Skip to main content

View Diary: The SCOTUS Is Extraordinary: The Right To Choose (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If we alienate the pro-life Catholic and pro-life (none)
    Evangelists by making this about abortion, then we may even lose our ability to filibuster any more wingnuts by going below 40 Dem senators in 2006 and we may not see another democratic president for many years.

    But, hey, what do I know?  I just have an anti-choice family and many, many anti-choice friends and acquaintances.  

    I think we must keep 2006 and 2008 in mind, like a chess game.  You may win this move and lost the whole game.

    "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

    by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:20:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  We are never going to get (none)
      the evangelical anti-abortion rights crowd or the conservative Catholic.

      Christoneacrutch.  

    •  40 in '06?? (none)
      We need 40 Senators NOW if we're to have any bargaining power in this process.

      As I say above, we need to provide cover to various Democrats in really-red red states and the abortion issue alone doesn't provide it.

      Just ask yourself, which you would rather have as the headline in those particular states:

      "DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTER 'ANTI-CHOICE' NOMINEE"

      "DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTER 'ANTI-WORKER' NOMINEE"

      DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

      by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:34:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry (none)
        "Democrats save Roe Versus Wade" will have a far greater resonance. People DON'T want abortion to be illegal and it is a winning issue IF it is in danger. Why is this so hard to understand for the anti-abortion Democratic wing? Don't you want to win?
        •  That's proven effective the last 10 yrs has it? (none)
          We've got loads of representatives and Senators from those anti-choice states do we?

          Let's do this: have a popular politician run on the abortion issue in a red state and see how well they do.

          Hey, I'm not saying we shouldn't use this to kill Republicans in blue states, and as a rallying cry for endangered Democrats in blue states, but our immediate concern has to be giving the Democrats in red states enough cover to credibly threaten to filibuster.

          If I were Karl Rove, I'd laugh in the face of Kent Conrad if he was threatening to join the 37 other liberal Democrats in a filibuster of a nominee that's being attacked solely for being anti-choice.

          DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

          by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:49:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  One more time (none)
            Roe is a winning issue if abortions are made illegal or are on the verge of being made illegal. People in this country don't want it to be illegal. And frankly your reading of politics leaves a lot to be desired. Karl Rove won in 2004 to impose his agenda, ie. His agenda takes precedence over what happens to Republican party hopes in 2006 or 2008. Hence their insistence on Bolton, hence their SS platform, hence their religious agenda. Bush didn't won re-election so that anothe republican wins in 2008. He won to impose his agenda. Democrats will win by pointing out and fighting this agenda. Republicans have maxed out their support in red state on this issue. Do you really think they can run on abortion year after yera without doing something about it? Nope, they'll impose their agenda in this term and Democrats will win by fighting this agenda supported by no more than 30% of the country. Perspective.
            •  I think you're missing the point (none)
              There are 6 votes in favor of upholding Roe on the court.  Regardless of who Bush nominates there will be 5.  It is not on the table and more importantly, IT DOESN'T HELP US WIN ANY SEATS IN CONGRESS.  This fight is about giving 40 Democratic Senators cover to filibuster a wing-nut AND getting to 51 Senators and a majority in the House so the next nominee is rejected or is a true moderate.

              You may think we get to 51 by running on abortion.  I think we get to 51 by running on an economic populist platform and reform.

              DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

              by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 10:44:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Kennedy (none)
                is not a reliable vote on abortion. And you can run on a populist platform and in favor of choice.Ever heard of Bill Clinton? THERE is NO CHOICE IF ROE IS OVERTURNED. Why is this so hard to understand? Problem arises when purists try to force party in one direction only. You can't sell out abortion rights, a significant voting base(pro-choice) and still hope to win anything. You are simply wrong and as I pointed out your reading of issues is very superficial.
    •  It's all about women's right to live (none)
      Why don't you try to win elections without the pro-choice women's votes.   You will never get the pro-life vote but you can surely lose wmen's votes if you continue to show us how little you support and protect us in our rights of choice.

      I've said this until I'm blue in the face, but women are prepared to leave this party if this party refuses to hear we have had enough, our rights have been compromised enough, we have decided our lives are more important that your flimsy attempts to attract votes from people who will never be loyal to you, Hell, if you're willing to suck up to pro-lifers and turn your backs on women we have absoluttely no reason to stay.

      Let's talk about all your freinds and family who are anti-choice, they're standing in line to vote for Democratic candidates?  You can count on them to show up and do phone banking, GOTV, voter registration drives, fundraising, precinct walking, canvassing, writing letters to the edotors?  Because if you can't then you have pushed women out of this party for no reason at all.

      How does all this make women feel?  Mad as Hell and not willing to take it anymore.

      Losing O'Connors vote is all about choice.   It's time to worry about alienating pro-choice women.  The next question, where will we go?  If need be we'll stay home before we continue to support a party that is willing to see us go into backalleys for abortions we have every right to have.  We will sit home before we support a party that is willing to see us die instead of standing up to the pro-lifers they tried so hard to appease.  

      Tell me I'm taking a stand on principle and I'll tell you, damned right I am, the principle that every woman and giirl deserves to live a life without the fear of dying under the knife of a quack abortionist.

      Why don't you keep worrying about 2006 and 2008 and play that chess game you're so fond of.  Women are tired of your games, we'd prefer to work on staying alive.

      We're only capable of doing on the outside what we're capable of being on the inside.

      by caliberal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please - give me a break (none)
        Where are women who are activists on abortion going to go if we do not make this nomination about abortion?? They know we all still support choice - but it is you and the previous poster who are being purists.  Abortion or die!!! Forget everything else the United States is dealing with, populist issues, there is a part of the Democratic party that only cares about abortion.

        That is fine, that is your right, but know this: I have a LOT of family and friends who don't vote Democratic ONLY because they see the Democratic party as murderers of babies.  When I mention Harry Reid to them, they get confused.  You mean...a Democrat is pro-life, they say.  Yes, I tell them, we welcome all people in the Democratic party. The purists in this party do not.  And you discount peoples' real moral objections to abortion, which makes us as extremist on this issue as the repubs are on school prayer or abortion themselves.  We NEED to be open to different viewpoints, then we can win elections.  Then we can safely filibuster or just vote down those who try to get rid of Roe vs. Wade. I do NOT want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned.  But I think we have to disguise our true motives a bit.

        If you had a candidate for the Supreme Court who fiercely protected individual rights, supported affirmative action, was against abuses by corporations, and was pro-environment, but they were pro-life, EVEN IF IT DID NOT MEAN THE OVERTHROW OF ROE VS WADE, would you support that candidate??? I think not.  This is where we part ways.

        "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

        by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 03:18:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site