I asked NARAL in an interview as well about their strong opposition to Vinehout, and they indicated that their press release may have been a little hyperbolic, but accurate.
Another words, I did my homework. But for those who continue to oppose Vinehout for her past positions, check out this interesting coverage at Blue Cheddar.
If NARAL were truly interested in change, and holding a politicians feet to the fire, they would use their advocacy to convince lawmakers they were wrong and brag about of their successes in the political arena. Call me a liberal, but I think Vinehout got the message and is now a stronger advocate. Time will tell if I'm right.
Time will tell. I agree. However it's a test of time we can ill afford to take.
ReplyDeleteI will compare your current argument to the following (imaginary) scenario. Let's say there was a small cadre of persons who had good reason to believe that Scott Walker would talk in vague terms about brown bags and things "being on the table". He'd knit his brow whilst campaigning and try to charm the electorate. However, as the concerned group watches this thespian-ism, they feel nauseated, they have good reason to believe that if elected, and once un-reachably powerful, that Scott Walker would drop a bomb. Perhaps the people had ability to observe Walker's behavior while campaigning, or perhaps they had info form people close to Walker, that Walker had contact with seriously anti-union forces and that Walker was capable of swift and unexpected support of agendas that people DID NOT VOTE FOR. Those people might try to spread their message and be "poo-pooed" by people who "did their homework".
Let's examine your methods of Homework-Doing. You asked the candidate herself.
I repeat - You asked the candidate herself. The candidate (knowing this was a problem well in advance) had a (well-rehearsed) response. You have to do with your own conscience whatever you think you should do, but is that really Doing Homework? Is that, especially in today's political climate of professionally parsed lies and double-crosses, really anything approaching critical thinking? Not in my neck of the woods.
Here is what Vinehout has expressed in the past. That she is not personally supporting abortion rights, and that her solution to the "abortion problem" is to (are you ready?) "emphasize support for the mother". Emphasize support for the mother. This ins conjunction with the FACT that Vinehout WILL commit enough general Pro-choice votes to stay within her designated party, she will NOT cross the church. She clearly believes when push comes to shove she has to answer to a higher power. That's fine. That's moral UNLESS you soft-pedal, twist, and hide your views. Like Scott Walker did.
I am not saying she has never and will never again make some generally pro-choice ballpark votes. After she double-dealt Erpenbach in committee in 2008 I'm pretty sure she got a sit-down with party bosses. But she can not be trusted in the long run and with serious levels of power.
So what do we imagine support for the unplanned pregnant mother IS? Old fashioned Pregnancy homes like in 1945? Just like the Pregnancy Centers she has joined with Republicans to honor?
Is this what we want for our future cultural problem-solving? If it is, it should be openly and democratically discussed and voted upon. No more stealth candidates with "bombs". No more hidden agendas.
In closing I'd like to make an observation on the rank offensiveness of a Male Blogger just "asking the candidate" and then speaking in dismissive tones to a group such as NARAL, comprised largely of women all of whom do their homework and have grave concerns. Concerns that when brought to the attention of men in the party of choice" are dismissed.
I am actually in a much better position than you or Zach in Milwaukee et al to judge the Vinehout situation. And yet you dismiss and in this day and age, we find ourselves actually appraising a female candidate on her "huggy" and folksy appeal. All while soft-balling her and not pressing for more. Is this not what we complain about when the media does it? I believe it is. I am disappointed in your response, you did not do your homework in the least. Final example: if you were going to "do homework" on Paul Ryan's overhaul of healthcare, would you go ASK HIM ABOUT HOW GREAT it is, and call that good? Condescendingly dismiss those who are alarmed at Ryan? I guess you would.
I didn't just ask the question of Vinehout, I researched the issue before the interview. I'm nothing like the right wing talk hosts who stick to talking points and not reality or the facts.
ReplyDeleteAs for Ryan, my comments and blogs speak for themselves. In some way, I'm not sure what you're getting at, or talking about. You have an ax to grind that seems a bit rabid. Attacking me for pursuing Vinehout and getting some answers, is sad.
Thanks.
Anonymous, do you seriously believe there is no room for change?
ReplyDelete"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." That's what Vinehout says. Seems to me that's what Hillary Clinton said. That's a reasonable stance. It requires that there be adequate and appropriate sex education and contraception available.
Many people do not personally support abortion but support the right of others to obtain one when needed. Is that also an unsupportable political position to you?
Wisconsin is still a heavily Catholic state in many areas, and NARAL needs to take that into account if it wants to weigh in on who is an acceptable candidate. It also sounds like NARAL needs to have a sit-down with Sen. Vinehout, and talk it out face to face. No more dueling press releases and statements. That is also part of "doing homework."
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your lucid and nuanced explanation of why many are having a problem with Senator Vinehout's voting history on contraceptive care. Your analysis is neither rabid or hyperbolic.
Kathleen Vinehout is in damage control mode on this issue and knows she needs to address it effectively. Even though she may be able to put a good spin on the record , she can't change it. It is not going to go away. I agree wholeheartedly with all of your criticisms scrutinizing her voting record. The last thing voters want is to be tricked or traumatized again by someone paying lip service to their well founded concerns. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
This issue at hand goes back ad nauseam as to whether a woman may make health care choices for her own body, without infringement, that someone else may not approve of.
One of Senator Vinehout's latest explanations I read was that Wisconsin's Constitution has a strong conscience clause, impelling her to support exempt objecting pharmacists from being required to fill contraceptive Rx's. Instead, the pharmacy is required to fill it.(This is the world of corporations are people, and money is free speech.)Another such example -it's acceptable in that world for a physician who is a Jehovah's witness to refuse blood transfusions to a patient. There are many examples of health care workers having to reconcile these types of conflicts for a very long time.I think her use of the conscience clause defense is specious.If she had applied that standard in other areas it might give it some credibility in this case, instead of a damage control maneuver. Also, I don't know personally,, but I feel fairly certain that there there must be another Democratic Senator who also has a conscience but did not feel the need to invoke it to support the pharmacist's exemption as she did.
I don't think what I am asking for is unreasonable. I want people like the experienced and capable Senator Vinehout to keep their beliefs from trumping church and state separation requirement in the lawmaking process. I hope she gets the message from like minded people.
Her strategy may be say anything now in the primary to pacify her critics on this issue,then pivot again if she wins, after the primary. In the general election, that could make her more acceptable again to those willing to restrict women's rights.
I remain skeptical.