Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
If PP's endorsement makes sense on activism grounds, so does HRCs.
Sanders still has to push back on them, though. That kind of powerhouse dropping in behind your already-winning opponent isn't something that can go unanswered. Hence him tying them to her through the establishment to try and rouse some dissatisfied supporters.
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Man, thanks, I was thinking Hillary Rodham Clinton for awhile
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
If PP's endorsement makes sense on activism grounds, so does HRCs.
Sanders still has to push back on them, though. That kind of powerhouse dropping in behind your already-winning opponent isn't something that can go unanswered. Hence him tying them to her through the establishment to try and rouse some dissatisfied supporters.
Or he could try addressing why they made that decision. When you call your health care plan "Medicare for All" and not address the Hyde Amendment once, it shouldn't be surprising that the largest group dedicated to reproductive rights might not think you're as dedicated to their cause as the candidate that has attacked the law by name.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
This is a bad thing to say. You should not feel this way. You still seem to be arguing that PP somehow "brought this on themselves" when they most certainly did not.
EDIT: I'm also really stressing to believe that most anyone who was in favor of not donating to after their endorsement, had actually donated anything to start with. People that fair-weathered tend not to be the most charitable.
Javen on
+1
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
Planned Parenthood -- just like Bernie Sanders, or Hillary Clinton, or the RNC, or the NRA, or like any other political entity -- is not owed anyone's support. Every decision has a price to be paid with one constituency or another.
The price PP will pay for endorsing Hillary is... infinitesimal. They made what is probably a sound strategic decision.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Except that Planned Parenthood isn't a victim in this. They endorsed a candidate for a political reason because they think they can gain more from Clinton and her supporters than Sanders and his supporters. You're not a victim if you make a choice that makes someone seek an alternative group to donate to.
Edit: To be clear, I don't think its a good idea to pull a personal donation from Planned Parenthood over something this small, especially with no real mainstream alternatives to donate to. But I think part of the reason there aren't a ton of alternatives is because they don't choose sides among democrats, so people don't really have a reason to seek an alternative in the first place.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
They made a choice and people treat them accordingly. Freedom of Assiciation doesn't just work when we want it to. They're not entitled to anyone's money
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
Planned Parenthood -- just like Bernie Sanders, or Hillary Clinton, or the RNC, or the NRA, or like any other political entity -- is not owed anyone's support. Every decision has a price to be paid with one constituency or another.
The price PP will pay for endorsing Hillary is... infinitesimal. They made what is probably a sound strategic decision.
Agreed. While Bernie would fight for and defend PP, I could easily picture Hillary ripping out the throat of any Republican that opposed her on women's issues.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
Well, Sanders didn't really make the call to pick this fight. I think he should say something about the importance of Planned Parenthood funding, but it's not really on him to be nice to the people who are siding against him. Just like it's not on Clinton to play nice with groups like MoveOn that have endorsed Sanders.
I believe the phrase "this ain't beanbag" applies in both directions here.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
Well, Sanders didn't really make the call to pick this fight. I think he should say something about the importance of Planned Parenthood funding, but it's not really on him to be nice to the people who are siding against him. Just like it's not on Clinton to play nice with groups like MoveOn that have endorsed Sanders.
I believe the phrase "this ain't beanbag" applies in both directions here.
Sanders is not a goddamned puppet, he's a man campaigning for president of the United States. He made his own decision to attack Planned Parenthood; there are plenty of people who have endorsed Clinton he didn't bother to paint with the "too establishment" brush.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
Well, Sanders didn't really make the call to pick this fight. I think he should say something about the importance of Planned Parenthood funding, but it's not really on him to be nice to the people who are siding against him. Just like it's not on Clinton to play nice with groups like MoveOn that have endorsed Sanders.
I believe the phrase "this ain't beanbag" applies in both directions here.
Sanders is not a goddamned puppet, he's a man campaigning for president of the United States. He made his own decision to attack Planned Parenthood; there are plenty of people who have endorsed Clinton he didn't bother to paint with the "too establishment" brush.
He couldn't not answer. He was asked directly about it. What, is he not supposed to say anything?
No, they chose someone else and that's fine. But it's not on him to handle them with kid gloves when they injected themselves into the process. This is how overtly political entities get treated. It's the same for literally every group that drops endorsements.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
Well, Sanders didn't really make the call to pick this fight. I think he should say something about the importance of Planned Parenthood funding, but it's not really on him to be nice to the people who are siding against him. Just like it's not on Clinton to play nice with groups like MoveOn that have endorsed Sanders.
I believe the phrase "this ain't beanbag" applies in both directions here.
Sanders is not a goddamned puppet, he's a man campaigning for president of the United States. He made his own decision to attack Planned Parenthood; there are plenty of people who have endorsed Clinton he didn't bother to paint with the "too establishment" brush.
He couldn't not answer. He was asked directly about it. What, is he not supposed to say anything?
No, they chose someone else and that's fine. But it's not on him to handle them with kid gloves when they injected themselves into the process. This is how overtly political entities get treated. It's the same for literally every group that drops endorsements.
He could have not attacked them in his answer, yes.
What's the point of a progressive candidate if he's willing to attack progressive organizations because they aren't lining up behind him?
E: This is honestly the first time I've been seriously upset with Sanders over an actual position he has staked out, not just concerned that he's doing poorly about outreach or explaining himself poorly.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
Well, Sanders didn't really make the call to pick this fight. I think he should say something about the importance of Planned Parenthood funding, but it's not really on him to be nice to the people who are siding against him. Just like it's not on Clinton to play nice with groups like MoveOn that have endorsed Sanders.
I believe the phrase "this ain't beanbag" applies in both directions here.
Sanders is not a goddamned puppet, he's a man campaigning for president of the United States. He made his own decision to attack Planned Parenthood; there are plenty of people who have endorsed Clinton he didn't bother to paint with the "too establishment" brush.
He couldn't not answer. He was asked directly about it. What, is he not supposed to say anything?
No, they chose someone else and that's fine. But it's not on him to handle them with kid gloves when they injected themselves into the process. This is how overtly political entities get treated. It's the same for literally every group that drops endorsements.
He could have not attacked them in his answer, yes.
What's the point of a progressive candidate if he's willing to attack progressive organizations because they aren't lining up behind him?
He didn't attack them. He gave a plausible reason why a group with as much clout as Planned Parenthood gave a completely unprecedented endorsement to his opponent. Because he was asked for one on national television.
The only way to meet the standards you seem to be setting out here would be for him to look at the camera and shrug helplessly. Which would have been great optics, let me tell you. He's not under any obligation to submarine his own messaging because PP decided not to endorse him.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
Well, Sanders didn't really make the call to pick this fight. I think he should say something about the importance of Planned Parenthood funding, but it's not really on him to be nice to the people who are siding against him. Just like it's not on Clinton to play nice with groups like MoveOn that have endorsed Sanders.
I believe the phrase "this ain't beanbag" applies in both directions here.
Sanders is not a goddamned puppet, he's a man campaigning for president of the United States. He made his own decision to attack Planned Parenthood; there are plenty of people who have endorsed Clinton he didn't bother to paint with the "too establishment" brush.
He couldn't not answer. He was asked directly about it. What, is he not supposed to say anything?
No, they chose someone else and that's fine. But it's not on him to handle them with kid gloves when they injected themselves into the process. This is how overtly political entities get treated. It's the same for literally every group that drops endorsements.
He could have not attacked them in his answer, yes.
What's the point of a progressive candidate if he's willing to attack progressive organizations because they aren't lining up behind him?
He didn't attack them. He gave a plausible reason why a group with as much clout as Planned Parenthood gave a completely unprecedented endorsement to his opponent. Because he was asked for one on national television.
The only way to meet the standards you seem to be setting out here would be for him to look at the camera and shrug helplessly. Which would have been great optics, let me tell you. He's not under any obligation to submarine his own messaging because PP decided not to endorse him.
He's submarined his own messaging with me by attacking two of the most important progressive organizations in the country because they aren't feeling the Bern.
The exact question he was asked was: "Are you competing for those groups’ endorsements and not getting them? Or are you not competing for them?"
His exact response was: "What we are doing in this campaign, it just blows my mind every day. Because I see it clearly: we’re taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment. So, I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund and Planned Parenthood. But you know what? Hillary Clinton has been around for a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment."
He didn't have to link the political establishment with Wall Street. He didn't have to imply that the HRC or Planned Parenthood were part of the establishment he was taking on. He could have cut the first part of his answer entirely, and left the second part as simply "Hillary has been working with them for a very long time and may have influenced their decision." He could have said that it was disappointing and he will continue to champion human rights. He could have brought up his endorsement from MoveOn, and specifically mentioned how he was voted in as their candidate.
His answer was unquestionably attacking them and linking them to the common enemy of his campaign, and I'm unwilling to accept that as "good politics."
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
Well, Sanders didn't really make the call to pick this fight. I think he should say something about the importance of Planned Parenthood funding, but it's not really on him to be nice to the people who are siding against him. Just like it's not on Clinton to play nice with groups like MoveOn that have endorsed Sanders.
I believe the phrase "this ain't beanbag" applies in both directions here.
Sanders is not a goddamned puppet, he's a man campaigning for president of the United States. He made his own decision to attack Planned Parenthood; there are plenty of people who have endorsed Clinton he didn't bother to paint with the "too establishment" brush.
He couldn't not answer. He was asked directly about it. What, is he not supposed to say anything?
No, they chose someone else and that's fine. But it's not on him to handle them with kid gloves when they injected themselves into the process. This is how overtly political entities get treated. It's the same for literally every group that drops endorsements.
He could have not attacked them in his answer, yes.
What's the point of a progressive candidate if he's willing to attack progressive organizations because they aren't lining up behind him?
He didn't attack them. He gave a plausible reason why a group with as much clout as Planned Parenthood gave a completely unprecedented endorsement to his opponent. Because he was asked for one on national television.
The only way to meet the standards you seem to be setting out here would be for him to look at the camera and shrug helplessly. Which would have been great optics, let me tell you. He's not under any obligation to submarine his own messaging because PP decided not to endorse him.
So he was "forced" to respond? He couldn't deflect to something else like he's done multiple times before, be it Hillary's emails or Bill Clinton's womanizing?
Planned Parenthood "knew" what they were doing when they dressed up like that. If they didn't want Bernie to insult them they shouldn't have done that.
Also PP might be a little pissed because Sander's supporters very publicly threatened to stop donating to PP because of the endorsement. It's not Sanders, but I can definitely see them defending against even a sliver of perceived shade from Sanders after that gooseshit.
This is exactly what I was saying upthread.
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
Okay.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
It's not their fault, per se, but it is a result of their actions. And one they could have (and probably did) seen coming.
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Only if you want to believe that PP's leadership didn't know exactly what could happen. They made a call and acted on it. Treating them like victims is disrespecting their agency as a political entity.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
Well, Sanders didn't really make the call to pick this fight. I think he should say something about the importance of Planned Parenthood funding, but it's not really on him to be nice to the people who are siding against him. Just like it's not on Clinton to play nice with groups like MoveOn that have endorsed Sanders.
I believe the phrase "this ain't beanbag" applies in both directions here.
Sanders is not a goddamned puppet, he's a man campaigning for president of the United States. He made his own decision to attack Planned Parenthood; there are plenty of people who have endorsed Clinton he didn't bother to paint with the "too establishment" brush.
He couldn't not answer. He was asked directly about it. What, is he not supposed to say anything?
No, they chose someone else and that's fine. But it's not on him to handle them with kid gloves when they injected themselves into the process. This is how overtly political entities get treated. It's the same for literally every group that drops endorsements.
He could have not attacked them in his answer, yes.
What's the point of a progressive candidate if he's willing to attack progressive organizations because they aren't lining up behind him?
He didn't attack them. He gave a plausible reason why a group with as much clout as Planned Parenthood gave a completely unprecedented endorsement to his opponent. Because he was asked for one on national television.
The only way to meet the standards you seem to be setting out here would be for him to look at the camera and shrug helplessly. Which would have been great optics, let me tell you. He's not under any obligation to submarine his own messaging because PP decided not to endorse him.
So he was "forced" to respond? He couldn't deflect to something else like he's done multiple times before, be it Hillary's emails or Bill Clinton's womanizing?
Planned Parenthood "knew" what they were doing when they dressed up like that. If they didn't want Bernie to insult them they shouldn't have done that.
Okay, I think this is the point where we scale back the rhetoric a bit
Guys, I'm serious. The idea that PP is the victim here is hugely insulting to their political decisionmakers.
This was a decision they made, knowing full well that anyone they didn't endorse was going to be put in a terrible position and that some percentage of their supporters were going to be unhappy enough to react in this sort of a way. They traded universal support among Democrats, candidates and rank and file, for the potential surge in political clout that comes with early support of an eventual President.
They
did
the
math.
I don't agree with their decision, but it was theirs to make. I also don't agree with the decision to withdraw donations from them over this. But there's no way they didn't see this coming. It's not that they were just doing their thing and got blindsided by some asshole; they went out prepped and ready for the asshole because the payoff was worth it. I guarantee you that everything we've seen out of them since this little throwdown started was choreographed ahead of time because they aren't idiots. They knew they needed a plan for exactly this contingency because it's what they were signing on for.
Everyone in this scenario is acting according to their own best incentives. PP made the endorsement because it helped their cause politically, Sanders said what he said (which, again, wasn't anti-PP unless you really stretch to make it that way) because it fed his messaging and minimized the impact of their Clinton endorsement. Some Sanders supporters are trying to hold PP hostage because they're assholes and it's the best way to maximize their impact on the situation.
This is realpolitik in action. This is what PP signed up for when they decided to stop being neutral, and they absolutely knew it. These aren't babes in the woods, they're experienced and connected political operators. They can handle themselves. Handwringing on their behalf is unfounded.
Guys, I'm serious. The idea that PP is the victim here is hugely insulting to their political decisionmakers.
This was a decision they made, knowing full well that anyone they didn't endorse was going to be put in a terrible position and that some percentage of their supporters were going to be unhappy enough to react in this sort of a way. They traded universal support among Democrats, candidates and rank and file, for the potential surge in political clout that comes with early support of an eventual President.
They
did
the
math.
I don't agree with their decision, but it was theirs to make. I also don't agree with the decision to withdraw donations from them over this. But there's no way they didn't see this coming. It's not that they were just doing their thing and got blindsided by some asshole; they went out prepped and ready for the asshole because the payoff was worth it. I guarantee you that everything we've seen out of them since this little throwdown started was choreographed ahead of time because they aren't idiots. They knew they needed a plan for exactly this contingency because it's what they were signing on for.
Everyone in this scenario is acting according to their own best incentives. PP made the endorsement because it helped their cause politically, Sanders said what he said (which, again, wasn't anti-PP unless you really stretch to make it that way) because it fed his messaging and minimized the impact of their Clinton endorsement. Some Sanders supporters are trying to hold PP hostage because they're assholes and it's the best way to maximize their impact on the situation.
This is realpolitik in action. This is what PP signed up for when they decided to stop being neutral, and they absolutely knew it. These aren't babes in the woods, they're experienced and connected political operators. They can handle themselves. Handwringing on their behalf is unfounded.
To repeat: You cannot claim that Planned Parenthood is at fault for being attacked without claiming that Bernie is at fault for attacking them. You are ascribing about as much agency to Bernie as I do to my car by claiming he "had to" respond.
I'm not handwringing on their behalf, I'm just angry and disappointed that Bernie is willing to lump Planned Parenthood in with The Enemy as soon as it's convenient for him. That's fucking Republican-Caricature-of-Clinton levels of awful.
I'm not assigning fault. I'm examining the situation.
Fault is only useful if you're looking to create villains to inhabit a narrative. That's not what this is.
Edit: I will say that Sanders should call out the people pulling PP funding, specifically on the grounds that those funds that go to help women get medical treatment are incredibly important. He doesn't have to endorse a political wing that didn't endorse him, however.
I'm not assigning fault. I'm examining the situation.
Fault is only useful if you're looking to create villains to inhabit a narrative. That's not what this is.
That's what Sanders is doing, so yeah, it is. I invite you to reread his answer and tell me that you honestly don't think he is painting them as an enemy he is fighting against.
I'm not assigning fault. I'm examining the situation.
Fault is only useful if you're looking to create villains to inhabit a narrative. That's not what this is.
That's what Sanders is doing, so yeah, it is. I invite you to reread his answer and tell me that you honestly don't think he is painting them as an enemy he is fighting against.
Yes, Sanders is attempting to paint Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Council as villains. That is an absolutely fair assessment, mmhmm.
I'm not assigning fault. I'm examining the situation.
Fault is only useful if you're looking to create villains to inhabit a narrative. That's not what this is.
That's what Sanders is doing, so yeah, it is. I invite you to reread his answer and tell me that you honestly don't think he is painting them as an enemy he is fighting against.
Yes, Sanders is attempting to paint Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Council as villains. That is an absolutely fair assessment, mmhmm.
...seriously dude?
Read Sander's response and tell me you honestly do not see him as painting them as the establishment he is fighting against.
milski on
I ate an engineer
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited January 2016
milks could you do the world a favor and trivialize rape less?
This is not "victim blaming" and the concern about it has gotten shameful and disgusting.
I'm not assigning fault. I'm examining the situation.
Fault is only useful if you're looking to create villains to inhabit a narrative. That's not what this is.
That's what Sanders is doing, so yeah, it is. I invite you to reread his answer and tell me that you honestly don't think he is painting them as an enemy he is fighting against.
I watched his answer, actually. He gave an appraisal of the situation that, frankly, isn't wrong. PP is absolutely an establishment organ of the party. I'm actually kind of flabbergasted that this is still getting pushback. There's a reason that their endorsement was so powerful for Clinton, and it's not that they're some group of outsiders scraping around the edges of the party for support. The reason this conversation persists is that Planned Parenthood is an institution within the party, for good reason.
Other than that, he was just pushing his narrative, as would have Clinton if the shoe was on the other foot. If they are backing his opponent, then in that sense they are his enemy. In his pursuit of the Democratic nomination for President, they absolutely oppose him. They made themselves his enemy.
He didn't attack them as an entity, he was asked why they didn't choose to endorse him and he gave a plausible answer that fit his narrative. He made no value judgment as to their service record or their policy objectives. If it was an attack, it was the softest one imaginable.
I'm not assigning fault. I'm examining the situation.
Fault is only useful if you're looking to create villains to inhabit a narrative. That's not what this is.
That's what Sanders is doing, so yeah, it is. I invite you to reread his answer and tell me that you honestly don't think he is painting them as an enemy he is fighting against.
I watched his answer, actually. He gave an appraisal of the situation that, frankly, isn't wrong. PP is absolutely an establishment organ of the party. I'm actually kind of flabbergasted that this is still getting pushback. There's a reason that their endorsement was so powerful for Clinton, and it's not that they're some group of outsiders scraping around the edges of the party for support. The reason this conversation persists is that Planned Parenthood is an institution within the party, for good reason.
Other than that, he was just pushing his narrative, as would have Clinton if the shoe was on the other foot. If they are backing his opponent, then in that sense they are his enemy. In his pursuit of the Democratic nomination for President, they absolutely oppose him. They made themselves his enemy.
He didn't attack them as an entity, he was asked why they didn't choose to endorse him and he gave a plausible answer that fit his narrative. He made no value judgment as to their service record or their policy objectives. If it was an attack, it was the softest one imaginable.
Again, he literally said that he is not fighting against the Wall Street Establishment, but also the Political Establishment, and claimed that PP and the HRC were part of that.
Explicitly linking Planned Parenthood with the group he attacks the most on his campaign is not the softest attack imaginable. It's actually a pretty strong attack, coming from Sanders.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
As an aside PP has endorsed candidates before as Obama got the endorsement in 2008 and 2012. I dont think anyone went back to refute the claim that PP doesnt endorse candidates because of all the weeds we seem to be lost in.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
Yes, because the only explanation for PP to endorse Clinton is because her supporters pushed it. It couldn't be because Sanders has been going around talking about "Medicare for All" while not speaking one entire word about the Hyde Amendment - the law that would completely restrict the plan that he was pushing from covering abortions, and thus would defund Planned Parenthood as a provider under his plan.
And this goes, once again, to his biggest glaring weakness - that his constant focus on class and corporations leaves him myopic to other issues. Arguing that Planned Parenthood is part of the "political establishment" that needs to be shaken up is an incredibly insulting way to describe an organization that has been living with a bullseye on its back (in some cases literally) for the past decade.
Maddow: Senator, let me ask you about another issue in terms of the way the campaign is going forward. Your policies on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice are very consistent and should be very attractive to progressive groups, but there has been a series of of high profile endorsements from groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, they've gone out of their way to make very early endorsements for Secretary Clinton. Just today, Human Rights Campaign, the gay rights group, announced their Clinton endorsement. Are you competing for those groups' endorsements and not getting them, or are you not trying to get them?
Sanders: Rachel, I would love to have the endorsements of every progressive organization in America. We're very proud to have received recently the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We have received the endorsement of Democracy For America. These are grass-roots organizations representing millions of workers. What we are doing in this campaign, and it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment. I will challenge anybody with regards to to my record on LGBT issues. You know I was one of the few, relatively few, to oppose and vote against DOMA, etc. In terms of women's rights I believe we have a 100% lifetime pro-choice record. But, you know, that's what happens in politics. Look, I'm gonna do well and hopefully win not because of establishment support. What we are going to do well at, and are doing well at, is rallying the grass roots of this country. We've been going all over the country having just huge turnouts of people coming to our rallies. We have two and a half million individual campaign contributions. More than any campaign in history. So, Rachel, I concede. I'm not going to get establishment support. I'm not going to get the support of the governors and the senators, with a few exceptions. Or many of the major organizations. Why we are doing so well, why I believe we are ahead now in New Hampshire, why we're closing the gap in Iowa, why we are gaining in Nevada and South Carolina and why we're doing better and better all over the country is not from the establishment, it is from the grass roots of America.
This is a pretty standard message pivot. Sanders even claims kinship with HRC and PP specifically, via the 'I have supporters' line.
As an aside PP has endorsed candidates before as Obama got the endorsement in 2008 and 2012. I dont think anyone went back to refute the claim that PP doesnt endorse candidates because of all the weeds we seem to be lost in.
They endorsed Obama in the general. They stayed out of the primary.
By their own reckoning, this is the first time such a thing has been done.
Posts
Sanders still has to push back on them, though. That kind of powerhouse dropping in behind your already-winning opponent isn't something that can go unanswered. Hence him tying them to her through the establishment to try and rouse some dissatisfied supporters.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Man, thanks, I was thinking Hillary Rodham Clinton for awhile
Shifting your decades old endorsement strategy is not without its risks.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yeah, but fuck those people, they're the worst kind of slactivist hypocrites.
I'm not saying I support it. Just that this is exactly the risk they knew they were taking when they made the endorsement. PP is monolithic because there's never been a perceived need for a competitor. I'd really rather this never had become a thing, because factionalizing support for the only source of critical health services for far too many women is stupid and short sighted.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Or he could try addressing why they made that decision. When you call your health care plan "Medicare for All" and not address the Hyde Amendment once, it shouldn't be surprising that the largest group dedicated to reproductive rights might not think you're as dedicated to their cause as the candidate that has attacked the law by name.
...how is Planned Parenthood at fault for these so-called supporters being geese?
As I talked about upthread at length, Planned Parenthood enjoyed basically universal support from our side of the aisle because they were only political in an external way; they challenged non-Democrats about their shitty women's health views. That was part of the reason they never endorsed before now, because that universal support was riding on them being neutral in party primaries, particularly the big one. The example I gave earlier was absolutely true; endorsing Obama cost those environmental groups support both during and after the 2008 primary from people that supported Clinton. In that case, there was a ready made alternative in any one of the other dime-a-dozen environmental groups that didn't make the same endorsement. For PP it's a little tougher because until now there's never been a push for an alternative since they've never been viewed as even a minor political enemy to any given Democrat that wasn't already seen as pretty goosey within the party for their women's health views.
The people running PP are smart, they had to know this was going to happen on some scale. It might be that they aren't worried about it and they might be right. Or it could be a schism that results in a wave of non-Clinton-endorsing PP analogs popping up to swoop in and grab the funds from people who didn't like this move.
Given that PP is primarily a women's health organization and only tangentially a political entity, I would much rather the incredibly important work they do to actually help women in areas without proper support wasn't being put at risk by this.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This is a bad thing to say. You should not feel this way. You still seem to be arguing that PP somehow "brought this on themselves" when they most certainly did not.
EDIT: I'm also really stressing to believe that most anyone who was in favor of not donating to after their endorsement, had actually donated anything to start with. People that fair-weathered tend not to be the most charitable.
Planned Parenthood -- just like Bernie Sanders, or Hillary Clinton, or the RNC, or the NRA, or like any other political entity -- is not owed anyone's support. Every decision has a price to be paid with one constituency or another.
The price PP will pay for endorsing Hillary is... infinitesimal. They made what is probably a sound strategic decision.
Are you... are you victim blaming Planned Parenthood?
Edit: To be clear, I don't think its a good idea to pull a personal donation from Planned Parenthood over something this small, especially with no real mainstream alternatives to donate to. But I think part of the reason there aren't a ton of alternatives is because they don't choose sides among democrats, so people don't really have a reason to seek an alternative in the first place.
Like I said, PP is headed by very smart people. They had to know that this was a possible outcome of their endorsement. No one is obligated to support PP, just like no one is obligated to support the DNC or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz. People make decisions about where to send their money based on a number of metrics, and until now the metric for Planned Parenthood was pretty simple. This endorsement complicated it, and they knew it would. They decided this was important enough to risk it.
I don't think the people pulling their funding are in the right. But I think it's their call to make.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Agreed. While Bernie would fight for and defend PP, I could easily picture Hillary ripping out the throat of any Republican that opposed her on women's issues.
If Planned Parenthood is responsible for people being awful and stopping their funding, then Bernie is equally culpable for those people because he attacked them for not picking him. You can't pick and choose who to blame for making political calculations.
I believe the phrase "this ain't beanbag" applies in both directions here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sanders is not a goddamned puppet, he's a man campaigning for president of the United States. He made his own decision to attack Planned Parenthood; there are plenty of people who have endorsed Clinton he didn't bother to paint with the "too establishment" brush.
No, they chose someone else and that's fine. But it's not on him to handle them with kid gloves when they injected themselves into the process. This is how overtly political entities get treated. It's the same for literally every group that drops endorsements.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
He could have not attacked them in his answer, yes.
What's the point of a progressive candidate if he's willing to attack progressive organizations because they aren't lining up behind him?
E: This is honestly the first time I've been seriously upset with Sanders over an actual position he has staked out, not just concerned that he's doing poorly about outreach or explaining himself poorly.
The only way to meet the standards you seem to be setting out here would be for him to look at the camera and shrug helplessly. Which would have been great optics, let me tell you. He's not under any obligation to submarine his own messaging because PP decided not to endorse him.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
He's submarined his own messaging with me by attacking two of the most important progressive organizations in the country because they aren't feeling the Bern.
The exact question he was asked was: "Are you competing for those groups’ endorsements and not getting them? Or are you not competing for them?"
His exact response was: "What we are doing in this campaign, it just blows my mind every day. Because I see it clearly: we’re taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment. So, I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund and Planned Parenthood. But you know what? Hillary Clinton has been around for a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment."
He didn't have to link the political establishment with Wall Street. He didn't have to imply that the HRC or Planned Parenthood were part of the establishment he was taking on. He could have cut the first part of his answer entirely, and left the second part as simply "Hillary has been working with them for a very long time and may have influenced their decision." He could have said that it was disappointing and he will continue to champion human rights. He could have brought up his endorsement from MoveOn, and specifically mentioned how he was voted in as their candidate.
His answer was unquestionably attacking them and linking them to the common enemy of his campaign, and I'm unwilling to accept that as "good politics."
So he was "forced" to respond? He couldn't deflect to something else like he's done multiple times before, be it Hillary's emails or Bill Clinton's womanizing?
Planned Parenthood "knew" what they were doing when they dressed up like that. If they didn't want Bernie to insult them they shouldn't have done that.
Okay, I think this is the point where we scale back the rhetoric a bit
This was a decision they made, knowing full well that anyone they didn't endorse was going to be put in a terrible position and that some percentage of their supporters were going to be unhappy enough to react in this sort of a way. They traded universal support among Democrats, candidates and rank and file, for the potential surge in political clout that comes with early support of an eventual President.
They
did
the
math.
I don't agree with their decision, but it was theirs to make. I also don't agree with the decision to withdraw donations from them over this. But there's no way they didn't see this coming. It's not that they were just doing their thing and got blindsided by some asshole; they went out prepped and ready for the asshole because the payoff was worth it. I guarantee you that everything we've seen out of them since this little throwdown started was choreographed ahead of time because they aren't idiots. They knew they needed a plan for exactly this contingency because it's what they were signing on for.
Everyone in this scenario is acting according to their own best incentives. PP made the endorsement because it helped their cause politically, Sanders said what he said (which, again, wasn't anti-PP unless you really stretch to make it that way) because it fed his messaging and minimized the impact of their Clinton endorsement. Some Sanders supporters are trying to hold PP hostage because they're assholes and it's the best way to maximize their impact on the situation.
This is realpolitik in action. This is what PP signed up for when they decided to stop being neutral, and they absolutely knew it. These aren't babes in the woods, they're experienced and connected political operators. They can handle themselves. Handwringing on their behalf is unfounded.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
To repeat: You cannot claim that Planned Parenthood is at fault for being attacked without claiming that Bernie is at fault for attacking them. You are ascribing about as much agency to Bernie as I do to my car by claiming he "had to" respond.
I'm not handwringing on their behalf, I'm just angry and disappointed that Bernie is willing to lump Planned Parenthood in with The Enemy as soon as it's convenient for him. That's fucking Republican-Caricature-of-Clinton levels of awful.
Fault is only useful if you're looking to create villains to inhabit a narrative. That's not what this is.
Edit: I will say that Sanders should call out the people pulling PP funding, specifically on the grounds that those funds that go to help women get medical treatment are incredibly important. He doesn't have to endorse a political wing that didn't endorse him, however.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That's what Sanders is doing, so yeah, it is. I invite you to reread his answer and tell me that you honestly don't think he is painting them as an enemy he is fighting against.
Yes, Sanders is attempting to paint Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Council as villains. That is an absolutely fair assessment, mmhmm.
...seriously dude?
Read Sander's response and tell me you honestly do not see him as painting them as the establishment he is fighting against.
This is not "victim blaming" and the concern about it has gotten shameful and disgusting.
Other than that, he was just pushing his narrative, as would have Clinton if the shoe was on the other foot. If they are backing his opponent, then in that sense they are his enemy. In his pursuit of the Democratic nomination for President, they absolutely oppose him. They made themselves his enemy.
He didn't attack them as an entity, he was asked why they didn't choose to endorse him and he gave a plausible answer that fit his narrative. He made no value judgment as to their service record or their policy objectives. If it was an attack, it was the softest one imaginable.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Again, he literally said that he is not fighting against the Wall Street Establishment, but also the Political Establishment, and claimed that PP and the HRC were part of that.
Explicitly linking Planned Parenthood with the group he attacks the most on his campaign is not the softest attack imaginable. It's actually a pretty strong attack, coming from Sanders.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Yes, because the only explanation for PP to endorse Clinton is because her supporters pushed it. It couldn't be because Sanders has been going around talking about "Medicare for All" while not speaking one entire word about the Hyde Amendment - the law that would completely restrict the plan that he was pushing from covering abortions, and thus would defund Planned Parenthood as a provider under his plan.
And this goes, once again, to his biggest glaring weakness - that his constant focus on class and corporations leaves him myopic to other issues. Arguing that Planned Parenthood is part of the "political establishment" that needs to be shaken up is an incredibly insulting way to describe an organization that has been living with a bullseye on its back (in some cases literally) for the past decade.
This is a pretty standard message pivot. Sanders even claims kinship with HRC and PP specifically, via the 'I have supporters' line.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
By their own reckoning, this is the first time such a thing has been done.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.