Does the push to defund Planned Parenthood make sense for Republicans?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Do you guys believe this USA Today poll?  If you do what sense does it make for the Republicans to shut down the government, because they oppose something 2/3 of the country wants?



I didn't realize Planned Parenthood had this much support.  With 2016 coming up the Republican nominee is definitely going to be asked whether they want to defund Planned Parenthood.  Why would Congressional Republicans want to make this a high profile issue in a Presidential election year?

[Skill and Chance]

I was going to say it depends entirely on whether you view 2012 as a triumph of the war on women narrative or as the economy improving just fast enough.  But these numbers suggest that the general public equates Planned Parenthood with birth control and only the very conservatives equate it with abortion.  So it looks like a lose-lose issue that opens up a huge opportunity for Akin comments going forward.  They must be really, really worried about primary challenges.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It makes sense until they no longer have to worry about a primary challenge within their party.

[ingemann]

A interesting aspect is how much it means for 2/3 who want to keep fund it versus the 1/3 who want to defund it.

[Green Line]

Nobody cares about the issue much either way.  It helps them in primaries but won't have any effect in the general election

[Taco Truck 🚚]

It makes sense until they no longer have to worry about a primary challenge within their party.

I suppose you're right.

A interesting aspect is how much it means for 2/3 who want to keep fund it versus the 1/3 who want to defund it.

That's true.  But according to the survey an even bigger majority don't want to see the government shut down over this issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

This is not the hill the pro-life should die on. It doesn't make sense at all.

[ElectionsGuy]

They're stupid if they let it be a top tier issue. They're also stupid if they shut down the government over it. It only makes sense to the degree that they try to get the bill passed in Congress, and they tried that, so...

[Intell]

Can't you just make sure, you don't provide planned parenthood any money, until they stop providing abortions, and sell dead fetuses, or whatever it is.

[TJ in Oregon]

Does the push make sense more broadly? Yes.

Does it make sense to shut down the government over it? No.

The popular will just isn't there. You can't spend political capital you don't have.

[Mercenary]

It isnt good for them politically. The GOP in general is pretty awful at framing the situation anyway. They have allowed it to be framed as if the only option is government shutdown or PP gets funding. What about the government is funded and PP funding ends? Why should you need a veto proof majority to not continue spending anyway? Shouldnt you only need that kind of support for continued or new spending?

We ask the question if the government should be shutdown in order to discontinue PP funding and the GOP seems gine with it being framed that way since they spend like a drunk inheritence girl with a princess complex too, but what about the question do you think the government should be shutdown in order to continue the fundinh of PP? Why is spending automatic? With such a warped framing of the issue it is no wonder we have the debt we do.

PP spending isnt that much so even though I would in general be supportive of not reauthorizing spending for it, I dont consider it a priority at all and think there are far better things to spend political capital on crusading for. I mainly just think it is stupid that even though both sides are willing to let the government be shutdown over the issue, only one side gets blamed for it.

[dead0man]

No, it doesn't make any sense.  They are doing what the Dems used to be so good at, grasping defeat out of the jaws of victory.  H. Clinton was once seen by most people, myself included, as an easy win for the Dems in '16, but she's doing an amazing job of making herself unelectable.  But she's still probably going to win the nomination.  And the GOPs answer is Trump?  Another Bush?  A brain surgeon black guy, outsider (all good things in this climate).....who says sh**t almost as stupid as Trump?  A bunch of people we've already said no to?

[Torie]

The Pubs would have been better off framing the issue in a way that puts pressure to PP to sever its abortion services from its other services, by putting them in another entity. That way, it does not seem like an attack on its rendering of services as a whole. But nuanced strategy is not the Pubs' forte right now. In vogue at the moment is the meat ax approach.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

The Pubs would have been better off framing the issue in a way that puts pressure to PP to sever its abortion services from its other services, by putting them in another entity.

Planned Parenthood would never do that to appease Republicans.  Has Planned Parenthood ever lost a battle?  You don't usually make concessions when you are winning... or at least not losing.

Anyway appeasement would look like Obamacare.  Build a plan based on a Republican governor's plan and compromise the heck out of it to get Republican votes and then... get zero Republican votes and a billion attempts to repeal the thing.

The Republican Congress has already been told the tapes have been so tampered with they have no evidentiary value.  That hasn't stopped them from using them.  Compromises make sense when you have an honest broker sitting across the table from you.  But when you have an adversary that completely ignores objective facts you really don't have a starting point to negotiate.

Honestly if you were dragged into a hearing like that at school, work, civil court, etc and the prosecution based it's entire case on evidence that is that doctored would you think there is any way to compromise with that prosecutor?

[Gass3268]

The Pubs would have been better off framing the issue in a way that puts pressure to PP to sever its abortion services from its other services, by putting them in another entity.

Planned Parenthood would never do that to appease Republicans.  Has Planned Parenthood ever lost a battle?  You don't usually make concessions when you are winning... or at least not losing.

They are losing at the state level.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

They are losing at the state level.

Not necessarily...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-states-planned-parenthood-20150824-story.html

[Torie]

The Pubs would have been better off framing the issue in a way that puts pressure to PP to sever its abortion services from its other services, by putting them in another entity.

Planned Parenthood would never do that to appease Republicans.  Has Planned Parenthood ever lost a battle?  You don't usually make concessions when you are winning... or at least not losing.

Anyway appeasement would look like Obamacare.  Build a plan based on a Republican governor's plan and compromise the heck out of it to get Republican votes and then... get zero Republican votes and a billion attempts to repeal the thing.

The Republican Congress has already been told the tapes have been so tampered with they have no evidentiary value.  That hasn't stopped them from using them.  Compromises make sense when you have an honest broker sitting across the table from you.  But when you have an adversary that completely ignores objective facts you really don't have a starting point to negotiate.

Honestly if you were dragged into a hearing like that at school, work, civil court, etc and the prosecution based it's entire case on evidence that is that doctored would you think there is any way to compromise with that prosecutor?

I was speaking of what would better appeal to public opinion. Of course, PP will do nothing they don't have to. But they know when to cut their losses, as they did, when they said what that woman said who was taped was not appropriate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Republican party doesn't care about polls. They show leadership by taking a position and trying to move public opinion to their position. Unlike the cowardly Clinton "Democrats"

65-29 against their position is nothing. They blocked universal background checks, which had 92-7 support.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks