Casey lead slides as anti-choice views get known in PA

Comments

69 comments posted
Pro-choice Republican

Media Girl,

Thanks for the coverage. I'm a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican who ran against Santorum five years ago as a Libertarian -- back then, I was the only pro-choice candidate in a field of five. As you note, even the Democrat was pro-life, as is the case with Bob Casey now.

I've been reading your blog for some time now, and I believe your readers will enjoy many of my socially liberally views and even some of my fiscally conservative ones. They can check out all my views at featherman.com.

I believe that it's best to defeat Santorum early on. My number one issue is abortion rights, and I promise to put up a real fight. But getting on the ballot will be a monumental task, as it was 5 years ago.

We will probably be running a paid ballot access drive which means I need financial support now. So I encourage your readers to lend a hand if they support my views.

Best,

John Featherman

Republican Candidate, US Senate - PA

www.featherman.com

john@featherman.com

John Featherman's picture
Posted by John Featherman (not verified) on 18 December 2005 - 2:47pm
Casey is better

I think the important thing to remember with Casey, is that despite his personal views against abortion, he will be replacing the dreadful Santorum, whose every vote slices into a woman's right to choose.

Casey's first vote will be for the Democratic leadership and thus a more pro-choice agenda. Not to mention the many progressive judges who Santorum would oppose, we can count on Casey to vote for, making Roe v. Wade more likely to be upheld than it would be with Santorum. Is Casey's views on abortion perfect? Of course not. But what he can offer us compared to Santorum is a light years improvement.

Jim's picture
Posted by Jim (not verified) on 18 December 2005 - 4:05pm
Casey

By trying to bring down Casey over one issue, you are doing the same thing you are criticizing the "Party" for doing. You are the one who is closed minded and exclusionary. Casey has run for statewide election 4 times previously and won 3. And of course he comes from a name family with unmatched political pedigree. Its ridiculous to compare him to Klink, not to mention the difference in the national and local political climate in 2006 vs. 2000. It's like saying Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole were equal candidates because they are both pro-life. Casey is by far the best candidate to take out Santorum. And if your only issue is pro-choice, your number one goal should be to defeat Santorum, not to take down the only person in the state who can beat him.

Narathex's picture
Posted by Narathex (not verified) on 18 December 2005 - 4:25pm
The right to our support does not begin at conception

I think we pro-choice people would be sending the Democrats the wrong message if we fall in behind an anti-choice candidate. When someone throws women's rights out, I for one, will register my dis-affection by not voting for that candidate. If a political party abandons me, what makes them think I will stand by them?

Maybe the best thing I can do is help send the Democrats into the history book so that a REAL second party emerges. Love him or laugh at him, Perot proved there is the willingness to break with the two party system.

Supporting the Democrats maybe as futile an activity as "life support." The party is already brain dead. Maybe time to pull the plug and let them die in dignity.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 18 December 2005 - 5:42pm
Yeah, I don't really WANT to have rights, do I?

Easy for you to bargain away women's rights, isn't it?

The way I see it, another Senator Nelson isn't going to make my life any better.

And if the Democrats keep pushing anti-choice candidates, then how can anyone say that the Democratic party is pro-choice?

Don't tell me that's rain on my back. If Casey can't respect women's rights, then he's definitely not a progressive. My "one issue" is supporting human rights, and Casey doesn't. Case closed.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 18 December 2005 - 6:22pm
Let's be fair...

Casey may not, in your view, support the full spectrum of human rights, but if you measure him up against Santorum, he's clearly the superior in that regard. The Dems don't have a credible pro-choice candidate in this election, so you're looking at a simple zero-sum, binary choice here: Bad, or worse. If you don't get one, you're going to get the other.

I really fail to see your disconnect on the issue. Hold your nose and take your medicine, as distasteful as it may be, or get, as Trackerneil so aptly named him, "Man-on-Dog" Santorum, the neo-con regressive who happens to be one of the most powerful Republican Senators on the Hill.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai (not verified) on 21 December 2005 - 11:53pm
you're a troll too

just google yagathai and trackerneil together. these guys know each other, and they're not here for discussion, they're trashing this thread.

enjoy your day, troll.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 23 December 2005 - 2:02am
LOL Tracker Neil

claims "man-on-dog Santorum"?? Really?

...as Trackerneil so aptly named him, "Man-on-Dog" Santorum,...

And you boys say you are in Philly? Oh, don't worry, I am sure you are, no mysteries here.

''Man on dog Santorum'', well, lots of people use that for Little Ricky. Ever since the famous Lisa Jakes Jordan AP interview with him.

Y'all don't strike me as very aware politically, in fact not at all. Rooting for the native son in Casey. About it. But not smart about politics. No long view.

Good night all, it was ... well, it was. LOL Best I can do for this thread.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 23 December 2005 - 2:27am
Real primaries help Dems in Pennsylvania

Narathex, if you really want to bring down Santorum, then you should be promoting a healthy fight in the Democratic primary. Look at PA electoral history to see how important primaries are. Look at the Rendell race, for example, or the Specter race. Each of these guys had a strong primary challenge and went on to win.

It's no accident. Primaries are the practice run for the campaign organization. Where are your voters? Who needs rides to the polls? Etc. It is dumb, dumb, dumb, at least in Pennsylvania, to finesse the primary.

If you think Casey would be a better Senator than Pennacchio (my favorite candidate), then put your energy toward convincing him to accept the League of Women Voters' debate invitation for January.

Chuck Santorum out.

Chuck Pennacchio in!

Franky's picture
Posted by Franky (not verified) on 19 December 2005 - 9:56am
You assume Casey can win

There's still a primary, Jim. Maybe there's someone better than someone who considers women to have only provisional rights over their own bodies.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 18 December 2005 - 6:18pm
someone better

You should know that there is a better candidate than Bob Casey. His name is Alan Sandals and he is a pension rights attorney from Philadelphia. He's been fighting for 20 years to secure benefits for workers from companies like Unisys and AT&T. Alan is pro choice, pro stem cell research and pro gun control. Check out his website and decide for yourself.

rebecca's picture
Posted by rebecca (not verified) on 19 December 2005 - 9:06am
screw pro-life Democratic candidates

Pro-life?

FUCK pro-life.

here's what you support when you vote for Casey. Look the real face of "pro-life" in its Dead-Eyed face.

Testimony To The South Dakota Task Force To Study Abortion

*Angela Carder at 27 years old and 25 weeks pregnant became critically ill. She, her husband, and her parents as well as her attending physicians all agreed on treatment designed to keep her alive for as long as possible. The hospital, however, called an emergency hearing to determine the rights of the fetus. A lawyer appointed for the fetus used the anti-abortion argument that fetuses are separate legal persons with independent rights. This lawyer argued that the fetus had a right to life and that what Angela Carder, her husband, and her family wanted did not matter. Despite testimony that a cesarean section could kill Ms. Carder, the court ordered the surgery, finding that the fetus's rights were controlling. The surgery was performed over her explicit objections and resulted in the death of both Angela and her fetus. The fetus, or as in Angela's parents words - their "unborn grandchild" - died within two hours and Ms. Carder died two days later with the c-section listed as a contributing factor.

No way I ever knowingly vote for a candidate like Casey. I choose none of the above.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 18 December 2005 - 10:27pm
Pennacchio is better

Jim, Pennacchio's first vote will be for the Democratic leadership too. So the question for you is this: imagine the day after the May 16 Democratic primary. Which candidate, Pennacchio or Casey, has a better chance to win the general after winning the primary? The answer is clearly Pennacchio. Pennacchio has message, discipline, the desire to win and a huge state-wide grass-roots organization. All he lacks now is name recognition and money, both of which will fall into his lap when he wins the primary.

By the way, Casey is against stem cell research, gay adoption and partner benefits. Where do you draw the line, Jim? How many fundamental rights are you willing to sell down the river to please the white guys at the helm of the Democratic party, the guys who made the tactically lousy decision to anoint Casey?

Franky's picture
Posted by Franky (not verified) on 19 December 2005 - 9:48am
Casey is starting to Slide, like the loser he is.

Casey was up about 17 points when he was in the gubernatorial race against Rendell. Then he crashed and lost that one. Then there are the Democratic insiders who "annointed" Casey have failed to pick a winner in a normal PA senate election in about 42 years. Casey, the loser, was picked by a team with a totally losing track record.

Then there are those web polls-- on Daily Kos.. Casey supporters assumed that Casey's massive minions would crush democratic opponent Chuck Pennacchio. After all, it's about marshalling grass roots support. But each time, Casey has lost. I guess his millionaire contributors, and the 200+ PAC contributors-- the same ones that also contributed to Santorum. That's right over 200 PACs that contributed to Santorum also gave money to Casey. Doesn't that make you feel warm and comfy about the kind of Democrat, the kind of Senator Casey will make, as he is taking away women's rights, blocking researchers from doing embryonic stem cell research while waffling on the Iraq war, like Hillary.

My pick is Chuck Pennacchio http://www.chuck2006.com , who has been beating Casey even though Casey has raised a hundred times more money. A loser is a loser is a loser. The question is, will the people of PA let the losers who "annointed" Casey lose another senate race, or will they take back the state with a real Democrat who will make the state proud?

Rob Kall's picture
Posted by Rob Kall (not verified) on 18 December 2005 - 7:20pm
Pennacchio

I ran in 2004 and I am backing Chuck. He's a great progressive voice, and yes, we should not compromise our values and fall in line with the Party, which has no clue about what it stands for. Chuck2006.com!

Charlie Crystle's picture
Posted by Charlie Crystle (not verified) on 18 December 2005 - 11:54pm
For those of your readers in Western PA

I suggest they take a look at Chuck Pennachio. Join our Western PA effort to get him elected here at WPA for Pennacchio.

Goose3five's picture
Posted by Goose3five (not verified) on 19 December 2005 - 4:53pm
Casey and Abortion

I live in Pennsylvania, and I can tell you that the Democrats will not soon have a better chance to knock Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum out of office. Although I myself am pro-choice, I plan to vote for Bob Casey Jr. if only to unseat Santorum. Although I am not a fan of Casey or his views on abortion, I realize that the Democrats in general are better on abortion choice than the Republicans, and in my view pro-choicers do better in the long run voting for Democrats.

If pro-choice Pennsylvanians insist on applying a litmus test to Casey in next year's race, they'd better reconcile themselves to another Santorum term. In my view, it's as simple as that.

your name here's picture
Posted by your name here (not verified) on 20 December 2005 - 10:39am
I doubt you're pro-choice

...if you call it a "litmus test." I don't consider fundamental human rights a litmus test, I call it American values -- values held by a majority of Americans. Even the Republicans know that. Why don't you?

I also doubt you're pro-choice if you'd vote for Casey over pro-choice Democratic candidates in the primary.

"Pro-choice" isn't about granting women reproductive rights only when it's politically convenient for patriarchs. Those rights are inalienable and inherent, and if you support politicians who oppose them, then you aren't pro-choice at all.

Your view certainly is simple. I agree with you there.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 20 December 2005 - 11:41am
I am indeed pro-choice...

...and I have been all of my adult life. However, I'm also realistic enough to know that politics isn't about purity, moral, ethical or otherwise. It's about getting things done. Although I don't relish the prospect of voting for an anti-abortion politician, when I view the vote in context, I think it makes sense. Look, Bob Casey isn't as far as I can see a fanatic about the issue, which is more than can be said of Rick Santorum. Casey's election would also strengthen the Democratic Party, which I think you'll agree is by and large more friendly to abortion rights than the GOP.

Also, I'm a bit disturbed by the dismissive tone of your post, which I recognize all too clearly. It's one of the things that too often divides liberals in their attempt to undo the incredible amounts of damage inflicted by conservative policy. Because my vote doesn't measure up to your standards of electoral purity, you assume that I don't recognize the right to abortion, and that I couldn't possibly be pro-choice. Essentially, if I don't act in a manner of which you approve, you and I cannot possibly be on the same side of the issue.

Right now, liberals are in the minority in the national government, and we're not going to return to power by engaging in these kinds of internal power struggles. When it comes to the abortion issue, pro-choicers must make a choice. Do we want to be the majority of the minority, or a minority of the majority? I'll take the latter, thanks.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 20 December 2005 - 12:29pm
You use all the code words

...to deserve a dismissive tone. Like begets like, and your remarks about "litmus tests" and "purity" are as dismissive as they come.

You have not offered any reason to assume Casey has a better chance than any of his primary opponents. This is a typical tactic from people who share your talking points -- pretend that there is no primary, pretend that there is no real choice. You've already skipped to November, and forget there's an entire nomination process that has to happen first.

Or are you of the hierarchical mindset that the Party Bosses decide who shall represent the people, and we're just supposed to rubber stamp whatever schlub they put forward?

If you're concerned about "dividing liberals," then why don't you STFU and stop attacking people who actually hold liberal values?

And yes, I question your pro-choice positions when you're ready to ditch them this early in the process. Values aren't something you hold only when it's convenient. Values are what you stand for. And if you can't stand up for something you claim to favor, then you're talking out your backside, imho.

We get the Party that we elect, and you want to elect a Party out of step with the people. Well, go right ahead. But don't come bitching when the pro-choice folks don't follow.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 20 December 2005 - 1:23pm
OK, I can see that terms

OK, I can see that terms like "litmus test" and "purity" might have seemed dismissive, so I now withdraw those terms and apologize for their use. From here on in, what's say we both steer clear of terms that might seem dismissive, yes?

I don't recall attacking anyone with liberal values, unless you regard my disagreement with you as an attack. If I was unclear, let me state unequivocally that it was not my intent to attack you. I strongly disagree with your opinion, yes, but I don't regard you negatively in general. Therefore, if you don't mind, I'll decline to STFU. :-)

As to pro-choice values, I don't believe I am ditching them in voting for Casey; indeed, I think I am pursuing them. By strengthening the Democratic Party, I will be reducing the threat to legalized abortion, which I believe will ultimately do more for the pro-choice movement than a vote for a Democrat or independent who is better in terms of abortion but who is less likely to be elected. In politics, one sometimes must make common cause with people who wouldn't be your first choice in terms of allies in order to get as close to the right thing as possible. Do I regard Bob Casey as the ideal candidate? Hardly. However, he is far, far less noxious than Rick Santorum, and I'm willing to grit my teeth and take this small step towards progress instead of risking another six years of the status quo.

To address your question about "party bosses", good heavens no. I am a card-carrying member of the Green Party, and I am strongly in favor of election reform of all stripes. I'm voting for Casey not because the Democratic power people have anointed him, but because I honestly believe it makes good sense.

I'm glad you brought up values, because I read in one of your posts on another topic about the fact that many who voted Democrat in 2004 were voting on values just as strongly as those who voted Republican. I couldn't agree more. I think liberalism boasts many values: diversity, equality, opportunity, and the belief in a strong educational and health care system for all Americans. When I vote for Bob Casey, I am indeed standing up for those values by saying that the current conservative regime has done incalculable damage to this nation and must be opposed. That, I think, will do more for the cause of liberalism than a vote for a candidate unlikely to send Rick Santorum packing.

Like you, I am also concerned about liberal values; I just take a different route to achieving them. I believe that's called diversity.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 20 December 2005 - 1:49pm
I am just mystified

...at how voting for Casey over, say, Pennachio (sp?), automatically strengthens the party.

If you read the title article here, one point made is that pro-choice politicians have won in PA, while anti-choice Democrats have lost. Now, maybe that's a bit too simple of an interpretation, but it certainly raises the question

I'm glad you brought up values, because I read in one of your posts on another topic about the fact that many who voted Democrat in 2004 were voting on values just as strongly as those who voted Republican. I couldn't agree more. I think liberalism boasts many values: diversity, equality, opportunity, and the belief in a strong educational and health care system for all Americans.

The largest voting bloc were the registered voters who stayed home. How many of them were liberals and progressives who, while opposed to Bush, were sufficiently unmoved by the fence-sitting, inarticulate John Kerry?

I think the calculus that's missing from a lot of Democratic sites like Daily Kos is that Democrats need more than party loyalists to win, and that since the DLC won its influence over the Democratic Party, the progressive and liberal causes -- and constituents -- have been abandoned one by one, so that now we have traditionally Democratic-voting democraphic groups now voting Republican.

Can an anti-choice candidate like Casey motivate independents and pro-choice Democrats to get out and vote? I wonder. Santorum is awful on women's rights and governmental authority over women's bodies, but when Casey is the same bird with different colors, those who might get out to vote to defend their rights are more likely to stay home, muttering "What's the fucking point?"

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 20 December 2005 - 2:50pm
Voting for Casey strengthens...

...the party IF he has the best chance to beat Santorum, and believe me, I'll be watching him carefully to determine that very fact. Should I come to believe that a candidate who better matches my social values, like, say, Pennacchio, has a better shot then I will reconsider my vote. However, right now Casey is running way ahead of Santorum, and has for quite some time, and I can't ignore that.

I'm not so sure, however, that Casey can rightly be said to be "the same" as Santorum on matters of abortion. Casey supports contraception and sex education, things proven to help reduce the need for abortion that Santorum opposes. Also, Casey's just not the fanatic on the issue (or, I suspect, any issue) that Santorum is. Therefore, on the abortion issue, I think that Casey is a step up from Santorum, albeit a small one. But doesn't politics often come down to small steps?

I think the wisdom that the Democrats' road to victory lies in winning back social liberals is flawed. From the studies I have read, there are three conservatives for every two liberals; therefore, mining the base is for Democrats a strategy with a limited payoff. I think the Democrats' best chance at dominance is to move left not on social issues like abortion and gay rights, but on economic issues like wages, jobs, healthcare and the environment. That way the party can win back socially conservative Democrats who've been wooed by Republicans, and rebuild the New Deal coalition that dominated Congress for forty years.

As a pro-choice gay man, I'd be delighted to see the Democrats become more solidly pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, but I'm willing to endure some candidates who stray from my preferred position on those issues if they can move the nation forward in a generally progressive manner. To me, politics is about making compromises and building coalitions, and if Bob Casey is the kind of guy who can do so in a generally progressive manner, than I'll support him.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 20 December 2005 - 8:47pm
Since he won't support me

And thinks that all women do not own their own bodies, then I cannot support him.

You build coalitions by supporting their interests. Casey does not represent my interests. It's all academic since I don't live in PA. I just see a lot of the same across the country, and I find it as disgusting as Bush's penchant for spying on US citizens.

I wouldn't vote for a racist or homophobe either, no matter how progressive their economics are.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 20 December 2005 - 10:02pm
Building true coalitions

...requires that one gather diverse groups with varied concerns into one political force, and that means compromise from all concerned. Of course, you (and anyone else) are free to view your pro-choice stance as 100% paramount, but that makes that fitting into a political coalition extremely difficult. The reality is that most Americans are simply not as pro-choice as you and I, nor do they regard a candidate's stance on the issue as the #1 deciding factor in how they cast their votes. That being the case, isn't it better for pro-choicers to compromise where we must to get most of what we want, rather than standing on principle and getting nothing?

It may sound like I'm proposing that we abandon our pro-choice dedication, but I'm really not. I'm pointing out that politics really isn't about principle; it's about getting as close to the right thing as you can. Sometimes you do that by taking small steps, and sometimes you take larger ones. I view my vote for Casey as a small step towards extricating this nation from the conservative abyss into which it has careened.

Maybe Penacchio really is the better choice, and I suppose that we'll learn that as the primary unfolds. However, as things stand, I can't help but think that in this race Casey is the best choice for advancing an overall liberal agenda.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 21 December 2005 - 6:45am
There's compromise, and there's surrender

...and Casey represents surrender.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 21 December 2005 - 8:18am
I don't see what you mean

Admittedly, Casey doesn't stand where we'd like on the issue, but he's certainly closer than Santorum. I think that it's unwise to take an "all or nothing" approach to politics. Sometimes you have to work slowly towards your goal, compromising in the short term to build a coalition that will in the long run accomplish your goals.

Let's take, for example, the issue of same-sex marriage. Although I think civil unions are an insufficient alternative to the real deal, I'm willing to work to institute them as a compromise measure, while keeping in sight the ultimate goal of true blue marriage. Taking an all-or-nothing approach at this time would gain me nothing, and very possibly alienate the very people I hope to persuade.

Persuasion is really what we're talking about; persuading the American people that a pro-choice agenda is right morally, legally, ethically and socially. Democracy works by activists of [fill in issue name here] trying to persuade the majority to adopt a given point of view. You don't persuade people by forcing them to move faster than they're prepared to move; you do it step by step, day by day, and election by election. It takes longer, and that's frustrating, but it gets you what you want. To me, if it gets you want you want, it ain't surrender.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 21 December 2005 - 9:15am
Yeah, he only wants to enslave women a little

If you think that compromise on this is as easy as compromising on gay marriage, then I think you have a definite gap in understanding what's at stake. There's quite a difference between not being able to get a marriage license and having the govennment seize your body and force you to breed, or face criminal charges, including the death penalty. We are talking about enslaving constitutionally recognized persons, and forcing women into situations that can threaten health, even death, as well as disrupt lives. And all this over a religious bit of dogma that "life begins at conception" -- which makes about as much sense as a car exists once it's designed. Never mind all the WORK that's involved after.

You want to validate that kind of dogma in the name of political expedience, don't expect me to come along. I wouldn't vote for a KKK wizard, either, even if he were a certain win for a Senate seat.

Some things you don't compromise on, I'm sorry. Especially when we're talking about backtracking.

Your last paragraph is the most misguided. This is not about progress. This is about stopping a massive regression in existing rights. This is about what the American people already support. You think persuasion is a matter of backtracking slower?

I don't think so. And I do not see how electing Casey helps the cause at all. Anti-choice Democrats have been stripping away women's rights over their own bodies for years and years now.

And if you really truly think that electing Casey actually helps women's reproductive rights, then I think you're a fool.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 21 December 2005 - 9:59am
I don't think Casey...

...wants to enslave women, or at least he hasn’t been campaigning on a female enslavement platform. I certainly wouldn’t support that.

I don’t regard a vote for Casey as “backtracking� on my pro-choice stance. A Casey victory would strengthen the party that is more friendly to abortion rights; how is that backtracking? Sure, Casey doesn’t stand where we’d like him to stand, but I find that it’s unwise to take an “all of nothing� political view. If we insist upon voting only for candidates who seamlessly match our personal views, we may find ourselves with a serious dearth of choices. Instead, I find it more prudent to choose from the available candidates the one who will get you closest to what you consider the ideal situation.

As to same sex marriage, I wasn’t making the comparison to illustrate degree of importance, but to demonstrate how one builds political coalitions. However, when you state that “If you think that compromise on this is as easy as compromising on gay marriage, then I think you have a definite gap in understanding what's at stake�, aren’t you simply providing a personal opinion? There are others who I am sure would disagree with your assessment; does that make them foolish?

I think where you and I aren’t connecting here is on the idea of political coalitions. Let’s take the same sex marriage issue as an example. Many gay man don’t care very much about the abortion issue, about which you feel passionately, but they’re darned likely to support same sex marriage. Why not offer to help them get what THEY want, if they’ll help you get what YOU want? Then you move on to another demographic and another, and so are political coalitions made. Fact is, the only way one issue can win in a democracy is if those who support the issue can persuade enough voters to sign on, and that involves coalition-building.

The way our discussion is unfolding is a perfect example of the two ways one can deal with others in a persuasive debate. You, for example, have told I am not truly pro-choice, that I am a fool, and that I should “shut the fuck up.� I have honestly tried to understand your point of view and persuade you that you and I stand on the same side of the abortion issue. The latter is the way successful coalitions are made; the former is…not.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 21 December 2005 - 6:01pm
The gap is that you fail to understand

...that criminalizing abortion is indeed enslaving women. Maybe it's not that important to you. I guess building coalitions isn't that important to you after all, is it?

I say it's a helluva lot of difference between whether the state forces a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, or face prison or execution, and whether gay couples who already are free to be gay and free to live together can get tax breaks and other legal benefits that come from marriage.

Supporting Casey is backtracking because abortion is legal. Choice is the law of the land. Casey wants to criminalize abortion. That's a step backward.

The 50 year old woman who unexpectedly gets pregnant. The businesswoman who gets raped in the parking lot. The teenager who gets pregnant from a hook-up. Your mother. Your sister. Your cousin. It's a damn sight more serious than convenience or litmus tests or purity. It's about who owns their own bodies.

I dare say you men would not be quite so cavalier about rights over one's own body if the issue were castration by the state.

Women have been carrying water for the left for decades now, and the only rights women have won are the rights women demanded, not the rights some fat and happy men in power decided to give away.

In the end, a party that increasingly goes along with legislation that asserts more governmental power over women's bodies, and puts forward candidates that are openly hostile to women's rights cannot be called "friendly to abortion rights." We've seen the Democrats drop the ERA. We've seen them go along with approving anti-abortion ideologues to the appellate courts.

To quote the old saying, "Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining."

And by the way, I defy you to find anything I wrote in this thread -- or anywhere on this blog -- that I am against gay rights. Before you go comparing issues, consider that the right wing's war against reproductive freedoms are on the right side of sodomy laws. When you have thousands and millions of gay men facing capital charges -- as women will be facing for even a spontaneous miscarriage, if these pro-criminalization ideologues get their way -- then you can come back to me and say it's comparable. Meanwhile, your body is yours, but women's bodies are increasingly property of the government.

That is not freedom. That is slavery.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 21 December 2005 - 7:26pm
I certainly don't want women enslaved...

...…and to be honest, I don’t think that’s what Casey has in mind. I’m also far from certain that Casey wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. In any case, I know a better alternative to Santorum when I see one.

I’m not getting into a debate as to which is worse, denying abortion rights or denying same sex marriage. Both rank high on my list of concerns, and yet I’m willing to make small, incremental progress towards my desired outcome on both, if that's all that's available. Also, referring to me as “you men� is kind of a generalization, don’t you think? I don’t think of you as “you women�; I think of you as you, an individual. I think that part of getting people together on any issue is recognizing their individuality, and not relying on clichés or stereotypes.

Although I agree with you that the Democrats have not always been as pro-choice as I’d like, I think it’s pretty hard to deny that they’re better than the Republicans on abortion choice. As I’ve said before, I don’t demand purity in politics, so I’m willing to settle for a slice of bread today if I think I will then be in a better position to claim the entire loaf tomorrow.

It’s obvious you’re pretty passionate on this issue, and I think that’s great (more people should be), but I think your strategy is a bit self-defeating. It’s easy to view those who disagree with you as ignorant fools, but it’s more productive to try to a) understand where they’re coming from; and b) try to find common ground and thus make your own political position stronger. If you truly want to safeguard a woman’s right to control her own biological destiny, isn’t getting and maintaining political power the best method?

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 21 December 2005 - 9:31pm
There you go with the code words again

Casey is for criminalizing abortion. That means that women, in his view, have no rights over their own bodies if they get pregnant. That means if a woman gets pregnant, the State now controls her body.

What happens if she has a miscarriage? Does she have to go to court to prove that she didn't cause it through deliberate action or even neglect?

Since spontaneous miscarriage happens quite often in the first trimester, will women have to submit to prengancy tests to demonstrate to the State that the State does not own that woman's body?

Arguing that Casey is for birth control is just saying that he wants to take good care of the State's property. Women's reproductive rights are not something politicians give to women!

I'm sorry, but there is no moderate position on this. You can't say it's okay for just a little enslavement or a kinder and gentler slavery.

We are talking about fundamental human rights. And since you fail to see that, I do think the remark "you men," while rhetorically politically incorrect, carries a lot of truth, because you have no idea, no concept of what it means to have the State sieze control over your body and decide what you can and cannot do with it, at the expense of your health, your career, your economic survival, even your life. It's not all men who are as blind as you are, but your privilege is limited to your gender, and your contempt for those who seek only as much privilege as you have already reveals a gender bias.

"Purity" indeed!

If you truly want to safeguard a woman’s right to control her own biological destiny, isn’t getting and maintaining political power the best method?

That's the question indeed. And anti-choice Democrats have proven unreliable on this again and again and again, on the federal level and in statehouses. And your notion that the Democrats should further abandon progressive and liberal causes, and move even further right -- to out-DLC the DLC -- strikes me as utterly foolish and naive.

And the idea that transforming the Democrats into a right-wing body so that they can fight for principles they once stood for, but abandoned in the pursuit of power, is beyond the pale. The Democrats will have a mandate do achieve what they were elected to achieve, and if they are elected to be a bunch of anti-choice "Democrats for Life," then that will be their mandate.

Meanwhile, women are still waiting for the Democrats to deliver. And over and over, by you and others, we're told to just shut up and make some sandwiches for the boys. Nothing has changed in 40 years.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 9:58am
feel free to give up my freedoms

feel free to give up my freedoms with your vote to achieve your political party aims. i refuse to do so. my reproductive freedoms aren't "politics" nor are they only about "abortion rights". it's so much more than that. look down the thread and read my other comment and tell me how that Angela Cardner's story has anything to do with what you mischaracterize as "the right to abortion". You simplify casey's "pro-life" position when you reduce it to ONLY being about abortion.

so go ahead and support casey and other democratic "right to fetal life" candidates. but be very clear about what you're doing. and don't say its about "politics" because it isn't. and don't say its only about abortion, it isn't.

it's about women's freedom.

and the day the democratic party begins turning away from women's freedom in a misguided effort to win elections is the day they really begin to lose.

me if nothing else. and other's like me.

DONT VOTE FOR CASEY, LADIES. sit this one out. join democrats against casey.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 21 December 2005 - 12:05pm
the problem with your analysis

your argument to me boils down to this: that a vote for anti-choice casey is, in the long run, a pro-choice vote. that if casey wins, the overall number of dems in the legislature increases, and since dems are better on reproductive rights than repubs overall, a win for anti-rights casey is a win for reproductive rights supporters.

the problem with that analysis is that anti-rights dems like casey don't maintain party loyalty on reproductive rights issues once elected. they vote with the conservatives. further, at some point, if we elect enough anti-rights dems, they become the majority. they are already an influential enough minority to essentially gut the party's ability to fight the wingnuts on this issue.

i strongly suggest you check out these posts by bayprairie:

These politicians are your Health Care Providers

Only 11.5% of congress cares about your reproductive rights

another problem with your analysis that i see is the reliance on an individual politician's stance on roe v. wade. the battle to enslave women as breeders is taking place on many fronts, some of them far more immediate and just as important as roe.

again, a link to another great post by bayprairie:

House Democrats who supported HR 748 TRAP law

artemisia g's picture
Posted by artemisia g (not verified) on 21 December 2005 - 11:19pm
It's not just about Roe...

...but about reproductive rights in general. Rick Santorum opposes teaching about contraception in schools, or making them available to teens. Casey just doesn't stand there, as far as I know. Rick Santorum is super-conservative on a whole bunch of fronts, far more so than Casey. If you view the situation through an extremely narrow (and, in my view) distorted lens, then Casey and Santorum are the same. If, however, you view the situation more expansively, and in context, Casey is clearly the better choice, although he's far from ideal.

Perhaps part of the disconnect here is that I don't regard a 100% pro-choice position as my #1 priority when casting my vote. Hell, as a gay man I don't even regard a support for same sex marriage as a #1 priority. Although I strong value these things, I try to view each candidate in his/her totality, and then put that in general political context. I know that conservative Republicans, who are generally far worse on abortion rights than Democrats, have way too much power, and I have a chance to help replace one with a not-ideal-but-still-better Democrat. It's not that hard a choice, in my view.

To reply to another poster, Casey did indeed run very badly against Ed Rendell, who is a tireless campaigner and a prodigious fundraiser. Santorum himself is a formidable foe, and I'm not certain Casey can unseat him. However, I think Casey has a better chance than Sandals or Penacchio. Barbara Hafer, a pro-choice former Republican from western Pennsylvania, was running behind Santorum in preliminary polls, and she's got alot of name recognition in this state. I have a hard time believing that Sandals or Penacchio will have a better chance.

People often compare Casey to Ron Klink, who ran unsuccessfully against Santorum in 2000, but 2006 is NOT 2000. Klink didn't have a powerful incumbent Democratic governor on his side to clear the primary field of all notable candidates (Hafer and Hoeffel). Klink wasn't running in the same year as said governor. Klink wasn't running in a state in which lots of folks were VERY unhappy with the DC Republican leadership. Klink wasn't the son of a popular former governor, with high name recognition and a record-getting number of votes as state treasurer. All of these things tell me that Casey has a better chance than Klink.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 7:54am
I wonder if you even read those links

Everything you write reveals just how you have no grasp of what's at stake here.

Go ahead and argue that Casey has a better chance to beat Santorum -- though the article cited at the top is but one of many indications that this theory is not all that obvious.

But don't try selling the notion that voting for anti-choice Casey, who is in favor of criminalizing abortion, is a pro-choce vote. That's just not true, and you undermine your own arguments by clinging to this ludicrous notion.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 9:43am
I did indeed read them...

...and I notice they are to a Web site that has an agenda. That doesn't make the information bad, but when I get info from a place with an agenda, I take it well salted. All wise people should.

As I have said, I'm not *certain* Casey can beat Santorum, but the evidence certainly favors him over any other candidate. If you read the polls conducted by Gallup and other credible organizations, you'll see that for yourself. Also, anyone who knows Pennsylvania politics knows that Ed Rendell makes a powerful ally, an ally Ron Klink did not have back in 2000. It would be rash to be too certain, but I think one can reasonably predict that Casey will mount a stiff challenge to Santorum.

Perhaps I am a fool who has no idea of the stakes involved, as you have repeatedly asserted. Perhaps I am a sell-out who has no real values. However, what's certain is that I don't alienate those who would be allies but for a bullheaded unwillingness to look beyond a narrow political focus.

It's strange, MediaGirl. I've been reading your postings here and there, and although I agree with nearly all of your positions in theory, I've been appalled by the manner in which you debate. No matter how polite the opponent, anyone who disagrees with your political views, to any extent, you treat as a male-hegemonic, patriarchal conservative oppressive fool with no idea what he's talking about. You seem more interested in scoring points on people than actually listening to and (gasp!) possibly learning from their points of view. (This applies particularly to men, whom you have speculated in another post don't really view women as equals, no matter who liberal they profess to be.) But, hey, it's your site and your microphone, so you're free to debate in any manner you choose. However, I think you'll find that if you'll win more people to your side with honest, polite engagement than with intolerant, ideological disdain.

Anyway, I guess I really don't have much more to say on this topic, so I'll respectfully withdraw from the debate. I truly do support the pro-choice position, whatever you may think, and in reading what you've written I've learned that no matter how conservative our government has gotten there are still people out there who proudly and defiantly hew to a pro-choice position. I've ALSO learned that you simply can't resist getting the last word, so in the spirit of the season, I yield it to you. When you post the reply (which I expect will be searing), think of it as a gift from a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. ;-)

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 10:15am
You didn't seem to read the links

...because then you went on about how Roe isn't everything ... which just happens to be the point of those links.

I'm sorry you don't like it that I find your political attitudes condescending, or that your arguments are condescending.

You sound a lot like a big-time "progressive" blogger who seems to like kicking core progressive constituents, and then cry foul when those constitutents take issue with it. You may have fallen in love with the Democratic party, no matter what they do or become. But I consider the electoral process to be about making the political parties into what they will be, and you don't further your agenda by electing people opposed to it.

As for the last word, don't worry, I have given up on trying to win you over any more, as you have repeatedly ignored every counterargument to the theories you've posited here. If you don't like the tone, well, that's the sound of people having their fundamental human rights stripped away. That's the sound of seeing America being pushed in a regressive direction, away from liberty and towards more and more state power.

It's the tone of disagreeing with your pro-Casey dream.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 10:30am
Well salted-women

TrackerNeil (not verified) says:

I did indeed read them...(links to Our Word)

...and I notice they are to a Web site that has an agenda.

Our Word is a group blog at which any member may post on any issue that they feel like posting about. ALL POSTS ARE FRONT PAGED. there is no management, per se. there are no front pagers. every single post goes up in order on the front page. if you see any common threads running through the postings then what you're really seeing are shared concerns.

And you characterize shared concerns as agenda. how so?

Our Word is a community where women's voices are valued and respected, a space for telling the truth of women’s lives and working together to improve them.

So women telling the truth of their own lives you take well salted? and all wise people should? You discount our concerns so easily?

Oh dude, you just unknowingly outed your sexism. No wonder you find supporting the theocrat Casey so easy.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 22 December 2005 - 1:57pm
I promised MediaGirl the last word...

...but I said nothing about you, bayprairie. You did just what I was hoping, which is the tired old tactic of writing off as sexist anyone you just don't like. You've deliberately distorted my words in order to keep your narrow-minded little worldview, and that's your right. Hell, I'm starting to think it's your instinct.

You're like this caricature of a feminist, something drawn by Bill O'Reilly or his ilk. I know real feminists, and they are thoughtful, rational, self-confident women (and men) who can hold their own opinions while being respectful of the opinions of others. Although I don't know you personally, in your writing you come off as an intolerant, self-righteous ideologue who's so frightened of actual debate that she must deride anyone who dares disagree with her on any topic, to any extent.

Casey is a theocrat? LOL...you are Rush Limbaugh's wet dream.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 2:40pm
yes but but but what about the question?

you characterized shared concerns as agenda. how so?

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 22 December 2005 - 2:53pm
Of course you have an agenda...

...as do I. Most people do, and there's nothing wrong with that. People SHOULD have agendas, assuming they have the right ones. However, if I'm looking for objectivity, I avoid agenda-driven Web sites, which often distort the information they deliver. Don't take it personally, because it certainly wasn't meant that way. Unlike your "outed yourself as a sexist comment", which you definitely meant personally.

You'd do more for your cause (which, although you might find this hard to accept, is also MY cause) by NOT calling people you don't even know sexist. Unless, of course, you enjoy alienating people. If so, keep on doing what you're doing, because it's working.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 3:34pm
Your remarks are sexist

Your agenda, as you espouse it, is sexist. Nobody needs to know you personally to read what you write.

And your attitude that anything that a site that actually honors and respects women's voices might post is thereby deserving of dismissal is also sexist behavior.

Go to just about any large political site, and you will see an agenda -- and I don't mean the political agenda, I mean the agenda of men's voices dominating discussion. That happens nearly as much on the left as on the right. You may consider a site that makes a point of providing a space for women to speak and share their concerns beneath any serious notice, but just because it's women speaking doesn't mean it doesn't count.

The value of women's thought is not measured by whether men approve of those ideas or not.

You wonder at the tone of receiption you've received here, but the talking points you've offered up here have gotten well-worn usage on some of those big political sites -- sites that have made clear that women's voices are not welcome unless they STFU about women's rights. And then there's your refusal to acknowledge anything anyone has said here in disagreement with you, to the point of covering your ears and saying, "You have an agenda!" Refusing to look at the Our Word posts, which document with links the anti-choice votes, legislation and politicians in the so-called "pro-choice Democratic Party" reveals much.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 3:50pm
I'm not gonna weigh in on

I'm not gonna weigh in on this issue, because I don't really see the point. Neither side will be convinced of anything by anything I have to say.

But, as an independent woman and a SOLID feminist, as well as a friend of TrackerNeil's for 4 years now, I can tell you your idea of him as a sexist is absolutely laughable.

Resulting to name-calling in a debate is just poor debating form.

Before you claim conspiracy, he didn't ask me to post this. I heard about it through other friends, and found the idea of anyone calling him sexist so amusing I had to find it myself.

Babs's picture
Posted by Babs (not verified) on 23 December 2005 - 12:13pm
well enjoy your amusement.

http://trackerneil .blogspot.com/2005/12/baiting-pseudo-feminists.html

you're buddy's a jerk online.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 23 December 2005 - 12:19pm
If expressing one's opinions

If expressing one's opinions makes one a jerk, well then, I guess we're all jerks.

Babs's picture
Posted by Babs (not verified) on 29 December 2005 - 11:02pm
Funny about friends

When you read them say

MediaGirl, who runs the site, is this intolerant, self-righteous ideologue who fancies herself a feminist but is really just a caricature of a feminist that Bill O'Reilly himself could not have better drawn. She's shrill, hysterical, narrow-minded, and definitely anti-male....

When I read a sampling of her posts, I decided that nothing would do but that I must work her up into an absolute frenzy. I started out polite and reasonable, then slowly became more pointed and condescending, while her posts became increasingly more hysterical....

I know feminists, real feminists, and they aren't tightly wound, ultra-sensitive, politically manic frightened little ninnies who are only comfortable when they can accuse others of being the beneficiaries of the patriarchal social structure....

...and then cheer along, you just reveal information about yourself.

No, of course he's not a sexist! What could I know? I'm just a frightened little ninny, after all! LOL!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 12:40pm
I'm perfectly aware that I have an agenda

I'm perfectly aware that I have an agenda. But you clearly did not say that in the comment I replied to. You said THE SITE has an agenda. I assume you did so based your read of a few things I wrote. Which is fine by the way, i'm o.k. with your "agenda label".

But you didn't do that, you characterized an entire site based on my words.

Can you say stereotype? That is what's at play here, you know.

What's going on at that "agenda site" is so much more complex than what you so readily dismiss. From my perspective I see 50 women (who post), each with individual concerns. So, to my way of thinking if we must apply your "agenda label" there are 50 agendas at play here. Is there some commonality between the many concerns? Yes, there is, but to my way of thinking "wise people" might sit up and take notice, and ask hey, what's really going on here? You know, rather than close their minds as you seemingly suggest.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 22 December 2005 - 8:00pm
Umm...

...I think your site does have an agenda, and that's fine. It's a worthy agenda, in my view, but that doesn't mean I trust the news I get there without verification. Should I ever set up a site, I'd advise you to verify anything you read there, just to be certain my personal bias isn't tainting it.

I'm not knocking your site; I'll say again that giving voice to those who are often voiceless is a good thing. I don't suggest anyone who reads your site close their minds. I'd simply advise them to be aware of the inherent bias and react accordingly.

Geez Louise...as that guy Yagathai pointed out up-thread, who'd have thought a bunch of pro-choice feminists could so thoroughly alienate a gay, liberal, Green Party member? If this is how you conduct your politics, it's little wonder you're oppressed.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 9:15pm
That's just too rich!

Here you tell people who believe strongly in women's equality, which includes reproductive rights, that we should just be happy with supporting people who would strip away those rights, and when we disagree you take issue with that.

And then, when we're not good girls, you cry victim and accuse us of being unreasonable, just because we're just too selfish to vote against our interess and support a man who does not support us in the least.

Geez Louise, dude. You come here alienating us, and then claim it's our doing?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 12:24am
You demonstrate what you remonstrate
You did just what I was hoping, which is the tired old tactic of writing off as sexist anyone you just don't like.

Isn't that just what you did in dismissing Our Word as a site with "an agenda"? (Are women's opinions "an agenda"?)

And now you step up to declare what is and what is not a "real feminist"? That's rich!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 3:09pm
Woah now...

... I'm not saying that I agree with either side in this argument, but I really think that you're giving Trackerneil a hard time that he doesn't deserve here. Women's opinions aren't an agenda per se, but the Our Word site definitely displays a certain sociopolitical slant. This isn't a value judgement, but simply an observation of fact. The word "agenda" implies a cause or purpose, and Our Word definitely has one of those. "Agenda" isn't dismissive or demeaning or derogatory, but rather an objective description. To say, therefore, that Our Word has an agenda is a semantically neutral, factual statement that it's not fair to attack someone for making.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 22 December 2005 - 3:58pm
And the government sources

...that are cited in the posts linked above, are those also "sociopolitical"?

And for someone to engage in an agenda, but say, in effect, nyah nyah, your link has an agenda! does not serve the debate.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 4:23pm
It's just common sense

What Trackerneil said, as I understood it, was single-source citations from an obviously biased source aren't sufficient grounds to form a reasonable opinion. I don't recall him saying that One Word was unfairly biased or, say, the weak-minded clucking of hysterical lesbians or anything similarly judgemental -- if he did, maybe I could understand the level of grief he's been getting.

Look, in order to form a proper synthesis, you need to consider evidence from all sides of an issue and then weigh them according to credibility and value. I don't see how Trackerneil's desire to adhere to the accepted rules of reasoned debate makes him a sexist.

And also, on a different note, if you're going to attack and alienate someone, a clearly intelligent, coalition-minded pro-choice Green-party homosexual with an avowed wish to oust the Republicans from office probably isn't the right person. Consider: If someone like that isn't enough on your side, what chance do you have of even making a dent in the consciousness of the mainstream?

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 22 December 2005 - 4:37pm
Needless to say, I disagree

The Our Word pieces are filled with numerous citations, not just one source. You mischaracterize what was said.

One of the "accepted rules" for debate online is to follow the links. He wouldn't, and you won't. Just because the various cites are linked from one place doesn't automatically make them suspect, and just because those collections of links were linked to here -- rather than repeating all the links here -- doesn't make the sources irrelevant or inherently biased. Instead, Trackerneil offered an ad hominem attack against Our Word as a website, and ignored the information on other sites that was linked to on Our Word.

As for attacking and alienating, I guess it depends on your perspective. I felt attacked for stating my views on Casey and his ilk, and have quite often statement my feelings about a political party that embraces such bigotry and bias against women. Who says I'm the one trying to build coalitions, anyway? He's the one with that avowed purpose, and I'm the one skeptical of such ridiculous attempts as building coalitions between pro-choice voters and anti-choice politicians.

That ship won't sail -- not in this election, and not in future elections. Sure, if people have to hold their noses and choose between Santorum and Casey -- if that even happens -- then they might choose Casey.

But what about all the people who stayed home? What about the 45% or more of registered voters who will not bother to go vote because they're being offered bullshit with perfume?

If someone wants to build coalitions, then I say build them around progressive causes, and not by trying to embrace what's been the most offensive and hateful characteristics of the right wing -- the pro-criminalization crowd who oppose women's equality in this country.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 5:26pm
First, I don't think that

First, I don't think that "they have an agenda and I'll take their opinion with a grain of salt" is an ad-hominem attack. If you disagree... well, that's a semantic issue and there's no further value in debating it.

Second, I'd hope that at least some of those 45% of stay-at-home voters aren't monothematic one-issue zealots, and can see past certain distasteful positions that Casey holds and, instead, look at all the myriad ways that Casey is an infinitely better choice than Santorum -- all the civil rights that Casey supports and Santorum doesn't, and all the hungry and poor that Casey's policies will benefit that Santorum's will punish. Otherwise that 45% of voters are like petulant children -- because they don't like the way the field looks, they're going to take their ball and go home? That's awfully childish of them.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 12:32am
Casey hasn't even won the primary

...and you're already pitting him against Santorum.

As for spitting on the electorate who don't agree with you and calling them "zealots," maybe you should consider that people tend to vote their interests and identity, and the largest voting bloc of Americans see so little of either in the elections that they stay home. Choosing between Beavis and Butthead is not a choice, not to millions of people.

You can sneer at them, but until the Democrats actually decide to stand for something, instead of weaseling away on progressive and liberal positions to pander for votes, they won't motivate any of them. And you can expect more elections like we've seen in the last dozen or so years.

As for ad hominem attacks, all you need do is look at Niell's website to see that the whole discussion here has been a ploy, and read ad hominem attacks in spades.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 1:15am
That's exactly the kind of

That's exactly the kind of voter apathy that let the Republicans take over in the first place! It's not a choice between Beavis and Butthead, but rather a choice between who decides the future of this nation. Sometimes that choice is bad or worse, and if so, then so be it. It's still a choice we have to make! If you choose not to vote, you're automatically responsible for whomever it is that wins, and if that winner is Worse...

Well, that's not something I would want on my conscience.

And listen, I'd be ecstastic if Sandals won the primary instead of Casey, or if Featherman won instead of Santorum... but I don't think that's going to happen.

Hopefully I will be proven wrong.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 11:39am
Sometimes?

Low turnout is all of the time. That seems to be what the parties want.

And you can blame the voters and view them with contempt, but hey, it's their right not to play, and it's the politicians' job to motivate people to vote for them.

Casey doesn't do it for me. And it should be no surprise when he fails to motivate other pro-choice voters who see their rights under threat -- which is indeed enough to trump concerns about taxation, budget, etc. (especially when the Dems keep moving rightward there, too).

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 12:30pm
attacking bayprairie?
You did just what I was hoping, which is the tired old tactic of writing off as sexist anyone you just don't like.

Why were you hoping bayprairie would call you sexist? so that you could write her off as a caricature of a feminist and dismiss everything she has to say. you can't refute her facts, despite your best efforts to dismiss them as the product of an agenda. so you were hoping she would use some secret code word you carry around that would allow you to dismiss her as a person.

you take the fact that she has some expertise in a particular subject and distort that into a "narrow-minded little worldview." in fact, bayrprarie has a very broad worldview, a world view which calls for all human rights to be valued and respected.

by the way, unlike you, she also won't support an anti-gay rights candidate.

artemisiag's picture
Posted by artemisiag (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 5:55pm
Yes, I was hoping to be called sexist...

...because that means I succeeded in riling up someone who in my opinion desperately needed it. I'm all in favor of activism, I really am, but when it crosses the line into narrow-minded, self-righteous name-calling, then I take out my poking-fun-stick and have at it.

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 9:18pm
well you are certainly sexist

and it shows. bigtime.

don't you have some advanced dungeons and dragons you and your AD&D buddy upthread should get back to?

you're a troll. end of story.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 23 December 2005 - 1:58am
nah rush hates women like me.

i bet rush is your wet dream.

frankly i see little difference between his bullshit and yours.

other than that fact he's successful

and you're not.

U sexist troll.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 23 December 2005 - 3:14am
Oh my gosh, bayprairie...

...didn't your mom ever tell you to ignore someone who's annoying you? But you can't, can you? You're so eager to purge anything you see as a sign of male dominance in the most tell-off way possible that you just can't shut up. Facts don't matter, and neither does anyone else's point of view, unless of course that point of view merely echoes yours. If someone doesn't feel exactly the way you do, that person is a sexist oppressor, end of story. Well, good luck with that. Given that you can't even get a liberal, gay, Green Party voter on your side, the chances of you persuading someone more moderate are, uh, slim. Enjoy the oppression!

TrackerNeil's picture
Posted by TrackerNeil (not verified) on 23 December 2005 - 8:14am
agenda
[Our Word] has an agenda. That doesn't make the information bad, but when I get info from a place with an agenda, I take it well salted. All wise people should.

Look, either the facts Bayprairie sites are correct or they aren't. Your gut can't tell you whether or not a fact is a fact. You don't get to take a fact "well salted" just because you don't like it. If you disagree with Bayprairie's facts, then prove her wrong. Otherwise, what she says stands as truth. After all, she's got the research to support her position, something you seem to be lacking.

artemisiag's picture
Posted by artemisiag (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 5:31pm
bullheaded unwillingness
However, what's certain is that I don't alienate those who would be allies but for a bullheaded unwillingness to look beyond a narrow political focus.

but isn't that exactly what you are doing here? alienating those who would be allies, but for your bullheaded unwillingness to acknowledge that a vote for Casey may cost women their lives?

artemisiag's picture
Posted by artemisiag (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 5:39pm
your argument is still flawed

you still can't support your claim that a vote for an anti-rights democratic is in the long run a pro-choice vote.

artemisiag's picture
Posted by artemisiag (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 5:36pm
From way far away in the west

I'll throw out a couple things I hear from Phildelphia friends about Jr. Maybe the Pennsylvanians in the thread can fill in the blanks.

I hear Casey is a really poor campaigner and once the Dems stop hiding him, people will not be trilled by what they see. A real snoozer on the stump. Well Santorum is not that great so maybe a dead heat between lumps of coal.

I ALSO hear that there are long time ''issues'' with the Caseys in PA (father and son) that may surface... yes just downright gossip here, but anyone have any ideas what that might be? I have nto had a chnce to get details...

Father Casey was less beloved than some would have us thnk, and was/still is (LOL) frankly pretty much a knee jerk name that gets dropped (convoluted tales of the 92 convention) by Catholics/righties/Republican sympathiser Democrats (Like Flynn of Boston and Donohue of hte Catholic League)... not a great pedigree to be frank.

AND a big deal breaker for me, tho obviously I do not vote in PA (but we all do what we can...;)) is "supports legal protection for the fetus from conception". That is code words for criminalisation.

I frankly view Casey as dangerous to womens lives and that Schumer/ Rendell/others are using a big money run to advertise that reproductive rights, womens lives are of little to no concern to the Big Democrats. It stinks to high heaven. What also stinks is that Casey's brother (Pat Casey) is on the Bd of Directors of Democrats for Life (iirc that is his title). LOL nobody like Casey jr is really running alone, he drags the family history iwth him.

I have also heard that whne Reid went on his tours earlier this year to "save SS" what he also talked about at every meeting, sit down with an editorial board, etc., was that the upcoming Santorum race (count the millions the Dems will put up to lose lose lose) was a definer for the Democrats and to watch it.

Democrats are sending a message that absolutely stinks to high heaven. Clearing paths in primaries for preferred candidates and making Casey some standard bearer for a re-emphasis in the party. LOL They still say Shrum does well wtih senate runs, maybe the Dems send him in to work with Casey jr. We can hope.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 21 December 2005 - 11:01am
As a disinterested observer...

albeit a male one, I would like to say that there is a grain of truth (or at least common sense) in both arguments here. First off, I agree that a vote for Casey is at least marginally better than a vote for Santorum. Democrats in general tend to support reproductive rights. If Casey is a decent party guy then ergo he'll toe the party line when it comes to votes defending them. I'll adress that one in a second. Mediagirl, et al., is correct when she says that supporting an anti-choice candidate simply because he/she is a member of the democratic party is plain wrong. If you truly support choice, you vote for the pro-choice candidate. That's called voting your convictions. If you are in favor of a democratic majority (or at least significant gains) you go with the guy/gal who gives you the best shot of winning. The current money is on Casey.

Now, as several recent votes (and a certain senator from Connecticut)have shown, party loyalty means squat. Casey might toe the line now and again on votes of no consequence, but if the chips are down he is not going to be in your corner. It makes far more sense to vote your conscience in this one. Why vote for someone (the lesser evil in this case) who you can not rely on? I have tried to intellectualize this, but it's not working. If you support choice you go with the candidate who supports choice. The Democratic party will make no gains by becoming Republican-lite. Just my opinion.

negdevezde's picture
Posted by negdevezde (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 7:50pm