Two state parties are already pushing anti-choice candidates....

[madfloridian]

I think one is RI, and I think one is PA. I saw something on CNN about the one in RI, and I know a group of people were opposing his nomination.

The one in PA I read about today at Kos, now I can't find it. I was trying to keep track of just how many states this was going to be happening in. I can not remember the name the PA party is pushing, but the two names asked to drop out were starting with H. Hafer and Hoeffel, but I don't think I have the spelling right.

I just wondered if anyone had heard of other states doing this. I do not support this kind of thing, because in a way it is losing your values in order to win. If they keep pushing anti-choice candidates on us, all the laws protecting a woman's right to choose will be overturned...what is left anyway.

I hope I am not the only one bothered by this. I think our party should, as the chairman says, welcome those who oppose abortion. BUT also as he says, we should not change our beliefs and our stances on it.

I am afraid that is going to happen if this goes on in many states.

[dsc]

1. PA has a rich tradition of pro life Democrats

and Casey Jr. is a continuation of that tradition. I don't think it has anything to do with the last election.

[madfloridian]

2. Are they the ones who will want to turn back the clock?

Or will they be reasonable?

[dsc]

5. Casey would likely support restrictions on abortion in legislation

but would be unlikely to support right wing judges.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Just remember - Little Rickie blocked Clinton's pro-choice

judges -- and "held the 3rd Circuit seat" for Chertoff. Little Rickie even vetoed one of Orin Hatch's law school buddies.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

9. Casey's father was rabidly anti-choice....

That's what concerns me with the son running for Senator. But compared to Ricky man-on-dog....who could be worse than that.

[Mandate My Ass]

6. He supports the death penalty. Hence he is not pro-life but anti-choice

[Coastie for Truth]

13. One of the "Behind the Scenes" Democratic "Leaders"

in Pittsburgh in the 1970's was very "Pro-Life" but otherwise extremely Progressive (anti-death penalty, very much for "economic justice" and "social justice") - Father Charles Owens Rice.

To any Pittsburghers - is Father Rice still alive. I lost track of him when I moved. He was really great. Loved him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Correct. 3 of the 4 Democratic state-wide officeholders are pro-life

Bob Casey Jr. is certainly not first and will probably not be the last.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. PA has a rich tradition of Pro-choice Republicans...go figure

In recent history: Senator Heinz, Senator Specter, Governor Ridge, Governor Thornburgh....all republicans.

[dsc]

7. Governor Casey

to name one.

[napi21]

4. The one in Pa is Bob Casey Jr. He really is a good Dem.

We keep saying we hahve this big tent, and support a lot of different ideas. Somehow, it seems when the rubber meets the road, we are acting worse than the damn Pubs!

They seem at least to support Aarnold, and Rudy, and I guesss Pitaki (who are pro choice). What do I see here on DU? If the candidate isn't pro choice, we don't want them.

WHY? I don't know anything about the person from RI, but Bob Casey has a great reputation in Pa. and his son, the one that's to be the candidate this time, has inherited that likeability. We all want to defeat Samtorum. IF Casey is the best candidate, why are you fighting him on this one issue?

[madfloridian]

11. I asked a question. I am a woman....it is a huge issue.

I simply asked a question. I am not willing to go backwards on this issue, but I think all should be welcome.

I think you just did not read the way I phrased it. I want to know if he can let it remain a personal choice or inflict it on everyone?

That is a fair question. Kerry would not have pushed his views on others, that is what I want to know.

[napi21]

14. Agreed. I am also a woman. I really don't think a few Dems

who are pro life would be able to change the abortion laws. If we were talking about a SCOTUS, I'd agree with you. There we're talking about a 1 in nine vote. I really think others from Pa. will tell you Bob is a good Dem and always thinks about the people. I happen to think it's much more important to find a candidate who can defeat Santorum. Think about it. With good old Ricky in the Senate, you not only have a pro lifer, you have a real scum Pub too!

We really have to back off a little on trying to kill any candidate who doesn't find perfectly into our mold. I know I am constantly fighting Pubs about being single issue voters, I hope I don't have to do the same with our own.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. Just a few dems crossing the aisle on the bankruptcy bill will enable it

to pass. This bill hurts only the working and middle class. It enables the rich to hide their assets in trust funds while gouging hard-working families who have fallen behind through no fault of their own.

We're talking life and death here, the life and death of women. Casey has said he supports abortion only in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. He is denying that every woman who becomes pregant is endangering herself to varying degrees. More importantly, nobody should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Casey may think about the people, but he doesn't think about women. Not in the way that counts anyway.

[napi21]

16. But you're still talking like someone in the House or Senate

could overthrow Roe. We're talking about a SCOTUS decision here. The one way the Pubs are going to be able to do that is to retiain control of both houses in 2006. I think everyone agrees Shrub will be nminating several justices in the next 4 years. We have only one option that I can see, and that is to take back the Senate in 2006, and get closer in the house, if not take it back too. We must be able to prevent radical RW people from sitting on the SCOTUS! That's where your real worry should be.

[madfloridian]

18. Is this his father who passed laws about abortion in the late 80s?

Looks like he got sued by Planned Parenthood.

Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
(1992), legal case
In 1988 and 1989 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, led by Governor Robert Casey, enacted new abortion statutes that required that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent; that a minor seeking an abortion obtain parental consent (the provision included a judicial waiver option); that a married woman must notify her husband of her intended abortion; and, finally, that clinics must provide certain information to a woman seeking an abortion and wait 24 hours prior to performing the abortion. Before any of these laws could take effect, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania brought suit against the governor, protesting the constitutionality of the statutes.

http://search.eb.com/women/articles/Planned_Parenthood_v_Casey.html

[napi21]

19. Yes, That was the Gov. Bob JR. is his son.

I don't know what the outcome of this case was. I guess we disagree a lot on this issue, because I don't see a reason not to have parental concent, and long as there is a judicial waver (especially if the pregnancy was due to incest by the father). I also agree that a woman should be reqired to tell her husband if she is going to abort their child. And the 24 hours rule...what is wrong with that? I happen to think they should have a damn 6 month waiting time for people to get married! Maybe there would be fewer divorces if they had to think about it for a while!

[madfloridian]

22. I have 5 children, never had an abortion, never wanted one.

But I remember the time before it was legal. I remember friends having to "disappear" for months secretly, rather than "shame" the family. I remember a friend who had one illegally and nearly died.
She was a very good teacher who taught next door to where I taught, and she came to my room after school one day crying. We tried to talk about it, but I knew she would be fired if she carried the baby. She had to work, she had no choice. She missed a month of school, but she survived just barely.

I kept her secret, and I am glad I did. I am glad she trusted me to do so. She should not have had to suffer like that.

The people who want to regulate it are not going to stop at just a few issues like the ones you mention. They just are not.

[napi21]

21. The SC decided against Casey in that case. Here's a snip

In the Casey decision of 1992, the Court held that even if the majority would have held that there was no such right to an abortion if they were deciding the issue for the first time, it would re-affirm the Roe decision which created such a fictitious right based upon the legal principle of stare decisis.

The Casey court gave two central reasons why it applied the doctrine of stare decisis instead of applying its own legal analysis to arrive at a correct legal decision concerning whether or not the Constitution protects the act of a doctor who performs an abortion. A review of this aspect of the Court's decision reveals why there has never been a decision of the Supreme Court that requires a response from the people of the nation more than the Casey decision.

The Court blamed its decision to perpetuate the erroneous decision of Roe v. Wade on the people of America. The Casey court said that it had to re-affirm Roe v. Wade because the American people have come to rely upon abortion. In other words, whether Roe was correctly decided or not the Court would give the people what the Court claimed the people had come to rely upon.

http://www.nffllp.org/blame.htm

Probably not the best source of the decision, but it at least tells the verdict.

[FightinNewDem]

24. Not exactly

For the most part, the Court upheld the PA restrictions (can't remember what they were; something like parental notice).

The Court did address Roe v. Wade, and that was the focus of Justice Souter's extensive discourse on stare decisis. The Court obviously chose not to overturn Roe, but it did draw clearer parameters. The Roe decision is notoriously sloppy in its reasoning and language, so the Court in Casey had to establish what exactly constituted a permissible restriction.

Frankly, the Casey decision can't be easily classified as either pro-choice or pro-life. By allowing certain restrictions, it probably comes closer to capturing the public zeitgeist on this issue than any policy stance promulgated by either NARAL or NRTLC.

[Zhade]

58. How, exactly, is Roe v Wade "sloppy" in its reasoning?

NT!

[madfloridian]

17. We have more than a few already who are not going to stand up.

I am not trying to start a fight, and I have no control over a candidate in PA. However, when we start talking about giving in on this issue, I just get furious.

I gather some are talking and wondering besides me. I am not a one issue person, and if you really read my posts you would know that. I have seen posts at various forums today discussing the feasibility of running someone against him. It is not my state, but I think many Democrats will no longer allow the state chairs to hand pick candidates.

But there are several issues now which are really going to be in the forefront for many of us as the 2006 election season starts. Corporate pandering in one, an example is the bankruptcy issue.

Another is the progressive imperialism, or empire-building. Iraq was wrong, it is still wrong, and it will always have been wrong.

The right to have an abortion is another. That actually that is 3 big ones right there.

The party leaders are going to have to consider our voices.

[janx]

34. I agree with you, MF. Anyone who poses the threat of

weakening women's reproductive choice is not a good dem candidate. Many people have differing religious views, and that's to be expected and welcomed, but it gets a bit dicey when we elect true anti-choice candidates into office.

[Zhade]

56. Maybe it's because they don't want TWO pro-forced-birth parties?

Maybe they don't want anti-choicers crafting Dem legislation regarding a woman's right to control her own body?

[Warpy]

8. This is the dying gasp of the DLC

"Let's be JUST LIKE REPUGLICANS, and maybe they'll vote for us"

It's self defeating.

Why vote for an imitation GOPer when you can vote for the real thing? Why would any woman make the effort to vote for any man who wants to put her back into the worst kind of slavery there is?

To hell with 'em. They're going the wrong way.

[dsc]

10. List one, just one

out of the thousands of Republicans out there who based a campaign on raising the minimum wage (Casey based his losing gubentorial one on that).

[NickofTime]

20. Pro-Choice is the Only Choice

Why vote for a fake (pro-choice) Democrat, when you vote for a real (anti-abortion) rethuglican? Abortion is the cornerstone of a modern society. Why go back to the Middle Ages?

[Zhade]

59. I think that's slightly off...

I'd say "women's rights" (and in actuality, human rights) are the cornerstone, not abortion. No one here is pro-abortion.

[FightinNewDem]

25. Facts are stubborn things, vol. XXVI

Warpy, can you show me where the DLC has said anything regarding:

a. The PA senate race?

b. Bob Casey's run for governor in 2002?

c. The abortion issue in general?

FYI, the Pennsylvania DLCers that I know did not support Casey in his gubernatorial race; they were Rendell backers. It's a bit absurd to somehow drag the DLC into this argument.

But then again, yapping about a straw man is easier than discussing the issue at hand, right?

[dolstein]

48. The DLC is on record in support of legalized abortion

Sorry to disappoint you, but the DLC has consistently taken the position that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Of course, if you're like all the other DLC bashers around here, you won't let a little thing like the truth get in the way.

[Mountainman]

23. If we let anti choice people run our party what will we do next to win?

I you are a male it may make sense to you to say we should have a big tent and let anyone in as long as we win.

Well this kind of thinking is very narrow because you are willing to trade a woman's right away so you can win an election. Well I don't think anyone's rights should be used as bargaining chips.

I could ask you what right of yours are you willing to concede to win an election? Well men don't have anything like the right to choose because men don't get pregnant.

Also the more we look like repubs the less chance we have to win because people will vote for the real McCoy before they would ever vote for a wannabe.

We would not turn our backs on civil rights and we will not turn our backs on woman's rights or gay rights.

We are a party that believes in people being free from government intervention in our private lives. Voting for a anti choice candidate is letting the cracks start to form in the dike. Sooner or later you will be willing to sell your soul to win because that will be their price once you are willing to gave in to their ideals.

[LTRS]

26. I hope the party knows we're paying attention

I don't have to live in PA or RI to be damn pissed if our party continues to field anti-choice candidates. This is a collection of moron consultants and/or inside the beltway pols idea of turning around the dem party?? Pissing away the grass roots? Crapping on one of their core constituencies -- female dems?

They aren't content that they have crapped away blacks, union members and gays?

THIS will not win elections. THIS will kill the grassroots mobilization, and they won't get any money from us either.

[FightinNewDem]

27. Wait a second

Maybe its the party getting behind candidates who are loyal Democrats, with progressive records, who are proven vote-getters, who have the support of the grassroots Dems in their respective states.

Heaven forbid that the real Democrats in PA and RI see things differently than some netroots type...

[madfloridian]

28. I don't think that is the case, though.

I was reading at other blogs, and some seem not too happy with it. It is a state party leaders decision, not the grassroots.

[FightinNewDem]

29. You just demonstrated the problem

The blogosphere is not yet an accurate reflection of either the Democratic electorate or society as a whole. The online political world tends to be far more partisan, far more ideological, and far more polarized than the offline world.

During last year's prez primary, Dean and to a lesser extent Clark dominated the net political world. Yet when all was said and done, Kerry won the nomination rather convincingly, while Dean never really expanded his appeal beyond a core of anti-war voters.

What you see on Kos, MyDD, Atrios, etc., tends to be from the hardest of the hard core. Ironically, most of the posters on these sites are not actively involved in the institutional Democratic Party on a grassroots level. Most are not precinct committee members, ward chairs, or the like. Remember, the vast majority of active Democrats are not regular members of the blogospere's most outspoken ranks.

I would dare to venture that if you talked to the folks in Scranton, Erie and Johnstown who toil in the Dem trenches, you would find a considerable amount of support for Casey. These are people who know the guy, who are familiar with his record, who know what makes him tick. If these people believe that he is a decent, loyal and progressive Democrat, I think that is more important than what a Kos poster from, say, Corvallis, Oregon thinks about him.

[madfloridian]

40. So tell me again how many seats we won lately?

Tell me again how we won the elections?

I am only questioning the fact that the party leaders are choosing to run Democrats who oppose a woman's right to choose.

So tell me again...?

[FightinNewDem]

41. Let's see

In my home town (Manchester, NH), a few pro-life or less-than-NARAL-pure Dems have done rather well:

Alderman at Large Dan O'Neil
Rep. Maurice Pilotte
Rep. Paul Braddard
Rep. Bob Haley

In other parts of the state, Jane Wood, Cynthia Sweeney, Mary Ellen Martin, and Steve Michon have all won while not meeting every abortion litmus test. And all of them are good, loyal Democrats.

[madfloridian]

42. You are avoiding the issue I raised.

We lost any voice in congress, either house. We have done it in the last few years. We lost a race for president we should not have lost. So if we are doing so well, why do they control everything?

[FightinNewDem]

51. What's your point?

The OP concerned the Casey and Langevin candidacies. Are you implying that the Dems inability to win back the House has something to do with an insufficiently clear pro-choice position? That would be utterly riddiculous.

[sarahlee]

63. Backroom deals trying to game Pennsy Senate primary

MyDD has covered this story. But to sum up: Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsyvania, in order to avoid a costly Senate primary that might affect his re-election plans has been working to prevent this. He has decided on the son of former Gov. Casey and is pressuring potential candidates to drop out.

Casey is a pro-life DLC type candidate similar to the fiasco that allowed Santorum to win the last time.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/5/145031/0571

More info on Chuck Pennacchio
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/2/1753/19073

I'm not in PA, but I donated to him today, just because the party hacks and media are trying to keep him out. I don't want the media saying who is or is not electable again!

[Crowdance]

30. Progressive except in regards to women? That's 49% progressive.

This isn't about progressives at all, it's about the state parties selecting candidates who are opposed to human rights. That is a bottomline issue, and these candidates should be rejected.

[Crowdance]

31. My party's left me; I haven't left my party

That's what more and more women and men who care about protecting human rights will be saying as the anti-choicers push forward. This is a human rights issue and many of us can't support a party that will not support human rights. I've let this party know that it's going in the wrong direction on this issue using my pen, my voice and my checkbook. But it's been a fruitless effort. For the first time in 32 years, I'll be voting for non-Democrats (except that one time I voted locally for a Socialist). I bet I'm not alone. (except, maybe, for the Socialist thing...)

[MAlibdem]

32. why in RI?

I can understand the appeal in for the rural areas of PA, but RI? there's no need.

[Mandate My Ass]

33. Despite the rural areas of PA, we have a pro-choice dem governor

who succeeded a pro-choice republican governor. We have one pro-choice senator and PA has carried the democratic pro-choice candidate in at least the last four presidential elections.

I don't buy the argument that Casey Jr. is the only one who can beat Santorum. It just doesn't wash.

As far as RI, I'm not sure. Someone said they have a lot of Catholics but I think they vote blue on the national level most of the time too.

[MAlibdem]

35. huh, thanks for the PA info

Yeah, the catholics in RI are like the catholics in MA...they don't listen to the church so much. Some do, but many do not.

Bizzare as it is, my hometown (MA-9) is represented by a pro-life Democrat. It is a very Catholic district (South Boston and suburban Irish and Italian Catholics). So I guess that could be at work in RI.

[FightinNewDem]

37. RI

Rhode Island is the most heavily Catholic state in the country. There are a ton of Italian, Irish and Portuguese voters who are populist on economics and moderate to conservative on social issues.

Here in NH, it's similar in places like Manchester, where you have a large concentration of Irish and French-Canadian Democrats. They are socially conservative, but will support a Dem who at least shows some degree of respect for their opinions.

[KittyWampus]

36. Dennis Kucinich Was Pro-Life. The ONLY Reason He Changed Was

his presidential run.

[sarahlee]

64. Not true

Dennis did not change his personal belief - they remained the same as Kerry's - but women changed his political position on choice well BEFORE he was asked and decided to run for president.

You forget that he was not planning on running - it wasn't part of his agenda - until people heard his speech and started writing him, begging him to run.

[ISUGRADIA]

66. "well BEFORE he was asked and decided to run for president"

Uh, no. Here's an article I bookmarked long ago which showed that DK had a problem because of the abortion issue after a presidential run was being played up. Changing in 2002 and running in early 2003 is not "well BEFORE".

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0516-02.htm

"Apparently inspired by Nichols' report, the progressive media took it up a notch, raising the possibility of a Kucinich run for President. In a passion that's rarely found in the pages of The Nation, Studs Terkel called Kucinich "The One." "I think this guy can reach anyone and change seemingly unchangeable minds," he wrote. Even the preciously cool-eyed David Corn enthused that "a bid might be worth considering."

It took Katha Pollitt to point out the obvious: Kucinich is a valiant progressive on many fronts, but he doesn't have a prayer when it comes to running for President because Kucinich is anti-choice. And choice, for those in the ether who've forgotten, is a decisive issue for a massive mainstream - let alone progressive - voting block."

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. Gov Rendel doesn't support Barbara Hafer because until just last years she

was a REPUBLICAN and i don't trust her either!...she may well be a Rove ploy

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. Barbara Hafer was a Republican & still believes in everything GOP except

abortion...she is NOT a Democrat and I don't give a rats ass that Emily's List endorses her!

[BornaDem]

50. Barbara Hafer started out as a Democrat, changed parties...

and became a Republican to get elected as the odd commissioner (always 2 Democrats, 1 Republican) in Allegheny County where the Democrat positions were already taken, and 4 years ago, changed back to Democrat. She is a typical PA politician - a Republicrat. She has already dropped out of the race once Casey got in because he is the choice of the national party and will get $ to take on Santorum who will be well financed.

[madfloridian]

43. There is a Wellstone type candidate in the race, AP did not name him.

The grassroots seem very inerested in this one. Here is the link to the MyDD discussion on it.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/4/201827/9953#readmore

And from the candidates website:
http://www.chuck2006.com/

PENNACCHIO FOR PENNSYLVANIA BLOG

Dear Associated Press by Tim ~

Primaries are no longer decided in the smokey back rooms in Harrisburg, PA. The winners are not picked by the editorial boards of state newspapers. Unfortunately for the establishment infrastructure, it's a new day, people pick their representatives.

We talked for 10-15 minutes today about the Pennacchio campaign. I mentioned the papers who have covered us before. We discussed how The Hotline has included as before and called today. You and I talked about how the Republican Party even included us in their press release. I told you about Chuck's political experience. I mentioned the fact that we are filed with the FEC and are raising money. We glossed over the fact we made national news with the 'hey hey ho ho,' video.

And then you print this article, and include this quote:

'It was always his goal to try to have a united front,' said Penny Lee, Rendell's communication director. 'We're not expecting anyone to file against Bobby' in the Senate primary, which is still 15 months away.
You knew better, and the party knows better. With the party, we know they want a coronation; we had hoped for better from the objective mainstream media.
So, what's the threshold for coverage in an article we should have been included in?

[madfloridian]

44. Here is a page with video clips of his stance on issues.

http://www.chuck2006.com/facts.asp

I am very impressed by him.

[eek MD]

45. Just what we need....more Republican wannabees in the Dem Party

If you need to worship fetuses (or is it fetii?) please just become a republican........There's only so long that your "base" is going to hold it's nose and vote for someone who doesn't agree with them politically, just to prevent someone worse from getting into office, and i think most of our "patience" is wearing very thin after the last few elections..

[dolstein]

49. I didn't know the GOP was pro-labor and anti-poverty

Apparently, you believe that the ONLY thing the Democratic Party stands for is legalized abortion. How sad. I hate to break it do you, but presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson did absolutely nothing to promote legalized abortion. I guess that makes them Republicans in your book.

Excuse me, but exactly when did the issue of abortion take precedence over such issues like helping the sick, the poor and the elderly, protecting the environment and creating a high wage, full employment economy? Oh wait, I remember -- it was around the time the Democratic Party stopped being the dominant political party in America.

Seriously, before you start trashing Casey, you really ought to do your homework.

[Zhade]

60. The issue of abortion is actually an issue about civil rights.

It's just as important for a woman to be able to control her own body as it is for her not to get screwed over by corporatists.

Your weak attempt to align the rise in women demanding their civil rights with the decline of the Dem party is silly, since the majority of the country supports choice.

[FightinNewDem]

52. "The Base"

I've got new for you. The Democratic "base" is much larger than you realize. It isn't just netroots leftists, anti-war protesters, and borderline Greens.

In Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, it includes a large swath of blue collar, pro-labor Catholic Democrats. Many of these folks have loyally supported pro-choice Dems over pro-life Republicans. You don't have to agree with their position on abortion, but for you to assert that they are not a part of the Democratic base demonstrates both a certain political narcissism and a distressing lack of knowledge about the political realities of 2005.

[madfloridian]

53. Political realities: Read this.

The GOP has the power, all of it. That is the political reality.

[FightinNewDem]

54. My point exactly.

And a cult-like obsession about adhering to absolutist positions demanded by liberal constituency groups will ensure that they continue to have all of the power.

[madfloridian]

55. So are you saying if we take their positions......then we will win?

Oh, I see. Heard that song before.

[eek MD]

61. Hmm, abortion is an important thing to many on the left...

They can believe what they want on abortion, that's up to them.....but they can expect some of voters that think abortion is a very important issue to vote for third parties, or to just flat out stay home.

I don't think being pro-choice is only a netroot leftist, anti-war protesting, borderline Green position. Obviously you seem to think othewise.

[Zhade]

62. Your post is a bit confusing to me.

You say that many blue-collar, pro-labor Dems (which, btw, could also include "netroots leftists, anti-war protesters, and borderline Greens") loyally supported pro-choice Dems.

Then you say "you don't have to agree with their position". I'm pretty sure pro-choice IS the poster's position.

Did you mean to say "pro-life Dems"?

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Get used to it

PA has a lot of pro-life Democrats.

[sarahlee]

57. See my thread re Chuck Pennacchio

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1641167

[fujiyama]

65. One thing I like

is that you refuse to use the term "pro life" to refer to anti choicers. That's one thing I've been doing as well. I refuse to use the language RWers have defined. It's pro life to oppose abortion, but at the same time support killing innocent Iraqis.

That said, I have no idea what the politics are like in PA. I hope there is a popular pro choice Dem in that state, but if Casey can almost definetely beat Sanaotarium, then I'd be behind him. Sanortoum is one of those pieces of shit that should be cleaned out of the senate as soon as possible.

As for the other one you're referring to, it must be Hoeffel, who ran against Spectar this time. Few resources were put into the race and I think he did surprisingly well (lost by about 10 points to a veteran incumbent).