Dean tells state Democrats abortion rhetoric needs to change

[billbuckhead]

Dean tells state Democrats abortion rhetoric needs to change

By John Marelius
STAFF WRITER

April 17, 2005

LOS ANGELES – Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told California Democrats last night the party needs to change its rhetoric on abortion to project a more mainstream image.

-------------------snip-------------------------------

<http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050417/news_1n17dean.html>

I'm fed up with Howard Dean, this guy is such a weasel that stands for nothing. I'm surprised wasn't he at the NRA convention, Howie brags so much about his 8 "endorsements" from them. Now, he's dissing freedom of choice. This Dean is every bit as bad as Lieberman.

[rfranklin]

1. Perhaps you should read the article before you spout off...

Dean is quoted at the end of the article as saying that the issue needs to be framed in a fashion that puts the onus back on the Republicans who are trying to dictate life-and-death choices to the American people.

[NYCGirl]

73. Perhaps billbuckhead would like to read the entire speech as it was given?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1730957&mesg_id=1730957

[Eloriel]

138. Nah, that would ruin all his FUN.

Sheesh.

[billbuckhead]

153. I reprinted the headline from a liberal media page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Dean can't stand tall on Raw Story, we don't need him.

[NYCGirl]

159. Wow, the entire, whole headline from a liberal page! That's impressive.

The article is not from the site you mentioned. And your interpretation is certainly skewed.

[MessiahRp]

2. Well it doesn't hurt to change the language

of the argument a little. They frame it as Pro-Abortion and I don't think that's anything like pro-choice. The choice is a difficult one and the women that do it, do it with regret and horrible battles of conscience.

If we can re-frame the argument we can get people to understand that we don't advocate murder as much as we advocate giving women control over one of the most difficult decisions they will ever have to make.

Not to mention they play ignorant to the fact that the idea of hangers in the alley would happen again if abortion was illegalized. That image shakes sensible Americans to their core.

Rp

[FreedomAngel82]

79. Yep

Whenever I've talked to a rightwinger they always call it pro-abortion. It' snot. It's pro-choice and letting someone make their own decisions in life and the government butt out of a private and personal affair. The republicans claim "culture of life" but is it really? I don't call sending sons and daughters in a lie to die culture of life. :eyes: With them it's pro-fetus. That's it. Now days whenever I talk to a rightwinger about abortion that's what I call it. Call it what it is.

[blogslut]

3. oh come on

In the article, Howard says:

"I think we need to talk about abortion differently," Dean said. "Republicans have painted us into a corner where they have forced us to defend abortion. I don't know anybody who's for abortion."

"We can make common ground with folks," he said. "The issue we need to debate is not whether abortion is a good thing. The issue we need to debate is whether a woman gets to make up her own mind about her health care or whether Tom DeLay gets to make up her mind."

What's so turncoat about that? Believe it or not, I know many women that believe in choice but would never have an abortion themselves.

What I wish our demo-reps would point out is the double edge sword of any law. If they can force a woman to have an unwanted child, they can also force her to end a pregnancy.

[billbuckhead]

5. "That's not the Democratic Party anymore,"

"That's not the Democratic Party anymore," she said. "That's the party of the far right and that's the direction we're moving in when everybody starts talking about abandoning choice for women in the Democratic Party."

<http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050417/news_1n17dean.htm>

[blogslut]

7. okay

you have fun with that

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Except we're not abandoning choice.

Stop being a blind zealot for 3 seconds and read what is actually said.

[FreedomAngel82]

80. What the hell?

That's not true. Read the damn article. No democrat is telling a woman she can't choose. Not Dean or anybody.

[beyurslf]

6. They do paint us into a corner. They make us defend things like

3rd trimester abortions with terms like "partial birth" abortion. Most people hear that and think, god that must be wrong. It takes us away from the central core arguement and makes us defend procedures that are almost never used and only in the most extreme cases.

[billbuckhead]

12. With Dean, it's always counteracting what THIER doing

When General Grant first lined up his troops against General Lee, there was constant talk about what "Bobby Lee" was going to do next and Grant chastised his men by saying, "From now on we are aren't going to talk about what Lee is going to do but what we are going to do to him."

It seems the only thing Dean is doing is dissing long time liberal supporters in a fools errand to attract redneck fundies that won't vote for us anyhow.

[FreedomAngel82]

82. How is he doing that?

He's not doing that. Would you please read the article? He's trying to stop the myth that we are pro-abortion. We are not. We are pro-choice. Read the damn article!

[FreedomAngel82]

81. That is why

they made that bill. So they can paint themselves as rightous and right. So why the hell don't any republican talk about NATIONAL health care? I thought so. So until ONE republican can talk about NATIONAL health care they are not prolife.

[renaissanceguy]

102. Dean is changing the terms of the argument,

which is what we have needed to do all along: "Do you want the government making medical and personal decisions for you" versus "Is abortion right or wrong"

I like Dean's argument better. It pins the Repugs in a corner.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14741193

[Telly Savalas]

118. Well, here's the defence...

"These 3rd trimester abortions are procedures that are almost never used and only in the most extreme cases. Let's get back to the central core argument..."

How hard was that?

[Dhalgren]

8. Dean uses the phrase

"pro-life Democrat". What the hell is that? If we are going to "re-frame" the argument, how does using the term "pro-life Democrat" do that? "Pro-life" equals "anti-choice". If that isn't true, then what does it mean? If it is true, then we do not need any anti-choice Democrats, nor anti-equal rights Democrats, nor anti-labor Democrats, and on and on...

[blogslut]

10. nevermind n/t

[Dhalgren]

13. It was from a USATODAY article.

Sorry, I don't have the link.

[janx]

106. You are understandably confused, as I was when I first heard it.

"Pro-life" was a term coined by the religious right to mean those who don't think abortion should be legal.

Unfortunately, the wingnut politicians have done such a good job of hammering that one home that some women who would not have an abortion (typically for religious reasons) but who believe it is not their business to question other women's choices call themselves "pro-life."

Many men and women don't connect with the politics of the word or even realize that it was coined for political purposes. They hear it in church or from their own families. These people are actually pro-choice (see above), but they don't identify themselves that way.

We must open up dialogue by taking a close look at the labels the religious right has used to divide people--in many cases, there's no real division at all.

[lojasmo]

156. Pro life to me means ANTI WAR and ANTI death penalty

Also pro family, which means that gays and others should be allowed to raise and nurture their children.

I am PRO LIFE and PRO CHOICE.

I am also personally opposed to abortion except in the case of risk of life or health to the mother, but I would NEVER support, and would actively oppose legislation which would curtail a woman's right to make her own health care decisions.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Would you fucking read?

He's not going anti-choice. He wants to change the way we deliver our message, which is absolutely in desperate need of a makeover.

[Dhalgren]

9. But he did say we should support "pro-life" Democrats.

Pro-life = anti-choice, doesn't it?

[spunky]

14. As the term is defined now, I guess, but lets do like the neocons and

redefine things the way WE want them. Why can't a person be pro-life and pro-choice? Why can't one think abortions should be as rare as possible, but should always, always, always be a woman's choice.

I think this section makes his point the best:
"We can make common ground with folks," he said. "The issue we need to debate is not whether abortion is a good thing. The issue we need to debate is whether a woman gets to make up her own mind about her health care or whether Tom DeLay gets to make up her mind."

He's completely right and he couldn't have found a better time to do it. Much of America, Dem and Repub alike, are furious at DeLay for trying to make the choice of whether or not to keep Terri Schiavo alive, rather than letting her husband make the choice.

Perhaps if we make a better attempt to redefine the arguement as one of choices that should be left to families not the federal government, we can change some people's mind about where the democratic party stands on abortion.

[Dhalgren]

20. But, you see, that is the problem.

Are there politically active people out there who do not understand the debate? When a Democratic candidate says, "I am pro-life." What do you think that that politician means? Would everyone consider him/her honest if he/she then said, "but I believe abortions should be legal and available to any woman who wants one." Would not most people consider those to be contradictory statements? I agree that the term "pro-life" is incorrect to describe "anti-choice" people, but the label is there.

[spunky]

26. Then we should just make a habit of calling ourselves Pro-life, Pro-Choice

and never say the one without the other. (Or Pro-Choice, Pro-Life if you prefer to emphasize Choice over life)

We could also stop calling anti-abortionists Pro-life or antii-abortion, but should instead call them Anti-choice.

It seems to work great for Republicans, they redefine all kinds of things to make them sound better and us sound worse, and I say whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Two can play at that game.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. No, it doesn't.

Not EVERY Democrat has to be pro-choice. Harry Reid happens to be quite a good Democrat and he's anti-choice. So we shouldn't support other Democrats like Reid because they don't agree 100% with us on every last issue? No, that's completely ridiculous and supporting other Democrats in no way diminishes our pro-choice stance.

[Dhalgren]

22. So if a Democrat , currently, labeled himself as a

"segregationist", you would support him anyway, because he's a Democrat? The that the idea?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. So there's no difference at all

between the abortion debate and segregation now?

[Dhalgren]

34. Not to me.

This is about women as full citizens. This is about the civil rights of women. That's why it seems so hard for so many of us to accept the idea that you can be a Democrat and be anti-choice.

[FreedomAngel82]

87. Yep

If a canidate is pro-life and as long as they'll defend Roe V Wade if it ever came down to that they have my full support. I like Reid and I respect he is pro-life. I'm pro-choice cause it's none of my damn business.

[me b zola]

147. When I hear "anti-choice" that leads me to believe that a person

favors overturning Roe V Wade, and that, to me, does not belong in the Democratic Party. There are, to me, a set of values & beliefs of the Democratic Party that should NEVER be watered-down nor compromised. Women's access to health care, privacy, and freedom of choice are fundamental to a set of beliefs that I am unwilling to compromise.

Secretly most conservatives depend on Dems as being the defenders of a woman's right to choose, I have personally seen this in action many times over. In public they spew the rhetoric of "right to life", but privately they often choose abortion. Not only should we confront the perception that only Liberals want the right to choose, but we should not allow it from within our ranks.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

165. Well, if you want to be a single issue person, go ahead.

I'm not going to stop you. But the Democratic Party is not, nor has it ever been, a single issue party, nor should it become one.

[me b zola]

167. The traditional Democratic Party does posses a set of values

..and those values should NEVER be diluted. Period. That does not make me nor the Democratic Party a single issue voting entity, it simply means that we share a set of values that are non-negotiable.

How repukian of you to call me a single issue voter for demanding my party to respect me & my health care needs.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

168. How Repukian of you to demand everyone agree with you on every issue!!

When you're willing to dispose of the party over its stance on one issue, and one issue only, that makes you a one issue voter. How exactly are you a multi-issue voter if everything begins and ends on this one issue? Please, prove me wrong on that point.

[Arkana]

30. Not necessarily

Many people I know are personally pro-life, but will not begrudge a woman her right to choose. That makes them actually pro-choice--they just don't know it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. What if there was a chance to overturn Roe V. Wade?

Would they support that since they are anti-choice? If not, why not?

[Arkana]

119. You're not listening

I'm talking about the people who feel personally that abortion is wrong, but do not feel it's their right to tell others to believe the same. Therefore, I can infer that they would NOT support the overturning of Roe.

[in_cog_ni_to]

123. Then why be anti-choice?

That does not make ANY sense. NONE. If that's the case, they should call themselves pro-choice, NOT anti-choice. "I" would not have had an abortion, personally, yet I would NEVER tell another woman what to do with HER body. THAT is PRO-CHOICE.

And you would TRUST a politician who says he/she is anti-choice NOT to overturn Roe V. Wade if that chance presented itself to them????? :scared: Egads!

[Arkana]

124. My point is that the term "pro-life"

is corrupted. You never can tell what someone believes until they specify. My grandmother calls herself "pro-life", but she doesn't support the overturning of Roe and will not deny someone the choice to have one or not.

Think of John Kerry's position--that's a clearer picture. "Pro-life" means so many different things--and that's why we need to reframe it so the lines between the factions are clearer.

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. That's right. It does mean anti-choice

and he wants to "welcome" anti-choice Dems into the party? Not smart IMCPO.

I asked this question in LBN. What if there was a chance to overturn Roe V. Wade, would those anti-choice Democrats support that? If NOT, why not? If they are anti-choice, they are anti-choice. Why would they NOT want Roe V. Wade overturned if that became a possibility? Can anyone answer that?

[FreedomAngel82]

88. How is he saying it's anti-choice?

Would people PLEASE read the fucking article? Dean is saying to reframe the debate. Not to let republicans say we are pro-abortion. Do you know one democrat who is pro-abortion? No. It's pro-choice. Please read the fucking article.

[in_cog_ni_to]

94. I read the fucking article 5 times! Dean wants to welcome anti-choice

Dems to the party. I don't! Anti-choice?????? NO! I will NOT give an inch on this issue. It's too damn important.


AGAIN...scenario....there's a chance to overturn Roe V. Wade. Would the anti-choice Dems support that? If not, why not? They ARE anti-choice. What sense would it make for them to be anti-choice and NOT support overturning Roe V. Wade? Someone answer that question. Please?

[FreedomAngel82]

96. Then you obviously didn't

He's reframing the issue so it works for us. Read my replies.

[in_cog_ni_to]

100. He DID say that. Obviously, you must have missed the end of the article.

Patt, an activist in the North County Coalition for Peace and Justice, was angered by an article in USA Today in which Dean said "pro-life Democrats" should be encouraged to run for office.

You also didn't answer my question about Roe V. Wade.

[FreedomAngel82]

85. No

Not nessessarily. Talk to a pro-life democrat and ask them what it means.

[Dhalgren]

132. So if a Democrat says he/she is "pro-life",

it means that they are "pro-choice"? And how are we to know this? And do you think it will make a difference to people who are "pro-life" = ""anti-choice"? I think someone is trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be us, again...

[MadHound]

18. And yet he is advocating electing a bunch of pro life Dems

How is that actually going to help matters? A bunch of fundy pro life pugs, making common cause with a bunch of pro life Dems. Gee, don't you think that sort of unholy alliance is going to set back the cause of women's choice a few decades?

Changing the language is one thing, but I'm sick and tired of Dems being on the defensive on this issue, and looking for ways to cave just so they can get elected. The message that needs to get out on this issue is that the Dems are actually on the side of the majority of Americans, that once again the party of the people is representing the wishes of the majority of the people. Gee, much like the issue of gun control.

Yes, language could be changed, in fact it could become much more aggressive. Point out how rarely a third trimester abortion is performed, and what the exact circumstances are when such a thing occurs. Point out that we have the majority position. Point out that the RW fundies agenda isn't going to stop with outlawing abortion, but will continue with birth control, and other womens' issues being ridden roughshod over, until we are living in the days of The Handmaid's Tale.

However this mealy mouth concession to a minority opinion has got to stop. Rather than trying to get more pro-life Dems in, or changing the language to that of concession and defeat, Dean and the Democrats should go on the offensive, and point out exactly what is at stake here, and how the Republicans and their RW fundy lapdogs are hell bent on rolling back the clock on women's rights, and hurting us all with their agenda. It isn't the time to be trying to make concessions, or throwing in the towel. We're in the majority position here, a position of strength. Let's start acting like it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Where are we in the majority on this issue?

That's the major question with regards to Dr. Dean's statement, isn't it? Because even though we might be in the overall majority on the abortion issue, we sure as hell do not control a majority in every state or every congressional district in the country. So should we simply abandon those states and districts? Throw our hands up and say, "Well, even though we have viable Democrats in those districts, fuck it, they're anti-choice, we won't support them. Let the Republicans have the seat."? Tell me for the record, is that what you're advocating?

[MadHound]

37. We are in the majority all across the country

"The government should not interfere with a woman's access to abortion." In response to this admirably lucid query, fully 65 percent of the respondents said the government "should not interfere with a woman's access to abortion," compared with only 30 percent who said it should "restrict the availability of abortions" (the remaining 5 percent said they were "not sure")."<http://slate.msn.com/id/1003123>

And what I am stating is that I'm against Dean's contention that we need to run more pro-life Democrats. Why should we? If the question is between running a pro-life Dem, or nobody at all, well then, run the pro-life Dem. However, if the the choice, all of considerations being equal, is between a pro-life Dem, or a pro-choice one, then we should naturally run the pro-choice Dem, because pro-choice IS the majority opinion in this country.

We shouldn't kowtow to the Republicans on this, we shouldn't act like this is something to be ashamed of. This is, in case you had forgotten, what the Dems do, that is represent the PEOPLE'S interests in matters, not the minority interests. Instead, Dean is proposing the we act like whipped hounds, with our tails tucked, meekly submitting to the minority position in this country. Fuck that! Instead, the Dems should take the offensive, control the language for themselves, stand up for the majority opinion on this issue, and not let Repugs define who we are.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. Really? Can you prove your assertion?

I really have strong doubts that we're in the majority on abortion in every congressional district in the country, but if you could provide me with some citations, that would be great.

[MadHound]

46. Is every congressional district?

No, probably not. However that wasn't my assertion, what I'm saying is that nationwide, yes, the majority of Americans ARE pro choice, as my cite above states.

The Democratic is conceding more and more to the 'Pugs, and moving ever further rightward in a vain attempt to snap up the mythical center. We've seen how well that strategy worked in '04, '02, and '00.:eyes: Perhaps we should once again move left, back to the base, and adapt a strategy of supporting such majority opinions. Damn, what a concept!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. Then you're not addressing my point

Why should we abandon congressional districts or states where running a pro-choice candidate is an absolute recipe for a loss? Why should we leave potential seats on the table, seats I might add that would go towards confirming or rejecting Supreme Court nominees that would affirm or overturn Roe v. Wade? You fail to see the point that even anti-choice Democrats like Harry Reid would still support any Democratic nominee for the Supreme Court and would also reject any nominee that party feels would be harmful.

So what's your choice? Support an anti-choice Republican that will never vote on your side or an anti-choice Democrat that will almost always vote on your side for everything else, which includes helping put pro-choice Democrats into a position of power? Unfortunately, in some areas, there is no "other" option.

[Dhalgren]

52. Let me get this straight.

An anti-choice Republican will vote his or her convictions, but an anti-choice Democrat won't? Is that what we are about, now? So, in essence, we are lying to the voters in those districts that want an anti-choice candidate by saying "this Democrat is anti-choice"; but in reality we know that he or she will not vote that way. Oh, ok, I get it. Sure, let's all be anti-choice (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. Do you see Reid voting against a Democratic nominee to the Supremes?

Even if one facet of that nominee is that he's pro-Roe v. Wade? Do you really see that happening?

[Dhalgren]

59. That's what I am asking.

He means he's anti-choice only personally, but politically he's pro-choice? That's fine with me, I have no problems with this, but I would bet some voters would.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

63. No, I just don't think his abortion stance is his top issue.

Not everyone treats every political issue with the same amount of zeal. He probably is personally and politically anti-choice, but he's willing to compromise that in order to get other issues that are more important to him cleared. That's the difference between Democrats that are anti-choice and Republicans that are anti-choice, and yes, there are voters who do see through this. If abortion is said voter's main issue, they will likely vote Republican one way or another anyway though.

[FreedomAngel82]

90. And that's their problem

That's their problem if they are having a problem with it. Someone personally can be pro-life but still let the woman decide. The republicans have this picture painted of us that we're anti-life and we're pro-abortion. We're not. What I gather from the article is Dean is trying to tell people NOBODY is pro-abortion but PRO-CHOICE. There are two different things. A person personally can be pro-life but in the end still support pro-choice since they know it's the woman's choice in the end. John Kerry said it perfectlly in the second debate. He said (answering a woman about abortion) that he can consel someone and talk to them but in the end it's their decision. People need to learn that and to respect it and stop trying to make the woman do something she doesn't want.

[Dhalgren]

133. So why not just say "pro-choice"? Who are they trying to fool?

[karynnj]

166. I agree completely on Kerry's debate answers being very good

Also, his voice and demeanor couldn't have been more respectful and (for lack of a better word) gentle. To his credit, he spoke directly to the woman who asked what for him was clearly a tougher question than any dealing with complex international relationships or details of domestic policy. He did acknowledge the seriousness of an abortion, in a way that seemed at least as sincere as any of the "tragic" wording suggested as an alternative. He mentioned support of programs to provide alternatives to abortion, including one Teresa has been involved with.

That said, the answer did not win the "mildly pro-life". The real problem may have been that although Kerry explained his motivations for voting against partial birth and parental notification with well thought out reasons, those votes made him unacceptable to the "mildly pro-choice". Kerry, to his credit, voted his conscience, but it may have cost him votes.

As some have noted, the majority in the county do not want Roe vs Wade overturned, but it is also true that a majority also back some changes - like partial birth or parental notification. Partial birth, was a Republican effort to fight abortion on grounds where they could win- then by not putting in a provision for the health of the woman, they put ethical people like Kerry in a no-win situation. On, parental notification, Kerry did say he could vote for it if there was a good process that allowed the teen to get this approval waived when reason dictated. (don't remember exact words) Fighting very hard and publicly for amendments to make these bills acceptable when these types of bills are passed might help (the future Democratic candidate) not be seen as "pro-abortion" - which no one is.

[MadHound]

66. And you're not addressing my point either.

Why should we abandon a position that the majority of people in this country believe in, all in a vain effort to try and pick up some seats? The Democrats have tried this sorry tactic for the last three election cycles, and what has it gotten them? Minority positions in Congress, and a two term Bush presidency!

I have no problem with a person like Reid, who is personally anti-choice, but is pro-choice politically. However to elect somebody who is anti-choice both personally and politically would ensure that women's rights would be rolled back to where they were fifty years ago. You may be willing to abandon fifty percent of our population, but I, and the majority of Americans, certainly aren't.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. We're not abandoning anything though!

We are NOT abandoning choice as our major issue!!! Merely not leaving anti-choice Democrats twisting in the wind is HARDLY abandoning our overall position on the issue, nor is it hypocritical, nor is it wrong in ANY sense. The only thing this tactic is saying is that we're not going to be fascist and demand every single member of our party to think, talk, and feel exactly as our national platform demands. I don't WANT to be in a party of robots. I want to be in a party where free thought still exists and is cherished. Yes, I may not agree with every one of my brethren, but our fundamental and overarching beliefs are what unite us. I'm sorry, but I refuse to be a part of a one-issue party the way you are demanding we become. I refuse to give in to ANYONE on ANY side of ANY issue who tells me that "it's my way or the highway". If that's what you want our party to become, fine, you have that right, but I won't be party to that.

[MadHound]

74. Now that's irony friend!

"I refuse to give in to ANYONE on ANY side of ANY issue who tells me that "it's my way or the highway". "

And yet that's exactly what you're doing when you start agreeing with these anti-choice Dems.:eyes: Truly ironic

And my follow-up for you is how is the party NOT abandoning women's rights when the party is openly advocating for anti-choice candidates?

And I don't think that it is fascist, or being robotic to demand that our reprasenatives do what they were hired to do, that is represent the majority views of their contstituents. And while yes, there are going to be districts that the majority view is anti choice, far and away most districts are going to be pro-choice, and the elected rep's political views and actions should be in line with that.

The Democratic party has caved in too much already to minority viewpoints already, it doesn't need to continue this losing stratedgy.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

78. Answer my question: are you completely giving up anti-choice districts?

And there are a LOT more of them than you think. We hold a majority view, but it's not exactly a stranglehold unless you subscribe to the George W Bush notion of a mandate.

And who says I'm AGREEING with anti-choice Dems? Have you never disagreed with anyone about something in your life and not still remained their ally?

And yes, it IS robotic and fascist to demand that everyone believes the same thing. Majority does NOT equal 100% support by any means, and as such, our representation on ANY issue should not be 100% in favor of the majority view. Most of America thought the Iraq war was a good idea when it happened - do you think every Democrat should've voted in favor of the war? By your definition, they should have, as representatives should always vote in favor of the majority, right?

[MadHound]

91. *Sigh*

First off friend, the majority of Americans were NOT in favor of the Iraq war. Most Americans, at the time of the IWR, were in favor of letting the inspectors finish their job, then making a decision on the IWR. In fact the calls, e-mails and letters coming in about the IWR were running 268-1 against said bill. But no, they went ahead and went against the will of their constituents, and voted for the damn thing.

What I'm in favor of is that the elected reps of any senate or congressional district represent the majority viewpoint of their constituents. Sad to say, that is happening less and less. That is the main duty of and elected official, yet it seems that it is the hardest thing for any to accomplish. More and more, both Dems and 'Pugs seem increasingly willing to take the minority side, or the view of PACS or other special interest groups. And it seems that this is what Dean is advocating, more of the same non-reprasentation of one's constituents.

If one's are majority anti-choice, then that is what their rep should push. However if one's constituents are majority pro choice, then by all means, their rep should reflect those wishes. Dean's message seems to be anti choice all around, and is again, a losing position.

[Dhalgren]

83. If women's rights is not

a "fundamental and overarching belief" that "unite us", what is? Seriously, what are some of these "fundamental and overarching beliefs are what unite us" that you speak of?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

127. Women's rights are ONE of many.

Again, I do not wish to be a part of a one-issue party.

[Dhalgren]

134. Would give me a short list of the issues that you would

not compromise on? Thanks, in advance.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

136. For what purpose?

It has little to do with this discussion, as no one is COMPROMISING anything. I refuse to even go along with your little charade because you refuse to either read what is written or discuss this with even a modicum of rationality. THERE IS NO COMPROMISE BEING MADE!

Our platform does not have to be ascribed to in its entirety by the entirety of our membership. I do not demand that. No two people in this world share EXACTLY the same beliefs on every issue under the sun. So why should we tell people that disagree with us on one out of a hundred issues that they're not good enough to be in our party or run for office under our banner?

I can't say this enough times, we are not now, we have never been, and we will never be a one-issue party. If you, personally, only care about ONE issue, by all means, be more active in NARAL, NOW, or any other organization that best represents your views on that one issue. No one is forcing you to be an active member of the Democratic party, and no one is telling you that being a member of our party means you have to vote for every member that runs for office, nor does not being a member preclude you from voting for pro-choice Democrats. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it seems as though it's the best choice for you. You needn't listen to Howard Dean or give money or time to the DNC. You can volunteer or donate directly to only pro-choice candidates if that is your wish.

Unfortunately, however, if abortion is not your only political concern, then you have to be accepting of the fact that people who share your values on most other issues may not wind up agreeing with you when it comes to the abortion issue. There is no way around this.

[Dhalgren]

137. Why is it that a basic principle like women's rights is such a

bugaboo to you? You can have any kind of candidate you want run as a Democrat. Zell Miller, for instance. But I will not support him, because he espouses ideas and policy issues that I find abhorrent. I have said that I would not support a candidate that calls him or her self a pro-life candidate unless he/she explains up front that they are pro-choice. This is important. It is just as important as racial equality. Now there may be Democratic candidates who are anti racial equality, and if so I will not support them. I do not, however, think that the party is advanced by being disingenuous with the electorate. If we are for choice, we should say so, flat out; not try and hide behind wriggle-words and slight of hand nomenclature. This is just my opinion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

139. I demand an apology.

Unless you cite for me specifically where I in any way stated or implied that I have a problem with women's rights, I demand that you retract your comments and apologize. I have NEVER advocated for anything less than full rights for women and I have NEVER personally advocated an anti-choice position.

[Dhalgren]

140. I did not say anything of the kind. You are reading too much into

an otherwise innocent statement. You have insisted that pro-choice/anti-choice is an issue that we should not get side tracked on. That it is not part of the party's basic stance, so that there is room for anti-choice Democratic candidates. I have said that it is a fundamental tenet that cannot be compromised upon. To say that something is a "bugaboo" for you is to simply state that it is something on which you are contentious; it doesn't imply that you "advocate an anti-choice position".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

141. And how is being contentious anything less than being anti-women's rights?

[Dhalgren]

143. Why, I am contentious on this point, as well.

The point that is being discussed is the stance of the party, vis a vis the principle for pro-choice vs. anti-choice (pro-life). You and I are contending over this. You could have easily said that it is a "bugaboo" for me, too. And you have been right.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

158. But it's *not* a "bugaboo" for me.

What IS a bugaboo for me is you pretending the party is moving right because we might not exile people who stray from us on only one issue.

[Dhalgren]

161. And as a last parting shot.

I, of course, never said that, either. :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

142. No, I did NOT say it's not a part of the party's basic stance.

Please quote that. I NEVER said that either. I've said REPEATEDLY that it is a PART of the basic stance, but it is not the whole thing. There are hundreds of issues that make us Democrats, and women's rights/abortion is only one of those issues.

[Dhalgren]

144. I'll admit that I paraphrased you (didn't use quotation marks)

but it is in post #70 - "Yes, I may not agree with every one of my brethren, but our fundamental and overarching beliefs are what unite us. I'm sorry, but I refuse to be a part of a one-issue party the way you are demanding we become." So abortion rights is not one of those "overarching beliefs" that "unite us". This is what I was referring to.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

145. You're incorrectly paraphrasing.

It is ONE of those HUNDREDS of overarching beliefs that unite us. How many times must I say this?

[Dhalgren]

151. You were saying that we should support democrats who are

"pro-life" and anyone who wouldn't you were calling a "one issue" Democrat. You then said we should look to the "overarching beliefs that unite us and not dwell on "single issue" constraints. I don't think I "incorrectly paraphrased" you, at all.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

155. Anyone abandoning the party over one issue is what I said.

The party is about many overarching beliefs is what I said, and as such, there is no reason we shouldn't support people who stray on one or two of those overarching beliefs. And yes, you did incorrectly paraphrase me, a little too conveniently to suit your needs, I might add.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

157. Let me break it down for you really simply.

1. The Democratic Party has many overarching beliefs that unite us, such as being pro-labor, pro-equal rights, and helping those less fortunate than us.
   
2. Among these overarching beliefs is women's rights and the right of choice in abortion matters.
   
3. Just because someone strays on one or two of these issues, that does not make them any less a Democrat, nor does it make them any less worthy of our support.
   
4. I do not want to be a part of a party in which only one issue takes precedence over everything else.
   
5. Believing in more than one issue does not denigrate my unequivocal support of women's or abortion rights, nor would that be the case for the Democratic Party giving assistance and money to anti-choice Democratic candidates who win their primaries over potentially pro-choice Democrats.
   
6. Since the Democratic Party does not usually back any candidate in a primary election, the people of that district, NOT the national party, decide who they will give the support of the party.
   
7. Therefore, if you really don't want the Democratic Party to support anti-choice candidates, you can prevent this from happening through ardently supporting pro-choice Democratic primary candidates via donations and volunteer work.
   

Are we on the same page now? Would you like to retract your claim that I have a problem with women's rights now?

edit: left out "as" in #1

[Dhalgren]

160. Let me break it down for you.

There are numerous "overarching" principles which are the foundation of the Democratic Party. If you choose to support a candidate who does not adhere to one or another of those "overarching" principles, that is your choice. You may disregard one or another of these principles (or all of them, I suppose) in agreeing to support a particular candidate - again, that is your choice for whatever reasons. I, on the other hand, will not support any candidate, of whatever party, who does not support those basic principles. I do not choose to abandon any of these principles, just to appeal to voters who do not share these same principles. To me, that is what this is all about. If your principles are valid and worthy, then you convince others to your point of view, you bring them around through argument, example, and doggedness; you don't simply put you principles on a back burner in order to coerce support. I think we are simply in disagreement on this particular issue. But I have enjoyed the tussle. :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

162. You're not even making an effort to understand though.

But if you don't want to, I can't make you. You criticize me for abandoning one issue, but you're willing to abandon 99% of the issues in favor of just one. Do you not see the hypocrisy in what you're telling me?

[Dhalgren]

163. Look,

there are simply some things that I won't compromise on. I am not abandoning anything, I am saying that we have good candidates that support all of the overarching principles of the Party. Why compromise? It is in order to draw people into the party who do not share support for our principles. That, to me, is not the way to forward our ideals. You may say we will not win elections by being so "pure". If we win by giving up our principles, it won't be winning, at all.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

164. But Dean's not saying we should pass on pro-choicers over anti-choicers.

He's just saying we shouldn't discourage them and we should support them in general elections if they get the nomination just as we would anyone else. So how is that a compromise?

[FreedomAngel82]

92. You're obviously still not getting it

Nobody is taking away the pro-choice stand. Dean is trying to show people we are not the "deathocrats" as the republicans call us. Abortion is a hard and personal matter and a choice. Nobody is for it unless it's the woman's choice for whatever reason. Nobody is trying to appeal to fundies for this issue. Dean is trying to make it clearer and get rid of the myth's. Please read the fucking article.

[MadHound]

113. Let's see what was said then friend, shall we?

". . .article in USA Today in which Dean said "pro-life Democrats" should be encouraged to run for office. "

And just how is having more pro-lifers going to help out the pro-choice cause?

"Republicans have painted us into a corner where they have forced us to defend abortion. " Oh damn, you have to defend abortion, you have to defend a woman's right to choose, damn, that takes work. Much easier to simply cave like the Dems have been doing for the past five years, eh?

Of course you're going to have to defend these types of matters, for they are going to be under attack. And if you concede these points by caving in and electing pro-life Dems, then gee, all women's rights go to hell.

Yes, we are allowing the 'Pugs to define the message and the language that is used. But rather than caving, go on the goddamn offensive, and make the 'Pugs defend a minority view in this country. I'm sick and tired of Dems trying to be all things to all people on issues like abortion and gun control. We have the majority position on this issue, use it! Stop making concessions on viewpoints or language, and instead go on the offense and force the 'Pugs to defend an unpopular viewpoint. Is that so damn hard to do? Judging by the past five years, I suppose it is:eyes:

[Doctor_J]

44. I've been saying this for a few years

Stop saying "a woman's right to choose". Start saying "government interference in a doctor-patient relationship". Then those who fight it will be on the side of Big Brother.

[Pockets]

77. Great suggestion...

Stop saying "a woman's right to choose". Start saying "government interference in a doctor-patient relationship". Then those who fight it will be on the side of Big Brother.

[PsN2Wind]

11. There is no way we should change the language

that has lost us election after election after election after...............
I believe it has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome.To continue the same rhetoric therefore would be insane.

[Dhalgren]

17. Why, as Democrats, can we not simply say,

"We support women's rights. We support a woman's right to decide whatever medical procedure she is presented with. We support women's right to choose." - Why can't we do this? Anyone who is against a woman's right to choose, should vote for some other party.

[blogslut]

19. here's my suggestion

They're calling us the party of death now. They call themselves supporters of "The Culture of Life"

How about we say we're supporters of "The Culture of Hope" ?

[Clark Bayh 2008]

23. Or the Culture of Choice, or Autonomy, or Freedom from Government

intrusion.

Everyone is pro life. We're supporting the right to have privacy from Big Brother, whether it's our bedroom, lifestyle, our feeding tubes, or our bodies.

We're pro life & pro freedom from government intrusion. Need to steal a few pages from the Libertarian handbook on this.

[blogslut]

25. true

But the word "hope" hits em in the heartstrings

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. We're not a one-issue party.

[blogslut]

28. hope

isn't a single issue. it's a whole philosophy

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. No, "Hope" isn't.

Not supporting, as an institution, any person who does not believe as we do on the issue of abortion, however, does make us a one-issue party.

[blogslut]

33. Look

The sad fact is, the average person is either too busy or too unconcerned with complicated topics. We're a sound-bite society and we need quick, snappy slogans. We need terminology that hits them fast, hard and where it counts...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. No, hey, I agree with the hope part.

I just don't think we should pull all support from people who don't agree 100% with us on any one issue.

[blogslut]

36. cool

sorry for the confusion :0}

[FreedomAngel82]

95. Exactly

Exactly. The only reason why republicans still get votes is because of "moral" issues such as this. The republican party has painted themselves as being this "culture of life" party, but if you look at them today they are anything but. If the only reason why people don't vote for us is because of an issue like abortion you need to tell them NOBODY is making YOU have an abortion but you don't have the right to not let someone have one. If someone wants to have an abortion that is their choice between the woman, her doctor and her God. It's only God's place to judge her and God gave the woman freewill. All the republicans care about is the fetus. They are pro-fetus. Not pro-life. We are pro-life and need to show it. We're for national health care, we're for jobs, we're for better education and enviornment. Are the republicans? Hell no. All they care about is guns, gay's and their version of God. As I've said the republicans have painted this picture we are the "deathocrats" but that's not true. It's not pro-abortion. It's pro-choice. We need to show them there is a difference. I have tried but in reality it's a tough task. If Dean thinks he can change people's minds then more power to him and I'd love the help.

[Arkana]

27. That's bullshit

Dean is suggesting that we reframe the debate and change the language--not abandon the pro-choice plank. Instead of "pro-life", we use "anti-choice". Make the Republicans look foolish for trying to frame an issue as complicated as abortion in black and white. He's not a "weasel"--it's called strategizing.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. OK everyone. I'm gonna spell this slowly so y'all can keep up:

G-E-O-R-G-E L-A-K-O-F-F.

And if you don't know what that means, go find out before you come back to this thread.

Howard has been listening to Lakoff, and is working hard to take away some of the RW emotional trigger-terms from them. He's not changing his stance, he's changing the way people talk about it.

[Dhalgren]

39. I am all for re-framing the language of the debate.

I think it is way passed time to do so and I think Dean should be commented for being willing to take it on. However, to go from re-framing the argument to saying we should support "pro-life" Democratic candidates is not the same thing at all. Now, if "pro-life" means "pro-choice", then fine, I good with that. But if the Democrats who are currently touting themselves as "pro-life" are actually "anti-choice" then I would never, ever support them, I don't care what party they belong to. This is a bedrock civil rights issue, for me, and cannot be compromised.

[FreedomAngel82]

101. With me

I personally am both pro-life and pro-choice. I'm pro-choice because I know not everybody has my emotions and my situations. I could never have an abortion personally but it's not my choice to tell someone what to do with the issue. If the woman wants an abortion I will support it because it's her choice. If there is a pro-life democrat who is elected office (like Reid) if Roe V Wade ever came down to it and he would still defend that then he has my support.

[FreedomAngel82]

98. Yes

I'm glad Dean is listening to him. That's all Dean is doing. He's not changing the stance on the issue. Just the way you talk about it. As I've said, from some republicans I've talked to they call it pro-abortion when it's not. It's pro-choice. Nobody is for abortion but the woman has the right to choose the health care she wants. Dean has said that a few times I've heard him speak so I'm sure he's said it a lot more times. Plus Dean is a doctor so that helps. ;)

[carnie_sf]

38. Good to see the circular firing squad

is still very much in vogue in the Democratic party.

[blogslut]

40. that's the beauty

of THE CULTURE OF HOPE. It takes all the attention off this very personal issue and encompasses all areas of life.

[Dhalgren]

42. If standing up for women's civil rights makes me part of a

"circular firing squad", then so be it. Maybe if some Republicans had stood up to the neocons when they had the chance, we all wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

[Rowdyboy]

41. How dare Dean try to open up the Democratic party and draw new people!

Who does he think he is, trying to be inclusive?

The man has the most difficult job in America and people here second guess his every move, question his every statement, and belittle his competence because they don't agree with him 100%.

I didn't support Dean in the primaries but he's doing a helluva good job fixing whats wrong with the Democratic party and I just hope he succeeds.

[Dhalgren]

45. But why do it on the abortion issue?

Why not gay rights? Democrats can be anti-gay and it's o.k. How about taxation? Democrats can be for tax breaks for the rich and more taxes for the poor and it's o.k with us. How about empire? Democrats can be for the US taking over the entire world and it's o.k. with us. Hey, Zell Miller? Just another good Democrat who needs our support. Yeah, we need to water down everything we believe in just to get more and more people into the tent - who cares what we stand for anymore...

I am all for bringing people around to our point of view - that's how you expand the tent.

[blogslut]

47. Zell Miller

isn't a democrat. He's a DIXIECRAT. Huge difference.

[Dhalgren]

48. You may not like that Zell is a Democrat (I don't either),

but he is one. We have politicians in this party that we won't support because of their views. I think that "choice" is an issue that would determine if I supported a Democrat or not.

[blogslut]

51. okay

I get what you're saying.

I'm a woman who is not only a single mom but also a woman that actually had an abortion. I feel deeply about the right to control what happens to my body.

Then again, I'm a realist. These issues run deep deep deep. Why not support the cause while at the same time, welcome all viewpoints? Keeping an open ear to those who oppose isn't giving up.

[Dhalgren]

54. But what does that actually mean?

Are segregationists to be given and ear? Should we hear them out as though their views were acceptable? I think we should engage everyone in the debate and try to bring as many around to our way of thinking as possible; but not say that it is ok to hold views that infringe on the civil rights of have the nation. We have to be better than that...

[Pockets]

49. What is Common Ground?

He said we should make common ground with the RTLers.

The question is, what does that mean? Maybe it means outlawing late term abortions, the practice of killing a healthy 7-9 month old fetus, often by piercing its skull, before extracting it from the womb. I'm pro-choice but I could do without late term abortion. If a Dem ran on that platorm I think he or she would be a shoe in.

[blogslut]

53. actually

late term abortions aren't for killing healthy fetus'

[Pockets]

55. No...

It's my understanding partial-birth abortions are banned in about 30 states. States where they are legal, they can be performed on viable fetuses.

This article is a little old but it's where I got my info:
http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1104b-1.html

Interestingly, if PBA's are already outlawed in most states, making it a Federal law wouldn't make much difference. So why no run on such a platform? It probably would be extremely helpful in winning.

[blogslut]

57. danger to the life of the mother

this is the crux of the whole issue.

EVERY WOMAN RISKS HER LIFE WHEN SHE CARRIES A CHILD TO TERM. Every pregnancy is a risk to the life of the mother.

[Dhalgren]

56. You see the problem we get into when we start saying that

we can find "common ground" with people would want to make women second-class citizens? Everyone has got to stop thinking in terms of the medical procedure (that's between a woman and her doctor) and start viewing this in terms of civil rights (which is what 'pro-life' advocates want to take away from women).

[Pockets]

60. Okay, I see your point, but...

First of all, I’m flexible on this issue, but just to play devil’s advocate...

Historically, people are not free to do whatever they want with their bodies in the U.S. Attempting Suicide is illegal, doing drugs is illegal, driving without a seatbelt is illegal, etc.

Why not just run on a platform saying PBAs should be illegal when there is no extraordinary threat to a mother's life? Again, they already are illegal in most states anyway.

[blogslut]

61. isn't that the rule anyway?

"Why not just run on a platform saying PBAs should be illegal when there is no extraordinary threat to a mother's life? Again, they already are illegal in most states anyway."

[Pockets]

64. If it is then...

I dunno. But if it is already a rule, then all the easier to run on that platform. Cons are extremely gullible, so if a Dem ran for POTUS saying he's taking a strong stance against unnecessary PBA's (s)he'd win the RTL'ers votes without giving up anything.

[Dhalgren]

62. But you see, I am for lifting any ban, period.

An abortion is a medical procedure. All medical procedures are part of the protected communications between a patient and doctor. If abortions are a legitimate medical procedure, determined to be necessary between a patient and her doctor, then no abortions should ever come under scrutiny of any kind, period. If a woman in consultation with her doctor chooses to have an abortion, IT IS HER RIGHT AS A CITIZEN TO HAVE THIS LEGITIMATE MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

[blogslut]

65. i agree with you

But you're the choir. You're already won over...

[Dhalgren]

67. I know, I wasn't yelling at you.

It just makes me crazy for people to talk like this is a "soft" issue. There is simply no debate about this issue for me. This is a fundamental civil rights issue and when people speak about it like the old racist used to speak about equal rights it just make me crazy, again. Sorry if I got "too loud". :hi:

[blogslut]

68. we're not yelling

were debating...isn't it refreshing? :)

[Dhalgren]

69. I can dig it!

[blogslut]

71. :)

With that, I shall go and do the work that pays my rent.

[Pockets]

72. I'm just trying to figure out

how to get Democrats elected. Sorry if I'm entertaining the notion of "giving in" on an issue, as inconsequential as it may be. An alternative is to portray the RTLers as liberals, but I also dislike that idea because it perverts the English language. I think the best person to pull off lifting abortion bans is Hillary -- she is amazingly direct in her language on the topic.

Dean is correct that this is an issue that Dems need to be overcome. I've argued alot of Cons, and when morality comes into question and they lose every single point, it always funnels down to abortion which they consider murder, and it's impossible to change their minds on that. So it gives them clearance to kills 10's of thousands overseas, and before they're questioned on it all they have to do is lift a finger and say "ahahah... abortion."

So, again I'd be willing to bend on this single issue if it were to get a Dem elected as POTUS. Democrats ARE the party of morality but we need some way of proving this to the RTLers without ignoring their stance on abortion.

[FreedomAngel82]

107. What I do

when one brings up abortion is I ask: where's the national health care? Where's better enviornment? Where's more jobs for families to make money? Where's better education so children can grow and learn and make a choice about their future jobs? They lose in all those matters so it's pro-fetus. Not pro-life. Until their party starts caring about those issues more they don't care about life at all. They can argue all they want but in the end they lose on those issues that MAKES a life.

[in_cog_ni_to]

86. Late term abortions are done in an emergency situation.

Either the mother's health/life is in danger or the baby is severely deformed. You just repeated the ENTIRE RW TALKING POINT ON LATE TERM ABORTION! the practice of killing a healthy 7-9 month old fetus, often by piercing its skull, before extracting it from the womb.:grr:

Late term abortions are EXTREMELY rare. How many women do you know, personally, who have had a late term abortion? Me? I know NO ONE! It's very, very rare. The repukes want you to believe it happens all the time. I know of NO WOMAN who would have a late term abortion after carrying for 7-9 months...unless it was an EMERGENCY.

[Pockets]

93. I do not think that is true

Again, in case anyone missed me saying this...

if it is true, we would NOT be losing ground by denouncing unnecessary late term abortions. What would be the harm in it then?

[in_cog_ni_to]

97. The harm is in the way the RWers LIE about it. Blatant LIES. n/t

[Pockets]

103. Then let the issue be addressed

with openness and honesty. Once a Dem takes a stand against LTAs (or PBAs) then everyone will know how exactly what they are (my guess is few people know exactly) and how rare they are.

If you are defending LTAs/PBAs by saying they're rare, apparently you are admitting they're wrong already.

[in_cog_ni_to]

109. Well, that would be fine and dandy if we had a MEDIA who

would let our party on the air to talk about these issues. Our State owned TV seems to favor the repuke party right now. :(

They are not "partial birth abortions". THAT is the RWers favorite term. Hmmmmm.....Try "Late Term Abortion"...K?

They are NOT wrong when a mother's life is in danger or the baby has NO chance of survival. That decision is between a woman and her doctor.

[Pockets]

122. Don't blame the media...

There's nothing to report. To them, all Dems are pro-choice and all Repubs are pro-life. And it appears most the dems here want to keep it that way. Dems should be able to take a stand against PBAs without getting lynched.

PBA is a type of LTA, as I understand it, even if the cons coined the term it still has meaning. PBA is an accurate term since the fetus does partially exist the momb. I also got the subtle difference between the two confused until just now. There should be no fear of using their language. If you fear it they're in control.

[in_cog_ni_to]

125. NO. Using their language only furthers their agenda and propagates their

LIES.

[Pockets]

128. What lie?

The term partial birth abortion is an accurate term used to describe when a fetus's skull has exited the womb, or has barely exited, enough that its skull is exposed and can be punctured.

Personally, I think PBA's should be legal, in all cases, but I also think all recreational drugs should be legal too and that won't happen soon.

We really just need to resolve this issue for now so we can focus on more important matters. After Dems are in power again, then we can hope to relax some of the barriers to our freedoms.

[bunkerbuster1]

150. It's a garbage term, used by human garbage

Really, if we had any goddamned discipline whatsoever as a national party, we'd publicly whip anyone who used the reThugs' terminology.

present company excluded of course.

[FreedomAngel82]

108. It's one of their myths

they got to work for them. The republicans make a big stink of it and act like it's a huge victory when it's not.

[in_cog_ni_to]

111. Exactly right. They lied their asses off about it and their sheeple

fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

[Lone Pawn]

84. Of course. The only--ONLY--Democrats we all are allowed to like are

the ones like Boxer who seemingly stand only for opposing whatever the Republicans say. Which is useful, since they're usually wrong, but doesn't really inspire people to vote for us.

[in_cog_ni_to]

89. allowed to like? Try ....That we .can TRUST.

Anti-choice Dems are anti-choice! GEEEEEZ. Why would a pro-choice party want to welcome them to our party? I don't TRUST them. Period.

AGAIN...scenario....there's a chance to overturn Roe V. Wade. Would the anti-choice Dems support that? If not, why not? They ARE anti-choice. What sense would it make for them to be anti-choice and NOT support overturning Roe V. Wade? Someone answer that question. Please?

[Lone Pawn]

99. The answer to your question.

1. They would not support it.
2. Being elected, so we have more than 15 Senators.

[in_cog_ni_to]

104. Why not? If they are anti-choice, they are anti-choice.

If they had the chance to overturn Roe V. Wade...THEY WOULD OVERTURN IT IN A HEARTBEAT BECAUSE THEY ARE ANTI-CHOICE. I wasn't born yesterday.

[Lone Pawn]

105. Here's a fascinating new fact:

Sometimes in Washington, people say things to get elected.

[in_cog_ni_to]

114. No shit? Blow me over!

;)

I STILL don't trust anyone who says they're an anti-choice Dem. If the chance to overturn Roe V. Wade presented itself, I'm not willing to assume they LIED about being anti-choice just to get elected. It's not a chance we should take.

[FreedomAngel82]

110. How do you know that?

Do you know how someone like that would decide? And do you really think they're going to overturn Roe V Wade? If they do the republicans won't have anything to run on. They're not foolish. They've been talking about Roe V Wade for the last few elections I've been following and now that the republicans have control over everything do you see them trying to overturn it? They could easily but they're not. Why? Because they know they won't get any voters.

[in_cog_ni_to]

112. It's a HYPOTHETICAL. What if?

AGAIN...scenario....there's a chance to overturn Roe V. Wade. Would the anti-choice Dems support that? If not, why not? They ARE anti-choice. What sense would it make for them to be anti-choice and NOT support overturning Roe V. Wade? Someone answer that question. Please?

[Lone Pawn]

116. You presuppose that they actually are anti-choice

and aren't just trying to get elected in a pro-life district. Lip service is not wholehearted support.

[in_cog_ni_to]

120. THAT is NOT a chance we should take. In that case,

YOU presuppose they are just giving lip service to the anti-choice voters. How do you know that they are not who they say they are? How do you know that with 100% certainty? You don't.

[Dhalgren]

135. This just makes no sense at all.

For Democrats to get elected they have to lie and say that they are anti-choice (when in reality they are pro-choice), the Republicans are actually pro-choice but can only get elected by lying to their constituents and saying that they are anti-choice. So we have two parties both of which are pro-choice, but now both will be lying to the voters saying that they are anti-choice? :silly:

Ok, Mr. Marx, I'm ready for my close-up!:)

[redqueen]

115. Good for him.

I'm glad he's using some common sense and recognizing when tactics need changing.

[madfloridian]

117. Transcript of the speech

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/18/04824/6684

[lastliberalintexas]

121. Still fighting those primary wars, eh bill?

[billbuckhead]

126. Dean is the guy who said he wanted to be the candidate of the

guy with the Confederate flag on his pickup truck. Why should we be surprised that he undercuts women's rights?

[in_cog_ni_to]

129. You deserve this!

:hug: for fighting for we women like you do! I want to personally thank you. I truly appreciate your help. :hug:

[LdyGuique]

130. Dean has taken his lessons from the Republicans --

Remember the Fred Luntz handbook about politicalspeak and the 14 words the Repugs are coached never to say? http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/3/luntz.zip">The full document can be downloaded (pdf).

The Repugs have done very well in the past at framing entire issues through word choice -- it's time that Dems did too.

[Filius Nullius]

131. Vatican Conclave and Generational Equity

All of the suggestions for dealing with environmental degradation and the post-peak oil world on the various DU discussion fora depend on getting U.S. and world population under control, something that none of the major religious denominations seem to comprehend or be willing to help advance. Lord help us if another reactionary Pope comes out of the Vatican conclave. Unfortunately, I fear that this will be the inevitable outcome since John Paul II appointed most of the current assemblage of cardinals.

My wife is a Catholic, and I have nothing against the Catholic "rank and file" in this country. The Catholic hierarchy of senile old men is another matter entirely. In their blind adherence to the sanctity of human life, they forget entirely about the sanctity of the planet. If we totally foul it up by polluting it to the point that the air, water and food necessary to sustain us becomes toxic or by using up all of the available oil and gas resources that can be produced economically, we will have effectively committed genocide against every generation that comes after us.

Many American Catholics, including my wife, are very enlightened on these issues. However, I do believe that many Catholics in this country have been unwittingly duped and manipulated by the Vatican and protestant religious right and therefore have difficulty seeing the long-term suffering that our continued failure to address the problem of a world population out of control will eventually create. The number of innocent children that are now affected by this misguided religious policy and the inconceivably greater numbers that will suffer in the near future makes the regretable loss of life due to abortion a trade-off that humanity will eventually have no choice but to make. However, every day that we fail to accept the inevitability of this choice magnifies the level of suffering that humanity will eventually face.

It is a shame that the major environmental organizations have been so ineffectual in helping the public to understand how vital it is to the quality of life of our descendants that population control issues be addressed immediately. Perhaps they need to mount a mission to the Vatican to help the next Pope to understand how immoral it truly is for the Catholic Church to stand in the way of bringing world population under control.

[LisaLL]

146. Link Pro-Choice and Pro-Prevention

The fact that we prevent unintended pregnancies and "pro-lifers" refuse to is much more relevant to the debate. Abortions occur in every society, the question is are we going to prevent unintended pregnancies, improve resources for families to raise children, and prevent women from dying (Pro-Choice policies) or would we rather scream about how "wrong" abortion is while opposing everything that prevents unintended pregnancies thus making the problems worse (Pro-Life policies)?

Personally, I like this approach--

Pro-Choice is Pro-Prevention:
We prevent and reduce abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies.
We prevent the death and injury to women by keeping abortion safe and legal.

We have the moral high ground and the evidence on our side. We need to reclaim this debate.

[Cha]

148. Since you're so fed up

with Howard Dean ..have you done anything about it..but whine on DU?

Have you written to him and told him what you think of the way.. he's trying to get the forces together against the bush crime family?

[WLKjr]

149. Read teh damn article

not to bitch you out or anything, just R-E-A-D before you start to get pissed off.

Sometimes you have to admit you F*cked up. ( I know it's hard, I have had to do it many times.)

[New Dealer]

152. Abortion is an extremely tough issue for politicians

It is obviously a very important issue to many people on both sides of the issue. I'm not sure what the right way for a politician to handle the issue is, but taking the wrong position could alienate a large number of people on one side. However, trying to compromise the issue could alienate people on both sides. Howard Dean is trying to maintain the votes of strong pro-choicers while trying to grab some mild pro-lifers. I hope he's sucessful.

[JohnnyCougar]

154. Dean is right!!! Go Dean!!!

Don't listen to the Politically Correct Reactionary Squad, DU!!! Dean will take our party to victory in 2006!!!