HAHA! look at ellen tauscher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFSeO-vy7QU

I believe that I reside in the 10th District. (Contra Costa County). I still don't know what to think of a recent "voting tactic" of Jeff Kettleson that I received via "phone message" about 2 weeks ago now. As i replayes my messages for the day I was encountered by a gentleman signing out a little jingle "selling" Jeff Ketleson. I really didn't find much wrong with the idea until this one part of the jingle specifically....Homosexuals change your ways,Ketleson wont marry no gays,K-E-T-LE-SON for our children. Am I wrong that my very first thought was .... What state does Mr. Ketleson think he is in? My second thought was it might be helpful if the targets for these unsolicted messages might have been thought out a little better. Being that in my household currently resides one of my favorite people bar none who is an artist extrodinaire (now published in the recent De Young Museum 2006 coffee table book) for his works of art, friend and yes,homosexual. Anyone else heard this "jingle"? or have any thoughts?

We are somewhat undecided on the choice issue.

My friends and I are trying to decide who to vote for congress in the 2006 elections. We live in the 10th congressional district of California (Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, and Sacramento Counties). There isn't much offline info available about the candidates. Their names are Darcy Linn http://www.darcylinn.com , Jeff Ketelson http://www.k4a.net , and Ellen Tauscher http://www.ellentauscher.com . Any advice would be helpful. thanks.

well definitely im against abortion, there are babies who died by chance but they shouldn't die by choice...i hope somebody in a local tv or cable will dicuss this issue and help those women realized that its very sinful.

I like your analysis. It was an interesting read, though I'm not sure I agree with all of it. On the subject of popular vote vs. the electoral college, I think the real reason that the electoral college will likely never be overturned is that the most populated areas of this country are tightly massed in just a few states. Have you driven through the Midwest and the West lately? Miles and miles of nobody. The large number of states that have disproportionate political power in terms of population aren't going to give their power up to states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and Michigan. Don't forget that 3/4 of the states would need to approve it. There are a lot of nearly empty states out there.

On the abortion issue, I don't know what would happen if Roe were overturned. It worries me a bit. I don't think Republicans are as big of a majority as they seem to be. I think, for one thing, the country is made artificially conservative by the electoral college, when it comes to presidential elections.

My experience also tells me that Republicans are more dishonest than Democrats and more likely to lie, cheat, or steal to get elected. Witness their tendency to repeat made up attacks on Democratic candidates. Calling them "unpatriotic" is a favorite one. There is also pretty strong evidence pointing to possible fraud in the decisive states in the last two presidential elections. I think these need to be investigated further. I think Democrats have lost much in recent years due to their general tendency to play fair. When the other guy's cheating and not getting caught at it, that's a problem in the short run. I hope that in the long run, being honorable is a winning strategy.

I think abortion is such a contentious issue because of the polarizing effect of Roe. When the Supreme Court handed down the decision 70% of the states already permitted abortion with varying restrictions.

If it gets struck down (unlikely, in my opinion) we'll return to the pre-Roe situation. States like South Carolina will make abortion illegal, and both Democrats and Republicans in those states will support the ban. In states like California, the opposite will occur - you won't find an anti-abortion candidate of either party for local dog-catcher.

In the end it won't hurt Democrats or Republicans - the issue will move from the federal to the state level, and the national parties won't even bother addressing it.

That's the way the system was set up. Roe v. Wade is really a very unconstitutional ruling - there isn't a shred of actual support for it anywhere in the text of the constitution. It's time for the experiment in judicial legislating to end and the issue returned to the states where it was for 200 years.

If abortion has gotten so universally unpopular in the last 25 years, why are people still having them?

I read recently (I think in the same issue of Atlantic that Larry references) that the degree to which legislators vote in support of reproductive rights correlates strongly the the number of daughters they have. It's easy to be distracted by the political posturing. Of course most people think abortion is horrible, and want it to go away. But when they or their daughters are stuck with an unwanted pregnancy, many people's views change. This disconnect between an ideological opposition to abortion and a practical desire to have it available when it is needed has been veiled by the existance of Roe vs Wade. Minus Roe it is going to become much more of an issue. Maybe things like my http://www.proboth.org platform will actually find an audience.

   Excuse me, that should have read "Working Families Party"
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/

     The repeal of Roe will liberate the Democratic Party, as the abortion issue will be decided state by state. Authentic Democrats seeking national office will at first make conciliatory noises to the strident abortion faction, but will gratefully consider it an albatross taken away from their necks. Suddenly, when they don't have this issue to satisfy the affluent fanatic Merlot liberals with, the majority of Democrats will be revealed to be almost indistinguishable from the corporate whores of the Republican Party. Within five years after Roe's repeal, absolutely no national Democrat will utter anything about abortion ever again.
     Roe helped make the Democratic Party a permanent minority party. Even people I knew in college 25 years ago who were firmly pro abortion now find it disgusting. And aside from people obssessed with social issues popular on colonies in the Coasts and in the bubble worlds of university towns in between, Americans everywhere else you meet, even in government, will tell you that there is no real difference between the parties, as they continue to sell out ordinary American people.
     The American Prospect has a wonderful article this month on the success of the Working Peoples' Party, constructed on the ability of New York State's ballot system to allow "fusion" candidates to run on more than one ticket. It dumps the entire morass of social issues for old time America pragmatic politics to help people in their everyday lives, yeah, what the Democrats used to be about. And it really seems to be able to steer alienated voters of both parties and independents, too, to politicians of either major party who will not only not stab them in the backs but help them in the ever nastier struggles of everyday economic existence. I urge Larry to look this up and comment on it; he has long been fascinated by New York election law and fusion history. "TAP" and "Dissent" are the two best authentic liberal/left magazines out there to confront the squalid mess of corruption and hypocrisy that both parties have fallen into. Almost everything else is either more elitist pap of the neoliberal consensus (NYT, New Republic, etc.), or cartoon leftist agitprop (e.g., The Nation).
   See also: http://www.democratsforlife.org/

I'm not at all sure which party would come out the winner if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, but I do think the battle lines in the pro-life/pro-choice debate would be radically overturned, and the Republicans would have their work cut out staying afloat in the storm.

I don't think this is at all comparable to the electorial college issue. Honestly, most Americans don't really care that much about who is president. Abortion comes much closer to home. It's not an abstract issue. A significant percentage of all American women have had one. It's something that touches in a vital way on the lives of many Americans.

Overthrow of Roe vs Wade will energize both camps. But that's the least of the problem. The real problem is that the pro-life camp especially, does not have a fundamental agreement on what they want, only on what they don't want. As soon as Roe vs Wade is gone, the country must decide what exact abortion law we want. The pro-choice people pretty much agree on what they want - basically what we've got. But there is no such consensus in pro-life.

I asked several dozen self-identified pro-life people what abortion laws they'd write if they could. Some wanted to ban all abortions in all cases, and try anyone who had one or performed one for murder. Others wanted to allow it early in pregnancy and allow all sorts of exception - some of these actually advocated abortion laws more liberal than the current ones. They just wanted to stand against the perception of loose morality that they associated with pro-choice. The only unity in the pro-life movement is it's opposition to Roe vs Wade. Take away Roe vs Wade, and it will very likely fall to pieces.

For the Republican party, pro-life has been a free ride. You talk about it, and you pass an occasional law that the courts slap down. You can posture all you like on the subject, and rant and rave, and not actually have to address the real world impact of an abortion ban. You don't have to figure out how to write the laws or how to enforce them. You can act tough on the issue, talk about morality and values, and people will flock to you, but you don't actually have to do anything. If it actually becomes possible to legislate on the subject of abortion, the free ride is over. People will actually expect them to act on all that rhetoric, and that really takes a lot of the fun out of it.

So the Republicans are going to have some fancy footwork to do if Roe falls. The Democratic position is clearer - they'll stand for maintaining pretty much the laws we had, take or give some details like partial birth and parental consent. This doesn't necessarily mean the Republicans will come out the losers though. They've managed some pretty fancy footwork in the past. But the abortion issue is the glue for their social coalition. I have neighbors who explain their vote for Bush as being completely about the abortion issue. They were hard pressed to identify any of his positions on other issues. Instability there is going to be hard for them.

But whatever it does to the Republican party, the fall of Roe will lead to a curtailment of reproductive rights. We shouldn't pretend it would be good news for liberals.