Guttmacher Institute
A couple of years ago, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), still flirting with the possibility of running for president, told the Weekly Standard that whoever wins in 2012, the president "would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while," until economic issues were addressed.
Daniels is a staunch opponent of abortion rights, but he wanted to see his party shift its focus, at least for a while. The right was apoplectic, condemned the idea of a "truce," and the governor was forced to backpedal, eventually saying he meant only liberals would have to call a truce.
With this in mind, I found it interesting to see Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) take a step in a similar direction yesterday on Fox News. Host Chris Wallace noted that Republicans lost single women by 36 points on Election Day, and asked if the GOP needs to change. McCain argued:
"[A]s far as young women are concerned, absolutely. I don't think anybody like me, I can state my position on abortion, but, to, other than that, leave the issue alone when we are in the kind of economic situation and, frankly, national security situation we're in."
Wallace followed up, asking, "When you say leave the issue alone, you would allow, you'd say, freedom of choice?" McCain replied, "I would allow people to have those opinions and respect those opinions. I'm proud of my pro-life position and record. But if someone disagrees with me, I respect your views."
Just as the right found Daniels' "truce" talk unacceptable, I suspect McCain's argument that Republicans should "leave the [abortion] issue alone" won't be well received, either. After all, for two years, Republicans at the federal and state level have gone out of their way to ignore economic issues to invest heavily in far-right proposals on reproductive rights and women's health. Almost immediately after the 2010 midterms, Republicans went from "jobs, jobs, jobs" to "abortion, contraception, and mandatory, medically unnecessary ultrasounds" in a blink of an eye.
I have a hunch the question isn't whether other Republicans will agree with McCain's argument, but rather, when McCain will walk this back.
Leave a Comment:
The anti-abortion industry generates too much money for the evangelical and Catholic clergy and their political allies for the cultural warriors to ever take a break.
If they were really interested in reducing abortions to the lowest level possible they would give up their campaign for de jur restrictions and would work to actually solve the problem. They won't because actually solving the problem is hard and isn't as lucrative as fighting the war.
I agree and would add the fact that as wages and employment rise abortions fall.
Solving the problem equals; better birth control access, better education (including sex ed.), and employment.
Don't let the "truce" talk fool anyone. Abortion is a staple of the Rove "wedge and win" strategy. The problem for the Republicans in the 2012 race was that the T.E.A. legislators elected in 2010 were fervently anti-abortion and they dominated in their legislative bodies. They just pushed the issue too far. They talked of "legitimate rape" and "not aborting a pregnancy from rape" and "morning after pills" as reasons to oppose abortion. It was a miscalculation but a "truce" on social issues? Don't believe it for a minute. Even the way the "religious freedom" issue was used was effective for some voters, but it didn't work for most because the Constitution declares religious freedom for all. Still, they will rework the issue and use it in 2014. Remember the Rove side controls 80% of the media, so they have a real advantage in targeting their messages to the most receptive voters. That is why programs like TRMS and the Stephanie Miller Show and others like them are so important, because they give the foot soldiers like those of us involved in Obama's 2012 campaign the ammunition to argue successfully on these issues with those who have been lied to by the controlled media. The social media is also critical to overcome their lies and distortions with the truth. "Truce, truce, there is no truce."
As always, Ron, it is about the money. Ditto the 'war on drugs'. For that matter, Johnson's 'war on poverty' created a heck of a lot of middle class jobs for Head Start teachers, and the like.
America is a
ChristianCapitalist Nation.DAY, it is not about the money per se, it is about into whose pocket the money goes. Romney as the front man for the Kochs and the rest of the .1% pointed to the 47 million who receive SNAP (food stamps) as a sign of people not wanting to take the "opportunities" that society offers and work their way out of needing assistance. But, actually the .!%ers are laughing all the way to the bank. They are the one's who profit most from 47 million people avoiding hunger and malnutrition. They sell the goods that the 47 million buy: the food, paper products, and other eligible items, so they profit, but they still complain.
The .1%er's war on entitlements is just an outsourcing effort on their part. They don't seriously think they will succeed, but they have achieved part of their goal: delaying any tax increase on them for 2 years. The Kochs have been in enough court proceedings to know that you don't win them all, but you can still profit if you delay the verdict.
Translation--let the States decide since the state legilature is far less accountable to their constituency(except maybe California with its propositions being brought to a popular vote).
McCain would NOT allow "freedom of choice." God, how I wish his ejection seat had failed 45 years ago.
How soon do we forget McCain's lies on gays in the military. He'd say yes, and proseed to vote no. Craven, thy name is McCain.
The repukes don't have any substantive policies, except pandering to biggots.
You have to pay attention to the way the "argument" is being framed: "...leave the issue alone when we are in the kind of economic situation and, frankly, national security situation we're in."
Which translated means "we got shellacked, we won't bring it up loudly for now, but we still are working to eliminate abortion" - see they don't believe it's their message, but how that message was put out. This group isn't going to stop, they're just shelving the issue for right now, they'll be back at it in 5...4...3...2...
My thoughts exactly! I can tell when you take words like these and add them to Rubio's "gee golly shucks who cares how old the earth is, let's talk about the economy" [paraphrased, lol], you get a more mainstream-moderate-independent-friendly message. Dems better watch out, people totally forget AND they never seem to look at track-records so.... BUYER BEWARE.
Sure. Let the Republican House call a "halt" (or a temporary cease-fire) on the abortion front. Fewer blue fingers pointing at them in ridicule. Meanwhile, the gerrymandered red states and their ideologically rigorous legislatures and governors will continue the culture war with -- wait for it -- more and more ruthless anti-abortion and anti-women laws and regulations. The Right can speak out of both sides of its mouth, and the Beltway-Blind Very Serious People will congratulate them for their reasonableness.
Same. Old. Stuff (ahem).
I think they actually believe that somebody is going to abort the second coming of Jesus, the way they are obsessed with the womens' body is really strange. The World is overpopulated, you can stop multiplying, any day now. They may have needed more people in Genesis but, that happened milleniums ago. We're good with people now, we have an over-abundance of people and mouths to feed. I think you can even consider the first chapter as the geneology chapter or the genius chapter, if you can interpret it.
Outside of the question, more importantly, who is the leader of the GOP now? AZ Senator McCain is laughably, trying to champion face time and fill the void, leading with remarks and pronouncements, at least as far as one can tell.
No one seems to have mentioned to Mr. McCain however, he's crashed that jet more than once, it just doesn't fly anymore when he's on the TV.
For all the sense that Republicans make, their leader may as well be this guy.
McCain "would allow people to have those opinions and respect those opinions?" When someone disagrees with him, he respects their views?
McCain seems to imply that this kind of respect is some New Shiny Idea - perhaps he's admitting that for way too many on the right, the default position is NOT to allow people have have "those" opinions? to NOT respect those opinions? Here, I think the Senator is pulling the curtain back, just a little.
Here we go again. The right drags out the abortion hot button before an election and grand-stands on babies and right to life to motivate the voters.
Then the election is over and the issue is returned to the back burner, where it is kept simmering by state level by clinic closings and grass roots advocates, only to be brought out on the national stage again next election.
I've seen this strategy used since I started voting back in the 80's. It is no surprise now that the issue will fade back to local levels after all the bruhaha made over it these past few month where it will stay unless murder or arsen spotlights it nationally for a time.
Abortion or pro-life is a tool, used mainly by white males to garner emotional votes. They know that while overturning Roe v. Wade will be perceived as a victory for the Lord, in reality doing so will generate far more problems at the local, state, and federal levels than it will solve.
The problem is that it's not an "opinion" that women should have the right to have a legal and safe abortion, it's an actual established legal thing as upheld by the Supreme Court. The reason why there is a current debate is because the American people have allowed state governments to chip away at this right over and over again, as if it's not an established right and is instead something that ought to be legislated based on "opnions" or "firmly held beliefs" etc.
I love it: "and, frankly, national security situation we're in."
Senator jabber-jowels is getting all 'Benghazi' again..
A Culture war truce? You mean minding your own @!$%#ing business and not worrying about who is boffing whom in the name of love and who else is terminating a pregnancy? Is that what a "truce" would entail? I don't think that's what kind of "truce" is coming to light. I think we get 20 more years of crazy! Then these folks are dead..
Why does someone call a truce? In general, it's because they are tired of fighting, and don't see any way to win under the present situation for the forseeable future. You don't broach the idea of a truce if you are winning, or feel you are on track to winning. The right sees:
1. Social issues were a major electoral catastrophe this year, not only in the presidential contest, but in the Senate, where for the second straight election cycle, they missed picking up easy seats by running crazy, social conservative candidates. They probably would have lost big in the House too if it hadn't been for gerrymandered districts.
2. With the Senate in an even tighter grip by the dems, they see that no matter what kind of radical anti-abortion bills make it out of the House, there is no way in hell that it will get passed. Even if by some astounding miracle the Senate did pass it, President Obama will be in the White House for the next 4 years, and he would veto it.
3. With Obama in the White House, it is also obvious that he will not be appointing any Supreme Court justices of the same mindset as Thomas, Alito, and Scalia, so the odds of overturning Roe v. Wade aren't going to improve.
So, the right will declare peace, (for now), and wait for the time when all of the above shifts in their favor. Points 2 and 3 are locked in for the next 4 years, but I don't see Point 1 changing ever. The electorate has changed, and the days of old white guys calling the shots is over.
How I wish! Since when did the Right deal with reality instead of denying it? And much as we might want it, President Obama doesn't appoint justices to the Supreme Court: he nominates them, and the Senate does or does not confirm them. If, as seems sadly likely, the incoming Senate Dems retain current filibuster rules, then even the best nominees will be shot down by the Senate -- or traded for god-knows what disastrous compromises.
I wish I could be sanguine, but I despair.
While we may not get justices as liberal as we may like, I think it is very unlikely that he would even deign to nominate someone that repubs would embrace. He got Sotomayor and Kagan over repub objections, and I would be fine with more justices like them. They were confirmed under the current filibuster rules, and with a Senate that was of a similar makeup as we have today. Repubs saw what obstructionism got them in the last election, so any objections they have to a nominee have to be substantive, or they will pay for it again in the next election.
The abortion issue should be left alone. We don't take care of the children we have. How do the Republicans propose to pay for the birth and the care of the unaborted child. I don't see any of them stepping up to the plate to feed and clothe and house the child. In fact they want to cut the budget for education and cut the budget for planned parenthood. They have no problem sending that same child to war and want to cut veterans benefits.
sometimes abortion can be the lesser of two evils.
They don't even want to provide prenatal care for the unborn.
It sounds to me like McCain only said they should stop *talking about* abortion, not that they should stop restricting it. "I would allow people to have those opinions and respect those opinions" comes across to me as 'continue passing laws to restrict abortion but stop telling women who object that they're sluts'.
The Republican social conservatives believe that they can just talk more nicely about women's reproductive rights and all will be just fine. They do not believe that women want to make their own individual choices. Respect for women? I don't think so.
this is what i heard john mcCain say.
people get to have their opinions. but THAT has nothing to do with how THEY WILL BE GOVERNED WHEN REPUBS GET POWER.
Consider the source. McCain hardly speaks for anyone these days.