Should anti-choice Democrats be invited to leave the party?

[undeterred]

[chandler2]

1. Some things are basic. Like freedom of choice. nt

[NJmaverick]

2. No, because we start doing that we start down the slippery slope to

ideological purity tests to become a member.

[G_j]

7. I don't care if they personally don't agree w/ abortion

as long as they don't try to legislate their personal view.
The Democratic party was supposed to stand for women's rights.
If you're not going to do that, then take a hike.

[1awake]

10. That's alot of people needing to take a hike then... Just sayin n/t

[G_j]

13. absolutely

more likely, it will many of us taking the hike!

[lapfog_1]

16. Of course there are "ideological purity tests"

One simply can't put a D next to their name and be a Democrat.

We have a party platform. It's voted on at every Democratic Convention. You got to accept that platform in the broad-strokes to be a Democrat. If you can't, then find another party.

It has always been thus.

What you are saying is that "A Woman's right to privacy" is not a fundamental plank of the Democratic Party platform. I beg to disagree.

[NJmaverick]

19. Have you looked at the platforms lately? They are pretty generic

long on broad strokes and light on detail and controversial issues

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

[PeaceNikki]

20. On abortion:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to undermine that right."

From your link. Pretty clear, really.

[NJmaverick]

Good find, I skimmed the whole document and couldn't find it

should have used the search feature

[PeaceNikki]

27. And this is why I think there's no wiggle room in the Democratic Party.

This is a fundamental part of our party's platform. And one that should not be open for debate.

I strongly oppose any and all efforts to undermine that right.

[NJmaverick]

31. I strongly support the position as well

Although I also looked at the bigger picture. Anti-Choice Dems still help the dems gain the numbers to control congress. When the GOP was in charge it seemed like a term didn't go by where they weren't trying to steal a woman's rights. At least with the Dems in charge you don't see that happening. Wouldn't want an anti-choice Dem as president, but they do have a certain usefulness.

[Mass]

3. The party is mostly pro-choice. They can stay as long as they accept the majority rule in the party.

Nelson did not. His amendment was voted upon and failed. He succeeded in forcing the party to put it back.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. And I thoought ideological purity was a Republican thing.

Anti-Choice Democrats are what we have to have to manage a majority. Just as Centrist Republicans like Snow are what Republicans needed for their majority.

We need more and better Democrats, not a ideological test.

[ima_sinnic]

8. but shouldn't the Democratic Party at least have a basic "platform"?

I do not agree at all that any old philosophy is okay for the Democratic Party. Sheesh, there has to be at least a minimum vision, an ideal we are striving for, and individual reproductive choice is one of those basics. I don't care what voters' philosophy is, but CANDIDATES should at least represent the platform--and the platform needs to be there in the first place.

Without that, what distinguishes the two parties?

[Ozymanithrax]

24. The Democratic Party does have a platform. It does not insist that all its members agree with every

item in the platform.

There are fewer now who are pro-life. Kucinich used to be, but changed his mind the first time he ran for President.

What a majority does is allow a party to set the agenda. Had the Republicans had a majority, health care reform would have never come up. We may not like the bill, but under Republicans there would have been no dialog at all.

And as for educating Nelson, at his age not a lot of education is possible.

[ima_sinnic]

38. a little OT: "pro-life" is a nonsense term. they are simply anti-choice.

who isn't "pro-life"?

[Ozymanithrax]

39. I agree, but they sold that word so well that across American everyone understand pro-life and

pro-choice as terms. Unfortunately, that happened because liberals/progressives/Democrats allowed the right to control the discussion and the message for about 25 years. But in this thread, I will use the term anti-choice. We agree on its definition.

[katandmoon]

23. What good is having a majority if enough of it votes with the MINORITY to stifle choice?

[Ozymanithrax]

29. You ask a very good question.

My only answer is this. Should we deny some type of health care to millions of Americans if we can not get coverage for abortions. I don't like these provisions, but we can still do a lot of good, even with those provisions in the bill. My sister is long past the age when she would need abotions, but she does need health care. I am helping my sister pay for hers, otherwise she would have nothing. Should she do without?

[katandmoon]

25. Some things should be non-negotiable. Like a woman's reproductive rights.

[Ozymanithrax]

34. The issue is to get some type of health care for millions.

50+ million people should not continue to die at a rate of 40,000 a year because we refuse to accept a bill that does not pay for abortions. Many of those people are too old, too young, or too male to need an abortion, but they still need to see a doctor. Many of them are women who might want an abortion but they have other medical issues that need to be addressed.

[noamnety]

40. This is completely acceptable to many people as a compromise

and I always wonder whether those same people would make the same argument in support of a federal bill that excluded cancer care for black people. For everyone else, it's (in theory, at least) better than no coverage. And even for black people, some care for those other medical issues that need to be addressed would be better than none.

Would that be an okay compromise?

[PeaceNikki]

5. Yes. The DFLA is just a "Trojan Donkey"

Democrats should have scruples about crawling into bed with Concerned Women for America, Priests for Life, the March for Life, the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, Lutherans for Life, CareNet, Heartbeat International, Project Rachel, the "abortion is genocide" Abortion in Black America, Life Issues Institute, LifeSite, Joe Scheidler's Pro-Life Action League, Americans United for Life, the American Life League's Stop Planned Parenthood International, Human Life International, Feminists for Life, National Right to Life, and the same Life Dynamics that lists every provider of abortion care in the country as "American Death Camps" -- all of them directly linked from the DFLA site.

Maybe it's because DFLA opposes embryonic stem cell research. Maybe it's because DFLA is still spreading the discredited lie that abortion causes breast cancer. Maybe it's because DFLA officers publicly refused to support the Democratic presidential ticket in 2004, calling John Kerry the "Hitler of the Unborn."

Yes, maybe those are some of the reasons -- the same reasons that DFLA is a Trojan donkey.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/26/3754/33226

[babylonsister]

6. No, with the exception of Ben Nelson. nt

[undeterred]

9. I realize there are some states/districts

where a pro-choice candidate cannot possibly win. In that case it seems better to have an anti-choice Democrat than a Republican, since we will get their votes on other issues.

But I can't see myself volunteering for one or giving them a dime.

[HughMoran]

11. If he were the only one, yes

There are many many more of them than bad hairpiece Ben though.

[WeDidIt]

12. No, because Pro-Choice Republicans are forced out of their party

We accept multiple views in our big tent.

If you can't stand a big tent, there's a pup tent over there for the Greens.

[cali]

14. invited to leave by who? In other words this is just more of the stupid

and self-indulgent masturbatory crap.

[undeterred]

17. You always have something sweet to say.

:rofl:

[tularetom]

15. No, but they shouldn't be rewarded with committee chairmanships and plum assignments

There should be at least a minimum standard of party discipline.

But I do think Democrats with bad hair or bad toupees should be invited to leave the party.

[kenny blankenship]

18. How about we just stop kowtowing to them and if they want to leave so be it?

[Warpy]

21. No one who pushes religious dogma as civil law

should ever be considered qualified for office.

That's where the line is, boys.

[katandmoon]

22. YES. Throw the fuckers out. If they don't support a woman's RIGHT to choose, they are repugs.

[Odin2005]

26. Misogyny has no place in the Democratic party.

[Kitsune]

36. I came here to say this, and you said it for me. *nt*

[The Straight Story]

28. Why not let them in - plenty of anti-choice (on other topics) people in the party already (nt)

[Brickbat]

30. I have to vote no, because my rep is Jim Oberstar, and while I strongly, strongly disagree with and

condemn his stance on abortion, he votes 100% every time on my other pet issue, labor. He gets it. His father was the first member of one of the steelworkers union on the Iron Range. While I write my checks to Planned Parenthood and fiercely decry men who try to legislate what I can do with my body, I do support Jim Oberstar 100 percent. That may make me a hypocrite.

[joeybee12]

32. Why would the WANT to? They control the party right now...n/t

[noamnety]

33. You can't tell a person which party to register with.

But they shouldn't get funding or any other logistical campaign support from the party or chairmanships.

[glen123098]

35. If you want to win elections, you can't alienate anybody.

So I vote no, anti choice democrats should be welcomes. I'll actually quote Ronald Reagan on this one. "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor." Would you perfer it if Bob Casey was a republican? I wouldn't, because then we wouldn't have 60 votes. You win elections by being a bigger tent than the other party.

[TexasObserver]

37. No. Accept that other states have their own concept of being a Democrat.

This notion that all Democrats must toe the line on all major party points is stupid. It's always been stupid. And it never goes away. There's always party purists living in safe liberal enclaves who can't get it through their heads that their point of view doesn't prevail in places like rural Nebraska.

What WE should do is stop acting as if every blue dog Democrat is stopping the party from doing something it wants to do. The choice isn't Kucinich versus Nelson in Nebraska. It's Nelson versus some right wing Republican who won't help us win control of the senate.

All this whining over how the right leaning Democrats votes is anti-democratic. They represent their constituencies. They don't represent Manhattan, or Vermont, or San Francisco. Expecting them to vote as liberal states or cities vote is an expectation without reason.

It would be great if every state's Democrats backed gay marriage, and abortion, and health care, and getting out of the wars now. But they don't.