Eight Senate Democrats Flip, Kill Parental Notification Bill

[Dandelion_Wine]

What a silly statement.

Thanks rlg.

The reality Dandelion_Wine is that neither party is a monolithic group. While there are far more pro-life Republicans than Democrats, there are not enough to get everything passed that we would like.

So are you saying that the problem lies completely or at least mostly with the Republicans because they couldn’t get every congressman of their party to vote for the legislation? … but the tone of your response suggests the blame is more towards the Republican party?

We hear over and over again why we have to vote Republican in order to protect life and that you can’t vote Democrat. And then when we do and Republicans are elected, THEN we hear excuses about why the Republicans hands are tied to do anything for this reason or that reason. HERE was an opportunity for the Republicans to do something REGARDLESS of what the Democrats wanted, and they didn’t finish the job. Can we stop believing the lie then?

Or are you saying we should only evaluate the congressman of our own party, even if a member of another party is representing us? Sorry, but they’re ALL held accountable. Or are you a Democrat and defensive because your party’s voting record is so clearly on the side of the culture of death? Or were you actually against the legislation and feel that a parent has no right to know if their daughter is about to abort her baby?

Why is it (and I stated this just today on another thread) that if I don’t agree 100% with the holy Republican party, automatically I must be a Democrat, a liberal, defensive of “my party”, etc. I know, so you can set up straw man arguments. Sorry. Not interested.

Please explain your logic. There are a lot of people like you and John that I just don’t understand. Here’s your chance to educate a lot of people. Go for it.

I can’t speak for John because I don’t know him. But here’s a little insight into me. I’m Catholic. I put my catholicism before any political party. I don’t let any party dictate to me what I should think. I’m tired of the two system party where we vote for the “lesser of two evils”. I’m tired of both sides claiming the other owns the media, that the other is morally bankrupt, that the other is to blame, etc ad nauseum. I’m tired of Democrats assuming I’m a right-wing Republican if I disagree with one little iota of what they say. I’m tired of Republicans assuming I’m a left-wing flaming liberal Democrat if I disagree with one little iota of what they say. {my favorite was when I was called an abortion-providing terrorist because I had a different opinion on something}

So here’s my take on this specifically. If the Democrats platform is to protect “women’s reproductive rights”, ie abortion, then I EXPECT them to vote that way. If the Republicans platform is pro-life and I hear CONSTANTLY how we can only vote for Republicans because they’re the only pro-life candidates and that we’ve got to vote for them because they’re going to DO something about abortion - yet they don’t seem to get anywhere for one excuse or another - I start thinking that abortion is the golden carrot for Republicans. If they actually DID something about it then they couldn’t convince moderate people like me that I needed to vote for them so that they can do something about it.

That’s my take.

 

[rlg94086]

We hear over and over again why we have to vote Republican in order to protect life and that you can’t vote Democrat. And then when we do and Republicans are elected, THEN we hear excuses about why the Republicans hands are tied to do anything for this reason or that reason. HERE was an opportunity for the Republicans to do something REGARDLESS of what the Democrats wanted, and they didn’t finish the job. Can we stop believing the lie then?

Why is it (and I stated this just today on another thread) that if I don’t agree 100% with the holy Republican party, automatically I must be a Democrat, a liberal, defensive of “my party”, etc. I know, so you can set up straw man arguments. Sorry. Not interested.

I can’t speak for John because I don’t know him. But here’s a little insight into me. I’m Catholic. I put my catholicism before any political party. I don’t let any party dictate to me what I should think. I’m tired of the two system party where we vote for the “lesser of two evils”. I’m tired of both sides claiming the other owns the media, that the other is morally bankrupt, that the other is to blame, etc ad nauseum. I’m tired of Democrats assuming I’m a right-wing Republican if I disagree with one little iota of what they say. I’m tired of Republicans assuming I’m a left-wing flaming liberal Democrat if I disagree with one little iota of what they say. {my favorite was when I was called an abortion-providing terrorist because I had a different opinion on something}

So here’s my take on this specifically. If the Democrats platform is to protect “women’s reproductive rights”, ie abortion, then I EXPECT them to vote that way. If the Republicans platform is pro-life and I hear CONSTANTLY how we can only vote for Republicans because they’re the only pro-life candidates and that we’ve got to vote for them because they’re going to DO something about abortion - yet they don’t seem to get anywhere for one excuse or another - I start thinking that abortion is the golden carrot for Republicans. If they actually DID something about it then they couldn’t convince moderate people like me that I needed to vote for them so that they can do something about it.

That’s my take.

I know you responded to more than just me, but I am not one who claims you have to vote Republican. I state my case for voting Republican, but I respect the right of other Catholics who put their Catholicism before any political party, as you and I both do, to make their own decisions when they vote.

That said, not all politicians vote according to the plank of the party, so you are making poor assumptions to think that all individual Republicans will vote pro-life or that all individual Democrats will vote pro-choice. Personally, I have a simple way to determine who to vote for in a campaign:

A) Not third party, unless they actually have a chance to be elected.

B) The stronger pro-life candidate, regardless of Democrat or Republican, if there is a clear distinction

C) The Republican if choices are equal on pro-life and/or there is no clear pro-life candidate (i.e. both are pro-choice, or both pro-life but not as strong as I would like)

My reasoning is that there are more pro-life Republicans, so the chances of pro-life legislation moving forward is greater if Republicans are in control. Not 100%…just greater.

As I have stated ad nauseum, I want more pro-life politicians in office. Their party affiliation is secondary.

 

[milimac]

I know you responded to more than just me, but I am not one who claims you have to vote Republican. I state my case for voting Republican, but I respect the right of other Catholics who put their Catholicism before any political party, as you and I both do, to make their own decisions when they vote.

That said, not all politicians vote according to the plank of the party, so you are making poor assumptions to think that all individual Republicans will vote pro-life or that all individual Democrats will vote pro-choice. Personally, I have a simple way to determine who to vote for in a campaign:

A) Not third party, unless they actually have a chance to be elected.

B) The stronger pro-life candidate, regardless of Democrat or Republican, if there is a clear distinction

C) The Republican if choices are equal on pro-life and/or there is no clear pro-life candidate (i.e. both are pro-choice, or both pro-life but not as strong as I would like)

My reasoning is that there are more pro-life Republicans, so the chances of pro-life legislation moving forward is greater if Republicans are in control. Not 100%…just greater.

As I have stated ad nauseum, I want more pro-life politicians in office. Their party affiliation is secondary.

I agree with most of your voting strategy rlg94086. One question though on point A. What are the boundaries for determining whether a third party is electable or not? A certain percentage in polls? I am also inclined to vote for the “unelectable” person, even if he is 3rd party, if the 2 major candidates are both about as bad on the life issues and the 3rd party is better. The dilemma comes in when you have an electable candidate who is “somewhat ok” on life issues compared to his major opponent, but the 3rd party unelectable candidate is exceptional. In such cases I usually vote for the “somewhat ok” candidate to hopefully prevent the opponent from winning.

 

[rlg94086]

No exact parameters…just historical realities A vote for a conservative 3rd party candidate will throw the election to the Democrats, whereas a vote for a liberal 3rd party will throw the election to the Republicans. Therefore, if I vote for a strong conservative, pro-life third party candidate, I might elect a militantly pro-choice Democrat by taking a vote away from a less-militant pro-choice or mildly pro-life Republican. That wouldn’t be good IMHO.

If I were to see a strong, three-way race, then I would vote for the best pro-life candidate in the race. However, they are very rareley strong. If I were in Connecticut, I might vote “third party” this year for Lieberman (IINO - Independant in name only ). But that’s not a three-way race (Zogby: Liberman 50%, Lamont 40%, whoever the Republican is 10% )

I agree with most of your voting strategy rlg94086. One question though on point A. What are the boundaries for determining whether a third party is electable or not? A certain percentage in polls? I am also inclined to vote for the “unelectable” person, even if he is 3rd party, if the 2 major candidates are both about as bad on the life issues and the 3rd party is better. The dilemma comes in when you have an electable candidate who is “somewhat ok” on life issues compared to his major opponent, but the 3rd party unelectable candidate is exceptional. In such cases I usually vote for the “somewhat ok” candidate to hopefully prevent the opponent from winning.

 

[milimac]

We hear over and over again why we have to vote Republican in order to protect life and that you can’t vote Democrat. And then when we do and Republicans are elected, THEN we hear excuses about why the Republicans hands are tied to do anything for this reason or that reason. HERE was an opportunity for the Republicans to do something REGARDLESS of what the Democrats wanted, and they didn’t finish the job. Can we stop believing the lie then?

Thanks for the explanation. It actually explains a lot – that it’s a voter education issue – a problem with no easy solutions. If you look at the parties as blocks and expect them all to vote the same way, well, it just doesn’t work that way. You need to look at individual candidates. You rightly complain about those who say to vote Republican as if only voting for a specific party ensures the right stance on life issues. But then you go against your own logic and complain that it was the Republicans’ fault for not passing the legislation. Neither you nor the “only vote Republican” voter can have it both ways.

So here’s my take on this specifically. If the Democrats platform is to protect “women’s reproductive rights”, ie abortion, then I EXPECT them to vote that way. If the Republicans platform is pro-life and I hear CONSTANTLY how we can only vote for Republicans because they’re the only pro-life candidates and that we’ve got to vote for them because they’re going to DO something about abortion - yet they don’t seem to get anywhere for one excuse or another - I start thinking that abortion is the golden carrot for Republicans. If they actually DID something about it then they couldn’t convince moderate people like me that I needed to vote for them so that they can do something about it.

Some points –

Republican does not necessarily equate to pro-life, but a strong case can be made that far more Republicans are pro-life than Democrats. Evaluate candidates individually.

If you insist on blaming a group rather than individual politicians for the failure to pass pro-life legislation, blaming the Republican party for not passing it even when the majority voted for it and the majority of Democrats voted against it and filibustered against it to require a super-majority in order to pass (and implement) the legislation is indeed silly.

I can see how when someone like me says “far more Republicans than Democrats are for pro-life legislation” that someone like you would take that to mean “always vote Republican”, but I definitely do NOT mean that. If a pro-life candidate were to run against Arnold in California I’d definitely vote for that candidate. So why do I bring up the party at all? Perhaps a desire that good Catholics Democrats would help change the Democratic party by not blindly voting for the Democrat. Pointing out that the majority of Democrats usually vote against pro-life legislation is my feeble attempt at a wake-up call. But we need to send the anti-life politicians home – Republican, Democrat, and other. As things stand now, that would mean that the majority of the Democrats in congress should go bye-bye.

I share your disappointment in the unfortunate reality of our 2-party system (for all practical purposes in most cases).

 

[estesbob]

I’m with John on this one. There’s all this rhetoric on this forum (see some below - just from this thread) about Republicans being pro-life and Democrats pro-death. If those Republicans would’ve voted pro-life, we wouldn’t have to blame the Democrats now would we?

39 Democrats voted to kill the bill-only 4 reublicans did. Tell me again how this is an indication that the party you vote for doesnt matter on life issues?

 

[Digitonomy]

blaming the Republican party for not passing it even when the majority voted for it and the majority of Democrats voted against it and filibustered against it to require a super-majority in order to pass (and implement) the legislation is indeed silly.

I don’t think there was a filibuster here (although most of the reporting hasn’t been very objective or precise in describing the process).

 

[estesbob]

I don’t think there was a filibuster here (although most of the reporting hasn’t been very objective or precise in describing the process).

There was a filibuster-57 Senators supported the bill-51 republicans and 6 Democrats. I think it is fair to say, given 87% of the Democrats voted against it , that the democrat party killed this bill. But then that should surprise no one giventhe Democrat Party’s unequvicable support of killing children.

 

[milimac]

39 Democrats voted to kill the bill-only 4 reublicans did. Tell me again how this is an indication that the party you vote for doesnt matter on life issues?

Actually, I don’t think the party matters, it’s how they vote or are likely to vote on life issues. I’m open to the idea that there are pro-life Democrat candidates, although I have no first-hand experience with any, and I know that there are pro-life Republicans. You should look at what the candidates actually say (and more importantly how they’ve voted in the past) to make the decision.

That being said, if you voted for candidates based on which is more pro-life, and then checked their party affiliation afterwards, I think that in the vast majority of races you would find that the candidate was a Republican.

On the flip side, if you voted for candidates that most supported the culture of death, and then checked their party affiliation afterwards, I think in the vast majority of the races you would find that the candidate was a Democrat.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

That said, not all politicians vote according to the plank of the party, so you are making poor assumptions to think that all individual Republicans will vote pro-life or that all individual Democrats will vote pro-choice.

That’s just it rlg - I DON’T believe that. That is not an assumption that I make. That’s what I’m TOLD and that’s what I HEAR from my Republican friends and people on this board. So I feel like :banghead: when I hear all this rhetoric about Republicans being pro-life and that I HAVE to vote Republican if I’m pro-life when in the end the “pro-life Republicans” had this in their sights and boom.

You said in another post on this thread that neither party is a monolithic group. And I totally agree. So let’s ALL stop pretending they are.

A) Not third party, unless they actually have a chance to be elected.

I will because I vote for the BEST candidate.

As I have stated ad nauseum, I want more pro-life politicians in office. Their party affiliation is secondary.

Now I’ll drink of beer with you over that!

You rightly complain about those who say to vote Republican as if only voting for a specific party ensures the right stance on life issues. But then you go against your own logic and complain that it was the Republicans’ fault for not passing the legislation. Neither you nor the “only vote Republican” voter can have it both ways.

. It’s not my logic I’m going against, it’s their’s. See my reply to rlg.

But we need to send the anti-life politicians home – Republican, Democrat, and other.

You wanna join rlg and I for that beer?

Tell me again how this is an indication that the party you vote for doesnt matter on life issues?

Thanks bob for making my point exactly.