One cannot be Pro-life and a Democrat for it is that party that promotes the Pro-Choice agenda.

The fact that Democrats for Life exists proves 50% of your argument that "one cannot be a democrat and pro-life at the same time" to be false. If "the fact remains that the mainstream candidates running for election and holding office are pro-choice democrats" is true, how can the following be explained? In December 02, 2004, Pro-life Democrat Joe Manchin won the governor's race in West Virginia despite the fact that George Bush carried the state. Due to the leadership of Minority Leader Pat Murphy in recruiting pro-life Democrats to run in pro-life districts, the Iowa senate was tied and the Iowa house has moved closer to a Democratic majority. In Minnesota, a pro-life Democratic candidate won in an "unelectable" seat that had been deemed Republican. In Maryland, a pro-life Democrat was told that the state party would not support him because he was pro-life. He ran anyway and won. Former Vermont Governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, when running for DNC chairman, says: "We ought not turn our back on pro-life people." Simon Rosenberg, another DNC chairman candidate who was president of the centrist New Democratic Network, was more equivocal, claiming that the majority of Democrats and Americans are pro-choice. Being pro-life has been political death for any Democrat with national aspirations. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Richard Gephardt all abandoned varying pro-life tendencies when they decided to run for president. In a Meet the Press interview, Senator Joe Biden stated: "I still am opposed to public funding for abortion. It goes to the question of whether or not you're going to impose a view to support something that is not a guaranteed right but an affirmative action to promote." Perhaps, it is "True enough, there are pro-choice Republicans. And, to date, they hold no real power within the party" because, like the majority of democrats and Americans, the majority of republicans are pro-life. However, William J Brennan was named to the U.S. Supreme Court through a recess appointment by Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, shortly before the 1956 presidential election. In 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated Potter Stewart to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Harold Hitz Burton In 1969, President Richard M. Nixon nominated Warren Burger to the Chief Justice position. Harry Blackmun and Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. were nominated for the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon on 4 April 1970, and were confirmed by the United States Senate later the same year. In 1939, Justice Louis D. Brandeis resigned from the Supreme Court, and Roosevelt nominated William O. Douglas as his replacement. On June 13, 1967, President Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court following the retirement of Justice Tom C. Clark. Of those Supreme Court Justices who supported Roe vs. Wade, five (5) were republican nominees and only two (2) were democratic nominees. The two dissenting justices were one republican and one democrat. The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, (a republican nominee) asserted that the "right of privacy" is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. It was the decision of the Supreme Court, with a majority of republican nominees, (not the President or Congress or the Senate) in the case of Roe vs. Wade, that abortion was deemed to be legal in the United States. After 40 years of Democratic rule, the Republican majority in the Congress during most of Clinton's term in office appeared at the time to be a welcome sight. But because the presidency eluded them, the Republicans seemed to have an excuse for not challenging Roe vs. Wade, even though it is the legislative branch that passes all legislation — not the executive branch. And besides, Clinton made a good scapegoat. Then, if only for a brief moment, it appeared finally to be official — there was an absolute Republican majority in the House, a 50-50 split in the Senate with a Republican vice president to break ties, and a Republican president in the White House. But when Jim Jeffords, the Republican senator from Vermont, switched from being a Republican to being an Independent on May 24, 2001, the Republican majority fizzled, giving the GOP another excuse. But then, no more excuses. The 108th Congress, took office and was solidly Republican. But since the Republicans have gained control of the Congress, the federal budget (over $2 trillion) and the federal deficit (over $500 billion) are the highest ever, the national debt is over $7 trillion (and increasing an average of $2 billion per day), hundreds of Americans have died on foreign soil, and Americans have even less liberty now than they had before. This time, however, the Republicans have no excuses. The lame excuse that they are not responsible because they didn't control the entire government will not work anymore. And the even lamer excuse that the defection of Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords so early in Bush's presidency didn't give the Republican majority enough time to do anything won't work either. The Republicans have now had total control — an absolute Republican majority — for more than a year. And what did they do during this time? The usual — nothing. No egregious legislation was repealed. No challenge to Roe vs. Wade was forthcoming. The welfare state was not rolled back an inch. No federal programs or departments were eliminated. No budgets were cut. In fact, legislation got worse (the USA PATRIOT Act), the welfare state was strengthened (a new prescription drug plan), and a new federal department was created (Homeland Security). So now that the initial euphoria over an absolute Republican majority has subsided and the Republicans had been in charge for over a year, the Republican record can be soberly addressed. There is only one way to describe the record of the Republican majority during its first year: a dismal failure. To students of political history, however, this was not only no surprise, it was to be expected and, in fact, predictable on the basis of the actions of the Republican Party in the 20th century, whether they held the presidency, the House, the Senate, or any combination of the three, including an absolute majority. Because the history of the Republican Party is one of compromise after compromise and sellout after sellout, there are a number of things that a Republican majority has not meant, and in fact, will never mean. Blatantly, while the republican platform may contain provisions supporting pro-life, it was a majority of republican appointees who made abortion legal in the United States!