is that of fetal-development education in the public schools. Why not mandate that all public school children, at regular intervals, be taught and reminded that unborn children are human beings too. This would obviously serve to remove the rampant ignorance that exists, particularly among the young, about the developmental realities that exist concerning the unborn. This program could be financed by government and required as compulsory for all schools that receive grants of any kind from the state or federal government.
Then there are other policies that could be modeled after current cultural efforts the government is already undertaking in other areas. For example, the state of California seems to have decided that it wishes to discourage smoking by launching media campaigns warning people not to do it. Well, then why not discourage abortion in the same way? Yes, in fact, this could be done nationally as well. Run some ads, on a sustained basis, that tell people that abortion is, oh the scandal, wrong! Then direct them to alternative options. No restriction here, no violation of the "right-to-choose," but I'd bet the reductions in abortion numbers would be noteworthy.
So, you see, there is, in fact, plenty that any government in the United States could do, including the state government of California, to reduce abortions now. To make cultural change happen that will lead to abortion's extinction as a mainstream practice. But, this will only happen if pro-life politicians fight.
Let me know via freeper mail if you want on or off the Calgov2002 ping list!
calgov2002:
|
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Again, this is not "according to them". This is just the truth. He could do things at the margins, as you point out, but "abortion is not an issue that the governor will have much power over" is, on balance, a 100% true statement. Right?
Anyway, I'm still trying to understand where is the "reversal" in all this. Did Simon claim early on that he would try to mandate (say) that all CA public school students be taught that unborn children are life? And then backtrack? Or what? Just because you are dissatisfied with the strength of his rhetoric doesn't mean he has "reversed" himself.
[Gov not having much power over abortion issue] Apart from the fact that this is untrue, it clearly sends an unmistakable signal that he is not interested in this issue
1. It's not untrue, like I said. 2. It doesn't "send" that signal at all (although you may of course be receiving such a signal, depending on your mentality and expectations.
Let's use an analogy. I'm a person who strongly favors (say) a Flat Tax. Now let's say I run for local town Dog Catcher. I acknowledge in my first campaign press conference that Dog Catcher doesn't have much power over the income tax issue. Does this "signal" that I'm "not interested in" the issue? Or just that I am reasonably conversant with reality?
Maybe Simon does indeed sincerely care about abortion, but realizes he won't be able to do much about it. Especially if he doesn't get elected. Isn't that possible?
I conclude, therefore, that he is operationally pro-choice.
I'll go you one further. The next governor of California, whoever he is, will be (by your standards) "operationally pro-choice". I guess you will be disappointed. Sorry.
No matter what he says he believes in, the end result of his time as governor will be abortion on demand with a strong-as-ever abortion culture to feed it, no different than what exists right now.
You are probably right.
I fail to see why this electoral reality should add up to me disliking Simon or concluding that he "reversed" himself.
Abortion is much more than a war over legalities, bans, restrictions, or policies of the state. It is also, and perhaps primarily, a cultural struggle, which can be influenced by discussion and debate. In a previous post, I pointed out public opinion gains that the pro-life movement enjoyed during and after the national partial-birth abortion debate. [...]
Ok, I'll grant all this. If Simon's #1 concern was rolling back the tide of abortions, then, and changing the culture, then I agree with you, he'd be conducting his campaign much differently.
He wouldn't win, of course.
I guess we can conclude that he is running for governor because he wants to be governor, and not as part of a mission to roll back abortions. I can understand and respect that such an attitude isn't strong enough for you. (Of course, it's pretty difficult to conceive of any politician with a reasonable chance of winning who would satisfy you in this respect...)
Anyway, having granted all that, where is the "reversal" in all this? I still don't see it.
So, what I mean when I say that Simon is not truly pro-life,
Actually, you said something much different before: that he unofficially "reverse[d] his stance" on the issue, remember?
For the record I agree with you that Simon is (by your implicit definition as outlined here) "not truly pro-life". Very few politicians are.
Why, then, should pro-lifers enthusiastically support his candidacy?
Do you think that Mr. Davis will do a better job for the pro-life cause?
And, yes, yes, I know he will sign pro-life legislation that comes to him. But he will not fight for it,
Possibly, you are right, we will see. (You seem a little too certain of what Simon Will Do for my tastes, but whatever, perhaps your powers of prescience are stronger than mine). Anyway, so where is the "reversal", again? I'm still a little unclear on that point.
Simon has not shown he is willing to do that, and I refuse to close my eyes, cross my fingers, and hope that he will.
Ok. I think you're probably right and it's good that you're not getting your hopes up too much.
This should be the first position any pro-life candidate for anything should commit to -- supporting government funding, either state or federal, for CPCs at a level that would allow them to discourage abortion to substantial effect. [..]
Sounds reasonable to me. You are certain that Simon won't do this? How so?
Also, who will direct CPCs to discourage abortion more, in your view: Davis, or Simon? Just curious.
Another policy that could have profound cultural effects in reducing abortions is that of fetal-development education in the public schools. Why not mandate that all public school children, at regular intervals, be taught and reminded that unborn children are human beings too.
I dare say that any gubernatorial candidate suggesting this or advertising his intent to do this will doom his chances of winning (and therefore doom any chances of the policy actually ever coming to fruition). I don't see how advocating that candidates take what would be quite obviously losing positions would help the pro-life cause.
For example, the state of California seems to have decided that it wishes to discourage smoking by launching media campaigns warning people not to do it. Well, then why not discourage abortion in the same way?
Same reason. See above.
If you truly want these policies to be enacted, you don't want gubernatorial candidates advertising their intent to enact them during the campaign. If you do want candidates to suggest these things during the campaign, you obviously don't want them to win (and therefore obviously don't care if the policies are enacted, per se).
I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see that advocating policies such as these would hand Sacramento to Davis on a silver platter. It would sure cause a national debate and get Mr. Simon onto 60 Minutes and so forth - the resulting demonization process would be a sight to behold. But he would surely lose.
I agree with you to a certain extent (and, I suspect Simon does too) about some (more moderate) issues - PBA, parental notification, etc. But these two ideas would simply be considered too "extreme" and "controversial", and the media would have a hissy fit - and I think you know it.
Anyway, I certainly don't see how Simon's failure to advocate these things can be construed as a "reversal". Has he ever advocated anything like this in the first place? (Has any major party candidate?)
So, you see, there is, in fact, plenty that any government in the United States could do, including the state government of California, to reduce abortions now.
In principle, I guess I agree with you that a Governor Simon "could" theoretically do these things (public school life education, media anti-abortion campaign).
But certainly not without becoming Governor first. And there's the rub, you see.
But, this will only happen if pro-life politicians fight.
Maybe. But nothing will happen if they all lose.
Imagine that . . . Being so much in favor of murdering babies that you'd spite your own party to keep the pogrom going.
Republicans are very talented at forgetting what they have in common while simultaneously overblowing their differences. They are very poor at bridging their differences to form winning coalitions. In a state like California, where Dem registrations significantly outstrip Rep, Republicans need large turnouts of their own voters, plus they need to peel enough votes from the mushy middle in order to win. Anyone who doesn't understand the reality and implication of this situation is dumber than a box of rocks as regards politics.
Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned around him, one can stand rigidly on principle while resigning oneself to perpetual subjugation. Or one can learn that politics is the art of consensus-building. It took six long, difficult years from the Boston Massacre in 1770 for the 13 colonies to reach the consensus necessary to unanimously declare independence from Britian in 1776.
The road to independence was paved with debate after debate; the work of two Continental Congresses; the burnings of several American costal towns by the British; the bravery of the volunteers at Lexington, Concord and the siege of Boston. It was paved with attempts at persuasion by both radicals for independence and the conservatives of that day -- those who wanted to reconcile with Britain. It was paved by sacrifice, hard work, sweat and many, many tears. Even as late as the spring of 1776, a move toward independence was by no means a certainty.
The true "greatest generation" bequeathed to us a nation founded through the art of political persuasion -- its very nationhood secured by that most politically persuasive of all documents, the Declaration of Independence. It's main purpose was to invite the established powers of the day to recognize our new nation. Are we then, today, so blind to their political legacy as to hold ourselves as arrogantly above our obligation to persuade and consensus-build as was the British Crown of their day?
2: because you are dissatisfied with the strength of his rhetoric doesn't mean he has "reversed" himself.
3: I fail to see why this electoral reality should add up to me disliking Simon or concluding that he "reversed" himself.
4: Anyway, having granted all that, where is the "reversal" in all this? I still don't see it.
5: Actually, you said something much different before: that he unofficially "reverse[d] his stance" on the issue, remember?
6: Anyway, so where is the "reversal", again? I'm still a little unclear on that point.
7: Anyway, I certainly don't see how Simon's failure to advocate these things can be construed as a "reversal".
Are you through? Would you like to test the boundaries of annoyance and ask me one more time? You are obviously hooked on a word. Perhaps you're right that Simon has not reversed his position on abortion. He was clearly never pro-life to begin with. If his position is that, while he theoretically opposes abortion, he will do nothing as governor to reduce abortions or cause cultural change, then he is effectively for the status quo. Since abortion is quite legal, and quite well practiced, the status quo is certainly not to the pro-lifer's liking. A governor can indeed actively promote mainstream pro-life issues that will advance the cause and reduce abortions, but, you're right, that would require that he care enough to expend some political capital to do it. Simon is communicating that he is unwilling. That doesn't make him uncommon among politicians, unfortunately, but it does make him operationally pro-abortion.
I agree with you to a certain extent (and, I suspect Simon does too) about some (more moderate) issues - PBA, parental notification, etc. But these two ideas would simply be considered too "extreme" and "controversial", and the media would have a hissy fit - and I think you know it.
So what? The media can kiss mine. They didn't like it when the congressional Republicans pushed the federal PBA ban, but that didn't negate it's substantial cultural impact, did it? Do you believe the Republican Party should check in with Ed Bradley and Dan Rather before deciding on it's agenda?
In principle, I guess I agree with you that a Governor Simon "could" theoretically do these things (public school life education, media anti-abortion campaign). But certainly not without becoming Governor first. And there's the rub, you see.
I think you're underestimating the appeal to most voters of a non-restrictive pro-life agenda that seeks only cultural change in the short term. Surely, you don't believe the California media appraisal of the degree to which Californians worship abortion, do you? But, of course, we won't find out if something like this will fly in California unless a candidate actually runs on such an agenda. Until then, all we have are the assurances of Dr. Frank that it won't work.
And as for Simon supporting CPCs, I haven't heard or read of him promising state money to any of them. I don't live in California, so I may have missed it. If he has, please, by all means, post the quote where he commits himself to seeking a specific dollar amount of state funding for these centers. If he has taken such a position, I will eat every negative word I've said or written about him regarding his position on abortion. That's all I've ever really asked for. That he fight the fight in some meaningful way.
Ok, thanks. That's all I was trying to rebut (cf. your original post #3).
He was clearly never pro-life to begin with.
By your definition, perhaps not. (Almost no one is.)
If his position is that, while he theoretically opposes abortion, he will do nothing as governor to reduce abortions or cause cultural change, then he is effectively for the status quo.
Similarly, a town Dog Catcher who refuses to enact a nationwide Flat Tax is "effectively for the status quo". We've been through this; it's not a fair or even realistic criticism.
The media can kiss mine. They didn't like it when the congressional Republicans pushed the federal PBA ban, but that didn't negate it's substantial cultural impact, did it? Do you believe the Republican Party should check in with Ed Bradley and Dan Rather before deciding on it's agenda?
No. But I do believe that any candidate suggesting that public school children be forcibly taught a pro-life message would become demonized in no seconds flat and that the demonization would have teeth (meaning, he would lose). Perhaps you disagree. Very well.
I think you're underestimating the appeal to most voters of a non-restrictive pro-life agenda that seeks only cultural change in the short term.
I agreed with you that something like PBA can have broader appeal than the media would have us believe. I don't happen to think the same is true of mandated pro-life public school lessons or TV public service commercials. Perhaps, you do. Very well.
Until then, all we have are the assurances of Dr. Frank that it won't work.
Do you honestly think it would work?
And as for Simon supporting CPCs, I haven't heard or read of him promising state money to any of them.
Oh. Well then therefore he can't possibly really be pro-life. Got it!
This is getting to be a pretty dumb argument; now, somehow your ignorance and lack of knowledge about a guy's campaign in a state you don't even live in is proof positive of the non-pro-life credentials of a (quite obviously and blatantly pro-life) candidate, apparently.
Let's get real. Simon is as pro-life as they come, especially in California. The fact that you doubt this is laughable, and I don't seriously believe you believe he's not pro-life. Obviously you adopt for the purpose of a pose a very purist standard for who qualifies as "really" pro-life, but the question remains whether any human beings (besides presumably yourself, and Alan Keyes) would actually qualify. Since you operate from such a narrowly defined definition of the term "pro-life", a discussion like this gets very irritating very fast, and I apologize in advance for the crudeness of some of my remarks (including in this post).
You are right, you win. Bill Simon is Not "Really" Pro-Life. He loooooooooooooves abortions! Only you are a true pure pro-lifer. Give yourself a pat on the back from me. Best,
You have been so clearly petrified by the pro-abortion media that you believe advocating a simple biology lesson for children is going to doom a pro-life candidate. Get control of your wobbling knees for one moment and think about it. If this is considered too extreme, then there might as well be no pro-life movement at all. Perhaps you'd like that.
Do you honestly think it would work?
Yes. Do you honestly think the media represents public opinion?
"And as for Simon supporting CPCs, I haven't heard or read of him promising state money to any of them."
-----Oh. Well then therefore he can't possibly really be pro-life. Got it!
So, you can't produce a quote? I see.
This is getting to be a pretty dumb argument; now, somehow your ignorance and lack of knowledge about a guy's campaign in a state you don't even live in is proof positive of the non-pro-life credentials of a (quite obviously and blatantly pro-life) candidate, apparently.
Pardon me if I momentarily recoil at being called ignorant by someone who thinks a dog catcher has the same power over taxes that a governor has over abortion. To educate you with just one example, informed consent requirements, which are typically sought and signed into law by governors at the state level, have been proven to reduce abortions by as much as 50% in some states. When you can show that a dog catcher has been able to reduce taxes by 50%, my esteem for your level of knowledge will increase.
Let's get real. Simon is as pro-life as they come, especially in California. The fact that you doubt this is laughable, and I don't seriously believe you believe he's not pro-life. Obviously you adopt for the purpose of a pose a very purist standard for who qualifies as "really" pro-life, but the question remains whether any human beings (besides presumably yourself, and Alan Keyes) would actually qualify.
Interesting fiction. But you clearly do not know enough about my opinions or positions to form any intelligent picture of my standards for politicians, on abortion or anything else. Actually, and it may shock your simplistic conclusions, I'm not so concerned with the ideological rigidity that characterizes so many pro-life "extremists." For example, I would have happily voted for George Allen in Virginia, even though he was technically not fully pro-life. He showed that he was willing to fight, to attack pro-abortion extremism, and that means so much more than the hollow "pro-life" position of the trembling Mr. Bill Simon and his sycophant followers.
Since you operate from such a narrowly defined definition of the term "pro-life", a discussion like this gets very irritating very fast, and I apologize in advance for the crudeness of some of my remarks (including in this post).
You're right. I apologize for mine as well (including in this post).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.