The Republican establishment has no intention of letting Roe v. Wade die.

[Zynx]

The elites of the Republican party, which are wealthy businessmen and not religious fanatics, have used abortion conveniently to damage Democratic support with blue collar voters and have done it very well. However, they have no intention of ever letting Roe v. Wade be overturned. Sure they may throw a bone here or there indicating that they want it to be overturned such as appointing Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court. To let Roe be overturned would be a political disaster for the Republicans of monumental proportions. It would basically destroy the Republican Party in the entire north and west and damage it everywhere except the deep south and plains states. The fights in the state legislatures would lead to the defeats of scores of Republicans all across the country and they would become a minority party with only regional appeal.

No, make no mistake that O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter constitute a majority of justices appointed by Republicans since 1980 and they are all pro-choice. If the Republicans were truly interested in overturning Roe v. Wade, don't you think they would have looked more closely into their views?

[mac56]

1. This is what I've been saying for years.

Roe v Wade is red meat for their base. If they ever overturn it, there goes their major wedge issue. They may dilute it, but they'll never overturn it.

[Inland]

2. I think the republicans are on the horns of the dilemma

I think that the business-moderates in the republicans saw Roe as the carrot on a stick for the right wing evangelicals. Something that they would strive for forever, moving the republicans forward but never getting there.

Well, now there's a man who professes to be a right wing christian in the WH. The wink and nods going out to the RW christians are that Roberts is going to vote against Roe.

And there's going to be another appointment.

Now think...when the vote on Roe comes, those Bush II appointments are 1) going to vote to overturn Roe or 2) not.

If not, the RW christians will dump the republicans forever.

If so, then everyone else will dump the republicans forever, since it's only the belief that the carrot was firmly on the stick and protected that keep most Americans in the party.

In conclusion, each faction thinks Bush is lying. the moderates think Bush is lying to the christians and appointing a pro Roe dude. The RW christians think Bush is lying to the country and that his appointees are passing an anti Roe litmus test. They can't both be right.

[Zynx]

17. They made their deal with the devil.

Now they are screwed, but the business interests will win out. They always win in the Republican Party.

[Mr_Spock]

37. I agree - this is a decision they hope will never come to a vote

You are correct - it's a lose-lose issue for them if it ever gets in front of the court with the two Bush appointments in there. I am looking forward to this day as the Repukes will be sick to their stomach knowing that even if they win, they lose.

[Inland]

43. At some point, the RWchiristians have got to say, IF THIS DIDN"T DO IT

then nothing will, and they'll give up on the republican establishment.

My firm belief is that the only ones still supporting Bush are the RWCs who know just as well as you and I that Bush's policies in Iraq and NO and lots of other places are fucked, but will lie about it so that Bush will have enough power to overturn Roe.

Once that's done, OR NOT DONE, they are freed.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Let's see what the mouth breather senators do in the hearings today

Let's see if they press the opposite of the likes of Feinstein .... to make sure Roberts **would** overturn.

I see these hearings - and the subsequent full senate vote - as an indicator of the power of the fundie nuts vs the money nuts.

[Zynx]

5. The "money nuts" still control the Republican Party. Always have, always

will.

[formerrepuke]

4. So true: If you have only one major unifying, controversial issue,

you don't want to make the issue go away- you want to feed it/fan the flames as long as possible.

[RaulGroom]

6. Keep saying this

Perhaps someday democrats will start to understand it. The religious right loses every battle, every one. The flip side is that the culture wars divert so many liberals as well. Remember Jesusland? That sort of thing drives me nuts. Like I said, keep saying it... Maybe by the time my kids are grown somebody in this party will get it.

[Zynx]

7. They love it when our leaders get out on the stump and talk abortion.

It doesn't cost them anything and just solidifies their votes. They love this issue because it is so easy for them.

[MostlyLurks]

8. Two words: gay marriage

I've heard a lot of people saying much the same. In fact, my sister-in-law, who's actually had an abortion, said she was voting for Bush because she did not believe they'd ever overturn Roe.

But the issue has reached critical mass. The Biblical rightists have essentially drawn a line in the sand, saying their support in 2000 and 2004 was largely the result of anti-choice rhetoric by Republicans and Bush. Even if we take the actual men like Robertson, Falwell, etc and accept that they don't give a shit one way or the other, their followers do. And they are frenzied over the prospect of overturning Roe. Further, I believe that if it doesn't come to pass, they'll abandon the Republicans en masse for the Constitution party or something equally as radical.

So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't: keep Roe and, I think, they lose a major portion of the base to a party that's more honestly against choice OR overturn Roe and lose a lot of their swing vote possibilities.

This is why I think the gay marriage thing has been beaten so consistently for the past, what, 18 months. As you state, the Republicans give up one of their biggest bogey men if Roe is overturned. But that's not a death sentence - and here's the crucial part - IF they can replace the departing abortion issue with some other, equally as divisive issue. If we assme they no longer have abortion to use as a fulcrum for support, they have to find a new "booga booga" scare-tactic with which to woo religious voters.

Gay marriage fits perfectly. Gay marriage works on the exact same footing: religious and social. It has to do with privacy, with choice, with sexual freedom, etc. It's almost the same issue from a macropolitical perspective. It jerks at the same knees. Even better, their position against it actually gibes with American popular opinion. Unlike abortion, where they're taking the minority opinion, the gay marriage issue gets them on the "right" side of the issue: it's easier to defend/work for a popular idea than an unpopular one.

Note how, even in those states where the issue appears to be settled, the drums keep beating: "the liberals will overturn our state same-sex bans..." and so on. It's exactly what Schwarzenfuhrer is doing in Cali right now. His rating are in the toilet, so he pulls on the "gay marriage" ripcord and I'll bet dollars to donuts his numbers get a slight bump (though not as much as if a similar scenario played out in a less progressive state, such as Ohio or Michigan).

I believe Roe will be overturned in the next decade and the Republicans will convert their anti-choice apparatus to an anti-same-sex-marriage apparatus.

Mostly

[Zynx]

9. If Roe is overturned, the Republican party will implode.

The business wing, which still controls the party, will bolt if the Republicans are just a social issues party and aren't interested in tax cuts and deregulation. That is the reason Roe will never be overturned.

[MostlyLurks]

11. Why does overturning Roe have anything to do with tax cuts?

I'm not seeing that connection.

They can overturn Roe and still advocate lower corporate taxes, less regulation, etc. I don't see the tendons that connect one idea to another: the social platform and the fiscal platform don't seem to have much to do with each other. It's not like they link their social ideas to their fiscal ideas.

My point is that Roe is their silver bullet issue for those who would otherwise balk at their corporate agenda: Roe ensures that a certain portion of people vote for the Republicans EVEN though that vote hammers those same voters economically.

All they have to do to keep those voters, if Roe is overturned, is find a similarly charged social issue that will, again, ensure that those some religiously motivated voters continue to ignore the corporate aspects of the party. I believe gay marriage is that issue and I believe that's why they've moved gay marriage up in the agenda, to a point where it's on par with abortion in their rhetoric.

Saying that the business wing will bolt if the party becomes solely a social issues party assumes that the use of gay marriage as an issue will occupy all of its time and there's no reason that has to be true - they can highlight gay marriage in the same way they currently do abortion. Use of abortion certainly hasn't dampened Republican fealty to big business, nor has it driven big business away from the Republican party. I believe it's simply a matter of swapping one wedge issue, abortion, for another in gay marriage. It requires no radical reformation of the party. As I stated in my original post, I think it will actually be quite easy to pull off because gay marriage occupies the same argumentative place as abortion does: it is spiritual/social.

Why do you think the overturning of Roe must necessarily negate their traditional views on taxes, business, etc?

Mostly

[Zynx]

13. It is not a logical connection.

The business community does not have any real opinion about abortion. In fact they politely use it for their own daughters to avoid embarassment. I have seen this myself in the area I grew up in. However, the business community is not powerful enough to single handidly pass their economic agenda. They need support of lower and lower middle class voters who tend to be socially conservative, but economically more progressive. They obtain this support through giving the appearance of opposition to abortion, however they would balk at the idea of ever actually outlawing abortion. The business wing of the Republican party is socially libertarian. They don't care what people do with their bodies and strongly oppose any laws that would regulate such activity as opposed to the religious right.

If Roe were overturned, you would see the business wing, which is libertarian, come into direct conflict with the authoritarian religious right over abortion laws in the various states. That would happen regardless of whether or not they brought up gay marriage as another issue.

[MostlyLurks]

20. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not of the opinion that the business wing would care one iota about the social implications of Roe as long as the Republicans toed the line where business was concerned. Personally, I think the business wing is of the mind that laws don't mean much to the rich - as we're often pointing out, back when abortion was illegal, rich people still had abortions. If that's the case, then who cares what the Republican social platform is: "I'm rich, it doesn't apply to me."

But in a larger sense, the problem I have with the "they'll never overturn Roe" argument is that it assumes permanence and settlement. It assumes that if Roe is overturned, then suddenly the Republicans are adrift and the Democrats are defeated, the issue is dead and America moves on to different things. I don't see it that way.

If Roe goes, everything stays the same, the fight is still happening, it's just that the positions are turned: they're fighting FOR the law and we're fighting AGAINST it. But the moral/value/ethical/religious considerations are exactly the same as they always were. Therefore, to me, the fallout is negligible because both sides maintain the same positions.

You make the argument that "they obtain this support through giving the appearance of opposition to abortion". I think you're intimating that business and corporate donations to Republicans make it appear as if they are, by proxy, anti-choice and they get the benefit of the doubt from the social Republicans.

But it still works that way if Roe is overturned. Let's say tomorrow Roe is gone. Does that mean the fight is over - time to drop the "Pro-Choice" banners and go home? Certainly not: Democrats and like-minded people would start working hard to bring abortion back as a legal choice. In turn, the Republicans would work hard to ensure it's perpetual illegality and, here's the point, corporations donating to Republicans would still get their de facto benefit of the doubt in the argument.

It's not like a shooting war where one side is going to surrender, lay down its guns and hop a ride back home. If they overturn it, we'll fight back, and if we overturn it, they'll fight back. In essence, it doesn't matter who currently has the upper hand because the two sides will always be fighting.

So maybe gay marriage won't be the "new abortion", but I see no reason to think that, with the overturning of Roe, suddenly everything would be different. Both sides would still have the same positions and therefore be able to stir the same pots.

Mostly.

[Zynx]

23. Roe overturned does not make abortion illegal.

It simply defers to state law. The point I am making is that Republican political support from moderates will evaporate and they will be thrown out of power if they bring the issue to every state legislature in this country. The abortion issue is not front and center with many Americans right now, but if Roe were overturned, it would land in the lap of every state and become a major political issue. The business community would be forced to take sides to either outlaw abortion with their whacko friends right now and remain in the minority or work to prevent it from becoming illegal.

The business community wants to remain in power for their tax cuts and they would not want the political atmosphere where 60% of people associate the Republicans only with religious whackos who want to regulate people's lives. The fight in the state legislatures and the mess it would cause would be the Republicans' worst nightmare as it would drive the moderate 7-8% of voters that support abortion rights, but still vote Republican, away from the party and over to the Democrats or possibly just not vote. The libertarian elements of the Republican Party would come face to face with the authoritarian elements and it would be disasterous.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. This is a large part of the key...

in that it puts the issue into real play and we could see a replay of the Wallace run.

Right now, abortion is a whining issue for a small part of the population-- it's legal and there's not much they can do about it. But, give them the real chance to actually make it illegal and they'll be out there dividing their party.

It wasn't all that long ago that most Democrats were Southern yellow-dog segregationists, and when they saw Jim Crow laws disappearing on the horizon, Wallace saw his chance to run on a third party. Throw a few bones to the ones who weren't comfortable with Jim Crow but had some problems with a lot of other changes, and you've got a huge block sewn up. Or, so he thought. Most eventually just became Republicans, forgetting about that little fracas and Lincoln that drove them to the Democrats in the first place.

If Roe is overturned, it takes us back to the old days with some monstrous legislative battles, and I suspect far fewer legislatures are going to simply outlaw abortion. The country is used to choice, and the pro-choice side is going to play to win, with a lot more on their side than they had years ago. The right to lifers may just have no choice of their own but to split off into their own party and end up having no home at all.

We're not gonna take 'em back. (I hope.)

[Blue State Blues]

15. Exactly!

Sure, it's a risk to lose abortion as a wedge issue, but there will always be another wedge issue. Gay marriage next. Then perhaps outlawing "homosexual behavior" outright.

The fundamentalist religious fanatics believe that they can drive the government to the right indefinitely, piece-by-piece. They may be wrong about that, but we can't expect them to be aware (or care) that there are limits to which the majority of the country or even the Republican party will play along.

I don't think we can trust that the money Republicans will not make a serious miscalculation about their ability to control the rightists.

[Zynx]

16. That underestimates the furor Roe being overturned would cause.

Make no mistake, that would be the largest political shitstorm in many many decades if not since Dredd Scott. That threatens the suburban Republicans right where they live in addition to pissing off virtually every moderate in the country to an unbelievable extent. Without moderates who believe that the Republicans won't overturn Roe v. Wade, the Republican party comes nowhere near a majority. You see, they can't afford it to be overturned. They will not be politically viable with just the loony right. The Republican coalition is much more complicated than it looks. Even if, after Roe is overturned, and the business wing and religious kook wing stay together, they lose the 7-8% of the middle that they currently get that supports abortion rights, but doesn't believe the Republicans will do anything about it. The political mess in the state legislatures will drive them away and leave the Republicans with low 40s support at best.

[arewenotdemo]

24. Agree. Don't forget the Pukes own Gawd and Guns and

Tax Cuts and Security and Welfare Queens, reverse discrimination, etc., etc.

When Roe does get overturned, the hole the Demo candidate begins the battle in just becomes a bit shallower.

Stupid Americans.

[Zynx]

26. So many moderates would desert the Republicans it would blow your mind.

They rely on that 7-8% of voters who are supportive of abortion rights and libertarian and who do not believe that the Republicans would impose authoritarian measures regarding civil liberties to put them over the top. Without the libertarian vote, the Republicans are in serious trouble and will lose every national election. The Religious Wrong, as powerful as it is, cannot signle handidly bring the Republican Establishment to power. The Republican coalition is a complicated beast of kooks, money-grubbers, and libertarians and they need every one of those groups to win.

[underpants]

10. I agree

After reading "What's the MAtter with Kansas?" I came to the same conclusion-which is also in the book if I remember correctly. That book highlights several people who vote, support, and work for the Repubs based on that one issue. There is no reason for them to support the right other than that issue.


They won't let it die. They can't afford to... now let us remember that they basically are taking the religious right for granted. Will the Religious right continue to fall for that or will they take their money, organization, and foot soldiers and start their own party?

It's a helluva gamble.

[Lecky]

12. Yep

They only use abortion as a wedge issue to excite their fundy base.

[Zynx]

14. And the fundie base gives them the support they need for their tax cuts.

The business elite of the Republican Party does not want to see restrictive legislation on personal behavior. They are libertarian by nature and that extends into this realm as well. They give every appearance of being religious without actually practicing. It is a very dangerous game they play if an issue ever arises where they are exposed, but so far it has worked.

[Lecky]

29. Only a matter of time before they are exposed...

...but there's a fringe of fundies who have caught on and are part of the Constitution Party.

Platform:
The Constitution Party holds that American laws have origin in the Holy Bible. It advocates a stricter adherence to what it views as the original intent of the United States Constitution and the principles of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. It has a strict approach to moral and personal issues, especially homosexuality and abortion, and seeks to encourage the role of religion in American life.

Bottom line these people want a Christian theocracy.


There is really no point in expecting these people "to see the light" and vote Democratic, these people view "liberalism" to be the enemy and would rather die than vote for any blue candidate. These people are so far gone from reality and so disturbingly ignorant (I know some of these folks...scary) that they should be viewed as a lost cause. So when the rest of the Republican base finds out that their political party is full of hot gas they will most likely vote 3rd party. Or just continue to vote red out of their hatred for blue.

This is why I cringe when I hear some Democrats say that we should fight the religious right with our religious left...no we shouldn't because it's pointless. It is just reacting to RW Rovian political games...

We should keep our stance that we are a big tent party that respects people of all faiths therefore we believe in having a secular government. That abortion is a personal issue for women and the government has no place in making that decision for them...bottom line.

BUT!!!

It wouldn't hurt if the Democrats could point out that the Republican party is full of hypocrites that just say what their religious base wants to hear and take advantage of their votes. BECAUSE ITS TRUE. It also puts them on the spot and makes them tap dance.

This is good because it will put them on the defense because there is no way that the Republicans can realistically cater to these crazy nuts without catching hell from the majority of the Americans in this country who respect "the separation between church and state" as well as Roe vs. Wade. Remember all the hell the Republican party got after Schiavo?

In most cases, the people who vote strictly on abortion are on the extreme right. There are so many moderate Republicans who are embarrassed by their fundy base and don't vote based on abortion issues (as well as lots of pro-choice RW'ers). It would be wise to target these guys instead of wasting time worrying about single-issue anti-choice voters.

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. Not an outright overturning of it, But erosion of is in play.

As soon as the snowflake babies gain personhood status, it will be moot.

[Nikki Stone 1]

19. What worries me is that they will go after late term abortions and Fed.$$$

to throw a bone for the psycho-Christians. So they will look like they are trying to get rid of abortion, not really end it legally for the first trimester, but leave women who need late term abortions in the lurch, and leave poor women without any funding for either abortions or contraception.

The rich and upper middle class will keep their rights, and the poor and working class will end up with more children at younger ages than they can handle.

Just my 2cents.

[Zynx]

21. Entirely possible.

They will have to keep throwing bones if they want to keep Christian Right support so strongly. However, eventually they will have to come to terms with the fact that if they remain in power and do not overturn Roe, the Christian Right will split because they already sense in some circles that they are being taken for granted. It is not a mainstream thought there yet, but it does exist.

[Nikki Stone 1]

22. The problem is these are not "bones" to the women and girls involved

But I'm sounding like a broken record now.

[Zynx]

25. Of course they're not. These are serious issues.

However, the point remains is that the more the religious wrong wins, the more they want and eventually they want it all and if they get it, they will be undone. The vast majority of this country would turn on the Republicans so fast if in every state legislature suddenly the Republicans were pushing for the total prohibition of abortion.

[StudentOfDarrow]

28. The Republicans are now enabled to overturn Roe.

In the past, they needed Roe to whip the wingnuts into a frenzy. Now, however, they have the issue of gay marriage to fall back on. If Roe is overturned, they could say "Well, we managed to stop abortions, now give us more time and we will stop gay marriage." Abortion is no longer the sole boogeyman. And that is what makes these vacancies on the court so scary.

[Ignacio Upton]

30. What ever is left of the GOP in the Northeastern States

will explode into smaller pieces of crap. I can't see a single Republican persuading the remaining "Country Club Republicans" of the Northeast and suburbs to vote for them when the Social Conservatives have just taken away one of their few reasons for continuing voting Republican on the local level.

[Zynx]

33. It's not just the northeast.

The business community makes the Republicans win, or at least be competitive, in MN, WI, IA, OH, PA, and FL and possibly others as well. It would further weaken the Republicans on the state level in probably a majority of states.

[chelsea0011]

31. With Roberts and the next appointment Roe v. Wade is gone

And the Republican Party will view it as a great victory, many years in the making. It will become an annoying issue for years to come with state fighting within, as to whether of not leagalize it in each of the states. I can't take the thought of this.

[Ignacio Upton]

32. The only upside of that (no not really) would be that

Only 13 states have a majority of people who are pro-life/anti-choice, according to a new Survey USA Poll. If we want to preserve Roe v. Wade we need to get states that have anti-abortion laws that we nullified by Roe v. Wade to overturn them, and to persuade moderate state with active anti-choice lobbies to keep them (states like Kansas, for example, are split on the issue and must be delt with before more pro-choice state.)

[Zynx]

34. Indeed. The issue on a state by state basis would destroy the Republicans.

They can't win the fight if they try to appease their fanatical base with outlawing it completely. Even if they do pass such a law, they will get their asses booted out so fast in the next election it wouldn't even be funny.

[Time for change]

42. Why would it be gone?

There will still be 5 left to keep it alive.

[txaslftist]

35. They need Roe v. Wade just like they need OBL to remain uncaught.

Bogeymen to trot out every election to scare the sheeple.

[Zynx]

36. Precisely.

[blondeatlast]

38. Without Roe v. Wade, even the Robertsons and Falwells perish.

It's the single most important legislation the heritage Foundation has to preserve itself.

[blondeatlast]

39. The RNC is playing the fundie RW base like fools, too.

They've made them into useful idiots in order to get the PNAC agenda advanced, but couldn't care any more about them than I do.

[Fire Walk With Me]

40. We could start a "your candidate isn't serious about abortion" meme

but that's a double-edged sword..

[blondeatlast]

45. I've been trying to work something out but failing at every turn.

It could easily drive a wedge between the wacko RW and the true conservatives, though, many of whom are unhappy with W themselves.

[Zynx]

47. Driving them to action would be interesting.

They might have enough power for long enough to do damage, or they will simple expose themselves for who they are and scare away moderate voters before they can do anything.

[Time for change]

41. Then why the nomination of Roberts? n/t

[Zynx]

46. Roberts only moves the Pro-Roe majority to 5-4.

He himself may not actually be pre-disposed to overturning Roe. It is possible that he may chip away at it, but never actually take it down. If Reagan and Bush I had been serious about overturning Roe, they could have built the majority necessary to do so.

[Time for change]

49. From what I understand about Roberts

he will be a solid "pro-life" vote. My guess is that the next nomination, if Roberts' is successful, will go to another solid "pro-life" justice. That will put them just one vote away.

I also think that when Bush nominated Souder he assumed that he would help overturn Roe v. Wade, and was quite surprised about how he turned out. Anyhow, our current * is much more fanatic about these things than even his father or Reagan, and if something happens to one of the 5 pro choice justices during his tenure, Roe v. Wade may very well be gone.

[Zynx]

50. You assume Bush is sincere.

You also make the odd assumption that Bush's father wanted Roe overturned when everything about his personal beliefs over the years indicates otherwise.

Let me throw out this little gem for you about the sincerity of George W. Bush. Remember when he made that big old push for the Anti-Gay Marriage Ammendment before the election and remember when he said right after the election, "I don't think that's too important right now."? Before you take everything Bush says seriously, note that he is a very shallow, selfish man. I think, to a large extent, the whole religion thing is an act on his part.

[Time for change]

52. I certainly do NOT assume that Bush is sincere

I agree with what you say about him.

But one thing that he has been very consistent about is pandering to his right wing base. And his choice of Roberts is also consistent with that.

[gort]

44. Abortion will never be illegal because the GOP makes so

much money running against it.
What we will see is legal access to abortion severely limited to the poor and underaged victims of rape and incest.

When abortion is outlawed, only the daughters of wealthy parents will have abortions.

[LiviaOlivia]

48. kick

[SheepyMcSheepster]

51. i believe this as well

overturning roe v. wade would end it for the republicans, they are not stupid enough to try and release control of their one issue voters.