Burnt Orange Report

I think we also need to stop letting them frame the debate. I'm sort of surprised how gay marriage wasn't couched as a civil rights issue all over the country. With every Ted Poe "doesn't share our values" ad, there could have been a "fights for civil rights" Nick Lampson response. With every suggestion of family in jeopardy, we should have countered with stories of children being taken from their mommys.

With a growing non-white population in Texas, we need to find common ground, and civil rights are probably the best way to go on that front.

And we're going to need to figure out how to counter the religous right. This isn't anything new. The religous right has had control over the Republican party since about 1992 in Texas. I know a lot of people in other states that are sort of stunned at how Karl Rove managed to mobilize that particular base. It should have been no big surprise to us, but we still don't know how to counter it. I do know that the old Summit/Compaq Center in Houston will soon be Lakewood Church. It's not something that will ever go away, and if we're ever going to have a chance in the state or nationally, we need to figure out how to expand our base to include people of faith.

I continue to believe that we are the moral party, and we need to figure out how to communicate that to the rest of Texas.

Before you look at how moral values is some kind of leading issue, check the numbers CNN is using. CNN separates Iraq and terrorism into two brackets. Many Americans (at least 51% of the country) see the two as one issue. You do that and the lead moral values has as a dominate issue disappears.

Look here for an analysis: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/001708.html

I wager that at security (Iraq and terrorism) was at least as important as "moral values." For me, it was security. "Moral values" didn't factor at all in my vote.

You're quite right about improved Democratic performance in the suburbs. In addition to Strama's performance, don't forget Kelly White, who got at least 49.88% of the vote in a district that is supposed to be 57% Republican.

For that matter, Kelly may yet win the race, as she has filed for a recount.

Andrew D wrote

If we turn the gay/abortion debate into a debate about education and the economy, we can win. We ought to do this all over and it will succeed.

No - you would fail, because you fundamentally misunderstand these issues. You can't recast issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion as civil-rights issues, because fundamentally they aren't - they're moral issues.

I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, and I believe anyone who examines the issue from an honest perspective and reasons from first principles will come to the same conclusion. The Democratic Party, as part of its platform, approves of the current state of affairs regarding this issue, which is to allow unrestricted abortion. That's why I'll never vote for a Democrat (there are other reasons as well, but this one rules out the Democratic Party immediately). I will not vote for a party that condones the death of over a million innocent lives per year. Abortion isn't merely an civil-rights issue; it's deeper than that. It's one of those issues that defines us as a society, and presently, I'm sorry to say, its current status is one that diminishes us as a people.

In her comment, 'tina wrote

I do know that the old Summit/Compaq Center in Houston will soon be Lakewood Church. It's not something that will ever go away, and if we're ever going to have a chance in the state or nationally, we need to figure out how to expand our base to include people of faith.

My guess is that most of the people going to Lakewood Church feel the same way as I do, and most of them pulled the lever for George W. Bush on November 2. If you want our vote, you must engage us in an intellectually honest fashion rather than resort to rhetorical tricks like reframing the issue. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The reason we're not buying what the Democrats are selling isn't because the packaging isn't pretty enough; it's because what's inside the package is abhorrent.

I enjoyed your comment about the remap, but I will note (again) that the old map took about 43% Democratic votes and made 55% Democratic districts, while the new map takes about 58% Republican votes and makes about 62% Republican districts.

I know it sucks to lose a residual gerrymander, especially to an active one for the other party, but the new map created a responsiveness to the majority will.

funny how the pro-life/anti-abortion folks are against giving women the option. every accidental pregnancy story has a personal twist, yet the GOP wants to put these mothers in jail at every opportunity.

Adoptions among Republicans is only 4.2% of that of Democrats. Assuming Bush succeeds in overturning Roe v Wade, those 1,000,000 extra births/year will end up homeless or worse (abusive parents). Republicans won't adopt the infants because they are presumed to be born Democratic!

that's why i could never vote for these [neo-con(servative)] Republicans: they are simplistic, and simply devoid of logical/rational thought (i.e. that there may be 2 sides to a story). this is mostly Ronald Reagan's fault; he taught the country that everything can be solved by a 10-second quip (aka "sound bite"). in their minds, criticizing Reagan is akin to criticizing The Almighty!

btw, why doesn't Rush Limbaugh have to declare (on every show) that he is among the richest 1% and thus biased for Bush's tax cut for the wealthy? oh, i'm sure he took all that extra spending money and invested heavily in "coat hanger futures" when abortion becomes illegal again.

No - you would fail, because you fundamentally misunderstand these issues. You can't recast issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion as civil-rights issues, because fundamentally they aren't - they're moral issues.

How can same-sex marriage be anything but a civil rights issue, when the measures were drawn to discriminate against a group of people? Help me understand this. Do you flat out reject the holding in Lawrence v. Texas that gay people have rights? Do you reject the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

As for abortion, Roe v. Wade does not hold for "unrestricted" abortion. It holds for a balancing of the mother's interest against the fetus's interests, based on the viability of the fetus outside of the womb.

Sadow is saying liberals are hypocrites. While I don't agree with his position, his argument is that liberals blithely ignore the deaths of "millions" of "babies," but complain about laws against behavior which he thinks God legislated against in the Bible. It doesn't matter, in that view, what the Supreme Court said in Lawrence any more than Roe, because God's is the higher law. If I'm misinterpreting I'm sure Mr. Sadow will correct me.

In a less secular forum, Sadow might have quoted scripture at you -- before taking the mote out of your brother's eye, take the beam out of your own.

By the same token, if you're pro-life and pro-death penalty, you're also a hypocrite. Pro-life and pro-war, same thing. Pro-life and anti-welfare, again, a hypocrite, since you care nothing about children.

I get that conservatives think liberals are two-faced. I understand why, and my particularly gloomy days I even agree. But whenever I hear it, I can't help but think, brother, take the beam out of your own eye.

Speaking of satellite and suburb votes--don't forget Hays County. Patrick Rose, everyone's shining-Dem-bipartisian-star hope for the future, easily kept his seat against Alan "family values" Askew. And Hays overwhelmingly voted for US Rep Henry Cuellar, and Sheriff Don Montague, both Dems. The Commissioners Court Pct. 3 seat stayed GOP, but that's based in Wimberley, 'nuff said.
Just remember, once-rural areas aren't rural anymore. Every county around Travis is full of urban commuters.

"Liberalism is on the outs."
This has been true politically for some time. However, this does not mean that liberalism is wrong, only that it has become unpopular. The solution is not to become more conservative, although certainly there needs to be compromise. The solution is to frame "liberalism" in a way that people see it's in their best interests to be liberal.
I highly recommend, in this regard, George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant.
Steve

One thing that the Democrats can do is try
to reach out more to religious minorities
(Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, et al)--not
only as voters, but also as candidates.
It's important to show the Religious Right
--as well as the many voters unaware of
their true agenda--that there are millions
of Americans who are good, moral people
of faith--but who are at odds with the
"Christian Nation" elitism of the GOP.

It would also be good to recruit more
Christian and Jewish spokespeople--both
clergy and laypeople--who are articulate
speakers, capable of communicating to the
electorate that religious values aren't
limited to the issues of abortion, school
prayer, homosexuality, and monuments in
courthouses. We need Democrats and
Independents of all religions who can
speak truth to the conscience of America.

Metta-

I agree with you in the abstract, but if you ain't white and with Christ, you better cleave to the right to get their attention. Otherwise, you're just another special interest.

Scott wrote

Sadow is saying liberals are hypocrites. While I don't agree with his position, his argument is that liberals blithely ignore the deaths of "millions" of "babies," but complain about laws against behavior which he thinks God legislated against in the Bible. It doesn't matter, in that view, what the Supreme Court said in Lawrence any more than Roe, because God's is the higher law. If I'm misinterpreting I'm sure Mr. Sadow will correct me.

You're mostly correct, although I'll state things with more precision: The laws established by a society are simply its moral beliefs codified and given the police power of the state. Those beliefs don't necessarily have to come from "God", although that's a perfectly legitimate source for them, but they do have to come from somewhere, because there exists no a priori means to determine what is "good".

By the same token, if you're pro-life and pro-death penalty, you're also a hypocrite. Pro-life and pro-war, same thing. Pro-life and anti-welfare, again, a hypocrite, since you care nothing about children.

No, this isn't the same token. Without going into a long theological discussion, I'll just say that being pro-life and pro-death penalty are by no means morally incompatible. You also make a common mistake by thinking pro-life and anti-welfare views are contradictory, whereas in fact the welfare state is only one policy by which society can address the ills of its poorer members; one can be pro-life and believe that there are better ways to handle poverty than welfare.

'tina wrote

How can same-sex marriage be anything but a civil rights issue, when the measures were drawn to discriminate against a group of people? Help me understand this. Do you flat out reject the holding in Lawrence v. Texas that gay people have rights? Do you reject the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

Laws against same-sex marriage are "discriminatory" in the same sense that laws against polygamy or incest are. Society finds that there are compelling reasons to prohibit these activities. You may disagree with those reasons, but the fact remains that it's legitimate for societies to make these decisions.

As for abortion, Roe v. Wade does not hold for "unrestricted" abortion. It holds for a balancing of the mother's interest against the fetus's interests, based on the viability of the fetus outside of the womb.

Mother's interest in terminating preganancy: time and expense needed to raise a child over many years.

Fetus's interest in not terminating pregnancy: death.

One of these interests clearly outweighs the other....

Again, without going into a long philosophical discussion, the standard of viability for determining when legal rights accrue to a person is simply a nightmare which leads to all sorts of inconsistencies (all-too-brief answer: it removes morality from the calculus entirely, which thus unmoors the law from its moral underpinnings, without which it's nonsensical).