Abortion, Casey & confusion...

Abortion:  its the issue that will NOT go away.  It amazes me how this issue has never really changed in its level of controversy, the level of vitriol it inspires (on both sides) and even its level of support/nonsupport remains about the same as its always been.

Within one of the other posts on here this morning the ol' Robert Casey and the 1992 Democratic Convention issue came up.  Robert Casey was -- of course -- a well known Pro-lifer.  He was not allowed to speak at the 1992 convention.  Casey and others claimed that the reason he was not allowed to speak was because he was pro-life.  Clinton campaign officials said then and maintain that the only reason Casey was not allowed to speak was because he refused to endorse Clinton for President (Casey refused because Clinton was Pro-Choice).  But, Casey and his supporters have always pointed out that Jerry Brown had famously refused to endorse or support Clinton but was allowed to speak at the convention (and he's pro-choice).  So that issue seems to never die.

But it seems as if both parties are embroiled in abortion still and confusion for BOTH parties seems to be the result.  Perhaps as both parties appear mired in confusion on this issue this issue really offers neither party any advantage.  Read the very interesting article linked below:


Tags: (all tags)



Brown was only allowed to speak...
...when he put his own name in nomination. He did not endorse Clinton, so he was denied the scheduled speaking slot that was granted to Harkin, Tsongas, Kerrey, etc.

He was allowed to speak...for less than five minutes...without any press coverage at all...and only because there was no rule saying he couldn't put his own name in nomination.

by craverguy 2005-05-31 08:55AM | 0 recs
I do not think
It is important why Robert Casey, Sr did not speak it was along time ago and many things have changed.  What is going on today is far more important, and that is the Democrats are begining to look at pro-life candidates.  
I am a pro-life Democrat and while I would like to say it is about time, I fear that the main reason they are doing this is that they are poll reading.  And while I agree with the party that it is good politics, I only hope that is last.  
by THE MODERATE 2005-05-31 09:47AM | 0 recs
Here's the problem
"Democrats at their own peril will move away from choice," says Ellen Malcolm, president of Emily's List, which supports Democratic female candidates who favor abortion rights. She says Kerry would have fared better by doing more, not less, to emphasize the issue.

Some activists fear that supporting Democratic candidates who oppose abortion and projecting a more moderate tone on the issue will make it easier for abortion opponents to enact incremental limits - what Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority decries as a "drip-drip-drip campaign."

I suggested on an earlier comment that Hillary is walking a thin line sponsoring legislation with Rick Santorum and moving to the right on abortion. She is running the risk of not getting the endorsement of Emily's list in the Democratic primary.

The article you linked to has the typical M$M portrayal of both sides as "absolutist."

Both sides are not absolutist. Freedom of Choice Democrats are quite moderate and do not want to impose their beliefs on any American. The anti-abortion side are the radical absolutists who want to impose a narrow Catholic religious view on all Americans. The radical anti-abortion views of Dobson and Bush were even opposed by nearly all Protestant faiths until very recently.

Freedom of Choice Democrats need to start pushing back against the Christian Fascists who are seeking to impose their radical religious views on all Americans. Whoever the "Democrats for Life" are also need to distance themselves from the Christian Fascists unless they want to split the Democratic party in two.

The Democratic party has always been pro-choice and will always be pro-choice. Unless the "Democrats for Life" are willing and able to reach an accomodation with Howard Dean, the Democratic party as we know it is finished.

Actually, that wouldn't bother me all that much. Any party that can have a moderate like myself, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman in the same party is too broad to have an identity that voters can understand.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-31 10:54AM | 0 recs
Abortion will always be an issue
You're right...  Abortion will always be an issue regardless of what political candidates are running for election.  Abortion is an extremely comlicated issue with no easy answers.  I do not neccessarily agree with the notion that the Democratic party has and always will be pro-choice, I believe that a large majority of Democratic politicians have historically been pro-choice.  I do not however think that will continue to be the case.  As the Democratic Party struggles to find a face that the country can get behind I believe that the party will find itself supporting more pro-life candidates.  The party is struggling to win votes and will support pro-life candidates that some segments of the public can get behind.  

As a pro-choice Democrat I am not happy about a growing number of pro-life candidates, but I think party leaders are looking beyond the abortion issue and are looking for candidates that will win.  Party leaders were able to support pro-choice candidates like Clinton in the past because Clinton and candidates like him had a chance at winning and holding an elected position.  I do hope that the party does find some pro-choice viable candidates in the future.  But no the issue of abortion will not go away.

by aedc 2005-05-31 11:31AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads