I disagree with Dean on his Casey endorsement.

It appears that last night in Lawrenceville he endorsed Bob Casey's campaign. I was not there, but the media indidcates that he did.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05201/540556.stm

"With an enthusiastic endorsement of Casey, Dean drew sustained applause from the crowd of several hundred at the Church Brew Works in Lawrenceville."

"I have an awful lot of respect for pro-life Democrats," Dean said. "Pro-life Democrats care about the lives of children after they are born as well as before."

I haven't really minded the way he has been speaking of abortion, I understand what he is saying. However, Bob Casey is far more than pro-life. Here we have been so concerned about the judges Bush will get to appoint, but yet our own Democratic leaders are endorsing someone who is anti-choice.

Casey is not just against a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, he is against more than that.

He is against the funding of stem-cell research beyond 2001 levels, and he supports the rights of pharmacists to not prescribe the morning-after pill.

Casey's own words:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/11420780.htm

SNIP..."What I've said in the last month and what I've said in the last 10 years makes it very clear that I'm pro-life, and I always will be," Casey said.

Casey said he would, as a senator, avoid a litmus test on any issue in voting on judicial nominees. He would oppose expanding federally supported embryonic stem-cell research beyond 2001 levels. He would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.."

Edit to put in italics:
By being anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive, Casey is in effect dooming a woman to carry full term....even in cases of rape.

Howard Dean has been very clear on what he stands for, and I do not like his selling out his beliefs in order to win. Here we are at the crossroads for women's rights, and I don't think we should let him or anyone else rationalize anti-choice views.

I am one of his biggest advocates, but I can not agree with his supporting an anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-contraceptive candidate in the Democratic party.

I can not believe he did this comfortably, and it must have tweaked his conscience to do so.

He cares about getting a lot of people into the party be he couldn't care less about pursuing Democratic ideals. This is a perfect example.

Let's not start. I am being honest on this. I wish you would be the same.

He refused to agree to a pro-Roe litmus test on judges. He may be personaly pro-choice but that does not necessarily carry to his policies. His goal is to reach out to the conservatives and he can't do that by demanding support for liberal values, like choice. This is not a put-down. It's a comment on his approach and his position.

.

.

Remember the confederate flag and his more conservative positions on NAFTA, the WTO, choice and universal health care. It's not wrong for him to do that. I'm a liberal so naturally I don't agree with the conservatives. But he has a right to do what he's doing. He doesn't need people covering for him because he's not doing anything wrong.

I'm not going to get into this any more with people who don't know where their leader stands on the issue. His position regarding this endorsement is typical Dean.

And you don't like it because I am being critical. Let's agree to disagree, and I will not bother you. Ok?

Honesty about things we say about others, honesty in all things. I think you know what I mean.

YOU'RE the one who is mischaracterizing Dean's position.

People who live in Kucinich glass houses shouldn't throw pro-choice stones.

I think it is time the Democratic Party stop trying to reach out to moderates and try to build their own base. There are millions of people out there who would be willing to vote for the Democrats if they just would stand up and fight. Democrats need to do more to get people who lean toward the Democratic Party to the polls. I do not believe that Casey can get that many people over to his side.

As much as I hate his positions outlined above, I'd sure like to see Santorum out on his ass.

vote - don't care. People who don't vote cannot be relied on to vote. How do you know what they want and what it will take to get them to vote? And will changing to what the non-voters want make those that are already voting for them abandon them? Really, if you have the (proven) answer to this I think you could probably get a really good job in politics.

I'm not trying to be mean, I just think what you said is easy to say but there is no evidence that it is true. If you have the statistical evidence, I'd like to see it and be proven wrong.

that a has few humanist or Democratic bents but not many. I always wondered why he has attracted so many?
Kucinich is a true Democrate, as is the Black Caucus and give me Socialist Bernie anyday!

You can either oppose abortion or effective Birth Control. Opposing both is just stupid.

on abortion as a litmus test for judges. I think the thing is that we have a possibility of having Robert Casey or Santorum--and I think on lots of issues Casey would be an improvement. He is also the candidate who runs best against Santorum. It is not only Dean but many in the Democratic party who want him to be the candidate.

Why bother? Just give in.

He is a reliable vote for Reid as majority leader!!!

Minority leader and would not allow his own personal view on abortion interfer with a womans right to an abortion. I think Casey has essentially the same stand.

I don't know, so I am asking. And if he is, why are we doing this?

and totally agree with this post. NO WAY is CASEY a Democrat! He's a RW Catholic, just like Buchanan or, say, the Pope.
Man, what we are asked to accept when the opponent is a psychopath like Santorum.

a few good women need to have a nice, "Come to Jesus" meeting with the Governor. This is not only unacceptable, it's a mis-reading of what the country wants and believes. I know of NO polls which show any erosion in support for basic abortion rights.

And I'm getting a little tired of this remark too:
"I have an awful lot of respect for pro-life Democrats," Dean said. "Pro-life Democrats care about the lives of children after they are born as well as before."

As if pro-CHOICE Democrats don't, or NOT having a child you don't want and can't adequately care for isn't ultimately a very loving, pro-Child and pro-Family thing to do.

Yeah, I think it's time for a little Reality Check for our otherwise favorite national Democrat.

He is being used by the religous left, and the moral issues crowd. I hope he backs off this, and goes back to his own beliefs in a woman's right to her health care and to an abortion, and especially to birth control.

I think others will as well. I am totally on board with Howard on most things, but this has been festering with me.

to jump right in, by all means please do.

Here's my concern: I know Dean is wonderful about listening to the average voters and rank and file, but I'm just not sure that we're the ones to make these points. I think it needs to be people who are better connected. OTOH, I can't think NARAL and NOW aren't bending his ear on this, maybe he DOES need to hear from constituents, every day folks?

Can anyone find the most recent polling data on support for abortion rights? We ought to include that, at the least.

Dean has worked with NARAL leaders a lot before, and I know they are ready to kick his butt on this issue.

Bob Casey is simply put, just not a Democrat.

He may choose to describe himself as one, but his positions and choices made due to his positions reflect a Republican candidate. No other way to look at it.

There is a great Democratic candidate named Chuck Pennachio, a college professor, and father of two, who has had the guts to throw his hat in the ring as a Democrat, and the Democratic National party has been virtually ignoring his candidacy. This is very wrong. When we ignore and dismiss our good candidates, we will lose the very candidates we need most in Washington. Not a good precedent to employ at all.

Bottom line: we have a primary to elect our Democratic candidate.

The Democratic Party should be remaining neutral and SUPPORTING both candidates and allowing the Pennsylvanians to decide for themselves who the candidate should be.

He's trying to grow the party. Endorsing the odd pro-life candidate is a part of that.

A pro-life Democrat is better for liberal causes than a pro-choice Republican, no?

I am very understanding that he has to make concessions to grow the party, but we are getting into dangerous territory here.

Why bother about opposing judges who are anti-life when we are supporting those in our own party who are anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, and anti-birth control.

And there are some things that we shouldn't be willing to budge on.

I would take a pro-life Democrat, provided that they are pro-people and not a corporate sell-out.

The abortion issue is morally troubling for a lot of people, and I think it's wrong to exclude people simply because they don't agree with the traditional Democratic stance on abortion.

I'm very much pro-choice, by the way. But it's not the most important issue out there. Not even close.

They are very important to me. There is something wrong with the leading Democrats doing this.

Abortion and birth control I could maybe take on religious grounds, but being anti-stem-cell research is like being anti-science.

Being anti-stem-cell research is like plastering a sign on your head that reads, "Progress is our enemy."

than as the Governor of my state. His father was a PA Governor and is responsible for the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case that went to the Supreme Court.

I would vote for a ham sandwich to oust Santorum. If Casey wins the Dem primary, he will get my vote...despite the fact that I have very little agreement with his positions on social issues.

Casey, whose ideas on choice/stem cell research/prescription control are at best stupid, needs Dean's ability to raise money for his campaign.

Without seeing the speech Dean made, I'd bet he was more into the marketing strategy that "pro-life" Democrats are allowed at the table.

I'd prefer Dean using DFA to get someone to knock Casey out of the race and go head-to-head against Santorum...but...

After reading the article (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05201/540556.stm), it looks like Howard did a little dance around the choice issue. It didn't really look like an "endorsement" to me...

I'm sure he couldn't wait to see that gig in the rear-view mirror.

"We won't be satisfied until Virginia gives up its third senator and Pennsylvania gets two senators again," Dean told the crowd, most of whom had paid $25 to enter the Democratic National Committee fund-raiser.

That was a good one.

I doubt he liked the endorsement/non endorsement/whatever it was. I am willing to understand a lot of what he has to do.

But anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, and anti-birth control are just too too much for my poor brain.

In his present role, that's the dealio.

It's like he has to be a master of political duct tape for the next few years. In the case of Casey, consider the alternative.

Also, I'm getting the feeling that even Casey is playing the "Pro-Life Democrat" card to appease the western Pennsylvanians that consider being anti-choice worth voting against their own economic interest...confuse them with the "pro-life" stance so that they can willingly walk in the election halls and vote against Santorum, who I would feel most people find to be an idiot.

It's a game. Enough moderates and those generally on the left side of the political landscape will vote for Casey anyway. It's getting the semi-confused "Pro-Life" voters that also are hard hit economically by Repug policies to punch the hole for Casey that will make the difference in the race.

casey may not be perfect, but you can't compare him to little pricky. casey is strong on labor issues, healthcare and the working class and the poor.

That argument is not going to work much anymore. They are trying it on everyone here in Florida who speaks up about Bill Nelson's recent very corporate-friendly votes. One is not even permitted to criticize.

It is getting out of hand.

and our last elected democratic senator finished his term in 1969. and they call us a blue state. i'll take casey any day.

I don't see why they are so worried about some dissent on the left with this race. Barring Jeb trying to use Diebold actually steal a race outside of the margin of fraud (which is suicide), Nelson is going to get re-elected and Harris is going to be out of work.

I seem to be missing the point of being a Democrat. Is the point to get as many votes as possible so that we can have leaders that call themselves "Democrats" but disagree with us on the most fundamental thing as a woman I can think of-whether I have to choose between ever having sex again or having a baby. I'm tired of this shit. And for those that say "there are more important things" I hope to hell you are a man because from a woman it's inexcusable. Just be a Republican then-that's their whole ideology women must bear the burden of all the sex and all the responsiblity. If you have sex you must pay for that crime. Too damn bad if you can't afford another kid..too damn bad if you were forced into it..just too damn bad...I don't understand.

Birth control is the basis of society that isn't a third world one. Without it-poverty, crime, and slavery is the life of women and ultimately it brings that society down with it.

I guess there are more important things!!!!!!!!!

Saddening to say, the only requirement does indeed seem to be the 'D' label, no matter what it's attached to.

The only cheering thing I can think of is that Choice has such strong support in the nation, and it is so useful to the GOP as a bogeyman, that I'd truly be surprised if they were fools enough to really have a go at it.

Thanks for posting.

I am wondering how different this guy is from Santorum.

I suppose aboaut the only positive outcome would be that Casey could halp the Dems win back the Senate. Doesn't sound like much of a Democrat to me.

Mz Pip
:dem:

i am in full agreement ... i know your strong support for Dean and I appreciate the integrity you've shown on this issue ...

Casey's views on the abortion issue are beyond barbaric ... they are inexcusable ... during his campaign for Governor, Casey said that he would ban abortions except when the life of the mother was at stake ... this included bans for rape and incest ...

so, in Casey's twisted value system, he would literally incarcerate a teenage girl who had been raped by her father and tie her down to a table if necessary until she gave birth ... in my view, this is almost as barbaric as the rape itself ... it's an unconscionable position ...

which brings us to the political discussion ... some will duck the controversy by saying that there are many issues to consider beyond abortion ... well, there's a little truth in that ... and some will dodge around the issue by pointing out that anyone is better than Santorum ... well, there's a little truth in that too ...

but in the end, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is a power that no government and no other person should possess ... go forth and multiply is one thing when it's a suggestion; it is immoral when it is the law ...

consider (hypothetically?) that there are two slave owners in modern day Pennsylvania ... one beats his slaves and forces them to live in terrible conditions ... the other is a "good" slave owner who ensures that his slaves are well-cared for ... Should the Democratic Party endorse the lesser of the evils if the "good" slave owner is otherwise an upstanding citizen? if the local culture condones slavery and it is widely known that an anti-slavery candidate could not win in this state, is it OK to back the "good" slave owner? or should our beliefs and principles come into play?

some are automatically critical of "litmus tests" ... my view is that you form opinions on candidates based on your values ... if you have one issue that dominates your thinking, so be it ... if you dilute your views across many issues, so be it ... there is no one right way ... frankly, i look at most candidates through a prism of several "litmus tests" ... flunk any one of my "big issues" and i cross you off my list ... the fact that the "good" slave owner gives lots of money to charity and took part in the "save the whales" march doesn't cut it with me ... slavery is slavery and freedom of choice is freedom of choice ... if you own slaves, you are not a "good" guy ...

Dean was dead wrong to endorse Casey ... once again, we see a Party that puts winning ahead of values ... it's bad politics and it's morally reprehensible ...

enthusiastically.

I'll take Casey Jr, and hope that party pressure he'll recieve as being a freshman will be strong enough for him to vote the party line.

I've meet him before too and he's a good guy, not even a Lieberman on most issues.

It would be improper for Dean not to endorse Casey in the general election, barring extrordinary circumstances (err a defaction of Zell Miller proportions). However, there is no nominee yet and last time I checked, Chuck Pennachio is still in the race. Is Chuck Pennachio going to win the nomination, probably not. But it's bad precedent for somebody like Dean who is supposed to represent the entire party, to endorse somebody in the primaries. It is bad for party unity, which is exactly what Dean is trying to foster.

Dean can endorse Casey, but he should wait a year when Casey is actually the nominee.

None of them should endorse a candidate this far ahead of time, nor should they in any race encourage others to back off. Expediency and comfort level for the party have been factors far too often.

to say.."..."What I've said in the last month and what I've said in the last 10 years makes it very clear that I'm pro-life, and I always will be," Casey said."

Like we're freakin' "Pro Death" or something.

It's a little more complicated than that.

I guess casey would be a huge improvement over santorum but I can see your point.

Since the party is acting like his opponents do not even exist, it makes it hard to see any other option.

I wonder how casey felt about the Iraqi invasion?

Because all the "right to lifers" on the right don't mind killing Iraqi children, babies, or fetus' right along with their mothers.

We need to reframe that argument.

Dean doesn't have much choice in this case. Gov. Rendell is backing Casey and it is Rendell, not Dean, who has squashed most of Casey's primary opponents.

"Pro Privacy Invaders"!

Maybe that is part of my point.

He told us that we have the power. And that means dropping him a note about this endorsement explaining why we think it's a bad idea. Not that I expect to agree with him on everything, but I'll surely let him know how I feel about major issues!

I notice they quickly added the environment to the agenda when they started getting mails. They listen.

I know he must be all things to all people in the party, but I just feel this is wrong.

I cannot think of a starker contrast!

that Casey use the term "anti-choice".
The RW Republican term "pro-life" is NOT part of the Democratic lexicon. Its usage, in fact, identifies one AS basically a Republican.
Oh, sorry...."Conservative".

chance of beating Santorum?