by baldilocks

:::until they get into office:::

The Democrat Party’s latest strategy sits poorly with some of its loyal backers.

The Democratic party is facing a revolt from the left after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman said the party would back pro-life candidates in 2018.

The DCCC chairman, Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, told The Hill that there will not be “a litmus test” for candidates on the subject of abortion. Lujan’s comments come as Democrats attempt to rebuild a broken party that has hemorrhaged elected offices on both the state and national level.


“I’m afraid I’ll be withholding support for the DCCC if this is true,” said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose name was briefly floated this year as a candidate for DNC chair.

“What better strategy than to betray their base and reaffirm that women’s basic rights are negotiable and disposable,” said prominent liberal columnist Jill Filipovic.

“Reducing the rights of those with child-bearing capacity to a mere matter of opinion is utterly unconscionable,” declared New Republic writer Rachel Cote. She added: “The Democratic Party is in fact saying that there’s ‘no litmus test’ regarding their colleagues’ support of basic bodily autonomy. Terrible.”

Saying that the Democrat Party had taken the lead on abortion advocacy is a Captain Obvious assertion, but individual Democrats are far less homogenous in their opinions and beliefs about abortion. And now, after a long record of losing elections, with the 2016 election being the straw, the Party wants to win again.

And such is the nature of politicians and political parties regardless of affiliation: say what you need to say — even repudiate your most revered sacrament – then, when you win, drop the mask.

One more thing: I’ll bet that the usual suspects hollering about the DCCC’s pragmatism are merely playing their assigned roles; they won’t withhold any support, at least not where it counts: funding. They’re supposed to cry out in public protest about this. After enough pro-life Democrats and some Republicans are lured back into the fold, the professional Democrats will tighten their rhetoric right back up.

No, I don’t trust any of them. Why do you ask?

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

I was really taken aback by the speed that the Democrats reacted to Ladd Ehlinger’s latest little video.

Sign our petition calling on Republican candidate Craig Huey to condemn this offensive and sexist ad, and demand that the ad makers immediately take it down immediately.

I’m not sure how effective petition campaigns run by democrats are going to be in persuading republicans but as for the DCCC’s demand that the video be removed Ladd being Ladd has reacted as anyone who knows him would expect:

My answer: No! I didn’t kill anyone. I didn’t even enable anyone to kill anyone. And… oh yeah: s*** **! The ad’s funny. It makes me laugh. So if, for some reason, it’s pulled by youTube, a thousand will be launched in its place all over Algorez’ Internetz.

Sam Stein has an interesting description of the program Ehlinger is objecting to:

The spot, targeting Janice Hahn — the Democratic candidate in a special election to take over Rep. Jane Harman’s L.A.-based House seat — spun a fairly uncontroversial attempt to have reformed gang-members draw current ones away from that lifestyle into tales of demonic violence, taxpayer subsidized rape and drug abuse.

Apparently it was so uncontroversial that it was discontinued by the democratic mayor. Ladd again:

Because you’re only drawing more attention to your past of supporting criminals, Janice, and forcing policemen out of their jobs for doing their duty. So there you go. Claim victimhood all you like, but how many people were killed by your coddling? There’s a reason Mayor Villaraigosa took the program away from you. He’s a Democrat. So are you. Think about it.

On youtube as of 7:34 a.m. the dislikes on this video outnumber the likes by a factor of 5 and the “YouTube” community seeing the content of this video has decided to take decisive action:

I've blocked out the actual image of the video here

When I checked the video’s hits yesterday it was at about 302. That was about 100 hits less than the number of hits on my interview with Ron Paul Supporters at the St. Anselm debate. Thanks to the diligence of YouTube and the efforts of the DCCC, youtube the viewership of this video has been restrained,,,

only 30k+ views in 17 hours, That'll show him!

…or not

Now I think the issue is a valid one but I didn’t thing the video was appropriate for this blog so although I linked it I have not embedded it, meanwhile the people making the loudest objections have embedded the video (bypassing the Youtube blocks btw) driving the views by a factor of more than 100? Stacy McCain puts it in context:

Questions: Is Janice Hahn’s record as a city council member a legitimate issue in her congressional campaign? And shouldn’t she have to face tough questions about her record of support for this very bad policy? Are journalists in California just underpaid P.R. shills for the Democratic Party, or are they just too lazy to be bothered doing any actual reporting?

I suspect that if these questions were being asked by news organizations, we would not be arguing about a viral video this morning.

All morning Rush’s guest host (Mark Davis) has been telling us that Hoffman can’t win, it reached the point were it was just annoying to hear him.

Then this poll comes out:

A poll released today by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army.

The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009, shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and 22% undecided. The poll’s margin of error is +/- 5.66%. No information was provided about any of the candidates prior to the ballot question.

Gee what significant event could have happened in the last few days that could cause this. If you look at the news you wouldn’t know.

Robert Stacy encourages caution:

Of course — grain-of-salt time. The most important thing in these numbers, however, is the indication that the liberal Republican Scozzafava has slipped into third place.

Remember that NY23 has consistently voted 2-to-1 for the conservative Republican Rep. John McHugh. So if GOP voters in the district perceive Scozzafava as a likely loser, you can expect a decisive shift toward Hoffman by Republican voters whose main concern is not to give Nancy Pelosi another Democratic vote.

Michelle mocks Newt more:

The spoiler in this race is ACORN-friendly, Big Labor-embracing, tax-and-spender Dede Scozzafava. There is nothing — nothing — “mooooderate” about he

Dump Dede just repeats the release, as does conservatives 4 Palin, Ed Morrissey puts it under too good to check:

If the reaction of the GOP base to Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Hoffman didn’t get the attention of party leadership, then the results surely will. Many conservatives wondered whether splitting the vote now would be worth it in order to position Hoffman against a weak Democratic re-election effort in 2010. This survey shows that the vote split here may be benefiting Hoffman rather than damaging him.

How do we know these number have meat, particularly the unfavorables for Dede? The DCCC is ATTACKING HOFFMAN.

I wonder how many republicans who were willing to believe the old Kos poll will try to discredit this one? Over to you Newt and NRCC

Vote Hoffman.