November 04, 2004
Dems for Life
Make a statement:
"The good news is pro-life democrats are winning campaigns. Pro-life Democrats win because they withstand the pressure of the national party and represent the values of their local communities. Evidence of this is in West Virginia. We won the governor's race in West Virginia despite the fact that President Bush carried the state. We also won legislative races in states all over the country including Iowa, Missouri, Michigan and made the run- off in two separate congressional contests in Louisiana. When Democrats take a stand and protect the rights of the unborn, we win elections. When Democrats campaign on a pro-abortion platform, they lose," said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1975/1369107
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dems for Life:
Comments
One of the most popular governors, and quite possibly the bravest, we had in Pennsylvania where I grew up was Bob Casey. He was a pro-life Democrat like no other. He had some problems at the national level, though, when he was shunned from the speaking agenda at the last Convention he was alive for because he wanted to challenge his party to stand for life issues.
His son will be running for governor himself someday, having been Auditor General and now State Treasurer-elect.
Both Caseys are strong examples of pro-life Democrats steamrolling the opposition.
Posted by: Ambrose at Nov 4, 2004 2:40:06 PM
God bless these people. We need all of the grass-roots pro-lifers we can find. If W VA can replace their current pro-abortion democrats with a couple of pro-life ones we will begin to see real action.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Nov 4, 2004 3:05:18 PM
Amen!
Posted by: Faith at Nov 4, 2004 3:47:50 PM
Evidence of this is in West Virginia. We won the governor's race in West Virginia despite the fact that President Bush carried the state.
Without knowing much about the governor's Republican opponent, it's more likely he won (in part) because President Bush carried the state, e.g., WV is a socially conservative state and Bush brought social conservatives to the polls.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 4, 2004 3:49:08 PM
And I second SiliconValleySteve's blessing.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 4, 2004 3:49:39 PM
This is precisely the moment that pro-life Democrats need to strike and strike big. Democrat social conservatives need to take their party back. It would be both good for the country and good for the Democratic electoral prospects.
Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer at Nov 4, 2004 4:05:16 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if Catholics were torn between two candidates running for Pres b/c they were both pro-life?
Posted by: c matt at Nov 4, 2004 4:46:42 PM
Joe Manchin, the WV governor-elect, and Monty Warner, his Republican opponent, both claimed pro-life beliefs. But Manchin gained the endorsement of West Virginians for Life, because of what they said was a solid 22-year record of supporting pro-life legislation.
Posted by: Edward Curtis at Nov 4, 2004 5:21:24 PM
Good luck Dems for Life. The DNC is reeling after Tuesday, and now is your chance to take your party back.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Nov 4, 2004 10:02:57 PM
Harry Reid, the next Democratic leader in the Senate, is pro-life.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm
As noted above, Bob Casey, Jr. was the top vote getter in PA on Tuesday.
Nothing brave about Bob Casey, Sr. Being pro-life is popular in PA--especially among the Dems. He was shunted aside at the 92 convention because he wouldn't endorse Clinton. He was also in conversations with Perot about the VP slot on the Reform Party ticket. But Perot didn't want a pro-life Dem on as his running mate.
Posted by: George at Nov 4, 2004 10:33:22 PM
Can we please stop with the urban legend that Bob Casey, good man that he was, was not allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention because he was pro-life? He was denied a spot because he refused to support the nominee.
Posted by: Michael at Nov 4, 2004 10:33:56 PM
That was a smokescreen. Bob Casey was persona non grata because he was pro-life, plain and simple.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Nov 4, 2004 10:49:22 PM
One's estimation of the Bob Casey story inevitably depends upon interpretation. Michael Crowley looked at it in a 1996 New Republic story. Casey had written in July of 1992 to both Ron Brown, Democratic party chairman, and Ann Richards, chairwoman of the delegation, asking to give a pro-life speech at the convention. They simply did not reply. Casey also asked to speak against the Democratic platform and was told that such a request was "out of order." Casey then claimed that he was not allowed to speak because he was pro-life and would defend his views from the podium. But he never presented any direct evidence to support his claim that "I'm sure they were chagrined that I didn't endorse the ticket. But the overriding reason was that I was going to go up there and make the pro-life case." This, of course, does not mean that his interpretation is wrong, or even unlikely.
Nevertheless, others argue that Casey's refusal to endorse Clinton fully explains why he was not allowed to speak. Ron Brown said in 1992, "The press reported incorrectly that Casey was denied access to the microphone because he was not pro-choice. He was denied access to the microphone because he had not endorsed Bill Clinton. I believe that Governor Casey knew that. I had made it clear to everybody. And yet it still got played as if it had to do with some ideological split. It had nothing to do with that." Others point out that Casey did not merely abstain from endorsing Clinton - he called Clinton's candidacy "tragic" and even suggested selecting an alternative candidate at the convention.
The only speakers who did not endorse Clinton and still spoke at the convention were Jerry Brown, who had won hundreds of delegates in the primaries and had his name placed in nomination, and his sister Kathleen, a candidate in California's gubernatorial race who perhaps did not endorse Clinton because her own brother was running against him. Democrats also point out that Casey was not up for reelection and could offer no compelling reason to speak, and other pro-life Democrats did in any case speak - Mayor Daley of Chicago, and Senators Heflin and Breaux.
Of course, one could argue that Daley, Heflin, and Breaux did not dwell on abortion the way that Casey undoubtedly would have. The point is, the whole Bob Casey story depends upon interpretation. I'm not sure that we can really be certain one way or the other, unless we can achieve some degree of certainty about the motives of the late Ron Brown. Can that be done?
Thank you.
Neil
Posted by: Neil at Nov 5, 2004 12:27:55 AM
George---Please don't dismiss Bob Casey Sr.'s legacy by saying that pro-life is popular in Pennsylvania. Many of our highest profile Republicans, such as former governor and current Homeland Security Sec. Tom Ridge, outgoing Treasurer Barbara Hafer, & Senator Arlen Specter, have been pretty strong in their statements regarding their support for pro-abortion.
Posted by: Ambrose at Nov 5, 2004 8:03:47 AM
Since this post from Ms. Welborn was originally to note the popularity of pro-life Democrats, it should be very interesting to note that with the official numbers reported this morning, Bob Casey Jr. received the highest number of votes any candidate has ever received in Pennsylvania for any office, including President.
Posted by: Ambrose at Nov 5, 2004 8:17:45 AM
Dear Dr. Laura ...
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend) He also tends to curse and blaspheme alot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Posted by: Jim at Nov 5, 2004 8:34:05 AM
Jim, I believe footballs are made of leather, and that the term "pigskin" is metaphorical, so play away, sans the gloves.
As for the other dilemmas torturing you, good luck on your journey of resolution.
Posted by: John Heavrin at Nov 5, 2004 9:13:09 AM
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Obviously, your friends must be vegetarian weenies if they do not find roasting meat savory. Throw a few sliced squash on the barbie and invite them over for brunch - perhaps that will change their mind.
Posted by: c matt at Nov 5, 2004 9:24:11 AM
George: "Harry Reid, the next Democratic leader in the Senate, is pro-life."
Talk about paying "lip service" to the pro-life cause: Harry Reid has been one of the key figures in orchestrating the filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees (and we all know the only reason that the dems are filibustering is to protect Roe).
As Minority Whip, Reid's job has been to hold the filibustering coalition together. That's where he gets kudos from NARAL - he's doing their bidding on filibustering nominees.
That will continue when he becomes Minority Leader. Count on it.
P.S. Reid is also one of the nastiest partisan members of the Senate (although no one comes even close to Dick Durbin).
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Nov 5, 2004 10:27:07 AM
It is hard to dismiss Bob Casey, Sr.'s legacy, since his pro-life son and namesake is almost as popular as he was. However, what is brave about a politician taking a popular stand?
Pennsylvania is interesting in that the pro-choice suburbanites tend to identify as Independent or Republicans. They like people like Ridge and Spector.
No smokescreen about Casey Sr. in 1992. He was trying to cut a deal with Perot and was dissing Clinton at the convention. Both he and Ray Flynn blamed their political misfortunes on pro-choice Democrats. Both were wrong, since pro-choicers helped get them elected.
Let's see if the pro-life Republicans here say something nice about the new Democratic leader in the Senate, who is pro-life. Unlikely--apparently the only good pro-life Dem is a dead one.
Posted by: George at Nov 5, 2004 10:31:08 AM
"We all know the only reason that the dems are filibustering is to protect Roe."
This is obviously untrue, since only the Supreme Court can overturn Roe. The Democrats don't like that Bush's nominees only come from the right-wing of the Republican party, and there is no consultation with the senior Senator when he or she is a Democrat. This is contrary to custom, and the Democrats object. Rightly in my view.
It appears that 51% equals a mandate in the eyes of most Americans. It will be fun to see how much damage is done before the electorate changes it mind. Now that the precedent for 51% is a mandate is accepted, watch out when the other side wins.
Posted by: George at Nov 5, 2004 10:39:19 AM
Great post. I'm sure pundits would be more than happy to tag the Republican party as THE Christian party... but it's clear Christian allegiance rests on a far higher plain than party allegiance.
Posted by: Eutychus Fell at Nov 5, 2004 11:00:35 AM
When are the Democrats gonna realize that "it's values (including abortion), stupid?" Pro life Democrat Ray Flynn thinks that until they realize this they will continue to lose. Makes sense, they've lost the "Reagan Democrats" (working class Catholics and evangelicals) because of this. I'm a Republican because I believe in small government but we need two parties in America and it would be wonderful if people had two parties to choose from which were both pro life and the differences were about the size of government and how to help the poor. Interesting that 42% of Hispanics, 24% of Jews (mostly Orthodox) and 18% of blacks went for Bush. I thought the election would be about Iraq and terrorism but apparently it was values, as exemplified by Pat Buchanan, vigorous critic of the war in Iraq and neocon foreign policy in general, who endorsed Bush because of values and judges.
Posted by: Marty at Nov 5, 2004 11:28:52 AM
I want to be part of a prolife Democratic movement.
Posted by: Tom Mohan at Nov 5, 2004 11:55:15 AM
It's plain that the Democratic Party, once the party of the "working man/woman" is now the party of gay activists, abortion fanatics, the anti-Christian ACLU, and filth-mongering Hollywood, a sizeable chuck of the electorate finally clued into this, and re-elected Bush. Should the party continue it's love affair with a minority of wealthy fanatics in Los Angeles, San Francisco and NYC, they'll continue to lose.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 5, 2004 11:57:52 AM
George,
You seem to be more of a democrat than pro-life. I'm not. I really don't know about Sen Reid's pro-life position but if he supports a pro-life Supreme Court nominee, he has my praise. If he doesn't, I'll assume he is pro-abortion and talks out of both sides of his mouth like Senator Kerry.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Nov 5, 2004 1:20:28 PM
Tom: Amy posted the website above for democratsforlife.org if you want more info... check out their statistics- there's a large number of Democrats who would prefer pro-life representation... God Bless them!!!
Posted by: Faith at Nov 5, 2004 2:01:22 PM
The press reported incorrectly that Casey was denied access to the microphone because he was not pro-choice. He was denied access to the microphone because he had not endorsed Bill Clinton.
And he opposed Clinton b/c Clinton was pro labor? - no, b/c CLinton was pro-choice.
unless we can achieve some degree of certainty about the motives of the late Ron Brown. Can that be done?
99.9999% certain that it can be. In addition, Ann Richards was one of the nastiest pro-abort politicians Texas ever had the misfortune of producing. No wonder the state is so adamantly Republican now. She makes Hillary look like an altar girl.
Posted by: c matt at Nov 5, 2004 2:42:17 PM
"We all know the only reason that the dems are filibustering is to protect Roe."
This is obviously untrue, since only the Supreme Court can overturn Roe.
All right, George, now you've lost all credibility. Did you not follow one shred of the confirmation process and its blockage by the Dems? The only thing the Dems pointed to against each Republican nominee was the appointee's less than ringing endorsement of Roe, or even a suspicion that he/she might not think abortion was the greatest thing since indoor plumbing. Pay attention.
Posted by: c matt at Nov 5, 2004 2:49:49 PM
Jim - way to cut and paste someone else's jokes. I've seen that exact screed before. And, by the way, St. Paul says that the Levitical Law isn't applicable to Gentiles. He also says that sodomites shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Wrap a joke around that, if you can think of one of your own.
Question: who is a pro-life Democrat who will be ready to run in the 2008 primaries (if for no other purpose, at least to gauge the interest). It's pretty sickening that of 12 candidates last year, the Dems couldn't put up one pro-lifer to choose (even a dead-end candidate like Kucinich decided to whore himself to the culture of death).
Posted by: eadfrith at Nov 6, 2004 1:53:56 AM
