Jason sends along a link to an article in the Wall Street Journal concerning the convention address scheduled for tonight by Pennsylvania senator Robert Casey, son of the late PA governor. Casey, Sr., those of a certain age will recall, was humiliated by the Democrats at the 1992 convention because he was pro-life. Tonight his son gets what the father was denied, a chance to speak to his party on the issue of abortion. Whether he will take up that topic and do so forcefully is anyone's guess, but it'll be interesting to see if he seeks to "avenge" his father.
The WSJ article by William McGurn questions, inter alia, how anyone who is pro-life can align himself with a party whose standard bearer voted against protecting infants born alive after an "unsuccessful" abortion. It's a question that has occupied us here at Viewpoint as well. How can a party who is collectively outraged that we might make terrorists uncomfortable in their incarceration at Guantanamo turn around and have tingles running up their legs at the thought of a president who is willing to tolerate murdering birthed babies if the mother doesn't want the child?
McGurn's column is a good piece with a lot of background on both the Casey debacle of 1992 and the current thinking of the Democratic party on the issue of life.RLC