Last year's DCCC ad for Bobby Bright, Alabama. Anti-choice included in ad.

[madfloridian]

Run time: 00:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6acEbQ5k3dU   Posted on YouTube: September 17, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 18, 2009 By DU Member: madfloridian Views on DU: 1307

 
The DCCC recruited 12 anti-choice candidates last year, and paid for such ads that sent an anti-choice message.

A party reaps what it sows

If you choose to abandon women's rights, then you become a party of anti-choice. I just saw the video here in which Bright refused to talk to Fire Dog Lake.

That video reminded me of the ad paid for by our party.

[Buzz Clik]

1. I'm struck by this quote from the link:

I don't know how many of them actually won, have not researched that. I think heard about half of them won their races.

Odd.

So, the latest conspiracy is that the Dems -- specifically the DCCC -- are anti-choice? The article goes on to say that they are anti-gay and anti-women.

There are times when navigating DU is not unlike walking through a maze in which the walls keep moving.

[madfloridian]

2. Our party recruited 12 anti-choice Dems to run last year.

It was part of the same old philosophy they have had for years...that if you give up anything that would keep folks from voting for Democrats then you will win.

Well, we won.

And the rights of women to choose their medical care are in danger.

The DCCC is about winning....not about standing for anything.

[Buzz Clik]

3. I'm curious about this "recruiting" claim. Is there any substance to it?

Or did it merely happen that some candidates emerged who happened to be anti-choice?

[madfloridian]

4. Yes, there is substance to it.

You apparently did not follow the links in my post. I will do it for you.

From the NYT in October last year....linked to in my post.

But Democratic Party strategists contend that in Congressional races, in which local sensibilities and attitudes often play as a big a role as national trends, candidates like Mr. Bright could potentially deprive Republicans of the one realm where they have enjoyed a significant advantage: social issues.

The Democratic effort to seek out candidates like Mr. Bright has not been without tensions, given the party’s reliance on abortion rights groups for fund-raising and get-out-the-vote efforts. And there is the fundamental reality that the Democratic Party’s platform explicitly embraces abortion rights.

Kelli Conlin, the president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health, called the recruitment strategy misguided, saying that surveys conducted by her organization showed that even some Republicans express support for abortion rights when her group described theconsequences of outlawing the procedure.

“The movement to recruit anti-choice candidates ignores the larger reality that this is a pro-choice nation,” she said. “It misses the larger point.” (Polls show a divided nation on the issue: A 2008 CNN-Opinion Research poll found that 53 percent of Americans characterized themselves as “pro-choice,” versus 44 as “pro-life;” a 2007 poll by the same organization showed the numbers reversed, 45-50.)

Democrats began the effort to embrace anti-abortion activists after the party suffered major electoral defeats in 2004 at the hands of Republicans, who portrayed the Democratic Party as being out of step with Americans on issues like abortion, gun rights and religious values.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/us/politics/26abortion.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

[Buzz Clik]

7. Well, there you go. We can interpret this two ways:

1. Politics are local
2. The Dems are imploding.

If DU is any indication, it's option #2

[madfloridian]

8. So you are saying women's rights are local.

No, the Dems won. We have a good majority.

We are just refusing to stand for things.

[Buzz Clik]

10. That's a pretty broad interpretation of "women's rights", but, in this context, yes -- it's local.

[madfloridian]

11. Thanks for answering. I know a lot of anti-choice people are at DU now.

It's refreshing to see someone come out and admit it.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Did you not watch the ad?

This guy is anti-choice and the ad was paid for by the DCCC.

[madfloridian]

16. Exactly right.

And that's upsetting.

[OHdem10]

5. When you make financial contributtions--think long and hard before

giving to DCCC.

[madfloridian]

14. Yes.

I will not pay for anti-choice candidates to run.

It is getting pretty heated here at DU on this topic. Some of the ugliest comments lately have been directed toward posts about women's rights. That's worrisome.

[Metta]

9. These abominations are coming home to roost. This was always a bad strategy.

So short sighted and mean spirited.

[madfloridian]

13. Women need to remember this ad and the thinking behind it.

I hesitate kicking this post because of the nasty statement in the comments, but it is important enough to get attention to what our party leaders did in 2008.

[JayMusgrove]

15. This guy is not so much "Bright" n/t

[madfloridian]

17. The ad makes it sound like the Democratic party is now anti-choice.

And I found that upsetting.

We are either for women's rights to choose or we are not for those rights.