Daily Kos

View Story | 289 comments

  •  Here's how I see it (4.00 / 4)

    Kos and Armando think it makes sense for a pro-choice organization to oppose a pro-choice Republican because he's going to work with DeLay and produce results they don't like.  They urge looking at the big picture.

    I don't know about where you live, but where I live (Virginia), pro-life Democrats work with pro-life Republicans to restrict contraception, impose onerous restrictions on those people suffering in impossible situations, and do other things I don't like.  They don't distance themselves from people who call contraceptives "baby pesticides."  They have a choice of whether to do that or not; by Kos and Armando's logic, why should I want them in my party?

    I understand being against abortion, even if I don't agree with it.  I certainly support actions that are actually effective in reducing abortion, such as anti-poverty programs, contraception education and availability.  What I don't understand is the idea that if you believe that abortion is wrong, you have to work to outlaw it, which seems to be the requirement for calling yourself "pro-life."  There are plenty of things I think are wrong that I don't think should be outlawed, and there are plenty of things that religions declare are wrong that I don't think should be outlawed.

    Working to turn Virginia Blue -- and succeeding!

    by Redshift on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:58:39 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Paul Wellstone, of all people, (none / 0)

      maintained an active and fruitful personal and professional friendship with Jesse Helms while they were both in the Senate.  They disagreed about a great many things, but that did not stop them from working together on important international human rights legislation and advocacy.

      That is what democratic politics is: getting along with people who disagree with you about some of life's most important issues.  Democrats, of all people, should be examples of this.

      by eastsidedemocrat on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 07:31:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree (4.00 / 3)


        As far as I am concerned all anti-choice democrats can leave the party.  I am not voting for or supporting anti-choice candidates ever, not even once.

        Unseen Gore Video

        by TeresaInPa on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 03:40:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you do that (none / 0)

          and there are not too many people who follow your example, you will be successful in keeping abortion rights a high priority in the Democratic Party.  

          But if too many people follow your example, you will keep the Democratic Party from winning power and thereby lead to the further erosion of the very rights you seek. (As is occurring now.) Politics in a democracy is a balancing act of coalitions, and there is not much place for zealotry if you want to be successful at it.

          by eastsidedemocrat on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:26:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why would you believe this? (4.00 / 2)

            Every poll I've seen indicates that the majority of Americans support reproductive rights, including a right to abort a pregnancy.

            TRAP law supporters
            Why modern-day conservatism makes no sense to me

            by media girl on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 08:46:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Those polls don't gage prioritization (none / 0)

              For most people who respond in ways that identify them as pro-choice, it is not as important an issue for them as it is for you.  

              For example, a large number of successful career women who are also pro-choice, consistently vote Republican due to a belief that Republicans will protect their economic interests better.  Keeping taxes low is more important to them than abortion rights, even though they are pro-choice.  

              Likewise, a large amount of the labor and rural base of traditional Democratic voters prioritize pro-life causes above their own economic interests. That is why there exists a swap set of pro-life Democrats that can be gained by moderating the pro-choice rhetoric of the party.  Majority numbers on issue polls don't win elections.  If they did, Republicans would not be in power now.  Effective, but often temporary, coalitions of people with some common interests, but many contrary ones, are what win elections.

              by eastsidedemocrat on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:24:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  shit (none / 0)

                I wish I was as smart as you. No snark intended.

                Write Al Gore a letter asking him to run: The Honorable Al Gore 2100 West End Avenue Suite 620 Nashville, TN 37203

                by MonkeyDog102 on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:15:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Go ahead with rationalizing (none / 0)

                Because the simple fact is that there's no indication that it's not an important issue for them, either.

                Or that civil rights are.

                Or that gay rights are.

                Or that the war is.

                Or that the economy is.

                Or fill in the blank.

                But you go on rationalizing your finger-waggling at the electorate for not buying the "If we take a stance, someone won't like us" theory of politics.

                Who's against the big tent? Every single would-be pundit who kicks people in the teeth for feeling passionate about their rights.

                TRAP law supporters
                Why modern-day conservatism makes no sense to me

                by media girl on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 08:00:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes there is an indication. (none / 0)

                  The indicator is this:  Republicans control the country, and they run unabashedly pro-life as far as abortion is concerned, even though polls consistently say that the majority of the country supports Roe.  The Democrats have run unabashedly pro-choice since the 1980's, but they have been losing more than winning.  The only possible explanation is that support for Roe is less important than other things for key constituencies.  

                  Facts sometimes hurt, but the effective political actor will find ways to obtain her objectives after taking those facts as a given. That's what Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer are doing.  The ineffective one simply resorts to believing his own propaganda, truth be damned.  Which one one are you?

                  by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:07:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Flawed logic (none / 0)

                    The Democrats have run unabashedly pro-choice since the 1980's, but they have been losing more than winning.  The only possible explanation is that support for Roe is less important than other things for key constituencies.

                    A big mistake a lot of people make is that correlation means causation. And here there's not even correlation.

                    1. It's a modern urban legend that "Democrats have run unabashedly pro-choice since the 1980's." In actual fact, many Democrats are anti-choice, and run as such, and most others just try to avoid the issue altogether, which is not unabashed support, it's weasly support.

                    2. Democrats have been going along with much anti-choice legislation, including TRAP laws.

                    3. The losses of Democrats have been since the DLC led the party away from its core constituencies. And they seem to be doing that more and more.

                    The picture you paint is pure fantasy. "The only possible explanation"? I don't think so!

                    TRAP law supporters
                    Why modern-day conservatism makes no sense to me

                    by media girl on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 09:08:29 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  I think situations like that... (none / 0)

      ...prove why the Kos/Armando approach has flaws. And I note neither of them have addressed that or other similar issues.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
      Neither is California High Speed Rail

      by eugene on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 09:15:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 289 comments