House Democrats recruited 12 anti-choice candidates to run in 2008.

I don't know how many of them actually won, have not researched that. I think heard about half of them won their races. What's more important to me is that the Democratic party, which used to stand up for the rights of women, is recruiting candidates who are willing to squelch those rights. Not just being accepting, but actively recruiting them.

I have often said that as our party tries to get back into power that we would allow two groups to pay the price. Women and gays. I think we are seeing that happening now.

I had not realized that 12 were recruited and that some had their anti-choice ads paid for by the DCCC, which is funded by Democrats like you and like me. Chris Van Hollen, I thought, was a little more understanding of the issues that Democrats have traditionally supported. More so than Rahm was when he was DCCC chair. Rahm would often pick Republicans who were wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns.

More on the topic from the New York Times in October.

Democrats Carrying Anti-Abortion Banner Put More Congressional Races in Play



Here is the ad mentioned.

Bobby Bright's anti-choice ad paid for by the DCCC

More from Kristen Day, head of the Democrats for Life, the group that is now apparently controlling the party's message on women rights.



Here is Chris Van Hollen's explanation of why this is a good thing and how it will help women's rights in the long run. He is head of the DCCC this year.



Right, Chris. And I have some swampland in Florida to sell you. Take wedge issues off the table, recruit candidates who are right wing in their views...and they will put them right back on the table.

The Democrats have given in on Plan B emergency contraception, they have raised the funding for abstinence only education and they are openly recruiting anti-choice candidates. Now where's that swampland?

I don't care what letter is after a candidate's name--if that person is in any way anti-choice, that person does NOT get my vote.

Any person who puts their personal mythologies over the law is not acceptable.

that electing any Democrat automatically protects choice yet?

:nuke:

Suddenly people expect attention to economic issues.

Oops.

How long can The Ruling Class hide behind their barrier of politicians, think tanks and their M$M?

:shrug:

K&R

If it weren't for the religious right/culture warrior/social conservative political movement, these "wedge issues" wouldn't be on the table.

Sorry, but that's just a fact. Imo, this is a good thing. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

Rather than try to stand up for the rights of these two groups, we give up and cave in.

That has been our excuse for a while now. We are now backing down on emergency contraception, even birth control on request. We are caving in a failed program called abstinence only which is really quite dangerous because condoms are not mentioned as a safeguard against STDs.

But it's all okay if we win, because these two groups are expendable.

because it is SO much better to "try", in a district in which there is no chance at all of winning with a pro-choice candidate, and lose to a Republican whose agenda includes EVERYTHING to which we are opposed.

CANNOT win is cannot win. In many of those districts pro-choice is NOT AN OPTION! Should we really just give the seat away to a Republican? There are many other issues to be considered as well. Are all of those issues expendable?

We just must give up our rights as women so we can win. It's really very simple, isn't it?

Why isn't pro-choice an option? Because we caved in to the religious right so long ago.

The party is going down a dangerous trail with this.

You leave out two groups, soon will come another.

Women are not a minority in the party.

You keep on excusing it all, I don't think I can anymore.

We just must give up our rights as women so we can win.

Winning with MOST of our values in tact is far better than losing and having NONE of them preserved. I am not a one issue Democrat. I have family and friends about whom I care as well.

Yes...pro-choice candidates who can win are FAR preferable to anti-choice candidates, but, in my opinion, electing a minority of anti-choice Democrats are MUCH better than electing Republicans. How could an anti-choice Republican possibly be better than an anti-choice Democrat....? :shrug:

:shrug:

If you had to pick who would be a congressperson out of two choices

1. pro-life democrat
2. pro-life republican

Who would you choose? The DCCC picks choice 1. I would much rather have 1 than 2.

There is a small group here that pretends this choice doesn't exist (that there is a 3. viable pro-choice democrat in every district in the South), but this is nothing more than denying reality. If you don't like this choice, then you should go to such a congressional district and personally change the minds of the large majority who will never vote for a pro-choice candidate. That would be much more productive than taking a reality that you don't like and pretending it doesn't exist (while attacking the DCCC for doing nothing more than seeing reality).

I am very, very happy that the Democratic party is (for the most part) run by pragmatists over purists. I would much rather have a bigger caucus that is 95% pro-choice than a smaller caucus that is 100% pro-choice.

I do see danger ahead if our party fears doing what is right.

AND it is not right to say that women are less than men and are unable to make choices about their bodies and health care.

To say otherwise is rationalization.

The voters in these districts are the ones who will never vote for a pro-choice candidate. It's not the DCCC's fault for realizing this. The purpose of the DCCC is to elect Democrats to actually change policy, and having the correct position does not help if that position can't help enact policies (due to the non-viability of candidates with these positions in certain districts).

In our very conservative district we had an openly gay man, pro-choice running and doing surprisingly well. But the party leaders put in an anti-gay, anti-choice man, and the other was forced out by lack of funding....and by the churches to whom the party catered.

The voters are not all the same.

I would rather have all the anti-choice candidates contained
to the republican.

I'd rather elect an anti-choice, anti-war republican than
an anti-choice, pro-war democrat.

thereby implying (and sometimes saying out loud) that roughly 80% of Americans are "pro-death".

The choice is between:

1. anti-choice democrat
2. anti-choice republican

We are all for life, all of us. We have allowed them to frame the issues too long.

or something to that effect.

Safe, legal abortion saves women's lives. It is much more critical than merely choice or privacy issues. Sadly, the anti-abortion mob has used the "choice" frame against our lives since it began.

Call the anti-abortion crowd what they really are: woman haters

you may well be one, soon. First, the democratic party sacrificed labor. Then they sacrificed on human services. Now some will sacrifice choice. What is next? Because we as a people have absolutely refused to hold our politicians responsible for their actions, we have allowed the entire political spectrum to shift to the right. And it keeps drifting, but we say "oh, that's okay- we would rather vote for a moderate right democrat than a far right republican. Problem is, these moderate democrats just 10 years ago would have been considered moderate to slight right republicans. And as long as this keeps going, one day our choice will be to vote for either a Genghis Khan or an Adolf Hitler.

who simply cannot win will protect our bodies and our rights HOW? Insuring a Republican in the seat will NOT advance women's rights.

A larger Democratic majority will protect EVERYONE'S rights a lot more than will either a slimmer majority or a Republican majority, don't you think?

and ignoring your own base.

They are giving up rights to consult with a doctor on birth topics such as contraceptive or abortion.

That's one way to win.

How are women's rights protected by electing an anti choice Republican rather than an anti-choice Democrat? Do you think abortion is the ONLY woman's rights issue? While that is very important, my rights go much, much further than choice, and I would prefer ALL of my rights be protected.

And I think that keeping larger majorities of Democrats will protect the right of choice to begin with.

Please do not talk down to me as though I am being petty and selfish. A woman's right to birth control, a right to contraception after a rape, the rights of young people to be taught how to avoid pregnancy and STDs without having the religious view the only one they hear. Read this link.

Democrats fail on Plan B, on abstinence only, and on allowing women the right to abortions.

You seem to think I am self-centered for questioning our Democrats on these issues.

I think you have BLINDERS on. I will ask a third time, because you still have not answered the question....How will insuring that a Republican is elected help ANYTHING?

I gave an answer I think is sufficient. I think I have had enough of the non-productive talk when you know perfectly well we are turning our party over to the religious right very quickly.

Bye now.

Talking to you is like - well - like :banghead:

It does no good to elect Democrats who are going to vote like Republicans either. We may go down, but at least we'll go down fighting for something.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them." - Paul Wellstone

They tank our own committees.

the question that so far has not been answered. How does it help ANYTHING to guarantee that a Republican will be elected rather than a Democrat who will vote with the party on MOST issues? :shrug:

They allow "mistakes" like the IRAQ WAR to occur,
so that later, the Republicans can RIGHTFULLY
claim that there was "NON-PARTISAN" support of
these FOUL and COWARDLY deeds.

Telling me what the Dems don't do is not telling me how electing a Republican would make it better, but I guess I'm not going to get an answer to that question.

If you really think that electing ANY Democrat is not more important than insuring that a Republican wins by putting up a Democrat with no chance in the world to win, then I guess I'm not going to change your mind.

I can only hope that you are not in any of the districts named in the OP.

stick with our platform.

The DINO's allow the Republicans to claim
that they "all have dirty hands", or that
"BI-PARTISAN support" carried the day.

Large voting blocks can then claim that
"they're all crooks" and vote for the
candidate that spends the most money.

answer my question! In a district where a pro-choice candidate CANNOT WIN, how insuring a Republican win by putting up a pro-choice candidate help anything? Isn't a Democrat who will vote with the Dems 80%, or even 70% of the time better than a Republican who will vote with us 0% of the time?

Like I said, I'm obviously not going to get an answer, so I will stop asking.

It is a long-term answer.

I will gladly sacrifice a seat for NOW,
if it brings us a WAVE of Democratic
support in the next election.

Especially a southern seat.

You are apparently unabel to comprehend what i am asking, so I have, as I said before, stopped asking.

Glad you are stopping.

I think that's defeatist horseshit.

In many of those districts I am assuming that the pro-choice case is not possible to make. It has been proven time and time again, and until or unless something changes with the ELECTORATE...not the candidates....putting up a pro-choice candidate will assure a Republican win. I do not see how that helps ANYBODY!.

In districts where that is not true, i agree that "recruiting" anti-choice candidates is indefensible. I do not believe that is, by any stretch of the imagination, the case in the large majority of the districts in question.

Sometimes we just have to accept reality, and do what is best on the majority of issues.

I am a strong feminist. Have been all my life. My mother before me was as well. But sometimes, you have to accept what will not change any time soon. If I can get MOST of my rights protected, I will not take the chance on losing that because I am insisting on 100%.

When Democrats hold their ground and run as REAL
capital D Democrats, they CAN win.

We lose by running republican-lite candidates.

If voters have a choice between a real Republican or a Democrat
acting Republican-lite, they will choose the actual Republican.

we've allowed the right to frame this issue for far, far too long.

It's time to take it back and change the conversation. These are often the same people who will scream about taxes and want government out of their lives - yet, somehow they've been convinced that gov't has a place in the absolute most intimate aspects of women's lives.

I've spoken to people who would have said they are definitely "pro-life". I've found that they're often the victims of a great deal of misinformation on the positions of many Democrats on the issue. That, first of all, very few people are "pro-abortion". That abortions were a great deal less common under Clinton and then spiked quite high under Bush. That prevention and education and options are common ground on which most people can agree - preventing abortions from being needed in a great many cases. When they're asked to think about the issue as one of private medical choices, and not as people killing poor innocent babies just because they're hateful or lazy or any of the other stereotypes perpetuated by the right wing anti-choice gang, they start seeing things differently.

Women in particular will respond strongly to the idea of a baby being harmed. But they will also respond to the idea that another women is not capable of making a very difficult but very personal decision for herself.

I agree with you - I think we give up far too easily and allow this to disintegrate into a binary "baby-killing women libbers vs. decent people who love children" fight. It's not that, and it's not that simplistic.

I have no problem with candidates who are personally uncomfortable with abortion but believe it's a personal decision. Fine by me. Just keep your choice as your choice and leave others to make their own.

But does it really matter if it's a Dem or a Rep who happily smashes women's rights? That's sort of like saying it would be better to be murdered by someone you know than someone you don't - really, does it matter?

abortion rights are the only rights that we, as a nation are or should be concerned with. There are many other issues that we, as a nation are facing.

Roe v. Wade is still in place, for now, and is not, for the moment, in danger. Even if it were, though, I fail to see how allowing an anti-choice Republican will protect it any more than an anti-choice Democrat, and the Republican is not who I would trust with my other rights...like making a living, equal pay, food, clean water, affordable housing for all, health care for every American...I could go on and on...but I think you get the picture.

if they oppose the right to choose, they also tend to oppose other issues which I support such as getting out of Iraq, spending money on our infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc), stopping the hemorrhage of jobs via outsourcing. The picture I get is that they don't represent me. That is the picture that I get.

will be better how, exactly?

If they support traditional republican principles rather than traditional democratic principles, I'm not going to see them as representing the democratic party or myself. Liebermann had the "D" behind his name and I suspect will attempt to regain it before the next election. Was or Is he a better choice than a republican? Oddly enough, I have never seen much difference.

OK..We will then agree to disagree that ANY Democrat is better than ANY Bible Belt Republican. A vote with the Democrats 70% - 80% of the time is better to me than 0%, but that is just me.

Lieberman, by the way, has actually voted with the Democrats most of the time, and is pro-choice, so I am guessing you would not prefer a Republican in that seat.

having supported the state's Catholic hospitals in their fight to refuse rape victims emergency contraception...

And actually, there are some Republicans who are much closer to the values I hold important than people like Lieberman.

Who would you pick - say, Lincoln Chaffee or Joe Lieberman? (I know Chaffee's out of politics, and also out of the GOP now, but he was one for years).

I said any Bible Belt Republican.....is Connecticut in the Bible Belt now? ..and, Lieberman is not a Democrat any longer, either, but when he was...IF he was running against Chaffe, and IF, bringing back the original point of this post, both were anti-choice, I would vote for the Democrat.

My representative is on madfloridian's list of bad Democrats that are unacceptable.

He votes for many things that I don't agree with. But I still think he's better than a Republican. I know Republicans, and he's still no Republican.

What I don't understand is why so much time seems to be devoted here to criticizing Democrats.

If we were republicans we would probably not bother to educate ourselves, nor hold our elected officials to a decent standard. Why shouldn't we actually ask a democrat to friggin vote like one? What is the matter of expecting an alternative to corporate-friendly right leaning democrats?

There is no penalty in public for being too conservative a democrat. We should at least try to hold their feet to the damned fire someplace.

Would you prefer that all elected officials in the U.S. were only Republicans? Or that the Democratic Party nationwide runs only candidates with no chance to win in any election in any district?

Because that's the situation that we have in Florida. I've been around the Florida Democratic Party and listened to the "progressives" for years as they put up one candidate after another that has Zero chance to win statewide office. So, we have all Republicans in a state that is equally divided by party.

You may choose to believe the nonsense that Democrats are equally as bad as Republicans, but in the real world that's a totally stupid and false idea. And in Florida, we've learned that lesson really well.

Are you trying to tell me that my area will be better off if we never elect another Democrat to office? And if we have no representation or voice in state party politics? Because this OP writer has complained that conservative Democrats from my region actually want to elect Democrats to office.

Since liberal Democrats can't get elected here, I'm assuming that you agree that we should just shut up and live with every office being occupied by Republicans?

Your first paragraph is a false choice.

Your second paragraph presupposes that the Democrats have been running Clones of Paul Wellstone all over dixie when nothing could possibly be further from the truth. The democrats have ALWAYS been running conservative democrats in the south under the assumption that this is how you win. Amazing that it hasn't worked.

Your third paragraph is a strawman. I don't know who you are arguing with or what they are saying.

Your fourth paragraph is another false choice. If you don't elect my kind of democrat you will never elect another again.

And of course you conclude with an asumption that follows the 'logic' of your arguments.

---------
But I have to say if you are a representative of Flordia Democrats you guys MIGHT have a bit more luck getting progressives elected if you did away with laws that nearly permanently strip former convicts of their voting rights, if maybe you spent just a bit of time and effort getting decent machines, if maybe you didn't let full on republicans jump into the party and rework of the ballots at the last minute.

Basically if you are running as fiscally conservative and socially conservative and are pro-war then what the hell are you planning on voting with the Democrats on anyhow? In politics and war you have to trust the people who not only say that they are on your side but also the people that act like it.

Strategically speaking the only thing you are accomplishing is in blurring the lines between parties and convincing the masses of Americans that there really is no difference between the parties which depresses turn out.

My first paragraph is simply a statement of what some on this forum find acceptable for those of us who live in conservative areas--that we should have no representatives who don't meet some, as you put it "Paul Wellstone standard". I was wondering if those people would find it acceptable if that standard were extended to the entire country--we should only run Paul Wellstone Democrats in every district and when they don't win--we'll live with whatever the Republicans want to do for us or to us.

Talk about strawmen--"amazing how that hasn't worked." I believe the post that you responded to specifically stated that my representative is considered a conservative Democrat. I think that other conservative Democrats who've been elected in "dixie" (my, how I do love condescending yankees) have been discussed in this thread.

As for Florida elections, as I stated, there could be nothing more wonderful than to hear from some northern 'liberal' about how the rest of the world should run--especially in "Dixie".

If I'm not mistaken, Florida had 5,000 volunteer attorneys who monitored election day processes. We had no big problems with disputed ballots and I don't believe there's been any national publicity about 'lost' or 'uncounted ballots'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can you say that about your state?

We also use optical scan machines throughout our state. Since they're the same ones used in Minnesota, I assume that they are 'decent machines' and I don't recall any problems with the optical scan ballot design this election, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of the chance to gratuitously insult those of us who live in that part of "Dixie" known as Florida.

As for my false choices about electing Democrats, my point is simply this. It's difficult to elect Democrats in conservative districts and more difficult to get Republicans out of office once they're in. As I believe the reelection of Michelle Bachman and the closeness of the Coleman-Franken race should demonstrate. I'd prefer my own representative--who is considered 'conservative' and awful by the OP writer, but who has a very mixed voting record. But who is considered to have a 'moderate populist' voting record by some of the rating groups.

I'm afraid that otherwise we'd get a Michelle Bachman Republican with a 'far right' voting record.

And as for re-enfranchising felons, someone else can spend their time on that. Personally, I'm rather more concerned about the average law-abiding Floridian who gets disenfranchised.

Actually when I respond to a stated position you have made, that is not technically considered a straw man. A straw man is a CONSTRUCTED opinion made as a false opposition. I did not have to do this as you stated your opinion repeatedly, a position that was rooted in logical fallacies.

And excellent, thanks for turning my critque of Florida into a North Vs South thing. Ohio is not a southern state and it also had a corrupt secretary of state (Blackwell) and he ran for governor of that state.

As to 'no problems in florida'? What did you expect, diebolt touch screens (that by the way are still used in Florida in complete contradiction to what you stated here) to jump up and start spewing smoke and shooting out flares? No, these problems, unless dealt with proactively, arent really noted by armies of lawyers on the ground on election day. They simply have no way of determinint the problem.

Not all of Minnesota uses the same scantron machines but at least we have the damned good sense to ensure that they function right.

The election of Michelle Bachman is owed to a single conservative nutjob and nothing more. Outside of her district she is considered a lunatic and a laughingstock, and given her positions any Democrat that is going to win there is going to have to INSPIRE people to look at the world differently. Merely aping her positions is going to come off as completely disengenuous at least and at worst will "win" us a democrat that will never vote like one and will ensure that our party platform will have all the ability to hold water as a cheesecloth cup.

Franken vs. Coleman says absolutely NOTHING. Franken is a celeb that was easy to trump up a campaing agaisnt him based on sleeze and personality politics. Had we walked out with the more liberal candidate (Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer) Coleman would have actually had to run on nothing but his record of backing bush 95% of the time in blue Minnesota. I am certain Coleman might have won a majority in Bachmans district, but not much more than that.

Oddly I sort of take MadFloridians word over yours. He tends to do funny things like citing his sources over relying on 'conventional wisdom.'

And I have to say that if more Democrats actually followed the standard set by Wellstone, rather than just rubbing themselves all over his name, we would win more often. Progressive populism is a winning position and the reason we have lost is because we have surrendered working class populism for wall street campaign contributions. Thomas Frank's "What's the matter with Kansas" does as good a job as any other book painting this picture for us.

'dixie' reference and your insinuation that we incompetent Floridians are unable to handle elections, unlike the Minnesotans who seem to be having some of the same problems that Floridians did in 2000 (but not 2008).

You criticize my opinion as rooted in logical fallacies? You've spent two posts explaining to me how ill-informed I am about the election systems in my state. And not only me, but the attorneys who monitored the elections. Your criticisms seem to show that you know far more about Florida voting than I.

Just curious though, do you think that the 5,000 volunteer attorneys didn't monitor the elections throughout the early voting period, which lasts several weeks in Florida? Or, that the non-attorney poll watchers who sat both inside the polls and at tables outside the polls wouldn't have picked up on any problems with Die bold touch screens? BTW, there are few touch screen machines, which are used mostly by elderly and handicapped voters. But, do you seriously think that Florida voters, who are probably the most aware in the country about voting problems, wouldn't have reported problems to their local Democratic monitors or the supervisors of elections. My experience as part of that effort tells me that they would--but I wouldn't want to let reality interfere with your insults toward those of us in Florida who spend our time on such stuff.

However, your insulting attitude certainly explains why you'd take madfloridian's word over mine. You're sure from your position there in Minnesota that Floridians haven't been present when the voting machines are tested. I could tell you differently--but I doubt that would make a change in your attitude. Of course you'd believe Madfloridian, she doesn't live in my district, follow my representative's votes or have any dealings with him.

But to both of you, she's totally knowledgeable about what a bad representative he is, just as to you Thomas Frank, who hasn't lived in Kansas in decades, didn't even go to college there, and has a completely superficial outlook on the people of the state--is an authority. I did go to college in Kansas and my liberal friends who stayed there and have been involved in politics are not nearly as enamored of Frank as you are.


And despite your insults, I haven't heard that Minnesota Democrats have obtained transparency in the source codes of any voting machines--which as most Florida Democrats are aware--is where votes can be changed. But, I wouldn't want you to let that interfere with your need to disparage those of us in Florida and to comment on our inability to impact elections in our state.

You seem a little defensive of Michelle Bachman--just one conservative nut job in one conservative district. I believe that my point was that it's difficult to remove a Republican incumbent from office in a conservative district, even when they've said ultra-stupid things on television and their opponent has raised a large amount of money. Seems like your justification of why this could happen in liberal, blue Minnesota is rather supportive of my initial 'logical fallacy' that some districts are so Republican that you're unlikely to elect further Democrats there when you lose a good chance.

And I certainly am glad that citing talking heads that agree with one is your criteria for being knowledgeable about the politics of one's own congressional district. If by 'conventional wisdom' means knowledge gained from working in campaigns is bad and citing bloggers and columnists is good, then I guess I understand why Democrats have done so badly over the last couple of decades.

But frankly, having watched Democratic Party politics up close, I seriously doubt the theories of Thomas Frank are the reason Democrats have been unsuccessful at winning elections on a nationwide basis. My impression is that the McGovern reforms and the extent to which the Party degenerated into a wide variety of special interest groups, focused on fighting each other within the Party and not ever on winning elections, is far more to blame. That and the decoupling of the Party from elected officials whenever possible in favor of all the spokespeople for the special interests--for whom ordinary politicians who want to get elected are never ideologically pure enough.

And,umm, in case you think that's only my own 'conventional wisdom', here is a citation for you.

http://www.legal-ledger.com/item.cfm?recID=11050

My Dixie reference was specific to the fact that you implied rather pointedly that only conservative democrats can win in the south. My direct quote in this regard was within this paragraph:

“Your second paragraph presupposes that the Democrats have been running Clones of Paul Wellstone all over dixie when nothing could possibly be further from the truth. The democrats have ALWAYS been running conservative democrats in the south under the assumption that this is how you win. Amazing that it hasn't worked.”

Now if you want that this was a broadside against the south, feel free. But to any reasonable person that bothers to read the paragraph it will be obvious that this is not the case


I spent a bit of time telling you that there was something called sunrise and sunset yesterday. Your states failure to produce believable results in 2000 and 2004 is a matter of public record. The fact that it was not cleaned up in those four years is astounding to me as it is to most people. I am sorry if I have difficulty believing that your election.

I honestly don’t care if you feel your state has been insulted. Personally I think the constitution and our form of government has been insulted and damaged, almost as damaged as the thousands of Americans, and millions of Iraqi people during this absurd war. Forgive me if I don’t get all touchy feely about how you personally feel about how I’m picking on poor Florida. A state that couldn’t even abide by proper rules for a primary.



“However, your insulting attitude certainly explains why you'd take madfloridian's word over mine.”

This sentence makes no sense, you may as well say: “You only agree with Madfloridian because you are a jerk”


I would also point out that Thomas Frank is an excellent author and I would take his research and analysis over most blogs (even one by a Minnesotan native as the one you cite).

The fact of the matter is elections are partially won by the popular vote. When the Democratic Party abandons populist progressivism what do we have to get elected on? “we are like those guys only not so much…” doesn’t get anyone excited. Any Democrat that says they are “fiscally conservative” screws over the party and may as well be saying “liberals and democrats are bad with money.”

The fact is for blue collar folk such as myself the only thing that gets us in the polls is some brand of populism and the only thing that gets us to vote democrat is honest ECONOMIC populism.


As to my insults. Oh the humanity. Oh how terribly awful of me.
Oh give me a break!

Find me one solid sentence that contains a direct insult towards you. Put it in context and don’t machine gun it with ellipses. If there really is an insult I will apologize

As to Michelle Bachman: are you saying Im not allowed to call her out for being a nut?

I’m confused here. And I am sorry, her being an asinine nut does not make allowances for a logical fallacy. A false choice argument is still a false choice argument. If you are confused here are a few more examples: “Jobs or the environment.” “Free trade or dictatorships around the world” “for profit health care or communism.” “Security and safety or capitulation to islamofacists.”

Actually ‘conventional wisdom’ would be vague and long standing un-resisted generalizations about politics. Most of it all centers around this strange non-existent construct we refer to as ‘a moderate.’ However there are others. And your argument that we should accept a conservative democrat that doesn’t vote with us on anything is somehow different than a Republican, or that the only possible outcomes are a right wing nut job or a right wing democrat all fall under the ‘false choice’ fallacy.

To be honest the only people within the democratic party that spout off about getting the party away from ‘special interests’ like unions, teachers, environmentalists and minorities, happens to be the DLC. Oddly enough these corporate democrats have no problem with special interests that have a ton of money like the insurance industry.

Moreover these ‘special interests’ all seem to be the sort of people that have been traditionally strong democratic voting blocks and the flight away from these ‘special interests’ has coincided with defeat after defeat until Dr Dean stepped in and help resurrect the ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic party.’


As to your citation:

Those reforms increased democratic choice within the party and did away with the ubber-corrupt daley machine. Hardly a stinging retort and frankly I don’t know what it has to do with the discussion.

Additionally the writer attributes this opening of the process to the democratic party losing and some kind of strange mass exodus from the party. This is an entirely un-provable assertion. The loss to Nixon in ’72 has many sources and it is the height of idiocy for that author to ignore the absolutely absurd level of election fraud, finance fraud, and dirty trickster behavior that accompanied and brought forth the Nixon victory that year.

No doubt this is the result of people learning the revisionist statement with regards to Nixon’s illegalities “oh everyone did the things Nixon did, they just didn’t get caught” thereby normalizing his behavior and setting the stage for some of the former Nixonites and their protégés to get away with Iran Contra. And of course the Democrats failure to hold the Reaganites responsible for that illegality opened the door for their participation in one of the most unconstitutional administration in US history. G. W. Bush.

I stated that I live in a conservative area. One that has some different demographics than someone living in Minnesota might assume. The native southerners in my county mostly vote Republican but will vote for a Democrat. The military retirees and the retired Northern Republicans who live here are the ones who swing every election Republican in huge numbers. That's a little more complex demographically than just 'dixie', but then so is Florida.

You dismiss everything I say with the 'it's a strawman' silliness. My impression is that you're simply unwilling to look at when happens in the real world of politics. So, I'll explain. Out here in the real world, when you lose all the local offices to Republicans, the potential candidates on the Democratic side give up. So you have no one decent who's willing to put up their money and time to run for office.

Even those candidates who may have been Democrats start to switch parties to run, because it's their only chance of getting elected. Eventually, voters who are Democrats start to re-register as Republicans so that they can have a voice in primary elections, even though they may still vote for a Democrat on the national ticket. That's the real world--but I'm sure that you know from Minnesota that I'm wrong about my county.

You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions and them lash me about your own misconceptions. I never said that my representative doesn't vote with Democrats on anything--that was your conclusion. You set forth 3 categories that are your standards, not mine. My representative sometimes has a 70 from pro-choice groups and sometimes a 30, but I'd prefer that to a Michele Bachmann type who'd have a zero. And you can say 'false choice' all you want, but unless you've run for office and won in a conservative community using your 'progessive standards', I'm not inclined to take your criticisms of my 'false choices' seriously.

Aren't you the same guy who castigated me elsewhere because I was unwilling to overlook Kucinich's past? And yet, you disparage Florida, which I think did a pretty good job this election, because the state had some problems 8 years ago?

And frankly, I'm not sure what you're saying about 2004. Democrats ran a bad campaign in Florida in 2004 and lost. Your point about that would be?

BTW, I pulled down my copy of Thomas Frank and reskimmed it. Sorry, not an impressive guy. But then, most of my classmates at KU didn't go to the most elite school in Kansas that he attended and then pontificate about how to appeal to working class voters. Quite a few of them actually had lived in such places as Garden City. And Frank stretches the truth a lot to make his points, which are nothing more than 'conventional wisdom' that you happen to like more than the author that I cited.

And just FYI, I wouldn't have included unions or minorities in the special interests that I see dominating my state party and running one disastrous candidate after another. Both those groups seem quite focused on winning elections and don't seem opposed to those reprehensible 'moderates'.

But, how many elections have we lost after the McGovern reforms turned the Party away from elected officials and over to the folks who are never going to run for or win office, and have no interest in doing so? Pardon my stupidity, but wasn't that what superdelegates were all about--adding some say back into the Party from those people have actually been elected?

Sorry, Nixon won in 1972, trying to blame that loss on election fraud, etc. is just silly.

I happily voted for the Republican that time, and I'd do that in a heartbeat again. Lowell Weicker was much closer to my values than Lieberman was even then.

issues like the right to control our bodies on the back burner. Honestly, once those rights are allowed to be weakened or removed, it's game over - everything and anything is then up for grabs.

We can't just make it about one election - this has to be a Dem priority because we have a huge educational job to do. We MUST reframe this and move away from the simplistic, though effective (while dishonest) Republican talking points. We must.

We're right; they're wrong. When we speak about the issue the way we need to do - not in a defensive way, not on their turf, them we can and will win elections with people who actually respect human rights.

Thank you.

Making it impossible to show an effective and united front.

Might be the slightly less evil, but never a good thing.

Women's rights to control their own bodies - this is something that should never even be a question. The very idea that anyone else gets to interfere in a very private medical decision is just astounding, and should never be embraced by Democrats.

Then you can have a republican "pro-life" congress critter who opposes unions, opposes raising the minimum wage, opposes government healthcare, and opposes anything progressive.

OR

You can have a southern "pro-life" democrat who supports unions, supports raising the minimum wage, supports government healthcare, and generally supports more progressive causes than the republican.

How pathetic that people are at DU arguing we MUST choose the GOP candidate or a similar Democratic version that only shoves women and gays aside.

Do you realize what you are arguing for?

I refuse to lose an election because we can't get everything we want.

We are not pouty children who are going to stamp our feet and cry.

Discourage women too much, and you are losing a powerful voting bloc.

Look, you're not going to lose pro-choice candidates in the rest of the country. If I thought that way, I'd feel differently. THEN, I would understand your point.

However, many fundamentalist areas in the south just aren't going to vote for a pro-choice candidate. To tell "pro-life" dems that you don't want their votes on heathcare and a host of other issues, is just stupid, imo.

it's like saying if we don't all vote in lockstep on every issue that important to us, we won't vote. How in the heck do you move forward like that? Gains come in spurts in one area, and then in spurts somewhere else. We can't move progressive issues forward all at once. I wish we could, but we can't. Meanwhile, we take what we can. I'll take those votes on heathcare, school reform, childcare, etc. from a anti-choice democrat before I elect a republican!

That's the funny thing about all of the giving into the far right...many sensible Republicans believe in these rights for women and gays.

We are becoming a website (and a party) that is fearful of standing up for each other.

sacrificing of you! Harry Truman said when it is a choice between a Republican and a Republican the Republican will win everytime and that is true. Faux Dems and betraying basic rights do NOT gain us anything.

I do not believe it's that binary. Nor do I think that people will become educated on the issue just by throwing our hands up and accepting the lesser of two evils.

This matters. A lot. Questions of basic individual rights are central - all else falls from that.

as a human being, why do I need to have them elected? What us the point? If they are against my interests why should I care about the letter after their name if it doesn't mean anything?

Or at best Dems like...well, Richard Shelby.

If the district's like that, is it worth it?

...Democratic campaign like the DCCC, the DSCC, or the DNC: my
money, if given to them supports, far too many pricks who directly
oppose those things I deeply believe in. So instead, I support
individual candidates and my state party.

Let the DLC support their right-wing friends; I support democratic
Democrats.

Tesha

Regula retired - Boccieri beat Republican Kirk Schuring.

Boccieri had on his website in the past that he was "pro-life"

I didn't hear him mention it during the campaign - of course I only saw him at Dem events.

I think he is a Catholic.

That issue was always one that bothered me during the campaign - BUT - he is good on other issues - he wants to bring an end to the war - he did 4 tours in Iraq in Afghanistan. He's good on the economy, pro-union, good on the environment, etc. So... I would have voted for him over the republican anyway - but I also donated a bit and helped with his campaign a little.

IIRC Marcy Kaptur also has a pro-life stance. I think Ohio's Congressional Dems from swing/rural districts are all more moderate on social issues. Actually, IIRC Dennis Kucinich was even anti-choice in the past. So, hopefully Boccieri will realize that he doesn't have the right to control a woman's body just as Kuch did.

For most issues having the Dems back in power is a good thing.

I think for women and for the gay community, it really won't make much difference. I think our Dems are set to continue the policies in play already.

Dem strategist Kirsten Powers, Fox analyst, former pr person for the DNC....said it quite well.



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3291

They have called those of us who speak out the "secular left"...the "fundamentalist left."

They are right. Our Southern Baptist church called us unpatriotic when we opposed the Iraq invasion...so this is not unexpected if they are trying to appeal to extremists.

As I see it - for the gay community, I think we are making progress in the court of public opinion - not enough progress obviously, and absolutely not fast enough. Prop 8 was a set back and the State Constitutional amendments were just awful... but I see the 20 somethings that I know as much more progressive on gay equality than 20 somethings a decade ago. I even see a transformation in many of my friends and family. While not all are completely *right* on the issue - they see it as a wedge issue that doesn't affect them and won't vote against someone's right to marry. Unfortunately they aren't as supportive as they need to be - but at least they are making progress.

As far as women's rights - I think we are sliding backward. Perhaps it is that a generation of women do not remember what it was like when we did not have the right to a legal abortion and our sisters and mothers faced desperation and died at the hands of an illegal abortion. My own great-grandmother died as a result from an unsafe abortion - she left 3 young children without a mother. She had an alcoholic husband and was faced with trying to feed her 3 children and perhaps the thought of bringing another child into that or being less than 100% for 9 months to work and feed her kids was too much for her. I don't know. But she made the difficult decision that she thought was best for her and her kids and she died b/c she didn't have a safe and legal option.

The 20 something young women that I know today don't have the same progressive stance on women's rights as they seemed to a decade ago - I think the "right to life" pr campaign is changing their hearts and minds. The framing (as horrific as I find it) of that campaign seems to be working. People are seeing it as babies and not women having control over their own bodies. A young woman I know actually said to me that she feels like since she was born after Roe v Wade she is somehow a survivor - and in some insane way made herself a victim in the entire debate.

I think we need to really work on the PR/framing aspect of women's rights. And by we - I don't just mean Dems, I mean women's rights organizations, women in general, etc. B/c for us to elect pro-choice Dems in some of these districts and to make sure that we don't lose our rights, we really do need to work on public opinion and make them realize not only what it was like for women, but to understand that a woman should be able to have control over her own body. (IMO - to a point - I agree with keeping it first trimester unless medical conditions)

of what it was like when abortion was illegal. The women's groups have been under such serious attack constantly, and I fear some of them do not fight as hard as they could. Planned Parenthood does a good job, but the right wing is after them right now fiercely.

As long as we cower in fear of the right's attacks, there will be no more progress.

I remember pre-Roe v Wade. If a girl got pregnant, she would be shamed if she did not disappear for almost 9 months. Then she would come back and pretend she had been visiting relatives. One person I knew suddenly had their parents adopting a baby. The shame was so great, and it was a dangerous time for women.

Every ballot initiative to restrict abortion rights failed this year. Even in a red state like South Dakota.

there are some seats that pro-choice candidates CANNOT win.
and about the only way to change it in some of them may be to have enough pro-choice people move there to change the make-up of the electorate.

okay- who's committed enough to the cause to volunteer to start the migration?

:shrug:

Amazing how easily women's right are no longer important.

Or maybe the DCCC did some polling and realized that >60% of certain districts won't vote for a pro-choice candidate? I don't know if either of these two are true, but they are ways in which the DCCC could know certain candidates wouldn't be viable without actually running them and losing the seat.

Rather than stand up for what is right, they have recruited from the other side of the aisle.

We won, we are back in power. That is better than having Republicans in power, but it is no more healthy for women and gays.

That is just how it is.

The Dems caved on Plan B, abstinence education, and late term abortions. We have now more pro-life Dems than ever, and they do not plan to take it off the table.

pro-choice/pro-life isn't my battle. as a vasectomized male with no children, i feel that i have absolutely no stake in it. but then- i'm not the kind who sees it as "saving the unborn"- some people do, and they're very passionate about it.

if it takes a pro-life dem to win the seat, that's fine by me, as long as it's a democrat. we're supposed to be about a "big tent", after all.

Women are almost, or are, a majority group in the Democratic party....yet we are so easily dismissed.

There is precious little room for two groups on our side under that tent.....yet plenty of room for the right wing bigots like Warren.

who's dismissing them so easily...?

you?

I'm tired.

I have supported the party enthusiastically since 2003. Hubby and I both have been large donors. Got my credit card bill this month with no DNC, no DFA and no candidate donations. It sure is a relief.

I am tired of being laughed at for standing for what is right. I am tired of seeing those who stood for us for four years being shoved out of the national spotlight.

So you win.

Sometimes it is easier to just stop the financial support and think things over when there is so much ridicule from our own party.

Good night, have your big tent party that is only open to the right wing.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

poor, poor, you...:eyes:

:eyes:

for anyone but themselves.

Personally, I'd be hard pressed to make the decision for an abortion myself. Can't say never, but it most certainly wouldn't be something I'd be comfortable with.

But I'd never, ever, ever be so arrogant as to presume that I had the right to make such a deeply personal and important choice for any other woman.

civil rights or individual rights. And believe me, the right to make medical decisions concerning my own body is about as personal as it gets.

We wouldn't suggest there's room in that tent for those who'd turn back the clock on African American's civil rights, would we? Some things are simply beyond the pale, IMO.

Now most people here are not.

What happened is the choice of Rick Warren. Many feel that choice must be defended to the death.

I don't feel that way.

I see changes here and excuses that are really surprising.

Of course it will be better to have Democrats in charge, but two groups will not see a difference.

That is not okay.

People are defending the choice of Rick Warren to death? Really? At most, I see people complaining about how much it is being discussed. Almost everyone I have seen has been against the pick. Going from "almost everyone is against the pick" to "DU is now against gay rights" is a large leap.

Likewise, going from "The DCCC is recruiting 12 candidates who are pro-life to run in districts were pro-choice candidates can't win, and some on DU support this" to "DU doesn't support womens' rights" is also a large and ridiculous logical leap that isn't true.

Sometimes I feel that some on DU would feel much better if we were in the permanent minority. That way, we could always take the correct position in every congressional district, on every issue, and we could always be vocal about our opposition. Sure, our opposition wouldn't actually help change policy, since we would be in the minority, but for some, as long as we are correct that is all that matters. To them, a united minority is better than a pragmatic majority.

Apparently you have read very little of what I post, and your mind is made up that women and gays to the back of the bus for the sake of convenience.

Yes, it is very annoying when people stand up for their rights, I realize that.

I posted FACTS...our Democrats are marginalizing womens' rights. I really am not going to argue with you anymore on this. It is not worth it....the religious right has already won here.

Sad but true.

You seriously just accused me of thinking that women and gays should go to the "back of the bus" for the sake of convenience? I want a Congress that is MOST likely and has the BEST ability to enact pro-choice, pro-civil-rights policies. I happen to believe that the way to do this is to have more Democrats (as a start) at the expense of absolute message purity in all 435 Congressional districts (as opposed to, say, 423). If me having this position makes me anti-choice and anti-gay-rights to people on DU, then I am really sad to see what DU is becoming.

It is a detestable word whose use was started by conservative Dems to marginalize those who did not think just like they did.

How are you going to have a congress that is likely to be pro-choice, pro-civil rights.....if the party is recruiting candidates who stand for the opposite?

The word purity you are using is a put down word for those of us who are in either category.

Democrats in power are generally better than Republicans in power except for the issues of women and gays.

Then it makes no difference.

To answer your question of how can we have a Congress that is likely to be pro-choice, pro-civil rights if we are recruiting candidates who stand for the opposite?

Well first of all, 90%+ of the candidates we recruit are not standing for the opposite.

Second of all, imagine that we are in an election cycle where control of the House is at stake. Say there were 210 Democrats who would win, all of which who are pro-choice and pro civil rights. In addition, let's say that there are 10 moderate republicans (who would win) that have the same positions. That would give us 220 votes (a majority) for pro-choice, pro-civil rights policies. However, only 210 members of the House would be Democrats, which means such policies will never be put to the vote by the Republican leadership. If we instead ran pro-life Democrats in 8 southern districts and won, we would have a majority in the House, which would allow these policies to be put to a vote (which would succeed with 210 democrats and 10 Republicans supporting).

Even in an election like 2008 where control of the House is not really at stake, it is important to have strong incumbants in all districts we can to prepare for an election cycle where control of the house will be at stake.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

where have you been the past couple weeks? you couldn't swing a dead cat in GD without hitting a(n anti-)rick warren thread or five.

I am a woman, not gay, but sympathetic to the hurt they feel right now.

Those who laugh and scoff are hurting the party far more than we are.

So laugh and have your fun.

IN 2010 and 2012 it may be harder to get the enthusiasm to vote.

if you think the country would fare better under the repugs, then by all means- vote your conscious.

don't let me stop you.

I am too tired and discouraged to argue more.

Of course the religious right is correct...we will give in to them.

but they're just as entitled to their opinion on the matter as you are yours.

why is that so difficult to see?

That women are the majority of our party and are being sold out. Gays are being treated poorly.

If that is what you want, you got it.

The Democrats have traditionally been advocates for women, now they are now.

You think it is ok. I don't.

Hubby and I are saving lots of money.

and opinions aren't the same as "facts".

:shrug:

but then- it's always good to save money.

i've never considered donating a dime to the democratic party- although i do volunteer for campaigns when i can and when i believe in the candidate.

I have donated money to the State DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor Party-Its a Minnesota thing) save a few times when they went stupidly conservative. I have also volunteered on a few campaigns that I really believed in as well.

That said though I think you are being a bit dismissive. Recently, when has the Democratic party been the first choice of southern, conservative, straight, white males? That said why are we kicking the crap out of our own party base? Do the republicans frequently castigate their base in public this often?

The Democrats do it all the time.

You are right.

Too dismissive of your base....does not pay off down the road.

So the choice is between a moderate Democrat and a Republican.

"pro-choice" shouldn't be equated with simply fringe and "liberal".

We must make the case that allowing women to control their own reproduction and make their own medical decisions is not a "liberal" idea, but a basic tenet of individual rights.

I sympathize with why you might be feeling that way right now.

I don't think it's most at all. But there are some, and it always shocks me. The place where politics gets entirely personal - the sort of "doesn't effect me, so it's not important" place. The place where it's not important now, but surely will be at some unspecified time in the future... There have been some pretty unsatisfactory excuses.

Acknowledging that some issues are important doesn't mean we're always going to win every battle. But saying they're not important is a sure-fire way to lose those battles.

This part...where it gets personal.

"I don't think it's most at all. But there are some, and it always shocks me. The place where politics gets entirely personal - the sort of "doesn't effect me, so it's not important" place. The place where it's not important now, but surely will be at some unspecified time in the future... There have been some pretty unsatisfactory excuses."

Yes, some, maybe not most, are too willing to marginalize certain groups to win. That is not winning. It will catch up to us in the end.

It's not winning. And it's giving up what supposedly makes winning a good thing. If we become what we're against, where's the victory in winning?

Of their own accord or run off during the primaries. Members of these two groups (women and gays) were chief among them.

DU has ceased to be progressive. It's not home anymore. I'm still here only because I've not yet found that new home. The net is a big place though, full of boards and blogs and mailing lists and social networking sites. I'm sure I'll find something.

DU has become infested, not merely by the right of the Democratic Party (frankly I think a lot of the infestation has been deliberately orchestrated by "New Democrats" or others of their ilk, with intent to defuse the power of the netroots, but that's just a suspicion), but it has become infested by people who are frank corporate shills. Some days it appears the one place you can still get a job is posting paid propaganda on DU.

I can't entirely blame the moderators here. In fact as a former mod on another board if I had seen my board change like this I'd have been at a loss as to what to do. I'd like them to try to do something: set some reasonable standards as to what it means to be "progressive", acknowledging that it's not sufficient to simply be a Democrat, and crack down on the shills. But I don't know if what I'd like to happen is even possible. At best it would be extremely difficult to come up with enforcible standards, and positively distinguishing between the corporate shills and those merely deluded by the propaganda would require near psychic abilities.

What I think will happen is that this, right now, is DU's high water mark. The rancor will soon lead to a rupture among the membership, with many people leaving for other locations. After the rupture DU will have maybe half the current active membership, and the quality of discussion will be much lower than it once was. DU may go on indefinitely, but it will never be what it once was. I've seen the life cycle of net communities many times before. This smells like a community about to peak and then begin the long slow dying. Skinner and the mods here may yet surprise me and prove me wrong. They may figure out the route they need to take to get things straightened out here. But I'm not an optimist.

As to the Democrats selling out pretty much everyone: that's been the agenda of the DLC for a very long time. And before the days of the DLC, there were other Democrats, like the original Daley machine and the Dixiecrats, who didn't give a damn about anything but maintaining the power of the status quo. It has never, ever, been sufficient to be a Democrat (or for that matter, any party label, ever, at any time anywhere). Only standing for something worth fighting for is sufficient.

and I will tell them why.

And yeah I voted for him. Do I like his pro-life stance? Hell no. Was he better than the alternative (Jay Love)? Fuck yeah. Jay Love is one scary individual that none of us want anywhere near DC. Trust me on that one. Bright has got problems. He is definitely NOT the worst of the available bunch from my part of Bama though. Frankly, I consider his election major progress. My district hasn't voted for a Democrat since before FDR. The fact we're sending even a conservative Dem now is big news. Does his abortion stance suck? No doubt. But overall, his election is a step forward.

Happy for you.

I expressed my views, I see I am in the minority and not worth fighting the battle anymore.

and I do think the battle is worth being fought still. I have two daughters. I won't be giving up anytime soon. But when given Bright, who seems to be a populist who is pro-life, opposed to Jay Love who sounds like a dominionist who hates women, what am I supposed to chose? What sounds like progress to you? Women's rights in the South are not going to be won in any big decisive battle. They just aren't. I'd love that and you'd probably love that, but I've been watching this for 37 years and don't expect it to be over for many more years. I don't like it and I'm not happy about it, but I do realize minds cannot be changed all at once. This is an incremental, sometimes painfully slow process. And does that suck? Fuck yes. Can I hurry it up? Not really.

That is getting to be a pattern here.

There is no major party advocating for women now, and none advocating for gays.

The majority seem okay with it.

Hubby and I have stopped donations and it's nice to see the money not going out for those who won't stand with us.

I should have realized posting this would be a mistake, but it's important none the less.

not just yours. :shrug:

That's it is not just "about us." Not just about "my opinion."

It's become a skilled method that works by making us sound like upstarts for wanting freedom of choice over our bodies, the rights to an abortion without the church and government butting in, the right to use birth control.

Good job there.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

QuestionAll querulously questions the very act of questioning!

nt

environmentalists, etc...

get over it. shut the fuck up.

"The complexion of the Democratic presence in Congress will change as well. Party politics will be shaped by the resurgence of "Blue Dog" Democrats, who come mainly from the South and from rural districts in the Midwest and often vote like Republicans. Top Democrats such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) see these middle-of-the-road lawmakers as the future of the party in a nation that leans slightly right of center.

In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701697_pf.html

They didn't and it hasn't, dominated the agenda that is. :shrug:

The House doesn't need his Third Way bullshit.

As I've read it and read through this thread my blood pressure is up and my blood is boiling again.

It's just that we need to know, and it is not easy to see it happen.

I get that way sometimes, but I feel worse if I don't confront the things that are happening head on.

I know the feeling, but don't let it get to you so much. :hug:

that the repukes as they are today will crap all over me, but I have a hard time accepting it from the party that I've been a member of and supported for decades. Oh, yeah, and basically being told to just STFU about it has a tendency to intensify the anger. :hi:

and that our correctness can win elections anywhere, it is simply not true.

In these Districts, you can have a Democratic representative that will vote with us some of the time and with the republican minority occasionally, or you can have someone who will vote with the republican minority all the time.

What we are talking about here is remedial action. If we can get a majority of these folks used to voting for a Democratic candidate for any office and finding the results of Democratic Party representation acceptable, then electing the next Dem will be easier. Perhaps when the country actually works better with Democrats in charge, perhaps the next Dem could even be pro-choice.

Losing elections on principle changes nothing. You can put up perfectly fine candidates and lose over and over again simply because there is a (D) after the name. Alternately you can select candidates with positions suited to win who happen to have that (D) after their name. Once folks get used to seeing that (D) follow the name of a winner, then you can put up the "perfect" candidate, to the extent one exists, and perhaps win an election.

Whether people have a right to views that do not agree with mine is not relevant. That they show up in large numbers and vote is. You can attempt to serve them as a party, or alternately prepare to be fought by them at every step.

And we are slowly giving our party over to the GOP because we say we can't win by standing up for what is right.

It IS HIGH Time to begin PURGING our party... (what's left of it) of these CORPORATIST dirt bags like Rahm, Van Hollen and Thurman by exposing their asses collectively. Rest assured there are plans in the works to do just that. :wtf: :nuke: then :puke:

has done.

That has worked really, really well in Florida.

I think I'm going to propose all sorts of policies that only adversely impact men and see how that goes.

We can stop fighting these battles on someone else's turf and start reframing these questions and educating people about the consequences.

We have been successfully "wedged" since Nixon. It's long past time we started talking to people about issues in a way that reaches them. We need not give up the values that makes us Democrats.

Look at how many people have voted over the past 30 years totally against their own interests - the GOP has nothing to offer them except a twisted framing of the abortion issue and hatred and fear of gays.

We can talk to them about those issues in a different way, and talk about justice and fairness. We can also talk about justice and fairness in an economic context at the same time. We have to learn to speak their language, but that does not mean we have to abandon our values.

Our Democrats were positively afraid to speak out against that outrageous invasion for fear of losing.

We lost.

We won Congress back this time.....but only sort of. We are now obligated to the religious right more than to the Democratic women and to the gay community.

It's all in whose rights you give away.

is more important than any principle. If a principle gets in the way of winning, it is cast aside. The argument is that they still have some principles, so that makes me better than the other guy. I wonder what principles are non-negotiable. What are the core beliefs of the party. The republicans became successful because they had no principle. It used to be that they espoused small government. No longer. It used to be that they favored small business. No longer. It used to be that they believed in getting the government out of our lives. No longer.

So they were successful for a while as a party that gave up any principle in order to win. Maybe a Democratic party with no real core can be more successful, but at what. If winning is the only goal, how are you different from the other party. They too place winning above everything else.

Perhaps it is the great flaw in the two party system or non-proportional representation. I can see need to walk softly in the morass of politics, but what big stick do we carry? What is the goal of the Democratic party? To provide jobs for guys with a d by their name?

even though the national party apparently didn't think it was. Thaddeus McCotter was reelected by only 51% against a completely unknown, underfunded Democrat. The Democratic candidate was pro-life and I wasn't crazy about him. I think I'm actually happy McCotter won. He barely won, which make him a target in 2010. Maybe the Democrats can find a better candidate and get a little more funding. If they do, I'm pretty sure McCotter can be defeat in the next election.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3150

"On Wednesday, May 16, advocates were optimistic that legislation requiring emergency contraception to be stocked on all military bases would pass in the House. “We had the votes on Wednesday night. Things were looking good,” says Monica Castellanos, press secretary for Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine), one of the lead co-sponsors of the amendment that was scheduled for a vote the next day. But then, something mysterious happened.

For reasons that remain unclear, Michaud withdrew the legislation the next morning. According to Castellanos, it was purely a logistical snafu: “Key supporters had to be in their districts.” But sources close to the issue tell a different story: The legislation, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, with bipartisan support, was dropped by a Democratic leadership unwilling to go to bat for pro-choice issues. Despite Michaud’s confidence that the votes were there, Democratic leadership wasn’t so sure, and they didn’t want to hang around long enough to find out. The legislation might not have sunk, but they jumped ship anyway.

Emergency contraception, also known as Plan B or the morning-after pill, is available over-the-counter in all 50 states, but women in the U.S. military cannot count on accessing the medication on military bases. A 2003 survey financed by the Defense Department found that almost a third of military women reported being the victim of rape or attempted rape during their tenure in the military. Yet in return for their service, servicewomen are denied access to basic health care. “The situation is unconscionable,” says Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. “If you are a military woman in Iraq, and you are raped, it is this country’s obligation to make sure you have access to emergency contraception.”

in schools.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3150

""The Democratic leadership of the House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education (LHHS) Sub-Committee set science and commonsense aside by increasing the funding for discredited abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Despite a congressionally mandated report that found these programs do not work to help teens delay sexual initiation, House leadership allocated $141 million (an increase of $27.8 million) to continue feeding America's young people misinformation.

"Let's face it, with friends like these, who needs conservative Republicans?" said James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth. "By continuing to fund these ineffective programs, the House Democratic leadership has signaled that the health and well-being of America's teens are not their priority. Young people and their parents should be outraged."

My thoughts, too.

From last year...we forgot so quickly.

AFTER she was mistakenly arrested after her rape for a warrant from previously that was a mistake.

Kept in jail, deprived of the pill by the matron.

Woman raped, jailed, deprived of contraception. Tampa.

"TAMPA - A young woman was walking back to her car after the Gasparilla parade on Saturday when she says a man dragged her behind a building and raped her near the intersection of Howard and Swann. She managed to get away and called 911. Police took her to the hospital and began a routine rape investigation.

When they started checking the victim's background, they discovered she had an arrest warrant out for her. It was from an arrest when the woman was a juvenile and she was accused of not paying restitution. The woman says she was not aware there was a warrant out for her, and her attorney says it appears to be a paperwork error.

..."Still, the woman was put in handcuffs and taken to jail. She was not allowed bond, and the medical staff at the jail refused to give her the Morning After Pill even though it had been prescribed at the hospital.

"The medical supervisor would not allow her to take the pill because she said it was against her, the supervisor's, religion. So, here we have a medical supervisor imposing her beliefs on a rape victim," claimed the victim's attorney Virlyn Moore. "As a human being, how someone could be so violated by this monster and then the system comes along and rapes her again psychologically and emotionally - it's outrageous and unconscionable."

More on this outrage from litbrit's great blog from last year.

http://litbrit.blogspot.com/2007/01/update-tampa-officials-apologize-to.html

"The medical services at the jail are run by Armor Correctional Health Services an affiliate of Medical Care Consortium, Inc., which has donated $18,000 to Republicans and $4,000 to conservative Democrats since its founding in 1998, according to opensecrets.org.

One lobbyist for MCCI is Sports Illustrated writer Don Yaeger, who was suspected of doing favors for Jeb Bush's second Secretary of Corrections, James Crosby. Why would he do such a thing? Because they wanted the big state contracts being offered up by Jeb's drive to privatize the whole friggin state apparatus. There was a requirement, though, that a company had to manage the health of 10,000 inmates for a year. Managing Hillsborough county's jail was just a step along the path to a bigger payday, and MCCI tried to get the state to lift the 10,000 head requirement based on the Hillsborough gig--which Armor bid on three days after being founded and won despite not being the lowest bidder for the job and submitting MCCI's financials instead of its own. Hillsborough is, of course, where the young woman was detained and denied the medical treatment prescribed by her doctor. It was also inside Katherine Harris's old district and one of her biggest supporters, both politically and financially, was Don Yaeger."

Refusing people their rights....there should be consequences.

House Democrats recruited 12 candidates who happen to be anti-choice to run in 2008.

Womens' rights are damaged by caving into the religious right.

on the issue than these 12 Democrats.

Of course he is better than McCain was.

Is that your whole argument?

That it is okay for Democrats to become the anti-choice party because it is better than being a Republican?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so I'm thinking you have me mixed up with someone else?

However, I will say that 12 out of 257 is hardly an indication that the Democratic Party is becoming the anti-choice party.

This is further supported by the Democratic Party's platform regarding choice:


http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

Forget this childishness - go have fun with your sand fights - but if it get's in your eye you whine like a baby.

I'm out of here for another month or so...

I've determined that you attack Dems more often than not based on the past year of discussions here. This is how I will think of you from now on.

That's what I told them every time they called. I said I was disgusted at recruitment of anti-choice candidates and would not give a penny to the DCCC until it renounces this policy. And I haven't.

:mad: :nuke:

:hug::yourock:

Thank you.

This is how we get scumsuckers like Mahoney down in FL, who replaced Foley only to get caught putting his mistress on the payroll.
Selling out the rights of anybody is not acceptable - let alone the rights of a(nother) major Democratic constituency.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2921

He posted here at DU and said he was not done yet in spite of how our Dem leaders shoved him out. They even used the union to do so.

Reproductive rights is as much an economic issue as it is a health and civil rights issue.

I am so glad I didn't give the DCCC or DSCC any money.

I know I should have some surprise at this around here somewhere, but I just can't seem to find it.

Because they are disappearing. Because so many are now rationalizing it and saying not to be concerned.

"You can only really be betrayed by those closest to you."

There are a considerable number of "pro-life" Democrats in Congress and many

Catholics. Usually all male. Patriarchy calls?

Remember . . . they've been refinancing the wars for 2 years we sent them to Congress to end -- !!!

Keep hoping that will turn around, but I think WE need a "Plan B" --- !!!

in to this party.

And see what happens. If the grass roots Dems know about this, they can send a lot of small contributions and may even beat the better-funded DCCC candidate. Other than that I advocate not voting or voting third party. I am not voting for those cretins. But then, I stopped calling myself a Democrat when they started pulling this shit.

The abstinence funding was a compromise with the White House to get their budget passed. Plan B on military bases would have been vetoed by the President. Although personally I think that Plan B on military bases would've been a great issue to bring up during the campaign, especially to grill Palin on, it still would not have passed no matter what.

We now have a pro-choice Democratic President and even though there are some anti-choice Democrats, the vast majority of the House Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Party is still pro-choice. Abstinence only sex education will be dead on arrival and Obama will simply instruct the Pentagon to go back to allowing Plan B on military bases.

Mark my words, Obama will make drastic improvements in the area of women's rights over the next four years. You can bookmark this if you want to and force me to eat my words should I be wrong. But I really don't think I will be.

and campaign against Barack or other future Democratic presidential candidates.