General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould I be required to vote for this Dem - TN lawmaker introduces bill to jail pregnant women and
new moms for pregnancy outcomes
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/tennessee_lawmakers_introduce_proposal_to_jail_women_for_their_pregnancy_outcomes/
"But it appears the Democratic lawmaker who sponsored a version of the measure in the state Senate is listening. Sen. Reginald Tate said he is open to the possibility of removing language that would allow assault and criminal homicide charges to be brought against pregnant people found to be using drugs."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
Demsrule86
(68,669 posts)If enough Dems win...it will be a moot point but if the GOP wins then they will actually do it. You have to elect Dems in order to end the gerrymander and GOP control of these states.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)By saying, "we don't care what they're like, they just need that D!"
cali
(114,904 posts)I'd be offended if any dem/liberal/duer did vote for such a creature.
LuvNewcastle
(16,856 posts)
RandiFan1290
(6,243 posts)"The Power" might come down on you!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)against his position as possible would be one way to go.
What an asshole.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The TOS agreement which by your use of the site you've agreed to states the following.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
In this case, the Democrat has already won the position, and we must defend the seat for the Democratic Party.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)As someone who has pretty much been here at DU since the start, I highly doubt anyone would object if the OP voted for someone other than this person. But I think any of us would object if the OP would start actively campaigning for a non-democrat here at DU.
I think in this case this democrat in Tennessee is one worth ignoring. Although before I ignore I would look at all their other voting records. I know ages ago Bob Casey Jr would have been someone I'd vote against because of his pro-life stance. But I call Casey pro-life because even though he is against abortion, he's one of the few pro-lifers out there that will fight hard for the fetus after it's born since Casey is also pro-union, pro-working class families, pro-education. And in the end when Casey got into the senate he did very little to showcase his stance against abortion - he says there are enough on the books. Not all anti-choice democrats are bad people - a few you can truly call pro-life like Casey.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Let's say for the sake of argument that this one seat is the difference between Democrats holding the majority, or the minority, what then? Does this seat become worthy? We have seen the trouble Issa and the rest have done with majority control of the House. Georgia passed an asinine law regarding gun possession through a Majority Republican legislature. Texas passed the barbaric restrictions to Abortion through a Republican Legislature. So majorities matter, and every seat matters. Even one where the Democrat is even more RW than the Rethugs.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)It's become de rigueur for Republicans in some GOP-dominant states, starting to see the trend going against them in their states, to target races in Democratic stronghold districts where the GOP would never have a chance and run very-conservative life-long Republicans in the Democratic primary and then throw modest sums of dark money into the primary race through front groups.
The outcome is predictable. In small races where few people pay attention, like state legislature primaries, the person with the most name recognition wins...and the person with the money has the most name recognition. That person gets the nomination and then goes on to win the seat on the basis of party where they proceed to govern like the Republican they are. The next cycle, they get reelected again (and again and again) because nobody really pays attention to State Legislature and State Commission races so they can stay in office forever, governing as a Republican, running as a Democrat, representing a very-Democratic but generally low-information district. You see it in even the most Democratic states with judgeships. Nobody pays attention to who is running for Judge and unless you end up before them, you'd probably never know that they're basically Antonin Scalia Jr. serving as their own petty justice in the local superior court.
What happens when the seat becomes the foci of determining who holds the chamber, as GOP dominance erodes? They switch parties to give the chamber back to the GOP. What happens when they are the deciding jurist on a partisan issue? They rule as the conservative they are.
This is just one of the legitimate reasons I favor Democratic party litmus testing. If you want to run as a Democrat, it makes you someone running as a Democrat...it doesn't make you a Democrat, that only happens when you serve nobly and govern as a Democrat. If you don't govern as a Democrat, there is IMO no obligation here or anywhere for good Democrats to support you.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Primarily because they would be in danger of losing their seats back home. In my district this was John Barrow. What does it matter to any of us if a somewhat Conservative representative from Georgia loses his seat? Because each seat is gold. Each seat adds up to the majority, and each seat is part of what we need to get the Speakership back. We win the Liberal districts easily. We're not going to beat Paul Ryan in his home district. We can throw money there like it's going out of style, and we'd probably still lose. But a swing district like Barrow's it's important to protect it as much as we can to keep the seat. Because without the John Barrow's who are the "blue dog" Democrats we don't stand a chance at giving Nancy Pelosi the speakership back.
A perfect Liberal Candidate would lose to a mannequin with the letter R after in this district. I don't like it, but it's true. So while I try and shove the world left, I also try and protect Congressman Barrow from losing his seat. Because without his seat, without a lot of seats like his, we'll never get the majority back. Remember the first two years of the Presidency. President Obama fought to get watered down versions of his legislation through, because those Blue Dogs couldn't vote for the Liberal answer. Then in 2010, we ignored them, refusing to put up much if any fight to save them, and look where we ended up. We're in the minority in the House, and looking to lose the majority in the Senate.
Litmus tests are interesting, but what standards do you put on it? Full blown Progressive? Somewhat liberal? Somewhat more worker rights than corporate rights? Pro Choice? Pro Life in principal but unwilling to commit to banning abortion because of Roe V. Wade?
If we set it for full blown Liberal we are going to have about twenty Democrats in the House, and our voices will all be silenced with no one to turn to. In the Senate, we'll have a dozen maybe. Then we'll be here every day gnashing our teeth and moaning about how awful it is that Democratic Party can't get good candidates to win.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I'm not talking about John Barrow holding his seat...I'm talking about the likes of Mike Comstock getting elected in the first place and the GOP gambit to insure that as many "democratic" nominees in the recall elections in Wisconsin were tea-partiers as possible, if only to insure that every recall would be bogged-down in a primary.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/14/muppet-hater-leads-wave-of-tea-party-extremists-running-as-democrats-in-montana/
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-to-run-fake-democrats-in-recalls-4k4qem0-145266355.html
Simple direct question. Read the two linked articles and tell us: "Do you feel that we have an obligation to support Republicans who have gotten onto the ballot by subterfuge running as Democrats? If the tea-party decided to run a primary challenger against Barrow, let's say for the sake of example, Ann Coulter...if Barrow got gutted in a primary by Coulter, do you think we have an obligation to support Democratic nominee Ann Coulter?
I don't. I think there is more to being a Democrat than being on the ballot as a Democrat...you actually have to be a Democrat and espouse some minimal Democratic values that I'd be more than willing to hash out with you or anybody on what they are. Failing to actually be a Democrat...we owe them no support. We can't even count on them to caucus with Democrats when it matters to hold the chamber.
Otherwise, we risk US Rep. Ann Coulter (D) (GA-12), member of the GOP caucus.
haele
(12,676 posts)Especially if there wasn't that much of a difference between the canidates that were running against each other in primaries.
It's not new now; the City of San Diego has Nathan Fletcher, a moderate Republican who has run as an independent and as a Democrat (Third Way type) for lots of different offices over the past decade because "his party left him", yadda yadda yadda - or rather, because he hoped to pull the moderates of his former party with him against what he hoped would be a weaker candidate in the party he was currently affiliating with. And he knows he can't win against a Teabagger when it comes to the Republican party or a real Progressive when it comes to the Democratic party.
He learned quickly that "Independent" in our county usually meant Liberatarian Non-Voter who would rather tweet or participate in the comments section of the local Fishwrap.
Unfortunatly for him, we do have some real Democrats who are known as hard workers in this town. So, he's stuck. He wouldn't be a bad Democrat if there weren't any other candidates, but he isn't really a progressive - more of a BBB type with Limosine Liberal tendancies.
The question then becomes - if a potential candidate at the Ghomert level of intelligence changes his (or her) party from Republican to Democratic because of even more radical primary challenges to try and gather votes from those who wouldn't vote for a Republican if the Die'l hisself was running as a Democrat as well as pulling his loyalists with him, do we support that candidate if there is no one else who in that district is willing or able to run against him as a real Democrat? Or just throw up our hands in disgust?
Haele
Iris
(15,666 posts)I do have some more substantial thoughts on this but need a better keyboard than my phone to share them.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)You can't really be serious.
So you believe the TOS here requires us to SUPPORT that POS legislator? REALLY?
It is utterly infuriating to see such head-in-the-sand posturing.
You can go ahead and follow your own interpretation of that paragraph, of course. Fortunately, the rest of us are still free to make our own interpretation of the rules, and following the long tradition of free-wheeling political discussion on this board, we will continue to make our opinions known.
Funny how issues that affect women are always relegated in some people's minds. Had this A-HOLE introduced a bill that required a poll tax in black neighborhoods, would you have been so eager to dig up the TOS paragraph above to demand we support this person, all in the name of "less worse"-ness?
FUCK that idiot. FUCK him for being a Democrat and FUCK the Democrats for letting him call himself one. We don't need any more of these people on "our side" -- it ain't MY side and I will never, ever support such a person, and if I were from that state I would never, ever vote for that guy. Doesn't mean I'd vote for the Republican but I would NEVER EVER VOTE FOR THAT SO-CALLED DEMOCRAT.
You also seem to be ignoring this part of the paragraph you cited:
But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.
Are we in the middle of an election cycle? Nope. Did the poster advocate voting for a Republican? Nope. Your interpretation of the TOS is very, very narrowly drawn and does not hold water upon closer examination.
Iris
(15,666 posts)I just thought the story makes a point and the timing was perfect.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Since your powers of reading comprehension are limited. Let me start again.
The question was are we required to vote for the POS democrat? Not are we allowed to criticize.
From the title of the OP.
The answer according to the TOS is yes. Allow me to quote the TOS header again, since you got off tangent somehow.
I did not say that yes we must not criticize. I do so every week, that is to say criticize Dems. The question is must I vote for them. The answer is YES.
In a follow up to this post, I pointed out how such seats are occasionally the difference between the minority, and the majority. I did not say that we could not criticize, I didn't say we could not argue in favor of more liberal positions. I answered the question quoting the paragraph in it's entirety, that we must vote for Dems as part of our user agreement here.
Now, my motivation is obvious, I want Democrats in the Majority at the legislature level, both State and Federal. If you suggest that we not vote for Democrats, then your motivation may be brought into question.
I never said don't criticize, and putting those words into my mouth is projection at the worst. I didn't equate debate with a vote. The question wasn't can we criticize, the question was must she vote for that POS Dem. The answer according to the TOS is yes. Now, what the user does in the privacy of the voting booth is his or her business. But to stay a member, you must not say that you are not voting for this Democrat except in very narrow circumstances. As an example where that TOS could come into play. Let's say you really like the Green candidate. You vote for them because you think that the Democrat doesn't have a chance against the incumbent Rethug. The Rethug wins with 48% of the vote. Between the Green and the Democrat, there would have been 49% of the vote. Then your support could be construed as losing the election for the Democrat.
In short, I stand by my understanding of the TOS. You must vote for Democratic Candidates as part of your user agreement. If you object to such things, then I suggest you check out some other websites, because this is Democratic Underground, not the Liberal Underground, nor the Progressive Underground. As for me, I vote Democratic, no matter what their position is on the issues in the General Election. Because I think that with all our flaws, follies, and problems, the Democratic Party is superior to the Rethug. Obviously, your opinion is your own, and may differ from my own.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...anyone can vote any way they please. The TOS cannot dictate that, it applies only to how we post on DU.
The TOS requires that we not encourage voting for the Republican during an election cycle. It requires that we support Democratic candidates during the election cycle. If this POS gets into the next election after the primaries, the TOS requires that we not tear him down during that time -- in the context of DU only. In this case that would be a shame. We do not need Neanderthal men w.r.t. women's issues in our party, IMNSHO.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Democratic politicians need to learn that they CANNOT pull this shit and expect to get elected.
If we vote for a Democrat that has egregious anti-woman policies, just because of party affiliation, then that politician will feel no pressure at all to abandon such policies.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)We doom ourselves to a situation in which we are permanently in the minority. A situation which we already rail against with each asinine statement from the Rethug committee's in the House. A party in the Minority has no power in legislative direction. Oh we can rant, and rave, and even moan about the awful Rethugs. But we can't put forward any legislation that could be useful. If our agenda is one of endless fund-raising on the latest outrage from the Rethugs, then the litmus test and casting aside the Democrats who fail to meet it is the best answer. If our agenda is to improve the lives of the people through common sense Democratic policies then casting aside even one Democrat is something we should do with only the most considered contemplation.
Majorities in the State Legislature draw up the district lines for US Representatives. The reason the Rethugs in the House are going to be tough to beat is the Gerrymandered districts that water down the Democratic party zones. If we could draw those lines, we could dilute the Rethugs in much the same way they have diluted our power. That would give us back the House in 2022 when the next Census gives the states the ability to re-draw the district lines.
But be my guest, toss this Democrat out of the party. Use the Litmus test and decide only the most liberal have the right to call themselves Democrats. Then we can all meet here on DU and commiserate about how unfair the world is while the Rethugs use their vast majorities in the House and Senate to push through legislation that makes us want to puke.
I like my plan better. It means we can do more to fix that which is broken, but I'm one voice. Each of us has to make our own choice, and Democratic Majorities are more important than any litmus test IMO. To get Issa out of his position of Chair and put a Democrat in that position would be worth it. To give Pelosi the speakers Gavel back would be glorious. To give it to any Democrat would be a damned good day. To do that, we need the State Legislatures, and to do that we need idiots like the one in this thread. Because without those idiots who've already won their seats, we can't get the majority, and we can't push a legislative agenda. All we can do is whine about their agenda.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Pro-woman is extreme?
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)..... to many here, it would seem. Even those that are pretty clear and unambiguous. But we, as Dems, will as usual quote and enforce those we like when they support our positions, and quibble and rationalize ignoring them when they don't.
We are like herding cats.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Will you be policing us in the voting booth? 
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)idea. Politicians have been known to change their minds and I believe that once he is shown that treatment works better (it does, even Rick Perry agrees, scary I know) he should come around. If not we find someone else.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)In general, the Democratic candidate will be better than their Republican opponent.
And while while the might be occasional exceptions, generally speaking, you should vote for every Democrat you can.
Of course prior to the elections, you should be trying to promote and advance the best elements of your local democratic field so that you don't find yourself in this position in the first place.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... WAR ON WOMEN. Women all over this country need to start listening to what their elected officials are saying and doing after they get elected.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Basically, there is complete medical and professional consensus that the Tennessee proposals, and identical laws across the country, are harmful policy that will do nothing to help pregnant people who are addicted to drugs “get the help they need.”
But it appears the Democratic lawmaker who sponsored a version of the measure in the state Senate is listening. Sen. Reginald Tate said he is open to the possibility of removing language that would allow assault and criminal homicide charges to be brought against pregnant people found to be using drugs. “If those are the red flags in the bill for a lot of these women’s groups, then I’ll either take that out or I’ll take the bill off notice,” DeBerry said of the proposed changes.
“There is absolutely no intent on simply trying to incarcerate them,” he continued. “But some women’s groups were afraid, even with the drug court’s record, that someone will use this as some kind of stick against pregnant women.”
Bryant
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)So thank you for posting. It's amazing how quick so many of us are to judge someone without further research. It would be nice too not to post part of a story that unfairly demonizes someone whether they are Rs or Ds. There are enough real outrages to focus on and fight against.
Iris
(15,666 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)blind allegiance is all that is necessary. Review of issues is not required and, if truth be told, is actually discouraged because then the Party Faithful are required to come back with half-truths, twisted-logic justification and blue links to nowhere. Just save them the trouble and blindly follow as you've been told so often.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)that is argued here. Neither is reality and are just blowing smoke up people's asses. Get out and vote because the opposite could bring a worse outcome! It is also valid to vote against someone!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It requires little in the way of critical thinking and is the path of least resistance. It can also induce severe cognitive dissonance, but these days Democrats are masters of doublethink.
niyad
(113,556 posts)and women.
Iris
(15,666 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You see how the Kochs get into local elections.
Stop the bullshit about this guy and get out the vote!
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)If so, encourage someone else to run for that seat and campaign for that candidate in the primary election.
If he's not your legislator, there's probably little you can do, and you won't be required, or allowed, to vote for or against him.
Iggo
(47,565 posts)
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)They refuse trials on a medicine that will help sick babies, and now this shite
NO you should not vote for this asshole. Vote third party or do write-in for a Dem you believe in.
I cannot get out of this hideous state fast enough, I swear.
Fortunately only about 1-2% of Democrats are this disgusting.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Iris
(15,666 posts)Check up thread!
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)And criticism is way more allowed than it used to be, so have fun.
struggle4progress
(118,342 posts)
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)IMHO:
Assumed office
2006
Personal details
Born (1954-09-14) September 14, 1954 (age 59)
Political party - Democratic
Residence - Memphis, Tennessee
Alma mater - University of Memphis
Profession - Architect
Religion - Disciples of Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Tate_(politician)
Then there's this:
"He has been the Vice Chairman of the Cocaine, Alcohol Awareness Program."
He was probably a drunk and cokehead at one time. I know from experience that some of the most rabid "anti-"anything are people with a past and history of the whatever subject it is, whether drinking, drugs, smoking or what have you.
I'm a former alcoholic *and* cocaine addict, but I don't preach to others about it. I just say live and let live. As long you aren't bothering *me or my family*, do what ya feel, man!
A lot of people say you're never a "former" addict or alcoholic, but always a "recovering" addict or alcoholic. That's bullshit in my personal opinion. I'm recovered. Been clean from coke for over 20 years and alcohol free for almost 18 years. I have NO DESIRE whatsoever to drink or do coke. It never crosses my mind, except when talking with some old friends and family that went through it with me, and we all made it out the other side of the gates of hell and made new lives. We wonder sometimes *how* and/or *why* we're still alive after some of the things we did. We figure it's because we still have some kind of purpose left here or something. I know a couple that turned to religion, but I'm still as atheist as I ever was.
Ok, I'll quit rambling now..
Peace within, Peace between, Peace among....
Ghost