[DRB]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15188203/

The theory is that Democratic positions on such issues as the economy and education are well-suited to many tradition-minded Southern voters -- if these voters can be reassured on cultural values.

"It's time that we start reading the Bible instead of knocking people over the head with it," McCaskill told a Springfield crowd last month.

Missouri is an ideal laboratory to see if the experiment can work. For decades, the Democratic formula for winning the Show-Me State was simple: Win big in the urban hubs of St. Louis and Kansas City. But that approach only works by not losing big in the rest of the state.

McCaskill, the state auditor and a former prosecutor, learned that the hard way. In 2004, she lost the race for governor to Matt Blunt, the son of House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R). She campaigned hard in the cities but was barely seen in Springfield, which repaid her in kind with 37 percent of the vote.

"If I want to represent all of the state, I darn better get to speak to everybody in the state," McCaskill, 53, told a crowd here last month.

The problem is on the social front. "In conservative to moderate districts, swing voters first want to know where you are on their values," Ross said. "Once they get past that, they will listen to you on everything else."

As a supporter of abortion rights, McCaskill fits into her party's mainstream on the biggest of all lightning rods for cultural conservatives. She responds by mostly not talking about it, and is attempting to define her values more broadly.

At Emily's List, an abortion-rights group that is supporting McCaskill, the candidate's silence is viewed not as a retreat but as shrewd politics. Chris Esposito, an Emily's List political operative who helped Rep. Dennis Moore get elected eight years ago in a GOP-leaning House district in Kansas, said McCaskill should talk about the issues that Missouri voters say they care about -- such as health coverage and national security.

The point, he said, is winning. "It's not exclusive to wedge issues," Esposito said. "It's fundamental to every campaign."

Another approach is the Heath Shuler model. The former Redskins quarterback and local real estate developer is challenging GOP Rep. Charles H. Taylor in Western North Carolina.

Shuler touts his antiabortion stand on the "faith and family values" page of his Web site, where he announces, "I am a pro-life Democrat." But he puts a Democratic spin on his stance: "I also believe that a commitment to life extends beyond the womb and means ensuring that all people have adequate health care, receive a strong education, and be given proper care in their later years."

 

[$tinkle]

interesting for 2 statistical reasons:
- blacks who vote, vote 90% democrat
- blacks, who make up a larger portion of urban population, also make up a larger portion of abortion "clients"

seems to me the dems are cutting of their own noses.

 

[DRB]

interesting for 2 statistical reasons:
- blacks who vote, vote 90% democrat
- blacks, who make up a larger portion of urban population, also make up a larger portion of abortion "clients"

seems to me the dems are cutting of their own noses.

Blacks don't vote for Democrats because of abortion rights.... not even close.

 

[Slugman]

interesting for 2 statistical reasons:
- blacks who vote, vote 90% democrat
- blacks, who make up a larger portion of urban population, also make up a larger portion of abortion "clients"

seems to me the dems are cutting of their own noses.

but whites have a higher voting percentage, and what party would blacks vote for if it were not Democrat? It's not like the republicans have a decent policy about abortion...

It's a safe play by the Democrats.

 

[$tinkle]

Blacks don't vote for Democrats because of abortion rights.... not even close.

i realize that.
i'm pointing out interesting that apparent disconnect is, as the right to abortion ("reproductive rights" by another name) is an article of faith for the democrats.

is this another testament to their "big tent" philosophy, or subdued racism?

 

[DRB]

i realize that.
i'm pointing out interesting that apparent disconnect is, as the right to abortion ("reproductive rights" by another name) is an article of faith for the democrats.

is this another testament to their "big tent" philosophy, or subdued racism?

Racism? Not sure that's right.

The GOP has been able to craft abortion as a make or break issue and the democrats could never get loose of that. Now the Democrats are crafting their message to match their intended audience. The same way the GOP did when it went after normally strong Democratic strongholds (Catholics and orthodox Jews) pushing the abortion and family values issues.

As was pointed out, instead of just giving up in particular areas, they are using this crafted message to steer clear of conflict to get the rest of the message out. With the war, there is now an issue that is important enough to dull the noise of abortion rights.

The democrats can afford a few pro-lifers just like the Republicans have tolerated pro-choicers. That is especially true in areas where a for or against abortion stance is key.

 

[$tinkle]

As was pointed out, instead of just giving up in particular areas, they are using this crafted message to steer clear of conflict to get the rest of the message out. With the war, there is now an issue that is important enough to dull the noise of abortion rights.

seems to me they're happy with no longer being assessed with a litmus test in favor of a more "nuanced" approach. it boils down to equivocation at best, and marginalizing a topic of great importance to a large bloc at worst. either way, it's a demonstration they'll do anything just for the sake of getting elected.

as far as their stance with the military goes (you brought up the assertion the war has dulled the noise of abortion rights), they have no street credit with me, for this latest reason in a string of missteps:

Dems Use Canadian Troop Images To Support US Soldiers

"Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence"

 

[Old Man G Funk]

seems to me they're happy with no longer being assessed with a litmus test in favor of a more "nuanced" approach. it boils down to equivocation at best, and marginalizing a topic of great importance to a large bloc at worst. either way, it's a demonstration they'll do anything just for the sake of getting elected.

Because "pro-life" isn't an equivocation? Because it is only a black and white issue?

The Dems are finally waking up to the fact that the Repubs have been very good at making things into black and white issues for the last 20 years, and defining their side as the "good" side. That was all a big demonstration that they will also do anything just for the sake of getting elected. In that regard, both parties are equally guilty and both reek because of it.

 

[Silver]

seems to me they're happy with no longer being assessed with a litmus test in favor of a more "nuanced" approach. it boils down to equivocation at best, and marginalizing a topic of great importance to a large bloc at worst. either way, it's a demonstration they'll do anything just for the sake of getting elected.

Which is how you can explain Foley being able to have dirty online chats with pages while being in the closet and trying to change the constitution so that homosexuals are officially second class citizens.

(You couldn't have written that with a straight face. It's been 6 years with all three branches of government, and abortion still doesn't get you the death penalty and the fags aren't in camps yet.)

 

[$tinkle]

Which is how you can explain Foley being able to have dirty online chats with pages while being in the closet and trying to change the constitution so that homosexuals are officially second class citizens.

???
1: foley wasn't closeted.
2: how would homosexuals be second class citizens and not also those who are underaged, already married, or family members?

(You couldn't have written that with a straight face. It's been 6 years with all three branches of government, and abortion still doesn't get you the death penalty and the fags aren't in camps yet.)

do you view a judicial appointee as carrying the same letter after their name as their appointer?

seems to me you're saying that when W was sworn in, the court fell in lock step w/ him.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

???
1: foley wasn't closeted.

Do you have a comprehension problem? Did he declare that he was gay prior to getting married to a woman?

Pretty sure just coming out now meant he was closeted...unless your definition is different than the rest of ours...


Both sides marginalize issues in their best interest, just becuase the GOP got good at it before the democrats caught on doesn't make it any less distressing....

 

[$tinkle]

Do you have a comprehension problem? Did he declare that he was gay prior to getting married to a woman?

he did have a press conference 3 yrs ago to say he won't answer questions about his sexual orientation, which in itself answers the question about his sexual orientation. a distinction without a difference, would you agree?

link

 

[DRB]

seems to me they're happy with no longer being assessed with a litmus test in favor of a more "nuanced" approach. it boils down to equivocation at best, and marginalizing a topic of great importance to a large bloc at worst. either way, it's a demonstration they'll do anything just for the sake of getting elected.

Instead of allowing themselves to be defined by one single issue (which believe it or not there is more to this country's business than abortion) they are tackling the range of them. And saying we may or may not agree on this issue but on the rest.......

Heath Shuler is a perfect example of this. He is in lock step with the Democrats except for abortion. He was quoted, "We can't let this country suffer because we can't come to terms on one issue when there is so much more that needs to be resolved." "I'm committed to bringing about change to the Democratic party in regards to abortion BUT there is too much good to be ignored in our message to get hung up there."

as far as their stance with the military goes (you brought up the assertion the war has dulled the noise of abortion rights), they have no street credit with me, for this latest reason in a string of missteps:

You aren't the voter they are targeting. Its really a small portion of the GOP faithful they are hunting. Those that are very very disinfranchised with the Iraq war and the handling of it by the republican majority. Or the domestic survelliance. Or social issues. Or and this is becoming the biggie, ethics. To those folks, abortion is a non-issue.

These voters are dangerous in two ways. Either a) they stay home and don't vote at all because the "litmus" test issues aren't enough to bring them out and the handling of the rest has left them indifferent. b) they do come out and vote but vote againist those that they voted for 2 years ago because of a perceived failure.

As for missteps in the dealing with Iraq there are MORE than enough of those to go around.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

he did have a press conference 3 yrs ago to say he won't answer questions about his sexual orientation, which in itself answers the question about his sexual orientation. a distinction without a difference, would you agree?

link

Hadn't seen that.......Fine, he was in the closet until then....would you agree....:biggrin:

 

[DRB]

Do you have a comprehension problem? Did he declare that he was gay prior to getting married to a woman?

Pretty sure just coming out now meant he was closeted...unless your definition is different than the rest of ours...


Both sides marginalize issues in their best interest, just becuase the GOP got good at it before the democrats caught on doesn't make it any less distressing....

It really does depend on how you define closeted. Did he get on the TV and proclaim that he is gay to everyone? No. Did he make a huge effort to hide the fact? No. Foley's homosexuality was fairly well known within Washington and his home district. It was pretty well known that he was gay and was often seen with his longtime companion, Dr. Layne Nisenbaum.

When confronted with allegations of his homosexuality during the run up to his potential run for Senate, he stated that his sexual orientation was unimportant (which should be true). So just because you didn't know doesn't mean he was in the closet.

As for married.... he never was.

 

[ohio]

These voters are dangerous in two ways.

I wouldn't argue too hard on this one with stinkle. If you actually convince him you're right, you'll only mobilize him to act for the Rs, rather than swing to the side of the Ds.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

It really does depend on how you define closeted. Did he get on the TV and proclaim that he is gay to everyone? No. Did he make a huge effort to hide the fact? No. Foley's homosexuality was fairly well known within Washington and his home district. It was pretty well known that he was gay and was often seen with his longtime companion, Dr. Layne Nisenbaum.

When confronted with allegations of his homosexuality during the run up to his potential run for Senate, he stated that his sexual orientation was unimportant (which should be true). So just because you didn't know doesn't mean he was in the closet.

As for married.... he never was.

You're right, it should be unimportant... And I didn't realize that he had all but outright stated he was. I was uninformed.

Coulda sworn he was married....though I can't find the recent (within the last 30-45 days.....) article where I thought I saw it....

Hmm...maybe I'm going crazy...wouldn't be the first time.

Edit: I am crazy, I must've just glossed over a related article and linked the two together in my head.....d'oh....

Nevermind. Carry on!

 

[$tinkle]

Instead of allowing themselves to be defined by one single issue (which believe it or not there is more to this country's business than abortion) they are tackling the range of them. And saying we may or may not agree on this issue but on the rest.......

the rub is, catholics as a voting bloc are one issue voters. and don't give me that crap about "pro-choice catholics", which by definition is an oxymoron.

Heath Shuler is a perfect example of this.

the last time he was in washington, it didn't go so well. :biggrin:
also, he made the top 25 biggest flops. that's MY litmus test.

You aren't the voter they are targeting. Its really a small portion of the GOP faithful they are hunting. Those that are very very disinfranchised with the Iraq war and the handling of it by the republican majority. Or the domestic survelliance. Or social issues. Or and this is becoming the biggie, ethics. To those folks, abortion is a non-issue.

the dems certainly seem to be putting their money behind this, to be sure.

As for missteps in the dealing with Iraq there are MORE than enough of those to go around.

again:

as far as their stance with the military goes<strike> (you brought up the assertion the war has dulled the noise of abortion rights), </strike> they have no street credit with me, for this latest reason in a string of missteps:

as in: a square is a quadrilateral, but a quadrilateral is not a square.

 

[$tinkle]

Hadn't seen that.......Fine, he was in the closet until then....would you agree....:biggrin:

i'll agree that he was heavily rumored to have been gay at least as far back as 3+ yrs ago.

this is starting to feel like a sewing circle (jerk?) now.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

i'll agree that he was heavily rumored to have been gay at least as far back as 3+ yrs ago.

this is starting to feel like a sewing circle (jerk?) now.

Just a little.....


I'm done with that particular topic... I found the relevant facts and found that I was wrong. Carry on with DRB and such. I'll chime back in if I know what I'm talking about.

 

[DRB]

Fixed :biggrin: .

Just being sarcastic, not to mean any real harm, just a joke.

Not taking a shot at you BUT that's the attitude a lot of House Republicans took a year ago when it came time to start campaigning. And all of a sudden stuff starting going wrong for the Republicans. Combine that with the change of tactics by the Democrats. And then more stuff going wrong for the Republicans. All of a sudden some safe Republicans are in a fight. To be honest its the exact same thing that clipped the Democrats in '94.