1) If nominating a Justice that may overturn R v W on Constitutional basis is such a losing issue, why are the Democrats "moderating" their tolerance on the issue of abortion?
2) I'd love to be proven wrong, but my gut instinct is that casey will say what is necessary to get elected then vote almost down the line against the pro-life position. If so, then he made a deal with the Democrats to do so, this is why they support him, and so would mean they have NOT moderated their views. Only once again lied to the people. Salazar claimed one thing, did another. Casey is likely in that mold. I'd love to be wrong, love to have him more like his father, I just sincerely doubt the Democrats have allowed someone with real convictions on pro-Life pro-Faith issues to run.
oF COURSE NOT. 'Rats will say whatever they think they need to say to wrest control back from the GOP. 'Rats invented the phrase, "talk is cheap." But guaranteed, they will show their true colors with the court appointments, where it counts.
"I'd love to be proven wrong, but my gut instinct is that casey will say what is necessary to get elected then vote almost down the line against the pro-life position."
It has been my experience that ALL politicians will say what is necessary to get elected, and then go back on that word in most cases.
Personally I'm so fed up with both parties it's not funny. They are 2 sides of the same coin with very little real difference between the 2 of them.
Actually, if Casey is like his Dad, he is pro-life. The big difference is that the Democrats think they need him to win. They snubbed his Dad, for his pro-life views, when they didn't think they had any need of him.