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.
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.