MoveOn's PA 2006 Senate Poll...and what's at stake

by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate, Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 08:32:27 PM EST

From the diaries--Chris

MoveOn.PAC is now conducting a poll among its Pennsylvania members to determine what, if anything, the organization should do about the 2006 U.S. Senate seat now held by Rick Santorum.

Regardless of how you vote on-line, I simply hope you vote.  This is an important opportunity to have your voice heard by a progressive organization with political bite.

http://www.moveonpac.org/2006/?state=Pennsylvania&id  

By now, the issue and values differences between Bob Casey, Jr. and I should be clear.  Indeed, the "choice is clear" on a host of issues--woman's right to choose, separation of church and state, universal health care, living wage, stem cell research, equal rights for gays and lesbians, the American War in Iraq, constitutional checks and balances (Terry Schiavo Bill), death penalty moratorium, and oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Beyond critical issue differences, people ask why am I running for Rick Santorum's Senate seat.  And why am I running in the Democratic Party primary against a well-known Democrat like Bob Casey, Jr.?  In short - because I believe in democracy, I believe in choice, I believe in fighting the right battles, I believe in myself -and I believe in you!

I believe I'm going to win - because I'm the only person talking about the things that matter most to you, to Pennsylvanians, and to Americans.  And I'm the only Pennsylvania Democrat to come from a winning tradition in tough Senate races.

Unlike my rivals, I am running as a citizen-candidate, free from political consultants, political handlers, political pollsters,

political bosses, and special interest political action committee dollars.

I am a proud and progressive Democrat, committed to rebuilding and revitalizing our Party without COMPROMISING our core beliefs in equality,

opportunity, and reform.  

Why do I want to represent you in the Senate? Because, right now, you don't have representation.  Corporations do.  Special interests do.  The radical right does.

Working together, fighting together, we will restore your voice...across Pennsylvania, across the U.S, and across the world.

Again, please register your vote in the MoveOn poll for the 2006 Pennsylvania Senate race.

http://www.moveonpac.org/2006/?state=Pennsylvania&id

Yours in solidarity,

Chuck Pennacchio

2006 U.S. Senate Candidate, Pennsylvania

http://www.chuck2006.com  



Tags: (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 108 Comments :: Post a Comment


I support you 110% (3.00 / 0)

I don't get why so many support Casey. PA went blue last time around,so it isn't like this is a conservative state where we have to run a conservative democrat.

Chuck for Senate!

Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 05:12:01 PM EST

Re: I support you 110% (none / 0)

It's not as blue as you think.  Pennsylvania went for Kerry by just 2%, and for Gore just 3%.  As James Carville one described Pennsylvania, "It's Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and between that is Alabama.
John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 05:59:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I support you 110% (none / 0)

Thanks for the enthusiastic response!  I appreciate you spreading the word.  
 
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 06:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, Go Chuck! (3.00 / 0)

I'm behind you all the way, I hope your campaign can secure the high-profile endorsement from a great progressive grassroots group like MoveOn.
by PACollegeDem on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 05:32:05 PM EST

Re: Yes, Go Chuck! (3.00 / 1)

We're working day in and day out to do exactly that.  Your backing means a lot to those of us who care deeply about our future.  
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 06:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The values differences are clear (3.00 / 0)

I hope Pennsylvania goes for you Chuck.
by Wesgal on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 05:32:24 PM EST

Re: The values differences are clear (3.00 / 1)

Thanks.  I am confident that, armed with the truth, Pennsylvania voters will support us all the way.
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 07:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

Why should I belive that you, a person who isn't even be mentioned in polls, has a better shot of beating Rick Santorum, than a candidate is already leading Santorum by at least seven points?
John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 05:58:09 PM EST

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (3.00 / 2)

Fair question.  Simply put, I can go after Santorum on virtually every issue, whereas my Democratic rival so closely resembles Santorum on the issues (see post) that people will vote for the "real thing," as they did in reelecting Santorum in 2000, by more than seven points, over another conservative Democrat, Ron Klink.  
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 07:17:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

Chuck with all due respect, Klink lost because he was outspent 4-to-1 not because he was conservative or what not.  So my question for you is how would you avoid getting outspent by a similiar margin?
Councilman Bill Painter
by Painter2004 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:33:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

Speaking for myself, your assumption about causation is weak. It is entirely possible that Kink didn't raise enough money to be competitive because he didn't have a message that inspired anyone to contribute.

It is entirely possible that nobody was inspired to vote for Kink because he didn't have a message that inspired anybody to vote for him.

The primary reason Democrats lose is because the voters don't know what they stand for and Democrats don't give them an inspirational reason to vote for them. Voters will vote Democratic when the oatmeal mush Democrats get out of the way of real Democrats who have something to say to middle class voters besides "I'm just like my Republican opponent only not as bad."

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 01:28:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

Mr. Pennacchio,

Don't you think that by canceling out issues like abortion and gay marriage, this senate race can focus on the important issues like health care, education, and the economy?  These are the issues democrats always win with.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 01:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

While Chuck most likely has an excellent response, I can field one as well.

I don't think its necesarry, especially in a state like Pennsylvania, to abandon principles of privacy and equality that drive what the Democrats stand for in order to win a general election.  That's actually one of the Dems biggest problems, is the inability to clearly articulate our guiding values because we constantly abandon them out of a misguided fear that we think the values "won't win".  

Chuck still has the ability to stick it to Santorum on Social Security (a huuuuuge liability for the current Senator), health care and all the other bread and butter issues, but also has the added benefit of being able to clearly provide a  consistent Democratic message that capitializes on Rick Santorum's unpopularity and fully contrasts with him.  If voters don't feel they have a choice between two canidates (and many will feel that Casey's stance on not just abortion and gay marriage, but issues like stem cells and safety locks on guns as well), they will be disenfranchised and choose not to vote.  We can't rely on an "anyone but Santorum" message to win the hearts and minds of Pennsylvania voters, but instead articulate a consistent one that voters will be inspired by.  

by PACollegeDem on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 03:14:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

Well said.
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

Cancelling out abortion and gay marriage? Not likely. The abortion and gay marriage wackos are going to stick with Santorum. I question the assumption that Casey is going to "cancel out" abortion and gay marriage. If they can't demonize Casey on those issues, they will demonize the Democratic party and tie Casey in with guilt by association.

Pennacchio can focus on important issues like health care, education and the economy better than Casey because he will have more credibility and be more genuine than Casey.

How much difference is there between Casey and Santorum on health care, education and the economy? I don't think those are not natural winners for Casey. They are Pennacchio's advantage over Casey and he can give Pennsylvania voters a clearer choice than Casey can.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

really unfair to Casey (none / 0)

Casey is rock-solid on labor issues. Santorum is corporate America's best friend. Casey would be much better on health care as well, and on a host of other issues. Casey is anti-choice but pro-birth control and pregnancy prevention. Santorum is in lock step with the religious right on all issues relating to privacy and sexuality.

Klink was underfunded and ran a terrible campaign. Casey already has practically 100 percent name recognition and has won statewide races, drawing votes from some people who vote Republican for other offices.

I don't necessarily think that lots of political experience is essential for someone to be a good senator, but speaking pragmatically, I can't imagine that Pennacchio, with no experience in any elected office, is going to be able to pull this off.

I disagree with the idea that Dems lose Senate races in PA because we don't offer a "clear enough choice". Pennsylvania is just not that liberal a state.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

it's a valid question: how will Pennacchio, the first-time candidate, raise the $10-20 million needed to challenge Santorum? and just saying that "the money will come" isn't going to cut it.
by johnny longtorso on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 10:30:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

If the voters like Pennacchio's stand on the issues, he won't have to spend as much money to get their support. A big problem with the "big bucks" theory of Democratic political success is that it assumes we can buy voters with campaign commercials instead of programs and policies for middle class and working Americans.

Maybe if we gave them better choices, we wouldn't have to waste so much money on commercials trying to buy their vote. Has a commercial ever pesuaded you to vote for a candidate you didn't like or agree with on the issues?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 11:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

how are the people going to know about Mr. Pennacchio's views if he doesn't have the money to get his name out there?
by johnny longtorso on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 0)

I'm sorry but this is one of the most naive posts I've had the pleasure of reading. Look its okay if you don't really know that much about politics, but don't pretend like you know it all. Now in an alternate universe where Pennachio actually sneaks out a win, what happens next is very simple, he loses the race within a week. Santorum, who will have unlimited money will go up on the air immediately with ads saying Pennachio called our troops war criminals, Pennachio wants gay marriage, Pennachio will raise your taxes. Does it matter if he said or did any of those things? Hell no, because Pennachio will have no money and little ability to raise any real money, and by the time he can afford 700 points of TV time in the Philly market to refute Santorum's attacks he his favorability ratio will be 2:1 negative. Game over.

Look Gary, its cute that you discovered politics a year ago and think you have learned everything there is to know.  But if you wanna wear the big boy pants, you better learn how the game is actually played. Issues don't mean shit, money means everything, and perception is the only reality.

by upstatenydem on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 03:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're number one pal (none / 0)

It may have been one of the most naive posts you've ever had the pleasure to read until you decided to comment on it. Now my post is number two at best.

Santorum, who will have unlimited money will go up on the air immediately with ads saying Pennachio called our troops war criminals, Pennachio wants gay marriage, Pennachio will raise your taxes. Does it matter if he said or did any of those things?

And Santorum is going to pay Casey nice, warm fuzzy compliments? The GOPers aren't going to make shit up about Casey? You are trying to disguise sophmoric cynicism as political pragmatism. My pants fit me just fine sweetcheeks. You don't have to get your panties all bunched up.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 04:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ohh, someone missed nap time today (none / 0)

If you don't get the difference between Casey and Pennachio, then its probably a waste of time for me to explain it, but I'll be nice enough to. First of all, Casey and Santorum have roughly the same name ID, it is much more difficult to make shit up about someone who is a known, especially if it goes against perception. The Casey name in PA is known as Moderate and Independent of the Party, which takes the two cookie cutter attacks of liberal and a pawn of the Democratic Party. But even if Santorum does, in which case his campaign managers should be fired for incompetence, Casey will be able to respond because he will have unlimited cash to spend as well.

Don't youngin, you'll learn eventually, until then have your mommy change your diapers cause your stinkin the place up.

by upstatenydem on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 04:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops. Mama Bear is cranky (none / 0)

Excellent point sweety. I remember how difficult it was for the Swiftboat Liars to make shit up about Sen. Kerry. They couldn't possibly get away with it again. Santorum's campaign managers are probably planning a nice clean campaign based solely on the issues the good people of Pennsylvania care about.

Sorry you're having such a bad day, but I don't think it's your kid's diapers, it's that pile of manure you stepped in by claiming to be a know it all.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 06:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops. Mama Bear is cranky (3.00 / 1)

Swift Boat liars made shit up against Kerry, who was not well-known nationwide. Has that shit worked for them against Kerry in Massachusetts? No, nor would it. People already know and like Kerry, just like they know and like Casey in PA.
Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops. Mama Bear is cranky (none / 0)

They are going to make shit up against everybody. It's time for the Democratic centrist elites to stop helping the Right Wing Noise Machine with their criticism of progressive democrats.
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops. Mama Bear is cranky (3.00 / 1)

Yes, but making shit up is less effective when almost everyone in the state already KNOWS WHO CASEY IS AND HAS FORMED AN OPINION ON CASEY. Not to mention the fact that Casey will have the money to fight back.

Are you seriously telling me that making shit up will work as well against Casey as against Pennachio, whom most Pennsylvanians have never heard of and who's never held elective office?

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:09:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops. Mama Bear is cranky (none / 0)

I'm saying that it is way too early to write off Pennacchio's ability to fight back against the RWNM just as well or better than Casey. From what I've learned about Casey's previous campaigns from ttagaris, Casey sounds like another Kerry milquetoast.
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops. Mama Bear is cranky (none / 0)

Negative Advertising 101 - Attacks need to be credible. The Swift Boat ads were credible because they claimed to serve with Kerry.

Negative Advertising 102 - When you are attacked you must respond inkind. If you don't then the attack will be viewed as credible. Kerry failed to respond to the Swift Boat ads in a timely fashion.

Now how does this apply, Pennachio would be a blank slate and have no money to respond, thus almost any attack could easily stick. Casey on the other hand is well known and will likely match Santorum dollar for dollar, thus making him immune to a cookie cutter campaign that would sink Pennachio no problem.

Kiddo, learn politics, please, otherwise you are just making yourself look like a big dumbass.

by upstatenydem on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

I don't think we disagree here.
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio (none / 0)

No, Santorum won against Ron Klink because liberal wealthy Democrats in the Philadelphia suburbs, who could care less about the working class and the poor, sat on their hands because they would rather have a homophobic chamber of commerce Republican like Santorum than a pro-life Democrat like Ron Klink.  Get ready for a third Santorum term if you guys keep it up.  
by MichiganDemocrat on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 01:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Philly suburbs (none / 0)

Excuse me, but how has Casey won statewide office with something like 65 percent of the vote if the liberals in Philly won't vote for him?

This is not a good analogy at all. Klink was little known in the Philly area and didn't have much money. Casey is already known and will be able to match Santorum in spending.

Also, Santorum has a higher profile now, and the Republicans in the Senate have been able to do a lot more damage with W as president than they did in the 1990s. So the liberals in Philly will be plenty motivated to vote against Santorum, no matter who the Dem nominee is.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. Pennacchio--a Question of Democracy (none / 0)

With all due respect, I belive you missed my points.  First, people are not nearly so calculating as you presuppose.  

Second, I am running to represent ALL Pennslvanians, the ENTIRE constitution, legal equality and economic opportunity for EVERYONE, PRO-democratic reforms, and a SANE foreign policy and national security strategy.

If you believe we need to shelve these substantive discussions because, somehow, they endanger Democrats' chances of beating Santorum, then just say so.  Fact is, Santorum is going to come after Mr. Casey or I with hard-hitting issues and values.  Who will be better prepared to deal with those questions in a debate format, in the free media, and in the paid media.  How about we let Pennsylvanians decide?        

by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are going to lose (2.20 / 5)

First of all I am going to say that yours is an admirable, idealistic, though completely naive, campaign. I don't agree with all of Casey's positions, but you are a guaranteed loser against Rick Santorum. If, against all odds, you and the rest of your fringe left supporters manage to win the Democratic primary, look to lose by at least 10%.

What have you ever done in PA? Have you ever held any elective office? The answer to that is no. If you win the primary, look for the DSCC to cut off funding (not that they would ever be dumb enough to give it to you) and to write off the race. And then Santorum will be re-elected.

Your position on a myirad of issues are too extreme for mainstream Pennyslvanians. You will not be able to win the votes of blue collar Reagan Democrats who aren't gay rights and abortion fanatics. Your base is probably only 20% of the PA electorate, if even that.

You have never run for anything. From a resume standpoint you lack the stature to run against Santorum and you lack the experience. You are a guaranteed loser with no chance. If you were a House member I'd respect your candidacy. But you have never even served in the state legislature and thus expect PA to elect someone who has NO experience in government whatsoever.

Casey has won three statewide elections, has been able to win the voters of blue collar Democrats that would repudiate your candidacy in droves, and has experience. Why should anyone support someone like you who is out of the mainstream of PA's values and thus unelectable?

If you win the primary and lose, I will be here on election night telling everyone "I told you so". Yours is a campaign guaranteed to lose.

by jiacinto on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 06:05:10 PM EST

Is that you David Broder? (3.00 / 1)

We appreciate your help Dave, but if we wanted RNC talking points we could just listen to Rush Limbaugh.
by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 06:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that you David Broder? (none / 0)

No it's me. I think Pennachio is a guaranteed loser.
by jiacinto on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 06:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that you David Broder? (3.00 / 2)

Typical Democratic minority mentality. If we accept the Fox/Broder centrist conventional wisdom the Democratic party will always be a minority party.
by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 08:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that you David Broder? (3.00 / 1)

Well, I respectfully disagree on that one. I think there's sort of an oversimplification going on here. Just because one extreme -- the Fox News, David Broder view that to be viable a candidate must run to the center -- is, I think virtually all of us agree, untrue, does not necessarily mean that any non-centrist candidate will win.

In other words, let's stop and examine this a little more closely. I don't think any of us can deny at this point that Casey could quite conceivably defeat Santorum, much as we all -- myself included -- detest a lot of his views. The question is whether we can say the same for Pennachio.

I think the point that Pennacchio, because of his lack of experience in elected office, will have a difficult time raising money and thus saturating the airwaves (which is necessary, and we're kidding ourselves if we pretend it isn't), is more or less true. I don't think Pennacchio is actually necessarily too liberal to win, or that you must be a centrist to get elected in PA -- Santorum himself is proof of the falseness of that theory.  The combination of inexperience in public office and being too liberal is probably fatal, I think.

Now at this point, someone always points to Paul Wellstone as a counter-example. There are a couple problems with this analogy.

One, Minnesota is a state with a strong maverick streak, unlike Pennsylvania, which has pretty unadventurous politics.

Two, it's easier to get your name out in Minnesota with less money, for a couple reasons; Minnesota has probably the most active, interested electorate in the nation, consistently coming in witht the highest turnout rates, and it is just smaller. It takes fewer dollars to advertise statewide there.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Casey is pretty evidently electable; it's true, so were Paul Wellstone Harris Wofford, but we're being intellectually dishonest if we think that candidates win and lose purely on the basis of how close they are ideologically to other winning and losing candidates.

by leftist on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 01:42:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that you David Broder? (none / 0)

I don't think any of us can deny at this point that Casey could quite conceivably defeat Santorum

My problem is with those who deny that Penacchio could also quite possibly defeat Santorum. That's the defeatist attitude I'm taking to task.

I think the point that Pennacchio, because of his lack of experience in elected office, will have a difficult time raising money and thus saturating the airwaves (which is necessary, and we're kidding ourselves if we pretend it isn't), is more or less true.

Is it Pennacchio's "lack of experience in elected office" or the lack of support he is getting from the party apparatchiks? Calling it a "lack of support" from the party is actually too kind. The party elite are actually doing everything they can to keep a progressive voice from even participating in the primary.

That's my bone of contention; the way the apparatchiks annoint the primary winners and losers in all kinds of ways.

One, Minnesota is a state with a strong maverick streak, unlike Pennsylvania, which has pretty unadventurous politics.

Hold the phone right there. What's "adventurous" about talking to working Americans about kitchen table economic solutions to their everyday problems? I think you are being condescending to Pennsyvania voters.

Two, it's easier to get your name out in Minnesota with less money, for a couple reasons;

If the party backed Pennacchio as strongly as they are backing Casey, money wouldn't be a problem would it? Casey's financial backers are not the grass roots. The party elite are not the grassroots and they are not the voters. Let's look at the real problem that early money from corporate Democratic contributors and the party elite annointing Casey are the reason for his advantage. That doesn't necessarily translate into the best candidate.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Casey is pretty evidently electable;

Pretty evidently? According to the centrist conventional wisdom perhaps. That's an assumption that rests on a weak foundation.

we're being intellectually dishonest if we think that candidates win and lose purely on the basis of how close they are ideologically to other winning and losing candidates.

That's exactly my point. It is intellectually dishonest to claim Casey is "more electable" because he is closer to Santorum ideologically. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that Pennacchio is "too much of a maverick"  or "too liberal" to win in Pennsylvania.

I thought Kerry's example put an end to the myth of "electability" as a criteria for choosing Democratic candidates. The myth of electability seems to have more lives than a cat.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 11:55:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that you David Broder? (none / 0)

Good responses to tired old assumptions.  

You might add to your list the fact that our campaign is reaching out to the very base of our party in a public and proud way.  This makes our grassroots/netroots approach unique indeed.  We will not turn our back any individual or group of individuals because of perceived "baggage" that they bring to the Party, to our nation, and to our future prospects.  We are not running to the center or, in the case of PA, to the right.  Elections are won by enganging more people, not less.  That's why, with your help, we win both the primary and the general.    

by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that you David Broder? (3.00 / 1)

Look, I'm not a DLC-method advocate by any means. I moved to Vermont to work for Howard Dean for some time. But this is not a dualistic thing. Just because the DLC is so often wrong does not mean that those who run against them are always right.

Lack of experience in elected office does pretty clearly impede ability to raie money. It happened to Wellstone, but to less fatal consequences. and I'm sure Pennacchio is encountering it right now. Even party support will not bring in enough money to beat an incumbent -- it didn't for Hoeffel, it didn't for Nancy Farmer in Missouri, or for Eric Fingerhut in Ohio.

It's possible for presidential candidates like Dean to raise a good deal of money in national small contributions, but it's much more difficult in a non-presidential race. The national interest and rage isn't there as much.

On the point of Casey's electability, he polls consistently 5-10 points ahead of Santorum. He's won more votes than anyone else in PA history. I don't really know what more you can ask. And yes, the electability argument is often a red herring, as I agree it was for Kerry, but again, just because it often is does not mean that it always is. Just because most of us thought that Dean was electable did not mean that we thought Kucinich was electable. We have to avoid oversimple thinking.

Look, I would prefer Pennacchio to Casey in the Senate by a mile. I think Casey's a real bastard, actually, and I actually plan to vote for Pennacchio in the primary as a protest vote. But we shouldn't kid ourselves; we all prefer a Senate without Santorum to a Senate with him.

by leftist on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are going to lose (3.00 / 0)

I never troll rate without a response. Your kind feigns pragmatism while espousing the supposed virtues of a corporate single-party system for the purpose of seeking power as an end within itself. You'll get no quarter here.

       

by Seldom Seen Smith on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why was Santorum's name listed? (none / 0)

Was that a joke? If Move On ever supports someone like Santorum, I'm dropping my membership.

Thanks for the heads up on the poll to both you and PA College Dem. The last email I got from Move On was yesterday about PBS. I didn't get anything about this poll.

I'm concerned that Move On is even considering supporting Casey. There are some battles that should be left to the Democratic party. Move On could accomplish more by helping progressive Dems that don't already have the support of the party elite.

I'll send them an email and let them know.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 06:16:16 PM EST

I'm torn about this race (2.50 / 2)

If it were just about my vote (and I don't live in Pennsylvania any more, so that's not relevant) I'd vote for Pennacchio, if only to reaffirm that there's room in the political marketplace for real progressivism. But this is really about how to spend our money and I'm not sure about the wisdom of routing money toward long-shot progressive ends in the primary when our finite number of dollars might be better served in the general election or in other close states.

I know that Chuck's in it to win and I admire his fighting spirit, but realistically, barring plane crashes, sex scandals, etc. in the next year, we're looking at a Casey/Santorum general election. So the question as far as spending a lot of Move On money on Pennacchio would be: would Casey benefit more, going into the general election, from a robust primary election which gets his name out there early-on and defines him early, or from a relatively unobstructed march into the general, assuming he'd benefit from having more cash and less mud-spatter for taking on Santorum? (Or maybe Move On's goal in supporting Pennacchio should be more long-term and not associated with affecting this election outcome but simply with forcing progressive ideas into the media by any means possible, and just using Pennacchio as the mouthpiece? Note that I don't think the latter is a good method.)

I'm honestly undecided on the issue. But it's worth bearing in mind that people (or at least Kos) assumed that we'd have a good shot in the OK, FL, and SC senate races last year because the GOP went through such bloody wingnut vs. establishment primary battles in each state. Reality is, Coburn, Martinez and DeMint might have been strengthened going into November by the exposure from the primary fight. So Move On money spent on Pennacchio for the primary might actually serve to help Casey for the general.

by Crazy Vaclav on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 07:12:48 PM EST

Re: I'm torn about this race (3.00 / 3)

The Democratic party has to get rid of the minority mentality that keeps our strongest players on the sidelines. The party establishment loves closed primaries and has been doing everything possible to lock progressives out so the voters never hear a genuine grassroots Democratic voice.

Democrats like Casey are the reason voters don't know what the Democratic party stands for. I hope the voters stop falling for the "electability" hype and start voting for candidates they believe in.

What difference does it make how "electable" Democrats are if we just keep sending Biden/Lieberman clones to Congress to help push the Republican agenda? If it wasn't for the DLC centrists Bush wouldn't have a pot to piss in this session. All of his victories have been accomplished with the help of so called "centrist" Democrats.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 08:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm torn about this race (none / 0)

I agree. (I suppose I don't agree with the last sentence... bankruptcy and class action reform probably would have passed anyway without a single Democratic vote... but at least we should have made them sweat for it.) I don't like forced uncontested primaries, Pennsylvania-style machine politics suck, and it's always good to have a progressive voice in the mix.

Just to clarify, though, I'm not suggesting people vote based on the "electability" myth. If Chuck moves you, vote for him; I would. But pretty much anyone is electable if you deploy enough money and resources.  Look at Jon Corzine... he's pretty progressive in a swingy-bluey state, and before he was elected he hadn't held office and had zero name recognition. He just leveraged his way into office to the tune of $20 million or so. That could work for Chuck... hopefully for less money than that since there'd be more grass roots activism on his part. All I'm saying is that it would be a huge budget-buster to get Chuck over the multiple humps of Casey's huge name recognition, PA-style machine politics, the expense of the Philly media market, and I'd hate to see us come up slightly short in the general election, or in Rhode Island or Montana, because we burned too much Move On cash in the primary.

I hope you'll agree with me that we always have to balance our two goals: getting to 51, and making sure that enough of the 51 are progressive enough to make a real difference in the legislative outcomes. Some races we need to emphasize one, some races we need to emphasize the other. It's a big game of 3-d chess, and I'll be the first to admit there's no one-size-fits-all solution.

by Crazy Vaclav on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 04:18:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm torn about this race (none / 0)

I hope you'll agree with me that we always have to balance our two goals: getting to 51, and making sure that enough of the 51 are progressive enough to make a real difference in the legislative outcomes.

I absolutely agree. If the progressive wing of the party could get a little encouragement, instead of the back of the hand, from the party, we would all be doing a lot better. The fact that a half dozen prominant Democrats are still so stupid that they would criticize Howard Dean for being too critical of Howard Dean says it all.

The centrist Democratic elites are morons. If we don't push back and push back hard, they are going to turn the whole party into a bunch of oatmeal mush Republican lite corporate stooges.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 04:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm torn about this race (none / 0)

Excellent reflections.  As a history and political science professor with an issue-oriented campaign in mind, I will continue to savage Santorum, Bush and company on their pro-corporate, anti-consumer, anti-constitution positions at every turn.  As far as I can see, no one else in the race is positioned or prepared or inclined to do that very thing.  

What I will do is excite and motivate more and more Pennsylvanians to get involved in politics--if only to fight to reverse their declining equality, opportunity, and basic freedoms.

by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:04:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why would Move On support Casey? (none / 0)

I'm going to have to send some emails and find out what the deal is. It was bad enough when they raised money for Sen. Byrd. Now Casey?

If I wanted to support to Byrd and Casey I would just contribute to the DLC.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 08:38:31 PM EST

Re: Why would Move On support Casey? (none / 0)

My guess is that they don't want to support Casey, but they put this poll up to see what kind of response their MoveOn membership will give.  If a lot of people vote for Pennacchio, they might consider endorsing him.  If not, my guess is they would stay out of this race.
Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 09:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would Move On support Casey? (3.00 / 1)

Interesting.

My guess is that they do want to support Casey, and that's why they did a poll so early.  That way they can say, "our members voted to support Casey Jr. over Chuck."

And if Chuck wins the poll, which I hope and actually expect that he will, we shall see at that point.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 10:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would Move On support Casey? (none / 0)

I agree.  I suspect MoveOn has a few agendas:
They want to get out front supporting a candidate in the very important race to solidify their importance in the Democratic election structure.
They want to support the winner of this important office that will be in the national spotlight in order to build influence for future elections.
They want to maintain a sense of open proceedings and democratic fairness while pursuing each of the above.

I actually feel the same way.  I voted for Casey in the MoveOn poll for those reasons.  I think that is the right choice for the organization.  I support Chuck, and I hope that he will continue to be out there bird-dogging the important issues.  I also hope that he'll consider entering future races, perhaps at a more local level and remain in the political arena (perhaps running for state or house office) after this is resolved.  But, the national issues for MoveOn trump in this case.

It isn't an easy decision, but at least that is where I am coming from.

by PghArch on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 10:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would Move On support Casey? (none / 0)

Aren't all DLCers free traders?  Bryd and Casey aren't so they can't be DLCers.
Councilman Bill Painter
by Painter2004 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:36:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would Move On support Casey? (none / 0)

DLC is a convenient shorthand for the Democratic apparatchiks that control the party. Biden is not officially DLC, but that doesn't mean he is not on the same page. In addition, it only costs $40 to become a member of the DLC, so being a "member" of the DLC is also not determinative of voting behavior.
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chuck, I like your principles (3.00 / 0)

unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to learn much about Casey except for what those who oppose him here and on dKos have had to say.  
From your post it looks as though i am to believe that he is against:

woman's right to choose,
separation of church and state,
universal health care,
living wages,
stem cell research,
equal rights for gays and lesbians,
constitutional checks and balances (Terry Schiavo Bill),
death penalty moratorium,
and supports:

the American War in Iraq,
and oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

or did I read that wrong?  Some of those positions would be hard to believe.  thanks for the post, and I will take the poll at MoveOn.org

mydd straw poll vote: 1. other (gore) 2. unsure 3. dodd 4. edwards 5. obama
by colorless green ideas on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 10:09:12 PM EST

Re: Chuck, I like your principles (none / 0)

cgi those polls over at moveon are getting to the point where signal-to-noise ratio is becoming
a problem, so beware hitting the button

i think moveon has a way to sift out the
trolling that goes on there,

one thing thats odd about this post is that
normally this is sent to the moveon members,
and it sort of stays there.

i don't think joe troll should be on
this poll. and since you're a troll..>:)

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck, I like your principles (3.00 / 1)

I can't provide specific quotes, but from previous discussions about Casey here at MyDD, your list is largely accurate. It may be inaccurate on a couple of points, but the general idea describes Casey quite well.

Casey's primary "advantage" is that he is a centrist Santorum lite.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Santorum-lite? (none / 0)

WTF is that?  Is he "just a little bit" totally fuckin' nuts?
McCain sucks!
by teknofyl on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 11:28:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Santorum-lite? (none / 0)

I didn't intend to be quite that harsh. I was thinking more along policy lines rather than the bat shit crazy part of the Santorum persona. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any Democrat who can compare to Santorum in the bat shit crazy department.

Santorum has plenty of competition in the Republican party along that line, but Zell Miller is the only Democrat I'm aware of that is even a contender on our side of the aisle for the bat shit crazy awards.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 11:34:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck, I like your principles (3.00 / 1)

woman's right to choose

1. What is your position on providing legal protection for unborn children from the moment of conception if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Casey (Treas - D): Support

separation of church and state

Ten Commandments. (The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to ban displays of the 10 Commandments in government buildings, as a violation of separation of church and state.) "I don't oppose [such displays]. I do think politicians spend a lot more time talking about that question than trying to live the 10 Comandments. No matter what your religious beliefs, there are some universal truths in those commandments that we all ought to live by."

stem cell research

Embryonic stem-cell research

Santorum: Opposed President Bush's 2001 decision allowing federal funding for limited research on stem-cell lines.

Casey: Supports the 2001 action, but not an expansion of it.

Pennacchio: Favors increased federal support for the research.

equal rights for gays and lesbians

Defense of marriage amendment (which would ban same-sex marriage). "I support the Defense of Marriage Act [passed in 1996, it defines marriage as a union of a man and woman] and a number of states have passed similar measures.

constitutional checks and balances (Terry Schiavo Bill)

Terry Schiavo. "I think you should err on the side of life. I think some kind of congressional review was appropriate."

death penalty moratorium

4a. What is your position on placing a moratorium on the death penalty in Pennsylvania while a special commission studies the issue?

    * Casey (D): Oppose

and supports:

the American War in Iraq

Iraq. "Once it was under way, like a lot of Americans, I was supportive of what our troops were trying to do there, based on what we were told by our government. We found out later the intelligence was, at best, faulty and, at worst, misleading. We can learn a lot of lessons from that, but the key thing now is to finish the job."

and oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

No link, but this one comes from an interview that Casey Jr. conducted on Capitolwire.com about two weeks ago. I remember reading it, but my temporary subscription has expired and I am not paying for another just to find a link and exact quote.  It was something to the effect of "Casey stopped short of saying that he would have voted against drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge."

As for universal health care and living wage--I don't know what to tell you.  I don't have any more time tonight.  I know that Casey is an incrementalist when it comes to health care coverage (start with the kids), but I have no idea about the living wage.

Tim

(Disclaimer: I used to work for Chuck, but do not any longer)

by Tim Tagaris on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:11:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck, I like your principles (none / 0)

thanks. hopefully pennachio will at the very least help pull casey to the left on some of these issues.
mydd straw poll vote: 1. other (gore) 2. unsure 3. dodd 4. edwards 5. obama
by colorless green ideas on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 02:15:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck, I like your principles (none / 0)

Thanks for seeking clarification.  I'll indicate in parentheses after each issue where Bob Casey, Jr. stands, or doesn't stand.    

woman's right to choose (opposes)

separation of church and state (believes that posting Ten Commandments in the public square is consitutionally protected)

universal health care (supports incremental expansion of health care, but not health care for all)

living wage (supports increasing minimum wage, but not to level of getting full-time earners out of poverty)

stem cell research (opposes expanding stem cell research beyond existing lines...that's GW's position)

equal rights for gays and lesbians (supports Defense of Marriage Act, opposes same-gender adoption, and opposes requirement for domestic partner benefits)

constitutional checks and balances (supported GOP's Terry Schiavo Bill which violated independent judiciary)

death penalty moratorium (opposes--even Santorum now backs moratorium)

and supports:

the American War in Iraq (refuses to say if he supported invasion; now that we're in Iraq he says we must stay until we "finish the job.")

and oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (refuses to say how he would have voted)

Footnoting on most of these issues available from our on-line, downloadable fliers.  

by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 05:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like Chuck (3.00 / 0)

The christian thing to do however is let
them separate their wheat from the chaff.

Mydd is a national space, so beware -
senators main focus is to argue the states
interests before the federal government.

Old prosecutors like Kerry have turned
out to make good senators; he's
made some points about environmental
law that I agree with and thats generally
how I could see national issues
taking the fore in something like
this.

Its a tough call for me but I normally
default to hands-off. One thing I like
about moveon is that even if you're
almost a founding member, you really don't
have to be a "liberal" to vote with them
or against them. They're really out there
to just make govt. a nicer, more effecient
thing.

I'd guess that Chuck wins here, he's
got spunk. Then again, I'm sober on a
friday night, just finished watching the
original "ocean's 11" and I'm not exactly
the best person to be talking about
this. Chris should be talking about it
through the muddled haze of 10 straight
coors lites. He's from PENN

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:10:01 PM EST

Re: I like Chuck (none / 0)

BULLSHIT! We're not an amalgamation of states anymore: We're a nation that has to become a  community.

If you like the guy and believe he's Senate material, write him a check. Getting a candidate elected to the Senate from any state that runs a clean campaign without accepting PAC money is an important building block.  

by Seldom Seen Smith on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:02:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like Chuck (none / 0)

Thanks.  Stay tuned.  You'll be seeing a howle lot more discussion of the issues, and values, from this camp.
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 05:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chuck, I hope you win! (3.00 / 0)

And I hope the folks in PA support you as well! You know, we will never change the Democrats from a Repub-lite stance unless WE support real Progressives!
"The only way to ensure a free press is to own one."
by Rico on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:35:17 PM EST

Re: Chuck, I hope you win! (none / 0)

Indeed, we need the support of Pennsylvanians and all Americans who see the 2006 run for Santorum's seat as having huge national significance.  So, absolutely, support away...
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 05:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Voted for Chuck. n/t (none / 0)


by Covin on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:10:48 AM EST

Re: Voted for Chuck. n/t (none / 0)

Grazi.
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pragmatism (none / 0)

I really think at some point sheer pragmatism needs to win out. Despite the fact that Pennacchio is preferable to Casey it doesn't change the fact that he will be unable to beat Santorum. There really is a difference between a conservative Democrat and a conservative, radical Republican. With a 55-44 partisan split in the Senate it's time to abandon hopeful idealism and go with a candidate that can dislodge Santorum. You can't build a majority by disqualifying candidates based on their ideological purity on social issues. Regardless of what polling shows now the 2006 PA Senate race will be close and Pennacchio can NEVER hope to be financially competetive against Santorum.
by nothing117 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:21:22 AM EST

Re: Centrist bullshit (none / 0)

Bush claims his Iraq policy is pragmatic. Bush claims that if Democrats were pragmatic they would come up with a plan to "fix" Social Security. Saying your position is pragmatic does not make it pragmatic. By any other name, a manure pile still stinks when you step in it.

The Democratic party is getting killed with the minority mentality of the pragmatic centrists who are scared to death Rush Limbaugh will say something mean about the Democratic candidate.

God as my witness, I'd rather go down fighting than give up before the first vote is cast!

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 01:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pragmatism (none / 0)

I'm with you, number one is to get rid of that "right wing" nut and Virginia resident who falsely represents the good citizens of Pennsylvania.  Casey can and will do it, gotta put ideals aside and get a Dem elected here.  Pennacchio can never compete against Santorum.
by BE10sCoach on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 08:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pragmatism (none / 0)

"gotta put ideals aside and get a Dem elected here."

That has to be the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

And for the record PA has partisan index of like Dem +4.5%. Also are Chuck's positions that OUT there? No to war in Iraq? Yes to abortion rights? No to intervening in the Schiavo case? All of these positions have been endorsed by the majority of Americans.

I heard the same shit about Kerry about 18 months ago, hey his stances (or lack thereof) on issues aren't great, but he can get elected...Pfft.

I believe in not giving NARAL a veto over our candidates, but having an anti choice nominee will hurt. Alot of Pro Choice Dems won't show up, along with pro choice Independents and pro choice republician women. I.E. the people who gets Specter elected every time.

Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 01:03:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Hatchet Job disguised as Pragmatism (none / 0)

A better analogy would be the hatchet job the DLC and Gephardt did to Howard Dean in the primaries. It's the same pathetic "electability" meme to a T.
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 07:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pragmatism (none / 0)

Let's settle these question right now.

"Pragmatism" is what led me to run in the first place.  Fourteen straight full-term U.S. Senate election defeats for PA Democrats is one very compellling reason for me to run.  You don't have to be a history and poli sci professor--as I am--to see a "pattern" in a picture dating back to 1964!  More below...

On your second point, I agree.  There is a real difference between a conservative Democrat (Casey) and a radical right Republican (Santorum).  Reversing GOP control in the Senate is foremost in my thinking.  That's why I've repeatedly pledged to back Bob Casey Jr. should he win the primary.  As a matter of solidarity in opposition to Santorum I still await Mr. Casey's reciprocal pledge.  Perhaps you could help secure such an early statement from our State Treasurer (?).

To your third point, I haven't suggested that Bob Casey Jr.'s conservative positions on social, legal, consitutional, campaign finance, environmental, and foreign policy issues automatically disqualify his candidacy.  I simply put our issue and values differences on the table to give Pennsylvania voters and national supporters a "clear choice" in the PA Democratic primary.  

And with regard to your final point, whoever wins the primary will have a treasure chest to spend on the general election battle with Santorum.  Every political funder I've spoken to has told me exactly that.  If I have the firepower to win the May 2006 primary, the floodgates will open and I'll have "more to spend than I'll know what to do with" (according to one major funder).

Finally, I hasten to add that there is more to winning U.S. Senate races than money alone.  With reference to my "More below..." teaser above, I know what winning Senate campaigns look like, smell like, and taste like.  The tired, old, losing paradigm for politicos is: raise enough money so you can go on TV for the last eight weeks of the campaign.  What this shallow, one-size-fits-all advice ignores is the need for vital organization (grassroots/netroots), critical people resources, smart management, clear message, and mental toughness.  Having organized statewide on Tom Harkin's first Senate victory (1984), having run the day-to-day operations of Tim Wirth's Senate triumph (1986), and having rescued S.B. Woo's Senate primary from certain defeat (1988), I do know what I'm talking about.

If it's winning you want, as well as principles promoted, then I will thank you in advance for your active support.    

by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep Fighting Chuck! (none / 0)

I certainly hope you can get some name recognition.  The future of the party is in progressivism....not republican light.  Progressivism is moral, it is godly, it is ethical.  PA Dem organization is corrupt and a dinosaur.  Hopefully with Chairman Dean we can make in roads.  It is certain that people inside the beltway do not get "it".  Best of luck, you have my vote!
by Chavez100 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 11:25:23 AM EST

Re: Keep Fighting Chuck! (none / 0)

Together we will get this done!
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pennacchio: Fight enough to get your name out.... (none / 0)

and wait to pick up Specter's seat in 6 years.
by strrbr on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:07:37 PM EST

Re: Pennacchio: Fight enough to get your name out. (none / 0)

if alan lasts that long....
by Chavez100 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennacchio: Fight enough to get your name out. (none / 0)

Arlen?
by comotion on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 07:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm So Sick of This (none / 0)

You know what, people, it is this high and mighty attitude that is going to ruin the Democratic Party's best chance of unseating one of the worst Repug senators-Rick Santorum!!  Why would you run Pennachio, a relative unknown name, in a primary and split the Democratic vote!!   Liberal, affluent Democrats in the Philadelphia area and suburbs did not go to bat for Ron Klink in 2000, for the same reasons-because Klink was pro-life primarily.  So, they sat on their hands and checkbooks and let Santorum in for a second term.  What do these liberals get from Santorum-"man on dog" comments about gays and rabid devotion to putting the church in our bedrooms!!

The fact is that Pennsylvania has tons of old-time unionist and Catholic Democrats.  They love Bob Casey Jr.  His father was a beloved figure in Pennsylvania.  The Caseys are for the working people and the poor.  They might not be for abortion, but are we going to hand Rick Santorum a third term because Casey is not 100% with the liberal position on abortion?

I have never heard of Casey's stand on ANWR or national health care, but would be surprised if he supported drilling in the Artic.

We need to unite behind a sure thing-Casey, and forget about Pinnachio.   I can hear the jokes about Pennachio and Pinnachio already.

Democrats can be so stupid sometimes.

by MichiganDemocrat on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 01:32:39 PM EST

So what's your problem with primaries? (none / 0)

I sick of annointed pols who the party elite decide are entitled to a particular spot on the ticket. If Casey can't win a primary battle, then how will he win against Santorum? If Casey is such a sure thing, then what's the problem with demonstrating it by winning the primary?
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 07:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm So Sick of This (none / 0)

I love jokes too.  Thanks for your positive prompting.

When I run against Santorum, it'll be "Pennacchio versus Pinocchio."  (Note the corrected spelling.)  

And how about "Pennacchio--no strings attached"?

I'll be sure to footnote you credit.

by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:10:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Republican Lite" (none / 0)

Casey is far from Republican-lite.  He is a progressive, pro-union Democrat he fights for the poor and working classes.  If you are talking about cultural issues as making someone "Republican-lite", then you are saying there is not room in the Democratic party for differing opinions on the issues of abortion.

I think we need immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I oppose Casey's supposed comments that we need to "finish the job."  However, if that makes him Republican-lite-then almost the entire Democratic party-short of the Congressional Black Caucus and Teddy Kennedy and a few others are Republican-lite.

You are making support for abortion a litmus-test for the Democratic Party.  That is one reason we are losing millions of Democrats to the Republicans.  If you do a hatchet job on Casey because he is pro-life Pennsylvania Catholics will remember it in November.  

by MichiganDemocrat on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 01:38:15 PM EST

Re: "Republican Lite" (none / 0)

I don't think Pennacchio is the one who is doing the hatchet job. The Democratic party is doing the same thing to Pennacchio that they did to Dean.
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 07:01:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

casey v. pennachio (none / 0)

casey isn't as progressive as chuck.  Problem being Casey represents the same old different shade of the same color as far as the democratic party goes. DLC etc.,  It all comes down to a clintonesque ideology for the most part when trying to say who should be support.  Do you go for everything or go for somethings and not others.  

Chuck would be fantastic.  Casey, as long as he runs a decent campaign with good support(i'm sure he will get $), should beat up on Rick Santorum.  Santorum has hitched his wagon to Bush Co.,.  That's not going to get you votes in a state election, especially PA.  AS won because he drew moderate dems away and made it too close in Philadelphia.  Santorum will not draw anywhere near that amount of support in Philadelphia.

by Chavez100 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 01:46:41 PM EST

Carville said it best... (none / 0)

"There's Philadelphia, there's Pittsburgh and everything else between is Alabama."

Progressives just can't make it statewide in Pennsylvania.  Sorry, Chuck.

by nickshepDEM on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 03:00:05 PM EST

Re: Carville said it best... (3.00 / 1)

meh carville has passion but his views are myopic.  IF conservatives in 1968 thought we'll never get this or that group do you think they would be in power today? No.  Progressvism is as close to live and let live as you could possibly get.  Dem leadership has failed in it's communication with the people.  Every once a in a while we have a Kennedy and/or Clinton and Dems say wow.  That's not the answer.  You have alabama in between but that's because of what the structure has dictated.  

Who says progressives and "alabama" don't agree on education, healthcare, security, less government, lower taxes.  Everybody agrees on that.  It's politcal savy to get people to do something they aren't comfortable with.  Getting alabama to vote progressive....

People hate politicians.  Sitting down and LISTENING to them is what it necessary.  Dems need to offer a vision.

by Chavez100 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 07:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carville said it best... (none / 0)

James Carville is a Louisianna boy whose quip about the PA's "T" actually misses the mark.  I intend to debunk the stereotype that all Central Pennsylvanians have a deep South mentality.  It is both offensive and untrue.  Ours is a diverse, proud, and complex state that deserves the thoughtful treatment of all serious political thinkers--whether they be office seekers or MyDD contributors.  Thanks for rethinking the Carville myth.
 
by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did you stop working for Chuck? (none / 0)

And howcome?  Did you run out of free time?
by Winger on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 05:58:05 PM EST

Re: When did you stop working for Chuck? (none / 0)

Are you asking me that question?

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 06:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

Sorry, yes.  I meant to post the question as a reply to your comment with the disclaimer at the end.  My utter incompetence must have gotten in the way.
by Winger on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 07:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 0)

Well, when I came on, my mission was get Chuck's Internet (internal website & netroots outreach) off-the-ground.  

After 5 1/2 months we got to a great point where most, if not all, of the traditional online community knows who Chuck is and has a pretty favorable impression of him.  We also established a great network of bloggers in PA (to California, to Candada, to the U.K.) that support Chuck's campaign.

Then an opportunity availed itself with one of my 2 favorite "politicians," and I accepted.

That said, the campaign and I parted on great terms; I hope to the bottom of my heart that Chuck beats Bob Casey Jr.  I think this primary is one of the most important races in the entire 2006 election cycle.  

I have no doubt in my mind that Chuck would be one of the 3 best members of the U.S. Senate.  Period.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 08:26:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great job Tim (none / 0)

You've done a great job with Chuck's online name rec.  Well done.

I also think he'd be an outstanding senator.  Now, the pr