In purporting to explain Kaine victory, NPR's Liasson falsely labeled Va. governor-elect "pro-life"
On the November 10 broadcast of National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition, NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson described Virginia Governor-elect Timothy M. Kaine as "pro-life," wrongly suggesting that Kaine supports blanket prohibitions on abortion. In fact, while Kaine has expressed a personal opposition to abortion, he has publicly opposed criminalizing abortion.
Liasson reported on the potential impact recent electoral victories such as Kaine's may have on the 2006 midterm elections:
LIASSON: To get over those obstacles, Democrats say they'll be trying to apply some lessons of the off-year elections. In Virginia, Democrat Tim Kaine got a huge boost from the popularity of outgoing governor Mark Warner. But he also ran as a centrist, pro-life Democrat who could talk openly about his religious faith -- attributes that might help Democrats win in other red states.
An October 27 Washington Post article quoted Kaine highlighting differences on the issue of abortion access between him and his Republican opponent, former Virginia attorney general Jerry W. Kilgore:
Kaine spoke more extensively than he has previously about abortion, which he said is a "critical issue" in the race because of the changes on the high court, which has protected abortion rights.
"Jerry Kilgore believes that you can't be anti-abortion unless you want to make abortion a crime, and I fundamentally reject that," Kaine said. "I've always opposed making it a crime -- outlawing a woman or a doctor for participating in an abortion. And you don't have to criminalize women or their doctors to be anti-abortion."
Kaine's campaign website explains his "faith-based opposition to abortion," which entails enforcing Virginia's existing abortion restrictions and reducing abortion through abstinence education, access to contraception, and adoption.
What is the contradiction here? Kaine absolutely is pro life even though he is against criminalizing abortion. One can be pro life but against making abortion illegal......those positions are not in conflict with one another.
Kaine's position on abortion is very clear, and in my opinion very reasonable. He wants to reduce the number of abortions as his faith dictates he is opposed to them, but he is not out to make them illegal.
This is a misleading item, indeed.
While I understand your point, tommy, I have had enough arguments here about the use of the political terms surrounding abortion to know that people assume certain things from the use of particular terms. I hold essentially the same views as Kaine, yet I have been told by people on this board that I have to classify myself as "pro-abortion" - of course I disagree and consider "pro-choice" to be a better description of my views. So I think Liasson's use of the term "pro-life" was misleading to most people in that regard, as they would assume that he was in favor of outlawing abortion. I absolutely agree with you, though, that Kaine has made his position clear. It's Liasson who did not clarify it sufficiently.
I agree. Kaine makes it clear that he supports a woman's right to abortion (so he's pro-choice, a term I dislike), but personally opposes abortion and would like to see the numbers reduced. That's a position held by many Democrats.
I think Liasson mischaracterized Kaine's position.
Liasson was contrasting Kaine's views on abortion with those of other Democrats, suggesting that he won in part because he departed from party orthodoxy. In fact, many "pro-choice" people -- including apparently wanderwoman -- find abortion personally abhorent, but don't believe it should be banned. In other words, contrary to Liasson's suggestion, Kaine's views on abortion, which he made a point of contrasting with those of his opponent, mirror those of many Democrats (including John Kerry and Mario Cuomo). Liasson was using political shorthand for a view of abortion that opposes access to it in most or all circumstances. That is a false characterization of Kaine's position.
Very well said, wanderwoman. This is always the ultimate sticking point, the "litmus test" if you will, in religio-political discussions, and the unhelpful starkness of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" positions don't seem to admit that there is a middle ground. My own position is that I wish that everyone had the right to choose, but would choose "no." Idealistic? Hey, I've been called worse.
p.s. Long-time reader, first-time poster. I'm an liberal Democrat who is also a deacon at a fundamental Bible church. And there are more of us out here than you might think!
p.s. Long-time reader, first-time poster. I'm an liberal Democrat who is also a deacon at a fundamental Bible church. And there are more of us out here than you might think!
by political_left-religious_right - Thursday November 10, 2005 02:07:42 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Welcome! I agree, it's much better to find out what someone act actually believes rather than tag them with an arbitrary political label. I suspect more of us on are on the same page than we realize.
tommy - Thursday November 10, 2005 12:25:03 PM EST
I would agree tommy except this is virtually Kerrys postition for which he was widely criticised by the right and threatened by the Catholic Church. So I would say the right cant have it both ways, this position is essentially pro life and acceptable or it isnt. They said it wasnt with Kerry, its disengenuous to claim it is now.
solon,
I have no interest in who criticized Kerry for what reason or not? The point being is that is very consistent to be "pro-life" while not wanting abortion illegal. It's not about having it both ways or some label placed on someone to wedge their positions and marginalize them into some arbitrary corner. But more about what is practical and workable regarding enforcement, etc.
This is exactly what labels like this do, take a complicated and nuanced issue and box someone into an all or nothing.
Liasson is not misreprensenting Kaine's position in any way, for MMFA to say she falsely labeled him pro life is wrong.
tommy - Thursday November 10, 2005 01:56:26 PM EST -
So what you seem to be saying is that it ISNT misinformation for the right to take the SAME position and excoriate it when Kerry takes it calling it one thing then embracing it, portraying it as different from dem mainstream when the newly elected Governor takes it, calling it another.
So what you seem to be saying is that it ISNT misinformation for the right to take the SAME position and excoriate it when Kerry takes it calling it one thing then embracing it, portraying it as different from dem mainstream when the newly elected Governor takes it, calling it another.
****************
solon, I don't know, or frankly care, who on the right excoriated Kerry for his abortion position - it was really a non issue in the campaign from what I remember anyway. But if you insist or making this a political argument, then Yes, it would be hypocritical if what you say is correct.
But that was not my point as I have said - the point was Liasson did NOT falsely label Kaine pro life just because he doesn't want abortion illegal. It is a misleading item on MMFA's part and should be corrected. Let's see if they do so.
"the point was Liasson did NOT falsely label Kaine pro life just because he doesn't want abortion illegal."
That's BS. Pro-life to pro-lifers means that you want it illegal. Period.
"That's BS. Pro-life to pro-lifers means that you want it illegal. Period."(Scott Johnson)
Scott, that's a bit unfair. A great many people agree abortions should remain legal, but hope most woman would chose to carry the child if at all possible. So in that sense they are very much pro-life.
Using your argument couldn't one also say those that are pro-choice are also pro-abortion?
"Scott, that's a bit unfair. A great many people agree abortions should remain legal, but hope most woman would chose to carry the child if at all possible."
I am among them. But pro-life is the wrong label for us.
That would be like the pro-lifers saying they are also pro-choice....the choice to have or not have sex in the first place.
Once again, go to a pro-life rally and say that you don't believe abortions should be illegal. Let's see how far that gets you.
"That's BS. Pro-life to pro-lifers means that you want it illegal. Period."(Scott Johnson) Scott, that's a bit unfair. A great many people agree abortions should remain legal, but hope most woman would chose to carry the child if at all possible. So in that sense they are very much pro-life. Using your argument couldn't one also say those that are pro-choice are also pro-abortion?-by Taz ?
***
I think the disconnect happens because some people use the politically created titles disingenuously to mean their literal definition. The two terms were created to distinguish if one believes abortion should be illegal or legal. It has little to do with their literal meaning. Usually when one describes their position as pro-life but pro-choice also they are confusing the issue because they are using one as a political term and one as the literal term.
While I agree that his position is much more workable, I don't see the consistency, at all. How can you draw parallels between being pro-life (my wife and I wouldn't have one) with not wanting it made illegal (women should still be able to have one)? That is pro-choice -- choice not to personally have one. Or, if you prefer, pro-my-child's-life.
So, if someone can simultaneously be pro-choice and pro-life, let's say someone is personally pro-choice (I want the option of having an abortion, just in case), but says that abortion should be made illegal (women should not be allowed to have one). How would you reconcile that one?
And to justify my existence in the MMFA club, I am pro-choice.
No, no, no. I refuse to let the Right dictate the vocabulary. Let us rather fight to "smarten-up" the dialog and point out that one can be against abortion as a matter of religion, but in the interest of preserving the freedom of religion, not FORCING one's faith upon all other citizens.
I thoroughly agree with you. He is indeed pro-life and so could not have been "falsely labelled" as the headline states. Ooops, Media Matters! I love ya, but I hold you to the same standards as you hold the rest of the media. The problem with Liasson's comments was that she would have done well to clarify that Kaine was pro-life, but anti-criminalization of abortion -- a rather ignored position in the media and worthy of such clarification. But I don't think her failure proves bias. Her larger point was that Kaine was centrist and proved that Republicans do not have a monopoly on issues of faith. Apart from print media, it's easy for a journalist to speed to the point before carefully deliniating her terms. If there is evidence of Liasson's bias, I trust Media Matters will provide. This, however, was shoddy and beneath Media Matters typcially high standards.
"He is indeed pro-life and so could not have been "falsely labelled" as the headline states."
A little experiment is in order. Have someone who is personally against abortion but anti-criminalization go to a pro-life rally. Have them tell everyone around them that they are against criminalization of abortion but personally against it. Lets take bets on how fast they will be shouted down and tossed out of the rally.
tommy and psmarc93 - let me lay it out for you guys.
1) Pro-Life, or it's real name: Pro-Birth - means you fundamentaly oppose a woman's right to chose. You believe all women who are pregnant should give birth. Now, there are some people who believe it's OK to chose to have an abortion if the pregnancy is due to incest or rape. Or, if the pregnancy will threaten the life or health of the mother. Still, pro-birth individuals believe that women should not have the right to chose to have an abortion in most, if not all cases. They believe that abortion is a criminal act and is destroying a life.
2) Pro-choice: means the woman has a right to chose if she want to bear a child.
If you believe that abortion is not a personal choice for you, but could be a choice for other individuals - you are pro-choice. You are not pro-birth. Do not fall into the right-wing conservatives's language trap.
Kaine is essentially pro-choice, but he's a little ambivelant in his beliefs. He does support banning abortions in some cases (ie- late term).
Let us all not forget, pro-birth/life does not mean you are for life. It means you believe life begins at conception, and You think that pregnancy should be borne regaurdless of the woman's opinion in the matter.
ryooki, I have a slightly different take on it. It really comes down to people who are pro-choice and anti-choice. Those who think women have a right to choose and those that think women shouldn't be able to make their own medical decisions.
That kinda seems like a black-white comment. I don't think you're wrong, and I agree with you in many ways. I just think talking about the issue in those terms leaves out nuances and does not help others understand they fall into our part of the spectrum.
"He wants to reduce the number of abortions as his faith dictates he is opposed to them, but he is not out to make them illegal."
Wow! By that definition Bill Clinton was pro-life! I never knew!
sing it brother!!
Perhaps Liasson got her misinformation from the cut-n-paste smear job Kaine's opponents launched against him.
Short version: they took audio clips of various speeches and public statements and cobbled them together to make Kaine appear like a pro-life conservative, and thus unappealing to his base. It was a dirty trick that thankfully didn't work. To my knowledge, the dirtbag perpetrators have yet to be brought to justice for their deceitful actions. Not even a reprimand in the media.
PS: There's no such thing as "pro-abortion".
Yes I agree that this was a propaganda trick to win. We should not let the media off the hook. I would say they went beyond "Fair and Balanced" and took on a partnership role for this deception. At some point, in the near future, America should look into Media Reform as a movement.
Joseph
1 - "Pro-Abortion" is a conservative construct.
2 - Mara Liasson is NPR's "conservative" hack..
Pro-Choice does not equal Pro-Abortion.
As someone said earlier in the posts, the right-wing cannot be allowed to dictate the language.
I wouldn't be surprised if the statement/characterization was intentional on her part.
Simply negating pro-choice = pro-abortion, according to "Don't Think of an Elephant," is not enough to help others understand what it really means to be pro-choice. Although, I don't know a better way to talk about the issue of people misconceiving that pro-choice is somehow magically linked with pro-abortion.
I absolutely love it when people are suprised that pro-choicers actually have children. When did they forget, "yes" and "no" are choices? (can you read the sarcasm?)
Typical Republican." If you can't beat them.....CLAIM them as one of your own." Ha Ha . She's ignorant indeed.
I don't think Liasson was trying to mislead--I think she just spoke carelessly. It is accurate to describe Tim Kaine as both pro-life and pro-choice because the terms are not mututally exclusive. Tim Kaine does not approve of abortion and doesn't think people should have them--but also believes that these feelings on his part do not make a good enough case for making abortion whole sale illegal.
The danger here is that Liasson is starting to echo the Republican spin on Kaine's victory in Virginia--namely that a Democrat is only electable insofar as he adopts the mantle of a republican. Scott McClellen was saying something simalar on Wednesday morning--in trying to cover up the massive embarrassment of Kilgore's loss after GW went and personally tried to annoint him.
The important thing about Tim Kaine, the thing that makes him distinctly a democrat, isn't abortion, it's his understanding that the job of an elected official isn't to construct laws around his personal preferences. Tim Kaine, for religous reasons, is against both abortion and teh death penalty--but understands that as a leader his job isn't to enshrine his values into law but to help create a community in Virginia where everyone can benefit by taking part. By arguing the small point about weather or not Tim Kaine is pro-choice or pro-life the republicans get to dominate the conversation by noting that people are still voting in the neo/theo-con paradigm of trying to convince the voter that their personal values should dictate the law (thus you vote for the person who embodies those values). Living in Va, I don't believe Tim Kaine won by accepting the republican paradigm, and then presenting himself as the holder of the everyday Virginian's vales. Tim Kain rejected the paradigm entirely--when Kilgore tried to trap him on the death penalty Kaine talked about the oath of office and noted that the job of a politician is to serve teh will of the people of Virginia--not just the will of the people who think like him. I believe the vision of elected official as a public servant on behalf of the whole community instead of as crusader for one part of society is what won him the election. That I believe is the lesson of this off-year election in Virginia, and what the Democrats should incorperate in the mid-terms instead of trying to move all over the board on specific social issues that republicans dictate the terms on.
ileangood said:
"I believe the vision of elected official as a public servant on behalf of the whole community instead of as crusader for one part of society is what won him the election. That I believe is the lesson of this off-year election in Virginia, and what the Democrats should incorperate in the mid-terms instead of trying to move all over the board on specific social issues that republicans dictate the terms on."
Thank you for the insight! definitely agree with what your saying...
But - what happens in the cases of where a segment of the society is "shut-out" from participating in the rest of society as a whole? That's where I draw the line - You've got to help people - there is a point where your personal beliefs take precedent over any "civic" duty. To shunt them off to the side is nothing less than selling yourself out.
I personally think the dems need to reframe the whole abortion mess into the bigger issue of privacy rights... I think that would have broader appeal.
Good luck to Gov. Elect Kaine tho..
Actually, I think there's a better way than that. I think if we were to look at every issue through a Pro-Life lens--i.e., whether a particular policy helps or hurts a person's quality of life--not just abortion, but also the death penalty, the tobacco industry, the gun lobby, corporate polluters, the Iraq war, and even the economy, then we see that the liberals are, in fact, far more pro-life than the conservatives.
Take the tobacco industry. How can a conservative claim to be pro-life when his party is so intertwined with an industry that causes at least a thousand deaths every day? Same with the gun lobby. Guns are used in most U.S. homicides and suicides, and in a large number of accidental deaths. But which party is the one that bitterly opposes even the mildest reforms (background checks, waiting periods, safety latches)? Once again, the liberals are more pro-life.
I would say that as long as conservatives maintain such close ties to professional death merchants like the tobacco and gun industries, then they have absolutely no right to claim the moral high ground.
Well...
political_left-religious_right sort of makes a good point--on the whole I think liberal policies are more geared toward keeping actual people alive. However, I don't like the claim
"conservatives maintain such close ties to professional death merchants like the tobacco and gun industries, then they have absolutely no right to claim the moral high ground."
for two reasons. One, the problem with conservatives being tied to people like tobacco and guns isn't so much a problem with beinig tied to death merchants as it is a problem with being tied to merchants at all. I would put tobacco and guns on the same list as pharmasutical companies--who aren't death merchants certainly, but exercise the same kind of inappropriate influence over republicans (and democrats as well) with their money. In some sense, the loss of the moral high ground here has less to do with what they sell than with who they buy with the profits.
Second, there is still a moral high ground to be held here with guns and cigarrettes--namely the personal choice high ground, which should be familiar to us liberals. There is a compelling argument that yeah guns and cigarettes are both dangerous and can lead to massive numbers of death--but at the end of the day people have a right to do things that are bad for them like smoking, and own things that are dangerous if used imporperly, like guns. This is the conservative pro-choice position, contrasted to our pro-life position that we should really firmly limit people's abilities to make potentially harmful choices. Once again, like with aboriton, the issue comes down to a more complex dichotomy that choice vs. life, and just as it is unfair for republicans to enshrine themselves as the champions of protecting life in light of the fact that they support the death penalty and oppose anti-tobacco anti-gun legislation, it is unfair for us to enshrine ourselves as the heros of choice when in fact we would like to make it very much harder to choose to own a gun or smoke cigarrettes.
Since everyone is both broadly pro-life and pro-choice--or mininally almost no one is pro-death or anti-choice, trying to frame issues by the light of "whose really more pro-life/pro-choice," is only going to lead to confusion. I think the democrats need to frame the question in a bigger way--they should get back to talking about what has historically been our per view and strength--the power of the government to create a exemplary community that improves both those who live in it and the world that emmulates it. When we star thinking about these questions in light of community creation it no longer the case that life and choice are in a death match for primacy, but instead they are viewed as co-equal values that both need to be preserved and balanced. I think that ultimately the idea of constructing an exemplary community as a primary good is an electable liberal message--especially when compared with what I think is the central conservative story about the monetary advancement of the individual is the primary good
Well put, ileangood. I like a thoughtful response. Let me try to buttress my claim, and then move on to the perhaps more important point, namely, practicality.
I certainly agree that, when all is said and done, a tobacco user is so by his own choice, and I'm a big fan of personal freedom in that regard. On the other hand, the tobacco companies lure people into that decision (got to replace those all the dead users, after all) by the use of untold millions of dollars' worth of advertising. What is a major source of those millions? Government tax subsidies, usually handed to them by Republicans.
I just see it as a major contradiction that a party that claims so strongly to stand for the sanctity of human life on one hand can so directly benefit an industry whose sole purpose is to take advantage of a deadly habit that so many people have.
A bigger point, though, that is often missed, is the one of practicality. I often think to myself, when I see a "I Vote Pro-Life" bumper sticker, is: "What, does that mean that you're pro-life once every four years?" What does a person do from day to day to be Pro-Life?
There are actually many ways, but here's a quickie: donate blood. The Red Cross donation centers should be absolutely teaming with pro-lifers. When you donate blood, you save lives! I feel that, unless medically unable, a person should be a regular blood donor if he wants to call himself Pro-Life. I also think he should be an organ donor, should wear seat belts and bike helmets, and shouldn't subject his neighbors to second-hand cigarette smoke. I'm not going to get totalitarian and say a person must do these things, but if he wants to wear such a lofty title as "Pro-Life," he should be willing to go the extra mile.
And yet again I have to ask the question, "How can somone be simultaneously pro-life and pro-choice?"
Again, let's say someone is personally pro-choice (I want the option of having an abortion, just in case), but says that abortion should be made illegal (women should not be allowed to have one). How would you reconcile that one?
I stand by Keane being pro-choice aka pro-choice-never-to-have-one.
You can't. The key issue, I believe, is that pro-whatever are political terms that are coined and created by political machines to influence others. They are intentionally quick, easy, slogans that are often designed to mislead others about the key issue. Take for example, the disucussion here. So many people here claim to be "pro-life" when they really mean, they are for preserving physical life and/or quality of life. They mistakenly believe they are pro-life and use the term incorrectly, thereby, unfortunately, giving credence to the political term, and the values it represents.
Some would argue that in using the term, but attempting to re-frame that particular term in another way, will change the meaning of the term for the public. I disagree, and I don't think this will help.