1. I never promoted Casey strongly or early. Who are the socalled progressives are  you addressing. If me, you are barking up the wrong tree.
   
2. I am not "willing to secede (sic) women's privacy, reproductive freedom, religious tolerance issues" (nor am I, by any stretch of the imagination, part of the establishment).  Presumably you were not addressing that comment in my direction. I don't for reasons previously explained, believe that 2 votes are going to make a difference.
   
3. I think an argument can be made that the long view requires voting for Casey, if the only other choice is Santorum, because this may be the best chance to get him out now. Santorum is unpopular today, he carries the weight of Bush. 6 years from now, without the weight of Bush, he may not be beatable. Strike while the iron is hot.
   
4.  I think an argument can be made that the long view requires voting for Casey, becasue empowering a Democratic majority (even a majority that includes Reid and Casey) will be the only way to protect women's privacy, reproductive freedom and religious tolerance issues particurally when refusal to do so may give a majority to an extremist GOP majority which would cede women's privacy, reproductive freedom and religious tolerance to the tender mercies of senators who are in bed with Dobson, Fallwell and Roberston.

"I am faced with the awful realization that the Dem party establishment is willing to secede women's privacy, reproductive freedom, religious tolerance issues, and that I cannot be a part of.  Who will the country then turn to when these freedoms are gone and the women majority then wakes up and goes nuts?? They will not look kindly on the unprincipled democracts."

Suppose you were faced with two Democratic candidates, one who was "pro-life" but not a crazy (say she supported some restrictions on abortion didn't support extreme measures like the South Dakota bill), but was otherwise a Bernie Sanders Democrat. The other candidate was a sort of a Paul Tsongas, budget hawk who is open to DLC-lie anti-big government "sensibleness". Which one do you choose. IMO the Dems ought to go with the Bernie Sanders guy; not supporting progressive economics is a disqualifier for membership in the Democratic Party. The "social liberal, fiscal conservative" Democrat has killed us with working class Americans. When was the last time a President actually supported National Health Care? 1948 when Harry Truman did. Look how much ground we've lost since then!

Keith

since everyone seems to enjoy pointing out how Casey lost the primary to Rendell in '02, I'd go with option a.

If Pennslyvania is so much more liberal than Casey as claimed, then presumably winning a primary challenge 6 years from now is doable. Conversely, Santorum has the weight of Bush on him in 06, but will not in 2012.  A thin Democratic Majority is more likely to portect women's privacy, reproductive freedom, and preserve religious tolerance, than a thin GOP majority. Indeed, as we have already seen, a thin GOP majority can do much damage.  

So yes, it makes sense. Its not pleasant. I am a pragmatic FDR Democrat, I want to win. I wouldn't vote for an entire party of Casey's (indeed I would quit that party), but that is not what is being offered here.

Al Gore wasn't good enough or pure enough for a lot of folks in 2000. Specifically the 200,000 or so in Florida who voted for Nader over Gore because they thought there was no difference in Gore and Bush.  We are paying for that now. Casey may be the price we are paying for those so called progressives who dissed Gore in 2000 and voted for Nader.

I believe a Democratic Majority is more likely to protect women's privacy, etc. If Casey is what it takes to get that majority, so be it.

Which will be easier to stomach one year from now?

The US Senate with Santorum, or the US Senate without Santorum?

Put another way, will it be easier to remove the mote from our own eyes with, or without, the Republicans continually smacking us in the face with nail-studded beams?

Nice.  Thanks a lot for that, asshat. :(

Who's to say the Dems don't renominate Casey six years from now if Santorum wins, hmmm?

In every general election, take a look at all the canidates who have a chance to win, that is, who at least polling in the double digits.  99%+ of the time, this will be the Republican and the Democrat, and only those two.  Then, pick the canidate you like the most.  If you hate them both, pick the canidate you hate the least.

This is not a perfect world.  Stop defeating possible at the hands of perfection.  Didn't Nader 2000 teach you anything?

Vote for whoever you want in the primary.

If Casey cannot now see the value of being pro-choice in that he can still have his religious freedom decisions but still let others have theirs, well then he is a religious fanatic incapable of changing.  He is no better than many pro-lifers in that regard, and he will never change because that would keep him out of heaven, I guess??  

You tell me why the guy cannot keep his religion to himself which a pro-choice position can easily allow?  He is dangerous and the more Dems like this we support, the deeper the hole we dig ourselves in the long run!

Exactly.  In a state that elects pro-choice Republicans we somehow can't run a pro-choice Democrat?  This seat should be an easy enough pick-up that we can be a little more picky about who we run.

As for the "get the majority first, pull it to the left" later argument; Casey would be a very difficult to challenge in a primary six or 12 years from now.  Why not elect someone more palatable now?

When exactly was the last time Pennsylvania elected a progressive democratic senator to a full term? If I recall correctly, Pennsylvania has never elected a pro-choice democratic senator to a full term.

If Pennsylvania is so damned Blue, then why is Santorum in the Senate in the first place?  And why has he been elected all four times that he's run in Pennsylvania (House twice, Senate twice)?  Did people just now discover that he's a whack job?  Did PA become THAT much different since 2000?  I have no trouble believing that it's changed into a state that should solidly be able to elect Dems, but I don't see how it's suddenly become Massachusetts.

I recoil when one places the pro-choice movement in the same asyndeton as the KKK, the blood and soil rhetoric of Nazism and the bankrupt notion of states' rights.  And if this is how advocates of the Big Tent desire to characterize women who will one day reclaim their rights to their own bodies from the men who for whatever reason, whether it be political, economic or social, want to control their anatomies, then I believe those men and wo(men) need to reevaluate the manner whereby they hope to attain their goals.  Resorting to such inapt comparisons not only reveals the desperation and weakness of the Big Tent advocates; it also reveals their lack of sophistication, tact and their complete misunderstanding of the history of social movements.

You failed to address the concern.  The notion of this all encompassing tent that seems to be caving onto all of us is invoked in order to pacify those who have legitimate policy concerns.  Instead of invalidating those positions, perhaps one can see how the tent can be unzipped in order to allow new perspectives to enter and old, breathless voices to escape.  For if the tent can never be reshaped, then it will become a worn mold no one will desire to enter, lest one suffocate from the moldering stench pervading its stagnant and utterly asphyxiating atmosphere.