Dems Rebuild

[Danny Bateman]

On the subject of think tanks, I saw this within the last week and found it extremely interesting... and telling. This reminds me of how they tried to neuter the OGE right off the bat after the election so there wouldn't be ethical oversight, period.

 

 

 

The bottom conclusion seems rather logical to me. They were trying to essentially eliminate the CBO and outsource/privatize bill scoring. That notion should set off alarm bells.

[commando]

On the subject of think tanks, I saw this within the last week and found it extremely interesting... and telling. This reminds me of how they tried to neuter the OGE right off the bat after the election so there wouldn't be ethical oversight, period.

 

 

 

The bottom conclusion seems rather logical to me. They were trying to essentially eliminate the CBO and outsource/privatize bill scoring. That notion should set off alarm bells.

i don't have any more alarm bells to ring for this administration and i even bought extras to try to keep up with it all.

[Moiraine]

On the subject of think tanks, I saw this within the last week and found it extremely interesting... and telling. This reminds me of how they tried to neuter the OGE right off the bat after the election so there wouldn't be ethical oversight, period.

 

https://twitter.com/NivElis/status/889535324048764929

 

https://twitter.com/GrushNYC/status/889638824963342336

 

The bottom conclusion seems rather logical to me. They were trying to essentially eliminate the CBO and outsource/privatize bill scoring. That notion should set off alarm bells.

 

f'ing hell this country is going down the shitter. Is there anyone in the party leadership with a conscience??

[BigRedBuster]

[Danny Bateman]

This is ruffling quite a few feathers in Democrat land right now:

 

[TGHusker]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article164627717.html

 

Dems winning some Trump seats.

[TGHusker]

This is ruffling quite a few feathers in Democrat land right now:

 

If they want to broaden their tent and broaden their perception from more conservative voters, they need to attract voters and candidates who are outside of their narrow pro abortion litmus test.

 

 

The Democratic Party is currently facing an internal debate over whether it should embrace anti-abortion lawmakers. The party currently has six men — and no women — who consistently support an anti-abortion agenda serving in the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate, a spokesperson for Democrats for Life of America told Motto. There are currently 78 women Democrats in all of Congress.

On Tuesday, the Atlantic reported that Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez would meet with Democrats for Life of America, an organization that describes itself as “the pro-life voice and wing of the Democratic Party.” The meeting follows Perez’s controversial comments that that all members of the party should support abortion rights.

Perez issued the statement after the Democratic National Committee and other party leaders, including former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, faced criticism for supporting Omaha, Neb. mayoral candidate Heath Mello, who had an anti-abortion track record. Mello lost the election earlier this month.

But while the party’s 2016 platform had a clear stance in favor of abortion rights, some argue the party shouldn’t alienate its anti-abortion wing. The group lost one of its more prominent female voices in Congress when Rep. Kathy Dahklemper of Pennsylvania was voted out of office in 2011 after serving one term.

Here are the current Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate who consistently support anti-abortion legislation.

U.S. Senate

Sen. Joe Donnelly (Indiana): Donnelly, who was elected to the Senate in 2012 after a number of years in the House of Representatives, has said that he is “committed to protecting the sanctity of life.” He has voted to support a 20-week abortion ban and co-sponsored legislation that would prohibit transporting minors across state lines to get an abortion. While he has voted to defund Planned Parenthood in the past, he began voting against those efforts in 2015.

Donnelly said that the party should welcome anti-abortion members. “I don’t know why we would want to start walking away from folks, like myself, who have a personal conviction on the pro-life issue,” Donnelly told the Atlantic. “We ought to be able to include everyone, as opposed to saying ‘no, we don’t want these folks, even though they fight with us on jobs, even though they fight with us for economic rights, even though they fight with us on healthcare.’ It just seems to me to be very, very short-sighted.”

Sen. Bob Casey (Pennsylvania): Casey, who was first elected in 2007, is the son of former Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Robert Casey, who also famously opposed abortion. Casey supports the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding from being used to pay for abortions in most cases, and has voted in favor of prohibiting minors from crossing state lines to get the procedure. But this year, he signed onto a letter criticizing Republicans for attempting to defund Planned Parenthood and has long said that he supports the organization. Update: A spokesperson for Casey notes that he has voted against the so-called Mexico City Policy, which bans federal money from going to international groups that perform or provide information on abortion.

Sen. Joe Manchin III (West Virginia): Manchin, who began serving in 2010, opposes abortion and has said that “life is very sacred to [him].” He has faced criticism for his views on Planned Parenthood — earlier this year, he voted to preserve funding for the organization. In 2015, he voted to defund the group following the release of videos that alleged the group had sold fetal tissue for profit, claims which the organization strongly denies.

U.S. House of Representatives

Rep. Dan Lipinski (Illinois): Lipinski, who began serving in 2005, has voted to ban federal health coverage for abortion, ban abortions after 20 weeks and defund Planned Parenthood. He has served as the co-chair of the House’s Pro-Life Caucus.

Rep. Collin Peterson (Minnesota): Peterson, who was elected in 1990, has supported prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks and cutting funding to Planned Parenthood.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas): Cuellar, who was elected in 2005, has said he opposes abortion. He has supported a 20-week abortion ban, banning federal health coverage that includes abortion and permanently prohibiting taxpayer funding from being used for abortion services.

http://motto.time.com/4782994/democrats-anti-abortion-men-congress/

[NM11046]

This will be interesting to see play out.

 

I dont think it should be a bianary decision. In my mind Dems are the party of "choice" not pro abortion or pro life. That means there is room for varying opinions. Im betting many local elected folks especially have similar beliefs to their constituents, so why would we not look to the overall fit with values instead of making it a one issue yes/no decision?

 

TG and other who have strong pro-life beliefs - would this inclusion at a national level make you more apt to exlore the rest of the dem agenda whereas you would potentially rule out a candidtae based on this issue in the past (I know there are some shifts in your thinking after this election but curious)

[BigRedBuster]

That's very interesting.

 

I don't quite fit into your parameters of your question. I'm pro-life as how I live my life and I really wish there wasn't a need for abortions. However, as I've said before on here, I don't use it as a reason to vote for someone because both parties have used it as nothing more than a way to lock up their base while having absolutely no desire to actually change the situation around abortion. So....I'm not one who votes for a candidate because they are pro-life.

 

However......where this DOES peak my interest is sort of the opposite. If the Dems are willing to (as a political organization) not make their support for a candidate contingent on them being hard line on one side of this issue......I might be willing to respect them more.....enough to possibly consider them more in national elections.

[Kiyoat Husker]

I agree with this direction. I think that there are a lot of "pro-life" Democrats in the upper Midwest, and probably a lot of other rural areas of the country. The more narrow and absolute you make your stand on these hot-button issues, the more narrow your appeal IMO. The Democratic Party needs to get back to the working class in rural areas like it used to. It can't survive only appealing to urban America.

 

To me personally, I think both sides of that argument have merit. I can be swayed with a good argument from a non-crazy person. I think that a woman should have control over health decisions regarding her body, and the freedom to not subscribe to a religious-based belief system. I also think that shaming pregnant women is a form of misogyny, because the man, who also made the same choice, is not physically burdened in the same way as a consequence of that choice.

 

On the other hand, the question of when that fetus starts to have rights of its own is a difficult one. It is much easier for many to dismiss the abortion of an early-stage zygote than a late-stage fetus. Taking emotion out of the decision is not an easy thing.

 

At the end of the day, the pro-life/pro-choice divide has been used by both parties to galvanize voters and get elected. To me, it should be more of a personal stance than a political polarity flash-point.

[zoogs]

 

If they want to broaden their tent and broaden their perception from more conservative voters, they need to attract voters and candidates who are outside of their narrow pro abortion litmus test.

We already have a rigorously Conservative party in this area. I do not want the Dems to broaden the tent; I want a party that will oppose anti-choice efforts. So this, while not alarming to me, raises some warranted concerns.

It's not alarming because ultimately I think it's about winning seats. It's fair to say hey, that's the mood of that region, I guess. If the Democrats can wrangle control of Congress this way, and the Party still staunchly supports choice as a whole, they'll get the votes. There are some important "ifs" here, though.

 

I don't care for the anti-abortion wing at all. I respect those who have this view on the sanctity of life, but it's a bit like what BRB says. Legislatively, anti-abortion efforts are almost universally punitive and harmful in this country, especially to those who truly value life. We all want to see fewer abortions: thus, the bulk of the political difference isn't as stark as it's often presented. It's a question of tactic. Are legal barriers and judgment the best way to stop something from happening, or is investing resources in helping people avoid those situations to begin with the best way? So to me, a hard-line position on legislative efforts isn't an extreme political position to take. It's a necessary, rigorous defense against equally full-throated desire to enact some pretty harmful policies. If we fail to hold the line, those policies will come into place. And the threat is very real.

[Kiyoat Husker]

If they want to broaden their tent and broaden their perception from more conservative voters, they need to attract voters and candidates who are outside of their narrow pro abortion litmus test.

 

Not picking on you, but I just wanted to point out that language matters. There is a reason why the debate is usually framed "pro-choice/pro-life". Saying that all the Democrats are "pro-abortion" is just as inflammatory as saying all the republicans are "anti-choice", although some would argue that point.

[zoogs]

I would argue that point!

 

The very nature of the legislative agenda is explicitly about restricting choice -- care -- options. "Pro-life" is good branding. "Pro-choice" is poor branding, but at least it describes literally what the agenda is.

 

"Pro-life" is a moral statement of intent; thus, the policy underlying it should be demonstrated to support the philosophy. That's up for debate. Similarly, "Pro-abortion" casts a moral statement of intent on the other side -- one which is plainly and demonstrably invidious.

[BigRedBuster]

 

If they want to broaden their tent and broaden their perception from more conservative voters, they need to attract voters and candidates who are outside of their narrow pro abortion litmus test.

 

We already have a rigorously Conservative party in this area. I do not want the Dems to broaden the tent; I want a party that will oppose anti-choice efforts. So this, while not alarming to me, raises some warranted concerns.

 

It's not alarming because ultimately I think it's about winning seats. It's fair to say hey, that's the mood of that region, I guess. If the Democrats can wrangle control of Congress this way, and the Party still staunchly supports choice as a whole, they'll get the votes. There are some important "ifs" here, though.

 

 

I don't care for the anti-abortion wing at all. I respect those who have this view on the sanctity of life, but it's a bit like what BRB says. Legislatively, anti-abortion efforts are almost universally punitive and harmful in this country, especially to those who truly value life. We all want to see fewer abortions: thus, the bulk of the political difference isn't as stark as it's often presented. It's a question of tactic. Are legal barriers and judgment the best way to stop something from happening, or is investing resources in helping people avoid those situations to begin with the best way? So to me, a hard-line position on legislative efforts isn't an extreme political position to take. It's a necessary, rigorous defense against equally full-throated desire to enact some pretty harmful policies. If we fail to hold the line, those policies will come into place. And the threat is very real.

 

From my experience, this is not true. You can replace "all" with "most" and I might agree with you.

 

I have had enough conversations with "pro-choice" people (if you want to call them that) who see absolutely no problem with the number of abortions and would have no problem with them increasing in numbers.

 

So....just as IA State Husker corrected, TG.....this really needed to be pointed out also in an effort to have an honest discussion about it.

[zoogs]

What?

 

...

 

I think there's a difference in the position that one should have zero judgment about abortions. Any of them. On that count, I agree. So I *think* I can see what your Dem friends are saying. An increase in numbers may simply demonstrate, for example, better access to care and less restrictive laws.

 

What I do not believe is an actual position is "more unwanted pregnancies is a good thing". If you don't want a baby, by far the best way to do this is not getting pregnant in the first place. Helping people who aren't trying to pregnant make sure they don't get pregnant -- these are, more precisely, the numbers I'm referring to. And this should be clearly universal.

 

"Pro-abortion", if you want to call this that, would be an extremely dishonest pejorative.