Tim Kaine splits with Obama on birth control rule for religious groups
Former Virginia governor Timothy M. Kaine criticized the Obama administration’s new policy requiring some religious institutions to provide coverage for prescription contraceptives, a rare instance of disagreement between the Senate candidate and his close political ally.
The insurance rule has sparked fierce criticism from religious groups., particularly the Catholic Church, who say the policy will require them to violate their own beliefs. Republicans have used the controversy to attack the White House, with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowing Wednesday that the new policy “will not stand.”
Kaine, the likely Democratic nominee in the contest to succeed retiring Sen. James Webb (D), was Obama’s choice to lead the Democratic National Committee, and Kaine has generally agreed with the administration on most policy issues. Former governor George Allen, the frontrunner for the Republican Senate nomination, has sought repeatedly to use that fact against Kaine.
But in a radio interview recorded Tuesday for the “HearSay with Cathy Lewis” program on WHRV in Hampton Roads, Kaine made clear he disagreed with forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control.
more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)and we need him to win it.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)thought that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)compare the voting records of Rick Santorum to Bob Casey. I was never a big Casey fan, but I cheerfully voted for him over Santorum in 2006 and I'm thrilled we have that seat instead of Sen. Frothy Mix.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Any Dem with a strong, active campaign could've done that.
Second, Kaine is SHARPLY to the right of Casey-from what I've heard, he doesn't have any NON-conservative opinions. He's pro-globalization, pro-massive war budget, pro-domestic austerity, pro-military interventions everywhere, pro-nuclear power, and anti-labor. If you take the GOP position on all that...doesn't that pretty much leave nothing else at all? At least Casey is strongly pro-labor and fairly green.
It's trivial to just be slightly pro-environment and be slightly pro-civil rights(but opposed to affirmative action) if you're right-wing on all of the above.
It simply doesn't do us any good to settle for defeating the worst of the worst, if we have to nominate the just-barely better to do it. We have a right to expect more from EVERY candidate than nominal party identification. It's worth nothing to have somebody sitting as a Dem who votes against us most of the time, as Kaine is going to.
Besides, Obama CARRIED Virginia in 2008, so that, by itself, proves that we don't have to nominate a Dem who hates what this party stands for to win.
And, if nothing else, why should this party ever give Kaine another chance to do anything after his total and complete failure as DNC chair?
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)That's why Kaine matters. I don't like his politics either, but I'd rather have a Dem majority in the Senate, period, and I sure as hell never want to see that son of a b!tch from Kentucky in charge.
Beyond that, the fact that Obama carried VA means little. It was a world-historic election, full of aberrations. He carried Indiana, fer Chrissake! And one year after Obama carried Virginia by about 6 points, the GOP took the statehouse by more than 3 times that margin. Virginia isn't blue; it isn't even purple. It's a kind of red-violet at best, and holding our for a Virginian Feingold sets you up for a very long wait.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)A young Henry Howell would do.
By your logic, we should still be nominating Bilbo and Stennis types in Mississippi, or Richard Russell wannabees in Georgia, or maybe even young George Wallaces.
There simply has to be SOME bare minimum set of expectations we have for Democratic candidates. Your position seems to be that we should have none at all.
You're asking us to give up and to make the words "Democratic Party" utterly meaningless.
The way to win is to campaign well and to look like you stand for something...not to pander to the ugliest feelings of the electorate. Nobody ever wins ugly and then gets better after winning that way. A dead loss as the start is always a dead loss at the end.
Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)as a battleground state. Northern Virginia is the only reason the state has been trending Democratic until recently. If you take Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudon counties out of the equation, it's still a very red state. Virginia is still very conservative.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not enough to say "he'll vote for Reid as majority leader". Without any commitments that he'll even vote against 'pug filibusters, having Reid as nominal leader of the Senate is nothing at all.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What's the good of electing somebody as a Dem who is against the party more than he's for it?
And remember, Obama CARRIED Virginia last time, so we can't assume that the place is lockstep right-wing any more.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)They elected a conservative Republican governor in a landslide. Virginia is still more red than not. I'd love to see a more progressive Dem running for that seat, but if Kaine is the difference between Reid running the Senate and McConnell running it, I'll take Kaine.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He recruited a terrible candidate and did nothing to fire up the base for the fight. That campaign proved that Kaine doesn't know how to win elections in Virginia anymore.
What Kaine SHOULD have done was to make the Virginia Dems, finally, into the party of Henry Howell, not keep them as the party of Chuck Robb and Doug Wilder. He should have been leading the fight to make a "New Virginia", not to make the Dems in his state almost as much of a party of the past as the Virginia 'Pugs are. 2009 and 2010 were the proof that "me-too" campaigning will never work for this party again.
And again, what's the use of having somebody sitting on our side of the aisle if he's going to vote against us almost all the time? Party identification isn't everything...I assume you wouldn't have said we were obligated to campaign for George Wallace if he'd won the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972. And the differences between Kaine and Wallace are trivial.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)As Governor, he vetoed eight death penalty expansion bills.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I admire him for being good on that one thing...but does he really HAVE to be right-of-center on EVERYTHING else? Virginia isn't medieval Europe, for God's sake.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)julian09
(1,435 posts)
msongs
(67,413 posts)
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)Other than that, oftentimes they're interchangeable.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That he'll never let anything progressive out of committee. It's not like he'll be conservative in public but quietly good when nobody's looking. WE don't have anybody like that anymore.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)He would need at least two or three terms - if he holds a slightly purple state for us for three terms.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)"Al Gore" and run away from Obama. The president seems to be doing well in Virginia for now. I see that trend continuing as I work on the ground in the state. Virginia was a difficult state in which to canvass in 2008, but for some reason, I think it'll be easier if the economy continues to improve. I'm looking forward to doing the hard work on the ground this time around because we can push Obama's successful record.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)can take a position that is safe for them politically except Obama...when Obama does it, DU gives him hell. All others dems, that's just fine.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You don't have to run like a Republican would in most states to win in Virginia. Plus, if he's anti-choice, anti-labor, pro "free trade", pro-domestic austerity AND pro-big defense budget...that doesn't leave anything he could still be different from a Republican on that means anything. What other issues are there, anyway? It's useless to settle for a conservative who's slightly decent on environmental issues.
We don't ever have to nominate Democrats that hate what the Democratic party stands for. We never need any candidates that act like they're doing the party a favor to lower themselves to run under its banner.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The fact is, the man has NO non-conservative positions on any major issue. He won't be loyal to us on ANYTHING if elected. It's meaningless to have his vote for Reid as majority leader if he won't vote for any progressive legislation at all. Organizing a chamber, by itself, is nothing.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)people are getting tired of republican-lite here, and are switching back to real republicans...
Kaine would do well to offer a true alternative, but it won't happen
Our last Dem congresscritter tried to distance himself as farrrrrrrr as he could from Obama (on HCR) and still got trounced -- By a fucking car dealer of all people whose major election promise was to get healthcare reform ruled "unconstitutional", whatever the hell that means...
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)If he is foolish enough to think that this kind of differentiation is going to suck in the pro life conservative vote to the point where they cannot discern the difference between the words "Democrat" and "Republican" when the average conservative goes the polls. Of course if it does happen to work then so be it. Oddly though conservative democrats don't always do well in 'red states' and actual progressive Democrats pull upsets more often than these conservadems, but if this is Kaines idea of strategy in his race for the seat he is running for then fine.
What I do not accept is the rewarding of bad strategy with Democratic Party Chairman or giving the position to one of the most conservative members of the party out of some foolish sense that it will have good results.
The continual support of conservative democrats and the constant look out for Republican switch candidates is what is making it impossible to run on a consistent, coherant platform as a party.
I fully expect that Kaine will lose again and be awarded with some other position of prominence in the party. I would only challenge why are we bothering to groom people who disagree with the majority of the democratic party and who do not win elections for positions of prominence?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)himself too much from Obama.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Tactically within the confides of Kaines campaign I see the point to a degree. But this is a miscalculation akin to the DLC's belief that we are eternally stuck in re-running against the 1994 loss.
Strategically, on a national level, there is nothing good about this kind of silly pronouncement.
JoyN62
(14 posts)This was a totally stupid move with the election so close. I am worried that this gives the impression of government control and interference in religion. I was very concerned when I heard the letter read at church from the Bishops criticizing Obamas insurance demand. I am a Catholic AND an Obama supporter but he is wrong on this one and I am afraid it can loose him the election. Hispanics, for instance, like Obama but I don't see them bucking the Church. I hope he makes concessions on this as the GOP is making hay.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)says something doesn't mean all Catholics automatically agree.
Concern noted.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)agree with Obama.
According to yesterday's New York Times, (Money & Policy section)
by Helene Cooper and Katharine Q. Seelye "Obama Tries To Ease Ire On Contraception Rule"
Even his Vice-President, his chief of staff (Daley), and his deputy national security advisor, all Catholics, advised him to "tread carefully and look for other ways to minimize another break with the church"
(Sorry, I was unable to post a usable link)
olegramps
(8,200 posts)While maybe a minority of practicing Catholics may oppose contraception, the vast majority of childbearing age actively employ contraceptive measures. Numerous surveys attest to this fact. I would like to remind Catholics that John XXIII formed a commission to investigate the morality of contraception. Unfortunately, before the commission completed its work he died and was succeeded by Paul VI.
Even after the Vatican cronies attempted to appoint bishops opposing change, the commission voted to recommend a change in the church's teaching. A major factor was the future Pope John Paul II who had been appoint to the commission but boycotted it and even went as far as lying that he couldn't get a travel visa. The Polish government stated that they had never denied him a exit visa the intire time that he residend in Poland. In fact he made numerous trips to several countries with many trips to the Vatican. The fact was that he was directing the writing of want would become the church's reaffirmation of the church's teaching. The primary reason that was given was that if the church reversed itself the papacy would lose credibility since it had strenuously condemned contraception for years. It had nothing to do with providing Catholics with morally reasonable family planning options.
It must also be recognised that Pope John Paul II led a campaign to replace EVERY bishop who disagreed with his anti-sexual teachings. As a consequence the present bishops are traditionalists that have attempted to return the church back into the Dark Ages. They absolutely do not represent the average catholic on a number issues and are as intellectually bankrupt as the cult of Opus Dei that presently dominates the Catholic Church.
JoyN62
(14 posts)I agree with you on your conclusions. But, the thing I don't believe the President is taking into consideration is that in the eyes of the Church this fight is not only about birth control - it is about abortion. Church teachings see birth control and abortion as the same thing. Especially when the insurance coverage is to include the morning after pill and sterilization. Abortion IS the issue and they feel that if this goes into effect that the next step will be full abortion coverage. (Kind of like the conservatives take the ruling that it is Constituional to own a gun to the next level of carrying a gun openly. Now they are fighting for bigger guns and, in this state, they overturned the law on how many guns you can purchase in a day).
My guess, is that the GOP will benefit big time from this stand on contraception in the Church. Most Catholics don't agree on birth control but the morning after pill and sterilization is not what they think of as birth control and most Catholics are against abortion, which makes this a big moral dilemma. I still think Obama must back off on this one and I think he should make it public that he is inviting some Catholic Bishops in to discuss how this can be worked out. Keep in mind that 24% of the population in this country is Catholic. And I and many of my friends are very worried that this will lose their votes. It is naive to think that because many Catholics practice birth control they think it is OK to insist their Church, which is morally opposed, should be forced to comply with this ruling. Actually, the Bishops in this area have already said they will have to break the law because they cannot and will not comply. One said they may go to jail but it is better than going to hell. THAT IS HOW STRONG THE FEELINGS ARE ABOUT THIS. So what kind of a mess is this going to create for Obama when the economy is improving, etc. It is a distraction he does not need.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)I personally know four men that are now bishops and they are strict traditionalist. I was in a position to know numerous seminarians and priests who left by the hundreds over this very issue. A minority are so opposed the changes that were inaugurated during Vatican II that would desire to have the Mass return to being said in Latin. As to abortion, I have seen several studies that indicate the MAJORITY of Catholic women believe that it is justified under some circumstances as opposed to the church's stance the it is not even justified to protect the life of the mother. The church's teaching is not too surprising given the history of numerous theologians who taught that women were defective inferior beings.
If Catholics would take out the effort to read some of the addresses by the bishops during the council they would be amazed how liberal and far reaching they were. Their intellectual accomplishments make the present cadre look like the intellectual bankrupt failures that they are. Remember that the church's teachings on human sexuality were based in great part on the thinking that the semen was a like a seed or miniature human being that grew to mature fetus. This is why they so opposed masturbation since it was spilling the seed. It is not surprising that that many theologians did not consider female masturbation as being sinful. That would come latter when they were forced to rethink their teaching in light of scientific evidence. So rather than reversing themselves, an unheard of feat, they just extended it to include females.
This isn't about contraception or abortion. It is about the Catholic Church's inability to admit that their teachings are grounded in ignorance. If given their way, they would still adhere to the Flat Earth beliefs rather than concede that perhaps that Galileo was right after all. Perhaps in four centuries of so they will finally relent of the contraception issue.
It is all about control.
JoyN62
(14 posts)Your reply certainly is true. It is about the Catholic Church's inability to admit that their teachings are grounded in ignorance. My question for you is - do you believe that the government mandate is the way that will bring change or just invoke sympathy for the church and against the President? I'm interested in your thoughts.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)The bishops' position only represents one based on a combination of ignorance and inability to change as the vainly struggle to retain what power they yet weild over a diminishing congregation. Their teachings and intransigence will be found by younger people as being wholly irrelevant to their needs and life styles and totally ignored. This is the process that the Catholic Church has experienced throughout Europe and Central and South America where only a generation ago they were able to enslave people with threats of eternal damnation.
It is unfortunate that so many Catholics are unaware of the vast opportunity that John XXIII provided for the church to become a dynamic force that could assist in creating solutions that confront a increasingly technological civilization. He was a dramatic change from the the previous popes who the average Catholic regarded as some superhuman potentate with supernatural authority. Even the bishops were regarded with awe with local pastors running their parishes as personal fiefs.
If they think that they can return to those days, they only reveal just how out of touch they are with the reality of the situation.
Obama3_16
(157 posts)
elleng
(130,964 posts)'Kaine made clear he disagreed with forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control' is NOT what the rule does, of course.
Its good that Kaine can separate himself from PrezO when he thinks its necessary, and I'm sure the President won't hold it against him.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)this is repub spin that weak dems are falling for.
still_one
(92,217 posts)think it is way overdue that religion is given a tax exempt status
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)harry23
(1 post)~Landed in the wrong World...............................Would have liked to talk to Americans without honking...................not possible here ..........................have a good election , and may the best woman win!!!
perdita9
(1,144 posts)
Skittles
(153,169 posts)yup
Arkana
(24,347 posts)but he stopped Virginia's legislature from enacting anti-choice legislation while he was governor because he didn't feel like it was the government's place to legislate morality.
His personal beliefs might be detestable, but he's done a decent job separating them from his politics.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Do we ever need "Democratic" candidates who win by running against the party from the right? What good are folks like that in office, anyway? They aren't even loyal on organizational issues.
What's the point of electing somebody on our banner who isn't going to feel she or he owes the party and its principles ANYTHING? By itself, simply keeping a seat in our column is meaningless.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)you become no better than those Tea Party purists who have driven almost everyone but the insane fringe out of their party.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)From what I've seen, he isn't with us on anything that matters at all. He certainly can't be a good for the majority of women, for example, if he's right-wing on the contraception issue(he takes the ultimate anti-woman position and demands that "abstinence-based" approaches be used before contraception, a position that makes it impossible for him to take any pro-feminist stand on anything else). Or for workers if he's pro-"free trade"
a position that actually doesn't help Virginia at all), or for people of color if he's against affirmative action, or for gays(we can assume he'll be right wing on that if he's conservative on the majority of issues). He'll be great for ceo's and the Pentagon, but that's about it.
It's worthless to settle for somebody promising to vote for Reid as leader, but not on anything else important.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)but Kaine is NOT with "us" (or at least me) on 90 percent of anything...
Still, like everyone else here he has my reluctant, anybody-but-GOP vote
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)This is so simple, I am not sure why HHS has not already rolled out the program. Call it "Religious Health Care Freedom"
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)
red dog 1
(27,817 posts)And this decision certainly does not help Obama's chances in November.
Before this decision, the focus was on the economy, which is slowly improving, and the Repugs have been on the defensive lately; but now, they have a new issue to run with.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It simply doesn't work for us, anywhere, to nominate candidates who run against the party FROM THE RIGHT. It's worthless to elect such people.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)People like Kaine don't give a damn about this party.
It would be different if Kaine were clearly different than the 'pugs on the issues other than abortion, but he HAS no meaningful non-conservative positions, and electing a Dem who acts like a Republican never leads to the state that Dem is elected from breaking with conservatism-and defeating conservatism is the only valid reason to work to elect Democrats anywhere.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)keeping his mouth shut, head down and nose clean...Essentially NOT being a complete fuckup...
The Governor's house here is such a huge race for both parties every 4 years because among other reasons it's the unofficial fast track to bigger things in Washington if you're not a total moron...
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)NOW he gets up on his hind legs to protest something?
Screw him.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Wouldn't surprise me if he deliberately threw those races just to butter up the RW crazies in Virginia.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)but there was some internal party foolishness in that, too
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If they can't act like enlightened human beings from the 21st century, they can always opt not to carry insurance for those in their employ. Of course, if they do that, not many people would want to work for them, I wouldn't suspect, but life is nothing if not a series of choices.
Oh, and Tim Kaine: try to come up with something a little better than keychains next time around.
underpants
(182,826 posts)nice move Tim.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Kaine pretty much agrees with the GOP.
When you get right down to it, isn't it pretty likely that, if he sees it as opportunistic, Kaine is fairly likely to pull a Shelby?
unkachuck
(6,295 posts)....and this is the character that replaced Howard Dean as Chairman?....the administration wanted this guy to head the Party?
....what a mistake; second only to having traitor-joe as VP in 2000....
