MyDD :: Pennsylvania Senate Race '06: My Endorsement

Pennsylvania Senate Race '06: My Endorsement

by craverguy, Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:11:13 AM EST

Author's note: I don't live in Pennsylvania and I've never done so before. This is just the two cents' worth of a political junkie. Take it how you will.

So I'm having a discussion on Primary2008, and the conversation soon turns to the upcoming re-election campaign of that bundle of hate and venom, and potential presidential timber, Rick Santorum.

The person that I'm talking to assures me that State Treasurer Bob Casey is The Man, the guy who can, without a doubt, take out Santorum. Now, I'm a political junkie with some time on my hands, so I decide to go find out all I can about this Casey guy. What I find is troubling. Casey, it seems, is a diehard opponent of abortion rights and gun control.

Immediately, my DINO alert goes up. I decide that I don't really like the idea of this guy bearing my party's standard, so I decide to find an alternative that I can support. My googling turns up two names over and over again.

The first name I turn up is not encouraging. In fact, she may be worse than Casey. Barbara Hafer, Casey's predecessor in his job, is an ex-Republican. Now, she may be a moderate Republican. I'm actually fairly convinced that she is. But that's not good enough. If nominating an ex-Republican doesn't say "Republican-lite" in blinking neon letters, I don't know what does. So she's off my list.

The second name turns out to almost be too good to be true. Dr. Chuck Pennacchio has a big Paul Wellstone vibe. Mondo, über big Wellstone vibe. A progressive college professor, Dr. Pennacchio is running an anti-establishment insurgency candidacy with a premium on grassoots organizing. So I'm combing through the guy's opening pitch and issue statements on his website, and I'm starting to think that he's probably the guy.

Then the double-clincher.

In 1988, Pennacchio was the Iowa Caucus field director for Senator Paul Simon and, in 2004, a Pennsylvania organizer for Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

To me, Paul Simon is one of the top five senators of all time and one of my political idols, while Dennis Kucinich had my heart and some of my dollars, although not my vote (that went to Howard Dean) in the presidential primaries. I think that Kucinich and Simon represent what all Democrats should strive to be: always principled and as progressive as they come. Any friend of theirs is a friend of mine.

So here's my endorsement, for what it's worth: Pennacchio for Senate. I urge all of you bloggers out there who care about the shape of the Senate to check him out. If he sways you as he swayed me, I urge you to endorse him and, if you live in Pennsylvania, volunteer for him. We must have another progressive in the Senate, especially in light of my hope that Russ Feingold will be leaving in 2008. To play off an old Nixon slogan, "Pennacchio Is The One."

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 62 Comments :: Post a Comment

I've got Pennacchio's back. (none / 0)

Screw Republican-lite!

by meme on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:25:49 AM EST

Casey or Hafer (none / 0)

I don't give a damn about "principles" (even Zell Miller would be better then Santorum, though only slightly), but very interested in winning. These two can beat Santorum. All other - don't. The end of the story for me..

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:17:01 AM EST

Re: Casey or Hafer (none / 0)

Electability? Electability is a lie. Go ask the people who worked on Paul Wellstone's campaign in 1990 or Dennis Kucinich's in 1994 if their bosses were "electable." No one believed that either one had a chance in hell of beating their opponents, popular incumbents, but they did.

Anybody can beat anybody. All you need is the image of being "principled" and a whole lotta grassroots support.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

apples and oranges (none / 0)

Cleveland and Minnesota have been much kinder to liberals over the years. Minnesota elected Humphrey, Wellstone, and Dayton. Pennsylania has not elected a Democrat to a 6-year Senate term since 1962. While I have been sympathetic to past outsiders, it's foolhardy to turn down a favorite like Casey.

by eskimo on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:54:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: apples and oranges (none / 0)

The guy who preceded Kucinich in his post was an ultraconservative Republican and Wellstone was the first Democrat to win a seat in the Senate from Minnesota since Mondale left in 1976.

As for Bob Casey, why should we send a guy to the Senate that clearly has serious problems with certain issues that are important to progressives? How does he differ from Santorum on key issues like gun-control and abortion? I'm tired of sending people to Congress who are going to vote with the Republicans on important votes. In Texas, they have an excuse for it. There is no excuse for it in Pennsylvania.

Besides, as you so ably pointed out, no Democrat has won that seat since 1962. And why were all of those losing candidates picked? Because they had high name recognition, big bucks, and were considered "electable." Much like Bob Casey. These establishment guys appear to have been fucking up for forty-three straight years. Maybe it's time to give someone else a shot.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:30:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)

for mentioning Mondale...forgot about him. You're right that Minnesota has elected Republicans to the Senate, including conservatives like Grams. But, unlike Pennsylvania, they also regularly elect (and re-elect) liberals.

You make a good point about the establishment, but let me make a better one. Pennsylvania's history of supporting moderate Republicans (Specter, Heinz, etc.) for statewide office supercedes whether the Democrats ran moderates or liberals. In fact, as jcjcjc points out, liberals who support gun control have faired poorly.

Name ID is important. This isn't the presidential race, where the primary winner doesn't have to worry about lack of name recognition. That's why Klink lost--when hardly anybody's heard of you, it's hard to raise the money necessary to raise your profile.

by eskimo on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:08:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks (none / 0)

That last point is precisely why he's starting so early. By the time 2006 rolls around, I think that plenty of people will have heard of him. As for moderate Republicans, Santorum isn't one, so it's irrelevant.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey or Hafer (none / 0)

Well, i don't belive such bu..shit. For every one such case there are hundreds that prove my point. No, electablity is beginnig and end of the game for me - and let "principles" be damned....

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:44:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey or Hafer (none / 0)

And what happens when we do that? We get guys who do diddly-shit for their entire terms in office. We get people who never fight for anything, who walk up to cast their votes in the Senate thinking about what their opponent's attack ad will look like, rather than what's good for the people. Electability should be important, but it should not be the beginning and the end of choosing our candidate. We did that in 2004, and we lost.

Besides, who can measure electability? The people who have run for that seat before certainly seemed electable. They had money and moderate positions and name recognition and money. But they lost. They lost and "unelectable" candidates like Wellstone and Feingold won. Why? Because you make your own electability. You make it with straight talk, populism, and letting people know you give a shit about what happens to them. And none of hose other candidates had that. Money may buy you ads and moderation may buy you endorsements, but neither can buy you respect.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:57:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey or Hafer (none / 0)

Damn, beat me to the punch...

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:57:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey or Hafer (none / 0)

No. I repeat - you consistently quote 2-3 examples, which confirm your point of view. I can easily give my examples:

What would happened if we would nominate "progressive" Miles instead of moderate Salazar for Senate in CO? "Hello, Senator Coors(R-CO)"??

The same with his brother in CO-3 - very swing district, even Republican-leaning

The same with candidates who won in the South - Melancon (LA-3) (very conservative socially), Boren (OK-2), Barrow (GA-12)

And i mentioned only last election. I can give literally hundreds other examples straight out of my memory.

No, electability is foremost, all other - can wait. Otherwise we will soon have Senate with 67 Republicans....

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:07:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey or Hafer (none / 0)

Did Kerry win in a single one of those states? No. But he won in Pennsylvania, and exit-polls showed that it really was the ABB factor at work. If we can nominate someone who can both cast Santorum as a Bush lapdog and cast himself as a genuine alternative, he can win. All of the candidates can do the first thing, but Casey and Hafer will have considerable trouble with the second.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:11:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey or Hafer (none / 0)

Well, Kerry won PA very narrowly. And Bush wasn't PA Senator for 10 years (and Congressman for 4 before), so i expect Santorum to be more popular in PA, then Bush. And polls confirm that...

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:15:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey or Hafer (none / 0)

Okay- how do you judge if someone is electable or not? What criteria would you use in PA?

I tend to feel that winning takes presidence over certain principles, but I'm not convinced that sticking to one's principles isn't precisely what makes someone electable.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:57:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It may (none / 0)

or may not. It depends on situation. Well, i would take into account name recognition - first (Hoeffel was a Congressman, but his name recognition was low and he was doomed), then - money (Pennsylvania is a big and expensive state to run in), then - an ability to get powerful allies like unions (they liked Specter and Hoeffel was doomed once again) and only after that - "noble principles"...

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:10:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It may (none / 0)

But hasn't this election proven that many people will give small donations to candidates who they feel represent their values? Wouldn't this put 2 before 3?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:15:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0)

let's put them equally...

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:16:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

live from PA (none / 0)

"We have no farm team"; a comment by our local Democrat chair in regards to Casy running against Santorum.

And while Chuck may have some of the requisite qualifications, he has no name recognition which was part of the problem with Hoeffel.

by cybermome1207 on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:26:03 AM EST

Re: live from PA (none / 0)

Did Wellstone have name-recognition? With activists maybe, but not with ordinary Minnesotans. The same is true of Pennacchio. My advice to him is to do what Wellstone did: invest heavily into grassroots organizing, stump speaking, and making friends with activist leaders. And hire a damn good ad agency. I'd recommend the one that Feingold used last year.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:32:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: live from PA (none / 0)

I am not against Penachiop running at all- that said, we should not shy away from the truth... Wellstone was certainly much more known among the grass-roots than Pennechio is here in PA. Wellstone had already run for office (state auditor I think) and he had been organizing all over the state for years. That is why at the DFL convention he could beat more "electable" challengers, because he had for years and years built up an incredible amount of support in places like the Iron Range, etc. and those activists went to work for him big time. I am not sure Pennachio has that.

Progressive Philadelphia Politics: Young Philly Politics

by DanielUA on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:45:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not gonna matter (none / 0)

if the party clears the field for Casey. Pinocchio could still run, but he wouldn't get very far.

by eskimo on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

Pennsylvania is the definitive moderate state. Rendell won on a tax reform platform. Specter runs pro-abortion.

The Casy family gets by largely because they're seen as good human beings. Pennsylvanians will ignore positions if they feel you're genuinely a good person and deserve to be elected.

Santorum is very, very radical by PA standards. Likewise, he is not seen as a good human being. It tells much that he got re-elected with 52% against Ron Klink.

Santorum barely won two cupcake races against Wofford and Klink. Wofford lost because he's too liberal for PA (which, in a word means guns). Klink lost because no one knew who the hell he was.

Given how well Hoeffel ran against Specter (an absolute institution in PA), it's clear there is an emerging anti-Republican movement in PA, where historically Democrats would vote for Good Republicans like Specter.

Santorum doesn't have even remotely the appeal or respect of Specter. Many GOP members doubt Santorum. Plus, the Burgh and Philly media are already hinting they intend to shred Santorum.

It is better to front a strong candidate. I say let Hafer and Casey go at it, garner some cheap press for the fight, and the winner gets Santorum.

I intend to vote Hafer. She's tough, and that sells well in PA. She has cross-over appeal as former GOP, and her social positions won't offend liberals.

Casey, right now, is getting by largely on name recognition. But, I'd have zero trouble supporting him if he got elected.

Looking at the election map from 2004, you'll see that the interior counties are beginning to soften up. While the southern mountains along MD are a Republican stronghold, the northern and central counties are not quite as hardcore GOP as they used to be.

This area hinges entirely one issue: guns. Any Dem who runs strongly pro-gun will hold the line in these areas.

Erie trended Democrat (finally) in 2004.
Which means that any Democrat starts out with a three score lead, carrying Philly, Pittsburgh, and Erie.

PA has some very encouraging trends, if national Democrats can just soften up on the gun issue and let PA Dems do their thing.

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:15:16 AM EST

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

I don't think that there are many Democrats who could run in Pennsylvania who would lose to Santorum, knowing how unpopular he is. But I truly believe that the person we should be sending to Washington to replace him should be from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," not some party-hopper who, I hear on the grape-vine, only quit the Republicans so she could run for this seat. How can we trust someone like that. Hafer and, for the most part, Casey both say Republican-lite to me. How does nominating either one give the voters of Pennsylvania an honest-to-God choice in 2006?

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:51:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

Santorum will easily beat any Democratic candidate except Casey and Hafer. Quite possible - he will beat them as well. Read latest poll and his rating in Pennsylvania: 52% view him postively, 31 - negatively as i remember. Not great, but, surely, not bad...

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:54:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

"Santorum will easily beat any Democratic candidate except Casey and Hafer."

And George W. Bush will easily beat any candidate but John Kerry. Boy, I guess those pundits are always right, huh? If we took that attitude in every race, most of my favorite senators and governors from the past twenty years would still be in the private sector.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:00:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

Well, Penaccio wasn't even included in a poll - that speak a lot. And pollsters were generally correct, predicting tight race between Bush and Kerry. I, personally, predicted 1-2% Bush victory with EV distribution 280-258. May be i should change my job and become pollster?

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

What polls? How could they have taken a poll yet? It's February 2005, and most of the potential candidates haven't even announced yet? Where is this alleged poll and whpo gave it?

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:16:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at dKos (none / 0)

Recent poll about 2006 candidates and their relative chances. Or www.politicspa.com. Or Mr. Liberal's review of Senate seats in 2006. He also quotes that poll...

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look at dKos (none / 0)

Let me get this straight: the man is the only guy to announce his candidacy thus far, and they didn't put him in the poll? I suppose that's because he's obscure. Well, Dean was the first candidate to announce in 2003 and he was pretty damn obscure. But if the pollsters had left him out of any polls at that time, people would have hit the roof. I think this is just one more example of the media trying to pick the candidate.

Besides, it's almost a year before the primary. Give the man a chance to raise his profile.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:31:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

Here's the recent post on that poll. The upshot is: Casey beats Santorum 46 to 41, while no one else beats him (Hafer comes closest at 47 to 39). He has a 52 approve/31 disapprove rating, so he's (barely) in re-elect territory. Now, granted, there's a year and a half to go, but I think that doesn't support your claim that Santorum is unpopular and automatically loses to fill-in-the-blank Democrat.

The reasons that Casey wins (while no one else does) are a) there's still a ton of goodwill associated with the Casey name, and it's a brand Pennsylvanians trust. I leave the question for another occasion of why we, as an ostensibly Jeffersonian democracy, are so in love with our political dynasties, but it's undeniable that the right name can add 5 or 10 points.

And b) Pennsylvania is one of the few places I can think of where it pays to do the exact opposite of the DLC agenda, and be economically liberal and socially conservative. I'd say that's because PA is probably one of the most Catholic states, it's one of the most union states, and it's one of the oldest states. So you have a lot of voters who have some vague class consciousness and have that Catholic social-justice thing go on, some of whom remember the Depression and remember labor's heyday... but, at least for now, you have a lot of older people who aren't going to get on board with abortion, gay marriage, or disruption of other traditional elements. Like hunting, which is a God-given right in central PA, where the schools actually shut down for deer season. I think the Caseys understand this dynamic well, and that's why Young Bob is the only one who will beat Santorum.

"Should" win is another story; I'd pack the Senate with 100 Wellstones and Kuciniches if I could. And while I'm unenthused about voting for a pro-lifer, I don't want to send the one winning horse to the glue factory because of one particular position (which, sadly, may be the one that will give him the winning edge) (but that isn't to say it's opportunistic; I think it's principled and part of a broader Catholic worldview), when he'll be a pretty reliably progressive vote otherwise.

by Crazy Vaclav on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

in general. I don't think smmsmm was arguing against progressive, outsider candidacies in general, but in this specific case. I mean this guy hasn't even been elected to anything, unlike Feingold and Wellstone.

by eskimo on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:20:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't, (none / 0)

but i don't see eletable progressive candidate in this particular race. In such case - anyone will be considerably better then Santorum...

by smmsmm on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:21:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

Wellstone was never elected to anything before he ran. He, like Pennacchio, was a college professor. In fact, in his one previous campaign for office, he ended up getting beaten like a redheaded stepchild. Shows you what electability is, hmm?

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:22:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

PA is no MN. Outside of the Eastern side of the state you're dealing with, basically, a state that has more in common with WV and VA then NJ and NY.

I really think that, unfortunately, a progressive Professor has about zero chance of getting elected in my home state.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:26:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right (none / 0)

It was mentioned that Wellstone had held office beforehand, and I took it to be true.

But I still think that MN and PA political history shows that we can't assume the Wellstone case will translate to PA.

by eskimo on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:30:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If Pennacchio wants to be elected (none / 0)

He will have to find a way to be viewed as something other than a liberal arts professor.

He better have a long history with guns. PA conservativism is largely built on to things: guns and taxes.

Central PA and western PA isn't really a religious part of the world. The Jesus thing and even the gay don't play that big.

But if you even hint that you might want to ban guns, you will be shot on sight.

A number of Bush voters in PA voted solely on the gun issue, because the Bushies made a really hard push to portray Kerry as anti-gun (hypocrite would be a better description of his gun stance).

In PA, anyone GOP or Dem can win on guns and taxes.

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Pennacchio wants to be elected (none / 0)

Central PA and western PA isn't really a religious part of the world. The Jesus thing and even the gay don't play that big.

While PA certainly isn't the bible belt, I would say that you're overstating this a bit. PA defenitely has its fair share of conservative christian voters, amongst whom those issues defenitely stand tall. But as the Republican primary showed, they're still a minority of the PA right.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Pennacchio wants to be elected (none / 0)

By that standard, California has a religious right.

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Pennacchio wants to be elected (none / 0)

The middle of PA is much more conservative then any part of CA. Have you ever been?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Pennacchio wants to be elected (none / 0)

They're not that religious in central PA. That's my point.

It's a misconception that all poor, rural whites are religious. That's much more of a lower Midwest thing than a general national thing.

Conservative Pennsylvanians are more likely than most conservatives I've met to be atheists. Most conservative Pennsylvanians are: 1) the people of Gunville, 2) tax evaders (why they even oppose taxes when they don't pay them is beyond me), 3) a handful of genuinely uneducated shitheads who believe the Democrats are going to make us all into pinko commie superqueers.

And very rarely do you see mixing and matching of those groups. Most of the gun types pay their taxes and could care less about morality. Most of the tax types are single-issue voters. Most of the anti-gay types have been in jail and can't vote.

When you start talking about the areas west of Philly, you're talking about conservatives who've had it rough, haven't really found God (or worse, had it rough enough they don't see how there can be a God), and largely disdain both political parties because the Dems don't deliver on issues like minimum wage or healthcare, and the GOP doesn't really offer them anything beyond guns and tax relief.

Dems in PA are catching on that taking the other side's issues neutralizes them. If you take the tax issue off the table and never let the gun issue get anywhere near, like Rendell did, the GOP can't run a campaign in PA.

by jcjcjc on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Pennacchio wants to be elected (none / 0)

I don't know which parts of rural PA you've spent time in, but the areas that I know defenitely have a good sized fundementalist population. Again it probablly pales in comparison to the bible belt, but it is certainly a greater share of the population than CA.

However, I think you are correct about the majority of conservatives in PA aren't voting on religion, and could be peeled away from the GOP if we took some of the steps Rendell took...

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:14:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

I'm from PA. I can't escape the impression you might not be.

Rendell is as liberal as you get in PA. After that, you're looking at guys who lose races by 20%.

I'm not sold that a prof from Philly who teaches at an arts college . . . let me say that again . . . a prof from Philly who teaches at an arts college . . . is going to amuse the hell out of anyone outside the Philly metro.

Plus, that description alone will label him anti-gun, even if he decides to do a photo-op while hunting humans with a shotgun.

And, frankly, I don't sweat Hafer, because I voted for her when she was in the GOP. Because that's what we do in PA. Lots and lots of crossing party lines.

A lot of die-trying liberals can bitch. But, right now the last GOPer we voted for (Arlen Specter) is the last line of defense for Roe v Wade. So, measure any outrage at how things get done in PA against the fact that PA is full of Reagan Democrats and progressive Republicans.

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:37:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

Check the top of my post. I openly admit to never having been a resident of Pennsylvania.

As to the whole "anti-gun" thing, I seriously doubt that there are really a sufficient number of one-issue voters in Pennsylvania to swing this election. I also don't think that the Democrat losses in Texas are due solely to the evangelical vote. One-issue voters tend to come in numbers insufficient to tip an election, unless, as in Texas, one nominee can capture the gun-nut vote, the evangelical vote, and the fiscal conservative vote, and still rope in a sufficient number of moderates. One issues alone has never, to my knowledge, swayed a statewide election.

As for Hafer, I don't care if she's the Second Coming of John Lindsay with the backing of the Pennsylvania Green Party. Democrats should nominate Democrats. Enough of this Phil Gramm/John Connally bullshit.

And, frankly, were I a PA voter, I'd look at Casey and Santorum, both of whom oppose abortion and gay rights and boost for guns, the death penalty, and school vouchers, and I'd stay the hell home. What's the point of voting for one of those guys? Why not just tape the ballot to a wall and throw darts at it? Sure, they have differences, but from this vantage point it looks like the difference between George Wallace and Richard Nixon: one's just that little bit more open about his extremism than the other.

We have to offer the voters a choice, and then we have to make a persuasive case for our guy. And a choice between a DINO and a Republican is no choice at all.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

"I'd look at Casey and Santorum, both of whom oppose abortion and gay rights and boost for guns, the death penalty, and school vouchers"

And, if you were a PA voter, those are all the reasons you would need to vote for them.

The difference between the GOP and Dems in PA largely is a debate over minimum wage,

Dems don't run anti-gun here. It's suicide.

Abortion is a non-issue.

Gay rights is barely an issue, and mostly because of Philly.

The death penalty is a push. You won't lose on the death penalty unless you pull a Dukakis.

School vouchers are a non-starter.

That's just PA.

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DINOs and RINOs are what PA wants (none / 0)

Remind me again why these people voted for Kerry? There must be some reason why all of these people who, according to you, are hardcore conservatives, would vote for a Massachusetts liberal.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why PA went Kerry (none / 0)

Military deployments. PA has a number of Nat'l Guard in Iraq. Plus, PA has historically, as a poor gun-toting state, supplied a number of servicemen.

Where Kerry did get votes outside Philly, Pittsburgh, and Erie, he go them mostly on opposition to the war.

"hardcore conservatives"?!?!?!

Huh?! I'm not a hardcore conservative. I seem to think the word I've used repeatedly is "moderate".

But, hmmm . . . I oppose abortion. I support gun rights. I believe tax relief should be done done within reason.

I just also happen to notice that the naional GOP is a gang of crooks. I also happen to notice they're trying to destroy Social Security. I also happen to support a hike in the minimum wage. I support unionization.

Don't pin people as "hardcore conservatives" when all they really are are social conservatives.

A lot of labor Democrats are social conservatives. Surprise! A lot of Pennsylvanians are social conservatives.

Don't hijack Pennsylvania's Senate race just because a few national liberals want to make some point that Paul Wellstone isn't dead.

We have every right to representatives who represent us, as he people we happen to be.

To run folks like Casey and Hafer out on a rail is to doom the Democratic Party to mediocrity.

If you want one party, one ideology, one line rule, well . . . do I even have to say it?

It's wrong. It's wrong for the same reason that it's wrong for the GOP to shit on Olympia Snowe or John McCain.

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:48:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why PA went Kerry (none / 0)

I defenitely agree with you here. There are many social conservatives in PA who we will need to team up with to win, and to slap them with the DINO label just because they don't agree with 100% of the liberal platforms does not mean that we shouldn't support them. Forget dooming Dems to mediocrity, running Casey and Hafer "out on a rail" dooms us to something much worse, second place.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:08:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They will blame Dean and the netroots (none / 0)

If PA runs a liberal against the wishes of the state party and populace (and that is the only way it would happen) the cry of "See what the netroots have done?! See what Dean has done?!" will rise faster than a hummingbird's wings.

And FTR: Bob Casey 2 and Barbara Hafer are both good human beings.

Some will say Hafer was politically motivated. But, all things being equal, the GOP and the Club for Growth types were hellbent to get rid of her anyhow.

The religious right hates the woman rabidly for being 1) pro-abortion and 2) a strong woman.

It was, even if a political move, a good thing for Hafer to but bait with a party that hates her.

The world would be better off if more RINOs saw that point.

And more just might do it if a few RINOs turned Dems got ahead.

by jcjcjc on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:58:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Casey is not a DINO (none / 0)

One issue does not make the man. Now Hafer I think she is a RINO turned DINO in my opinion and we can't have something like that.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:48:34 AM EST

TERESA HIENZ KERRY CAN BEAT HIM!! (none / 0)

Bash me if you will but she is highly
esteemed in Pennsylvania...would she run
I don't know..perhaps one of her sons
with her backing.

by Aslanspal on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST

Re: TERESA HIENZ KERRY CAN BEAT HIM!! (none / 0)

uh, no, that is really wrong.

Progressive Philadelphia Politics: Young Philly Politics

by DanielUA on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pennacchio (none / 0)

This is the wrong attitude for Democrats to take. Why is it that every election we do the same thing? Didn't 2004 teach us that 'electable" doesn't count for shit if you don't know what they stand for?

Pennacchio stands for something- a lot of things. Those THINGS are progressive values. How many of us knew who Howard Dean was before his platform inspired and touched us?

Now I'm from PA- and I've lived in all parts of PA, from the rural "republican" counties to the coal town to Pittsburgh. I've been all over. Pennsylvania can elect a progressive who's not afraid to say he's progressive. I believe, despite what others may say, that is why Rendell won. People knew he was a democrat, and that's what they wanted. They knew he wasn't afraid of change. THAT is what they voted for.

by sheabriana on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:19:33 PM EST

Rendell is a (none / 0)

moderate to liberal. He had his problems with unions in Philadelphia and has good business support. Such Democrat obviously can be elected in PA. But look at PA Democratic congressmen - whom would you call a "prgressive"? Murtha? Doyle? Kanjorski? Holden? Unlikely - all are at least somewhat conservative. Brady? - Surprisingly liberal for "machine politician", but, obviously, not a candidate. Fattah? - Well, it's highly unlikely that he would be elected statewide. Schwartz? She already tried in 2000.

The same is generally true for legislators. I don't even mention that almost all of them have no real name recognition.

In fact there are exactly 3 Democrats in PA with a name as well known in a state as Santorum's (he is a very big name in Pa, though many hate him) - Rendell, Casey, Hafer. Rendell will run again for Governor - what remains? And i will gladly take a candidate, who will vote Democratic line 75% of time (while not being real progressive) over santorum with his voting record...

by smmsmm on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Casey is definitely unacceptable. (none / 0)

His positions on social issues.

He comes out against gay rights and abortion and for the death penalty and school vouchers. He is unacceptable.

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:17:03 PM EST

Re: Casey is definitely unacceptable. (none / 0)

As a Pennsylvania resident Casey is definitly my canidate and it's not all about electibility. I consider myself as more of moderately populist-liberal. I don't like the far left and I hate the far right like Santorum with a passion, his positions on all major issues as well as his lack of moral clairity. I got news for some a lefty like Denis Kucinich ain't going to win in Pennsylvania, I don't know what Pennachio could he pretty much has the same problems as Hoeffoel.

And however said Ed Rendell is as Liberal as you can get in Pennsylvania Rendell is a DLC and anti-labor, maybe on social issues he is, but Bob Casey is a much better Democrat than Rendell or Hafer. And this shit about oh my God Casey is pro-gun and this bullshit, this why you have a situation where West Virginia voted for a Republican President twice, the place where Welfare orginated. Casey will be great Democrat in the Senate if he runs, he's pretty much an FDR type Democrat rather than a Diane Feinstein Democrat.
This is why I support Casey he's great on labor issues, on environmental issues, and issues that benifit average working people, he's done a great job as the Auditor General fighting government waste and corruption making sure the monies go to where it's intended. And he'd be great on health care issues.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey is definitely unacceptable. (none / 0)

Repeat - to get rid of Santorum i would be ready to vote for Zell Miller (if he would be a resident of PA), figurally speaking - even for James Eastland (even his voting record was better then Santorum's). So - Casey views are absolutely no problem for me - all i interested to know - can he beat Santorum or not??

by smmsmm on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:47:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The poll's show... (none / 0)

Casey has the best chance at beating Santorum, period. He is already polling 5 points ahead and hasnt even thrown his hat in the the ring yet. Casey has the ability to paint Santorum as an out of touch, DC insider, and Virginia's 3rd Senator. Santorum is more interested with the bullsh*t inside the Bush administration than he is providing for the state of Penssylvania. On the other hand, Bob Casey IS Pennsylvania. Another important issue thats going to hurt Santorum and help any of the Democratic challangers is, Social Security. Pennsylvania has a large population of retired people and Santorums strong support for Bush's social security plan is really going to hurt.

by nickshepDEM on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:27:48 PM EST

Pennacchio (none / 0)

If I were in PA, I'd vote for him

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:13:02 PM EST

Re: Pennacchio (none / 0)

And this coming from a centrist. Maybe Pennacchio has broader support than you'd think...

by craverguy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:21:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennacchio (none / 0)

LOL. If only KY Dem could vote in PA, or if only PA Dems would all read MyDD...