This sort of logic makes no sense to me. From Ken Baer’s post on the Casey/Santorum race:
Yet, a few months ago, a veteran political strategist who has deepexperience working for women candidates in Pennsylvania, pointed out tome the danger in this strategy: namely, why should pro-choiceRepublican/Independent suburban women go and vote when faced with thatchoice? And huge turnout among this group is what swings Pennsylvaniaelections to Democrats.
I don’t know, maybe because they differ on other things? This isn’t a race for head of the FDA’s women’s health board, it’s a race for Senate. The winner will vote on war, tax cuts, energy policy, labor standards, health issues, child care access, and countless other things. They will also vote on abortion, but probably not that often. I respect that choice is important, but if a Democrat running for Senate in CA was against me on health care and labor issues — my top concerns — but for everything else I believed in, I’d heave a great sigh, trudge down to the ballot box, and try and get him elected. Further, one more Democrats means one step closer to a Democratic majority. A Democratic majority means protection of choice, rejection of anti-choice judges, and a variety of other NARAL-friendly policies. You want to protect women’s rights, you vote Case. So why is this a hard decision?
