Saturday, May 19

New to the sidebar....

It's getting rather crowded over there...I need to clean that up, yeah, right after I cull through my bookcases and remove the ones I'll never read...


  1. Are you aware of DK's record on reproductive rights?

    During his eight years in the House, Kucinich voted with abortion-rights advocates barely 10 percent of the time. Twice in the past three years, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, gave him a rating of "zero."

    On the stump this past week, and in an interview with The Chronicle, Kucinich now describes himself as "pro-choice." He said he has undergone a slow evolution that has led him to the conclusion that legal abortions are not only constitutionally sound, but also fundamental to a woman's equality.

    Yet his candidacy poses a test for the Democratic Party that has made abortion rights a top-tier issue that it believes will be instrumental in its quest to unseat President Bush, a longtime abortion foe.

    Can liberals embrace a candidate who as recently as 2001 voted to support Bush's decision to withhold international family-planning money from organizations that perform, or even discuss, abortions? Will the Democratic Party, let alone the Bay Area, open its arms and wallets to a presidential candidate who, during 1999 and 2000, sided with the National Right to Life Committee on 19 of 20 votes?

  2. I think that this is the flag you should be flying!

  3. Yeah a lot of people are freaking about that, qwerty. I know it's a problem. To me, I guess it's a question of which judges will he appoint.

    And he got married last year to a young brit who, I think, has set him, ahem, straight, on a lot of things. Like being a national candidate instead of representing Ohio Catholics.

    But yeah. It's a concern.

  4. Philosophically, I'm with DK, especially on war and peace issues.


    The abortion thing is a problem. For me, it's a BIG problem. And here's another one:

    He. Can't. Possibly. Win.

    Does this make me happy? No. Not at all. Because when I look at who, out of the current crop, probably WILL win, I think very unQuakerly thoughts.

    But frankly, after having worked and voted for folks like Ralph Nader, I am tired of backing well-intentioned losers. I'd rather the leftish blogosphere get behind someone who, while also not perfect, might actually be able to win, and that to me means beating Sen. Clinton.

    And since Sen. Boxer isn't running, and since Gore is teasing us but also won't run, I'm going - for now - with Edwards.

    Just my 2.5 cents.

  5. I may get flamed for this one, but who cares if kucinich was or is pro-life? Liberal President Carter is, and I don't think many would put him in the same devilish category as Bush. Whether a president is pro-choice or pro-life is of little concern. There's very little support for Roe V Wade being overturned, and I doubt it ever will happen no matter who's in the White House. The personal philosophy of a candidate on abortion should not be emphasized more than their commitment to keep it legal.

    As far as electibility is concerned, abortion also plays into that problem. Catholics have always been democratic voters until the party became exclusively pro-choice. They then took to the Republican Party by default. Now the Catholic vote is split 40% democrat, 40% republican, and 20% undecided. Perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad idea for the party to say we want to keep abortions legal but we also accept politicians with your same personal views.

  6. I'm going to disagree, Manila, but not in a flamey way.

    Roe is in trouble. Recent court decisions show us this. Presidents nominate justices and federal judges. Congress is full of wimps, weenies, and worst of all, "conservative and moderate Democrats." The fundies have not all gone away to sulk. I know because of what they're up to in my town.

    No, the next Democratic nominee has to be STRNGLY pro-Roe, for my support, anyway.

  7. ... she or he should also be able to spell...

  8. I don't think the most recent decision to ban partial-birth abortions means that Roe V Wade is in danger at all. Our abortion laws are still more liberal than European nations which we consider liberal, such as the UK, France, Germany, or Italy.

    The fundies are a problem, but we must recognize that there are more points of view on abortion than the two extremes. Though he may not be "STRONGLY" pro-Roe, Kucinich is anything but a fundamentalist. We need a moderator who can end the "us vs them" mentality or this war to overturn Roe V Wade will never end.

    I just see alarmist cries from the extremes of both sides. In my opinion, it's much more important for my candidate to be strongly anti-war and not controlled by AIPAC. Kucinich is the only choice in that respect.

  9. Hmmmm...

    "controlled by AIPAC"


    one of my teenaged student's ability to get an abortion after she's been raped by her step-dad...


    any one of the females who visits this blog (or who writes here) being able to get a late-term abortion using a "controversial" procedure some GUY may not like thinking about, even if NOT getting that procedure puts her life in danger...

    Nope. No choice there, not for me.

    And just for the sake of argument, do we REALLY think this country is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan right now because of "the Jewish lobby"? Really?

  10. I'm just asking, really. I just want to know if that's what folks think. I'm genuinely curious.

  11. With all due respect, you're posing a false argument. The "choice" you're posing between AIPAC and abortion isn't real. Abortion is not in danger of being outlawed by ANY democratic candidate.

    The AIPAC influence has shaped our entire Middle Eastern foreign policy, and extends far beyond this fairly recent war. We can get into that if you'd like, but it may take us off on a longer tangent. Again, the blame isn't solely on one lobby, but you can't deny the influence of pro-war millionaires.

  12. It might be illogical, but I was just working with the choice you gave me two comments up:

    "In my opinion, it's much more important for my candidate to be strongly anti-war and not controlled by AIPAC."

    Anti-war, anti-AIPAC, and anti-choice seemed to be okay, in your book. It's just not in mine.

  13. The AIPAC Abortion debate. I love it. Thank GOD we've got it all over the GOP in terms of passionate men. I love you both, you know.

    And I'm buying you both a drink at the salon tonight. QD, you can have extra hot coffee, sugar.

    Allow me to posit a compromise in the interest of peace, love, and understanding.

    QD: AIPAC is, imho, at the root of the neo-cons endless war on terror. A lot of Democrats who don't know a lot about foreign policy could learn a lot (and make themselves sick in the process) by listening to Pammy Atlas, then reading up on PNAC, AIPAC, and then just reading the online Jerusalem Post for a week. Endless war is a POLICY folks. Just saying.

    And for all you uncompromising pro-choicers: Abortion is for many in the heartland the only issue they vote on. I can't say why but I've seen it here in Alabama. A "W" sticker saves babies. They really believe that. It's unreal. And it's a cash cow for the religious right AND for NARAL. If we can find a candidate who will protect Roe and still work to reduce abortions through solid honest education (and yes QD I know you are on the forefront of that battle) we may have to hold our nose on the rhetoric end.

    Again, you two. Drinks at the salon are (always) on me. xo

  14. I respect your view, but I just don't see the abortion issue as being a strictly partisan one, nor is it as pressing as the issue of global occupation. If anyone other than Gravel, Paul, or Kucinich is elected, things will most likely get worse in the Middle East, and hence, worse for everyone else as a result. If our reason for electing someone is based primarily on their stance on abortion, with all other policies as secondary concerns, then we might as well consider voting for Giuliani.

    By the way, thanks for encouraging healthy debate Blue Gal and QD. As for the drink, I don't know if I'm ready for it after the night I had yesterday, but I can try.

  15. Now, don't get me wrong. I absolutely believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember that?) are still the number one priority here.

    But our rights here at home are being eroded (more like landslided), and the attack on abortion is indicative of that. The Democrats seem to be willing to throw little chips of Roe off as a way of showing how "moderate" (not liberal) they are (as with Clinton, especially), all the while forgetting that it's about real people, and real people's lives. Too many of them seem willing to sacrifice that.

    Somebody needs to say, "You see this line? That's it. We're not budging anymore."

  16. If you agree that the wars and Arab-Israeli conflict are the number one priority then why would you vote for someone who won't resolve either?

  17. Tell me which one - which electable one - will fix those things, and how he or she plans on doing it - exactly how - and I'll sign up. To-DAY.

    PS: Pulling our troops out tomorrow isn't a plan. Not if you care about what gets left behind. Are our soldiers stopping that? Obviously not. Yes, they should come home. But WE created this mess, and we have to help stop that killing, too.

  18. To clarify: Not by leaving the troops there. By pulling them out AND by brokering a peace deal, which means dealing with the terrorists.


I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!