The DCCC throws women under the bus

[Sue U]

so Sue, is there any single issue which would rise to the level of absolutely not, never, in terms of your support for a party? Because I think that is the issue here.

I understand your point about getting legislation passed in the areas where there is the most agreement, but I still maintain that there have to be some positions which the party will not support under any circumstances.

Well, since the actual party with which I identify is totally in sync with my views on every major and almost every minor issue, I don't really have to make that choice. When I vote for candidates other than my party's, I have to make an individual calculation of what is and is not tolerable. Here in NJ, and especially in my legislative district, I have the luxury of voting for candidates whose views are well within my range of "acceptable," even if not necessarily "preferred."

Had I lived on the PA side of the river in 2006, I probably would have held my nose and voted for Bob Casey Jr. if for no other reason than to oust the odious Santorum. Sometimes the politically necessary must take precedence over the politically preferred. (For the same reason, I held my nose and voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.) I understand perfectly well that on both social and economic issues I am often in a minority, and I am resigned to the fact that I will probably not live to see an egalitarian Socialist wave sweep away the corporatist-capitalist duopoly imposed on our political system. So I remain an optimistic incrementalist.

As for your question re voting for a party and not an individual, I see no benefit to that and a lot of downside. I could not support it.

With a party-based parliamentary system, at least you'd have a consistent and coherent plan for governing, so you'd know exactly what you were voting for. Furthermore, party candidates are not themselves beholden to individual big-money donors, and don't have to spend all their time dialing for campaign dollars rather than actually crafting policy. I think the system it lends itself to more professionalism generally, which I think is a good thing. What do you think is the downside?

[Big RR]

To advocate murdering black people because they are black - that's universally wrong

sure, but no one has even suggested murdering anyone.

And yes, unequal treatment is illegal, but that, too, could be changed, and has been (let's not forget, roe v Wade was based on the constitution too). I'm not sure what you mean by a "universal wrong".

But I take your response here to say that the less objectionable candidate should always be supported (absent some sort of a "universal wrong" coming into play); a defensible position, but one I do not subscribe to (depending on what you mean by universal wrong).

[Big RR]

Sue--

Well, since the actual party with which I identify is totally in sync with my views on every major and almost every minor issue

I can't think of the last time that happened for me, which is why I have to rank the issues in order of their importance to me; being on the other side of the most important ones is a pretty good way of losing my vote, regardless of the other candidate. But again, we are talking of party support here, taking money I choose to donate and giving it to a candidate whose views I find objectionable, even abhorrent.

As for the second question, I guess I distrust the parties more than individual candidates; it is easier to vote an individual out of office than a party, and being someone who has seen my hopes dashed by the dems over and over, I have no faith in the parties who are quick to desert their traditional supporters to court others.

[rubato]

Just when you thought Dems couldn't possibly be more unraveled than the Republicans, the DCCC Chair is proposing to fund and support anti-choice "Democratic" candidates in red states. I note the chair is a male, and that the most prominent supporter of this plan is also male (although not actually a Democrat), aka Bernie.

I'm horrified. This is about liberty, about economic parity, and about civil rights and human rights. We will not go back.

This editorial says it all, exceptionally well:

"I relate to the flailing panic that is no doubt undergirding such a morally putrescent idea. Nineteen hyenas and a broken vacuum cleaner control the White House, and ice is becoming extinct. I get it. I am desperate and afraid as well. I am prepared to make leviathan compromises to pull us back from that brink. But there is no recognizable version of the Democratic Party that does not fight unequivocally against half its constituents’ being stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives. This issue represents everything Democrats purport to stand for.

To legislatively oppose abortion is to be, at best, indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and possibly even the death of women. At worst it is to revel in those things, to believe them fundamental to the natural order. Where, exactly, on that spectrum is Luján comfortable placing his party?

Democratic candidates are perfectly welcome to refrain from terminating their own pregnancies. But to be anti-choice on a policy level is absolutely indefensible from an economic justice, racial justice, gender justice and human rights standpoint. And if the Democratic Party does not stand for any of those things, then what on earth is it?

It’s true that the left will have to choose (and soon) between absolute ideological purity and the huge numbers required to seize the rudder of the nation and avert global catastrophe. But abortion is not valid fodder for such compromise, nor is racism, nor is L.G.B.T.Q. equality, nor is any issue that puts people’s fundamental humanity up for debate. Abortion is not a fringe issue. Abortion is liberty."

NYTimesEditorial

I want a big tent. I'm fine with that tent including those personally opposed to abortion but supporting pro-choice law and policy. I want to do everything possible to make abortion rare, birth control accessible and used properly, to ensure women and men are fully educated to make their best possible choice about sex and reproduction. But I cannot and will not ever support anti-choice as a policy option. Never. Ever. I will leave the Democratic Party before I give up this core value.

Politically stupid and morally repugnant. It is politically stupid because the solid majority who support Roe v. Wade in its general outlines has not changed in 40 years. It is morally repugnant because it is the same type of cynical lying electoral manipulation which formerly was the province of the Republican party. I have never belonged to a political party so I cannot 'leave in a huff'. I am unsurprised to see Bernie, the cynic, supporting this open carbuncle of an idea.

What next? Are the going to go soft on torture? Slavery? Child sex rings?

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

LMAO!!!

Rube, what you do not know about the political dynamics in this country would fill a great many books...

[MajGenl.Meade]

But I take your response here to say that the less objectionable candidate should always be supported (absent some sort of a "universal wrong" coming into play); a defensible position, but one I do not subscribe to (depending on what you mean by universal wrong).

Yeah but in this case I'm posing an almost guaranteed Republican victor who opposes all Dem policies/beliefs being challenged by a Dem who supports all Dem policies except one.

Surely, by failing to support the Dem, the party would in effect be endorsing the Republican - ensuring a victory for a 100% objectionable candidate rather than a 98% acceptable one?

It seems the same to me as if I'd simply not voted back in November rather than holding my nose, my lunch and my bowels and voting for that awful Democrat. I found it more necessary to oppose Trump than to simply abdicate to him and voting for "the party" was not an option for once.

[Of course, if the Dem wore a KKK hood and advocated racial warfare, I'd have no problem refusing to support him/her. I don't see the abortion issue as remotely comparable to that, but think that's not appropriate to argue here]

[Big RR]

Of course, if the Dem wore a KKK hood and advocated racial warfare, I'd have no problem refusing to support him/her. I don't see the abortion issue as remotely comparable to that, but think that's not appropriate to argue here

and of course that is the point; for some the pro choice issue rises to the same level as the overt racism you are pointing out. For others it could be the endorsement of torture during interrogations, for others still, perhaps endorsement of the death penalty. And for the pragmatists, perhaps no issue will ever rise to that level, but I think most people will have a threshold limit beyond which they will not stray.

Certainly not every issue will rise to this level, but when it does, the support will not be forthcoming. And a political party ignores it at its peril. And even if the offended people may hold their collective noses and vote for someone they see as morally reprehensible, I think it likely that they will abandon the party that they feel has abandoned them.

[rubato]

The facts appear to support my statement, they generally do:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/major ... ision.aspx






http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx




yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

LOL !!!

What you're not getting here rube, is that your "fact" about polling support for Roe V. Wade in national polls is completely irrelevant to the political dynamics of congressional midterm elections, about which you know zip, zero, nada, bupkiss, sweet Fanny Adams, and fuck all...

And what your second and third graphs show is that what I understand the Democratic Party position to be (that abortion should be legal under all circumstances) has no where near majority support, clocking in currently at about 29%...

Only 11 points above the 18% that say it should be illegal under all circumstances...

The majority position shown by your "facts" in that graph is that abortion should be "legal only under certain circumstances" which obviously people interpret in a vast multitude of ways...

So as is so generally the case, the "facts" you brought to the table do not in any way support your conclusion...

[Econoline]

Charlie Pierce had a sensible comment on this (in the context of a longer post regarding "Democratic self-sabotage"):

• Congressman Ray Lujan, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [ ... ] said the DCCC would support anti-choice candidates as long as they "fit the districts" in which they're running. Realpolitik or no, it is not a smart thing to declare publicly that you're open to pitching the privacy rights of 51 percent of the population—and of what is generally your entire margin of victory around the country—overboard. If an anti-choice Democrat wants to run, you let that candidate stand up and take the heat alone, instead of telegraphing to your most loyal voters that the party establishment is open for business on this issue. Where do they find these guys?

[Jarlaxle]

Why would it be necessary to provide easy, unrestricted, inexpensive access to abortion?  After all, we all know what causes pregnancies and how to prevent them (some methods, of course, are more effective than others).  And since the latest catchphrase when it comes to coitus is that "No means No" all intimate relations between a man and a woman are therefore presumed to be consensual, right?  No more rape, no more coercion, no more incest — and if there is, we have laws and courts to deal with any low-life scum who would dare to take advantage of a modern, emancipated, empowered woman who is capable of making her own decisions instead of being treated like chattel.

First, there is a difference between "provid[ing] easy, unrestricted, inexpensive access to abortion" and outlawing abortion and contraception. To conflate the two is disingenuous at best. Second, "a modern, emancipated, empowered woman who is capable of making her own decisions" is capable of choosing to have an abortion or any other medical care that is personal to maintaining her own health, and the government can kindly keep its fat fucking nose out of that decision.

So long as the prevailing mindset seems to be one in which "enjoying physical intimacy with another human being is one of the greatest experiences we have, and it is an essential part of our humanity" (link) maybe we need to also accept the fact that all actions can and do have consequences.  You overeat, you are likely to gain weight.  You drink to excess, you could wind up with all sorts of maladies including (among others) cirrhosis of the liver.  You fail to keep yourself in good physical shape and you set yourself up for all sorts of respiratory and cardiovascular problems in later life. And if you "enjoy physical intimacy with another human being" you could find that the two of you have reproduced the species.

And by that same "logic" we should deny cancer treatment to anyone who smoked, or chose to work in an industry subjecting them to toxic exposures, and deny cardiac care to anyone who doesn't get "enough" exercise, and deny ER trauma care to any motorist who didn't use a seatbelt or cyclist who didn't wear a helmet. You're just full of good ideas.

At this point, I would no longer oppose that.

[Lord Jim]

a sensible comment on this

Well, that's debatable...

pitching the privacy rights of 51 percent of the population

As the graph that rube so helpfully provided points out, only 29% of the American people embrace the DNC/NARAL maximalist position of abortion on demand under all circumstances...(And that's a national number; it's undoubtedly even lower in the non-urban, non-coastal marginal districts that the Democrats will need to carry to re-take the House)

Presumably among the 52% that favor at least some restrictions on abortion, (and even the 18% that believe it should be illegal in all circumstances) there's a healthy percentage of that 51% that Mr. Pierce references, so clearly not all women see the issue the way he does...

If an anti-choice Democrat wants to run, you let that candidate stand up and take the heat alone, instead of telegraphing to your most loyal voters that the party establishment is open for business on this issue.

I don't know what the polite word is for a Democrat or liberal (I can think of a few rude ones) who decides that they're going to stay home because the Democratic candidate is with the majority of Americans in being somewhere on the pro-choice/pro-life spectrum other than the uncompromising maximalist position, and there-by helps enable the election of a candidate who not only disagrees with them on that issue but every other issue as well. (And of course also helps to enable continued GOP control of the House.)

But I'm pretty sure that "sensible" ain't it...

Big RR:

would you support a republican party that would use some of that support to fund candidates who sought to gut the military

Well, first I should point out that my party actually has some elected officials who are weak on Defense... (Rand Paul in the Senate, and some of the Radical Randian loonies in the House)

To answer your question, first let me assume that we were living in a normal world (ie, a world in which Donald Trump is not President) and therefore I would be 100% certain that I would want the GOP to remain in control of the Congress...

And further, let me posit the hypothetical that the Republican Party was in an analogous situation (ie, in order to control the House, they were going to need to carry seats with candidates weaker on Defense or national security then I would like, because of the nature of the districts in which they were running)...

Then yes, I wouldn't be crazy about it, but I would be rational enough to realize that my positions are better supported by a Republican controlled congress with a small faction of weak on defense types, then they would be with a Democratic controlled congress that has a weak on defense majority...

That would be pretty much a no-brainer for me...the logic is self-evident and overwhelmingly compelling...

[Big RR]

Ok, so then it appears that no issue rises to the level that pro choice does for some of us. A defensible position, and one I can respect, although I do not share it.I

[Guinevere]

Probably because the question of choice doesn't involve the control of the bodies and the reproduction of most of those responding to this thread.

[Lord Jim]

You seem to be under the impression that your maximalist position on abortion is one that is generally held by women, but the polling does not support that conclusion:

By Guy Benson Jan 23, 2017 3:00 PM

A new national survey conducted by Marist College's pollster -- which regularly partners with NBC News and the Wall Street Journal -- finds that heavy majorities of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong, and favor an array of mainstream restrictions on the practice.

Abortion supporters habitually seek to cast pro-life sentiment as "extreme" and limited to a loud, anti-women minority of voters, but the data betrays that framing as cynical and wishful partisan spin. In reality, many pro-life positions aren't merely solidly mainstream, but actually widely-supported, including among majorities of American women. Based on Townhall's look at the poll's crosstabs, here are a few of the survey's findings:

(1) A commanding 83 percent of American adults oppose US tax dollars being spent to facilitate abortions overseas, representing a strong endorsement of President Trump's laudable re-institution of the so-called Mexico City policy. A supermajority (61 percent) oppose tax dollars financing abortions in the US, with just 35 percent in support. This includes 61 percent of women.

(2) A slim majority of Americans identify as "pro choice" on the abortion question, but a 52 percent majority is at least in favor of limiting legal abortion to very rare cases such as rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother, which covers the pro-life spectrum (these answers were selected by 52 percent of women). An additional 22 percent say abortion should be illegal after the first trimester of pregnancy, leaving only about one-fourth of respondents to embrace the Democrats' radically permissive stance on the issue. Among those backing significant restrictions on abortion are nearly 80 percent of African Americans and Latinos.

(3) On the moral question, roughly six in ten Americans say abortion is morally wrong, compared to less than 40 percent who say it's morally acceptable. A majority believes the practice ultimately does "more harm than good" for women, while less than one-third say it "improves a woman's life." There was no gender gap on either question.

(4) A lopsided 78 percent of American adults conclude that laws can protect both pregnant mothers and their unborn children, a recognition of the humanity of both parties. By a 24-point margin, respondents support barring abortions after 20 weeks (in the sixth month and beyond), and a similar majority says that medical professionals who oppose abortion should not be forced to provide those services. The poll's internals show that women are just as likely to hold these views as men.

More:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson ... l-n2275329

[Guinevere]

And you seem to be under the impression that you know what the specific contours of my opinion on abortion are. But since I haven't specified anything beyond "pro-choice", I suppose you should bring on the turban and the crystal ball.

The mansplain is noted, too.

[Lord Jim]

The mansplain is noted, too.

I'll ignore that sexist comment...

(Oh whoops, looks like I didn't... )

ETA:

you seem to be under the impression that you know what the specific contours of my opinion on abortion are.

Are you saying that you don't support the maximalist abortion on demand in all cases NARAL position?

There are some restrictions that you do support?

Please enlighten me...

[BoSoxGal]

There is no such thing as 'pro-life' in American politics; if there were, then there would be policies in place that would likely prevent a very great number of the abortions that take place.

Most women who resort to abortion don't have a radical position on pro-choice, and many don't really want to. As I've said before, I think one of the biggest flaws of the feminist movement and the pro-choice movement is painting abortion in such absolutist terms and leaving no door open for the hundreds of thousands of women who have had abortions and deeply regret the experience and the circumstances which compelled them to that ugly, but necessary choice.

As long as women's other life choices become so very limited by pregnancy and motherhood, and as long as there are not truly pro-life policies in place to ensure that women who end up unsupported by deadbeat sperm donors and judgmental families can still provide their children safe homes and equal opportunities, abortion will exist and many of the women who get them will spend their lives regretting that circumstance.

It's ridiculous to say that women shouldn't be having sex except to reproduce - especially when it's so very often they are under pressure from men who want sex for pleasure, not reproduction. I'm sure there are women who don't practice birth control out of laziness or irresponsibility - but there are many more who aren't allowed to practice birth control (and aren't allowed to say no to sex), or whose bodies don't respond appropriately to birth control, or whose birth control fails them.

Obviously in cases of rape or serious issue of physical/mental health of the mother, or serious defect of the fetus, abortion should always be safe and legal. I'm absolutist in that I also believe it should be safe and legal in the first trimester for any woman who chooses it - but, I'd like to see a great deal of the energy poured into the abortion debate go into reforming our society into one in which abortion is rare because it's largely unnecessary.

Colorado enacted funding for free long acting reversible contraceptives in 2009, and over five years the unwanted pregnancy rate dropped 40% and the abortion rate dropped 42%. Funding was briefly terminated in 2015, but reauthorized in 2016 - in part because of the massive savings in birth-related Medicaid costs the state enjoyed. LARCs are 20x more effective than the pill, contraceptive rings and other forms of birth control that require user participation on a daily or otherwise regular basis. We should be making this kind of contraceptive program available to every woman who wants it, nationwide.

Beyond that, we should have the kinds of generous supports in place for new mothers that are in existence in many democratic socialist countries, and we should be enacting the kinds of policies that mothers can get educated and employed - at an equal wage to men - despite having children in the home. Simply put, we need a massive overhaul of how we value family and children. But nothing of the sort seems to be in sight - just the same old tired arguments that advocate limiting women's opportunities if they become mothers, or the same old tired arguments that advocate women having the 'choice' to reject motherhood in favor of education and career. The reality is that the majority of women would like to have BOTH - and our present polices don't support it.

[dales]

So as is so generally the case, the "facts" you brought to the table do not in any way support your conclusion...

So what else is new?

It's a Saturday summer afternoon and rube has decided to pay a visit to the liquor cabinet.

Drink up, my boy!

[Long Run]

I'm with BSG: the answer to the polar views is to pursue policies that (1) reduce unwanted pregnancies and (2) encourage women to carry the pregnancy to full term. Any other policies that conflict with these are always of lesser importance than the overriding goal of reducing abortions; for example, one can make reasonable health policy arguments about whether the plans should cover birth control, or whether pregnancy should be excluded, but these pale in comparison to the national goal of reducing abortions.