Kristen Day on Michael Medved

[rlg94086]

Sorry no news link…just this from the www.michaelmedved.com website…

Mentioned On the Show

• September 26: On the show today, Kristen Day discusses her new book: Democrats for Life.

Did anyone else catch the interview? I tried to call in to ask Kristen if she votes for a pro-choice Democrat over a pro-life Republican, but I couldn’t get through. Can any of my Democrat friends explain that for me…do you just put aside the abortion issue, in favor of the other Democrat planks?

The other thing she mentioned was the 95/10 initiative. It is interesting but also troubling the way I read it.
democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=45

Medved basically said she is doomed for failure.

 

[MJE]

I caught only a few minutes of the show. God bless her. Altho, I think she is niave re: the current leaders of the party.

 

[rlg94086]

I caught only a few minutes of the show. God bless her. Altho, I think she is niave re: the current leaders of the party.

I agree, but I would like her to be successful in turning the Democrats around. What I don’t understand is how committed Catholic Democrats vote. Obviously, you can work hard to elect pro-life Democrats in the primaries and general election. But, what do you do when you are faced with a pro-life Republican versus a pro-choice Democrat? Vote Republican? Vote third party? Or, just ignore the life issues and vote Democrat for the other issues?

 

[Richardols]

I agree, but I would like her to be successful in turning the Democrats around.

Me, too. I’m a member of Democrats For Life.

What I don’t understand is how committed Catholic Democrats vote. Obviously, you can work hard to elect pro-life Democrats in the primaries and general election. But, what do you do when you are faced with a pro-life Republican versus a pro-choice Democrat? Vote Republican? Vote third party? Or, just ignore the life issues and vote Democrat for the other issues?

You left out one choice. Not voting for either.

Given that the GOP and the President have done little for the pro-life cause over the last six years and probably will do not much in the next two, I find no problem as a Democrat voting either on the other issues (my Dem politicians here are not pro-choice militants, even those who are pro-choice) or not voting for a particular candidate.

Though many would just vote Republican, it’s not an option for me, just as it’s not for Mrs. Day. A really nice and articulate lady BTW.

 

[rlg94086]

Me, too. I’m a member of Democrats For Life.

You left out one choice. Not voting for either.

Given that the GOP and the President have done little for the pro-life cause over the last six years and probably will do not much in the next two, I find no problem as a Democrat voting either on the other issues (my Dem politicians here are not pro-choice militants, even those who are pro-choice) or not voting for a particular candidate.

Though many would just vote Republican, it’s not an option for me, just as it’s not for Mrs. Day. A really nice and articulate lady BTW.

Thanks Richard! I didn’t mean to leave that option out. I just genuinely wanted to know how you (and others) vote, since the pro-life Democrat candidates are few and far between.

So, you work hard on primaries and local races to get pro-life Dems and only vote when they are an option. Understood. That is similar to voting third party, from a practical standpoint (i.e. you’ve removed a vote from both of the major parties who have a chance of winning, so you are *de facto *supporting the party you oppose - in your case Republican).

BTW…I was very impressed by Mrs. Day and admire her and your efforts to move your party to a party of life. It is a tough battle.

Medved brought up the fact that things did change. When Reagan was governor of California, pro-choice legislation passed with primary support from Republicans. Those against were majority Democrat. Interesting flip-flop in positions.

 

[Richardols]

Thanks Richard! I didn’t mean to leave that option out. I just genuinely wanted to know how you (and others) vote, since the pro-life Democrat candidates are few and far between.

So, you work hard on primaries and local races to get pro-life Dems and only vote when they are an option. Understood. That is similar to voting third party, from a practical standpoint (i.e. you’ve removed a vote from both of the major parties who have a chance of winning, so you are *de facto *supporting the party you oppose - in your case Republican).

Yes, sometimes it turns out that way, but I will ordinarily support a pro-choicer when he or she isn’t militantly so and when not doing so might mean a crucial Republican victory. I, to be sure, don’t want another eight years of the GOP.

I’m less concerned about the issue these days as it is obvious that the GOP’s actions over the last six years and its candidates tend to be only marginally pro-life. It has sunk in importance as an issue for both parties as I see it.

 

[rlg94086]

Richard, that doesn’t make any sense. Even if you are correct about the GOP being “marginally pro-life”, why would that make you less concerned about the issue? If that’s the case, why support Democrats for Life?

Yes, sometimes it turns out that way, but I will ordinarily support a pro-choicer when he or she isn’t militantly so and when not doing so might mean a crucial Republican victory. I, to be sure, don’t want another eight years of the GOP.

I’m less concerned about the issue these days as it is obvious that the GOP’s actions over the last six years and its candidates tend to be only marginally pro-life. It has sunk in importance as an issue for both parties as I see it.

 

[Richardols]

Richard, that doesn’t make any sense. Even if you are correct about the GOP being “marginally pro-life”, why would that make you less concerned about the issue? If that’s the case, why support Democrats for Life?

Because I want both a pro-life Dem to win an election. I won’t vote for either a militantly pro-choice Dem or Republican, but could settle for a lip service pro-choicer if absolutely necessary. Then there’s always the choice of not voting for the candidates running for that particular position.

 

[rlg94086]

Because I want both a pro-life Dem to win an election. I won’t vote for either a militantly pro-choice Dem or Republican, but could settle for a lip service pro-choicer if absolutely necessary. Then there’s always the choice of not voting for the candidates running for that particular position.

Understood. You are a practical voter like myself. Even though the life issue is huge, there are many other aspects of the Democratic Party that I don’t agree with, so I am a Republican. You have the reverse view.

The only thing that confused me was the way you worded…“I’m less concerned about the issue these days…” What you meant is the net effect of politicians on the issue, not your personal concern with the issue. Right?

For me, I won’t support a pro-choice primary candidate, period. Typically, they are soft on other Republican issues as well anyway. In the main election, however, I will vote for them unless they are “militantly pro-choice”. Very few Republicans fit that profile.

 

[Richardols]

The only thing that confused me was the way you worded…“I’m less concerned about the issue these days…” What you meant is the net effect of politicians on the issue, not your personal concern with the issue. Right?

Right.