shouLd the dem nominee take a pro-Life stance?

[sniffa]

if the most important thing is beating repubLicans, then why not strip them of their cLaim to the pro-Life cause.

the nominee couLd even just give Lip service to it, and then govern differentLy after the LandsLide.

[Sparkly]

1. Why would they do that? nt

[...of J.Temperance]

9. It'd be a total waste of time

It's a rather bizarre suggestion if you ask me.

[sniffa]

10. to win the presidency

you can't win it without picking up some moderate to right votes.

[...of J.Temperance]

15. I agree

But going after the pro-Life vote isn't how you get those votes.

As I said down thread, you pick up those votes by talking about Gun Owners Rights, lower taxes and your personal faith, amongst other things....and the GREAT thing about that is, that there are a TON of Democrats who support Gun Owners Rights and lower taxes and have a personal faith as well.

So you pick up extra voters WITHOUT alientating supporters of your own party.


On Edit: Dammit word error

[Sparkly]

16. That wouldn't do it.

They can appeal to moderates without such a position-shift. A majority don't want the government to take over reproductive rights.

[bpeale]

25. i would like to hear ANY candidate say that their

religion is a private thing & refuse to discuss it further. religion has no place in politics. and the subject of abortion should have no place in politics either.

[liberalnurse]

19. Exactly!

We are "Pro-Choice"! Let us not fall into the right-wing bait.

[oasis]

2. What's your candidate saying about it .........these days?

:shrug:

[OKNancy]

13. rim shot

good one

[flvegan]

24. Yeah, sucks that a candidate would listen to those concerned and evolve.

I've had a journey on the issue . A year ago, before I became a candidate for President, I broke from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

Thank the gods that this isn't a frontrunner. :sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

30. rim shot

:D

[unpossibles]

3. not at all - at least not by that name

I am fine with taking back the idea of being pro-life as in against the death penalty, pro-sex ed that works (hence reducing abortions), and supporting people after they are born. By running as "pro-life" as that term stands, it would just muddy the waters - it would turn off A LOT of liberal voters, and the Pubs would just smear them as flip floppers.

[Felinity]

27. That's what I was thinking.

Just allowing the anti-women's sovereignty people to use the "pro-life" moniker is in itself a surrender on the issue. They are not pro life, they are opposed to women and their doctors making health and moral decisions based on their own beliefs. Democrats should never refer to them as Pro-life, anymore than they would refer to Bush as the "Uniter."

Dumb idea; very dumb.

[derby378]

4. "Out of the blue, and into the black..."

"You pay for this, but they give you that..."

Maybe I'm just a little weary of politicians doing this on a fairly regular basis.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. No, but rather, the nominee should instead promote the child as the

raison d'etre. The nominee promotes health care, prenatal services and outreach, and social services for both mother and infant, and proclaims "There is no such thing as an ILLEGITIMATE child! All children are legimate and valued in the United States.

See where that goes . . .

[...of J.Temperance]

12. The GOP only like children that are unborn, once the child is born then

The GOP couldn't give a damn about the born child.

As you point out, child health care programs, pre-natal AND POST-natal services, and social services for mother and infant....the GOP couldn't give a fuck about ANY of these things.

Of course IF EVERY born child could crawl back up into the womb and become unborn again, then the GOP would BUST VEINS to do anything and EVERYTHING for it.

[no_hypocrisy]

34. And I believe the issue would carry as it would call the GOP on

their hypocrisy. If they didn't come up with their corresponding program of loving children, they would appear to be a typical villain out of a Dickens' novel. Avoid the issue of abortion and concentrate on mothers-to-be and the helpless children.

[...of J.Temperance]

39. I like that plan

Avoid the issue of abortion, concentrate on mothers-to-be and the helpless children.

Put the GOP on the spot....they're babbling on about abortion....we talk about the ALREADY BORN CHILD and helping mothers-to-be with child care, childrens health care insurance and pre-natal and post-natal services.

[onyourleft]

6. Isn't that what the Republicans already do?

They are always ready to overturn Roe when campaigning. However, it is such a great issue to run on every election cycle against the Democrats that the legislation never gets off the ground. I know that this could change in a heart beat depending on what Republican might get the presidency in any given cycle.

[...of J.Temperance]

7. No they shouldn't

They shouldn't take a pro-Life stance, the pro-Life voting bloc is pretty much with the GOP and they won't vote Democratic no matter what.

Instead, the Democratic nominee should take a pro-Gun Owner Rights stance, a lower taxes stance and talk about their own particular Faith....and after the election they needn't change their positions on any of those particular things.

There are a TON of Democrats and Swing Voters who are pro-Gun Owner Rights, support lower taxes and consider their own Faith very important to them.

[Jade Fox]

8. The majortiy of Americans are pro-choice....

That includes a lot of Republicans.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Don't be silly

The majority of Americans are pro-choice. it would be idiotic.

But I know you're not serious - just stirring up shit for some unknown reason.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. i think its a reference to obama's tour with the homophobe.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. So why not present a real argument

instead of this reductio ad absurdum?

[azureblue]

14. Interesting

How about this, a reframing:

Define pro life correctly: Anti killing, pro health care, anti poverty, anti war, pro improvement of quality of life.

Then, using this real definition proclaim a candidate is truly pro life. and challenge the anti abortionists to define their meaning of pro life. Even throw in some Jesus quotes to spice it up for those who use the Bible to justify their anti abortion dogma. Hoist the Zealots by their own petard.

[yellowcanine]

17. The Democratic Party as a whole is way more "pro-life" than the Republican Party.

And all of the candidates should be pointing that out. The fact that Democratic policies do more to protect actual living humans of all ages rather than just focusing on potential humans should be pointed out again and again.

[JackBeck]

18. And while they're at it, their new "Southern Strategy"

Should be anti-affirmative action. Gotta cover all the bases, ya' know?

[sniffa]

22. true, true

another issue we can cLaim as our own, and crush the repubs in the GE. take away their fetuses and their thinLy veiLed racism, and what do they have?

odd, my idea isn't gaining much traction here.

[JackBeck]

26. That's because...

You are supportive of LGBT rights and choose not to throw them under the bus every election cycle.

[sniffa]

28. oh right

but stiLL, so many peopLe ready to teLL us to STFU and vote dem no matter what, seem to be quite resistant to the idea of my pLatform.

odd, since this is a sure-fire way to win, which as i've read constantLy over the Last few days, is aLL that matters.

[Rhythm and Blue]

21. Pro-life positions are more popular nationwide than pro-life ones, so no, not really. nt

[cali]

23. shorter sniffa:

if it's not ok for dem candidates to take a pro-life position, why is it ok for dems to take an anti-gay position?

The only problem is that none of the dem candidates are running on an anti-gay platform. Oh, and I bet you can dig up some pictures of dem candidates meeting with pro-life dems. Yes, they do exist.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Hillary's usual words about making abortion safe, legal and RARE are

actually pretty effective in blunting the pro-life's message--to place the emphasis on reducing the NEED for abortion would go a long way toward persuading a lot of people that Dems don't EMBRACE abortion, but rather see it as a sad but necessary procedure for hopefully fewer and fewer women.

[flvegan]

31. Can't be pro-life and support the war, IMO.

I also don't see how one can be pro-choice and not support GLBT rights.

[sniffa]

32. yeah, but you're a fringee

can't Listen to common sense.

[Warpy]

33. That's the one line I won't cross

If a Democratic nominee wants to lose my vote, he'll get religion and be another antichoice, pro reproductive slavery freak.

I'm not alone here, it's the stupidest thing any of them could possibly do.

A party that is barely hanging on can't afford to lose half its voters.

[sniffa]

35. the numbers can't be that high

sureLy we can give up the pro-choice pLatform to win? why not reach out to the pro-Lifers, and make sure we win this eLection by a LandsLide?

why hang onto a speciaL interest, fringe group? it can onLy hurt us.

[Warpy]

36. Most people are pro choice

Deal with it.

Oh, and while you're at it, why not withdraw support for unions? That'll bring in the pro business people!

Oh, and while you're at it, why not abandon affirmative action? That'll bring in the old southern Democrats, make them abandon the party of Lincoln in droves!

Be very careful about who you're throwing under the bus, sniffa. Half the human race ejected from the party is going to do you NO GOOD in elections.

If the party wants to push women back into slavery, they've lost me.

Pandering to religious freaks is not worth it. It will lose many more votes than it gains.

[sniffa]

40. and you've hit the crux of my thread

"Be very careful about who you're throwing under the bus"

do you many posts i've read in the Last few days saying that the GLBT community is a fringe group, and that they can onLy hurt the dems? it's a different tune when it's someone's own issue.
Look at the responses here - and match the posters up in any of the mccLurkin threads.

i'd Like to have this thread go on, and on, just to get not onLy some hypocrites on this thread, but aLso to have my jaw drop at anyone agrees with my OP.
but i figured i'LL give up the ruse, before it's Locked and everyone entireLy misses the point.

now, you deaL with that.

[NMMNG]

41. Warpy, Warpy, Warpy

Be very careful about who you're throwing under the bus, sniffa. Half the human race ejected from the party is going to do you NO GOOD in elections.


Who cares about a few fringe minorities? As one DUer said, "I'd gladly lose 80% of the atheists to gain 20% of the evangelists". So to hell with the atheists, GLBTs and so on. If it gets us a chunk of the RWers it's all worth it. :sarcasm:


Pandering to religious freaks is not worth it. It will lose many more votes than it gains.


Tell that to the Dem candidates who are doing that with a vengeance, and all the DUers who support them doing so wholeheartedly (and attack naysayers like pit vipers).

[LeftyMom]

61. but 10% or so of the human race? Half of DU will sprain something in their hurry to sacrifice them.

Most of the Dem canidates, too. AFAIK, only one is unabashedly in favor of equal marriage.

[sniffa]

64. it's hiLLary right!?

[Rhythm and Blue]

37. The problem with your analogy is that pro-choicers are in the overwhelming majority.

Polling for overturning Roe v. Wade sits at only 30-33%.

GLBTs, on the other hand, are far less numerous.

[Duncan Grant]

45. In other words, screw LGBT people because they're not as large a constituency as pro-choice voters?

Democrats want my vote (and my financial support) yet they offer no visionary leadership on issues central to my civil rights.

Hmm, let's think about that relationship...

[Rhythm and Blue]

48. No, in other words the reasoning used in the analogy does not apply. nt

[sniffa]

60. y'now dunc

these pro-choice peopLe are going to cost us the eLection. i'm sick of them constantLy cLamoring to keep roe v. wade in tact. why shouLd we continue to codify them and Lose eLeciton after eLection.

it infuriates me.

[shraby]

42. That's a silly thing to say...don't we want the

nominees to say what they really believe and not what they think voters want to hear? I wouldn't vote for any dem who advocates a pro-life position. How would we know they don't really believe in a pro-life stance..the worst thing would be to find out they do after they get the job.

[MGKrebs]

43. Who is anti-life?

[HockeyMom]

44. My husband is a ProChoice Republican

I know quite a few prochoice republicans. Of course, they are not the evangelical base of the party. They are more the so called Rockefeller Republicans.

[cuke]

46. they should take an anti-intercaps stance

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Women will have abortions legally or illegally

The best policy is to make them legal and safe for women. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, teach real sex ed and school and make sure that all women have the means to care for their children.

As for late term abortions which the right wing has cleverly dubbed "partial birth" before the 2003 law was passed, doctors didn't perform those unless it was a medical necessity. Women weren't just getting late term abortions because they changed their mind after several months.

[MuseRider]

49. Better step up the gay agenda

and make more gays ;)(a wink at the agenda comment not the issue, the issue I find quite stunningly disturbing). It seems that these days being in a minority is ample reason for being thrown under the bus by both parties. I guess Civil Rights are only meant for some people.

[sniffa]

50. i'm on it

check in to the secret gay cLubhouse at 20:00 hours. :patriot:

[MuseRider]

52. I will be there

with bells on!

[sniffa]

53. just foLLow the Link

but don't teLL anyone; it's a secret.

[ecstatic]

51. One can be pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously

I wouldn't mind a candidate who held those views. Just don't try to take my rights away and everything will be cool.

[Bluebear]

54. Yes, it's important to appeal to those we don't agree with.

Different ideas make our country stronger.

[sniffa]

55. see, that's what i'm taLking about

:hi:

[sniffa]

56. kick - because we need to win this eLection

[niceypoo]

57. You won't get the religious right vote no matter what you do

You cant abandon your own base.

[denem]

58. Lets throw everyone except monied white males under the bus.

Oh wait ... there's already a party for that.

[mtnsnake]

59. Pro-choice isn't what's killing us. Taxes is.

The falso perception that Democrats are going to take dollars out of the pocketbooks of the average voter is what I believe is the issue that absolutely kills us year after year. Until we properly educate voters as to how the tax system really affects them, we will never have a perpetual seat in the WH.

Our people have been TERRIBLE at explaining taxes in a manner where even the ignoramuses can understand it.

[baldguy]

62. Like the GOP is "pro-life"?

Pro-war, pro-state murder, pro-starvation, pro-fear, anti-health care, anti-safety, anti-environment...

seems to me that not being "pro-life" actually saves more lives than being "pro-life"

[Catchawave]

63. GOOD GRIEF sniffa.....

WE ARE ALL PRO-LIFE....

Frame it as "GOP=Pro-life: Conception to Birth"