National Democrat Party - perceived as "morally bankrupt" - recruits pro-life/-2A candidates
From today's Bloomberg.com:
Republicans have long put Democrats on the defensive on cultural issues such as abortion, guns and gay marriage....
Because of the "lesson of 2004," Democrats are recruiting "values" candidates.
"There are some in the national Democratic leadership who think perhaps choice has become too much of a litmus test in the party, and it hurts them," [Jennifer] Duffy [congressional analyst, Cook Political Report] said....
Former President Clinton held that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," an appeal to voters uncomfortable with abortion that didn't compromise his support for Roe v. Wade....
(To momentarily digress, Clinton's words were void of conviction and reality. The list is extensive of anti-life measures he enacted and pro-life measures he repelled. At any rate, if abortion is so great, so morally harmless, why should it be rare?)
Democrats have strayed from [Clinton's] formula and it has hurt them, [Marshall] Wittmann [senior fellow, Democratic Leadership Council] said. In the 2004 presidential election, more voters - 22% - said "moral values" were the most important issue than said the economy and terrorism, according to CNN exit polls.
Of those who chose values as the top issue, 80%t voted for Bush and 18% for... Kerry.
The problem was further documented in an August memo by Democracy Corps, a Democratic research organization. Focus groups found that most voters considered Democrats to be "liberal" on issues of morality, according to the memo. Some voters even used the words "immoral" or "morally bankrupt" to describe Democrats....
Particularly among non-college voters, "cultural issues not only superseded other priorities" such as Iraq and the economy, "they served as a proxy for many voters" on those issues, the memo said....
The article mentioned many recruits, although none from Illinois. Are there any? Perhaps Democrats consider Illinois GOP pro-life strongholds untouchable at this time. Perhaps there are too few Illinois Democrat pro-lifers from which to recruit good candidates or massage votes.
46 comments:
Glenn Poshard?
Jill,
Democrats don't need such "recruits" here in IL. They are looking for those folks to take back "red" districts & states.
IL Republicans seem convinced that one must be pro-abortion to win.
Why would IL Dems need to recruit "values" candidates here when Republicans recruit "value free" candidates?
I know of a GA race where one of the most Pro-Choice Democrats is being challenged in the primary by a pro-Life candidate, but it looks like that won't be an issue in their race
Pat,
I often tack a little more to the left than you (though I grew up in a dese dems dose "Dem, but not Liberal" area), but that cracked me up. And I agree with it.
The hard left elements kill us. Come on, man, play ball. We want 90 percent of the same things...don't $#!+can it over the 10 percent.
Oh, and Fran, abortion rates dropped dramatically during the Clinton (the centrist liberals so love) Administration.
Sorry, meant "Jill."
"Morally bankrupt"? Oh, my, that's precious, coming from the party that sold votes to Jack Abramoff and mindlessly supports the increasingly dictatorial actions of an out of control, out of touch president. I could continue to list all the criminal, near-criminal, and unethical behavior of the modern Republican party (to say nothing of their ruinous, unjustifiable policies) but I don't have a week.
Pat: Amen. I walked in Wisconsin for Kerry and could tell the less money a person seemed to have, the more likely they were for Bush. What happened?
Anon 1:00pm
That's because the Dems are the new party of the rich. Just look at the North Shore - NY State wannabees, "we've got ours, you get yours."
We'll take the entreprenuers and self-employed, you take radicalized minorities, NARAL, and Limousine Liberals.
60/40 nation.
___
Insider,
If you think either party is more corrupt than the other, you are spending too much time dirnking partisan Kool-Aid.
With government reaching the size and scope that it has, the "Mother Teresa" Party would be corrupt with in 2 weeks of taking power.
At the base of the Democratic Party there are some laudible ideals. The same is true of the Republican Party.
With your side spewing "Chimpybushitlerburton" and our side carping about Clinton, Blago, etc. it is little wonder that we all talk past each other.
What are your goals? How do you best achieve them. Those are the kinds of discussions we ought to be having. To shout "morally bankrupt" over a ficticious fence is ... well, morally bankrupt.
I know what you mean. Heart transplants and coronary bypass are great too. Wonder why everyone doesn't get those?
I mean, why all the campaigns to promote heart health and exercise and all that when these hypocrites clearly love their heart transplants and bypasses?
EW, you make some very good points, but I don't think the Dems are the "new party of the rich."
I think each side has always had their rich - and always will. And regardless of who is in charge, they'll get theirs.
Read Fertile Ground By Charles Mahtesian
When the Census Bureau released in October its first-ever state-by-state analysis of the links between marriage, fertility and other socioeconomic characteristics, it was hard not to notice the familiar red- and blue-state divisions. The top 11 states with most births per 1,000 women were carried by Republican President George W. Bush in 2004. Of the bottom 11 states, eight were won by Democratic Sen. John Kerry.
[***]
Democrats are not only concentrated in low-marriage states but also in low-marriage congressional districts. Consider this: As of 2002, 55 of the top 60 congressional districts ranked by percentage of married people were represented by Republicans. That disparity was manifested on Election Day when national exit polls revealed that the Democratic share of the two-party vote among married women (under 65) with children was 43 percent in 2004, down from 49 percent in 1992. Among married men with kids, the Democratic share was even more anemic at just 38 percent, down from 46 percent in 1992.
Since the New Deal era, the Democratic Party has been accustomed to thinking of itself as the nation's majority party. This was true enough for decades but today, as political analyst Rhodes Cook has pointed out, Democrats are at best the plurality party. That leaves Democrats with one last option if they hope regain their former status: The party needs to figure out why the Census Bureau's marriage and fertility data so closely mirrors the 2004 electoral landscape.
Wow, for someone who so modestly calls him- or herself "extreme wisdom," you are remarkably dense.
With government reaching the size and scope that it has
Hmm. Who's responsible for the largest expansion of government in decades? And for the most serious domestic spying scandal in a generation? And a hugely expensive Medicare prescription drug benefit so poorly-designed (it's primary purpose, after all, was to enrich drug companies further) that its that a massive PR campaign is needed to get seniors to sign up? And a hugely expensive war, both in terms of lives and dollars, against a tinpot dictator who posed little or no threat to the United States? George W. Bush and the Republican Party.
Didn't the GOP used to stand for small government and fiscal responsibility? You may be proud that it is now the party of corporate whoring and unfettered presidential power, but many of us are sickened to see the party of Lincoln cavorting in the gutter and dragging the rest of the country down there with it.
In contrast, under Clinton (of whom I am not the biggest fan), the budget went into surplus for the first time in 30 years. You may wish to whine that Clinton only cut the deficit because of a Republican Congress...except for the fact that his initial deficit reduction bill in 1993 was passed by a Democratic Congress.
The size, scope, and audacity of the scandals erupting seemingly by the week under the Bush administration are vastly larger than any supposed "scandals" under Clinton, most of which were ginned up by the GOP in the first place. Were he, his Cabinet, and the Democratic Party then or now totally clean? Of course not. Is the GOP demonstrably and significantly more corrupt? Without question.
Politics is a dirty business, but the two parties do NOT share equal responsibility for making it so, at least not on a national level.
P.S. Pat, glad to see you're back in true form, spouting nonsense or a fair imitation thereof. Dean sure is running the party into the ground, what with his record-breaking fundraising and all!
I loves me some irony:
State senator behind pro-marriage bill gets divorce
http://www.wbir.com/news/regional_story.aspx?storyid=31132
Oh, and as a Dem - I have found Howard Dean to be a disaster. Our national fundraising is lagging far behind the GOP. The problem with people powered Howard is HE is always the story.
Dean sure is running the party into the ground, what with his record-breaking fundraising and all!
2:27 PM
Dear Insider,
Yep, them there dollars vote up a storm!
"You may wish to whine that Clinton only cut the deficit because of a Republican Congress...except for the fact that his initial deficit reduction bill in 1993 was passed by a Democratic Congress."
- That was a TAX INCREASE bill, not a government reduction bill. Those didn't occur until the Republican majority. Check the inside of a history book, Insider.
This doesn't help the Dems either. Novak on talk of getting rid of Pelosi,
The Democratic management of legislation in the House is handled by the likes of John Dingell, 79, Energy and Commerce Committee (25 terms); Tom Lantos, 77, International Relations (13 terms); John Conyers, 76, Judiciary (21 terms); David Obey, 67, Appropriations (18 terms); and John Spratt, 63, Budget (12 terms). These are men who generally talk about moving the previous question more than moving the nation.
Oh please, please spare us the "Dems took cash from Abramoff too..." claptrap.
If I steal a tootsie roll and you steal a Benz, technically we're both thieves -- but I'm guessing you're in more trouble than I.
All this nonsense that this is just as much a Democratic scandal because some Dem's got Abramoff money ignores the eye of the hurricane of this scandal: The K Street Project was formed for the sole purpose of twisting arms at associations and corporations to hire GOP connected lobbyists at the exclusion of Democratic lobbyists. It was DeLay's baby and Abramoff was it's closest associate. This is from where the major indictments will come.
For the record, EVERY SINGLE PENNY of personal contributions Jack Abramoff and his wife made were to Republicans.
Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Lane Evans did not take a cent from Jack Abramoff. They did, however, receive contributions from the lobbying firms he worked for and clients thereof. Is this good? No. I think campaigns should be publicly financed so that the only special interests funding candidates are the American people. But then someone like you would probably call that position "communist," "socialist," "extreme liberal," and all the other tired phrases used incorrectly by Republicans all the time.
Not a single Democrat has been implicated in criminal charges related to the Abramoff scandal to date, nor, as I pointed out above, did a single one accept contributions from Abramoff. Only Republicans did. Nor have I heard of any quid pro quo situations like the one Denny Hastert finds himself embroiled in (Abramoff threw him a fundraiser just weeks before Hastert wrote a letter to the Interior Department opposing the expansion of casino gambling in Louisiana--something Abramoff had been hired to oppose--coincidence or influence-peddling? Hmm.).
Enjoy your scandal! I know I will.
P.S. Tony, calling Ms. Stanek a fruitcake is an insult to fruitcakes everywhere.
Insider...glad to see Durbin and Lane Evans give back the money they got from Abramhoff.
I am of the opinion that here in Illinois people are just a bit more reluctant to legislate morality, because the last time we did that on a national scale(Prohibition) it took us 70 years to shake off being the butt of the "Chicago... rat-a-tat!" remarks.
Anon 3:51
Thanks for that, I meant to say "Abramoff connected money" in my 3:23 post.
Insider, like it or not, extreme wisdom was right on the money this time. The Democrats have just as little room to talk about “moral bankruptcy” as you say the Republicans have.
Just because an ethics violation isn’t reported by the press doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or isn’t just as egregious (I’m looking at you Ms. Pelosi).
Which Party’s senior spokesmen in the Senate are a former member of the KKK and someone who ought to be in prison for negligent homicide?
BTW, make glib comments about the “party of Lincoln” all you want, but crack a history book sometime and see what kind of civil liberties violations he racked up during the Civil War. And when you talk about “most serious domestic spying scandal in a generation”, make sure you mention that the last generation’s big brother was JFK’s little brother (btw, what would you say if Jeb were nominated for a senior cabinet post under W?).
“Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Lane Evans did not take a cent from Jack Abramoff. They did, however, receive contributions from the lobbying firms he worked for and clients thereof. Is this good? No. I think campaigns should be publicly financed so that the only special interests funding candidates are the American people.”
- well, last I checked, the lobbying firms and clients Jack Abramoff worked for would be special interests, while he himself would be part of “the American people.” So how again are the contributions that Durbin, Reid and Evans got somehow less ethically tainted than the personal contributions republicans got from Jack?
“Politics is a dirty business, but the two parties do NOT share equal responsibility for making it so, at least not on a national level.”?
- You truly are in a deep state of partisan denial. At least you had the honesty to back-handedly admit that here in Illinois they are equal. But if you really want to start stacking up ethics violations, corruption investigations, etc…then name the time and place. I’ll pull the Dem’s honor roll together and we’ll see if your righteous indignation is justified or not.
PS: Just keep telling yourself that money is the only thing that separates the parties’ ability to win elections…..don’t change your message one bit. I hope you’ve gotten used to being on the crappy end of election day!
Man, it took 28 posts to get to the Ted Kennedy and Robery Byrd!!!
WOWHEE!! Bravo GOP. Bravo.
Read Democrat Lindsey Scott's blog on Budgets as Moral Documents in
Implications of the Incarnation if you're looking for excessive religousity.
Anon 5:01, dismiss it if you want, but would you really be that quick to forget about their pasts if they were Republicans? Honestly? George Bush was supposedly unfit to be a national leader because he partied in college and skipped a few air national guard drills. Robert Byrd was a member of a hate group and Kennedy essentially killed a woman.......how can you just ignore that and pretend like I'm the one being absurd for bringing it up?
Wow, I'm honored to be attacked by you, g.o.p.--I must have really struck a nerve. Reality really bites, doesn't it?
Just because an ethics violation isn’t reported by the press doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or isn’t just as egregious (I’m looking at you Ms. Pelosi).
Um, yes it does, when the federal government seeks a criminal indictment for said ethics violation. You might want to ask Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) about that, as he, Rep. Doolittle, Sen. Burns, and Rep. DeLay (how many criminal investigations can one House Majority Leader be implicated in at once? The sky's the limit!) may be very familiar with that situation soon.
Which Party’s senior spokesmen in the Senate are a former member of the KKK and someone who ought to be in prison for negligent homicide?
You know full well that Senator Byrd has apologized repeatedly for his involvement in the KKK as a young man--and, as he is old, that was a long time ago. Maybe we shouldn't have forgiven Sen. Frist for convincing animal shelters that he wanted to adopt a cat, which he then took home and dissected? Or perhaps you'd prefer to concentrate on Sen. Frist's current insider trading problems? I also might remind you that a former Nebraska governor and congressman--a REPUBLICAN--actually is in jail for 2nd degree manslaughter.
crack a history book sometime and see what kind of civil liberties violations he racked up during the Civil War.
I am quite familiar with President Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and other questionable decisions. However, I was referring to his legacy of 1) emancipating the slaves and 2) holding the Union together by winning the Civil War. Odd that you wouldn't want to be associated with those two accomplishments.
the last generation’s big brother was JFK’s little brother
Hahahahahahaha. That is precious! You conveniently ignore Richard Nixon and the entire Watergate scandal.
how again are the contributions that Durbin, Reid and Evans got somehow less ethically tainted than the personal contributions republicans got from Jack?
Because it appears that in at least four cases, Republican members of Congress and/or their staff members traded votes for those donations from Abramoff or at the very least improperly accepted trips, basketball tickets, etc. from him. I think the entire campaign finance system is a cesspool, and despite your bizarre conflation of Jack Abramoff with the American people as a whole, I still think the only masters to whom politicians should be responsible are the people as a whole. Not sleazy, individual lobbyists.
You truly are in a deep state of partisan denial. At least you had the honesty to back-handedly admit that here in Illinois they are equal.
First I'm in a state of partisan denial, but then I'm honest? Wow, I'm practically schizophrenic.
I’ll pull the Dem’s honor roll together and we’ll see if your righteous indignation is justified or not.
I'd take you up on this, but I prefer to spend my time with people who live in reality and have a passing familiarity with, you know, facts.
P.S. Bush did cocaine and was AWOL. You make it sound like he didn't inhale some pot and was late for an appointment, instead of using an extremely dangerous illegal drug and committing a military offense punishible by death.
Gee GOP: Bush was also going to return "honor" to the White House. By the time it's over he will have presided over the most scandal ridden administration since Teapot Dome. But all of you sheep who vote against the self interest of anyone but the wealthiest 1% because the GOP pays lip service to your social agenda (and don't pretend it's anything but lip service, with control of all three branches they've done nothing to advance your social agenda) you sit back and take it. Because thank god no one's getting a blow job in the Oval Office. (Although we can't account for all of Jeff Gannon's time in the White House)
Let's hasten to add that former (and future?) GOP Senate leader Trent Lott and one of the stars of the GOP, Mississippi Governor and former GOP chair Haley Barbour are among those with ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens --Klan lite. And that's today. Not seven decades ago.
Just a few quick points:
Jill, in case you didn't get the earlier point, Democrats want to make abortion should be safe, legal and rare for the same reason we want open heart surgery to be safe, legal and rare. Get it?
Abramoff - yeah, just a quick point then I'm done. Democrats may have taken the money, but their giving it back and they haven't been implicated in any bribery scheme. Republicans have been implicated, and George Bush is not giving the money back.
If Sun-Tsu had written a book on politics, he would have said "When your party's actions are indefensible, attack." I'm not falling for it. DeLay stinks here and now, and he's a threat to our political system and our country. Bobby Kennedy is dead, I didn't vote for him, and he's not an issue unless you've got a time machine you're not sharing. So, unless you can warp time-space and turn the 2006 Congressional election into a battle between the party of Tom DeLay and the party of Bobby Kennedy, it looks like DeLay v. Obama to me.
Abortion should be rare so as few women as possible who make the difficult, personal decision to have one aren't hounded and called murderers by so-called Christians.
It would be a profound mistake to equate Bush and his (alleged but likely) corruption with the religious conservatives that the media seems determined to link to him.
In 2000, he drew this bloc's votes because of three major issues:
(a) a slightly less paranoid approach to religion in the realm of social services (and his lip service to the proposition that conservatism could be compassionate too),
(b) what appeared at the time to be his strong integrity and adherence to basic moral values, and
(c) his dedication to the pro-life cause.
He lost his first plank in the first couple of years of the administration, when the (predominantly Democratic) members of the White House's faith-based office began to realize that Karl Rove's dedication to this issue lacked sincerity.
He has been working on losing the second plank for quite a while, as concerns about his integrity have risen higher and higher in the face of the administration's alleged duplicity with respect to entry into Iraq and the corruption scandals that are plaguing the national Republican leadership.
The erosion of the third plank is a little harder to see (particularly because the neoconservatives on the Bush team are hoping to leave religious conservatives holding the bag with all of the scandals that they are responsible for). When Judge Alito is derailed by a Judiciary Committee headed by the pro-choice Arlen Specter, it will be very politically inconvenient for Bush that he campaigned for Specter in a close primary battle against a pro-life challenger.
For all of the lip service Bush pays to religious conservatives and "values voters" (hymn-quoting included), it is telling that Bush spent his "mandate" on issues that had nothing to do with those constituencies' concerns.
A good number of religious conservatives only voted for Bush because Kerry was solidly pro-choice and Bush was the lesser of the two evils. If Kerry would have made anything of an effort to win their votes, he would have been the president (when push came to shove, however, he cared more about ideological purity than saving the country's international status and helping the uninsured).
Religious conservatives are thus in a difficult spot: do we stay with the Republicans and let the neoconservatives blame us for their scandals, do we trade our Republican leaders for Democratic leaders whom we like even less, or do we somehow differentiate between the neocon's Party of Nixon and our own Party of Lincoln?
Anon 6:23 -
Here's a thought: why don't we get past the pro-life vs. pro-choice football game (in which the object of the game is to move the ball down the field one's own direction), and have some collaboration on this?
Pro-lifers think abortion kills babies and are determined to stop the practice at any cost, whereas pro-choicers really can't think that the freedom to have a mass of tissue surgically ripped from one's body is terribly liberating for women. Abortion is a line in the sand for the pro-choice side. For the pro-life side, no substitutes exist.
Looks to me like the pro-choice side could make the pro-life side pay dearly in the way of social programs and other women's rights measures if that would make abortion illegal. And the pro-life side would consider it political capital well spent.
Let's make the trade and then all get back to fixing the real problems the state faces.
6:33 -
Unless you're two years old and dictating your comment to an older sibling, these comments are completely out of line. If you are in fact two, then I still think your mother needs to have a word with you.
Civil disagreement is one thing; personal attacks are something completely different--and should have much less of a place in this state's political life than they do.
Jill, consider this a motion to delete the 6:33 post.
Insider,
As some one who did 2 radio shows on the rot in the Republican Party and raised the issue of whether the Country (and IL) needs some sort of renewal (in the form of an independent party, candidate or movement), I'll let others debate who took whose money.
I'm not even a big party insider, and I saw this coming a ways back.
If losing the House and Senate is what it takes to get these leeches out of the Republican party, then so be it.
As John Adams's wife once wrote - and E. Roosevelt restated...
Great minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss events, small minds discuss personalities
I'll add this..."Really tiny minds engage in cheap, class-war rhetoric.
If I had a dollar for every time I've been called names by some anonymous detractor, I'd be able to pay for the hosting of my blog .
(which the not-too-dense could find by clicking some links)
I'll make you the same offer I've made to any other person willing to engage in a discussion or debate.
Schedule a room, or any other venue, invite some friends, and let's have a debate. Any issue, any time, any where.
If that's too much of a hassle, come over to my blog and leave some anonymous droppings - if I have time, I'll address them to the best of my ability.
For my part, I see the poo-pitching contest between left and right as a distraction from solving problems.
From the standpoint of policy, there are good ideas, and bad ideas, and as corrupt as both parties are, the Republicans are still putting forth better ideas.
Of course, we should NEVER EVER EVER Legislate morality and to do so would be completely against the spirit of the constitution (Griswold v Connecticut and Lawrence v Texas were 2 of the most correct decisions that the Supreme Court has ever made) and I am extremely proud to live in the state that was the first in the nation to overturn its ban on sodomy. However, I don't see abortion as necessarily coming under legislating morality (unless you want to outlaw it when the mother was raped or when her life is in danger) as it deals with when does a human life deserve the protection that personhood affords. If they do deserve it after contraception or implantation, then outlawing abortion is no more legislating morality than outlawing manslaughter.
Only an egomaniac or a moron would dare to call their own banal rantings on a blog "Extreme Wisdom." Based on the content I've read there (basically just excerpts of the usual suspects in neocon drivel) it's a tough call which.
Jill:
A difficult PERSONAL decision. One no individual should have to justify to fit YOUR religious beliefs. Just as I would never presume to force you to justify the PERSONAL decisions you make regarding YOUR own body.
Jill -
Is the decision to wear deodorant a personal decision? At least from what I've observed, the deodorant use is a practice that is enforced by peer pressure as a means of protecting the rest of the peer group from the negative externalities of one person "just not getting it." It is an inherently interpersonal matter (ever been on a full flight with a couple of people who haven't worn it?).
This brings us back to Black Libertarian's excellent point: abortion is only a personal matter if the personhood of the fetus is denied, and this is a question answered for the most part by people's religious or quasi-religious worldviews.
When the state lets abortion slip behind the veil of personal privacy, it goes beyond legislating morality to legislating metaphysics. Thus, before we can even start arguing about whether Roe v. Wade is wrong because it sanctions what some view as "child murder," we must ask the prior question of whether Roe is an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
The issue of unwanted pregnancy spans more than abortion procedures. If you want to talk about the issue, you need to talk about unwanted pregnancy as a whole, and include ALL the facts, including the fact that birth control pills, IUDS, Norplant and other forms of hormonal birth control (all of which cause 'micro abortions' of fertilized eggs.
Second, GWB is pro-choice; in his 2000 debates with McCain he argued there should be abortion available to rape victims, incest victims and women whose life is endangered by the pregnancy. He has further argued at least twice that the country "is not ready to overturn Roe" and that because of this he would not seek a constitutional ban on abortion, and that "instead of arguing over Roe v. Wade, what we ought to do is promote policies that reduce abortions." Sounds a lot like safe, legal and rare to me.
Most Democrats who argue abortion should be safe, legal and rare would heartily welcome programs that actually work to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions, such as providing a living wage and paid family leave (#1 reason cited for abortion is financial), easy access to effective contraception, and much stronger supports for adoption. I for one would seriously look at any candidate, regardless of party, who promised to implement an actual program to study what WORKS to reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy. We know that criminalizing abortion does not do this, since abortion rates in countries where it is illegal are typically much higher than where abortion is legal and accessible.
So, if we're talking about hypocrites, we're really talking about banning contraception AND ALL abortion; those who (like GWB) say abortion is ok when the life of the mother is at stake or when she has been raped, and those who say hormonal contraception is ok but abortion should be banned are all just as hypocritical as those who argue for safe, legal early abortion. So Jill, do you think birth control pills should be outlawed too, or are you one of the morally bankrupt hypocrites?
Abortion is a difficult issue in part because of people like you who insist on painting anyone who wants to talk about limits to abortion without criminalizing it altogether as liberal hypocrites, while studiously ignoring those in your own camp who argue for precisely the same thing. The fact is that both sides, when they talk sensibly, agree it's a difficult issue.
...you can't really put a link from "The American Thinker" and expect to be taken seriously.
If someone countered with a quote from "The Nation" or "Mother Jones" -- you'd dismiss those as leftist propaganda.
Easy access to contraception isn't the total answer but it certainly is part of it (as I think pro-Lifers like myself should not care at all how much and what kind of sex consenting adults are having no matter how immoral or disgusting we might personally think it is as long as they don't see killing a conceived child as a method of birth control, ie pro-lifers need to make sure that pro-Life doesn't imply anti-Liberty). What always bothers me is when people say that we have to choose between abstinence only or values-free sex ed including contraception. Of course the logical thing to do is to get the best of both options: That is, students should be taught in sex ed how the various types of birth control works and what they can and can't do (ie the pill will prevent pregnancy 99% of the time but won't keep you from getting HIV), but should also be taught that abstinence and monogamy have clear benefits for the people involved in such relationships. People do get turned off when they are given false choices and the abstinence only vs. value-free sex ed debate is one of these false choices.
Catholic teaching is more in line with Democratic Party values. With the exception of abortion, on every other issue Catholics who follow the church's teachings should be voting for Democrats.
examples:
Health Care; Death Penalty; Minimum Wage; Workers rights; war in Iraq (not considered a just conflict by Catholic teachings); environmental policy.
The morally bankrupt party? The Republicans. Completely morally bankrupt.
Only one of those involves the direct and outright murder of innocent humans, however... It's not that easy from a Catholic perspective, is it?
Democrats need to welcome pro-lifers in the mainstream of the party. We cannot build a Democratic majority nationally as long as Democrats are perceived as weak on moral values and national security issues. I agree that the Republicans have done a terrible job of governing and setting a moral example. The problem is that the Republicans are much more effective at manipulating symbolic issues. Democrats can become the dominant party by moving center on social issues and focusing on representing the interests of working families.
Post a Comment