Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brooklynite

(93,879 posts)
Tue May 2, 2017, 08:46 PM May 2017

Pelosi: Democratic candidates should not be forced to toe party line on abortion

Source: Washington Post

The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.

“This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she added, referring to the fact that she is the daughter and sister of former mayors of that city. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”

Those comments from one of the Democrats’ most powerful and high-profile women come at a moment of opportunity and struggle within the party. It has been shut out of power in Washington, controlling neither house of Congress nor the White House, and its ranks have been decimated at the state and local level.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-democratic-candidates-should-not-be-forced-to-toe-party-line-on-abortion/2017/05/02/9cbc9bc6-2f68-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html

85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pelosi: Democratic candidates should not be forced to toe party line on abortion (Original Post) brooklynite May 2017 OP
Let the screaming begin! nt 7962 May 2017 #1
You'd think, but it didn't melman May 2017 #42
i know right? catsudon May 2017 #49
Again, you'll illustrate the courage of your convictions with specificity, yes? LanternWaste May 2017 #71
Cute KTM May 2017 #73
This really makes no sense melman May 2017 #75
It never does. "she name names!!" 7962 May 2017 #76
I pretend different opinions are merely hysterics as well. LanternWaste May 2017 #69
Uh-oh....Incoming! Lucky Luciano May 2017 #2
There used to be pro-choice Republicans treestar May 2017 #84
Did she change parties? nt DURHAM D May 2017 #3
No she's simply acknowledging that the Democratic party is big enough to cstanleytech May 2017 #20
It is not an important social issue. DURHAM D May 2017 #21
+ 1 musette_sf May 2017 #26
To some it's an important social issue though and I don't just mean those that are anti choice. cstanleytech May 2017 #36
Thank you The Polack MSgt May 2017 #53
Right on! AgadorSparticus May 2017 #85
Cute little way to rationalize and trivialize established law as mere opinion. LanternWaste May 2017 #70
What's next? DURHAM D May 2017 #4
That's what I was thinking. William769 May 2017 #8
Hi you. DURHAM D May 2017 #10
Not sure of her goal here William769 May 2017 #13
She's a couple of decades late isn't she? rocktivity May 2017 #17
Live and let live bucolic_frolic May 2017 #5
Being pro-life for oneself is one thing. But wanting to take away that right from others... Honeycombe8 May 2017 #6
It should be settled law. LisaM May 2017 #7
OK, but one thing has to be made clear Master_Monstruwacan May 2017 #9
That is the bottom line. Equinox Moon May 2017 #14
No one can guarantee that it will stay that way. delisen May 2017 #24
Like some Rep being anti-choice is going to win over any of those baggers? Ligyron May 2017 #11
Pelosi can vote any way she wants. More_Cowbell May 2017 #12
Same bekkilyn May 2017 #56
it's one thign to debate far left versus centrust left DonCoquixote May 2017 #15
The only litmus test I know of is the one defacto7 May 2017 #16
Yes More_Cowbell May 2017 #29
FUCK the "social conservatives" Skittles May 2017 #18
Oh boy shadowmayor May 2017 #19
Oh my. Let the games begin. jalan48 May 2017 #22
One person's name is missing from this OP - so there can actually be sincere discussion Tom Rinaldo May 2017 #44
Sell out women and I am DONE with you. 6000eliot May 2017 #23
I just wrote an email message to Leader Pelosi expressing my shock and disappointment. musette_sf May 2017 #25
I will never vote for an anti-choice Democrat. 50 Shades Of Blue May 2017 #27
+1000 hamsterjill May 2017 #57
Exactly. NO compromise on human rights. Not now, not EVER (nt) bekkilyn May 2017 #61
She is going to hear from me. No fucking way. bettyellen May 2017 #28
It is one thing for an outsider or fringe DonCoquixote May 2017 #30
I am hoping she meant people personally against it like Kaine and many others in our party GulfCoast66 May 2017 #31
In that case she should of said anti-abortion, NOT ANTI-CHOICE. nt DURHAM D May 2017 #32
I was figuring the same thing. Jno_Gilmor_ May 2017 #43
There is no way we're "winning back" any Trump supporters. athena May 2017 #33
Let me play devil's advocate. Take Bob Casey. In 2012 he beat Rick Santorum. Bob Casey is still_one May 2017 #39
I agree. To hell with Trump supporters. hamsterjill May 2017 #58
I don't have a problem with someone who is pro-life but doesn't believe the Gov. should Quixote1818 May 2017 #34
they are NOT pro-life Skittles May 2017 #64
Let's ask the real question, should the Democratic party support an anti-abortion candidate still_one May 2017 #35
NO compromise on human rights bekkilyn May 2017 #50
Fine, but if that pro-choice Democrat doesn't win the Democratic nomination? What do you do then? still_one May 2017 #52
I would leave the ballot blank or vote 3rd party in that particular race. bekkilyn May 2017 #54
The Democratic party is pro-choice, and pro-women's rights. The platform has no ambiguity regarding still_one May 2017 #59
The solution is to give me a pro-choice candidate to vote for bekkilyn May 2017 #60
I am not going to try to convince you of anything. I am in California, and my Senators and still_one May 2017 #62
Women's bodies are not bargaining chips to be strategically bought and sold. bekkilyn May 2017 #63
Gee, I guess you better throw those "scare tactics" at Bernie, Nancy Pelosi, still_one May 2017 #68
I disagree with their argument on this issue bekkilyn May 2017 #72
That is exactly what Bernie's and Warren's position are. They obviously still_one May 2017 #74
Which is why I disagree with them as I already stated in my last post bekkilyn May 2017 #79
I agree with her, but we must keep our core values sacred. demosincebirth May 2017 #37
My vote will only be for Democratic candidates who support women's health freedom and choice. TeamPooka May 2017 #38
...which is not inconsistent with being "Pro-Life" brooklynite May 2017 #45
I will leave parts of a ballot blank before bekkilyn May 2017 #48
Um... no one is pro-abortion... the_sly_pig May 2017 #40
and pro-force birth is NOT pro-life Skittles May 2017 #65
What the fuck do you think we fought for 50 yrs ago? countryjake May 2017 #67
You fought for a womans right to choose... the_sly_pig May 2017 #81
No sirree, we did NOT. The word "choose" was never mentioned countryjake May 2017 #82
Letting Trump voters know she has relatives just like them. delisen May 2017 #41
Its kind of fading as an issue, she said. It really is. demmiblue May 2017 #46
I cannot stand this woman bekkilyn May 2017 #47
One can be firmly Pro-Life AND Pro-Choice. Xolodno May 2017 #51
Kick them out? No, but primary the hell out of them The Polack MSgt May 2017 #55
Not as important to Democrats as it once was? countryjake May 2017 #66
So Democrats no longer have to follow the Constitution rock May 2017 #77
Won't support anyone anti-choice -nt Bradical79 May 2017 #78
Again the Party needs NEW YOUNGER Leadership Thrill May 2017 #80
This is interesting in that we hear that toeing the party line treestar May 2017 #83
 

melman

(7,681 posts)
42. You'd think, but it didn't
Wed May 3, 2017, 02:55 AM
May 2017

Well. I mean you'd think if you didn't realize all that screaming is really about hating one particular person.


You'll notice all the loudest and most prolific screamers are nowhere to be found in this thread, nor have they started any threads in GD about it.

And they won't. Because again, what they really care about is their intense hatred of You Know Who.

catsudon

(839 posts)
49. i know right?
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:27 AM
May 2017

when HRC said the same thing herself, no one cared... but geez, when the one who can't be named did it, all hell break loose.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
71. Again, you'll illustrate the courage of your convictions with specificity, yes?
Wed May 3, 2017, 01:57 PM
May 2017

"You'll notice all the loudest and most prolific screamers are nowhere to be found in this thread...


Again, you'll illustrate the courage of your convictions with specificity, yes? I'd certainly hate to think anyone would rationalize cowardice; but I guess we never know until we see that rationalization... again.

 

melman

(7,681 posts)
75. This really makes no sense
Wed May 3, 2017, 03:54 PM
May 2017

...again

But I guess what's (sort of ) being suggested is that I should name names. Which of course would get me an instant hide.

So not only would that be stupid and not at all courageous, but almost nobody would see it...including the one who baited me into doing it.

Strange.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
69. I pretend different opinions are merely hysterics as well.
Wed May 3, 2017, 01:53 PM
May 2017

I pretend different opinions are merely hysterics as well. Our bias seems to compel it of us. And we rationalize the obvious as something else. Human nature.

Lucky Luciano

(11,242 posts)
2. Uh-oh....Incoming!
Tue May 2, 2017, 08:48 PM
May 2017

Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

She really didn't have to go there. We don't need to tack to the middle. That is precisely what makes people trust democrats less. Wishy washy bullshit.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
84. There used to be pro-choice Republicans
Sun May 7, 2017, 11:42 AM
May 2017

Not sure if there is such a moderate Republican in this day and age though.

cstanleytech

(26,085 posts)
20. No she's simply acknowledging that the Democratic party is big enough to
Tue May 2, 2017, 10:57 PM
May 2017

include people with differences of opinion on important social issues which is the complete opposite of the Repugnants.

The Polack MSgt

(13,159 posts)
53. Thank you
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:40 AM
May 2017

It is the law.

It is also an economic issue, an equality issues and a freedom issue. Social issue sounds dismissive.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
70. Cute little way to rationalize and trivialize established law as mere opinion.
Wed May 3, 2017, 01:54 PM
May 2017

Cute little way to rationalize and trivialize established law as mere opinion.

William769

(55,124 posts)
13. Not sure of her goal here
Tue May 2, 2017, 09:40 PM
May 2017

But as it stands, I don't like it. That's a core principal of the Democratic party and I for one do NOT want to see it compromised in any way shape or form.

rocktivity

(44,555 posts)
17. She's a couple of decades late isn't she?
Tue May 2, 2017, 10:27 PM
May 2017

You'd think she'd be a lot more concerned about keeping anti gay Dems than anti-choice ones.


rocktivity

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
6. Being pro-life for oneself is one thing. But wanting to take away that right from others...
Tue May 2, 2017, 08:58 PM
May 2017

is something else.

Still, no one really is in 100% agreement with any party platform. OTOH, that's a biggie.

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
7. It should be settled law.
Tue May 2, 2017, 09:01 PM
May 2017

On the other hand, there is a difference between someone personally not being pro-choice and how they vote on various laws when they come up. And I'm pretty sure that most of the pro-choice Democrats wouldn't vote to jail women for having miscarriages, letting employers track down years later whether potential job candidates have had abortions so that they can discriminate against hiring them, and, most importantly, would not vote to defund all the mechanisms that prevent pregnancy.

To me, it is a really important issue and how we got to a place where most of the country is in favor of legalized abortion but we manage to election legislatures than aren't is beyond me. It's really the issue for women that we be able to have a say over our own bodies. I think we've got people scrambling on some of these issues which is unfortunate. And, while I'm for a big tent, a progressive Democratic candidate should be in favor of abortion rights.

More_Cowbell

(2,190 posts)
12. Pelosi can vote any way she wants.
Tue May 2, 2017, 09:36 PM
May 2017

And so will I. I'm done with supporting the DNC, anyway. I support individual candidates.

bekkilyn

(454 posts)
56. Same
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:50 AM
May 2017

Whatever I donate would go to individual candidates. I'd avoid sending to organizations like the DNC because I don't want my money going to candidates I don't want to support or even may be very strongly against for either moral or political reasons.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
15. it's one thign to debate far left versus centrust left
Tue May 2, 2017, 10:24 PM
May 2017

It's another to sell out one of the main party bedrocks. What is next, becoming pro-slavery?

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
16. The only litmus test I know of is the one
Tue May 2, 2017, 10:27 PM
May 2017

where freedom is the default position when sides can't agree on a moral point. That's pure basics in a democracy. Once there's one side that decides personal values for all we are no longer a democratic society. Freedom 101: Be what you want to be, say what you want to say, believe what you want to believe.... as long as it doesn’t take away the freedom of anyone else to do the same.
Freedom of Choice.... that's the default position. Cross that line and freedom is no more.

shadowmayor

(1,325 posts)
19. Oh boy
Tue May 2, 2017, 10:55 PM
May 2017

Don't like abortion? Then don't have one. Don't like gay marriage? Then don't marry a same sex partner. Easy enough. But, when you think your beliefs should be my beliefs, well we gotta real big problem. How about, I like all people, but I think that we should be allowed to own slaves because it's in that book? You know, that book where god likes abortion - See Numbers 5 11:31.

Are there so many (or so few) pro-life democrats that we need to court them now? I know, we're not supposed to criticize democrats, but there are times when our side says or does something that demands a firm rebuke. The anti-abortion carrot isn't the draw that many think it could be.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
44. One person's name is missing from this OP - so there can actually be sincere discussion
Wed May 3, 2017, 09:01 AM
May 2017

instead of the games on this thread.

6000eliot

(5,643 posts)
23. Sell out women and I am DONE with you.
Tue May 2, 2017, 11:21 PM
May 2017

Surely she knows that it's mostly women who are fighting this fight against the Orange Clown.

musette_sf

(10,184 posts)
25. I just wrote an email message to Leader Pelosi expressing my shock and disappointment.
Tue May 2, 2017, 11:35 PM
May 2017

I also expressed my hope that we would soon hear her present a statement similar to that of DNC Chair Perez, stating that the defense and protection of women's rights is "non-negotiable".

Fortunately, Rep Speier, who has been my rep since the 12th District was redrawn to exclude my county, has stepped up this year to fight for the ratification of the ERA, and has applauded the felony charges against the domestic terrorists who are directly responsible for influencing terrorist Robert Dear to do the massacre at the Planned Parenthood medical facility in Colorado Springs. I hope that Rep Speier remains resolute in protecting and defending women's sacred rights.

hamsterjill

(15,214 posts)
57. +1000
Wed May 3, 2017, 11:24 AM
May 2017

I will NEVER vote for an anti-choice Democrat. It's a deal breaker for me and if someone does not understand that, so be it. I will not back down.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
30. It is one thing for an outsider or fringe
Tue May 2, 2017, 11:48 PM
May 2017

Like a Sanders or Baucus who comes from the farther borders of the party. What the Hell is Pelosi doing after she got support from many women and other pro choice people?

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
31. I am hoping she meant people personally against it like Kaine and many others in our party
Tue May 2, 2017, 11:54 PM
May 2017

What a person chooses to do is their own business.

But our platform is clear and will not change.

A woman's body is her own and the state has no say in it.

There can be no compromise on this issue!

Jno_Gilmor_

(127 posts)
43. I was figuring the same thing.
Wed May 3, 2017, 03:04 AM
May 2017

I care about how someone is going to vote, not neccessarily their personal beliefs. You can be pro-choice--believe all women should be able to make their own choices--and be personally against abortion. As long as a candidate supports choice I can support them. If they don't support a women's right to choose they don't deserve my vote or my money!

athena

(4,187 posts)
33. There is no way we're "winning back" any Trump supporters.
Wed May 3, 2017, 12:09 AM
May 2017

Wasn't there an analysis that came out recently that showed that Hillary lost the EC because the Democratic base didn't turn out? It's the Democratic base the Democratic Party should be courting; not those woman-hating, LGBT-hating, immigrant-hating, minority-hating, science-hating Trump supporters.

The harder the Democratic Party tries to win over Trump supporters, the more it will lose the support of its base. I am very disappointed in Pelosi for falling for the argument that the only group that matters is working-class conservative white men.

Then again, as I've been saying for months: when Democrats lose, they move right, not left. It's what happened in 2000, and it's what is going to happen now. If people wanted to move the Democratic Party left, they should have voted Democratic, not stayed home or voted third-party.

still_one

(91,966 posts)
39. Let me play devil's advocate. Take Bob Casey. In 2012 he beat Rick Santorum. Bob Casey is
Wed May 3, 2017, 12:51 AM
May 2017

very anti-abortion, and against Roe V Wade. The Democratic party is pro-choice, and for Roe V Wade. We all know where Rick Santorum is on the issues. Except for abortion, and a women's right to choose, on every other issue, Casey would be considered a progressive.

If the choice is between an anti-abortion Democrat, and an anti-abortion republican, the Democratic party would be insane not to support the Democrat in this case, assuming the Democrat is progressive on the other issues verses the republican.

In 2018 Bob Casey will be up for re-election if he decides to run. It will be the primary process that will determine who the Democratic voters choose, but once that nomination has been finalized, I think the Democratic party has to be very careful and look at all the issues before making a blanket statement that they won't support the Democratic nominee over the republican one over abortion.

hamsterjill

(15,214 posts)
58. I agree. To hell with Trump supporters.
Wed May 3, 2017, 11:34 AM
May 2017

Yes, I know that sounds crass, but we don't need to go to them; they need to come to us.

I think some of them will be re-thinking their support of Trump when they are personally affected by his policies.

Quixote1818

(28,904 posts)
34. I don't have a problem with someone who is pro-life but doesn't believe the Gov. should
Wed May 3, 2017, 12:22 AM
May 2017

get involved and wants to leave Roe vs Wade intact.

still_one

(91,966 posts)
35. Let's ask the real question, should the Democratic party support an anti-abortion candidate
Wed May 3, 2017, 12:35 AM
May 2017

against an anti-abortion republican?

The Democratic platform clearly states that the Democratic party is a pro-choice party. So when Representative Pelosi says that "Democratic candidates should not be forced to toe party line on abortion", I assume means the Democratic party should not withhold election funds to anti-abortion Democrats against their republican counterparts.

Bob Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat, was the re-elected in 2012, and is the first Democrat to win re-election to the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania since 1962. In 2018, Bob Casey will be up for re-election. If Bob Casey wins the Democratic primary, should the Democratic party withhold funds from his re-election campaign against the republican, because he is anti-abortion?

Expanding that, should the Democratic party withhold funds from any anti-abortion Democrat running against an anti-abortion republican?

In the case of Bob Casey, he is anti-abortion, but on almost every other issue he would be classified as a liberal, and definitely far better than a Rick Santorum, or Toomey.

The issue is not so black and white as some would lead us to believe.

bekkilyn

(454 posts)
50. NO compromise on human rights
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:30 AM
May 2017

Find a pro-choice candidate to support against the anti-choice Republican. Just to clarify, candidates can have whatever personal or religious beliefs they want, but they need to be fully pro-choice when it comes to *legislation*.

Would you ask if it was okay for the Democratic party to support a pro-slavery candidate just as long as s/he were only running against a Republican pro-slavery candidate?

Hopefully the answer would be NO!

Because we don't support slavery. Ever!

Why should women's rights be treated differently?

still_one

(91,966 posts)
52. Fine, but if that pro-choice Democrat doesn't win the Democratic nomination? What do you do then?
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:36 AM
May 2017

If you have an anti-abortion Democrat who won the Democratic nomination because the voters in that state voted for him, running against an anti-abortion republican, what do you do? Please answer that question, because that is the political reality of what happens.

In 2012 when Bob Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat was running against Rick Santorum, who would you vote for in that case?

bekkilyn

(454 posts)
54. I would leave the ballot blank or vote 3rd party in that particular race.
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:43 AM
May 2017

Better to lose a seat than to give any sort of support to legislating human rights violations. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and it's healthier in the long-term for the party to not back down when it comes to basic human rights at minimum.

still_one

(91,966 posts)
59. The Democratic party is pro-choice, and pro-women's rights. The platform has no ambiguity regarding
Wed May 3, 2017, 11:36 AM
May 2017

this.

The majority of Democrats in Congress are pro-choice.

It is a fact that the party who has the majority in Congress controls the agenda.

Having the majority to control the agenda is critical. If the Democratic party had that majority, Women's rights would NOT be jeopardized as they are now.

There was a mindset among some self-identified progressives, that they would not vote for Hillary in the general election, by either not voting, or voting third party. That resulted in what we have today, not only with the WH, but the make-up of Congress as well.

Because of what happened in 2016, 2018 is do or die, and in my view not only for women's rights, but for America decades to come.






bekkilyn

(454 posts)
60. The solution is to give me a pro-choice candidate to vote for
Wed May 3, 2017, 12:01 PM
May 2017

And not expect me to compromise on basic human rights because I won't do it. Never ever not in a gazillion years. Not for anyone or any party.

still_one

(91,966 posts)
62. I am not going to try to convince you of anything. I am in California, and my Senators and
Wed May 3, 2017, 12:25 PM
May 2017

representative are all pro-choice, but I will say this, if I was in Pennsylvania, and the Democratic voters in Pennsylvania nominated Bob Casey as the Democratic Senate nominee in 2018, and he is running against someone like Rick Santorum, without a second thought I would vote for Casey. I am as pro-choice, and women's rights as they come, but on this I agree with Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, that everything needs to be considered.

If the Democrats take back the Senate in 2018, the few anti-choice Democrats in the Congress will NOT change the pro-choice agenda or positions of a Democratic Senate. On the other hand, if those few pro-choice Democrats lose, and that loss causes us to not regain the majority in the Senate, you can bet if there is another SC vacancy between 2018 and 2020, that Roe V Wade will be overturned, and the result of that will affect women in a negative way for decades to come.

bekkilyn

(454 posts)
63. Women's bodies are not bargaining chips to be strategically bought and sold.
Wed May 3, 2017, 01:13 PM
May 2017

And trying to scare women into voting against our human rights with various "what if" conditions isn't a good strategy. After all, trying to scare people into not voting for 45 didn't work either. Give people things to vote *for*, giving people reasons to *trust* that the party will stand behind their rights unconditionally and unapologetically...that's how to attract voters. When I hear arguments like yours, my trust goes right in the gutter because it clearly tells me that there are cases (if I'd only see things "reasonably&quot where my human rights are for sale.

Nope, not going to do it. No compromise.

still_one

(91,966 posts)
68. Gee, I guess you better throw those "scare tactics" at Bernie, Nancy Pelosi,
Wed May 3, 2017, 01:51 PM
May 2017

Elizabeth Warren while you are at it, because that is the argument they are using

bekkilyn

(454 posts)
72. I disagree with their argument on this issue
Wed May 3, 2017, 02:19 PM
May 2017

Now I do like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, but I wouldn't necessarily vote for candidates just because either or both endorsed them. There are lines that cannot be crossed or compromised and basic human rights is one of those lines.

Bernie probably matches my own views on most things compared to other politicians, but I wouldn't expect to be in 100% agreement with him, and don't mind calling him out or holding him accountable when appropriate, and this is one of those times when it's appropriate. Even Bernie doesn't have my support on this one.

Unless Perez has wimped out and backtracked concerning pro-forced birth candidates, I have to give this one to him for standing up for what's right and something I'd like to see the Democratic party doing more often.

still_one

(91,966 posts)
74. That is exactly what Bernie's and Warren's position are. They obviously
Wed May 3, 2017, 03:42 PM
May 2017

do not consider an anti-abortion Democrat, as being against "human rights". The reason I think I can make that argument is because if they really believed that someone was against "human rights", they wouldn't support that candidate.

Let's extrapolate that. Suppose we had a Democratic candidate who was against Civil Rights. That is not a far fetched argument, since in the 50's, 60's, and 70's there were "democrats" in the south, who were outright racists. The Democratic party made the correct moral decision with the Civil Rights Act, from Lyndon Johnson, and effectively lost those Southern democrats. They became republicans, and along with Nixon's exploitation, gave birth to his racist Southern strategy, and the Democrats for the most part, lost the South

Howard Dean started to change that through his 50-state strategy, but the price paid was accepting anti-choice, pro-gun, Democrats as part of the party.

The question comes down to this, can a pro-choice Democrat win in a red state?

Incidentally, Perez has NOT backed down on this. He has drawn a line in the sand, and by that action alone, regardless of what Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or any other Democrat, or someone who aligns with the Democratic party say, the official position of the Democratic party is that regardless of someone's personal views on abortion, if you want to be part of the Democratic party, then you must vote pro-choice.

It will be interesting to see if this becomes an issue in 2018. I have no doubt it will be an issue in 2020 though.








bekkilyn

(454 posts)
79. Which is why I disagree with them as I already stated in my last post
Wed May 3, 2017, 05:41 PM
May 2017

I am glad to hear that Perez hasn't backed down. It's been really refreshing to finally see some backbone, and encouraging that at least someone in Democratic party leadership isn't willing to sell off people's basic human rights.

Winning at all costs isn't winning.

TeamPooka

(24,156 posts)
38. My vote will only be for Democratic candidates who support women's health freedom and choice.
Wed May 3, 2017, 12:50 AM
May 2017

No matter what party leaders say, the grass roots will have final say over this matter in the ballot box.

brooklynite

(93,879 posts)
45. ...which is not inconsistent with being "Pro-Life"
Wed May 3, 2017, 09:13 AM
May 2017

Senator Bob Casey is "pro-life" but doesn't apply his philosophy to funding Planned Parenthood or imposing restrictions on reproductive rights.

bekkilyn

(454 posts)
48. I will leave parts of a ballot blank before
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:25 AM
May 2017

I would ever knowingly vote for a candidate who is a pro-forced birther. Basic human rights issues are NOT up for compromise. EVER, whether they have to do with gender, race, ethnicity, disability, etc.

the_sly_pig

(740 posts)
40. Um... no one is pro-abortion...
Wed May 3, 2017, 01:47 AM
May 2017

However, a woman's right to control her own body is absolute. Control over one's own body is as fundamental a human right as possible. Those that believe otherwise are not Democrats.

Democrats have every right, as everyone else, to oppose abortion. However, if you wish to be a considered a Democrat you will not work toward the elimination of fundamental human rights.

Whether Nancy makes that distinction is an issue in itself.

the_sly_pig

(740 posts)
81. You fought for a womans right to choose...
Sat May 6, 2017, 11:42 PM
May 2017

and have absolute control over her own body, which includes abortion. I thought I made that pretty clear in my post. No need to get your undies in a twist.

countryjake

(8,554 posts)
82. No sirree, we did NOT. The word "choose" was never mentioned
Sun May 7, 2017, 12:10 AM
May 2017

in any Women's Protest March for our rights, before RoeVWade. It was only long after, during the seventies, when the pro-life/forced-birthers began their campaign to take away from us what we'd won that "Choice" ever entered the picture.

We fought for the right to Abortion, our human right!





Back then, there were hundreds of thousands of us who most certainly were Pro-Abortion and nary a one of us was afraid or ashamed to shout it out loud!

And that's why women have the Right to Abortion today.





delisen

(6,039 posts)
41. Letting Trump voters know she has relatives just like them.
Wed May 3, 2017, 01:50 AM
May 2017

I have anti-choice relatives just like you!

The legislative leaders have a narrow analysis and narrow focus. They want to believe if they make some adjustments in emphasis-go light on Human Rights for now and and emphasis we are the party of working families everything will work out.

We will pick up seat but not because of the simple-minded analysis.

They should actually be doubling down on human rights but they don't know that yet

Don't expect them to be visionaries or see the big picture. That is going to be up to us.

They are nuts and bolts people and are good at what they do-getting positive legislation passed and blocking bad legislation.

The newly emerged Clinton sounded very confident today. She sees the the big picture and she is focused on women and girls.

Sanders thinks he is a revolutionary; Clinton thinks she is not--they are both wrong.








demmiblue

(36,751 posts)
46. Its kind of fading as an issue, she said. It really is.
Wed May 3, 2017, 09:25 AM
May 2017

Oh, bullshit, Speaker Pelosi.

Pelosi expressed doubt whether any hard-line antiabortion candidate could win a Democratic presidential primary. She also noted that the debate over abortion no longer boils down to whether a candidate is for or against the basic right to the procedure, but rather over whether and what types of limits should be imposed.

As a result, “within the Democrats, I don’t think that you’ll see too many candidates going out there and saying, ‘I’m running as a pro-life candidate,’?” she said. “It’s how far are you willing to go on the issue — but let’s not spend too much time” on the subject.

“It’s kind of fading as an issue,” she said. “It really is.”



THIS (Ilyse Hogue):

“Encouraging and supporting anti-choice candidates leads to bad policy outcomes that violate women’s rights and endanger our economic security,” Hogue said via email.

The platform approved by Democrats at their national convention in Philadelphia last year “went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the women’s rights. It didn’t just seek to protect abortion access — it sought to expand it,” Hogue said. “If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it can’t go backward, it can’t back down and it can’t trade away these principles.”

bekkilyn

(454 posts)
47. I cannot stand this woman
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:18 AM
May 2017

Her current stance of welcoming and encouraging pro-forced birthers into the Democratic party with open arms is only icing on the cake. I don't care what her personal beliefs are, but I thought the Democratic party was supposed to be about standing up for basic human rights, not compromising them. If she can't handle that job, then she needs to move aside for someone else who won't compromise on human rights issues.

Xolodno

(6,341 posts)
51. One can be firmly Pro-Life AND Pro-Choice.
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:36 AM
May 2017

Pro-Life people can be for better sex education, free contraception, more money for adoption services, more money social services that provide for adopted children, single mothers, etc.

Its GOP nut jobs who say carry a pregnancy to term if you are raped, push abstinence only education and cut social services...in other words, Repubs are the number one cause of abortions.

The Polack MSgt

(13,159 posts)
55. Kick them out? No, but primary the hell out of them
Wed May 3, 2017, 10:45 AM
May 2017

If the Democrats who live in that district are forced birth believers, I guess they'll get what they deserve.

Just make sure that the DNC does not push away pro-choice Democrats or impose their choice top down

treestar

(82,383 posts)
83. This is interesting in that we hear that toeing the party line
Sun May 7, 2017, 11:41 AM
May 2017

is not a good thing from certain quarters here on DU.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Pelosi: Democratic candid...