So I was thinking something the other day. A diary came up a few days ago savaging Dan Boren (D-OK) for not voting like a Democrat from a more blue-friendly state in Congress. The discussion eventually led to abortion. And that is where I am going with this diary.
There has been lots of complaining and whining about Bob Casey being pro-life. The abortion rights supporters have been stating admantly about how they can't "compromise" on abortion and how every other issue doesn't matter unless there is a Democrat who is 100% for every type of abortion, including late-term and partial-birth abortion.
Then my mind drifted to the 2005 Gubernatorial campaign in Virigina. Tim Kaine (D) was against the death penalty. Jerry Kilgore (R) tried to turn Kaine into the "Free Mumia Abu-Jamal" candidate. Kaine remained anti-death penalty.
Then he ran an ad late in the campaign. It stated that while he was against the death penalty he would not interfere with executions. He also promised not to aggresisvely seek to impose a moratorium on exuections or eliminate the death penalty in Virginia. He agreed to enforce the law.
So let me ask the abortion rights contingent here. Would a pro-life Democrat still be unacceptable to you if he/she stated that while persoally pro-life, he or she would not seek to overturn Roe V Wade? Would it be a problem still if such a candidate agreed to enforce the current law on abortion and not aggressively seek to restrict accesss to abortion?
I am just wondering. For if Kaine was able to neutralize that issue, I wonder that if Bob Casey had released a statement like that, if it would have somewhat neutralized the anger among some of the more ardent pro-choice above anything else partisans.