Saddest. Headline. Ever.
To wit: "Abortion provision threatens Dems."
This headline implies what we all know to be true, now: that the Democrats are no longer the party that protects women's rights. How else could they be threatened by anything to do with abortion, which is (barely) still a legal procedure protected by the Supreme Court's 1972 decision on Roe v. Wade, unless they don't fully support reproductive freedom? Where is the threat if you simply stand by your Party's platform, instead of being terrified that the fundiegelicals you are supposed to be fighting against, won't vote for you any more?
Due to Howard Dean's revamp of the Democratic Party base from 2004 - 2008, which deliberately targeted "liberal-to-moderate evangelical voters," there is now a decent-sized group of Congresscritters in the PFKD that considers itself "pro-life." By proclaiming themselves to be on the side of the soon-to-be-Raptured (can't come too soon for me, frankly), these so-called "Democrats" were able to hoover up beaucoup de cash and votes that they would not have had access to, had they stuck to their pro-choice national platform. One such "Democrat" is Kathleen Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania.
Freshman Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-Pa.) seemed destined for a tough reelection campaign from the moment she was sworn into office two years ago.
She ousted a Republican incumbent with just 51 percent of the vote, even as Republican John McCain scored a narrow victory over Democrat Barack Obama in her district.
Now, the issues of health care and abortion could make Dahlkemper’s campaign against Republican Mike Kelly even tougher.
Advocates on both sides of the abortion issue are raising money and mobilizing volunteers for a showdown in Dahlkemper’s conservative rural district in the far northwestern corner of Pennsylvania.
The question being debated: Will the reform of the health care system create a loophole that allows taxpayer money to fund abortions? The White House says it won’t; abortion opponents say it will.
You know, maybe it's me, but I don't see "both sides of the abortion issue" here. I see the White House, which correctly claims the Health Whatever Bill won't fund abortions, and the anti-choicers, who falsely claim that somehow, somewhere, there might be one woman who receives federal funding from this bill who might possibly remain in control of her own reproductive system. I must be missing the argument FOR funding abortions here, right? Wouldn't the idea that the federal government should NOT restrict funding for a legal medical procedure, be the pro-choice argument - which, the last time I checked, was "one side" of this particular abortion issue?
But I digress. Let's get back to the poor DINOs who are "threatened" in the upcoming election. They've gotten themselves into a bit of a pickle. You see, anti-choicers aren't like the easily-seduced fauxminists who continued to swoon over Barack Obama no matter how much he threw them under the bus. When these folks buy a politician with their votes and money, they actually expect, you know, RESULTS. And whichever group convinces the anti-choicers that they can deliver those results, will get said votes and money.
“We are going to do everything we can to point out that Democrats who said they were pro-life caved on the big one,” said Marilyn Musgrave, a former Colorado congresswoman who is project director of the Votes Have Consequences campaign for the conservative women’s group Susan B. Anthony List.
In addition to Dahlkemper, Musgrave will be targeting Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus and Indiana Reps. Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth, who is running for Senate. Musgrave said Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia was also a target of her campaign, and he was defeated in the Democratic primary by anti-abortion candidate Mike Oliverio.
Isn' t it amazing that there are people who actually think that you can do "better" than no federal funding for abortion at all? That there is a number LESS than zero? I would say they're either stupid, or lying, but I think the correct answer is that they're both.
And speaking of stupid:
David Kozak, a political scientist at Gannon University in Erie, Pa., said the outcome of the abortion skirmish could have an impact on the race.
“They were with [Dahlkemper] before,” he said. “There are a lot of reasons why she won — not the least of them was that in the general election she ran as a pro-life Democrat. That makes you a Democrat-plus. You can not only pick up the support of the Democratic coalition, but you can get independents and some Republicans.”
Mr. Kozak, that logic is soooooo 2008. Throwing your pro-choice base under the bus makes you a Democrat-minus, not a Democrat-plus. When given a choice between an almost-Repub and a real Repub, especially after almost two years of crapulent D policies, people will pick a real Repub every time. And I suspect it is this fact, not the frenzied rush by anti-choicers to prove which group can impose a severer ovarian penalty, that will sink Ms. Dahlkemper in 2010.
By the way, I must congratulate our friends at NOW once again. Thanks to their fight against the rabid woman-haters at Operation Save America, an abortion clinic in North Carolina had its first hassle-free Saturday in EIGHT YEARS.
If only all feminist groups had the same commitment to women's rights.