If they had won they would be able to appoint justices that could overthrow Roe Vs Wade. If that were ever to happen would lose the issue they use over and over to fire up their base and get them to vote. And if they didn't appoint such justices they would blow the illusion they maintain that they intend to overthrow it. Either way would be suicide and they know it.
Ever suspect that the Republicans needed to throw this election
- Thread starter Moonbeam
- Start date
I don't think that's the case. I think Bush would have appointed the justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade without question if he could, and that many Republicans would, too. It would be their shining victory for 'the base' that keeps them loyal much the way the civil rights bills of the 60's or Social Security keep the democratic base largely loyal.
Your political calculus may be right that it would hurt them, but after all, it would only throw the issue back to the states, not ban abortion everywhere, and they've long shown a willingness to stick their neck out on some of those issues, fromthe Terry Schiavo fiasco to a significant ban on stem cell research to abandoning the Kyoto treaty on global warming. I'm sure some of the more cynical and/or 'socially liberal' Republicans agree with you though.
Your political calculus may be right that it would hurt them, but after all, it would only throw the issue back to the states, not ban abortion everywhere, and they've long shown a willingness to stick their neck out on some of those issues, fromthe Terry Schiavo fiasco to a significant ban on stem cell research to abandoning the Kyoto treaty on global warming. I'm sure some of the more cynical and/or 'socially liberal' Republicans agree with you though.
I think even if they managed to send abortion back to the states they would still run on it as an issue. They'd simply claim that electing a Dem President would lead to that Pres appointing liberal justices that would once again make it a national mandate. It would probably work too. Just look at how easily they've whipped people into a panic about "socialism" and Barack Obama hasn't even been elected yet.
If they won and appointed justices who didn't get it sent back to the states, I'm not sure what would happen. Their base still lets them run on the gay marriage issue even though it's pretty obvious to most people that there's not going to be a constitutional amendment for it.
If they won and appointed justices who didn't get it sent back to the states, I'm not sure what would happen. Their base still lets them run on the gay marriage issue even though it's pretty obvious to most people that there's not going to be a constitutional amendment for it.
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
Even if they managed to overturn Roe vs Wade, they would still use it as a campaign issue, as in, vote for us to preserve the liberty and freedom for the unborn or the liberals will take away this freedom.
And if it isn't abortion, they will use gay marriage, or some other emotional issue which has no place in politics anyway.
And if it isn't abortion, they will use gay marriage, or some other emotional issue which has no place in politics anyway.
How could McCain appoint a pro-life justice with a near super majority democrat congress?
And was abortion a centerpiece of this election cycle?
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
I've wondered about this, too--whether they really want Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
I also wonder whether the anti-abortionists have considered the ramifications of turning this over to the states. What would happen? You'd end up with pro-abortion states and anti-abortion states and perhaps an even larger polarization and balkanization of the populace. Would people who favor abortion, especially young women, flee the anti-abortion states? Would college-educated people flee the anti-abortion states? As a result of the loss of secular residents, would the anti-abortion states end up as miniature Christian theocracies? Might the anti-abortion states then suffer negative economic consequences as a result?
Many economic conservatives do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. If it were, the Republican Party might have trouble attracting economic conservatives and would drive more of them to the Libertarian Party, IMHO.
Just a guess though, because we have no idea how all of this might play out. Too many variables in the equation.
-Robert
Just a guess though, because we have no idea how all of this might play out. Too many variables in the equation.
-Robert
You think people will flee a state because of abortion? It isnt like this is an everyday thing like drinking water or freedom of speech. They have modes of transportation, they can use to cross state lines.
You mean kind of like even if we had captured or killed Bin Laden years ago, Bush and co would have made sure no one would ever find out so they could continue the war on terror in perpetuity? That kind of insanity?
Better lay off the drugs Moonbeam
KGB
Diamond Member
- May 11, 2000
- 3,042
- 0
- 0
Moonie, To answer your queation, NO the GOP would never throw any election. The costs are too high.
IMO regarding the overall Roe v. Wade question, the GOP will NEVER overturn this. Ever since the 80s when the GOP co-opted the fundamentalist vote (you could make an argument over who co-opted who), they have dangled this carrot. They have ZERO interest in seeing R v. W overturned as it will drive away their moderates (the REAL Eisenhower-Goldwater Republicans) and leave only the fundamentalists. They neither want nor need this. As long as the GOP and the fundamentalists are together, this is a carrot which will never be reached.
The only way I see R v. W being overturned is if the fundamentalists drive out the moderates and take over the party "brand". There are already signals that this is starting in the feeding frenzy over who and how this election pooch was screwed. Some Rs complain that McCain isn't conservative enough and vow to never again let a "RINO" get the nomination. Not only that, they claim these wedge issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.) are the defining positions in the GOP and if you're not against these, you are not a "true" Republican. I forsee a real battle coming for the "soul" of the Republican party and it won't be pretty.
FWIW, many years ago I was a registered R and voted for Reagan for his first term. After his then record deficit spending spree combined with the co-option of the fundamentalists, I changed my registration to D. The funny thing is I never changed my positions or beliefs. The party changed right out from under me.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Yeah, I do. If you were secular and felt that you were living in a Christian theocracy wouldn't you want to take off too, kind of like how you'd want to flee the likes of Iran for the U.S.? It would certainly be a strong motivating factor. If career, economic, and family issues weren't issues for you then why wouldn't you flee? If you had a choice between a job offer in a secular state and a Christian state which one would you want to take?
In the meantime, as more and more secular people flee, the state would become more and more theocratic. Creationism would end up being taught in the public schools...there would be less separation of church and state...there would be more and more "dry" counties where you can't buy alcohol, there would be more and more employment discrimination against non-Christians, etc., there would be more and more persecution of homosexuals, etc.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,971
- 4,576
- 126
There are already 5 conservative-leaning supreme court justices (one swings a bit now and then) compared to 4 liberal-leaning justices. They already had the power to overturn Roe v Wade. Nothing happened.
Seven of the nine justices were appointed by republican presidents. They already had the power to overturn Roe v Wade. Nothing happened.
Republicans had the house, senate, and presidency at the exact same time for 6 years. They already had the power to create laws (and possibly change the constitution) to help overturn Roe v Wade. Nothing significant happened.
Many people have been voting for republicans on this single issue - ingoring many other important issue. And yet nothing ever happens. The Republicans have no intention of ever truely overturning Roe v Wade as long as this voting gravy train still exists. The instant that the voters wake up and vote on other issues OR require that their representatives actually ACT on Roe v Wade is the instant that Republicans will change their tune. Until then, they'll just keep promissing and then do nothing.
Even if they threw this election. There could at most be 4 liberal justices. This next president CANNOT give a majority to liberal justices unless something really unusual happens. Thus throwing the election can't work for this purpose. Throwing an election theoretically could work to let a democrat face the hard times that we will be facing the next couple of years. But that has nothing to do with Roe v Wade.
Seven of the nine justices were appointed by republican presidents. They already had the power to overturn Roe v Wade. Nothing happened.
Republicans had the house, senate, and presidency at the exact same time for 6 years. They already had the power to create laws (and possibly change the constitution) to help overturn Roe v Wade. Nothing significant happened.
Many people have been voting for republicans on this single issue - ingoring many other important issue. And yet nothing ever happens. The Republicans have no intention of ever truely overturning Roe v Wade as long as this voting gravy train still exists. The instant that the voters wake up and vote on other issues OR require that their representatives actually ACT on Roe v Wade is the instant that Republicans will change their tune. Until then, they'll just keep promissing and then do nothing.
Even if they threw this election. There could at most be 4 liberal justices. This next president CANNOT give a majority to liberal justices unless something really unusual happens. Thus throwing the election can't work for this purpose. Throwing an election theoretically could work to let a democrat face the hard times that we will be facing the next couple of years. But that has nothing to do with Roe v Wade.
if McCain is throwing this election, it's because he's rather the democrats get burdened with Bush's shitstorm and put them in a position where they're 100% in charge and 100% responsible.
The RNC saw that after GW no one from their side could hope to compete. Instead of passing on this election cycle they put out an old senator (Bob Dole anyone?) to take the fire. I wasn't shocked when they chose the Maverick to be the sacrificial lamb.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
I think close to 50% conservatives (at least the ones I know) are in favor of abortion, so I think that skews your premise.
1. He could force it by threatening to veto (edit: things the (D)'s want to pass).
2. The Palin selection made it a centerpiece.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
So... tehy didnt want to be successful to avoid success? I dont think so. They didnt throw anything, they just blew it when in power badly...
Muse
Lifer
- Jul 11, 2001
- 40,541
- 10,014
- 136
I don't know about that stuff (Moonbeam in the OP), but an honest appraisal of the Republicans' chances of carrying the White House this year over a year ago revealed they barely stood a chance. In fact, I figured them for meat. The economy crumbling practically guarantees it right there. I knew even when McCain was doing really shitty in the polls (many months before the RNC) that nobody but he stood a chance of even mounting any kind of campaign. They didn't have a chance. Now, you know they couldn't throw in the towel without pretending they could win, and that's what they've done (and are still doing!). That's what I thought this thread would be about before I stepped into it....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter