Abortion question.

[Julien Sorel]

Bush made it pretty clear where he stands on abortion tonight. What I want to know is, how many politically moderate women, knowing Bush is anti-choice, will vote for him anyway because they think abortion is safe, so Bush is just blowing wind?

Because abortion is not safe. The conservatives are chipping away at it, year by year, election by election. Sure, Bush himself is probably paying lip service to his fundamentalist base, but eventually such movements roll to the point where someone finally has to do something other than pay lip service. That's how prohibition happened: people (many of them drinkers) publicly supported it for political reasons, while others ignored the temperance movement, thinking nothing would ever happen. Eventually those who paid lip service to temperance were backed into a corner and forced to live up to their rhetoric. And we got Prohibition as a result.

I hope women were paying close attention to Bush's words tonight. Because Dubya doesn't really stand for women. At least not a woman's right to choose.

[Mojambo]

1. One of Kerry's strongest moments in this debate

was the abortion question. He legitimately hit a HR on that question.

Kerry comes out of this debate with an even bigger lead with women than he went in with.

[fob]

7. He had a chance to Bernie bush* that would have been the end of the debate

When he framed his what about a 16 year old girl who is raped by her father and you want her to have to go ask her father for permission for an abortion?

He could have said, "So you're saying if Jenna or Barbara was raped and impregnated by a relative you would be okay with that?"

[Mojambo]

12. Way too personal

It would have backfired, IMO

[progdonkey]

19. too much like in '88

when Bernard Shaw asked Dukakis, "If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you support the death penalty her murderer?" It's, I think, one of the most tasteless and sensationalist questions ever asked at a debate.

[blondeatlast]

30. Exactly--Kerry's a class act. nt

[cheezus]

11. my wife and I disagreed on this

say said Kerry nailed it, I thought he fucked up. I thought it should have been about making REAL STEPS to preventing aborting, not making criminals out of scared 16 year old mothers to be. I think you can easily be pro-choice AND pro-life (read: anti-abortion, but not anti-choice).

[blondeatlast]

29. You're right. I think the woman who asked was anti-abortion,

and thought he couldn't possibly work his way out of the question.

Instead, he dove right in and hit it outta the park.

[goddess40]

32. Why didn't he point out that Bush could have and didn't undo Roe v Wade

The have the House, Senate, White House and enough souls on the Supreme Court that if the right was ever going to overturn it they would have done it three years ago!

[tabasco]

33. Not accurate. Sandra Day O'Connor is the swing vote.

It's only 5-4 but they do not have enough to overturn Roe now or three years ago. If Bush gets to replace one of the justices, it will be enough to outlaw abortion.

[TexasSissy]

46. Too controversial. Many Repubs in congress wouldn't have voted to do that

Or at least not enough would have voted to enable that legislation to pass.

I'd bet you anything that Bush and Cheney checked it out.

[cidliz2004]

43. Many talking head whores pointed out that this was one of his most

vague answers and that he went on and on. I was so pissed when I heard that, I loved his answer and thought that it showed what a wise and thoughtful person that he is. I would like to kick some of those talking heads in the shin. They are poster people for stupidity and cultural obscenity.

[JI7]

2. specifically , he opposes choice even in cases where women's health is at

risk. and i think kerry needs to frame the abortion issue on those terms.

[Minimus]

3. Kerry answered it perfectly. Even my apolitical, catholic mom n law

said his answer was sincere and truthful.

[secular_warrior]

4. Lots of the "DLC Moms" (soccer/security moms) will vote for Bush

even though they are pro-choice and socially liberal.

These suburban women voters like their tax cuts, their huge SUVs and upper middle class lifestyle, but like the "dirty" Democrats to fight for their rights for them. They are very needy women who think only a man can protect them (they think only the Chimp can protect them because of his over-the-top macho rhetoric), even as they enjoy a life full of equality and opportunity (most are professionals who work outside the home) the Democrats fought for.

I can't wait for the moment when our party stops cowtowing to these pampered, despicable suburban elites the DLC so covets. It makes us moderate our message so much that we sometimes fail to stand up for the poor and the real middle class.

[freetobegay]

6. You really do a diservice with a post like that. EOM.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Pro-choice, socially liberal soccer/security moms will NOT vote Bush

the premise is flawed. Most liberals will vote Kerry, whoever they are.

[secular_warrior]

16. You would think so, but

I personally know some of these socially liberal suburban women (security moms) who will vote for Bush. They think AWOL will protect them but Kerry won't. They (wrongly) believe abortion is one of those issues that will never be outlawed anyway, so don't they vote on that issue. Keep in mind these women are very socially liberal, even on gay marriage, yet still vote Republican since 9-11. It is a real, and sad phenomenon. But Bush will keep fearmongering as long as it works, as long as people bury their heads in the sand and refuse to educate themselves on the issues. Bush has made us much less safe, not more. 9-11 happened on his watch -- and he froze like a child when it did. That is not a "strong leader". That is a puppet who waits for instruction, who is controlled by a circle of neocons.

[colonel odis]

24. is security the issue? or social climbing?

do they back bush because he'll keep their kids safe or because he represents the party of the rich people? the upper crust? the pantheon to which they crave admission?

they're pro-choice, anti-handgun, pro-gay marriage. yet the republicans are the movers and shakers, in their estimation. therefore, they have "don't be a girlie mahn, vote republican" stickers on their cars.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. What you're talking about are Pro-Choice Republicans.

Give it another 10 years and the GOP will really begin to fracture from the massive contradictions inherent in their coalition. But that's not our problem.

Some pundits on the right have speculated that a Kerry win would spell the end of the Christian Right's domination of the GOP. That would be the icing on the cake, wouldn't it?

[deckerd]

18. Hear, hear -- Dems cannot just be the party of the well educated

In a country where well educated = well off.

Too many Dems fail to understand that the interests of many upper class
"liberals" are inimical to theirs on many pocketbook and other issues.

This is why Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. are trending Republican.
It ain't the margins in rural areas -- Dems have bigger rural margins
in the Upper Midwest than anywhere else. It's the exurban SUV voters.

Too many liberals are themselves well off and have forgotten pocketbook
issues and issues affecting the poor.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Hard to tell what your point is...

You're seem to have a bit of an axe to grind.

I was at the April 25 march-- All ages, races, genders, orientations and socioeconomic classes were represented in full.

The "security mom" is a myth, perpetrated by the same people who prime the color alert pump every time they feel the polls need a jolt (we should be due any day now, except that it'd be pretty obvious what they were up to)

It sounds like you want this election to be some kind of class war, as far as I can tell-- well, it's not.. and it's probably too bad it's not, too-- because if all the poor people in the country were voting for Kerry, we'd win in a landslide. The people 'voting against their interests' aren't generally suburban pro-choice women; (I'm sure there are such people, but I don't think they're any kind of a trend: The only people in this campaign who haven't felt the need to make choice a major issue are the candidates and the media-- not the voters) no, the people voting against their interests are the millions of dirt-poor people in States like Nebraska, where they apparently care more about the rights of stem cells and the threat of wedded gay people than about the fact that they make six bucks an hour at Wal-Mart and they have no health insurance. You want to rant and rage at a particular demographic, do it at that one.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're so pissed off at 'upper middle class suburbanites' for. Lots of those folks are very strong, unapologetic liberals-- and you know what? Remember all the talk about Bush having raised 10 times as much money as Kerry? No? That's because you don't hear it anymore- because Kerry closed the fundraising gap. I'm sure lots of that money came from lower income folks, but not all of it. Without upper middle class contributors and other people of means on board, the Democratic party would be toast this time around. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Trotsky.

I say all this not because I'm an upper middle class suburbanite, (far from it) nor because I'm any big fan of the DLC having ideological control of the party- I'm not. I only say this because I think what sounds to me like angry ranting against 'pampered, despicable suburban elites' strikes me as pretty counter-productive.

[secular_warrior]

27. Democrats must stand up for the underdog

My point about socially liberal suburban women (it's not a myth, I know many of them personally) who are now voting Republican is this:

Liberals/Democrats opened the door for these women to enjoy the upscale life they do, but now they seek to close that door behind them. They like their rights, but don't care if those behind them have theirs. It is a nasty kind of elitism even worse than conservatism, IMO, because these individuals should know better.

I don't hate suburbanites. I'm not trying to "rile up" or divide. You've got me all wrong. I feel a sense of anger at those in our party who forget that the role of this party has always been to fight for the underdog: the oppressed, the discriminated, the poor, the middle class.

If the Democrats' most important constituency is the suburban women (as it has been since the DLC took over) the party has to taylor the message so that it is devoid of populist rhetoric. Populism/progressivism (call it "class warfare" if you wish) is a very neccessary wedge issue for Democrats in order to mobilize the poor and middle class. The Republicans have their (evil) wedge issues, and that's why they win. You can't be a strong political party by simply trying to appeal to "everyone".

The interests of the underdog shouldn't have to take second billing to the interests of the suburban elite. The socially liberal suburban elite should vote for Democrats because they believe in a society that lifts the underdog up, not in one that closes the door on them.

And your reference to Trotsky is unfortunate because I'm not a far left winger. Far from it. I'm actually a fiscally responsible moderate liberal, but most of all a Democrat, and we have always fought for the underdog. If the Democrats don't fight for the underdog, who else will ? The right wing has most of the power in this country - they never will. It is our patriotic duty as the opposition party to oppose the threat conservatism represents to America.

ps. I don't mean to sound hostile or stereotype anyone. There are a lot of good people of privilege -- like Kerry. But when the interests of the upper class take over a party that supposed to be fighting for the lower and middle class -- that is a problem. It is the fault of the DLC. Kerry's platform is very populist/progressive and responsible at the same time, and I'm very happy with it. Hopefully a Kerry win will spell the end of the DLC.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. I actually agree with you pretty much across the board-

just the tone came off a little, as you say, hostile.

I'm fully for standing up for the underdog. I'm generally to the left of most of the decisions made at the top of the party-- I lean further left than the party generally on most social compact issues (living wage, etc.) and I lean further socially libertarian than the top of the party on goverment control of the choices adults make (I think the drug war is a stupid, cruel, expensive sham) My representative in congress is one of the most liberal there. I think it's ridiculous -and a travesty- that we don't have a SPHC system. One of the reasons I was very ecstatic that Edwards was put on the ticket was because he did such a good job during the primaries of framing economic issues for the poor and the 'underdogs' as values issues- crucial, in my mind, if we are to win back some of the voters that I talked about, who really are voting against their own self-interests.

As I said, I'm no huge fan, philosophically, of the DLC, although I do think Clinton was an exceedingly good (but not perfect) President. I also think that he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrats are not bad for the economy; far from it-- and he put the nails in the coffin of the saw about us being irredeemably the party of fiscal irresponsibility.

That said, I don't believe it's healthy to have the Democratic party owned part and parcel by one family or one last name- We already have a party in the USA that works that way.. Therefore, a Kerry victory could not only mean a healthy shakeup in the GOP (ending the decades long domination by the kook religious right) but it also would spell the emergence of some very strong voices and power blocs in our party that the DLC can't claim they magically manufactured.

The Trotsky thing was a joke made at 4am. No offense intended.

[blondeatlast]

31. The phrase "soccer mom" is narrow-minded, and so is your post.

I'm a semi-suburban mom who fights like a so-called "dirty" Democrat.

Voted Kucinich in the primaries, fighting for Kerry now.

You think we don't care about education, child care, SCOTUS, the environment, and THAT OUR CHILDREN MAY BE DRAFTED?

Have a conversation with one of us. The activist "soccer moms" I know are fierce fighters, like I am.

[secular_warrior]

39. I'm not talking about an entire demographic - only those voting for Bush

Democrats who live in the suburbs usually share the same goals most other Democrats do.

My issue is with the suburbanites who were Clinton "soccer moms" in the '90s, but since 9-11 have become Republican/Bush "security moms". The DLC wants these people more than the regular Democrats, and that tends to anger many us (suburban and otherwise).

[JSG]

34. my two cents

Demographically, I'm a "security mom" (whatever that is) - white, upper middle class, well educated, suburbanite, etc. Many of my friends are as well.

Not a single one of us supports Bush.

Not all of us are as self-centered as you depict. Give us a little credit. I care very deeply about many issues a heck of a lot more than any stupid "tax cut" (which becomes non-existent anyhow as state and local governments are forced to pick up the slack created by bush's policies).

Our group is not as hopeless as you may think. :)

[Carolina]

35. plus they have the funds

to quietly slip away to safe havens for D&Cs (dilitation and curettage) for alleged dysfunctional uterine bleeding ...

The rich can and do get abortions whenever the need arises.
Always.

I also think there's a racial component to the abortion issue. Infertile yuppies have to travel the world (Russia, Romania) the find white or quasi-white babies. And projected demographics show the browning of America by 2050. The GOP base can't abide that so they have to make sure poorer white girls produce those white babies whom they then manipulate.

[patrice]

5. Bush is Pro-Choice for war,

Women don't have a choice, but he does, for the social abortion called war.


Pro-Life is completely discredited by this president. I don't care how many ugly pictures they use, and take advantage of dead babies for political gain BTW, their ethic is totally destroyed by this war of choice, not necessity.

[Carolinian]

9. Bush is anti women's rights. Imagine the twins in an unwed mothers home

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Yeah. No one called him on that, either. Aren't they otherwise known as

"convents"?

[Carolinian]

36. Pregnant girls were sent away to avoid embarassing the family.

Of course, everyone still knew when someone had been "sent away" and the poor girl's life was ruined because of a mistake - not a crime. She was whispered about and outcast for the rest of her life. only. I saw this many, many times growing up in a small town and I'm ashamed to say that I participated in it.

[bloom]

10. I was happy how that went.

And the partial-birth abortion question. Just the principles of it - and pointing out there wasn't a clause for the life of the mother - and Bush* didn't care.

[gauguin57]

13. Joe Klein on CNN said Kerry's abortion answer was one on which ...

... he "smudges things a bit."

I could NOT DISAGREE MORE.

Kerry personally has a problem with abortion, but as president, he would have to represent everyone (including those who do NOT believe abortion is murder, and feel you must respect the rights of the grown-up-and-walking-around human, not just the fetus) and UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

What in the fuck could be clearer than THAT? My GOD!

[VOX]

17. Exactly, gauguin57. I thought he was absolutely crystal-clear on this.

Kerry laid it out cogently, point by point.

Where in the hell did Klein get the "smudge" bit? :wtf:

[FizzFuzz]

20. maybe Klien got the smudge bit from the same guy who said

Mozart's music would have been better if it didn't have so many notes.

[DarthDem]

22. Klein = Fool

He always has to try to say something to set himself apart from the pack in his critiques, and apparently, this was his big insight for the night.

Kerry's answer to this question, asked by the young blonde who seemed to me to be an obvious plant, was absolutely perfect.

[gauguin57]

14. Let's get Robin Gardner to get up and ask Bush the abortion

question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blue_Roses]

15. As someone who was a counselor

for women facing unplanned pregnancies, I can honestly tell you Bush has no idea what he's talking about.

[noamnety]

25. if it comes up next debate

I would love for him to steer the conversation to the assault on access to birth control, and the appointments of Hager, Stanford, and Crockett. That would clinch the deal for undecided women voters, and even win a chunk of the pro-lifers.

[Nobody]

28. What chilled me was this

Bush was talking about many ways to get pregnant women to give birth whether they wanted to or not and not one word about preventing unwanted pregnancies.

And not one word about what happens when pregnancies go bad and the mother could die if she gives birth.

Group homes? That's a scary thought indeed.

[Iris]

40. yeah, the group homes thing was really creepy.

The fact is a lot of lower income teens, the ones he would like to put in group homes, think adoption is as bad as abortion and will choose to keep their babies despite all the evidence this choice condemns them to a life of poverty.

But, hey, it's probably a good way to keep a good suppy of soliders for the "all voluteer" army.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. Bush made it clear..no federal funds for abortion even if you are raped

by your father

[Robert Oak]

38. seems like women are nowhere

I mean it's strange...

abortion is a major big deal for women...
imagine if the laws are reversed, no matter what the circumstances,
what your health is, what the consequences you are forced to carry a baby to term...

how many will get illegal abortions under those circumstances...
and more importantly what does it say about them as people versus being a "baby carrier"?

Kerry mentioned how we're going backwards in equal pay for equal work
for women

affirmative action is being ripped to shreds.

It's like women don't realize what is was like in the 1950's at all..

they couldn't even have a credit card in their name, they couldn't
be single without outcasting from society, dream on about becoming
a politician, a world leader or even a doctor.

[Iris]

41. How many men are up to raising 3 children alone because the 3rd one

caused the death of his wife?

And the worst part is the pro-life freaks would like to outlaw common versions of the bill b/c they prevent implantation not ovulation. Why isn't Planned Parenthood putting out billboards and commercials listing the names of the perscriptions that might be affected?

[Barney Rocks]

44. We need to be screaming about this

"Women--Bush is against Abortion". There should be a thread on the front page everyday until the election--about how Bush will take away the abortion rights of women. This will energize the women to vote for Kerry.

[depakid]

45. Well, if Bush is elected, Kiss Abortion goodbye

Kiss contraception goodbye in many places, too.

People are so, so ignorant about how important the Supreme Court is, and just how extreme the Bush appointees are. To use an example, I took a class in Healthcare law and regulation this term. I probably didn't need the class personally- I could have gotten it waived, but after competing with doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals on their turf for so long, I thought it would be fun to see how they performed on mine.

The answer is dismal. It truly is incredible how little these these folks know about the law. The prof basically had to spend the entire first class on high school civics. I'd say over half of them didn't even know how many justices were on the Supreme court! Now, if these professionals and grad students are clueless, imagine how that extrapolates into the general population?

I'm glad I took the class now, because it underscores how careful we need to be in talking to people about the Supreme Court in general and legal issues in specific. I now understand why so many of my classmates had blank looks on their faces in health policy classes, when I'd answer certain types of questions.

Scary.