Ridiculous that a pro-lifer is the best we can do in PA senate race!

Bob Casey, anti-choice dem is the best we can do in freaking PA? And we're supposed to be excited about that? The grassroots is supposed to rally around that?

If that's the best this party can do in a state like Pennslyvannia then that's pretty sad.

Casey is supposed to be strong candidate who has REAL chance to beat Santorum. It's GOOD that he's pro-choice, as that eliminates Santorum's "advantage"!!! Don't worry, he will not help the repugs insert radical judges.

If he wins, we're that much closer to a senate majority!!! Democrats MUST allow pro-lifers to have a voice in the party....We can decrease abortion through education! This is actually a good thing!

don't stop selling out their constituencies one by one. Blacks, gays, union members, now women?

THAT is why we can never turn out the voters like the republicans can.

Being anti-choice doesn't do a darn thing as far as Santorum's advantage. Rendell and Specter are both pro-choice so you can't make the claim that only an anti-choice candidate could be elected. That's just pure BS.

These religious anti-abortion people are one-issue voters. Most of them are working stiffs who would support us except for the fact that we "murder babies." If a voter believes that to be true, it is hard to get past it. For relatively unsophisticated people, it is difficult to accept the Kerry argument that while abortion is wrong, it still ought be be allowed. (I do not think it is wrong, but that is a minority view.)

This whole anti-abortion thing is drilled into people's heads by the churches that most of them go to. YOU WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR MINDS. Further, it is elitist for us to suppose we ought to try. Even though most Americans support legal abortion, they do not support it completely. Most oppose so-called partial birth abortion and most support parental notification requirements. Further, outside of middle-class whites in big cities, those opposed to abortion increase dramatically. Even among strong supporters of reproductive rights, most are not single-issue voters.

It is not that only an anti-choice candidate can be elected. The issue is who among possible candidates will have the best chance of beating that reptile Santorum.

Please don't lecture me about the sacred right of reproductive autonomy as I am already completely sold on the idea. It is the rest of the country you need to worry about.

He had a huge lead in the gov primary race too, and the minute he opened his mouth he lost it and he got creamed by Rendell. The same thing will happen here.

He has a name, and that's it (daddy was former gov). Huge mistake for dems to pick him because they "think" he can beat Santorum.

voted to end an early Advanced Placement program in the Pittsburgh Schools, a lot of "enrichment programs" etc. This was before "Brown versus Board of Education" and busing. This was because the Priests told them to vote to "Save OUR Schools."

Even with the Sputnik inspired cash infusion - the Pittsburgh Schools never recovered.

White men do not vote for Republicans because of abortion, I don't care what they say. A pro-life candidate elminates that factor for women, so they'll vote on economics. As we saw in the past election, middle and upper income will go Repub. Without abortion to make them think twice, we lose. Game over.

Women's rights are important, and I would prefer we could find a pro-choice candidate. However the party will ultimately fail if we restrict ourselves to pro-choice people, who are decidedly a minority in this country. Who's worse for Pennsylvania Senator - Bob Casey or Rick Santorum?

I would not support anybody who did not in turn support basic human and civil rights for gays, women, workers, minorities...

Do you really think if you only give in on one issue it's going to stop the rest from being taken away too?

It does us no good to exclude pro-lifers. Sometimes politics is the lesser of two evils, as it appears to be in Pennsylvania. Nobody here is advocating that we front a pro-life candidate in Illinois or California or Massachusetts. Pennsylvania has a rather conservative streak.

It all depends on your persepctive. See how that works?

Rendell and Specter are both pro-choice. There is not a single reason in the world that we need a candidate that is anti-choice in this race.

The vast majority of Americans want Roe v Wade to be upheld.
And Pro-choice does not involve only abortion. Those that are against choice, somehow also are against a vast array of womens health issues including pre and post natal health care, birth control education, child health care, AIDS education and care, world wide womens health care and womens civil rights of all kinds.
Talk about 'big tent"
Have you noticed that the government recently wanted the UN not to endorse a women's rights statement?
The buzz-word is abortion..but it covers a multitude of issues surrounding womens and children's health, education and well-being.
It is NOT A ONE ISSUE idea.

...isn't selling out women. There is virtually no difference between men and women when it comes to views on abortion: i.e. a person's gender does not impact how they feel about abortion. Slightly more than half of all women are pro-choice and slightly less than half are pro-life. Being pro-life therefore merely switches support from one half of the female population to the other (all other things being equal, which of course, they are not).

half of democrat women are pro-choice? Where did you get that idea from? Any data to back it up, because I think you are wrong.

Now if you are talking about women in general you're in for a shock if you think any female republicans are going to desert Santorum for Casey. That just isn't going to happen.

I was referring to the female population as a whole, not just Democratic women. When you said that Democrats were "selling out women", I assumed you meant women, not Democratic women. Perhaps you should alter your post so its more clear. We wouldn't want people to think that Democrats support women and minorities. We need to make them understand that we only support Democratic women and Democratic minorities. :eyes:

I said they were selling out their constituents. And they are if they support Casey, the anti-choice, pro-gun, anti-equality candidate. Now if a candidate wants to support the republican agenda, I would suggest they get their constituents from that pool. :)

and imposing your position on somebody else.

I am opposed to selling pig meat and shell fish for human consumption (it's called "Kosher") - but I will not force my position on you.

The majority of Americans support keeping Roe v Wade intact.

http://www.christianlaw.org/roe-anniversary.html



http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/010705/010705h.php


http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=7454


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4063502/

more restrictions on abortion access than there are now?

I was hoping he was some sort of moderate. Still, it is hard to imagine anyone worse than Santorectum.

I've heard from more than one source Judy Rodin is giving serious consideration to challenging him. She's Penn's former president and a moderate from what I've heard. She's pro-choice. I'd gladly vote for her before Casey even if it means I have to change my affiliation to (R) for a while.

What other things does he believe in?

I can't see being a one issue voter, whether pro or con.

So, what else is there to know about Casey?

... and got his butt kicked when he ran for Governor. The guy is the state auditor for crying out loud. This is purely a case of dems looking at one poll that has him beating Santorum by 4 or 5% (not exactly a huge margin, and one that could evaporate the first time Casey opens his mouth), and deciding out of what, desperation?, that Casey is the man.

That worked well with Kerry, didn't it? When the myth of "he's electable" becomes your primary decision point, you KNOW your party is in deep trouble.

... and frankly other issues doesn't seem to matter if the Earth is ruined, then these hunters who have been so wound-up by the NRA must be brought on board. They are natural allies but don't support us because of the gun thing. It does not matter than no one has ever tried to restrict hunting weapons. They believe the contrary.

Kerry was electable and came within spitting distance of the White House. His problem was the marketing. Plus, the fact that he is so far to the left of most of America made him an easy target for single-issue hate groups.

and lost only one, a primary for governor. That is a pretty impressive record and about equal to that of Haffer his opponent in the primaries.

How desperate are we for goodness sakes? This is just pathetic.

He's pro-gun, anti-choice, anti-equal rights, and we expect that the dem grassroots should support him? No way he will win unless the cons are fed up with Santorum (and they aren't) because Casey will only attract moderate republicans and desperate dems.

and by much lesser margins. Casey won auditor races with huge margins while Ridge was making mincemeat of his opposition. If Casey is funded he will win.

just like he did in the gov primary against Rendell. He lost that race by something like 15% didn't he? And that was with only dems voting, right?

Even if the wins the primary, he will not peel off enough republican votes from Santorum. When faced with the choice of a real republican versus republican lite, folks will vote for the real repub every time.

Heck Hafer, his only possible opponent in the primaries was a Republican as late as the mid 1990's. That would qualify as Republican lite to me. Casey is a lot like Kucinich was before he flipped on abortion and gay marriage. Casey is very likely to get a large percentage of the Catholic vote and the elderly vote both of which are huge in PA. BTW Casey lost by 15 points but was outspent by 3 to 1. Rendell, who is a good governor, bought that race.

Rendell beat Casey 55-45 in the Governor's primary with Rendell winning on the margins of southeast Pennsylvania alone (Casey carried every other county, including Pittsburgh's Allegheny). Casey endorsed and campaigned for Rendell in the general election.

Hafer was a Republican until December 2003. Though she did endorse Rendell in the 2002 election. She did the right thing by getting out of the race. I think she's a far better fit in the Democratic Party than she was in the Republican Party.

Casey's a true Democrat

Sheesh that is even worse. I think Rendel is a great governor and taught Casey a valuable lesson (don't run hateful negative ads). Casey is our best shot at that seat and we need that seat.

Hafer had endorsed a series of Democrats before she officially switched. The endorsement of Rendell in 2002 may actually have been the day that she left the Republican Party, but she didn't officially leave it until 12-31-03. She's a good public servant. I personally think she should run for Lt. Gov. For those calling Bob Casey a DINO, look into Lt. Gov. Katherine Baker Knoll. She definately needs to go.

http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20031231haferlocal3p3.asp

Casey beat Rendell in 47 of 57 counties. But Rendell's margins were huge in and around Philadelphia. Casey's margins were very small in and around Pittsburgh. So Rendell ended up winning by 10 points. Rendell ran a really smart campaign, and is a very good politician. I voted for Casey, but it was easy to see how Rendell really couldn't have been beat that year.

http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20020522govrace0522p1.asp

I'm sure Casey will do well against Santorum--he can do well around Pittsburgh and Scranton, Rendell will help him around Philadelphia, and he does better than any other Democrat in the center part of the state. It's going to be a tough fight, but Bob Casey can win. I just donated to his campaign via the web. Hopefully more people will do that; Santorum will have plenty of money.

democrat, then I would resign from the party today. You want to toss the interests of dems like me over for people like Casey, then don't expect to ever win another race in this country.

And incidently, this is exactly the kind of attitude (compromise, compromise, compromise our beliefs) that has put cons in the majority in ever aspect of our federal government.

Folks like you and others of the DLC ilk have killed the dem party. You have forced your republican lite on the party to such an extent that the dem party doesn't stand for ANYTHING anymore.

And by the looks of it, you won't be happy until it is decimated completely.

Then good bye Senator Leahy, good bye Bernie Sanders to name two. I am very in favor of gun control but it is innane to say no Democrats or for that matter no liberals support gun rights.

... so tell me again, how does that make him a "true democrat?"

Looks like the criteria for being a "true" democrat has gotten pretty pathetic, which was the contention in my original post.

They are more a city litmus test. Gay rights sadly haven't totally risen, at least at the civil unions level, to be a democratic litmus test either. If he were against hate crimes or ENDA then it probably would put him far out of the mainstream of Democrats. That leaves choice which in PA he aparently isn't outside the Democratic mainstream. Ridge is the only pro choice Democrat who has been governor in a long time. He is one of only two pro choice Dems elected state wide. The fact is the Democratic party of PA has decided this though there evidently is a primary challenger (on the dailykos he has posted)

anti-choice, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, anti-equality, "Democrat."

I didn't see his name anywhere.

I wish Hoefell had won. But the constitution party guy got 8 percent last year. That made it look closer than it really was. Like it or not, people know Bob Casey, and lots of Pennsylvanians really like him.

I'd certainly vote for Hoefell over Santorum, but I doubt that he could win. I might be wrong. Specter has a lot of support from unions, so its really difficult to say. I don't really think that the 2004 race indicates what should/shouldn't be done in 2006. Historically, pro-life, working class Democrats have had an easier time winnng statewide office in Pennsylvania.

Casey will do well with the unions. And will have an easier time raising money. I think he is a stronger candidate than Hoefell.

http://www.chuck2006.com

Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate's diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/28/161340/724

I am a member of the DLC, but Casey's position on trade, and some other issues don't mesh with the DLC platform. I think he's a good and principled guy, so I am supporting him for US Senate. If I wanted all elected officials to think like me, I'd have to write my own name in every time. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. You have to vote for the best person/person who most fits what you believe in when voting. Some of the perfect candidate crowd doomed us to 8 years of Bush when they voted for Nader in 2000.

insistence on republican lite candidates. And the DLC is STILL doing that. And until they stop and support real dems who actually support the dem agenda we will never again be a majority in this country.

Fielding candidates only slightly to the left of republicans is not going to win us any votes. This should be clear -- look at the polls. Vast majorities agree with the dem agenda on most issues, yet they won't vote for dems. Why? Because we aren't fielding dems, we are fielding republican lite candidates. People will ALWAYS vote for the real thing when given a choice between it and some fake, wishy washy dem who is basically a republican at heart, or they will simply sit home (which is what our core constituency has been doing for years now).

Is he like Santorum who essentially favors banning all abortions? Does he just want to restrict late term (so-called partial birth) abortions? If it's the latter, it is a big improvement over Santorum who was previously the best PA could do.

I don't support any restrictions. Nevertheless, a lot of people do and a lot of people who would otherwise vote for Ds don't because of it. Out here in rural to suburban Ohio, the Ds get crucified on this issue every year. When I moved here in 1991, OH just got an R governor, had a D atty. general, and two D U.S. Senators. Now it is all R. Abortion has been a major tool to achieving that hegemony. Granted, PA is not as backward as OH, but that is just because Philadelphia is bigger than Cleveland. As Carville said, PA is Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other and Alabama in the middle. Santorum has a built-in base and all the power of incumbency. That means you cannot afford to risk anything on uncertainty. Congressional victory in '06 is bigger than any one issue and frankly we need a win in PA. Depriving Ricky of a divisive, wedge issue will go a long way to achieving it.

I don't want to see reproductive freedom restricted, but it will be. The question is will we be in a position of strength when that happens or weakness? Will we start from the point of view that late term abortion should be curtailed or do we have to fight for a life-of-the-mother exception to a total ban?

The Inquirer has already dusted off their beloved gag "The Seven Dwarfs" (sic).

Barbara Hafer is running. Joe Hoeffel may run. At least two other candidates with lower visibility (I don't remember their names) are running. And if Judith Rodin runs, that will be a field of seven right there.

Casey is the big money candidate at this point, working his father's connections. I don't think he's all that bad, except for the morality baggage and I think half of that is from his old man. He hasn't shown much inclination to be a Womb Warrior.

The most important thing is that we in Pennsylvania start RIGHT NOW to work against Santorum. And as dirty as possible -- I still remember the constant mudslinging his field toadies did in his earlier runs. In the eastern part of the state, where I live, he's been referred to as the Senator from the Pennsylvania Militia. People in Pennsylvania are turning away from the Republican party, and this would be a good time to kick his blow-dried ass out of the Senate.

--p!

which means I get to vote for her in the primary against ol ricky.:smoke:

I believe the advantage of Santorum's incumbency could be hurt by the news of his ripping of the school district and refusing to apologize or pay back the money. That along with the fact that he's a frothing at the mouth lunatic.

but when did we Dems morph into Repugs and impose a "Faith Based Litmus Test?"

I don't care if a Dem is pro-Life or pro-Choice, as long as the person does not seek to "establish a religion" by making "Pro-Life" the Law of the Land.

A Liberal/Progressive respects "Freedom of Conscience."

As to "There isn't going to be a party to be in if Dems don't stop selling out their constituencies one by one. Blacks, gays, union members, now women? " -- I worked in Molly Yard's campaign in the absolutely "Bluest" District in Pittsburgh -- Shadyside/Squirrel Hill (The periphery around Carnegie Mellon) -- and she lost big.

Judy Rodin - if nominated and elected - will be a member of the GOP caucus and will vote with the GOP to organize the Senate. That's what it's all about -

... and it sure as heck shouldn't be. All you care about is that there is a "D" after their name?

And I think your question misses the point -- I would counter with, "when did we morph into the anti-choice, pro-gun, republican party?

I am old enough to have had three friends die of pericarditis during pregnancy when abortions were still illegal.

I also have a chronic genetic disease that is definitely life shortening, and the only long range treatment appears (based on rat and mouse tests) to involve stem cell mediated islets of Langerhans transplants (Canada - with "socialized medicine" and Israel - also with "socialized medicine" are the only place where the treatment is being done). So, for me the "pro-life" position is to allow "choice" and concomitantly, stem cell therapies.

For me - it is not academic or philosophical or political -- it is, actually "Life or Death".

And, I still say MY Democratic Party must be a big tent.

My Litmus Test is that a "Pro Lifer" will not "establish" a religion. Period.

I have paid my dues -- worked for Ivan Itkin in the 14th Ward, worked with Jimmie Cunnigham in the 7th Ward, was a Committeeman in the 14th Ward.

That's a major surprise.

Please, tell me more if you can.

--p!

So what does that mean? Will he as a Senator vote to take away reproductive rights of women??

I say there is no room for him in the party, particularly as a Senator.

and is a progressive on other issues, I could support him.

what is his position on gay rights? Are we going to support anyone the cat drags in as long as they put a D after their name?

Against civil unions and any sort of hate crimes bill.

Why is he a dem again? Your guess is as good as mine.

:) And boy, do those stink!

Now, on gay issues, Casey is surprisingly pretty good, and he's rapidly getting better, and showing some willingness to being open on the matter. Recently, Casey opposed a bill in the state legislature that would forbid gay couples from adopting children. In 2002, during the Governor's race, Casey came out against discrimination in housing and employment practices and chose to back a hate crimes bill. He didn't come out in favor of Civil Unions, but on the other hand, he also opposes the Hate Amendment. All in all, his record on gay issues is one that I can live with and seems pretty balanced.


He is by no means great on gay rights but he did support a hate crimes bill.

... when I say he is "iffy" on them?

He does. By any definition that is wrong.

On edit, here is your exact quote

Against civil unions and any sort of hate crimes bill.

hate crimes legislation or civil unions? Hell, he could barely bring himself to support non-discrimination. Plus he is pro-death penalty. Is there anything about him that is objectively pro-dem agenda?

Hoeffel would be a much better choice.

and I quoted from him that the man supported a hate crimes law in 2002. If Kos is wrong, then he is wrong. But I said according to Kos before the statement you are wrong. Thus I stand behind what I said.

and thus his credibility is on the line. I would hope he would check out things before he allowed them to be diseminated on the net in his name.

And Kos is NOT responsible for every word in every diary that is written. Casey stinks on gay rights, he stinks on choice, he stinks on gun control, and he stinks on the death penalty issue.

4 strikes and you're not a "true" dem anymore -- not in my book.

I'm pro life, but I don't believe government interference should be the first line of defense. Only at the point of viability should it be regulation be considered and then only if it is used as a convenient means of birth control.

Many people support this, many democrats and progressives.

If we all go wigging out over the thought of a pro life Dem running for office, we are in deeper trouble than we ever thought. I think Democrats are better than that.

And the majority of the public in general is pro-choice. I don't condemn you at all -- you're prefectly entitled to your opinion, however misguided it might be in my opinion.

I just wouldn't vote for you for office, especially if you were also pro-gun and anti-equality as is Casey.

I don't support ending a healthy eighth month pregnancy for no other reason than just not wanting a child, and neither does Roe vs Wade, even before the courts started eroding it. Advocating the death of a viable fetus for personal convenience is hard for many people to accept. And they won't. Note that I say personal convenience, there are other quite valid reasons to end a pregnancy, and government has no business making those decisions. I support overturning Casey, but not Roe vs Wade.

Your quest for ideological purity may undermine the very things you support.

http://www.crlp.org/crt_roe_jbroe.html

The Roe opinion was grounded on four constitutional pillars: (1) the decision to have an abortion was accorded the highest level of constitutional protection like any other fundamental constitutional right; (2) the government had to stay neutral; legislatures could not enact laws that pushed women to make one decision or another; (3) in the period before the fetus is viable, the government may restrict abortion only to protect a woman's health; (4) after viability, the government may prohibit abortion, but laws must make exceptions that permit abortion when necessary to protect a woman's health or life.

Only two of the four Roe pillars remain today as a result of the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. This decision is the culmination of a steady decline in constitutional protection for the right to privacy. A woman's right to choose is still constitutionally protected, however, the "strict scrutiny" standard was jettisoned in favor of a lesser standard of protection for reproductive choice called "undue burden." Under Casey, state and local laws that favor fetal rights and burden a woman's choice to have abortion are permitted, so long as the burden is not "undue." No longer does the state have to be neutral in the choice of abortion or childbearing. Now the government is free to pass laws restricting abortion based on "morality," a code word for religious anti-abortion views. States are now permitted to disfavor abortion and punish women seeking abortions, even those who are young and sick, with harassing laws."

And please don't lecture me about Roe v Wade. Especially when you don't know what you're talking about. And that's typically the problem with anti-choice people -- they have no clue what they are talking about, and instead throw up straw man arguments that are purely ridiculous, such as your example of someone having an abortion at 8 mths for the sake of convienence.

"The Court held that a woman has the right to choose abortion until fetal viability, but that the state’s interest generally outweighs the woman’s right after that point.18 Accordingly, after viability – the time at which a fetus can survive outside the woman’s body – the state may ban any abortion not necessary to preserve a woman’s 
life or health.19  Indeed, almost every state and the District of Columbia have laws that address post-viability abortion.20"

  

And that wasn't a straw man. That's what I believe. From what you've said it doesn't sound like you accept Roe's constraints.

And I respect Casey's position, I may not agree with it, however,if it's placed into law. There are many elected Dems who support Roe. Vilifying someone you don't agree with isn't the best way to win supporters or an argument.

And I'm beginning to wonder if you are really a Democrat. You know, the protesting thing, and all that.

this is what primaries are for. I'll back him 100 percent in the general election.

Whoever gets the nomination -- my wife, my son, my daughter-in-law, and I will "move into" my sister-in-law's house in Montgomery County, trade in our California drivers' licenses for Pennsylvania Drivers' licenses, and vote against Little Rickie.

(The we'll move back to California).

There are many, many Rockefeller Republicans (aka "John Heinz Republicans" and Republicans for Kerry, Gore, Clinton X2) in the suburbs of Pgh who are the polar opposite...Social liberals/fiscally responsible.

That being said, Rick man-on-dog is by far the most extreme polar opposite and must go. I'll vote against him in the PA Republican primary and support whomever the Dems choose to run in the general election, should Ricky survive the primary.

Look, the Democratic bench isn't deep in Pennsylvania. Anybody who is a committed Democrat and replaces Mr Man On Dog, Rick Santorum, is an improvement.

I don't even know why abortion politics matters at this point. I guess you think Casey is a DINO.

I do feel bad for Barbara Hafer. I think she should run for the House or Governor and be handed the nomination in '10 to take Spector's place.

Because that's what it really comes down to in this situation.

As I said in another post, I've read a lot of misinformed things about Bob Casey. People are believing the crap that the media feeds people: pro-life=automatically conservative. That is not true

Bob Casey has a record of consistently fighting for ordinary Pennsylvanians. He is a very good Democrat.

I'm tired of pro-choice fundamentalists who seek to exclude pro-life Democrats like me from the party.

Bob Casey is a good guy. He'd make a good Senator. He campaigned hard for John Kerry. He was a member of the electoral college; he voted for John Kerry. He is no Zell Miller. In his announcement, he pledged to fight to protect social security, he pledged to fight for fairer trade, and he pledged to stand up for ordinary Pennsylvanians. I think he'd be a great Senator. Read for yourself at: http://www.bobcaseyforpa.com

If you've ever stepped foot in Pennsylvania, you would know that Bob Casey is exactly the kind of Democrat that Pennsylvanians want to represent them in the US Senate. Pennsylvania is a working-class, heavily Catholic state with a high percentage of senior citizens who are FDR/JFK Democrats. An exceptional pro-choice Democrat, like Ed Rendell, can get elected; but most Democrats that get elected to national and state office in Pennsylvania are pro-life; most Republicans that get elected statewide are pro-choice. It has a lot to do with Pennsylvania's high union membership, industrial base, and traditional liberal Republican elite (though, thanks to Rendell, more and more of the liberal Republicans are becoming Democrats).

Framing!!

NGU.

Dennis Kucinich from running for the Senate in 2000 or 2002?

Would you have stopped David Bonior?

:shrug: go figure.

You have to believe that abortion is the greatest thing since the '57 Chevy. Otherwise, you must be driven out of the party as a heretic.

And then people wonder why Catholic voters are drifting away from us....

Casey is very much like Dennis Kucinich was in 2000. If we as a party want to be credible with our 'big tent' and 'come home' messages, then it's time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

candidates and they don't seem to abuse "pro-choicers" within the party.

I know many who've left our party, simply because the party has been completely 'tone deaf' to them, and absolutely refused them so much as a single seat at the table.

and give them to KKKarl Rove for even hinting that he might consider okaying a judicial nominee that isn't absolutely anti-abortion, pro-forced-birth.

They would just about allow their Senate majority leader be pro-choice, as the Democrats have Sen Reid, who is pro-forced-birth.

I am sure they would put all their energy and money behind supporting the re-election of those pro-choice Republicans. The Repukes did all they could to fry pro-choice Arlen Spector. He won in spite of the Repuke efforts, not because of them. They did not help him. They campaigned against him in the primaries and only helped minimally in the election to avoid losing the seat to a Democrat.

MAke sure to put the moderate Republicans on display for the Republican National Convention but draw up the most hateful, theocratic platform imaginable at the same convention. Smoke-and-mirrors, honey, no real substance to the big tent nonsense on the Republican side...I speak as a Heinz Republican.

You will NEVER see a pro-choice Republican accepted by the Rapturist Right now in control at the national level. Arlen Specter had to sit-up, beg and roll-over 3 times in order to get the Judicial Committee Chair this year. As far as the Big Blue states of NY and California, only moderate/liberal REpublicans have any chance at all.

It's about our party espousing one thing, and then turning around and compromising and selling out its constituents out of sheer desperation.

Unfortunately, what people don't seem to understand it that this compromising, selling out, and general embrace of DLC republican lite attitude is what has lead to the problems we have. That's why we get our ass kicked on turn out -- because we field candidates who don't share the values of the grassroots. Casey will lose, mark my words.

As I was saying, our party is tone deaf to this.

:eyes:

with republican lite members who don't stand up for the dem agenda; who compromise away its principles, and cave in on core issues. And that has left us without the constituency we need to win elections. How long do we have to lose before folks get a clue?

The party that used to count women, blacks, gays, and union members as it's core constituency has basically shat on each group and as a result lost huge numbers of supporters.

Damn, I am a died hard dem and I am to the point of just saying forget it. Doesn't matter who gets elected because there is not a dimes worth of difference between them (and this is from someone who never bought the Nader line). But you know what, with each passing year it is beginning to look like he was right.

The dem party doesn't deserve votes if it will put up an anti-choice, pro-gun, anti-equality, pro-death penalty candidate up for election as a senator from PA.

How is Casey in terms of charisma. Because for all of the things bad with Sanotorum like Gingrich is frighteningly charsimatic

He's really good one-on-one, and a descent speaker. I've seen him speak, and he kept a crowd of mostly elderly property owners interested for the length of his 10 minute speech. Probably not as good as Santorum or Rendell speaking wise, but he has a better case to argue. He'll be fine.

believe me.

This should never be for the sake of politics.

Those who have adopted the "pro-life" slogan are as good as Republicans and tought shit to them who would so readily jump on the Repulican bandwagon.

We should stand FOR women and the right to decide for themselves and never mind this wishy washy "pro-life" crap

It is a euphemism that has been adopted by those who would call themselves Democrats , who really are on the side of the Republicans on this issue, and it is dangerous to women and their lives and their autonomy.

In fact,as things stand now in this country, I think it is immoral to latch on to the "pro-life" meme.

Call it pro-choice and not pro-life if you want to have it both ways, but you are being a cafeteria , pick and choose the Republican meme, whose party has driven this country into the dark side for the sake of insisting that you are, as Repbulicans do, "pro-life"

Too ashamed to admit that pro-choice is really your point of view? Why? This is exactly the thing that has enabled the Repbulicans to win--mind control using religion and mind control over the people who buy it and suffer guilt because someone else told them it is "killing"

Think for yourself. It is immoral to demand that "pro-life" is morally better than those sinful women who make a moral decision in their own life.

I am so tired of this straw man "pro-life" crap

He posted on the Daily Kos a few nights ago.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/28/161340/724

Do you know him or know of him? Some are saying he is a Wellstone kind of guy. A friend who is a Green organizer said he liked his platform and was going to invite him to speak at one of the PA Greens meetings.

if you investigate the issue in depth, the rabid righters who are so vocal about choice, or abortion, aren't just interested in the birth of the baby.

they are all wrapped up in the sex act itself. they are obsessed with sex.

they push the "abstinence only" angle, and are against sex education of any kind. if pushed, they will also be against birth control of any kind, for that is thwarting the will of god. (spilling one's seed, etc.)

they are against premarital sex, and only two people, a male and a female, who are married to each other, can have sex. if a child results from the union of the husband's sperm and the wife's egg, so be it. every act of sex should be celebrated if it DOES end in the birth of a child.

once married, then the couple can NEVER commit the sex act outside the confines of their own marriage.

so. if they want sex, let's give it to them.

we should run a democratic opponent who, when addressing this particular issue, should address it in the terms of what the republicans want:

that the republicans continually harp on nothing else being acceptable BUT that ALL men and women who marry MUST BE VIRGINS.

stress that the republicans want there to be NO sex education whatsoever, because talking about it will make it happen.

AND, if they are so intent on supporting the traditional marriage, then divorce must not be allowed.

adultery will not be allowed.

your spousal duties MUST be fulfilled. calling it rape is NOT an option.

so,

NO PERSON WILL EVER HAVE SEX, UNLESS IT IS IN THE CONFINES OF THEIR OWN MARRIAGE.

and once two people ARE married, that is it. unless one dies, neither will EVER have sex with someone OTHER than their spouse again.

EVER!

you want to see a huge majority of the male poplulation suddenly cool to the republican's ideas about "choice"?