Don't be too concerned about the Peoples' Republic of Illinois. Richard the II annointed Blowdry and the fix was in. Doesn't really matter who's gov, the Combine controls all. And we're about to get a big ole' stiffy here.

Most of the recent gay-bashing has come from Democrats.

And the sixteen-year-old girl could give her "moment of weakness" up for adoption, rather than killing it. The triumph of modern ethics and compassion, killing babies on a whim. A baby is the foreseeable result of sex. It is the resposibility of the mother and father to take care of the baby or let some other adults adopt the child. Killing the baby is to harm a third party for the convenience of one or both the first two parties. Usually libertarian-oriented people claim to dislike such harm.

On the same page as you for most of what you say (though of course that doesn't mean much considering I live in Toronto, but still...). Personally, I love the Vonnegut reference; perhaps the French should take a flying fornication at the Earth's satellite as well.

As always, very nicely written.

But consider as well that one of the re-elected Senate Republicans from Tuesday (McConnell) is the lead plaintiff in challenging McCain-Feingold. That's at least one incumbent who is against incumbency protection, and many of his Republican colleagues have joined him in the suit. Many more, who are not part of the suit--both on the House side and the Senate side--wish it success, since it so obviously conflicts with the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.

You'd better written a letter to the Dems, announcing that you're going to take over their business. In my opinion, it's rather pointless to warn conservatives not to be conservative. If you want a decent liberal party that has its priorities straight (and I agree with you that a healthy polity requires at least two decent parties), it's the DNC that needs to be warned. Unfortunately, chances are high that they will put even loonier loons in charge, making sure that they will go down Dukakis-style in 2004.

But I guess that has always been the case in American politics. One party dominates until it screws up. The Dems ruled till they commited political suicide over the slavery issue; the Reps remained the dominant force till they proved to be unable to deal with the recession in the thirties; the Dems were in charge till the moment it became apparent that they wanted to turn the US in a bad copy of European welfare states (the same statism and disguised authoritarianism, but without the charming old buildings).

Thanks for the letter. You're right about the political wisdom. We'll certainly listen, and try to comply. But certain things are beyond politics. If we lose by defending a states right to regulate abortion, so be it. If we lose trying to promote judicial restraint, so be it. If we lose trying to restore some respect to our military, so be it. If we lose defending the right of citizens to protect themselves, so be it.
I'd rather win. Make no mistake. Here in California we lose regularly. We might have won with a Republican in name only, but what gain would that be? The Democrats will be back eventually. They have a long tradition of rising from the ashes of idiocy. I hope when they come back, we can debate the issues civilly.

The worst mistake any politician can make is resting on his/her laurels. Well, that and yukking it up at funerals, relying on polls to tell you when it's time to rest on said laurels, having Terry McAuliffe in a position of responsibility....

What politicos often forget is that the people they have to make happy are those in the center. Maybe "make happy" isn't the right phrase; perhaps "gain the respect of" is a lot more important. There's a valuable lesson here; hopefully the folks we elected are smart enough to pay it any heed.

I trust that the Republicans will do quite well these next couple of years. Remember, between 1994 and 2000 they not only lacked an executive--but they lacked George W. Bush. He cuts through the most nonsensical Hill antics with gusto.

The Republicans first objective should be to appreciate the event precipitating America's momentary turn away from relativism and utter rejection of the Democrats' hollow mandate--the scourge of dictatorship and terror, made obvious by September 11th. Domestic legislation is important but certainly ancillary to the safety of free nations. If the president and his party move in a timely fashion to confidently prosecute the liberation of the Middle East and beyond, they will have answered the call of voters.

If not, I'll join to throw them out two Novembers from now.

Stephen:

You're right on with two points: first, sensible goals. Don't let things like abortion (althought perhaps late term abortions should be re-examined) and dogmatism run your party. Dogmatism is for the Democrats and it's what sinks them in the end.

Second: GWB - Keep your eyes on the prize. As one gentleman remarked, screw up on Iraq and I'll vote you out come 2004. National security trumps all. Remember what happened to Dear Old Dad. Now George H. W. Bush may be remembered for letting Iraq slip through his fingers. Don't make it a Bush Family Tradition: find something else for Thanksgiving Day.

Nothing wrong with Ken Starr. If you think so, all that indicates is that you swallowed the Clinton Smear Machine line.

The big ole' stiffy happened in Chicago on Wed. 19% "living wage" increase for those who have contracts w/the city.

Oh, and the alderman raised their salaries from $85K to $98,125 (in 4 stages) NOT including bennies for a PART-TIME JOB.

And the firefighters have been waiting 3-1/2 years for a contract.

This state is going to be run like millenium park and look like the "new "Soldier 'The Fruit Bowl' Field."

Coleman was not supposed to win, Chambliss was not supposed to win, Sununu was not supposed to win. Winning by a close margin when you were supposed to win is bad... winning by any margin when you were supposed to lose DOES mean something.

Stephen,

I think the predator kill eliminates all doubt of how serious W is. That was a great moment in American history. As for abortion, that will become an issue for the individual states, as it should be.

Fred Jenson
Houston, Texas

How is it that defending abortion is the more civilized, balanced and reasonable opinion to have? This is exactly backwards. And where is all this gay bashing you are worried about? I'm not aware of any Republicans actively calling for it.

It's always good to keep an eye on the gatekeepers, no matter who they are. Steve you sound a lot more like a talking points memo from the DNC here, gotta tell you!

"How is it that defending abortion is the more civilized, balanced and reasonable opinion to have?"

No, it's defending the *right* to have an abortion. No one likes the idea of abortions per se- messy, horrific, emotionally traumatic (to say nothing of physically traumatic to the ex-fetus).

But it needs to be kept as a legal option on the national level. NEEDS to. The "throwing it back to the states" thing is papering-over the fact that some of those states will then ban it outright, totally and wholly. That's completely unacceptable.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021106-014531-8274r

No one likes the idea of abortions per se-...But it needs to be kept as a legal option on the national level. NEEDS to.

That's the discrepancy I always trip over. It's an awfully gory process that ends the existence of something living--whatever we'd like to call it at the moment--and yet beyond the horrors of rape or incest or a threat to a mother's life, pregnancies are completely avoidable; save for irresponsibility, no matter how innocently it may present itself.

What's more important, then: emphasis on prevention before conception, or emphasis on perpetual access to interceptions? Why not the recognition of myriad "choices" before the unwanted pregnancy? Roots or branches.

Beyond that, this is a cultural problem and must be dealt with accordingly. Legislation in one direction or the other, lacking a societally-borne drive, will be painfully contentious and ultimately unsuccessful. (It certainly won't be solved by blacklisting judicial nominees on either side).

Both Goldberg and this WaPo article give some idea as to where the GOP wants to go. The only reason I don't consider myself a Republican is because I can't stand their social agenda. If only they could make the connection between "no/little government economic meddling" and "no/little government social meddling" I'd feel a grand deal better about their increased power. I share the same feelings about our priorities as Stephen does, but I do feel they could and should do more with the economy. Deliver a 1-2 attack with a good record on terrorism and an improving record on the economy. And I love Glenn's idea about working over the RIAA/MPAA/etc.

Wha? "Sixteen year old girls in a moment of weakness?"

:::SIGH:::

Men still perceive unplanned pregnancy as a woman's responsibility?!

This is exactly why abortion is a single issue vote for so many women and will remain a political third rail.

bj,

If I can presume to defend Stephen (who I disagree with vehemently on the aboriton issue), I think you missed his point. He was saying that abortion should be legal rather than "Insist some scared 16-year-old girl has to raise her moment of weakness."

He's not saying that the "weakness" was the girl's alone, just that she's the one who will have to raise the child if she can't have an abortion.

Note, I don't agree with Stephen on this issue, but I think you sell him short if you dismiss him as just some dumb "Man" perceiving unplanned pregnancy as a woman's responsibilty.

Why, Chris -- I think you read the words I wrote, and in the right order, too!

This could be the start of a dangerous new trend in blogging.

Very well said, Stephen. I couldn't agree with you more.

Michael Lonie, are you prepared to adopt that unwanted child created in that girl's "moment of weakness"? If yes, you're a better man than I. If not, give the morality play a rest.

Brian, your challenge is specious. The willingness of citizen A to raise the child that was once the fetus within citizen B has no ethical impact on the moral legitimacy of B's decision to destroy that fetus. The moral legitimacy of abortion ultimately depends on how one views various forms of human life, and what one views as a legitimate use of violence. If one views human life prior to birth as having no more moral import than a pair of tonsils, then of course, abortion is a purely mechanical procedure, without ethical dimension. If this is your belief, please explicitly state so, and explain your reasoning. If one views violence as a legitimate means to achieve goals, absent a corresponding need to defend one's self against violent assault, please state that case explicitly. If one concedes that a fetus has a moral dimension beyond that of an appendix, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask under what conditions that fetus can be legitimately targeted for violence, regardless of one's willingness to raise the children that are the results of others' sexual activity. To do so isn't any more a "morality play" than it would be to question a person's decision to take a shotgun to a spouse with Alzheimer's disease, regardless of the questioner's willingness to care for the afflicted spouse. Your attempt to silence debate in this manner indicates a unwillingness to face the dilemma honestly.
This isn't to say that I would favor the criminalization of most abortions.In most instances, abortion is a great moral failing, since the illegitimate infliction of violence against any form of human life, absent a corresponding need for self-defense, is wholly, morally, illegitimate. I respect Stephen a great deal, but I find the "moment of weakness" rationale for the infliction of violence to be extraordinarily lacking. Since preganancy is always a potentially life threatening condition for the mother, abortion can be ethically defended when the mother has not consented to the sexual activity which produced the pregnency, and thus has not tacitly accepted the risk involved; a person cannot be compelled to risk their life for another, no matter the nobility of doing so. Although most abortions are great moral failings, I still oppose attempts to prohibit the procedures, since it is a function that the state is extremely poorly equipped to do. In a free society, attempting to prohibit the procedures people have performed on their bodies is simply not practical. If slaves were three inches long, and lived within the bodies of the slaveowners, slavery would still be practiced, no matter how awful slavery is.

Re: Starr, Truth At Any Cost--Ken Starr and the Unmaking of Bill Clinton, written by Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf (neither part of the "right-wing conspiracy"), is the defining book on describing how political Clinton was, and how legal Ken Starr was. Starr never lost on the law, while Clinton repeated claimed new privileges that all got show down at the bar of justice.

I think we can blame the rabid Republicans who oozed nothing but revenge, but Ken Starr did his job.

Hey guys, you still miss the fooking point.

The under 20 age group accounts for 22% of abortions. The bulk of those seeking abortions are in their 20's and 30's...not hapless teen waifs. Do a google... see for yourself.

However, I am flogging a dead linguistic horse and a position taken on the issue with which I agree...so I will butt out.

I echo Joe Baby and Mr. Quick: I've met Judge Starr and he is easily among the most pleasant and unassuming men I have ever met. After all he's been through, he's still actually a genuinely nice guy. When he was selected for that job, Reps and Dems alike were pleased with the choice because he was someone they all liked and respected.

It was only when his investigation made things too hot for Bubba and the Clinton spin machine started to tear him up that people started to think negatively of him. And, to his immense credit, he perceived that properly executing his job prevented him from putting up a defense of himself. In a way, he was refreshingly naive, since he clearly thought he would be vindicated by his reports once he was done doing his job.

I feel for the guy: He could have bailed and had a nice, cozy job as Dean of Pepperdine Law. Instead, he stuck it out and did what he saw as his duty. I went to Pepperdine Law - it's a very nice place. And the Dean never has to say 'No comment' to a ravenous band of reporters in his driveway.

Nothing stopped FDR from pursuing a progressive domestic agenda, and nothing should stop Bush either.

The government shutdown comment is kind of a clinker: that was a fight between Congress and the President that would be hard to see happen today.

But yes, on the whole the American people don't like arrogance, and that's something Republicans should avoid. But if they believe in their ideas, they should go forward with them.

Bush... progressive?

another says, "If we lose trying to promote judicial restraint, so be it." - do you really think that's what the Republicans expect from their judges?

It's sometimes hard to tell the founded opinions from the talking points.

Watching the libertarian/conservative divide over abortion is fascinating as well, especially the use of the word baby.

My one problem with all this abortion ruckus, is that the Constitution states that people may not be deprived of life, liberty, or possession without due process. Where are these children's due process? I'm not talking about a few cells the first month or two, I'm talking about those who have a seperate heart beat, brain waves, and all four apendages. Aren't they garaunteed some sort of legal review before their terminated by someone else?

U tell'em BJ! :-)

Ken Starr was one of the best pornographers America has ever known.

Not only did he get the governmenr to publish his work but he got the Republicans asking for more.

Now that is some real good porno.

Oh, yeah. He made discussing the merits of spit vs. swallow a respectable topic for the work place.

Quite a man.

We have no need to bash gays in America.

Users of some drugs serve the purpose nicely. And without all the civil rights non-sense you get with the gay crowd.