So, nasty and underhanded lying doesn’t work? Oh.
I’ve personally no interest in the Democrats winning the House, to not have a misunderstanding on that. However I still didn’t make the statement from the POV of sabotaging anybody. And I trust Democratic candidates and party as a whole can look out for their own interests whatever I say.
I just don’t see the credibility of Democrats essentially pretending, what it amounts to, they are pro-life to go join a caucus in the House in particular (Senate is more of a herd of cats, it’s true) completely opposed to that position and where they will be asked mainly to be loyal members of the caucus.
Some issues you can’t fudge. The same somewhat applies when the GOP is down in the mouth after electoral setbacks and there’s the inevitable call to de-emphasize abortion. Which as I said is a little more credible since just dropping the issue means accepting a long time status quo of generally legal abortion, whereas pro-life implies an active effort to change laws (and relevant court decisions via different kinds of federal judges). Some Democrat for the House is going to go to DC and crusade with the GOP to change Roe/related laws…I don’t see any mystery why that can so seldom be carried off without candidates and voters jointly bursting into laughter. If X target district is to go from GOP to Democratic, enough voters have to accept the reality that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for pro-choice. Perez’ questionable symbolic flourish doesn’t change the underlying political reality.
Sometimes it just doesn’t pay to get out of bed in the morning.
Simply put Democrats can’t have a national majority that can implement legislation without a significant pro-life contingent.
Word. I doubt it is coincidental that Perez reached this epiphany right after Bernie campaigned with the pro-life guy in Omaha. Looks like this is the talking point of the week for the party hacks who have led the party to its lowest nadir in living memory, and are now desperately trying to marginalize the most popular politician in the country.
Did the Democrats in 2009 have a significant pro-life contingent? By what measure?
Seems to me that they had 54 Senators who favored federal funding of abortion, to say nothing of how many opposed making abortion illegal. They didn’t have a majority in favor of federal funding on the House side, but they weren’t far from it. And I have no reason to believe they didn’t have a majority on keeping abortion legal.
So what am I missing?
Not so much the Senate, but The House. Remember how much last minute horse trading had to happen on Obamacare to get it thru the House-- all about abortion. Or was that even to get it thru the Senate?
Kinda depends, doesn’t it. I find Joe Biden’s position on the issue entirely acceptable, in that he is personally against abortion but recognizes the right to choose, and is committed to honoring it. Just read a thing in Rolling Stone about the statistical disparity in the term pro-life, when it is examined in the light of a Biden type stance, or an “overturn Roe v Wade” position.
(Your correspondent from the conservative wing of the extreme left does not vouch nor authenticate these numbers, he is an admitted mathtard who cannot bluff without getting caught.)
And off the actual pulsing point here: the guy is running for Mayor of Omaha, Nebraska. Not at all sure this is worth having a knife-fight about.
Actually, that Rolling Stones article referenced above has some pretty good insights to offer, worth a read and concise. No chop-socky, but Joe Bob 'luc says “Check it out!”
I think that’s about right. There have been lots of studies showing that a good chunk of people who self-identify as “pro-life” are not in the camp of wanting to make abortion illegal. They may often support more stringent restrictions on abortion than we have now, but they don’t want it to be across the board illegal.
And of course we all know that overturning Roe would not “end legal abortion”. Right? I wish the press would not keep getting that wrong.
This. Pro-life Democrats such as Bart Stupak were absolutely critical to the ACA’s passage.
The two Senators mentioned in the article as big name pro-life Democrats are both up for reelection in 2018. Both are frequently mentioned in the seats at risk discussion. The DNC chair just promised to not provide party support to two at-risk incumbents if they win the primary. He may have also indirectly encouraged an inside the party fight about abortion in those and other primary races.
What could go wrong?
Seems like quite a stretch to say that since the ACA required the support of a handful of pro-life Dems, it follows that it’s impossible for dems to govern without a significant number of pro-life dems.
I personally do not rate the abortion opinions of federal politicians very high up on my priorities. I certainly wouldn’t want to make a litmus test out of it UNLESS I thought it would win us more votes overall. I’m not so convinced it won’t.
No, it would only end it for basically all lower income and poor people in vast swaths of the middle of the country. If you live in Mississippi or Oklahoma, and you’re struggling to make ends meet, it’s not like you can just jet off to NY or California to get one.
How about Mexico?
Step 1: Get a passport.
Step 2: Travel almost 1,000 miles to go from Jackson (on the Western side of MS) to Monterrey (on the Eastern side of MX), just to pick two cities on the closer sides of each area. I have no idea of Monterrey would work.
Terrible mistake. Ever since the Republicans killed the Stupak Amendment just because that was the only part of the ACA they could kill, the Democrats have had the opportunity to sell themselves as the only pro-life party in the country (as well as the only pro-choice party). Their continued failure to do so is idiotic, and this just makes it worse.
And that’s on top of the fact that purity tests for a party are always a mistake, no matter what the issue. In some areas of the country, it’s an uphill climb to get a member of your party elected at all, and so you take what you can get.
I concur.
Fercryinoutloud, over the past few years we tolerated a metric ton of candidates running as far away from the ACA as they could. Alison Grimes, who ran for Senate in Kentucky in 2014, was not only one of those, but she wouldn’t even say if she voted for Obama in 2012. If we can put up with that sort of thing, we can surely accept pro-life Dems. :smack:
I would disagree with this. There have to be some non-negotiable issues, just as a matter of party definition.
Just for one example, we Dems can argue about what the minimum wage should be, but if someone was against the existence of a legally mandated minimum wage altogether, and still wanted to call themselves a Democrat, well, nuts to that. Our tent’s not that big, nor should it be. If we’re gonna be the party that’s on the side of the workers against the corporate overlords, it can’t be any other way.
Who says Democrats have to be identified this way? That sort of anti-business definition is not something that has universally defined The Democracy.
Which gets to the heart of the problem with any litmus test. Suppose you are a good Catholic. You believe, along with the Pope, that overcoming poverty is the test of our generation. But you also are an ardent believer in the the concept that ensoulment occurs at conception. Thus, you oppose abortion in all cases because you equate it with murder.
Must you be cast out of the tent because of this issue? Must you constantly question if you belong among those who think your position is absolute anathema, despite the fact that on almost all other social and economic planks you are 100% aligned with them? That’s just stupid.