Feminist Majority and NOW PACs

I don't know if this was sent nationwide or just to Pennsylvania, but Eleanor Smeal of Feminist Majority PAC and Kim Gandy of the National Organization of Women PAC sent out an email declaring that they weren't going to roll over for the establishment.

It remains to be seen whether this is saber rattling or an opening salvo.

The email was also co-signed by Martha Burk, Dolores Huerta, Gloria Steinem, Faye Wattleton, and Marie Wilson.

We have very disturbing news to report - some Democratic leaders are actively recruiting anti-abortion candidates and forcing out pro-choice Democrats!

Feminists and progressives must speak out to stop the Democratic Party from becoming "Republican-lite" on women's issues and undermining its own women candidates.

Barbara Hafer is a strong advocate for reproductive rights and was the frontrunner to take on extremist Republican incumbent Rick Santorum in the 2006 Pennsylvania Senate. She has just been forced out of the race by Democratic leaders and consultants in favor of an anti-abortion candidate they recruited.

Who did top Democrats pick to run against Santorum, one of the leading anti-abortion, anti-women's rights and anti-gay senators?

Top Democrats recruited Robert P. Casey Jr., a staunch abortion opponent in the mold of his father, the late Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey Sr. You may recognize his name from the 1992 Supreme Court case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, in which the senior Casey defended Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act, which was so extreme that the Supreme Court struck it down.

And who made sure that Hafer would not run? She was pushed out by Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who previously supported Hafer, then made the call forcing her out of the race; Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who serves as the top Senate recruiter for the Democrats (as head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee); and political consultants who are already lining up with the Casey campaign.

Send a message to each of them now - and tell them what you think.

To run another anti-abortion candidate against Santorum, as the Democrats did in 2000, will result in sure defeat. Hafer has won four statewide elections in Pennsylvania and is the strongest possible challenger to Santorum. A recent Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates poll conducted on behalf of Hafer showed that 60% of Pennsylvania Democrats, 54% of Independents, and 40% of Republicans are pro-choice.

Don't mistake this for a random act -- it is a calculated effort by party leaders to build a so-called "bigger tent" at the expense of women's rights. It's happening in Rhode Island as well, where an anti-abortion candidate has been recruited by Schumer and national Democratic leaders to run against a pro-choice candidate in the party's Senate primary.

If we don't stop this losing strategy now, they'll use it again and again.

Women are the vast majority of both the voters for, and fundraising direct mail supporters of, the Democratic Party. We deserve better than this. It will do women no good if both major parties are hostile to women candidates and women's rights.

Please sign our petition today to:

  • Sen. Charles Schumer (NY), Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the person responsible for recruiting Robert Casey Jr. to challenge Hafer; and
  • Pa. Governor Ed Rendell, who turned his back on Barbara Hafer and helped force her out of the race.
  • We must let the Democrats know that women will no longer be taken for granted.

    Please also forward this message to as many of your friends and family as possible.

    We must send a constant stream of email petitions flowing to the Democratic leaders - perhaps they have forgotten about the power of women's votes and the gender gap, but we have not. Thank you for standing up for women!

    For equality,

    Eleanor Smeal, Feminist Majority PAC
    Kim Gandy, National Organization for Women PAC
    Martha Burk
    Dolores Huerta
    Gloria Steinem
    Faye Wattleton
    Marie Wilson



    Display:


    Do I sense a pro-Pennacchio coalition? (none / 0)


    by craverguy on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:14:32 PM EST

    Sure defeat hehe (none / 0)

    Love the propaganda..
    "To run another anti-abortion candidate against Santorum, as the Democrats did in 2000, will result in sure defeat. Hafer has won four statewide elections in Pennsylvania and is the strongest possible challenger to Santorum. A recent Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates poll conducted on behalf of Hafer showed that 60% of Pennsylvania Democrats, 54% of Independents, and 40% of Republicans are pro-choice."

    Sure defeat? How about running Pennacchio or Hafer against Santorum.. now THAT'S SURE DEFEAT.

    by falcon4e on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:15:36 PM EST

    Re: Sure defeat hehe (none / 0)

    The propaganda is coming from you. The diary at least had polls and analysis to back up its viewpoint while all you have is more empty analysis.

    Why would Hafer go down to sure defeat? Convince us why Republican Lite is the way to go. Why would Hafer and Pennacchio lose when Casey can win?

    by Curt Matlock on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Sure defeat hehe (none / 0)

    A recent Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates poll conducted on behalf of Hafer showed that 60% of Pennsylvania Democrats, 54% of Independents, and 40% of Republicans are pro-choice.

    I'm not sure about the party breakdown of Pennsylvania, but it looks like the numbers are pretty close. (Taken another way, 40% of Democrats, 46% of Independents and 60% of Republicans are NOT pro-choice) This probably explains all the pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats in this state. Considering that pro-lifers tend to be more likely to be single issue voters, (by the very nature of the "choice" position people tend to be less passionate about it, especially men) I would say that it's a wash either way.

    I'm all for good candidates and good primaries, provided it doesn't get so nasty that the GOP gets free ammunition. That beings said, keep in mind that everyone loses if Santorum wins.

    by wayward on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:19:39 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Sure defeat hehe (none / 0)

    Hafer is much more "Republican lite" than Casey. Wasn't she a Republican until just a few years ago?

    I am not from Pennsylvania, but trying to act like liberal Republicans hasn't gotten the party very far lately.

    As Harry S. Truman said, "If you run a fake Republican against a real Republican, the real Republican will win every time"

    by wayward on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    i am sick of this (3.00 / 1)

    Why do Democrats think that abandoning their base is a good strategy? Single women who consistently poll high for Dems, who care deeply about Reproductive rights and women's health, are being sacrificed in the hopes that some soft R's might vote for a wishy-washy version of their politics over their clear champion. As a woman, I am not just anrgy -- I am insulted. Who stands up for me?

    BTW, Single women also care deeply about financial security, education, and jobs and they turned out in record numbers in the last election. Maybe, a better strategy would be to promote policies that benefit that constituency and keep them showing up to vote, instead of pandering to the opposition. And, while were at it how about not taking minorites, unions, and the working poor for granted. Just an idea.

    by Levana on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:28 PM EST

    Re: i am sick of this (none / 0)

    They're flailing. . .They don't want to fight for principals because the leadership is so entrenched and scared, they can't remember what their principals are.  This "we'll move closer to the Republicans" strategy has lost elections since Reagan was in office, and subsequently lost them the majority in both houses.  

    They need to figure out what the Democratic Party stands for and what they offer the people as an alternative from the Repubs agenda--and proudly fight for it.  

    The Dems need a revolution from within.  Hopefully, we can help!

    by bellarose on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:39:14 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: i am sick of this (none / 0)

    Is being pro-choice the defining issue about what it means to be a Democrat?

    The fact that I am even asking this question is part of the problem.

    As for myself, I will take the Harry Reids of the party over the Tom Daschles any day of the week.

    by wayward on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:06:24 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: i am sick of this (none / 0)


    "Is being pro-choice the defining issue about what it means to be a Democrat?"

    No, but it's one of them.

    by bellarose on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:38:38 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: i am sick of this (none / 0)

    What other issues would you hold in similar regard?

    by wayward on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: i am sick of this (none / 0)

    A general belief that a fundamental role is to effect substantive equality through ameliorative policies designed to overcome the lottery of birth.  A vigorous support for the civil liberties of all citizens.  
    by Adam B on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:44:13 PM EST
    [ Parent ]


    You are not logged in.

    In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

    If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.