Childers’ win
Here is NYT’s coverage of Childers’ win.
The Democrat, Travis Childers, a local courthouse official, pulled together a coalition of blacks, who turned out heavily, and old-line “yellow dog” Democrats, to beat his Republican opponent, Greg Davis, the mayor of Southaven, a Memphis suburb. With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, the vote was 54 percent for Mr. Childers to 46 percent for Mr. Davis.
It is a good day to be a Democrat.
Related posts:
…A coalition of “blacks” and “yellow-dog Democrats”.
Traditional Democratic voters with Yellow Dog Dems (who would vote for yellow dogs over Republicans). All this in a District that went 62% for Bush in 2004. Where were these folks in 2004?
I wonder if the article meant to say Blue Dog Democrats?
That would certainly make more sense.
For the second special election in a row it’s a PRO-LIFE Democrat who wins.
I wonder when the party will begin to notice.
There is hope. A Pro-life Democrat has been added to the platform committee for the convention, and hopes to push for an abortion-neutral plank rather than a pro-choice one.
Which is really sad, but the point with this election is, the NRCC had to dip into their meager resources to fund the campaign and as Stlo7 said, they have nothing to show for it. That is the success story here, not the victory of an anti-choice Democrat.
Be polite - it’s pro-life., not anti-choice.
Just like it’s pro-choce, not pro-abortion.
It’s only fair to give people the equal respect of calling them by the names they want to be called, not by the labels their opponents put on them.
oops - “pro-choice”
pro-life assumes that, even after a baby is born, they have value and they should still be cared for. I’m sorry Lee, but once they’re born, I don’t see the “pro-lifers” pushing for assistance for these mothers and babies. You can call it pro-fetus if you like.
“pro-life assumes that, even after a baby is born, they have value and they should still be cared for. I’m sorry Lee, but once they’re born, I don’t see the “pro-lifers” pushing for assistance for these mothers and babies.”
Wow, obviously you are unfamailiar with the largest non governmental social service network in the nation - run by pro-life Catholic organizations - that operate health centers that reach out to women and children (St. Joseph Center, Mercy Center in Rochester), emergency shelters for women and children (Bethany House), foster care facilities (Andrews Center) - and more. How about the pro-lifers who voluntarily take young women in their homes to help them get their lives together after the birth of their children? When I was a reporter I actually interviewed some of them.
Or the Pregnancy Centers that offer mother support programs and groups, housing assistance, material aid, and more. Check out what Women’s Place has to offer in Rochester.
Or the social justice lobbying done by the Catholic Church and other Christian groups for assistance to the poor?
You’d be wiser to check information first rather than spouting spurious stereotypes.
After all, bigots rely on stereotrypes and not facts, and you certainly don’t what to be accused of being one of those, do you?
And are the “pro-life” politicians supporting SCHIPs? We’re not talking the non-governmental bodies here. Maybe the church has become one in the same with government when I wasn’t looking?
Actually, maybe these “pro-life” Democrats are supporting SCHIPs and governmental food subsidies programs (new farm bill) but the history of these politicians has been love the fetus, don’t care about the child.
Let’s see, a few pro-life politicians (I’ll stick to just Democrats) who I recall voting for SCHIP include Rep. Mike McNulty of New York, Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio and Rep William Lipinksi of Illinois.
If I went on line and did some research I could find more.
But there’s some examples of pro-life politicians who support women and children after birth.
You asked me to name some. But you inlcude a dig at the “history.”
I’m sure you could name some who have been inconsistent. But it’s not true of all of them, and your blanket condemnation is false.
Could be. But what is not false is that the rate of abortions in this country go up during Republican administrations. Why? Because fewer safety net government programs are in place that can help these mother baby dyads. We will of course, have to agree to disagree on this issue. I’m old enough to remember what it was like before abortion was legal. I thought you probably were too, guess I’m wrong about that too.
Lee - what is this, my label is better than your label? Pro-life vs Pro choice?
What exactly is your point here? What is meant by “abortion neutral”? Some fancy term for over turning roe v wade?
Isn’t the post and thread, up to this point, about pro-life politicians- not religious based, or charity work.
From the reports I’ve seen from the U.S. government and various agencies, the abortion rates have been going down - under both Democrats and Republicans over the last decade. Do you have data to back your statement?
Labels are important. Words are important. They help to form the way we think - part of the point of “1984.” Any politician, demagogue, advertiser knows that. Look how they manipulate words to create a favorable vision of whatever it is they are promoting.
Plus, it’s an issue of respect. If someone who favors legal abortion wants to be called pro-choice, I call them that. Respect. In the same way someonee who opposes abortion on moral or ethical grounds wants to be called pro-life, they should be called that.
To make it simple: If you want to be called “Fred” and I know that but consistently call you “Turd,” I’m not being respectful of you or your wishes.
And my point here were the original points I made:
1. The two most recent victories by Democratrs in Congress were by Pro-Life Democrats and the party has to begin to pay more attntion to that part of the population.
2. Call people by the names they want to be called our of simple respect.
So lets stick to those points and not go off on tangents.
“someone who opposes”
“Democrats in Congress”
“pay more attention”
“out of simple respect”
Sorry for the typos. It was early. Dog got sick in the night and got me up!
By the way, the lead paragraph from a Salon article…
“Days before the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Guttmacher Institute has released a national study of abortion. Its findings are something to be celebrated by pro-abortion-rights and antiabortion folks alike: The U.S. abortion rate is the lowest it has been in more than three decades. In 2005, the most recent year included in the study, 1.2 million abortions were performed; that’s an 8 percent drop from 2000. Abortion rates are also falling at a faster speed, say researchers.”
I believe there was a Republican President in 2005 - and a Democratic one in 2000 - with an 8 percent drop in the number of abortions in between.
Link? But what is the point here?
Abortions are declining. OK - why? any reasons? Better birth control? less sex? Or is the point that labels such as those being railed against here don’t matter?
Use labels, don’t use labels - my personal favorite here is “…that part of the party.” Which label is that?
please explain what “that part of the party” wants?
Oversimplifying here - Abortion is a serious personal issue and in my opinion a decision not to be taken lightly. However, do I want the government deciding what the choices a woman can do with her body or when exactly life begins based on some secular belief - no I do not.
So lots of people can be “against” abortion -this covers stereotypical pro-life and pro-choice people- the real question is what to do about it?
I was citing some documentation to show you how to do it. You know, state an opinion, give a fact to support it (as opposed to claiming something that in unsupported.
As to my point - look at points 1 and 2 I made earlier.
By the way, I said “part of the population” not “part of the party.” Two differnt things.
If you are going to try to argue with something I say, at least argue with something I actually said.
Labels do matter. That’s been one of my points all along. I’m not sure what you don’t understand.
But then, the fact that you changed one of my statements so that it means something different suggests your method of “debate”.
Yes you did. My mistake. I read “part of the party”
Ouch Lee There is a leap of faith quite the leap that I intentionally twisted your words to mean something else. Careful here -
But since you bring up method of debate - the thread is about about labels and politicians. Yet you bring in faith based organizations - Then there is the abortion drop (the one without the link) posit yet for no real reason. What is this point.
But that’s fine - it is a blog you get to comment and I get to respond. You made your point about labels.
So we are done here. Truth is we are doing around in circles and getting no where.
Or is there something esle you want to say about pro life politicians, abortions and all the rest?
“Ouch Lee There is a leap of faith quite the leap that I intentionally twisted your words to mean something else. Careful here - ”
Leap of faith? You quote me - then misquote me immediately after and criticize the misquote. That seems pretty clear to me.
The sense I get is that you don’t actually read what I’ve written.
So it goes. As for ending this, yes. I really don’t want to waste my time arguing with tangent after tangent tossed at me. I prefer to stick to the subject at hand.
[...] heard a great deal about the wringing of hands among Republican House members after their three disastrous special election losses. What’s remarkable is that even now that they realize that voters want real solutions to [...]