A new twist for Pennsylvania's Senate race?

[DeaconBlues]

Abortion rights advocate Michelman considering independent candidacy

WASHINGTON — Abortion rights leader Kate Michelman is thinking of jumping into the Senate race in Pennsylvania as an independent.

Michelman is appalled by Democratic Party leaders’ selection of anti-abortion candidate Bob Casey Jr. as their choice to try to unseat two-term Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.

For Michelman and other supporters of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision, the final straw came in late January when Casey endorsed President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Analyst and pollster Terry Madonna at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania said, “If she runs as an independent, they’ve given Santorum a significant boost.” He added, “This is a very interesting dilemma liberal Democrats have right now.”

Michelman said that if she joined the Senate race, she’d do so as an independent since she couldn’t meet Tuesday’s filing deadline to compete in the May 16 Democratic primary....(more)


Well, it looks like Santorum is going to win, thanks to so-called progressives who care about nothing but abortion. If she had a problem with Casey, why didn't she run against him in the primary, instead of destroying our chances of winning back the Senate?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11670508/

Edit to add link

[adarling]

1. Have you seen Santorum's poll numbers

the guys is going to lose no matter who you put up there. I bet that many republicans will vote for Casey because they are sick of their party being stolen by the neo cons, they have no other choice and they might even vote for Michelman if they are pro choice. This is going to be very interesting.

[dogfacedboy]

143. I've been wondering about that.

I think that some right wing 'Democrats' are going to benefit from Republican ethics failures.

[BOSSHOG]

2. Santorum enlisting the help of an abortion rights supporter

Desperate, dishonest, tragically flawed dog fuckers will resort to anything when their precious senate seat is threatened.

[Born Free]

32. too much to get bogged down with any single issue...

we have too much at stake to let the races boil down to abortion rights, democrats need to put this on the back burner for now. Once democrats regain some control in congress and can actually get something done we can work to get some of the bad legislation removed, but if they allow this ritual of stirring up the right wing over a single issue then we risk becoming divided and get nothing. The gun nut will do their best too, they will try to boil it down to the democrats want to take their guns - it happens every election cycle, democrats need to stick together and let this stuff stay on the back burner until they get some political power to actually make or change laws. Don't let them divide and conquer.

[Mandate My Ass]

35. Did you even read the thread?

Casey supports Alito, the unitary executive, the death penalty, the war in Iraq "for as long as it takes." He is against stem cell research. He refuses to discuss his position on women's rights at all and will not answer how he would deal with pharmacists who refuse to dispense BC pills and EC. Nobody who supports Alito has any progressive credentials at all. He has been totally silent on Santorum's flip flopping and multiple scandals. That's because Casey is funded by the same people who grease Rick Santorum's palms.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/montgomery_county/13697214.htm

HARRISBURG - In the absence of Democratic leaders' hand-picked candidate to challenge U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, two lesser-known Democratic hopefuls last night criticized Bob Casey for sharing the same well-connected campaign donors and beliefs as Santorum, a Republican.

Both history professor Chuck Pennacchio of Bucks County and Philadelphia pension lawyer Alan Sandals pointed to their support for the bedrock liberal issues of abortion rights, federally funded stem-cell research, and stricter gun laws, issues on which they disagree with Casey and Santorum. And they questioned Casey's commitment to a democratic process in light of his skipping the debate, sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

[bluestateguy]

3. Just ignore her

That's what ought to be done to all 3rd party candidates. Ignore them, and they usually go away.

[Tesha]

93. Y'know, I'll bet the Whigs said that too! (NT)

[jahyarain]

119. the corporatism of this country is a direct result of

NOT having a third party. dems are just as much to blame as pukes. be careful. if you dismiss those who support more than two competing regimes, uh, parties, the dems will never win again.

[SaveElmer]

4. Typical single issue tunnel vision...

Doesn't take a genius to see that abortion rights are in better hands in a Democratic Senate rather than a Republican. If I am not mistaken Casey will be one of two pro-life Democrats in the Senate.

[Zhade]

24. Really? Better hands?

Then why did anti-choice DEMS cosponsor/vote for the South Dakota ban, hmmm?

And I hardly think a woman's right to control her own body and medical choices - her own LIFE - has fuck-all to do with tunnel vision.

[SaveElmer]

50. It is very simple...why it escapes you I am not sure

Compare the percentage of Republcans in the House and Senate that are anti-choice
to the number of Democrats in the House and Senate that are anti-choice...

Then come back and tell me a women's right to choose is not in better hands with the Democratic Party in control of Congress!!!

[IndianaGreen]

58. Defending the Bill of Rights is a single-issue!

Lose the Bill of Rights, as we already have, and we have lost all of our freedoms!

Defeating Hitler was a single-issue!

Salvation to a Christian, is a single-issue!

Life is a single-issue!

Peace is a single-issue!

[SaveElmer]

60. Its about the math...and spare me the histrionics...

Follow along:

Percentage of Democrats in House and Senate that are pro-choice, 95% or so?

Percentage of Republicans in House and Senate that are anti-choice, 90% or so.

Which party do you think a woman's right to choose is safer with ?

How are you gonna feel when the Democrats fail to retake the Senate by one seat because Michelman split the Democratic vote with Casey, allowing Santorum back in?

Alot like Ralph Nader (should have felt) after 2000!!!

[IndianaGreen]

61. Considering that Democrats voted to ban abortion in South Dakota

I think it is more important what a candidate stands for than the letter that follows his or her name.

[SaveElmer]

62. Do you know the difference between state and national office?

Your solution to the problem in South Dakota is to hand the U.S. Senate back to the Republicans for another 2 years minimum?

[IndianaGreen]

63. All I am saying is how I would have voted given such choices!

I wouldn't vote for either of the rich white guys, not because they were rich, or white, or men, but because they are against my rights as a woman to choose!

[SaveElmer]

64. So to preserve your rights...

You would keep Republicans in power...interesting strategy!!!

[IndianaGreen]

66. My rights are more important than the size of Harry Reid's office

or the parking spaces allotted to his minions.

[SaveElmer]

68. Non-answer of course...

Do you believe your right to choose is more secure with a Republican controlled Senate, or a Democratic? Do you believe you're rights are more secure with Orrin Hatch as chairman of the Judiciary committee of Ted Kennedy? It's a simple question?

[IndianaGreen]

70. My right to choose is better off with a pro-choice Senator

not with a Pope sucking misogynist like Santorum and Casey. We have enough of that scum on the Supreme Court!

[SaveElmer]

73. So...

You are saying you would rather pin your hope on the slimmest of chances that somehow Kate Michelman would get elected in Pennsylvania, than on the far greater chance, that Bob Casey would get elected and the Democrats would retake the Senate.

Even you have to acknowledge she has no chance to win. The only possible affect she would have is to deny the seat to Bob Casey, thus reelecting Rick Santorum and preserving a Republican majority.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

76. Has nothing to do with the DNC....

Are you saying that Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC, is a misogynist, unconcerned about women's rights?

The voters of Pennsylvania, for whatever reason, prefer Casey. If you must lash out, lash out at them

[SaveElmer]

95. I wholeheartedly support Hillary...

And emphatically reject your characterization of her!!!

Go and read her floor speech explaining her IWR vote and then come back and we will talk!

[SharonAnn]

156. Why would a woman vote for Casey? Why would an African-American

vote for slavery? Why would non-property owners vote to disenfranchise themselves?

All good questions. All have the same answer. "No reason at all!"

If Dems insist on running someone who is against women's rights, then they don't deserve women's votes.

[renaissanceguy]

99. Right, because it makes a difference...

if a Dem votes against women's rights, as opposed to a repug doing the same thing. I mean, if a Dem does it, he/she is only being "moderate" and "principled," right? :eyes:

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.46183076

[SaveElmer]

102. Brother...did you read my posts?

Either you did not or you purposely decided to ignore or twist my meaning...

As I have said a number of times now we have two choices here....

First Vote for Bob Casey, possibly get the Senate back in Democratic hands

Second Vote for Michelamn, split the Democratic vote, get Santorum back...

Again

Bob Casey in a Democratic controlled Senate

or

Rick Santorum in a Republican controlled one.

Or if you prefer

Bob Casey and Ted Kennedy as chairman of the Judiciary Committee

or

Rick Santorum and Orin Hatch as chairman of the Judiciary Committee



For me, not a difficult choice

[President Kerry]

115. Thanks. You laid this one out.

Whoever doesn't get this is hurting the Democratic party and THEIR OWN RIGHTS more than Rush could ever aspire to.

[VirginiaDem]

5. She won't run. n/t

[Divernan]

6. And coincidentally, she's promoting her new book nationwide!

There are already two pro-Roe candidates running against Casey in the primary.

MIchelman's agent promotes her as "a close friend of Bill Clinton". I doubt he'll be encouraging her to run a campaign which can only help Santorum.

And finally, as she well knows, the impact of her state's governor is far more significant on whether PA women can continue under the protection of Roe v. Wade, than any impact she would have in the Senate. Right now, the governors are the first line of defense against Bush's misogynist supreme court appointees/majority. And Rendell wants Santorum out and Casey in!

Nope. She won't run. She's just exploiting the threat to generate more publicity for her book.

[Baconfoot]

17. Wow, there are already pro-choice candidates challenging?

That's pretty important information. Are they any good?

[Crowdance]

7. S'what happens when you ignore your base

The coalition falls apart.

[Teaser]

8. Regardless, a stupid move by Michelman

nt

[cally]

36. Exactly....women told the DNC not to push Casey

and to remember women. The DNC chose not to and pushed all other possible Dem candidates out. What do you all expect women to do. Roll over one more time as our rights to live is taken away and the Dems don't think it's important. I hope Michelman does run and hurts Casey badly. I hope it's a wake up call to all dems not to take women for granted.

[xxqqqzme]

40. consider it is the male who is more likely to vote rethug

There would be no democratic party w/o the female vote. The dlc ignore women at their own peril - I hope Michelman does run - I wish I lived in Pennsylvania so I could vote for her - time for the dlc to get a message.

[cally]

49. I know

Dems have to remember the women or dems lose. I wish they would remember it.

[insane_cratic_gal]

9. Casey's stance on anti choice IS an issue for me

I much prefer Chuck, at least then I don't have to abandon an issue I feel strongly about ESPECIALLY considering what is happening to Roe VS Wade in SD. Incase you've all failed to notice that abortion is on the chopping block in like 7 different states.

http://www.chuck2006.com/


Sorry call me a bitch or a one issue person, but I'm no longer willing to compromise.

Since Casey has yet to offer up any security about how he'd vote in the issue, I'm not sure I'm willing to gamble mine and my daughter's rights and have a free conscience if he were a deciding vote.

In this case Casey may be great on social issues, but he's still a Santorum on abortion.

With Pennacchio (if he hangs till the primaries) is who I'd give my vote to. He's liberal on ALL of the social issues.

[VirginiaDem]

10. But would you vote for the 3rd party candidate

in the general election? By all means, vote for Pennacchio in the primaries but assuming he doesn't get the nomination, I beg you to hold your nose and vote for Casey in the general election.

I know he's pro-life and I understand this being a one-issue year for you but I think pro-choicers potentially gain more from a Casey vote than a Michelman (sp?) vote. The key is to get Democratic control of the committee in charge of Supreme Court nominations.

[Baconfoot]

19. Um...but this person was pro-Alito. I think we and congress would do well

to remember that the outcome of committee deliberations is not or at least ought not to be automatically decided by which PARTY holds which positions on that committee.

It's important but it's not necessarily decisive.

I'm willing to compromise in the favor of big picture party loyalism on most things but constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are NOT one of them.

[VirginiaDem]

41. But if the choice were between

Casey and Santorum, who would you prefer? And I don't mean who would you vote for--I mean who would you prefer in office?

[IndianaGreen]

23. The party hacks should have thought of that before supporting Casey

The fact that they didn't shows how little they care about women's rights, or LGBT rights for that matter. Why should they be rewarded?

[VirginiaDem]

42. I care less about whether or not the party hacks

are being rewarded than whether or not Santorum is returned to office and, more importantly, whether or not the Dems gain control of the Senate.

[RobinA]

151. Yep...

<< The party hacks should have thought of that before supporting Casey >>

Agree completely. I'll take another term of Santorum in order to send a message. Sell my rights down the river at your peril. This is too basic a right to bargain for....whatever. The Supreme Court is gone on this issue. Or not, but that die is cast. The swing voter has been replaced.

[theHandpuppet]

86. Damn right I would!!!!!

I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore. I'm NOT going to support, fund or vote for DINOs who continue to betray democratic principles in order to broaden their "base". I'm DAMNED SICK AND TIRED of the Dem party betraying gays, blacks, the poor, women etc and then come to us excpecting our votes. FUCK THAT! NO MORE B.S. !!!!!!!!!

[GeorgiaDem69]

88. Your wrong

The dems haven't betrayed anyone. The dems are doing what they can to win where they can. I haven't seen the party platform change to ban gay marriage, ban abortion, etc.

[theHandpuppet]

91. Shouldn't that be, YOU'RE wrong?

I stood by the Dem party even after they voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. I stood by them even though too many of them voted time and again for the Patriot Act. I stood by them again when they went along with RW neocon appointments to the SC, ones which may overturn Roe v. Wade and a host of civil rights legislation. I stood by them when too many supported the bankruptcy bill, which is devastating to poor and working class families. I stood by them when they supported the "don't ask, don't tell" policies in our military. I could go on...

and ON

AND ON.

I'm not moving myself nor my priciples to the back of the bus one more time, NOT ONE MORE INCH!! Now we have dems running on the GOP platform! Well hell, when I want to vote for a Republican I'll vote for a real one, not some DINO. In the meanwhile, if a third party candidate wants to show me the backbone the majority of Dems seem to be lacking, that's where my support will go.

[GeorgiaDem69]

104. What "principles" of yours have the Dems abandoned?

Name one thing the Dem party has changed about their platform. Simply because they promote a candidate who can win but you don't agree with doesn't mean they've abandoned their principles. Perhaps you'd prefer what happened when NARAL jumped all over Langevin and he withdrew. Now we have a pro-choice Republican who is going to win that race. That was about the most jack-assish move I've seen from an interest group in a while.

[theHandpuppet]

111. I just gave you a laundry list of them

If you can't figure it out by now, then I see no reason to post another point by point rebuttal.

[GeorgiaDem69]

112. You didn't list anything

You gave a laundry list of issues, you didn't say how the Dems had "violated" them. If you have specifics I'm more than willing to hear them, but knee-jerk unsupported attacks on the party are useless and frankly irritating.

[theHandpuppet]

128. Then read it again

If you can't decipher the list of violations from my post, then the problem is yours, not mine.

[GeorgiaDem69]

129. Self delete

[VirginiaDem]

105. self delete

[superconnected]

16. I agree totally

What good is putting a democrat in the senate if he's going to vote republican.

[Mandate My Ass]

20. Casey is pro-Iraq war, pro-death penalty, pro Alito

He is not "pro-life" he's anti choice. And I am not a one issue voter. Chuck Pennacchio has it all over Casey as did some of the other contenders who wanted to throw their hats into the ring, including Hoeffel who gave Specter a run for his money last time though he was an unknown. This stinks to high heaven. It's so easy to blame women for this debacle but the Dems screwed everybody when they shoved Casey down our throats without asking for our input.

He's not that great on social issues either. I agree with CP on just about every issue and with Casey on one-labor.

[Zhade]

27. And let's not forget that the SD ban happened with DEM help.

I have zero problem seeing Casey aiding in such anti-choice unconstitutionality.

Glad I don't live in PA, I feel for you sane pro-choice people.

[Broke In Jersey]

11. What a great stupid idea -

lets vote people like Casey in all over america & then systematically watch the South Dakota abortion-like laws get passed in all 50 states. This is what happens when you vote party before ideals. No one from Penn better complain when abortion is illegal there. Sometimes you get what you deserve!

[Divernan]

13. No, now it's between the governors and the Supreme Court.

Until we have a Dem majority in the House and Senate, the blue state governors, are the ones with veto power over fundie state house legislators. I'm pro-choice, but I've worked with Casey and his staff on issues of forcing the state to take adequate care of mentally retarded/autistic. He is totally ethical, as are his staff. No kickbacks, no welcome mat out for lobbyists with a check in one hand and neocon bills in the other. He and his staff met with small groups of parents/family members who didn't give him one penny for his campaign fund; he listened to their horror stories about the lethally inadequate care in the corporate "group homes", and he and his staff went out and kicked butt with performance audits and scathing reports of inadequate govt. oversight. Casey may be anti-abortion, but he is NOT someone like fundie Santorum, whose motto seems to be, "We care about your child only UNTIL it is born. He is the most honest politician I've ever seen in action in Pennsylvania, and his staff are excellent.

Chuck Penacchio has what, $50,000 in his campaign fund, compared to Santorum's 7 million? Do the math - he doesn't have a prayer. Plus he has zip government experience. We need a strong Dem party in Pennsylvania, and even more we need to do the country a favor and dump Santorum. Make your statements about abortion in some gubernatorial race.

[VirginiaDem]

14. Casey's pretty much by himself.

Casey would be all of maybe two Senators who are pro-life. Our Democratic senators are solidly pro-choice, American citizens are slightly but solidly pro-choice. Our Supreme Court is becoming more pro-life due to the preponderant power of the Republican party. Your scenario is a strawman non-starter. South Dakota passed the law because the Supreme Court became more conservative because the Senate committee in charge of Supreme Court nominations was controlled by Republicans.

We need to take control of the Senate so we will have control of that committee. No pro-life nomination for the USSC would make it out of committee. And, no, Casey wouldn't be let near that committee.

[xxqqqzme]

79. get the language right - I'm pro-life and pro-choice

Casey is anti-choice and if you can't trust women w/ a choice over their own bodies - what makes you think legislators can do any better?

[Broke In Jersey]

81. You're really turning me around on this....

So I should vote for Casey since he is a Dem. And not for the fact that he believes that women are too stupid, ignorant and over-emotional wrecks to know what to do with their own bodies. They need him to tell women what to do. I understand now. I guess he's the best we can do.

[Broke In Jersey]

83. um - u realize the Casey backed Alito...right?

Doesn't really matter if Casey is on the senate committee for the USSC since all that committee does is 'recommend'. The FULL senate votes. So....if you like Alito...you'll LOVE Casey!!!!

[VirginiaDem]

107. And you do realize that there were 55 Republicans in the Senate

and 9 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee? Because if you don't like Alito, you won't like the next guy the Republicans shove through the process if they maintain control of the Senate.

[VirginiaDem]

106. And nobody who votes for Michelman better complain

when Bush gets another right-winger on the court because the Senate remained Republican because Santorum kept his seat because Michelman ran as a third party candidate and was supported by like-minded folks who were very mad about Democratic strategy vis-a-vis the Alito nomination.

[President Kerry]

117. how about handing Santorum another term?

Sound better?

[Sgent]

12. I supported Casey

in spite of the abortion issue. OTOH, I have much bigger problems with the fact that he endorsed Alito -- regardless of the abortion issue. I didn't know about that previously, and it changes my thinking a lot.

Now that we know that Casey supports both a unitary executive and is anti-choice...

[WinkyDink]

15. Awww, Big Ed will talk her out of this crack-pot notion!

Gov. Rendell has perfected the art of arm-twisting-schmooze! (I love Big Ed!)

[tritsofme]

18. Seems like Fast Eddie has enough problems on his plate

with his own reelection.

With him and Swann neck to neck in the polls.

[MrSlayer]

21. Rendell is up on Swann by 12 points.

He'll have no trouble there. Swann is a deer in the headlights when actual issues are discussed. The guy is clueless and Ed will crush him in debates.

[tritsofme]

26. The last poll I saw had Rendell by 2 or 3

I have no doubt Rendell will crush him in the debates, but I can't help but forget that in the past several years voters have elected movie stars and WWF wrestlers as their governors.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Casey endorsed Alito? Fuck him!

Our rights are not for sale!

[Mandate My Ass]

25. Yes. With no stake in the fight he took Alito's side publicly

He undercut other dems by doing so. He refuses to debate Pennacchio or any of the other candidates who've asked him to. He is silent on just about everything Santorum does and says. He sucks in so many ways and yet the "leadership" says he's our only chance though repub-lite has always lost in PA when running against RWers.

[Zhade]

29. Refused to debate? Sounds like a coward.

NT!

[Mandate My Ass]

31. Yup. The man clams up like no candidate you ever saw before

but when the Alito issue came up, he suddenly had the irrepressible urge to undercut other dems and claim he would have no problem approving Alito for SCOTUS although nobody asked him and his input did more harm than good. :puke:

[Zhade]

28. Agreed, though some seem to believe those rights don't matter.

I'm a guy, and I stand with my sisters against anti-choicers and pro-fascists, be they Dem or Repub.

[renaissanceguy]

100. Some STILL don't realize that abortion is only a proxy

for other rights.... First they'll get abortion, then it'll be contraceptives, then it will be personal sex acts, then it will be divorce, then it will be minorities (again). You just watch.

Why don't we ban masturbation while we're at it? I mean, sperm is half a life, isn't it? Just think of all the millions of potential babies going to waste. :sarcasm:

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.46183076

[David Zephyr]

52. Absolutely!

You know how I feel about this, IG. See my post #51.

[liberaliraqvet26]

30. Lest we forget that John Murtha is also anti abortion...

from PA and a helluva good congressman. One issue voters will not help us get the house and senate back.

[against all enemies]

33. Great Idea. If you like the sound of Senator Santorum.

Wow, how many ways can Democrats shoot themselves in the foot? I give up.

[pscot]

34. The Nader syndrome

Better to go down in a blaze of righteous indignation than to move the dogdamned ball forward. Why are these lunatics all attracted to the Democratic party? Why can't Kate go pester the Republicans.The damage has a;ready been done as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. Can't we just move on?

[Tesha]

94. Electing Republican Democrats *ISN'T* moving the ball forward. (NT)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Vote Misogynist(D) for the good of the party. Forget women.

[Mandate My Ass]

38. Yes because when my privacy and reproductive choice have been

revoked and every woman in America is living The Handmaid's Tale, I will be so relieved that it was Dems who voted for it rather than Repubs. :sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. But..but..you must support them. They're "not as bad".

I mean, wouldn't you prefer cyanide to arsenic?

[Mandate My Ass]

43. lol...perfect metaphor

I would never kill myself with arsenic, mmmm yes I much prefer cyanide. Four out of five Democratic leaders surveyed recommend cyanide for constituents who want a true democracy and adherence to the Constitution.

Oh, did you hear Congress is looking into the shocking national crisis of cruise ship-related crime? I'm so glad they're looking out for our welfare. :rofl:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Not to mention the horrors of flag burning and naughty videos.

[Mandate My Ass]

45. As my hero Jon Stewart would say

Flag burning? Bad...verrrry bad. Constitution shredding? Mmmmm, not so much.

Anyways, when I'm sent to the newly-funded Halliburton "freedom camps" I'm gonna swear up and down it was for flag burning and not for naughty video watching. :evilgrin:

[PassingFair]

48. Bing Bing Bing! This one's for you, Mandate!

Sorry, I just can't get enough of this cartoon!

[Ignis]

90. Great toon, thanks! (NT)

[TankLV]

47. It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Sad, very sad.

"Vote for Mousolini, he't not as bad as Hitler" - at least we'll get an Italian in the Gestapo!

[bread_and_roses]

46. Agree with Indianna Green, Mandate My Ass, and the many others

who understand that there are issues, and then there are life and death issues. Women should bargain away their LIVES to get a "D" in Congress??? A "D" who supports Alito???? No, I don't think so. "The Party" should have thought about it before supporting a "Let's Let Poor Women Die" candidate.

[David Zephyr]

51. Kate will get a check from me. I hope she does it.

The party has practically "anointed" Casey and has bent over backward spotlighting his anti-choice statements. That's probably why Kate Michelman would go "independent".

I admire her greatly. She'd make a great Senator.

[IndianaGreen]

53. The reason things don't change is because we keep supporting those

that won't support our positions.

The DLC pukes will accuse us of being one-issue people, but what would you call the Bill of Rights? What would you call the right to choose whether or not get pregnant, or carry a pregnancy to term, or end a pregnancy? What would you call asking for the same rights for gays and lesbians that heteros take for granted? What would you call equal protection under the law?

All of these are single-issues, but they are issues that if we fail to fight for them would turn our nation into an American version of the Taliban Afghanistan.

What price freedom? (another single-issue!)

[karynnj]

55. But she has no chance to win

Maybe someone should explain that a Santorum win hurts us on abortion - apparently the only thing she is concerned about.

I see absolutely nothing to suggest she would be an acceptable Senator, much less good or great.

[GeorgiaDem69]

87. Agree totally

Supporting Michelman is terribly shortsighted. One, she won't win, period. Two, by running she'll cause Santorum to win, and he is in my opinion just about the worst Republican senator around. Three, why is it apparently impossible for some Dems to see that anti-choice Casey is 1000% better than anti-choice Santorum. The Dems support choice, regardless of what one senator or congressman thinks. Additionally, regardless of Casey's views on abortion, he'll be much better than Santorum on just about every other issue.

[WindRavenX]

54. I will not be supporting anti-choice canidates from now on

Even if they are Democrats.

[IndianaGreen]

56. Same here!

This is like asking Jews to support Mussolini because he is not as bad as Hitler.

[TankLV]

148. See my post # 47 above.

I will no longer support candidates who do the opposite of what I want, no matter what fucking letter is listed next to their name.

This is war - a war that I will accept NO compromises on BASIC issues!

[NoodleyAppendage]

57. Hmm...choosing between a Repuke Anti-Choice vs. a Dem Anti-Choice.

Not much of a choice there, and I think that's the point Michelman is making. HOW DARE SHE STAND UP FOR A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO PERSONAL FREEDOM! What is she crazy! Is she some kind of REAL Democrat or something? How dare she...

JB

[SaveElmer]

59. How's she gonna feel...

When the Democrats, 98% of whom are pro-choice, miss re-taking the Senate by one seat from the Republicans who are probably 98% anti-choice, because she split the vote in Pennsylvania allowing Santorum to be reelected?

[IndianaGreen]

65. You are exaggerating the percentage of pro-choice Democrats

How many of them voted for abortion restrictions since Roe? Look at the record and you will find that many of those Democrats voted to limit abortion rights under all kinds of pretexts.

[SaveElmer]

67. So you are arguing...

That a woman's right to choose would be better off with a Republican U.S. Senate?

[IndianaGreen]

69. No. that's your strawman!

I am arguing that my rights are not for the Republicans or the Democrats to give away, anymore than my vote is available to an anti-choice candidate.

[SaveElmer]

71. Sophistry...

If, as you allege, the most important concern you have is the preservation of your right to choose, I want to know how that is better served by Rick Santorum in a Republican controlled Senate than Bob Casey in a Democratic controlled one?

[IndianaGreen]

72. I am not about to buy the DLC argument that women's rights are expendable

on the altar of political expediency.

Perhaps we should castrate every man that thinks that women's rights are of no concern, so that they don't reproduce!

[SaveElmer]

75. On the contrary...

I think women's rights are of the highest concern, which is why I believe it is of the highest priority to remove the Republican Party from power. If it means supporting a man like Casey to get Ted Kennedy back as chairman of the committee which reviews judicial candidates, it would be well worth it!

[ABaker]

89. You said

"I think women's rights are of the highest concern, which is why I believe it is of the highest priority to remove the Republican Party from power. If it means supporting a man like Casey to get Ted Kennedy back as chairman of the committee which reviews judicial candidates, it would be well worth it!"

By that logic, we should vote for a Democrat who is "pro war" or voted for the Patriot Act for the exact same reason. I don't do that. And a lot of other people on DU wouldn't do it either.

I can live with losing an election. I can not live with voting for someone who is opposed to what I believe.

[SaveElmer]

92. Yes that is right...

Because I know if the Democratic Party had been in power we would not be in this mess at all. And if you look at the statements of Democrats that voted for the IWR, you will see very few were voting for war.

I could not look myself in the mirror if I voted for someone I knew would not win, thus handing power back to the Republicans for two more years. Nothing is more important then their removal right now.

BTW: Even Russ Feingold supported 80% of what was in the Patriot Act.

[Tesha]

120. She may feel, as I do, that...

> How's she gonna feel when the Democrats, 98% of whom
> are pro-choice, miss re-taking the Senate by one seat
> from the Republicans who are probably 98% anti-choice,
> because she split the vote in Pennsylvania allowing
> Santorum to be reelected?

She may feel, as I do, that maybe the Dems will
finally *GET A F**KING CLUE* and realize that
you can't piss all over your base forever in the
hopes that a few of the enemy will vote for you.

Don't you think it's time that the Democratic
leadership learned that lesson?

(By the way, the Dems are nowhere near 98% pro-choice.
If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.)

Tesha

[renaissanceguy]

101. Oh but I thought they would NEVER go after

Roe, right? :sarcasm:

Just like they will "never" go after contraceptives, divorce, personal sexual behavior...

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.46183076

[DeaconBlues]

110. but she won't be running as a democrat- she will be an independent

she had her chance in the primary, and she pissed away that chance. Now we should call her what she is, a spoiler who will reelect Santorum.

[Tesha]

121. No, Casey is the spoiler who will re-elect Santorum...

No, Casey is the spoiler who will re-elect Santorum by holding
views that are anathema to the Democratic base.

Tesha

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

136. What Is 'The Democratic Base', Ma'am?

Mr. Casey is widely popular among rank and file Democrats in Pennsylvania. What is it about this great proportion of Pennsylvania Democrats that makes them somethuing other than the base of the Party?

[Tesha]

139. Lack of support for some basic democratic (small-D) principles?

> Mr. Casey is widely popular among rank and file Democrats
> in Pennsylvania. What is it about this great proportion
> of Pennsylvania Democrats that makes them something other
> than the base of the Party?

Lack of support for some basic democratic (small-D) principles?

Tesha

[The Magistrate]

142. Still, Ma'am

The Party can rely on the votes of these people. Is that not the real definition of a party's base, those people on whom it can rely to vote for its candidates?

[Tesha]

145. These same folks who elected for Santorum?

> Still, Ma'am, the Party can rely on the votes of
> these people. Is that not the real definition of
> a party's base, those people on whom it can rely
> to vote for its candidates?

These same folks who elected for Santorum?

I guess the answer to your question must be "No",
they can't represent the party's base (or certainly
don't represent it very well) because they (also)
voted for the other party.

Tesha

[The Magistrate]

147. Probably Not, Ma'am

His victory was pretty narrow, and that is one of the reasons he is so widely viewed as vulnerable this time around. There is no reason at all to suppose he was elected with votes that normally would go to a Democratic Party candidate.

The fact remains that Mr. Casey is widely popular among rank and file Democrats in Pennsylvania, and you have yet to make any real showing why these people should be considered foreign to the Democratic Party, or why a course by the Party that pleases them is somehow alienating to the "base" of the Party.

[PittPoliSci]

160. why are choosing a candidate on one issue?

[dolstein]

77. Couldn't meet the filing deadline? Is she KIDDING????

Michelman has known for months that the Democratic establishment was backing Casey. If she really had a problem with this, she would have entered the primary. Now she's just playing spoiler. I guess she's willing to do just about anything to make sure that people who oppose legalized abortion are not welcome in the Democratic Party. She's literally begging these people to become single issue Republican voters. Thanks to people like Michelman, the Democratic Party has become the abortion party, and has ceased to be a viable force in many states where there's considerable hostility to legalized abortion.

Personally, I favor legalized abortion, but unlike Michelman, I don't think it should be the one issue that defines the party. I don't recall the New Deal or the Great Society having ANYTHING to do with abortion. And I suspect that most Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania would agree with me. I have no doubt that if Michelman had entered the Democratic primary, she would have lost. I suspect she knew that too.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[DeaconBlues]

80. yeah, think just like me or else!

I notice you have "We must work in coalition to defeat the rightwing in 2006 and 2008!" written in your profile. Well, we sure the hell ain't gonna build a coalition, or do anything but remain a minority party with your type of absolutist thinking.

This might be fine for people who would rather whine about oppression and injustice than do anything about it. Me, I actually want a change for the better.

[VonDoomPhd]

103. Casey will win.

There is too much Santorum and Bush backlash for the outcome to be otherwise.
What the Democratic party should do, I believe, is take the lead of people like Alan Sandals (the "other" dark horse Dem in the PA Senate race.) Sandals, who supports Roe V. Wade, prefers to eschew the moniker of "pro-choice" and instead couches that within a philosophy of being "pro-privacy." Such a phrase encompasses abortion and so much more as well. The same ends are served as declaring oneself "pro-choice" but it is far more palatable to those that are unsure of where they stand on the issue, or those who just don't give a shit either way (and yes, there are people out there, Dems, pugs and indies that don't give a shit either way.)
"Pro-privacy" is slick and shares a delicious assonance with "pro-life."
Linguistics aside, it is a no-brainer that the needs and rights of women, the poor and elderly are better served with a Democratic senate and house. More to the point, people are better served. And that is what politics is all about: people.

Bob Casey is an imperfect candidate. But this is an imperfect war that we Democrats in Pennsylvania are fighting.

[DeaconBlues]

114. you have made some excellent points

Politics is the art of compromise. It requires us to support people we don't agree with 100% if we are to make any kind of progress. If you keep rebelling because none of the candidates represent your idea of Jesus, you will end up with Satan in charge.

As far as linguistics are concerned,it may sound Machiavellian, but the Democrats need to learn to play the game as well as Republicans in order to win. It always surprises me that the supposed party of intellectuals can't do better in this area.

[GeorgiaDem69]

116. I'm a political realist myself.

Sometimes you have to have take the good with the bad. I see a lot of attacks on this board on Ben Nelson or Harry Reid or others because of their position or vote on one issue. While I'd love to have a politician that voted the way I want on every single issue there aren't many out there and the few that do exist couldn't win in half the states in the U.S.

[depakid]

82. Memo to the Democratic party

So-called progressives- your base- is angry. Your actions over the past 6 weeks (not to mention the past 6 years) have alienated most of your strongests supporters.

See, e.g., Molly Ivin's recent article. http://progressive.org/mag_ivins0306

[PassingFair]

84. And we are watching this time.

They don't care, dep.

They think we are stupid.

They assume we don't know what cloture votes mean when they matter.

But we ARE watching. Rank and file dems in my little club are MAD.

[PittPoliSci]

159. not all progressives are for abortion.

and not all conservatives are against it.

[Brooklyn Michael]

85. No matter how you slice it...this splits the anti-Santorum vote

....once again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

:banghead:

[stepnw1f]

96. I'm Starting to Think the Dems are Fucking Stupid

That or they want to lose... there really is NO excuse for not beating Sicko Santorum.

[LaCrosseDem]

97. Dem motto: "We can still lose this one!"

The Onion said it best:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45793

[stepnw1f]

98. No Thanks

[VirginiaDem]

108. It's revolution or nothing for some folks

And that means that, yeah, a lot of people around here are consciously or unconsciously hoping for the Dem loss. It's the old communist/socialist youth tactic of "heightening the contradictions."

That's my sneaking suspicious.

[IndianaGreen]

118. It's time to reassert core Democratic values!

Published on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

Busting the Clinton Ghost

by Bob Burnett

The Clinton era did not produce a stronger Democratic Party. To the contrary, it's legacy is the philosophy that principles don't matter, that what counts is reading the mood of the electorate and being nimble enough to adjust to changing voter preferences. This counsel probably cost Al Gore the Presidency. The former Vice-President, who's a person of deep personal morality, got tragically bad advice. He ran a campaign based upon issues, rather than on principles. Surrounded by Clintonistas, Gore attempted to win with a Clinton-style campaign, forgetting that he lacked Bill's charisma. Gore hid his true character from the electorate. Forgot that he is a values-based Democrat.

In 2006, Clintonistas remain a powerful element in the Party. The Democratic Leadership Council, the campaign of Hillary Clinton, and the role of Rahm Emanuel as chair of the DCCC, shows the extent of their influence. At a recent event, DLC leaders were asked about the Democratic message in 2006; they replied that the "events and the economy will determine the outcome," therefore Dems needed no "message" at present. Of course, the Clintonista "no message" mantra produced their vacuous position on Iraq: make it President Bush's problem; don't demand withdrawal because it makes Dems look weak; instead insist upon "benchmarks for success."

Here's the point: recent polls indicate that three-quarter of Democrats are people who have definite moral values. They may have voted for Bill Clinton in the past but they don't embrace situational ethics. They certainly don't believe that the Democratic Party will be successful by abandoning its historic principles. They feel that FDR's party actually has a set of values that should dictate what its program is. Prominent among these are honesty, responsibility, equality, opportunity, and community.

Ironically, these are values that candidate Bill Clinton talked about, and then jettisoned once he became President. Now Democrats have to put the Clinton era behind it and move on. It's time to reassert core Democratic values and purge Clinton's ghost.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0308-21.htm

[Zynx]

137. Yes even though most revolutions are not that radical and do little

for the people they are supposed to benefit.

[RobinA]

153. If the Dem Candidate

is pro-life, I AM hoping for a Repub victory. And after the smackdown, hoping the Dems will get the message. I'm not trading the right to control my body for votes. It doesn't matter whether I lose that right with Dems in charge or with Repubs in charge.

You gonna vote for a popular Dem who thinks the press should become a branch of the government?

[0007]

109. FUCK!!

[skipos]

113. Nader really helped America in 2000, she is looking to help PA in 2006.

:sarcasm:

[Tesha]

122. You still haven't taken the core lesson of the last three elections...

You still haven't taken the core lesson of the last three elections
to heart, have you?

When you stand for nothing, no one has a good reason to vote for you.

When you hold the same policies as the other guy, but "nicer", the
electroate will vote for the guy with stroonger convictions.

How many elections do we need to lose before Democrats will finally
be convinced that *STANDING UP FOR DEMOCRATIC VALUES*
would be a more-effective strategy than running as Republican-
lite?

(Answer: Apparently, at least one more.)

Tesha

[skipos]

124. You think Gore and Kerry = Bush but "Nicer?"

You think Kerry and Gore "stand for nothing?"
Wow! :crazy:
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

[Tesha]

125. Kerry stands for nothing. Most Democrats (collectively) stand for nothing.

Gore stood for things. And the national party ran
away from him as fast as their cowardly little feet
could carry them.

Kerry, on the other hand, stands for nothing. His
positions are as flexible as a willow switch on
a windy day, as evidenced by the difficulties he had
explaining why he voted for the Iraq war before he
voted against it. I met with his aides once (before
the war) and was told Kerry would do everything
he could to stop it. I guess they meant "everything
short of actually taking a stand against it".

Democrats, in general, stand for nothing. (Another
way of looking at this is that they stand for everything,
which people perceive as them standing for nothing.)
They're anti-abortion, they're pro-choice. They're
for the war, they're against it. They're for health
care but they never actually do anything to provide
it.

Here's a clue: If they actually wanted to see something
done about Bush, they'd learn to use the word "liar".
The Republicans don't have any trouble saying it;
why do the Democrats?

Tesha

[RobinA]

154. Well...

<<You think Kerry and Gore "stand for nothing?>>

Gore did stand up there and say flat out that capital punishment has been proven to be a deterent to crime, which is the complete opposite of the truth. I've held my nose and voted on the death penalty issue. I will not do the same on abortion.

[GeorgiaDem69]

132. No, you haven't learned the lesson

When you decide to run as a single-issue candidate and siphon votes from a Dem who can win then you are (1) shooting yourself in the foot and (2) pretty dumb. If electing Casey meant the Dems were going to change their entire platform on abortion then it would be worth running a pro-choice candidate against him. However, that isn't the case--if he wins and Dems regain control of the Senate a woman's right to choose will be MUCH MUCH safer than it currently is.

Do you enjoy having Republicans decide who the next Supreme Court justice will be? If so, support Michelman (or Santorum--same difference).

[Tesha]

134. Been there, done that, finished with that.

I've been told one time too many to "hold my nose and
vote for the D".

The problem with that strategy is that because the
Democrats think my vote is assured, every D who comes
along stinks worse than the previous one.

Tesha

[GeorgiaDem69]

135. Look

I'm not saying there are perfect Dem candidates, and God knows we have had some pretty crappy ones over the last 8 years, especially for president, but you aren't going to get perfect candidates, especially at the state level. And no ones vote should be taken for granted, but the strategy needs to be do what can we do to take back Congress this year. One of those things is to replace Republican office-holders with Dems. To do that we may have to vote for people we don't agree with on certain issues. I don't support the war in Iraq, but I'd vote for Hillary for president if it meant Dems were in charge again. That said, if you feel strongly enough about certain issues you've got to vote your conscience.

[Tesha]

138. See, that's the difference in our outlooks.

You say:

"One of those (strategic items) is to replace Republican office-holders with Dems."


I say:

"One of those strategic items is to elect more people who believe in the democratic
principles that I believe in."


A big difference. Conceptually, I don't give a damn
about which party gets elected, but I do know that
rewarding the Democrats for representing me *LESS AND
LESS* as the years go by hasn't seemed to be working
in my interest.

Tesha

[skipos]

141. "rewarding the Democrats for representing me less ad less..."

I agree. And the point of seriously diminishing returns when Nader helped (I am not saying he caused) Bush win because, like you, he thinks that there is no difference between Bush and Gore. Like you, Nader thinks that President Gore would have invaded Iraq, let New Orleans die, nominate Roberts and Alito just like Bush did.

[Tesha]

144. Actually, somewhere above, I specifically disclaimed that...

Actually, somewhere above, I specifically disclaimed that
Gore was like Bush. I said nice things about Gore and
trashed Kerry, although I didn't say he was like Bush,
I simply said Kerry stood for nothing.

And with regard to the Supreme Court, you can bet that
with a Republican Sentae, neither Gore nor Kerry would
have nominated, say Thurgood Marshall. You'd have gotten
somebody who was ideologically a lot closer to Alito
than Marshal.

Tesha

[skipos]

146. Exactly. All the more reason to get our majorities back. Even with

a few Caseys and Liebermans and Nelsons in the senate, people like Alitos wouldn't be getting confirmed.

[theHandpuppet]

152. Brava, Tesha!

Well said.

[IndianaGreen]

161. Casey said he would have voted for Alito and for the war in Iraq

Casey is also as much a homophobe as Santorum.

Why would someone that hates Alito, hates the war, and believes in LGBT rights, would vote for Casey?

That's 3 issues, for those raising raising the "single-issue" meme!

[TankLV]

149. "Every D who comes along stinks worse than the previous one."

Boy - that's it in a nutshell.

It's a race to the bottom - or right wing - with so much as a "reach around" while they're fucking us.

No more.

And you know what - they'll have only THEMSELVES to blame.

Got to give us a reason to vote FOR somebody, not just AGAINST the repukes.

[skipos]

140. This is the bottom line here

"Do you enjoy having Republicans decide who the next Supreme Court justice will be? If so, support Michelman (or Santorum--same difference)."

I agree 100%, but most Nader/Michelman types would rather shoot themselves in the foot.
Republicans control the presidency, senate and house (and most governorships too) and have easily been able to push to the right. If democrats had the presidency and our majorities back, we would easily be able to push to the left, even if there are Caseys and Liebermans in the party.

Here dems are with a lot of potential to take it back in 2006, but Nader/Michelman types would rather maintain democrats minority status and vote for third party candidates who 1. aren't going to win 2. aren't going to enable democrats to "return to their roots" and 3. will only help republicans win.

[PassingFair]

150. Bing Bing Bing! Tesha wins my Ted Rall award tonight!

No, they still don't get it, Tesha. But YOU do! And so do many other "activist" dems.
:)

[goforit]

123. Abortion has got to stop being the biggest issue!!!

[Tesha]

126. No problem; just ensure abortion rights are secure.

> Abortion has got to stop being the biggest issue!!!

No problem; just ensure abortion rights are secure.

Realistically, though, "abortion rights" are just the
bellwether for a whole slew of "human rights" and the
folks that are on the wrong side of abortion rights
usually aren't too cool on women's rights, gay rights,
access to contraception, access to sex education, etc.

Tesha

[GeorgiaDem69]

130. That's a ridiculously broad statement with no support

"the folks that are on the wrong side of abortion rights usually aren't too cool on women's rights, gay rights, access to contraception, access to sex education, etc."

There are some folks who are pro-life and also hold back-asswards values on the issues you've mentioned but to go around lumping pro-life people with anti-gay/women/contraception people as a whole is ridiculous.

[Tesha]

133. Sorry friend, if you don't support a woman's righ to choose...

Sorry friend, if you don't support a woman's complete
right to choose her reproductive future, you don't
support women's rights.

Tesha

[Number9Dream]

127. This PA dem will vote for Chuck in the primary...

...And in November I'll vote for the Democratic candidate. Anything else will be a vote for Santorum.

[mvd]

155. I'll be voting for Pennacchio in the primaries

We already have a progressive alternative. If Casey becomes the nominee, anything's an improvement over Santorum. I believe we need to find a balance - support the nominee, but do what you can to get progressives votes.

[PittPoliSci]

158. i'm voting for Dr. Chuck too!

[PittPoliSci]

157. i'm so sick of abortion

there are more important issues than abortion, i'm disgusted with how it divides the electorate.

[RPM]

162. sorry - casey blows

he's almost as far right as prick santorum

[TaleWgnDg]

163. (AP) (ex-head NARAL) Michelman May Run for Senate Seat in PA

(ex-head of NARAL) Michelman May Run For (U.S.) Senate Seat in PA

Associated Press, Washington Post
Saturday, March 11, 2006; Page A04


(AP) Abortion rights advocate Kate Michelman said she will decide soon whether to enter the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race as an independent, a bid that could cause more of a problem for the Democratic challenger than for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.

Michelman's entrance in the race could erode support for state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., an antiabortion candidate who is expected to easily win the Democratic primary in May. For months Casey has led Santorum, the third-ranking Senate Republican leader, in opinion polls, and national Democrats consider the seat one of their best chances for a pickup.

Michelman, a former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said there is angst in her camp over Casey's endorsement of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. She said Democratic Party leaders promised that Casey, if elected, would not vote to confirm justices opposed to abortion.

. . . snip . . .

Michelman, who has houses in central Pennsylvania and Washington, said late Thursday that she would make her decision "very soon."

. . . more at . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001942.html