What the hell. E.J. Dionne writes about "Why are George W. Bush and his party so skillful in dealing with the abortion issue, and why are Democrats so clumsy?" The answer, it seems, is that people like Dionne make it easy.
Dionne "contrasts" the Specter/Toomey primary battle with current pro-life Democrats presumed to run in PA and RI, and supported by people like Chuck Schumer. But, in fact these things are almost exactly the same.
Toomey ran against Specter in the primary and almost beat him. He had an immense amount of support from out of state donors. He was heavily pushed by the Club for Growth crowd and every frother on right wing hate radio. The gang at the National Review were wetting themselves with joy at the prospect of a Specter loss. So, yes, Specter had the support of the Republican party, but the conservative establishment was gunning for him.
Now we're heading towards the 2006 primary races. Some evil liberals (Hollywood liberals, even!) are daring to raise money to mount primary challenges against pro-life Democrats, despite the fact that these Democrats have the overwhelming support of their party. Langevin and Casey have the support of their party, and a very tiny piece of the liberal establishment could possibly challenge them. So, as you see, it's the same, except of course for the fact that the anti-Specter forces were a lot better organized and funded.
The main difference is that people in the media weren't talking about how all the anti-Specter/pro-life crowd were "intolerant" and weren't blasting Toomey supporters and their out of state money for their arrogance.
What possesses smart people to write columns like that.
