Bart Stupak is a Democrat- and is Anti-Choice????

[Sebass1271]

Isn't it one of the Democratic platform and agenda to be Pro-Choice? When you take the Party's oath to represent the Democratic party, being Pro-
choice along with many other agendas and platforms aren't supposed to be your main ideals and requisites for you to do so? Where did this guy come from? Are these ppl really Republicans and are infiltrating our party by being social progressives but with a hidden agenda of being Anti-
Choice?

This is very scary and i can't comprehend how our party is allowing this to happen.

[valerief]

1. Amazing, isn't it? Why do we let DINOsaurs into the tent? I don't think Dems

are supposed to let Repubs filibuster them either, but that's apparently the norm now.

The best Dem in the Senate isn't even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders is Independent!!!!

[Sebass1271]

3. I don't know what is happening to our party. I don't know if this

is a result of Bill Clinton going to center when he was president because he thought this country was never going to embraced progressive ideas, or just because our party was labeled as a fringe left group when jimmy carter was our president and we couldn't recuperate after that. It is getting so sad that our supposed democratic leaders and senators such as blanchard, reid, nelson and others are opposing a decent health care reform, one of our biggest and most beloved platforms.

What the hell is going on??? Should i freaking blame it all on Rahm Emmanuel?? Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter? or is it just that i am being too blind to see that this country really doesn't embrace my ideals anymore??

[valerief]

4. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Most are bought and paid for. That's what. nt

[WI_DEM]

70. "I don't know what is happening to our party" as if this is something new

Democrats have always since its beginning had conservative elements, moderate elements and liberal elements. It's nothing new and if you read its history you would know that.

[ashling]

84. I remember going to a Dem 4th of July picnic in 1976

you could get your picture with the "official" Donkey. You had your choice of signs to hold: "wild eyed liberal", "moss eaten conservative" or others.

[Tesha]

9. Actually, he's a (whisper) "socialist". But don't tell anyone, 'kay? (NT)

[valerief]

10. I know he is, but he caucuses with the Dems so that makes him the BEST Dem!!!!

Viva la Bernie!!!!

[Tesha]

21. I've suggested several times that he ought to be our Senate Majority Leader. (NT)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Before you go all crazy and start tearing your hair out, breathe, and look at the facts.

Especially:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/

and

http://www.ontheissues.org/

Stupak has a 96.1% voting record with the Democratic Party. A sample of some of his votes:

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

[left coaster]

5. Yeah, yeah..

So he's really a pretty decent Dem, is he? He's just against women having control over their bodies.. Fanfuckingtastic.

[noiretextatique]

7. right, other than that one little thing

he's great :sarcasm: support your party platform and keep your fucking religious beliefs to yourself.

[Kaleva]

11. He represents the citizens of his district well.

If you have a problem with him, support his opponent.

[noiretextatique]

14. you bet i will support his opponent

and i most definitely have a problem with anti-choice democrats, including his constiuents.

[Kaleva]

15. Pro-life Democrats are allowed to be members here.

[noiretextatique]

17. really? what in the hell does that have to do with anything?

i said i don't support stupak or his anti-choice constiuents. anti-choice democrats are the enemies of women.

[Kaleva]

23. Iif he meets the requirements to join DU, he ain't all bad.

[noiretextatique]

28. i don't think he is all bad...he has a good voting record

however, i support the separation of church and state. politicians, like everyone else, need to let their religious views govern their lives, not attempt to impose their beliefs on others. there is nothing noble, reasonable, or moral about trying to control women.

[Kaleva]

31. Stupak is the 2nd Dem since 1938 to represent this district.

The other Dem, I forget his name, lasted one term before the seat was taken back by a Republican. Stupak has managed to hold the seat for almost 18 years now.

[noiretextatique]

32. good on him...i just hate his amendment eom

[Kaleva]

34. I don't have any issue with someone hating an action of Stupak.

I just don't think it fair or reasonable to trash him completely.

[noiretextatique]

35. agreed

:pals: you are abolutely correct.

[treestar]

45. But why so much attached to this one issue?

To read DU, you'd think women needed abortions every day and that all women needed them.

If he has a 96% record, well, why don't those other issues matter? And many of them could affect women.

His constituents have as much right to be heard as anybody else. I'm just glad they are liberal on everything else. Better than more freepers.

[Ganja Ninja]

52. We're all "pro-life".

We also recognize that a woman should be able to make her own medical decisions without someone else foisting their religious beliefs on her. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion if we so choose.

[Kaleva]

55. The Stupak Amendment doesn't prevent women from making their own medical decisions

Abortions will still be legal as it's the law of the land. Unless the Supreme Court reverses on Roe v. Wade, that will be the case.

[Ganja Ninja]

59. That's bullshit and you know it.

If you take away the woman's only means of paying for it then it amounts to taking away her choice. And there's no other reason for this amendment then to economically restrict a woman's choice just to placate the religious views of some people. If there is let me hear it.

[Kaleva]

65. So your arguement is that the Stupak Amendment is anti-poor..

and not anti-women in general? Not every woman will need an abortion sometimes in their life but every woman will require medical attention for some other reason numerous times and the House bill, even with the Stupak Amendment, will be of great help to hundreds of thousands if not millions of women.

[Ganja Ninja]

76. Let me ask again.

What other reason is this amendment being included other than to placate the religious right? Abortion is a medical procedure. This amendment will deny women insured under the public option a medical procedure that is available to them under private insurance. Give me a reason for its existence other than pandering to the religious right.

[Kaleva]

77. And it'd still be available to them under private insurance.

[Ganja Ninja]

79. So you agree that foisting your religious views on women who can't

afford or can't get private insurance for whatever reason is the right thing to do. Religious freedom for all but pregnant women. Where is that in the constitution?

[Kaleva]

80. I have the constitutional right to own a gun

but the federal govt. will never buy me one even if I could show I'm low income. I am not paid mileage when I go to the polls to exercise my right to vote nor am I compensated for stamps, telephone calls, or internet access when I contact my reps in Congress.

[Ganja Ninja]

81. You throw around red herrings like it's feeding time at sea world.

The federal government is going to buy health insurance for men and women under this bill. Abortion is a medical procedure unique to pregnant women that is being singled out for no reasonable explanation. Your inability to give one and repeated dodging of the question I asked of you is proof that when it comes to religious freedom you don't mind forcing your beliefs on others.

[Kaleva]

90. I'm not forcing my beleifs or views on anyone. I have just one vote like anyone else.

You have the right to vote against Stupak if you happen to live in his district. Hell, you have the right to make a contribution to his Republican opponent next year if you so chose (I don't know of any Dems planning on running against Stupak in the primary).

Yelling about him here at DU or at any other forum will not convince Stupak to change his views nor make his seat vulnerable.

Again, the Stupak Amendment isn't anti-women as you are trying to promote. You probably could argue that it is anti-poor women who may wish to have a certain medical procedure paid for by the federal govt..

A majority of women in Stupak's district who vote, vote for him. Stupak couldn't hold his seat if that wasn't the case.

[beyond cynical]

82. Another reason - To actually have a chance at passing the bill.

What is the price for an abortion - $500 to $600? Paying for an abortion is not going to cause someone file a Chapter 11 case.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why this is causing such a stir.

[Ganja Ninja]

91. It's causing a stir because this is suppose to be a county where

everybody is free and equal under the law. Passing the bill at the expense of the rights of a few may not seem like a big deal to you unless it's your rights. And when a woman doesn't have $500 or $600 dollars to spend and elects to try and abort the fetus through home remedies like a coat hanger it could cost her her life. Maybe that's not a big deal either.

[beyond cynical]

93. We haven't been free for quite some time.

But that is another topic.

So, in your opinion, a "right" is something that someone has to purchase and give to you. Interesting...

Now, your objection is very clear to me. It has nothing to do with rights, the notion of freedom, or any such praiseworthy cause. Rather, it's all about the money.

Yours is such a noble cause... :)

[Ganja Ninja]

94. No my idea of a right is someone not being singled out for special

treatment and denied medical services because of religious fanatics that have been trying for years to impose their version of morality on the rest of us. From the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So now maybe you'd like too try again. Tell me why this amendment is being put in this bill if not for any other reason than to subject pregnant women to a religious standard?

[defendandprotect]

89. It certainly does especially if it bars anyone from getting insurance for abortion . . .

or prevents a woman from having an elective abortion, anywhere!!

Military --

whatever

but poor women are more susceptible to this attack by religious fanatics,

who are doing corporate dirty-work here.

[PassingFair]

13. It's a big tent, but not big enough for womens don't cha know...

We've been kicked out to our own tent apparently...

[Kaleva]

6. +100!

[Cerridwen]

12. "Yes, Mrs. Lincoln. But other than that, how did you like the play?" n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. Okay, an odd historical allusion that doesn't make much sense, but I regress...

What I then can gather from what you are saying is that the issues of 4th Amendment liberties, the Iraq War, union organizing, expanding children's health care services, and gay rights are worthless to you in determining his worth to the Democratic Party. If he doesn't support abortion rights, he's not a Democrat. Period. Cased closed. Am I right?

But hey, if you want to make historical allusions, I'll give you one in return.



Just substitute "witch" for "DINO" and I think that accurately assesses the situation here.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. Although entertaining, your propaganda

is all for naught as he's anti choice. Anti-choice = anti-women. The end.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

56. What does that matter?

Abortion a single issue. The majority of elected Democrats support abortion rights, but some differ to varying extents. But it's not a requirement that a member of the Democratic party take a pro-abortion rights position or risk being thrown out.

It's the Democratic Party, not NARAL. The Democratic Party concerns itself with dozens upon dozens of issues. One single issue, whatever that might be, does not necessarily take precedence when looking at the whole picture.

[Le Taz Hot]

58. And the Democratic Party wouldn't BE the Democratic Party

without women. Throw us under the bus and the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

63. Women's issues themselves have a broad spectrum.

Take, for example, the Lily Ledbetter Act and issues of equal pay between gender. It had nothing to do with abortion.

Funding for breast cancer reasearch. It has nothing to do with abortion.

Stricter laws against domestic violence. It has nothing to do with abortion.

The list can go on and on.

And Stupak and many other loyal Democrats on both sides of the abortion debate have consistently stood up for those type of issues. And I'm damn proud of that.

The single issue of abortion is not the controlling issue of what makes someone a Democrat or not, regardless of what side of the debate you are on. Period.

[Le Taz Hot]

64. Apparently, I'm not making myself clear.

Reproductive health is a deal breaker. It's one of those issues for which there is not compromise.

Allow me to draw an analogy. Candidate Superstar is everything you dreamed of. He's pro labor, fights for the poor and the middle class, he's for single payer, he's against and will not fund unnecessary, illegal and immoral wars, and he's an environmentalist. He's also pro-slavery. Deal breaker.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

67. The abortion issue is not slavery.

Slavery was a black and white issue (no pun intended). There was no real room for exceptions when it came to slavery. You either thought people had a right to own slaves as personal property, or you thought that slavery was a horrible affront to human decency. In the end, the latter argument came out as the one accepted by greater society, and thank God it did.

The abortion issue is anything but black and white. True, you have some people who say abortion should not be a legal right under any circumstance. But much more often, you'll find people who oppose abortion as a legal right, but make exceptions for life of the mother. And/or health of the mother. And/or cases of rape and incest. You'll find people who support abortion as a legal right but are digusted by it personally. You'll find people who support abortion as a legal right but only at certain stages of the pregnancy. And then you'll find people who support abortion as a legal right and have no ethical problems whatsoever with the procedure. The bottom line is there is a wide spectrum of thought when it comes to the abortion issue. You can't compare that to slavery.

[Le Taz Hot]

71. The abortion issue is EXACTLY like slavery.

Abortion and slavery both deny sovereignty to the affected individual. The fact that slaves were "owned" in whole by their masters is no different than a woman's body being partially "owned" by the government. This IS a black/white issue. It's not open to somebody's opinion. Opinion doesn't have any place in this discussion. The right to have complete autonomy over our OWN bodies is absolute.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

72. Public discourse says otherwise.

And as long as our political debate reflects public discourse, that's going to dicate how issues are looked at.

You may say it's not open to somebody's opinion (other than your own, apparently), but that just doesn't make it the case. People will either support or oppose abortion rights to a wide variety of degrees and exceptions. People are going to debate and talk about the issue whether you like it or not, and there just isn't going to be one consensus opinion on it as much as you would like there to be.

Slavery is not abortion. As far as I know--and I might be wrong--there was never the opinion out there that, "Well, slavery is wrong in most circumstances. But you know, if there is the danger of losing the plantation if they don't use slave labor, I don't oppose it."

[Le Taz Hot]

73. I've explained it to you as clearly as I know how.

You claim a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body, her Civil Rights, should be subject to debate and popular opinion. I say it is an absolute, self-evident, goddess-given, inalienable, Constitutional right. Further discussion on this subject would be pointless.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

75. Everything about the abortion debate seems to boil down to issue-framing.

Even down to how each side calls itself, i.e. "pro-choice" and "pro-life."

It's one of the reasons I get so frustrated with both sides of the debate. Each side seems so hellbent in coming up with the most witty bumper sticker slogans and painting the opposing side in the very worst light possible, and rational discourse on the issue gets too often lost by the wayside.

Certainly, the way you frame the issue makes it more difficult for anyone to disagree with you, because you yourself have the luxury of framing the issue. But you'll have someone else frame the issue in another way. And someone else frame the issue in another way. And so on and so on and so on.

So to use an issue that is so easily flexible on how it is framed, and that is so susceptible to a wide myraid of exceptions and varying opinions, as a strict measure of what makes one a true Democrat or not, that just isn't logical in the least.

[Overseas]

8. I guess "The Family" comes first. They call themselves "The Christian Mafia."

I guess their motto "Jesus Plus Nothing" means No Democratic Party Agenda either.

Jeff Sharlet interview on The Family: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/12/sharlet

Conservadems who are dear friends of The Family:

Some argue that you "reap what you sow" and that this is what Democrats pursuing the majority status got in exchange for their "big tent" strategy in 2006 and 2008. Yet of all the Democrats who are reported Family members who voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment but against the bill -- Reps. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), John Tanner (D-TN), Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Dan Boren (D-OK), Heath Shuler (D-NC) -- only one was elected within those two recent cycles (Shuler, who reportedly lives at C Street with Stupak, took office in January 2007).

...snip...

I honestly don't know what direction Stupak's true political compass points. He doesn't even appear to be a member of the Blue Dog coalition, though you wouldn't know it from recent media sources who mistakenly peg him otherwise. But his Family ties are undeniable. Bruce Wilson calls the congressman a "minister" for the Family, extrapolating from IRS 990 forms which the organization must fill out to preserve its tax-free status that Stupak must be one of those the organization defines as "persons in ministry."

Sharlet was skeptical of Stupak's denials as well, telling the Michigan Messenger that back in 2003 the congressman was identified by Family members as involved in mentoring at least one younger member on an ongoing, regular basis. Indeed, Stupak's silence before the press seems to underscore that he's taken the oath of secrecy integral to Family membership.

The idea that the Family might be holding the reins of any legislation as historic and wide-reaching as healthcare reform is troubling. Sharlet's reporting has revealed several instances in which Family leaders point to dictators and murderers such as Hitler for inspiration. He writes that "the Family's leaders consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride."

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/941

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Hmmmm ..... I observe the pronographic unrecs. What's with that?

Will the Stupak fans please admit it?

[Kaleva]

18. I've been voting for Stupak since '92. I'll vote for him again. He's a good Dem.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Will he be better if he kills healthcare?

[Kaleva]

25. A big "If". You condemned him before a supposed crime took place.

[Sebass1271]

24. He might be a good man to you, but right now, he is stalling

our most basic and most important platforms of all, the heatlh care reform bill, and i don't fucking appreciate that. Do you know how long our party has been fightig for an opportunity like this?

[Kaleva]

26. The bill passed the House. It's up to the Senate now to act.

[Sebass1271]

27. That if the senate kills it, and goes back for a vote in

the house he won't support it. I saw him on harball yesterday and this is what he pretty much said. My question is, why is he a Democrat? Has ever visited the DNC page?
has he ever read the "core values" "platform" "ideas"
was he ever sworn in to uphold those values and now he is not?

Did he lie?

[Kaleva]

30. I don't recall taking an oath when I registered as a Democrat so many years ago.

I'll look up the oath a member of Congress takes upon assuming office.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. You do know that your 'oath' arguement is BS, don't you?

Members of Congress do not take an oath regarding their party's platform. If they did, how many of them would be in violation for opposing the increase of the number of troops in Afghanistan? I suggest you take a look at the platform and tell us if you support every single statement in it:

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

[Tommy_Carcetti]

62. Here's my question to you:

If--and everything at this point is hypothetical only--the final conferenced bill keeps the Stupak amendment in, and the 40 or so House Democrats who announced earlier they would not vote for the bill because of the Stupak amendment vote against it and health reform fails, are you going to be angry at them on the same grounds? Or do they get a free pass in your mind? I'm just curious at this point, because the pendulum has the potential to swing both ways here.

[Hepburn]

37. The bill passed the house with his "I HATE WOMEN" amendment.

[Kaleva]

38. Stupak has only one vote. Lots of Dems voted for the bill with his amendment.

[Hepburn]

40. So he is one of many women hating assholes....

...and that makes it OK?

:eyes:

[Kaleva]

66. Did your Representative vote for the bill?

[Hepburn]

97. Your point....

...ASSuming you have one... :eyes:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

41. And I might add, a lot of them were solid Dems, too.

Drawing the line at 95% party vote:

Baca 99.2%
Bishop 96.9%
Cardoza 96.9%
Costa 95.6%
Costllo 96.2%
Cuellar 95.9%
Doyle 98.7%
Driehaus 95.2%
Etheridge 97.7%
Gordon 96.2%
Holder 96.1%
Kanjarowski 97.1%
Kaptur 96.5%
Kildee 98.9%
Langevin 99.3%
Lipinski 97.2%
Lynch 98.3%
Michaud 95.0%
Mollohan 98.0%
Murtha 98.9%
Neal 98.9%
Oberstar 97.5%
Obey 98.5%
Ortiz 98.7%
Pomeroy 97.7%
Rahall 96.9%
Reyes 99.2%
Rodriguez 98.2%
Ryan 98.7%
Salazar 97.5%
Skelton 95.8%
Snyder 96.8%
Spratt 98.0%
Stupak 96.1%
Wilson 97.8%

A single issue does not a Democrat make.

[Hepburn]

36. Other than the fact that he is a forced birther anti choicer....

...yeah, he is a great guy.

I have only one thing to say: Fuck Stupak.

[Odin2005]

50. He's a woman-hating sack of shit.

[JerseygirlCT]

92. Who seems to be part of The Family, to boot.

He surely wouldn't be getting my vote, either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. The tread is based on a faulty premise

Democratic members of Congress do not take an oath to follow every single part of the platform.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. Prawnographic?

[LatteLibertine]

19. He's involved with the C Street cultists

I don't care for them regardless of party affiliation.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. He's hardly the only one.

He's just the most obnoxious.

[Cetacea]

29. Unrecommend if you believe repubs are running as dems.

[bunkerbuster1]

39. Stupak is a fucking C-streeter.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/11/08/bart-stupaks-c-street-sepsis/

He might as well be a ReThug, hanging as he does with that organized crime outfit.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. When specifically do members of Congress "take the party's oath?"

Does this oath allow for Democrats to oppose any parts of the platform, such as increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan?

[Kaleva]

44. I don't know of a party oath.

[treestar]

46. There can't be one

There can be a general platform, but neither party removes anyone for having any individual take on the issues. Even the repukes don't - Snowe and others.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. So, in other words this whole thread is BS

[Kaleva]

51. pretty much

[Odin2005]

49. Stupak is part of the C-Street Family of Christo-Facists.

[JNelson6563]

54. Are you just learning there are anti-choce Dems??

Wow. Get ye out in the field.

Julie

[Scout]

60. we're a BIG TENT party don't you know? n/t

[Individualist]

68. Stupak is a DLC New Democrat

Howard Dean once described DLC as the republican wing of the Democratic Party.

[defendandprotect]

86. DLC is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party -- and "god" football no less harmful -- !!

[WI_DEM]

69. You think all Democrats are pro-choice. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[brooklynite]

78. We've watched the Republican Party shrink because of demands for ideological purity...

I don't propose to join them. I'll fight for the issues I believe in, but I'll never support a single issue (any issue) litmus test for being a "Democrat"

[defendandprotect]

87. Think Democratic voters PRESUME that even if a Dem is anti-abortion that they will

support CHOICE!!!

Meanwhile, this "god" football playing/praying in Congress is building up --

and enough to give us serious problems!!!

[Romulox]

74. How is that any worse than free-tradin' globalist Democrats?

[anonymous171]

83. Diane Feinstein is a democrat.

I'm afraid "Democrat" doesn't mean much anymore. :(

[defendandprotect]

85. Majority Leader Harry Reid is also anti-choice ...anti-abortion -- !!!

This is what co-option of the Democratic Party is all about -- !!!

Human rights and self-determination don't work for elites/corporations --

no matter which party they're buying and no matter which candidates they pre-bribing!!

[defendandprotect]

88. Agree with you - Democrats should support the party platform . .

IN FACT, MAYBE WE NEED TO BEGIN TO HAVE OFFICIAL PLEDGES FROM CANDIDATES AS TO

WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO IN OFFICE?

THAT IS . . . BEFORE WE GIVE ANYONE ANY $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ?????????????????

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

95. So does being a Democrat mean one must toe the party line?

I know democrats that LOVE guns.
I know democrats that support restriction on abortion
I know democrats that DO NOT support public healthcare (true, I know)
I know dems that want to see illegals deported.
I know dems that do not think MJ should be legalized.

Just because feels one way on a certain subject does not mean they are to be exiled from a political party.
When you push for coockie cutter constituents and strict party-line adherence, your party shrinks and you lose all power.

[VMI Dem]

96. Concern noted.