Why do we even have anti-choice Democrats?

Seriously. Sorry, but my tent just doesn't stretch that far.

Now we've got people like Stupak threatening HC reform just to prevent women from making their own medical decisions.

Pisses me off.

:crazy:

how liberal are you really?

This isn't a single issue.

Anti-choices also tend to be anti-birth control, anti-sex education, and anti-public assistance for single mothers. So by welcoming anti-choicers into the party you're undermining these other core democratic platforms of supporting birth control, sex education instead of abstinence, and public assistance for the poor without judgment and recrimination.

Anyone who supports anti-choicers are denying the importance of civil rights for women.

Anyone who goes along with this is showing a really shallow concern and limited knowledge of issues concerning rights for women. They are essentially saying that women aren't important, and are expendable.

But for what gain? What does the party get out of accepting these people into the party? Are these anti-choicers helping us pass healthcare access for everyone? Not without denying healthcare for women.

Are they helping us fund comprehensive sex education, or AIDS prevention programs, or anything else they consider "controvercial?" No.

Are they helping us fight for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start Funding, and other vital social programs? No, these are the concervative democrats that usually cross the aisle and vote with Republicans on social programs. These are the people who say that Social Security is at risk and needs to be reformed, and who say that we can't afford social programs.

People who are anti-choice are generally not just conservative on this one issue alone, and if they are conservative enough to be so radically anti-choice that they will shove their views on this down the entire nation's throat then they are conservative enough to undermine the democratic party across the board.

Why do we need these people in the party? What do they really help us accomplish?

if we'd have RU480 and birth control everywhere there would hardly be any abortion except for medical need and rape. I would never have shit to do with a republican. I wouldn't date one, friend one, or marry one. But I want RU480 and b.c. pills everywhere. With education and the availability of birth control and medical advances since the passage of Roe v Wade it is becoming redundant.

I also DON'T want people aborting children like my son with autism (who is a wonderful person) because they come up a genetic marker testing during gestation! Aspies and Autistic people have value in our society.

And I'll put my democratic creds against ANYONE. I've volunteered for 22 years to the democratic party in EVERY election and vote EVERY election. I have NEVER voted Republican or Independant ONLY DEMOCRAT.

Get over yourself, we can different views on separate issues. Besides we need their vote. I welcome all to our party.

1. You are admiring advances in medicine that make abortions less necessary and more rare. Cool. I agree.

2. You are being incredibly judgmental of anyone who dares to still get an abortion because you don't think they are necessary any more. How nice of you to make that decision for everyone.
:eyes:

If you are this incredibly judgmental and hostile to people who choose to have abortions (for whatever reason of their own) then I can only imagine how lackluster your civil rights credentials are in general. I generally find a hell of a correlation.

In what other areas will you judge people harshly and tell them they can't do this or can't do that? LGBT people? Disabled people? I'm both.

Congratulations on volunteering with the party. I've volunteered for decades with a whole lot of causes and organizations that help people, with almost 6000 hours of volunteering under by belt. Are you trying to have a pissing contest of some kind?

If you are going to be as judgmental of people as you seem, and restrict people because you don't think this or that is necessary in their lives, and you don't support democratic planks like choice, then I won't agree with you. I'll fight you tooth and nail in the party every chance I get.

We don't need obstructionists and judgmental busy-bodies in the party. We don't need people who only care about elections, but won't DO anything once they get elected.

You can get over yourself. You really seem to have the need.

children aborted because someone is prejudice against people with disabilities. And I'm judging disabled people?

But if you want me to quit the party and not vote for any Dems. O.K. you win, Rush. I guess supporting 99% of the platform isn't good enough. I'll make sure to pass that on at my DNC meeting tonight.

In fact, I'll take all the Catholics and Nun's who are volunteering to get universal health care with me, because WE are the judgmental ones.

Snark

You are making broad generalizations and assumptions and are WRONG in that. You can be a moderate on abortion. I think it should be safe and legal, but we need to make more medical advances toward less evasive procedures like RU480, free condoms, SEX education Sex education Education, free birth control.

I believe in SS, medicare, title 19, head start, WIC, unemployment benefits, pensions, universal health care, solar & wind energy, medical leave job protection.

I work with a Nun who is anti-abortion but is working for universal health care single payer and SHE is WELCOME. I thank her for coming to our meetings every time.

Don't be such a separatist.

I would say he has been better than Snowe or Collins. Are you saying we should throw him out of the Democratic Party?

unequivically supportive of a woman's right to make her own health decisions without interference from the government.

If they wish to hold an anti-choice position, they ought to keep it to themselves.

Seriously, when you are willng to go so far as to insert yourself into such an extremely personal decision (is there anything more personal?), what other rights are you then willing to step all over?

maybe in Russia it could, or does, but when I register as a party member I still get to keep all of my opinions and also I get to voice them. A party that started throwing out people with dissenting positions on various issues would find itself pretty small and unable to win many elections or affect public policy. Although I guess the five or six of them could meet in a basement somewhere and have fun talking about how stupid and intolerant everybody else is.

The same thing applies to party members who run for office. They can be anti-choice or pro-choice, they can be anti-seatbelt laws or pro-seatbelt laws, they can be pro-soda or anti-soda. If you as a voter don't like it, then don't give them money and don't help them, get behind another candidate in the primary. The side which wins the funding wars and has candidates that win primaries will determine where the local party stands on various issues.

The national party or state party can support challengers to incumbents as well, although it is probably pretty rare. But not impossible or unheard of. In fact, in my state senate district the three term incumbent state senator was challenged and the state party, lead by the Governor, worked against him in the primary, and he lost, and the Democrat still won in the general election. However, now there is talk that the defeated incumbent might try running as a Republican. So we will see what happens in 2012 when the Governor will probably be a Republican too, barring a miracle.

Anyone who wants to call themselvs "Democrat" ought to be endorsed by the party?

we write a platform, but not everybody agrees with 100% of the platform, and they still get to be in the party and even hold office if they win the primary, and we generally support whoever wins the primary in the general election.

I think the party should stay out of primaries. I did not appreciate it at all when a bunch of incumbent Democrats went to help Lieberman in his primary, nor when Senator Harkin went to help Boswell defeat Fallon in a primary. I donated to Fallon through DFA to try to defeat Boswell. I will never donate to the DSCC because that money will goto candidates like Boswell that I do not support.

But it is sorta up to the people of each district to challenge incumbents who say things they do not like.

Party's have platforms. Platforms have planks, which are issues that the party officially supports.

Members of the party are expected to support the party platform.

If you don't support the party platform you are in the wrong party.

The democratic party, at some point, lost sight of this and decided that the only purpose of being a democrat was to recruit enough people to get elected. Period.

That is a very recent development in the democratic party, and it hasn't helped the party accomplish a damned thing. We have people in office, and no spine. We let the republicans frame every issue and we let them keep pulling our own part farther to the right.

Now we have people like you, who obviously have no sense of history, who think this recent development is somehow the way things are supposed to be, or the way things have always been, telling others that there is no other way to be.

We really need to go back to having party platforms that have actual principles, and we need to go back to expecting our members to support those party principles or else don't expect the party to support you.

You said that awfully well, and I agree.

What's that old saying? If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Any party that acts rigid about its platforms is gonna be a pretty small party, especially if there is a battle over the platform. It's a little bit like voting, no candidate is perfect, and no platform is perfect. People choose candidates and platforms that have more things you like and fewer things you dislike. This is true not only of party platforms, but also of candidates in a primary, and who wins those is gonna vary from region to region.

In Kansas, the Democrats are pretty marginalized and even the ones who win sometimes sound like Republicans. Like I said, we did defeat a conservadem in a primary, but in my legislative district the five term incumbent recently retired. She was anti-choice. Two candidates ran for the primary and they were both anti-choice.

The one who won later got called to Iraq as part of the KNG. So we had a convention to replace her. We had a whole four precinct people to make that decision - myself and three women. Ironically both of the candidates were anti-choice, and none of the women mentioned that during the meeting. They didn't complain, and I think it was probably better that our candidate one over the Republican. Principles are nice, but they don't do you much good if you cannot win elections. If the women in my district don't care if their female representative is anti-choice then what business is that of people in California or New Jersey. It's our district that they are representing. And it's our party too, and we can cry if we want to.

now nazi-like loyalty? Nice strawman. :eyes:

In national polls, year after year, the majority of people in the US, and the majority of people in almost every demographic area have repeatedly polled much more progressive than either party.

People enrolled in both parties have repeatedly reported that they would be willing to pay more in taxes to really fix public infrastructure. Until the insurance companies and fox started manufacturing the tea-baggers the large majority of people in both parties reported that they would be willing to pay more in taxes to get access to real health care. People in both parties have reported that they wanted to end corporate subsidies, reduce the military budget, increase the budget for education, and improve the safety net for seniors and people with disabilities. On one issue after another the majority of people in both parties generally approved of very populist and lefty actions.

The reason people turned out in droves for 3rd party candidates in past presidential elections was the hope that they would finally represent people instead of big money. Those 3rd parties failed because they were excluded from power in many structural ways. They were doomed from the start. But if one of the parties that really do have power took up the reins of hope, representing what people really want, people would respond in droves.

Weren't you paying attention to Obama's election campaign? The mere idea that he represented the hope for real change, and representing real people instead of institutional powers gained him legions of loyal followers and carried him to victory. People did not start following Obama because he asked them to join the party and promised membership. He promised action, principle, getting stuff done. If the party really did represent that hope, instead of just pretending to, then the party would be enormous.

It seemed like a good analogy since you are advocating rigid marching in lockstep and zero tolerance.

I must have missed when people turned out in droves for 3rd party candidates, since they never turned out in enough droves to actually win an election, except for one example I can think of - Jesse Ventura, who started the campaign as a TV star and also ran on a platform of giving everybody about $3,000 of the supposed state surplus. Another candidate who did well was Perot, but mostly because he had big money himself and then also got included in the debates.

and you admit that you have lost the debate. :eyes:

Just because you think that having principles is "rigid" doesn't make it true. It does say a lot about you though. It seems to say that you probably don't have any principles and don't value any. Is that really what you want to be announcing about yourself? Even republicans at least pay lip service to having principles. :eyes:

What you call "zero tolerance" is hyperbole. If the party platform says that we believe in fighting poverty, are we going to accept a candidate who supports a class war against the poor? That might seem like a good idea to you, but it seems counter productive to me. You generally want people in your party who are going to agree with your principles and will help you enact them into legislation.

You are going over the top to support the idea that we should accept people into the party who disagree with our platform, and elect them as our representatives. I'm sorry but that is just stupid.

If you really believe that crap, why not elect a republican and call him a democrat? That would seem to be okay based on everything you have written. As long as he's willing to call himself a democrat, you don't seem to care what he really believes and what he stands for, or even if he stands for anything, so what objection could you have? x(

I have principles, and one of my principles is tolerance and inclusiveness.

As much as you might like to, you cannot force your supposed noble principles on everybody. Here's what I see you doing. First you make a platform. It includes, let's say, 10 points.

First, do you think you can find 10 points that all 65 million Obama voters agree on?

I highly doubt it. So then what do you suggest? You are saying to me, an elected official btw, 'if you don't agree with all ten of those planks, then get out of the party.'

Of course, as one person, I am disposable, but I think there are probably millions like me, who disagree with some things in the platform (and yet still support the party with time, effort, money, and votes). Our county party has only about ten people, so it might actually miss me, I put in a fair amount of time at headquarters, update the website, work on election day, send emails, write letters, etc., but I am no more indispensible than anybody else. We lost our secretary and our chair this election and they both were long time workers in this party, and we are still going.

What about at the legislative level? You want to kick out the whole blue dog coalition? Say hello to the New Speaker of the House Boehner.

So, yes, we are gonna accept those people until they can be defeated in a primary. I work to that end. I tried to defeat Lieberman, and sorta succeeded. I tried to defeat Boswell at the urging of the DFA, and I tried to defeat Clinton, but just because they get defeated in a primary does not mean they are kicked out of the party any more than Senator Burris was.

When you advocate kicking out voters and elected officials who don't strictly adhere to a platform, I don't think it is hyperbole to call that zero tolerance. I think if you don't accept people who agree with you on 70% or 80% or 90% of your platform, then the party will be whittled down to irrelevance.

but you are willing to sacrifice every one of them for a few seats. And you'll give those seats to people who oppose your principles and fight you so you don't accomplish anything. Congratulations on being fucking useless.

:eyes:

Despite all your talk, you still haven't said a damned thing that indicates that you work to get anything done. All you work for is filling seats with warm bodies.

That is how our party got into this mess. People like you filled our seats with DINOs. Congratulations. You just ensured that our party accomplishes nothing and gives in to the Republicans every god damn time for another decade even with a majority of seats.

If we have a party filled with people like you we'll have the biggest useless party there ever was.

Don't mind me, I prefer a party that actually accomplishes something. Our party used to accomplish a hell of a lot, and didn't need a super-majority to maybe, sometimes, almost kind of do it.

You can keep the current, useless ways, with the spineless dems who are terrified of offending anyone and diving anyone out of the tent. I'll keep fighting for principles and people who fight for them. We'll see which attitude does the party more good.

I tried to replace Lieberman with Lamont. I tried to replace Boswell with Fallon. I tried to replace Clinton with Edwards and then Obama. I tried to replace Gilstrap with Kultula.

Where do you get that I am a huge DINO cheerleader?

Are you so determined to have enemies that you are gonna manufacture them?

I agree with some of those choices. :)

But that isn't what you have been posting over and over throughout this discussion. What you have been posting, and what I have been responding to, is that the TOP priority, or perhaps ONLY priority is having an open tent and filling seats. And THAT is not only ridiculous it is STUPID and SELF DESTRUCTIVE for the entire party.

If what you are posting isn't what you really believe then say so.

If you actually think we should have politicians who have firm principles and fight for them, then we're on the same side. But if you really just want to expand the party even if it means sacrificing planks then I'll keep fighting you.

Our party has sacrificed far too many principles in the name of supposed expedience, and received absolutely nothing in return. We have filled seats, and proven that we can't accomplish anything even with a majority of 51, or even 60.

With the attitude that we only need to fill seats and keep getting elected could we accomplish anything even with a super majority in both houses? How many people would continually defect on every issue?

We can't win if our own people constantly defect in large numbers, damn it!

I can't believe we're arguing about whether or not we should have party principles and expect our legislators to support them. This whole argument seems really surreal and absurd to me.

The OP started with a call to kick people out of the party, and that's just destructive. I joined with DFA to try to defeat Boswell, but once he won the primary, then he is the Democratic standard bearer for that district. To kick him out of the party would not be producive. Same with voters, you have to vary your sales pitch. With ten planks in your platform, not everybody is gonna buy all ten of them - not even on DU.

If somebody does not like Plank #1, it does no good to tell him/her to go take a flying leap even if you think that is the most important thing. Keep going down the list. Maybe they are strong supporters of Planks #2-7. If you can find enough common ground, then they may come over to our team and stay there. Since this is a tug of war, as the analogy Robb used, then you want as many people pulling on your side as possible.

If you get rigid and dogmatic and intolerant about any of the planks, then I see that as a recipe for irrelevance as it will drive many people away. In fact, I think you stated that outright - support the platform or get out. Whereas I would like to invite people in even if they only support half of the platform.

Plus, we may not have accomplished everything or as much as we'd like, but I do not think it is fair to say that we accomplished nothing either in 2007 or 2009.

Have we passed environmental restrictions on polluting businesses? Or is the administration and our party backing off and pursuing eventual Voluntary standards now?

Do we have anything resembling universal healthcare without loopholes and corporate giveaways in it on the table right now? Has it been passed? Or are we fighting light hell over options that will all be huge cash cows for insurance companies no matter what happens while only having marginal effects?

Have we done anything to advance LGBT rights? Or have LGBT rights repeatedly been kicked into the future with homophobic excuses? Isn't our president constantly lying to the LGBT community promising support while his administration does the exact opposite?

Have we ended either war? Have we even scaled one back? Has our party listened to the millions of people who marched for peace in the largest peace marches that ever took place in history? Or has the administration increased the war efforts, increased troop levels, increased tour lengths again, increased the pentagon budget, increased war spending, and accomplished nothing?

Have we managed to get anyone back to the negotiating table in the middle east? Or are we participating in the sabre rattling over Iran's nuclear program which Scott Ritter repeatedly said publicly was fully in compliance with ALL international agreements?

Have we regulated the energy industries? Or are they STILL making record profits, bribing our party and controlling our party's energy policy, and keeping us dependent on oil and coal?

Have we gone back and renegotiated free trade agreements to insert labor and environmental guarantees to protect countries, or are we instead just moving ahead with more free trade agreements that only benefit global corporations?

I could make this list much longer.

Where are your accomplishments? Are they going to be minor procedural stuff, or do you really have any significant accomplishments? I'd love to hear about them.

If you're not for women's privacy rights, you have no business calling yourself a Democrat.

in the platform. We have also written plenty into party platforms that should never have reached the platform level. We have never insisted that every candidate who runs as a Democrat supports every plank in the platform. FDR joked that even he couldn't support every plank in the '32 platform. It is nothing knew that we have factions in our party. In fact, our party is more unified in philosophy now that it was from 1945-1975.

On LGBT rights? On the environment? On helping the poor? Or helping corporations? On peace? Or war? On the Patriot Act, or homeland security, or Civil Liberties? On immigration? On Energy policy or conservation? On Israel or Middle Eastern Policy?

Name one issue where the party is unified. Show me that unity.

You're totally making that up. I bet you're one of those people that think Obama unified everyone. Because he got such outpourings of love and support, suddenly all the differences disappeared and the issues don't really exist any more. :eyes:

You are right that we have always had people who opposed planks in the party platform, but not wholesale. You would not oppose the bulk of the platform like many blue dogs and conservative democrats. You would not work to undermine the platform.

It used to be the norm that many politicians would state their objection to planks, but once they were passed in the primaries they would support that platform because it had been voted on and passed. Or, if they insisted on opposing the platform even after the party voted and settled it, they made sure it did not undermine the party.

Of course, they had no choice in towing the line to a large extent either. The party machine used to be a lot stronger, and controlled who got elected, so if you pissed off the party they made sure you got booted and replaced. Now lobbyists and the Money Primary determines who runs and who stays and who goes. So you can totally undermine the party, but still be a star and keep your place because the big donors and special interests and their lobbyists are happy and say so.

You are presenting a false chance when you say that we have to choose between an anti-choice dem or a republican. There are a whole lot of other democrats in that state, and many of them are pro-choice.

Just because there are a lot of republicans in the state, people say we have to support "moderate" democrats to steal some of that republican vote. Do people not realize that we have our own base, even in red states, that we can nurture and expand?

If our party keeps showing that Every plank in our platform is expendable, that we will immediately compromise on Every issue just to get elected, then we don't really stand for anything except getting elected. Getting elected isn't supposed to be the ultimate goal. Getting elected is supposed to be the means to accomplishing the things you strongly believe in.

What are you going to accomplish when you have already announced that every goal can be taken off the table in exchange for a campaign contribution or a few more votes?

I want a party with principles and a willingness to fight for them, rather than a few more members and no principles.

I am curious to know how you would like Casey removed from the Democratic Party. Would you do it after 85% of Democrats in Pennsylvania voted for him the primary, or would you not let Penn Dems vote period? Would a committee have to approve who gets to seek the nomination? Or perhaps a committee has to approve of the nominee after the primary voters choose? I'd like to hear what you think the best method of removal is. It sure as hell isn't letting Dem voters vote on it. Dem voters chose Casey. Dem voters like Ben Nelson. In fact, Nelson has had some of the highest approval ratings in the country.

I think we would agree, you wouldn't want to remove Casey from the party after he defeats an incumbent by the largest percentage in 25 years.

who doesn't support the party platform from ever getting the nod to represent the party in an election to begin with. Problem solved.

If we stop hoisting up these people who don't support democratic planks, and we keep calling them democrats, promoting them as democrats and giving them democratic money to spend then on course people are going to think they are democrats and vote for them. Especially when the choice is against horrible republican candidates, the "democratic" candidate is going to win.

But how much better would it be to nominate and support candidates who really support our platform from the beginning? Give voters a chance to choose real progressive democrats.

Do you really think that nobody but Casey can win by large margins? Do your really think that means he can't be replaced by someone better?

You did offer a false choice because you are ONLY offering a choice of Casey or a republican. That isn't the only choice. There are at least 3 choices: Casey, or a real democrat sponsored and promoted by a principled democratic party, or a republican.

Casey is only your choice because he is already there. And he is already there only because the party is corrupted by money and an obsession with getting more seats above all else. Why support either?

"who doesn't support the party platform from ever getting the nod to represent the party in an election to begin with. Problem solved."

How? 85% of PA Democrats voted for Casey. When primary voters choose a Democrat that doesn't meet your requirements, how do you undo the results? Or do you advocate elimination of primaries?

always assume that what happened in the last primary is the only thing that could possibly happen. :eyes:

However, if we promoted progressive candidates, and backed them, and let the voters know that they were real and not just hype history says that voters would flock to the hope of a real progressive candidate. In that situation, Casey might not have received his 85%.

Just because 85% saw him as the best choice among the choices given in the last election DOES NOT MEAN that they would have chosen the same way if they were given better choices. That is especially true if they knew the party was backing better choices and enabling them to really accomplish things in DC, instead of marginalizing anymore truly progressive and pushed out before they could do anything.

In the current party, with the current choices, Casey is bulletproof unless he screws up, but that doesn't make him ideal, or the party he came from. There is a huge amount of room for improvement.

I'm sorry, but only a damned fool looks at a high election number and announces that this means there is no room, no means, and no possibility for improvement. A lot of do-nothing politicians have had high election numbers.

1. What happens when primary voters choose someone who doesn't meet your requirements?
2. Are you advocating getting rid of primaries?

If you don't want to answer these questions, don't bother responding.

I have answered repeatedly that this isn't an issue at all because my only concern is providing better choices.

If we provide better choices people can elect whomever they want. You can assume they'll elect your pet politician who is already in office.

I can only assume you are on his payroll given how diligently you kiss his ass.

But I am insisting that given real choices with better, progressive candidates and a party that supports them history has shown that voters will flock to the hope of a real progressive populist who will represent them.

No, nothing I posted advocates getting rid of primaries at any point.

You are totally comfortable with that? If so, that contradicts what you said about 1000 words ago, that we should throw Casey out of the party.

I'm loving your responses by the way. I think you should accuse me of being a freeper or employee of the DLC next.

doesn't mean in any way I'm going to get rid of Primaries. You're delusional if you see that. :eyes:

Go have another drink.

I am not sure in what county/ state/ planet "we should throw him out of the Democratic Party" equals "it is my opinion that Casey should be voted out of office," but regardless, I think we are done here. Unless you want to accuse me of being Joe Lieberman or something.

You said we should throw him out of the Democratic Party, and I was curious as to how you wanted to do it. Looks like you'll never give up your secret plan. :(

They don't come to the party to support liberal ideals. It is a parasitic relationship. They are brought in to boost numbers and water down policy.

Health care reform does not mean government funded abortions on demand as they claim.

It's a health care issue, period. If a woman needs a gallbladder removed, or needs an abortion, the treatment as far as funding goes, ought to be the same. A decision to be made between patient and doctor.

If we want to talk about overturning the Hyde Amendment then we should talk about overturning the Hyde Amendment. But that should be separate from the health care debate.

And it should be overturned.

It has nothing at all to do with domestic appropriations. It does not limit domestic healthcare even if it is funded with government money.

Part of the current debate is about EXTENDING the Hyde amendment so that it will apply to domestic appropriations for healthcare.

The Hyde Amendment deals with federal funds going to abortions domestically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

The real issue is elective abortions, with the question being: Should all elective procedures be covered? That is somewhat stickier for obvious reasons.

I do not.

However, the California courts requires that the state government fund them anyway. Other states do not. Not sure where the Feds stand for their employees and the military.

Under our current health system I would prefer that places like Planned Parent provide them for free or token cost and that choice supporters help Planned Parenthood financially (we do). It makes moot the elective surgery on public funding argument and takes away some of the current barriers that come with taxpayer funding.

There is the argument that unwanted babies will end up costing the Gov much more than the abortion, which while being very rational, seems to anger both sides...

You are perfectly fine with filling the party with people who will pass legislation that will be harmful to women, and that will legislate based on religious morality, even though most of that legislation will never be overturned by the supreme court?

The court has been a last-ditch option for overturning bigotry and injustice, but if we pack the congress and senate with people who legislate harmful stuff we're going to have a lot of harmful stuff. The court might get rid of the worst of it, but what about all the rest?

We need legislators who pass good legislation. We need liberal and progressive democratic politicians who pass legislation that doesn't need to be overturned by the supreme court.

Yes, we need good people on the court too, but that cannot be our only goal.

Just asking?

For what position? For Secretary of state, lieberman would be miserable. But Bob Casey would be a terrible president because the number one thing a president does is pick supreme court justices. And he has expressed admiration for folks like Alito.

Bob Casey has no aspirations outside of the Senate or the PA Governor's office.

He supported our state's Catholic hospitals when they wanted the right to take gov't money and then deny rape victims emergency contraception. Never believe one word from that snake's mealy mouth.

I like Bob Casey just fine, but he has no more right to interfere with a woman's decision than I do with anyone's but my own. And that really ought to be the party's policy, period.

Here is the thing, PA is a funny state. We elect pro-life democrats and pro-choice republicans.

Would you rather have a pro-life Rick Santorum or Bob Casey who votes liberal on every single issue and is pro-gay rights.

opinion on abortion rights is worth less than the paper he could write it on.

Not being the owner of a uterus, he doesn't have a say.

It's called posturing. There is a large catholic democrat population here and they have been known to do stupid things over this issue.

posture all you like; legislate against women's rights? That's something else entirely.

Incidently people like Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich (pre 2004) would be thrown out of the party under your rules. I have to say we would be immeasurably better off if either one of those people were representing Connecticut in the Senate right now in place of the thoroughly pro choice Lieberman.

pro-choice.

Like just about anything else oozing from those lips, his claim to be pro-choice is a bunch of malarky.

Sometimes they eventually come around.

There is a difference between a person's private stance and what they will legislate on.

I would not have chosen abortion myself. However, I have (had) the right to make that choice for exactly one person - myself.

I don't care if they're Catholic and have private qualms about the issue, or if they'd counsel their loved ones against it.

I care a lot when they think they have any right to push legislation that limits a woman's right to her own body.

And Tim Kaine I think

All of our tents stretch pretty damn far.

and a woman's right to her own body is about as basic a right as you could find.

He thinks marriage is between a man and woman. A clear violation of civil rights. There are lots of people for you to exclude from the party it seems.

Too funny.

And my hope is that he's been disingenuous on that point. We'll see.

women's rights?

We should all be fighting to expand civil rights for everyone, and to make it the official platform of our party. We should be pressuring everyone in our party, including Obama, to support civil rights.

Obama needs to stop lying to the LGBT community and start keeping his promises. I wouldn't hold him up as an example of how a democrat Should be acting.

that covers all abortion. Obviously the legislation will cover abortion according to the Hyde Amendment, just like it is right now. The question is why did Waxman put that language in a bill when he knew it would be illegal for it to stay there.

It isn't that he is preventing them from making decisions, he doesn't want tax dollars to subsidize it.

You risk losing traction by framing it any other way.

then they are prevented from choosing abortion. The only reason they can't get an abortion with their insurance will be because anti-choices have prevented it. How is that so hard to understand?

If I pay for something I don't want people telling me that they are going to limit how I can use it based on their religious views. That is preventing people from making a decision, regardless of how you want to spin it.

If people are wealthy they might be free to make the choice despite the barriers anti-choicers have imposed, but anyone who isn't wealthy will certainly be limited.

That fact that wealthy people aren't restricted does not mean that no restriction exists. If you insist that no restriction exists, you are just engaging in spin.

and it has never covered abortions. I have been with a number of carriers over the years and none have ever offered this coverage.

1. Have you searched for plans that DO cover abortion and tried to select them because the coverage was important to you? And if you did, and found a plan, how would you feel if it was taken away?

2. That fact that you have never had abortion coverage is irrelevant. We are talking about the provisions of the future public options. There is no reason why this insurance can't include coverage for abortion for people who are pro-choice and want it. Anti-choicers should not be able to legislate their views and force them up on everyone else.

Even if abortion had never, ever been covered by any provider anywhere in the past, that is no reason why it can't be covered in the future. The whole point of the public option is ACCESS to health care, not accepting efforts already to whittle it way bit by bit starting with coverage for women's reproductive health.

If people are going to blithely accept this limitation that only restricts women, what other limitations are they going to accept that might only restrict gay men, or only restrict black people, or only restrict teenagers? What other form of prejudice is going to get enshrined in a set of insurance restrictions?

Full pro-choice access to healthcare to make their own decisions is a civil rights issue for women. I support it as a civil rights issue for women, and I am not going to lightly accept people saying, "oh, we shouldn't cover abortions in order to appease people, or because insurance companies don't want to pay for it."

My insurance has been employer-provided for a very long time. While I have had various options among the offered plans, this was not an available option. I have never been willing to leave the 70 to 80 percent subsidy on the table to explore alternatives.

Further, I have been married for 25 years. There has been no point or circumstance over the last 25 years where we, as a couple, would have considered an abortion. We are no longer of reproductive age or capacity, so the point is now moot on a personal level.

However I do have a son and daughter at the age and with the capacity to make this an issue.

I do support the women's right to an elective abortion without question, and would pay for one if the unfortunate occasion arose.

However I am not of the mind that would include this in a national health insurance plan, even if it were single payer, which is my preference. I also support the creation of a peace tax fund, so that my taxes would not go to support war. Personally, I do not have an issue with my tax dollars paying for abortions as I support this right for women. I can see that others would have issue with this along the same lines that I object to my tax dollars supporting war and the preparations for war.

You may prefer war and desire my tax dollars to fund it, I do not know. I do know that there are people who do prefer war and demand my taxes to build an ever larger military industrial complex. I object to this and feel that I should have the right to do so. Thus I support the peace tax fund. Turn about being fair play, I support the right of people to object to paying for other's abortions, even though I would have no problem doing so myself.

let alone abortion. That is not a religious view it's a financial one. Insurance restricts anything and everything it can.

And you can thank Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer for that. They made sure that REAL Democrats were forced out of primaries to make way for these DINO cowards.

:eyes:

...shouldn't have them.

It's that simple.

It's a personal decision.

(actually anti-choice, anti-woman) sections of the reub party and within the dem party that's just not good enough. They know what is best for everyone and they want to screech it from on high.

Dem in '10 or '12 if this conservaDem crap doesn't change.

edit: recd

Any party that is going to have a lasting majority is going to have to be diverse.

opposition to women's rights, and gay rights... is ok.

Do you go so far as those who might oppose civil rights for African Americans, too?

Once we let our standards stretch to include those who, while comfortable in their own secure rights, are only too happy to impinge on those of others, we've lost something crucially important.

Robert Byrd used to be opposed to civil rights for African Americans. He stayed in the party, and eventually came around.

the party tolerated him, but not his bigoted views.

That's the crux of it.

The Democratic Party is NOT a liberal party. It wouldn't have gained the majorities, and dare I say the White House if it were. Instead it represents a lot of different groups and regions with different economic and social standards. The threads that hold things together is the party's ability and desire to accept all (nulike the rushpublicans) and that includes those who are anti-choice.

Unfortunately not all Democrats live in urban conclaves and their value and representatives are more conservative. It's what gets them elected and reflects how the vote. Want to change this? Then support Progressive and Liberal candidates in the primaries and work to expand and build the party.

Pro-war democrats.

Corporatist democrats.

Democrats willing to sacrifice civil liberties.

Union-busting, privatizing Democrats.

Faith-based Democrats.

The tent is so crowded that the base is being squeezed out.

Only Republicans do that.

Party even as we speak. Check out Timmy Kaine's tenure. Bleeding registered Democrats, donations in the toilet, after a lifetime in the Party I will not even read emails from that prejudiced sack of crap. McClurkin, Warren, it just does not end.
They might as well be Republicans, they oppose choice, oppose civil rights and equality for all, oppose Single Payer, they oppose every good thing and uphold the love of control and of money.
I too am sick of the right wing anti-everything and everyone crowd in the DNC.

It pisses me off sometimes too. But the reality is, that probably most voters have a mixture of so-called "liberal" and "conservative" values.

One person might be pro-GLBT, anti-labor, pro-gun & anti-animal rights.

My hope is that if we can reach people on one issue, maybe we can work on them to change their minds about other issues.

because we enter new ideas into our system, if we shut out all other ideas we're not liberals. The term liberal in itself means "against the status quo" because it comes from liberate. Dude, if your tent doesn't stretch far, your not promoting liberal ideas.

I am pro-choice.

But I think we need to leave abortions out of any health care plan. If no payments for abortions is the price of a robust public option, I'll take it.

There are a lot of people, myself included, who believe abortion is murder. I think those beliefs should be respected, and we not spend collective government money on such a controversial procedure.

I think abortions should be allowed by anyone who wants one, but it should not be paid for with government money.

Because most health insurance policies cover abortions.

Based on their life experiences and variations on the data they have received on a subject.

Sure, I'd like for all Dems to agree with me on everything, but that's never going to happen.

If it makes you feel better (I expect it won't) there is no indication that Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. Abortion rights are merely a local election game. The Republicans are always "against" it, the Democrats are "mostly" for it.

The politicians always pay lip-service in order to figure out the best way to get elected, but nothing's going to change. The individual state legislators talk a good game to gain voters, but they're not going to change anything. Abortion rights is too juicy a subject. If it went away, many Republicans wouldn't have a pot to piss in.

If all you care about is abortion, go vote for Rudy Guliani for all I care. He supports abortion rights. Bob Casey doesn't. There. The choice is simple.

And you will find two people who disagree on many topics.