Emily's List Issues First Round Of Top Prospects For 2012

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic political action committee Emily's List jumped into the 2012 election Wednesday with its first round of approved candidates, announcing support for four women running for Congress: Lois Frankel (FL-22), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Ann McLane Kuster (NH-02) and Christie Vilsack (IA-04).

Being "on the list" doesn't equate to a full endorsement, which comes with funding directly from the PAC. An organization focused on electing pro-choice Democratic women, Emily's List also typically doesn't make endorsements until early in the year of the election or late in the year before.

This early announcement is an attempt by the group to more fully engage its membership list, which it says is rapidly growing and now at more than 900,000 people, and to potentially gauge enthusiasm for the various candidates.

Under the tenure of President Stephanie Schriock, who took over in February 2010, Emily's List has increasingly focused on new media and reaching out to supporters online. One of its most popular efforts was an ad campaign taking aim at former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, called "Sarah Doesn't Speak for Me."

"2012 is shaping up to be a huge year for women candidates," Schriock said in a statement. "Women across the country are fired up over the extreme anti-woman agenda moving forward in the House and we are seeing women jump into races earlier than ever this year. Emily’s List wants to help them now. 'On the List' provides us with a way to get in faster and introduce our members to these great candidates right away."

In early April, Emily's List also put five GOP men -- Reps. Charlie Bass (NH-02), Chip Cravaack (MN-08), Paul Gosar (AZ-01), Joe Heck (NV-03) and Allen West (FL-22) -- "on notice," targeting them for defeat in 2012. With the exception of Heck, the list matches its newest round of approved candidates.

Kuster, a favorite among progressives, lost to Bass in 2010. Last month, she announced she'd be back for a 2012 rematch. Kirkpatrick was the representative in AZ-01, but Gosar unseated her in the last election. Vilsack is the former First Lady of Iowa and Frankel is the former West Palm Beach mayor. Both are considered top prospects in the Democratic circles.

 

 

Comments

[Rod DK]

03:02 PM on 04/27/2011

OK this is the only song and dance I want to hear and see the birthers and baggers do today :

Brenda Lee - I'm Sorry

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=HEMjeYPfq­Sg

[asiclilpup]

02:30 PM on 04/27/2011

Women are truly coming into power on the political front. With the degrading of women's rights and benefits by this congress,i­It would be to all women's initiative and benefit to jump into the fray and I for one will support any and all Dem women.

[francny]

01:14 PM on 04/27/2011

If both men and women would show a little responsibility when it comes to PREVENTION of pregnancy there would be fewer abortions. In the case of incest, rape, and the life of the mother I believe the choice of abortion is appropriate. Only a man would want to force a woman pregnant by rape to give birth to that child. The trauma involved with rape can never be understood by a man. I am pro-choice but I do feel if woman want to control their own bodies, then they should control pregnancy prevention and there are many options available to prevent pregnancy. Accidents do happen despite prevention so the woman should be able to make a choice that best fits her. It is up to no one else to make that decision for her. The religious right are fanatics about telling woman they can't have an abortion, but fail to offer solutions or even bother to offer assistance to the woman they have convinced to carry a pregnancy to term. All they care about is preventing abortion and don't back up their words with active assistance to these women. What really astounds me is that they would demand a 12 yr old, impregnated by a relative have that child. What ARE they thinking? They obviously have never ever worked with young girls traumatized by incest or they would know that having the child is an impossibility.

.

[HLL]

01:01 PM on 04/27/2011

I'm a proud member of Emily's list ☮

http://emilyslist.org/splash/signup/splash01/

[PDXTransplant]

01:04 PM on 04/27/2011

Me too!

[HLL]

01:54 PM on 04/27/2011

Bravo! ;-)

[7dr361]

01:50 PM on 04/27/2011

us at our house to

[HLL]

01:54 PM on 04/27/2011

Very cool :) ☮

[ethiopia1a]

10:55 AM on 04/27/2011

who`s she??

[My five cents]

10:30 AM on 04/27/2011

I am a Democrat but I am against abortion.What I don't understand is why you are not for accessible health care, good wages, and good education for the people that are born.
You fight for them to be born but toss them aside after they are born.
You should be fighting for both.
You just want them to be born so you have someone new to add to your kingdom.( as peasants)

[runtexas]

11:19 AM on 04/27/2011

I'm a Republican that is pro-choice, and you bring up some valuable points that cause a few more questions:

Where is healthcare not accessible? Why is the federal government's responsibility to provide healthcare? Isn't individual liberty the same thing as self accountability or personal responsibility?

[Mahi Joe]

11:29 AM on 04/27/2011

Where is healthcare not accessible­?

Better question might be, "where is healthcare affordable" especially to those without and those 50+ million without affordable health insurance. Sure, medical care is accessible providing one can afford it, many cannot and many have gone bankrupt due to excessively high medical bills.

I guess you don't expect self accountability or personal responsibility from the healthcare industry and think it's just peachy for them to raise their rates every year bring ever more record breaking profits.

[treetracker]

11:33 AM on 04/27/2011

How can you have individual liberty and self accountability if you have a minimum wage job or jobs that you use to put a roof over your head and food on the table and there is nothing left for the luxury of health care.

Sure you can run off to the hospital for treatment there if you get sick -- but if it is a problem that requires longer treatment than what you can get at the ER -- tough - if you can't afford it. Furthermore ER care is the most expensive in the county and our tax dollars are used to subsidize that care. Wouldn't that money be better spent on preventative care that is the least expensive care?

It seems to me that many in the GOP believe everyone has this fat bank account they can use to pay for these things, but that's not the reality for many Americans - white, black, Latino, and American Indians.

Like education - a sick population does nothing to promote economic growth and prosperity. Those without a decent education and those who call in sick or simply can't work cannot contribute their full potential to society. It's sad for them and sad for the country.

[SitandStay]

12:10 PM on 04/27/2011

You are a man. You really don't have "a dog in the fight". I would venture that given your last sentence, your first four words were a lie.
Fighting for "a life"? Fight for all of the lives we consume. Fight for the betterment of lives of people already here and breathing that suffer.
Psychologists know that much of the time when a person is feeling depressed and threatened, they cling to a "righteous" stance. They have to protect their ego with being "right". I hope you find your answer.

[My five cents]

12:25 PM on 04/27/2011

My first four words are not a lie.I do have a dog in the fight.Concern is not depression.

[Greg Bell]

02:18 PM on 04/27/2011

Men father children, men are expected to love and care for their children - with the mother or not. Not only are we expected to do so, we do so willingly and with NO expectations other than those we have for ourselves. While we don't bear children, we DO have a "dog in the fight." I am a man who is pro a woman's right to chose, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't even have an opinion about the choices concerning the life of someone who might be my child too.

[seawillow]

10:17 AM on 04/27/2011

Unclear on something. Little detail. The woman has full say over aborting a birth. Fine. No one else's business but hers. No problem. Or she can have the baby, her decision, also fine.

Here is the unclear part: If she is the complete boss of "her body" and has the baby, and no one else may tell her what to do or not to do in the decision, can she later, with the government's backing, demand something from the father? Who had no part in the decision.

[stellaannfred]

10:28 AM on 04/27/2011

Unwanted babies are a main consequence of having sex before you are prepared to have a child. He decided to have sex just as much as she did, therefore it is both of their responsibilities.

Fact: they BOTH had sex with eachother
Fact: they BOTH contributed to a baby being conceived.
Fact: the kid belongs to BOTH of them.

Opinion: they should both be responsible for taking care of the baby.

[seawillow]

10:30 AM on 04/27/2011

Why not:

Fact: they BOTH had a say in whether to have, or not have, the child?

[prettyfnliberal]

02:23 PM on 04/27/2011

with an abortion, that problem wouldn't be an issue. children are growing up fatherless more and more. leaving a woman to have take care of the children on their own, while working full time, and in some cases, attending school full time. and this is why all these programs are necessary. to help mother's in need of help, since the other part of the equation needed for our society to work isn't willing anymore.

[seawillow]

04:01 PM on 04/27/2011

Sure, abortion as post facto contraception. The proliferation of single mothers in society is not a plus. Fathers abandoning their families is not a plus.

[seawillow]

10:06 AM on 04/27/2011

It seems some people here believe if it is worth doing, government should be doing it.

[BlueOnBlue]

11:53 AM on 04/27/2011

I think we're talking about choice here. We very much want the government out of such personal decisions. It's conservatives who want government to intrude on family and personal matters.

[seawillow]

01:26 PM on 04/27/2011

But you want the government right back in lots of other personal decisions.

[DTOM1776]

11:17 PM on 04/27/2011

Greetings BlueOnBlue

The human rights issue at hand (the killing of innocent human life simply because it is in the way) is certainly NOT a family or personal matter. It is the paramount concern of a civil society that provides, promotes and protects liberty and freedom. Without a clear defense of the most basic human right (TO LIFE) all the other rights are void.

[StacieB]

09:59 AM on 04/27/2011

Very good news, I've been sending her articles for a year now to my conservative friends who are pro-choice too.

[seawillow]

09:57 AM on 04/27/2011

Odd that some who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to the promotion of contraception. The second practically eliminates the need for the first. Makes no sense.

[GypsyRobin]

11:23 AM on 04/27/2011

Since when did such folk ever make sense?

[boyoboy]

12:00 PM on 04/27/2011

You'll fine folks here in full agreement with you.

[yomam]

09:41 AM on 04/27/2011

really? abortion is their top priority? how about we focus on getting peeps who know how to handle the economy, then worry about window dressing.

[Johnnyash]

09:15 AM on 04/27/2011

Rather than constantly seeking to impose their control over other women's bodies, it would be nice if these so-called "Pro-life" advocates used their energy instead to actually help the homeless, orphaned, or poverty-stricken children of the world - there's an endless supply of these lives to save throughout the world

[roshni]

09:23 AM on 04/27/2011

They don't care about the fetus once it's born. They just care about imposing their will on womens' reproductive choices. They are pro-fetus.

[nunzia]

09:40 AM on 04/27/2011

You are talking about the ones who call themselves Independent Women's Forum, right?
That rightwing group was started by the wives of rightwing politicians about a dozen years ago.

Emily's List supports those who believe in a woman's right to choose.

[Johnnyash]

09:48 AM on 04/27/2011

Correct - I'm talking about IWF and other like-minded groups

[LouGots]

09:12 AM on 04/27/2011

It's not a choice, it's a child, The choice was made some time in the last 9 months.

[catcancook]

09:40 AM on 04/27/2011

When you start trying to make choices for others and tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, then you open the door for others to tell You what you can and cannot do with Your body.

No one should decide what others choose to do or not do with their bodies period. It's none of anyone's business what someone chooses to do with their body.

[DTOM1776]

09:56 AM on 04/27/2011

Greetings catcancook

Actually, society does regulate what you can and cannot do with your body given the right set of circumstances.

[seawillow]

09:58 AM on 04/27/2011

Including prostitution?

[myblueohio]

09:41 AM on 04/27/2011

Until that child is born, and then the fanatic right - both political and religous - consider it a pariah to be denegrated and abused. But thanks for your hypocricy.

[DTOM1776]

10:00 AM on 04/27/2011

Greetings myblueohio

Citeable evidence please.

[leftyirishwoman]

09:04 AM on 04/27/2011

Emily's List is an important resource for women, and careful with its choices.

No thinking person would compare them to the TeaParty in any way.

[SMBrown2]

09:39 AM on 04/27/2011

Because the TeaParty has goals and ideals that advance the country, and Emily's List is just a bunch of pro abortion chicks. Please do not demean the TeaParty by comparing the two.

[allforfoot]

08:48 AM on 04/27/2011

I'm so sick of the argument you libs make by saying that a women has a right to her own body. We all know that abortion kills ANOTHER body. It's only in the liberal mind that that minor issue can be overlooked.

[BurtonDesque]

09:05 AM on 04/27/2011

Say you need a kidney and I'm the only person who can give it to you. I am free to refuse you the use of my kidney even though it means you'll die a slow, painful, nasty death. I have a right to decide what happens with my body regardless of the harm that may befall others as a result. The same is true about a woman and, therefore, her uterus. That's what you anti-choicers seem to have trouble understanding.

[Resuna]

09:17 AM on 04/27/2011

Excellent analogy.

[DTOM1776]

09:20 AM on 04/27/2011

Greetings BurtonDesque

Your justification of the killing of innocent human life simply because it is in the way flows directly from a philosophical theory called "The Violinist," first proposed by Judith Jarvis Thompson. This justification fails logically because it is based on a false use of parallels and moral slippery slope. The circumstances of the "organ donor" have nothing in common with the natural genetically encoded biological process of human pregnancy.

[Johnnyash]

09:07 AM on 04/27/2011

Abortion removes a small mass of cells from a woman's womb, it doesn't "kill another body"...it remains a woman's choice