Rosie O’Donnell has been one of the oldest and loudest critics of Donald Trump.
They traded barbs years ago, and O’Donnell recently promoted a video game where the player can kill Trump.
But now O’Donnell has turned her never-ending supply of vitriol onto a surprising target.
O’Donnell claims women should start their own party if Democrats begin embracing pro-life candidates.
Rosie “the reviler” O’Donnell has threatened to pack up all the ladies and form her own party if the Democrats endorse pro-life candidates in keeping with the feminist insistence that the party needs an abortion litmus test to join.
O’Donnell tweeted, “Women should form our own party” if the Democrats support pro-life congressional candidates.”
O’Donnell even said she would not vote for Sen. Kamala Harris for 2020 “if she supports for the DNC bullsh*t of ending the pro-choice platform.”
Her enraged sentiments follow comments made by Democrat Party congressional campaign committee chairman Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) saying that “there is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates” on abortion rights.
“As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America,” Luján said, according to The Hill.
Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean has also threatened to withdraw support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) if the shift persists.
“I’m afraid I’ll be with holding [sic] support for the DCCC if this is true,” Dean tweeted.
Such a move would spell disaster for the Democratic Party. Building a winnable coalition around the single issue of abortion would be an impossibility, especially when many women are pro-life.
Others took a more strategic look at the Democrats’ possibility of accepting pro-life candidates.
From the Los Angeles Times:
But many Democrats who support the party’s positions on a higher minimum wage or strong labor unions or the Affordable Care Act also consider themselves “pro-life” — and Dean is correct in saying that the concept has a range of meanings.
It might mean support for overturning Roe vs. Wade, but it might mean something much less extreme in policy terms — say, support for waiting periods or the restrictions on federal funding for abortion contained in the Hyde Amendment. (Sen. Tim Kaine, the 2016 Democratic nominee for vice president, maintained his support for the amendment even though the party platform pledged to overturn it.)
Alternatively, a “pro-life” candidate for Congress might associate herself with the position enunciated by Hillary Clinton in 2008 that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare, I mean rare.” (Clinton seemed to forget about the “rare” part of that formulation in her 2016 race.) That position might not translate into support for any legal restrictions on abortion at all — perhaps just for funding for adoptions or for sex education and contraceptive services.
Most Democratic congressional candidates will happily declare themselves pro-choice (even if they hedge by adding that they are “personally pro-life”). But suppose a Democratic candidate is “pro-life” to the point of opposing legal abortion but agrees with the party’s other priorities? Should that candidate be denied funding — and the party a potential majority — for the sake of pro-choice purity? The party’s strategists seem to think not. It’s hard to disagree.
This move puts the Democratic Party at a crossroads. If O’Donnell and other single-issue abortion voters splintered off, not only would it hurt the party’s viability in general elections, it could start an intersectional chain reaction.
Other single-issue Democratic voters could offer a “litmus test” on other issues, e.g. single-payer health care, an $18 minimum wage, or anti-police rhetoric couched in support for “Black Lives Matter”.
This internal party debate also shows Democrats are ruthlessly expedient when it comes to trying to win elections.
The party discarded working-class Americans long ago in favor of cheap-labor immigrants.
Democrats always need someone to pander to. The cracked door on abortion is a transparent plea to the “deplorables” they spent an election cycle disparaging.
Who will they pander to next?