Would you support a Democratic candidate who has the following anti-choice record?

[Clintonista2]

-Supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad.
-Supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion.
-Voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus.
-Voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception.
-Voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers.
-Opposed embryonic stem cell research.


Many of you would be surprised at whos record this is.

[silverojo]

1. K&R

I'm dying to know who the hell this turncoat is....

[Clintonista2]

2. *Drumroll!*

Dennis Kucinich.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Wow! Thanks! What a shock. My vote shifts to corporate Shillary instead!

Let's bomb Iran and steal Iraq's oil for a better America!

[Clintonista2]

8. So you're not going to respond with regards to the OP?

And then the DK supporters wonder why nobody listens to them... :eyes:

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Apparently Kucinich has got Hillary a little frightened, eh?

Amazing. My condolences.
After all, I thought Dennis was "unelectable."
If he's scaring the unbeatable Hillary, he must be less "unelectable" than we figured.

[Clintonista2]

5. Nope, I'm just pointing out the DINO's running in the race. nt.

[RufusTFirefly]

9. DINO??!!!! BWAHAHAHA!!!!

I've heard Dennis called many things. But a DINO?? Now that's a new one.

Seriously. Just between friends: Do you get paid to post this stuff?

[Clintonista2]

10. Would you, or would you not support a Democratic candidate running with that record?

Simple question.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. You mean instead of the Goldwater Girl?? n/t

[Clintonista2]

12. I didnt see a "yes" or a "no" in that response

So I'll ask again. Would you, or would you not support a candidate running with that record?

[RufusTFirefly]

14. Yes! Are you satisfied?

Wow. You really got me on that one!

And in turn, do you support a candidate who supports blackmailing the Iraqi gov't into turning over much of its oil resources to multinationals? And who has threatened Iran, a country who may possibly have nuclear energy in 5 years, unlike many of its neighbors, who have it now? And its primary adversary, who not only has nuclear energy, but is the only nation to use the nuclear bomb???

[Clintonista2]

16. Wow. Very, very sad.

Sad that you would oppose in particular stem cell research, aswell as partial birth abortion even when the mothers life is in danger. Please stop posting, you make me physically ill.

[RufusTFirefly]

22. You need to take your meds

I don't oppose any of those things.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I support someone who opposes and has always opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq.
He doesn't have to say, "If I only knew then what I know now."
I support someone who supports single payer healthcare.
I support someone who unequivocally opposes NAFTA.
etc, etc.

[Clintonista2]

23. You support a candidate who does, therefore, you support it. nt.

[Forkboy]

54. Your candidate voted for a war, so I guess you support the effort.

Funny how that logic works, isn't it?

[Clintonista2]

71. Sarcastic irony sure isn't lost on you, is it?

:rofl:

[nickinSTL]

56. "You support a candidate who does, therefore, you support it. "

hate to jump in the middle of this battle, but I have to call you on this.

This statement is simply WRONG.

just because someone supports a candidate, does NOT mean that s/he agrees with EVERY position that candidate takes. In fact, I know for me, there is NOT ONE candidate for president (at least among the major party candidates - ie, the 8 Dems and 9 Repubs that get ANY media coverage) who agrees with me on everything.

And which candidate agrees with me on the MOST things? Dennis Kucinich.

Is his record on abortion troubling? Yes. But, anyone supporting Kucinich who doesn't know his history on the abortion issue (and cares about the issue) needs to do some research anyway.

However, whereas I have issues with Kucinich's commitment to legal abortion, I have issues with a LOT of issues when it comes to, say, Clinton.

Clinton (and really, the other major Dem candidates) supports a continuation of for-profit health care in this country. Clinton is not committed to ending the disastrous mess Bush has created in Iraq. Clinton is good on a number of issues, such as legality of abortion, but I have a lot more disagreement on issues with her than I do with Kucinich.

In my opinion, the idea isn't to find what one considers to be the "purest" candidate, but to find the best candidate, and to try through voting, letter-writing, petitioning, etc. to ensure that those areas of disagreement can be bridged.

[LittleClarkie]

18. However, to be fair, that's not the platform he's running on now

Hillary is no longer a Goldwater girl, and Dennis is no longer staunchly pro-life in his voting.

[Clintonista2]

19. Very true, just as Mrs.Clinton isn't running on a pro-Iraq platform

As most Kucinich supporters assert.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. The Difference Is Ms. Clinton Was A Goldwater Girl Up Until 1964

Mr. Kucinich was anti-choice up until three months before running for president...

[dionysus]

57. ah, you've graduated from the wyldwolf school of "debate tactics"

[LittleClarkie]

17. Do you know what they call Goldwater Republicans now?

Democrats.

Who cares if she used to be a Goldwater gal. I know at least one other person who used to be a Goldwater person who is now a Democrat.

[redqueen]

26. Bite your tongue!

Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act, for one thing...

:wtf:

[PassingFair]

65. No, they call them "New Democrats" or "Blue Dog Democrats"

Or "Vichy Democrats"

[silverojo]

60. The only thing scaring me

Is DK's abominable record on abortion rights. :mad:

[sandnsea]

4. Dennis' Catholic upbringing

I think most Kucinich supporters know he has struggled with the abortion issue.

[Clintonista2]

6. I was brought up a strong catholic myself

I've always supported women's rights 100%.

[Debi]

31. That may be

but it seems other Catholics who are in elected office AND ran for President could support women's reproductive health care rights.







:shrug:
(John Kerry)

[sandnsea]

40. And Dennis didn't. So???

He's not the only Democrat who has been less than 100% pro-choice. This is the only attack that can be launched at Kucinich and it's petty of Hillary's supporters to do it. Junk yard politics. The whole lot of them make me puke.

[Clintonista2]

42. So your premise that Dennis is immune from criticism because he was "raised a catholic"

Is false.

[sandnsea]

45. It was an explanation

not a claim that he is immune from criticism. He is also not going to come anywhere near winning any primary, so what is your purpose in attacking him? It says a whole hell of alot more about you than it does about Dennis.

[Clintonista2]

46. It's not an "attack"

I think all candidates have made their share of mistakes. I don't think it's fair to focus on only the top three, and I think many of Kucinich's supporters are not fully aware of his whole record.

[CTyankee]

48. No, no, no. Less than 100% is one thing. This voting record is shocking!

I had no idea he was that bad on choice. You really have to plug your ears and put your hands over your eyes not to see how extreme this is! I wasn't a DK supporter before, but I never thought he had been this far gone! Why is he even allowed as a candidate if he so radically diverges from the core beliefs of the Democratic Party?

He can't be gone fast enough for me...

[incapsulated]

13. Yes, I knew

It's pretty indefensible. But since he has no chance of getting the nomination, it's also pretty meaningless.

But I'm not going to slam you for taking a shot back, no one, and I mean no one running is flawless. Far from it.

[LittleClarkie]

15. I already know.

And I've always wondered why most of his supporters didn't see his about face just before the 2004 election as being inspired by his presidential run. Most seem to see it as an honest to God sincere change of heart, the timing notwithstanding.

If it were anyone else they'd say that person was pandering for the timing of his "conversion"

[goodgd_yall]

25. I don't the "pandering" argument

that predictably comes up when a politician changes his or her stance on an issue. I think conversion is possible; I'm not as cynical as some. I've believed Kucinich has changed his view on abortion.

Even if a politician changes his or her mind for political expedience and it aligns then with my stand on the issue, I'm fine with it as long as the change in stance remains after election.

[CTyankee]

49. 3 MONTHS before announcing he's running? Are you kidding?

It doesn't say much about his critical thinking to believe he just all of a sudden "evolved" in one fell swoop on such a wide panorama of reproductive health issues. There is a REAL disrespect for women's lives here, as well as for people suffering from conditions that stem cell research could save. Those are abominable votes.

Before I just learned this, I supported DK's presence, if not his candidacy, at the "table" of the Democratic debates. Now I think his credibility is shot. Without a LOT more probing of his mind's thinking I doubt his credentials as a Democrat. Until he can explain this better he should stay out of further Democratic debates. Let him get his own little debate going and his followers can just tag along.

[Kiouni]

20. Uhh.... I support a few of those

And ahh from my experience with Kucinich is there is generally a reason for his madness. I like the guy even though he doesn't have a shot.

Oh I should clarify I think the Unborn victims of violence act while maybe a slippery slope is needed because of those cut the baby out of the mom crimes and parents should be the one to take them to the doc and not the teenage father. But i live in one of two states without a safe haven law so I could be slightly brain washed.

[mrgorth]

24. I can't believe someone just called DK

a DINO. What the hell is wrong with you?

[Stop Cornyn]

30. AMEN!

[Clintonista2]

32. Anybody who opposes:

1) Stem cell research
2) Partial birth abortion, even when the mothers life is in danger

Is no true Democrat in my books.

[Stop Cornyn]

35. The past tense of "oppose" is "opposed" not "opposes." I just sent Dennis $50 in your honor. Thanks!

[Clintonista2]

36. You're welcome!

:hi:

[HughBeaumont]

63. Yeah, just like anyone . . .

* who is buddy/buddy with Rupert Murdoch, Big Insurance and Indian outsourcing companies.
* who believed the worst president in America's history's "evidence" when it comes to sending kids off to die in useless and veiled energy-market grabs
* who gives said worst president the green light if needed when it comes to Iran
* who voted "yes" on the 2001 Bankruptcy bill
* who supported DOMA
* who talks out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to free trade and job offshoring

That MUST be a true Democrat, not someone who struggled with the pro-life issue due to his Catholic upbringing. Refresh my memory, is that his platform NOW?

Shillary can't exactly hide from all the things I mentioned.

[redqueen]

27. Yes, I would.

How old is the most recent of those votes, out of curiosity...

[Clintonista2]

34. Last session of congress

Dennis changed his views just before he announced he was running for prez.

[redqueen]

44. nevermind...

pointless really

:hi:

[flpoljunkie]

28. Why attack Kucinich? Because his name's still on Michigan ballot, despite his effort to withdraw?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/UPDATE/710100459/1409/METRO

[Stop Cornyn]

29. Beating Dennis up because he's on the MI ballot over positions he's long since evolved past is LOW!

[Clintonista2]

33. Is Dennis immune from criticism? nt.

[Stop Cornyn]

37. Hillary is a Republican !*

*she was President of Wellesley College's Young Republicans in 1965, but since this thread pretends that candidates' past positions are there current positions, let's not distinguish between the past and present!

[Clintonista2]

38. The difference:

She didn't become a Democrat just before announcing her run for president.

[CTyankee]

55. Oh, please. 47 years as opposed to 3 years? You've got to be kidding?

That is such a lame argument I am surprised you even TRY to use it!

[William769]

39. Hit them where it counts Lirwin2!

[Clintonista2]

41. Haha thanks. DK supprters love to dish it out, but as this thread proves, they can't take criticism

Notice how they are all like: "WHY ARE YOU ATTACKING DENNIS??!?!?!"

[William769]

43. It's amazing the only one that is supposed to be criticized is Hillary.

But when anyone from the Hillary side goes on the offensive, they seem to get their panties in a bunch! :rofl:

[Forkboy]

50. You guys couldn't hit us where it counts with laser sights installed on your head.

If you think this thread is it you're hard up for entertainment. :shrug:

[LWolf]

47. I notice you didn't post dates, didn't post any votes

in the last several years, and left out the NARAL rating of 100%. :eyes:

[Clintonista2]

52. His NARAL rating of 100% comes AFTER his announcement of running for president

He only changed his views on this issue 3 months before running for president. If you look at his record from 1995 until that point, his highest NARAL rating was 20%, but most of the time it was 0%.

[LWolf]

53. Actually, his change of position

comes at least a year before he was DRAFTED to run for president.

What a pathetic attempt at a smear.

[Forkboy]

51. .....

[Odin2005]

58. Nice utter pwnage of Kucinich, Lirwin2! n/t.

[Sandaasu]

59. Yep

That's in the past and things change. Also, my support of a candidate simply isn't entirely dependent upon having a strong pro-abortion-choice voting record. I've seen even the most adamant abortive rights supporters say that it's a sticky issue with reasonable arguments on both sides, so some forgiveness should be given here. Also, I don't see anything in that list involving him trying to get it entirely banned either, so he's hardly some big right-winger on this.

Anyway, if that counts as being a DINO, can I call Hillary one for still being supportive of DOMA?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Sure

"Anyway, if that counts as being a DINO, can I call Hillary one for still being supportive of DOMA?"

Sure, just as long as you call Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd DINOS as they are still supportive of DOMA also...

[Maribelle]

64. DOMA is a double-headed monster

And Hillary has been extremely clear regarding her position on this.

Senator Clinton believes that each state should make its own decisions regarding marriage or civil unions, but once a state legalizes such relationships, these relationships should receive full federal recognition and benefits...

As several states have legalized gay marriage or civil unions, Senator Clinton has come to believe that the restrictions imposed by DOMA on federal government recognition of same-sex relationships are unfair ...

[dsc]

67. Kucinich also supported DOMA

He campaigned for Congress in 1996 when it was passed and he repeatedly said that he would have voted for it. He also said repeatedly that he wouldn't seek to change the law and didn't until he started running for President.

[Clintonista2]

69. Oops! nt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. What's The Brouhaha About?

He changed his position about abortion prior to becoming a "national" politician...So did Jesse Jackson and Dick Gephardt for starters...

These people are candidates for higher office, not cardboard saints...

[mmonk]

66. Won't work. Nice try though.

[Clintonista2]

70. What won't work? I'm dying to know

As would be the mothers unable to have a partial-birth abortion, even when faced with death.

[skipos]

68. Kucinich is one of my last picks for 08, but not because of his firm anti-choice past.

However, Clinton (another one of my last choices for 08) would be raked over the coals if she was had Dennis' anti-choice history. Kucinich seems to get a pass on this. Ah... what can I say? All the candidates have their biased supporters.

[slipslidingaway]

72. Many people have truly evolved on this issue when they

realize it is also about the rights of women. I am not happy with the past votes on these issues, but I'm willing to look past them considering his position on a number of other topics.


Another idea for a poll???

Would you support a candidate who delegates their responsibility on sending our nation to war, especially those who did not read all available intelligence?


Senator Byrd on 10/10/02

"The language of this resolution has been touted as a bipartisan compromise that addresses the concerns of both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress. But the only thing that I see being compromised in this resolution is this Constitution of the United States, which I hold in my hand, and the power that Constitution gives to Congress to declare war. This resolution we are considering is a dangerous step toward a government in which one man at the other end of this avenue holds in his hand the power to use the world's most powerful military force in whatever manner he chooses, whenever he chooses, wherever he chooses, and wherever he perceives a threat against national security...


In the proposed use-of-force resolution, the White House lawyers claim ``the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States.''

It says no such thing. I dare them to go to the Constitution and point out where that Constitution says what they say it said. They cannot do it. I know the job of any good lawyer--I have never been a practicing lawyer, but I know the job of a good lawyer is to craft legal interpretations that are most beneficial to the client. But for the life of me, I cannot find any basis for such a broad, expansive interpretation in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Find it. Show it to me. You can't do it.

Where in the Constitution is it written that the title of Commander in Chief carries with it the power to decide unilaterally whether to commit the resources of the United States to war? Show it to me, lawyers, lawyers of the White House, or lawyers in this body. Show it.

There is a dangerous agenda, believe me, underlying these broad claims by this White House. The President is hoping to secure power under the Constitution that no President has ever claimed before. Never. He wants the power--the Bush administration wants that President to have power to launch this Nation into war without provocation and without clear evidence of an imminent attack on the United States. And we are going to be foolish enough to give it to him."

[Myrina]

73. Citations for your claims, please ?

Just checking. Thanks!