While I don't like Casey's stance on the right to choose, I recognize that if we can get another "D" into our side of the Senate, we will be able to kill the next SCOTUS nominee in committee, and not even worry about bringing him or her to the floor or need to use a filibuster. By having another Democrat in our ranks, he or she will vote for Harry Reid to be Majority Leader, and as long as Casey doesn't get a spot on the Judiciary Committee, I don't think his presence will be a problem. Unfortunately, Casey may be getting a challenge from former NARAL head Kate Michelman. I wish that she would run in the primary instead (hell she would probably do much better than Chuck Pennacchio, who doesn't have a chance despite being a hell of a candidate ideologically-speaking.)

This MyDD diary sums up my opinion better than I can in terms of elaborating:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/2/151831/2961

Single issue voters... :eyes:

out of a potential challenge against Chafee? NARAL has been on my so-called "shit list" ever since they did that, and then ENDORSED CHAFEE.

They are so dedicated to their special issues above all else, and don't care about the big picture. They are not good team players in political parties.

Same kind of muscling. Kate never pretended to be anything other than that. Maybe if enough people agree with her, a point will be made.

Would I rather see the seat go Democratic? Of course. But that is how it is when you take away people's rights. It makes them mad.

:kick: for democracy. Chuck Schumer can always give this "pro-choice" candidate a $132,000 per year job somewhere to get her out of the race and quiet her dissent. NYS Commissioner of Insurance (given to H. Mills by Pataki for running vs. Chuck Schumer) will be up for grabs as soon as Eliot Spitzer becomes NYS Gov.

This is how the big boys play the game. Does Chucky care to appease the pro choicers? Would he prefer to vilify them and perhaps lose a pro-life (D) seat?

Claiborne Pell always managed to win in R.I. as a pro-choice Dem. Not sure why the party felt a pro-lifer would help
this time.

And I believe that he was very good on all other issues.

with third party candidates? No wonder the GOP always wins. We can't even take a good thing like removing Santorum from office without fucking it up by splitting the vote.

If this happens it will probably mean 6 more years for Santorum and anotehr lost opportunity for Dems.

"Our side" often has (at least) two masters - the liberal progressives (directly opposed to the neo-cons) and the dlc (my term of the conservative dems).

Most democrats would rather vote for a moderate republican over a progressive. That is why our "side" gets split up.

Self interest also splits up our party. A dem might support a proposal (such as logging fire damaged public lands) even though it is anti-environmentalist, because he gets paid by the logging industry. NO republican or democrat supports this anti-environmental bill except those that receive a large amount of timber campaign donations.

If an environmentalist anti-logging Dem stands up to primary the pro-logging corporate Dem, this IS A GOOD THING. Sure, it weakens our parties chances to "control" DC. Only money controls DC. The incumbent pro-logging Dem should give up his lobbying for the timber industry and support the Dem platform of environmental responsibility.

Any Dems that are weak on our core values deserves to be challenged.

Can't be that great of a candidate themselves.

I seem to recall a guy named Clinton winning the White House in the same race that a 3rd party candidate was picking up 20-30% of the vote in most states :think:

was a center right candidate. He took votes from both sides. That would be the case here.

Most of Michelman's supporters will be disgruntled Democrats. The pro-choice but pro-massive tax cuts suburban Philly soccer moms will be unlikely to vote for her, and could go to Santorum anyway.

Another third party candidate, this time in the presidential race pitting incumbent Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan. Remember how that turned out?

On edit: And do not forget Ralph Nader, who has just been SO HELPFUL :sarcasm: by dividing the progressive vote.

The country is about a third self-identified Democrat and slightly less than one-third self-identified Republican, with the rest independent. Carve up the moderate and liberal vote, wherever it comes from, and you hand the GOP victory. It's the reality in most places in this country.

When she tore Ralph several new ones for doing the same thing presidentially.

Anderson ran because the two parties were not acceptable.
Perot ran because the two parties were not acceptable (how many of us now hear that giant sucking sound that Perot termed 'free trade'? Clinton still ain't hearin it. Clinton 2008 won't hear it).
Nader ran because the two party system was not acceptable.

VOTERS voted for third parties. VOTERS decided to stay home instead of voting.

As long as the dems keep trying to imitate the GOP and keep true choice away from the voters, we will always have a pro-corporate, pro military-industrial complex, pro-war government. This is what the American voters deserve. The president that we elect will most certainly NOT be progressive. The winner of the 2008 will be a pro-military-industrial-complex dem or republican. I just hope that it is Al Gore or Hillary Clinton, or another Dem.

Even tho Reagan would have won over Carter without Anderson in the picture. That was the last time I voted for a 3rd party candidate. I like Kate a lot, but I don't think NARAL always handled the prochoice issue well, but some of that wasn't their fault: Americans just can't seem to think or talk about sex, it drives them nuts.

Anyway, Kate should get real and know that her run will only insure a victory for Santorum and he's worse than Casey, period end of statement.

and virtually no votes from any minorities. In short, he at worst was an equal opportunity taker of votes and might well have been a net taker of votes from Bush. Michelman would only take votes from Casey.

a complete disaster. If you don't like Casey, run in the primary.

Thanks NARAL, for all you do for America and democracy! First Chafee and now Santorum.... :sarcasm:

I don't particularly care for Casey either, but Santorum is a fucking loon with presidential ambitions and a bunch of religious fundamentalists that will support him. This is one case where I say that for the good of the country, Santorum must go at all costs.

That has been the word used whenever anyone fussed about the DCCC supporting one candidate over the other....they have the right.

Kate has the right to run. That is Democracy.

And the DCCC is the House's re-election group. She is running as an independent, ergo, she will take away votes from Casey.

I know what Casey believes about women. He does not even believe a woman has a right to a morning after pill because it does not suit his view of when life begins.

Schumer told Rendell to clear the way for Casey, knowing he was anti-choice. He said that it did not matter anymore.

Kate has a right to run.

Because he was the one with the best chance to win. Its the reason he's supported moderate-conservative dems like Casey and ultra-Liberals like Bernie Sanders, because both have the best opportunity to win.

But I digress, your right she does have the right to run and we have the right to tell her that she's being an idiot and is guranteeing Rick Santorum another 6 years and a shot at the White House.

As for the Perot analogy, its not valid in this case because Perot took votes from both sides. A much more apt analogy in this situation is Nader because probably 90% of Nader voters would have voted for Gore and 90% of Michelmann voters would have voted for Casey.

I am changing my mind about things a little. I am going to say as I posted earlier that I think for the time being we should just let the party do all the picking they want to do. My point is that they will do it anyway, they are hurting many good candidates all over the country.

Since they are going to do it anyway, I will back off and just let them. If there are consequences so be it.

I understand that in several races here that the "grassroots" is going to be "blamed" if the DCCC's picked candidates don't do well. They will put the onus on us for it because we have been griping to them and state chair.

So let them pick. There is nothing we can do at all right now. People don't want to give to the DNC because they don't understand that Dean is trying to build it back on small donors, not so answerable to the lobbyists. So in effect those people are giving the power back to the power players.

Don't know if I make sense on this. I am reading Crashing the Gate, and I know what we have to do. Good book. I disagree with Kos on the issues that people want, but his premise is right.

We have to work together. But Kate has a right to run, and she would be a good candidate. She might even get support from Republicans for Choice, as they don't like what Casey stands for.

If the party makes choices they have to accept the consequences of that.

Has the right to run and if Rick Santorum wins with 46 or 47% of the vote we have the right to blame her for it. Your kidding yourself if you think more than a handful of Republicans will vote for her. Finally, as for her strength as a candidate, what proof do you have? Because from her bio it appears she is little more than a single-issue ideologue. I know Casey's strength as a candidate, the fact that in his 2004 election he got more votes than anyone else in PA history. The fact that he has consistently lead Santorum by double digits for a year in the polls.

That is the problem. If Casey loses, it is not my fault.

Now Nader was taking money from ultra-conservative, anti-choice, anti-gay groups, so that is another matter.

Kate is a good woman who believes in her cause.

If the party chooses the candidate, they should accept blame if that candidate loses.

Acknowledge the loss, promise to learn from the mistakes, but BLAME?

Taking "blame" is a credibility killer for certain.

If they all jump in with big money and pick candidates, then they need to accept responsibility.

You can use other words if you wish, but it still means the same thing.

Blame because if she runs as an Independent she's pretty much a single issue spoiler candidate. She knows she won't win and she knows that 90% of her voters would've otherwise gone for Casey, 5% might be moderate Republicans and the other 5 would be Greens and she might be able to get a few apathetic voters off their couches.

If she wants to run in the primary go ahead. Yeah its an uphill battle but its not impossible. My senator, Russ Feingold when he ran in 92 was a little known State Senator with no money, running against a couple of multi-millionaire opponents and not only did he win he won with 70% of the vote, and then proceeded to defeat an incumbent senator although the GE is only 2 months after the primary. Matt Brown in RI is beating Sheldon Whitehouse although Whitehouse has all the insitutional support and for a while Brown was a Jack Reed endorsement of Whitehouse away from dead.

But running an an Independent she can't win and all she's doing is increasing Santorum's chance of re-election and could get him a shot at the White House.

and do nothing, the party will continue to ignore them. In essence they HAVE to take a stand. Did the dems filibuster either supreme court nominee? NO.

that is why the dlc keeps going to the right, AND the gop continues to go to the right. The media wants the progressive movement dead, the corporations want the progressive movement dead, and the two parties want the progressive movement dead.

The way I see it:

50% of eligible voters fail to enroll.
50% of enrolled voters fail to vote.
49% of voters vote for the dems.
51% of voters vote for the gop.

With such a small voting sample, die-bold can pretty much do what it wants. With very little difference between the parties, why would the 75% of the adult eligible voters that are currently NOT voting for the GOP suddenly go out and vote Dem?

I agree that it's pathetic that the democrats didn't fillibuster Alito. That being said, this is the wrong race for the pro choice lobby to take a stand. If Santorum wins his senate race he has a damn good shot at the white house.

I think that Schummer and Emmanuel have done some incredibly stupid and unfair things during this campaign season. This is one of the races where I absolutely agree with them.

Wrong race, wrong time.

The PA Senate race is important on so many levels I can't even begin to count.

It's more than another senate seat, it would be a

moral victory

of the highest order.

we've heard this for years with no change. So they decide to run a anti-choice dem, whos' probably also being confused for his dad to fight the repubs. You gotta hand it to them, they're becoming just like repubs. At this point, we might as well just join the repubs and merge the two parties.

It's seven simple words...

RICK SANTORUM PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

former Republican and double Santorum endorser Barbara Hafer to run?

:shrug: i guess progressives staying home is better for the Dems..

what about the people?

Are the ones who gave Bob Casey more votes in his 2004 campaign than any other candidate in PA history. The people are the ones being polled who are giving Casey a double digit lead in the polls.

and Casey will get 60% of the vote... Santorum will get 30%... and NARAL will get 10%.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. People that vote for NARAL know what and why they are voting.

And me and those of us who actually think about the big picture should criticize her every waking moment of her campaign. All I'm saying is that she should run as a Dem and win or lose the race. All running an an Indy does is divide and increase Ricky's chances of winning.

you can "influence" voters by campaigning for Casey (or by criticizing NARAL, whichever you think will be more effective.

If running as an indy helps Rick, and voting indy helps Rick, and indy voters understand this, then it is indy voters failure to support lesser evil then Rick -Casey. It is the DLC's problem that progressives would rather help a neo-con then support a pro-life, conservative democrat. That is the risk you run when you 'calculate' electability.

Pennachio is in it and Casey is in it. Pennsylvania Democrats will choose. Polls show Casey winning the primary - but until the vote happens, things can change.

Schumer wanted Casey because he is the best chance of defeating Santorum. If Chuck wanted only to win, he could have endorsed Santorum and let NARAL run vs a DLC+GOP fusion ticket.

I am very glad that Schumer did not waste any of our money running some corporate joke against Bernie Saunders. Thank GOD for that.:kick:

Casey is ADAMANTLY pro-contraception.

I haven't heard specifically about his position on the morning after pill. Do you have a link?

I need to look it up. In fact, I even posted it here several times a few months ago. He is against the morning after pill.

My Powerdesk search got messed up so I had to redownload. But I did find this that says he supports the pharmacists right to refuse service. This also shows he opposes stem cell research beyond 2001 levels.

http://youngphillypolitics.blogspot.com/2005/04/where-senate-candidates-stand-all-of.html

"But, and this is a big but, his aim to straddle the line with abortion gets him in big trouble. Because, apparently to Casey, the abortion issue is not about his religious beliefs, but about "biology," because he says "there's a life there." While this may be Casey's way of moderating his pro-life stance, he ruins it with this:



Science, eh? So you know no life is started for a few days after people have sex, right? Then why would you have problems with the morning-after pill, which simply prevents pregnancy from taking place? Pure, pure hypocrisy."

with EC.

It does say (without providing any direct quote) "He would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting".

You do know that there is legislation pending that would allow people to refuse filling scrips with the requirement that SOMEONE else be available to do so?

Does he support the pending legislation (which I think Kerry sponsored)?

Said legislation would also allow Muslims to take time to pray at work, IIRC.

So they are both wrong. The doctor's prescriptions should be filled as they are written. No questions by the pharmacists.

And stem cell research? How about that? Nothing past 2001?

filled. It simply said that a pharmasist could refuse to fill the prescription if there was another pharmasist at that store who could. I agree this might lead to a slight delay and possibly a bit of annoyance or embarrasment, but it balances the issue. The legislation required the store to fill the prescription. (as per a Kerry/Santorum letter to the NYT)

I felt it was wrong then. I think I said so here then as well. If the doctor writes it, the pharmacist fills it or gets fired. Otherwise, the pharmacist should go to medical school and get the same degrees as a doctor.

Kerry gave that bunch of Pharmacists for Life a lot of legitimacy by doing that. He was wrong.

If the legislation said you need to go elsewhere, it would be wrong. I think this has balance. What is wrong with having them hand your prescription to another pharmacist in the store to fill it. (At the pharmacy I go to the store clerks take the prescriptions and the two pharmacists fill them. I pick the medicine up - asking the clerks if it is ready. In my case, I don't know which pharmacist filled it.)

Pharmacists are professionals, who have post graduate degrees. Saying they should become doctors is silly.

That is wrong, there is no way to say that is right.

It was wrong. A pharmacist should NOT have the right to refuse to fill a prescription because of their religious views.

Should be fired and prosecuted for practicing medecine without a lisence. If a person feels the ordinary routines of a trade are offensive to their conscience, they should ply another trade that will contain no such affront to their sensibilities.

can and will fill it. They aren't practicing medicine. They are simply saying that they have a moral issue with doing this. It's hypocritical to deny others the chance to follow their conscience when asserting our right to do so.

I'm just surprised Kerry got Santorum to back it as written. Kerry apparently has pushed it for years - and its initial motivation was to protect those who didn't ascribe to the dominant religion. (Including Massachusetts Wiccans)

The degree of imposition on the pharmacist is trivial, and wholly self-inflicted; the degree of imposition the wretch seeks to inflict on another to gratify a moral vanity and over-weening spiritual pride is large and life-altering over a period of decades. One might as well compare hang-nails to amputations and claim equivalency.

A person who will not do the job is free to seek another trade.

Based on moral grounds? No, there is only a law that says that a defendent has a right to an attorney. However, if said lawyer starts passing up too many cases based on moral issues, then said lawyer might find himself out of a job because he's not making any money for his law-firm.

I am pro choice, but I understand that there are people who feel that filling a morning after pill makes them guilty of being an accomplice to murder. I disagree with them, but I understand they can be sincere.

For such a person, there is an imposition to filling the prescription.
Under this law, the biggest imposition to the person wanting the prescription filled is at most a few minutes handing the prescription to the other pharmacist in the same store.

Sorry, but I see it almost the opposite of what you see.

Whether or not they are sincere, or any other thing, weighs to me no more than a mote of dust. If they do not want to ply their trade, they may ply another. What they cannot do is force another person's life into the path of their choice in service of their own delusional misogyny and sins of spiritual pride.

I hardly think that anyone is inconvienienced if they can walk into a pharmacy and get their prescription filled - it doesn't matter who does it.

That is part of having a job, doing what is required of you. If a doctor prescribes something, the pharmacist should fill it. It has nothing to do with that pharmacist's religious or moral views.

It is a movement that is part of a takeover by extreme religious groups. Even my Catholic relatives are appalled by this kind of stuff.

without having to go elsewhere, what is the problem?

Here's s close non-political similar situation in NJ:

Some of our grocery stores sell alcohol. Clerks under 21 years can't sell it to you. If you are in the line of an under-age clerk, when she/he gets to the alcohol, a manager is called over to scan it in and bag it, the young clerk then continues with the order. (A similar situation occurs in restaurants.) I don't feel offended that they need to call someone over.

to get filled the prescription by their doctor.

I would be with you complaining if you had to search for a pharmacy to fill it. Is the problem that it calls attention to the fact that some people disagree with it?

If so, I can see why you seeing things this way.

I am starting from the premise that women have a right to control their bodies, and their doctors have a right to prescribe what they think is right.

And the pharmacists role is to fill it. Period. Bottom line.

But I can accept that others have feelings, values and morals. I don't agree with their values on this, but I do recognize that they are sincere. I also agree with you that a woman should have a reasonable expectation of taking a prescription to a pharmacy and getting it filled. But, for the live of me, I don't understand why if there are two pharmacists you feel personally offended that one of them could hand the prescription to the other for filling rather than doing it.

Your position treats the pharmacist as an unfeeling robot. I really think your inflexibility suggests an inability to empathize with others who don't share your believes. Where is this coming from? Your needs would be met. If there's a way that both you and the pharmacists' needs could be met, what is the problem here? Are you so sensitive that you view this as a condemnation form a person you don't know?

We ask the RW to become more tolerant, but here you need to be more tolerant.

It makes little economic sense for a drugstore to hire two pharmacists, one who will fill the morning after pill and one that won't, when they could just hire the one that will fill the perscription. This is corporate America and money is EVERYTHING. Only if the drugstore happens to be owned by a fundy nutjob will they actually spend the money to pay two pharmacists.

Even in the case of larger pharmacies, it would still make more sense to hire the pharmacists who have no problem with this. (Especially if there are 2 and the 1 left has a problem, the owner then HAS to hire a pharmacist will to fill the perscription.)

to birth control. That is just exactly what it is about. It should never have been an issue at all. If our Democrats were not trying so hard to out Republican the Republicans...they would have said no no no this is all stupid. They would have said ....you can't do that. If you refuse to fill a prescription on religious grounds, your ass is fired.

It is just that simple. The Democrats for Life have influenced our scaredy cat Democrats on giving up on womens' rights.

Per the legislation, a drug store has to honor the prescription, The worst that would happen is that if there were more than 1 pharmacist in the store, the 2 nd pharacist might fill it rather than the first. This would be federal law that would conflict with a state passing a law saying a pharmacy doesn't have to fill these prescriptions.

NOTE: IF you think about it, this is a clever law that SAYS A PHARMACY MUST HONOR A PRESCRIPTION - and Santorum is a sponsor. (rather a coup, I think.)

Unless you have read something more recent than the joint Kerry/Santorum NYT LTTE, that is what the law does. Assuming this is correct, do you have a problem with this?

Now stop with your lies! Casey nt only supports the morning after pill he wants it to be made OTC. Now get your fucking facts straight or shut the hell up!

pet interests?

I'm taking a very hard line considering third parties this year.

If a third party candidate can't stanch the poison in the administration while tap-dancing and frying chicken, I say forget 'em.

This is a war, and I gotta pick a side. There is no middle.

But when they pick someone who is anti-choice, not even caring that he is, then it is upsetting. It is not Chuck Schumer's body he is treating so lightly, it is a woman's body.

Kate M. is a great lady who has taken a lot of bashing lately for standing up for women's rights...when our own party is running away from them.

To even imply she has no right to run is awful.

BTW if you don't know Chuck Schumer's exact words, I can find them.

My point is she is (pardon the mixed metaphor) shooting her pet issue in the foot if she does--and the blowback affects all of us.

But continue to take my words out of context as it suits you.

:)

it will take votes from Casey.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

any way they fall guess who gets to take the blame?

Pinstripe bosses own the dice
anyway you roll
guess who gets to pay the price?
Money - green
proletariat gray
selling guns
instead of food today.

I'm terrified of the assault on health rights, but I'm also terrified of the mess in Iraq, the fact that we may invade Iran, we are selling our ports to sponsors of terrorism, and we still can't find OBL.

Of course she has the right to run, and we need to make the Dems speak loud and long about health privacy.

But I have a perfect right on DU to bitch about what could be a sorry decision made by someone I believe to be on my side.

Don't forget Santorum's hand in the K-Street Project. As long as Casey just provides a warm body with a "D" and isn't given a spot on the Judiciary Committe (which will have the power to kill SCOTUS nominees and not have them go to the floor) or speaks vocally against the party like Lieberman, then I'm fine with him. I don't like where Ben Nelson stands, but at least he keeps his mouth shut and doesn't try to cuddle up to the GOP. I see Casey as being more like Nelson than Lieberman or Zell or Cuellar.

Just as my right to bitch about Casey on DU is preserved.

I disagree strongly with using the banner of women's health rights for abortion rights. While I'm pro-choice, the abortion rights movement isn't pro-women's health rights by any stretch of the imagination.

There are many other health issues, including lack of health insurance, facing women today to focus only on one medical procedure.

Women's health advocacy is far greater than abortion rights advocacy and the women's movement's failure to address those other health care issues has resulted in a lot of problems for women.

We need to make this issue about far more than abortion.

Can you say "Terri Schiavo?"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If Santorum loses this senate race he doesn't have a shot at the white house. If he wins it, he has a damn good one. There's a reason that the Democratic Party is doing everything in their power to beat this guy and it's much bigger than a senate race.

Apparently, Kate wants to punish the party for backing the candidate with the best chance of defeating Santorum. So she's doing her part to re-elect Santorum because if Casey wins, the Democratic Party just might get the idea that it's ok to run pro-life Democrats elsewhere.

:shrug:

it just makes no sense..

On other issues, and because he'll win.

and let him know that the majority of voters in this party are women and this is an issue we care about.

Thats a tough decision <SARCASM>

Lets let Casey win this seat.

Let the pro-choice win!

Easy for men in both parties to be cavalier about women's rights, just as it is for heteros to do the same with LGBT rights.

Shame on Democrats that will sacrifice women's rights just to get a better parking spot on Capitol Hill.

in the House and the ones in the Senate? I am quite tired of women pro lifers being ignored.

I think that Casey is being incredibly narrow-minded on this issue especially since he extends it to stem cell research. That being said, the key argument that everybody seems to be forgetting in this thread is that Santorum has presidential ambitions. If he wins this election, he has a damn good shot at the white house. If he loses this election, he doesn't have a chance. As much as it seems like electing Casey is a blow to the pro choice movement, President Rick Santorum will be the biggest blow that the pro choice movement has ever seen. The second that Roe v Wade is overturned, the justice department will be tracking down all doctors that perform abortions and women that have them and prosecuting them for first degree murder. My point is that there are a lot worse things that could happen than Bob Casey being elected to the US Senate.

ugh.

but high enough for me, and for many others who lived through women dying from illegal abortions.

Maybe "the Party" ought to rethink it's candidates if it doesn't want the vote split.

a vote for Kate would ultimately be a vote for Santorum. She should run in the primary and make her statement, similar to what you said. I stand with you there; I lived thru that awful time.

Santorum scares me. Casey doesn't scare me, but he needs to hear from prochoicers loud and clear.

another Casey (D), Leiberman (D), or Zell Miller (D), would not have helped the progressive cause at all. But it won't hurt either, as the progressives are pretty much done with at this time. I think that we will need to wait many years before we get a progressive governement in the USA.

quoting the op
As long as Casey...I don't think his presence will be a problem <-this is what we have to resort to in support of our party.

and control over legislation and timetables.

true

If you need legislation passed or hearings to happen, it's gotta make it to the House and Senate floor first.

I wish people paid attention in American Government class (sigh).

Err I'm assuming that most DUers are older than 30, which seems to be the case. Back then, things weren't so damn partisan and party leaders didn't nearly have as much power as they did. People were genuinely friendly with people on the other side and if a powerful dem wanted a hearing, he would have a much easier time convincing a GOP committee chair to do it than today.

about the country and saw past partisanship and CYA.

to get it? what's it going to take for that fact to finally sink in?

i've heard it said before, for progressvies to be an active participant in the party, we are very much playing the role of the abused wife.

We're constantly slapped around, patronized, condenscended to until we are whipped into submission, and we finally sit down and shut up.

what's it going to take for us to fnally get what the they've been trying to tell us for years and years, the Democratic Party WANTS us to leave their party?

I know that I am stuck with the Democratic Party or The Working Family Party for the rest of my life. The only way that I am going to leave the Democratic Party is for someone like Ted Kennedy or RFKjr. to leave the party and call for reform.:kick:

Because there not going to put people lie Zell, Liberman and Casey on the Judiciary committee. Let's say we take back the Senate this year and one of the justices retires. The Democrats will have a 10-8 advnatage on the Judiciary committee and I can gurantee you the 2 newest members will be one of those other 34 who voted against Alito and/or one of the Senators who will have won in 06 who publically opposed Alito ie Klouchbar, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill or one of the others.

regardless of what the party label happens to be. When it comes to my rights, they are not for sale or triangulation by political hacks!

will be more dangerous to your rights than Senator Casey?

Santorum just happens to be a Nazi on top of all that.

Enough of having men from both political parties decide what rights women shall have!

Hey, if you want more angry white male votes, how about ditching integration and revert back to "separate but equal"?

A political party that stands for nothing, is nothing!

The thing is that there's a bigger issue here. If Santorum wins this senate race he has a shot at the white house. If he wins, he could easily appoint someone like Phill Kline as his Attorney General. The justice department will be rounding up women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them and charging them with first degree murder.

The democratic party accepting Bob Casey is a minor setback to women's rights. Rick Santorum being elected president is the end of women's rights.

In 2000, she was all over Nader for daring to run against Gore. No matter how valid or invalid his compaints about Gore's economic positions might be, she had a fit over the fact abortion might be affected. Now here she goes and lets every economic, justice, civil rights, and other issue in which there is a difference between Santorum and Casey go down the drain. I guess sabatoguing the party is perfectly fine if abortion rights advocates don't get their way but utterly evil and irresponsible if they do get their way.

Gore was a pro-abortion rights candidate. Naturally Michaelman would be furious over Nader's third party candidacy, because it threatened to siphon off enough votes to hand the White House over to the anti-abortion Bush.

In the present situation, neither Casey nor Santorum supports her position on abortion. From her perspective, there's no difference between the candidates on the issues because the only issue she cares about is abortion. And while you could argue that even though Casey opposes legalized abortion, his replacing Santorum in the Senate might ultimately help the abortion rights cause by increasing the chance of the Democrats regaining control of the Senate, I think Michaelman sees a downside. I think her fear is that if Casey gets elected, other anti-abortion Democrats might be encouraged to seek higher office. If enough anti-abortion Democrats get elected, then the national party just might have to move to a more neutral stance on abortion.

that no one should support Nader no matter why they were doing so. She called both him and such voters selfish and said they were wrong. She is doing the exact same thing that Nader did only for different issues.

Submarining a D candidate is going to engender her cause the national party ... It would not give the national party more reason to try to move away from supporting woman's rights ...

A lot of these people stayed home six years ago and helped this freak get reelected, and a lot of good that did them ...

Word seems to be that this is not a serious endevor, just blowing off steam ... And, while I am not so sure that when you factor in that the state has awaken to the fact that Santorum is a freak and a slimy little rat/that Casey has very broad appeal (when he won it was with the most votes by any elected official in state history), that Casey would not win regardless, Santorum is such a scum, you don't want to chance it ...

BTW ... Casey is a strong candidate for a reason ... He is a good match as a candidate for what the state is about ... People here might not like it, but while not midwestern freakish, the state IS moderately conservative from a social standpoint while being liberal from a political standpoint ...

I have looked into Casey a bit, and I think he would be a good get for the Ds in the senate ... He isn't going to be Ted Kennedy, but he certainly won't be a Lieberman, not even a Nelson for that matter ... And, again, he would be representative of the state ...

CASEY IS NOT DLC! Clinton is the poster boy for the DLC (free trade, socially liberal). Casey is the opposite of that (far to the left economically, socially centrist). Call Casey what he is but he is not a DLCer.