Youngsters like myself may find it hard to believe, but many Congressional Democrats haven't always been in favor of abortion-on-demand like they are now. Jill Stanek wrote an article last September that focuses specifically on Senator Dick Durbin's abandonment of his principles, but she also mentions a good number of other Democrats who became pro-abortion when they perceived the political winds shifting.
When Durbin was running for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982, he boasted to a prospective pro-life vote that he served for five years as master of ceremonies at the annual Roe v. Wade observance at the state capitol, served as master of ceremonies at Springfield Right-to-Life's annual banquet, opposed abortion-on-demand and didn't even believe the right to abortion was constitutional.Durbin won. In 1983 Durbin wrote a constituent that he hoped for Roe v. Wade's overturn so "states would be allowed to regulate ... abortion."
In 1983, Durbin responded in a pro-life questionnaire that he opposed all abortions except to save the life of the mother. ...
... Durbin made a bid in 1989 for vice chair of the House Democrat caucus, the No. 4 leadership position. But he lost – decisively.
Meanwhile, House comrade Dick Gephardt, who renounced his pro-life position in 1986, ascended to House Majority Leader that same year. In fact, most pro-life Democrats with aspirations defected during the 1980s, including Gore and Clinton.
And Durbin. Between 1989 and 1996, Durbin amassed an 84 percent pro-abortion voting record.
In 1996, he won his bid for U.S. Senate.
As senator, Durbin has maintained a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record, also utilizing his now renowned debating skills to aid and abet the abortion lobby.
Did he change his mind? Or were his principles always for sale?
I don't doubt that many Republican politicians would also be willing to sell-out their various principles in order to stay in office, which is why it's so important for the electorate to do its best to keep its thumbs on its leaders.
The last known pro-life Democrat was the infamous Dennis Kucinich, Cleveland socialist who during his 2004 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination called for replacing the Department of Defense with a Department of Peace. Apparently, there are some compensations for being utterly batty.
Maybe they weren't always for sale, but it looks like the right price was found.
It's a pity politicians only seem to speak positions they know the masses will agree on. My wife and I watched a lot of the Alito proceedings, and it pained us to see him sidestep any questions that he could have shown his true colors with- all because of the fear of not sounding "right".
In those instances he continued to fall back on legal gibberish. One such questions was when he was asked how he would reconcile "abortion not taking a life" with "the murder of a pregnant woman counting as two murders".
It was a great question...and he answered by not answering at all. It was pitiful. Any grade-school kid would be able to see the conflict in that set of scenarios, yet our grown leaders act like bumbling babies. No wonder our kids are growing up thinking that lying and self-delusion is an acceptable posture.
All too often I think we elect and appoint fake people- because when they get into office they sure don't look and sound the way they did in public.
politics == compromise. If every politition stood firm on every principle, nothing could ever get done. Instead, compromises are made in one area to make progress in another etc. (eg. i'll vote against x if you'll back me in favour of y)
jez: That's what politicians have made it into. That's not what it started out as. Politics was to have been a noble occupation in which the people elected leaders with whom their positions were agreeable.
Compromise is very important in any kind of negotiation, but when it is hidden and laced with deciet we should call it something else...like, say, lying.
People do change their opinions over time. I am far more sympathetic to the pro-life position than I was in 1980, or even in 1990. I would not assume that politicians changing position is necessarily dishonest. I would not even assume that changing positions suddenly is necessarily dishonest (although I'm sure that you can find some examples that look pretty bad).
I had been in favor of abortion until a friend of mine considered having one. When I look at her wonderful 13 year old daughter, I am appalled that I was ever in favor of abortion.