The backlash and backfilling of the Democratic Party continues unabated. Having already surrendered foreign policy and economic policy to the neocons and New Democratts, now they're openly talking about selling out women's reproductive rights now??? What's next...a meeting woth David Duke on civil rights???
Taken from the Common Dreams website; originally from the Boston Globe.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1219-03.htm
Full Version: Democrats Consider Reversal On Reproductive Rights
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
| QUOTE |
Published on Sunday, December 19, 2004 by the Boston Globe Democrats Eye Softer Image on Abortion Leaders urge more welcome for opponents by Susan Milligan WASHINGTON -- Leading Democrats, stung by election losses, are signaling they want the party to embrace antiabortion voters and candidates, softening the image of the party from one fiercely defensive of abortion rights to one that acknowledges the moral and religious qualms some Americans have about the issue. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who is one of the most ardent supporters of abortion rights in Congress, has encouraged Tim Roemer, a former representative with a strong voting record against abortion, to run for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. The Democrats' new Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, opposes abortion rights. No prominent Democrat has suggested that the party change its long-held stance that a woman should have the right to an abortion if she chooses. But as Democrats assess what went wrong for them in November, some are urging a "big tent" approach that is more welcoming to those who oppose abortion. Democrats say that attitude might be especially useful with Hispanics, a critical constituency that tends to be Roman Catholic and whose majority support for Democrats has slipped in recent elections. Abortion rights activists are alarmed at the potential shift in the party's approach to the issue as they look warily ahead to Supreme Court nomination fights and efforts in Congress to restrict abortion. But Democratic leaders say they can reach out to voters in the "red states," which voted Republican in November, without compromising their party platform on abortion. "All Democrats are united around the idea that we should make abortion safe, legal, and rare," but "we also have to be open to people who are pro-life," said Simon Rosenberg, the president of the New Democratic Network who is mulling a run for the DNC chairmanship. Former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, who supports abortion rights, said the Democrats should "embrace" antiabortion voters and expand the term "pro-life" to such social issues as providing for children's medical care. "I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. . . . We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue," Dean, another potential candidate for DNC chairman, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" earlier this month. Kristin Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, said that during this year's campaign, she was frustrated by her inability to persuade the DNC to list the Internet link for her group on the DNC's website. But now, staffers for potential DNC candidates have been calling her to discuss including antiabortion Democrats in the party mix, she said. "We're very encouraged. I think people are starting to wake up and say we can't alienate this whole wing of our party," she said. The group points to a Zogby poll indicating 43 percent of Democrats surveyed said they think abortion is manslaughter, a finding Day said shows the Democratic party leadership is out of synch with its members. But abortion rights supporters worry that the right to abortion will be further eroded if the party weakens its position -- or even if it has high-profile leaders who favor restrictions or a ban on the procedure. Roemer, for example, said last week on CNN that those who don't favor bans on late-term abortion have a "moral blind spot" on the issue. "Tim Roemer is the one with a 'moral blind spot,' " said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "He is completely failing to consider the women whose lives may be in danger." Abortion rights advocates are particularly worried that Democrats will fail to mount successful campaigns against antiabortion judicial nominees. Reid has said he would accept elevating Antonin Scalia, a justice who opposes abortion, to chief justice. Republican Senate leaders are considering an effort to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations, a threat some worry will make Democrats skittish about opposing all antiabortion nominees. Feldt, who said she was not endorsing any particular candidate for the DNC, said the party should do a better job explaining its position on family planning issues, such as access to contraception and teen pregnancy prevention programs, instead of allowing Republicans to cast the Democrats as a party that favors abortion. "Putting prevention [of unwanted pregnancies] first is a great vehicle to force the discussion. It will bring the conservative Democrats and many moderates together, and it will make the extreme right look as extreme as it is," Feldt said. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, agreed. "I don't think it's smart to have the Democrats change their position. They don't need to abandon a position on choice America agrees with. I think they need to do a better job defining choice as the mainstream value that it is." Offering a warmer welcome for antiabortion voices would give Democrats a chance at bringing back voters who might agree with the party on economic and foreign policy issues, but balk at what they perceive is an uncompromising stance on abortion, Democrats said. Republicans, they note, finessed the matter so that the party retained its staunch antiabortion platform, but paraded Republican supporters of abortion rights such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani at the GOP convention this summer. Both camps on the abortion issue claim to hold majority support for their positions; national polls tend to differ based on how the question is phrased. Representative Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat who strongly supports abortion rights, noted that more than a million people thronged the streets of the Capitol earlier this year to demand that abortion be kept legal. But a Zogby poll conducted last year also indicated a red state-blue state divide; 57 percent of voters in states that voted for President Bush in 2000 favored restrictions on abortion or a ban on abortion, while 46 percent of voters in states that favored Democrat Al Gore would approve restrictions or a ban on abortion. But even some who generally favor abortion rights become squeamish about the procedure in certain circumstances, said Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Opponents of a procedure opponents labeled "partial birth abortion" -- a technique doctors use mainly in very late-term abortions -- made Democrats look "hard-line" on abortion, she said. "The Democrats are not in touch; they're out of step with the electorate," Sturgis said. "The Democrats are trying to stay with the old methods, and they're not current." "Listen, we need to be competitive in all 50 states. Our party needs to be able to converse on that issue. And have a big tent on that issue," Roemer said on CNN. Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said the congresswoman would continue to be a vocal supporter of abortion rights in Congress, but would not oppose an antiabortion leader of the party. Pelosi approached Roemer about running for the DNC chairmanship but has not endorsed him for the post, Daly said. Democrats could accept a leader who opposes abortion rights, but would not tolerate a weakening of the party's position on abortion, Slaughter said. The failing, she said, is that the party has not articulated its position well: "I don't think we ever said we're for abortion. We're for choice." © 2004 Boston Globe |
The problem is, Mr. Roemer, the Republicans aren't interested in securing a "big tent" when it comes to reproductive rights for women; they're just wanting to wreck the whole house.
Nice going, Democrats....keep speaking with forked tongues. The way things are going, you might want to consider a merger with the Log Cabin Republicans..that is, if they don't get in your way of sucking up to right-wingers.
Just one more reason why I'm glad I abandoned that party for good a long time ago. Call me when you get a spine, a heart, and some working nads, Jackasses..because right now, you're more like an jelllyfish without its sting.
When the Libertarians (the right-wing variety, that is) become the standard bearers for defending women's rights to their bodies; then we are really un-fucked up as a country.
Anthony
Oh, GAWD!!! <insert emoticon for "throwing head back and howling" here...>
Are they INSANE? Why not just shoot oneself in the crotch.
Listen, people, these "values voters" comprised just ONE VOTER IN FIVE!!! And as for how many who were eligible to vote actually DID, well...
Capisce???
I don't know why they want to pander to such an obvious minority. Most people would, if surveyed, say they were squarely in favor of reproductive rights. At least, up here in Canada, more than three out of four of us are very pro-choice...
'Bina.
Are they INSANE? Why not just shoot oneself in the crotch.
Listen, people, these "values voters" comprised just ONE VOTER IN FIVE!!! And as for how many who were eligible to vote actually DID, well...
Capisce???
I don't know why they want to pander to such an obvious minority. Most people would, if surveyed, say they were squarely in favor of reproductive rights. At least, up here in Canada, more than three out of four of us are very pro-choice...
'Bina.
Bina..it's a Democratic Party thing...I understand all too well.
It goes thusly:
1) Dems get their asses kicked in election by attempting to tack Right.
2) Democrats who were most responsible for getting said asses kicked by such pandering find the nearest microphone and state that the Dems lost because -- surprise, surprise -- that they weren't conservative enough...and thusly need to turn further to the Right.
Whereas: 3) The Dems nominate at their next convention someone even more conservative in an attempt to win back those supposed "swing voters" who might be pivotable to win (and who might bring really BIG bucks to the party coffers).
Unfortunately... 4) Such "conservative" swing voters are underwhelmed with the Dems efforts to play themselves as "conservative" (although they certainly welcome the effort as a means of dividing and conquering the Left), since there is already a party that genuinely expresses their concerns and beliefs called the Republican Party;
And meanwhile...5) The former "liberal" base of the Dems, seeing nothing to support in the party that has by now long since abandoned their needs and concerns, decide to stay home or even cross over to the Repubs...
Resulting in..6) Another ass kicking on the Dems, which leads us back to 1).
Now...the only way to break through this endless loop of fascism and betrayal is through two ways: Either those few remaining Dems with some backbone and spine will have to risk their privileges and actually work to throw off the DLC/Repug stinking albatross from their neck (and drop some one-fingered salutes on the corporate sexless whores that pass for the establishment media...or the people will just have to throw out the Democracts as an oppositional party and create a newer, better model, backed by the full resources and anger of an aroused populace organized for resistance and total war against the Right.
If this crawfishing keeps up, though, #2 may become more and more of a viable option.
Anthony
It goes thusly:
1) Dems get their asses kicked in election by attempting to tack Right.
2) Democrats who were most responsible for getting said asses kicked by such pandering find the nearest microphone and state that the Dems lost because -- surprise, surprise -- that they weren't conservative enough...and thusly need to turn further to the Right.
Whereas: 3) The Dems nominate at their next convention someone even more conservative in an attempt to win back those supposed "swing voters" who might be pivotable to win (and who might bring really BIG bucks to the party coffers).
Unfortunately... 4) Such "conservative" swing voters are underwhelmed with the Dems efforts to play themselves as "conservative" (although they certainly welcome the effort as a means of dividing and conquering the Left), since there is already a party that genuinely expresses their concerns and beliefs called the Republican Party;
And meanwhile...5) The former "liberal" base of the Dems, seeing nothing to support in the party that has by now long since abandoned their needs and concerns, decide to stay home or even cross over to the Repubs...
Resulting in..6) Another ass kicking on the Dems, which leads us back to 1).
Now...the only way to break through this endless loop of fascism and betrayal is through two ways: Either those few remaining Dems with some backbone and spine will have to risk their privileges and actually work to throw off the DLC/Repug stinking albatross from their neck (and drop some one-fingered salutes on the corporate sexless whores that pass for the establishment media...or the people will just have to throw out the Democracts as an oppositional party and create a newer, better model, backed by the full resources and anger of an aroused populace organized for resistance and total war against the Right.
If this crawfishing keeps up, though, #2 may become more and more of a viable option.
Anthony
Color me freaky, but from where I sit, I think the Dems have but one real solution in front of them--and that's to GO LEFT, OLD PARTY!
I mean, just look where they were in the past: Civil rights, workers' rights, all that other great and necessary stuff, got them votes like crazy. People LOVED them when they were way left! It's only after they began to do a hard right turn that the REALLY crucial voters--not the minority of "swings", but their BASE--started to lose interest.
One would think they'd take a hint...
'Bina.
I mean, just look where they were in the past: Civil rights, workers' rights, all that other great and necessary stuff, got them votes like crazy. People LOVED them when they were way left! It's only after they began to do a hard right turn that the REALLY crucial voters--not the minority of "swings", but their BASE--started to lose interest.
One would think they'd take a hint...
'Bina.
Exactly! They are the OPOSITION party and not Republican light. Or they are supposed to be that is. This is the case of the Democrats seeing the success of the Republicans and thinking that emulating the Republicans will do the same for them. Sounds like they have gotten too close to a corporate way of thinking. Corporations often emulate their competition when their competition has success. The Democratic leadership needs to understand that government isn't a corporation concerned more about its profit and own survival than the welfare of its employees. The government is supposed to be concerned only about the welfare of its citizens.
I have been a little weary of accepting Noam Chomsky's explanation that our two parties had few differences between them, but after this election I might have to rethink this position. Democrats have been doing this Republican light thing more and more as of late.
I have been a little weary of accepting Noam Chomsky's explanation that our two parties had few differences between them, but after this election I might have to rethink this position. Democrats have been doing this Republican light thing more and more as of late.
Agreed, the Democratic party is no more, we need to get a new party that is the Liberal Party, the Democrates have taken our trust and tossed it down into thet tolet. I hate it. We need Dean to start a new party or go to the green party anything, the Democrates do not represent us anymore.
Doc
Doc
We have seen something unprecedented in Ohio--a joint effort at a recount by the Green and Libertarian Parties: guys who don't often see eye to eye. If the "Democrats," or at least those still true to the name, could capture voters from these parties, we might really have something: an alliance against "big government" that tries to take away our personal liberties. People believe the Democrats have no economic sense, but I genuinely believe that Clinton changed that perception--if the Democrats/Liberals could come up with a solid economic voice, the country could take a turn for the better (Republicans don't know as much about economics as they think).
In any case, the goal of our side for the next 2-4 years is simple: don't fucking quit! Take any victory we can get, large or small. Fight. Educate people. Don't surrender to the right wing. Things may have to get a lot worse before they get better, but maybe then people will understand our concerns about the New Right.
In any case, the goal of our side for the next 2-4 years is simple: don't fucking quit! Take any victory we can get, large or small. Fight. Educate people. Don't surrender to the right wing. Things may have to get a lot worse before they get better, but maybe then people will understand our concerns about the New Right.
| QUOTE (Libertas @ Monday, 20 December 2004, 12:47 pm) |
| We have seen something unprecedented in Ohio--a joint effort at a recount by the Green and Libertarian Parties: guys who don't often see eye to eye. If the "Democrats," or at least those still true to the name, could capture voters from these parties, we might really have something: an alliance against "big government" that tries to take away our personal liberties. People believe the Democrats have no economic sense, but I genuinely believe that Clinton changed that perception--if the Democrats/Liberals could come up with a solid economic voice, the country could take a turn for the better (Republicans don't know as much about economics as they think). In any case, the goal of our side for the next 2-4 years is simple: don't fucking quit! Take any victory we can get, large or small. Fight. Educate people. Don't surrender to the right wing. Things may have to get a lot worse before they get better, but maybe then people will understand our concerns about the New Right. |
I haven't given up, I'm just pissed at how quickly Kerry rolled over...don't tell me to fight, tell them to fight...I'm sick of it damn it, sick of it.
'Doc
If this goes through, I'm considering becoming an independent again. This isn't helping, guys.
| QUOTE (Rakshasa @ Monday, 20 December 2004, 9:27 pm) |
| If this goes through, I'm considering becoming an independent again. This isn't helping, guys. |
Yup, going Independent is looking better and better....
Doc
| QUOTE (Dr. Left @ Tuesday, 21 December 2004, 8:05 am) |
| Yup, going Independent is looking better and better.... Doc |
a viable third party is now possible in this country. i hope like hell it happens. if the democratic party doesn't stop bending over and taking it up the .... i'm OUT. i'm sick of this crap.
the democratic party looks more and more like part of the problem, not a solution.
-t-
| QUOTE (tamara @ Tuesday, 21 December 2004, 7:13 am) | ||
a viable third party is now possible in this country. i hope like hell it happens. if the democratic party doesn't stop bending over and taking it up the .... i'm OUT. i'm sick of this crap. the democratic party looks more and more like part of the problem, not a solution. -t- |
You got it -t-. This is not the Democratic Party that my father and his father knew and loved. This Democratic Party wants to move more to the Right, it is not about changing the Party to win, like Mike said many times, no will vote for Republican Like, we are looking for a change, we want Liberalism, not facism and if the Dems can't provide that then it is time for a new party.
Doc
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.