Dean says they are targeting Santorum.

[madfloridian]

He is in Philly tonight. I have to deal with my mixed feelings on Casey's views on the rights of women, but Dean makes the point here that at least he will oppose Bush's choice of extremists judges. It is hard to see the compromise. I hope he is right on the judges.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/11262057.htm

SNIP..."Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, scheduled to appear tonight at a Center City fund-raiser, said the party would do "anything we can" to defeat Republican Sen. Rick Santorum next year. The expected clash between Santorum and the consensus Democratic candidate, State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., already is intensifying. Dean's GOP counterpart, Ken Mehlman, last week said reelecting Santorum was his party's top priority.

"Sen. Santorum is clearly way out of step with Pennsylvanians," Dean said yesterday, previewing his appearance in a conference call with reporters. Dean cited, among other things, Santorum's staunch support of President Bush's proposal to allow younger workers to divert some of their Social Security taxes into private accounts.

Dean is scheduled to mingle with Democratic activists and speak at Bluezette, 246 Market St., from 7 to 9 p.m. Tickets for the event are $50...."

SNIP...""Somebody's position on choice can't be a litmus test," Dean said yesterday. "I'm as pro-choice as they come, Bob Casey has been a tremendous friend of working people."

Some abortion-rights supporters in the party have protested the move to anoint Casey, but Dean said that the "progressive community" would quickly realize that Casey has the right positions on health care and other important issues and is a better choice than Santorum.

"It's unlikely, for example, that Bob Casey in the Senate would support these extreme nominees the President has for the courts," Dean said. "It's a qualitative improvement for the community that believes in a woman's right to choose."

I hope he is right on this, as it is going on in other areas. I am trying to understand, but it bothers me. However I am practical enough to know that Santorum needs to be targeted.

[cestpaspossible]

1. Time will tell if Pennacchio has any support

http://www.chuck2006.com/

[Pepperbelly]

2. Good! Get rid of that weasel-looking son of a bitch AND ...

gain another seat toward the majority. Win/win. Genuinely, in this case, it's ALLLLL good.

[mattclearing]

3. I thought the DNC didn't pick and choose before a primary.

Is there no primary for Penn. Dem Senator nominees?

[MaineDem]

14. I don't think there's any other announced candidate

I could be wrong. I'm sure there's a primary but there may not be any competition.

I'm not happy with Casey's anti-choice views either; I'm not sure I can overlook that important issue. Maybe... but I can't say for sure right now. There's a lot of soul searching still to go.

[madfloridian]

18. I was looking at some legislation Casey's father pushed on abortion.

I can't find it right now, but I posted it here. It was some retrictions on it, and I remember the parental notification part.

I am very torn on this, and I think we will have to deal with a lot of that here in Florida as well. Nearly everyone running as a Democrat votes more like a Republican than a Democrat...they have done it here for years.

I am torn on this. It would depend on whether he would force his views. I can not vote on it, but I see a pattern. Dean mentions the judges, that Casey would not support the extreme appointees. That is one thing to think about.

[blue neen]

23. Casey's father was elected Governor of PA twice.

I believe it was in 1986 and 1990. So, a pro-life Democrat can get elected in this state. The interesting thing is, the elder Casey was truly pro-life, not just pro-birth.

I also have some misgivings about Casey, Jr. being anti-choice. I ultimately will have to decide whether I am going to work for his campaign. I believe I will, because the alternative is Santorum, and that is just completely unacceptable. We have to end the humiliating Santorum chapter in Pennsylvania history.

[mattclearing]

25. It's still pretty early to assume he's running unopposed. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

123. And I used to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny

Even if the Party doesn't officially endorse someone in the primary, there are a lot of things that can be done that will help a particular candidate.

[shance]

124. Freddie, once again you show your true colors.

God FORBID we respect the rule of Democratic law and fairness and actually allow a LEGITIMATE election to take place.

Your cynical acceptance of corrupt practice makes me sick.

[Freddie Stubbs]

125. There are no rules requiring party leaders to remain neutral

Especially if the state party endorses a candidate, which it often does.

[smoogatz]

4. Casey's obviously better than Santorum

Almost anybody would be.

[MollyStark]

5. How disapointing

I hope some one else steps up to run against Casey.

[RPM]

12. me too

even if they are in a third party.

Casey will not get my vote - nor will santorum...

[MollyStark]

30. I will not vote for a "pro-life" candidate

I never have and I am not going to start now.

[stevedeshazer]

37. Gonna sit it out, then?

Or, you're not from Pennsylvania?

[MollyStark]

39. I am from Pa and I will not sit it out

I will be voting for someone who is pro-choice. I might work for that person too.

[iwantmycountryback]

66. Good

Way to help Santorum get re-elected. No, really, thanks. It's unfortunate some folks have such a serious litmus test. Santorum is a smear on the state and the country. How you could have the gall to vote for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning is truly beyond me. Dr.Dean is correct on this. Sure he is pro-life, but he is liberal on many other issues and won't vote to confirm extremist judges.

[RPM]

68. what single issue is most important to you?

have you ever voted against it?

[dsc]

81. I know I wasn't the person you asked

but I have the same position he does and I have voted many times for candidates who have horrible gay rights records. There is no one issue that should prevent a vote for Casey. If Santorum wins by one vote I think you should have to go to every person who is negatively affected by his presence in the Senate and explain why your one issue trumped Social Security, war in Iraq, the deficit, funding for medical care for the poor and elderly, funding for heating assistance for the poor and elderly, insuring children, education, and on and on and on.

[Crowdance]

72. "How you could have the gall" to

sacrifice women's human rights to your own politics is beyond me. Oh, wait. I see it now:

Profile----> Gender: MALE

Right. The politics of selfishness, come fully to fruition in the Democratic Party.

[MollyStark]

77. Speaking of Gall

How the democrats have the gall to shove a pro-life candidate down the throats of pro-choice women and then remove all the competition is truly beyond me.
Casey is going to get his ass handed to him anyway.

[Laurab]

104. To me, that's the kind of mind set that helped the rethugs

(not yours, the ones who won't vote for him because he's pro-life).

Those repukes are pro-life or so they say. Doesn't matter that they also support preemptive wars that kill and maim hundreds of thousands, or they don't care about QUALITY of life. Vote against the only real alternative to a neocon nut, and you're going to get a neocon nut.

He is the lesser of two evils. He is also a member of the party that supports the right to choose. It's really a no-brainer. If he's running, and you vote against him, it's a vote for Santorum. It's as simple as that.

[PaDem]

69. Why the litmus test?

I'm always harping on conservative friends who vote (R) based soley on pro-life/pro-choice issues. And, if choice is clearly head and shoulders above all other issues for you, there is still a significant difference between the candidates on this issue. Pro-life and anti-gay are Santorum's raison d'etre, which is hardly the case for Casey. Work for whoever inspires you, but please vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.

[MollyStark]

78. There is no democratic process at work here

Do you have a problem with that. The phrase "eventual candidate" when applied to this situation is a joke.
Please stop with the patronizing talk of some candidate inspiring me. There are very few inspiring politicians. I want one who votes for women's rights not against them. I'll get my inspiration from other areas of life.

[coloradodem2005]

6. Here we go Howard, Here we go Howard.

[xchrom]

7. i don't care if it's pa kettle...

out with santorum -- and push that defeat down the throats of the talibornagain!

that's what they're all ways whining about -- liberals shoving stuff down their throats -- well let's give those evil fucks some thing to cry about.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. I'm still a bit concerned about Casey's stance from a political point

From what I've heard, Casey is pretty progressive on all other issues and I could easily live with him as a US Senator, especially if he were to replace a piece of shit like Santorum. However, I'm concerned that his abortion stance might hurt him. Pennsylvania is not a red state by any means and the part of the state that is red seems to be pretty solid for Santorum. Santorum's base will come out to vote for him. What I am worried is that part of our base (yes part of our base is single-issue pro-choice voters) will not turn out to for Casey because of his pro-life stance. We could generate a lot of enthusiasm from that crowd because Santorum is so anti woman's rights but with the other guy being a pro-lifer as well, it seems pretty hard to do that.

I seriously hope that I'm wrong and that Casey can win over enough swing voters to unseat this monster but I'm still not completely confident.

[Clarkie1]

9. This is exactly what we have been debating on DU for months.

A or B?

A. Fire up the base and not compromise on democratic "core values" while "reframing" the debate.

B. Compromise and "reach out" to broaden the base.

Without making a judgement (because honestly I've never been to Pennsylvania and I know very little about the electorate in that state), I always thought Dean was more a type "A" kind of guy than a type "B." So, this is interesting to me.

It appears his potential opponents are stepping aside already and Casey is indeed the annoited democrat (and I would think that would be more than a bit annoying to most dems in Pennsylvania):

It appears that Casey will get an unobstructed path to the general election. He took calls yesterday from Hafer and Hoeffel saying they would back out.

Hafer, in particular, had been in behind-the-scenes negotiations with Rendell to clear the field. Encouraged by abortion rights advocates, Hafer made several strong statements this week vowing to move ahead with a campaign.

"The governor has asked me to step aside," Hafer said in a statement. "After some consideration, I have decided to agree to the governor's request."

Some in the Democratic Party thought Hafer or another abortion-rights candidate would have been the better opponent, providing ideological contrast and firing up the party's base. They note that, since 1992, every Democrat in a federal race who won in Pennsylvania favored abortion rights.

"We're backtracking on an important principle," said said Dayle Steinberg, president of Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania-Advocates, the political arm of the family planning group. "It's backlash from the election, and I hope it's temporary."

But Marcel Groen, chairman of the Montgomery County Democrats, predicted Casey would perform well in that county, even though voters there are known for favoring abortion-rights candidates.

"On choice and guns, those are issues that not everyone will agree on," Groen said. "But he is running against someone, putting it bluntly, who is anathema. The voters in the county are more than one-issue voters."

Casey will likely emphasize issues other than abortion as he sets out on a national push for money in a race likely to top $30 million. Santorum has already raised $3 million.

One question Casey didn't answer yesterday was whether he would serve the full six-year term if elected, which would prevent him from running for governor in 2010.

"I just started a campaign," he said. "We haven't thought that far down the road yet."

http://www.macon.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/11056068.htm

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Here's my basic case and point...

Kerry and Gore both won Pennsylvania against an opponent that is in very many ways more electable than Santorum. Bush is just as bad on social issues as Santorum, but unlike Santorum, he knows when to pander to the base and when to keep his mouth shut (or at least Karl Rove knows this). Santorum has no such filter, he's a right wing whacko and has no shame about it. If a reporter asked him, "Are gay people going to hell?" he'd probably say, "Absolutely those fags will burn in hell."

So if this state was willing to vote for Gore and Kerry over Bush, I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to vote for a Democrat with similar stances over a rightwing nutjob like Santorum.

[Clarkie1]

13. Good points.

I agree with you, and the premature annoiting of Casey is troubling particularly if is an example of a greater philosophical shift in the democratic party leadership.

We can choose to run candidates who talk about abortion as a tragedy, and how to prevent the need for abortions, but we don't need to run anti-choice candidates to win. That's not reframing, that's caving.

[madfloridian]

15. I know it is not an ideological shift by Dean....don't know about others.

I see it as a pragmatic move by him. Casey in a recent poll was 47% to 40% for Santorum. Hafer was 44/44 with Santorum.

Not sure I agree with it at all, but while for some in the party it may be ideological, for Dean it is pragmatic. That is how it is.

There has been a huge amount of discussion on Casey/Pennachio/Hafer at Kos.

[shance]

28. If Democrats wish to be pragmatic, then the most pragmatic thing

to do would to make election fraud the forefront issue and ban electronic voting in all elections until there is iron clad proof of safety and transparency in their usage.

[madfloridian]

29. Ok, I am just trying to see all sides.

Apparently this is low tolerance day here. I was just saying it was not an ideological shift with Dean.

I am forgetting this board for the night.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Like I said, I don't mind Casey as a senator

I don't think that he's caving on the issue, I think the he is genuinely a pro-lifer who is very progressive on everything else. I almost think that he would make a great candidate for a red state where he would be populist on economic issues and the GOP wouldn't be able to talk about social issues. I don't like peopel who cave on issues but in this case I don't think that Casey is caving, I think that he is genuinely pro-life.

My only problem is that I'm not sure that a pro-life Democrat is the way to go in Pennsylvania especially against Rick Santorum. However, I could be wrong as there is ceratinly a strong case that he is the best candidate and will handidly beat Santorum.

[RPM]

10. yeah - by running a pro-life democrat

brilliant :eyes:

Earth to the Democratic Party: give me better than Caset or i am voting third party...

[markam]

16. You dance with who brought you to the party

give me better than Casey or i am voting third party...

ARE YOU INSANE??? We are in this mess in America right now because people thought that they would vote for the third party (Nader).

It would be nice to have a multiparty system where smaller groups are represented. However, that is not the case.

Voting for a third party in this country right now is simply voting to let evil survive. Is that what you want for your kids?

[RPM]

17. Don't call me insane - but feel free to call me one issue voter.

I care too strongly about that issue to give Casey my vote.

What I want for my kids is an America with full reproductive choice; Casey is against that and would likely vote for bad nominees for judicial positions. He's as bad as santorum as far as i am concerned. I'll vote for a real liberal - not casey.

btw - if roe is overturned in the next 5 years, we won't have kids anyway

[Hippo_Tron]

62. Casey is 100% better for Roe than Santorum is

Just because Casey is pro-life, doesn't mean that he will support Bush's rightwing nutjob judges for confirmation. Casey knows that these judges are dangerous to the country and will not vote for them even if he agrees with their stance on abortion.

Santorum, on the other hand, will actively work to destroy the fillibuster.

Also, Santorum is a threat to the country because he very well could be on the national ticket in 2008. We need to stop him NOW so that, that doesn't happen.

[RPM]

70. choice between the wolf or the wolf in sheeps clothes

lovely.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Did you not understand a word of what I was saying?

Casey will work to keep anti Roe judges off of the bench. Santorum will work to put anti Roe judges on the bench.

Since Supreme Court rulings, Roe in particular, are the core of what is protecting a woman's right to choose in this country right now, how is Casey not significantly better than Santorum for a woman's right to choose?

How is this a choice between the wolf and the wolf in sheeps clothing?

[RPM]

73. because i don't believe you

explain to me how "Casey will work to keep anti Roe judges off of the bench"; I have a hard time believing that.

[MollyStark]

79. Casey will work to keep anti Roe judges off of the bench.

Do you have that in writing from Casey? I think that's a bunch of hooey. Casey is pro-life, he will vote for pro-life judges.

[dsc]

82. Just like pro life Reid did

No wait he didn't. Just like pro life Brauex did. No wait he didn't. Of course you have no evidence he would I have just provided two counter examples. Casey is a striaght up liberal who won with nearly 70% of the vote. Hafer is a former Democrat, former Republican, now Democrat who can't be trusted. What would stop her from changing parties again? She also won with less than 52% of the vote.

[MollyStark]

83. Casey has said he would sign legislation making abortion

illegal. I take him at his word.
Barbara Hafer is pro-choice and can be trusted on that.

[dsc]

84. So if she decides 5 minutes into her Senate term

that she is a Republican and votes for Frist as Majority Leader, I should be OK with that since she is pro choice. BTW both Brauex and Reid have said the same thing in regards to abortion and OPPOSED THE JUDGES.

[MollyStark]

122. We aren't winning back the senate, so what's the difference?

I trust her more than I do Casey. He wants to make women criminal for doing what women have done for thousands of years.

[Senator Lamb]

121. hmmmmm

dont we here at DU complain about one issue voters who are voting against their own self-interest? not supporting Casey because of his pro-life stance is wrong and just the same as the 'kansas' mentality for the far right.

[shance]

19. A woman's right to choose - a VITAL litmus test.

This is truly disheartening to see that our leaders do not realize there are lines that simply have to be drawn.

I believe this is the second "pro-life" Democratic candidate we now have running. I believe there was also a pro choice Democratic candidate that was not "chosen" by the Democratic party. This is not the direction we need to be going. Its again letting Republicans dictate by us reacting in taking the easier softer route.

We either stand for something or we don't. Necessary change will never happen with safe, luke warm choices. This is one of them.

[madfloridian]

20. Well, the grassroots can support their own candidate.

I don't know much about Pennachio yet, and I am not sure we will donate until we know more. I have read at his site, and I have seen his post at Kos. He seems very likable, and I like his views.

The problem is I don't live in PA. I don't know the climate there.

[shance]

22. Unless we are openly a classist society, we all are the grassroots.

Nothing towards you Floridian, however I think its time to confront the classist labeling and divisiveness of labels in general.

Until I meet someone who is capable of immortality, we all have to face the inevibility of death, which puts us essentially at the same level.

We need to confront the dismissal and disinterest of those who don't have a portfolio of a million dollars or more. It is sickening, overwhelmingly shallow and detrimental to us as a human race frankly.

I am also growing tired of women having to compromise our rights, our dignity on our own bodies to those, particularly white privileged men, in power. For those who wish to use religion so they may dominate women, why are they so afraid of women and the fact we create life? Who are these people that think it is their role to dominate and rule women? What are they so afraid of and how dare them use God?

You know, I believe the Democratic party should be what it SAYS it is, and BE the party of choice. That should be forefront. No wonder people become disillusioned from this process. After a while we grow tired of being lied to. Apparently there are leaders who prefer to talk about womens' rights versus actually protecting them.

[madfloridian]

24. I think I was insulted and I don't know why.

I am a woman, have had 5 children. I am part of the grassroots, which is the people.

Could you explain please?

[shance]

31. Not at all Floridian.

The way in which I understood your point was that the grassroots should create another candidate. That in and of itself is fine and perhaps is a really good option.

Perhaps I read it wrong, but I think within the DNC and other organizations I continue to notice a separate 'category' if you will that they like to create for grass roots. It's not what you said, however it is how I have noticed the term 'grassroots' used by both parties so often as its own separate category, which I think is not a good thing, because in my opinion, it denotes a different classification, often an economic one.

I didn't mean to offend or criticize you at all. I am making a general observation of what I have noticed to be an element of classism that in my opinion has developed through the past decade or so within our own party and perhaps the increasing power of the corporate lobbies within our party as well as the Republicans.

[madfloridian]

45. I am still confused.

I was referring to the grassroots Dean mentioned in the article. Did you read it? I am not trying to be difficult, but people use the word grassroots on this board every day. I am trying to figure how you could have thought I was being classist.

It worries me that you thought that.

[madfloridian]

26. To clarify, as a rule the party leaders are NOT grassroots. I am.

I wish you would clarify. This board has been weird today, and I don't need this.

[shance]

32. I think a relevant question to ask is why aren't our leaders grassroots?

Do they feel they are separate and/or in a higher more exclusive category from any other US citizen?

[madfloridian]

35. Yes, they do feel that way.

I am still confused.

[adwon]

21. Little Ricky

Defeating Santorum is bigger than choice. The man does not believe in a right to privacy at all. He has stated openly that Griswold v Connecticut was bad law. That means he'd ban all birth control. That hurts men and women.

Further, with his disbelief in privacy, I can take guesses as to his opinions on the 4th and 5th amendments. I'm willing to bet that Rick would only require police to have good faith in order to search your house. I'd also wager that he would be happy to limit the right against self-incrimination to the witness stand. What would that mean? Hello, random drug testing by any jackass with a piss bottle!

Santorum is a younger, better looking Jesse Helms. If people in PA can't see that, then they really deserve that jackass as their senator.

Edited because I misspelled ban. I'm a smart kid.

[MollyStark]

34. let me see if I understand you correctly

Santorum must be defeated because he would hurt both men and women. So you are saying that only hurting women is an acceptable trade off.
What I don't understand is the idea that only Casey can run for the senate. Surely there are still a few pro-choice democrats in Pa.

[shance]

38. Terrific point Molly.

One side note I find interesting is how amazing it is to see pharmacies, who have no problem selling viagra by the truckloads then miraculously being overcome with a moral *obligation* to refusing to offer BIRTH CONTROL pills, a product that has been available to women for fifty plus years? It's unbelievable.

Yes, women's rights are indeed being sold off and jeopardized, and they are most often the first rights of all American citizen(s) which are placed on the auction block when compromise becomes the more attractive and convenient option.

I'm confident we could find a few qualified, Pro Choice Democratic individuals in Pennsylvania to run for the position. The question is whether the DNC and the National Democratic party will allow those candidates to run.

[MollyStark]

40. To run in the Primary a candidate must get signitures on a Petition

The party can't stop anyone from running. They can make it very difficult.

[shance]

41. Molly, do you know of the Congressional candidate who was

running in New Hampshire (I think)and was a Pro-choice candidate and apparently their candidacy was essentially overruled by those in the DSCC in order to allow another candidate who is pro-life to run?

I believe it was the DSCC that stated the pro-life candidate was 'more qualified' to beat the Republican candidate.

Im not sure if it was New Hampshire but it is a Congressional seat.

[madfloridian]

42. It was RI, Langevin.

He dropped out over pressure from women's groups apparently.

Chaffee is pro-choice, but we were going to run someone against him who isn't.

[Nikki Stone 1]

47. A pro-choice Republican and an anti-choice Dem? There's a race!

That would have been interesting to watch.

For the record, Santorum is just horrific.

[adwon]

46. Actually

Please read my entire post. I pointed out areas in which Santorum is likely to act that are far more important than choice, in my opinion.

I did not say only hurting women is an acceptable trade off. That is an unjustifiable inference. The difference between the positions of Casey and Santorum may be negligible when it comes to choice. The difference in terms of their influence is not. Santorum is well within the mainstream of Republican thought. Casey, if his thinking on this issue is close to Santorum, is not.

I don't view Roe as an acceptable litmus test for any Democrat. Why? Probably because I see single issue voting as inherently irresponsible. What if the 1964 election was replayed today? Goldwater was pro-choice. What if LBJ wasn't? Would it be acceptable to vote for Goldwater, or another candidate, on the basis that LBJ wasn't pro-choice? Even if it meant putting a candidate into the White House who thought nukes should be dropped with abandon? By the way, President Johnson died just before Roe was announced, so I have no idea what his position would have been.

The totality of the candidate must be considered. What if Casey said that he was against choice but didn't feel that Congress had the right to overrule the Supreme Court when it came to individual rights? What would that mean? What if he wanted to restrict abortion the Big Three (rape/incest/life of the mother) but was in favor of expanding health care, child care, and all the other things that go a long way toward making a child's life liveable?


I lived with Jesse Helms as my senator 20 years. I can recognize other versions of him quite easily. Santorum is just another Jesse.

If other Democrats can beat Casey in the primary and have a shot of beating Santorum, then it's all gravy. But what happens if Casey is the nominee? If enough vote third party, Santorum wins. I don't see how that helps at all.

[MollyStark]

49. I read your whole post and now I read this whole post

I do not understand why we are pretending that there are no pro-choice democrats to run in this race. The party should find one, because they risk women staying home from the polls in droves, of voting third party.

[madfloridian]

50. Pennachio is running.

He is pro-choice. I don't know much else about him.

[adwon]

51. Why vote third party?

If the practical result is to reelect Santorum, what purpose has been served?

My point is not to preselect a candidate. My point is that once the primaries are over, failure to support that candidate ends up having the same effect as voting for Santorum.

[MollyStark]

56. Some things are too important to compromise

If the democrats want my vote they had better stop trying to give away my rights just to win an election.

[adwon]

60. Ok

So, how does Santorum's reelection help the implementation of that principle?

Further, how would his reelection aid any Democratic initiative?

In this particular campaign, a vote for a third party really isn't a legitimate protest vote. No matter if the candidates are close on one issue, which is a matter of dispute, they are presumably far apart on the vast majority of issues. Sometimes, all hands are needed on deck just to stop the flooding. This is one of those times.

[MollyStark]

61. I don't believe in protest votes

What protest vote? I will not vote for a pro-lifers. That is not a protest.

[flpoljunkie]

27. Casey answers 2004 questionaire from Archdiocese on this question & others

Casey's opponent's answers are also included. Although pro-life, Casey believes contraception services ought to be funded by the state, that employers' health plans be required to cover contraceptives, that employers should be permitted to extend domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples in committed, long-term relationships, and that homosexuals should not be prohibited from adopting children, and he opposes school vouchers.

His somewhat nuanced answer on abortion is the first question.

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/opaweb/Survey/audittreasurer.htm

1. What is your position on providing legal protection for unborn children from the moment of conception if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Support a) Life of the mother. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade and the issue was returned to the states, and if the PA General Assembly passed an abortion bill, that bill would contain exceptions for rape, for incest, and for the life of the mother. I would strongly support that bill because it would have the effect of reducing the number of abortions in PA.
Perry (L): Support. No exceptions.

2. What is your position on legislation that would attempt to weaken or repeal the PA Abortion Control Act?

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Oppose
Perry (L): All abortion should be illegal.

3. What is your position on public funding of abortion?

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Oppose
Perry (L): Oppose

4. What is your position on banning the cloning of human beings for any purpose?

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Support
Perry (L): Support

5. What is your position on a provision in the state’s budget to fund contraceptive services?

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Support
Perry (L): Oppose

5a. What is your position on requiring employers or health insurance plans to cover contraceptives in their prescription drug plans?

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Support
Perry (L): Oppose

6. What is your position on repealing the death penalty in Pennsylvania?
AUDITOR GENERAL:

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Oppose
Perry (L): Oppose

7. What is your position on government requiring that benefits be provided to same-sex partners?

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Employers should be permitted to extend domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples in committed, long-term relationships.
Perry (L): Oppose

8. What is your position on legislation prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children?

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Oppose
Perry (L): Support

9. What is your position on school choice legislation in the form of direct grants to students to attend the school of their choice (vouchers)?

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Oppose
Perry (L): Support. Get government out of education.

more...

[RPM]

33. that L means libertarian, right?

I was surprised at some of those answers... I had no idea libertarians were so staunchly anti-abortion. I would have thought they wouldnt care so long as the state wasnt paying for it...

[flpoljunkie]

36. I would say yes, it does.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. So Casey is good on gay rights then

Don't care too much for his death penalty stance, though.

[me b zola]

43. Why, WHY, can't we nominate candidates that represent

traditional Democratic values??

I admire & respect Dr.Dean immensely, but enough already.

In my experience a person is anti-choice either because of their religiosity or their lack of respect or understanding of women's health care and/or socio-economic needs. This stance clearly does not belong among Democratic elected officials.

Oh, so the guy won't vote for judges that will overturn Roe v Wade... well whoopti. That is an awfully low bar & I believe that we are owed more than that.


:banghead:

[madfloridian]

44. The DSCC asked the others to drop out.

Dean said in the article he thought the "grassroots would understand." I don't think they will.

I am trying to be sensible, but this bothers me. The DCCC and the DSCC do this all the time. We are only now really paying attention.

[w4rma]

53. He does support traditional Democratic values. Except on choice.

On *nearly every single other issue* he is a progressive. Kucinich was anti-choice and pro-life.

[me b zola]

55. Pardon me, but hat is like saying...

...Democratic values except for the end of segregation; we don't want to be a single issue party. Besides, there are lots of votes to pick up if we are a larger tent.

The Democratic party, for the most part, has turned their back on the worker, the impoverished, and is ignoring the African American. It is time to stand up to our party leaders and tell them that ALL of us matter, if we don't then there is no Democratic party.

[MollyStark]

57. I wouldn't vote for Kucinich either until he switched sides on choice

The Pennsylvania Democratic party is making a big mistake.

[shance]

85. Beautifully said.

Thanks.

[madfloridian]

48. I posted this in GD. Dean really blasted Santorum tonight. Bigtime.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/11271150.htm

SNIP..."Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean ripped into U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum at a party fund-raiser in Old City tonight.

Dean, a former Vermont governor and former Democratic presidential candidate, called Santorum, a Republican who is up for reelection in Pennsylvania in 2006, a "liar" and "right-winger" who actually lives in Virginia.

"He doesn't tell the truth," Dean told a gathering of about 150 at Bluezette on Market Street. Dean said Santorum had voted to kill Amtrak, an important service in Pennsylvania, and had then turned around and written a piece for The Inquirer saying he supported Amtrak.

He said that Santorum should return the more than $100,000 that Santorum's declared home school district, the Penn Hills School District in Allegheny County, paid over the last few years to educate his children at the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School.

While attending the school online, Santorum's children actually lived at his house in the Virginia suburbs of Washington. The charter school and the Penn Hills district are in a dispute over payments for Santorum's children. Santorum has maintained that he has followed the law....."

[welshTerrier2]

52. "the consensus Democratic candidate" ???

with so many questioning the choice of an anti-abortion candidate, the term "consensus" candidate falls a wee bit short of reality ... Casey was annointed ... he may be the "consensus" candidate among party insiders; as for the rest of us, i guess it's hard to have a consensus when no one even asked us what we think ...

does the Democratic Party need a major overhaul or what ???

[MollyStark]

59. concensus amoung the entrenched party machine

blah!

[candy331]

58. I sure hope he is working on the voting machines there or it will not

matter. Dr. Dean start working on the machines NOW!

[madfloridian]

63. He is working on something.

SNIP..."I will be announcing the national co-chairs of the DNC's National Lawyers Committee. The Lawyers Committee will be housed and staffed out of the DNC and its members * volunteer
lawyers from around the country -- will immediately focus on
monitoring and taking action on voting rights and election
administration issues in the states. They will also provide
assistance on other issues important to the party."

Then there is the McAulifee committee with Donna Brazile heading it. Of course no one liked that idea. So go figure.

This was in a letter a friend got from the DNC.

[John_H]

64. Classic DU

People are actually thinking about whether or not they'll support a Dem against Lincoln Cha---no---Olympi---no--Susan coll--no. Rick Santorum. No wonder we lose.

[Nikki Stone 1]

65. With Terri Schiavo being buried in PA, Casey might be a good choice

It's not as off topic as it seems. Terri grew up in PA and her ashes will be buried there, setting off, I am sure, many Catholics in the state. A candidate like Casey might take some of the heat off Dems with Schiavo in their backyard.

[Dr Fate]

74. I'm actually willing to trust Dean on this one.

Don't let us down, Dean.

[shance]

75. The election of our Party nominees is up to the Pennsylvania VOTERS

NOT the Democratic Senatorial Committee, Democratic National Committee, or the Democratic Congressional Committee.

In case many of our Democratic leaders in Washington have forgotten, primaries are the events which take place before the general election where the Democratic voters actually cast THEIR vote for who they believe the nominee should be.

This is not the place for an arrogant, ineffective Washington establishment to take it upon themselves to appoint someone they deem as being 'electable'.

I've seen what defines Washington 'electable' and thank you I will pass. One of the minor technicalities is they most often arent Democrats.

In Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, there are currently two situations where it seems clear the DSCC and the DCCC are interfering with candidate choices in two races and declaring before the primary WHO the candidate will be.

To add insult to injury, the two 'electable' candidates in both these situations conveniently happen to be anti-abortion.

In Rhode Island, there was a candidate who many Democrats were interested in hearing more from and believed to be a better alternative, than whoever the current pro-life leader running for the contested congressional seat in RI, but apparently it seems the DCCC didn't think the pro-choice candidate was 'electable' and so that candidate dropped out of the race.

Something appears to be happening where Washington Democrats are once again trying to circumvent American citizens, pat us on the head and say trust us because we know better than you American citizens do.

Yes, we can see that.

We can see how splendidly you've handled sending our tax dollars, sons and daughters, fathers, relatives into the killing deserts of Iraq so that some of you in Congress will even benefit from this unspeakable death, destruction, evil and the oil that is flowing.

Yes, we can see how well those of you in Washington have done so splendidly in protecting workers rights, education, the environment, health care, any care, name a topic it and we are headed south. But you Democrats want to move FURTHER to the right and now want to appoint us two ANTI-ABORTION candidates, (if not more)?

This could appear to be yet more unethical immoral, entitled arrogance coming from Washington that sends its message and its harmful reverberation out in waves to all other parts of the country. They want to talk morality, well, how about here?

Washington establishment has no earthly idea what is good for anyone, certainly American citizens at large. They prove that every almost time they cast their vote.

Democrats at large deserve honest answers to such blatant disregard of our already assaulted election rules and overall system.

[corker]

76. santorum has got to go!!

I live in pa and have volunteered for casey's campaigned. I am very worried about electronic voting machines, we are getting more and more of them.

[shance]

88. That is up to the PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS,

not the governor, DSCC, or the DNC.

It's up to voters like YOU.

[Larkspur]

80. Gov Rendell chose Casey and Howard Dean is not going to step on

Rendell's toes. Picking a challenger to go against Santorum is the job of the PA Dems and Rendell is the leader of the PA Dems right now. Dean will support whomever the PA Dems chose to run against Santorum. If I lived i PA, I'd vote for Casey but not donate time or money to him. Of course in my state of CT, I will not vote for Lieberman in 2006, but the Repukes in CT are in a mess right now, thank you convicted ex-Gov John Rowland, so don't expect a strong candidate from them to run against Lieber-bush. Just my thoughts.

[shance]

86. I guess you don't understand a Democratic process, DO YOU?

Rendell may prefer to think he's been annointed King, and Dean may choose to serve him, however in the end, that is wrong. That is at the least, ignoring the voices of Pennsylvania Democrats, not to mention American voters at large.

So, larkspur, you're pretty quick to disregard and dismiss the voices in Pennsylvania and their power to elect their own representative.

Guess you're willing to just lay back and enjoy it when your governor pats you on the head and says he knows whats best for you as well, and to sit down and SHUT UP.

Please be sure to enjoy while you're being lied to and staying in blissful denial while your Democratic process is being yanked from you, while you are saying thank you at the same time.

[Larkspur]

90. My Gov right now is a Repuke so I don't follow her orders anyway

And Howard Dean does not serve Gov. Rendell. Dean serves the DNC but it's not the job of the DNC Chair to interfere in the state Dem's battle unless he/she is called upon to mediate.

So far Gov Rendell has won the battle over this position. He managed to get both of Casey's Dem opponents to withdraw. If Casey has no contenders, PA Dems will only have a write-in choice and write-ins face a monumental hurdle to victory. Most voters don't know how to write-in a candidate and find it to much trouble to do so. They usually pulle the lever for whoever is on the ballot. That's the practical side of the Democratic process you profess to know about.

What voices in PA are you talking about? From what I've seen Casey is the overwhelming favorite among PA voters. That's the reasoning behind Rendell's support for Casey. I don't like the fact that Casey is anti-choice, but I'm just pointing out the obvious.

In CT, I'd love to get rid of Lieberman. I personally don't plan to vote for Lieberman in 2006 if he's the nominee. There is a potential Lieberman opponent in the early stages of exploring the possibility of running against Lieberman and he knows that he will have a big hurdle to overcome. Lieberman has a 69% popularity rating among CT Dems and a 73% popularity rating among CT Republicans. These are big hurdles for a Dem challenger to Lieberman. Professor Orman doesn't expect the CT Dem Establishment, other than some Dem Town Committee members, like myself, to support him in a Primary. If Orman, Lieberman's prospective challener, wins the Primary, I'll be happy, but most likely he will lose. No matter what happens in the CT primary, I will not vote for Lieberman in the GE in 2006.

The Democratic process is great on paper, but it costs lost of $ to run a campaign, let alone win the election. If Democratic candidates are withdrawing against Casey, who does that leave for PA Dems to vote for?

[shance]

98. "The Democratic process is great on paper"?

How quaint.

Campaigns don't have to cost a lot of money, but corruption and bad policies allows it to be implemented that way. We would probably both agree that citizens and communities have to take a larger lead in the election process.

Why is Rendell pushing others out of the race, namely, or not, those pro choice?

It's not up to Rendell to appoint candidates, is it, especially ones who look more like Republicans than Democrats?

It's not up to any governor to do that.

[Larkspur]

99. OK, so what are you going to do about your Governor?

All I hear from you is whining and complaining. I don't hear you developing a plan to run for senator yourself. So what is your plan to pull an upset victory over Casey in the primary?

[shance]

102. Whining and complaining? Gee. shouldnt having a fair primary

warrant a little emotion? I don't live in Pennsylvania. Its going to take, like everywhere else, and here in California where I live, citizens to get active and informed which means more community canvassing on issues like this. Im doing what I can here in California which Arnold and his folks are trying to illegitimately redistrict and they just yanked Kevin Shelley out of his position as Secretary of State. What's disappointing is getting individuals to relinquish information even within Party ranks so we can contact people to canvass. I honestly see our own fear of granting information to other Dems as a serious problem towards moving forward. We are going to have to get away from the fear and competing with each other mentality and realize what a serious situation in so many ways we are facing and spread information that will INFORM AMERICANS.

Its also disturbing when individuals like yourself Larkspur want to criticize me for vocalizing what is a very clear infringement on YOUR rights my friend, such as the RIGHT TO PICK YOUR OWN CANDIDATE, and you've already resigned your rights away to have a say in who wins your primary.

[Larkspur]

120. I don't have a problem with you being upset about Dem bosses

like Gov Rendell for picking Dem candidates and pressuring others not to run. I don't like it either, but saying the the PA rank-and-file Dems will choose Santorum's challenger when they will most likely only get one candidate is not realistic. The majority of the PA rank-and-file Dems will most likely vote for Casey if he's the only one on the ballot. I'm just being realistic about the situation there.

It's very difficult to get rid of or challenge the power of Dem leaders, like Gov. Rendell, who have access to a pool of fundraisers. Any lower ranking Dem will have to have either their own fortune or their own pool of fundraisers to counter moves, like Rendell's. It can be done, but it won't be easy.

[madfloridian]

87. Democracy interview with NOW and DSCC reps. Interesting.

I realize this is not my business as I live in Florida, but any votes on women's rights are my business. I have watched my senator this last month go right along with Bush and company because he is up for re-election next year. He will do it on almost any issue now.

I have talked to the aide of a congressman who is running for governor about why he co-sponsored the bankruptcy bill. We talked half an hour, and I have not heard another word. Both are speaking at our DEC dinner next month, and I am almost too disgusted to go because they do not answer to their constituents.

There is a Spectator article that says Casey never agreed to caucus with the Dems on issues, but I don't quote that source. I realize Howard Dean has a role now not to cross Rendell and the DSCC, but that does not mean this issue should not be questioned.

Here is the Democracy Now interview. I notice it is usually men who are unable to understand that this is not just about abortion, it is about choice. It is recognizing that involved in this issue is the matter of prescriptions for birth control. Democrats for Life is a driving force in this, and they played a huge role in our district by using the churches last time. I don't like this.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/10/1518256

[Nikki Stone 1]

89. Thanks for the link. Since some of it refers to a more general strategy

do you mind if I put some quotes from this link on the thread about abandoning reproductive rights?

[madfloridian]

91. Go ahead.

:hi:

[Nikki Stone 1]

92. Just in case this hasn't been posted

"KIM GANDY: I think the important thing to add to this is not just that Bob Casey was recruited to run, he was also told that the field would be cleared for him so that he would have a free primary and there would be no Democrat running against him; and in fact, the top of the Democratic party arm-twisted Barbara Hafer out of the race, did in fact almost clear the field for Bob Casey, which is the most undemocratic thing I’ve seen lately. "

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/10/1518256

[madfloridian]

93. That was Reid and the DSCC.

:hi:

[dsc]

95. Would that be more or less Democratic

than what women's groups did to Rep Langevin? Incidently if you don't know what I am referring to I am referring to the fact he dropped out of his race against Chaffee due to pressure from women's groups before a vote had been cast.

[madfloridian]

96. Key words: Groups. Many groups.

Other key word..Rendell, one man.

Big difference.

Groups putting pressure is just fine. 3 or 4 men deciding, not ok.

Wait till they really go after your rights and no one stands up for you.

[dsc]

100. according to the people here

it is at least three groups. The PA Democratic party (headed by Rendell admittedly but not consisting solely of him), the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, and the DNC. The fact is a very small number of people told Langevin to get out of that race and he did. This is not one whit different except you agree with the policies of those who forced Langevin out and disagree with those of Casey.

[madfloridian]

101. No, it was a large number.

There were many petitions signed, and I signed one of them.

I made many calls on the subject. There were many opposing.

[dsc]

103. You don't live in RI

How many who signed do?

[madfloridian]

105. Doing away with abortion rights affects all of us, not just RI and PA.

You really have a thing about women's rights. I am still stunned from our last go round about this.

You have no respect for the right of women to even stand up for their right to choose. You would even be ok if they banned birth control.

When they elect anti-choice people in any state, when it becomes a pattern....then it affects all of us.

I am not going to be baited on this anymore by someone with little respect for women.

[dsc]

107. I have a thing for consistency

I also have a thing for winning Senate seats. I guarentee you that I have voted for way, way, way more pro choice candidates (some of whom were anti gay) than you have pro life ones. The fact is if it is undemocratic to force out Hafer (on grounds of winning a seat) then it is also undemocratic to force out Langevin. Full disclosure, I think Langevin isn't our best shot in RI and thus actually am glad he is out but the fact is either it is OK to force candidates out or it isn't. Just like I believe that if one argues for choice then they should honor all choices not just the ones they like. You apparently feel that whatever ends you need to use are OK. We have a President who feels the same way. If I don't criticise those whose ends are better for having that attitude then I have no right to criticise him. Consistency matters.

[madfloridian]

109. You just compared me to Bush. How dare you!

I think you owe me an apology on that one.

[dsc]

110. That may have been too far

but my point is that you are using one set of rules for yourself and another for your opponents. It should be noted though that saying you have one quality Bush has isn't call you Bush. The ends don't justify the means it is as simple as that.

[shance]

116. Perhaps you have a thing for hypocrisy.

You support one groups rights over another? That's not what I call consistency.

[dsc]

118. No

I support one groups rights over another groups convience, those are entirely different things. I have seen literally no evidence whatsoever, that any woman, any where, at any time had to wait for more than a few hours for bc pills without a pharmacist being sanctioned for it, nor without the pharmacist not complying with what my position on this would be. I have asked over, and over, and over again for just one and over and over and over again I have heard silence.

If you weren't refering to that, I am sorry and need clarification as to what you did mean.

[shance]

119. Oh DSC that's bull. Look it up on Google if you are working so hard

so diligently to find it.

I was referring to your pink triangle DSC.

Why do you include in your posts? What does it stand for?

[shance]

112. Be specific DSC. Give us names of these "specific" womens' groups

And provide us links. Ive heard this rumor and so far, it continues to be simply that....a rumor.

[dsc]

114. It was posted here

but it should be noted that Madfloridian says she signed a petition on their behalf so she should know. I know that both NOW and NARAL publicly complained about Langevin so they probably were involved.

[shance]

115. Langevin is the anti-abortion choice candidate.

BTW, DSC, I imagine by the triangle you are a supporter of gay/lesbian rights.

Is there a particular reason you are compelled to promote/support gay/lesbian rights while recruiting Democrats who potentially want to yank the most basic rights of control over my own body and my rights as a woman?

[shance]

113. Thank you Floridian***

I heard Amy Goodman speak last night in LA. The entire evening was inspiring and very moving.

I am interested to take a look at this information on the DSCC and NOW.

[madfloridian]

117. You are most welcome.

It is good write-up. I think the audio is there as well.

[madfloridian]

94. One step at a time...first the pseudo late term abortion ban.....

One step at a time is how things work. And our party just keeps following along behind them.

This bill was a farce, and our Dems went along. Dean was blasted for saying this, as the bill apparently went through. Here is the latest status I could find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

This was the first step of encroaching on the rights of women. Please read what Dean said on this, as it is a false issue and no one else spoke up on it that I remember. Correct me if I am wrong.

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Statement-'PBA'_Ban_Oct2_2003.htm

SNIP..."“As a physician, I am outraged that the House of Representatives has decided it is qualified to practice medicine. There is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion' in medical literature. But there are times when a doctor is called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman's life or protect her from serious injury. Today the House took a step toward making it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures.

“This bill will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the lives of countless women. Despite what politicians tell you, there is not an epidemic of third trimester abortions in this country. This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights and overturning Roe v. Wade.”

He knows what is going on here. I am surprised he thinks women will understand about running candidates who are against choice.

[madfloridian]

97. This bill will chill the practice of medicine.

I often wonder if even the threat of this being around makes doctors think twice about saving the life of a mother.

“This bill will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the lives of countless women. Despite what politicians tell you, there is not an epidemic of third trimester abortions in this country. This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights and overturning Roe v. Wade.”

Howard Dean 2003

[safi0]

106. I have some experience

In dealing with people who vote for candidates who have different views on abortion. I'm a Muslim and although Bush has been absolutely horrible for us, there were still some Muslims who were hesitant to vote for Kerry. Some felt this way because of Israel but a large portion of Muslims are very socially conservative and because of this were hesitant to vote for Kerry.

In the end Kerry ended up getting around 90% of the Muslim vote so those who were hesitant because of the social issues eventually came around. The way that we got them to come around was basically to downplay the importance of that one issue. We'd talk about things like the Patriot Act and who they were trying to eliminate our freedoms.

I realize that for some people on this board abortion is the number one issue. But the way I see it, the more Democrats there are in the Senate the less likelihood for abortion rights being reduced irregardless of the personal views of the particular candidates. Because except for a few exceptions we are the Pro-Choice party while the Pugs are the Pro-Life party.

[madfloridian]

108. I am not for abortion. I am for women having a choice.

I was against the war in Iraq. Most of us here knew it was a bunch of lies, but our Democrats voted for it anyway, using excuses we knew were wrong.

I was against the Medicare drug bill. Most of us here knew it was a sell out to pharmaceutical companies. Our Democrats allowed it go through anyway.

I am against the doing away with public schools that is happening with the NCLB, yet our Democrats still say it is fine. They think it just needs more funding.

So you are saying that if I don't worry about a woman's right to choose not to carry full term, that if I don't worry that her right to get contraceptives is being taken away as well right now...that things will be ok.

My husband and I, though we don't live in the states where anti-choice candidates are being pushed by the party....will donate to candidates in other states who do stand up for it.

We thought long and hard about it. We love Howard Dean dearly, and we will still be supportive of the DNC and DFA. In fact we are having state organizing in Tampa tomorrow with the exec director of DFA. HOWEVER, we learned something during our long support of him which still continues.....if you think something is wrong you speak out. So we will speak out. We will donate to women's groups who will fight this. Howard must do what he must do. We must do what we must do.

Women's rights are not to be on the table.

[madfloridian]

111. Illinois governor has to pass an emergency contraceptive law.

http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/04/01/birth.control.governor.ap/index.html

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug.

The emergency rule takes effect immediately for 150 days while the administration seeks a permanent rule.

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to," Blagojevich said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

Under the new rule, if a pharmacist does not fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist must be available to fill it without delay."....END SNIP

If we give them an inch they will take a mile, and all this giving into them is not going to work. You don't give in about abortion rights, because they will take it to the next level. No birth control.

This country has gone mad.

[NAO]

126. Why just Santorum? Why not EVERY Repug running in '06?