POLITICS: Democratic Leadership Rethinking Abortion

The shakeout at the Democratic party following the narrow election loss of John Kerry may have profound effects on the parties platform. Democratic leadership is debating whether to re-look its position on abortion. Several members are stating that the party cannot hope to win future elections if it is not more accepting of the anti abortion forces.




This is a bit shocking to me. Given the fact that support for this seems to be coming from Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority leader. She is as liberal as they come. If she is supporting a more conservative stance on abortion, then serious change may occur with the Democrats down the road. The party claims that they are still committed to abortion rights, but no doubt are seeking to court the swing voters who went with moral issues.

How sad that parties flip-flop their stance just to hope getting that magic seat in the White House, it kinda disrespects the actual issue as just being a tool for the ballotbox.....Politics....

While I am not a huge fan of the GOP they at least showed more firmness in their statements.

The Democratic party needs a person with more consistency and backbone that's for sure.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

So in other words, the party is going to deceive the public into thinking that the party supports the pro-life opinion, so they will get more votes. Gotta love politics.

The shakeout at the Democratic party following the narrow election loss of John Kerry may have profound effects on the parties platform.

You say tomahto, I say tomayto.
You say narrow election loss, I say mandate.

Hey it works for bush you know, been religious conservative god ridden and pro life.

So all politicians lie, let the democrats lie too.

Originally posted by marg6043
Hey it works for bush you know, been religious conservative god ridden and pro life.
So all politicians lie, let the democrats lie too.

Marg, this is one topic, right or wrong, that haunted Kerry during the election. Now while we have debated the flip flopping back and forth, does'nt this seem like a total shift from the core? Is the DNC saying they cannot win from the far left?

It will be interesting to see if this works.

Originally posted by FredT
Marg, this is one topic, right or wrong, that haunted Kerry during the election. Now while we have debated the flip flopping back and forth, does'nt this seem like a total shift from the core? Is the DNC saying they cannot win from the far left?

It will be interesting to see if this works.

I agree with you FredT, I agree with you more than you think but remember in my case I will be looking for a candidate in 2008 "our creator permit" that is going to help the nation, remember I do not hold political affiliations at all.

So I will not care if he is republican or democrat or libertarian as long as I feel that he is going to help us the American people and not so much his interest.

Wishful thinking, I guess I am a dreamer.

Whatever happened to sticking to your guns? Better yet...why not become the Republicans, they're bound to get in the White Office then and let's face it they practically are anyway.

The inevitable capitulation of a shaky, undefined ideology, and those who cling to it.

Remember Madrid.

To me, the Democrats had two separate issues regarding abortion. One is being pro-choice vs pro-life. That position is defensible whether or not you agree with it.

What sunk them, IMO, was when Kerry said that he was against parental notification. I took that to mean in all cases. That is indefensible. That is where the Dems are most out of touch with the majority of Americans that vote.

and oh-so-gradually, the two parties become one.

screw it. i'm moving to canada.

And if he's in a head to head fight for the DNC why have I never heard of him? Not on Democratic blogs, party material, word of mouth...nada.

Is this like Leading Democrat Says Democratic Party Should Worship at Bush's Feet then FoxNews interviews Zell Miller?

I think it is. Pelosi makes a good point that a political party should be in a position to be open to any and all strongly held religious ideologies, which should have nothing to do with politics, especially economics. What I would consider the present move (if any) to be is willingness to remain open. Well, not exactly open. Just more vague. In that sense, it is very much like adopting the Republican position.

The only candidate you knew exactly where he stood on abortion was John Kerry. That's pretty much true for the Democratic party as a whole. They've been happy to have a virtually all pro-choice party (with some exceptions) while the Republicans have had to appeal to both extreme ideologues and moderates...not to mention fiscal conservatives with radical "leftist" social values. The biggest difference this election was Catholics with strong liberal heritages holding their economic noses to vote Bush because a priest told them they'd go to hell otherwise. :shk: As if he were really a firm moral man of strong convictions.

When Bush ran against zero choice McCain in 2000 he played a moderate, then when he won he signed on for an RNC platform that opposed ALL abortion but dodged questions in the press, then he picked a VP that voted against abortion even in cases of rape and incest, but he himself played the "moderate" again that merely states "culture of life" as an answer to his position.

Oh, and he has no litmus test for judicial appointments. *cough* BS.

Just trying to keep the wedges together. Vague non position you can decifer any way you want to be able to vote for him. Isn't that right FredT?

That's what the Democrats may be talking about stooping to unfortunately given the recent fusion of religion in politics. But I hope not. I'd rather lose than listen to long politcal speeches written by apostles. Beats Bush's Revelations though anytime.

But salacious headline aside, the DNC is not becoming anti-choice in anyone's dreams by a long shot anymore than the RNC is about to admit they want to make 14 year old rape victims spawn for their attackers. Which they do.

I've said this before on ATS, but since I voted for Bush, people ignore me for it. Here goes again.

Kerry didn't lose voters because of his stance on obortion; he lost swing voters because of his presentation of his beliefs.

I listened to Kerry carefully, and he was extremely reticent to discuss the issue. I think, frankly, that to a lot of people in America, that looked like he was embarrassed about it. He referenced his Catholic beliefs, but didn't ever discuss how he squared his own political stance with his own or his church's belief system. Translation: I'm a Catholic, just not a sincere one.

Allowing himself be cast that way KILLED his image; I suspect he did worst with fellow-catholics (hispanics in my state turned out for Bush 6 or 7 out of 10).

This was not an impossible issue for him. Kennedy survived a similar question, which was a hot-button issue back in 1960, of how a Catholic could be President and not "take orders" from the Pope. Kennedy said very forthrightly that he would be taking orders from his constituents when he served as an elected official. And he carried the religious sector with no problem.

See, here's the thing: for most of the swing voters it really was about values---NOT RELIGION. I think that the reason Gore did well against Bush back in 2000 was because of Joe Lieberman. I go to church, and a buncha little old conservative ladies at my church voted Democrat, because they liked Lieberman. They didn't care if he was a Jew, they wanted someone who shared their priorities and world-view.

Kerry's problem with voters was not that he disagreed with his own church, most Protestants have a similar attitude toward their own church leaders---but the problem was that Kerry was not up front about it.

What I'm saying is this: The Democrats don't need to shift their policies, they need to shift their advertizing, and the way they talk about people's motivation. I honestly think Kerry could have carried Ohio if he had said something like Kennedy did. Or maybe "hey, I don't like abortions. I think they are morally wrong. But ultimately, you've got to uphold the individual's right to be secure in their property and person, like it says in the Constitution. I don't love abortion---I love individual liberty and individual responsibility."

The problem is that social conservative hear democrats talk about 'defending a woman's right to choose,' and they don't think there's any difference between the democrats and "pro-abortion activists." You don't hear democrats say anything conciliatory, like "we understand that many people find abortion abhorrant. No matter what stand we take, we will always acknowledge the heartfelt convictions on both sides of the issue." Instead, what we hear is Carrville, saying anyone who doesn't approve of abortion is a fascist.

Well, gee glenda; I guess we're not democrats anymore, then.