Ben's Game

T.A. Barnhart

Ok, let's play a little game. We'll call it "Everyone's an independent" and in our game, there are no party affiliations. Everyone is an independent. There are no political parties, no money-driven tyrants who deny citizens the right — nay, the ability — to think freely and make their own decisions about the issues. More importantly, our elected representatives, freed of the chains of partisanship, can at last, at last act on their consciences. Get it? Those are pretty easy rules, so we can now play "Everyone's an independent" and explore the happy wonderland of non-partisan politics.

(By the way, if anyone thinks this is a version of game theory, no way. I'm no game theorist, never want to be; too much like economics, and I have too much self-respect for that. This is the fun games stuff. Like Monopoly or Chutes and Ladders or Operation Enduring Freedom.)

Since we are playing a political game, we have to have a political issue. We don't need anything too complex or emotional. A typical issue, something simple and relatively uncontroversial, but currently used by the money-grubbing party elites to control what we think and what elected representatives get to do. For the sake of the this game let's pick an easy topic: choice. Or, if you prefer, abortion. Or, if you prefer beyond that, the right-to-life. Or baby-killing. Or family planning. Or sex without responsibility. Or keep-your-laws-off-my-body. Whatever. The important part is: We're all independents now!

Now that we have our non-partisan freedom and our issue, we need to take the next step. We have to be able to talk about our issue, but we must do so in the spirit of non-partisan independence. So since we are all "independents" our issue is no longer [pick any of the evil labels we are jettisoning] but is now: Issue 712-B. Kowabunga dude. We no longer have a partisan label on the issue. We have a randomly selected but serenely non-partisan label that allows us to engage in rational, peaceful non-partisan dialog about "it." It is Issue 712-B, and that label-less issue stirs nary a partisan feather. All partisan feathers are gone! Yay! The rest should be easy-peasy.

So far, so good. Being independents, each and every dog-bone one of us, everyone is free to deal with nothing but the issue itself. Yay! How wonderful not to be manipulated by labels. How joyous to be out from under the thrall of party leaders (curse them and their allegiance to money). Now at last, in this state of grace and freedom, we can come to a calm, rational, happy resolution to this issue. Freed from the ugliness of partisanship, we have no problem working out this issue and fixing it all nice and better!

And that resolution to Issue 712-B is.... Yes! That's right! We're all non-partisan! What a great solution. We no longer have an "abortion" issue or a "choice" issue or a "baby-killer" issue or a "God told me in the Bible" issue. Because we have no partisan-inspired labels, those issues simply no longer exist. To quote that brilliant political theorist Rachel Ray, how easy is that? We have no sides to take, and we have no ugly labels to take sides with. Game over. Peace over all the land.

Imagine how quickly and easily we will fix all our problems now. We no longer can take sides because we got rid of sides. (This is better than Prozac, more fun than gum.) We rid ourselves of issues as easily as we rid ourselves of those icky parties that caused all the problems. We stroll hand-in-hand in the sweet independent utopian Republic of Non-Partisanville and we have nothing to fight about. It really is that easy. No party affiliation, no one to tell you what to think, and no problems to fight over any more. I mean, damn: Why didn't someone think of this sooner?

(Now if someone can figure out what to do with that pregnant woman who is screaming incoherently about the Issue 712-B inside her body....)

  • (Show?)

    A while ago I saw a former Circuit Judge from Illinois on Charlie Rose. (Can't think of his name, but I know most of you would recognize it. He's a pretty well-known thinker. Then again, not remembering his name seems to go pretty well with the intent of this game!)

    Anyway, he said something that deeply affected my view of abortion politics.

    He revealed himself to be fairly sympathetic to the pro-choice movement, and then Rose asked him what he thought, in retrospect, of Roe v. Wade.

    He said it was a bad decision. (He made it clear he was speaking of its effect on society, not on its legal merit.)

    He said that because it was so extreme - ensuring the constitutional right to an abortion right up to delivery, in any circumstances - that it awakened a very deep opposition that likely would never have existed if it had been more moderate.

    He talked about the value of judicial decisions that seek out middle ground in which both sides feel they have been heard.

    Whether he's right or not, I don't know, but I am glad to have heard this perspective.

  • jami (unverified)
    (Show?)

    it would be nicer if people would start discussions from what they have in common. nearly everyone values both life and liberty. with the pursuit of happiness, it's what makes us american. striking the right balance is the trick.

    it's not a problem of having two "sides" to an issue. it's about people who don't respect the other side enough to effectively persuade them they're wrong. calling republicans stupid or evil or crazy is a heck of a lot less effective than reminding people that good women and girls once died horrible deaths at the hands of d.i.y. abortions.

    it is way better to talk about issues without name-calling.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Whether he's right or not, I don't know, but I am glad to have heard this perspective.

    It is hardly new. Its been suggested many times, but it ignores the reality that the opposition to abortion was already entrenched. Long before roe v. wade they were working at the local level to oppose even the most moderate legalization proposals. I think this perspective is wishful thinking by those who want to blame the judges for the controversy.

    Its not as though the anti-abortion movement is limited to the United States. How did Roe v Wade make abortion a controvery in Ireland or Italy? The answer is it didn't. The Catholic Church did. And in the United States it strangely became a point of unity in the Catholic Church during the mid-70's, uniting progressive social activists with conservative elements in the church that had opposed its involvement in social issues. This was a social issue everyone could, for a time, agree on.

    In the United States the politics of that was that this became a wedge issue that gave Republicans the opportunity to cut out part of the what had been a traditional democratic consituency. They were able to weld their newly sympatheti Catholics to the growing Republican church movement lead by Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, et al. using abortion as the underlying point of agreement. The anti-abortion movement grew, in part, because it served a partisan political agenda.

    Judges tend to live in their own universe where their legal decisions are its center. But abortion has not, and is not, primarily a legal debate. It is a fundamental debate over both personal freedom and the role of women in society as well as the role of government in enforcing personal morality.

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I read the opening thread three times, and I still cannot figure out if LT's game is parody or delusional naivety. If the former, it's a clever retort to those who think shifting to a so-called "nonpartisan" government will make partisan issues disappear. If this was meant to be taken seriously, then it's the latter.

    To see harmonious nonpartisan government at work, we need look no farther than the MultCo Board of Commissioners. Five Democrats, including two former legislators, whose immature infighting between Diane "Blunderwoman" Linn and the Mean Girls (while Lonnie Roberts watches helplessly in disbelief) have done more to hurt Progressives in this state than any other political body.

    "Nonpartisan" should never be confused with "apolitical." Even the judiciary, whether elected (Jack Roberts v. Virginia Linder) or appointed (Alito, anyone?), is ripe full of partisan politics. That will never change, regardless of whether there is a parenthetical upper case letter after a candidate's name.

    • Wes
  • Wesley Charles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry, I should have said 'T.A.'s" game (not "LT's").

    And my middle paragraph would get a "D" for grammar, but you get the point . . .

    • Wes
  • (Show?)

    Westlund had a pow wow four blocks from me this weekend. I wanted to puke. He's about as progressive as George Bush is a Mensa candidate. He's one of those liberal conservatives like Gordon "Fish Stick" Smith. I AM SO TIRED OF BEING LIED TO BY THESE FASCISTS!!!

  • (Show?)

    Here's another one for the record books. My coworkers in a cafe and overhears political chatter. She inches over and realizes its Kevin Mannix talking about how the Republicans could use gays and abortion this election season. What complete lack of character.

  • (Show?)

    "He said that because it was so extreme - ensuring the constitutional right to an abortion right up to delivery, in any circumstances - that it awakened a very deep opposition that likely would never have existed if it had been more moderate."

    What? That's not even close to what Roe v Wade says. In reality, it is much more moderate than that. Roe says the right to an abortion in the first trimester is absolute, states may regulate abortion during the second trimester for some reasons and may regulate it more strictly or outlaw it completely in the third trimester.

    The relevant part of the decision:

    1. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

    (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

    (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

    (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

    The full decision.

  • (Show?)

    I read the opening thread three times, and I still cannot figure out if [TA's] game is parody or delusional naivety.

    Once again, some people miss TA's satire. (Damn, man, I keep telling ya - ya gotta raise yer hand if you're gonna be satirical!)

    Let's not get bogged down in talking about abortion. Let's instead talk about TA's post. Can the "Everyone's an Independent" approach really work in the real world? Or does it only work in the "sweet independent utopian Republic of Non-Partisanville"?

    Or maybe we should go ahead and have a fun rip-roaring fight about abortion. That would prove TA's point: That even in Non-Partisanville, it's the meat of the issue that actually leads to fighting - not the old "party politics!" tripe.

  • (Show?)

    p.s. Thanks, TA, for a brilliant post.

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, let's have open primaries.

  • (Show?)

    The appeals court judge was most likely Richard Posner. He was also Jack Bog's favorite author in law school. Just kidding. He was one of my favorites, however, because I discovered this: If I read everything Posner had written, I could easily pass William Baxter's antitrust final exam.

    BTW, how did Jack Bog find this thread. Maybe he has Google set to find all instances of "bogged down" on the web.

  • (Show?)

    Sorry, I'm a big TA fan but I didn't find this post anything like brilliant. Ditto the similar offerings that have popped up here previously.

    Of course people will always argue about issues. Of course, people will choose "sides" and allies over issues and philosophies. Of course people will always tend to congregate with like-minded people.

    The partisanship that is turning people off isn't about any of that stuff. The partisanship at issue is the kind of partisanship that says everything is about electoral advantage for your side (and the corollary of enriching yourself and your pals with the resultant power only adds to the dissatisfaction). Issues aren't really issues, just tools for advancing the electoral and financial success of your side. Push them when it's to your advantage and drop them like a hot potato when it isn't. Lock out everyone not in your party and even anyone in your party if they don't move in lockstep as ordered. There's no room for individual conscience and no room for considering the good of the republic. Surely the Bush administration has provided us with a stark enough example of that approach? We do remember there's a reason we all detest Karen Minnis far beyond our feelings about many other Republicans, right?

    Ridiculing those who are moving away from party affiliations or looking for other ways to force us away from that nonproductive type of partisanship does not seem like the most useful approach that those of us who find value in our system of political parties could be taking. It seems to me that if you want to save the system the task is to convince people that parties can once again be about issues in a way that is productive and promotes the health of the state and the nation. Appearing to be unaware of just what it is that people are objecting to does not seem likely to achieve that end.

  • (Show?)

    Doretta, you wrote:

    The partisanship at issue is the kind of partisanship that says everything is about electoral advantage for your side .... Issues aren't really issues, just tools for advancing the electoral and financial success of your side.

    But you don't really believe that do you? It's the pose that's popular with the "I don't vote because they all suck" crowd, but it's just not true.

    No one can argue with a straight face that most right-wing Republicans don't honestly believe that abortion is immoral, that taxes should be cut, and labor unions are evil (to pick a few issues.) Similarly, no one can argue with a straight face that most Democrats don't honestly believe in the minimum wage, the right to choose, public education, etc.

    Sure, there are things both sides do for purposes of positioning, but the issues do fundamentally matter. This is NOT an athletic contest, where it's all about whether you're in the red uniform or the blue uniform.

    Anyone who has lived through the last 5.5 years of the Bush Administration can't honestly argue that there aren't fundamental and real differences between Democrats and Republicans.

  • (Show?)

    Doretta, nice post. I agree with it entirely. I am very discouraged by extreme partisanship, but when people take that to mean I'm "against parties" that's just silly.

    So TA's post was meant as satire (yeah, on a more careful reading I see that it was.) There's a straw man taking a beating here. Is there anybody around here who's actually defended the idea of removing parties from the legislature?

    Lest I be accused of being that person: (1) I once said I was excited by the news that my senator was dropping her Democratic affiliation. I'm impressed by somebody who feels strongly enough about an imprtant issue to make a bold and unpopular statement. That doesn't mean I agree with the statement. (2) I have defended the One Ballot initiative. I have outlined my reasons for that enough, and have never claimed (or wished) that the initiative would remove parties (or their influence) from the legislature.

    Dan: Yes, it was Posner, thanks. Ross: I hadn't heard this argument before. Thanks for giving it some context. Doretta: sorry for getting that wrong, thanks for the correction.

  • (Show?)

    ps. Kari: Bush is no Republican. Republicans base their politics on principle. Bush, I think, is more motivated to make sure foreign leaders laugh and have a good time at dinner.

  • (Show?)

    Is there anybody around here who's actually defended the idea of removing parties from the legislature?

    Yes. Ben Westlund, for one. Charlie Ringo, for another. Avel Gordly, yup. Quite a few folks - some well-meaning and intelligent, some not so much.

  • (Show?)

    Okay, I'm a little slow on the uptake apparently. The straw man is supposed to be Ben Westlund??

    Here's Westlund's statement about dropping his party affiliation:

    "I have re-registered and am not a member of a party, not because I think Republicans or Democrats are bad, but because I feel that extreme partisanship is keeping us from solving Oregon’s most pressing problems and the party label was keeping me from truly being able to provide leadership on the issues Oregonians care about."

    I've never seen a credible claim that he's proposing that OTHERS drop their party, or that the legislature be restructured. He says his own party label was getting in his way. If there's evidence of him going any further than this, I'd like to see it.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Satire is a wonderful thing. When used, you can claim "that's not what I meant! ...can't you see I was using satire?"

    Strawmen are even better...even the most feable can always blow away a strawman, even without much logic and only a bit of satire.

  • Don Smith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Doretta is more correct in her post than Kari's reply. The political class has used labeling and symbolism on their base's hot issues to solidify their political power. To wit, the consultants telling their candidates how to couch issues to demonize the opposition and make their side of the issue seem unassailable. "The war on terror" is a great one. Who can be against that? "Tax cuts for the rich" on the left. One could go right to left time and again to see how these issues ARE being used (like Mannix's reported comment on USING gays and abortion in the election) for political gain.

    Especially at the federal level, there are a tremendous number of examples of legislators using issues to secure their reelection, be it pork or red meat for their base. The ridiculous flag burning amendment is the perfect example. If the Rs didn't think it would get voters out, they would never have bothered. Not that they don't believe in the cause at its root, but they are certainly more interested in their self-preservation than most of the hot-button issues they're pushing.

  • (Show?)

    Pete wrote... I've never seen a credible claim that [Westlund]'s proposing that OTHERS drop their party, or that the legislature be restructured. He says his own party label was getting in his way. If there's evidence of him going any further than this, I'd like to see it.

    The question of a nonpartisan legislature was a big one in the last session - and Ben Westlund sponsored the bill.

    Here's the link to SB 602.

    The summary: "Designates offices of Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, state Senator and state Representative as nonpartisan."

    The sponsors: "Sponsored by Senators RINGO, WESTLUND, Representatives GARRARD, HASS; Senators BATES, JOHNSON, MORRISETTE, MORSE, NELSON, SCHRADER, SHIELDS, VERGER, Representatives BROWN, BRUUN, GREENLICK, TOMEI"

    'Nuff said.

  • Susan Abe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I don't think Doretta is talking about the rank-and-file voters -- I don't, for that matter, think I've ever heard somebody blame them for insane partisanship.

    She's talking about Bill Frist and the Republican leadership, who decided that the most important things on which to spend scarce Congressional days were amendments against flag burning and gay marriage. Even though they had no intention to pass such resolutions. Just because they needed some meat to throw to one sector of their base before November.

    And note that the people in that sector are presumed to care more about their pet issues than whether "their team" wins, and can't be counted on to vote GOP NoMatterWhat. They aren't the insane partisans in this question.

    Or what about the Democratic leaders who are working for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont in the Connecticut primary, not because they agree with anything Lieberman stands for -- or disagree with anything Lamont does -- but because Lieberman has threatened to run as an independent, dividing the Dem vote and sending a Republican to the Senate?

    Kick in the nuts to the people in the Democratic base who've been motivated by the issues to make Lamont a viable candidate, but a sop to that part of the Democratic base that wants to see more strategic thinking and a "the good is the enemy of the fair-to-middling" attitude.

  • (Show?)

    Kari: Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that bill.

    So, Westlund sponsored a bill that failed last session. He also acknowledges the value of parties: for articulating issues, getting voters involved, finding and training candidates, and supporting those candidates through the election cycle.

    That particular bill might resemble what TA is satirizing, but it was voted down a year ago, and it's not an idea Westlund has been pushing in his campaign. It's also not something he would be in much position to push through as governor.

    So I suppose, if having proposed something a little goofy disqualifies him from running for governor, there might be a point to be had here. But I'd say there are much worse things in politics than proposing goofy ideas and getting shot down.

    Westlund is clearly seeking to mitigate extreme partisanship, not to abolish parties altogether. Is it so hard to see the difference?

    As far as I can tell, we're still talking about a straw man.

    And LT's pet issue fits in here: failing to understand Westlund's appeal is a bad image for Kulongoski supporters to be projecting. Mixing up these issues only affirms the frustrations of those who cite extreme partisanship as a reason to disengage from party politics. The earlier K. and his supporters can demonstrate that understanding, the better chance they have of keeping their base from defecting in the first place.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pete, Thank you for this: And LT's pet issue fits in here: failing to understand Westlund's appeal is a bad image for Kulongoski supporters to be projecting

    That is all I have been trying to say. There are people who always or at points in their lives are so busy they are like what happened to friends of ours. When asked what a couple who were both full time employed did in their spare time, the husband answered "Laundry!". I don't care if every Ted supporter here spends all their spare time on Ted's campaign. That is not the point. My point has been that an incumbent who only got 54% in a contested primary should stop "preaching to the choir". If very busy people are talking with friends, do you want them to say something nice about Ted? Or is it OK if they say "Gee, our friend is sure impressed with Ben Westlund"? Many people devote 5 min. per week or less (think there was a study about that awhile back) thinking about politics except maybe in May and October. Snap impressions sometimes influence votes. I've known people who voted for the candidate who'd said something intelligent or done something helpful. OR, against someone who said something stupid--smart aleck remark, rude employee, whatever.

    There ARE voters who wonder why parties exist. There are people who think nonpartisan might be worth a try. If those folks know nothing about Gov. Kulongoski except the "I'm running against 2 Republicans " remark, that is not the fault of the voter. That is the candidate's responsibility--"Re-elect me because..." should be the refrain.

    And Kari, About that 'Nuff said' remark.

    Is Westlund the only legislator who you think should explain his actions? Or would you also like sponsorship explanations from these Democrats: The sponsors: "Sponsored by Senators RINGO, , Representatives , HASS; Senators BATES, BROWN, BRUUN, GREENLICK, TOMEI"

    The fact is, the nonpartisan bill passed the Senate (not everyone who voted for it did so for the same reason, but it passed) and it has been discussed at the Public Comm. on the Legislature.

    Should it have been discussed at PCOL? Should the above-named Democrats (as I recall, Ringo was chief sponsor) be required to explain their support of the bill here or elsewhere?

    Or is it just that Westlund must explain his vote but the abovementioned Democrats (or for that matter any of the 20 who voted for the bill) don't need to explain their votes?

    I just want to know if you have the same standard for everyone. Or are you saying only certain elected officials have to explain their actions and others do not? To use the old saying, are you examining Westlund's record with a microscope and the records of elected Democrats with a telescope?

  • (Show?)

    Kari,

    You apparently misconstrued my comment. I once served on the board of a progressive, politically-oriented organization with a person who told me he didn't realize there was any significant difference between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas--imagine my frustration. I'm as far from the "there's no difference between the parties" crowd as it is possible to be. That's why I said "those of us" and not "those of you" when I talked about finding value in the party system.

    I was definitely not talking about the citizenry when I described the bad sort of partisanship. The reality is that Ben Westlund's candidacy is not a bolt out of nowhere. The open primary proposal is not the result of some whimsical zaniness on the part of some radical nutcases. Those things are happening because the people behind them understand that when much of the electorate (or potential electorate) looks at our political leadership they see too much of that winning-is-everything-and-I'm-going-to-get-mine approach and they think that in Oregon it is at least partially responsible for our failure to address important issues effectively. It's gone significantly further on the national scene than it has here but that only serves as a stark reminder of just how bad it can get.

    I think they have a valid point. I agree that there is much more going on here than can be explained by excessive partisanship, including initiatives that have warped our revenue and spending into shapes most people would not have chosen had they fully understood the consequences. On the other hand, even if the partisanship complaint were completely unfounded, the fact that so many people believe it to be true would require a substantive response. The belief has gone way past the point where a little ridicule will suffice.

    I don't think the Bush admin is at all ideological in many of the ways they claim to be for the purposes of manipulating the electorate. In fact, if you look at the big things they have done you can pretty much count on the fact that if they say they are doing something for practical reasons (the war in Iraq, Social Security reform) they are really doing it for ideological reasons that they don't think they can effectively defend and if they claim ideology (tax cuts, "pro-life", gay marriage, flag burning) it's mostly about electoral and financial advantage and not the issues themselves.

  • (Show?)

    Is Westlund the only legislator who you think should explain his actions? Or would you also like sponsorship explanations from these Democrats: The sponsors: "Sponsored by Senators RINGO, , Representatives , HASS; Senators BATES, BROWN, BRUUN, GREENLICK, TOMEI"

    For starters, Bruun and Brown are Republicans.

    Second, Senator Ringo and Representative Hass are both leaving office entirely.

    Third, Representatives Greenlick and Tomei are not running for governor.

    And sure, an explanation would be nice.

    Now don't get me wrong - I'm a supporter of the One Ballot open primary measure. But that's because I believe in MORE parties, not less. The voters need more information to make their decisions, not less.

    Why in god's name is anyone arguing that we should hide pertinent information from voters? Personally, I'd like to see fusion voting, a low threshold for creating parties, and the open primary. Then, we'd have candidates on the ballot carrying multiple party endorsements. Voters could then choose between (for example) a Democrat/Labor candidate, a Democrat/Green/Women's candidate, a Republican/Anti-Tax candidate, a Republican/Green candidate, a Labor/Women's candidate, and an Anti-Tax/Constitution candidate.

    More information, not less.

  • (Show?)

    Kari said:

    Why in god's name is anyone arguing that we should hide pertinent information from voters?

    I think the better question would be:

    Is anyone arguing that we should hide pertinent information from voters?

    In the last several discussions here, nobody has emerged to defend that position.

    Sure, there are some of us who are intrigued by Westlund's candidacy. Maybe even some bona-fide Westlund supporters to be found. But that doesn't mean there's anyone here who's going to defend every piece of legislation the guy's been involved with. If it did, that potato famine topic would have looked a lot different.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Brown are Republicans

    I know Kate has gotten more conservative, but has she moved that far to the right!?

  • Clack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Westlund's appeal to "moderates" in Oregon is not unlike the appeal of Ralph Nader to enviro voters nationally in 2000.

    It is based on a mixture of idealism and naivete on the part of the voter, and ego on the part of the candidate. Unfortunately, when all three are combined they end up with a Republican winning the race.

  • paul (unverified)
    (Show?)

    doretta,

    On the first of this list, I agree ( if they claim ideology (tax cuts, "pro-life", gay marriage, flag burning) it's mostly about electoral and financial advantage and not the issues themselves. ), on the rest, I cannot.

    Bush just vetoed a stem cell bill that will hurt him electorally. You really think he is pro-life only for electoral advantage? Gay marriage? The most important organizing issue right now for the Christian right.

    It is about the issues. These issues are also electorally advantageous to the GOP. And they help them raise money. I fail to see the distinction.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bush just vetoed a stem cell bill that will hurt him electorally.

    George Bush isn't running for reelection. And his veto of the stem cell bill is at least partly a political strategy. It satisifies the Republican base while allowing congressional Republicans to satisfy moderate voters.

  • Anne (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>Back on topic here. Nice post, funny and accurate. My reading comprehension essay would argue that T.A. thinks that taking away partisan labels or calling youself independent won't end partisanship nor solve partisan problems, it will merely change or remove the names we call these things. Thus, it doesn't solve any problems. I think T.A. is right.</h2>

connect with blueoregon