Anyone hear Ed Schultz interview

[whometense]

the president of NOW this afternoon?

I hope someone did, because I could use a reality check. She (Kim Gandy) said Kerry narrowly lost the female vote. Anyone have the numbers on this? Is it true?

She also said the Kerry campaign "did nothing for women," while * went out and lied to women every time he had a chance, and this swayed them to vote for him?

Am I the only one who thinks this is a complete crock, from A to Z? Was one single woman's vote swayed by the "W Stands for Women" crap? And I had the same reaction to Gandy as I had to Reid's comment. Maybe the campaign sucked - I wasn't on the inside. They sure got a hell of a lot of votes if they did. I guess this is probably par for the course, but the whining special interest foups are making me crazy, even the ones I'm a member of.

I wanted to say to her, "What did you do to put Kerry's (incredibly consistent and pro-woman) ideas before your membership? It was all there on the website for the taking."

Of course, Ed's on a mission to prove that repetition and dumbing-down the message are the way to win over borderline voters. They work for the repugs. So, what do you all think??

[rox63]

1. I usually like Ed's show

I didn't hear him this afternoon, but I've never found him to be anti-Kerry. The woman from NOW sounds like an ignorant jerk.

[whometense]

3. He's pro-Ed

I see the value of his show, but he's got an ego the size of Montana. He annoys me a lot of the time, but that's ok - he's not there for me. He's there for the Ohio highway construction worker who called in about health care and workmen's comp. He's there for all the guys who thought it was wimpy to call yourself a dem. So that's ok.

I had more of an issue with Gandy. I'm sick of the whining for attention from these people. TayTay would probably know if this is just totally normal, and that special interest groups always whine and sling insults.

But you proved that she had her numbers wrong, and that ticks me off.

[jean]

2. don't know if her stats are true... just googled an article saying Kerry

won the female vote but bush closed the gap -
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-ftr-women10.html

from NOW's own site - Kerry got 51% of female vote but bush closed the gap from 2000 by pushing security issues (ah yes - all those terra alerts that raised his numbers 3 points each time)
http://www.now.org/issues/election/elections2004/041112womensvote.html

I didn't hear the interview.

[whometense]

4. Thanks for looking it up.

And welcome to the John Kerry group!

Now I can be angry about her having the numbers wrong as well. ;-)

[TayTay]

6. Was she with NARAL?

Cuz Kerry pissed them off in Nov when he said that we have to talk about the pro-choice issue differently because it is kiling Dems. I think Kerry's point was that some voters hit shutdown when they hear 'abortion' and don't listen to anything else. The RW, whether we like it or not, has defined the terms. We have to talk about it with different words and emphasize different aspects of this issue in order to get people to hear the argument anew. We don't need to change our position; we support the right of a woman to determine her own health care and that the decision to have or not have an abortion is between a woman, her doctor and her own moral code. Hey, safe, legal and rare is not new as a position.

This did piss off NARAL. They saw this as waavering in support of abortion rights. I was pissed at NARAL because Kerry even voted against the ban on so-called partial birth abortions and he voted to fund choice on military bases. (These were not massively supported by a lot of marginal Dems.) Loyalty runs both ways and some folks forget that. Dems have problems with a lot of single-issue folks. They want the argument framed their way. Well, their way is losing elections so maybe we should consider new language. That doens't mean we have new positions but that we explain what we believe using different emphasis.

[rox63]

9. Interesting article by Lakoff on framing choice

The Foreign Language of Choice
By George Lakoff, AlterNet
Posted on June 2, 2005

The emphasis on framing and language is not a covert attempt to push women's issues that are controversial -- be it abortion or contraception -- off the progressive agenda. Quite to the contrary, it is a refusal to accept the conservative definition of the issues involved, and put forward a positive vision, based on deeply progressive values and moral perspective.

Many of the feminist organizations have come to the conclusion that the word "choice," and the concept of choice, is a bad idea. Deborah Tannen, who is one of the best-known linguists in the country, observed over a decade ago that the word "choice" is taken from a consumer vocabulary -- as compared to the word "life," which is taken from a moral vocabulary.

Morality beats consumerism every time.

Read the rest at the link below:
http://www.alternet.org/story/22135/

[whometense]

15. Even I have issues with NARAL.

In fact they called my house recently looking for money - and were very aggressive, I must say. When I said I wasn't giving them anything the woman asked, "Are you for a woman's right to choose?" I answered, "Yes, I am, and that's why I give money regularly to Planned Parenthood."

I'm 100% pro-choice, and I've never seen a better candidate on women's rights than Kerry. Ever. I don't feel comfortable with NARAL because they are more in-your-face than I think is necessary. I prefer Planned Parenthood's pregnancy prevention and family planning approach - it's softer, and it's more positive.

Kim Gandy bio from here: http://www.aapd-dc.org/NOW/NOWspeaker.html

Kim Gandy became president of the NOW Foundation upon her election as president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in June 2001. A long time activist, Gandy has served NOW at the local, state and national level since 1973, including three years as Louisiana NOW President. She has been a member of the NOW Foundation Board since 1982, and from 1991 to 2001 was Executive Vice President of the Foundation. Among many accomplishments, Gandy served on the drafting committees for two groundbreaking federal laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Gandy is a graduate of Louisiana Tech University (B.S. 1973) and the Loyola University School of Law (JD 1978). She resides in the Washington, D.C. area with her husband, ethnomusicologist Kip Lornell, and their two daughters, Elizabeth Cady and Katherine Eleanor.

[rox63]

30. They've never been this way with me

I have a friend who helps organize one of Mass NARAL's biggest fundraisers every year, their annual Chocolate Party. Most years, I buy a ticket and attend (lots of chocolate - YUM!), and I'm put on their mailing list for that year. Various Boston liberal pols and otherwise hip folks also show up at the event. And all I get from them outside of the invite to the party are the occasional snail-mail fundraising letters.

[whometense]

31. Glad to hear it.

That phone call really put me off.

[TayTay]

5. Welcome to the forum

It's great to have your checking in and keeping us honest! (Thanks for the research.)

[wisteria]

7. From a purely personal perspective,

I think Kerry could have done a little more to address womens issues,(he touched on abortion and health care) however Bush's only votes seemed to come from the so called security moms whom Bush managed to scare into voting for him. I was a member of NOW for several years and I found them to be very complacent on recruiting new members and promoting issues. They seemed to expect to just be taken care of after throwing a little money the party's way.In this regard, I agree with your question-What did they do to put Kerry ideas before the membership. And in answer to that question,I would have to say, based on my experience, probably nothing at all.

[karynnj]

10. He did talk alot about health care, environment and jobs

which I think are women's issues as much as they are anyone's. Part of the problem was getting the message out. (He had one event with Caroline Kennedy where he addressed a lot of woman's issues. But even with Caroline Kennedy there he got relatively little coverage.)

It might have been good if his campaign would have put together an easily readable handout on Kerry's work related to women's issues. Much of the small business stuff was related to that and he was very much in the forefront when he hired as many minorities and women while in the prosecutor's office. These things weren't well known even to many people following politics. Then when Now endorsed Kerry, they could have sent out this handout to their membership, who would then have had ammunition to defend Kerry to their friends. Also, with any more conservative women's organizations or magazines, Kerry's team could easily show how good he has been on woman's issues for at least the last 30 + years.

NOW sometimes seems to give an undue weight to abortion and gay marriage. Kerry has been as strong an ally as they are going to get. I don't understand why they think that he should have pushed these issues more - the Republicans put them front and center as it was. That should be a clue as to whose advantage focusing on the issue was in. I'm relatively liberal, but I get very uneasy reading some of the angry comments that attack anyone who suggests that abortion is a personal tragedy.

[elshiva]

8. hmm...Wish there was not this divisiveness between NOW

and the Dem Party but it will alway be there. It has to be!

[paulk]

11. heard the interview -

it seems the problem that she had with the Kerry campaign is the problem that lies at the core of the entire Democratic coalition. It's a bunch of relatively small special interest groups or organizations, each one who thinks their agenda is the only agenda important to the party as a whole. They all expect to have their hands held by the candidate and when that doesn't happen they whine about it.

It's always "what have you done for me lately" and what NOW should have been doing is getting the word out about Kerry's past excellent record vis a vis women's issues rather than expecting him to specifically kiss their asses.

[whometense]

12. Thank you!

That was my impression exactly. How much better a candidate could they hope to find on women's issues?? I can't think of anyone better than Kerry.

[sandnsea]

13. Here's the dumb dumb dumbest part

Back in the 70's`, when Republicans began building their machine, liberals put their money into activist groups like NOW, LCV, etc. These groups are supposed to do the work of getting the message out to their members. They are supposed to be the grassroots. They're supposed to turn out the vote. The campaign isn't supposed to have to even worry about the base where there's activist groups to fill in the gap. That's why they got all the money for the last 20-30 years. If women weren't getting the Democratic message, that's NOW's fault, not the campaign's. But I suppose it's easier to blame the campaign or the Democratic Party than to look at their own message and see where they're failing to connect.

[paulk]

14. exactly

I sometimes despair for the Democratic Party. The Republicans, for all their "I" and "me-ism", at least understand the concept of teamwork.

The Democrats -

:mad:

You can't win a football game with eleven quarterbacks...

[whometense]

16. That's what I thought.

But I was starting to think I might have missed a step somewhere.

I am completely baffled by the lefty whiners. Why didn't John Kerry ring my doorbell and explain all his positions to me?

How does anyone in their right mind take this position? Why was the Kerry campaign not completely justified in thinking organizations like NOW would go get the materials he requested, which were, as we all know, easily found on his website, and help disseminate the info to their members so as to elect him? It's not like he was ignoring women. He wasn't. He also wasn't spoonfeeding them.

So is there any way out of this problem?

[JI7]

19. exactly, i think this is what Bill Bradley was saying

the Republican Party has a base of support that is there no matter who they nominate. unless it's someone like Giuliani who has a record of supporting gun control, abortion rights etc. and people like him are not going to win the republican primary anyways.

but other than that they support whoever their nominee is. they don't beg or demand the nominee do or say this or that. they look at the record and they decide to put all their effort into re-electing that person. this actually helps the Republicans because they don't need to say things to appeal to these people which could turn off the more moderate voters. so they win support from others as well.

it really makes me sick when i hear this shit because i'm thinking "have you seen his fucking record".

[politicasista]

25. That's what I have been saying too or along those lines

But it has always fallen on deaf ears. :grr:

[whometense]

26. Great post.

And I could not agree more. And it is increasingly clear to me that the answer to your question ("have you seen his fucking record") is no. People on the left whine about the right tilt to the media, but they are still apparently ok with buying into what the media is selling.

[ginnyinWI]

17. Saw her on Cspan

Speaking at the Campaign for America's future thing. She had some snarky comments about Kerry there, too, in reference to his comment about making room for pro-life Dems in the party. The problem I see is that when you get so "liberally pure", there is simply NOBODY who will be good enough. They tear down all the ideologically "imperfect" politicians and then wonder why they have nobody left. It's like a toddler throwing all of her food on the floor and then screaming because she's still hungry.

[whometense]

21. Great analogy!

So what can we do??? I'd really like to know if there's anything anyone has come up with that can solve this problem. If so, that's what I'd like to be working on.

We need to make this different, and soon. Somehow the tantrum throwers need to be forced to look in the mirror and ask themselves,

What else could I have done to help Kerry get elected?

Enough with the blame. Enough with the finger-pointing and the mudslinging. Just shut up and get to work. Every single democrat in the country should be asking him or herself the same question, but especially the liberal interest groups. Followed up by, okay then. Next time we'll get it right.

[ginnyinWI]

23. off the top of my head,

I would say focus more on the party and what it stands for than the individual candidate. This way we can build it up and give it a good dose of PR even before there's an election looming. Public familiarity, so we won't have to have the next candidate carry the donkey on his back the whole way! (gender not neutral on purpose!;) ) Focus on "Brand Democrat", not each person and what idiosyncrasies they have. "He said this on May, 2003, blah blah blah." Nonsense! What do DEMS stand for? The British have it better--they elect a party which contains a front-runner--party before personality.

[JI7]

18. do these assholes not care about the record and issues ?

i'm sorry but Kerry has a record as perfect as can be on the issues. that's what his job is to do. it's their job to use that record to help get the candidate support.

if you compare Bush NEVER attends the nutcase anti choice rally held every year. he leaves some pathetic feel good phone message for them. nothing more than that. even when it comes to the nra he doesn't openly come out against gun control. but these groups know his record and know he is on their side so they do all they can to get him support.

even when it came to the assault weapons ban Bush said he supported the ban but he took no action to show it. the NRA didn't care bush said that because they knew he wouldn't take any action on it.

some of these "liberal" groups seem to be made up of stupid ignorant whiny pissy fucks. i knew what Kerry's record was and got out there on my own to do what i can to get him support based on that. i didn't need or beg Kerry to come and do this or that.

it's a fucking national campaign.

[globalvillage]

20. Where was NOW then?

Liberal Women Will Decide this Election.... If They Actually Register and Vote!
15-May-04
Women's Issues
"59% of women say they will absolutely vote in November, but 22% are either somewhat likely or unlikely to vote. 25% of these so- called 'low propensity' women voters say they won't vote because they're not registered Low propensity female voters are more likely to be younger, (18-34,) unmarried or single, have high school degrees and self-describe as 'liberal.'

If NOW had done their job and registered these so-called 'liberal' women, Pres Kerry would be in the White House today.


http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Women's%20Issues

Pisses me off to no end.

[saracat]

22. She is wrong about Kerry but she has a point

about the Dems attempting to drop kick women's reproductive rights. To give humans equal rights is not being "ideologically pure". I equate "choice" with anti slavery .If a women has no dominion over her own body she isn't equal and she isn't free.
It aggravates me to see how many people are willing to denigrate choice but would be appalled at suggesting we reinstall slavery!
I am trying really hard to suppress my own anger at the Party for this.I was at a special meeting of my state Party last night and many comment that were made sickened me. I hope I can hold on a bit longer but both the concepts of religious morality and anti abortion are really troubling to me. I heard several women echoing the pro-life outreach position.My rights aren't negotiable.As for religion, I had to actually battle NOT to make a multi district holiday fundraiser with the Governor not religious! Some thought it would be great for us to get exposure as being "religious"Democrats. I hope I am not going to have to leave the Party I have devoted so much of my life to.I was very proud of being a Democrat, but I will not endorse any Republican lite efforts.

[TayTay]

24. This may be the most disturbing thing I've read on here

It's just so disheartening, these distortions, and how people are jumping on the train for the wrong damn reasons.

First of all, a caveat: I don't live in your state. I can't speak to it. It is, at all times, a mistake to assume that everything in the country runs the way it does around me. I am ignorant (maybe profoundly so) of conditions where you live. Please feel free to enlighten me.

There is a world of difference between seeing a Rick Santorum in PA (he is crazy, after all) and Bob Casey. Casey is not crazy. He is also pro-life. He will run as a pro-life Dem. The truth of the matter is that a Bob Casey in the US Senate is not going to vote to repeal Roe v Wade. There is NO political pressure for a Dem to do that. Not even a pro-life Dem. (What has he said on this? The battle on this is for judicial nominees.) A Bob Casey can find common ground in the Dems pro-choice and pro-personal health care debate. We need that vote.

The other thing is the whole 'Dems get religion' thing. The way you described the event you went to is cynical to the core. We are not finding religion like you find a new penny on the street. It is a look back to someone like Martin Luther King, Jr. who could honestly and, without cynical manipulations, address the fact that his religious background informed his political choices. (I learned to read when I was a kid. I use that ability to read to see me through a lot of things in life. It is a learned skill and part of how I was brought up. It informs my life.) Appropriating holidays and making them religious for political gain is a one-way ticket to loserville. This is a complete misunderstanding of what the debate is about. (It is actually about genuiness, not being a fake poser. People will see through this in a NY minute.) That is very discouraging news. Did the proposal go through?

[saracat]

27. I believe that I sold the rest of the committee on making it a "holiday"

celebration and not giving any religious affect to the occasion.

My apologies.I did not mean to cause you any distress, Tay Tay. I live in a red state but generally my Dem Party has been liberal. I think people are really struggling with the whole "re framing" concept. I disagree with re framing unless we are to re frame the GOP not ourselves. I can't and won't re frame a core principle.Nominating people like Casey is wrong. IMHO. I know we are supposed to have a big tent but I still believe if this was about racial civil rights people would view it differently.Can you imagine if someone supported slavery and we were told to re frame it as it might be offensive? What if they called it labor conscription? And it was suggested we support such a person as they were okay on others issues? And if there is no political pressure about abortion rights, why is there pressure to find pro-life Dems?

Why are we prostituting ourselves to get a vote? And I can't say how all pro=life Dems would vote but most of the ones we do have HAVE supported anti abortion measures. I know that it will be a SCOTUS issue but a lot of legislators are involved in setting it up. I am uncomfortable trusting such persons with my rights, particularly if they have an announced prejudice and my party makes allowances for their prejudice.
Anyway, I don't want to get started on a rant.It is just that I have been biting my tongue a lot lately.I also noticed that some counties are issuing literature instructing their precinct committee persons to NOT speak about abortion. They instruct them to change the topic and concentrate on National Security! (This was in a rural county, not my own)I also noticed that the Dems most adamant about avoiding the choice issue are young.The senior citizens are all wearing pro-choice bracelets and are quite vehement.

Anyway, this is just one of my hot buttons and I just wanted to point out that the gal from NAARAL wasn't all wrong, though she was about Kerry. Kerry has the best record of anyone on women's issues. That is one reason he has my support.

[TayTay]

28. The reason for the pro-life candidates is

the attempt to broaden the field. I may hate this, but I have to acknolwedge it: we have been out-played on the social issues. I am strongly pro-choice. I vote for pro-choice candidates. Whoopy for me! Pro-choice will likely remain the law of Massachusetts. (Sanctimonious East Coast self-congratualtions follows.)

This has been defined by the RW. It has. We have got to shift the discussion. We have got to broaden this into a general discussion of women's health, funding pre-natal care and the uncomfortable idea that women will die if abortion becomes illegal again. (We also have to appeal to that segmant of the American population that was horried by the Terry Schiavo case it's it's blatant instance of government intrusion into the private decisions of the family.)

Kerry is still strongly pro-choice. (Look how much shit he took for not fully backing Gay Marriage in MA. If he ever shifted his stance on women's reproductive health rights, he would be crucified in MA.) Dean, I think it was him but it could be someone else, pointed out that he had met a woman who self-identified as strongly pro-life. She wouldn not have an abortion herself and would use all her persuasive powers to prevent any woman in her household or family from having one. When asked about a neighbor, that woman said that she was uncomfortable making health care decisions for non-family members and the wouldn't interfere. Ahm, that position is actually what we would call pro-choice. The debate is not working. How do we get that woman to see that her thoughtful response to this issue is actually a pro-choice one. The present argument is not framing this to our advantage.

[saracat]

29. I do not give these pro lifers that much credit. You are too rational .

"We have got to shift the discussion. We have got to broaden this into a general discussion of women's health, funding pre-natal care and the uncomfortable idea that women will DIE if abortion becomes illegal again."

I emboldened the DIE in your quote as that is the point. These people don't care if the women dies.It is either God's will, or she is being punished for her "sin". You are right that the debate is not working.We should not debate this issue.The women cited is an exception, not the norm.

You are correct about appealing to the same people who were horrified about the Shiavo incident, but those people are not necessarily going to be supportive of choice. Many make a distinction between these situations with abortion occupying a different plane of morality.

The Shiavo supporters are frequently the same people. ala Randall Terry , that are anti choice.You cannot reason with such people. We are never going to get their votes. Reaching out to them is a waste of time.

The legislature in my state voted to allow Pharmacists to refuse to distribute birth control if they disapproved. Our Dem Governor had to veto the provision.Two female representatives (including my own)publicly stated that breast cancer is caused by abortions, and their constituencies elected them.

There is no "uncomfortable idea that women will die". They are perfectly comfortable with that idea.

I agree we have to "shift the discussion". I think choice ought not to be open to debate in the same sense slavery isn't open to debate. We should never have allowed choice to be open for debate. I think choice should be endorsed as a basic tenant of our platform and we should refuse to debate it. It should not be an "option". Endorsing people like Casey reduces choice to an "option" and that is wrong. I refuse to cede my civil rights to anyone as an "option" for them to decide if I am vested.

This is a very slippery slope we are on, and I refuse to give an inch.The current climate is very dangerous for women's rights, and I would not trust any pro life politician from either party.

[TayTay]

32. But we are losing the debate and the votes

There is a tick tick tick aspect to the Roe V. Wade debate. (The decision is under assault from the snti-privacy people who want to do away with what they view as 'invented rights to privacy' that didn't exist in the original drafts of the Constitution. (This the real crux of the judicial activisim debate.)

The debate is not working. The right for a woman to determine her own health care and her own reproductive decisions is in danger. We are losing senatorial votes in every election cycle. I am very pro-choice, but we have to try something else or we will lose the argument and the debate. Then it will be up to the individual states. (The ruling itself is on shaky legal ground. It will remain so until we change the electoral equation and can get agreement to change it.)

A lot of the people who were deeply distrubed by the Schiavo case are not in the wingnut section of the Rethug Party. They are ordinary Americans who think that there are too many abortions going on and are buying SOME of the Rethug argument that abortions are the result of evil Democrats making women having abortions; personal moral failings and irresponsible women who are too sexually promiscuous. (Now any women we know. They are those women, who we can't trust to make their own decisions That's how it's always framed.)

The discussion has to become personal again. We have to reframe it. I have no intention of abandoing what I believe in, but I am open to better ways to explain it to others. (Kerry hasn't abandoned his position either and I am pissed at NARAL for ragging on him. He took a lot of shit for that 'partial-birth' abortion vote and for the military-access vote. He should have gotten more cover for those acts of courage.)

[saracat]

33. If those are " ordinary Americans" we are dumbed down even further than I

I thought, and I really don't want any part of it. This is very discouraging Tay Tay. I don't recognize this country anymore. This whole thing has got me thinking about expatriating. I thought I could stay and fight, but I don't want to be surrounded by such people. I guess I am one of those elitist Dems but I really don't give a damn about deliberately stupid people. Knowledge is freely available. Some people reject it. It isn't my job to force them to read. I am depressed.Maybe tomorrow will be a better day.:shrug: :cry:

[TayTay]

34. You aren't in it for you

I can see it from here. You stay and fight because it's about something larger than yourself. (Don't try and fool me. I can see the fighter from here. You can't hide it.)

All countries go through times when people lose their way. (The United States has been down this road before. Many times.) We stand and fight because it is what we owe those who fought before us. And because it is the example we set for those who will follow us. This is, for better or worse, our moment in history. This is our fight, our cause and our moral decision to make as to whether or not we succumb to the feelings of hopelessness or not.

No generation asks for a test. No generation asks for it's most basic values to be threatened. But here it is. What you do with those challenges is up to you. (No one can tell you how to react, but then again, I think you already know.)

Remember sister, I am here for you. I will always be here for you. Me in Massachusetts, you in Arizona, your younger sisters in this group who live in Illinois, Mississippi, Tennessee and so forth. We are here for you. When it gets too hard and you start to lose faith, lean on me. It's what groups like this exist for.