What is the principled difference between a person who refuses to support

[dsc]

Byrd due to his record on gay and lesbian rights (13% HRC rating in the last Congress, long Bible laden speech in favor of DOMA, claiming no gays lived in WV and thus refusing to fund either AIDS prevention or therapy, and a host of other atrocities) and someone refusing to support Casey in PA on the grounds he is pro life (assuming Casey is our nominee there)?

Note by principled difference I mean something that is irrespective of whose OX is being gored. BTW real gays and lesbians lost their lives due to Byrd's refusal to adequately fund AIDS prevention or treatment.

I am asking this as a serious question. I see many people applauding the withholding of support for Casey on the grounds of his position on abortion but very much suspect that I would be pilloried for advocating witholding of support from Byrd. Which it should be noted, that I am not doing.

[ironman202]

1. i kept waiting for what you were comparing your position to...

[clover]

2. i think byrd is a dinosaur.we ought to consider working with

--on behalf of--the young leaders within our chosen party, setting high standards as we help to educate younger ones about the democratic processes, and to leave them a written record of our party's guiding principles, rather than trying to redeem old old old leaders that are "sort of" worthy of our support.

[sui generis]

3. Byrd can eat shit and die.

Withholding support for people with AIDS, whether or not they are gay, is murder.

Doing it for upstanding "moral" reasons makes him lower than pigshit. Supporting constitutional discrimination against some taxpayers because they don't love someone of the opposite sex makes him lower than wormshit.

Let me tell you what I really think.

[dsc]

4. kick