by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Via Pandagon, I'm not entirely sure that the "pro-life gambit" wherin Democrats plus up federal abstinence-only education in exchange for an increase in Title X family planning budget and passage of the entire labor-H bill is a tactic geared towards pandering to the religious right or expanding the network. The labor-H bill is the second largest budget bill after the Pendagon, so it's a big deal. Given that Bush has no policy priorities that Dems can accept in exchange for the budget, the will have to attract the votes of enough Republicans to either create a veto-proof majority, or get someone with enough credibility that the President will listen when he is asked to sign the bill. The 290th vote in the House is a pretty conservative vote; challenges to Kenny Hulsof (R-MO) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) would almost certainly be uphill battles. In the house votes are almost certainly 100% anti-choice, almost 100% anti-reality-based-budgeting, and in general tough to move.
I realize this sounds a bit like Josh Lyman recommending that the President pass his foreign aid bill with earmarks for "$110,000 and the Bill of Rights". But there are no easy choices. Unwinding Bushism is going to be a long, slow process ... it probably won't end at the Justice Department for a generation ... so from a legislative perspective, waiting another year to zero out abstinence-only ed is at least vaguely defensible.
From a political perspective, of course, it just sounds crazy.
