Casey's opposition to abortion appears to be no threat to election

Most pro-choice voters will live with it to beat Santorum, poll indicates.
By Jeff Miller
Call Washington Bureau

| Democratic leaders took a lot of flak from abortion-rights advocates for recruiting Bob Casey Jr. to challenge U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum because Casey, like Santorum, opposes abortion.

But so far, the party's strategy of trying to nullify the hot-button issue seems to be working as planned.

A poll released Thursday found that Casey is maintaining a double-digit lead over Santorum without alienating many Democrats who consider themselves ''pro-choice'' voters.

The Quinnipiac University poll found Casey leading Santorum 48 percent to 38 percent with 12 percent undecided. The 11-point margin is down 4 points from the university's poll in February.

more: http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a7_5qpoll.5219247apr07,0,4663514.story

prochoice plank out of the party platform.

Men find it SO EASY to vote against the rights of their mothers, daughters and sisters in the name of political expediency.

Let's hope the bastard is a one term wonder.

He wants his father's old job, Governor. Rendell will have to step down due to term limits in four years.

Santorum MUST go. If Casey is the man to do it, he'll get my vote.

BUT I will NEVER support Casey as Governor of my state. NEVER! In this age of Roe being threatened it is much too important to keep the state's executive office pro-choice.

They try to pretend he doesn't exist, but actually a number of Pennsylvania County Democratic Parties have endorsed him in lieu of the golden boy Casey. The mainline party prefers you don't hear about him, just like Cegalis. They will continue to abandon their principles to try to win until they stand for nothing.

Not one single County Democratic Party in PA has endorsed Pennachio. Not ever his home county.

Kindly contain yourself, he has been endorsed three Counties. Do your research before casting aspersions! Name calling belittles you and is unworthy of you, Freddy. I must insist that desist from this behavior.

For some reason not even Pennachio is publicizing these.

I did not call anyone any names. I do, however get frustrated when people post untrue things here on DU. Unless it is challenged promptly, many will assume that it is true.

You dare to call me liar is not a "name", my ass! In my neck of the woods it can get one a broken nose! It takes a lot of brass, my friend. Mistaken is one thing, a lie is a totally different issue. You most certainly DID engage in name calling.

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/campaigns/pennacchio-endorsement.php

http://chuck2006.com/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/27/132212/994

But you are posting information which is not true. Of course I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just misinformed rather than purposeful in your spreading this false information.

The first website you posted

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/campaigns/pennacchio-endorsement.php

talks about Dr. Pennachio being endorsed by something called 'Upper Bucks for Democracy.' This is not the Bucks County Democratic Party. If you check the Bucks County Democratic Party's website you will find that they did not endorse any candidate in this race:

http://www.bucksdemocrats.com/2006candidates.asp

The second website you posted

http://chuck2006.com/

makes not one mention of any county parties endorsing him. It does say that three counties have decided to have an open primary and not back anyone, but does not even imply that any county party, let alone three, have endorsed him.

The third website

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/27/132212/994

makes no mantion of any county parties endorsing the professor.

I'm not sure where you are getting this information from.

:shrug:

Period.

They do not endorse anyone when there are multiple candidates that can legitimately win the general election AND have a legitimate shot at the primary too.

And sue me for not being a one-issue voter. Sorry, but overall, Santorum is FAR, FAR more dangerous to your well being and rights than Casey is.

stance, especially when the party machine or their own political ambitions require it.

CASE IN POINT--Mitt the Shitt Romney. He ran WAY left in Massachusetts, and now that he has designs on national office, he has tacked WAY RIGHT--and choice is one issue where he flip flopped totally.

Having a PERSONAL opinion over the issue of choice is NOT the same as forcing your personal opinion down the throats (or uteri) of others. There are plenty of Catholic politicians who do not presume to force their beliefs on others, and who manage to parse the issue, despite pressure from the hierarchy to do otherwise.

A Democrat who isn't perfect is better than any Republican, at this stage of the game. And they can be encouraged to correct their course, through the vigorous guidance of the voting public.

Most Democrats are pro-choice. Putting Casey in office over Santorum puts the pro-choice Dems that much closer to being in control instead of the anti-choice Republicans. It's that simple.

Can Dems avoid shooting themselves in the foot JUST long enpugh to get a damn majority in Congress? I doubt it...but I can dream. This isn't 'key to pro-choice' like the the Presidency...or the Supreme Court...it's a step closer to the big picture of getting major Democratic legislation passed, committee chairmanships, etc., back in the hands of the middle class versus corporations.

But that's just me. And I'm a pro-choice woman. But I'm sick of losing Congress to the right wing fanatics, period.

Check out this thread in the Choice forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x3560

You're trying to use "photo documentation" from selected protests and pass that off as a scientific statistic?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

A link to my response: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=3560&mesg_id=3757

it will be interesting to see what happens in november. I don't think the polls says exactly what freddie and the really misleading article claim.

I will never vote against women's rights. And there are a lot like me out there.

Too many Dems are like spoiled children, who want it all and want it now. And not just that, but if they don't get it, they ruin it for other Dems, and basically cast a Repug vote by staying at home on election day. Let's all make the good the enemy of the great (or however the saying goes - English isn't my 1st language). You see the same shit with Nader supporters, and environmentalists, and labor groups, etc. (and I support their cause, save their silly selfishness). ME ME ME!!! Fuck everyone else! You don't get me exactly what I want, I'll sit it out, and I don't give a shit that a MORE progressive program than what's in place now, goes down the toilet. This makes us fragmented and weak - that's why we lost the 2 elections dammit!

How can anyone think that they're better off with Santorum??

This just makes me mad.

To me it is just like running two conservatives. Why vote for a conservative? A DINO is no better than a repuke.

Single issue voting is incredibly ignorant, no matter WHAT your single issue is. There are no two ways about that.

It's a strike against you, but if the candidate's overall platform is good, I'm willing to overlook it and agree to disagree. I am not a single issue voter. Furthermore, anti-abortion Democrats tend to actually be pro-life. That is to say, they actually care about the baby after it's born.

and be against a woman's right to control her own body, much less a good democrat.

I would like to interject that Dennis Kucinich used to be pro-life. He has since come to understand the issue better and changed his position (some say for the Presidential lection, but I do not see that as a viable reason when his suport was so low). If pro-life is the only strike against the politican, then that is fine. However, my guts tell me that Casey has a whole lot of Third Way, New Democrat positions in addition to his stance against abortion rights.

I admit that I am not aware of Casey's position on anything else other than abortion, however. My battle is here in Ohio.

we are better then the GOP! We are at least a little better then the GOP!

and they'll never allow significant anti-choice legislation to the floor. It's a trade off I can accept if its what it take to beat Man-On-Dog.

His other positions are pretty good, so I'm willing to deal with his rhetorical support of the pro-zygote platform. But as long as he votes for Dem leadership, the support will only be rhetorical.

That when told of Casey's anti-choice stand, Santorum actually takes the lead.

I for one am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, since Reid is anti-choice and has been good on other issues. But if he crosses a line, he better not sell the property in PA because he'll have a very short time in DC.

There was a recent Rassmussen poll, showing a slightly lower lead for Mr. Casey over-all. The poll was on preferences in the general election. A follow up question was asked people who indicated support for Mr. Casey, asking if they were aware a pro-choice candidate was running in the primary, and a small proportion of these, about one in sixteen, then indicated they did not support Mr. Casey, thus trimming several points off his lead over Santorum. It is an odd methodology, since in effect it blends polling for primary preferences with polling for general election preferences. Persons asked the second question may have simply been indicating preferences in the primary, and there is no particular reason to suppose those preferences in the primary would actually effect their votes in the general election. There is no question whatever, as a betting man, Mr. Casey will win the primary nod by overwhelming numbers: a wager on that is of investment grade....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

but anybody trying to tell someone what they can or cannot do regarding abortion will not get my support. I cannot believe that his position on ebmroyonic stem cell research would be any less different

spector is pro-choice, and he won, why couldn't the democrats have a pro-choice candidate?

Sorry but I have litmus tests, and this is one for me...

as did Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe on the Scalito confirmation.

I'd still vote for him over Santorum.

It comes to a crazy anti-choice fundie who hates women and gays vs a relatively sane guy who loves sperm.

over Rick Santorum. I am a little saddened that the choices in the general election may not feature a clear contrast on this issue.

But yes...Santorum is one of the worst. If the likes of Ben Nelson took Santorum's place, it would be an improvement.

And he'd win.

once voters know all about Casey's stance on several issues, especially choice.

http://www.chuck2006.com/info.asp?content=zogbypoll

At the heart of the Zogby poll is the change in likely voter behavior once voters know where the candidates stand on important issues. That may be why Bob Casey, Jr. is so evasive about where he stands. Here, we concentrate on a subset of the poll questions, two asked before any issue information was provided and two asked after voters had been informed of their candidates positions....

Question: If the election for U.S. Senate were held today and the candidates were Republican Rick Santorum and Democrat Chuck Pennacchio, for whom would you vote? (06)

Here we see that if voters know nothing else about Chuck, he is still competitive with Rick Santorum. This is significant in light of the fact that Chuck Pennacchio's campaign has not placed a single television or radio ad on the airwaves, nor have any supporters. The numbers speak to Rick Santorum's inherent weakness: when a multi-term incumbent Republican is faced with a relatively unknown Democrat, he still finds himself in a close race. Imagine what will happen once people learn more about Chuck...

This question asks voters who they would vote for if faced with a choice between Chuck, Rick Santorum, or someone else. The majority of Pennsylvanians choose Chuck. It is important to note how much lower is the percentage of voters who would pick someone else if they could. It says that this match-up, Chuck versus Santorum, engages more Pennsylvania voters than that of Casey, Jr. and Santorum. It also speaks to the relative strengths of all the candidates. By this measure, Chuck is a stronger candidate than Casey. Chuck will bring out more Democrats than Casey. Chuck is more elect-able than Casey.

Question: Now, knowing what you do about the candidates...If the election for US Senate were held today and the candidates were Republican Rick Santorum and Democrat Bob Casey, Jr., for whom would you vote? (102)

We see that while Bob Casey, Jr. maintains his edge over Rick Santorum, a significant number of voters would pick someone else if they could. It speaks to a negative perception of both Casey and Santorum once voters know their views. The numbers signal a potentially depressed turn-out if the Senate contest is between Casey and Santorum. They speak to the opportunity for a candidate more in tune with Pennsylvania voters to make significant inroads with the public. We think Chuck is that opportunity, the winning choice for the Democratic Party.

There will be a primary election, and we will see what the preference of Pennsylvania's Democratic voters really is.

I will be voting for Chuck Pennacchio in the primaries. If Casey is the candidate who opposes Santorum in the Fall I'll hold my nose and vote for him. I'm getting really disgusted with having to hold my nose.

good for them. It's certainly better to vote for the guy who's a million times better than Santorum on every other issue and has a much better chance of voting against right wing judges than cutting off your nose to spite your face with stupid single issue voting. The Democratic party is a big tent, there's no single issue litmus test. Anyone refusing to support Casey and demanding perfection should just go follow old Saint Ralph off to la la land.

If you had a candidate who followed the democratic platform down the line except he was in favor of castrating all males at the age of 15 would you call voting against him "stupid single issue voting" and tell people who felt that way to pack for la-la land?

When the issue is as important as bodily integrity and medical privacy, you're goddamn right I'll vote on one issue. And since when does being pro-choice make someone a "Naderite"? I suspect that pro-choice has a *much* wider base of support in the Democratic party.

rights. Some issues are more important than others. You had better learn that. Calling people names won't make them agree with you. You can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to sacrificing someone else's rights. The people who's rights you are willing to compromise will not go along with you. Get use to it. You can't take the party to the right it will force people out of the party. And that's the way it is. IMHO it is arrogance to think you can ignore what is most important to a large segment of the party and then expect that segment to accept it.

Those of you who will not vote for Casey, go ahead, have another 6 years of Santorum and thus a Repub Senate. Don't come crawling to the board and complain that the Rethugs are controlling everything and who's gonna issue subpoenas to the WH for its latest misdeeds...you're pro-choice, so am I...I was also pro-McGovern. Lotta help THAT was...Sometimes you gotta swallow hard and do what makes the most sense for the very long term greater good. I agree, I wish this weren't the issue. Casey is from the lucky sperm club as is Bush, but what the heck are you gonna do in our state which is half Alabama-esque?

If the Pope threatens you, as a politician, with denial of Communion and/or Excommunication for not voting Pro Life according to the Catholic Church (abortion AND birth control), what would you do?

I ask this as someone who has gone through 12 years of Catholic school. I KNOW how they can bully. I will only give you the quote of a New York State Catholic Legislator, Republican at that, who sponsored the bill for OTC Morning After Pill. "I was elected to represent the people of New York, of ALL faiths, and None. I was not elected BISHOP of the Catholic Church."

Would Casey feel the same way? GRILL him. We deserve an answer.