Blabbermouth Podcast: Should the Democratic Party Be Backing Anti-Choice Candidates?

Comments

1
No.
Next question.
2
@1 Agreed.
Also, stop giving money to them.
3
With 1 and 2. The DNC needs to get it together. I'm not voting for any anti-choice candidate no matter what the GOP pull out of their ass. Not giving the DNC any more money.
4
There is a lot of outrage about the leader of the DCCC making comments about backing anti-choice candidate for congress. If it’s really true for the DCCC, well, let’s just say that’s NOT the Washington State Democrats way and we will not be supporting that decision here in our congressional candidates.

In the concerns there is a lot of confusion/lack of information what the DCCC actually is as an organization, and how they may or may not “speak” for the Democrats. Bottom line is that the DCCC does NOT.

Allow to me to take a moment to walk through the organizations better known by their initials; DNC, DGA, DSCC, DCCC & DLCC.

Each of the five organizations are distinct legal entities that are run completely separate from each other. Not one of the five has governing authority over the other four. But here’s a handy guide:

DNC: Democratic National Committee is the official, legal national organization called the Democratic Party. All state parties are part of the DNC community, but also separate organizations. The DNC adopts a platform, creates a national structure, conducts the presidential nominating process and national convention. The DNC membership elects its own leadership in the months following the presidential election. The DNC is the national voice of the Democratic Party. State Parties are the State voices.

DGA: Democratic Governor's Association is comprised of a caucus of the sitting Democratic governors in the country. Those governors meet to elect their leadership, create a budget, hire their staff, open an office and support their reelection (if needed) and/or those candidates running for governor either pre-primary or post-primary as they see fit. You could primarily call it a PAC.

DSCC: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is comprised of a caucus of the sitting Democratic US Senators. Those senators meet to elect their leadership, create a budget, hire their staff and support their reelection (if needed) and/or those candidates running for senate either pre-primary or post-primary as they see fit. You could primarily call it a PAC.

DCCC: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is comprised of a caucus of the sitting Democratic members of congress. Those members of congress meet to elect their leadership, create a budget, hire their staff and support their reelection (if needed) and those candidates running for congress either pre-primary or post-primary as they see fit. You could primarily call it a PAC.

DLCC: Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee is comprised of the current top Democratic legislative leaders from each state in the country. Those senate presidents, house speakers, minority leaders and caucus whips meet to elect their leadership, create a budget, hire their staff and support their reelection (if needed) and those candidates running for legislative seats either pre-primary or post-primary as they see fit. You could primarily call it a PAC.

While the DGA, DSCC, DCCC and DLCC each have the name "Democratic" they are not branches of the Democratic Party. They are distinct and separate organizations. FYI.
5
You guys really missed the point. The DNC needs to stand for SOMETHING. You guys talked about how the dems didn't have a platform to run on in 2016. This is one of the things that needs to be a core tenet of the DNC. I'm so tired of us meeting the far right in the middle.
6
@5
Stop giving the DNC money!
7
I don't donate to the DNC or the DCCC (note it's the DCCC that recently said they were willing to fund anti-choice Democrats).

But I think the test should be this: a candidate may personally believe abortion is wrong, but should have to pledge that they support the right to choice and will oppose legislation meant to limit that right before they get any funding or endorsement from national Democratic Party organizations. It's up to the candidate to figure out how they want to square that circle.
8
Also, thanks Tina!
9
@6 I don't. I will gladly give to individual candidates, but I don't believe in the institution as a whole enough to give them my money.
10
I'm not interested in supporting any candidate that wants to be the boss of my uterus. They can be anti-choice for their personal (or theoretical) uterus. They just can't make laws for mine.
11
I appreciate John McCain coming and voting against Skinny Repeal. But it should be pointed out that he did it for himself... And for his legacy... (a "legacy" which may come sooner rather than later). When McCain cast his no vote on Skinny Repeal, it made the final tally 49-51. That prevented Pence from being able to cast the tie-breaking vote.

However, had McCain *not* made the trip out from AZ, the vote would have been 49-50. The repeal would have failed, and Pence wouldn't have had a tie-breaking vote either.

It was more of a "Nice Neat Package" to get over 50 No votes, but it was *not* technically necessary, except to burnish McCain's "Maverick" rep.
12
Not supporting this in Washington will not stop it from being supported in other states. As long as there is a chance that money will go to a pro-life candidate, I am not giving it. I will support individual candidates, even in other states, but not the organization as a whole if they are going to refuse to support women.
13
@11 Whatever McCain's motive, it's good that he was there. Collins was a definite no but Murkowsky was wobbly. Her main beef with the previous R bills was the Planned Parenthood defunding, and that wasn't in the skinny repeal bill. It's quite possible Murkowsky would have voted yes if McCain hadn't been there to cushion the political blowback.
14
You guys are all woke when it comes to Dave Reichert's phony maverick votes that the House whip lets him cat whenever it won't matter, right? The rubes back home can think Dave isn't a GOP rubber stamp because every once in a while he takes a principled stand! But, the record shows, only when the legislation the party wants would have passed anyway, or it had no chance of passing. Every time the Republicans need his vote, he votes as he is told.

So about those ~10 anti-choice Democratic members of the House the last time the party had a majority. Do you think Nancy Pelosi and the whip allowed them to ever fuck the party over when it counted? No. No they did not. That's not how it works. You can be a maverick whose whose pro-life or whatever convictions match your purple district, but not when it counts. When the party needed their votes, they delivered. When it wouldn't have mattered anyway, Pelosi & co. released them to take a maverick stand and all that bullshit.

That's how the sausage is made.

So if you think the Democrats are a sure bet to win the House in 2018 without any sketchy Dems whose stated beliefs don't match the party's platform, then great. Don't fund them. But I seem to remember Hillary Clinton was a sure bet to win the White House too, and how'd that work out? I don't know what's going on in the head of anybody who can't hold their nose and do whatever it takes to claw back control of Congress from the Republicans. So they don't fund any anti-choice Democrats. What happens if you wake up the day after the midterms and Paul Ryan is going to be in charge for two more years? How many girls' lives will be devastated because Ryan took away their access to abortion, not to mention healthcare and comprehensive sex ed? Are you OK with that?

I know it feels shitty. But if we do whatever it takes to get Nancy Pelosi back in charge, the people most affected by these wavering policies will feel it far more.
15
I think the mistake that Democrats and many liberals make is that they stop at the phrase "I support a woman's right to choose" because in many peoples minds that is code word for abortion, and only abortion.

I think it should be "I support a woman's right to choose, and that includes abortion. But it also means that I support her choice to bear her pregnancy to term, by providing prenatal care, her choice to put the baby up for adoption through support of sound adoption policies, and her choice to be a parent, by providing a decent society in which to raise her child."

When you stop at abortion, all you get is tired trope about dead babies. But that tired trope sells because the churches reinforce it and because people like babies (well, except for me. I find babies tedious).

Choice is about choice, and liberals support choice. A good politician who has personal reservations about abortion knows how to thread that needle.