Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
“He would “prefer” to avoid this kind of contention social issue, WHAT?!! Why did you run for Congress then? That is your JOB. To represent the people of your district and most people in his district support this bill. Also,why does he think these things aren’t going well? Maybe it’s because you are NOT representing the people who elected you. That you are NOT keeping the promises that many of you made to help you get elected. If the leadership of the Republican party keeps this up they will end up going the way of the Whigs.”
Very well said!
Oh my goodness. I was just listening to the radio yesterday and hearing about them bringing this legislation to a vote, and I was excited and happy, and thinking, “Well finally I can see a point to actually supporting the GOP rather than holding my nose and pulling the lever!”
Oh well.
This is so discouraging to me that I don’t even know what to say.
I saw this last night. I’m with Melaniejw. What in hell are they doing?
Strategic question: Why propose the bill when the absolute best case scenario is that it would squeak thru the Senate (Frankly I don’t see it getting the 60 votes needed to get to a vote in the Senate, but for the purposes of the question we will assume that it would) and would then be vetoed by the President with 0 chance of override?
It is magical thinking to think that a lame duck President would pay any political price for such a veto.
No matter how important the issue, doing this is just not smart. If we are doing it to make ourselves feel better about our position or feel like we are “doing something” then we truly are the Stupid party.
Better to pass bills where we have the chance of overriding a Presidential veto or ones where the President’s party would pay a political price for the veto. (Keystone, Spending cuts, Iran sanctions, etc.)
Now, none of the above is to argue that the way the GOP handled the mechanics of the thing were smart. It was a stupid move to vote on the bill and an even stupider one to pull it once it was brought to the floor.
As you can see from my post I am pretty ticked off about this. I don’t know what they heck they are thinking. It’s as if they can’t take their eye off of 2016 long enough to actually take a stand on something. Do they think that is the key to victory? To throw out the party’s prinicples?
Right, you DO realize that Republican AND reasonable Democrats that aren’t in the party leadership can find common ground on late term abortions AND this could be used against the Democrats during debates that they can be put on record voting against late term abortions. I wrote an entire post on this a while back on how we can win in debates and use these votes against Democrats.
http://ricochet.com/winning-the-abortion-debate/
Republicans will NOT win anything if they continue to run away from these key Moral issues that affect actual real life people. It’s a party that stands for nothing at the moment and will continue to lose support if they keep this up.
Make Obama veto it. He’s gotten by six years without having a veto because Sen. Majority leader Reid hasn’t let anything get by the Senate that the President might dislike. As a result, Pres. Obama has been able to do what he’s done almost his entire political career: Vote “Present.” He hasn’t had to make a stand for or against anything that might be remotely considered controversial by many for most of his presidency.
It’s time to force the president to show just where he stands.
Would voting on the bill have actually accomplished anything to reduce abortions given the fact that it has ZERO chance of becoming law?
Is not the better thing for pro-life advocates to have a Republican president in 2016 who would appoint constitutional conservatives to the SC?
Between now and 2016 we need to play the long game to better the GOP chances in 2016. Abortion is not the place to have the fight now to accomplish that.
I want to force the President to veto bills. I’d just like it to be ones that his party is going to pay a major political price for. I do not believe that his party would pay ANY political price for a veto of that bill, even assuming it could get thru the Senate.
Please read my post on this issue. Running away from issues won’t help, because we can’t be certain that a Republican president will actually do anything to help the pro-life cause because it may be deemed too divisive.
http://ricochet.com/winning-the-abortion-debate/
Voting on the bill would force people to make a choice. Legislators and politicians would need to say yes or no, or, of course, the president’s favorite choice, “present.”
If not now, when? When will be the magical time that will be the right time to have this fight?
That is engaging in the same moral preening that liberals engage in all the time. Voting on a bill that won’t go anywhere in order to say, “Hey, we’re so against abortion, we voted for a bill that had no chance of becoming law” The bill would not become law and would do NOTHING to reduce abortions. Want to reduce abortions? Elect a GOP president in 2016 who appoints the right people to the SC. Nothing Congress does between now and 2016 will have any hope of reducing the number of abortions by even 1.
When we have a GOP house, GOP Senate and GOP president. I know that is hard to hear, but it is the truth.
Yea Ok, and what evidence do we have that electing a Republican president will actually do that? Especially one
from the establishment side of the party?
You know the Democrats don’t give up on their agenda because there is a Republican majority. They manage quite well getting things through no matter who is in charge. Perhaps the Republican’s should try to represent the people who elected them and maybe that is the key to winning the presidency in 2016.
None. However, I do know that it won’t happen with a Democratic president. It is at least possible that it will with a GOP president. I also know that voting on the bill now it would have ZERO chance of it becoming law.
What evidence do you have that voting on the bill would do ANYTHING to reduce the number of abortions. Remember, that is the stated goal. (If your response contains phrases like, “Well if this happened, then maybe that would happen and maybe the groundswell of public outrage, ….etc, then I would propose that it is indeed magical thinking and moral preening.)
Pretty compelling reasons, if you ask me. The legislation was fundamentally flawed and would’ve been vetoed with no hope of override. So, what’s the point in trying to pass it? A sub bill would make permanent the Hyde amendment – a substantive act that doesn’t pick a fight we can’t win. Don’t start a fight you haven’t already won.
Magical thinking. Do you think the bill had any chance of becoming law? Do you think that the Democratic party would have paid any political price for a veto assuming that it could even get to the President’s desk? If so, what evidence, beyond hoping and wishing do you have for either proposition?
Except this bill has strong support on all sides. Even the coveted “Millenial” voter tends more towards support of this bill than coming out against. The controversy is non-existent save for a small, highly vocal minority. Support from the constituents might not have been a slam dunk, but it was dang close.
This is a small bill with easy support. As Mollie Hemmingway noted on The Federalist, if we can’t count on the GOP to support the easy or small things, there’s no way we can count on them on the big stuff.
Yes. We needed to force a veto on this.
Then what is the point of passing any law that Obama has already said he’d veto. Why pass a bill for the Keystone pipeline? it won’t become law anyway
1. Thank you.
2. I emailed this issue to my senators and if I can figure out the zip code plus four (and I did try) I’ll email my representative as well.
dt
I would modify this only slightly. Sometimes its ok to pick a fight you won’t win in the short-term if it bleeds an opponent in the long term. Passing some bills (Keystone, etc) and forcing a veto would be a short term loss, but one that actually hold hope of a long term gain. (Making the opposing party pay a political price) A veto of this bill would not accomplish that, even assuming it got that far.
There is at least some hope that it might. Additionally the Democratic party would pay a political price for a veto. That isn’t the case with this bill.
Matede: #6 “Do they think that is the key to victory? To throw out the party’s principles?”
Mama Toad: #12 “If not now, when? When will be the magical time that will be the right time to have this fight?”
Matede, the party plank and the sitting congress person are not necessarily on the same page. It is unfortunate that the sitters don’t have the same principles as the people who voted for them. Which leads to
Mama, you are right. If they lack the spine to do the right thing now, there won’t be a magical pill that they can swallow and find the courage to do the right thing down the line.
Anyone who agrees with us should call, write, or email their congressional delegates and let them know how important this is, and that spinelessness is not a justification for avoiding the issue.
Assuming it could get thru the Senate. BIG IF.
I see no evidence that the democrats would pay a political price for such a veto. Not like ones they would pay for vetoing Keystone, spending cuts, etc.
AND
Two years from now when the GOP has to hold the house and Senate facing an unfavorable map, the TV ads will all be blaring “The GOP got the house and senate in 2014 and within 3 weeks they were voting to BAN ABORTION.”
Want to assure that abortions continue ad nauseam forever and ever, keep doing stuff like this. Want to end abortion, fight smart.
Here’s the link to Mollie’s piece. According to Mollie, apart from the rightness and popularity of the position itself, this failure is disastrous because it shows the GOP:
Other than that, good move guys (and gals)!
I agree with her strategic criticisms but it was the wrong fight in the first place.
That is a big IF that the Democrats will pay a price on the Keystone pipeline, and again I reference my post we can make smart arguments about abortion. It is just that many Republican candidates do not prepare arguments on it. They just want to shove this issue into a drawer and pretend it doesn’t exist, which is why they get flustered when asked about it in a debate. We can fight smart on social issues if we actually fight, shoving it under the rug doesn’t make them go away.
David Knights is correct regarding strategy. I’m not sure the best way to stop baby killing but lessening the chances of a GOP president isn’t one of them.