« Why Floridians Get No Votes | Main | Phrase of the Day » Simple Lessons30 Jan 2008 05:28 pm Wise words from Rich Lowry: The one blatantly obvious lesson from his candidacy that is going oddly unremarked is: Don't run as a pro-choicer for the Republican presidential nomination. The strange thing is that people keep re-learning this lesson -- Pete Wilson, Steve Forbes, now Rudy Giuliani. It's genuinely bizarre. You don't see any Democrats thinking they can win a Democratic presidential nomination as a pro-lifer. Comments (32)
We're winning! 
"Pro-lifer?" Boy, that GOP framing is some powerful stuff.
I know. It's weird, huh? Eventually the rethugs will distill their message to its ultimate slogan: You have no choice at all.
You don't see any Democrats thinking they can win a Democratic presidential nomination as a pro-lifer. Which is why Gore and Biden pretend to be pro-choice. In retrospect, honesty on the topic from Biden wouldn't have changed a thing.
So 9/11 didn't change everything?
I know. It's weird, huh? Eventually the rethugs will distill their message to its ultimate slogan: You have no choice at all.
To be fair, I think Rudy could have had it, if he hadn't, you know, /entirely/ abdicated three months of media coverage and four states worth of contests and momentum.
But Rudy didn't abdicate. He tried campaigning in New Hampshire for a while. But it didn't move his poll numbers any, so he gave it up.
I'd hate to think that Rudy's position on abortion overshadows the fact that he was a damn creepy candidate in all other aspects.
Was that last sentence sarcastic? There's plenty of pro-lifers and it seems "winning" has overtaken "satisfying the interest groups" as the Democratic party's main concern (Bob Casey, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson)
"Pro-lifer?" Boy, that GOP framing is some powerful stuff. I suppose they should be called "anti-choice," which isn't framing? What silliness. I hate the self-identified "Yankees," but that doesn't mean I can rename them the "New York Cocksuckers" and expect people to know what I'm talking about. Referring to the pinstriped team from New York as "the Yankees" isn't an example of framing--neither is calling a self-identified "pro-lifer" a "pro-lifer."
Bravo Shinyk. Excellent point and A+ for near perfect wit. As a New Yorker and Deadwood fan I would have preferred "San Francisco Cocksucker", but I understand entirely why you hate the Yankees. On the merits, I abhor abortion, doubly since I became a father, but support its legality. From that perspective I find the expression "pro-life" far less offensive than "pro-choice", for reasons that I don't have the energy, and perhaps the ability, to articulate.
"I hate the self-identified "Yankees," but that doesn't mean I can rename them the "New York Cocksuckers" and expect people to know what I'm talking about." Actually, they probably would.
I suppose they should be called "anti-choice," which isn't framing? What silliness. That was my knee jerk reaction until I remembered that until that term was coined they were universally identified as anti-abortion which is a far clearer phrase. Framing does work!
It's "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion."
You know the Democrats have never actually elected a pro-choice president right? The last three nominees all fell in line but they all started out as "pro-life".
It's genuinely bizarre. You don't see any Democrats thinking they can win a Democratic presidential nomination as a pro-lifer. I don't think it's that bizarre. The Republican party holds a relatively marginal position on women's bodily autonomy. The Democratic party has a centrist position. Thus, you see a lot more heresy on the Republican side because those heretics have a more popular position among the general voting public.
Woody, how about "pro-choice" and "anti-death"? or, better yet: "pro-death" and "anti-death"? man, you fucking NARALers are annoying...
Here's an interesting question for political junkies: Who was the last avowed pro-lifer (at the time of his run; no Jackson, Gephardt, Gore, etc. allowed) to run for the Democratic nomination? There was certainly no one in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, or 1992, and I don't think there was in 1988 either. Who was in the 1984 field? (Mondale, Hart, Jackson, Glenn, Hollings - Hollings was/is a moderate, but I don't think he was pro-life; the others definitely were not. Did I miss anyone?)
per spackerman...so the Ba'ath Party was pro-choice? No wonder they had to go. http://toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/2008/01/or-are-we-just-gonna-relax-and-watch-as.html
As Professor Sullivan pointed out a bit ago the Terdy and Randy types are already talking up this Giuliani fellow for Vice President; he's the one the establishment wants to be president. And at McCain's age it isn't difficulty to imagine a scenario wherein the kewl mayor type becomes the most powerful man in the world. Maybe my crack yesterday about Giuliani popping up at the false end of a ghoulie flick second act will prove disturbingly prescient.
Forbes ran as a pro-lifer.
it's not bizarre - the Democratic elite in DC, NYC and LA are almost uniformly pro-choice. Funny thing is, the Republican elite in DC and NYC is also almost uniformly, if not strictly pro-choice, at least apathetic about the issue. I think many upper class Republicans really have a hard time understanding how strongly the rank-and-file feel about this issue. Most wealthy Republicans I know are embarrassed by devoutly religious pro-lifers and secretly wish they'd shut up.
Yeah, Matt, that's why Guilliani lost. It had nothing to do with the shitty campaign he ran.
You can be pro-life and be a Democrat running for the nomination. You just can't be anti-choice.
I was wondering - I just read Andrew Sullivan's debate analysis,in which he commended Romney on his performance while still saying that he prefers McCain on character and "the issues." Matt - can you find out what the fuck this jive is? Romney thinks the military/Iraqi government formulating a private deadline is a good idea; McCain wants to be in Iraq for a century, may public opinion be damned. Romney thinks tax cuts could lead to economic activity that would lead to the economy regaining some money; McCain thinks the economy will gain back EVERY PENNY in revenues. I can't stand Romney either, but he at least tries to have a rational, logical reasoning to some of these issues.
or, better yet: "pro-death" and "anti-death"? I like "pro-choice" and "pro-forced-pregnancy."
Referring to the pinstriped team from New York as "the Yankees" isn't an example of framing--neither is calling a self-identified "pro-lifer" a "pro-lifer." Wow, congratulations; that belongs in the Bad Analogy Hall of Fame.
don't forget Arlen Specter, who ran a short-lived campaign for the GOP nomination in 1996.
don't forget Arlen Specter, who ran a short-lived campaign for the GOP nomination in 1996.
You can be pro-life and be a Democrat running for the nomination. You just can't be anti-choice. Unless you're talking about the choice of whether or not to buy health insurance.
Comments closed February 13, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Pete Wilson ran for President?
Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 30, 2008 5:33 PM