Should anti-choice/anti-gay democratic candidates for office recieve party funding?

[Very_Boring_Name]

Poll question: Should anti-choice/anti-gay democratic candidates for office recieve party funding?

[RandomThoughts]

1. Note the presumption of control in the use of the term funding.

That is strings attached, and invalidates the concept. I don't make deals. Why? because I don't give them that control, even if it meant nothing, why make a deal not needed to be made?

[Very_Boring_Name]

4. You're damned right its about control

If you don't support these very basic, very fundamental principles of the Democratic party, then I don't want you running as a candidate and using my money to do so. I have a right to control who I wish to represent me and the democratic party.

[stevenleser]

2. I voted No. Hard to imagine anyone being a Democrat in any way that mattered if they were against

both of those concepts.

[Very_Boring_Name]

3. sadly there are way too many of them out there

[cynatnite]

5. The Democratic party is a big tent party...

That means we welcome even those we politically disagree with. I don't like the idea of a litmus test for those who call themselves Dems. We've got conservative Dems and liberal Dems. All are welcome.

Now, if I have a choice between a Dem who is anti-choice and one who is pro-choice...my money will go to the pro-choice as always.

If a conservative Dem is running in the deep South where being anti-choice is a must, and their opponent is a Repub Santorum-like douche, then I will put my money to the anti-choice Dem in hopes of getting as many Dems as possible to congress.

This is not as black and white as many try to make it.

[HockeyMom]

8. Why are they Dems then?

Sounds like they should join the Repubs, or the very least become Indy. You cannot say that you can become a member of a particular party when you disagree with fundamental principals of that party.

[cynatnite]

11. Because, unlike the repubs, we accept all ideologies...

I've never read that being pro-choice was a fundamental principal. I just checked, too. Not there.

[AlabamaLibrul]

13. Actually, it kind of is a fundamental principal.

http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform

Reproductive Health Care.
We oppose the current Administration’s (note: this is the 2008 platform) consistent attempts to undermine a woman’s ability to make her own life choices and obtain reproductive health care, including birth control. We will end health insurance discrimination against contraception and provide compassionate care to rape victims. We will never put ideology above women’s health.

It seems to me that the purpose of party platforms is that they're a list of the core things that are going to be done by the party. Shouldn't being a Democrat include following the party platform?

[cynatnite]

16. It does not take a stand on abortion at all...

I probably should have said that. Plenty of Dems are anti-abortion, but do not want the government to interfere.

I don't think it means that you check your Dem credentials at the door.

Anyway, I'm sorry for my mistake on this. I should have been clearer. Thank you for enlightening me.

[AlabamaLibrul]

18. Your point is well taken

about being pro-choice but opposed to abortion in the sense of morality or however one views it. The party platform stresses the need for free (as in freedom) and open access to reproductive care, and if any particular politician comes down in that manner in their voting, then to me they are holding the party line and you're a good Democrat and everything's great.

We have a small handful of Democrats who hold, frankly, right-wing views on reproductive rights among other issues. To me, they should not receive the full support and weight of the Democratic party, perhaps they could have a second tier of help for those who caucus with the Dems but aren't quite with the party on everything. It then becomes a lot of questions and thinking on how in-line is in-line, what is most crucial, what is ancillary, etc.

[cynatnite]

19. It honestly depends on where those Dems are at...

If they're in the south, being conservative is a way of life. You can't get past first base unless you hold conservative principles. Being anti-abortion is a big one. A Dem has to be conservative to even have a shot at winning any election around here.

[HockeyMom]

20. Very true on that one

There is a major divide in this country on social issues between the North and the South. In the NE, for example, a majority of the Repubs are pro choice and some also pro gay marriage. Pubs couldn't get elected if they weren't. It's almost a non issue for Dems in this region. I guess the South is almost the complete opposite.

[cynatnite]

21. After Obama was elected they showed a map on TV...

The South was predominate in how it voted compared to the rest of the country compared to how it voted in the last election.

If I remember it right, there was less voting for Obama than those who voted for Kerry. It was sobering to watch because I felt like it showed how racism is still entrenched after all this time.

[AlabamaLibrul]

15. It goes much further than that...

The question becomes "How are they Dems if they are anti-gay/anti-choice?"

which immediately assumes that Democrats are not anti-gay/anti-choice, which brings the question, "What is a Democrat?"

I think it's a question the party needs to ask.

[cynatnite]

17. I agree it needs asked...

But, I don't think we should expect a Dem to strictly follow Dem principles. Many don't, but still call themselves Dems. Who are we to take that away from them? We can just not show our support in any way when they espouse principles counter to our own.

[BlueDemKev]

9. Precisely

That is why I still back Heath Shuler (NC-11) despite his voting against us so often. Thanks to him, that seat is not in the hands of a tea-bagging nutjob.

[rpannier]

10. Just like the big tent meme is not as cut and dry

How big a tent
Under every tent there can only be one ring master, a certain number of lion tamers, trapeze artists, etc
It seems some people are willing to allow any 'clown' under the tent if they put a D after their name -- that would include Klansmen, Aryan Brotherhood, etc
At what point do you say, "I'm sorry, but we don't have room for you. You muddle the message and make us look ineffectual when we try and govern because you're too busy trying protect your own ass."
One only need to look at the last two years of our so-called supermajority to see how ineffectual it was.

[cynatnite]

Well, I haven't seen anyone from the Dem party rallying with the KKK...

Anyone can put a D next to their name. Whether they get a big name Dem to campaign for them is another matter altogether. Most Dems won't stand on a stage next to someone who goes to klan rallies.

[jonnyblitz]

14. yeah no KKK but they will invite virulent homophobes to lead in prayer.

[baldguy]

6. There already is a "purity test" - it's called the Constitution.

[BlueDemKev]

7. Yeah, I think so

We can't just ban people from the party because they disagree with the majority of us on one or two issues. In some rural areas of the country, you can't get elected if you're not pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-traditional marriage.

[MNBrewer]

12. other

there shouldn't even BE anti-gay Democratic candidates.

[LooseWilly]

22. I don't fund a party apparatus that's liable to fund anti-choice/anti-gay candidates.

If at some point the Democratic Party chooses to stop funding such-like candidates, I will consider giving the party money. In the meantime, my money is better spent on malt liquor...