A Big Tent?

Some folks think we should not have a Big Tent Dem Party.

I do. Find common ground:

[L]et Gene Taylor be the principal Democratic spokesperson for Democrats on the Katrina response by the federal government. Taylor told anecdotes that just really grabbed you. He told his stories compellingly, emotionallly and strongly. But my bottom line is that he is the guy, in my opinion, who should be the face of the Dems on Katrina review and critique. And presenter of ideas. There was a real common touch exhibited by him.

To be clear, when I said Katrina, I meant Hurricane Katrina. My offense is this -- Gene Taylor, a Democratic representative from Mississippi, is anti-choice. He is not progressive on social issues.

But I am glad Gene Taylor is a Democrat. I want a Big Tent Democratic Party. I'll fight to the death with Gene Taylor on the social issues. Right down the line. But I am glad he is a Democrat.

See, to me the idea is to get MORE people to the Democratic Party, not less. Not by compromising our values, but by finding shared values with folks like Gene Taylor. Gene Taylor sounded like a Democrat when he talked about the role of government in the Katrina Aftermath. He can speak for me on THAT.

He can't speak for me on social issues, privacy, choice, gay rights, etc. I do not want Gene Taylor to be the Dem spokesman on those issues. I'll disagree vigorously with his views on those issues.

But I am glad he is a Democrat. I am for a Big Tent Democratic Party. And you know what? I think Howard Dean is too. And you know what? I bet Ted Kennedy is too.

•  Single-Issue Warfare is ABSOLUTELY KILLING US

  Armando - you're absolutely right.  We need to keep pounding away at this.

  by bincbom on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:29:43 PM PDT

  •  Single focus blogging is killing us, too.

    I'm constantly amazed at how unwilling some bloggers are to hold their fire and allow for the benefit of the doubt, and instead feel the need to generate heat for their blogs by taking shots at others.

    There are plenty of "self-appointed spokespeople" who I think have stepped in it repeatedly, but I don't try to "call them out." If I say anything at all, I state my case the best I can, without any rending of garments.

    But blogs thrive on outrage, and for some people, traffic counts are more important that working together toward some common end.

    And that, frankly, is why the great bulk of us suck major league ass.

    You can count that as a rant, if you like.

    by Kagro X on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:36:27 PM PDT

    •  single focus?

      you mean like putting "winning" over ANY principles?

      by Madman in the marketplace on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:47:42 PM PDT

      •  That could certainly be one, sure.

        But as you probably know, I was thinking of a single  focus on the race to generate the most outrage, no matter what the issue, and use it as a tool to create blog traffic, as opposed to actually doing or proposing anything in particular.

        by Kagro X on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:27:18 PM PDT

        •  highlighting principles

          is as vital as promoting action. They aren't mutually exclusive, and the right has shown that it's important to pursue both in order to forge a winning direction.

          by Madman in the marketplace on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:36:12 PM PDT

          •  I guess so.

            I simply consider there to be a difference between highlighting principles and picking a fight that isn't there. I don't seriously doubt Armando's commitment to to pro-choice agenda because he thinks Gene Taylor makes a good Katrina spokesperson. And I don't think his critics really do, either.

            But there was outrage to be mined. She's by no means the only one, of course. And surely Armando has mined the same vein before, as well.

            I guess I'm just not a huge fan of the constant, cross-blog competition to out-progressive one another.

            by Kagro X on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:28:28 PM PDT

            •  I'm not out

              to promote our blog, but what I feel is important to my country. We're not driving a huge amount of traffic. Not making money off of it. Just worried about the future of my country, about how the secular values that I treasure are being abandoned by BOTH parties.

              I reject ANY favorite of DfL being put forward as a "voice" of the party on ANY issue. It muddies the waters re: the values that this party holds dear.

              The fact that there is only a reactionary right/near fascist party, and a center right "opposition" party, leaves the political conversation in this country terribly stunted, dangerously so.

              Armando has insisted many times that he believes in women's autonomy, freedom. However, the promotion of the ongoing strategy coming out of the DSCC undermines the very values he holds dear. I understand the argument that you need seats first, but I think it's a doomed strategy.

              by Madman in the marketplace on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:38:46 PM PDT

              •  I didn't actually have you in mind.

                Thought I suppose I could probably find an example of something you've written that I could shoehorn into the construct. Same for almost anybody, I would guess.

                Chris Bowers actually touched on something like this tonight, too.

                Of course, I also have a different concept of what a political party is than you do. I don't ascribe any particular values to them, or at least none that are inherent in their makeup. I view them as collective action vehicles for electioneering, which hold values only to the extent that they serve the electioneering function. I look elsewhere for my values.

                But the thing I'm talking about at the moment is different. It has less to do with the party and values, I think, and more to do with chest-beating and crowd raising.

                by Kagro X on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:46:48 PM PDT

    •  here's my problem....

      i might actually be convinced if it didn't sound so much like a demand for "do as i say and not as i do".

      "I'm constantly amazed at how unwilling some bloggers are to hold their fire and allow for the benefit of the doubt, and instead feel the need to generate heat for their blogs by taking shots at others."

      i think that's my problem.... it feels like i'm being told to suck it up and welcome kos's allies (and yours?) while my allies get mocked.

      for example: where is the big tent for the "hippy types"?  why not respect - as well as disagreement - instead of "I'll have nothing to do with any of the anti-war rallies planned in the near term (and the crazy cast of characters that seek to inject their unrelated own pet causes into the proceedings)." where's the benefit of the doubt in this?

      i tell you what - you welcome my allies (who by the way i think ought to be yours too), and i'll suck it up and welcome yours.  that way the dem tent will be even bigger, and it will also be fairer. how 'bout it?

      by selise on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:50:32 PM PDT

      •  pragmatism

        I think the critical objective point being rendered is what is effective in the contemporary political environment. Having first become involved through anti-war organizing in 2002, I find it hard to see the effectiveness of most of those organizations at either stopping the war or winning elections or helping out their communities.

        There's surely some positive ripples from such a large-scale human effort as a protest that draws millions worldwide. People build skills, make connections, etc. But on the other hand, people also burn out, deplete their savings, return to relative inaction after the catharsis of protest, ets. Is mass-protest an effective use of the expended energy, money and time? Looking at the past three years, I have serious doubts about that.

        By contrast, you'll note that the front-page-boys here were very supportive of Cindy Sheehan. That's not because she wasn't an "anti-war hippy." It's because she was effective.

        Likewise, you can see that the attacks on pro-choice and pro-human-rights lobbies stem from reservations about their effectiveness, specifically when they support Republicans who do their causes a disservice.

        There are legitimate concerns about what, in the end, to sacrifice on the altar of pragmatism. However, that's unfortunately not what the debate is about. It would be a much more interesting (and effective, natch) discussion to have, I think. But we have to get past a lot of personal and identity-related bullshit (plus who knows how much historical baggage) before we can really get into that.

        And so the sparks will continue to fly...

        by Outlandish Josh on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:30:02 PM PDT

        •  Good point.

          And where have you been, anyway?

          by Kagro X on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:49:59 PM PDT

          •  been

            been all around the country in a mid-sized pickup with two friends and a dog. Vagabender.com has the record such as it is.

            by Outlandish Josh on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:00:23 PM PDT

        •  my problem isn't the disagreement....

          outlandish josh - my problem isn't the disagreement - it's the mocking and dismissing and being oh-so-sure that there is nothing to learn from ..... (fill in the blank).

          btw, nothing in your post bothers me in the slightest... i'd be happy to have the kind of discussion you describe.  but, that takes mutual respect.... something i haven't seen enough of.

          by selise on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 08:56:24 PM PDT

          •  under pressure

            but, that takes mutual respect.... something i haven't seen enough of.

            I can see where you're coming from. I think one of the problems we face on the left is that our loosing momentum creates increased pressure to fight back, to win. Add to that our lack of experience working together and some long-standing interpersonal beef, and it's not surprising how things have gotten ugly from time to time.

            When I was writing that I thought of my experience as a kid playing sports, how the pressure of being behind in the 9th inning could cause the team to crack up. But also how sometimes the circumstances got us playing together like never before.

            I also think of other times there has been a lot of disagreement, like during primary season. I think then things were better in some ways because people understood that although they were opposing one another, it was part of a structured process and a larger effort and that they would still work together when the time came.

            I'd recommend people who are upset with current Dem attitudes and performance get involved in the primaries. It's a place where you can really make a difference, and it sure as hell beats waiting for the general and trying to figure out whether or not you can live with casting your vote.

            by Outlandish Josh on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:07:24 PM PDT

        •  responding to your point....

          for me pragmatism is about what do i think is the best way for me to spend my time? of all the things i could do, what will be the most effective and what do i enjoy the most?  it sounds silly, but i think this is a marathon and not a sprint...i don't want to burn out again.

          i don't think pragmatism is about what i think others should be doing.  they have their own analysis and limits and strengths.  i only draw the line on not causing or risking others to be hurt. that's a value issue.  i don't draw the line of issues of style. and that's a value too - one of inclusiveness.  see, i think we have to model the kind of world we want to create.

          and, i think it is very difficult to tell what i going to be helpful... that is why i welcome anyone who shares my values and is willing to work for them.  solidarity.

          and here's a little true story that daniel ellsberg tells... he had already come to be against the vietnam war, but he didn't know what he could do about it.  then he saw these kids participating in civil disobediance and getting arrested.... and it made him think - is there anything useful he could do if HE was willing to get arrested?  and that is how we got the pentagon papers. (and probably how we got rid of nixon).

          by selise on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 09:21:31 PM PDT

          •  nice

            here's a little true story that daniel ellsberg tells... he had already come to be against the vietnam war, but he didn't know what he could do about it.  then he saw these kids participating in civil disobediance and getting arrested.... and it made him think - is there anything useful he could do if HE was willing to get arrested?  and that is how we got the pentagon papers.

            That's a pretty fantastic example of how important unintended consequences can be. Thanks.

            I don't know about keeping your opinions of what other people are doing to yourself though. Clearly I'd stop way short of trying to interfere with anyone else's non-violent activism. We're all free to exercise our rights -- whether that's to have a big anti-war march or to voice our opinion that having such a march is of questionable merit -- and this is good.

            I think a broad discussion about strategy and what works and what doesn't is vital. There are more and less respectful/diplomatic ways to get this conversation going, but one thing I've found is that it can be awfully hard to break through to people who have been operating in one mode or for one cause for a long time. Folks get to be set in their ways, and sometimes I think there might be value to shock, to rocking the boat, to stirring up trouble.

            by Outlandish Josh on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:14:03 PM PDT

            •  discussion vs put-downs

              outlandish josh,

              certainly i'm not trying to say that you (or anyone) should keep your opinions to yourself.... as you've shown here - you are perfectly able to state your opinions while being open to the opinion of others.

              so i wasn't objecting to your disagreement (and shocking people to get their attention isn't a problem either) - my objection is to the put-downs and the mocking.   that's not the way to get a discussion going - and it certainly isn't the way to get people to rethink their tactics.  indeed, i think it is actually  destructive.  anyway,  i'd much prefer introspection, discussion (of values AND effectiveness) and a serious study of social movements as you have done.

              and it is particularly irksome to have my allies (who share my values, if not my prefered style) mocked while i'm being instructed to support someone who doesn't share my values.

              anyway, thanks for the thoughtful responses.  you and kanga

              by selise on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:07:32 PM PDT

      •  Does it?

        Does it sound like "do as I say and not as I do?"

        What do I do?

        by Kagro X on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:51:37 PM PDT

        •  not you...

          not you kagro x. i was responding to the overall message i've been getting -  of having my friends and allies mocked and put down .... and then you tell i'm supposed to support someone who's values i don't share.  i should't have directed my ire at you, and for that i'm sorry.

          but, i'm still irked.

          by selise on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 09:04:16 PM PDT

          •  Irked is what we're here for.

            So that's OK. Just checking to see if I'm irking you. A healthy exercise, once in a while.

            by Kagro X on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 09:07:35 PM PDT

    •  A few things in response

      Much as I am flattered to have been, apparently, a trigger of such expressions of outrage, I feel I must speak up here, at the risk of spoiling the party. (Small 'p' folks.)

      First, I find it fascinating that Armando claims I am against what he calls a "big tent" approach to politics, when it seems to me that Markos and company have been the ones who have no room for environmentalists or hippies or "tin hat" folks or the "women's studies set," what with all of our "pet issues" and the like. I humbly submit that you don't lead a "big tent" endeavor by kicking people out of the tent.

      Second, I think a lot of people here seem to be operating from some zero-sum notion of politics -- that if I get my rights recognized, then someone else must lose. This kind of thinking really doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how reproductive rights, workers' rights, gay rights, civil rights, national healthcare, and so on are mutually exclusive. But to hear all the whining, here and elsewhere, about people who advocate for those issues, you'd think that the advocacy groups were all out to rule as little Hitlers, when all they are saying is, "Don't leave these folks out."

      Third, women will not have equal protection under the law as long as something as fundamental as control over one's own body is considered negotiable in political gamesmanship. Men simply do not ever -- EVER -- face such a threat of intrusion of the government into one's own personal life, personal decisions about one's own body. To lose control over one's own body is indeed to be enslaved. Slavery has had many faces throughout history. A woman who is forced by the government to put her body, her job, her life on the line to carry a pregnancy to term is a slave -- a breeder slave under governmental control, a slave who faces severe punishment if she dares to oppose that assumed authority. eastsidedemocrat makes the claim, "No Democrat thinks women's rights are negotiable/But lots of us, women as well as men, think that abortion is not a right that anyone can claim" -- as if that actually made sense. That's kind of like saying, "No Democrat thinks African Americans' rights are negotiable, but lots of us think they shouldn't be sitting at the front of the bus."

      Fourth, there is a big difference between making room for someone who is pro-choice -- who by definition respects the rights of others to do what they feel they must -- and someone who is pro-life -- who by definition wants the government to back up their own personal views and impose them on everyone else. It is like the civil rights activist and the KKK wizard. They disagree, but one merely wants to be free of oppression, and the other wants to oppress. As Peanut says, "Pro-choice IS both sides. Anti-choice is extremism." What would happen here if the Democrats embraced a KKK enthusiast who was all about white supremacy, but otherwise sounded the "right notes" on war, the economy, and so on? There would be howls of outrage and calls for the pillory. But wait -- Armando says we must have a big tent, so maybe it doesn't matter where he stands on the other things, because we're not supposed to have any "pet issues" (as Kos calls them), so as long as he takes his campaign money from the Democratic Party, it should not matter where he stands on anything, right? Wrong.

      Fifth, there seems to be a lot of confusion here when it comes to what politics is about. Some think it's all about power, no matter what is done with that power. Some think it's all about who gets to elect the Speaker, as if their just being Democrat would make all these questionable folks ditch their self-proclaimed attitudes and positions and vote for what the Democrats stood for in the 1960s -- perhaps out of some sense of gratitude? And then Outlandish Josh says the litmus test is effectiveness, as if we were picking stocks instead of taking a stance on the political and cultural fabric of our society. Politics -- or at least progressive politics -- is about fighting for what you believe, not backing the prevailing wind.

      Sixth, some people seem to me to be a bit mesmerized by the boob tube. Taylor gives good TV is what a few people said here and elsewhere. Yeah, so does Arnold, but I won't be voting for him, either. So what if he's good on TV? You think that you can tell what he's about because he talks a good game? I recommend reading some Edward R. Murrow and getting on the decades old cluetrain when it comes to the old media.

      Seventh, these compromises are not without cost. Markos has berated advocacy organizations for being ineffective. But that's kind of like blaming soldiers for dying on the front lines when they don't get any air support. These causes don't win on their own, they win when (sorry, gals, but the metaphor is apt) -- THEY WIN WHEN POLITICIANS SHOW THEY HAVE THE BALLS TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. Do you think the Great Society happened without party support? Do you think the integration of schools happened without party support? Do you think Americans with disabilities would have won protections without party support? These things don't happen on their own, with the party just glomming on to the success. The party works to make these things happen.

      You want things to change, the party has to be right there, not hanging back, cherry picking the "winners" in the media wars.

      Finally, one thing I see here is a hubris that is very unbecoming. Do you really think that the Democratic Party can scold its constituents into dropping what they hold dear, just so the Democrats can win at any cost?

      To follow Armando's metaphor, it seems to me a big tent can't hold anyone if it doesn't have tent poles -- and those poles are the core values that liberals and progressives hold dear, poles that address different parts of the tent, but stand together because they are not mutually exclusive, poles that draw people in because these people see shelter from the problems they see coming, or are fighting every single day. These tent poles, our fundamental core values, are what hold up the big tent in the first place. Keep knocking out the poles and you don't have a tent at all.

      Finally, Kangro X, I'm sorry there are people out there blogging about things you don't agree with. Personally, I think debate is essential in politics. If you don't like the real netroots' taking issue with things happening in their name here, then maybe you should call for an end to the sniping at the constituents for their "pet causes."

      Oh, and this isn't about traffic. I'd like to know what your evidence of your claims might be. Or is this just more ad hominem attacking? "There was outrage to be mined?" Sorry, but not everyone is so cold-blooded as you assume. Sometimes outrage is just outrage.

      by media girl on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 10:49:07 PM PDT

      •  word! n/t

        by selise on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:11:13 PM PDT

  •  I second that

    Absolutely!

    by wishingwell on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:40:48 PM PDT

•  I'm with you, Armando

  ...but I'll bet you'll get your ass chewed by the all-or-nothing contingent, nonetheless.

  by Dracowyrm on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:32:15 PM PDT

  •  Choice is my most important issue.

    Bringing "unwanted babies" (i.e. babies that would have been aborted as zygotes or fetuses if abortion had been legal) into the world IMHO is not doing the child a favor.  A disproportionate number of such children grow up to be adults who are predatory criminals, drug addicts, and severely-impaired psychiatric patients.  And what about the costs to poverty-stricken parents in raising a child properly...there is not the political will in this country to fund the programs necessary for the unwanted child to grow up normally.

    Yet I favor a "big-tent" philosophy.  One cannot influence the law and its interpretation without winning elections.

    "Playing to the middle" does not have to mean being mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy zombies that kiss Republican asses.  Rather, it can mean seizing the center and everything left of it, and bringing to the public conscience the truth, and showing in a convincing way how the Republicans are right-wing extremists and why the Republican policies on the issues are to be feared.  

    John Kerry did not do this well.  But Bill Clinton did.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

    by sunbro on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 08:55:11 PM PDT

    •  What?

      "Bringing "unwanted babies" (i.e. babies that would have been aborted as zygotes or fetuses if abortion had been legal) into the world IMHO is not doing the child a favor."

      Thanks.  I was born in 1968 before "choice" and I was wanted by my adoptive parents.  It wouldn't have been a favor to me to kill me in the womb.  I did not grow up to be a criminal.  While I understand the concept of privacy used in Roe vs. Wade please don't tell me you would be doing me a favor by killing me in the womb.  Thanks.  

      by RA on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 11:00:25 PM PDT

      •  You're lucky

        in that your adoptive parents must have been very loving for you to feel the way you do.

        Many unwanted children are subjected to child abuse and tortured for years.  Not every unwanted child is adopted by well-adjusted adults.

        How much better if aborted before the clump of cells is even conscious, before it can even feel pain, than to undergo cruelty and torture, which is still much more common than you would probably like to believe.  The world can be a very ugly place, and the child often has no knowledge of how to get out of the situation before they are subjected to hell on earth.

        by sunbro on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 11:37:40 PM PDT

        •  Keep believing...

          You can keep believing what you want.  My sister was also adopted.  My sister-in-law was also adopted.  I have met many people in my life who have been adopted because they were born before 1973 and I've never met one that wished he or she were never born.  But believe what you need to believe to get you through the night...

          by RA on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 11:43:07 PM PDT

          •  I understand your side of this.

            I have nothing against adoption.  People will still be adopting children if abortion is legal.

            You sound very black and white in your thinking.  You do not seem to be able to see another person's viewpoint.  I see my viewpoint as the one more sensitive to the pain of others.  I'm sorry that we do not agree.  I don't see you as a monster, as you probably see me;  rather, I see you as living in a fantasy land where everyone is able to deal with life itself, no matter how horrible the circumstances.  I don't see life that way.  In my experience, most people I see every day are hurting inside, even though their public persona does not reveal that.

            I would feel more guilty for being the cause of a world where there are lots and lots of people that don't have at least one parent that gives a damn about them.

            Birth is only the first step of life.  Life is difficult even if you are born with the advantages that most of us were.  Try to live life when, from the day you are born, you enter into life where no one cares.  Then, in many cases, you have 100 more horrible years to live.  Life is generally not a bowl of cherries.  Being born without caring people around you is even worse.

            by sunbro on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 11:59:05 PM PDT

          •  Your comment.

            I have met many people in my life who have been adopted because they were born before 1973 and I've never met one that wished he or she were never born.

            From my experience, people do not tell you that they wish they were never born, unless you share an intimacy level with them that is seldom achieved, even in marriages and close friendships.  The incentive for revealing a feeling this personal and private to an individual, simply does not exist.

            But believe what you need to believe to get you through the night...

            This comment presumes that there is guilt on my part for having the beliefs that I do.  To the contrary, I believe that I am one of the kindest, most caring people I have ever known.  I believe what I do precisely because I do not want to see others experiencing pain.

            From what I have seen, most people are much more selfish in their daily lives than I am capable of being.  I am a much more loving, generous soul than you presume.
            

            by sunbro on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 12:54:52 AM PDT

      •  and of course it is all about you

        women's right are all about you, huh?

        by TeresaInPa on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:00:32 AM PDT

•  I've always agreed

  We need to find out what we have in common - first lets take care of the big stuff.

  We need our country back & our freedom back for starters.

  We need to get solvent again. We need to stop making enemies.

  We need more democrats who will FIGHT LOUD AND CLEAR AND NOT BACK DOWN UNTIL WE WIN.

  by leftout on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:33:04 PM PDT

•  So am I

  I have to be.
  I am a Christian, who cares deeply about Christian values. Plenty of the posters here are agnostic, atheist, Buddist, Deist, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Taoist or various other*. That doesn't mean that we can't share common ground on the things that unite us, while respecting the things that make us different.
  It is a political party, not a college frat. Lockstep is for fascists.
  *alphabetical order, for the easily offended :)

  by IsraelHand on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:33:56 PM PDT

  •  Nice one

    "It is a political party, not a college frat"
    Superb quote.  Consider it stolen.

    by MHB on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:44:15 PM PDT

    •  You are welcome.

      Aphorisms-R-Us.

      by IsraelHand on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:51:20 PM PDT

    •  Nice Deux

      "Lockstep is for fascists". Consider that one stolen too :-)

      by Cletus from Canuckistan on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 09:20:53 PM PDT

  •  just to be clear, though....

    being Christian doesn't equal being anti-choice. Lot's of people from all sides of the culture wars forget that basic fact.

    by MonkeyDog102 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:34:44 PM PDT

    •  I should have added:

      "Christian values" don't necessarily translate into opposition to choice on the issue of abortion.

      by MonkeyDog102 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:35:42 PM PDT

•  Only person I'm for keeping out of the tent...

  ...is Karl the Clown.

  by ilona on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:34:08 PM PDT

  •  But no Irish!

    Ahhh, hell, the Irish too!

    by IsraelHand on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:35:33 PM PDT

•  Walking a tightrope

  it's a political art.

  Taylor voted against the tax cuts in 2001, if I recall correctly.

  It's not the size of tent, it's how many people are in it. I think we have a large tent, but people who can fit in haven't came in.

  by RBH on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:34:30 PM PDT

•  As long as the party platform

  maintains a pro-choice position, I don't object.  

  by tjb22 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:34:40 PM PDT

  •  platform?

    Is pro-choice even part of the platform? I would loved to be proven wrong but I don't see it on the dem party website anywhere.

    by sassy texan on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:39:30 PM PDT

    •  its listed in the 2004

      democratic party platform book...I just googled it.

      by tjb22 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:44:37 PM PDT

      •  thank you

        I did the same. Should have been the first place I went. I do wish it were somewhere on the party website, but maybe I am just missing it there too. Thanks again.

        by sassy texan on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:46:55 PM PDT

        •  hehe...

          I didn't even look at the party website...guess I should, huh?

          by tjb22 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:49:02 PM PDT

          •  do party platforms

            have anything to do with the price of salt?

            by MonkeyDog102 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:36:32 PM PDT

            •  yes and no

              If they back up their platform with action it's worth its weight in gold. If not, it's worthless.

              by sassy texan on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:46:57 PM PDT

•  Big tent doesn't have to mean a tent without.....

  a core.  As long as the core is there, as long as every big tent Democrat supports every other big tent Democrat, liberals, moderates, and conservative Democrats alike, the big tent is still an asset to the Democrats.

  by Cathy on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:35:48 PM PDT

•  That's why Taylor IS a Democrat

  Because the Democratic party is a big tent.  

  Taylor has been approached a number of times to switch parties but he has refused because he has stated that he believes the Democratic party still offers the best hope for working people.  He probably also knows that he can maintain his independence far more in the Democratic party than the GOP.

  Thanks for posting this info on him.  I was wondering why I hadn't seen any interviews with him given that his district was one of the hardest hit.

  by lombard on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:36:05 PM PDT

  •  True

    Because a Democrat in Congress is NOT a Republican who will vote for someone like Frist, Lott et all for Majority Leader. That is another good reason to vote for a Democrat and be a Democrat. We may disagree on some issues but in the end, we need to work together and unite.
    We can do more together than apart even if we disagree.

    by wishingwell on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:44:51 PM PDT

    •  all is fine

      until you have a republican president who offers up a supreme court nominee that might remove the right to choose...

      then it doesn't matter who the speaker is or the majority leader is.  at the point, you just hope that they'll play ball, support fillibusters and/or vote against their personal beliefs..  but i guess you'd make sure that none of these "loose cannons" would have a seat on the judiciary committee.

      in the mean time, if you don't win majorities, you make your position more tenuous on these issues in the hope that maybe next time, you'll get to the point of having majorities.. etc etc.

      by bill in wa on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:55:22 PM PDT

    •  Remember, though...

      Taylor has never voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.  In both of the Congresses since she was elected Leader, he has voted for John Murtha (D-PA) for Speaker.  So voting for him means less than you'd think.

      by lorax on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:15:01 PM PDT

      •  If he were the 218th Democrat...

        it seems to me that we at least wouldn't be stuck with Hastert and the Republican leadership.  
        The initial vote for Speaker, if Taylor behaved as in the past two Congresses, would be 217 Pelosi, 217 Hastert, 1 Murtha. With no candidate having a majority, they'd go to a second round.  I would hope Taylor would then vote for Pelosi, but at worst it seems to me we could compromise on Murtha or some other "centrist" Democratic Speaker-- which, with Democratic committee chairs, is still a much better situation than a House led by Hastert and DeLay and so on.

        So while Taylor isn't as good as a Democrat who consistently votes for Pelosi, he's still a lot better than a Republican.

        by David on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 07:46:36 PM PDT

        •  and because we have run fresh out of pro-choice

          democrats he will have to do.

          </sarcasm>

          by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 10:02:17 PM PDT

          •  The numbers for his district...

            suggest that it's very conservative, as districts represented by a Democrat go.  Taylor's constituents voted for Bush over Kerry by 68% to 31%, and for Bush over Gore by 65% to 33%.  The question isn't whether we've run out of pro-choice Democrats, but whether we've run out of pro-choice Democrats who could win in a district like that.

            True, there does seem to be at least one such Democrat in the entire country: Chet Edwards pulled off a win in a 70-30 Bush-Kerry, 68-32 Bush-Gore district (albeit one in Texas that we'd expect to have an extra pro-Bush skew beyond its basic ideological alignment) while voting against even the "partial-birth abortion" ban.  So it's not completely impossible.  But as far as being disturbed about the rise of antichoice Democrats, it seems to me that there are much bluer districts and states to focus on where the voters would be a lot more receptive to a pro-choice representative.  (In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I still disagree with those who would purge someone like Casey Jr. or Reid from the party, but the argument makes more sense to me as to Democrats like them than it does with respect to someone representing a constituency like Taylor's.)

            by David on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:33:52 AM PDT

            •  or maybe the right pro-choice candidate

              can win when they talk to people about the other issues that matter.  
              

              by TeresaInPa on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:42:44 AM PDT

            •  also...no one is saying purge Reid or Casey

              but they don't deserve a seat in the senate just because they want one.  No one is gauranteed public office.

              by TeresaInPa on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:44:29 AM PDT

•  I too completely agree.

  We need to praise people on the things they do RIGHT, and be tolerant of positions that differ from ours, at least long enough to be able to discuss them.  Refusing polite discussion is too much like BushCo for me.  Persuasion is a great tool, and it works more often than outright dismissal.

  by Gabriele Droz on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:36:29 PM PDT

  •  Democrats

    Can be the Party of Tolerance and Diversity.

    by wishingwell on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:45:41 PM PDT

  •  or we can just refuse to support someone

    we disagree with.  It's called voting and it is our right.

    by TeresaInPa on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:07:01 AM PDT

•  Fine with me

  As long as he doesn't go off the reservation. If people along the Gulf Coast have no more pressing worries at the present juncture than how they are going to deter abortions, then they need to get their asses to a shelter and hand out some fucking soup. I think the victims of the storm would draw comfort from someone from the region speaking on their behalf, for no other reason than to counter Haley "Bulbous Nose" Barbour.

  by mrblifil on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:36:43 PM PDT

•  Makes a hell of a lot of sense!

  But, I am still waiting for someone to speak up firmly and loudly re:  disability rights, as opposed to paying lip service.
  

  by Street Kid on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:37:43 PM PDT

•  Agreed

  100%

  I saw Mr. Taylor on CSPAN the other night and was completely taken by him.  He could talk all he wanted to, IMHO.  

  In the county I live in in MI, progressive folks helped a more socially conservative Dem win a seat in the statehouse from a Republican.  Guess what? That's one more seat for the minority party on our way to being the majority party.   The lesson:  get more D's governing for a better future.

  by Matt in AA on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:37:48 PM PDT

  •  However

    as I note above, Taylor isn't a vote for Pelosi, because he hasn't yet voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House.  He voted in both Congresses for John Murtha (D-PA) for speaker.  So we can talk about having "party loyalty" to Taylor but he has no loyalty to Pelosi.  It's entirely possible that would could win the majority by one voted in 2006 but that he wouldn't vote for Pelosi and we'd be stuck with Speaker Hastert.

    by lorax on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:17:03 PM PDT

    •  In that case

      the vote would be 217-217, and the 110th Congress would be thrown into chaos.  I don't know the Rules of the House well enough to be able to say what the final result would be.  

      by mkrell on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:20:33 PM PDT

      •  Indeed

        So let's be careful before we deify a man who threatens to throw the House of Representatives into constitutional chaos.

        by lorax on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:32:42 PM PDT

        •  The point is

          it isn't clear whether we would be stuck with Speaker Hastert.

          by mkrell on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:49:37 PM PDT

          •  Either way

            the outcome is undesirable, thanks to Rep. Taylor.

            He also voted to impeach President Clinton.  I can't forgive that shit.

            by lorax on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:00:41 PM PDT

            •  I can accept that.

              I didn't like his impeachment vote myself.  But he seriously thinks that the President should be held to a higher moral standard.

              And yes, I'm aware of the irony in that statement - but I don't think Mr. Taylor is.

              by mkrell on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:05:27 PM PDT

            •  I absolutely agree

              ...this is unforgivable and always will be.

              by v2aggie2 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 10:38:13 PM PDT

        •  If worse came to worse

          I'm sure that Rep. Taylor can be persuaded (or pressured) to switch his vote to Pelosi if it will mean the Democratic party will come back into power.  After all, he would stand to gain a commitee (or at least a subcommitee) chairmanship should Nancy Pelosi become the first female Speaker of the House.

          This sort of thing was common during the 19th and early 20th centuries, with breakaway factions becomming kingmakers.

          And, no I don't think he would switch to the GOP especially given the current political climate.  If he was inclined to do so, he could have done it countless times during the past 10 years.

          by dietznbach on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:43:37 PM PDT

          •  I hope you're right

            by lorax on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:48:53 PM PDT

      •  Correct me if I'm wrong but....

        I believe that the House would keep calling roll call votes until one of the Speaker candidates received a majority.

        This is how they handled it in the past when third parties or breakaway factions prevented any one party from attaining a majority for Speaker.

        by dietznbach on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:48:15 PM PDT

  •  Agrred

    Emulating the Republicans is not something I usually advocate.
    But this weekend the very conservative California Republicans gave a rousing applause to a man who is pro choice, anti gun and okay with gays and a womanizer, everything they are against.
    But they know that Arnold is the only chance they have to win in California even though he is no longer a shoo in.
    There are certain States or districts that the only way to win is to be at least a little conservative.
    We might not like it but it is a fact of life.
    Do we want to be on the outside forever or incrementally change things.

    by Yonk on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 10:07:20 PM PDT

    •  You point to Arnold?

      They Republicans cheered him because he came out against gay marriage after all. He gave in to their pressure, and they were expressing their approval.

      by media girl on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 08:57:50 AM PDT

•  We got the message. Still here for now.

  I got the message and posted this diary.
  Democrats for Life and Third Way are after the women again

  Before that I posted this diary.  
  The DCCC fundraiser and me, a tale of anger and arrogance.

  I won't hear back from the DCCC, you know.  We see the bigger picture.  

  Women must be silent for the good of the party.  Let them have their way with our rights, while we sit quietly.  

  Be sure to read the post in the first diary by the priest.  He met with Howard Dean at the same time as the Democrats for Life.  He says that control of birth control is already underway.  

  I trust Howard Dean on this, but he may not have a choice.

  To all the men in the party who think our rights are negotiable, you might be surprised in the future.

  Single issue, my my.  Keep it up.  The angrier you get women, the more organized we will get before next year.
  

  by floridagal on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:39:48 PM PDT

  •  I'm confused

    as to what the D trip and DFL have to do with Armando's post.

    From what I can tell, Armando is arguing for a big tent, and is using a particular pro-life representative, who he has otherwise found common ground with, as an example.

    He even goes out of his way to say that he disagrees with him on every social issue, and will go round and round with Taylor on those.

    You don't believe we can have pro-life Dems and still be a pro-choice party?

    by AnnArborBlue on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:47:39 PM PDT

    •  Then you have not read what I wrote.

      I had a wake-up call on this from the Telefund, and it is not going to be a big-tent party for us.

      It may be a big-tent party for the people who are anti-choice, which is a minority by the way.  

      But it is not going to be a big-tent party for women any longer.  We have known that.  Of course it has to do with his diary.  

      by floridagal on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:52:05 PM PDT

      •  I did read what you wrote

        I read that diary and the one it linked to when you posted them yesterday or the day before.

        I'm just trying to figure out where your position is. Are you of the opinion that Dems can't have any pro-life members? That they shouldn't reach out to pro-life voters? I'm just trying to get a handle on where the "big tent" line is for you.

        by AnnArborBlue on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:56:39 PM PDT

        •  That is absolutely NOT what I said.

          I am so tired of people doing that...isn't there room for them stuff.

          Of course there is.  But if you read closely about these groups which are religion based, they are not willing to have it any way but theirs.

          Read up about the groups that all tied together calling everything about choice the "culture of death." They are tied to the National Right to Life group, the Feminists for Life group, and the group known as the Seamless Garment.  With those groups there is no room for compromise.

          My diaries were quite clear.  I am one of the more moderate of the Democrats.  But I do hate to be manipulated.  

          We are being manipulated, and we are not even a minority.  What will the party do to minorities if they are not willing to stand with us.

          Schumer clearly said we could not afford to worry about issues.  His own words.  He picked an anti-choice candidate because we could not afford to have a check list anymore.  

          by floridagal on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:10:39 PM PDT

          •  I didn't say you DID say that

            I was asking a question so I didn't make those sorts of false assumptions that would make things get ugly.

            Schumer is personally one of the more pro-choice members of the Senate, so I don't quite buy that he's trying to sell women's rights down the river. I agree with Kos and Armando that getting Republicans out of power will serve Choice better than anything else, and I'm guessing that's Schumer's strategy too. That being said, I do understand why people completely disagree with that strategy. It's not without risk by any means. I just don't see a better alternative. And Republican majorities for too much longer really ARE going to destroy the right to choose.

            by AnnArborBlue on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:25:04 PM PDT

  •  I hear you . . .

    As a gay man I've essentially been thrown overboard by the Democratic along with my godchildren, my partner, and a bunch of LGBT people.

    That's why I ended up getting even more involved after the election.  I'm hell bent on making people accountable.  Why should my governor forget me and work to screw me over in the election and then turn around and ask for money?

    It's a tricky thing.  I'm angry, but I'm trying to change the party.

    by Matt in AA on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:49:58 PM PDT

    •  Me too!

      I am so angry, I had to take action and that's why I created Ad Nausea.   We can no longer sit back and do nothing.  We need to make our voices heard.

      by Barbara H on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:41:52 PM PDT

    •  thrown overboard?

      To you and to the woman upthread who feels abandoned by the party because of her gender, a question:

      What was it that caused you to be "thrown overboard" by the party? Was it something someone said, or maybe didn't say? Was it that Democrats lost across the board? Was it when they passed a certain law?

      I ask not to be flippant, but because the sentiment is pretty widespread and I'm curious where the sense eminates from.

      by Outlandish Josh on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:48:28 PM PDT

      •  We're treading water

        Women have felt this party has taken our votes, our commitment and our loyalty for granted for many years.  We've worked hard for this party, we've stood behind presidential candidates, we've done all the 'dirty' work like phonebanking, walking precincts, having coffee parties for candidates, recruited candidates for local office, had bake sales, organized debates in our communities, etc., and never demanded much of anything.  

        We've supported candidates pretty much carte blanche and never heard our issues addressed, issues like health care, subsidized daycare, equal education, sex discrimination, violence against women, the glass ceiling, equal wage, true welfare reform, deadbeat fathers, a higher minimum wage.  We've waited quietly in the hopes that one day our rights would make it to the top tier of the party platform.

        For 33 years Roe has been challenged 38 times.  It has been upheld but not without our reproductive rights sustaining serious cutbacks.  Federal funding for abortions was eliminated.  Federal funding for women on overseas military bases was eliminated even though it is a known fact that women in the military are raped and one-fourth of those rapes result in pregnancy.  Information about abortion has been eliminated from any public hospital or clinic that is federally funded.  Sex education has been scrubbed and in its place is abstinence only education.  

        With the Bush administration in power abortion has become a lightning rod issue.  Instead of the Democratic leadership standing behind women and protecting our rights to choose they have instead endorsed and supported Democrats for Life.  This is a group that believes life begins at conception.  It is a group that believes it is murder to have an abortion.  They don't support embryonic stem cell research because embryos are life.   Even the embryos that would be thrown away if not used are life so they cannot be used for research to save life or to raise the quality of life.

        For these reasons and more women feel like we have been sold out.  Our leadership panders to the pro-life rightwing, they support, promote and recruit candidates that are Hall of Fame, All Stars for the Democrats for Life group.  

        One thing that separates women now from years past and why we have become more vocal about our rights is for one very good reason, our right to live has become paramount in our feeling abandoned.  A funny thing happened on this party's way to compromising so many of our rights away to the rightwing, we saw our lives flash in front of our eyes and we decided to choose life over politics.  If you think the impact of the loss of abortion rights will not be death to thousands and thousands of women in this country you don't understand what we have to lose.

        That is why, in a nutshell, we feel abandoned by the Democratic Party.

        by caliberal on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 07:35:39 PM PDT

      •  In Michigan

        last fall, Proposal 2 was on the ballot.  It was a not-very-clear amendment to the state constitution which essentially made man-woman marriage the only possible marriage in Michigan according to the state consitution.  

        At the state Dem convention, there was a move by progressive Democrats to write into our platform that the Dem party encouraged its members to vote against it.  It was very close to passing until the state chair said he had spoken to some of our "allies" running the "Defeat Proposal 2" campaign and said they didn't support the move to encourage people to vote no.  So the Dem party decided to encourage Democrats to "educate themselves" on same sex marriage.  Lame-o.

        It was a cop out.  Now the talibangelicals are trying to take away health benefits given by the state (which means cities, school districs, and Michigan State and University of Michigan), and the ACLU has sued the state for clarifcation.  

        Our governor?  After a laughable silence in the runup to the election, after sending a feckless employee to the post-election state convention to talk to the GLBT caucus in early 2005, and after saying she supports "family values" and the 10 Commandments in the Statehouse,  Democrat Jennifer Granholm is up for reelection and is asking the GLBT Community for money.  

        Why does she want our money?  She's done NOTHING for us.  Forget that she's appointed a few gay judges.  Seriously.  Forget that.  That's not going to help my godson when he loses his health benefits because he's got 2 mommies.  And she was largely silent.

        She says it's because John Kerry told state parties to remain silent and not to push it.  That's a bunch of bull.
        If the Kerry campaign did that, then shame on them.

        I want Democrats to stand up and say that it's not about writing religion into the constitution.  It's about treating people fairly.  It's about making sure the other members of our American Community are treated well and treated fairly.

        But they dithered.  And now they want my money?  

        by Matt in AA on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 08:31:07 PM PDT

  •  So what do you propose?

    Do you  really think we can get a pro-choice candidate elected in this particular Mississippi district?  What is to be gained by cold-shouldering this particular Southern Democrat? Would you rather Republican social conservative hold this seat?

    Armando is NOT saying we should abandon our principles to elect Democrats.  He is saying we should welcome successful Democrats even if they aren't pro choice.  BIG DIFFERENCE.

    Remember: a vote for this guy is a vote for Speaker Pelosi.

    by tylerh on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 03:53:58 PM PDT

    •  vote for a Democratic Speaker

      Don't get me wrong, I love Gene Taylor - he is a populist who supports working people and who doesn't believe in deficit spending without accountability.  However, it is doubtful he would actually vote for Pelosi.  He normally votes for John Murtha for Speaker.  His district is so conservative he really doesn't have any choice.  But, it would be very interesting to see what he would do if the control of the House depended on his vote.

      by angry boomer on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:13:09 PM PDT

      •  heh

        But, it would be very interesting to see what he would do if the control of the House depended on his vote.

        My guess is his leadership vote looks a lot like my NY-state Nader vote in 2000, exercising an option when you know your participation is immaterial.

        by Outlandish Josh on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:40:34 PM PDT

  •  No Democrat thinks women's rights are negotiable

    But lots of us, women as well as men, think that abortion is not a right that anyone can claim.  This is true even for many who believe that abortion should be kept legal.  

    I fully appreciate that for many women, access to abortion, if needed, has been a key factor in being able to avoid being trapped in an apparently impossible life, even if you never choose to have an abortion.  

    But for many of us, that can never make it a right, even if some of us could be convinced that it may be good policy to keep it legal.

    I never hear pro-life Democrats calling and women or doctors "murderers" or advocating an end to birth control or any of the hyperboles that you or others accuse us of here on these blogs.  But I do hear you calling people, women included, "misogynist", or worse, because they happen to believe that abortion is a wrong and not a right.  That is extremely disempowering and disrespectful of the life experiences of others who want to be in the Democratic tent as much as you.  

    I have no problem with single issue organizing.  It is the most effective way to get things done in politics today.  I have no problem with NARAL supporting Republicans.  It makes perfect sense for them to do that, NOT because they need Republican support, but because it forces Democrats to focus on the issue.  That's how single issue politics works.

    But hurling insults at pro-lifers, especially Democratic ones, is contrary to everything that party building is about.  The party that wins is the one that gets more people who disagree with each other about very fundemental things to vote for the same person.  Please stop trying to drive us pro-lifers out with the insulting and unsupported accusation that being against abortion rights means being against women.  

    by eastsidedemocrat on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:16:04 PM PDT

    •  You are wrong on one thing.

      The president of the Democrats of Life in 1997, still active with them....gave a speech in TX and said that abortion was essentially murder and then she brought up Judgement Day.

      I also wrote a diary about that speech.  

      They are not about to give an inch once they get a foothold.

      by floridagal on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:20:53 PM PDT

      •  To say that abortion is murder

        is not the same as calling women or doctors murderers.  War is murder, and illegal most of the time, but we don't usually call soldiers murderers either.  

        by eastsidedemocrat on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:35:47 PM PDT

        •  Yes, it is the same thing.

          If a person says it is murder, then the one having it committed murder.  It is a serious accusation.  It should not be made lightly.

          Our party has some very big decisions to make.  Decisions have great consequences.

          by floridagal on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:42:37 PM PDT

          •  It is not made lightly,

            but neither is blame being placed.  As I said before.  We do not generally condemn soldiers as murderers, even though we all agree that war is tragic and should be stopped, and that murdering is, in fact, what soldiers do there.

            Why are you so suddenly seeing the world in only black and white on this particular issue?

            by eastsidedemocrat on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 08:17:27 PM PDT

            •  This is a complex issue.

              It is about men in mostly religious based groups getting together and deciding about the role of women in society.  

              It is not a black and white issue, and anyone who sees it that way is either in denial or being simplistic in their thinking.

              by floridagal on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 10:12:18 PM PDT

              •  I agree, but I've seen many of these groups,

                and women are in leadership roles there as often, if not more so, then men.  And no one ever talks about "women's role" in society.  What they do say, and that might be setting you on edge, is that women, and men, should not have to feel pressured by society to be career-oriented any more than they should be pressured to be homemakers.  I don't find anything objectionable about that, particularly when it is women saying it.  Do you?

                Yes, there are a few creeps that show up sometimes in such groups, as in any group, but despite the press they get such people are not the norm among pro-lifers, particularly among those prone to vote Democrat.  

                by eastsidedemocrat on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:21:39 AM PDT

        •  sorry

          but this fails logic 101.

          If you drive a car, you are a driver. If you eat something you are an eater. And so on.

          The problem here may be that people use the term "murder" in different ways. Whether or not something is "murder" is either a technical legal question determined by precise matters of law or a question of whether "murder" is an appropriate metaphor to apply to a particular act of violence - an argument which depends on people's ethical beliefs. People can argue about whether killing animals is "murder" for example, and thus about whether or not it is ethical to kill animals, without thinking that the killing of animals should be punished by law.

          If you are arguing on the metaphorical level, then to say that abortion is murder is the same thing as saying that the people who perform them are murderers - on a metaphorical level. I.e, that they are morally responsible for a horrendous act, but not that they are guilty of committing a violation of law. This would be the same thing as saying that killing people in war is murder.

          If you are saying it in a technical legal sense, then you would of course be wrong - at least for the time being.

          The problem here, is that when many people who are opposed to abortion call abortion "murder," they not only mean it on the methaphorical level but also that the act SHOULD be included within the technical definition of the crime we call 'murder.'

          I hope that helps clear things up.

          By the way, if you think abortion is "murder," do you think it should be punished as such? I.e., that it should be included within the legal definition of the crime?

          by MonkeyDog102 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:57:31 PM PDT

          •  You're missing the point that

            even if it were to be legally called murder, it does not have to follow that criminal repercussions must follow.  There are some horrendous acts that we, as a society, allow to happen for the simple reason that we can't figure out a better way to do it.  We still mostly agree that it is wrong and often even criminal to partake in warfare, but soldiers are usually not called criminals or murderers, even though most would admit that murdering is precisely what they are doing in war, and that most wars are, techincally, in violation of treaties, including the adventure that got us into Iraq.

            by eastsidedemocrat on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 08:25:04 PM PDT

            •  No, you're missing the point

              We don't call all killing murder.  People who call soldiers murderers generally do think they have committed a crime, and people who don't think they have committed a crime don't call them murderers.  Murder is not the only kind of killing, we have homocide, self-defense, and all kinds of shades that describe different situations and balances of the rights of different people, and abortion is one of these terms.

              If you call it murder rather than any other term, you're saying the person who does it is a murderer.  If you're saying it's murder and should be against the law because it's murder, then you're either saying a person who does it should be prosecuted as a murderer, or you're just twisting the language.  You might have a leg to stand on if you called it homocide, but that doesn't have the same emotional impact, does it?
              

              by Redshift on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 10:02:22 PM PDT

              •  Murder is killing

                when it should not have had to happen.  Most soldiers I've met who have killed do believe they murdered, but not that they were wrong, personally, for doing so, given the situation.  By recognizing that war results in murder, even when legal, we can all try to work towards ending war and making it less destructive (not that we have a good record of doing that, mind you).  

                The same goes for abortion as an institution.  Most pro-lifers would not want to criminalize people who participate in it if, as a society, there was a general agreement that abortion is wrong and we could focus on the question of how best to reduce its practice while protecting individual freedoms.  We are a long way from that, based on the number of people who advocate that abortion is a good and responsible thing.

                by eastsidedemocrat on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:37:19 AM PDT

                •  Guess we'll have to disagree

                  on the murder thing.  If you're talking about soldiers' feelings, then that's a different arena.  But when you're saying something should be illegal because it's murder, you're talking about the legal definition of murder, or you're being dishonest.

                  On the "most pro-lifers would not want to criminalize it," I call bullshit.  In fact, most on the pro-choice side would much rather be focusing on how best to reduce abortion while protecting individual freedoms, but the pro-life side is more concerned with everyone agreeing that it's wrong, and only supporting measures that purport to get rid of it completely, not reduce it (and if that's not what the rank-and-file pro-lifers want, they should damn well stop supporting leaders who do.)  Look at the steady stream of anti-abortion laws that are struck down solely because they fail Roe v. Wade's "life and health of the mother" exemption -- are those an honest effort to reduce abortion?

                  You claim that the opposites the two sides supposedly believe are "wrong" and "good."  But those aren't opposites.  I can believe something is not wrong, and also not good.  I believe that it's good that abortion is legal, because it's less bad than the alternatives in so many cases.  I believe that it's good for abortion to be relatively unrestricted, because it's less bad for some people to have abortions for what pro-lifers would consider insufficient justification than for a great many more people already in terrible circumstances to have to go through onerous government procedures and expose their personal life to official scrutiny.

                  So show me pro-life Democrats whose primary focus is on reducing abortion and not on imposing legal restrictions (such as Tim Kaine, who's running for governor here in Virginia), and I have no problem working with them.  They're not hard to spot -- they're the ones Republicans call "not really pro-life."

                  by Redshift on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 09:13:21 AM PDT

                  •  "Not really pro-life"

                    is what Republicans call virtually all pro-life Democrats.  

                    Harry Reid is a pro-life Democrat and is representative of the typical position of not just pro-life Democrats, but most people who identify themselves as pro-life.  Only the extremeists want to lock anyone up, but pro-lifers do want a societal committment to reduce abortions, both by reducing occurences of unwanted pregnancy, AND by WANTING the children that result from them in demostrable ways.

                    by eastsidedemocrat on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:34:14 AM PDT

                    •  but the problem here

                      is that the extremists are driving the politics, right? And that is what is worrisome to a lot of people around here about working with Democrats who identify as pro-life: that it will end up helping the extremists, and the next thing you know we will all end up in the equivalent of A Handmaid's Tale.

                      It sure is a valid concern, ain't it?

                      by MonkeyDog102 on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:11:17 PM PDT

                      •  Single issue politics give extremists power

                        This does not mean that all single issue people are extremists, but that most extremists are single issue people.  

                        Most pro-lifers, and virtually all pro-life Democrats, are not single issue people.  This means that they are not leading the battle on pro-life issues, but that they can be counted on to collaborate with the single-issue pro-life leaders on some of them.  The single issue people need them, so they have a bargaining position.  

                        This is no different than the pro-choice side of the debate.  Most pro-choice people, and virtually all pro-choice Republicans, are also not single issue people.   But pro-choice folks can count on them in some key battles.

                        The single issue people on both sides gain power by being able to threaten their friendly party by endorsing friendly supporters of their issue in the hostile party.  This keeps their issue at the top of the agenda of the friendly party, even as it works against the friendly party's immediate interests in winning elections.  It's smart politics whether NARAL does it or National Right to Life.  But it makes life for us multi-issues partisans much more difficult.  It's supposed to, and it's just as valid a part of democracy as being a partisan Democrat is.

                        by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 07:33:33 AM PDT

    •  Please point out the insults I made.

      Your quote: "But hurling insults at pro-lifers, especially Democratic ones, is contrary to everything that party building is about.  The party that wins is the one that gets more people who disagree with each other about very fundemental things to vote for the same person.  Please stop trying to drive us pro-lifers out with the insulting and unsupported accusation that being against abortion rights means being against women."

      Please point to the insults I made.  I think if you accuse, you should provide the source of what you say.  

      I am all for a big tent party that is not going to do away with a right to choose an abortion...legal under Roe v Wade...and the right to birth control pills...not just condoms and abstinence.

      I don't think religious groups should be determining the issues of either party.  

      And yes, many Democrats are very willing to give up the rights of women to choose their medical ca