Mediaboss Marketing

Paul Spencer is the kind of candidate that Democrats need if they hope to retake the House in 2018.

He's lived in Arkansas's 2nd Districtfor 18 years. He dislikes big money in politics. In a congressional campaign ad, he touts how, "I'm a teacher and a farmer, and I know firsthand the struggles that so many of our working people face."

Theres just one problem: Spencer is pro-life. Its a belief that has him hovering dangerously over a widening chasm in his party.

Last week, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan provoked the ire of many progressives when he urged the Democrats to court pro-life candidates if they are to have any hope of retaking the 24 House seats they need for a majority.

PROGRESSIVES CLASH WITH WASHINGTON DEMS OVER CANDIDATES' ABORTION STANCE

"There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates," Lujan told The Hill.

His plea met with an instant rebuke from progressives. Fourteen groups from the National Abortion Rights Action League to Move-On Political Action to Emily's List to The Daily Kos issued a Statement of Principles which read, in part: "policies that limit access to abortion and force medically unnecessary procedures are oppressive to women, especially low-income women and women of color."

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan provoked the ire of many progressives when he urged the Democrats to court pro-life candidates if they are to have any hope of retaking the 24 House seats they need for a majority. (Reuters)

"The problem is they have this ideological purity at the top where you can't oppose any abortion at any time along the continuum," says Marjorie Dannenfelser of the conservative Susan B Anthony List. "At the same time, a third of Democrats identity as pro-life according to Gallup."

Some say opposing all pro-life candidates will not help the Democrats.

HUCKABEE: DEMOCRATS HAVE BECOME THE PARTY OF PRO-ABORTION

"Their strategy is hurting the party," says Kristen Day of Democrats for Life of America."Being told I don't belong in the Democratic Party. You can't be a Democrat if youre pro-life,and I can't be pro-life cause I'm a Democrat."

Spencer, the House candidate, is trying to circumventthe divide.

"Ive alreadyinformed the Democratic Party here in Little Rock that I don't want to receive any of their money," he said. "I welcome their support and their advice but I don't wish for their money. And the DCCC, in Washington, I've already had that discussion with them as well."

The Democratic Party, meanwhile, is trying to straddle the line. A new program, called "A Better Deal,"avoids any mention of abortion rights.

ROSIE O'DONNELL: WOMEN SHOULD FORM THEIR OWN PARTY IF DEMOCRATS DON'T DEFEND ABORTION RIGHTS

And while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi appeared to welcome pro-life candidates in a May interview with the Washington Post, last week she retreated to a familiar position.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi appeared to welcome pro-life candidates in a May interview with the Washington Post, but she backed away from the position last week. (AP)

"I respect a woman's right to choose," she told reportersat her weekly press conference.

The rift may be widening. After Lujan's call to welcome pro-life candidates into the Democratic fold, actress and party activist, Rose ODonnell tweeted: "Women should form their own party if Dems do this."

Doug McKelway joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in November 2010 and serves as a Washington-based correspondent. Click here for more information on Doug McKelway.

Read this article:
Democrats divided over whether party should welcome pro-life candidates - Fox News

Kirsten Day | The Washington Post

A week ago, New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Lujn, the Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman, announced there will be no litmus test based on abortion for Democrats seeking office in 2018. "As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America," Lujn said.

This attention to local values and interests was the crux of Howard Dean's "50 state strategy," which earned victories nationwide for the party in 2006 and 2008. As Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez put it back in April: "To execute a 50-state strategy, we need to understand what's going on in all 50 states, and attract candidates who are consistent with their messages but perhaps not on 100 percent of the issues. ... If you demand fealty on every single issue, then it's a challenge."

Still, many Democrats were horrified by Lujn's remarks. "Shame on Democrats backing anti-choice candidates," Guardian writer Jamie Peck declared, for acting "as if issues like abortion don't have profound economic implications." "Of course abortion should be a litmus test for Democrats," New York Times contributing columnist Lindy West added. "There is no recognizable version of the Democratic Party that does not fight unequivocally against half its constituents' being stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives." Plenty more chimed in along those lines.

But when Democrats or others on the left bash the party for funding Democratic candidates with whom they disagree on abortion, they miss a key point: Democrats who oppose abortion aren't like Republicans who oppose abortion. Not only are their priorities different, so are their policies. While Republicans who oppose abortion usually aim simply at banning the practice or making it difficult, Democrats who oppose abortion tend to take a whole-life approach, and to focus especially on reducing incentives to have abortions, rather than creating penalties.

Consider Peck's allegation that by funding candidates who oppose abortion, the Democratic party is de facto refusing to consider the economic aspects of abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats who oppose abortion are keenly aware of how many abortions are the result of financial stress and economic pressures, and we advocate constantly to reduce those burdens.

Signed into law along with the Affordable Care Act were several legislation proposals crafted by Democrats for Life of America called the Pregnant Women Support Act. We intended our proposals to reduce abortion by getting rid of many of the forces that push women toward abortion in the first place. We moved to eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition for insurers, require State Child Health Insurance programs to cover mothers, fully and federally fund WIC and provide federal funding for day care. Likewise, when Senate Republicans moved last year to institute a 20-week ban on abortion, we at Democrats for Life of America urged legislators to include a paid family leave package along with the bill, with the aim of reducing financial burdens on pregnant women and their families. And in 2012, antiabortion Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that would ensure that pregnant women receive reasonable adjustments on the job and that they don't face retribution for asking to be accommodated.

In other words, one of the factors that best distinguishes Democrats who oppose abortion from Republicans who do is the very fact that Democrats are cognizant of the pressures that finances and the economy can place on a person's life, and we are invested in freeing people from them to the greatest degree possible.

Democrats who oppose abortion want to stop abortion, but that doesn't entail a wholesale stripping away of women's autonomy, as the policies outlined above indicate.

When Lujn says that Democratic candidates who run for office in districts with strong antiabortion leanings deserve funding from the party, he isn't saying that the party is going to fund candidates whose positions are tantamount to those of Republicans. He's rightly observing that Democrats real, bona fide Democrats do have a range of views on abortion, and to win as many elections as possible, the party has to recognize that.

Day is the Executive Director of Democrats For LIfe of American and advocates for a pro-life voice within the Democratic Party.

Read more here:
KIRSTEN DAY: Democrats need not be afraid of anti-abortion liberals - The Northwest Florida Daily News

House Democrats sent a letter to the Trump administration Monday demanding information about the task forces established by the president to reduce burdensome government regulations.

The letter points to a report that found the task forces have been operating "largely out of public view and often by political appointees with deep industry ties and political conflicts."

Democrats are demanding Mick Mulvaney, who runs the Office of Management and Budget, produce a long list of information about the task forces.

"Simply put, it is unacceptable for federal agencies to operate in such a clandestine and unaccountable manner, especially when the result could be the undoing of critical public health and safety provisions," Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, who is the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote along with three other party lawmakers who serve on related panels.

The Democrats are demanding Mulvaney provide specific documents and information related to the work of the task force groups, including a list of the names, titles and organizations of every member of each task force and all documents and communications by non-government employees participating on the task forces.

Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 24 ordering each agency to establish a task force aimed at reducing "the regulatory burden placed on the American people."

Democrats said the composition of the task forces need scrutiny.

In one instance, the Environmental Protection Agency task force includes the wife of a top oil company lobbyist.

Some of the agencies have refused to provide a list of task force members, the Democrats noted.

"Withholding the names and titles of task force participants may also violate the Freedom of Information Act," the letter said.

See the original post:
Democrats demand information on Trump regulation reduction - Washington Examiner

News & Observer

NC Republican leader slams Democrats for 'murdering blacks in Wilmington' News & Observer A North Carolina Republican leader on Sunday slammed Democrats for murdering blacks when he referenced the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot in several tweets. NCGOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse was responding to a tweet from the N.C. ...

More:
NC Republican leader slams Democrats for 'murdering blacks in Wilmington' - News & Observer

Last week saw the Democratic Party save the Affordable Care Act, a remarkable victory for an out-of-power party. Members celebrated in the traditional Democratic way tumbling into pointless and repetitive infighting, prodded happily along by people(like me) in the media. Watching the latest round of this, I had a question that cut against some of my reportorial interests:

Why do Democrats keep falling for this stuff?

Start with the abortion litmus test fight,which is on at least its third iteration since March. It's the same every time a Democrat (Tom Perez/Nancy Pelosi/Ben Ray Lujn) is asked whether the party will make support for abortion rights mandatory for its candidates. Of course not, a Democrat says as Rep. Ben Ray Lujn (D-N.M.), chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, put it, You need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district. This comports with our current version of reality, in which the DCCC dutifully spends money every two years to send antiabortion Democratic Reps. Collin C. Peterson (Minn.) and Daniel Lipinski (Ill.) back to Washington.

Continue with the Pelosi Question the nagging, obvious issue that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will become Speaker of the House if Democrats win next year. McClatchy's Alex Roarty finds, as I have found, that Democrats running in swing districts including districts Hillary Clinton won last year can rarely bring themselves to say whether they want Pelosi to be speaker again. Like Roarty, I have tossed this question into every interview with an aspiring Democratic member of Congress; hardly ever has one indicated, without qualification, support for Pelosi.

In both cases, I keep wondering why Democrats can't find the escape hatch. Republicans have had similar problems with messaging very recently, and to a great extent, they've figured them out.

In a word: They pivot.

They start with the shared notion that the media's questions are meant to hurt them, and they find ways to spin the question around.

The Republican version of the Pelosi Question was (and still is) the Trump Question. In 2016, vulnerable Republicans handled questions about their explosive nominee by saying that he had his flaws, but their opponents would be puppets of Hillary Clinton.

It baffles me that no 2018 Democrat can do something similar. Pelosi is unpopular; they can acknowledge right away that they disagree with her. But they never pivot to say that their opponents back Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), whose favorable numbers have tumbled to Pelosian levels, or Donald Trump, who's tumbled even further. Seriously, I've never heard a Democrat do this they've just internalized that Pelosi is unpopular, so they curl up as if hiding from a hungry bear.

The Republican version of the abortion question? It's asked all the time: Do they support a total ban on abortion, even in cases of rape and incest? After 2012, when two Republican candidates blew winnable Senate races by using the question as a cue to ramble about pregnancies that result from rape, Republicans (led by the antiabortionSusan B. Anthony PAC) actively trained their candidates to pivot. The new answer: Why, exactly, were Democrats so extreme? In 2014, multiple Republicans turned the question around, daring the media to ask Democrats, as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) put it, When is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?

Democrats should know by now that they'll be asked whether they have abortion litmus tests for candidates. In almost every case, they can redirect the question by pointing out that even antiabortionDemocrats refuse to defund Planned Parenthood; refuse to make the Hyde Amendment permanent (as we saw in a House vote this year); refuse, in other words, to sign onto scores of unpopular antiabortion measures.

Republicans had to lose a series of elections to figure out these pivots; they got lucky with Trump. As a reporter, I benefit tremendously when politicians can't figure a way out of a question. But I'm surprised every time.

Visit link:
One weird trick Democrats could use to stop stumbling over Pelosi and abortion questions - Washington Post