If it is seen as "political", it's political. The nature of politics is that your countrymen get to decide what is "political" and what is not. If enough people think something is "political", then it is. Now, you may not think such a proposal is "political" at all. But I reckon that many other people would see it differently.
Which would make it "political" after all, despite your assurances to the contrary.
If we teach them not to steal or to have generally good values, there is nothing political in that.
Look, again, your countrymen decide what is "political", not just you. The facts on the ground are that telling people Don't Steal is far, far less controversial than telling them Life Begins At Conception. It just is. You don't even have to "believe the media" to believe this. Just ask around. Seriously.
Please try and separate the act from the political debate over it's legality.
Okay, I'll try, but I can't guarantee that other voters will do the same.
Confidence in the pro-life message means that you believe that when people know the truth, they will ultimately turn against abortion.
Then I admit that I'm not sure to what extent I believe this. People believe lots of strange things, from my point of view, and I'm not willing to stake my "confidence" on a belief that I can get large poll numbers to agree with me on any given issue.
...ultimately turn against abortion. This is the confidence that congressional pro-lifers demonstrated in their attempt to ban partial-birth abortion.
No, it' s not. Turning against partial-birth abortion is not the same as turning against abortion. I've said several times already that I think banning PBAs would be much less controversial. But it is a smaller step. A good one, but a smaller one.
Now, regarding your strategy, I can't see how an elected politician who never mentions abortion is going to inspire the public to be against it
It simply cannot be true that Simon "never mentions" abortion. The media would never let him get away with that. And even if all he does is answer their questions about his beliefs sincerely and honestly, then that's something in my book.
I don't see how you can possibly believe that the mere fact that a pro-lifer sits in some high office is going to compel the people to not have abortions, but fine.
I don't think that's what I said. I said it would get people used to the idea that pro-lifers are not monsters to be feared. But you knew that.
Look, I think it's clear that you don't believe that the pro-life position is a winner politically, or even can be a winner politically.
I'll clarify. In certain states, I'd think the pro-life position is a winner politically. In other states, not so much. Even in those states, of course, certain semi pro life issues (such as a ban on PBAs) can still be decent winners politically, and I see no problem with advocating them.
I don't happen to count your Mandated Public School Lessons idea among the likely political winners in the great state of CA, at least at present. Call me crazy but that's my take on the body politic here. I do sure hope that's ok with you.
I disagree profoundly.
Noted.
Pro-lifers don't want to vote for someone who creates the impression that he is ashamed to be pro-life
I'm a pro-lifer, and I'll certainly vote for Simon. For one thing, I will enjoy voting for someone smart enough to realize that a freakin' state governor can't ban abortions. Frankly I'm sick of people (both pro-choicers and pro-lifers) acting as if a governor can do just that. This idea is poisonous. It turns every election, no matter how small, into a referendum on abortion.
then this abortion strategy will be primarily to blame, in my opinion.
Perhaps. One way to ameliorate this situation, you know, would be for pro-lifers like yourself to wise up and realize that Simon is better than Davis and that it's self-defeating to stay home for such purist reasons.
But you could be right, maybe large numbers of pro-lifers will indeed do just that, and stay home. Well boo on them. But it could happen. Like I said before I don't stake too many of my opinions on "confidence" that my fellow voters will do the right thing. I've seen too many examples to the contrary, and pro-lifers staying home and electing Davis to 4 more years because Simon is "not pro life enough" would be one of them.
No, the meaning of words is not determined by plebiscite. If you want to call it controversial, you have a point. But, again, it's a question of defining yourself and your positions before your opponents do. They will call it indoctrination, we will insist that it is scientific information crucial to informed choice. Obviously, if we never try to debate it, we won't know how well it plays. And, yes, I have also noted your dislike of this policy. You needn't remind me again.
I'll clarify. In certain states, I'd think the pro-life position is a winner politically. In other states, not so much. Even in those states, of course, certain semi pro life issues (such as a ban on PBAs) can still be decent winners politically, and I see no problem with advocating them.
Do you know what's funny? If Simon would only do this one thing -- aggressively attack Davis on partial-birth -- I would be delighted. Perhaps he will, there's time yet. But, you'll understand if I'm less than optimistic.
I'm a pro-lifer, and I'll certainly vote for Simon. For one thing, I will enjoy voting for someone smart enough to realize that a freakin' state governor can't ban abortions. Frankly I'm sick of people (both pro-choicers and pro-lifers) acting as if a governor can do just that.
I have actually suggested that candidates in California take the issue of a ban on first trimester abortions completely off the table for now (simply say that the people are opposed, it couldn't be enforced at the present time, and Roe is still in effect -- so I won't/can't do it), in the interest of making a push on late-term bans and informed choice politically easier. After all, there is no need to sacrifice mainstream pro-life policies to an ideological agenda that simply can't be implemented right away, wouldn't you agree? But the catch is that I expect for the pro-life candidate to be active and aggressive on these mainstream issues (like PBA) after he has moderated.