Social Security more imprtant than pro-choice? This is disgusting.

Casy , a anti-choice Democratic senate candidate in Pennsylvania, said this comment:

Casey expressed confidence that issues which he sees as most important in this race would trump Democratic differences.

"No matter where a voter stands on the issue of abortion, both pro-life and pro-choice are concerned about Social Security, about health care," he said

My civil rights as a woman should be thrown out because we support Social Security? Since when is this an either or proposition? Ed Rendell and the Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves for endorsing such a candidate. This is unacceptable!

the aging of the Democratic Party--abortion rights are kids stuff

Sounds uniting to me.

Social Security to sat that fact doesn't matter! Protecting Social Security doesn't make up for the fact that he is anti-choice. As I said, since when is this either or? As Dems we support BOTH issues!

I agree =)

You seem to be the one declaring it an either/or position.

EITHER a candidate supports pro-choice OR I will not support him. I will actively support any pro choice candidate against him.

And all the people that will eventually be old enough to collect Social Security (most of us) will thank you for screwing them so much that they'll turn into pro-choicers as a result of your fit.

Social Security than a women's right to choose! But I guess as a male you don't have anything to lose! Remember, "First they came for.....

I agree with the guy, though, that it's a point of unity between normally-divided parts of the party. It's a statement of fact, not an opinion, or a prescription.

what our party stands for. He is the divisive side of the party. Heis justifying a minority position. Sheesh. This is not unifying. Many Dems won't vote for an anti choicer.

...you want to blow something out of both proportion and meaning.

And come to think of it, yes, Social Security is more important.

Is pro-choice more important than stopping a nuclear war in the Middle East?

first to be considered disposable? If we can't treat all beings with equal respect , what difference does preserving their lives in the ME make? We will be saying certain lives have more value than others. I don't value my life equally if I am to be reduced to second class status with no self detrmination over my body. If your right to make decisions and be a fully vested human as importanrt as nuclear war in the middle east? Would you allow yourself and all other males to be stripped of your rights?

You tried to turn it into one, and made it an issue of trying to bring him - and the rest of the Democratic issues - down as a result. That is an either/or.

And if you had to choose between a nuclear war in the Middle East or one pro-life Democrat, would you nuke people?

I already answered that!

Rather than let one pro-life Democrat hold his seat?!

Oh shit. Have you seen pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That was kid's stuff compared to the nukes we have now! I don't even know what kind of stuff that would do to the environment all around the world!

Oh shit, we're all dead.

I told you, I think Social Security is more important.

Would I allow myself to be stripped of my rights? No.

But I would get a vasectomy if it meant no nuke war in the Middle East. How's that?

In this case women aren't given a choice. I would give up my life to prevent nuclear war, but I wouldn't give up my right to self determination! More analogous would be, would you be willing to give up all your rights ,by force, to exercises determination over your body as well as , by force, the rights of all others of your gender to do the same. Meanwhile you protect the rights of the opposite sex to have their self determination. That would be the "real" question.

Except maybe letting one pro-life Democrat have a seat in a state where a pro-choice one wouldn't win and it'd be a pro-life Republican who would also let old people starve to death. That was the scenario I described. Do a favor for the old people and they might do a favor for you when you make the case for pro-choice. Screw them over and they'll care not a bit about your self-determination, and neither will anyone facing bankruptcy.

How dare you be so willing to give up MY rights for someone else? Hey, why don't we give the saet to a Klu Kluxer as long as he supports Social Security! Its only MY Civil Rights!
So it is okay with you that everyone else is protected except women? Women can die from botched abortions ,and be forced to bear childern they don't want as long as others have Social Security and babkruptsy protection? Guess what? Women draw Social Security and need bankruptsy protection too. This isn't either or. A Candidate should support the entire platform, and if they can't, they shouldn't run as a Democrat!
And BTW, If the anti choice crowd has their way, the number of women forced to bear children they can't support will destroy social security and cause bancruptsy to soar!
And alaso BTW, neither you or Casy should be concerned with this issue as you will never becaused to have an abortion. It is effectively none of your business. Anti-choice is the worst issue a male candidate can campaign on.

No one is. If you look at reality, you'll see that. You, on the other hand, are asking old people to starve to death for no practical reason concerning your rights whatsoever. Whether or not a Democrat or Republican has that seat in PA, nothing will change for you. Yet it will for other people.

Futile. Absolutely futile.

no one is starving old people for god's sake. Roe v Wade is in a lot more danger than Social Security. Even this repuke lite Casey want s to protect Social Security. The Repukes won't even vote to get rid of Social Security, but the repuke lites WOULD vote to repeal Roe. That is the difference and that is why we shouldn't elect anymore of them. And why do you keep arguing about something that has nothing to do with you?

I've made my point. It's not about women's rights or what I'd give up or what I think you should give up or anything like that. It's that it's not enough that litmus-test Democrats care little about other peoples' issues (which should endear their issues to those people, I'm sure), but then they have to make a strained effort twist all meaning and proportion out of our elected officials' words in order to constantly play the victim and convince us that the Democrats are after them, even when those elected officials are pointing out something so obvious as that politicians that are divided on one thing come together on another.

And that, my friend, is one of the reasons why the DLC was formed. But that's a complete other story I don't have time for.

his face. I am very well aware of the DLC and what an abomination they are, but as you say THAT, is a complete story I don't have time for.AND BTW, they are the ones for letting old people starve and promoting bankruptsy limitations!

But some of us are more concerned that hungry kids get fed, by hook or by crook, than we are about some abstract threat to abortion.

YOu seem to fallen under the same spell that the fundies are under. IE you actually believe that the GOP wants to ban abortion. They may do things to make it inconvenient, but they would never ban one of their top motivators for getting out their religious wacko base. They LOVE their wedge issues.

Judging from your Kerry avatar, I see you are far more compromising about little issues like genocide than you are about women's rights.

Maddow that it was not his decision to go with Casey. He was told by the party higher-ups in Washington that he had to talk to pro-choice candidates out of running. It was their decision to go with Casey.
He said that of course he would vote for Casey.
He said that the listeners should address their complaints to their reps in DC, not to him. He specifically mentioned only Clinton and Schumer, but there were probably others involved.
Interestng huh?

successfully as a wedge issue. They count on it every election year.

They DO want to get rid of Social Security.

anti-abortion Dems!

Repugs wouldn't touch abortion rights with a 100' pole. It gets them millions of votes as a wedge issue. I don't much like the idea of anti-abortion Dems either, but I would prefer an anti-abortion Dem then an anti-abortion Rethug. Its the horrible lesser of two evils votes thing we are perpetually stuck in, but if a blue and a red were running in my state, and both were anit-abortion, I would vote blue. so would most Dems. Do we like either choice, well, not really, but we're stuck having to make it from time to time. In the long run, in the big picture, its a non-issue. Abortion rights are here to stay. I know it, they know it, and you should know it too. but to take that message they way you did was overly biased but what to you is seeming the deal-breaker for you. thats your choice. but to suggest that they are worse than the GOP is disturbing, and shows a lack of rational thinking. theres a saying that goes something like...

As soon as you debate with emotion, you've already lost, for emotion interferes with rational thought.

stripe who have their own agenda. I think it is very naive to assume the republicans won't touch Roev.Wade. It may be the bone they have to throw to their evangelical base. They are doing quite a PR job of selling abortion limits to this nation and are quite successful if reaction here at DU is any indication. Many people on this very board have absolutely no problem with outlawing abortion.And I say this with no emotion that is just a fact. It is also a fact that based on their voting history, there is no reason to trust that anti-choice Dems would vote to protect Roe.They wouldn't. They haven't voted to protect abortion related bills in the past. And the reason anti-choice Dems are worse is that they are betraying the principles of their own Party. They are obviously placing personal religious principles above party and constituent responsibility.They aren't separating church and state.GOP anti-choice candidates are at least consistent with their party's stance and don't have a conflict with Church and state as they have no separation.I would never vote for the GOP pro-lifers, but at least one knows what to expect. The Democratic anti choicers leave people hoping they don't really mean it.

of a legislator who is unable to be effective on either issue so instead chooses the safe road of platitude and conciliation.

1. Santorum has been a disaster for Pennsylvania.
2. Santorum has been a disaster for America.
3. Santorum voted to as a Republican to organize the Senate.
4. I think I am smart enough to differentiate between personal pro life beliefs and a political pro-life legislative agenda.
5. I am as threatened by a political pro-life legislative agenda as any female-

a. Stem cell research has been conflated with abortion by the Rapture Republicans and Bush.
b. I am a diabetic.
c. There has been some research on the use of stem cells and pancreatic tissue (as a template) indicating that stem cells might be facilitate a viable therapy for diabetes.
d. The Rapture Republic stand on stem cell research is statistically shortening my life as much as a ban on abortions (which Casey is not advocating) statistically shortens womens' lives by driving them to "back alley abortions."

6. Casey will protect SS with the Democratic Caucus.
7. Pennsylvania is a "socially conservative" state. NOW Founder Molly Yard could NOT carry the bluest Assembly District in Pittsburgh when she ran for the Assembly.


Your "...civil rights as a woman ... thrown out because we support Social Security?" - I am voting my physical, corporeal, mortal life as a diabetic whose life my be extended by stem cell research.

personally. Many people who don't advocate abortion are pro=choice.He isn't one of those people!

and from the Post Gazette on line.

I was an Assemblyman Ivan Itkin "staffie." (Google Ivan Itkin)

It is very logical and easy to follow.

I think a lot of people come to DU to vent. I hope that after they vent, they will look at the big picture very carefully.

support Roe v. Wade is unfit to run for office as a Democrat.

kicking the shit out of us legislatively! We should have be able to protect the bankuptsy laws and AWAR. But we have so called independent thinkers who vote against our interest!

and my BUN and Albumin goes up and my foot goes numb more frequently, and I need ever increasing amounts of metformin. This aint't a joke for me - it is life and death.


And how can we protect bankruptcy and ANWR if they bring the Rapture Repugs to the Polls.

Read Tom Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America .

There is a United States west of the Hudson and East of the Altamont. And last time I went "home" Pennsylvania was still west of the Hudson and East of the Altamont.


OK - The Altamont is the Eastern Edge of the San Francisco Bay Metro Area.

It is disgusting that anyone who wants to supress women be considered a Democrat!

life groups. Not to say: "okay let us make it all illegal". But to say: "okay - abortion is a bad, bad thing... let us do all we can to make it very rare". And making it rare does in fact mean improving all sorts of pills for boys and operations for boys and all kinds of pills.

The point is to separate out the prudes from the pro-lifer's. The prudes will want no education on birth control, and no birth control, etc. The real pro-lifers... the ones who think every abortion is an incredibly bad things... they will be for birth control & morning after pills and giving kids a whole education and a whole host of options (virginity pledges for your teen years - if you devote yourself to learning in other areas of your life rather than dating).

For too long the right has just lumped together the people who do not want to see any sex going on with the people who really feel abortion is an abomination. Part of 'making abortions rare' does include taking the stigma off of girls who are pregnant and give their kids up for adoption.

Not slapping down someone just because they cannot get their heads around the abortion issue itself - frees us to look for solutions that will make abortion rare but do it by making pregnancies very rare.

So we meet our foes half-way. And we get rid of the need for abortion through the right mix of tools. And a woman still has the right to get one.. it is just not so much on demand. And perhaps a great deal of counseling is involved (because there are women who have multiple abortions and that is just not right).

We have to look at bringing down the numbers of abortions.. and to do that we can work with many people who are anti-abortion in some areas. For instance look at catholics. They are taught not to use birth control and that abortion is bad. Well most catholics practice birth control these days. So they will be for that... even if they cannot actively work for that.... But on the abortion issue, many will not give an inch. So we invest with them... on the birth control issue and reduce the numbers of abortion. And then if they need the abortion or if they have had one or if they have never had one and would rather die than have one... they can work with use on the issue and exchange ideas.

And something actually takes place because we worked together: we will have come up with a great little operation for 16 year old boys that is reversible and everyone feels they have accomplished something... even if they (we) still are not pleased (rather than Bush using it to get elected and then not touching it).

IMHO

WASN"t a bad thing and how grateful they were that it had been available! Many said it wasn't as traumatic as giving birth had been. Some said adoption had been more painful for them. What about those folks and the other folks like them. Their opinion doesn't count? And we must bow to the pressure of the abti=choicers? This is a really slippery slope. Once you give in even a bit they will go the whole nine yards. There is NO working with people who consider abortion "murder". They are morally bound to oppose it. There is no "middle ground" .It is either "murder"or it isn't.

can invest in other choices too - I mean that is our position.. pro choice. And if we can work together with foes of abortion on all the other choices.. we can have something in common and maybe we will learn from each other. But a woman's right to an abortion..that is something Bush does not touch because he knows that attacks a woman right there. He can talk about it to get himself elected.. but he cannot make it happen.

"And perhaps a great deal of counseling is involved."
You are still allowing conditional obstructions in a situation that frequently is very time sensitive & none of their business! I do NOT want to see the chipping away of what is already so damned hard to access - & tough enough on a private level to decide on. Education, fine. Better & more informed access to birth control, fine. Most of the suggestions can be worked with, fine. Adding another layer of bureaucracy & obstacles to what is a woman's right to decide for her own body, not fine.

My inelegant opinion.

think abortion is a fun thing and go back for 5 or 6?

love to get prostrate surgery! What a silly thing to say!

people who I have heard of having the proceedure took it really hard. Then there are those who just do not learn anything from it. I mean..I know some person who kept having babies and then just gave them away... so when the doctors finally sat her down and said: we need to have a talk about your methods of birth control - were they bad doctors? They may even have advocated termination of pregnancy. But three babies in 5 years when you hand them off other others.. now that is a little sick. So perhaps not counseling until you have had more than one abortion? I mean we should all be getting counseling from our doctors over taking the pill and such...

I see nothing wrong with information..as long as it is good information. That does not mean I would be for someone being counseled to not have an abortion.. i would expect that to come from her own people if anywhere. I would expect the medical community to give advice on medical things. I've known many people who decided to have babies before they were married and I cannot look at those kids and say there was anything wrong with that outcome - that an abortion would have been better. But again.. depends on the person - yes? So if having repeated abortions is considered a bad thing.. why not have counseling when that becomes an issue.

Keep in mind that very soon there will be a reversible operation for men - and pills for men. And we can as women make sure the male clinics have the right funding too. I am talking about looking at the whole thing holistically.

prevents unwanted babies from being born. For everyone who took the procedure"really hard" there are those who said giving birth was worse! And as far as the operation for men is concerned, I wouldn't hold my breath. Men could have taken responsibility for birth control long ago. There are already pills that they cantake and we see how opoular they have been. No. Legal and safe abortion is not a "bad, bad, thing" And better birth control would be wonderful but as long as people are human, birth control will sometimes fail. Abortion must always be an option for women.

against the procedure and the woman's right to choose are men! We can talk to them and get them to volunteer for the 'operation' and volunteer their sons for the 'reversible operation' at 16. That is what I am saying.

You don't like abortion? Show me some real solutions buddy and put your money and your dick there ***hole or keep your pie-hole shut and get out of my ******* way.:hi:

Call it 'structural change'. Call it 'changing our assumptions about birth control'. Call it what you will but there will be men in pain - to share the burden - oh yes... there will!

which assumes two alternatives are mutually exclusive, when in fact they coexist quite nicely.

Right wing nuts have been trying to pull this one for years.

This bastard has got to be opposed in the primaries. I sincerely hope the local DFA meetups can come up with an alternative. He's a right wing nutbar on all but men's economic issues. Rendell is right. You cannot trust a guy like this. He's sold half the party out; he won't hesitate to sell the rest out.

For the third time, what he said is a statement of fact and not an opinion nor a prescription.

It is being used to take the emphasis OFF his anti choice position. He is sort of putting choice in the "no big deal catagory" And to women, it is a "Big Deal". This is about our self determination and it is insulting that it be lumped in or compared with a social program!

Honestly, people that read stuff into every little thing - other people find them annoying, and difficult to deal with. Someone I knew in college used to do that. "Oh, so you're basically saying _____ about me!" :wtf:

I would posit that a lot of people agree with me but just don't wanna go there (useless).

For others, maintaining the social safety net is a much higher priority.
I am pro-choice, but am definitely in the latter camp.
I prefer to have the best of both worlds, but if I were forced to choose between a pro-choice repug like Schwarzenegger, who would dismantle programs to help the poor, slash services, etc, and an anti-choice dem like Dennis Kucinich who would fight to save those programs, but not fight hard for choice, I'd have to go with the anti-choice dem. I respect your priorities, I would hope you could respect those of others.

giving away rights not his own! Well, what a surprise!
Guess what? I will give up all rights to anyone having emergency prostate surgery in order to preserve Social Security!

I also think its unconscionable for medicare to pay for Viagra, when that money could be used for head start or funding healthcare for poor kids that has been cut in many states.

Since you posit that as a man, I can't fathom what a woman considering abortion might go through, I would say that maybe you don't know much about going hungry.

experience pregnancy or birth.

Your logic is flawed, but there is no point to continuing this.

You keep worrying about reproductive freedom. Personally, I've got other fish to fry.

I just don't understand people who are more riled about an abstract possible threat to "Choice" than they are about a very real and immediate threat to social security - a program that means the difference between eating and starving for millions of people.

You started off the thread with hostility toward people who think like I do- that social security is a higher priority "disgusting" you said - how do you expect us to react?

I certainly want to women to access to legal and safe abortion, but If I'm faced with false choices like "Choice vs. Social Security", "Choice vs. World Peace", "Choice vs. universal single payer health care", I'll pick the latter every time.

Fact is, abortion is a wedge issue and a vulnerability used by the right, and will always be one until WE amend the constitution to guarantee a woman the right to abortion, rather than relying on judges' interpretations of the right to privacy, etc.

I'm "disgusting" and too stupid to know how to empathize with a woman, and yet it's the votes of people like me that consistently help elect pro-choice elected officials. If you rely only on one-issue, tunnel-vision voters like yourself, and blow off all voters with different priorities, and you've got a 90% anti-choice majority in congress.

ability to exercise self determination. You state than when faced with the decision of choosing between "choice" and almost any issue you will choose the other issue every time. Do you have any idea how insulting that is? You have just said that you place a woman's person hood secondary to almost any issue!You call it a "wedge issue' as though that somehow diminishes its importance. How do you expect any woman to react to that statement?

And as far as "blowing off the voters with other priorities and ending up with a 90% anti- choice majority, that is just absurd. There are more woman than men in this country. If you properly promote pro choice you would have a pro choice majority. But never mind . Believe what you want

And you are also wrong about it being an abstract threat to Roe V. Wade. The threat is very real. You just have to look at the makeup of the Court to see that.If Sandra day O'Connor steps down, and she might. She has been ill, we are toast. And as far as anti-choice Dems in the house and Senate defending us, we can forget it. They have voted for every anti-abortion issue. This is a real threat. And as far as starving people are concerned you can starve for more than food. If I had to choose whether my daughter had the right to exercise her person hood or had less to eat, I think it would be better to give up some food rather than your dignity as a human.

If you can't see what the republicans are up to, when it's so obvious, I don't know what I can tell you. They have no intention of eliminating their favorite wedge (although "gay marriage" seems to be catching up...) Honestly, I'm so sick of this abortion non-issue. There should be a national referendum and the results made into clear law that doesn't allow for any of the ambiguity of Roe v. Wade. The pro-choice crowd were wrong to hitch their star to the Roe v. Wade decision, instead of pushing to have the right to choice codified into the constitution. If we had done so, the "pro-life" crowd would have to STFU, because the law would clearly be against them.

"They have voted for every anti-abortion issue."

This proves my point exactly. They have majorities in both houses, but do they even try to ban abortion, pass a constitutional amendment? Of course not, because they are NOT anti abortion. They are cynics of the highest order who use it to get the rubes out to vote. They passed the ban on "partial birth abortion" SPECIFICALLY because it is so rare as to almost affect nobody, and yet it satisfies their fundie nutjob base for a while.


And if you think access to abortion equates to dignity and personhood, you have a value system that is radically different than mine. I see access to abortion as an unfortunate necessity, and little more.

But thank you for clarifying to me that you are indeed a one-issue voter with no understanding or experience with poverty.

Personally, I would steal before I let my kids go hungry. Obviously, for you, it's not a real worry. For me, it is.

This is where I draw my line in the sand. I will NEVER vote for any anti choice candidate , no matter what their party.
I think you have a very simplistic view of this issue, and you are willing to bet that you are right. That is because you have nothing to lose. You would see abortion as "an unfortunate necessity" and nothing more, as it is unlikely you will ever be subjected to one. Abortion represents a woman's right to control her own body. This is a fundamental right that should be denied to no one. Yet it is the first bargaining chip the Democratic Party seems to be willing to use to compromise with the other side.
I am not willing to take the bet that you are correct. I have seen too much happen in my life that I would have thought would never happen. From the reaction on this board, I see that many Democrats ARE willing to outlaw abortion. I never thought I would see a time when that would be the case. I never thought to see the rise of the evangelicals. I never thought that we could elect someone as pathetic and criminal as Bush. I never thought we would elect him twice. I have learned to guarantee nothing and to NEVER say NEVER

We used to live in a world where people prized their honor above all things. You prize comfort and food for your children as a necessity worth compromising yourself for. We differ. I believe that a sense of dignity and an appreciation of yourself worth is paramount.and I will make sure that my children learn that lesson first!

You're putting words in his mouth and you have the quote right there in front of you!

Casey has always put economic and social justice first, and he's a populist--not a social libertarian.
Another fact: Pennsylvania has the second largest population of seniors, second only to Florida. Santorum, a Bush toady, has threatened the livelihoods of seniors, disabled people, and orphans by this piratization scam, and you're worried about pro-choice? That sounds awfully selfish to me. Would you rather see Santorum in office as Virginia's Third Senator another 6 years?

Do you want to see old folks thrown out on the streets eating out of garbage cans just so you can protect pro-choice? It's time for us Democrats to stop stooping to the level of Repunks and thinking only of ourselves!!!

into economic devastation as the result of unwanted pregnancy is alright with you or preferable to the seniors suffering? And why does there need to be a choice? Our party is supposed to represent BOTH constituencies not exclusive of each other! Are you pitting women against seniors and saying seniors are more important? How do you even reach that conclusion?

I'm extremely concerned about Social Security, since I lived off of death benefits after my father died when I was 8. Without the benefits, the kind family that ended up taking me in as a teen would not have been able to afford to do so.

However, he's not saying it's an either/or at all. He's saying that Social Security is the common denominator between the parties, no matter where you fall on the pro or anti choice issue. At least that's how I read it. And I do agree with that comment. In fact, the other day I told someone that maybe this is where Bush fucked up. Far too many people are either disturbingly apathetic or support blowing up brown people, raping the land and the other assorted bullshit this administration comes up with. But there's not a lot of people that want to see a reduction in their Social Security benefits.

I am amazed at how many believe it can or must be an either or thing.

Women's rights should not be on the table. Who decided our rights could be compromised?

I see more and more they will be, though. Our Democrats are trying to placate the Republicans on this.

Why? The Democratic Party is not a party as much as it is a coalition. Yes, there are Christian Democrats who are against abortion or favor certain limitations on it, but they find themselves in the Democratic Party because of their views on environmental and economic issues such as Social Security or Medicare. What would the answer be here? It's not easy, and driving them out of the party into the hands of the Republicans would be incredibly dumb.

Until such a time comes that many political parties can exist in the US government and not just two, there will be no easy way out on this issue. When such a time comes, then you can try and force every single anti-choice leftist out of the party you choose to be in. Conversely, you can leave and join another party where there are no anti-choice leftists among them.

It is not an either/or case, and it would be fallacious to assume it was to begin with, not to mention monumentally divisive. If you try and frame the argument as between abortion and Social Security, you're just gonna be fighting a sizeable number of Democrats who see Social Security as the bigger issue.

If Democrats agree the fight over Social Security is the biggest issue facing folks today, then that does not automatically equate to them being anti-choice when they put Social Security on top of the priority list instead of abortion. That kind of flawed logic has no place with me, and I'm not sure it would have a place with a great many Democrats either.

worse as it would be the first time we are contemplating reducing or eliminating a civil right previously given. If the Democratic Party cannot unite against that then they don't deserve to exist.And a sizable number will be leaving the Party. This would be a disaster as the Party has already been placing itself on life support with its republican lite stance. This point of view could kill it off.

At present, people are worried about Social Security, and many do believe it is the biggest front in the fight against the Republicans and their corporatist financiers outside of the damn war in Iraq, but as I said, putting SS as the #1 priority does not automatically equate to them being anti-choice on the matter. I think SS is a worthy fight, but I also believe a woman has a right to choose on the matter.

Not every Democrat agrees with me or you on the issue of abortion, but that's the price you pay when you only allow two parties to play. What can one do? Since electoral reform is a multigenerational fight, what are you gonna do? Force out all pro-life Democrats from the party? You want to have a purge???

Lieberman and Landrieu out? Absolutely.We need to give the the 79 million non voters something to vote for and it isn't repuke lite!

This is not an either/or argument no matter how much you want it to be. It is not a choice between depriving senior citizens' insurance from poverty and ensuring the rights of women. It can be both, not either/or.

If you have disagreements with the Christian Democratic wing of the party over abortion, that's fine, but that shouldn't also prevent you from cooperating with them on things such as the environment, health care, public education, and issues of war and peace. What you're advocating sounds to me very much like a party purge, and this is a big tent party in a two-party system; it doesn't work that way.

You may be loathe to deal with Christian Democrats, but credit should be given where credit is due. For instance, some of the strongest criticisms of this war that has killed countless people have come from the Christian left.

who consider us "murders" aren't going to support us period. They have a moral imperative not to, or to force us to accept their premise of murder. I can't blame them. If I thought it was deliberate murder, I would try to stop us too. But I don't . And I believe the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus. They are NOT going to work with us. They might be antiwar in some instances but many of them support the religious right version of that as well.

I would like to know what ELSE he stands for.

I'm not a "one issue" voter. I don't understand it. Those with signs in their yards that say "I vote pro-life" make my teeth itch. What if the candidate is a scum otherwise, which is often the case.

So, is this guy, like "Give em hell, Harry" a decent candidate otherwise?

And is he, as Schultz commented on Wednesday, an activist pro-lifer, or is he respectful of the other side. I thought that was an interesting point Ed made. Reid isn't actively out to overturn Roe v Wade. So, what about Casey. Is this a big issue with him, or no?

He isn't nearly as combatively pro-life as his Dad. Of course, not being from Pennsylvania, it's really none of my business.

on edit ... if he can beat Santorum (Isn't that latin for 'asshole'?), more power to him.

But the dilemna is less striking than in RI.

In PA, whoever will run for the Democrats is running against Santorum. Even if I would prefer somebody else, Casey is better than Santorum.

in RI, Langevin is pro-life too, and he is running against Chafee, who is prochoice. I feel happy I am in MA, because if I was living a few miles farther, I would have a serious dilemna.

I have been butting my head against this as well. I feel that people are getting ahead of themselves on this one. Dems are scrambling to appease the religious with Casey's pro-life stance. I despise Santorum with every fiber of my being, but I refuse to hop on the bandwagon on the premature notion that Casey is the only viable candidate. They are burying progressive candidates before they even have a chance to be heard. In doing this, they are alienating any moderates with an inclination toward social liberalism - who dislike Santorum, but see Casey as an equal if not greater threat. I think this segment is being ignored while the social conservatives are being given way too much weight.

It is my intention to actively support Chuck Pennacchio in the primaries and hope that other pro-choicers will consider doing the same. He is a true progressive. If the people decide that Casey is the best candidate - then I suggest that we hold his feet to the fire and demand clarification of intent on this issue. However, a close race with Pennacchio will force him to aknowledge its gravity among many dem voters.

People either forget about or fail to recognize the potentially serious repercussions of making abortion illegal. I imagine this is based on their negative viceral reaction to it. While understandable, the act of abortion is but a small part of the argument. Making abortion illegal would criminalize a segment of the population based on gender and therefore is discriminatory. Last time I checked, it took two people of both the male and female gender to conceive. Yet because the woman bears the burden of bearing the burden, any fault rests squarely on her shoulders. I do not condone abortion as a means of birth control. I have never had an abortion, nor would I choose to barring unforeseen circumstances. HOWEVER - because I am unable to conceive of every potential scenario a woman might face, I do not feel that I have the right to automatically pass down a guilty verdict on every woman. Until we find some way to hold the male gender equally accountable (not going to happen), I don't believe that any of us have that right.

I am a progressive. I support unions, though I am not a member. I support GLBT issues, though I am a heterosexual. I support social programs, though I have a stock portfolio and health insurance. I support civil rights, though I am caucasian. And I am pro-choice, not because I believe abortion to be right ... but because I am a woman. I find it incredibly disappointing that some of you claiming to be pro-choice are so willing to jump ship on this issue. I would never ask any of you to abandon your ideals, nor would I abandon an issue just because it does not effect me personally. This one is mine ... I take my right to make decisions about my body and health very, very personally.

All I can say is that I hope that Pennsylvania voters will be wise enough to hear all candidates, and choose the one who truly represents their beliefs. To choose now is to play "odds" which is a dangerous gamble. I refuse to play into the hands of ol' boy types like Rendell who which stack their cards in an attempt to steer, dictate or at least limit choice in this campaign to advance their own political careers.

edit for sloppiness

I look at the overall picture. I don't know much about Casey in general, but if he's liberal on every single issue besides abortion, I'm going to support him wholeheartedly. But I respect your opinion, though I'm sure you won't respect mine. Flame away.

something in return. They think we can win back the Senate or maybe regain control of the House. Well what kind of victory would that be if the laws such congress passes are no more progressive than if it were repub controlled like it is today?

We gain nothing by giving up our wife's, mother's and daughter's rights. We only stand to lose their vote and most likely the seats we now hold.

Consider asking African Americans to go back to jim crow days.

You are a very short sited person in my opinion if you think caving in to the right will gain you something good in return. You give them their pound of flesh and you will have lost a pound of flesh while they then ask for two more pounds.

We have to stick to our core values and remain united or we will never have a big enough base to ever win again. The right knows how to divide and conquer, you can see it in this thread.

You gain the votes of some pro lifers and lose the votes of women, real smart huh? Personally I would stay home before I would vote for a anti choice candidate.

If there is any message in the losses we have had it is that we have to be an alternative to the right not right lite.

I don't think any Dem is in favor of going soft on women's rights. It sounds to me, like they are resorting priorities for talking points.

It's always better to accentuate ideas that are popular across the board.

anti choice Repubs. It's basic arithmetic. When bills come before the House and Senate restricting abortions in any way, you have more votes to restrict than if you did not elect the anti choice Dems. Thus you are going soft on woman's rights. You are willing to concede something it took a life time to gain to have a chance at winning back control of Congress. My point is this, a anti choice Dems is no different than an anti choice Repub. It makes no difference when the chips are down what party they belong to.

As a party we should be progressive and willing to move forward not two steps forward and one step backward. But the most important thing to me is the message you are sending to women. You are saying that what matters to them is not so important that we should stand behind them as a party to defend their rights.

I do not want to be a part of such a party and I will give up my membership in the Democratic party if we turn our backs on what people like me have fought for over 40 some years to achieve.

You see, I personally think abortion is wrong and would never have one myself, BUT I would never vote for someone who would attempt to overturn Roe because I don't believe in forcing my religious beliefs on anyone else.

I believe in the Dem Party because they believe in helping people who need help, and letting people make their own decisions instead of forcing everyone to follow THEIR RILES like the Pubs do.

I am not a single issue voter, and I really don't think anyone should be.

A woman's right to chose is not just and issue among issues. It is a right. You have no right to use it as a bargining chit.

I am also not a single issue voter but on this issue I will not compromise. Also it is not my party. I chose to join the Dem party and I can choose to leave it.

If the Dem party does not represent my values I will leave it. I will not vote for a anti choise candidate period!

Adding an anti choice candidate does not make our tent bigger. It only gains a few of our opponents will turning off many of our supporters. You will gain nothing and lose what you have.

I am absolutely sickened by how many are willing to use "choice" as a "bargaining chip" or treat it as inconsequential. You are very eloquent in the defense of choice and it means even more as you are male. Most of the attacks on "choice" on DU seem to come from males and I don't understand why. All our greated male leaders have supported choice and these people want to distance themselves from it. I do have to ask myself why? And I haven't an answer.

saracat not only wants pro-lifers totally out of the party, but evidently even people, like napi21, who are pro-choice but think that personally abortion is a bad thing, should be rare in an ideal world (I can't wait for the responses to that phrase), but can't bring themselves to tell others what to do with their body.

Well, I hope a political party of pro-choicers who think having an abortion is always fine and dandy gets created; I'm sure all 132 of them will have fun.

I'm just thrilled to death, however, that my adopted 2-year old son's birthmother chose to have him, and didn't think that abortion was not a bad thing.

Saracat, I would love to know your stance on about 10-20 issues I hold near and dear to my heart; I'm sure you would differ from me on some of them. I would then love to start a new post on how people who think 3% different from me on an issue should be thrown out of the democratic party.

I go further. I don't think whether you have an adopted kid or not, that this is any of your business. You won't be having an abortion anyway. As for who I want or don't want in the Democratic Party, my opinion doesn't really matter. I will say being "legislatively" anti choice is inconsistent with being a Democrat. I don't understand people who want to deviate from a party platform and then run for office. I personally would probably never have an abortion, but I think woman have a right to the procedure just as they have the right to any medical procedure.
Interesting, another male on this thread battling away is convinced that abortion is not under threat because a majority of the people of this country think abortion is "fine and dandy"! ( Does anyone think any medical procedure is "fine and dandy" ? Anything that cuases physical pain isn't usually "fun" ).That would be considerably more than 132 people!

about this.

"I will say being "legislatively" anti choice is inconsistent with being a Democrat. I don't understand people who want to deviate from a party platform and then run for office."

I doubt that any person agrees with EVERY party platform issue, I would question that person's ability for independent thought. Oh, but I forgot, abortion is the most important issue. That was all this thread was about anyway, how dare anyone have any opinion that some other issue may be more important than your most important issue.

"I personally would probably never have an abortion, but I think woman have a right to the procedure just as they have the right to any medical procedure."
I fully agree, but I guess I only agree with you on about 98% of the issue; since I'm a male, that allows you to totally dismiss my opinion, because remember, you "don't think... that this is any of (my) business"

vasectomy either. Your body. Your choice! So, we are even!:) I will respect your right for me to have no say so in your reproductive medical procedures if you respect my right to not have your interjection in my reproductive medical procedures! Fair enough!

Just as a man's vote can help decide the legality of abortion. Men's opinions on abortion DO count, and you should be glad of it, since many of the most rabid "right-to-lifers" are WOMEN.

Casey has yet to master the public sound bite, but hopefully that will change.

With all respect saracat, I think you are misinterpreting his words. Casey is simply saying that despite the major differences within the Democratic party in regards to abortion, all Dems can agree that we need to keep Social Security and help improve national heath care.

Abortion rights is possibly the biggest dividing line in the Dem party right now. A good deal of hard working, economically progressive Dems do not support abortion and never will. We can't ignore that fact, but we have to counter with support for heathcare and Social Security.

If you've read "What's the Matter With Kansas" you'll realize what happened many years ago when the Repubs reframed politics away from economic and work issues and toward "moral" issues. The same problem exists today and if we don't support S.S. and heathcare, we stand to lose the begrudging support of the anti-choice Dems whom we desperately need to further the rest of the progressive message.

As I see it, basically Casey is saying to the anti-choice Dems. "Hey, let's have a trade-off. You drop your anti-abortion stance and we'll provide S.S and heathcare in return."

He's just trying to reach out beyond the abortion divide, which as I recall is pretty wide in PA, to get the Dems back under the Big Tent.

Yes, Casey is anti-choice, I do know and I am not happy with that fact. But I'll take Casey any day over Santorum.

Sorry but the pro-lifers and the religious fundies love their darling Rick Santorum. If we are going to beat him, we need to militantly get out every person in PA that supports a woman's right to choose. This is NOT a red state, this is a blue state that is being represented in the US Senate by a religious fundie. We MUST change this and the only way that we can do it is with somebody who will fight the religious fundie agenda.

Seriously, it seems like we'll support every milquetoast Democratic politician that comes around the bend (not necessarily referring to the candidate under discussion), all the while ignoring any vote cast for Welfare Reform, or the Patriot Act, the IWR (as liberal a license as any for perpetual war), or any measure, for that matter, that shreds the social safety net. Yet somehow we're supposed to draw the line at abortion rights. *Abortion rights*!!!

Forgive me, I'm young, but how the hell did this become the banner under which we fight?