Choice in Post-South Dakota Campaigning
There’s been a fairly heated debate raging today over at Political Forecast about whether Culver has placed undo stress on choice during the campaign, and it seems people in the Iowa blogosphere aren’t the only ones to have noted how the navigation of this sticky issue has changed in state races.
The New York Times highlights our very own gubernatorial race as an example of how South Dakota has changed choice in state races. Instead of questions about how to regulate abortions, candidates are now faced with a binary choice: ban or no? This places candidates like Blouin, who are personally pro-life but oppose a ban, in an awkward position. How does one articulate a nuanced position on a hot-button issue without committing an “I supported abortion before I was against it” misstep? (That was meant to be rhetorical, but I reckon picking a pro-choice female doctor as a running mate and letting her answer the question is one method of assuaging people’s fears!)
The article also points out that no one really knows how this issue will play out. Some pro-lifers are against ban proposals because they don’t see them as a pragmatic approach to eliminating abortion, and worry that they will call pro-choicers to action (well duh!). Perhaps the Nussle folks are worried about this too, as Nussle declined an interview with the Times, and his spokesperson noted that he has not publicly stated whether he would support a ban. On the other hand, he may just be standing aside to let the Dems pick each other apart—a strategy that has obviously been working.
Add comment June 5th, 2006
