I posted this in Laura Gilman's blog, but it really belongs in mine, so here it is.
My frustration with politicians shows a little. The point is that Ohio actually has a very broad spectrum of viewpoints in it. That is good. It also means that no matter what your opinion, there are some people here that will have a very different view. So there will be some that will try your patience. My unscientific observation is that the majority here didn’t think either candidate in the last election had their heads screwed on straight. Forced to choose … Being a Democrat myself, I was more upset that the party couldn’t come up with someone and some approach that would win a very important election. My humble opinion is that they gave it away. For all of Clinton’s faults, he understood where the majority of Americans stood on issues. The party continues to drift further and further from this understanding. You may hate Bush folks, but he did better in the second election than he did the first time. You had better ask yourselves why if you don’t want the next person to be worse. Don’t take any comfort in his low poll numbers. They are unimportant since he isn’t running next time. The person who will win is the one who can put together a platform that makes sense to the majority of people in the middle. That is much harder than coming up with a platform that appeals to those at one extreme or the other. The Democrats lost because unfortunately, the Republicans did a better job of this. Ohio wound up being a swing state because it reflects the broad spectrum of opinions in America, not because it only has crazy people in it.
Don’t take any comfort in the news reports either; the last election demonstrated just how poorly the news media understood what is going on.
As long as I am making a fool of myself, let’s talk about the actual issue. Mentioning “pro-choice” to someone who thinks you are killing babies won’t get you anywhere. You need to debate the issue on their ground. When does life begin? It doesn’t - it is a continuum and every egg or sperm that doesn’t result in a baby is a life that has died. Does that imply that as soon as a woman is capable of having babies, she should be kept constantly pregnant even if she isn’t married? I don’t think any on the right would say that is the proper approach. What about all that male sperm? There aren’t enough women to go around to solve that problem are there? And what did Christ say about abortion? Not a thing really. It was considered a male roman husband’s right to decide if a baby was to be killed AFTER birth (talk about crude abortion). No where does he talk about this, because in his time it was accepted. Christ was not a conservative and would be shocked at what people say in his name. Well perhaps he would expect it since he upset people by hanging around prostitutes and the poor. Ask people on the right about the correlation between more access to abortion and birth control and the significant drop in the crime rate. Don’t argue with them about free-choice no matter how much you believe in it. You have to discuss it in their terms if you want any chance of affecting their opinion.
<Climbs off his soap box.
My apologies to you Laura for putting this on your blog.