Daily Kos

Bob Casey Jr. is in favor of abusing rape victims (UPDATE - Mistaken Double-negative poll removed)

by Irrelevant Prolixity

Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:23:22 PM PDT

Several weeks ago a young woman was sexually assaulted.  She quickly obtained a prescription for the morning after pill - as she quite sensibly didn't want to become pregnant with the rapists baby.  When she tried to have the prescription filled, she was VIOLATED AGAIN.  This time by a talabangilist pharmacist who refused to give her the pills.

http://www.azstarnet.com/...

What does this have to do with Casey?  More below the fold:

Casey supports the "right" of wingnut fundamentalist asshole pharmacists to not give patients, such as RAPE VICTIMS, their pills.

According to the Philidelphia Enquire:

Casey said he would, as a senator, oppose expanding federally supported embryonic stem-cell research beyond 2001 levels. He would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting."

Casey's willingness to accommodate the personal prejudices of talibangilists at the expense of the health and welfare of the American people is reprehensible.  It is no different than "allowing" a service sector employee to refuse to serve a customer because the employee has "moral objections" to serving black people. If the Democratic party is going to support a candidate who openly has no problem with the mistreatment of rape victims, then perhaps I am in the wrong party.

Poll

I agree with Casey that rape victims should be allowed to be abused

21%7 votes
27%9 votes

| 33 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Bob Casey (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 127 comments

  •  responsible headline n/t (none / 0)

    I want to win. You want to beat him, and that's a problem for me, because I want to win. -The West Wing

    by AnnArborBlue on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:26:31 PM PDT

  •  Get over it! (none / 1)

    Casey will destroy Pennacchio and will defeat Santorum. We will have a strong Democratic majority that will protect a woman's right to choose, no matter Casey's vote on the issue.

    by bullet2382 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:29:26 PM PDT

    •  Why won't (2.50 / 2)

      Casey at least debate Pennacchio?

      Dodd '08!

      by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:30:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why waste his time? (none / 0)

        Pennacchio is a non-factor.  Since Casey wll be the nominee, he needs to be focusing on challenging Santorum, not worrying about a primary opponent who will get trounced.

        by bullet2382 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:35:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But: (none / 1)

          We still have to hold Casey accountable. He can't assume that just because the power establishment has his back that he can just walk to the nomination and never give thought to his positions on the issues.

          Holding people accountable is what democracy is all about. I would like some satisfactory answers from Casey's supporters. Did Casey make this quote, or not?

          Conservatism is Dead!

          by Eternal Hope on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:29:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Possibly two reasons (4.00 / 2)

        There are 2 possible reasons (since I don't really have a horse in this race...even if I do feel that the Pennacchio people are being way self-righteous about this):

        1.  It's pretty darn early.  I don't know what time Pennsylvania's primary is but wouldn't it make sense to have the debate in the actual year of the primary (assuming the primary isn't in February or something).

        2.  He doesn't need to.  Right now Pennacchio is relegated to the "minor candidate" cage and if Casey debates him then there is a chance that he'll break out of that while  the gain for Casey is minimal.

        "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." - Thomas Paine

        by Mister Gloom on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:36:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh please! (4.00 / 2)

        Is this another Pennachio supporter?  I'm sorry but the man just isn't ready for this kind of a race.  Please tell him to start out as a state rep or something first.  He's out of his league here.  I'm sorry, he seems like a really good guy......but we're talking very high stakes here.

        If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

        by Mz Kleen on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:57:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Usually when a person is ahead of (none / 0)

        an opposing candidate in an election, they do not agree to debate the opposition.  It only give the other person more exposure, and recognizes them as anything but a negligible candidate.

        This is an accepted and usual stratedgy.  Totally common.  No, it does not make Casey an evil person (see I am a mind reader).  It is used in every election by every frontrunner, especially if the other candidate is not even on the radar scale.

        One reason is that the more another candidate get to be known, the more money the frontrunner has to spend to oppose.  Why on earth would you recognize an unknown oppostion candidate and give them publicity.  Bad politics.  Not saying it right.  Just saying it's bad practice for someone like Casey to debate him.

        by hopscotch1997 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:20:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If this diary (none / 0)

        In any way repersents how Pennacchio or his supporters operate, then I hope he gets his ass kicked by Casey, but good.

        I Am Hussein and So Can You

        by Goldfish on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 10:53:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Casey may not beat Santorum (none / 1)

      We may not get a democratic majority even if Casey wins and having a democratic majority full of anti-choice democrats doesn't protect women.

      Unseen Gore Video

      by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:35:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nearly EVERY Dem is pro-choice (none / 1)

        Electing Casey will not turn the entire caucus pro-life.

        by bullet2382 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:36:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Move to Rhode Island (none / 1)

        Then you can vote for pro-Choice Lincoln Chafee, who votes to confirm rabidly anti-abortion judges and votes for Bill Frist for the majority leader, and then you can be happy.

        Or you could stay in PA, vote for Casey, unseat Santorum, and put another pro-life Democrat in the majority leader's chair.  That pro-life Democrat who is the one trying to keep the anti-abortion judges from getting confirmed, and who would refuse to bring up any anti-abortion legislation.

        Short version: you can vote for the person who claims to be pro-choice (Chafee) who actually votes and acts anti-women, or you could vote for people like Casey who are personally against abortion, but won't support the wingnutty laws.

        And I have absolutely no problem with a law that says that if a pharmacist does not want to dispense a prescription that is against his/her religious beliefs (s)he doesn't have to, so long as the pharmacy has another pharmacist who is on duty at that moment who will dispense the prescription, meaning that the woman is not inconvenienced in the slightest.  Does that make me anti-women's rights?  I don't think so, I think it's a reasonable compromise on the issue.

        -Fred

        Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz

        by FredFred on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:58:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  RE: That pro-life Democrat who is the one trying (4.00 / 2)

          to keep the anti-abortion judges from getting confirmed...

          I wonder how committed Harry is to this. He's doing great on other stuff, but he's yet to show that he's committed to keeping the likes of Alito off the bench.

          Is he not capable of telling Biden to put a cork in it?

          As for beating Santorum, he's doing a pretty good job of beating himself, and we in PA who have been saddled with Casey by the all-knowing-DLC stalwart Gov. Rendell, know that the primary could have included Joe Hoffel and/or Barbara Hafer, both pro-choice and with far more name recognition than Pennacchio. With how things are going I find it hard to believe that either one of them couldn't have taken Santorum down, and arguably with greater ease than Casey.

          Oh, and please don't tell me I'm whining or any of that shit - I pay my dues working for our candidates here even when I think they suck.

          Democracy is a contact sport...

          by jsmagid on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:49:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  just to clarify (none / 0)

          so long as the pharmacy has another pharmacist who is on duty at that moment who will dispense the prescription,

          The laws passed thus far don't say this; they provide protection for individual pharmacists and physicians but not for the women trying to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and EC. So, do you have problems with that? Because we do.

          by colleen on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 05:43:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No thank you on RI (none / 0)

          I live in Pa and intend to stay here and NOT vote for Casey.  It will be my first time refusing to vote for the democratic candidate.

           

          Unseen Gore Video

          by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 11:55:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly Teresa (1.50 / 6)

        If I had to choose between listening to you talk about politics and listening to Bill O'Rielly, it would be a real toss up. I'm not sure there are two more abrasive people alive.

        by UpstateNYDem on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:58:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mirror, meet Abrasive. (none / 0)

          Fine if you like Casey.  But everybody doesn't, and those who don't are not necessarily "Republican enablers".  

          You might want to slow down with the venomous comments just because you disagree with a point someone has made.  Your words say more about you than they say about your opponents.  And frankly you're doing nothing to further your cause.

          There's a reason they call it discussion.  

          by busternjake on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:19:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  waaaaaaaaaaaaaa (none / 0)

          I am cut to the bone...really.  Because I am so interested in pleasing people who don't think my civil rights are protected under the constitution.  

          Unseen Gore Video

          by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 11:56:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  There is no perfect candidate. (none / 1)

        Casey can beat Little Ricky. Look at all the issues.  Please do not be one of those one-issue voters.  You have to look at the big picture here.  This race is too important to be thinking about one issue, and one issue only.

        If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

        by Mz Kleen on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:01:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am looking at the bigger picture (none / 0)

          and I am not a one issue voter. But I won't vote for another white male, so brainwashed by his church that he feels he knows better than I do about my right to an abortion...and would legislate accordingly.  Sorry about that.  PA has many good prochoice liberals or moderates who could have beat Santorum.

          Unseen Gore Video

          by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 12:00:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Uncalled for: (none / 1)

      Telling someone to get over it forecloses discussion about this issue. Attitudes like that was what led to the pie wars and many people leaving.

      Why do you defend the morality police in pharmacies?

      Conservatism is Dead!

      by Eternal Hope on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:16:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What this post really says (3.50 / 6)

    Re-elect Santorum.

    by UpstateNYDem on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:30:22 PM PDT

  •  P.S. (none / 1)

    Sorry about the double-negative poll question

    Dodd '08!

    by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:32:03 PM PDT

  •  Dammit! (none / 0)

    I misread the question.

    Scratch one "no" off the results.

    "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

    by Timbuk3 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:34:39 PM PDT

  •  What a rebel you are UpstateNYDem (2.50 / 2)

    Seeking out every one of my posts and abusing the ratings system by troll rating it.

    Way to go.

    Dodd '08!

    by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:41:05 PM PDT

    •  Well (1.20 / 5)

      Since diaries can't be troll rated this will have to do. Frankly your a pathetic little puke and a Republican enabler. The tone of this could be pulled directly off a NRSC press release, I have a hard time believing your not a plant.

      by UpstateNYDem on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:43:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  actually (4.00 / 7)

      saying that a Democratic candidate for senate is in favor of abusing rape victims is a remarkably sensationalist way to make an otherwise legitimate point of debate; namely, that Casey supports a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense birth control.

      It's not new information, but it's definitely worthwhile discussion material.

      But that's not what you did, you took a case from Arizona (where, by the way, Casey doesn't live) and suggest that he is in favor of abusing rape victims.

      At the very least it's an unproductive claim. At most, it's something I'd expect to see from Bill O'Reilly.

      I want to win. You want to beat him, and that's a problem for me, because I want to win. -The West Wing

      by AnnArborBlue on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:44:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh thank goodness! (1.25 / 4)

        But that's not what you did, you took a case from Arizona (where, by the way, Casey doesn't live) and suggest that he is in favor of abusing rape victims.

        Here I thought that decisions made by U.S. Senators impacted every American.  You mean to tell me that only the senators from my state effect the laws I live under?  Thank goodness.
        Nevermind then.

        Dodd '08!

        by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:46:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have problems with both sides. (4.00 / 2)

        On the one hand, the diarist does not link to the quote that Casey may or may not have said. On the other hand, I am not getting any straight answers from Casey's people on where Casey stands on this issue. If Casey is against self-righteous pharmacists denying morning-after pills to women, then it should be easy enough to provide a link or call the Casey campaign and get an answer.

        Denying the woman a right to a prescription in that case is a form of abuse, because the pharmacist is blaming her for getting raped. And if Casey would side with the pharmacist, then that is not abuse, but it is extremely misguided.

        Conservatism is Dead!

        by Eternal Hope on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:38:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  How irrelevant (none / 0)

    not to mention boring.

    All aboard the O train!

    by xyz on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:48:18 PM PDT

  •  more bullshit (none / 0)

    When Casey was asked the hypothetical question during his gubenatorial campiagn about abortion it went something like this:

    If elected govenor, and Roe was overturned, and the state leg passed a law outlawing abortion would you sign it? casey answered yes if exceptions were made for rape and health of mother issues. Your headline is bullshit.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

    by bluestateLIBertarian on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:53:10 PM PDT

    •  Irrelevant. (none / 1)

      This is about pharmacists refusing to fill women's prescriptions, not about what exceptions Casey would allow. These are two different issues.

      Conservatism is Dead!

      by Eternal Hope on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:40:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Correction. (none / 0)

      If elected govenor, and Roe was overturned, and the state leg passed a law outlawing abortion would you sign it? casey answered yes if exceptions were made for rape and health of mother issues.

       He said exceptions for the life (not health), rape and incest. (Which places him right in there with Santorum and Orrin Hatch)
       This has nothing to do with the fundie pharmacist protection laws, however. These laws are intended to protect religious fundamentalists from employment discrimination and allow the fundie pharmacists to express their religious views by denying women prescriptions for contraceptive and EC on moral grounds. They prevent the employer from firing him/her.
      Thus it would be an interesting question to ask Casey. My guess is that he would come down in favor of the fundie protection laws.

      by colleen on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 06:43:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please, delete this diary (4.00 / 3)

    It does nothing to add to the dialogue that is going on here. If you want to debate the merits of the race between Casey and Pennacchio create a diary that does that. Don't use hyperbole and attack-dog, GOP style politics to criticize a great Democrat, like Casey

    by bullet2382 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:53:11 PM PDT

  •  oh boy! (none / 0)

    Pennacchio people need to realize that inflammatory in-your-face "agree with me or else" diaries which exagerrate and make-up total falsehoods (like much of the attempt in Boo Man's last diary) just hurt his cause.

    I suggest Chuck take whatever money he has and use it to hire a PR strategist and savvy campaign manager.

    Otherwise, the hole just gets deeper and deeper for Chuck.

    by GregNYC on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:53:25 PM PDT

  •  Oh screw it (none / 1)

    nice title. "casey in favor of abusing rape victims". Wow thats slanted... do you want a job at FOX news?

    But this poster is right.
    Re-elect Santorum, apparently.

    OOOH wait, we want Pennachio to win still. Cause he has surpassed the margin of error once a few motnhs ago in the polls!

    Pennachio is a good candidate-- but very wrong time.

    by weathercoins on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:59:28 PM PDT

  •  You lost me. (none / 0)

    Although I'm generally sympathetic to the "Casey may be a right-winger, but he's our right-winger" argument, I am a little uncomfortable with the degree to which the primary is being managed to avoid any meaningful opposition.

    If you meant to sway my opinion firmly over to Pennachio's side, you failed.  You turned an important issue into a stereotype of overwrought liberal purple prose.

    I realize it's not fair to judge Pennachio by the tone or manner of those purporting to be his supporters but still, it is going to happen.  If this is the kind of thing we can expect from Pennachio then perhaps the Casey side is correct in their assertion that he has no place in grown-up politics.

    John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:04:25 PM PDT

  •  Whatever (none / 0)

    Casey will smoke an even worse alternative,Santorum, regardless.  A Democratic majority will be better than a Republican one.  Go try to stir up trouble somewhere else. Most of the people on this site don't live in Pennsylvania and weren't going to work on the Casey campaign anyway.

    My favorite is Social Security.

    by DelRPCV on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:07:07 PM PDT

    •  I live in PA (none / 0)

      and although I'll be happy to see Ricky gone, I'll be bummed to have yet another senator who shares to few of my values. And I will have way better things to do with my time than campaign for him. (Like hitting the pavement for Chris Carney - a true progressive).

      Why is it so offensive to Casey supporters that some of us are not at all comfortable with his positions on important issues?

      by benthos on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:03:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good for you (none / 0)

        Working for Carney will make much more of a difference.  
        I wouldn't consider myself a Casey "supporter" so much as someone looking forward to getting rid of Little Ricky, and I agree with you about how our time can be better spent.  However, given what I know about how Rove and his people work I'm always very suspicious of the motives of diarists who atttack other Democrats.  I felt the same way about people who tore down Hoeffel last year for pretty flimsy and perhaps insincere reasons.  I'd rather build up my candidate and slam the Republican.

        My favorite is Social Security.

        by DelRPCV on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:32:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It is amazing how some of you (2.00 / 2)

    do not even address the issue at hand.

    I bet you'd feel much differently if it was your daughter who was rapped.

    Dodd '08!

    by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:07:14 PM PDT

  •  Sometimes I wonder if (3.57 / 7)

    there are any adults left around here. This fucking diary is a Karl Rove/Rick Santorum wet dream.

    Proxy, yu're doing a heck of a job.

    by Mike S on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:08:28 PM PDT

  •  I'm afraid these Pennachio (2.00 / 2)

    supporters will never fade away into the sunset.  Wanna bet they'll try a write-in campaign in the 2006 General Election?  Dolts!

    Besides, Pennachio's name would get confused with Pinnochio.  That would be the first blast from the Santorum campaign.

    If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

    by Mz Kleen on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:18:52 PM PDT

  •  What's Santorum's postion on this? (none / 0)

    I bet his would be soooooo much more to my liking.  

    by hopscotch1997 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:23:12 PM PDT

  •  Excuse me. (4.00 / 4)

    This is the democratic website?  Sheesh.  No one has the right to dictate whom we have to support.  The Pennachio campaign is a legitimate campaign.  You people who are so upset with him and his supporters confuse me.  If, as you suggest he has no chance, then why worry?  Just ignore us.   If we are so damned irrelevant then why bother with you smears of us?  Or are you afraid we may be able to pull of the coup of coups?

    I cannot believe the illiberal behavior of some on this site.  You know it all, you know what is best, and gawd help anyone who dares to go against the conventional wisdom.  Who made you in charge of what is politically acceptable behavior?  

    Here is a man who is participating in our democracy and all you have for him and his followers is scorn and derision.  He is running a truly grass roots campaign.  Is is quixotic? Perhaps.  But it takes not a small amount of courage to take on such a challenge. I feel sorry for people who are so damned full of themselves and so very intolerant.  Enjoy yourselves belittling people whose only crime is refusing to abandon issues that are keenly important to them just so we can have another Democrat, any Democrat in the Senate.  He is wrong on stem cells, he is wrong on abortion, and he is most likely wrong on gay issues.  And you can't see why there are people like us who don't want to see him win.  

    Pennsylvania is a pro-choice state.  A pro-choice candidate could have easily won against Santorum.  But sadly, one most likely won't get a chance, because the smoky room of politics is alive and well in PA.

    So you go ahead and have a big cynical laugh at my opinion.  It bothers me not.  And troll ratings? Roll right off my back.  So go ahead and disappear this comment if you like.  That says more about you than me.

    by skptk on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:38:23 PM PDT

    •  Self-righteousness, (none / 1)

      misrepresentation, playing the victim, pre-emptively inviting troll-ratings, accusing people who don't think like oneself as intolerant, the "what are you so worried about" fallacy, shallow understanding of Pennsylvania politics...

      Damn, even for a Casey/Pennacchio thread, that's impressive. You hit for the cycle.

      by Desroko on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:48:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not that you disagree. (4.00 / 2)

        It's how you disagree. I have heard just tonite how Pennachio supporters are "tinfoil hat wearing koolaid drinkers"(paraphrased), dolts, idiots, and it just goes on.  And the personal attacks on Pennachio,"can't afford the gas to get to the debates" haha funnyfunnyfunny,.

        As for the troll rating thing, that happens all the time around here.  I've complained more than once that the ones and zeroes are very often given for no better reason than someone having an opinion counter to the conventional wisdom.

        There is way to disagree, calling your opponents names, and making it personal is not the way.  

        And it seems awfully arrogant to me for a bunch of bloggers to be telling a candidate that he should just close up shop, or that he isn't worthy of candidacy.  He is out there.  He is investing himself, not sitting home typing.  I think he has earned a certain respect for putting his money where his mouth is.  And it really bothers me to see the degree of scorn levelled at him.

        And i stand by my question?  Why are you so upset by his candidacy, and his supporters, if he is no threat?    You bely the "fantasy" aspect of that just by your actions.  And that is the collective your, i'm not singling you out.

        This is a political site, all political speech should be welcome.  Argue your side, do it vigorously.  That is fine with me.  But when you deride and belittle the opposition, well frankly, it undercuts your argument.

        by skptk on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:14:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Response (none / 0)

          Rancor has been coming from both sides, and you know it. Boo spent the better part of this evening attacking Casey supporters.

          That's not a personal attack on Pennacchio, it's an exaggerated illustration of his fundraising woes.

          Troll-ratings get out of hand on every issue, by every side. Why are you specifically accusing Casey supporters of something that both engage in?  If you want to challenge any particular rating of mine, go ahead, and I'll tell you why I did so.

          I'm not telling Pennacchio to do anything, but it's become clear that he's not going to win, and that it probably won't even be close. He's wasting his time, but it's his life.

          I scorn the pure incompetency of his campaign, not the man himself. I don't know him personally, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. He's probably a good man.

          I'm not upset by his candidacy - he's not going to beat Casey. I am upset by slash-and-burn tactics, where the result is not so much to benefit one's candidate as to damage his opponent. I despise that practice in Democratic primaries. It's going on in Hackett vs. Brown as well, and I'm saddened by that.

          We could have a real discussion of the issues if we had two real candidates with real chances of winning. We don't. We have Casey and Pennacchio.

           

          by Desroko on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:25:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never said it was only Casey supporters. (none / 0)

            And i apolgize if i seemed to imply that.  The ratings are egregious on all sides of many arguments.  It is an ongoing problem.  I often find myself wishing there were no rating system.

            And i stand by my statement that Chuck has as much right as anyone to be a candidate.  He is running a campaign.  One of the obstacles is the press, who virtually ignore him, or address his candidacy dismissively.  And i still think that the belittling of him that goes on here is unfair.

            I don't agree that Casey is the best candidate we could have.  I don't support him, that is my right.  And i do sincerely believe that some Democrats are sacrificing principle on the altar of winning. And i disagree that my take on PA politics is simplistic.  I have lived here all my life, and seen much that goes on here.  My eyes are wide open.  And that is my point really.  You didn't dispute what i said, you belittled me.  "There there naive one, leave it to those of us who are so much wiser."  That isn't a whine, it's factual.

            Primaries are important to me.  I want to have a say in who the candidate is.  The way this was done is very undemocratic at its core.  It's my opinion.  I own it, i take responsibility for it.  You think differently.  I don't belittle you for that.  All i'm asking is that you, again the collective you, extend the same courtesy.

            by skptk on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:45:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It did seem that way, (none / 0)

              and I'm glad you weren't pushing that. Sorry for the confusion.

              Of course he has a right to run. I never said he didn't. I did say his campaign has been terrible and he's essentially out of the running.

              Frankly, media coverage is earned, not given. If he wants coverage, he has to go out and fight for it. We still have freedom of the press, remember. no one is obligated to fawn over him, or even mention him, if they don't see fit. That goes the same for Casey, or any candidate in any race.

              As a side-note, whining about "the media" isn't any more compelling than when Republicans do it.

              We disagree on whether Casey's the best candidate,nd that's fine. And yes, I have the right to dispute your simplistic analysis of PA as a pro-choice state. I don't think it's pro-choice, or pro-life for that matter - I'm critical of polling which frames the issue as yes/no, when the majority of American and PA fall in the middle, and not on the edges.

              You're complaining because someone disagreed with you? Yes, I think it's naive to think that Chuck Pennacchio, a guy with no recognition, no experience, little money, and shallow roots in the community, can win this race. I'm not going to apologize for my opinion. It's not an insult. You need a thicker skin, frankly.

              The primary isn't over. Your rights haven't been taken from you. Stop playing the victim, for God's sake. It's disgusting. Pennacchio is running, and you can vote for him.

              by Desroko on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:52:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How arrogant you are! (none / 0)

                So nice of you to lecture me.  I am not a victim, never have been. You can't argue the issue so you resort to lecturing and belittling. Such a shame. My point wasn't that i was being picked on.  Far from it. I was aguing for a higher level of discourse.  Obviously you missed the point.

                by skptk on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 04:57:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  LOL (none / 0)

        It takes a lot of nerve for a Casey supporter to accuse someone else of self rightiousness.  There is nothing more self rightious than a man who is anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage.......
        Casey should have checked his religion at the door long ago.  

        Unseen Gore Video

        by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 06:04:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Could we please have (none / 0)

    a poll that gives us options?

    I don't see what there is except for a "vote" box.

    "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Plato

    by JPete on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:38:47 PM PDT

  •  I'm not a Casey fan... (none / 1)

    He's anti-choice
    He's worse than anti-choice if this post is true
    He's pro-Iraq war
    He's anti-stem cell research (WTF??)
    He's anti-single payer health care
    He's pro-death penalty
    He's pro-congressional intervention in the Schiavo case

    but,

    He's also a hell of a lot better than Santorum.

    That said, let the man take the lumps he deserves for being so messed up on so many issues.

    Maybe he'll come around a little when he realizes that the progressive base in PA (people like me) are not at all willing to knock doors and work the phone banks.  'Cause there is no way in hell I am going to do that for Bob Casey.  If he is so electable, let it happen without me.

    I'd sweat blood to get Pennacchio elected.  I've had it with politics based on strategy rather than values.  That gets us Karl Rove.

    by benthos on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:45:31 PM PDT

  •  Gotta link (none / 0)

    for the Philly Inquirer story?

    by benthos on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:56:11 PM PDT

Permalink | 127 comments