From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:37:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.

<seYe5xy00WBOI4GvBr@andrew.cmu.edu> (Alison Coleman) writes:
> Not only are the Republicans excluding homosexuals, they are excluding
> pro-choice Republicans as well.  

I don't think so.  At least one voice of support of abortion rights
has been heard from the podium.  By the time the convention is over,
there will be several pro-choice speakers.  Whether they talk about 
abortion, we'll have to wait and see.  Pro-choice Republicans are
frequently sent to represent the party on pundit panel talk shows
(Lynn Martin, Alan Simpson, Susan Molinari, etc.)  I can't think of
any corresponding pro-life Democrats in high-profile roles at their
convention.

Now the platform is very much against the pro-choice position, I'll
grant you that.  But the pro-choice Republicans weren't excluded
from the debate.  They were very visible in support of their position.
They just didn't have the votes to beat the current plank language.  
IMO, this is mainly because there was no pro-choice Republican 
presidential candidate this year for pro-choice Republicans to rally 
around and to collect delegates to the convention.  So, many 
Republican primaries and caucuses this year were the sole property of 
the pro-lifers.  Rumor seems to be that Gov. Weld (sp?) of Massachusetts 
is considering a run for president in 96.  If so, it will be interesting 
to see how much pro-choice support can sweep into the Republican 
convention then (assuming abortion is even still a national issue by then).

The striking thing about all this to me is the way both parties
have aligned themselves firmly with one side of this debate
in their platforms.  It was not very long ago that this was an 
issue that cut across party lines.  You could find all viewpoints
in both parties, and it was an issue which got down to basic
matters of each politician's conscience, not one that followed
easily from the traditions of either party.  But ever since
Reagan drew the pro-life vote to the Republicans, starting
the push of the pro-choicers toward the Democrats, who were  
happy to take them, there's been a realignment of the parties to 
the extreme ends of the spectrum they now hold.

<1992Aug18.161401.7479@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
>> Choose what?! 

> Stop playing dumb and quit being so picky.  

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine.  Tsongas used to really
tick me off in the primaries, the way he would:

1) Never say the word "abortion," only celebration of "choice".

2) Always use his support of abortion rights as his only example of 
the Democratic Party's superiority in its support of the rights and
interests of women.  Fine, Senator, you support abortion rights,
but is that the only/best thing you have to offer women?

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|