I was wrong. Women's right will be very divisive in 06.

[madfloridian]

I see nothing wrong with making the party a big tent, making a place for pro-lifers who do NOT try to take us back to the dark ages. I will respect them if they do not impose their views.

However, I see that in one of the two states I mentioned in a post yesterday the DSCC is actually requesting the candidates who are FOR a woman's right to choose to drop out. In the other they are running an anti-choice Dem against a pro-choice Republican. I am not from either state, but this is sounding just like last year. The state party leaders are urging people to drop out instead of just leaving it alone.

I call this taking away my right to vote for a candidate who is pro a woman's rights. The state party leaders and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commmittee are thus taking away my rights.
They did it here last here in Florida. The legislators and the churches got together to defeat pro-choice candidates.

Former Rep. Joe Hoeffel (D-Pa.) and former state Treasurer Barbara Hafer (D), both of whom support abortion rights, previously had indicated that they might challenge Santorum. However, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recruited Casey to run against Santorum in the Senate race (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 2/3). Following Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell's (D) Friday endorsement of Casey, Hafer withdrew from the race, according to the Times. "The governor has asked me to step aside and allow Treasurer Casey to run unopposed for U.S. Senate. After some consideration, I have decided to agree to the governor's request," Hafer said in a statement (New York Times, 3/5). Hoeffel also agreed to withdraw from the race after speaking with Casey, according to the AP/CBS2.com. "I really want to see Rick Santorum defeated, and it seems to me that Bob Casey has the best chance to do that," Hoeffel said (Jackson, AP/CBS2.com, 3/5)....."

So now they are going to pit two anti-choice candidates against each other.

AND in RI...the ultimate... They are putting a foe of women's rights who is a Democrat against Lincoln Chaffee, a moderate Republican who supports a woman's right to choose.
SNIP..."In addition to Casey, DSCC also recruited abortion-rights opponent Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) to run against abortion-rights supporter Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in 2006 (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 2/3)."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=20849

Sometimes it feels like the world is upside down and both parties are the same. I wish Howard Dean the best of luck in walking on the eggshells of this party's ideals in his quest to succeed. He will need all he can get.



:crazy: :eyes: :cry:

[Enquiringkitty]

1. They shouldn't ask someone to drop out because of one issue.

They are pandering to the fundies. The right to life guys might not be strong enough or well known enough to get over the top. They are cutting off their noses to placate someone else's face.

[blue neen]

2. This is a tough issue for Pennsylvania Democrats right now.

We want Santorum out of office so badly that we have to gather forces to run the candidate who has the best chance to beat him.

Casey has a lot of things going for him. He is pro-life but is progressive on other issues. He has name recognition in this state and is popular with voters on both sides of the aisle.

Santorum is SUCH a cockroach that PA Dems are desperate to get rid of him. At least that's how this one feels!

[NewJeffCT]

4. Getting Santorum out is the most important thing

I'm in CT, so I don't know the state that well, but having one more D in there is the most important thing.

[KaliTracy]

3. how many anti-choice Dems still uphold the woman's right to privacy

issue....

I just feel that the slope is so very slippery right now, what with Pharmacists refusing to fill Normal BCP orders (and not just one or two -- they are organized) http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1-P,00.html

-- that soon all of our rights will be whittled away to nothing. I'm almost 40 -- I know what my mother went through in so many issues (including the right to have a tubal ligation, even though she had a 1 in 4 chance in having a live child (Rh- blood before Rogam) But "they" wanted her to have 2 psychiatrists attest that she would be "mentally unstable" if she had another stillborn. She refused to do that, and my father got a vasectomy, no problem (even though it was her blood incompatibility)).

I have to admit I'm a little wary with all of this, it's not really the defining issue, at this time, though for some reason it's getting thrown out there as such. Government has no business with my body, or any other woman's (or any man's) body. Any Government who controls this issue can suddenly be like China (if the mood strikes them) -- putting ultimatums on preferred gender, or limits on the number of children one has.


shadows of The Handmaid's Tale (by Margaret Atwood) come to haunt me in my dreams....:scared:

[mattclearing]

5. Your sig is the perfect reason why this is flawed logic. n/t

[madfloridian]

7. I thought of that as I wrote the post. I am very concerned about this.

We give up what we believe in so we can win. It has not worked, so we do it again. We won't have the values we believe in.

And another saying of Dean's comes to mind. If you run a fake Republican against real one, the real one will win every time. Not sure if that originated with him, but he said it a lot.

If don't put up "real" candidates who stand for the things that matter to the women of our party, then we are not going to win.

[mattclearing]

9. Word. n/t

[shance]

6. Looks like its time for Democrats to take a stand on protecting women

and our rights.

I believe this issue is not remotely about fetus's. It's about controlling life and controlling the women who are the channels for which it comes into the world. If it were simply about fetuses, these individuals would be calling for funding to help these children and mothers who need help AFTER these fetuses were born.

I have to add, if men were the ones to be giving birth, this issue wouldn't even BE an issue.

Men would be happily popping birth control pills like it was Viagra, have the best and most affordable maternity health care, and would do the occasion drop in through the drive in Abortion clinics for a quick 'fix'. Am I wrong? The double standard seems quite apparent to most women.


This information also makes me wonder how much Republican leaning individuals have gotten into positions of leadership within the Democratic party.

Something is clearly not making sense to me.

[PaDem]

8. I agree with Rendell here......

as a Pennsylvanian I feel that this race so important that we must unify around a candidate early. Santorum is beatable, but there is little margin for error. Spending money in a primary puts the winner at a disadvantage. Santorum will have a war chest. While Casey is "pro-life" he is hardly a threat to a women's right to choose. Santorum is. Hoeffel and Hafner can't beat Santorum. Casey can, and is progressive on most issues. Strategically this is a no brainer for PA Dems.

[madfloridian]

10. Just an added thought....

I see the statements already that nothing is more important than getting a certain candidate out. I agree that is important. But if you give up what you believe in during the process, what have you gained?

I don't agree with the DSCC telling candidates they can not run, or to drop out in the common good. Then they put in candidates who are "pretty good" on some progressive values...as long as those progressive values do not include a woman's right to choose.

The DSCC is making the decision for the voters. If you run mostly candidates who oppose a woman's rights, then guess what the hell you get.

It happened in Florida in our district last time. An anti-choice, rabidly so, anti-gay, very much so candidate was put in the day before the deadline to run against the candidate who supported women's rights, supported gay rights, and was an outstanding debater.

The person they put in was exactly the same on issues as his very wealthy Republican opponent, and guess what.....he lost big time. He never had a chance.

I do not like this.

[blue neen]

11. I respect your opinions, madfloridian.

I'm always reading your posts!

It is always good to see that people in our party are fighting for women's rights. I have been wrestling with the idea of Casey's candidacy for some time now because of his pro-life stance.

There are a few things, however, that weren't mentioned about the other candidates. Barbara Hafer was elected state Treasurer as a Republican. She was angry that the Republican party did not endorse her as a candidate for governor in 2002, so she endorsed Rendell in the race. She then ultimately switched her party affiliation to Democrat. This definitely would have been a liability in a run against someone as ruthless as Santorum. That is ALL we would have heard about her.

Joe Hoeffel, for some reason, did not get the union and labor endorsement in PA last year in his run against Spector. I don't know the reason why they didn't endorse him, but that is the kiss of death for a candidate in this state. Maybe there is something we don't know about there.

At any rate, I plan on letting Casey know how I feel and we'll see how things go from there.

I will do whatever I can to get Santorum out of the U.S. Senate. He is such an embarrassment to this state. We can't stand it any more.

Thanks.

[omega minimo]

12. Elevating election strategery over threatened human rights

will continue to water the down the message and the relevance of the Democratic Party. Ultimately, this will lose votes and lose elections. It is the wrong direction to head.

It panders to the Wrong Wing use of wedge issues-- and guess what? Their favorite two that did so much damage to Democrats in 2004-- gay marriage and reproductive privacy are BOTH about keeping wimmins in their place and making standard gender roles rigid and enforceable by law.

The fact that mo-- I'm sorry, they're not morons-- many voters fall for the HAM-HANDED diversionary tactics in the name of "morals" (maybe the appeal is just moral superiority) does not mean that Democrats must capitulate to distractions and dirty, disingenuous tricks..........

To recover relevance, credibility and votes, this party must embrace the traditional Democratic association with human rights, civil rights and Constitutional rights. COMPREHENDING AND SUPPORTING EACH WOMAN'S RIGHT TO HER REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND PRIVACY IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR ABILITY TO EMBODY THE IDEALS WE ESPOUSE. We must stand with the same courage Barbara Boxer has shown. Not capitulate and think strategery allow the ends to justify the means. It won't end the way you think.

With respect, I will suggest to those at DU who think that the assault on women is of little importance and can be backburnered, maybe should pick up a copy of Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale." It's not just in KaliTracy's nightmares that life imitates art.

:kick: