Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

interesting. But as I said above, the GOP supports Arnold in California even though he's pro-choice--because it's California.

I think we make a mistake to demand tough stands on highly controversial issues in areas that aren't exactly friendly to us.

In places like Connecticut, we need to eliminate the Joe Liebermans. In places like Nebraska, we need to be thankful for the Ben Nelsons. It's just a question of pragmatism.

by thereisnospoon on Tue May 30th, 2006 at 07:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In places like Connecticut, we need to eliminate the Joe Liebermans. In places like Nebraska, we need to be thankful for the Ben Nelsons. It's just a question of pragmatism.

I find a number of things annoying about the pragmatism v. purity' argument. First is the arrogance of the argument which renders the 'centrist' an expert and jewel of reasonableness and the poor bloody voter someone who lacks knowledge of politics and a romantic. Even when presented with evidence that the area polls majority pro-choice (as in PA) or 50-50 (as in Oklahoma) nothing changes in that bloody argument and it does not change because, I suspect, it's so damn complementary to the person making it. I don't think the position the self described pragmatists take deserves such self adulation. I think it just means the folks making the argument are either religious conservatives themselves or gutless wonders.
I don't think it's in the best interests of the Democratic party to cease to represent the very people you're reliant on to win elections and, in the case of the Democratic party, those people are not conservative catholics or fundamentalist protestants.

by the other colleen on Tue May 30th, 2006 at 07:45:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 20)

Kindly be pragmatic with your own rights, not mine.

You could appeal to conservative voters by running Democrats who want all erectile disfunction drugs and all pornography banned because they promote immorality.

Are the pragmatic men of the Democratic Party willing to sacrifice their erections ? The risk of flacidity seems a small sacrifice compared to the one they'd have women make.

Do you expect us to be "good sports" and hand over our bodily sovereignty as the price of electing Democrats ?

"No one has the right to say `You do what I tell you, or I'll hurt you.'" - Monty Roberts

by susanw on Tue May 30th, 2006 at 08:29:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kindly (4.00 / 13)

Kindly be pragmatic with your own rights, not mine.

Word.

Now do you Vichycrat Dems understand why we are not voting for you guys, ever?

You can put it on a bumper sticker.

by Gaianne on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 12:35:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kindly (1.75 / 4)

see my response below. Enjoy your GOP government while you vote for the Greens.

by thereisnospoon on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 02:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kindly (4.00 / 13)

please make a real argument against these women, instead of being a dismissive, insulting kossian prick.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 09:20:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kindly (4.00 / 14)

I rated this comment and one other as a 2 because I find your language offensive and insulting, if not revealing. You offend every woman on this site who is tired and distressed at having thier rights over their own bodies used as bargaining chips by the democrats, if that's what you want to call them. It's also offensive to those of us men who care as much for women's rights and human rights as much as, and even more than any other issue.

"green grass and high tides forever"

by supersoling (colorsplash62@optonline.net) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 09:47:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (2.00 / 4)

I would add that the insane ideologues on the other side of the aisle who believe that abortion is murder say the same thing about the GOP supporting Schwargenegger.

They say that they refuse to vote for or send money to a party that supports murderers of the unborn and those who sanction them.

Nuttery is not confined to any one political worldview.

by thereisnospoon on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 02:38:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Nuttery is not confined to any one political worldview."

OMG.

I give up. Some men understand and many don't. The latter say, "What's the big deal?" Don't be such a nut or single-issue voter. We need a Dem majority no matter what. You don't seem to understand that a Dem Majority that would act like Repubs is no better, if not worse, than a Repub majority. Oh, we might get a few concessions here and there so long as it doesn't effect big business interests, so giving up our bodies for the state morality is a-ok. Have at it. When the Christian Right starts gunning for you, don't come crying to me.

There's a sense that people in America aren't getting the truth. - George W. Bush (Gee, ya think?)

by Kamakhya (onyx at earthlink dot net) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:48:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As a guy, all I can say is (4.00 / 13)

Amen sister! For the life of me I can't figure out why the dems are so willing to throw choice overboard by being "pragmatic" or compromising or whatever their choice word of the day is. It's about people's rights to control their own bodies dammit!

If we can't come up with a winning argument now about unfettered access to healthcare, autonomy in medical decision-making, and birth control when the anti-choice opposition is mainly a bunch of old jowly white guys, frustrated middle-american middle-aged women, and blue-haired old ladies, what will we do when Latino & East African constituencies (communities that tend to be socially conservative by religion) become larger majorities within the democratic party and we have to convince leaders in those communities to support choice legislation?

The fundamental issue is about rights over your own body-but the winning argument is about healthcare and access. I cant't figure out why the dems can't get their act together on this, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

by northcountry on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 09:09:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Daaammmnnn (4.00 / 5)

There are some

rad
(by which I mean spot-on smart and passionate)

grrls

(by which I mean women who don't take shit)

here
!
!

by nine (ninethousandflowers *at* hotmail) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 09:32:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 15)

Nuttery is not confined to any one political worldview.

This may be the single most outrageous statement I have seen on Booman Tribune. Your implication is that those of us who passionately, strongly and fervently support women's rights are NUTS.

You have revealed yourself as a misogynist.

Sure, the Republicans won by playing the race card with their Southern strategy. Perhaps some Dems are willing to emulate this strategy using women as scapegoats. Time will tell if it is a winning strategy for them. I doubt it.

If you want things to get better, be prepared to deal with change.

by Kahli on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 08:47:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If, in order to get a candidate who said that they would end the war in Iraq, promote universal heatlhcare, sign the Kyoto protocol, and impeach Bush, I had to take someone who vowed to:

Ban pornography; and
Eliminate access to erectile dysfunction drugs
Reduce funding for prostate cancer research

I would ABSOLUTELY do it. 100%. In a heartbeat.

ESPECIALLY since I know that other candidates in saner areas would do no such thing.

And I'd give a good piece of my mind to any man who took umbrage at that idea, too.

by thereisnospoon on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 02:33:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 7)

the problem with being pragmatic is that nobody wants a pragmatist. pragmatism may be important at times, but it's not way to build a party. first it's women's rights, but what's next? first they came for ... you know how it goes.

people want somebody that will fight--that's how the gop has won: by convincing the electorate that they will fight for them, which is impressive, becuase they don't actually fight for the people. seems to me the easiest way to convince people that we'll fight for them is ... actually fighting for them.

and i'm not talking specifically about bob casey or ben nelson or whoever, i'm talking about the democratic party as a whole.

by snappy on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 09:55:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I would have no problem with (4.00 / 5)

YOU voting that way. I would have a problem with any implication (not apparent in this particular comment) that the way YOU choose to vote is somehow the RIGHT, MORAL way to vote in contrast with other people who draw a different line between voting for someone they really support and voting for the lesser of two evils.

For these women and others, the line is keep your CHristoTalibans off their bodies -- they refuse to vote for a lesser of two evils candidate who does not concur in that fundamental principle.

I would take great umbrage with any implication that this position on how to cast one's democracy-member vote is somehow WRONG or NOT MORAL.

by nine (ninethousandflowers *at* hotmail) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 09:44:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 15)

I think we make a mistake to demand tough stands on highly controversial issues in areas that aren't exactly friendly to us.

Are you kidding?!!!! What other rights are you willing to concede in unfriendly areas?

If you want things to get better, be prepared to deal with change.

by Kahli on Tue May 30th, 2006 at 09:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not only are women's bodies commodities, so are our rights; they can be bargained away for votes.

So let's keep the glorious status quo in place, the systematic marginalization of women. Don't enforce trafficing laws, domestic violence and rape laws, child support orders, and orders of protection. Continue turning our backs on harrassment and descrimination. Degrade the work of bearing and rearing children by excluding it from the GDP. Shore up the walls of the Pink Ghettos, and keep those wages down. Call violent pornography "speech" and make some more movies like "Pretty Woman" that show how much fun prostitution can be.

If white men were being raped, beaten, and killed at the rate women suffer, we'd declare martial law and a state of emergency, but you won't see that in a political campaign.

"No one has the right to say `You do what I tell you, or I'll hurt you.'" - Monty Roberts

by susanw on Tue May 30th, 2006 at 09:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 11)

While others responded much more eloquently than I, to answer you question...Yes, I would rather have a Rethug than an anti-choice Dem anyday. Anyone who wants to control my womb can go stuff it where the sun don't shine.

If the Dems lose PA, it is there own damn fault for backing a candidate that is scarcely better than man on dog himself.

I don't need any more pig-headed so-called dems like Lieberman or DiFi.

There's a sense that people in America aren't getting the truth. - George W. Bush (Gee, ya think?)

by Kamakhya (onyx at earthlink dot net) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 12:53:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I doubt you really believe this--and if you do, I'm terribly sorry to hear it.

I'm terribly sorry to hear that you would sacrifice the ability to impeach Bush, get universal healthcare, end the Iraq war, sign the Kyoto treaty, and end NSA wiretapping on the altar of unfettered access to abortion.

Markos is absolutely right to abhor sentiments like this.

by thereisnospoon on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 02:28:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 22)

Oh please...I don't even know where to begin.

Do you honestly believe that Lieberman (or Casey) will push to impeach Bush, end the war or make corporations stop polluting our world? You know as well as the rest of us that Casey is a pretty poor choice for Dems besides his pro-life position. He doesn't even come close to representing what most Dems want, even in PA (I lived and was married in Lancaster PA). Casey will be another DINO. There is no question of that.

I'm pretty sure you are not that naive, but you are obviously male. You have never carried a baby to term. You've never been fired for being pregnant. You have probably never been raped by your father, uncle, date or stranger. You are not a single mom desperately struggling to raise three kids with a fourth on the way that you cannot support. You were never a scared 15 year old girl who believed him when he said he would pull out. You were never a shy teen too afraid to ask the clerk for the pack of Trojans and you never had a condom break.

To say that the life of any of these women is less important than impeaching Bush is an insult. Sure, there are many evils in the world, but supporting people who would deny women the right to control their own reproduction is just reprehensible. You may not think that slavery is akin to reproductive rights, but that can only be because you simply cannot comprehend what an unwanted pregnancy truly means. Each life is important. If we cannot even stand up for our individual rights, how can we possibly stand up against the seemingly greater evils.

Can you honestly say, that you would rather condemn millions of women to 9 mos of forced pregnancy, 1 or 2 days of sheer hell and agony, and then 18 years of 24/7 care of a minor (and/or a lifetime of self-loathing and misery over what might have been) so you could fucking impeach the chimp?!?

Ugh. There is no single greater issue than the right of women to control their bodies. We are 50% of the population and if men like you and Kos continue to preach that our rights are not as important as impeaching a president who will be out of office in 2 years, you deserve to lose. What next, you will argue that if we have to give up Kyoto to appease big business? Or how about we give up universal healthcare because we need the money that the Big Pharm companies give to political candidates? How many Dems (including Lieberman and DiFi) voted for the bankruptcy bill? At what point do you sell your soul so far down the line that you realize you sold it all?

You are of course entitled to your opinions and I have thought long and hard about this and yes, I would rather write-in Mickey Mouse than vote for an asshole like Casey and if the Dem Clubs don't get that, then they will lose again and again.

And BTW, you call yourself pro-choice and yet you use the pro-life phrase "altar of unfettered access to abortion". Altar? Unfettered? WTF!!!! You talk like you think that abortion is just another kind of birth control. Ugh. What an abhorrent choice of words. What part of "safe, legal and rare" did you miss? Abortion is a brutal choice, but it is a choice we must be allowed to make.

There's a sense that people in America aren't getting the truth. - George W. Bush (Gee, ya think?)

by Kamakhya (onyx at earthlink dot net) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:33:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 14)

If I could rate this a 35, I would. As a Pie War refugee, I don't even know where to start. Just, I guess, that I stand with Kamakyha: if you've never been through it, then STFU.

by Brementown Musician on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 04:13:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 10)

Exactly!

by CabinGirl on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 06:58:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, you knew how to begin, and how to end, too. What a wonderful comment ! Annyone who reads this, Kamakhya, and STILL doesn't get it, doesn't want to.

"No one has the right to say `You do what I tell you, or I'll hurt you.'" - Monty Roberts

by susanw on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 05:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Best comment ever (none / 0)

bar none

ITMFA!

by librarylil (librarylil at g mail etc.) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 08:01:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm terribly sorry to hear that you would sacrifice the ability to
impeach Bush,
get universal healthcare,
end the Iraq war,
sign the Kyoto treaty, and
end NSA wiretapping on the altar of unfettered access to abortion.

oh I do so decline the spoons full of scheisse.

-Democrats, one after the other have denied, high and low any thought of impeachment, further they, but for Boxer and harkin, cannot say the word "censure"

They NEVER have made any effort for universal health care. what?, you think HillaryCare FAILED? Google, read up, edumacate yourself.
HMOs, a so-called ''building block'' of UHC was foisted on the American people by Congress in 1973 with the assistance, he is an architect, of Teddy Kennedy. Very much like the big assist he gave to Bush for NCLB. Count the years.

Johnson had publicly stated that he had to shame the American people to care for their old with Medi-care. Ever notice that we don't even have Catastrophic Health care?

Educate yourself.

GMAFB:

Democrats support the war. They cannot even sign, beyond about 55 of them, Barbara lee's effort just to get a statement to stop the permanent bases.
Kerry was tongue tied and Hillary is struggling to cut out her tongue over the damned war. So she never has to say anyting about it. It is very evident.

Kyoto? oh please.

wiretapping? Did you even notice the Hayden nomination, the votes in committee and the general silence over the issue? The Democrats are scared shitless over that one. Scared they will look weak on security....

You sound remarkably like the online party thugs.

And I do really wonder just how long you have been voting.

You appear not blinkered but blindfolded as to the issues you list as a ''done deal'' with a Democratic majority.

What, you think the Dems just whistled Dixie for decades... and never had a majority?

They had massive majorities and none none none of that happened.

Any idea how we got Clarence Thomas?

Go read up. You are offensive in your ignorance and your dogmatic treatment - over and over - of women voters in this thread.

Markos is absolutely right to abhor sentiments like this.

Christ you really are an online apparatchik. Sucking up after a party tool, a courtier. Tiny hardliner.

Abysmal.

Marisacat

by Marisacat (Marisacat@aol.com) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 04:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 6)

wonderfully put.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 09:28:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

See Daaammmnnn, ante (4.00 / 3)

by nine (ninethousandflowers *at* hotmail) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 09:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you're just making shit up (4.00 / 14)

Except that in REALITY there isn't a candidate like this.
You know, we don't have to prove to you that your insulting stereotypes are inaccurate. I know that you think you're making some telling point and can now link to this thread as 'evidence' of how right you and that band of cowards are but the fact of the matter is that you've not made one responsive argument here that actually deals in realities. You've invented straw men, produced weak and tried old
arguments and insulted a very large chunk of Democratic voters.

Markos is absolutely right to abhor sentiments like this.

Who are you, the new DKos ambassador? Did redDan and Meteor Blades quit? Oh, that's right, MB finally publicly acknowledged that reproductive rights were actually in danger. I imagine that made him rather less effective in the 'don't trouble your brainless little self, I'm the expert' assigned role.
You appear to be confused about which blog you're posting on. Markos is not just ignorant of feminism, he's deliberately ignorant and antagonistic to boot. I trust people like you and Markos on any issue affecting women as far as I can throw the collective lot of you.

by the other colleen on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 10:18:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You have really put your foot in it ... (4.00 / 5)

with this comment and the stink is gonna hang on you for a long time around here.

by sjct on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 12:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 3)

We have too many of these damned Vichy Dems who would rather than end the Iraq war expand it. I doubt the same folks and their like-minded cronies who were behind that draconian bankruptcy bill last year would get into universal healthcare. Nor with two daughters can I even begin to hold out any hope that a Democrat who is hostile to their rights will behave any differently than a Republican who is hostile to their rights. On a broader level, there's little reason to hope that Democrats who've taken positions that go consistantly against our interests are going to be suddenly "different" if elected or re-elected.

The Mahatma X Files. Peace With Attitude.

by James Benjamin (the_bokononist at yahoo dot com) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 02:13:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hear this argument consistently, and I admit that it is very compelling. But, I do not think it is a complete argument. In other words, it is too absolute.

I'll give two examples that are really related to women's rights, but apply more generally.

Zell Miller came to Washington DC and saw how hostile the Democratic caucus was to some of his values that he become unhinged and fought back with unusual fury. What this demonstrates is that politicians can change dramatically once they arrive in Washington. Usually, like with Zell, they do not change for the better. But the point remains.

Secondly, take Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman was not a sore spot when he was in the majority, or when we had a Democratic President. He votes with us 80 something percent of time. And as long as the GOP wasn't crafting the bills, or as long as the President intended to veto the bad ones, then Joe didn't have any reason to annoy us and seldom did.

If Gore had been President, I doubt we would be complaining about Lieberman and I doubt Miller would have lost his mind and quit the Senate and the party (I guess).

This is all strictly relevent to how someone like Bob Casey Jr. will act in the Senate. If he is faced with a lot of anti-women legislation, he will annoy the fuck out of us. If he is not faced with it, he will be much less annoying.

I'm not apologizing for his positions. I think everyone knows how I feel. His staffers certainly do.

What I am saying is that we have an interest in taking the Senate, and that there are benefits to taking it that must be weighed in with everything else, including the argument you have just made.

Subpoena power, control over confirmations, control of the flow of bills and votes, etc., all flow from a majority. And a majority is unlikely with a Santorum win.

That must be considered.

by BooMan on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 02:24:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is all strictly relevent to how someone like Bob Casey Jr. will act in the Senate. If he is faced with a lot of anti-women legislation, he will annoy the fuck out of us. If he is not faced with it, he will be much less annoying.

Very creative justification, but also wrong in one important aspect: what will Casey's reaction be to pro-women legislation?

The answer: not damn good. In fact, given his ongoing worship of Alito, he might well pull a Miller if faced with too much of it. If the Democrats only have a one-seat majority (or a majority approximately equal to the number of misogynist Senators), this means he (or they) effectively gets to dictate terms.

In other words, for those that care about women's rights, Casey and his ilk are a disaster no matter how you spin it.

He's also unlikely to support any serious scrutiny of the Prez.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 02:39:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 2)

I've been saying Casey is a disaster for a long time. But, I still prefer him to Santorum. If the Senate were not up for grabs I would probably abstain from voting for Casey. I still might if it's clear he going to win in a walk. I just am adding some more perspective hear, some shades of gray, so this doesn't become an all or nothing flamewar.

by BooMan on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (4.00 / 3)

as I noted above, people will draw the line differently when deciding whether to vote for someone they can support (or no one at all) or voting for the lesser of two evils.

BooMan draws the line one place; the other colleen another; nospoon somewhere else.

I think one thing many of us would agree on is that straight party line voting for the Democrats is not a strategy that leads straight to a better society -- AS A PARTY, the democrats have given us no reasons to vote FOR them. SOmetimes (once so far) I will vote against the republican by giving my vote to a democrat, but that republican has to be pretty bad (e.g., Bush 2004).

by nine (ninethousandflowers *at* hotmail) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 09:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even if we were able to squeek out a majority, the more Liebermans, DiFi's, and Casey's we have, the less likely we will be able to pass any meaningful legislation.

I don't know the voting records by heart, but I would be very surprised to see Lieberman at 80% Dem.

By backing Casey, you are sending the message to the party chiefs that it is ok to sell out women for the all important Dem majority in the House or Senate. I firmly believe that is absolutely the wrong message to send. I agree there are times to hold one's nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, but this is not one of those times. If we lose a Senate Majority by not electing Casey, that will not be the fault of pro-choice women, the fault will land squarely on the Dem Party echelon for choosing such a horrendous candidate.

There's a sense that people in America aren't getting the truth. - George W. Bush (Gee, ya think?)

by Kamakhya (onyx at earthlink dot net) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 02:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But look at the state-level situation posed here. A Democrat-majority State Senate passed anti-choice legislation that a Democratic governor then signed. And it wasn't a couple of cross-overs in the Senate that passed the bill--it was a huge honking margin. So what good did it do to elect Democrats?

"As a woman, I have no country. . . . As a woman, my country is the whole world." --Virginia Woolf

by Raging Hippie (raginghippie at comcast dot net) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 02:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the state level I noted a lot of Dem crossover in South Dakota too. It appears that most politicians are running as life candidates in those states regardless of party. This is not an area where I am an expert, but I find that strange given polling on the issue shows that abortion rights are at or near 50% in Oklahoma and South Dakota. Politicians, however, are not stupid when it comes to having their positions match their electorates. The only thing I can conclude is that the pols are pursuing the path of least resistance, and being anti-choice in those states is easier/less work. It must be about differential levels of passion on the issue that do not show up in generic polling.

I'm not about to tell anyone to vote for an anti-choice dem. There must be some other reason for doing so. In Casey's case, there are other reasons. A lot of them. And there also more reasons not to vote for him than his positions on reproductive rights.

by BooMan on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 2)

It must be about differential levels of passion on the issue that do not show up in generic polling.

Not necessarily. Here's a simpler explanation. The Republican party leaders run anti-woman candidates for the obvious reason - that's their base. The Democrats run either anti-woman candidates or candidates with no stance on the issue. The "soft" pro-woman voters - those in the 50% that aren't adamant activists - are intentionally excluded from the process by party leaders and anti-woman politicians, as there is no candidate interested in capturing their vote.

I'm willing to bet that voter turnout is typically low there?

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Could be. There must be some research on this somewhere.

It's definitely true that the electorate is more anti-choice than the population at large. It's probably because we don't have pulpits blaring about choice all across this country on Sundays.

by BooMan on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 4)

It's definitely true that the electorate is more anti-choice than the population at large. It's probably because we don't have pulpits blaring about choice all across this country on Sundays.

It's a very simple process:

Republican party runs an anti-woman candidate.
Democratic party attempts to "strategically" pick up voters by running a "centrist" or center-right candidate.
Republicans engage in a "they're all smarmy politicians, so vote for the status quo/party in power (us)" campaign.
Left-wing voters, presented with no candidate to vote for, drift from the "electorate" pool to the "don't vote" pool.
Go to step #1.

This applies to any issue, BTW, not just choice. It's the only explanation I've found for why so many Americans don't vote despote polls continually showing that the population of the USA in general is significantly to the left of the vast majority of their politicians. You'd think this would result in an increase in voters and a realignment, but it hasn't... Because the supposed "left" party insists on running center-right candidates and refuses to stand for anything.

Ooops.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 07:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 3)

This is a spot on anaylsis.

Democrats would win in a walk if young women voted, but why should they ?

I have a daughter in her thirties who finally voted in '04 because she hates Bush with a white hot fury, but it was a vote against, not for.

NO ONE speaks to the things that concern her. She's not scared stiff of terrorists or immigrants or gay people, so much of what passes for political discourse is just noise. She sees the gross inequities in the world, and our elected representatives selling out humanity for huge corporate profits. She's disgusted that our government natters on and on about other countries developing nuclear weapons, but acts blind to the fact WE have more nukes than anybody, a position which she believes gives America exactly zero moral stature. She boils with fury over $30 million wedding dresses when 27,000 toddlers starved to death yesterday. Everywhere she looks, there are too many straight, white men in power, and nobody seems to notice it. She sees women in the workplace putting in their 40 hours for less pay with virtually no hope for advancement, while they field calls from home, juggle childcare, fend off bill collectors, and run errands during lunch so they can go home and do unpaid domestic work for another 8 hours. She has seen friends stalked and abused whose experience with the cops was worse than their initial complaint. Then there were the co-workers, regularly groped and assaulted by that backbone of American enterpise, small business owners.

Where is the politician who speaks to her ? Who addresses the problems that affect her? The ONLY political public discourse that recognises her existance is Reproductive Freedom. We should not be surprised that women are absolutist about defending the only gender issue that hasn't disappeared from the public forum.

"No one has the right to say `You do what I tell you, or I'll hurt you.'" - Monty Roberts

by susanw on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 12:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 4)

First of all, let me say that I'm glad I don't live in Pennsylvania so I don't have to decide whether or not to vote for Casey.

But Booman, don't you think that the problem with Casey is NOT just his positions on social issues, but the way the so-called "party leaders" picked him? I know he won the primary, but it sure sounds to me like it was manufactured by the leadership. If he had truly won over the people with his message, that might be different. But to have Schumer basically pick him and tell everyone else to f!@# off, that's a big part of my problem with the Dems as well. And a win by Casey would just bring on more of that, wouldn't it? We then fall further into the trap of being a democracy in name only.

Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias? Steven Colbert

by NLinStPaul on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I could do a whole diary on this one.

Two points: on the part about clearing the field for Casey, we agree 100%. I was just saying the same thing in almost the same words to CabinGirl. It is not that Casey is a social conservative that irks me. It is that he made a condition of running the clearing of the field, and that Schumer is applying this strategy everywhere he can. I guess it saves money. But we must stop this practice. It represents a total defeat for the netroots and a total victory for big money. It must be stopped, and the netroots must argue against it rigorously and help finance alternative candidates and support them.

On the latter half, likewise, we must create the solutions to the problem. We can't get it in our heads that we can advance by losing elections. This idea that we'll only enccourgae more primary clearing or pro-life Dems if we elect Casey is stinking thinking. We need to find other ways than defeat to change things. We are not going to end bad behavior from Schumer by helping to elect Santorum. We will only do it by creating alternative candidates that have enough money to beat his candidates in the primaries.

by BooMan on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 2)

This idea that we'll only enccourgae more primary clearing or pro-life Dems if we elect Casey is stinking thinking.

It may be 'stinking thinking' but it's also true.
If Casey gets elected it will indeed encourage this particular strategy. Y'all may not like it that this is true but the fact of the matter is that the stench emanates from the strategy, not those of us who object to the strategy.

by the other colleen on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 04:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've been saying this elsewhere in this thread but I'll say it again here.

the strategy being employed here is not to push a pro-life Dem. If it were, your point would be on solid footing. The strategy is to pick the candidate with the most name recognition and the most money (and in this case, a pre-existing machine). And then once you have settled on that candidate, to discourage or intimidate any possible rivals. Schumer has admitted this is his strategy and has crowed about eliminating costly and divisive primaries. If Casey loses, the only lesson that might be learned is that it is a bad idea to not have primaries. Somehow, I think Schumer will manage to miss the point.
While there are compelling reasons not to vote for Casey, and there are also compelling reasons to vote for him. All of these considerations must be balanced. Not everyone is going to agree which side the scale tips towards, but we can at least get our facts right.

If we really want to fix the problem that Casey represents, we can do it in more productive ways than seeing to it that he loses. Teaching Schumer a lesson is not much of a stratagy in this case. He's unlikely to learn any lesson anyway, and it will do nothing to empower progressives to resist future efforts on Schumer's part to dictate our candidates to us.

A lot of people really liked Paul Hackett even though Sherrod Brown is one of the most progressive representatives in the House. But Schumer took that choice away from them. That's every bit as rotten as what happended in Pennsylvania. And Casey losing will do nothing to stop it.

by BooMan on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 04:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the strategy being employed here is not to push a pro-life Dem. If it were, your point would be on solid footing.

See, I don't believe that and I don't believe it because they tried the same thing in Rhode Island at precisely the same time. Likewise I've had many conversations with these 'strategists' and they're quite overt in their embrace of his 'winning' anti-choice stance. The reasoning is that it takes 'social issues off the table'. I agree about Schumer's lame strategy but I'm talking about the DK pro-Casey operatives here....

If we really want to fix the problem that Casey represents, we can do it in more productive ways than seeing to it that he loses.

I personally cannot see any productive outcome in this race. From my perspective the people I'm concerned with have already lost. If you've a productive solution to discouraging this sort of lame and deliberately disrespectful 'strategy' in the future I would like to hear it.

by the other colleen on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 04:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree that we've already lost. I'm beyond disgusted with the whole thing. You have no idea how much time I've spent arguing the exact cases being made in this thread about why Casey sucks.

But, just because we've lost on the battlefield of the nominee doesn't mean that we can't win the Senate back, which would be a great victory. And we have to keep that in mind.

We have 44 Senators. Jeffords is retiring and will be replaced by Socialist Bernie Sanders. Sanders votes with us, as Jeffords did, so we have 45.

Now, where are we going to get 6 new Senators?

Some possibilities:

Montana: Morrison or Tester could beat Conrad Burns
Rhode Island: Whitehouse could beat Chafee
Missouri: McCaskill could beat Talent
Ohio: Sherrod Brown could beat DeWine
Nevada: Jack Carter could beat Ensign

There's not much else out there. Maybe in a perfect storm we could win in Arizona and Virginia.

We really need this seat in Pennsylvania. It's the most vulnerable of all of them. Without it, Dick Cheney could be casting the tie-breaking votes again.

by BooMan on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 05:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, but this is hopelessly naive. Your description of the "stragegy" <cough> is a distinction without a difference, and Schumer's and Emmanuel's continual recruitment of forced-birth candidates, or wishy-washy-won't-say candidates, makes it very much ABOUT pushing forced birth policies. Schumer is a fucking idiot or he's lying. If he was a manager for a fighter, he'd insist on skipping prelim bouts in order to put his fighter into the right immediately for a title bout. I actually don't think he's an idiot, I think he's moving the party right deliberately, because he's a Rockefellar Republican in Vichy Dem clothing.

Anybody who lives in PA who gives a fuck about civil rights and workers rights should NOT vote for Casey.

PERIOD. Anybody who does is voting for the Republicans. (Oh, and don't whine that this isn't a fair charge to make ... it merely turns back the same charge leveled at us "single issue" voters when we insist on candidates who actually are liberals).

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 04:57:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's exactly the kind of excessively black-and-white thinking that leads to the right. Not voting for Casey is not the same as voting for Santorum. One can oppose something without condoning its opposite.

If Casey wins, you will not have enough money to beat Schumer's candidates in primaries. He'll have one very simple thing that can beat any amount of money you can raise: "My candidates win". And thus, the left loses another election...

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 3)

Exactly. If Casey wins, so does Schumer. If Casey looses because people decide they have had it with the status quo, then Schumer will lose big time. You can force change and progress out of defeat, often that is the only way you ever will. The trick is to sing loud and clear why you refused to go along with Schumer's pick.

There's a sense that people in America aren't getting the truth. - George W. Bush (Gee, ya think?)

by Kamakhya (onyx at earthlink dot net) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 03:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know that what you just said seems to make sense but I'm am very confident that you are wrong on this.

If there is a trend in the Democratic Party it is exactly the opposite of what you propose here. People are beginning to think that we can't win the electoral college because of our position on abortion. Kerry didn't even campaign in 23 states because of his opinion that he had no chance because of his positions on social issues. Losing one Senate race isn't going to much of anything to change people's minds about this.

Moreover, Schumer DID NOT PICK Casey because he is pro-life, but in spite of it. He picked him because he had name recognition, a pre-existing machine, and money. He will not learn any lesson related to picking anti-choice candidates since that wasn't why he picked him.

There are so many misconceptions about Pennsylvania.

Can you call it an asset to be a pro-life Dem in a state where the Republican party elected Tom Ridge, a pro-choice governor, and Arlen Specter, a pro-choice Senator. It's a pro-choice state, and even the Republicans are cool with pro-choice nominees. The issue is the clearing of the field, which also happened in Ohio, but in the case in favor of MORE progressive candidate. Schumer isn't being anti-choice, he's being non-ideological. He doesn't want primiries. We do.

by BooMan on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 04:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 4)

OK, then sing loud and clear that you won't support Casey because he was given a clear field at the cost of a potentially better candidate.

Thank you for the time and consideration in making your clear and reasoned arguement for backing Casey. I simply cannot agree with you.

A Senate majority will mean nothing if we back candidates that oppose human rights and worker rights. We will once again have a majority with a D after their names, but what we won't have is a majority that consistently votes in favor of the people over business.

But, thanks again for a good discussion. I don't think we will ever really see to eye to eye on this, but it is good to debate it every so often.

There's a sense that people in America aren't getting the truth. - George W. Bush (Gee, ya think?)

by Kamakhya (onyx at earthlink dot net) on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 06:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: oklahoma (4.00 / 6)

Yeah, I think the first rule of dog training and child rearing applies to Schumer: "Don't reward behavior you don't want."

by CabinGirl on Wed May 31st, 2006 at 04:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]