Newt Gingrich makes strategic sense

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I endorse the idea that Republicans shouldn't be afraid to field more liberal candidates where that makes strategic sense. I would rather have a Republican that voted the way I prefer 50 percent of the time than a Democrat who voted my way 30 percent of the time. On the other hand, I'd be more likely to vote for a pro-life, socially conservative Democrat than a socially moderate, pro-big business Republican. But that's me.

This is eminently sensible and indeed something that's led me to support Republicans in the past (and even join the party), despite their atrocious positions on some issues that affect me personally and deeply. For one thing, I tend to be more inclined to support anti-abortion candidates. But the current crop of Republicans and activists seem intent on forcing me out of the party.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn between members of a religious sect and members of a political party. A sect is perfectly justified in specifying tenets and beliefs that its members must hold for continued membership. That is not true for a political party, where beliefs evolve over time (compare the Republicans of 1870 with those of 1930 and those of today) and political discussion continues ad infinitum.

The current crop of Republicans wants their members to have the true faith. Therefore, anyone who refuses to submit to their authority is anathematized. That's not a party I can support.

MS – you write “The Oklahoma law may be dubious politics. But it will discourage people from killing their babies. And that's about as good as it gets.”

The Oklahoma law raised eyebrows because the female has to answer over 30 questions which are going to be posted on the web. There’s a chance some people will be figure out who she is. There’s no way to figure out from the data who the man who impregnated her was, he’s under no state compulsion to fill out a questionnaire. That puts all of the state burden of disclosure on the woman.

What if a legislator decided that the best way to reduce the chance that a woman will have an abortion out of fear that a man will abandon her to raise the child alone is to protect her interests by ensuring a state role in the matter at the outset? What about a statute which requires men (married to or not) to file up-to-date financial disclosure statements with women every time they plan or hope to be intimate with them? Not only would it remind them that a pregnancy might occur, the women then could decide if he (whether he is married to her or not) is a reliable partner at that particular time. Most men would shudder at the intrusion and the humiliation of such a statute which focused so strongly on their role.

If there were such a hypothetical statute (mercifully, there never will be), most women would be compassionate about male humiliation. I doubt most liberal or conservative or moderate women would feel the law was fair, even if it did reduce the number of abortions by increasing the chances that the two people actually had made a well thought out decision to have a child together. They probably would fight with men to over turn it. Perhaps some conservative, as well as liberal, men also see the Oklahoma law as equally one sided in assessing how pregnancies occur, however much they support reductions in the number of abortions.

At any rate, too late now, the state legislature acted already in Oklahoma. For better or worse, the Oklahoma story and the Republican legislators who introduced it is in the news this fall, as the law currently is being litigated. I don't think too many people will connect it to NY 23 abortion issue, however. At any rate, here’s hoping legislators don’t have such a tin ear on the optics of such matters.

I'm sure that the leadership of the Democrats in the House can't stand the Blue Dogs, but they realize that in many districts, the only choice is between a conservative Democrat and conservative Republican.

I counted the other day how many house seat the Republicans hold in New England and New york combined. It's 50-1 Democrats. They can cheer all they want when Chris Shays loses because he's a RINO, but you can't then you can't complain when the Democrats hold the majority.