Posts Tagged ‘ stupak ’

2010 Political Review (Slideshow)

December 31, 2010
By

Here is a look back at just a few of the political stories we were talking about in 2010. What do you think 2011 will bring?

Mac D’Alessandro: We Don’t Need More Democrats; We Need Better Democrats UPDATED

August 25, 2010
By

 

Time magazine predicts healthcare is no longer the number one issue on midterm voters’ minds. “Voters are far more concerned about the stalled economy or soaring budget deficits,” writes Time. But here in Massachusetts, the state that elected the 41st vote, healthcare is still dominating the discussion in at least one race leading up to the September 14 state primary. What little discussion taking place, that is.

Incumbent Stephen Lynch is facing a challenge in the ninth Congressional District from Mac D’Alessandro, the former New England Political Director for the Services Employees International Union. Lynch, you will recall, voted no on healthcare reform because he says the bill “stripped out all the significant reform.” D’Alessandro disagrees. “He should tell that to the people in the district whose children have pre-existing conditions,” he says. D’Alessandro says he got in the race because “The thought of (Lynch) going unchallenged gave validity to his healthcare vote.”

Winning in September won’t be easy for D’Alessandro. He entered the race late with little name recognition and far fewer funds and insider connections than Lynch. But he is running a smooth grassroots campaign and he easily wins over many of the people he meets on the campaign trail. D’Alessandro, you see, is not afraid to take a stance. I met with D’Alessandro last week, and while our discussion focused primarily on women’s rights, he had plenty to say on healthcare, Iraq, immigration reform, private industry, the environment and the economy. 

On disenfranchised women voters who feel let down by the Democratic Party, he says, “It’s not just women. Lots of progressives do. That’s why we don’t need more Democrats in office. We need better Democrats.” 

On the glass ceiling, he says, “It’s titanium coated and some of it is still so ingrained in our culture. I noticed especially with healthcare that a lot of people aren’t even aware of the insidious nature of some of the insurance industry’s practices.”

On choice, he states on his website, “A woman’s right to choose must always be protected.” And he is clearly against the Stupak amendment, something Lynch supported with an early healthcare vote in Congress last fall. 

You can read his position on the other issues on his campaign website. You cannot do that at Lynch’s site. With less than three weeks to go until the election, Lynch’s issues page merely says, “Coming soon.”

Stephen Lynch's blank Issues Page

So even if one could argue Lynch is not afraid to take a stance; that going against the Democrats on healthcare – in Kennedy country no less – was certainly a bold move, you have to wonder why he won’t defend, discuss or debate his vote.

On August 5, D’Alessandro invited Lynch to a series of debates. As of today, no debates have been scheduled. D’Alessandro’s team was told by Lynch’s campaign that the Congressman has assembled a debate negotiation team, but that team hasn’t been able to put anything on the calendar. If that isn’t a telling example of how Washington doesn’t work, than what is?

The voters in Massachusetts Ninth Congressional District deserve information, transparency and discourse. But Lynch isn’t cooperating. I have never found a candidate with whom I agree 100 percent and D’Alessandro is no exception. But assuming we align on the issues that matter most to me, I will always support the candidate who is willing to both talk, and listen, to their constituents. That is why, “I am a Mac.” 

Reminder: today is the last day to vote in the September primary.

UPDATE: Mac D’Alessandro announced on September 2 he has received the endorsements of three leading pro-choice, pro-women’s health organizations — NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC, the National Organization for Women PAC, and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Six Things We Need to Do to Send a Woman to the White House

July 9, 2010
By


Last week I posted a question at SkinnyScoop: Do you think a woman will be elected president in your lifetime? Most of the respondents (81 percent) said yes. No one answered definitely not. I sure hope the respondents are right, but getting there won’t be easy.

One respondent at SkinnyScoop wrote, “We are ready and there are more of us than them, we just need to get out and vote ladies.” It seems simple. But it’s not. The sad truth is we haven’t moved past the misogyny and sexism we witnessed during Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Senate hopeful Martha Coakley didn’t do herself any favors when she made some bad campaign decisions last winter but the press didn’t do her many favors either. And the Republicans don’t seem to treat their women much better, as Newsweek recently pointed out.

I remember during Clinton’s presidential run people groaning about the word misogyny. “I’m so sick of feminists talking about misogyny,” friends and coworkers would tell me when I was discussing things Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann had said on television the night before. I challenge those same people to come up with a better explanation for Playboy’s recent article (which has been removed from its site) “The Top 10 Conservative Women We Love to Hate” complete with hatef**k ratings for each woman.

The fact is the media can be a brutal place for women in politics and we are far from achieving any kind of critical mass. Women make up only 17 percent of Congress today and only six states have women serving as governor. So, if we are going to put a woman in the White House ladies, we have work to do. Here are six things you can do to make it happen.

1. Contribute. It takes a lot of money to get elected. Just recently, two promising women candidates ended races citing lack of support from their party, the Democrats. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner lost the primary to Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Connie Saltonstall quit the race to replace Michigan’s Congressman Bart Stupak. Saltonstall said she didn’t think she could raise the necessary funds to run without her party’s support.

2. Volunteer. It also takes a lot of people power to run a campaign. Get involved. Too often I hear mother’s in my community tell me they just don’t have the time to get involved because their children need them at home. I tell them my children need me out fighting for the things I believe will secure their future. Your kids will be fine if you spend a few hours at the phone bank. Trust me.

3. Support qualified women candidates. Period. As Gloria Feldt says, “… when there are two candidates–one male and one female–who are both well-qualified and represent my positions major issues I care about, I will support the woman until such time as women have our fair 50% share of the elected official slots. Then and only then will gender not matter.”

4. Start local. Get involved in your local politics and help groom future women leaders.

5. Run. Better yet, why don’t you run for office? Check out She Should Run or attend a Whitehouse Project event for more information and access to support.

6. Vote.

 

And in other news, congratulations to Mary Jo McMenamin who won a Yogi Max from Yogibo for answering our question at The SkinnyScoop.

Connie Saltonstall and the MDP’s Big But

May 11, 2010
By

Yesterday  Connie Saltonstall announced she was withdrawing from the Democratic Primary for U.S. Representative in Michigan’s First Congressional District, and blamed  a lack of support from the state’s Democratic Party for her decision. She had been hoping to replace Rep. Bart Stupak, an Ignorant Male Legislator recipient.

In a statement, Saltonstall said, “I am forced to do this because it has become apparent to my campaign that the leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party has preemptively anointed Gary McDowell as their Democratic candidate. … While I think Gary MacDowell is a very nice person, I cannot support his anti-choice politics, and I cannot support a party that endorses candidates who vote to restrict women’s legal rights and access to healthcare.”

State Representative McDowell voted against an amendment that would allow late-term abortions if a physician determined the procedure was necessary to preserve the health of a woman. Some have even referred to McDowell as Bart Stupak’s hand-picked successor.

After reading Saltonstall’s comments about the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP), I visited their website to get a better understanding of the group’s mission and values. What I discovered: the MDP has a big but problem.

There is a document on the website called Party Platform. It starts with this encouraging sentence, “The Michigan Democratic Party believes that government must be open, honest, responsive, and accountable to the people it serves,” and goes on to say, “… Democrats in this state are seeking the Common Good – the best life for each person of this state. The orphan. The family. The sick. The healthy. The wealthy. The poor. The citizen. The stranger. The first. The last.”

However, deeper into the document, I discovered a big but.

“We pledge our support for reproductive freedom, BUT we respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue.”

Perhaps that “but” (emphasis mine) doesn’t seem that outrageous to you. But what if it was applied to other statements in the party platform? For example,

“We will champion the cause of Civil Rights for all citizens, working to eliminate all forms of discrimination, and nurturing more than tolerance… ”

Now add a but.

We will champion the cause of Civil Rights for all citizens, BUT we respect that some individuals feel the need to discriminate.

Or,

We oppose the insurance industry’s unfair practice of redlining when setting insurance premiums BUT sometimes it’s okay.

We will vigorously promote measures that ensure the full civil rights of Michigan’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens BUT we will not pass legislation to protect those rights.

We will insist on ending the insidious practices of racial profiling and unlawful targeting of African-Americans, Arab-Americans and LGBT citizens (among others) but…

We will fight age discrimination in all its forms but…

We continue our commitment to Native American tribes and their sovereignty, self-governance, but…

But what? It’s not okay to compromise on the rights of any group, and that includes women. No if, and or buts about it.

Saltonstall’s campaign is a tough reminder that women face an uphill battle in getting elected. The hill is even steeper when they run on a platform of protecting women’s rights. BUT if we work together, we can make it happen.

Gloria Feldt reminds us how, “… when there are two candidates–one male and one female–who are both well-qualified and represent my positions major issues I care about, I will support the woman until such time as women have our fair 50% share of the elected official slots. Then and only then will gender not matter.”

To learn about and support qualified women candidates visit the Women’s Campaign Forum.

Breaking: Connie Saltonstall Out

May 10, 2010
By

Connie Saltonstall, the would be successor to Rep. Bart Stupak, has withdrawn from the Democratic Primary for U.S. Representative in Michigan’s First Congressional District citing lack of support from the state’s Democratic Party.

We will write more on this tomorrow. For now, here is the press release.

“I regretfully announce that I am withdrawing from the Democratic primary for U.S. Representative in Michigan’s First Congressional District.

I am forced to do this because it has become apparent to my campaign that the leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party has preemptively anointed Gary McDowell as their Democratic candidate. They are replacing Bart Stupak with another Upper Peninsula, Anti-Choice, Anti- Women’s healthcare rights candidate.  From past experience I realize that with the Michigan Democratic Party actively opposing me, I will not be able to raise the money necessary to conduct a winning campaign. I am not the only candidate that has been the target of this kind of manipulation. I hope that in the future the Party will reject this interference and insist on an open primary allowing voters to choose the candidate who represents their values.

I challenged Bart Stupak because he was threatening to take down the healthcare bill. His amendment threatened access for women to get health insurance even with private funds. There is an aggressive movement across the country to pass laws to restrict women from making responsible healthcare choices to protect their health, and furthermore, to criminalize their actions. The same people who think government should stay out of their lives, are legislating government into the doctor’s office. Individuals, families, and physicians  are the ones who should be making the complicated and difficult decisions we all face regarding reproductive healthcare and life issues.

While I think Gary MacDowell is a very nice person, I cannot support his anti-choice politics, and I cannot support a party that endorses candidates who vote to restrict women’s legal rights and access to healthcare. It is time for Democrats to stop compromising on this issue. I am proud that my campaign has raised the dialogue on healthcare and choice, and I will continue my leadership role concerning these issues.

I want to thank all of my supporters in the First District and across the nation who contributed their time, money, endorsements, and good wishes for my campaign. We were first in the race, raised more money than any other Democratic candidate to date, collected  over 1500 petition signatures, put together a professional campaign team and a path to victory. Without the interference of the democratic leadership, we might just have won the election!”

Bart Stupak and Carrie Bradshaw

April 9, 2010
By

 

 It’s good news Friday. First, one of our top picks for IgnorantMale Legislator, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), is not seeking reelection.

And the trailer for “Sex and the City 2″ is available. Check it out here and enjoy the weekend.

WWND?

April 8, 2010
By

Ladies, I need advice. Here’s the dilemma. What would you do if you wanted to affect positive change but you knew the change would not be well received if it was presented by a woman to an entrenched ole’ boys network? My head is telling me to get a man to make my case publicly and to stay behind the scenes for the sake of my cause.  After all, isn’t the cause more important than being right?

But I don’t think it’s that simple. By remaining behind the scenes, do I risk winning the battle and losing the war? My heart is telling me to own the process and the “boys” will have to just deal with it. If I take this course of action, my proposal might fail, but at least a woman will have stepped forward and spoken up for what she believes. And frankly, I think we need to see a lot more of that going on. But then again, if I do speak out and lose the battle, does the establishment get to use me as yet another proof point for why women don’t belong in the game?

When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was strategizing to move the health care bill through the House of Representatives last fall, she negotiated with Rep. Bart Stupak and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and struck a deal. Stupak would add an amendment to the bill severely restricting a woman’s access to reproductive services and in return his cronies would pass the bill. Following the passage of the amendment, women had to choose between accepting a bill that sacrificed their rights and supporting reform that would help so many Americans.  

Obviously, my own dilemma is much smaller than healthcare reform and reproductive rights. But still it’s a compromise and the personal is political. What should I choose: stand up and fight or shut up and win?

WWND? What would YOU do?

April Fools

April 1, 2010
By

 

 

Another Wild Weekend

March 22, 2010
By

We spent all day yesterday glued to our Blackberry and to C-SPAN. The House finally voted in favor of healthcare reform sometime around 11 p.m. Sunday – but not before some very ugly moments elapsed and some serious negotiation –using women’s health as the bargaining chip – took place.

On Saturday, protestors in Washington yelled hateful racial and homophobic slurs at several Congressmen, and in cyberspace plenty of hateful posts could be viewed in Twitter streams. Then late Sunday night, someone on the House floor yelled “baby killer” at Rep. Bart Stupak.

Stupak had been threatening to derail healthcare reform unless the final bill included his amendment containing some very restrictive abortion language. But the bill before the House contained the Nelson amendment, which also restricted access to abortion coverage. Even though pro-choice advocates said the Nelson amendment was a major blow to women’s reproductive rights, Stupak wouldn’t yield. After whisperings about closed door negotiations between Stupak and Pelosi, and Pelosi and pro-choice Democrats, a deal was struck. President Obama agreed to sign an Executive Order effectively supporting the Hyde amendment, which is already in place and prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions, and Stupak agreed to support the bill.

Meanwhile, closer to home, it looked as if we might be getting our first application for the job we just posted. Late Friday a group of supporters posted on Blue Mass Group and Facebook that Harmony Wu, a Needham, Mass. resident and Democratic activist, was considering a run for the 9th Congressional District if Rep. Steven Lynch voted against the healthcare bill. He was indeed a “no” vote.

Here is a statement from Ms. Wu issued this morning. “Late last night, members of Congress cast an historic vote to pass comprehensive health care reform. I know I share my excitement of its passage with millions of Americans across the country. My gratitude goes to all who worked tirelessly to earn this important victory; when we work together, and each do our part, we can make great things happen. As excited as I am about this historic step toward health care for all, I am extremely disappointed that my Congressperson voted against the health care reform bill, demonstrating that he is out of touch with our families’ most important concerns. With this betrayal of key Democratic principles and priorities, we in the 9th district must strongly question whether Mr. Lynch can effectively represent us and stand up for our values. In the coming days, I will be in discussion with my family, members of my community, activists, and voters from across the district as I consider challenging Mr. Lynch for the Democratic nomination for Congress from our 9th district.”

We don’t know enough about Harmony Wu yet to determine if she meets all of the qualifications outlined in our job description. But she is definitely one to watch.

A job opening and an induction

March 19, 2010
By

Wanted: A candidate for the Mass Ninth Congressional District. This individual will represent all of the people of the district and lead with courage and integrity. The candidate must value diversity and equality and must not allow their personal religious views to enter into politics. Must be able to vote for the people — not just to keep the seat. Disingenuous candidates need not apply. A strong track record of pro-woman actions and support is a plus. A small army of supporters is ready to assist you in this position. Applications will be reviewed immediately.

And now, an induction: Hello Ladies has “deemed” that Representative Stephen Lynch D-MA “passes” the test for an Ignorant Male Legislator Award and we are inducting him into the group. Rep. Lynch probably could have joined after he voted yes on the Stupak amendment, but we gave him a pass. However, after hearing his “disingenuous” reasons for why he plans to vote no on healthcare reform, we are welcoming him to the club.

Lynch told WBZ radio that the bill “stripped out all the significant reform.” We disagree. In the current system women pay significantly higher premiums and face other discriminatory practices based on pre-existing conditions that include having a c-section, being raped or having been the victim of domestic abuse. Righting those wrongs is pretty significant. The bill would also help the currently uninsured, an estimated 32 million Americans. Again, rather significant.

We agree with Lynch on one thing: this bill is far from perfect. For instance, the anti-abortion amendments in both the House and the Senate version are some of the most restrictive moves against reproductive rights in decades. And the lack of a public option is highly disappointing. But we need healthcare reform and cannot afford to “go back to the drawing board” for an indefinite number of years.

Lynch’s move smells of a calculated political play to hang onto his seat in November following a Brownswell of voters who shook up the Commonwealth in January.

One more thing: Katha Pollitt has a great piece in The Nation on pro-choicers and healthcare reform. Check it out here.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes