A question to everyone who won't vote for an Anti-choice democrat!

[LynneSin]

Poll question: A question to everyone who won't vote for an Anti-choice democrat!

If you lived in John Murtha's district would you vote for him

Poll result (32 votes)
Yes	(21 votes, 66%)	Vote
No	(11 votes, 34%)	Vote

[WildClarySage]

1. Depends- Does the candidate in question have a history of voting

with anti-choicers? Is his opponent also anti-choice? I won't say I won't vote for an anti-choice dem ever, but while I will go out and stump for a pro-choice candidate I won't expend my energy helping an anti-choice one.

[LynneSin]

3. .....

I'm not trying to disregard your answer - just want to see the rash thinking of people here at DU

Thanks for understanding

[Lerkfish]

4. "rash thinking"?

ok, I think athlete's foot is hard to get rid of.
Poison Ivy can be treated with calomine lotion.

er....oh.

here's what I think: I'm tired of preloaded push polls. If you have something to say, just say it straight out. Using the poll as a device to try to force people to see your point is becoming tired lately.

[LynneSin]

10. Pul-lease

I'm just trying to get the mindset of the people here at DU. This isn't a push-pull, geez I'm not asking "IF John Murtha had an adulterous affair would you vote for him"

I'm just taking a guy that has a high adoration here at DU and finding out if they would vote for him.

Simple enough.

Read into it what you want - I don't give a hoot because that's what I expect from you

[Lerkfish]

15. I"m commenting on a recent trend, of which this is an example

people designing polls, not to generate conversation, but to catapult their own POV .
I'm just saying, its disingenuous unless you are truly trying to find out what people think, instead of a rhetorical trap to make your point.

when you used the term "rash thinking" I felt you fell into the rhetoric trap category.
If I'm wrong, so be it.

I'm glad you have expectations from me....?

I hope you expect me to be supremely intelligent and wise and willing to listen to reason.
but somehow, I don't think that's what you're implying....

[Padme Amidala]

34. Is this about anti-choice Johnson who is running against McKinney?

I gather everyone here knows that he is backed by the same religious gang that's been pushing an end to Roe v Wade. He's taken a lot of donations from them and is counting on their support to defeat pro-choice McKinney.

[rinsd]

36. Can you back that up? Or did you make it up out of whole cloth?

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/0...

What is your position on abortion as defined by the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade? Do you think that states and Congress should pass limitations on abortion such as 24-hour waiting periods and parental notification for teenagers?

McKinney

I support Roe v. Wade. Those who wish to set it aside have adopted a long-term piecemeal strategy that has included a bewildering array of parental and spousal notifications, spurious medical warnings, waiting periods and the like. As a rule, I do not support these limitations on the rights of women to seek medical care, to obtain sound medical advice, and to exercise their right to choose.


Johnson

Roe v. Wade is established legal precedent and I pledge to protect a woman's right to choose.

At the same time, there are steps we can take to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies that occur. By supporting efforts to educate young people about the risks of sexual activity, by providing cultural leadership and emphasizing the importance of responsible sexual decision-making, and by increasing funding for family planning, we can reduce the number of abortions that occur without making illegal something that is sometimes tragically necessary.

[ulysses]

2. I am not one for whom Murtha's stance on Iraq

has made him into some godlike figure. I appreciate it, but I would assuredly vote for a pro-choice candidate against him in a primary if I lived there. I'd probably vote for him in the general.

[MH1]

19. PA primaries are long over...

I think a lot of non-PA people on this board forget that.

In this context I would assume the op is referring to the General Election, where your choices are a) anti-choice Democrat named John Murtha, or b) an opponent from another party.

Phrased another way,

a) John Murtha, who is anti-choice, or b) help the rabidly anti-choice (and generally rabid) republican to win by withholding your vote from her only viable opponent, John Murtha. (and yes the republican is a she, altho her name escapes me).

[ulysses]

23. I was just speaking generally.

No pun intended.

[jobycom]

5. Not if he had a legite pro-choice opponent.

Although his stated position is that he supports abortion in the first trimester. His voting record still indicates he doesn't consider privacy or equality sacred rights. I'd have trouble backing him. Also, his war stance has only recently become enlightened, so I don't fully trust him to make good decisions.

Personally, I think Lieberman's a much better Democrat.

[acmejack]

8. I think you have pretty position.

I would not support anti choice in a primary ever. In an actual election, I would vote for the democrat of course (at least in a National election).

[MH1]

21. Curious - would you consider a Senate seat a "national election",

even though it is a state seat, particularly if control of the Senate is thought to be in play?

[welshTerrier2]

29. just for the record

i think Murtha's "war stance" has recently become much less enlightened ... he signed on to the latest Levin-Reid nonsense ...

Murtha's done some great things opening the war and occupation up to a real discussion ... what he did was almost heroic ... his latest position, however, is the wrong way to go ...

[skipos]

6. As long as he is all around better than the Republican, and he is,

I would vote for him.

[calico1]

7. I would if I lived in a very

Conservative district where few if any Democrats ever get elected and the option would be a Republican. Isn't Murtha's district Conservative?

[LynneSin]

9. Nope, it was gerrymandered to combine 2 democratic districts

You should see his district design - it's a fricking joke



But also it's western pa where democrats tend to be anti-choice (note the word TEND)

[calico1]

11. That is ridiculous!!! n/t

[LynneSin]

13. Yes but it is a safe democratic seat

I highly doubt the swiftboating will do anything but perhaps give the opponent 40% fo the vote instead of 35%.

PA lost 2 congressional seats back in 2000 and the republican control house/senate opted to combine 2 congressional district in both the Pittsburgh & Pa region with as many democrats as possible to ensure that the districts around them would vote republican - This district along with PA-8 is almost like an Interment camp for Pennsylvania Democrats they way they were structured

[KKKarl is an idiot]

12. ..

Me may be anti-choice but we cannot do without a voice like his in Washington. He ruffles to many feathers. He also can do it with honor because he has great creditability.

[welshTerrier2]

14. you cannot answer "yes" to this question

anyone who answers "yes" should not have answered the question because the question itself is limited to those who would answer "no"

if you answer "yes", then you fall outside the group that the question seeks answers from ... the question limits responders to those who would say "no" ...

by answering "yes", you are indicating that you would vote for an anti-choice Democrat which violates the terms of the question ...

it's one of those logic thingies ...

[jobycom]

16. Depends on what your definition of "won't" is

If "won't" is an expression of present tense will, then it allows for alteration in the future.

For instance, I won't vote for an anti-choice Democrat. But I might vote for Murtha if I lived in his district and his opponent was more anti-choice than him. The future consideration does not negate the present declaration. If the question was for those "who would never vote" for an anti-choice Democrat, then your argument kicks in. With "won't," it's a little gray, from a linguistically logical standpoint.

[welshTerrier2]

18. from the Beatles ...

"how can you say you will when you won't
say you do honey when you don't"

good tune ...

well, your phrase "linguistically logical standpoint" is so expressive that I'll accept your characterization, albeit a bit of a stretch, that there could be a gray element here ...

in the end, my read is that if you say you "won't", you can't say you will ... i think in the context of the question, "present tense" is not being implied ... the question clearly means to restrict responders to those who believe it is wrong, be it now or in the future, to vote for anti-choice candidates ...

[jobycom]

20. Also from the Beatles

I am the egg man. I am the walrus. Koo koo ka choo.

Excuse me if I don't consider them absolute authorities on logic and reality!

Lynne's point was clearly to ask those who see choice as one of their defining issues if they would partially wave that issue for Murtha, the implication being because of his recent anti-war views. So I think my interpretation is more logical (linguistically and metaphysically) based on the clear intent of the question.

Glad you liked "liguistically logical standpoint." I can shovel it when I want to!

[LynneSin]

25. Consider this

First your reply was valid but Welsh really pointed out about the illogical sense of the single issue voter. This is a voting-style that is highly used by republicans in order to help swap people into voting for them when outside of the single-issue the candidate has no redeeming values for said single-issue voter.

Consider the gun issue and rural PA. Rural Pennsylvanians (like myself - I was born there) have no benefits whatsoever from the Republican party. Not only are the income levels not favorable for Republican tastes but the republican parties have done everything in their power to destroy family farms, family-owned business and promote sprawl. Many families in rural PA have no real job that provides the type of income and more importantly the benefits that one would need to raise children and care for health needs. I've always felt that there was very little difference between the needs of the rural community vs. those in urban 'ghetto' settings.

So how would a Republican benefit these people or any rural person living in the poverty level, which is very common? They don't, if anything the democrats would be more favorable in every sense of the way (pretty much -yes I know, bad democrats).

And yet, rural PA like so many other rural areas constantly and religiously support the republican party. Hell in PA-10 the republican candidate is an incumbant who was caught with a mistress and yet he'll STILL win that district (although he's got a tough race this time). IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER

Until you consider the 'single-issue' voter. The voter that picks one issue and puts it so fricking high on a pedestal that compromise is not an option even if that compromise could help improve their lives. So the Republicans play on this, usually with republican issues like Guns, Gays or God (the 3Gs). But Santorum has a problem this time. Casey is pretty pro-gun, he's a devout catholic and although on the fence with gay marriage (he is not anti-gay and would not support a ban on it). \

So Santorum is in need of a single-issue to peel off voters since it's pretty weak for some of the standard ones used. Well guess what - he's found it but instead of one he uses, it's one he finds from a 3rd Party candidate that will come in there and appeal to the single-issue voters.

This whole scandal with Santorum and the Greens is nothing more than a trap for the people who are too clueless to see there is much more at stake than choice.

[LynneSin]

17. WE HAVE A WINNER

Basically it's pointing out the obvious stupidity of any person who feels that they must vote by a single issue only. Thinking totally black/white is probably one of the most illogical ways of voting.

If I wanted to vote for a candidate who had the exact same political ideologies that I have then I'd fricking run for office, everyone else is a compromise.

[jobycom]

22. Gee, thanks for undermining my support of you!

I mean,

[welshTerrier2]

24. well, i don't want my prize

i have no problem at all with voting on a single issue ... each voter can prioritize the issues any way they choose ... for some, a single issue may totally dominate what they believe is important ... for others, a wide range of issues should be considered ... would you expect a black man to vote for a candidate who wants to deny blacks the right to vote? would you argue that that black man should consider the candidate's views on a broader range of issues? good luck selling that one ...

and it's a funny label that some ascribe to "single issue voters" ... for example, let's say that i would not vote for a candidate who didn't support equal rights for blacks or for women or for gays ... and let's also say that i would not vote for any candidate who continues to vote for more funding for the Iraq war ... and let's also say that i will not vote for candidates who push globalization and the corporate agenda ... would these views define a single issue voter?

if you rule out a candidate on a single issue, but would also rule them out based on their position on other issues, are you a single issue voter?

at some point, on some issues, there has to be a bottom line ... a candidate who does not commit to fighting for liberty and equality for all citizens never deserves your vote ... and it's important to distinguish between the candidates values versus what they may see as "timing and tactics" ... if a candidate does not believe certain objectives are currently politically viable, that's very different than the candidate not believing in those objectives at all ... compromised positions based on viability MAY be, at times, worth considering ... but compromising on the underlying values is NEVER worth considering when issues of liberty and equality are being discussed ...

[LynneSin]

27. If you have more than one issue you vote on then

no, you can't be considered single-issue.

Scroll up, I've talked more about this. This is a ploy I've seen time and time again in Pennsylvania. I have known people who live in PA, can't find a job, collecting unemployment, probably food stamps and medicare and will STILL vote repbublican because they're afraid their guns will be taken away from them. Yet the whole basis of the neo-conservative movement started as a reaction to FDR's New Deal programs that helped familys get out of the depression and actually have a change to have better opportunities in life.

I use to be a single-issue voter to the point that I one time voted for Tom Ridge simply because he was running against another PA anti-choice (this was before 2000 when I was ok with an occasional republican vote).

Single issue voting is almost as dumb as voting republican in my book. The example you gave me was simply a voter with several important issues, which to me says at least this voter is consider several options and not reactionary voting to just the one

[welshTerrier2]

31. so those voting "no" in your poll ...

may, by your definition, not be single issue voters ... is that correct?

[LynneSin]

32. It's an unscientific poll - who knows

[Lerkfish]

26. but your poll is not a rhetorical trap or a push poll...riiiiiight?

I see, it was a fishing expedition for the "winning" answer, which makes your point.

as I stated earlier, I tire of using a poll as a device to hammer your POV. just be upfront and start the thread honestly.

[LynneSin]

28. I'm tired of you thinking you're some moral high road here

Welsh happened to have a really good answer that I responded well too.

Deal with it

You have choices - do things to help make this country more educated voters or remain uneducated

[Lerkfish]

30. LOL! because I object to misusing poll threads, I'm wanting voters

to be ignorant?

okeydokey then. My work is done here.

[LynneSin]

33. You feel better now

boost to your self-esteem?

Whatever

[Lindacooks]

35. I'm ONLY voting for people with a (D) after their name.

And I'm voting for EVERY candidate with a (D) after their name.

[Sparkly]

38. I'm right there with you, Linda. nt

[Lindacooks]

39. :)

[liberaliraqvet26]

37. MURTHA ROCKS!!!!

One issue is not on the ballot.