NO PRIMARY FOR YOU!

Mike from Comments from Left Field via Mark Crispin Miller's New From Underground has am audio clip of a speech given by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a private party.

The gist of it is:

The Democratic leadership no longer trust the people to pick a candidate in what they consider to be important primary elections. Chuck Schumer and his buddies know what's best for us.

The part that's relevant to the people of Pennsylvania:

"So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but A he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to run. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."

"I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."

(unintelligible)

"And we're doing this in the other states."

As Comments from Left Field notes:

A couple of things worth noting here. First, Governor Rendell gave two points according to Schumer "A - he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to run." Let me repeat that, Governor Rendell said point blank to Chuck Schumer that Casey would not run and that we would not want him to run.

Well, Rendell got that right -- we don't want Casey to run!

Listen to the audio yourself at Comments from Left Field

More Evidence that Intelligent Design is Right!

Take a look at this article. Here's the first two paragraphs:

In July, NASA's Cassini spacecraft made its latest flyby of Saturn's moon Enceladus, revealing an unexpected hot spot on the moon's south pole.

The finding flipped everything scientists knew about Enceladus on its head, because what should have been a dead moon appeared to be geologically active and what was supposed to be the moon's coldest region turned out to be its warmest.

So if everything these "scientists" already "knew" about this moon is now wrong, then how can we possibly have any faith in what they say they "know" about anything else? The so-called "scientific method" lead them to have theory about this moon that turned out to be incorrect. Now they expect us to believe that this method has any validity what-so-ever?

Isn't it obvious? The Universe is just too complicated to have just "happened." And so there's only one possible explanation that covers all of the things that "scientists" don't have an answer for: Intelligent Design.

It's such a simple explanation - and obvious to everyone. And I believe in my heart that that's why the Ivy League elites don't want us to believe it. It puts them out of a job.

Think about it all these mysteries are now solved by Intelligent Design:

• Life on Earth
• Particle/Wave duality of Quantum Physics
• The existence of Evil
• The 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes
• Nixon
• How "Boy Meets World" lasted for 7 years on Network TV
• How come hot chicks like Paulina Porizkova end up with goobers like Rik Ocacek?

With Intelligent Design, we can finally get some answers!

Robert Novak on Rick Santorum

Robert Novak's comments on Lil Ricky are as follows:

SANTORUM IN TROUBLE

Republican insiders in Washington fear that Sen. Rick Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, is in serious danger of losing his seat next year to his Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey, because of a poorly planned and ill-conceived campaign.

Grievances by Pennsylvania Republicans are piling up. One banking industry CEO in Pennsylvania offered Santorum a chance to visit his more than 3,000 employees. But the senator's campaign staff declined to immediately accept the invitation, explaining this group was not a "priority." Santorum is accused of not making sure to minimize the negative political fallout from his new book ("It Takes a Family"). A current Republican poll shows Casey 9 percentage points ahead of Santorum.

A footnote: Democratic consultant Paul Begala, who worked on the successful campaign for governor of Pennsylvania by the late Robert Casey Sr., may join the younger Casey's campaign for the Senate.

When the Prince of Darkness himself sez you're in trouble, you're in trouble.

A Conservative view of the Smearing of Cindy Sheehan

From our Friends at the Daily Kos.

The CunningRealist is an anonymous blogger who describes him/herself as:

A lifelong conservative with a strong independent streak, I am a late-30's resident of New York City and an executive in the financial industry. I have a B.A., and an M.B.A. in International Business from Columbia University.

Take a look at this. I'll hit the highlights.

The essence of the right-wing smear machine's "outing" of Cindy Sheehan is her supposed flip-flop from supporting President Bush in 2004 to disapproving of him in 2005. As details of this have become clearer, it's obvious the flip-flop is nothing more than a canard. But setting aside the Sheehan story for a moment, have any of the shameless smearsters seen the public opinion polls recently? Here's some breaking news for them: a whole lot of Americans who supported Bush a year ago---including an increasingly large part of his "base"---have turned against him. And that includes many millions of people who haven't lost a parent, child, or sibling in Iraq.

And:

Something else about this story that infuriates me is the vision of feckless, smarmy smearsters and cowards hiding behind keyboards in cities like Washington and New York (and yes, Miami), punching out electronic missives in a pathetic and desperate attempt to impugn the integrity of a woman sitting in the dust and August heat of Texas---a woman who, along with her dead son, embodies everything that's right about this country. The growing division between the professional class of spinning punditry and the vast expanse of Middle America that actually does the working, the fighting and the dying so the pundits can spend their time chattering has never been more clear than with this story.

It's a pretty good read. Go check it out.

Let's hope all the little girls and boys request this on TRL

Watch this video:

Why Santorum Can Win

In an answer to my "No Choice" post the following comment was written:

"If we want to truly make a difference in the lives of women, young, old and in-between, we should pick Democratic candidates who can go head-to-head with Santorum and Hart and who can win in November 2006."

Agreed -- the problem is that that candidate is not Bob Casey.

Apparently I'm not alone in that thought. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Playing and winning, however, are not synonymous. Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said she believed that "this race will be tougher than Democrats think. Does Casey excite the Democratic base? He's against abortion, and the base is pro-choice. He has the wrong profile for the party's big liberal donors."

By contrast, she argued, "Santorum is a great campaigner who excites his base" - and it's the diehards who tend to be the most motivated voters in midterm elections. "Their take on Santorum is, 'Agree or disagree with him, you still know where he stands,' which is the same asset Bush had in 2004."

[snip]

But, above all, a Santorum victory would be the silver bullet that destroys the Democrats. Privately, some of them believe that Casey's double-digit poll lead is a mirage and that Santorum has been smart to spend the summer touting his defense of the family. It's a theme that rouses his base and potentially connects with parents who, while wary of his most outspoken views, nevertheless share his concerns about the entertainment culture's influence on children.

"The point is, Santorum is saying something, consistently - while Casey isn't saying much," a top Washington Democratic strategist said privately. "And that gets back to the problem we still have as a party. The Republicans have a broad cultural message, and they know how to communicate it. We still don't know how to communicate what we believe in. We've lost our self-confidence."

Indeed, Democratic strategists James Carville and Stan Greenberg warned in a July memo that their party was "at risk of making only modest gains in 2006" because they "are firing on only half their cylinders." As a result, voters are still "uncertain about [our] convictions."

To sum up:

1. Casey is a lousy campaigner. Casey had a near 20 point lead against Ed Rendell early on and then lost by about 10 -- he managed to go down nearly 30 points over the course of the race! This is the "mirage" factor mentioned in the article. Santorum IS a strong campaigner and a strong debater and he can trounce Casey in any kind of one-on-one interview/debate.

A Millersville University poll; conducted 10/25-28/01; surveyed 504 registered voters margin of error +/- 4.3%. (Hotline)
Democratic primary matchup--Likely Voters:
Casey: 44%
Rendell: 27%
Undecided: 30%

Final Results:
Rendell: 56%
Casey: 44%

2. Rendell had help from pro choice REPUBLICAN women. They contributed to his campaign. Some even registered as Democrats to help him in the primary.

3. Four months after Casey has put up his website he still doesn't have an issues page because he knows that the majority of Pennsylvanians are pro choice and are pro embryo stem cell research. No one even knows how casey feels about the war in Iraq. He can't run as a stealth candidate forever.

4. Republicans will always be able to outspend Democrats and Casey will not get the kind of money that a strong pro choice Democrat would get in this race -- especially money from contributors outside the state who would give cash to prgressive/pro choice PACs.

5. I have heard much rumblings that the Democratic Powers That Be are trying to get Casey to "soften" his position on abortion. They finally realized that maybe they screwed up by shoving an anti choice candidate down our throats.

6. By running Santorum Lite, you are giving Santorum voters no reason to switch over their vote. Despite any of the batshit crazy stuff Santorum is saying now he will, as always, start running towards the middle the closer it gets to the election. He's already backed down on teaching Intelligent Design in schools. Santorum will run as a family friendly populist and Casey will run as a void.

If the Democratic party had some cojones -- if they wanted to demonstrate that they stand for SOMETHING -- then Chuck Schumer, Ed Rendell, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the boys would have gotten behind someone who could present the voters with a real alternative to Rick Santorum. Someone like Chuck Pennacchio.

They could have embraced the differences between Democrats and Republicans instead of fleeing from them. They could have learned something from the 2004 election and realized that the way to win is to have a strong candidate with strong positions who offers the voters a real CHOICE (pun intended).

Santorum on Ann Devlin

Sorry, folks.

I posted here that I heard Ann Devlin announce that Senator Rick Santorum would be on her show tonight (Aug 11, 2005). I must've misheard her.

This evening's show was an interview with Marvin Hamlish.

Apologies all around.

Sorry, again folks.

Q. Can't we all just get along?A. No.

The Conversation features what it calls a "money quote" from Eric Alterman on the topic of abortion:

Abortion is probably necessary in a society that (purposely) does such a bad job of educating its youth about sex and does not give a s**t about poor kids once they've been born. But for most people it's a personal tragedy. To celebrate it as a “right” is a big mistake, given what an unhappy experience it is for all concerned. What's more, a lot of people think it's murder and their religion tells them this is true. Why can’t we respectfully disagree? How does that diminish anyone? Grow up, everybody.

I commented on it as follows:

Oh man, what a child some of us have been. I've seen the light.

I now promise never to force Eric Alterman (or anyone else) to have an abortion. Furthermore, I promise never to support a politician who would force Eric Alterman (or anyone else) to have an abortion. I hope Eric will do likewise and never deny me (or anyone else) the choice to have an abortion and never support a politician who would deny me (or anyone else) the choice to have an abortion.

There. I guess that settles that. :-D

We can't "all just get along" when some want to take away the RIGHT for women to have control over their own bodies.

We can't "all just get along" when some don't think it's a big deal that there are people trying to take away the RIGHT for women to have control over their own bodies.

Sorry! Just too big a RIGHT to let go...to give away...to let slip away.

There is nothing "respectful" about trying to take away a RIGHT. "Respectfully disagreeing" with someone who wants to take away your RIGHTS will get you no RIGHTS.

I won't give an inch when you're trying to take a mile.

Rick Santorum on KDKA

I just heard Senator Rick Santorum interviewed on Fred Honsberger's radio show on KDKA. He did the ususal song and dance around his book. What was the name of his book again? I forget.

There were a few choice nuggets in the rather short (20 minutes or so) interview.

When a caller named Brian stated that he would not be voting for Senator Santorum because of the Senator's "negative attitude" to the gay community, the Senator answered with "I don't have a negative attitude to the gay community. I stand for traditional values."

He went on to say that he feels that the best situation for a child is to be raised in a family with both a mother and a father. He was careful to add, however, that he was not saying that a "single parent" or a non-traditional family is necessarily bad - many of them are good.

He said that society should be favoring what is best, not what's "just OK." And what's best is a two parent family with a mother and a father.

On the Patriot Act, he said he was generally for the extension of the act, but would be concerned if he learned that there were abuses. So far he's heard of no abuses of the USAPatriot Act.

Is is in favor of "sunsetting" it - that it should probably not be extended permanently.

Finally, the interview touched on the Penn Hills School District.

Senator Santorum stated on the air that the Penn Hills School District voted to change its policy this week and he mentioned two different aspects. 1) He said they'd declared him a resident of Penn Hills and 2) He said that the new policy stated that an elected official didn't have to be a resident of Penn Hills in order for his children to be in the school district.

Here's how the Tribune Review puts it:

Although still trying to recoup cyber school tuition for U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's children, the Penn Hills school board has changed its rules to allow payment for the online schooling of other families who sometimes live outside of the district.

Federal elected officials, military personnel and humanitarian and emergency workers called to work temporarily out of the state will be exempted from residency requirements.

The resolution, passed 6-2 Tuesday night, will allow the district to pay the cyber charter tuition bills for the children of workers in "unique circumstances" called to "service to country or those in need," even if it means they must live out of state.

And here's how the Post-Gazette describes it:

Saying the guidelines will help administrators decide who is eligible for district-funded cyber-charter education, the board this week set three instances when a family living temporarily outside the district can expect the district to pick up the cost.

The policy says that assignment outside Pennsylvania due to service in the Armed Forces, service due to election or appointment to a federal government position or involuntary assignment to humanitarian or emergency relief efforts would make children eligible. The family must intend to return to Penn Hills when the service concludes.

Board Members Erin Vecchio and Jennifer Lundy voted against the policy change. The P-G continues:

Lundy said she didn't believe the guidelines were comprehensive. Vecchio objected to no time limits being set for service.

I haven't been able to find the exact policy to post here (sorry- if anyone can point me in the right direction, that would be grand!).

AND I haven't been able to validate whether the board did declare Santorum a resident of Penn Hills as he said on the air.

As soon as I hear something I'll post it here.

Iraqapalooza!

(Because we just can't stop trying to link 9/11 and Iraq. Nope! We really can't stop. The American people are pissed -- they don't support the war anymore. Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! MUST RE-LINK IRAQ AND 9/11 AGAIN IN THE PUBLIC'S MIND!!!)

From The Age

The Pentagon would hold a massive march and country music concert to mark the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an announcement tucked into an Iraq war briefing today.

[snip]

Rumsfeld's march had some relatives of September 11 victims fuming.

"How about telling Mr Rumsfeld to leave the memories of September 11 victims to the families?" said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband in the attacks.

Administration supporters insisted Rumsfeld was right to link Iraq and September 11, and hold the rally.

"We are at war," said Representative Pete King, (Republican, New York).

You can sign up to attend the march -- which begins at the at the Pentagon South parking lot, crosses Arlington National Cemetery, and ends adjacent to the National Mall and Reflecting Pool -- at this website:

asyfreedomwalk.com
(Though you might want to reconsider signing up there if you are male of draft age.)

Supporters of the march include -- I kid you not -- Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin:

2004 Sales: $35.5 Billion

Sales by customer in 2004:
U.S. Department of Defense/Intelligence - 58%
Civil Government/Homeland Security - 22%
International - 17%
Commercial Domestic - 3%

What? Was Haliburton unavailable?

Turning the Corner...or...Last Throes?

Oh dear, oh dear, which of those phrases do we file this under?

From the New York Times:

Baghdad Mayor Is Ousted by a Shiite Group and Replaced

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 9 - Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm on Monday, deposed the city's mayor and installed a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia

This is the new Iraq," said Mr. Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation. "They use force to achieve their goal."

The group that ousted him insisted that it had the authority to assume control of Iraq's capital city and that Mr. Tamimi was in no danger. The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, is a member of the Badr Organization, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as Sciri.

The militia has been credited with keeping the peace in heavily Shiite areas in southern Iraq but also accused of abuses like forcing women to wear the veils demanded by conservative Shiite religious law.

Need a Laugh?

Then read the 135 things "Jabba" is no longer allowed to do in the Air Force.

Rick Santorum on Night Talk THIS THURSDAY

I caught the tail end of Ann Devlin's Night Talk this evening. The discussion I caught was about our Junior Senator and the whole "cyber school" thing.

And then at the end Ann announced that Senator Santorum will be on the show this Thursday at 8:00pm - I believe I even caught her saying, "We'll see what he says about all this."

The phone number to call to talk to Lil Ricky (if he's got the intestinal fortitude to take questions, that is) is:

(412) 333-PCNC

I'll try to watch/tape it and post something about it here by the weekend.

Cindy Sheehan - A Threat to National Security (with Update)

UPDATE: From DailyKos:

CODEPINK was just able to get through to Cindy and Diane Wilson in Crawford, and there was a miscommunication---the notion that Cindy and others would be arrested was only conjecture by a state representative, not any law enforcement official. Bush's motorcade will be driving down the road where Cindy is camped out en route to a fundraiser Thursday, and the representative told protesters that he "imagined" they would be arrested as a national security threat.

=====
From a diary at the dailykos:

Cindy Sheehan phoned me from Texas a few minutes ago to say that she's been informed that beginning Thursday, she and her companions will be considered a threat to national security and will be arrested. Coincidentally, Thursday is the day that Rice and Rumsfeld visit the ranch, and Friday is a fundraiser event for the haves and the have mores. Cindy said that she and others plan to be arrested.

And for those who don't know who Cindy Sheehan is, here's some info. Ms Sheehan is a member of the "Goldstar Families for Peace." Her son Casey was killed in action in Iraq on 4/4/2004. According to DOD records, there were 12 casualties that day.

She explained her reasoning at her diary at dailykos. Here's what she wrote:

George Bush said speaking about the dreadful loss of life in Iraq in August: (08/03/05): "We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission." "The families of the fallen can be assured that they died for a noble cause."

In reaction to these two assinine and hurtful statements, members of Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP) are going to George's vacation home in Crawford, Tx this Saturday, August 6th at 11:00 am to confront him on these two statements.

1. We want our loved ones sacrifices to be honored by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions. Just because our children are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation that we are.
2. We would like for him to explain this "noble cause" to us and ask him why Jenna and Barbara are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble.
3. If George is not ready to send the twins, then he should bring our troops home immediately. We will demand a speedy withdrawal.

And for this, I guess the Bush administration considers her a threat to national security.

Here's more from her diary:.

By the way, the wingnuts have been doing their best to smear this woman. Here's what Drudge has to say:

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again."

'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

CINDY 2005

Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"

In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year."

It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

Ah, well.

But it seems that (surprise, surprise) Matt Drudge is taking things out of context. Here's the story from RawStory.com. Here's the first three paragraphs from the Raw Story article:

An article by Matt Drudge quoting anti-war mother Cindy Sheehan whose son was killed in Iraq grossly took Sheehan out of context, RAW STORY has learned.

The Vacaville, California Reporter told of how Sheehan was invited to meet with Bush and given "VIP treatment" from the military. But even when the article was published, it's clear that Sheehan and her husband had serious questions about Bush -- and were not adulatory as the article by Drudge suggests.

The article by David Henson is not online and was acquired by RAW STORY.

Matt Drudge, what a guy!

Politics PA Blog Local Branch of the Republican Noise Machine?

Chris Bowers presents a convincing case that it is at MyDD and suggests that progressive/Democratic blogs and elected Democratic officials and candidates immediately end all contact with Politics PA.

ABC News Announces That Peter Jennings Has Passed Away

They just broke in to regular progranmming with a special report to announce it.

I must say that when I was able to catch the network news I preferred Jennings to Brokow or Rather.

NO CHOICE

On Wednesday evening I attended the monthly meetup for Democracy for Pittsburgh. The meetups often feature political candidates and this night was no exception. The candidate was a Democrat who plans to run against a sitting Republican member of Congress. I'm not going to name the person on the off chance that someone reading this will decide to donate money to the guy after reading what I write.

More importantly, his name is not important because he represents something bigger than his candidacy.

He expressed many opinions with which I agree and seemed particularly interested in health care -- with one glaring exception. The exception was that, when asked, he stated that he was "pro life."

Democracy for Pittsburgh is a progressive organization. it is the Pittsburgh coalition for Democracy for America. Democracy for America favors candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially progressive.

Now he did say that he knew what he was walking into. He stated that no pro choice candidate could win in his district. He stated that he hoped to mostly avoid the topic of abortion during his run for office.

When asked outright if he would sign a bill outlawing abortion, he hedged. Later, when a member of the group said that she had been raped and it was her father who had raped her, he said he would support an exception for rape and incest. (Need it be said that if you support an "exception" for rape and incest, that you obviously must support some curtailment of abortion rights?) He also said that he supported the morning after pill and embryo stem cell research.

Perhaps some of you now are thinking, "Hmm, he's sounding a bit more reasonable. He's certainly no religious zealot on the subject."

But, I would posit that his stand is not "reasonable." His stand is the height of hypocrisy.

While I strongly disagree with those who would ban all abortions, the morning after pill and embryo stem cell research; at least their postion is based on a philosophical/religious argument that life begins at conception and life must not be destroyed. Your demands follow reasonably from your views. You do believe in something. Some of those same people would accept an exception for the life of the mother, and this still makes sense in the context of their beliefs as you would now have two "equal" lives at stake and they feel that they cannot ask someone to give up their own life for another.

But, I have to argue that a person who would ban abortions but have an exception for rape and incest is not "pro life" but solidly anti choice.

Is the fetus somehow less "fetus" and more "baby" because the conception occured by an act of rape/incest?

Of course not!

I will put forward that people who believe in this type of exception just find the idea of rape and incest even more "icky" than they find abortion to be "icky." Or perhaps they are able to empathize more with the idea of one of their own (wife, sister, daughter, friend) being forced to carry to term a child conceived of rape. Perhaps they themselves would not want such a child around.

But I do not care to know what psychology is behind their reasoning.

What they are in fact doing is judging how "moral" a woman is who wants/needs to have an abortion. Has she jumped through enough hoops? Has she satisfied my desire to feel comfortable that she is not just some careless, unthinking slut? Has she suffered enough already?

They are deciding that: yes, you have a choice if you have been raped, but you do not have a choice if, say, you already have six children and you do not have the finances or emotional and physical resources to have a seventh. They are judging that, well rape is one thing, but the fact that you are 16, or 14, or 10 just doesn't cut it with them -- it's not ugly enough for their comfort zone.

They truly do not believe that you have a choice in deciding what you will do with your own body, your own person, more than they believe that you are taking the life of a "baby." After all, it is not the fault of the "baby" in question that you were raped or incested, is it?

So then it must be about their comfort level in why you want/need an abortion more than their belief that you are killing a person.

Can anyone please explain to me how this is not hypocritical?

The current Democratic meme that we must welcome pro-lifers and make them feel more "comfortable" in our party says that we believe in nothing as a party. Either we are pro choice or we are not.

I do not mean to suggest that there is no room in the party for candidates who are personally opposed to abortion but who would not impose that belief on others. I fully support your right to believe in whatever you like. I support your right to say you think abortions are wrong. However, I do not support your "right" to prevent women from having the choice to terminate a pregnancy.

Another woman at the meetup was a veteran. She had served in both wars in Iraq. She spoke eloquently about the horrors of the current war -- about the unbelievably gruesome injuries she saw visited upon our troops.

She wanted the candidate to explain to her earlier in the evening (before she talked bout serving in Iraq) why she should have anyone deny her a medical procedure. Yes, that is what she called abortion. And, apparently that is what the candidate was more comfortable thinking about abortions that were from rapes than what he thought of abortions in general.

Now, here's the part where I scold my so-called "progressive" brothers. It was the women at the meetup who asked question after question about abortion. I am not saying that there weren't any strong pro choice men there, but am saying that it is my experience (certainly on this blog and others) that, in general, "pro choice" progressive men are far more willing to "forgive" a candidate for being anti choice. They are far more willing to label pro choice women as being un-pragmatic and lament their insistence on focusing on a "single issue." They are uncomfortable with being accused of being the "Abortion Party." You know, hey, can't we just let this slide (for this candidate...for this election...)?

It is also my experience that the women who are most "strident" on this issue are the ones who were around pre Roe v. Wade. Even if you were in jr. high, like me, when that case was decided, you can remember a time when women did not have the right to fully control their bodies. You remember the laughter, derision and outright hostility towards "libbers." You remember when it wasn't even illegal to pay a woman less than a man for doing the exact same job. You remember a lot.

Those that are a bit older than me remember the consequences of back alley abortions. The hospital wings filled with women suffering from infections or botched operations. The deaths.

I see a lot of outrage in the progressive corner of the blogosphere. There is much to be outraged about. Many of you write outraged posts.

You are outraged by the deaths and injuries of our troops in Iraq...



You are outraged by the deaths of innocent civilians...



You are outraged by the torture at Abu Ghraib...



You are outraged by less life and death matters such as Republican fiscal policies...



But, I see precious few "pro choice progressive" men outraged by the efforts to make back alley abortions the only CHOICE that many women will have...even when those efforts are by candidates that we are encouraged to be "pragmatic about" and support...



Perhaps it's out of your comfort zone.

Out a Covert CIA Agent: Keep Your JobCurse On Air: Get Suspended

Robert Novak has finally been suspended from CNN. No, not for outing undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame, but for saying "bullshit" live on air on Inside Politics and walking off the set.

Talking Points Memo points out that Novak may have been freaking out because James Carville had brought a copy of Who's Who in America on the set. Novak suggested in his column on August 1st that anyone could have figured out Wilson's wife's name by looking Wilson up in Who's Who. Anne Kornblut asks why Novak used the name "Plame" instead of "Wilson" in a New York Times article on August 2nd in which Who's Who is also mentioned.

Did Novak freak out because of the presence of this book? Certainly there was no reason for the melt down in the context of what was being said right before Novak blew it -- this program always features shouting.

The host of Inside Politics stated that Novak knew that the Plame case would be discussed on the program.

Crooks and Liars has the video.

Santorum is Super!

The third senator from Virginia will be gracing these parts for a book signing tomorrow. Why not come out and greet him?

When: 9;45 AM Friday, August 5th
Where: Borders Books, Bethel Park 1775 North Highland Avenue.
What: To celebrate all that is Rick Santorum!!! Super!!
(Burqas optional)

You can even SHOW YOUR LOVE FOR SANTORUM by downloading posters and Lil Ricky masks from this website.

And, while you're at Borders, why not pick up a copy of his SUPER book that contains such fabulous pearls of wisdom as:

"In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don’t need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do… And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home." (It Takes a Family, 94)

"Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more “professionally” gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment…Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders." (It Takes a Family, 95)

"The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong." (It Takes a Family, 138)

"It’s amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools." (It Takes a Family, 386)

If you're lucky, you might even be able to get Santorum's autograph! Could anything be more SUPER? Actually, if you're a woman, what would be really, really SUPER is if you wore an apron to show that you know your proper place! C'mon ladies!

Go To Church Brew Works Tonight!

From Comments from Left Field:

Ok folks, if you have been waiting for a good reason to attend Drinking Liberally here it is. On Thursday August 4 at 7:00 PM U.S. Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, Chuck Pennacchio, will be joining us at The Church Brew Works to talk about his campaign, answer your questions, and hopefully hoist a couple of pints in the name of liberals everywhere. I don't want to hear any excuses, if you want to see Rick Santorum gone in 2006 then this is your chance to meet one of his challengers.

Church Brew Works
Thursday, August 4 7-9 PM
3525 Liberty Avenue in Lawrenceville