« Sorry, I can't resist | Main | Eat your nice poison, children »

Abortion 1, peace 0

By Michael J. Smith on Saturday March 4, 2006 08:07 PM

I was delighted to see that according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Democratic PA senate candidate Bob Casey, his forehead still dripping from Chuck Schumer's oil of anointment, has made the women's movement in that swingin' state so nauseous that there is talk of running a third-party candidate in the general election:
Kate Michelman, a prominent abortion-rights advocate, said yesterday that she was giving "some thought" to running as an independent in the race for a Pennsylvania seat in the U.S. Senate.

A possible candidacy by Michelman, 63, appears to have much to do with channeling frustration that some reproductive-rights activists have over the National Democratic Party's choice of Bob Casey Jr., an abortion-rights opponent, to challenge Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who also opposes abortion rights.

Talk about the paradoxes of triangulation. Pennsylvania is a state where "pro-choice" sentiment is so strong that Arlen Specter feels he has to steer a careful course between his own party's hydrophobes and his constituents. And yet -- the Democrats want to run a remote-controlled Vatican drone like Casey!

Anyway, I hope Michelman runs -- though it's probably a long shot -- and I hope she spoils it for Casey. Experience keeps a hard school, as the man said, but a fool will learn in no other.

What puzzles me is this -- and I don't at at all mean to indulge in a coarse joke here -- but can somebody tell me why the women's movement has so much bigger balls than the anti-war movement?

As far as I know, there are no peace candidates threatening to do to their local Democrats what Michelman is threatening to do to foetus-fan Casey. Certainly not in microscopically close settings like Pennsylvania, where a few votes can really make a difference.

Kate -- I would vote for you if I lived in Pennsylvania. Would you do me a favor and give Cindy Sheehan a call?

Comments (10)

What puzzles me is this -- and I don't at at all mean to indulge in a coarse joke here -- but can somebody tell me why the women's movement has so much bigger balls than the anti-war movement?

Urggh. The only time I like to hear about "big balls" is when some amiable drunk is doing AC/DC covers down at the Ambassador's karaoke bar, but I prematurely digress...

It might be a good idea to do a tally of how many 3rd Party candidates are launching important challenges around the country as anti-warriors vs. how many are running specifically on the issue of abortion, or women's rights in general. So far, I know of three folks in the former category: Chretien, Zeese, and somebody in MN whose name I'm blanking on at the moment. The only reason I know about Michelman at the moment is because I stopped by here today.

I'd love to take credit for being part of the gutsier gender, but I'm not sure I can at the moment.

I'm guessing that Kos will spew unmentionable substances out of several orifices when he hears about this, however-- Given his own moronic views on abortion and his shameless attempt to blame the entire Alito rollover on NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Excuse me. I need to go break out that big plastic sheet I always use when Gallagher's in town.


Sorry about the balls comment. "Guts" ought to be as earthy an idiom for courage as "balls", but somehow it doesn't have quite the resonance. -- I'm just digging myself in deeper, here, aren't I?

Ahem. Alsis' comment about Chretien, Zeese, and the Minnesota candidate raises the interesting question whether it's just a matter of coverage. Apparently all Michelman had to do was drop a hint that she might be thinking of a third-party run and it was top-of-the-pops news from coast to coast. Is this because Pennsylvania is such a knife-edge state? Or because reproductive rights are less problematic for the media than the war is -- and if the latter, why?

Not a rhetorical question -- this stuff needs some thinking about.

J. Alva Scruggs:

Abortion has an easy script ready to roll out for the newsies. The lines of the sides in that script are firmly drawn. The subtext can become prurient very easily, which is also an easy script to follow. Moreover, the war is happening somewhere over there, but abortion is right under their noses. I think it's laziness.


may i suggest
in keepinmg with the well scripted notion

" pro choice"
is a one of those
ear marked
for the quixotic
one notes only

to the corporate
news corps

the idea one
lady might
run a dem candidate
off the fairway
over that " hot button "
value issue
leaves the broader bi partisan
landscape un hindered

if someone
ran on our platform

the dem party elite
has sold
we the people
down the riveron many fronts
and so
the dembos
need to be erased

well thats not news its...
a night crawler

John H. St.John:

While we are dragging our feet about impeaching George W. Bush the people in Iraq are still dying; the prisoners at Guantanamo are still being force fed and tortured; and in spite of the brouhaha over Dubai; This moron has just given military atomic secrets to India. Conyers should put into action his bill of impeachment now and not wait for more signatories.

Arianna Huffington said on national TV that we should wait until after 2008 until the Democrats have won the Congress. Our people are doing more running off at the mouth than we are doing thinking. It seems as though the mental defective Bush is able to commit atrocities on almost a daily basis. People are already dying as a result of global warming. Are we going to wait for a nuclear winter before we impeach this traitor when he has two and a half more years as a lame duck?

" pro choice"
is a one of those
ear marked
for the quixotic
one notes only

Ah, the "beautiful loser" option. The media is prepared to be nice to the pro-choicers now that it's clear Roe is going down.

Yeah, that's about the level of logic I'd expect from the corporate media, come to think of it. JSP may have nailed it.

To try and answer MJS' question about why abortion gets different treatment than the war, perhaps it has to do with a combination of fear on the media's part of being perceived as conforming to Republican talking points as far as the war is concerned, combined with the fact that the media is owned by conservatives that consider the war to be a central aspect of their agenda.

I also think that Jonathan Tasini is running against Hillary Clinton (DINOsaurus), but I don't know if that's a primary challenge or a full electoral challenge.

Jonathan Tasini, NY is running a primary challange, which means just about jack in NY since the national party has had that one solidly rigged for years.

I think he Minnesota candidate Alsis mentioned is Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer running a primary challange in the 5th CD here, which I can tell you from personal experience is pointless, as the DFL'ers have been thoroughly under the thumb of the beltway dems since at least 1992.

Along with Kevin Zeese (MD) and Todd Cretien (CA), there's another good independant candidate running in IL-08. Bill Scheurer is running to unseat DINO Melissa Bean.


Actually in the 1st congressional district in Maine a group of peace movement veterans have asked Dexter Kamilewicz, whose son is in Iraq, to run against Rep Tom Allen (D-ME) who claims he is against the war but keeps voting for all the money. Dexter is running as an Independent. In Maine Independents are the largest voting block in the state. Dexter had 100 folks from throughout the district turn out for his announcement event and people are now gathering signatures in 30 communities across the district. See his web site at www.dexterforcongress.org

=v= You can use 'nads in lieu of balls. Which is not to say that anyone's in lieu of balls. Damn, I'm in trouble now ...

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Saturday March 4, 2006 08:07 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Sorry, I can't resist.

The next post in this blog is Eat your nice poison, children.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31