I'm supporting a Pro-life cand., does that mean I'm no longer pro-choice??

[LynneSin]

I'm a diehard supporter of choice, helping out such causes as Planned Parenthood, NARAL and Emily's List. But I find myself strongly supporting a candidate that I know is not only avidly pro-life; this candidate's father was the man behind the most damning SCOTUS case against abortion since RoeVWade (PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY). But oddly enough I know that Bob Casey Jr. is a very strong and very popular candidate that has appeal towards the "T" zone of Pennsylvania, that section of PA that more resembles the south than the more progressive Pittsburgh/Philadelphia regions.

I have to blame Harry Reid! When he was first made senate minority leader, I checked out his voting record and found he too, is pro-life. Mind you, I'm calling people like Reid & Casey Jr. "Pro-Life" because I believe that both of these candidates will work hard to improve the overall welfare of a child's life once the child passes from the fetus stage into actual human stage. To me, anti-choice are these repukes that bend over backwards to protect the fetus and then turn around and cut health benefits and education programs to help these now children's lives even worse. But despite Harry Reid's pro-life past, he's been a blessing to the democratic party! He's everything that Tom Daschle should have been and never was. And I like how Harry is standing up to bully's like Bill Frist ESPECIALLY with Frist & the neo-con repukes attacking the constitutional rights to filibuster, the democrats only way to prevent some of the most activist neo-con appointees from ending up on the judicial bench.

I'll admit, I've never supported Bob Casey Jr. much beforehand. When I lived in Pennsylvania, most of the time he was running for statewide offices where he wouldn't have much impact on a woman's right to choose. But when I heard he was running for Governor in 2002, I was now living in Delaware but I made the countless number of trips up to Philadelphia to help get Ed Rendell the democratic nomination. Thanks to our hard work in Philadelphia we pulled out an upset.

But now he's going to run for US Senate in Pennsylvania and the prime target is one of the most horrible senators to ever come out of the state of Virginia (Rick oddly has no home in Pennsylvania except an address of a rental property where relatives live) - Rick Santorum. To be honest, we should have beat Rick Santorum in 2000. Ricky boy was one of those "Contract on America" guys who was swept into office under Newt Gingrich Bold but very dangerous plans for our country (Thankfully Newt was swept out a few years later). Other CoA winners that year for the senate include John Ashcroft and Spence Abraham - both who ended up losing in 2000. But PA Democrats made a mess with the 2000 democratic primaries with about 8 candidates running in the primaries. The top 3 candidates included 2 from the Philadelphia area who split the Philly vote and left standing in the pack was a no-name guy named Ron Klink who spent very little time or money even trying to run a campaign in Philadelphia. You don't need a fancy degree to know that you need a strong voter turnout in the Philly district if you want to win the state of Pennsylvania.

So in 2006, I'm not messing around. Rick Santorum has got to go and we need a strong candidate running against him - one that has instant name recognition and strong statewide appeal. In 2004, Bob Casey Jr received more votes EVER for a statewide election. I first thought it was just for 2004, but it turns out EVER - both parties any race where the entire state votes for one candidate (US Senate, Treasure, Auditor General, Attorney General or Presidential). So clearly Casey can pull in the votes statewide including appealing to moderate republicans. Plus Casey Jr. WILL eventually win a statewide office, but with RoeVWade hanging perilously in the wind, personally I feel safer having Casey in DC instead of in Harrisburg, where a governor can actually make more impact on choice that a US Senator. Sure US Senators will vote on stuff like partial birth abortions and judges, but I've never seen a pro-life dem on the judiciary committee and anti-choice laws always end up getting appealed to the US Supreme Court. Plus, should RoeVWade be overturned - it goes back to the states, including the governor, that could make a major impact on the the choices available for women.

Maybe I talked myself into Bob Casey Jr, but personally I think this man can easily defeat Rick Santorum. Casey has the name recognition AND access to a great deal of cash to run a competitive race against Ricky. Plus it helps that 2006 is also a governor's election in Pennsylvania and Casey will be running his campaign with Ed Rendell in order to help with voter turnout in Philadelphia and an overall win.

I'm without a doubt pro-choice but we need Rick Santorum out of office. I think Bob Casey Jr has the appeal to win state. Some say I'm selling out, that there are other pro-choice candidates and we can win with grass-roots effort. I've been down that road before and Pennsylvania is a complicated state to win being that PA is really 2 completely different personalities (the "T" and the Urban Centers) rolled up into one state. I highly think Casey will stay in his position for more than 1-2 terms because ultimately Casey wants to be governor of Pennsylvania (and he's mid-40s, he has plenty of time). By then we've gotten rid of Santorum and we can bring a more progressive democrat into the pact.

Plus and finally, I'm tired of everyone thinking that US Senate is the Holy Grail of grassroots elections. Pennsylvania has it share of "mini-Ricks" in the state - neo-con repukes in the US House and also the Pennsylvania house & Senate that sometimes run unopposed. Why aren't we making grass-root efforts to oust some of these folks!! In 6 years, Pennsylvania will be redistricting again - do we want the repukes to carve up our state even worse than what they did in 2000?

So yes, I think I can be pro-choice and support a pro-life dem provided that said pro-life dem is one that recognizes the ultimate goal is to reduce abortions by providing the best family planning & education to our children AND to also make sure that all the children that are born have access to good healthcare & education.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

1. Nice sackcloth and ashes, there, Lynn...

It's OK. If you applied a strict litmus test for every aspect of the Democratic Platform, we'd never be able to field a candidate. Bob Casey's a good guy -- and I think you're right to believe that he's the candidate with the best chance of winning. I'm tired of "moral victories" where we supported a losing candidate for all the right reasons.

[shance]

32. Nothing wrong with supporting a pro-life candidate, HOWEVER

it is wrong for the DSCC and other Pennsylvania Democratic leaders to push other candidates out of the race so they can appoint Mr. Casey before the primary.

That's not a healthy or Democratic precedent to start implementing because it's not allowing the Democratic process to determine Pennsylvania's candidate, but more like annointing a candidate by discouraging others to run for the position EVEN before the primary vote takes place. That's flat out wrong and could open up room for more dictatorial actions by Democratic establishment.

If Casey's the best candidate, good, then he won't have to kick everyone else out of the way in order to win.

[mrgorth]

2. I'm with you Lynne.

[Warpy]

16. I'm NOT with you, Lynne

The MEN on the left or even in the reasonable middle glibly discount the rights of HALF THE POPULATION when they find it expedient to do so. OUR RIGHTS ARE IMPORTANT, and they are NOT NEGOTIABLE!!

I would NOT be supporting Mr. Casey for any reason, since he's pledged to fight against my fundamental right to my own body.

Mr Casey and the DLC Democrats need to find out that they cannot win elections without the party's women, and the party's women will not stand for having their rights abolished.

[Dave Sund]

17. So, you'll be happy with Rick Santorum?

[Warpy]

18. If one more term for that asshole is what it takes

to convince party MEN that my rights are important enough for me NOT to vote for their antiwoman asshole, so be it. I will survive.

I'm speaking as a veteran of the new left in the 60s. I know how cavalierly our rights are tossed aside by party MEN who think they can get away with it.

We laugh at Kansas for voting against their own interests. Why the hell should WE??

NO ANTIWOMAN CANDIDATES. NOT CASEY, NOT EVER.

[pres2032]

22. knee-jerk reactionary much?

to support santorum over casey is a crime against humanity, but so be it. thanks for your support. :hi:

edit to add: :sarcasm: because I know someone will knee jerk and think i'm supporting santorum which would be completely false.

[LynneSin]

24. no you're just making common sense

:bounce:

I don't know why I bother anymore. Not like I live in Pennsylvania anymore. Hell, let them be represented by Rick Santorum for all I care.

[pres2032]

26. i hope i'm right

it does look like the main force of the anti-casey dems are located right here among the purists on DU and hardly anywhere else. I do hope you help us here, we could certianly use it. once i graduate in May, i hope to work for Casey's campaign full time. This is a cause that needs winning and any support we could get would be most appreciated.

[shance]

34. I think the point should be encouraging more choices of candidates

to run in the primary.

That is what the primary is for.

[LynneSin]

19. Um, Casey isn't DLC

Thank you, that is all.

And like the other guy said - so you'd be happy with Rick Santorum?

And on edit note: Thank you for playing into the repukes hand. THey want us to be single issue candidates because it makes us so much easier to defeat. "He's killing the Babies", "She will take away all our guns" "They hate marriage"

We are none of those things - we are a diverse party made of of candidates from across the spectrum. Casey may not support abortion (although he has always said it's important if there are extinuating issues such as health or rape), but he supports many other pro-life issues including healthcare and education - which is a far cry from what anti-choice Ricky has ever done.

ANd I'm going to give you a handy lil link to bookmark. Don't go assuming that every candidate you don't like is DLC. You know JOhn Kerry is DLC, right? And yet search on Casey and there is no one to be found - that list includes statelevel candidates, Casey is not one!! So before you open your mouth with accusations you'd do something crazy like research http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir.cfm

Rick Santorum is a horror and it doesn't take 2 Pennsylvania US Senate races with poorly recognized statewide candidates to know that we need to pull out the big guns. Santorum needs to go, or do you happen to like anti-human race senators from Virginia representing you?

[w4rma]

3. You should try to get out of the habit of using the term pro-life to refer

to someone's position on the single issue of abortion and get *into* the habit of using the term pro-life to refer to an umbrella of pro-life policies (pro-envirionment, anti-poverty, anti-war except as a last resort, anti-death penalty, etc).

[LynneSin]

5. Actually I do try to differientiate between "Pro-Life" and "anti-choice"

Bob Casey Jr has shown he is "pro-life"

Rick Santorum is anti-choice without a doubt. I figured getting a pro-life candidate is a step-up for Pennsylvania

[w4rma]

13. Sounds good to me. (nt)

[katmondoo]

4. I am for Choice, however I support your reasons to back a pro life

candidate as long as they are not radical and are still able to understand women's problems.

[ananda]

6. no choice

I don't see as you have any real option here. It's Casey or Santorum, and wrt Santorum, there's no choice but to be pro Casey.

Sue

[LynneSin]

10. There are other choices...

..but those are choices in the primary. It's just that Casey is the only candidate who has "Brand recognition" and appeal to both democrats & republicans. Hell my parents are republican and from the "T" part of the state and they are all pro-casey and would vote for him over Ricky boy

And edit note - Casey is also very pro-union, something that Santorum is not. That has major appeal for the "T" part of the state

[Dave Sund]

7. I'd go further, to say

I think you can be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. I think that someone can fully support a woman's right to choose while at the same time having a personal opinion that abortion is something no one should have to go through, and that we should do all we can to make the alternatives better. Providing better healthcare, better sex education, more jobs, ready access to birth control, etc. And if the woman chooses to have the baby, we should work hard to make sure the child grows up with healthcare, without the massive burdens the Bush administration has placed on them.

You Pennacchio supporters, I'm not going to try and change your mind. Work hard for your guy. It's democracy, after all. But if Casey wins the primary, he is infinitely preferable to Pennsylvania, to the United States, to women's rights, than Rick Santorum.

[LynneSin]

11. I'm hoping that this race will up Pennacchio's name recognition

Our party needs more candidates that can appeal across the state. I'm hoping with a strong turnout in the primaries, if Pennacchio should not win, it'll be a jump start for future races down the line.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. There is no perfect candidate...

and obsessing over single issues, even important ones, is what got Santorum in there in the first place.

You gotta look at the broad picture and choose who's better, not wait for who's perfect.

Just like you're doing.

[Demit]

9. Yes--what w4ma said. Or it could be said that Casey is a TRUE pro-life guy

and NOT just anti-abortion, like those other radicals. He takes into account the whole life of people, not just nine months of it.

My impression of Casey is that he lives his beliefs quietly, not ostentatiously like Santorum and Frist and DeLay. He would be the publican at the back of the church praying while the others are the Pharisees up front loudly proclaiming how worshipful they are.

Don't forget, the Caseys are a family of politicians. They know their state, and they know opinion is divided. They didn't get where they are by ignoring half the people to advance their personal interests. Casey will be our means of ridding ourselves of the Man on Dog abomination.

[LynneSin]

12. and oddly enough we have a pro-choice repuke to even us out

Only in PA where the democrats are anti-choice and the republicans are pro-choice (Tom Ridge was also pro-choice along with US Senator Arlen Spector)

[Demit]

21. Ridge & Specter are quaint leftovers from when there used to be moderates

in the Republican party. I haven't loved everything Specter did in his career, most notably the Anita Hill smear, but he is neither a raving ideological lunatic nor a guy out for everything he could steal. He's a rational man, which seems to only mark him more as being from another time.

[flpoljunkie]

14. You might Casey's answers instructive in this 2004 candidate questionnaire

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?

1a. If support, what exceptions, if any, would you require? a) life of the mother b) life of the mother, rape and incest c) life of the mother, rape, incest, and fetal deformity

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.

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

[zulchzulu]

15. "Pro-Life" is a Repuglican term. You support an "anti-Choice" candidate

Using the term "Pro-Life" when referring to abortion is a matter of using GOP talking point lexicon.

Unless you are a Repug, referring to abortion rights and not being for them is called being "anti-choice". A better more accurate term might be "Pro-Invasion-of-Privacy" or perhaps "Anti-Medical"...

[otohara]

27. Besides, They Aren't "Pro-Life" When It Comes to

"pre-emptive wars" based on lies, and gun deaths. They could give a shit about dying soldiers, dying Iraqi's, dying citizens being killed with assault weapons and other guns.

Lynne, please use "anti-choice" - stop with the GOP spin words.

[ABaker]

20. I will vote my

conscience in the primaries, but in the general election, I will always vote for the Democrat.

So long as the winner of the election will be either a Republican or a Democrat and no one else (which it will be in 2006), I will always vote for the Democrat.

Do I like that? No. Do I want a viable third party? Yes. Am I working to get that? Yes. But for now, I will vote for a Democrat every time. Given the current state of politics, any democrat is better than a republican.

[welshTerrier2]

23. but Casey's views are barbaric ...

i don't know LynneSin ... your post is certainly articulate and well thought out ... but i guess in the end, i really don't see things the same way ... and let's depersonalize this right off the bat ... i'm not going to say you are not "pro choice" because you support an "anti-choice" (let's not focus on Casey being "pro life", he's anti-choice) candidate ... you said you believe in pro choice so you are pro choice ... i have no quibble with that ... this doesn't mean your arguments for endorsing Casey are correct though ...

if we highlight one of your central themes, that Santorum must go, your argument is very easy to make ... Santorum is truly hideous ... but let's push your argument into a broader arena ... let's say today that there are enough Democrats to filibuster right-wing anti-choice judicial nominees ... and you're right to say that substituting Casey for Santorum would have no effect on that balance ...but what about the next nominee and the one after that and the one after that? the fundamental question then becomes: "Is the Democratic Party pro choice"? what is the Party's position in States that have Democratic Senators who are leaving office? would the Party, using your arguments, support an anti-choice candidate in those States? what if it would tip the balance in the Senate such that Democrats could not block anti-choice judicial nominees?

I guess my question for you is whether the Democratic Party should endorse candidates who, if they are successful, could end up voting to make abortion illegal?

there's one other aspect of your argument i'm not at all comfortable with ... I believe "choice" is absolute ... it is, or should be, non-negotiable ... if supporters of "choice" cannot find a home in the Democratic Party, because arguments like the one you've made allow for a "big tent" and locally-defined values, where can they then turn? or where will they then turn? this seems like a recipe for disaster to me ... alienate the anti-war wing by voting with bush on Iraq and now this? there are two very substantial risks to the Party in pushing this kind of thinking ...

first, if the Democratic Party is seen voting with the republicans on "choice" (as they've done on Iraq), many Democrats are going to be very angry at the Party ... there's a very real cost to not running on values and principles ... many Democrats are Democrats because of the long-held positions the Party has espoused ... pulling the rug out, and I imply this is the case not just based on Casey but IF the Party extends the same position nation-wide, may gain some votes (i.e. win at any cost?) but it will definitely cost some votes too ...

and second, many in the last election made statements like: "the Democrats don't stand for anything" ... John Stewart on The Daily Show actually used words like that on last night's show ... if the Democratic Party is viewed, and I think this is already a problem, as not having the "courage of their convictions" and being more committed to winning than standing for something, the cost of "big tent pragmatism" is going to reach far beyond Democrats disaffected by the sellout on choice. such policies will alienate many in the middle and do nothing to attract the tens of millions of voters who don't vote because "they are all just in it to win and don't care about anything" ...

anyway, you've made an excellent post and I appreciate the depth of your analysis ... unfortunately, i don't agree with your conclusion ... when one Party is strongly anti-choice and the other Party decides to be tolerant of all views, the dynamic tension is destroyed and the rights of millions of women are put at risk ...

and one last point about endorsing Casey ... let's shine a little light on this reality ... if I understand his position on abortion correctly, Casey would FORCE A WOMAN TO BEAR A CHILD EVEN IF SHE HAD BEEN RAPED ... is this correct? what kind of caveman thinking is that? talk about the tyranny of the State ... i can't imagine anyone being forced by Casey's will into such a barbaric situation ... am i missing something here? have i been overly dramatic? educate me ... i'm listening ...

[LynneSin]

25. Wrong about forcing a women and Rape

Casey is on record as saying that there should be conditions that allow women who have gotten pregnant through rape, incest or also if there is an issue with the woman's life. He also is in support of improved family planning and education.

Casey Sr. was that barbaric but Jr. isn't. Just like the DLC comment - please make sure you research before you blame.

[welshTerrier2]

29. i think you're wrong about this

from another post in this thread (i've read this elsewhere as well):

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

1a. If support, what exceptions, if any, would you require? a) life of the mother b) life of the mother, rape and incest c) life of the mother, rape, incest, and fetal deformity

TREASURER:

Casey (D): Support a) Life of the mother.

this is Casey's PREFERRED position on the issue ... it is exactly what he believes ... his position does NOT include exemptions for rape and incest ... the part I've omitted, because it is not his PREFERRED position, was that IF he were Governor (of PA) and IF the legislature passed a bill that included rape and incest (and the life of the mother) as exemptions, he would support it ... he said he would support it because the overall effect would be to reduce the number of abortions; he did not say that he would support it because he wanted exemptions for rape and incest included ...

what you've omitted from your response to me is that Casey would support, as his first preference, a bill that included only the life of the mother as an exemption ... so my post stands as written: Casey would vote to support a law that forces a woman who became pregnant from rape to have the child ... he would be willing to tolerate the "rape and incest" exemptions to achieve his goal of less choice for women, but he would PREFER these exemptions were omitted ...

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

28. Work out your candidate support differences via the primary.....

Then, whomever the Democrats of PA choose as their general election candidate should be supported 100% by those opposing the vile excuse for a Senator we currently have in this state. Democrats who don't want Casey Jr, should definitely vote against him in the primary. But once the primary is over, let us all unite to get man-on-dog out of our blue state of PA.

I understand the issues, and, believe me, Casey Jr is NOT my ideal candidate. But, he is NOT Rick Santorum, I repeat, he is NOT Rick Santorum. If I can pull the lever in support of Casey Jr, just about any Democrat should be able to do it, IMHO.

PLEASE, let's get ricky out of PA so he can stay in his mcmansion in Virgina.

[bklyncowgirl]

30. Only if you are a single issue voter.

I don't vote on one issue.

Who is the better progressive. Dennis Kucinich, who for most of his career was opposed to abortion but staunchly anti-war and pro-worker or Joe Lieberman who has been staunchly pro-choice but has been a conservative on economic and foreign policy issues.

We want people who are against abortion to vote on the larger issues, we should do the same.

[MollyStark]

31. You may not be anti-choice, but you are helping them

I don't agree that Casey is strong in the T zone. They aren't going to vote for him over another anti-choice candidate. They aren't going to vote for an anti-choice democrat who they perceive as liberal when they can vote for an anti-choice republican.

Casey is the wrong candidate to get rid of Santorum. We need a strong pro-choice candidate who is also fiscally moderate.

[ClassWarrior]

33. Of course not, Lynne, but remember to reframe the issue if you must...

...bring it up. You're backing a candidate that supports forced pregnancy. NOT A "PRO-LIFE" CANDIDATE.

NGU.

[Cats Against Frist]

35. Lynne, I have to tell you -- I was against this prospect, at first

and then I took a gander at this:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3521103

Particularly in the areas of labor, health, womens' rights, and civil liberties, Mr. Butt Juice gets very, VERY low rankings.

Yes, as a woman, the right to my own body IS important. And while I am not willing to give up abortion without a fight -- if it is feasible, I would rather see health education & health (funding for birth control, morning-after pill, good prenatal care, family health insurance, medical leave, etc.), responsibility, public welfare (on the local level -- I'm a minarchist --, for subsidized daycare, housing and food) and a healthy sexual attitude promoted -- I would be willing to support a bare-knuckled pro-life candidate who would be willing to go after those other goals, in an effort to reduce abortion. But only if they were very serious -- like a 100 percent rating from a future/fictional "Pro-Life Means Pro-Child," foundation. My dream would be such candidate, combined with someone who was, say pro-choice for the first trimester, or something like that. That would be a great compromise, I think.

I think that it's sad that it all has to come to this, not least because we have such a superstitious, sentimental, absolutist bunch of people in this nation who are unwilling to understand that the decision about "when life begins," is totally fucking arbitrary and that a compromise is there, and is feasible -- and yet some will never be able to participate in it, because of their black-and-white worldview. And does that implicate some of us? I don't know.

But I do know that Carson is way better than Ricky Whineypoo, and that, overall, I think the trade off is fair. It's compromise, sure. And each of us has his or her choice to make about what he or she is willing to compromise.

[ClassWarrior]

36. If, as you say, you are "not willing to give up abortion"...

..."without a fight," then DON'T CALL THEM PRO-LIFE!!!

NGU.

[Cats Against Frist]

37. I don't know -- I kind of like the above distinction

between pro-life and anti-choice. When I say "pro-life" I mean someone who may be against unlimited choice, but, as I described above, may support it with either limited, health-related, or time-sensitive conditions -- but backed up his or her rhetoric with community support, education, progressive attitudes about sex, SECULAR, reality-based sex education, birth control advocacy and family healthcare/assistance, then I would call that person "pro-life." And probably only if they were against war, unless in a clear case of defense, and aganst the death penalty.

[Cats Against Frist]

38. Oh -- and to change the definition

may actually loosen the hold the death cult has on the term "pro-life."

[ClassWarrior]

39. That's a tough battle to win...

...but if you're up to it, I salute you. :patriot:

NGU.

[safi0]

40. What If LBJ was

anti-Choice, because you know Goldwater was Pro-Choice. As bad as LBJ's foreign policy was, would you have voted for a candidate (Goldwater) who probably would've started WW3 because of his views on that issue.

A modern day example is, would you vote for someone who marched in lockstep with the neo-con agenda, was anti-worker, anti-civil rights and anti-civil liberites(except 1 issue), if that candidate was Pro-Choice over Harry Reid.