.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Cracker Squire


My Photo
Location: Douglas, Coffee Co., The Other Georgia, United States

Sid in his law office where he sits when meeting with clients. Observant eyes will notice the statuette of one of Sid's favorite Democrats.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

The abortion message repeated as a prologue for an article from Newsweek that follows.

The following is taken from my 4-18-05 post entitled "The 'Walk for Women's Lives' speech and the need to refine our message on being pro-choice, not pro-abortion."

It is being repeated in light of the article from Newsweek that follows. I sure hope we take the middle ground talk to heart. The post:

The setting was the Capitol steps on Sunday, April 17, following the one-mile "Walk for Women's Lives" march to the Capitol. Across the street from the Capitol rally was a small group holding anti-abortion signs. The question I have is did the protestors hear what they expected to hear? I suspect they did.

The speaker was Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor, but it could have just as easily been Secretary of State Cathy Cox.

The message:

• "We are about the Georgia that was back in the day only three years ago when women were respected in this building.

• • "I'm going to be here with you, regardless of who stands with me, behind me or in front of me. I'm going to be with the women of Georgia.

• • • "We need to be speaking to the men and the men of Georgia who need to do a better job of listening to the women of Georgia."

Although only the publisher of this blog rather than a handler or consultant with either the Taylor or the Cox campaign, the foregoing message makes me reflect as follows:

• We are not about a Georgia three years ago. We are about a Georgia here and now, where we have lost the governor's mansion, the Senate and, as of Nov. 2, '04, the House.

• • No one seriously thinks (1) that those Georgia women who are pro-choice and comprise part of our base will abandon us in '06 and '08, or (2) that Secretary of State Cathy Cox is anything other than pro-choice. Thus I pose the question: Is this the right message we need to be putting out at this time?

We do appreciate the majority of our party, the party faithful. It is our base, and we know that in order to win future elections, we must we expand our base and appeal to other voters without alienating our base, the party faithful. And of course, pro-choice voters comprise an important part of our base.

• • • We need to speaking to the men of this state, but not in the context of getting onto them for their viewpoints on abortion, but rather about the abortion message outlined below.

Additionally, we need to speaking to the white male voter who has abandoned us about the issues I have discussed in other posts and will review again from time to time.

If we wait until after the primary in '06 to begin giving these messages, we may never get these voters and others who are voting rich and living poor back again.

The abortion message:

As I have stated before on this blog, I am pro-choice, not because I am a Democrat, but because I think it should be a woman's choice, and definitely not mine unless it happened to be my wife or daughter.

But what if someone has religious convictions different from me; do we not have room in the Party for such person?

And as we reach out to religious voters, we should quit arguing the legality of abortion, and rather shift the theme to abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." And just as we want to see fewer abortions, we want our children to learn good values -- at home, in school, at Sunday school and at church with their parents.

Good values, health care, jobs and sex education can reduce the number of abortion procedures, and who can be opposed to that.

We are beyond pro-choice and into things such as planned parenthood, if this is one's desire and does not interfere with his or her religious and moral beliefs.

We are reflecting back on how we operated when we were the Big Tent Party, and how we can tolerate opinions and positions divergent from perhaps a majority of the Party.

Come on now, suck it up a little; the rules of engagement changed on Nov. 2. Karl Rove, Inc. wants to force us to defend unfettered access to abortion, and we're not going there. Remember, we're pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and on the latter, primarily want abortions to be rare, legal and safe just as President Clinton taught us.


Anonymous Chris said...

Until "values" voters perceive Democrats to be just as uneasy about an abortion as they are, we won't make any headway, no matter how much we talk to them in language like "our values are that no child starves in America".

PS I will send you an email about style-sheet stuff.

7:17 PM  
Anonymous Ric said...

If abortion is an acceptable practice, why should it matter if abortions are rare or not?

9:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home