Why the sudden urge to move the party right?

[BainsBane]

Why so anxious to throw the Democratic base under the bus to placate the precious white male Trump voters? Why are so many people running around insisting women need to stop being hysterical and become unified around an anti-choice agenda? That we need to acquiesce to power and privilege under the pretense of "unity" rather than fight for economic and social justice?

Why ignore voter disenfranchisement and continually deny the role of racism in the election--when polling data shows conclusively that race was the most important motivator of Trump voters? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/17/racism-motivated-trump-voters-more-than-authoritarianism-or-income-inequality/?utm_term=.771243eec175
Why do we see so many efforts to elevate whiteness, maleness and privilege over equality and economic justice for all? Can't people see there is no economic justice without equal rights? What is complicated about that?

There is no political expediency to promoting anti-choice candidates over those with solid Democratic, liberal voting records. There is no such thing as a progressive opponent of abortion rights, just as there is no such thing as a progressive segregationist.

Americans, even large numbers of Republican voters, overwhelmingly support a woman's right to choose. No amount of slogans about corporate this and that can conceal the fact that working to normalize an agenda that relegates more than half the population to second-class citizenship is reactionary, right-wing, and immoral. No economic justice can be achieved by forcing women and children into greater poverty by abandoning a commitment to reproductive rights. Economic growth for the privileged at the expense of the many isn't justice. It's greater inequality. How can people who claim to be on the left not understand that?

It's one thing to cast a vote in a red state because you have few options. It's another to elevate those conservatives above liberal Democrats.

We have heard for months about how important it is to empathize with and listen to Trump voters, yet those same people refuse to listen to Democrats who raise concerns about equality and justice, or anything else. Why the determination to embrace white male conservatives and the contempt for the Democratic base?

After years of complaints of how establishment Democrats are GOP lite, why do we see this effort to become like the GOP? To cater to white resentment, opposition to equal rights for women, and support for genocidal gun proliferation? Why do we see such disregard for voter disenfranchisement? Why is there so little concern for basic decency, for what it has meant to be a Democrat since the Dixiecrats left? Why the effort to abandon any concern about the rights of the majority in pursuit of the increased wealth of those who already earn substantially more than the rest of Americans? How can anyone claim promotion of bourgeois wealth while disregarding the poor and policies that create poverty is anything but immoral?

Why turn the clock back? Why not work to unite around economic justice for all rather than the accumulation of capital for those who already have more? Why is it that the actual working class has been abandoned for conservative men whose incomes average 2-7x the median wage? I don't understand any of it. Does compassion and principle not matter at all anymore?

[jberryhill]

1. Are you feeling a sudden urge?

I'm not feeling a sudden urge.

If anyone is feeling sudden and frequent urges, I think there is a pill on TV that your doctor can prescribe. It's Jobubitol or some damn thing...

Anyway, I think I saw something on DU about the Republicans trying their damndest to screw up this country. I sure hope someone does something about that.

[QC]

2. Could be Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

That's a tough break but there are some promising new treatments.

[beam me up scottie]

6. That does sound serious.

I'm sure there's an infomercial about that on television.

[jberryhill]

8. Is that the one that makes everyone else a cartoon?

I always wanted the disease where you take the drug that makes you take a vacation in New Zealand.

[beam me up scottie]

9. That sounds like an expensive cure.

If there's a clinical trial going on to study whether or not going to New Zealand is effective I'd like to volunteer.

[jberryhill]

128. Or, you can take Xarelto and go to Rome!

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7pGC/xarelto-mary-song-by-arturo-cardelus

Not only will you go to Rome, but you'll start eating healthy food you like and get to drive around Italy in a convertible Fiat.

I only wish I had atrial fibrulawhatever not caused by my something osis, and could get my hands on this stuff.

I mean either (a) you go to Italy or (b) have uncontrollable bleeding, etc.

[Cha]

12. Why is BS touting an "aggressively anti-choice" candidate

over a Pro Choice candidate? It was Racism that motivated trump voters.

Abortion is the most progressive economic issue.

The Democrats unity tour fractured into disunity almost immediately after it began. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont refused to say whether Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate trying to win a typically Republican district in Georgia while being outspoken in support of abortion rights, counts as a progressive"

Yeah, that's what we've been sayin'

These men need to get woke..

Instead, these men contend, the party’s focus must be on economics. The glaring mistake they all make, however, is thinking that there is any way to disentangle reproductive rights from economic issues.

"Yet he would happily exclude from the progressive movement even those he formally supports, like Mr. Ossoff, who don’t seem to talk enough about income inequality to satisfy Mr. Sanders."

Tough.. it doesn't "satisfy" BS.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/why-abortion-is-an-progressive-economic-issue.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region

[jberryhill]

42. Well I guess you'd have to ask him that

He didn't ask me for advice.

I still don't feel any sudden urges.

[DesertFlower]

44. i have mixed emotions about bernie.

when he first decided to run i supported him -- donated to his campaign several times. after watching the debates between hillary and him i realized that hillary was the better candidate. she was better qualified and more likely to be elected. the bernie supporters on DU gave me a really hard time. one even called me "undemocratic" for supporting hillary. i found many of the bernie supporters really nasty.

i don't know for sure, but i think many of the bernie supporters did not vote for hillary and that makes me angry.

don't even talk to me about "independents". there are democratic values and republican values. there's no middle. a friend who is an independent asked me what i would do if a republican stood for all the things i believed in. i said "then s/he would be a democrat".

[Bluepinky]

54. I have had the opposite experience.

Whenever there is anything posted about Bernie, there's a group of DU denigrators who can't wait to bash him. I voted for Hillary for President and have never posted anything negative about her, nor do I criticize others for their support of her. But just try saying something good about Bernie, the bashers feel free to say whatever they want.

[calimary]

112. Welcome to DU, Bluepinky.

Gotta say I'm with DesertFlower on this one. I was and still am a strong Hillary supporter. And yes, I saw Hillary people defending her here, and vigorously. But I NEVER saw the level of vitriol from that side leveled against Bernie supporters. It was rather - um - lopsided, to put it delicately.

Obviously there are still lots of open wounds. Wounds that aren't healing. Memories that won't fade - for quite some time. That's an especially difficult task for those who found themselves on the receiving end. Gotta admit - I'm still having trouble getting over it, myself. It must also be said that, as we've all since discovered, many of those "bros" were probably trolls and other nogoodniks who invaded here and elsewhere online to stir shit up. Some of them originated from as far away as Macedonia and Albania, funded by Russian adventurism, supported by Putin and company who hoped that dissension and confusion and division and disruption could be spread all over our side. French voters are being subjected to that Russian-sourced stealth trolling even now. There are multitudes of credible reports by now of how Putin's people have fanned out across the globe to disrupt - so that the West is weakened and compromised - all the better for Russia, 'eh?

I don't know how we get over it. I hope we do, but I'm not sure how we get there. All I know, or have read, or have observed - is that Bernie seems to want to remain a divisive figure, and doesn't seem interested in helping us all heal - unless/until everybody gets in line and sees things his way, that is. And as a woman who is ARDENTLY pro-choice, I can't understand why he seems so determined to push women's issues aside. I wish I could ask him (and EVERY MALE POLITICIAN, for that matter) - what if it was YOUR body into which government wanted to intrude? What if it was YOUR privacy, regarding that little bit of real estate between YOUR neck and YOUR knees, into which the full force of big government wanted to come stomping? I'm guessing you wouldn't like it. And you'd probably want to fight it. Just like we women do - whenever we see the threat of an anti-choice candidate arising, ANYWHERE.

I'd be gravely disappointed, and pretty pissed off, if Hillary stepped up for Mello, for example. I'd feel betrayed. The more anti-choice candidates succeed, the sooner my right to have the last word over MY body (and the right of my daughter and all her friends - and YOUR daughter, too, if you have one) will be taken away.

[Bluepinky]

133. Thank you Calimary.

I was on DU several years ago during our second most corrupt presidential administration, Bush/Cheney, and wasn't here during Obsma's two terms. I am back now for this horrible turn of events with DT. It's nice to commiserate with like-minded people. I wasn't here during the recent presidential campaign, but it must have been upsetting to have this site infiltrated by foreign disrupters. What I'm aware of now is the level of anger at Bernie. I voted for him in the primary, saw him speak at a house party early in his campaign and fell in love with his enthusiasm and righteous anger at the top 1%. And one of my top issues was the Iraq invasion; I so appreciated his vote against it, even with the pressure on the senators to vote for it. He was called a traitor and unpatriotic for that vote but he stood firm, voted for what he believed and came out on the right side of history. I am an ardent supporter of women's rights, Planned Parenthood; I'm pro-choice and have a daughter who is even more progressive than me. But I have to trust Bernie when he says he can support someone for political office without supporting all their positions. Since I have been back here, I have seen a lot of Bernie bashing. It has made me wonder what is going on, some of the posters are so angry at him and anyone who supports him. I haven't seen Hillary bashing (but I wasn't here during the primary). I do like Hillary and voted for her for President. But Bernie has a lot of young supporters (including my daughter) and the Democrats should listen to his ideas and not see him as an enemy. We all want the same thing and we can't afford to lose a single vote.

[ehrnst]

114. The first post that I saw under an article about Bernie's minimum wage bill was

"There goes Bernie stomping on Democratic values again. Am I doing this right?"

So, there's some very angry and juvenile baiting going on from that side.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1761051

[ehrnst]

115. Thanks for 'splaining that. (nt)

[mia]

3. Is it possible to express ideas about economic justice without racist and sexist overtones?

Why so anxious to throw the Democratic base under the bus to placate the precious white male Trump voters?

[bettyellen]

10. Undercurrent- not overtones. It seems difficult for many.

[mia]

16. The undercurrents have become overtones

that undermine the Democratic Party and it's ability to come together and stand for all who are oppressed.

[Vesper]

20. That seems to be the goal here.

Or to induce IBS in everyone and recommend "treatments". Some Big Pharma fans on this thread, never mind all that stuff they said before, purity now is a different thing all together.

[bettyellen]

25. Calling people out for supporting sexist legislature is NOT reverse sexism. That's nonsense.

It's actually super important because 70% of activists these days have been women. We aren't having that bullshit. It will be called out.

[BainsBane]

36. That is what happens when people refuse to stand up for the oppressed

and instead justify relegating half the population to second class citizenship and increased poverty.
We are being told the party should no longer stand up to injustice. That is what undermines the ability of the party to stand up for the oppressed.

[mia]

45. Yes, we must stand up for injustice and be inclusive of all

human beings who are being oppressed.

[OldRedneck]

47. Perhaps you could . . .

. . . give us specific examples of Democrats being told "the party should no longer stand up to injustice."

[JTFrog]

107. Bernie flat out said we should accept anti-choice candidates into the party and fund them.

Sanders in an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe last month agreed with host Joe Scarborough that Democrats should “be open to candidates that may not be rigidly pro-choice, may not be rigidly pro-gun control.”

[BainsBane]

17. There is no economic justice without equal rights

Of course it's possible to express ideas about economic justice without acquiescing to racism and sexism. That is the only way that it can honestly be done. Because without equal rights, the result is greater greater inequality, both legal and economic. That should not be difficult for anyone to understand.

[mia]

43. Thanks for your reply.

I look forward to ideas about economic justice that can be applied without regard to race or sex. In that regard, everyone's needs would be equally covered (including the best of health care).

[BainsBane]

67. Absolutely

healthcare is essential, as is a living wage.

[Demsrule86]

109. You always have to consider social justice...

[DesertFlower]

46. screw the white male trump voters. i said it before and

i'll say it again. if you supported trump you're a racist.

[ehrnst]

116. Straw man.

No one is calling "ideas about economic justice" racist or sexist.

They are calling ideas about economic populism that dismiss the specifically different experience that women and people of color have with economics "identity politics" or issues we can be "flexible on."

Is that clearer?

[Me.]

4. Because They're Not Getting Their Way & Losing Their Dominion

And it's making them SAD

[BainsBane]

7. That really is it

in a nutshell. It would take me 200 words to say what you did so succinctly.

[MontanaMama]

14. Thank you

BainsBane for this post and Me. for the comment. I've noticed the party's quiet creep to the right and I find it horrifying and infuriating. It smacks of a whisper that if we would only put our basic human rights on the back burner for a little while longer in order to win an election or two, it would be appreciated and then if we are good girls, we could again talk about our privileges... Uh...NO.

[Vesper]

26. It's not a quiet creep, nor is it a whisper, it's a full throated shout

and it's been tugging that way in the guise of "pure progressivism" which has revealed itself to be nothing of the sort, neither pure nor progressive.

This has been what they've been saying all along.

[BainsBane]

68. It sure looks like it. nt

[Me.]

28. The Problem For Those Who Don't Understand

Is that the sands in the hourglass have run out on this issue where many women are concerned.

[Vesper]

21. Seems to be making them irritable.

[Me.]

32. Quite

[Vesper]

56. At least they're looking into treatments, even if they are from Big Pharma

which apparently isn't so evil now, that hypocrisy reigns supreme.

[Starry Messenger]

29. +1

[Me.]

35. Mahalo...as Cha Would Say

[Cha]

49. ..

It's so funny.. when I first started using "mahalo" when I got back to Kauai.. the auto-correct put a red line under it.. but I guess I used it so much.. they just let it go now. lol

Me.

[ehrnst]

117. When white straight men get scared of not being the default

It's bad news for the rest of us.

[HughBeaumont]

120. I wish.

The party they love controls damned near everything.

If there's any evidence their way is being resisted, I'm sure as hell not seeing it.

[Me.]

123. I Wish

I could R your post

[musette_sf]

5. K&R xoxo

[Hoyt]

11. If we go after any Trump voters, I think women would be better for Democrats.

I think there are a significant number of Trump voting women who can be reasoned in. GOPer men are more likely to be callous, hard core white wingers, gun fanciers, racist, ignorant, and maybe worse. Not to say some GOPer women aren't as well.

[BainsBane]

15. It's not based on political strategy

It's not based on data or information about the election. It is becoming increasingly clear that it is about restoring uncontested white male privilege. We have seen arguments turn around completely. People who insisted principle didn't permit them to vote for Clinton's quite progressive platform in November suddenly insist winning requires abandoning the rights and lives of the majority of Democrats. There is no evidence that that becoming a party that doesn't support women's rights will help Democrats get elected. The same people who insisted red state Democrats should be primaied are now insisting that core Democratic principles need to be abandoned to win, based on no evidence. It's becoming undeniable that the goal is now and has been elevating them at the expense of the many. The goal is in fact greater equality, not less.

[betsuni]

23. The whole song and dance about not being able to vote for Clinton because of principle

and their conscience, based on nothing but stubborn ignorance or spite -- now are all for compromise! VEXING. These mind games are making me thirsty.

[BainsBane]

27. It's very obvious what that was about

now more than ever. It's the same thing that these calls for us to be quiet and unify around anti-choice candidates. It's hardly subtle.

[Hoyt]

33. Not talking about adopting policies that appease GOPer women. I'm talking about

adopting messages that might get through to 10% or so of GOPer women. On the other hand, 5% of GOPer men are reachable. (Wild ass guess on percentages).

[BainsBane]

37. I understand that. I wasn't criticizing your post

I was talking about the priorities we are witnessing. Of course it makes more sense to try to appeal to GOP women than men, except if the goal is to promote the wealth and privilege of white men at the expense of the the rest of Americans.

[Hoyt]

55. Agree. White wing men have had it easy for a long time.

[ehrnst]

118. As we have seen on the left as well, there are women who draw their power and identity

from the men they align with.

Many women leave that behind after their 20s, but many still live it far beyond.

Palin, Bachmann....

[hrmjustin]

13. I am getting sick and tired of being told to cater to people who don't give two shits about...

...equality!

[BainsBane]

19. It's horrifying

We are seeing that people believe none of what they claimed, that the whole thing was an excuse to promote their own privilege at the expense of equality.

[hrmjustin]

38. it has been hard to read DU recently and it is not because of the Bernie/Clinton race like some here

claim. While it was a rough primary all it was politics and politics is not all peaches and cream.

No what upsets me is the purists have decided that being purist is not good anymore. Well normally I would say good because in politics sometimes compromise to some extent is needed to get things done. But now our friends have decided that we need to put people on a pedestal who are not all that interested in defending reproductive rights.

Now some might ask me as a gay man why do I care about reproductive rights, and I will say if you can compromise or throw out one civil right you can kiss the rest of them goodbye in short order. I am also the uncle of 4 nieces and two nephews, and I don't want my nieces to have go to a back alley to get an abortion. It pisses me off that women in this country have to drive hundreds of miles to a clinic to get this medical procedure done. I went with family and friends when they made this choice and it is hard on them, and having to now go even further than before to have this procedure done is unacceptable.

Extolling candidates that put burdens on women like this is no virtue!!!

[50 Shades Of Blue]

50. "If you can compromise or throw out one civil right you can kiss the rest

of them goodbye in short order."

BINGO!!!!!

[brer cat]

69. Exactly, justin.

The moment we compromise on one right or put one group on the back burner "for now" we risk losing the rights of others. As bains said, it is one thing for people in red districts to hold their nose and vote for a conservative because they are given no other choice, and something else to actively push for a non liberal, non progressive democrat.

[ehrnst]

119. Thank you for being an ally. (nt)

[PatsFan87]

18. This party has been moving to the right since Bill Clinton was elected. Let's be real.

[BainsBane]

22. When was the last time you read a DNC platform?

1) Tell me how the most recent platform is to the right of Bill Clinton?

2) and it that your excuse for enabling it to promote legal inequality?

3) or is your entire definition of what constitutes right or left defined entirely in terms of the relative wealth and privilege of white men?

[JI7]

24. no it hasn't. the party has become more liberal . the conservative dems have turned republican

and the republican party has moved right.

[BainsBane]

31. I have yet to have one person who made that claim

back it up with a single example.

[JI7]

39. it's one of those things that are always being thrown out

as many things are. just talking points but without anything to back it up.

but i think part of it could be to take the blame away from white men voting republican .

which makes no fucking sense but that's the argument. that white men left because the democratic party moved right.

so they voted for even more conservative people because they were upset aobut the party moving right ?

huh ??????

[Jamaal510]

61. +1

which makes no fucking sense but that's the argument. that white men left because the democratic party moved right.

so they voted for even more conservative people because they were upset aobut the party moving right ?

[zipplewrath]

110. Not sure Obama would agree

President Obama said his economic policies are "so mainstream" he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.

In a Thursday interview with a Miami-based local television station, Obama said he thinks few people believe he wants to impose socialism on the country.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

That sounds like the party as a whole has moved to the right alot. Of course this is only on economic policy. But on foreign policy, it might be harder to judge. We certainly aren't the anti-war party of the late '60s and early '70s. And we did ramp up the war in Afghanistan after Obama was elected, not to mention we never actually left. But we also resisted going into Syria alot as well as Lybia and Yemen. And we resisted returning to Iraq, although we reluctantly had to back away from that because of Syria and Isis. Alternately, we became the party of drone strikes and of classifying the torture photos. Not to mention we didn't advocate the closing of Gitmo, but merely the moving it to American soil.

On Civil rights we have a much better track record. Despite some resistance within the party, we've moved forward with LGBTQ rights including at this point marriage equality. We attempted to defend privacy rights as well. We've stayed pretty firm on reproductive rights, including women's health rights, even with the ACA and have taken no small amount of political heat on that. I really don't think we can take much of a hit on voting rights. We've just continued to lose that battle, through no real fault of our own.

We've wandered aimlessly on gun control, but if anything Clinton tried to move that left and the party took a heck of a hit over it.

So I suppose it is a bit like the blind people touching the elephant, it kinda depends upon which part one is touching. The perception that the party has move to the right has I suspect predominately due to their positions on free trade and their weakening support of unions, and generally their overall weakness on issues like Glass-Steagall and bank bailouts. The embracing of the whole PAC thing after Citizens United has had an "optics" problem from the get-go, doing one thing and saying another. But I suspect that is in the noise.

[Vesper]

30. If we're going to be real, we need to be factual, and that is an incorrect statement.

I don't remember Bill Clinton supporting right wing extremists who sought to BAN abortion at 20 weeks, which is a death sentence to women, or just a deeply sadistic thing to do to families.

Hey that amniocentesis and ultrasound you've been waiting all this time to do? Your fetus is non viable, but congratulations you get to be a walking coffin for weeks, and risk your life to deliver a large baby that might kill you and which won't live. Yay!

Let's be real, shall we?

[uponit7771]

63. No

[treestar]

101. Or the country.

What to do about that? It is surprising as hell.

[sheshe2]

34. "Human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights."

enough said.

[YoungDemCA]

40. This said with a straight face after decades of the Democratic Party moving to the Right.

Nice.

[uponit7771]

64. I've seen the DNC platform, disagree with it moving to the right

[PatsFan87]

41. In regards to Bill Clinton- NAFTA, bank deregulation, welfare reform,

mass incarceration. Not exactly "leftist" positions.

[loyalsister]

60. Exactly

The 90s strategy was to accommodate republicans on economic injustice and focus on social issues. Many of us were hit hard and are still feeling it. Sweeping under the rug the disastrous impact of welfare reform and mass incarceration on the lives of women hardly represents a position of consistent advocacy for human rights.

2008 really exposed the damage of bankruptcy "reform" implemented during the same period. Especially for those continuously struggling with student loan debt after a downturn that required bankruptcy.

It seems that trying to have the discussion is considered a betrayal, and pointing to specific policies that exacerbated economic injustice leads to the defensiveness that perpetuates a belief in a false dichotomy.

Economic justice and social justice are only mutually exclusive if one deliberately desires to completely give in on one or the other.

We do need a more inclusive model that could require a shift that may reduce corporate funding. Yeah, it's a discomforting thought given citizen's united, but we really do need to energize Democrats so that they will volunteer and get excited about candidates and possiblities.

[uponit7771]

65. Not exactly telling the whole story in this parade of ugly either

[BainsBane]

75. No, they weren't

and the party has moved on considerably since then, while your claim it has moved to the right since then.

[QC]

95. Those are primarily economic issues and thus do not matter. n/t

[50 Shades Of Blue]

48. K & R. Great post!!!

[SaschaHM]

51. The cult of personality must save face for the leader.

It is as it's always been, a case of scratching someone's back because they happened to scratch your's. Mello isn't some random outsider. He did certain things during 2016 that engendered a bit of back scratching.

[BainsBane]

74. Perhaps

or perhaps it's an excuse to promote their own agenda.

[Lil Missy]

52. That horse already left the barn ... a long, long, time ago.

Where have you been???

[Kentonio]

81. +1

[Brogrizzly]

53. You would think in the year of our lord 2017,

that men would finally have the sense enough to stop the blatant misogyny, stop the legislating, and stop the patriarchy. But alas, even in "progressive" politics theirs no corner too small in which men must project their authority, self proclaimed over womens bodies. Fuck, sometimes I lose hope and I'm a fricken guy that just tries to be aware of society and how we treat women in said society. Well, guess it's back to suffragettes, and actual disruptive, anti liberal womenfolk, raising hell by actionable radicalism? Hell I don't know anymore. What's the comeback from this kind of crap? I worry for my daughter. But if this kind of stuff percolates in preogressive politics what the hell does it look like on the right wing side? Oh wait, I know, Trump. Sorry for the rant, had a pint.

[betsuni]

57. K&R

[denbot]

58. I don't know, but I've seen you posting here for a minute, you tell me.

Just say'ing

[BainsBane]

73. Elaborate, please.

[JHan]

59. K&R.

so many whataboutisms and deflections in this thread btw.

[JCanete]

62. Who is actually trying to move our party backwards, even on women's rights? Who is gung-ho about

that here or in the progressive camp? There is no sudden urge to do this. There is Sanders supporting the Democrat in a two candidate race, which some of us who are Sanders supporters think he should not have done, although I still understand why a pro-choice Senator like Sanders, who has a very good record on women's equality, might still think that if we connect to people on the issue of money, we can get them to stop believing the shit that is force-fed to them with the very intention of manipulating their votes and dividing us all.

That doesn't mean he or any of the congress people and Senators in the Democratic party is going to suddenly get soft on his or her own voting record or rhetoric when it comes to preventing anti-choice legislation, or speaking to his or her own values on women's rights. It doesn't mean that this is going to be the trend, and frankly, that would be stupid. You already laid out the numbers. We aren't going backwards on this.

I agree with you, women's rights is an economic issue. It is an equality issue. Beyond that though, I do not know what policies you're describing that are targeted at conservative men who average 2-7 times the median wage. Free college for all? Higher minimum wage? Protection of immigrants? What rhetoric or economic visions are you referring to that are aimed at those men, particularly those making in the 3-7 times the median range? Certainly not getting money out of politics, or getting more government oversight, since it is always the most vulnerable and marginalized communities that are legally robbed by our institutions first, with nary any recourse. Certainly not a better social safety net. Certainly not free school lunches.

Could you elaborate on what beyond the endorsement of Mello, you're speaking to??

[BainsBane]

66. A number of people

who insist choice should not be priority.

[Kentonio]

79. Its a race between 2 pro-lifers

But one of them is running as a Dem and promises to not let their personal opinions interfere with a woman's right to choose. The other doesn't promise that, and is just straight up anti-choice.

So choose.

[Demsrule86]

105. Not in Virginia it is not...

a primary...at that. How do you explain that endorsement in the Governor's primary?

[JCanete]

131. Does Pariello have more than one bad vote on his record regarding women's rights? The one he said he

regretted, and has since pledged to be on the right side of this issue going forward?

Gun issues are a different story. It isn't exactly my priority as much as I HATE guns, because it isn't the root of things, but I'm still wary of an A rating(if I remember that right), from the NRA. That's a pretty bizarre grade for a Democrat to achieve with that fear mongering organization.

[Demsrule86]

132. He has more than one bad vote.

And he tried to get drilling in Virginia coastal waters and is out of step on guns. The abortion thing was not one 'vote' This is why many of who are progressive for economics and social issues are very angry;it was the Stupak amendment...sure hold your nose and vote Dem when the other choice is GOP but don't endorse such candidates. This guy can not be trusted to be governor.

It derailed the ACA and cost us any shot at single payer...so it is a a very important vote...and when you have a progressive Dem with a NARAL endorsement also running, you don't endorse a guy like this..with this record... if Abortion rights matter to you...you just don't.

..."Either way, Perriello’s anti-abortion record will be harder to explain. In 2009, Perriello voted for the odious Stupak amendment, a dramatic extension of the infamous Hyde amendment. The Stupak amendment would’ve prohibited insurance companies that participate in the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges from covering abortion. Its stated purpose was to prevent federal subsidies from paying for abortion, since insurance plans on the exchanges are subsidized for most customers. But the amendment was phrased so broadly that it would’ve forced insurance companies on the exchanges to drop abortion coverage for all woman.

The upshot of the Stupak amendment was that women with plans that covered abortion would see that coverage dropped. An analysis by the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Health Policy also found that the amendment would restrict insurance companies’ ability to offer supplemental abortion coverage. Moreover, the amendment would’ve hampered liberal states’ ability to offer abortion services using state and local funds. The analysis concluded that the Stupak amendment was so sweeping that it could bar insurance companies from covering procedures linked to abortion, however tenuously. For instance, an insurer might feel compelled to refuse coverage for surgery to repair a damaged pelvis following a car accident if the procedure necessarily involved abortion."

After derailing ACA negotiations in the House in the last weeks of 2009, the Stupak amendment wound up excluded from the Senate bill. Perriello ultimately voted for this version of the ACA. But he only did so after he and a group of anti-abortion Democrats extracted a concession from Obama, who promised to issue an executive order ensuring that no federal money would fund abortion through the ACA. Compare that record with Northam’s, who is unapologetically pro-choice, campaigned on reproductive health care, and spearheaded the fight against Virginia’s anti-abortion transvaginal ultrasound bill. (Northam, a physician, drew national attention to the invasive measure when he railed against it on the floor of the state Senate.)

[brer cat]

70. Thank you, Bains.

K&R

[Nanjeanne]

71. I thought many of those Trump voters voted for Obama in both elections so

I guess my answer would be To Get Elected. But then I think I'm suffering from confused syndrome and not irritable syndrome. I didn't realize Pres. Obama had moved the party to the right. My treatment might be different - probably gaining seats in state legislatures, Congress etc would help me.

[BainsBane]

72. Is that supposed to be cute?

A cover for the anti-choice proponents? Or you really have not paid attention to anything happening in the party or on DU in the last couple of weeks?

[Nanjeanne]

78. It's supposed to be factual. I can't help it if I'm cute. I don't believe the party is ignoring

Women's right to choose. But I do believe that there are people on DU who feel that way because of this recent brouhaha over Mello - who has stated that he would support choice in law. Didn't read all these dozens of threads about Manchin or Donnelly or Casey. So I draw my own conclusions. Statistics show many Obama supporters in many areas voted for Obama but voted for Trump. I think it's wise to remember that. But that's just me.

[BainsBane]

85. In some areas

Last edited Wed Apr 26, 2017, 08:58 AM - Edit history (1)

and their numbers are far less than numbers of people of color disenfranchised , who are being ignored because some are intent on seeing a party that orients itself toward white men to the exclusion of the rest of us. That serves a specific purpose, and now we are seeing exactly why those conservatives are being held up over people of color and women.

Data also shows those voters supported Trump because of race, as the link in the OP makes clear. How much racism are you willing for the party to take on to assuage them?

The reason the party is not abandoning choice is because women's rights activists are not allowing it. We have seen those who claim to be progressive insisting that choice shouldn't be a priority, that those of us who think women's rights are key are "purists," this despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that moving away from supporting the basic rights of over half the population will help the party win.

I am witnessing a concerted effort to elevate white male privilege above equal rights. It's an effort to define "economic justice" in terms of the increased wealth of a minority while defending policies that generate greater poverty for the majority.
'
And no you aren't cute, and your facts are cherry picked in order to obfuscate. So you keep standing up for those who insist basic rights are too "divisive," who insisted voting for a candidate with a progressive platform in the GE was an unacceptable compromise, the "lesser of two evils," but now insist basic rights and equality amount to "purity".

[Nanjeanne]

94. Okey dokey. You are the winner. I need to follow the advice of my tag line now.

[Foamfollower]

76. When the extremists on the left sit it out or vote third party

they prove themselves to be unreliable, untrustworthy, and useless, thus you jettison them and move right to pick up votes in the middle.

That's what happened in 2016. There is NO OTHER CHOICE but to now move right and pick up votes in the middle.

So blame it on the extremists on the left.

[BainsBane]

77. NO, there most certainly is a choice

and it isn't to become like those right wing extremists who refused to vote for the nominee because they pretended she wasn't left enough.

[Foamfollower]

83. REally, there isn't.

It's sad, but true. Every time the extremist purists on the left throw a hissy fit like they did in 2000 and last year, they force the party to the right.

The fucking idiots never learn from their fucked up sense of purity.

[BainsBane]

86. Equal rights are not purity. They are core values,

and those you decry are making the very same argument about "purity." So congratulations. You are now in complete agreement with those you identify as the "extremist left" and "extremist purists."

There is no evidence that undermining women's rights is a politically winning strategy. It has nothing to do with winning. It is instead about promoting one demographic over the majority.

[Foamfollower]

98. I completely agree.

Sadly, it becomes a district by district calculation and in some districts, Democratic Congressmen are forced to throw certain core values under the bus due to the fact that they cannot count on the extremist purists when the general election rolls around.

And those are the consequences of extremist purity demands. They fuck up EVERYBODY when they refuse to vote for the one candidate who is closes to their values AND can actually win.

[Kentonio]

80. You're blaming the left for the party moving right?

Wow, that's a whole new level of mental gymnastics.

[Foamfollower]

82. You're damned straight it is the fault of the left.

Just like it was the fault of the extremists on the left in 2000.

They're fucking morons when they refuse to vote or vote third party because the candidate is not pure enough for them.

So fuck yeah, the left is forcing the party to move right because of their fucked up sense of purity.

[Kentonio]

88. Maybe if people stopped calling them 'fucking morons'

Or as Rahm Emanuel so charmingly put it 'fucking retarded', they might actually listen to what you have to say?

[Demsrule86]

90. No one on DU has said this...so now you making stuff up.

[Kentonio]

93. You mean except in the very same post I was replying to...

[Demsrule86]

104. It should not have been said.

However, it does not change the fact that emphasis on economic purity while throwing social justice under the bus...backing up and
running over abortion rights multiple times is moving the party to the right.

[snooper2]

96. The far left have some of the same views as the far right

Take "insane progressive" on YouTube for example-

Or how the far left Jill Stein crackpots loves them some fascist Russia just like the Alex Jones-Ron Pauls of the World. How the West is evil and Assad ain't so bad.


Fuck 'em

[Foamfollower]

99. Maybe if they'd stop BEING fucking morons their agenda could actually be advanced.

[Demsrule86]

89. They are moving the party to the right...look at the Perriello edorsement objectively.

We have a better candidate who is a Pro-choice,wants reasonable gun laws and has proven he can win statewide...Lieutenant governor Northam. It is a move to the right to endorse Perriello. It is the greatest irony that those who consider themselves the true progressives are moving the party to the right. It will not work for Democrats and will demoralize the base and cause poor turnout even with Trump...and will snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[treestar]

103. It does make sense where the members of the left

instead of doubling down to fight Republicans, fight Democrats instead. The left should be the most hard core Democrats, sucking it up to keep fighting even if there are some Democrats too right wing for them. Not to support those more conservative positions, but to stop Republicans.

Where they threaten to drop out, they are not those hard core supporters. I'm only talking about the ones who drop out, not voting or voting for small uninfluential third parties. That shows them. Except not. It just helps right wingers.

I have met right wingers who thought Bush was too liberal. They voted for him. They knew the reality was they would rather have him than have what to them was way worse having the power.

[Demsrule86]

84. I get vote for the Democrat...I have always done so...even in cases where

the Democratic candidate was not pro-choice...tough vote. However, there can be no excuse for endorsing Perriello in the Virginia Governors primary when a pro-choice NARAL candidate is on the ballot...Northam is endorsed by NARAL...and we could lose this race with Perriello...this is all about his populist economic message and an attempt to use the election to reshape the Democratic Party into a populist party with little if any emphasis on social justice...it is wrong and an insult to pro-choice folks...Parriello voted for the Stupak amendment which would have denied coverage in the ACA for abortion. He is also a gun guy (this is one of my issues)...why would anyone endorse this guy? When a decent hardworking Lieutenant governor Northam is running who has proven he can win statewide. I have called Sen. Warren's office and asked her to reconsider her endorsement.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml
Link for Stupak vote

[BainsBane]

87. Yes, case in point

I don't know much about the VA race, but I would not be at all surprised if his populist rhetoric was new-found.

[Demsrule86]

91. It is...and to vote for the Stupak amendment and be gun guy...

Yeah you hold your nose and vote if someone like Perriello, a self identified economic populist, if he is the only Dem running but...Virginian's (used to live in Virginia and my family still does) have Lieutenant governor Northam who is a good guy -endorsed by NARAL and has proven he can win statewide...I doubt Perriello can. We could lose this race if it is turned into a fight for party identity. This is a primary...there is no excuse for endorsing Perriello; I am angry about this endorsement...I have called Sen. Warren's office this morning and asked her to withdraw the endorsement. I will also call Sen. Sander's office.

[BainsBane]

92. Good for you

I'm going to examine his record and, if I find what you say, I will do the same.

[Demsrule86]

106. I sent you a couple of links so you don't have to wade through all the apologist shite.

The Wash Post article talks about other votes where he voted with the GOP...drilling off the coast of Virginia was one of those votes! Lieutenant Northam is popular and would have won easily I think... but then Perriello began his 'upstart' campaign and now we could lose this important race.


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml

https://rewire.news/article/2017/04/07/no-thanks-bernie-virginia-abortion-rights-advocates-know-better/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/01/06/tom_perriello_has_an_anti_abortion_pro_gun_voting_record_and_wants_to_be.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/im-not-scared-to-be-bold-perriello-defends-progressivism-in-first-big-campaign-rally/2017/02/11/3becf1fa-efa9-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.d2d66121b9da

[BainsBane]

111. Fantastic!

I look through those later today.

[mcar]

97. Suddenly we need a bigger tent

to include actively anti-choice politicians. At the same time, there's still talk of primarying other Ds. And solid liberals like Cory Booker is vilified.

[retrowire]

100. Who is attempting this? Nt

[NurseJackie]

108. Seriously? Dude. You need to get out more, or pay closer attention...

... I mean that's ALL anyone has been talking about recently. And even then, I've SEEN YOU PARTICIPATING in those very threads that you're now pretending to have no knowledge of. What's up with that?

[BainsBane]

122. He knows

[Gothmog]

102. We are not going to win while male voters

I agree with the OP

[ehrnst]

113. Yes, I heard accusations of "HRC is really just GOP lite" a lot here (nt)

[Kaye_NY]

121. There is a movement consisting of

mostly white, and mostly young men, who are attempting to push the Democratic Party to the right on social issues.

[niyad]

124. k and r with thanks for this excellent post.

[disillusioned73]

125. Agreed..

the parties drift to the right has been concerning... for some time now.

[BainsBane]

129. How about explaining what you mean by that

specifically?

[vi5]

126. Sudden?

It started with Bill Clinton and it's been going in that direction ever since. And now that the Clinton's have (for now) lost control of the party, the powers that be that have been fixated on maintaining that rightward, third way shift are starting to get scared and it shows.

This VA will be a true tell. If there is a progressive on the ballot and it appears the party is pushing a more conservative option then it will be quite obvious what is going on.

[DefenseLawyer]

127. Trying to elect a Democrat in Nebraska is not "moving the party to the right"

it's a mayor's race. In Nebraska. It seems to me you could do one of two things: 1. You could try to elect a less than perfect candidate in a red state and hope that he does a good job over all (what it means to do a good job as mayor of fucking Omaha, I honestly couldn't tell you) but, lets say he does a good job and improves the party brand and gets more people to view democrats favorably. Then maybe more Democrats, ones that are even better, would have a better chance in more elections there and you gradually move the needle in fucking Nebraska. OR 2. You could wait for the perfect candidate to come along and until then just leave everything to the Republicans unopposed. And as far as finding perfect candidates goes, how much money did the DNC or Hillary's super pac spend on recruiting candidates for Nebraska mayoral races anyway? Oh right. None. I am all for finding better candidates and I am all for serious primary challenges to blue dogs. That being said, once we have a candidate, the idea is to try to win an election and beat a Republican.

[BainsBane]

130. The issue is not voting for the best choice available

It's holding conservatives who oppose women's rights above liberal Democrats, celebrating them as "progressive" and the "future of the party." We all know voters have limited choices, especially in red states. Then people run around and normalize those positiosn and insist women need to acquiesce to their rights being undermined.

And why should any Democrat outside of Omaha even care about who becomes Mayor of Omaha? Unlike the congressional race in GA, it has no impact on the the national party. A mayor doesn't influence redistricting or control elections. Why Omaha over Provo or Oklahoma City? Why Omaha over the GA congressional race that does influence national politics? What is so important about one mayor's race in Nebraska? Nothing. The only thing it offers is an opportunity to try to reorient the party away from support of equal rights. And the subsequent efforts to normalize anti-choice by men demonstrates support for that effort. It exposes the rhetoric about economic justice as artifice, as something they actively oppose rather than support. Increased wealth for one demographic, whose income already well above the national median, at the expense of increased poverty for the majority is to not economic justice--it is worsening inequality.

What Hillary Clinton superpac? What are you even talking about? She is out of politics. Yet you can't get off the deceptive talking points. Yet you can't stop scapegoating her for absolutely no reason. That kind of contempt for the truth is appalling.

[Lil Missy]

134. Sudden? SUDDEN?????