12
   

Jimmy Carter calls For Moderates on Abortion in the Democratic Party

 
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 08:46 am
@snood,
A bigger tent is never a bad idea. This might not be the year for it, though. Prior to the 2010 midterms, the Blue Dog Caucus numbered around 60 or so, but is only about half of that now. Many of those booted were pro-life. In reading some posts on Dailykos, they're hoping to see those numbers dwindle to the teens after the 2012 elections. Of course, the issue of abortion isn't their only concern.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 09:03 am
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

engineer wrote:
I really don't understand what Carter is advocating for here. There are anti abortion Democrats and they are not hounded out of the party. Some of them even get elected to office as Democrats. I don't see the disconnect. I've never heard of the Democrat going through a public shaming for not being sufficiently strident in supporting abortion.
It's pretty simple. He would like to see the Democratic Party adopt as part of their platform at the convention his position (as outlined in his public letter) on abortion which is to minimize the need, the requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose lives are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest.

Carter believes that if Dems took this position that the party would win back conservatives it has lost over the abortion issue.

He said he doesn't believe that Jesus would have approved of abortion and that he had a hard time upholding Roe v. Wade when he was president because of it.

He'd like his party to become more pro-life.

Jimmy speaks up.


I think he's mistaken on what would bring the blue dog Dems back to the party. Many southern conservative Dems were Dems because they refused to be in a party that called itself "the party of Lincoln". Now the Dems are the party who elected a black man to the Presidency. Blue dog dems are fiscal conservatives, social moderates (some more so than others), but first and foremost southern whites.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 09:08 am
@JPB,

Quote:
I think he's mistaken on what would bring the blue dog Dems back to the party...

... Blue dog dems are fiscal conservatives, social moderates (some more so than others), but first and foremost southern whites.


JPB...

...BINGO!

They will simply find other reasons (excuses) for staying away from the Democrats.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 09:16 am
@JPB,
Of the 28 or so Blue Dogs that were defeated or resigned in the 2010 midterms, only 5 were from southern states.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 09:39 am
@Irishk,
Here are the maps of the 111th and 112th Congresses.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Blue_Dogs.svg/220px-Blue_Dogs.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/112th_US_House_Blue_Dog_Coalition.svg/220px-112th_US_House_Blue_Dog_Coalition.svg.png
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 09:53 am
@JPB,
The current map will look much worse for Blue Dogs after the elections. Just a few weeks ago, one of the founding members of the group, Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA) lost to a liberal primary challenger. They'll be lucky to have 10 surviving in the caucus overall. Jimmy's letter will probably get no traction for inclusion in the platform at all. The backlash would be ferocious.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:07 am
@Irishk,
I hope fervently that it gains no traction for inclusion in the party platform...but I do agree in principle with something you mentioned earlier. It certainly does not hurt to have some Democrats mentioning that they are more sympathetic to the views of the people who have reservations about abortions.

No matter how this ends up with the majority of the party stalwarts, Carter has done a service for the progressive element by voicing this position.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:11 am
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:
Carter believes that if Dems took this position that the party would win back conservatives it has lost over the abortion issue.

Carter is attempting to appeal to a set of voters that doesn't exist. There just isn't a significant number of people out there saying to themselves "I agree with the Democrats on everything except abortion, so that's why I never voted for them." Anyone who bases his/her vote solely on whether a candidate is anti-choice or not will still vote Republican regardless of what the Democrats do. On the other hand, there are a large number of voters in the Democratic camp who would be outraged if the party adopted the fundamentally incoherent position on abortion that Carter espouses.

Bottom line: if I want to build a house or grow peanuts or run an election in a third-world country, I'd turn to Carter for advice. If I want to win an election in the US, on the other hand, he's definitely not the first guy I'd consult.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 11:00 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Carter is attempting to appeal to a set of voters that doesn't exist. There just isn't a significant number of people out there saying to themselves "I agree with the Democrats on everything except abortion, so that's why I never voted for them."

Are you sure? Bart Stupak seems to have done just fine winning votes with his Democratic-except-for-abortion platform, suggesting there is, indeed, a constituency for it. (I'm pretty sure there's a good number of Democrats like him in Congress, though I admit I haven't done the research to back it up.)
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 11:23 am
@Thomas,
Read my post again. Then explain to me how voters voting for an anti-abortion Democrat is an example of anti-abortion voters not voting for a Democrat.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 11:36 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Read my post again. Then explain to me how voters voting for an anti-abortion Democrat is an example of anti-abortion voters not voting for a Democrat.

It's not, and it wasn't supposed to be. It was supposed to be an example of what might happen if more Democratic candidates took Carter's advice and followed Stupak's example: Anti-abortion voters voting for the Democrat because he removed the only reason they didn't vote for Democrats.

For the record, I think that would be the wrong thing for Democrats to do on the merits, but that doesn't mean it would fail at the ballot.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 01:19 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
It's not, and it wasn't supposed to be.

Then we're done here.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Is the fetus in the womb a human being? - Question by kellirosej
Abortion - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
Abortion. Right or Murder? - Question by lmac2017
Motivation of Abortion Protesters - Question by gollum
People Wonder Why . . . - Question by plainoldme
God Damnit, Texas. - Discussion by DrewDad
Why would abortion after rape be ok? - Discussion by chai2
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 02:00:09