Maybe now we can retire the Casey myth
I’m relatively indifferent to Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) speaking at the Democratic National Convention, but given the historical parallels, I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of stories like this one.
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Arnab Datta report: Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., an abortion rights opponent who endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY prior to the Pennsylvania primary, will address the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, Aug. 26.
Casey’s father, the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey D-Pa., was denied a prime speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights.
The 1992 snub has become a symbol over the years of the Democratic Party making support for abortion rights a litmus test. In 2004, Republicans contrasted the Casey snub with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-NY., two Republicans who support abortion rights, speaking to their convention.
The decision to give Sen. Casey a featured speaking spot is part of a broader effort on the part of the Democrats to broaden the party’s appeal on abortion.
First, maybe Casey is getting a featured speaking spot at the convention to broaden Dems’ appeal on abortion, and maybe he’s getting a featured spot because he’s a young senator from a key battleground state who endorsed the party’s presidential nominee early on. ABC assumes it’s the prior, but it’s just as easy to believe the latter.
Second, Casey’s father was not “denied a prime speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights,” was not “snubbed,” and there’s been no “litmus test.”
This is a myth, that’s been repeated ad nauseum, but is nevertheless false and has been debunked many times. The truth is, Casey Sr. was denied a speaking spot because he refused to endorse the party’s nominee (Bill Clinton). At the same ‘92 convention, five governors, two senators, and a mayor — all of whom are pro-life — did get speaking spots, disproving the notion that there was a “litmus test.” (What’s more, pro-life speakers have been featured at every Democratic convention since.)
Nevertheless, if inviting Casey (Jr.) to speak this year helps bury the nonsense that reporters keep repeating, I’ll be thrilled.
The press likes to set the agenda and facts be damned.
Oh and, Good Morning!
it's mostly the impotent Democratic party, I mean, as a whole do they stand for anything anymore? sure there are individuals who will still stand up for what is right, but if they stood together then we could maybe get something important done. Minimum wage increases are fine, but we really need to look into this administrations crimes, so until they do that I'm going to just consider that my party is not worth much anymore.
and sadly, the Dems are still that last chance we have to save America. Doesn't fill me with a whole lot of hope, let me tell you!
Broaden the party's appeal on abortion???
Who writes this crap? Do they understand that the Dem stand on abortion IS appealing to the sane among us?
Maybe it would be nice to get Colin Powell to speak at the convention.
It would be nice to see Mayor Bloomberg up there as well.
Chuck Hagel?
4 Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo Says: Maybe it would be nice to get Colin Powell to speak at the convention.
Maybe we can get him to show up with his chemical weapons props that he brought to the UN. that would be cool!
Sorry, I have no faith in Powell anymore. he pissed all over his own good reputation... well, wait a minute....maybe we could make him the head of the DNC, because they aren't doing such a good job with their rep either.
Every time the Republicans bring up abortion the Democrats say "Gas prices, house payments and how was your vacation this year and how is Christmas looking to you? With McSmame next year will be worse."
6 Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo Says: Chuck Hagel?
Hagel would be good, I would rather see Hagel then Bloomberg.
I would say if you want a Republican at the Democratic convention that will drive people to Obama, let's have McCain speak there. Then you could follow it with Obama's class and style that just knocks McCain out of the water!
I would like to see what Biden's personal schedule is during the week of the convention.
Funny, yesterday Bill the Bloody reported that Powell was going to endorse Obama and that he had that info from the Obama campaign. Then we hear that it isn't going to happen. A few weeks back Kristol said that he knew the day and time Obama would announce his veep choice. That time came and went. I'm wondering if the Obama camp is playing with Kristol and feeding him bs so that when he reports it, he looks like a fool.
Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo @ 6:
Hagel said yesterday that he would not endorse anyone.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 7:
Right on but maybe we could work it into something like "This is the way the Republicans screwed one of their chief advisers and cabinet members. You can bet they are going to be doing some more screwing if they win in November."
I do not like Casey at all, but I live in PA. What choice did I have? Santorum? The fact Casey is pro-life(rather antichoice) pisses me off. But what is a woman to do? Vote for a pompous ass(Santorum) or a moderate(Casey). I'll choose the Democrat any time.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 9:
Just open the convention with this.
I don't know if Powell will ever be able to shed what he did at the UN. I feel a little bit sorry for him because that situation he allowed himself to be put in that day, has to be eating at him just about every day. You know he was hesitant to do it and knew some of what he was saying wasn't actually proof of anything, but for whatever reason he went along with it and I'm guessing it's one of, if not the biggest, regrets of his life.
I'm trying to figure out why Wesley Clarke would not be a good choice for VP.
pissed off patricia @ 15:
I would go with the biggest regret and the second biggest would be ever getting involved with George Bush. If ever there was an example of a good person getting shit on Powell is the poster guy.
Why call "five governors, two senators, and a mayor" pro-life when what they are is anti-abortion? Aren't you helping make the cause the for the myth by using the right's term, pro-life, for those who are anti-abortion? Might as well call us pro-choicers "pro-death" then.
Come on Steve—have we not yet learned not to use their terminology?
Casey et al are ANTI-CHOICE, not pro-life.
That is not an idle fluff of a distinction. So many of the anti-choice people are pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-stem cell research. Those are not pro-life positions.
If the dems can't even get that part of the message straight there is little hope getting the public to see it.
I do so wish that pro-choice people would STOP calling the anti-choice crowd 'pro-life'. It gives them a legitimacy that is not deserved. I am pro-choice but also pro-life. Who isn't pro-life, except those that are pro-death? Call them what they are, anti-abortion, or anti-women's rights.
Litmus tests make good copy, maybe a litmus test of reporters should be instituted, denying them access in direct proportion to their use of facts vs. myth.
Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo @ 16:
It works for me. I like his, not gonna take any sh*t, attitude. Obama needs a smart attack man and we know Clark is that kind of guy if needed.
Housing foreclosures up 55% from a year ago and up 8% from last month. No end in site.
pissed off patricia @ 22:
And who could argue about his military experience?
Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo @ 24:
An idiot might try. So that doesn't rule out the entire repub party. ;)
Wes Clark would make a great VP. But don't think that is the way Obama is going to go. It will probably be Biden or Bayh. And BTW, why is Obama keeping it such a deep, dark secret? Why isn't he letting us know who his choice for VP will be? He surely has made up his mind by now.
yet another example of the utter corruption of the corporate media: their propagandistic narratives are the 'reality' versus the actual reality. just as the corporate masters dictate: 'we will tell you what reality is' ............
Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo @ 24:
I was told on background that he would highlight the perceived weakness. By taking him he endorses McCain's argument about experience matters not judgment.
Bob Casey ,my Senator ,is a FISA failure. Failure to do the only thing he swore an oath to do for Pa. citizens, support and defend the constitution. But looking at the Democrats and their Fabulous Failure Queen Nancy with their majority couldn't stop the war but funded through next year, provided the Chinese lend us the money, Casey is another Arlin ,says what you want to hear then shafts you when he votes. He' a coward. A quida , Bob Terrist,Bob, look under the bed ,Bob and thanks for nothing you FAILURE.
Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo @ 5:
I'd love to hear Bloomberg explain his "Ring of Steel" plan:
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1927
I'll throw some support for the previous posters who very correctly and importantly spoke up about using the right wing propaganda term "pro-life". It is pathetic that even a progressive blog front pager has to be reminded about this. With this level of awareness, I won't be surprised to see future articles about "special rights" for gay citizens, the "death tax", or even a discussion of Obama's position of "cut and run".
Come on C&L, you can do better than this.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 2:
I am surprised you haven't noticed: the Dim Party "stands" for exactly the same things as the Pukes: authoritarian CorpoRatism, increased surveillance, increased inspection, decreased services, decreased liberties, more "security," less freedom at home, and unrestrained military adventurism, neo-colonial energy approriation, and continuing chaos in the middle east.
You're right that, at the margins, and among individuals, there are a few Dims who do not wholly endorse the CorpoRatism of their "Party." But the number is vanishingly small, impotent, and marginalized in the Party.
Hplar Redan, Forp. Yskmohc, and Erog Ladiv are equally unequivocal in this matter: IN PRINCIPLE, there is NO DIFFERENCE between the ends the two Parties seek; they differ, to the extent that they do, only in the means they seem willing to employ to achieve those ends...
RevDeb @ 19:
Exactly - I am not just pro-choice, I am anti-slavery.
If a person has no ultimate legal control over how their body can be used, can they be called free? If a person cannot have determination over their own body, how can they be equal citizens? That's an easy one for the anti-choice crowd; women aren't equal! But they can't come straight out and say that.
If a person's control of their own body is taken away from them; who takes it? Under what authority? Not Constitutional, that's for sure.
You know, the reason the Right fights so hard for a Constitutional amendment to ban abortions is because they know banning abortions would be unconstitutional, in spite of the lies they spout. So, in their eyes, the Constitution must be changed.
There is nothing they will not deny other people to get what they want.
Everything else they say, all their gruesome imagery and fake horror stories and psuedo-medical myths about getting cancer from abortions and all the rest of the hysterical crap they pander is all a cover for this one essential fact: it is unconstitutional to take a person's right to self-determination away.
They cannot win that battle because it is so basic - that's why they always function from the level of hysteria and religious propaganda.
And when dealing with propaganda, names & slogans matter.
Ruth @ 21:
Now THAT is a fine idea.
Can we PLEASE change the vernacular that has been taught to the public all these years??? It's NOT "pro-life," it's ANTI-CHOICE. The GOP has a habit of dictating how we phrase things, and we use their language to rebut arguments, but in actuality WE must be the ones to promulgate a paradigm shift and a change in how people talk about the issues. The abortion issue is simply about the Right to Choose - and the language we use to voice our arguments and positions is vitally important to how they are perceived by the public at large. Once we reinstate the word CHOICE as a definition of what is at stake, we can make our position easier to understand. Just my 2 cents - Thank you!
fastfeat @ 30:
My point about Bloomberg and the rest is to show the independents and the Republicans on the fence that it is OK to vote for Obama. I/we/and your friends don't need any more excuses, it's the undecideds that need a little nudge. I know abut their negatives and what bothers me about them but i want Joe Sixpack to feel good about voting for Obama and I want Joe to tell his neighbor Bob Budweiser how good he feels about his choice and how McCan't will never get the job done and by the way Bob Budweiser I notice a foreclosure sign on your house.
Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo @ 4:
WHY?
All that would do would be tro )further) associate St. Barry of Change with the Puke's war policies.
Colon Powell's damaged goods, rotten at the core (corps), a loyal foot-soldier of whomsoever is calling the shots.
ABC is consistently going the way of FOX. They are the next worst thing. To be "fair and balanced" demands honesty. Both ABC and FOX demonstrate they lack any desire to be honest in how they spin events to promote their real agenda. Thank God for the blogsphere!
Wesley Clark ??
oh god, here we go again. Clark is a Clinton tool, period. finto'. his
entire political 'resume' consists of one act really, and that was his
one act 'campaign' which the DLC gave birth to in the Fall of '03. Its
lone objective was.. to do assassinate the Dean campaign by putting
on a sweater(you do remember Clark's sweaters,right?), skipping Iowa
all together(sound like a realistic strategy to actually win the dem nomination
to you??) and head straight to NH and spout his pre-written 'anti war'
slogans and erode Deans support there while Gephardt played out his
attack role in Iowa. Now, Im not saying the Dean campaign ran
things perfectly, but there never the less was an organized attack
against him.. from his OWN party.
Take a gander at the Charlie Rose website..do a search for 'wesley clark', and
watch the interview from Feb of 04, just hours after the DLC shutdown
Clarks 'campaign' because frankly, it was no longer needed. After the niceties
are exchanged the first few minutes Rose gets down to brass tacks and Clark
openly admits(and in my opinion is quite smug about it) that he was hired
and paid by the Clintons/DLC(he say people 'within the Party'-and he's not
talking about the Republicans or the Greens folks!) to be the 'anti-Dean
candidate'. Clark was never running for anything, in reality he was a paid
political assassin trying to eliminate the most popular anti-WAR candidate the
Dems had !!! Clark???... not eff'ing chance I would ever vote for Clark-not
even for dog catcher. So, is Clark really 'against' the war .. when he agrees
to get paid to do his part to take out the the only anti-war Dem candidate
that had a realistic shot of getting the nomination ? huh ??
pinky the brain @ 35:
TOOOOOOOOO LAAAAAAAATE!
Once the press granted the "pro-Life" label, they can never again retract it.
RevDeb @ 19:
PRO-CHOICE is PRO LIFE!!! Pro-child, Pro-family, Pro-CHOICE!!!
"This is a myth, that’s been repeated ad nauseum..."
There, in a brief phrase, is the entire Republican agenda.
Larry Larsen @ 38:
You might as well toss CNN in there as well, especially their morning crew.
blue @ 27:
Yeah, well, this is also ABC we're talking about, (Absolutely Biased Corporation). Remember, they got bought out by some extreme right-wingers?
This is the same gang that insisted on showing the propanganda movie that blamed Clinton for 9/11, even though it had been debunked before it aired.
And isn't Cokie Roberts with ABC? The same kookie Cokie who said that Obama shouldn't have gone to a "foreign, exotic" place like Hawaii "at a time like this"!
They're just saying whatever the hell they like because they know there are no consequences.
Truth isn't exactly a guiding principle over there right now
woody, tokin librul @ 40:
And you're willing to sit back and accept what the MSM says and does as the gospel of the people??? I think not!! We are the agents of change - it's attitudes like yours that perpetuate the negativity and put progressives and dems on the defensive, rather than actually DEFINING the argument on their terms and taking the position of power. Let's stop being pussies and RECLAIM our rightful place as agents of change and progressive thought and action!!! Sitting on our laurels will only land us in the land of The Handmaid's Tale and V.
Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo @ 36:
Point taken, though I do wonder how many in the Budweiser clan outside of Yew Nork really know who Bloomberg is, let alone what party he's in.
I was, to be honest, quite surprised about the "Ring of Steel" though. Not accusing him of creating it, just of supporting it. It seems to me yet another Homeland Insecurity boondoggle to piss away millions, IMO.
Ok, maybe I'm just dumb, but why is a person who opposes the pre-determined candidate barred from speaking at a convention? Maybe he has good reasons to oppose the candidate that would be nice to know.
Casey was denied a speaking spot because he wouldn't endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket. The wingnuts tried to spin this as an abortion issue so they could get some mileage out of it, but it was actually a rather mundane thing.
Larry Larsen @ 38:
Agreed. Clicked on this morning to see bout the latest overnight happenings with Georgia. About 15 seconds devoted to showing some tanks, then about 2-3 minutes with George Snufflepuss blathering about how "strong McCane looked" with his positions about Russia, etc, followed by shots of Obama in Hawaii. JESUS F'ING CHRIST!!!
Medias (all of it) just distracting everyone from the fact we've become a bankrupt farce.
pinky the brain @ 45:
Ummm, I've been a political activist for 40 years. I've been involved in struggles too numerous to name to recast 'memes' once they've settled in. Never happens. The 'SCUM' will or could no more reverse the conventional language of the debate than it could start advocating socialized medicine...Nagahapun...I read Handmaid's Tale when it came out, and taught it for 10 years, and I assure you the conditions of possibility for it to become prescient have NEVER been stronger...
They asked the strangest question on Washington Journal this morning. They asked if the media should continue covering the conventions. I can't figure out why they would ask such a question.
I got news for ya, bub. The Casey myth is never going to die, speech or no speech. The DNC could invite Fred Phelps to speak, and that still wouldn't kill the myth.
Bob Casey? Not exactly a dynamic speaker....eyes all over America will be glazing over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fGdVUVZpNA
woody, tokin librul @ 51:
I began reading that book two years ago and I couldn't finish it because it frightened me so much. It was such a dark story yet I felt its reality was too close for comfort. I still can't face continuing to read it.
why are we STILL allowing the anti-choice folks to frame the language here?
please STOP using the term "pro-life." the people so labeling themselves are in fact NOT pro-life, their "concern" with "the life of a child" ends with that child's birth, until they can start interfering in THAT child's life when it reaches an age where sex education becomes an issue.
do not use the term "pro-life," call them what they are -- anti-abortion/anti-choice.
woody, tokin librul @ 40:
Sure it could be done - but it would require discipline, because it would have to be stopped every single time it was said.
Look what the reich-wingers did with the name Democratic. All of a sudden they made it the Democrat Party, instead of Democratic. And they made it an insult. They presented a solid front and the Dems got all flustered back. Imagine if, within the first 24 hours, we had immediately referred to all of them as Publicans, which has a nice little Judeo-Christian twist to it. Advantage gone. But it does need to be a united front.
I think some people feel comforted by a party with a united front, even if what that party says is BS. For the people who aren't really listening or thinking about the words, the fact that a party looks united seems reassuring.
These are your low info voters. Slogans, labels, and baseless gossip do work on them - the Publicans know that and use it. Frank Lunz has gotten rich off of it. We keep trying to engage these voters with facts and logic, and they resent it because they don't want to work that hard on their politics.
pissed off patricia @ 52:
Because the Conventions are just big shows. They have had no "political" relevance since the "primary" process was adopted. The Conventions used to be times of considerable drama, waiting til the Bosses had determined who they wanted to front the Parties. These days, they're just stupid spectacle, propaganda, and glitz. That said, I wanted to jam those purple heart bandages up the relevant recti.
Think the Dims could get away with passing out pow pajamas at the door in Denver?
theWalrus @ 54:
If his speech is late in the night, it will be helpful to insomniacs.
America will be sold out from under its citizens before they realize what the MSM is really doing.
woody, tokin librul @ 58:
Maybe little cracked up toy airplanes?
It's CHOICE that is at stake, not just access to safe abortions. Choice is at risk by agencies such as the Dept of Health and Human Services that wants to officially change the definition of "contraception" to include "abortion" and thereby reclassifying any form of contraception as a form of abortion. This has far broader ramifications than simple access to birth control. It can lead to the prohibition of condoms, IUDs, tubal ligation and other forms of voluntary, safe and LEGAL conception prevention. It also creates a culture of controlling women by controlling their choices and endangering a woman's sovereignty over her own body and health care choices. I do not want the government dictating what I can and cannot do with my body. This is a slippery slope and if we start to slip, we risk losing all autonomy, liberty, independence and freedom. The GOP is a serious threat to these rights and must not be allowed to take them away, let alone threaten them.
Who's the idiot who just screwed up the word wrap on this thread?
Unless these politicians are also against the death penalty that are not "pro-life," they are in fact anti-abortion and by definition against a woman's right to medical privacy.
Oops, Someone pulled a thread in the thread.
Now it's unraveling.
L.A. Confidential @ 60:
Wrong verb tense, dahlin! You're talking "future" tense.
The correct one is passive pluperfect: "has been sold."
pissed off patricia @ 66:
Leave it to some idiot to screw things up.
L.A. Confidential @ 60:
Will be?
L.A. Confidential @ 68:
It happened at comment 61. I'm sure she didn't mean to do it.
Just a mistake that's all.
woody, tokin librul @ 67:
Right. We have freedom of choice.
Lemme see, do I want the cute black guy for president, the brainy middle aged woman or the senile white guy who looks like grandpa?
@63, Pinky, nobody's arguing with the rationality of your statements.
But that train left the station 30 years ago.
Lots of folks at the time objected to the Press acquiescing to the "Pro-Life" framing.
But the SCUM adopted it because their paymasters in the boardrooms wanted it that way.
Nobody's gonna turn back the clock now...
which was why I started : "It's TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LAAAAAAAAAAAAATE."
pissed off patricia @ 70:
Right Well Bush was a mistake also.
L.A. Confidential @ 73:
Unless you are a CEO. Or a talibangelist.
Since the word-wrap is all f*cked up now, I want to go OT real bad. I don't think I can wait until mid-day open.
Hint: Jerome Corsi.
L.A. Confidential @ 73:
Yeah he was, but I don't think this mistake is going to damage as much and I'm pretty sure
that this won't result in any deaths.
This mistake can be repaired. I don't know if the bush mistake ever can be.
L.A. Confidential @ 64:
I thought it was just my screen...
This will get fixed. It always does by the site fixers.
Pull out your patience and apply directly to the forehead
woody, tokin librul @ 72:
I'm not suggesting we turn any clock back - I'm saying that we must make a CHANGE in the language that is used to describe choice.
Why are you so reticent to change? Isn't that the basis of Obama's campaign?
We must be the agents of change and STOP allowing the GOP to run roughshod over us and our rights.
If you're not willing to do this, then the Democratic Party is lost.
We are strong in number and intellect - there is absolutely NO reason why we can't change the terminology and
reclaim politics as our domain. But if you want to just sit around commenting on blogs - then so be it.
I'm going out to make some real positive changes in society - I am going to act and lead by example.
I would suggest you do the same lest you lose your right to blog.
“So much attention is paid to the aggressive sins,
such as violence and cruelty and greed with all their tragic
effects, that too little attention is paid to the passive sins,
such as apathy and laziness, which in the long run can
have a more devastating effect.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
"Casey et al are ANTI-CHOICE, not pro-life."
You will all understand what this means as you listen to his speech - it will be like having the life sucked right out of you.
He is one of the most boring speakers and mamby-pamby guys. But our choice here in PA was Casey or Santorum - and I think we did the country a big favor by removing Ricky from the Senate.
Semantically speaking, I know that have a short little phrase to put on signs is cool: pro-life, anti-choice, pro-choice, what have you. But, using these terms disguises the Real Issue - the freedom and equality of women in our society. It's about power - and the men who run government and the men who run religion and their fear of losing their power to control the lives of others, women in particular.
I think we should stick to the term "women's rights" as that encompasses the much broader issues involved. It's not just about abortion. It's about the rights of women to control their lives, live in freedom and pursue happiness, not just whether a medical procedure should be legal and available.
L.A. Confidential @ 71:
well im thinking we got took by the corporation whores, first they take away the primary debates away from the league of women voters , a fair and unbiased group then they allow the corporate owned news whores controll the debates with bullshit questions aimed at dumbing down your brains , then said news whores completly shut out a worty candidate like dennis kucinich and promote two corporate approved political goobers like clinton and obama , and you bought the whole nine yards of the right wings bullshit choices for you, way to go guess americans really are sheep!
pissed off patricia @ 52:
Because it's easier to control the framing and message that way:
-First convince the people that they don't want to see it. Eventually tell them there will be no live coverage due to lack of interest.
-You can now present each candidate and their party however you and your corporate media bosses see fit.
-mcsame is the dynamic maverick inspiring thousands with his uplifting speech [HA!]
-Obama as a hitleresque elitist with a god complex and his party as a small group of disorganized tree hugging war-losing wimps.
-Added bonus, after cutting off all meaningful coverage be sure and suggest that the dems wanted it this way because they are so secretive. What are they really up to? Can they be trusted?
-they can also lie about attendance numbers and any other statistics they might want to change.
It's all about control.
pissed off patricia @ 70:
Hey, LA, I resemble that remark!
OK, edumacate me, waddIdo? And how did I do it?
Nevertheless, if inviting Casey (Jr.) to speak this year helps bury the nonsense that reporters keep repeating, I’ll be thrilled.
Yu shudn pick on the librul media. They's only doin' wut ther told bi the Democrat Party.
I know, I shouldn't mock Republican voters that way, but they make it too easy.
Mods: You have mail
L.A. Confidential @ 73:
Holy Mother of God - LA, you equated me with Bush!?! Over a word wrap??? Get a grip, dude.
Oh... there was a litmus test. The Democratic leadership might not call it that, but I have been active in Democratic politics at the local level for a while now. And I have been invited to share my views on a number of things, but have been told to keep my abortion views to myself.
I am not even a hard-liner when it comes to criminalization and legal matters. I just think that abortion is bad and every effort should be made to provide an abundance of alternatives to abortion. And, abortion providers should be required to fully disclose the possible side-effects of their product.
An honest person can see that the strange mix of free trade, deregulation, and our corporate centered economy requires a way to control family size based on class, to keep wages and benefits low and to keep consumption high. That abortion policy, as it exists in the US, is not about "Choice" or "freedom" or any of that... it is about keeping poor and working people in their place. It is about taking the blame for bad economic policy away from the government, politicians, big business, and a chauvinist culture... and placing it on the shoulders of pregnant women.
The woman has to make the decision. The woman has to cry about it. The woman has to suffer the consequences, no matter which choice she makes. And everyone else can sit back and say, "We supported you!" When we didn't support her. We didn't give her anything. We took things away from her. And then we told her she should feel "lucky" to have this freedom that she has.
One of my students came to me after a year of suffering. She went from being a A and B student to a D student, and was nearly denied her petition to graduate. For an entire year, she walked around feeling alone and isolated, while her closest friends told her both before and after, "she did the right thing" and "we support you." But nobody actually offered her anything she wanted or needed. She wanted to raise the child. She wanted to do it without shame or punishment. She wanted to be able to graduate from college. But nobody offered her anything except an abortion. And, she thought, "well, they must be right... what else can I do? I can't tell my mom. I can't do this to my boyfriend. I can't afford to have a child. I will ruin my future. Etc."
A year later... She's still a total mess. She cannot sleep. She has constant nightmares. She resents all her friends who "supported" her. She is struggling to find work. Abortion is a cruel business... but nobody wants to talk about these real issues that surround it. And the reason people don't want to talk about it is because both the extreme left and right wingers are too ideological to deal with sexuality, pregnancy, and child-rearing honestly. The right has this bogus nostalgic view that people aren't going to have sex if you punish them enough for it... and that the state has no role to play in caring for the health and welfare of the mother or her child. The left has this romantic view of sex as something that is at the same time the ultimate expression of one's person, but also the greatest triviality ever... that it ought to have no physical, moral or psychological consequences. But what's needed is an honest conversation that can cut out the ideological views, and create consensus around a realistic view of sexuality and its profound implications for the individual and society.
I am glad that the Democrats are finally going out of their way to start this kind of discussion.
Rooth - you did it by not including any spaces in your line. If you had typed "must... not.... watch... " it would have been fine.
Steveo @ 88:
thanx
{ I deleted your post @#61. It seems to have worked. Be more carefull OK. SiteMonitor}
'broaden the party’s appeal'? How, by taking BOTH SIDES? "Hey guys I got a great idea, if we are
against abortion at the same time we're for it, then EVERYONE will vote for us! It's win-win!!"
roooth @ 61:
You broke the page, good job.
Yes, lets not focus on the conventions. Othewise, we might have to actually cover live the tremendous speech and rally for Obama, in a setting unprecedented in our history. A setting of tens of thousands of REAL people, rather than several thousand political insiders, hacks, hangers on and wannabes.
See? The thread has been fixed and no one got hurt. Anger and panic are a terrible thing to waste.
Thanks for the fix, site fixers!
{Yer Welcome P.O.P.} : )
Liberal AND Proud @ 90:
Does anyone know what time his speech is scheduled to begin?
BT @ 87:
WTF? What part of "choice" didn't she understand? My guess is that this woman has/had a lot of other significant problems in her life. There is more than enough other information and support available if she had wanted to avail herself of it. If she really wanted to raise the child, she should have made that clear to those around her.
No, this won't do anything to change inaccurate stories about snubs that never happened. Once the bullshit gets out there it takes on a life of its own, like the Internet that Al Gore singlehandedly invented. The media would rather perpetrate a lie than admit they dropped the ball. We've seen it enough by now...
Casey's not at the bat?
As a male I have to wonder, why do males even have the right to have an opinion about abortion, much less whether it's legal or not?
bt @ 86 I don't think that I understand what you are saying. Some women have a problem with their decision, so we must take away their choice? I'm missing something. I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed. What am I missing?
Steveo @ 93:
Sounds like a lot of guilt because she did exactly what she wanted to do and can't come to grips with that. She also sounds astonishingly immature. And not at all ready to mother anyone.
No pages were broken in this comment
Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo @ 4:
Colon Powell? Speak at the Dem Convention?
Maybe if he dropped the lamb & pulled up his pants.
I wouldn't piss on that whore if he was on fire.
NEWS FLASH...
Once more proving that they can't win a presidency in this modern age, the democrats and Obama have lost the 2008 election to a desiccated and decrepit John McCain.
Obama's polling numbers continued to soften as the democrat party continued to try to appeal to the mythical middle of American politics raising profound questions by funders of his campaign and the democratic party in general to wonder if their party is dead or just the people that are constant consultants to it. Many questions will swirl on whether Obama would have been better served if he ran a campaign that accentuated the differences between himself and his opponent rather than focusing on those where they agreed. Obama led the polls at the start of the contest partly due to his hard and some would say radical difference between himself and the republican John McCain, and that the wind went out of his sails soon after that when the moderates took over his campaign.
The loss is especially hard for the minorities in America after McCain did not let up on his racist attacks on Obama. It's doubtful to be a 'new day' in America. This reporter hopes that the democratic party will work to shed the advisers and more importantly the tactics that insured Obama's defeat. Once more snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in a race that appeared to be decided long before November.
Truthfully and realisticly WHO except for the other members of the DNC and the RNC and some members of congress ever watch this display of nonsense.
Back when the conventions were real conventions and they had groups supporting this one and that one and they made deals and had bargains it was exciting. But now it sucks.
casey is an uninspiring nincompoop.....he has a seat in senate because he ran against a moronic lunatic.....i remember cringing when he endorsed obama, wishing he had sided with clinton....
chris [not the troll] @ 96:
Because primarily males run this country and the world. Well, and males run the catholic 'church' and push their misogynistic ideology.
And some small men think that because they 'contributed' to the creation of the fetus that it gives them somehow more rights then the woman carrying it...
PinkyLeftBrain @ 100:
don't be fooled by all the nonsense in the news....
obama is not even considering bayh....he's a bluff card....bayh is a moron, and obama is pretending to vet him to appease the moderates...
obama will choose an excellent vp, along the lines of powell, webb, mckaskill, clark, hagel...even clinton herself....
biden, bayh....that's just the morons in the DC press having too little to talk about, and an inclination to think their good buddies are the most likely Veeps
everybody is gonna be surprised when obama picks...
Larry Larsen @ 38:
I agree. ABC should stand for "Always Biased Conservatively".
CNN & Headline News is just as bad with the likes of Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Lou Dobbs, and Wolf Blitzer. (CNN does have Jack Cafferty to inject a small bit of sanity.)
Thank God for the blogsphere!
Captain Bitter Whiner Hussein Kangaroo @ 16:
Because democrats ARE the party of stupid!
This guy IS what every neoclown coward wishes they were, and with an high I.Q. to boot! If Obama doesn't pick him, he is a dumbass! If he picks Evan (excuse me while I vomit) DINO "R-D" Bayh for vice president, I will probably vote green. I have had enough of the "D"umbass leadership.
The country is screamiong for an END to corporate fascism. Obama beat Hillary "DLC" Clinton by getting progressive support
in the primaries, and now they are talking about Evan freaking Bayh! Sean Hannity's favorite democrat. WTF!
These democrats really need to fire all of their so-called advisors. They are the most clueless, spineless morons on the planet.
Mick Piobr @ 97:
You're not missing anything. Your point is well taken. Their arguement is that the poor little dears should never have been burdened with the weight of making their own decisions in the first place. (They're so easily swayed; look at Eve.) This girl's anxiety is annecdotal proof of that belief.
Our culture is still actively fighting with itself about the status of women. I think the concept of women as unenfranchised property is antiquated, but I'm not sure of how wide a majority that view has.
Shades of The Handmaid's Tale, things like this have actually grown in popularity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_Ball
No sign of any Purity Balls for boys to pledge their virginity to their mothers.
While I find the ick factor through the roof on this, apparently there is a demographic that wants it and believes in it. And what they have to believe in for this to work for them is the essential inferiority of half the species, because God wants it that way.
MAYBE that girl's anxiety and depression are more rooted in the fact that she had an abortion rather than submit to a permanent status of inferiority and thoroughly freaked herself out because now she has to come to terms either with the fact that she committed the most grevious of sins or everything she has been taught is wrong - and then what? If you've been raised in a completely authoritarian and judgemental culture, the outside must look like moral chaos.
No pages were broken in this comment
NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 106:
bayh is a bluff card....obama is not considering that fool....no chance in hell
ignore the media brouhahaha about their buddy bayh.... he's about as likely to be the VP as you or I.... choosing bayh would be akin to conceding the election a few months early...
factus @ 18:
I don't think anti-abortion is a good term to use in the argument.
Anti-choice says it nicely. As a pro-choicer, I don't like being called pro-abortion,because I am not.
PinkyLeftBrain @ 100:
Relax. Take a deep breath. The only thing worse than smug Repugs are Dems gnashing their teeth and rubbing ash in their faces three months out from the election.
No pages were broken in this comment
ohio progressive @ 104:
I have been hoping you are right. However, he should not pick Webb. Having a strong Senate voice from a former dark red seat is more important than the V.P. slot (unless your a lazy idiot like chimpy)! Webb should be the Senate majority leader instead of milquetoast Harry.
NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 111:
Webb would make a good Senate Majority leader, but I like him for VP. He brings a lot to the table and the man has cahones.
I'm old enough for the senior meal at Denny's, (no, really, I know, I know, I don't look it), and I would much rather see two younger people - let McCain corner the codger ticket. Two strong vital men who can speak really well and not put audiences to sleep.
Listening to McCain and Lieberman for five minutes is enough to induce a coma. Can you imagine Webb and Lieberman debating?
No pages were broken in this comment
Can we stop adopting the anti-choice movement's language -- i.e., calling them "pro-life". The implication is that pro-choicers are "anti-life." Would you unthinkingly adopt the neocon line that Iraq war proponents are "pro-freedom"? I think not. If you can't bring yourself to call them anti-choice, I'd settle for anti-abortion -- even though the bulk of them are anti-birth control and anti-anything else involving reproductive choice.
>>disproving the notion that there was a “litmus test.” (What’s more, pro-life speakers have been featured at every Democratic convention since.)
None the less, there should be. The stated platform includes a woman's right to choose. Why would you not exclude people who do not supoprt the party platform.
These stoopid Republican-Lite Democrats. No wonder Obama is polling so close to McSame. No one can tell what he stands for or tell the difference between their platforms.
johnbpt @ 113:
I use a root wording: Anti-Women Rights.
What...you expect facts from propaganda outlets? Hope springs eternal, I guess.
The Democratic Party seems to be trying to permanently sever the support of me and people like me, with the refusal to let Edwards appear at the convention, the decision to let AT&T plaster corporate sponsorship all over their materials to snub the anti-FISA crowd, the decision to let the religious-right start to set the course of the Dem platform in a different direction, and now this.
I regret every day more and more that I re-registered as a Dem. (ONLY TO VOTE FOR KUCINICH) now that he is out, **CRIES** I don't really want to be associated with Anti-choice, religious nuts.
They are spreading and it's getting to seem like those cockroaches that come out at night. You can see em but you can't get to them fast enough to kill em. **shiver**
I will most certainly be re-registering as Independent as soon as the election is over.
Otay @ 117:
No way in hell will I support this shit.
pissed off patricia @ 52:
Who asked it? A caller? The host? A guest?
"Pro-Life?" You mean anti-choice don't you? Frank Luntz is laughing at you.
Comments are closed on this entry