DCCC: a gentle reminder about what progressive women do when their rights are in the crosshairs

[ehrnst]

Closing up their checkbooks is only the start.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. K & R!!!

[mopinko]

2. i never give to the dtrip, anyway.

and this is exactly why. they leave good candidates hanging out to dry, and they back the ones that will hire THEIR people, consultants and managers. usually pretty shitty candidates.

[ehrnst]

3. HRC's PAC is getting my $$$

I know that they will go to truly progressive candidates.

[Me.]

4. Thank You

There are still those, mainly men, who think women should shut up about their rights

[iluvtennis]

5. +++ agree

[BadgerMom]

6. Yeah. Not gonna happen. No shutting up here.

[shenmue]

7. Yup

[calimary]

10. NEVER FORGET THIS: There really are forces out there pushing against

the most basic right for Americans who happen to be female - the right to vote.

I myself heard, with my own ears, talk on the limbaugh radio show years ago when he was in his heyday period, laments about women voting. One man's voice, in particular, stood out: "I think this country started going downhill when women got the right to vote."

They're OUT THERE. They exist. This is REAL. And they'll take that right away if they think they have any sort of shot at it. This bullshit is REAL. And some of the fundamentals behind it have already gained ground as we speak, particularly in THIS grim new era of trump. These forces have really gained a major vitamin booster shot with the trump incursion.

And we can't afford to drop our guard for even a nanosecond. Keep in mind: that's exactly what they most dearly hope for - that we roll over and go back to sleep after we THINK we made some "permanent" gains.

[Me.]

22. Simple Things Women Couldn't Do 50 Years Ago In The US

Serve On A Jury
Get A Credit Card
Easily Accessible Birth Control
Run The Boston Marathon
Buy Women's Athletic Shoes
Have The Option Of Attending an Ivy League School
Keep Their Job If They Became Pregnant
Attend A Military Academy Or Fight In Combat
Refuse Sex With Their Husbands
Legally Obtain An Abortion
Take A Stand Against Sexual Harassment
Take Legally-Mandated Maternity Leave
Open A Bank Account
Become An Astronaut

[CozyMystery]

77. + Wear Pants to School

[calimary]

92. Welcome to DU, CozyMystery!

Hey, we gals used to have our own work category: "pink collar." Maids, manicurists, cooks, secretaries, stenographers, and so forth. And the marriage vows were to join Man and Wife. Why the hell didn't they just say "Man and Appendage" or "Man and Property"? The groom was the person. The wife was a mere accessory.

[Renew Deal]

9. Would you prefer an anti-choice Democrat that supports Medicare for all or a

anti-choice republican that opposes you and everything you stand for?

We've seen the outcome of shortsighted and narrow thinking of the Stein/Nader crowd.

[ehrnst]

11. Would you rather see the Democratic base take their checkbooks and walk away?

And who the hell would support "universal health care coverage" yet be against women being able to access coverage?

And here is much more eloquent repudiation to the trope of "A pro-lifer Dem from Texas does more for choice than a pro-lifer Republican"

Link to tweet

[Renew Deal]

12. I'm over the threats

[ehrnst]

13. So are Democratic women.

Link to tweet

[ismnotwasm]

14. ++++Plus infinity

I'm done. I will be angry for the rest of my life, and I will find ways to enjoy it.

[Renew Deal]

24. That proves my point.

"The most important vote a congressperson casts is for speaker."

That's absolutely correct. And a Democratic speaker will not push anti-choice legislation. Any individual house members vote for speaker is generally more important than votes on other topics because it gives their party control of the agenda.

[ehrnst]

29. You apparently didn't read the whole thread that refutes that....

Here it is:



No. No, they do not. Hear me on this one. /1

Outcomes of fights depend on more than strategy. They depend on resource allocation. How you divide forces, what support you give, etc. /2

If the Dem Party opens its doors to legislating away women's bodily autonomy, neither they nor women net any gains. Period. /3

At that point, women will be forced to fight a two-front war just to keep what dwindling rights and liberties we DO have. /4

Forced to defend our left flank as well as our right, the battle to keep what we have will become impossible. The center will not hold. /5

If you weren't in a coma during the 2016 election you might remember how the first female candidate had to fight just this two-front war. /6

And how that weakened the Party. /6a

This is BOTH a pragmatic & moral issue. Dems won the popular vote on the most pro-woman & pro-PoC platform ever. These issues matter. /7

Women aren't full citizens under the law. We don't have equal pay, we don't have equal rights. Our liberties are under attack every day. /8

Hard-won victories - Title IX, Roe, contraception - are fights we ARE STILL FIGHTING IN 2017 and we are BARELY HOLDING THE GROUND WON. /9

We aren't making strides forward. And now, supposed allies on our left in this fight are forcing us to defend our left flank. /10

It bears repeating here:

REPRODUCTIVE.

ISSUES.

ARE.

ECONOMIC.

ISSUES. /11

Women are the backbone of the Democratic Party. We make up 51% of the total US population and 54% of the total electorate. /12

54% of us are D. We don't just wink out of existence because we're suddenly deemed expendable by the minority of white men in our Party. /13

To put it in terms party officials should understand:

The more we're forced to bear, the less $ and time we have to support a Party. /14

And if you think this is just some bone to toss anti-choice pols' way in hopes of chasing a demo we lost in 65, think again. /15

If there is ANY issue that Republicans will suddenly 180 on to find compromise, it's abortion. Believe it. /16

Leftist dudes & some party officials probably think this won't matter, that it'll be just window dressing. They are WRONG. /17

This, if allowed, will be THE issue that suddenly gets wheels in Washington turning again. Under this administration/Congress/SCOTUS. /18

And they will ONLY turn on this issue. All our hard work, all our money, all our efforts will be broken on women's backs. /19

On women's backs. Women. Specifically black women. Who've had the back of the Democratic Party for YEARS. /20

[Renew Deal]

37. It doesn't refute it. It's wrong.

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)

"If the Dem Party opens its doors to legislating away women's bodily autonomy, neither they nor women net any gains. Period"
Wrong. The party is not doing this. It is building a coalition that prevents this from happening.

"At that point, women will be forced to fight a two-front war just to keep what dwindling rights and liberties we DO have. /4"
Wrong. See above

"If you weren't in a coma during the 2016 election you might remember how the first female candidate had to fight just this two-front war. /6"
Right. This is the fault of narrow and shortsighted thinking. Also the fault of a Russian backed Trump election campaign to stir up the left flank.

"Women are the backbone of the Democratic Party. We make up 51% of the total US population and 54% of the total electorate. /12"
True, but Democratic women are not a monolith.

"The more we're forced to bear, the less $ and time we have to support a Party."
Are you forced to bare more with a Democratic speaker or a Republican one? That's a real choice.

The argument is about winning a false purity battle and losing the real legislative war.

[ehrnst]

39. "False purity" interesting how sticking to one's guns gets called that if it

involves women's issues, and not the "universal" issues that directly affect straight white men.

The new "left" of the party gets to issue litmus tests and threaten to primary any candidate that doesn't vote yes on a symbolic amendment on drugs from Canada....and cry "CORPORATE SHILLS!!!" and claim the party will crash and burn under the weight of that crime.

But simply say that national funding should be reserved for Democrats that actually support the party platform on access to health care for women, and suddenly we're PURITANS!!! and need to see the "BIG PICTURE!"

And Democratic women are pretty much monolithic on their damn health care.

And no, I don't think that throwing away over 30 years of progress is going to get us the speaker of the house.

Again - which districts are red but for a Dem willing to sell out on women's health? Still haven't been shown they exist, let alone in great enough numbers to get the house back. Because apparently voter suppression has ceased to be a problem in the last week or so....


Make the case that it will be worth women giving their donations to HRC's PAC and not the Democratic party, because HRC will distribute that money to candidates that are actual progressives.

[BainsBane]

33. Fine, be over them

Women are the majority of this party. There isn't one Democratic holding office in this country who doesn't owe their seat to women. If you think you'er going to get those voters to abandon their own rights and their own economic survival for your privilege, you haven't got a clue.

Progressive my ass. This shit is the very definition of regressive.

[Renew Deal]

46. You understand that eventually primaries end right?

Everyone should run that wants to run. When the primaries are over they're over. I know you understood that in 2016.

[BainsBane]

61. Of course

and if you run or vote for any anti-woman's rights, anti-civil rights candidate you want. But the fact is you don't have the votes, and this shit sure as hell can't win based on the merits. You aren't going to succeed in reinstating a Jim Crow, backalley-abortion Democratic party. The demographics of this country are changing, and white men who are threatened by that are going to have to figure out how to cope.


If the party were remade according to your criteria, it wouldn't be worth voting for, and it wouldn't matter if it or the GOP were in the majority. But of course it won't be, and that is precisely what pisses you off.


So by all means, keep up your struggle to line the pockets of the 20% on the backs of the 80%. Fight for medicare for the few. Stand for privilege of the few over equality and justice for the many. Stand up for the values of Me first, last and only. Just don't think the rest of us don't see exactly what is going on.

[Renew Deal]

71. Your purity has lead to the outcomes you fear.

You keep saying "your." My choice would be 435 Adam Schiff's or Maxine Waters. Your point of view has lead to 240 Republicans in the House, 52 Republicans in the Senate, and Donald Trump. Your actions have consequences. So you can shout from the rooftops about conspiracies to turn the country right while your actions have facilitated it.

[elehhhhna]

78. Oh dude shut the fuck up

The DNC already tried the let's pretend for Republicans to see if we get elected so shovel off

[Kaleva]

18. Many Dem women in my district vote for the prolife candidate.

A prochoice candidate isnt going to get much support here from the base.

[BainsBane]

34. What?

Where do you live? Anti-choicers already have a party: the GOP. There is no reason on earth for them to vote Democrat.

[Kaleva]

41. Upper Michigan

Most of the base here won't support a prochoice or pro gun control candidate for House Representative. Bart Stupak was our long time rep till he retired.

There was a prochoice candidate for the nomination a few years ago but she dropped out early because she said she wasnt getting much local support.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Here's what I would prefer:

I would prefer people not serve me a pint glass full of piss and expect me to be happy about it because the only other drink on the menu is barrel-aged diarrhea with a razor blade chaser.

We've been seeing the effects of zealous center-ism for the past thirty years: the middle moving further and further to the right.

[Renew Deal]

25. Life is about choices

Not all choices are good, but most have consequences. Abandoning the Democratic party is a choice and you're living the consequences.

[ehrnst]

27. A party that abandons its base will weaken from the inside out. (nt)

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. Wrong. Life is about surviving.

And the consequences of consistently meeting the GOP in the "middle" are the same as voting for the GOP. The only difference is how long it takes to get there.

[Renew Deal]

58. How many Anti-Choice bills did Pelosi put on the agenda when she was Speaker?

Go ahead and count them up.

[Act_of_Reparation]

84. So, the House only votes when Nancy Pelosi is speaker?

Interesting. You should probably be running along now.

[Renew Deal]

85. Who controls the house agenda?

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. What does "irrelevant" mean?

Whether or not a Democratic Speaker would propose a pro-life bill is meaningful only if the Democrats hold a legislative majority in perpetuity. It stands to reason they will not. It stands to reason the GOP will, as they do now, have a majority in Congress and thereby set the legislative agenda. It stands to reason they will propose pro-life legislation. It stands to reason some pro-life Democrats will vote against their party in favor of that pro-life legislation.

[BainsBane]

93. Paul Ryan

[ehrnst]

74. You wouldn't know that to hear the angst about who voted no on an amendment concerning

drug imports from Canada.

There were people here ready to primary Corey Booker on that.

[Renew Deal]

82. The primary isn't really the point of this entire argument.

Anyone should primary anyone they want. I have no issue with that. But eventually the primaries have to end and we have to elect the best Democrat available.

[ehrnst]

87. That wasn't the point of my post, either.

The point is that when collective cries of "heretic!" go up against those voting against a single symbolic amendment on a bill concerning Canadian drugs, then the dissing of a basic party platform plank on women's health gets a "Hey, we have to compromise," shrug off from many of the same people, one has to wonder what's behind the sudden about face.

[charliea]

20. That sounds like a straw man argument.

Do you think that there are districts where the bench is so thin that we can't find a candidate who would be progressive? It looks like there is going to be surge in the number of female candidates next year, besides just the likely increase of emboldened Democratic candidates in general.

Besides that, finding a Democratic candidate who supports Medicare for all and is also anti-choice would be only slightly less likely than finding unicorn (IMO). If a candidate can separate one medical procedure from all others for their own religious necessity it's an unnecessary compromise.

[Renew Deal]

26. Yes

"there are districts where the bench is so thin that we can't find a candidate who would be progressive."

There are also districts where said progressive wouldn't be tolerable. A Democrat isn't winning easily in some places. Look at what just happened in GA or MT.

I'd prefer to have 435 Adam Schiff's or Maxine Waters. That's just not reality.

The most important vote most house members make is for Speaker. The speaker controls the agenda. So if an anti-Choice Dem votes for Pelosi, there will not be any anti-choice legislation.

[ehrnst]

32. Yes - the existence of unicorns as the argument for spending money on unicorn feed instead of

what we can actually use.

Or something like that.

[BainsBane]

21. Would you prefer a candidate who supports reducing white men

To second class citizenship And certain poverty to enable healthcare for the majority? There is no Medicare for all without reproductive rights. There is privilege for the few at the expensive of the many. There is greatly increased poverty for women and children and skyrocketing death rates, as Texas demonstrates very clearly.

The ease with which so-called progressives declare the rights and lives of the majority if Americans impractical reveals a great deal. It is this sort of thing that exposes the rhetoric about equality and Medicare for "all" as empty. Standing up for a few is not all.

It's also interesting how people who complain about the Third Way lurch to the center are so anxious to push the party so far right that we go back to the era of back alley abortions. The Third Way are socialists compared to the shit we are seeing now.

The notion that taking away the rights of the majority of voters in this country is a winning strategy is absurd There is no evidence to support that claim, and it is morally repugnant. Polls show overwhelming support for reproductive rights. The notion that the majority of the country and the electorate have to be denied full citizenship to win is an obvious lie. And why the fuck should the majority care which of two white male supremacist parties win? Why the fuck would anyone sacrifice their own survival to implement medicare for the few, which is precisely what you are advocating in your post.

I say it's time to quit pretending that policies that keep the majority from desperate poverty are promoted for the sake of winning. If you want to reduce 75% of the country to extreme poverty and high death rates so that you can line your own pockets, have the guts to say so.

This shit couldn't be more transparent.

[Renew Deal]

30. Joe Manchin vs. Shelley Capito

It has nothing to do with abortion specifically. It's a numbers game. If enough Democrats support the Democrat for speaker, there is no anti-choice legislation. That's just the way it is.

Look at Manchin and Capito. Manchin is a RW Democrat, but he's another vote for Schumer to control the agenda. He's another vote for a Democratic Supreme Court nominee. Your purity makes you feel good, but it's a losing battle. Evidence: The current environment.

[BainsBane]

44. That isn't what this is about

So don't pretend it is. It's a clear effort to turn the Democratic Party into an instrument of white male domination. Besides, you all have posted dozens of threads talking about how you want Manchin gone. Now suddenly you hold him up as an example. How stupid do you think people are?

You all spent the primary denouncing arguments about practicality. And now, when it comes to women's core rights, ability to stay out of poverty or even stay alive, you declare our rights and our lives as too impractical to be a concern.

Your phrase isn't evidence. Data is evidence, and it contradicts your transparent claims. This has nothing to do with wining elections. It's about an effort to engineer the subjugation of the many for the benefit of a few. It's about increasing inequality to line the pockets of the self entitled.

The bright side of this is none of your candidates have won a single race ever, even in the bluest district. It's not surprising. An agenda perfectly at home in the GOP does not work with Democratic voters.

So to answer your question, I don't give even half a shit what letter is next to the name of a white male supremacist. I don't want a party or a nation that seeks to exclude the great majority of the population from the body politic and economic opportunity. And if you think basic values of equality are about purity, you don't know the first thing about what it means to be a Democrat.

So you can take your agenda of Medicare for the 20% to someone who buys your bullshit. I can't lose enough brain cells to fall for this weak and transparent ploy.

[Renew Deal]

51. Your post is a runon sentence of fantasy.

"It's a clear effort to turn the Democratic Party into an instrument of white male domination Besides you all have posted dozens of threads talking about how you want Manchin gone Now suddenly you hold him up as an example How stupid do you think people are"

"You all spent the primary denouncing arguments about practicality." Ummm, wrong.

Data: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9401126

Who are my candidates? You supported Hillary in 2016 who was objectively less "progressive" than Bernie. Your opportunistic purity is transparent.

Don't you think it's ironic that your argument has lead to actual white supremacists running the country?

[ehrnst]

62. Oh, so this is about Bernie.

I see.

[Renew Deal]

64. No?

[ehrnst]

67. Why bring him into the discussion, then?

[BainsBane]

90. You obviously have no idea what the word data means.

noun
facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

It is not anecdote.

I don't need to justify my voting rights to you. Your determination to refight the primary is tiresome but entirely predictable for someone who imagines ideology is defined by one man's political fortunes. That is about power and political tribalism, not principle of ideology.

I care about issues and policy. I look carefully at candidates policy proposals and voting records. I look for signs they have thought through how to implement what they promise. When I don't find details indicating that level of commitment, I am less likely to be persuaded by rhetoric, particularly if that rhetoric contradicts their own voting records. I know full well that candidates are not perfect, and that I am bound to disagree with them on issues (eg. Clinton's Iraq War vote), but I look at their records and policy proposals as a whole and make a decision based on the available choices. I am absolutely certain beyond a shadow of doubt that I made the right choice in 2016. I can't say that for every election, but I can for 2016. I take my responsibility as a voter very seriously, an I know for a fact I was better informed than most on the choices before me in the last cycle.

Most importantly, I do not decide what to believe or argue based on what a politician says. I examine evidence, seek to learn about issues and various policy options, and then decide on who I think is best qualified for the job of congressperson, senator, president, or city council member. Particularly politics do not constitute the center of my political worldview. I see them as public servants who are elected to represent us. It is not my responsibility to serve them. I find the entire ethos that posits otherwise to run contrary to principles of self-government. In fact, I think it premodern.

You can have the word progressive. The term has been so bastardized that I wouldn't dream of associating myself with it. It is supposed to mean moving forward, not backward. So obviously it doesn't fit a nationalist, restorationist agenda--something a friend of mind, who is a Sanders supporter, called "radical conserativism" in the tradition of Emiliano Zapata. I think her comparison is unkind to Zapata, but I understand her point; the goal focuses on restoring a mythical past.

It's one thing to tolerate the occasional anti-choice candidate from a red state and another to insist the party should adopt a position that deepens inequality and rules in the interests of the few. Since you are so opposed to "purity," how about you support medicare for 80% of the population rather than the 20% you do now? Surely a progressive wouldn't prioritize the wealth and comfort of the few over the survival of the many?

Don't you think it's ironic that your argument has lead to actual white supremacists running the country?

How exactly do you figure that? I can't help notice that you seem to find Trump's election awfully convenient. It still won't get you more than one vote, and it still doesn't enable you to make anything resembling a thoughtful or compelling argument. Yours boils down to "I don't like you because you didn't vote for Bernie." Big fucking deal. Get over it.

[ehrnst]

52. I'm sick of being told that a vote on a single symbolic amendment concerning Canadian drugs

Is far more of an offense to progress and should get a Dem primaried for "being a CORPORATE SHILL" but we should totally be ready to "compromise" and "stop being puritanical" for opposing national money going to elect anti-choice Dems.

[BainsBane]

75. Let's cut to the chase here

This has absolutely nothing to do with equality or economic justice. This is about narrow, race class and gender interests. The eagerness with which they promote the abandonment of rights that keep women and children from failing into desperate poverty and dying at third world rates shows that equality is not only not a value, it is targeted for elimination. This is about the narrow interests of one class/race/gender who seeks power and privilege at the expense of the majority.

The language of leftism is invoked to obfuscate, but there are no leftist values of equality or economic and social justice in evidence.

[musette_sf]

28. Since when is the defense and protection

of citizens' rights "shortsighted and narrow thinking"???

[Renew Deal]

31. Since when is puritanism a winning strategy when controlling the House?

We need to assemble a coalition. The fact is that there is no anti-choice legislation with a Democratic speaker.

[ehrnst]

36. "Puritanism?"

In what world does that metaphor make sense?

But I'll bite. Tell me which districts are red, but would go blue if a Dem was anti choice.

And since more people doubt man-made climate change than oppose Roe v Wade - why not fund Dems who deny climate change?

Makes WAY more sense - except that straight white men are affected by that issue, and that's who were trying "win over" because black women are our most reliable base, and we can throw them under the bus.

Who else are they going to vote for, right?

[Renew Deal]

42. Mississippi #4

Have you ever heard of Gene Taylor. Gene Taylor was objectively anti-Choice, but he was also one of the most eloquent Democratic legislators critical of the Iraq War. He voted for the Democrat to be speaker.

Gene Taylor was a very conservative Democrat with a lifetime ACU rating of 65.63.
His replacement is Steven Palazzo. His ACU lifetime rating is 84.17.

Now here's the real question: How many anti-choice bills passed the house from 2007-2011?

Sometimes the choices are bad and worse. That's life.

[ehrnst]

43. Ok, that's one. Any more?

It's going to have to be a lot to justify the message that the DCCC is sending women.

What others?

[Renew Deal]

48. 218-217

One might be enough

[ehrnst]

49. Can you explain those numbers? (nt)

[Renew Deal]

50. Majority of 435 house members

[ehrnst]

53. OK, so what do the two numbers you gave represent?

"218-217"

The current red to blue ratio? If not, then what significance does it have to "maybe only one district is needed" statement?"

Please clarify.

[Renew Deal]

56. The majority of 435

[ehrnst]

57. That would require far, far more than one district flipping

You said "one might be all that is needed."

Still not clear on what you are trying prove.

And you still haven't shown that there are more than one district that would flip blue for an anti-choice dem candidate.

[Renew Deal]

59. We're building a coalition.

We want 0 Joe Manchins, but I'll take 1 Joe Manchin over any number of Ted Cruz's.

[ehrnst]

66. How does that answer the question about how many districts there are that would

turn blue with a Democratic candidate that is anti-choice?

And where in the world is there a state that is choosing between a Manchin and Cruz - that would go Manchin purely on the basis of an anti-choice stance?

You can throw two random numbers out to claim that there "may only need to be one...." such unicorn district, but no substance behind them other than irritation that women are being "puritanical" about something as minor as choosing when and if to bear children.

We're "non-progressive" that way, I guess.

[Renew Deal]

69. That specific question is irrelevant.

The question is how do we support the Democrats running in the general election.

Manchin and Cruz are an example. You name your own race. Trump vs. Clinton. Ossof vs. Handel. D v R

[BainsBane]

91. You know what turned the whole South Republican?

from once solidly Democratic? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Is supporting those irresponsible "purity" as well?

You know what else really pissed off white Southerners? The abolition of slavery.

How far are you willing to go down this rabbit hole?

It is funny how anything that has to do with the privilege and comfort of white men is declared an absolute requirement for the party, but the rights and lives of the great majority of the population aren't important enough to get in the way of "winning."

No one makes an argument like that because they care about winning, not when they have zero evidence to support their claims. They do it because they want a society where the many serve the few, as long as the few in question includes them.

[LanternWaste]

38. Thank goodness we have more than the two options you provide.

"prefer an anti-choice Democrat that supports Medicare for all or a anti-choice republican that opposes you and everything you stand for?"

Thank goodness we have more than the two incomplete options you provide... which itself seems both short-sighted and narrow-minded as well.

[ehrnst]

45. And you know that's happening all over the country, and apparently that's the reason we have a GOP

speaker of the house.

Why else would the DCCC send this message to the majority of the base that their economic and physical health are put on the back burner?

[Renew Deal]

54. You know this is how we gained the majority in 2006 right?

It was a large, diverse coalition of Democrats. Some weren't pretty ideologically, but they passed the ACA, eliminated DADT, passed Dodd Frank, passed Lilly Ledbetter, supported Sotomayor and Kagan, and much more. What congressional accomplishments can the ideologically pure claim from 2011 to 2017?

[elehhhhna]

80. What all should we give up? Gun-control? Gay rights?

What all should we give up? Gun-control? Gay rights?properly funded public education? Where does your bullshit stop

[loyalsister]

89. If there is really danger that they will take over committees

and that their bills and amendments will pass should we regain the majority or even stay where we are in the senate, we have bigger problems than a few Dems who are not towing the line on everything.

[FairWinds]

15. Well, my Congresswoman is Marcy Kaptur, and she is "pro-life" . .

but otherwise a decent Dem.

As a progressive Dem myself, I have no problem with
people who decide to primary her for being anti-choice.

She has also become pro-war, perhaps because of her
Ukrainian heritage.

I would have no problem with people primarying her for
that either.

But we should be uniting in the general elections.

[ehrnst]

19. This issue is if funds from the national party should go to her or other candidates who

support the party platform.

That said - being pro-war will likely get more outrage from many in the far left party than her stance on choice.

[Renew Deal]

60. In the primary, no. In the general election, yes.

It's the DCCC, not the DCCC*

[ismnotwasm]

23. I am in a solid blue area so I have good choices--I get that

It's fine to have an opinion about abortion--it's not fine to try to legislate that opinion in order to oppress women's rights.

[MineralMan]

88. Marcy Kaptur has a 95% rating from NARAL

What anti-choice votes has she made?

[FairWinds]

94. Guess my info differs . .

"Rated 30% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record."

[ebbie15644]

16. My line is a woman's right to choose, that's just the way I roll

[wryter2000]

35. This is why I don't give money to the DCCC or DSCC

I explained to a lovely lady from the DCCC on the phone that I want my money going to candidates who support liberal causes. She more or less agreed with me.

[Renew Deal]

63. People have made this argument for years

And it makes sense. I'd rather control my donations. I understand the DCCC's role and it's important too.

[ehrnst]

76. Apparently their funding anti-choice candidates has the power to

take back the house, from what you've posted....

[Renew Deal]

81. Yes

Both are true. I'd prefer to control who I send money to and the DCCC's role is to elect Democrats.

[still_one]

55. This actually is a debate that is way overdue within the party, and it doesn't

just apply to women's rights. There are a whole array of issues.

Howard Dean has made it clear that he will not support candidates who are opposed to abortion rights.

Tom Perez made it clear in April that all Democratic candidates must support a woman's right to choose:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-tom-perez-abortion-rights_us_58fa5fade4b018a9ce5b351d

The line is drawn, but the arguments and debates among Democrats regarding this and all similar issues are just beginning.

[Renew Deal]

65. Dean is the same Democrat that said that we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[ehrnst]

68. This isn't about perfect - it's about refusing to make women's health the enemy of

getting a "dem speaker of the house."

Is that clearer?

And your statement"You supported Hillary in 2016 who was objectively less "progressive" than Bernie. Your opportunistic purity is transparent," makes other statements here pale in terms of puritantical dualism..

[Renew Deal]

70. Yes

And I would agree with you if that's what was happening.

[ehrnst]

73. And if there was actually a significant number of districts that would go blue but for

supporting women's right to choose, then your argument might hold more water. "Maybe we only need one..." still has no basis in reality, no matter if you pull two numbers out of the air that would make it so...

Again - there are more people who doubt man made climate change than oppose Roe v Wade, but that fact seems to go ignored in the great debate about what gets dealt away in order to "take back the house."

[still_one]

83. You are absolutely right, and that was the premise of his 50 state strategy, but

like the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, a women's right to choose time has come, and in fact is overdue.

The debate within the party is going to involve anti-choice people like Bob Casey who want Roe V Wade repealed. That means pro-choice Democrats will need to run against people like Bob Casey.

[MuseRider]

72. I will never vote against my rights again.

I will never cast a vote for an anti choice person again. This battle is raging in my state right now. We have found, as have others but the PTB never want to hear this is that people will vote for those with courage to stand up. Even if they are not 100% behind them if they stand up for people to have equality they are likely to get more votes. I would rather fight those who are not already on my side than those on my side who think I don't need to be equal. They are actually not on my side at all if they cannot manage to see that as important.

[R B Garr]

79. Thank you, ehrnst!