Points for answers. Extra credit if you can identify the podcasts I’ve been driving with recently.
Do GOPers make their global warming messaging about attacking Al Gore because they think he’s unpopular and they want to discredit science? Because they think he’s popular and they want to discredit him? Or just because they want to change the topic?
If Barack Obama combined a blue ribbon panel with a moratorium on firings of service members for being gay, how many Democrats in Congress would back him up?
Does having Democrats running the federal government make people who don’t like abortion but want it to stay legal feel more (not 8%, but maybe 1%) comfy identifying themselves “pro-life” without worrying about an abortion ban?
How do thousands of already-and-now-permanently married same-sex couples affect the fight for equal marriage rights for everyone else in California?
When will America have its first Supreme Court nominee who’s open about having had an abortion?
Is Obama serious about using our leverage to push Bibi?
Is Bruce Springsteen the only liberal immune from being tarred with the “elitist celebrity” brush? If so why?
Josh Eidelson 
Unpopular.
It would die in committee.
Less comfy – he’s popular right now and ambiguous enough about abortion.
Forces it to the Supreme Court. Least logical court ruling ever.
Never. Science will change the debate completely before that ever happens.
Yes.
BRUUUUUUUUUCE!
How is science going to change the debate?
In 50 years, reproductive technology (whether contraception, in vitro, cloning, genetic engineering, whatever) is going to look very different from now, so the context in which the abortion debate happens is going to be radically different. I think…