Reid compared pro-choice women to people who want more highways.

[madfloridian]

I was just thinking about that statement tonight as the Mukasey confirmation was already assured, just a formality. As usual, Bush gets his way.

But when your Senate leader says something like this, you know your party has serious problems.

Senator Reid said that he welcomed the new "emphasis on recognizing the diversity of the party." He added, "We have had a lot of pro-life Democrats, but the pro-choice folk haven't reached out to them and haven't protected them."

He acknowledged some complaints from abortion rights groups about the party's shifting rhetoric. "They have to keep their folks geared up, just like people who work for more highways," Mr. Reid said. "That is what they do, just like the pro-life groups."

Are we reaching out enough now, Senator Reid? I hear you guys continued funding for abstinence only education, and actually added a lot more money for it than before. Guess that made the religious right happy. I hear a bill was passed, the one offered by the Democrats for Life....that it reduced abortions by 98%. Who gets to decide?

SO...Harry, we who want our rights to make our medical decisions with our doctors are like people who work for more highways?

Thanks so much for your sensitivity and caring. Thanks for comparing us to activists who push for more highways. Such insight.

This article from 2005 was shocking when I reread it this week. I had forgotten how all at once after the 2004 election, they all decided to put the rights of women and gays on the table for discussion with right wing religious groups. It was the new tactic.

Guess what else was said.

In contrast, the younger Mr. Casey said that Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the party's senatorial campaign committee, had encouraged him to run as an opponent of abortion rights.

"He was very welcoming and very candid about the party's need to speak for a broad section of Americans," Mr. Casey said in an interview.

In fact at a fundraiser in GA Schumer said they ouuld not worry about a whole lot of issues anymore.

We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues

"I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."

Did the Peru trade bill pass? I think I heard it was going to a vote today. I knew it would pass when the DLC said it would, and said there was no opposition to it.

Trouble is, there was a whole lot of opposition.

Columbia University: Peru Deal's Labor Provisions "Worse Than Existing Law"

In a stunning new report on the eve of the congressional vote on the Peru Free Trade Agreement, a Columbia University legal expert shows the pact may weaken the United States' ability to enforce basic labor standards in trade agreements. The report by Columbia Law professor Mark Barenberg finds that the much-touted labor protections in the Peru deal are "even worse than existing law" and "in no respect do the Agreement’s labor provisions mark a significant improvement."

I guess it is a good thing the party leaders are on message. The trouble is there is nothing for us in the message. They seem to be in denial about the wishes of the people in the Democratic party.

They don't seem to get off message, even to say something real and meaningful. Wasserman Schultz today was so much on message that Schultz clobbered her. Tomorrow Governor Dean will be spouting those talking points on the show with that Norman guy. He will not vary either from the talking points.

I guess that is how they plan to win. Staying on message at the risk of losing people in the party, at the risk of letting this administration attack Iran.

I want to believe they have a plan. I most likely will do what I always do and vote for the Democrats in the end because the alternative is so much worse.

But we have never been to a place like this in our country. Not like this. We have done tragic horrible things, and no one says anything about it in public.

We don't need platitudes, we don't need talking points....we need someone real who is not afraid to get off message. Not afraid to get off message and really honestly just talk to the base of the party. Not to Bush's base, to us, to those of us they seem to look down upon for being activist.

[lyonn]

1. Do you think Reid might vote for Romney if he is the candidate?

Seems they have a lot in common. The Mukasey vote has made me very cranky (nice word huh?). How do we get someone like Boxer to take over Reid's job? She could certainly liven things up.

[madfloridian]

2. Did you say cranky? Good choice of words.

With each thing they give Bush as a victory, I get crankier.

[lyonn]

3. In another post I mentioned I felt like a damned mushroom

Our leaders don't feel they need to explain what is going on. The media is free to report and distort at will. It's like the world has gone made. Hell, I'll feel better in the a.m., get that old false hope going again.....

Edit: And your post didn't help my attitude, just kidding

[Bobbieo]

4. I've forgotten how Reid voted in the SCHIP bill. Ususally,

the Pro-Life people want the babies born BUT do not want to take care of them after they come into the world.

[madfloridian]

5. My post depressed me also.

Sorry about that. The big tent is expanding to the other side and leaving our side out looks like.

:shrug:

[DRoseDARs]

7. Your post seems to imply Reid voted to confirm Mukasey. For the record he, like Boxer, voted Nay.

To the question about him voting for Romney just because they're both Mormons I'll go with a firm no, he wouldn't because he votes issues not religions. And as for Reid's comparing pro-choicers with pro-highwayers, it was a dumb comparison to make but I don't believe he meant anything by it other than to make the point that any issue group has to naturally work harder to get elected members of their party to see things their way whenever the party drifts away from a given position on that issue. I think he was just trying to make a common sense statement in a not-well-thought-out way.

[madfloridian]

8. Harry Reid in not pro-choice in any way.

So that would seem to be how he sees us after all. It was said dismissively, which is the worst way.

Schumer and the DCCC leaders continue to encourage anti-choice Democrats to run, which is a message to us also. More and more of our leaders are anti-choice, and we are supposed to embrace them.

It did not matter how Reid voted on Mukasey. It was apparently part of a deal to get the huge defense funding bill to a vote. I think it passed later that night. He made the deal with the Republicans.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/reid_allowed_vote_on_mukasey_in_exchange_for_military_funding_bill.php

"Reid Allowed Vote On Mukasey In Exchange For Military Funding Bill
By Greg Sargent - November 9, 2007, 6:00PM
Here's some more on what exactly happened in the negotiations that led up to the rushed confirmation of Michael Mukasey yesterday.

According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reid had wanted to get this bill passed before the end of this week, and in fact, the defense bill did come up for a vote late last night and was passed after the Mukasey vote."

[madfloridian]

6. Our party leaders are reaching out to the other side, not us.

Why is that? I figure it is the centrist influence on the party that makes it sound like the rest of us are fringe

It is the trend in our party to make it sound like anyone who is considered an "activist" is too liberal and just plain wrong. Yet many of us are not so liberal.

There is no reaching out to those of us who hold the majority view on issues. Most of us opposed the Iraq war...we voted for it anyway. Most of us opposed that bankruptcy bill, the Alito and Roberts nominations....but they voted in those two to give Bush his agenda on the Supreme Court for generations.

They reach out to the other side, not us.