Comments on: Time for Another Straw Poll

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:43:48 +0000

As a general rule, I define "the vast majority of states" to mean at least 40. In the case of abortion, I'd put the number closer to 48. When even South Dakota, the most anti-abortion state in the union, can't bring itself to enact a general prohibition on abortion (last time without general exceptions for rape, incest, life & health of the mother, this time with), I think the risk of government getting too far into TGirsch's uterus is exceedingly remote. As to the link, did you bother actually reading the story? All the bill would do is prohibit doctors from performing abortions on minors attempting to circumvent their home states' parental notification laws. Could you imagine the outrage if the same law did not exist for kids (or even adults) wishing to purchase guns?

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:05:03 +0000

I've actually repeatedly criticized Democrats, here and elsewhere, for GLB. I've never claimed the Democrats are perfect on regulation, or anywhere close. I just think that they're not quite as bad as the Republicans, who seem to think that letting the inmates run the asylum is the best idea since the invention of the wheel. As to abortion remaining legal, if you define "the vast majority of states" as "20," then I guess I could see your point. Although I do have to concede your point: since the overwhelming majority of women who want/need abortions are women of means, requiring them to travel to another state to get one (often twice, because of counseling and waiting period requirements) really isn't a big deal, I suppose. (And, of course, Congress would never enact laws to prevent them from doing so...)

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:13:14 +0000

Assuming arguendo that Glass-Steagall really was a “smart” regulation, how does that help the Democrats vis a vis Republicans? GLB passed with overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle, and was signed into law by a Democrat. If that’s the only example of a “smart” regulation you can come up with, it sounds like a wash. But here’s another example of regulation that would have been smart: serious oversight of the GSEs, which the Republicans have sought three times over the past eight years, only to be swatted down by Democrats every time. Advantage: Republicans. [Unless, of course, you define "smart" regulations the way the Brady Bunch defines "reasonable" gun control. If the real question is not about regulating smartly, but just about regulating more, period, then of course the Democrats will win that dubious distinction.]

As to abortion, I’ll grant you that if your life’s goal is to have a late term abortion at a hospital of your choice in Utah or South Dakota without waiting or counseling, then you probably should vote for Obama. I have a hard time understanding why a rational person would think that way, but whatever. Granted, I rank abortion even lower on the priority list than you list guns, but part of the reason for that is that I know abortion will remain legal in the vast majority of the states no matter what the President and the Supreme Court do. Abortions will still be available to every American who wants one; at worst, a few may have to travel. Not so for guns, as federal law prohibits anyone from purchasing a gun outside his state of residence (any handgun, or any long gun not allowed in his home state), and even if you manage to score the prohibited weapon, continued possession at your home where you’ll need it makes you continuing criminal. By contrast, if you leave an anti-abortion state to obtain an abortion, you get the abortion, you go back home, and you’re done. You don’t bring your abortion back home with you and cross your fingers that the cops will never find it hiding under your bed.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:24:20 +0000

Squid:

Glass-Steagall springs to mind.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:14:32 +0000

Nope, not a brand loyalist at all. I have a handful of issues I care a great deal about, and I’ll vote for whichever [viable] candidate is closer to my stance on those issues. If that means voting Republican, then that’s what that means. As I mentioned on a flame-filled thread over at Say Uncle, I’m generally pro-gun, but it’s a second- or third-tier issue for me.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:04:43 +0000

TGirsch, I don’t think of you as a socialist or even a far-left liberal. Maybe I should have included another category for brand-loyalist. Ordinarily, a center-lefty should identify more closely with a center-righty like McCain than with an outright socialist like Obama. However, brand loyalty can go a long way. I’m not sure a pro-gun Democrat wouldn’t be viable; I think the main problem is that there aren’t all that many pro-gun Democrats out there. Virginia elected NRA A-rated Jim Webb two years ago, and seems poised to elect F-rated Obama next week. NC may very well elect two F-rated Democrats (Hagan and Obama) and one A-rated Democrat (Perdue) on the same day.

By: Squid

Squid — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:34:52 +0000

Smart regulation? Could you provide any specific examples thereof?

Bonus points if they haven’t been completely (and predictably) corrupted and perverted by those they’re supposed to regulate.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:40:34 +0000

You’d probably peg me as some combination of #1 and #2. I’m not entirely sure I agree that a belief in smart regulation and progressive taxation makes one a “far-left socialist,” but if that’s the definition you’re working from, then I guess that’s what I am. I’m also a pro-choice environmentalist, which makes it virtually impossible to vote for anyone with an R after their name, sadly. (I genuinely wish the abortion issue, the gun issue, and environmental issues hadn’t become so nakedly partisan. In an ideal world, pro-gun Democrats and pro-choice Republicans would be nationally viable; today, they aren’t.)