Eric Alterman says the abortion issue hurts the left?!

[nicknameless]

Just heard him being interviewed by Sam Seder.
What an unbelievable misogynist!

It's okay to be oppressive against a group if it's just women?
In the past, I've heard him discuss the media and thought he was a decent guy.
Needless to say, my opinion just went in the opposite direction.

Did anyone else hear him? Shocking!!!

[Carolab]

1. So, it's a bad thing if we uphold the law?

What a joke.

[nicknameless]

6. Did you hear him? I'm in shock. I know guys like Nicholas Kristoff

are pigs, but I had no idea that Alterman saw women as second-class (if that) citizens!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Nick Kristoff Is A Pig????

Is he the NYT editorialist who bought some teen age Cambodian prostitutes out of bondage and helped them start a new life....

I'm nominally pro choice but I have respect for for folks who are consistently pro life if it includes opposition not just to abortion but to abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and unjust wars...


And I'm not even sure Nick Kristoff is pro life...

[nicknameless]

62. He may be pro-choice, but that's not the point.

Nicholas Kristof is one of those allegedly progressive men who likes to blame the women’s movement for various problems faced by women around the world. See the link below from “The Nation.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040301&s=pollitt

As is especially apparent right now, the women’s movement in this country can’t even effectively resolve the issue of unequal pay, let alone the issue of choice. Blaming women in *this* country for abuses suffered by women in *other* countries is absurd and sexist scapegoating.

[choie]

46. i think you mean Bill Kristol...

[nicknameless]

63. Wish I meant Bill Kristol, but I don’t.

[Erika]

2. Like cat said women are just now furniture in America

They got rid of O'Connor who believed in women's rights and replaced her with one of the good old rich white boys who thinks women's rights are a government issue.

[nicknameless]

18. Women have become political pawns?! A wedge issue?!

Unbelievable!

[rniel]

66. Maybe women should start voting then

If they actually give a damn about these issues. Most of them don't bother so they must not care what those white republican men do.

[Mojambo]

3. I didn't hear him

But I think it's okay to acknowledge that Abortion as an issue hurts the left somewhat and still agree that it's a battle worth fighting.

I don't know what his take was though. Was he advocating giving in on the issue?

[nicknameless]

19. That's how I heard it.

I don't believe that the abortion issue hurts the left at all.
Especially given the fact that the majority of Americans favor a woman's right to choose.

[Mojambo]

22. If it's such a great issue for us

Why have we seemingly lost so much ground on the issue?

I think it's a tough issue for the left, but that doesn't mean it's not a phenomenally important issue.

If Alterman doesn't, then I disagree with him completely on this issue.

[nicknameless]

27. We only lose ground when the Dem leaders refuse to stand up for this

basic, human right. They also refuse to stand up for honest, transparent elections. That's a great issue too. Just because Dem leaders are a spineless lot, don't dismiss the issues we lose ground over. That would also include consumer rights, the environment, general human rights ........

We're losing ground on everything that matters. Haven't you noticed?
And as long as our elections can be overthrown, we'll keep losing ground.

And here's one in Andy's honor: VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS!!!

[Mojambo]

28. Oh I've noticed

And I agree that spineless Democrats are the reason we are losing on this issue.

[Clark2008]

57. How does it hurt the left when 61 percent of the population

does not want Roe v. Wade overturned?

[Mojambo]

58. I was speaking politically

Politically this issue has been hurting the left.

I'm not saying that we are not on the right side of the issue, only that the left has been damaged by the way the issue has played out in the last 20 years.

I don't think anyone would argue that if this issue were taken off the table (Something that's not possible) that the Republicans would be hurt and the Democrats would gain.

This abortion wedge constitutes a significant amount of support for the right that they might not get if it wasn't a factor. That's my only point.

[Clark2008]

60. Ahh... I see.

You mean that it drives the fundies out in droves to vote.

[nicknameless]

64. "If this issue were taken off the table," countless, mostly poor women

would suffer and die from back-alley abortions like they did prior to the passage of Roe v. Wade.

The left has NOT been damaged by how this issue has played out in the last 20 years. The vast majority of Americans are pro-choice. Just because the corporate right owns the media and trumpets their opposition to this issue, doesn't mean that it is one on which the left is losing.

Once again, this is just an issue that our Dem leaders haven't stood up for their constituents over.

Nutcase fundies are a MINORITY in this country. Even if every last one of them voted, they would still be in the minority.

[TheFarseer]

73. because that 61% doesn't vote

based on abortion or at all. As for the 39% opposed, I swear that is the only issue most of them pay any attention to.

[jean]

4. perhaps he should stop using their word and start saying 'Choice'

[nicknameless]

32. That gets me too.

Generally speaking, people who refer to themselves as pro-life are anything but that. They're *pro-fertilized ova* only.

[thegreatwildebeest]

42. Their word?

How in God's name is "Abortion" their word? Abortion is a womans word, right, and choice, and reneging on that, and trying to play it off as many Dems do as "safe, legal, and minimal" is friggan ridiculous. Abortion is not a "horrible thing" its a surgical procedure that should be left up to the individual. Trying to divert the issue to just merely "choice" is ridiculous and shows a certain amount of weakness inherently.

[nicknameless]

43. "Abortion" is just one of the choices.

Birth control is another choice. A woman's self-determination over her own body isn't just about that one procedure. Those who want to prevent women from having that basic self-determination also want to prevent other choices she might make.

Abortion isn't a bad word, but it also isn't the only choice at stake.

Looking at the bigger picture, the far-right's intention is to subjugate and oppress women, and take away their basic rights. Look at societal freaks like the "Promise Keepers." It's all about turning back the clock as much as they can.

[thegreatwildebeest]

55. I agree...

...but I think this whole "Reframing" thing that Lakoff has inspired basically amounts to a bunch of newspeak, much like the Republicans. By simply "rewording" things that were going to win is absurd. Until discourse gets beyond mere buzzwords, people who offer real solutions, and not simplistic buzzwords, will never win. No amount of Lakoff framing paint will change that.

Promoting that sort of discourse, of course, is alot easier said than done, and its a much longer hoe to row, but I think if people want to make a change, there going to have to invest at the roots, not the branches of the issue. As Thoreau said "For every 100 people hacking at the branches, theres 1 hacking at the root". We need to reverse that equation.

[nicknameless]

65. I see *self-determination* as a root of the issue of women's rights.

Using your metaphor, I see reproductive choice as a major branch and abortion as a smaller -- albeit CRITICAL AND MAJOR -- branch growing off of the branch of choice. Women having seniority over their bodies, controlling whether or not to risk their lives and health carrying a fetus to term and giving birth to it, is a basic human rights issue.

The denial of that right, the subjugation of women for political expedience is reprehensible -- whether it's promoted by right-wing scum or so-called "progressive" men who aren't just turning a blind eye to bigotry based on gender -- they're promoting it.

I agree with George Lakoff about the power of language. We *do* need to reframe debates accordingly. Back in the early 1990s, Newt Gingrich put out a list of terms to use to undermine the left. Unfortunately, it was very effective.

While I think that you and I agree on basic premises, but we disagree on tactics of how to accomplish our common goal.

[jean]

71. The entire wedge issue is called 'abortion' by the right and anyone

in disagreement with their platform is 'pro-abortion' and a baby killer.

Apparently, millions of people view it as murdering babies, don't care about the woman at all and do think it's a horrible thing - which is why the GOP has been pounding our side with it for decades.

All they have to do is use the A-word and their base is mobilized.

But the issue is not just about abortion, is it? The issue needs to be called something other than abortion, pro-abortion/anti-abortion or pro-life - these terms fuel their wedge.

Focusing the entire issue on the procedure of 'abortion' as you seem to be doing, shows a certain amount of willingness to play right into their hands and facilitate their wedge issue.

[thegreatwildebeest]

85. Shying away from reality...

...and changing your own langauge because they make it seem "dirty" and "foul" is playing right into their hands. Why is it as Republicans get increasingly vicious people want to make our rhetoric even softer? You don't glad-handle a bully, so why would you the Republican party?

[Erika]

5. Link, please

[nicknameless]

9. I just heard it on AAR.

There's probably a way to stream it after the fact.

[ugarte]

7. Back in the 1960s there was a thing called civil disobedience

Without it nothing much would have gotten accomplished--no black civil rights, no end of the war, no women's rights. But somehow civil disobedience has almost become a dirty word, when it was once the best weapon we had.


Time to dust it off again, I'd say.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

33. Could be time

I agree.

It also may help some to understand the intensity of those years and those battles.

"They" are unintentionally energizing the base of women believing in equal rights.

Don't talk to me about who is in fact "equal" in what ways, and especially about whether men and women "should" be equal.

The latter is a real non starter. Non issue, diversion.

The former is about something other than equal protection under the law and equal rights.

[flowomo]

8. Alterman has a pretty good record across the board...

I'd like to see the context of this remark

[nicknameless]

15. I'm shocked by what I heard him say.

I had previously held a very high opinion of him.
Not sure how to stream Majority Report.
If you listen to it, I imagine you'll be shocked too.

[Lecky]

ROFL that's false

If anything ever happens to Roe vs. Wade the Republican party will be over.

Most people don't vote based on their views of abortion. Tons of pro-choicers vote Republican because they think Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned.

Did that jackass not know that the majority of Americans are pro-choice?

Republicans pretend like they are pro-life to cater to the rapture right but never think of the implications that would come if overturned.

[nicknameless]

23. So true!

Years back, Jenna Bush was in the hospital for unknown reasons. No family members visited her. Most speculation was that she was there for an abortion.

[Jane Austin]

44. Why do you say "Unknown Reasons" and that no family visited her?

It was widely reported that she had an emergency appendectomy, and her mother was with her while she was in the hospital.

I remember this because I thought it was odd that bush went off on vacation while she was still in the hospital, but her mother did stay.

PST AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- President-elect Bush, his parents and other family members flew to a Florida vacation spot Tuesday, while one of Bush's twin daughters recovered in a Texas hospital after undergoing an emergency appendectomy. The president-elect's wife, Laura Bush, stayed behind to help care for her daughter.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/12/26/politics0926EST0472.DTL

Lord knows there is plenty for which to criticize the first family, but making nutty accusations about them is just wrong and diminishes our side's credibility.

[nicknameless]

67. I should have said *disputed* reasons.

At the time when that occurred, there were stories about Hospital attendants disputing the appendectomy claim. They were saying that she had been admitted for an abortion. Not surprisingly, I can’t find links about that anymore.

It was discussed extensively on Ray Taliaferro's show.

[femrap]

24. Abortion gets the bible thumpers to the polls...

What would they do if abortion were illegal? Would the bible thumpers feel less inclined to vote? And freedom fighters more inclined? I really don't want to find out.

Or would women hit the streets? Or are we going down a slippery slope of total fear and oppression? And abortion is just the first step on that slippery slope?

Pro-choice people have always been made to feel like quasi-criminals....go work at Planned Parenthood and see how you feel surrounded with security protecting you from weirdos.

You have to admit that a lot of men don't like women having freedom and control over their bodies (look at the Muslims, Catholics, and other assorted organized religions)...that is really the issue.

Anti-choice people don't care about children....if they didi, they would be protesting for education and healthcare. They're not. They want women to be in the kitchen and barefoot.

It's like forcing gays back into the closet....sorry, I like my shoes and I'm not staying in the kitchen....why are women expected to go back? Certain Dem men think we are expendable and should just give it up for the party....I will leave the party before I give up my rights and my soul to some fucking party....

[nicknameless]

29. Great post!

"I will leave the party before I give up my rights and my soul to some fucking party...."

Thank you!!! And welcome to DU! :hi:

[femrap]

86. thank you...

hope to see you around....

[Lorien]

96. I think they do think of those implications

and that's one reason why I doubt that they will ever overturn Roe v. Wade. It's their carrot; they dangle it in front of the fundies because as a general rule the fundies are politically uninvolved unless there's a wedge issue on the table that appeals to them. Overturn Roe v. Wade, and suddenly a large and passionate constituency of theirs will go silent and slip into the shadows, content that all is right with the world.

[firefox]

10. The guy is wrong

The minority of Americans would be for outlawing abortions. For it to hurt the left, it would have to be a minority position instead of a 2 to 1 belief.

The guy is wrong.

[Mojambo]

11. The issue as it is framed today is bad for the left

But I agree that the majority of people concur with the left on the real meat of the issue.

[nicknameless]

12. Exactly!

I had always heard that the majority of Americans favored choice.
Alterman was saying that the opposite was true. He is wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
And furthermore, why should women lose control over their bodies, their lives and their health because he thinks it would be politically advantageous?!

Reiterating: What a pig!

[nicknameless]

21. Self-deleted

Hmmm... I duplicating my messages now. How upset am I?

[Erika]

13. I think there will be a backlash against W

for replacing a moderate pro-rights republican woman with a male who has written against women's rights.

[nicknameless]

41. Sure hope you're right

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. Of course it does, it hurts it for rw people - who aren't Dems anyway.

If they were ever brave enough to outlaw abortion, the GOP's reason for being would be gone, & it would be like prohibition again. They really don't want to outlaw abortion.

[nicknameless]

25. You and Lecky are on the same page about this. It's good to hear that

perspective. I'm hoping you're both correct.

[Lecky]

34. I know I'm right about this

Most people take Roe vs. Wade for granted because they assume it will always be there

All my republican friends who voted for Bush are pro-choice...

The Democrats need to make it clear to all pro-choicers the fact that Republicans are a danger to Roe vs. Wade.

We should take advantage of Bush's dumbass SC pick to work in our favor come election day...

[Check12]

16. Roe v. Wade is extremely important.

and I support choice completely, but look at where we are right now.
We have a psychotic madman in the oval office,and a bunch of thieving conniving crooks robbing this country of it's wealth and security and murdering our children.

Like GWB said about his legacy, overturning roe v wade years from now does not matter because we will all be dead!

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. I didn't hear him

But knowing Eric Alterman's academic nature--I suspect that he meant that the abortion issue like the gun control issue is a wedge issue which splits away some voters who would otherwise vote Democratic. I doubt--in fact--I would be quite shocked if Eric is not pro-choice.
It might be that he also meant that abortion is one of those issues- that has a lot of single-issue voters. Again, like gun control.

But I do agree that if Roe-Wade is ever actually overturned--it will be a massive blow to the GOP. It works for their advantage with some people only as long as they can delay it indefinitely into the future.

[Erika]

20. Al Gore & W had the identical stand on weapons in 2000

W just had Charlton Heston out there with a hate/fright machine and campaign. Probably a Rovian idea and agenda.

[AlwaysQuestion]

26. The right truly need to be put out of their collective misery

--just a few comments (albeit not original) directed at the severely retarded on the right........When you begin to value life already on the planet is the day that we progressives might possibly be able to entertain your views on abortion.

You're all for the abandon slaughtering of wee children and other innocent men and women in Iraq and elsewhere; you revel in putting people to death in your own country; and you think that the dehumanizing torture of others is acceptable. If insanity were to be defined, you would be referred to as classic examples.

Just think of the lives worldwide that could have been saved from your savagery and idiocy if only your mothers and their mothers had mercifully chosen abortion. It is YOU who are a blight on society. May your god rest your souls.

[nicknameless]

30. We need retroactive birth control for the NeoCons' mothers!

Put them all out of our misery!

[AlwaysQuestion]

81. Y E S !!

That works for me!!

[Mojambo]

31. I thought Alterman's blog from today might expand upon his thoughts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8616595/#050720

I find some of what he's talking about here, particularly the idea that judicially created and enforced liberalism might have made some voters complacent, pretty intriguing.

[nicknameless]

36. Okay. Now I just want to beat him up.

... Anyway, the Roberts nomination seems to mean we should plan on saying goodbye to thirty-two years of life under “Roe,” which is not entirely a bad thing, even for pro-choice advocates. After all, Bush did terrific with unmarried women without college educations. It would be helpful, politically (and democratically) for them to learn just what it was they were voting for. There’s a much longer argument to be made here, about how judicially-created and enforced liberalism has weakened its cause and alienated its potential supporters while not gaining terribly much in real world terms.
<snip>

So more women need to suffer so that they can better appreciate that they weren’t suffering before?!

Because people have become complacent about *having* basic, human rights, they should *lose* them, because having those rights has weakened our cause and alienated potential supporters?

I have a better idea, Alterman – GET A CONSCIENCE!!!

[Lecky]

35. We should just turn it back on them

Pro-life Republicans are compassionate for the unborn until birth.

Pro-life Republican logic:
Fetus > Woman
Stem Cells > the sick and suffering

[nicknameless]

38. Gotta wonder:

If the fetus is female, which takes precedence, the born female (mother) or the unborn female?

[Lecky]

40. LOL the fetus always comes first before the woman male or female

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Yes. The fact that most people in America are pro-choice

CLEARLY hurts the party that supports that position.
:sarcasm:

[nicknameless]

39. Thank you!

How bizarre is that?!

[Totally Committed]

47. When I hear a MAN say something like this...

My head feels like it's going to explode! How DARE he? HOW DARE HE?

I actually have thought and felt for a while now that men should just butt out of this whole thing. Men shouldn't even have a goddam right to talk about parts of me that they don't have as well. It's MY body. I am a WOMAN. Why do men even get to have an opinion?????? It really pisses me off. PISSES ME OFF! (Yes, I'm screaming. If you were here with me, you'd see the rude hand gestures, too.)

To paraphrase Gloria Steinem: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement."

To all the men here: Some of you are real darlings. Some of you are less so, but I respect the lot of you. I want that respect returned to me on this subject. I say you don't get a say in my reproductive rights. If you have a wife or girlfriend, discuss this issue with her. You shouldn't be sitting on the public airwaves pontificating on what parts of MY BODY are political liabilities in your grand scheme of things.

Do you see women talking about circumcision day in and day out? Do we get a say in whether you are cut or uncut? Do we get a say when it's right, or if it's right for you to under the knife? NO! The next time I see an entire show on television, or an entire segment on the news devoted to this little "procedure", we'll talk.

How about Viagra and all the other stiffy pills? Do they ask the wife if she wants to have some old man with what could be a four hour erection around the house? Do they ask us at all before they prescribe these pills to the men we date and/or are married to? NO. Then why should some RW extremist MALE Pharmacist be able to refuse to fill a DOCTOR-WRITTEN prescription for our birth control or the "Morning After" pill?

Men, I respect you all, but you have no right to be discussion this subject like it's just some other issue in the Democratic Party agenda. We are real women. We have real reproductive systems. YOU DO NOT. You don't get to have a say about them. You don't get to legislate when and how they are used. BUTT THE FUCK OUT!

When a woman decides to end a pregnancy, all she needs from a man is love and support. She will be devastated. She will be scared. She will think about it for the rest of her life. If all you are around to do is have a fucking opinion, make her feel worse, or judge her, you don't deserve the love and respect she has shown you to that point. Period. No woman I know wants an abortion. It's not like Botox or Collegen or Liposuction where you wake up and look in the mirror and say, "I'm gonna do something about those crows-feet next week". We have souls. We have minds. We should have rights not to have this bullshit rise up every time some man has an opinion about it. FUCK ERIC ALTERMAN. FUCK THE EXTREMIST CHRISTIAN WRONG. FUCK ANYONE WHO THINKS MY UTERUS IS ANY OF THEIR CONCERN AT ALL.

If you don't believe in abortion, make laws that guarantee birth control is available for all sexually active persons, regardless of age or marital status. Allow sex education courses to be taught HONESTLY in all schools, and follow up with talks about personal responsibilty and answers with your kids at home. Those are things men can do... the lawmakers listen more to you... get them to enact laws that will make abortion rare, and eventually, obsolete. THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR US WOMEN. FIGHT ALONGSIDE US AND FOR US, NOT AGAINST US!

And, when all else fails, and you can only see us as political liabilities, SHUT UP!

TC

[Totally Committed]

48. If you want to tell Eric what you think...

about his opinion:

[e-mail]

TC

[nicknameless]

69. .

:thumbsup:

[dsc]

49. 33% of pro choicers voted for Bush in 2004

as long as that behavior continues, abortion is going to hurt Democrats. That isn't to say the party ought to switch to a pro life position (that would rightfully open us to charges of flip flopping). But it does say that pro choice groups need to work in getting pro choicers to vote for us.

Had Kerry merely done as well among pro choicers as Bush did among pro lifers (75%) he would have easily won. Depending on the EC he might well have won just getting 70% of the pro choice vote (actually he almost certainly would have). The simple fact is that we have an immense amount of work to do with pro choice voters. Blaming men, while it may make you feel good, isn't going to do a lick of good in the long run.

Here is a prime example of the people who need to be dealt with.

http://www.republicansforchoice.com/

Alexandria, VA - Republicans for Choice PAC reacted with cautious optimism upon hearing that President Bush had nominated John G. Roberts to replace retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

"Roberts was one of the few potential nominees we felt could end up as acceptable." said Ann E.W.Stone, National Chairman of Republicans for Choice PAC. "There are still questions that need to be answered but we are cautiously optimistic. Our research will continue." She added, "We were the only pro-choice group in the country that said publicly that David Souter would be fine on Roe. So I hope our sources and research will prove us right this time too."

Judge Roberts has left a limited paper trail, but he did co-author a brief, stating on behalf of his "client" the Reagan Administration, that “the Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to abortion, finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.” However we do not know from that if that represents his personal view.

On edit To be clear, I actually agree with people who state that fighting for choice as a party is necessary. On any contraversial issue it is always best to take a clear, unambiguous position even if it is the minority one. Support of gay rights certainly hurts us. But being wimpy while doing so hurts us more. We leave our gay base unsatisfied and in some cases looking elsewhere and we don't appease the gay haters at all. A similar dynamic exists here. But we should be honest as to numbers and then try to find solutions to the problem. Here the solution is clear. We need to reduce the number of pro choicers who vote Republican by any means necessary.

[Totally Committed]

50. I see, by your Avatar that you are either Gay or a Supporter of Gay Rights

How do you feel about the subject of Gay Marriage?

There were some (I was not one) who felt that the timing of the GLBT Community's push for Gay Marriage hurt the Democrats at the last election, because not even many of the Log Cabiners supported it.

So, how did you feel when that criticism was aimed at the GLBT Community? If you feel that no one has the right to tell you when or if you can push for the human and civil right of marriage, then I ask you to consider this when you speak about those of us who are vocally Pro-Choice.

TC

[dsc]

51. I believe I addressed gay issues in my last paragraph

but since you didn't bother to read that I will address it again. I think on any contraversial issue you are way better off taking one side wholeheartedly. Thus I think on abortion we need to be the party of pro choice and on gay issues we need to be the party of those. By taking a middle, wimpy ground on gay issues we pleased no one. Gays and their supporters were unsatisfied and our enemies weren't placated.

There is a marked contrast in our parties dealing with these issues. Pro choicers have been given anything and everything they wanted by our party whereas gays have been given the shaft. The simple fact is that on issues like partial birth abortion Democrats held firm. There were routinely well over 30 votes out of around 45 to 48 Democrats in opposition of those bills. In addition, Clinton vetoed them, making that number matter. In contrast, DOMA, which was no more popular, got all but 14 Democratic votes and no veto from Clinton.

Bottomline Pro choicers have been given an ideological blank check in our party for well over a decade. In return, they can't manage 70% of pro choicers voting for us. That is a losing formula and has to change. Pro choice Republicans have to be cut down in number or else Democrats will continue to lose elections. It is that simple.

[Totally Committed]

52. I'm sorry, but I did read your post, and when I did

the points you just clarified were not apparent to me. Sorry you took such offense.

I agree with you, on this part, especially:

"There is a marked contrast in our parties dealing with these issues. Pro choicers have been given anything and everything they wanted by our party whereas gays have been given the shaft. The simple fact is that on issues like partial birth abortion Democrats held firm. There were routinely well over 30 votes out of around 45 to 48 Democrats in opposition of those bills. In addition, Clinton vetoed them, making that number matter. In contrast, DOMA, which was no more popular, got all but 14 Democratic votes and no veto from Clinton."

It's sad, but true.

What should we do about it? It sounds as though you feel the time for Pro-Choicers and the issue of Choice has run out in some way. Is there a stop-watch ticking down on basic human rights? If we don't manage to garner support in a certain length of time, our rights should be scuttled, and in some way, that will miraculously make the Democratic electeds turn their attention to another group's rights? Why can't this be the Party that fights for ALL it's constituents, fights for ALL rights? Pro-Choicers and GLBTs should be able to have their issues addressed.

On edit: To be clear, I have always opposed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And I have written many letters and called my elected Reps. In the end, they are going to vote to defend their viability, no matter what you or I write or say. We just have to keep plugging away until more people see the light. But, there should be no timelimit on our efforts.

TC

[dsc]

54. The stopwatch is the Court

Stevens is in his 80's and Ginsburg in her late 60's with bouts of cancer in her past. I am certainly not saying we shouldn't advocate on behalf of choice issues (even though I disagree with our position on them) but unless and until pro choicers wake up this will be a losing cause. It would be nice if it didn't take the Court being ruined for a couple of generations for that to happen.

If we lose the 2008 Presidential election and don't reverse our standing in the Senate between now and then, then the Court will be ruined for those couple of generations. It is literally ludricrious to expect that Stevens will last until 2013 (he would be 93 or 94 years old). That is the stopwatch, like it or not. We have until then to get our house in order. I am hoping beyong hope, that this appointment will wake these people up.

In the meantime we can't try middle of the road nonsense. When an otherwise good pro lifer comes up, like Casey, he deserves our party's support but our platform and most of our elected officials are, and both should and are likely to remain, committed pro choicers.

I am sorry for being snotty. I just get a lot of crap on this and I took it out on you.

[nicknameless]

70. "33% of pro choicers voted for Bush in 2004"

All that means is that women's right to choose wasn't the issue that determined their vote. That anti-choice misogynists chose Bush based on their bigotry is no reason to sell women out.

"Had Kerry merely done as well among pro choicers as Bush did among pro lifers (75%) he would have easily won."
Kerry *did* win.

"Blaming men, while it may make you feel good, isn't going to do a lick of good in the long run."
Who's blaming men? Many strong supporters of women's rights are men.

The blatherings of a pro-choice Republican group is of no importance to me. Why aren't they aware of his involvement with Operation Rescue? Idiots.

[dsc]

75. This is the last paragraph of the post you responed to

On edit To be clear, I actually agree with people who state that fighting for choice as a party is necessary. On any contraversial issue it is always best to take a clear, unambiguous position even if it is the minority one. Support of gay rights certainly hurts us. But being wimpy while doing so hurts us more. We leave our gay base unsatisfied and in some cases looking elsewhere and we don't appease the gay haters at all. A similar dynamic exists here. But we should be honest as to numbers and then try to find solutions to the problem. Here the solution is clear. We need to reduce the number of pro choicers who vote Republican by any means necessary.

end of quote

I admit to not being the best writer here but I would like you to find where, in that or anywhere else in the post you responded to, that I advocate selling out anyone. I would like this quote to be words I typed in that post.

[nicknameless]

78. Alterman is advocating selling women out.

I was arguing against his position on that, not responding to anything you had written.

He says that progressive rulings have hurt progressive causes. He couldn't be more wrong (nor more callous).

[dsc]

79. Unless you heard him you have no idea what he argued

I don't either. My understanding of his argument is that Roe caused pro choice voters to become complacent and pro life voters to become strident single issue voters. While that may be exaggerated, it is at least somewhat true. I think that is his point.

[nicknameless]

82. Excuse Me?!!! The OP of this thread is about his misogynistic rantings

that I heard on The Majority Report last night!!!

By his method of reasoning, should we also bring back slavery because there has been a backlash against blacks in the South?!!! Don't forget the effectiveness of the "Southern Strategy." The Democratic party has lost numerous elections due to race bigotry in the South. Should they therefore reverse that position too?!

Alterman isn't the only one exposing his Neanderthal leanings!

[dsc]

83. I didn't realize you wrote the original post

sorry on that regard. But you provide not one direct quote out of the man's mouth. From your post I haven't a clue what the man said. Did he say that we lose votes over abortion? Assuming he did, that doesn't make him anti woman. For example, I know we lose some number of votes over gay issues. Admitting that doesn't make me a self hating gay, it makes me a realistic gay. Does he then advocate reversing Roe or did he say "if Roe is reversed we might get some of those votes back". What I have in quotes doesn't necessarily advocate reversing Roe. It may merely be stating what he thinks might happen if Roe is reversed. BTW, Justice Ginsburg, that known woman hater, has made much the same point.

Until you provide a transcript or at least some quotes I am not going to just simply assume that your characterization is true. I do admit to forgetting, in a close to 100 post thread, who the original author was. Thus you do indeed, know what the man said. You just haven't conveyed what that is.

[Cocoa]

53. he was talking about Roe v. Wade

he said it was a bad decision, and that it has led to some fucked up politics that has hurt women.

Also mentioned other bad legal decisions that have hurt progressive causes, though I forget the specifics...

[nicknameless]

76. The passage of Roe v. Wade has saved countless women's lives.

That systemic misogyny persists is not the fault of Roe v.Wade. It's the fault of misogynists. A good read on the topic is "Backlash" by Susan Faludi.

Alterman is just plain wrong about progressive decisions hurting progressive causes. That there has been a backlash by moronic, narrow-minded bigots is no reason to give up those causes.

[dolstein]

56. Alterman seems refreshingly earth bound -- what planet are you living on?

Let's deal with the facts. Only one solidly pro-abortion rights candidate has been elected president since Roe was decided (if you thought that back in the 70's, Jimmy Carter was pro-abortion rights, think again).

While I believe that abortion should remain legal, I'm not so misguided as to believe the issue has been a political plus for the left. It hasn't.

You can point to all the polls you want showing majority support for Roe. Even if that support exists, it hasn't translated into majority support for pro-choice Democrats. People who oppose abortion are much more likely to be single-issue voters than those who support abortion rights.

[Generator]

59. I haven't read the article so I may be wrong on Alterman

But let's translate: (this coming fast on the heels of Dean's support of whatever his name in PA that is anti-ALL abortion AND birth control)

IF those goddamn WOMEN on the Left would just let go of this abortion thing, then the Dems/Left could get more votes.

What's the point of the votes if it doesn't support what we believe and what we need to have a decent life? If the core principals are gone? Insanity.

[nicknameless]

84. My OP was about the interview he had with Sam Seder on the Majority

Report last night. I think it can be streamed.

I agree with your conclusion. Very sick thinking by those who believe that compromising the rights and lives of others is somehow justifiable if they can get more votes out of it. ... Most likely, it wouldn't work anyway.

[Snivi Yllom]

61. Alterman is a smug ass

It's well known that people who have worked for him spoke of his arrogant self important streak.

[blondeatlast]

72. "It's well-known that..." "Some people say,...", "I've heard it said...".

Sorry, that stuff doesn't wash with me. Sounds all too Fox News for my taste.

Is it too much to expect a link or citation so I can decide for myself?

Come to think of it, I'm not sorry, either. I expect facts.

[nicknameless]

74. Alterman is a self-enamored gas-bag!!!

He really took a deserved pounding on Majority Report's blog.

[GreenInNC]

68. Eric Alterman is a weasel eom

[dolstein]

77. A weasel who happens to be right

Again, where is the evidence that the abortion issue has HELPED the Democratic Party? Bill Clinton is the ONLY solidly pro-choice candidate to have been elected president since Roe v. Wade (if you think Carter was solidly pro-choice back in 1976, think again).

So being anti-abortion certainly didn't keep Reagan, Bush I and Bush to from getting elected. And it's hard to argue that the sharp increase in the percentage of Catholics voting Republican doesn't have anything to do with the abortion issue.

The only thing that abortion rights advocates can point to are polls showing majority support for Roe. But those same polls show majority support for many restrictions on abortion that Republicans support and Democrats generally oppose.

What seems clear to me is that even if most people support Roe, people who oppose legalized abortion are much more likely to cast their vote based on that issue alone than people who favor legalized abortion. You can argue all you want in favor of legalized abortion, but you can't point to any real political benefits to making the Democratic Party a uniformly pro-choice party, because there aren't any.

[nicknameless]

80. Yes, he is.

[davidinalameda]

87. overturning Roe would make abortion a state issue

rather than a federal issue

and if Roe is overturned, you're going to see the battle fought on the local level

what we need is to stop depending on the Roe ruling and pass federal legislation regarding a woman's right to choose

[nicknameless]

91. I don't think that the passage of new legislation on a federal

level can happen in the current political climate. It *should* happen, but right now I just don't think that's possible. And of course, if Roe is overturned, mostly poor women in so-called "red" states will be paying the ultimate price.

[davidinalameda]

102. I don't know

I think that we could pick off enough Republican votes to pass it but it would never be signed by Bush

[nicknameless]

106. I really don’t think we could get *any* repugs to vote for it,

especially because this is such a pet issue for them.

These people even vote to outlaw late-term abortions! Women who carry a fetus all the way to the third trimester are women who *want* to have the baby. Reasons for terminating a pregnancy that far along are almost always due to health-threatening or life-threatening complications that have arisen.

But you’re sure right about Bush never being willing to sign that kind of legislation.

[davidinalameda]

107. there are probably 6-10 Repubs that would in the Senate

but then again we'd lose probably 5-7 Democrats on the issue

[nicknameless]

111. 6 - 10 Repubs in the Senate? Geeze! Which ones?

All I see is the outright betrayal of constituents on practically all issues. They keep taking away our rights -- even the rights of white males aren't safe these days!

Look at the bankruptcy bill and the medicare bill and the Patriot Act. We're losing ground everywhere. I just don't see progressive thinking on women's rights as even a remote possibility in either the Senate or the House.

[fujiyama]

88. Alterman is mysognistic

because he's saying that the POLITIICS of abortion has hurt the left?

I really find it hard to believe that Alterman is anti choice, or even for pandering to anti choicers.

My guess is, he's saying, and I think he has a point, that the political debate over abortion hurts Dems more than it hurts the pukes, as do most wedge issues. They simply weild them more effectively. He's probably also speaking about the political after effects of Roe, which hasn't benefited the left very much politically either. Hell, I'm adamently pro choice, but I even I find Roe a questionable decision (constitutionally speaking).

Anti choicers are much more likely to vote on abortion as a single issue than pro choicers. Many pro choice women probably are less passionate about it. We have a job to make it more clear that banning abortion won't necessarily stop it and that pro choice women especially shouldn't take their rights for granted.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. good point

If Eric Alterman was stating a technical observation that may or may not be correct--I don't think that qualifies as being anti-choice or a misogynist.

It is almost certainly true that support for the civil rights movement weakened the Democratic Party in the South. The southern strategy of Nixon and the GOP was based on the premise. I do not think someone is a racist because they observe that.

Having said this, I think Eric Alterman himself is so very critical of other--spanning the range from Howard Dean to Noam Chomsky--perhaps he is getting a little bit of that back.

___________________




http://www.iwtnews.com/

[nicknameless]

94. In Alterman's own words:

...Anyway, the Roberts nomination seems to mean we should plan on saying goodbye to thirty-two years of life under “Roe,” which is not entirely a bad thing, even for pro-choice advocates.

Had it not been for the Roe decision, countless women would have lost their lives. Alterman is saying that the overturning of this life-saving decision would not be "entirely a bad thing." Advocating trading lives for possible votes. Yes, that is misogynistic.

[nicknameless]

92. Constitutionally speaking?!

How about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How about equal protection under the law? How many women would have lost their lives had it not been for the Roe decision?

Yes Alterman is a misogynist because he is saying that the overturning of this life-saving ruling wouldn't be such a bad thing.

The media is owned by corporate right-wingers. They pander to bigots of all persuasions. If the Roe ruling really hurt progressives, the country would be opposed to it. But instead, the opposite is true. Looking at this life-saving ruling as a political pawn is unequivocally misogynistic.

More elections have been lost due to the “Southern Strategy” than Roe v. Wade. Should white Dems therefore advocate turning back the clock on civil rights as well? Many so-called progressives who are terrified of appearing racist think nothing of being gender bigots.

Who the hell is Alterman to advocate taking away *ANYONE’S* civil rights because he thinks that they’re not appreciative enough of them?

[fujiyama]

95. I really don't disagree with you

regarding abortion itself and I have seen no evidence that Alterman is anti choice. I too would prefer Roe not be repealed. I just think the ruling could have been reasoned differently.

I wouldn't classify Alterman as a mysoginist and say he's "advocating taking anyone's rights" just because he's stating the observation that the issue hurts the party, especially in the south. I'll admit that, and I'll also say I don't care and that I am still pro choice. I'll also admit that supporting civil rights hurt the party in the south and I'm certainly not in favor of repealing civil rights legislation.

You need to be able to seperate the idea of making an observation but not necessarily advocating it.

[nicknameless]

97. PLEASE READ!!!

In two separate posts, I've included Alterman's own words.

Reiterating: Yes Alterman is a misogynist because he is saying that the overturning of this life-saving ruling wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[Gregorian]

90. The right hurts the left.

Go to the source.

[nicknameless]

93. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[liberaliraqvet26]

98. His article in the Nation on this was very interesting...

im not saying I bought it all but it made me think

[nicknameless]

99. Link?

Here's an article in "The Nation" from Katha Pollitt
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=pollitt

"Overnight," writes Susan Estrich in a recent syndicated column, "every election, for every state office, would become a referendum not on parental consent or partial birth abortion, but on whether regular old middle-class adult women could get first-trimester abortions. When you think about it that way, you have to ask: What could be better for Democrats?" Estrich rejects the thought, because--something the boy pundits forget--criminalizing abortion, however briefly, means many, many women would suffer atrociously.

<snip>

If Roe goes, whoever has political power will determine the most basic, intimate, life-changing and life-threatening decision women--and only women--confront. We will have a country in which the same legislature that can't prevent some clod from burning a flag will be able to force a woman to bear a child under whatever circumstances it sees fit. It is hard to imagine how that woman would be a free or equal citizen of our constitutional republic.

<snip>

[liberaliraqvet26]

103. I was mistaken...

it was that article I was refering to

[MisterLiberal]

100. Typical

After the election, they said it was our support of basic rights of gays.

Then it was "gun rights".

Then it was our lack of "cultural respect" for the South.

Now, even Howard Dean is saying we need to warm up to the Anti-CHoice crowd.

It makes me dizzy. I don't know what to think anymore.

Being a Democrat used to be so much easier before the DLC starting "winning" for us.

:mad:

[nicknameless]

101. EXCELLENT POST!!!

You're exactly correct! Giving up *anyone's* civil rights is just plain wrong and goes against what being progressive is supposed to be all about.

You're the second person on this thread to mention Howard Dean going soft on the issue of choice. That's shocking. The first speech I ever heard him give, back in 2003, was on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It was largely from his perspective as a doctor -- and unbelievably moving. ... Now I'm going to have to go look for what he is saying from his new, uncaring position. :(

Edited to add: We've lost elections because of the DLC. Their members are a ho-hum lot of Repug-lites. Howard Dean stirred up excitement because he was a voice for progressive people -- not another sell-out for corporate contributions.

[bklyncowgirl]

104. It does with some people who might otherwise vote diffently.

This is particularly working class Catholics--my people.

Take my mother for example.

She was for the most part open minded and even progressive on most issues but she was a religious Roman Catholic who was staunchly opposed to abortion.

I had a long discussion (read arguement) with her on the subject once and eventually she said "I don't think this should be a political issue. It's a moral issue."

I'm pro choice in that I believe that abortion should be legal, but I've never liked that terminology. Choice is what you do when you pick out your clothes in the morning. Abortion is a profound moral decision.

I think that if we want to pursuade some--not all but some--of the people who vote Republican over the abortion issue, a re-examination of our attitudes in this issue is useful and that this should not be a litmus test for political candidates.

[nicknameless]

105. Women’s right to self-determination -- to decide what should

happen to their bodies *is* an issue of choice -- a *very serious* choice, since their health and their very lives are at stake. but a choice nonetheless. It seems to me that too many of those who think that “choice” is too mild a word to use are only seeing the issue as one affecting the embryo.

But the matter of whether or not to carry a fetus to term can be a health-threatening -- and even life-threatening issue for the woman.

And look at what the circumstances were for women prior to the passage of Roe: many women lost their lives due to “backalley abortions” or their own home-methods of pregnancy termination (wire coat hangers, knitting needles, etc.).

Years ago, I met a young Catholic girl who was about to have an abortion. She told me that she and her friends didn’t use birth control, since it was considered by the church to be a sin. Instead they saw abortion as bettering their odds of not sinning. (~30 days of sins with birth control vs. 1 possible sin with abortion.) That was their Catholic reasoning. Sick, huh?

I agree with your mother that this shouldn’t be a political issue. People who are opposed to the abortion procedure shouldn’t have one.

Sacrificing Roe, for the possibility of more votes, is a barbaric proposal to sacrifice women’s lives. ... Not to mention the fact that it wouldn’t work. The corporate right-wing media will always have other strategies to dissuade sheeple from voting for Dems. They’ll appeal to racists and homophobes. They’ll tell people that the left wants to take away their guns or their bibles. And Murika, having no shortage of idiots, will find there are people who will believe them and vote accordingly.

[CWebster]

108. Once heard him claim

That ultimately he would support Israel due to indoctrination.

Supporting Likud Israel hurts the Left.

[DemBones DemBones]

109. Hilary Clinton and Howard Dean have also realized

that unqualified support of abortion hurts the left and has been hurting the left for decades. It's not just about women, it's also about babies and 40 million dead babies are quite troubling to many Americans.

The left has never listened, the right has gained power, and it's looking like Roe will soon be overturned.

It's not the ideal way to reduce abortion numbers but it's looking like a done deal.

[nicknameless]

110. That is Patently False.

See: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507220007

Polls show that upwards to 68% of respondents in this country want to keep Roe.

"40 million dead BABIES?" A fertilized ovum is NOT A BABY!!! Your religion has no place in other people's personal lives.

Right-wingers who lament aborted fetuses care nothing of the women who died prior to the legalization of abortion.
Are those dead women insignificant to you too?

Gender bigots have been riled by the Roe decision just as race bigots have been riled by civil rights protections.
Should we overturn those too? After all, the Southern Strategy has cost us more votes than Roe has. It's cost us ENTIRE STATES!

Reiterating ONCE AGAIN:
The proposal to sacrifice Roe for political reasons is a proposal to sacrifice WOMEN'S LIVES for POTENTIAL VOTES.