Just a few quick words, in case you weren’t there, about the Truman Dinner (on Saturday, January 29th). It was awesome! The keynote speaker, Bill Press (who has been featured on many a punditry show), was kind enough to meet with a bunch of us that afternoon. Great guy… great guy.
Ok, so there has been a sort of debate wandering around the party. More like a nasty rumor. Some members of our party (particularly certain candidates for a certain DNC Chair position) believe that we need to start leaning toward the center on some social issues to try and pick up more voters. Hillary Clinton has even been reported as trying to cater to a more conservative group. But I say: Not So. She has been misconstrued (another example of a conservative media) as saying that she is for (and then against) parental consent for minors seeking an abortion. Her stance on abortion has been clear all along. Here is a great sample of a speech she gave recently that clears things up:
“This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. Often, it’s a failure of our system of education, health care, and preventive services. It’s often a result of family dynamics. This decision is a profound and complicated one; a difficult one, often the most difficult that a woman will ever make. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.”
“The work of the Clinton Administration and so many others saw the rate of abortion consistently fall in the 1990’s. The abortion rate fell by one-fourth between 1990 and 1995, the steepest decline since Roe was decided in 1973. The rate fell another 11 percent between 1994 and 2000, from about 24 to 21 abortions for every 1,000 women of childbearing age.
But unfortunately, in the last few years, while we are engaged in an ideological debate instead of one that uses facts and evidence and commonsense, the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states. In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us.”
“I think it’s important that family planning advocates reach out to those who may not agree with us on everything to try to find common ground in those areas where, hopefully, emergency contraception, more funding for prenatal care and others can be a point of common ground.”
Hillary Clinton is not a Lean-Righter like some may think. She is just deciding to work toward a safer consensus between two extreme stances on a hard subject. Moving to the right is not an option for the Democratic party. Not only will we lose some credibility by catering to such a hostile voter base, but we may lose some highly dedicated people and their support. But a better solution would be for Democrats to follow in Hillary’s footsteps and emphasize the tragedy that is every abortion, to promote a culture of life, and to try make abortions as rare as possible (an effort that must continue until they are never), while still maintaining, in the end, that the choice should be the pregnant woman’s.
I have to say I disagree with the closing lines of this post.
“emphasize the tragedy that is every abortion, to promote a culture of life, and to try make abortions as rare as possible (an effort that must continue until they are never), while still maintaining, in the end, that the choice should be the pregnant woman’s.”
Sad-event? yes. Medical Procedure? yes. But abortions aren’t tradgedys. Wars are. Tsunamis are. But abortions are terminations of a part of a woman’s body, not a living person. If the fetus could live on it’s own, it would no longer be a fetus. The very meam/frame of “culture of life” is one that Democrats need to not play into. If stopping abortions makes a culture of life, then the fetus must be a life and abortion must be murder. But we all know that the fetus is not a life, that abortion is not a murder, and while we do want them to be rare…we don’t need there to “never” be abortions!
Abortions will continue to happen as long as there are rapes, mistakes, and youth making really bad decisions. Now we should try to keep them from making those decisions, fight rape and incest, and promote safe use of condoms and such…. but those aren’t included in the traditional definition of “culture of life.”
I find that this type of post more to be the type that plays into right wing views on abortions and the like. I like hillary, and agree with her stance that we all need to focus on the areas where our interests are the same…but words like “tradgedy, culture of life,” and “never” will only hurt us in those goals.
Dear Mr/Ms/Mrs Untitled
How can you disagree with planning to disagree while finding some common term of aggreement.
nay sayer
Hillary is trying to get elected. I believe that every politician will say and do what they want in order to get elected. It is my belief that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control. But, to say that my beliefs should be applied to everyone is selfish. If Republicans and Democrats feel that it is important to only point out parts of the Bible that work for them, then I want to have nothing to do with either party. For this reason, I switched parties four years ago: from Republican to Democrat. The Supreme Court has found that it is not the responsibility of government to decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies. Scientific fact: a fetus less than six months typically cannot live on its own; therefore it cannot be considered a child. Spiritually; a fetus is an unborn child that is a life force created by god; therefore, it can be considered murder. There are two sides to every story. I believe in both sides of the issue, but, again, my beliefs are not always right. I once heard someone say, “this country is becoming dumber, but more opinionated.” Leave faith to religion and let science dictate our laws. Laws are based on reason, not faith. If laws were based on faith, we would live in a pre-war Afghanistan-type of society (better yet, an England that defined laws according to one religion in the early 17th century, forcing the Pilgrims to travel to America, and eventually establishing a society based on freedom of religion with separation of church and state). No one is forcing someone who doesn’t believe in having an abortion to have one, are they?
I think all of us need to think very clearly and heavily on one simple concept before going on with this debate: That we all need to buck it up and put our REAL names with the post!!! None of this mysterious ‘Untitled’ or ‘Scifi’ or random ‘republican’ bull. I’m not talking about Chief or Claus, because if you know who ‘we’ are, you know who ‘they’ are. But one needs to take responsibility for one’s opinions, doesn’t one. Ok - so next time, keep the debate going strong like you have been, but if you are afraid of persecution for your beliefs, get out of the political game! If you want to participate in a REAL political debates, I wont stand for anonymity!!! NOW GET BACK OUT THERE AND USE YOUR B***! (sorry chief)
Hannah:
Who is Chief or Clause? Are they anonymous? I do not believe that a parent would give his or her child the name Chief” or “Clause” as a first name. So why should “they” have the option to remain anonymous, while the rest of “us” cannot?
I am NOT Republican and could care less about the Republican party. Anonymity is an Internet commodity that allows one to express his or her own beliefs freely without scrutiny from the right, or the left. What does a name matter when ideas are expressed? Because “Clause” and “Chief” are still in hiding, I will take the first step and “come out of the closet,” so to speak, and reveal my real name: Ed.
error:
“Chief” and “CLAUS”
(I am formily known as Scifi)
If you read the other posts, you would know who clause is.
The nickname chief just makes sense, i bet you can guess who that is.
-Clause
Ok back to Hillary, all the stories that i have read lately about that speech she gave was to start her 2008 presidential run, and appear more moderate. What do u all think about this? If she did run, and she got the nomination, do you think she would be able to win, or do u think there is a better candidate?
Better candidate? Hardly. But I don’t think this is the year for her. I do think that she will be our first woman president. (Yea!) I think she is playing it safe because there seems to be a large flux in the wrong direction. She NEEDS to play both sides. But I think she should wait a cycle. Maybe she doesn’t. And I am pretty conservative as far as when to make a move. I also want Obama to run. But again - not this year. Maybe Edwards will be a good candidate. When he’s done with his two terms, Hillary can run and when she has sufficiently changed the world, Obama can take over! Its practically in the bag!!!!!
I think it is too early to start making predictions on who will be able to win,
George still has more things to ruin.
But i do agree that Obama needs to get a few more years under his belt.
Does anybody know of any Govenors that could be boosted up in the mean time. (besides Vilsack)
Janet Napolitano from Arizona has two advantages: she is from Arizona, a red state, and in no way represents “north east liberalism” or “washington politics,” plus her nomination would help make Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and maybe Colorodo better swing states.
But she’s not very attractive, and she’s a woman no one has heard of.
There’s also the Gov. of New Mexico who people are putting a lot of buzz around. He might just run, but his name is skipping me for a second.
Vilsak I don’t think I would support. We might win the Gov. seat’s back in Col. and NY in 06, but that won’t do us too much good for 08.