"No Thanks, Bernie: Virginia Abortion Rights Advocates Know Better" (Title)
Last edited Thu Apr 27, 2017, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)
I have referenced the Virginia Governor's race in several of my posts. It seems not many here are not familiar with this important (governors) Democratic primary. This is a crucial race and we need to keep Virginia in the Democratic fold:particularly when the census is around the corner...gerrymandering Virginia would be a certainty if the Republican wins Virginia's governorship...so why did Perriello a flawed candidate with an anti-choice past decide to run in a race that a NARAL endorsed candidate pretty much had in the bag? Why risk losing the seat? Also, why was Perriello endorsed in the primary by Sen. Sanders (who held a rally for him) and Elizabeth Warren? I can understand holding your nose and voting for the Democrat during an election but I do not understand endorsing an anti-choice candidate in a primary. As far as I am concerned Perriello came close to stopping the ACA and threw all women under the anti-choice bus with the Stupak amendment...details provide below. This is a long article but worth the read...I have excepted some of what I consider important.
https://rewire.news/article/2017/04/07/no-thanks-bernie-virginia-abortion-rights-advocates-know-better/
"...In my personal capacity as an abortion rights activist and the mother of a young daughter in Virginia, I am proud to witness Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam (D-VA)’s continuous unwavering support for reproductive freedoms as he campaigns for the governor’s mansion. Northam has a long history of championing reproductive rights. As a state senator from Norfolk, he was the first to reference “transvaginal” ultrasound in the General Assembly in 2012, framing that ultimately forced then-Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) to sign a watered-down version of the law.
From day one, Northam has been part of the successful team that delivered upon Gov. McAuliffe’s promise to roll back the abortion clinic shutdown restrictions designed to force abortion clinics to close...
...As far as reproductive rights are concerned, the lieutenant governor couldn’t be more different than Tom Perriello, who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the Affordable Care Act—one of the worst moments in the history of the Democratic Party’s sell-outs on reproductive rights—and has since offered “regret” for that vote, saying he’s “always been pro-choice and a supporter of Roe v. Wade.” Problem is, he’s made contradicting statements. And he’s led a scorched-earth strategy with abortion rights advocates on the ground, who look at his troubling record and ask the legitimate, necessary questions about why women in Virginia should trust a man who betrayed not just them, but women across the nation.
[Perriello voted for the Stupak amendment]
"...The Stupak amendment was an anti-abortion, poison-pill addition to the Affordable Care Act that nearly prevented health-care reform from passing. In a breathtaking act of masculine ego, former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and 63 other Democrats, including then-congressman Perriello, threatened to block a vote on Obamacare unless people who received subsidies were prevented from using their own private dollars to purchase plans including coverage for abortion care. This was not a continuation of the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding for abortion, as suggested by Perriello at a campaign speech for Arlington Young Democrats three weeks ago, but rather a massive departure from insurance industry norms.
When Stupak’s amendment was introduced, the vast majority of employer-based insurance plans—87 percent—covered abortion care, and the net effect of that amendment would have been to, in the words of a George Washington University study at the time, “move the entire health benefits industry away from its current inclusive coverage norms [regarding abortion] and toward a new norm of exclusion …. Thus, if the result of national health reform is to move millions of women into a market that operates subject to the exclusion, then it is fair to predict that the entire market for coverage ultimately will be affected as a product tipping point is reached.”
While the Stupak amendment failed to make its way into the bill that ultimately passed, it did pave the way for deep gashes to abortion coverage within the Affordable Care Act, and an insulting executive order signed by President Obama affirming the Hyde Amendment in the insurance market—again, a departure from what had been inclusive coverage norms for abortion coverage in the private insurance market."
= new reply since forum marked as read
... either through articles, essays, and opinion-pieces that you find, or that you write yourself.
... for additional thoughts on your emotion-based theory and my alternate theories that are centered more on logic and demonstrable facts.
Less visibility... or less something.
... more on your personal emotions than on demonstrable data.
I can only suggest that perhaps the politician's "popularity" and "clout" and "position" influence such things.
Also, it could be based on the politician's overall "visibility" and how often politicians appear on news programs for quickie-interviews or in-depth interviews. It's quite reasonable to conclude that high-visibility politicians are more likely to be targets of valid criticism (the same way that they're likely to be "darlings" of their fan-base.)
Another thing to consider may be that it's related to the breadth and depth of a politician's "outreach".
Frankly, I think that the options and possibilities I've offered are much more logical and make much more sense than ones that are based on emotion or adoration. But, that's just my opinion. Your opinion is different, obviously. I've just offered mine as something for you to consider. You may accept it or reject is, as I've done with yours.
... Bernie is a high-visibility politician who puts himself in that position. He's not being singled-out or unfairly targeted for criticism. While there may be other politicians who share his views, the fact that his "stature" and "popularity" and "position" is greater than theirs is the main reason why he draws scorn from his critics (and by the same token, he draws a lot of praise from his fans.)
His outreach position within the party also puts him into the spotlight more often than other rank-and-file politicians. One need only use logic and rational analysis (instead of emotion) to arrive at the truth.
It's complete bullshit to whine and moan about Bernie being "unfairly" singled out... or that it has anything to do with that "true Democrat" nonsense. 
He's not a crybaby. He's a grown man, he's an experienced lifelong politician. He's a politician who has been a part of the establishment for so long that he clearly knows what to expect, and can roll with the punches. There's really need for people to invent conspiracy theories in order to protect him from valid criticism. (What are those people afraid of?)
All this hand-wringing and pearl-clutching is for naught.
What exactly were they expecting? If someone wants to put themselves "out-there" (as Bernie has done)... then it's TOTALLY unrealistic to expect ONLY praise and gratitude.
... perceive legitimate criticism (or push-back) as somehow being "unfair" or motivated by "hate." I imagine that they feel such a strong emotional connection or "bond" with a particular politician that anything falling short of outright praise is something that they take personally. Even though it's the politician who's being criticized, there are some who often act as if they themselves have been maligned and insulted, and as a result, they often overreact.
You really didn't deserve to be treated that way, Demsrule86. But, I applaud your efforts in continuing to be accommodating and sensitive to their feelings. I noticed that in spite of your polite concessions, the loudest complainers have not yet acknowledged your effort (as of now.) This suggests to me that their "outrage" isn't sincere and that it really is just a deflection. (I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it.)
As is the denial of holding a tin god held to any standard at all, and pretending it's merely a biased, oppressive and unfair attack when actually done so.. 
