Democratic Congressional Campain Committee Chair Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) wants to make sure Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) runs for re-election. Stupak, who may prove to be the worst thing to happen to abortion access since Henry Hyde, is considering a run for governor. Stupak's seat in Congress would be vulnerable to a Republican candidate, and he says the DCCC chair has already called "urging him to run for re-election."
Because it matters if the person restricting reproductive rights has a D or R next to their name? Because the Democrats want to do the work of limiting abortion access all by themselves? Because it wasn't obvious enough there's no major party in the US willing to take a stand for women's health?
Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check hits the nail on the head:
There you have it, gals. The Democratic Party once again has your back.To the firing squad.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: DCCC urges Stupak to run for re-election.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classic.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17905
Does it ever stop? Really now, ugh ugh ugh
What is the fucking point of voting for Democrats if they're just going to screw us over in the end? Look, I don't want to see Republicans in Congress, but I'm sick of being taken for granted by the Democrats because I'm a progressive woman - "well, it's not like you have anywhere else to go!" No. Fuck that. I will vote for a primary challenger or write in Buffy Summers before I vote for another Democrat who throws women under the bus - and if Democrats losing is what it takes for them to realize they actually need to start representing their constituencies, then so be it.
As someone who lives in Stupak's district and has voted third party in every House election since I was 18, I'm at glad that the Stupak amendment has, at least, brought national attention on something I've known since high school: Stupak is a dick. He runs far enough to the right, which gets him the Democrats by default and a lot of the moderate Republicans. This means the Republican challenger usually being some conservative Christian loon who looses by only getting 30% of the vote and no support from the state or national GOP.
The DCCC doesn't understand the district. It's not as if a more liberal Dem couldn't win the district. He or she wouldn't get 66% of the vote like Stupak. It's just that he or she would have to fight for it and the Democrats would have to put money into the campaign. The DCCC doesn't want to do that. They want Stupak to be able to phone in the election for a safe Democratic victory like has happened for, wow, almost 20 years now.
And crikey, teen pregnancy is unfortunately, really common in this area, and there are maybe two Planned Parenthoods covering the 700,000 plus people in his district, so it's not like he doesn't know the consequences of restricting abortion access. Stupak just doesn't give a damn.
While I despise Stupak's views on abortion as much as anyone else, I do see where the DCC is coming from. The Democrats cannot afford to lose their majority. America certainly can't afford the loss of that majority. If Stupak is the most electable candidate in a year which is predicted to go against Democrats, then he is the one behind whom progressive should throw their support. We can't both mock the litmus test which Republicans give their politicians and demand that ours take a similar test. As long as Stupak will stand with Obama on the majority of issues, it's his right to dissent from the pro-Choice view of the majority of his Democratic peers. Having a diversity of views about issues within the Democratic party's ranks ultimately makes the political party stronger and more relevant to a greater portion of the population. He's not a democrat who would win in New York or Massachusetts, but if he can win in Michigan, he deserves the DCC's support.
The democrat's majority doesn't mean much because so many of them are conservative democrats. Yes, it's a bit better than when the republicans were in charge, but choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. If I lived in that area, I'd vote for an independent candidate.
Thank you so much for posting this, I have posted it on my fb and retweeted it. I am also not a fan of Van Hollen, I had a friend who worked on his first congressional campaign and I am extremely disappointed this is what all that hard work has led to.