Bob Casey was Governor of Pennsylvania from 1987–1995. Casey is famous for three things.
1. He was elected after hiring the unknown team of James Carville and Paul Begala.
2. He refused to campaign for or endorse pro-choice candidates, including Bill Clinton (and therefore was not allowed to speak at the 1992 convention).
3. the legend of his name.
Back in the 1970’s Casey had been term-limited out of another run for Auditor General. The Dems ran another man named Bob Casey, and the voters elected him without realizing it was a different person. Then another man named Bob Casey ran for lieutenant governor and was elected, despite spending almost no money or doing much campaigning. When Bob Casey ran for governor in the 80’s, he ran as the real Bob Casey.
And this legend of Pennsylvanians voting for anyone named Bob Casey probably explains why Senator Chuck Schumer decided to recruit Bob Casey Jr., the former governor’s son, to run against Sen. ‘Man-on-Dog’ Santorum.
Schumer called up Governor Rendell and asked him who the best candidate would be to beat Rick Santorum. Rendell reportedly said, “Bob Casey, but he won’t run, and you don’t want him to run.” Schumer explained what happened next:
“I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I’m pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can’t insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can’t anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry (Reid) using his very…Harry has amazing insights into people…and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run.
They persuaded Casey to run by assuring him that he would not face any competition in the primary. To that end they pressured the pro-choice Barbara Hafer to get out of the race.
At the time that Rendell, Reid and Schumer pulled their power move it looked like Santorum was a juggernaut. He is the third ranking member of the Senate and he can bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan. Schumer probably felt it would be a long-shot to beat Santorum, and that informed his decision making. After all, Pennsylvanians can’t resist a man named Bob Casey. But today it looks like a mistake. To be sure, Casey is polling way ahead of Santorum. The latest poll has Casey up 52-34. But, that has little to do with Bob Casey. Santorum is the least popular Senator in the country. Forty-four percent of Pennsylvanians disapprove of the job Santorum is doing. In other words, Santorum is not a juggernaut, but a ripe fruit. It’s a perfect opportunity for a progressive Democrat to pick up a Senate seat in a swing state. Instead we are stuck with a anti-choice candidate.
Enter Chuck Pennacchio. Pennacchio entered the race in defiance of the kingmakers, and he is strongly pro-choice, and strongly progressive on the issues. But Chuck quickly discovered that Rendell’s reach and influence extend beyond bullying Barbara Hafer out of the race. Tim Tagaris explains:
About two hours later, I followed up with a phone call to make sure that Chuck Pennacchio would be included in the list of candidates running for the seat. I even told him, I don’t care if it is a brief mention–we aren’t even looking for a story.
He challenged me to legitimize the campaign…
So I told him:
1.) The Hotline called us this morning
2.) The Republican Party included us in their press release on Bob Casey.
3.) Chuck was the Iowa Caucus Field Director for Paul Simon, Dep. campaign manager for Tim Wirth’s first Senate bid, and has worked as a Personal Aide to Sen. Alan Cranston and Military Case Worker for Representative Ron Dellums.
4.) I talked to him about the fact we have been to DFA’s across the state — and decided to cut out the middle men (Ed Rendell and the state party), and take our message right to the voters.
5.) I told him about our online outreach, and discussed the way politics is changing.
6.) I told him about PoliticsPA mentioning us this morning.
7.) I told him about a few papers that have mentioned us across the state already.
8.) I told him that 12 of the outgoing US Senate members of the 108th Congress had never held ANY elected office before that seat.
That doesn’t even include people like Patrick Leahy who was a county state attorney before elected to the Senate, or Joe Biden, who was on the County Council of New Castle, Delaware.
9.) I told him that we have filed with the FEC as an official candidate and have raised well over the $5,000 minimum to report.
And five minutes ago, I see this crap.
Not a single mention of our campaign — not even in the last sentence. But there was this quote:
So, the reporter, Peter Jackson, who just happens to be the Associated Press’s beat reporter for Harrisburg, printed an article that not only didn’t mention Chuck, but strongly implied that no one was even going to file to run against Casey. And this after Tagaris told Jackson that they had already filed with the FEC. I guess Jackson likes his access to the Governor’s mansion.
And his reporting hasn’t gotten any better. Jackson recently filed a story about a Democratic gay-rights group that is holding Santorum `retirement parties’ throughout the country. The group is hoping to raise $5,000 to help defeat Santorum. So, Jackson called up the Democratic contenders to ascertain their views on gay marriage. (There is another man, Alan Sandals, who is running too.) This is how Jackson reported it:
The three have similar positions on gay rights. All three support laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Casey and Pennacchio favor allowing same-sex couples to join in civil unions that could provide them with many of the same benefits as marriage, while Sandals supports gay marriage.
Any endorsement by the Stonewall Democrats in the primary hinges on the ability of chapters in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg to agree. If not, the group may not endorse, said Renee Gilinger, state director of the Philadelphia chapter, Liberty PA.
This led Chuck to write Peter Jackson the following:
With all due respect, your piece regarding my positions of gay rights and gay marriage — as compared to Casey’s views — misses a good deal. You write: “The three have similar positions on gay rights. All three support laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Casey and Pennacchio favor allowing same-sex couples to join in civil unions that could provide them with many of the same benefits as marriage, while Sandals supports gay marriage.”
In fact,
a) I favor civil unions that would give gay couples ALL of the benefits of marriage — through both state and federal statutes. I thought my phone discussion with you would have conveyed at least that much. In addition, my web site (unlike Casey’s and Sandals’) spells it all out in detail.
b) On the other hand, Casey, Jr. — the “openly” stealth candidate — is against gay couples adopting children; he is against domestic partner benefits; he does not recognize same gender marriages in other states; and he supports BOTH the Pennsylvania Defense of Marriage Law and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. In addition, Casey, Jr. believes that Catholic healthcare providers should not be required to deliver services contrary to their conscience and moral teachings. My differences with Casey, Jr. are,
therefore, very significant, whereas the article makes us sound identical.
c) I am not a Philadelphia Democrat; I am a Bucks County Democrat.
Perhaps we could now do that feature piece that you promised back in March.
I will be happy to discuss with you our winning organization, winning message, and superior, time-tested strategy based on my work with Sens. Alan Cranston, Tom Harkin, Tim Wirth, and Paul Simon, and advanced Internet campaign. In addition, I am always happy to talk substance about my federal-level experience as a Senate aide and Congressional military case worker, and to share my national security expertise on homeland security and international relations.
The one head-to-head poll with Casey shows me ahead 58-41.
Casey refuses even to consider debating me (and/or Alan Sandals) prior to the May 16 primary, much as he did with Rendell back in 2001/2002 when
Casey, Jr. lost the spring 2002 gubernatorial primary by 12 points after leading by 17 on the preceding October 30.
Consider, too, that a pro-life/anti-choice Democratic candidate for either U.S. Senator or Governor has never come close to beating a
pro-life/anti-choice Republican in a general election.
Moreover, the last time the PA Democrats elected a full-term U.S. Senator was in 1962, Joe Clark. That’s 14 straight Democratic defeats. I’m happy
to match my winning record against PA Dems losing record.
Respectfully yours,
Chuck Pennacchio
Did Jackson correct the record on any of these points? No.
I said the three Democrats have similar views on gay rights – not identical – and the context was in comparison to Santoruum. I have no doubt that you and Casey and Sandals differ on the details and the other issues you mention, but I was making only general comparisons on a couple major issues. What I took from our brief conversation yesterday
was that you favor civil unions but not marriage.
I said you are a Philadelphia professor and a prospective Democratic candidate.
Respectfully,
Peter
So, you can see how hard it is to get your name mentioned and your issues properly represented when the Governor has thrown his weight behind another candidate and he has the AP reporter wrapped around his finger.
But, you know what? We don’t have to take this shit from Rendell, from Schumer, from Reid, from Casey Jr, or from Peter Jackson.
Santorum can be beaten by Chuck Pennacchio. There is no need to try to trick Pennsylvanians into voting for another Bob Casey. We don’t need more pro-life Senators. We need Senators that will stick up for our beliefs and our constitutional rights. So tell Peter Jackson how you feel about his half-ass biased reporting.
pjackson@ap.org
717.238.9413
I called; Peter is on his way back from the Philadelphia office, and is expected after lunch (ET).
So get ready, send an email in the meantime, and call then!
I had an interesting chat with Mr. Jackson (who is getting upset with all this attention, BTW).
Best part: When he agreed with me that Casey is boring as hell, and that costs him elections.
tell us how you know he is upset?
He began raising his voice (I am ALWAYS super polite), and he mentioned all these bloggers emailing him with nasty letters about his biased coverage, complaining that Pennacchio doesn’t get any coverage. “The people who follow politics say Casey is the best candidate”. Which is when I pointed out how Casey had been way ahead of Rendell in the gubernatorial primaries, and blown it all when he opened his mouth and bored everyone out of voting for him. And he agreed that that was accurate, Casey was boring.
I’m glad it’s working. Maybe he’ll show a little independence from Rendell now.
can someone explain to me why so called progressives arent getting behind chuck?
why are they bending over backwards for rendell…already working on his reelection (marsico, gillinger, someone answer me that question) why arent they holding him responsible for taking the choices away from the people?
i like chuck…i contributed to his campaign…im not officially moving to delaware till the primary and maybe not till the general so i can vote in pa…but his candidacy isnt going anywhere it seems….is it marketing? is it message? why arent people getting behind him? why are they accepting the casey annointment? esp casey!!! they want to filibuster alito because he might not support roe v wade but they will go support casey to the senate to be someoen we will depend on to vote no when these kinds of nominees come up? this makes no sense….a freaking dog catcher could beat santorum at this point….why are they so afraid of losing that they will allow someone to be elected who is not going to support women’s reproductive rights, gay rights, human rights etc?
i dont get it
“can someone explain to me why so called progressives arent getting behind chuck?”
It’s not that I like Casey, but Chuck is not the solution. Put forward a viable alternative to Casey (neither Pennachio or Sandals qualify in my book) and I’ll support him/her. Otherwise- I hope that all the Dems can just get over their love affair with Chuck and come together to pull out a win in PA.
And maybe you missed the memo- but the Repugs have an amazingly adept ground game going in PA. We haven’t won a non-special election for Sen in something like 60 years, so don’t assume that this is going to be easy.
because my sources tell me that Casey is “boring/dull/uninspiring”.
Incredibly so. His best strategy would be to maintain complete silence until after the election. But that doesn’t mean Pennacchio is any better… I’ll have to see it to believe it. I already know how soporific Casey is. And it is BRUTAL.
Whatcha waiting for? Chuck criss crosses the state all week! Where in PA are you located?
Havertown (Delaware County).
You could check out Chuck here.
Thanks for the link. In fact, it highlights an upcoming appearance in Lansdowne, just down the road from me. I will try to get there on the 14th!
emailed to me by someone I know who attended a fundraising event with the thought of possibly backing Casey:
“Well, besides being in a absolutely huge, stately, over 100 year old home, with no air conditioning , the evening was a bit of a disappointment.
I did ask the question of whether he would support the effort to increase Title X which is woefully under funded. He agreed that it was and that he would indeed support efforts to increase the amount. He couldn’t guarantee $600 million, but he did say it needed a boost in the arm, so to speak.
When asked would he support Pro-Choice Judges to the Supreme Court and block any that would strike down Roe v. Wade, he gave the typical politician side shuffle.
“I don’t have a litmus test for supporting or voting down Judges etc….Blah, Blah , Blah” That drew mumbles of discontent from the crowd.
He is against opening lines for Stem Cell Research as it would go against his religious beliefs. That drew moans from the crowd.
He is for Gay Civil Unions with all benefits attached. He wasn’t real clear on Gay Marriage. Seemed as though he supports everything except calling it marriage.
He believes in the distribution of condoms and EC. In fact he was really clear that he supports most if not all issues surrounding Family Planning. I have his Campaign Managers number and E-mail address, so we can try to get him to fill out our survey. I can try the back door approach if you need to.
He was long winded, not to the point, didn’t seem to have focus or a clear agenda and was not very dynamic. Granted this is very early in the process, but he had better sharpen up his act if he is ever to beat Santorum.
I know that all of you are very disappointed in his stance on Stem Cell Research and Pro-Choice. I agree that is very disturbing, but he is our only real hope to beat Santorum. He has a proven track record of success, lots of money to back him, and the support of the State and National party leadership. Additionally, the folks outside of Philadelphia….as in the rest of the State….really like him. I am not suggesting we back him as an organization. That said…He needs a lot of work on his delivery, sharpness and quickness on response to various issues…”
Casey would need to get a lot more articulate on the fetus and “personhood”. And the hard realities of criminality issues coming from the “fundie” domains.
In his run for Treasurer he filled out a response (two page pdf, loads fast) where he supports:
”legal protection for human life from conception”.
He aslo:
“opposes a woman’s right to abortion”
That means JUDGES. In case anyone missed Roberts and Alito (and Concerned Women for America pulling out of the Miers game) and Thomas and Scalia and and and. Many of the 208, that the congress approved for Bush, are pro life. Which is just code words for a lot of problems, not just wrt abortion. Commerce clause for one thing…
Those are the fighting words he signed off on in the run for Treasurer….
I know Casey tries to obfuscate his true position on choice; I probably should have said that this person was someone who (why, I’ll NEVER understand) wanted to find something about Casey to support.
That said, she wasn’t exactly able to give Casey a ringing endorsement.
It was a good place to hang the link to his responses in the pdf from the Treasurer’s run.
And as much as we like to consider people as standing alone, unfettered, he drags his father with him (and the SC case too) and his brother is with Democrats for Life. Lots of baggage.
I suspect the Democrats used/are using/will use him to send a message. They sure had zero interest in Hafer, a former Republican who HAS won state wide races and is pro choice. They clearly wanted Casey and I suspect for the message value: We formally and officially abandon Roe.
Well, some of us are going to have a LONG memory of who exactly pushed for Casey’s cleared field…
It really ticks me off when people try to say Bob Jr. is less extreme than the father. You don’t grow up in a household with those kind of extremist views without it rubbing off on you. I didn’t know about the DFL brother, though.
His brother Pat is on the Board of Directors
Democrats for Life, Bd of Directors page
Even reading that bunk makes me sick. “Courage” and “inspiration”? WTF?
But hey, what the fuck do I know? I’m nothing but a dumb, clueless woman. Lucky for me that I have a license or I’d be a dumb, clueless slut.
I really, really can’t abide the Democrats for Life. They should just join up w/ Focus on the Facists and be done with it.
Let me tell you. I am the president of my local teachers’ union, an affiliate of PSEA. Casey and Rendell both sought our endorsement prior to the gubernatorial primary in 2002. Despite the strong opposition of many of us, especially from the SE part of the state, our PAC decided that Casey was more ‘electable’ and endorsed him–in the primary! Dumb, dumb dumb. Anyway…
Casey came to speak at a conference we held in Harrisburg that winter. The place was all decked out like a Casey campaign rally. Everyone was all juiced up to hear the guy, especially since we had just announced our endorsement (and we were going to give him a shitload of money). People were waving signs and cheering, etc.
Then, he opened his mouth.
It was like someone drugged us.
We could barely stay awake. He was quiet, dull, and monotonous. He spoke in platitudes and cliches. Despite his charm and good looks, he was incapable of inspiring a TEACHERS UNION that had just ENDORSED him for hundreds of thousands of dollars! If a Democratic candidate can’t electrify a teachers’ union convention, well, who the hell can they excite? Let me tell you, it was a shocking experience. And this is not my opinion alone. Ask anyone who happened to attend this conference, or anyone who has heard Casey on the stump.
Needless to say, the end of the story is that Rendell campaigned circles around him, stormed to victory, and never forgot that we screwed him in the primary. We are still paying for it today, as Rendell has been no friend to PSEA since taking office four years ago.
Ugh.
Full disclosure: my wife is from Scranton, went to school with a couple of Casey’s younger siblings, and is generally a typical Scranton Casey fan (that is his base). Even SHE will tell you that he is no campaigner. Her advise– keep his mouth shut.
My advice? Vote for Chuck Pennacchio. Asking a candidate that you feel is ‘electable’ to keep his/her mouth shut because they can’t articulate their thoughts well is a pretty piss poor strategy. The last time I saw Chuck at a large gathering it was at a DFA meetup and he got the crowd hopping. Chuck is an energetic and engaging speaker. I hope you have the chance to meet and speak with him.
Her advise– keep his mouth shut.
Now that is a ringing endorsement from his base.
Never mind the Senate race- can we fire the entire PA Dem establishment (At least the ones who come up with our brilliant Senate candidates)?
True dat.
Why are we stuck with all the boring/dull/uninspiring candidates? There’s gotta be someone more dynamic who can win in PA…
As I said- I’d be easily swayed by a viable (i.e. exciting/dynamic/inspiring) non-Casy or Pennachio option.
Oh buddy I feel your pain. Remember Ron KLINK????
Ron who? 😉
Would you have voted for (college professor) Paul Wellstone? Just curious.
I don’t know Pennacchio’s personality, so perhaps it’s an apples an oranges comparison to Wellstone’s passion – but you seemed focused on Pennacchio’s occupation as making him unqualified to hold a U.S. Senate seat. I think Wellstone disproved that theory – albeit with a couple stumbles along the way as he learned the ropes.
To be fair, the guy said a “UofA” professor. That is the University of the Arts. Not exactly going to knock peoples’ socks off. And the bigger concern is his style. Wellstone was one of the most passionate and dynamic progressives ever. I don’t think even Chuck’s biggest supporters would mention him in the same breath… or would you?
Oh yeah. . .I neglected to note that PoliSci would have been fairly relevant for Wellstone’s political career. (Along with the aforementioned passion)
Thanks for the comparative study. :^)
Well you’re wrong on both your points. People are going to vote for him. And who are your liberal sources who are telling you he’s ‘boring/dull/uninspiring’? I guess you’ve never met him nor spoken with him. Maybe you’re confusing these remarks with those said of Bob Casey Jr, whom I have never met nor spoken with, but that’s what people are saying about Jr.
Why don’t Pennacchio [it’s with two Cs] and Sandals qualify in your book? This is a primary we’re talking about here first. Chuck’s got my vote becase he’s got my back. He stands with me on all the issues I feel are important. Jr doesn’t even bother to take a stance on most issues.
Who said this was going to be easy either? It’s gonna be a shitstorm. That’s why it saddens me that people like you are turning your backs. Others like Hafer and Hoeffel included.
Want to put some money on it (the two points)? I’ll have to retract a bit of what I said, since obviously some people will vote for Chuck. I’ll bet that he gets under 15% in the primary. But Albert- where in PA, outside of Philly and Pitt and including the Burbs of both, could you see Pennachio winning in?
Albert- you know I can’t divulge my sources, but you should also know that I have them. And I am talking about Chuck, though it seems that Casey is also, to be generous, dull…
And there’s no reason to be sad- either way we have to beat Santorum. I just can’t see why the hell everyone has jumped on Pennachio’s bland wagon (any more than why I can see why the dim-witted perennial losers in the PA establishment jumped on the Casey bland wagon). It’s great that Chuck’s got your back- but it aint going to do you, me, or anyone else any good if Santorum gets another 6 years.
Maybe we can just join with NY and elect Spitzer as our Gov too?
How about dinner at Tangier? We’re both there often enough for Drinking Liberally here in Philly.
I think that Chuck can reach the minds of voters in the “T” as it’s called [not being a native PA, I still don’t understand what the “T” entails]. I think that Chuck’s message will resonate well in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and that alone could give him the state.
I’d like for you to see/meet Chuck in person before you call him dull though. As you can see right here, there are plenty of people who’d say otherwise. But for Jr. – I haven’t seen one person or heard one person come forward and call him dynamic or anything but dull.
I can’t see why people have jumped on the Jr. blandwagon. This is a primary first and Pennacchio [again, two C’s] is the one that is the clear choice for me and many others in this great state. Chuck excites us and that’s why we’ve got his back, a blandwagon it is not. Yep, Chuck’s got my back and I got his. It’s gonna do me, you and the rest of the US a whole lot of good if more people feel and vote that way.
Chuck is the better choice between he and Jr.
I prefer it with one C. That’s just how I role!
Dinner at Tangier it is! I can already taste it.
first of all you are not a progressive… on MyDD you drool over every conservative GOP talking point that goes by.
LOL- I didn’t know that MyDD let it’s pet troll loose!
Yes- Parker’s right, I’m not a progressive. I’m more like a radical liberal. Damn you Parker for blowing my cover!!!
And Parker- I drool over everything- it’s a physical problem with the glands in my mouth. I’d appreciate if you didn’t make fun of this problem, I’ve been teased about it my entire life.
Actually, I’m surprised that Parker even reads this blog, since it regularly features two former intelligence officers/agents and we know that all security personnel are pushing GOP talking points. Right Parker?
point proven…
do we have to rehash every fight from every other blog here?
Calling himself a “progressive” is about as true as Casey calling himself a librul… it just ain’t true.
who are you or I to categorize who is a progressive and who isn’t? I wasn’t aware that there was a litmus test.
Not every issue is as clear-cut as you would like. I’m sure I have a ton of thoughts that wouldn’t meet your standards, but they are mine and they are complicated based on my life experiences. By calling out another member of this blog, who barely entered this conversation btw, you poison the well instead of letting us figure out where this person stands for ourselves.
In short, I think it’s rude. Take it how you wish, but I needed to say it.
well for one thing…most progressives that I know don’t pant over anti-abortion politicians.
Find one place where I pant over anti-choice candidates…
at the Frist center on the Princeton campus.
He was passionate but clear-spoken. He answered hecklers in the crowd deftly and respectfully. He seems to have a lot of details at his command, but used them sparingly in order to stick to values-based themes.
Ditch your “sources” and see for yourself.
Nobody in PA, including this progressive, is going to vote for a professor at the UofA for Sen. Try running for another office (city council, state sen, US house, etc) before you try to run for Sen.
Yeah, progressive university professors with no prior political experience clearly have no business running for the Senate. What does Pennacchio take Pennsylvanians for – Minnesotans or something? </sarcasm>
But the bottom line is this: the machinations that BooMan describes above speak volumes about the Democratic Party’s commitment to its grassroots and internal democracy. The notion that Todd Gitlin, for example, has that the party is an empty shell, which is simply ripe for progressives to take control of, is a total fantasy. The Democratic Party is controlled by center-right corporate interests who very definitely don’t want to be replaced by actually progressive elements from the grassroots of the party. Whether you decide that it’s worthwhile for progressives to fight for control of this party, or whether we are better off building something new, we’ll get nowhere until we know what we’re up against.
Sorry about the length of this response. I’m a classic recovering Democrat; my former party continues to infuriate me even tho’ I’ve been clean and sober for years now.
noted that being called a ‘Philadelphia’ Democrat is usually the kiss-of-death in a state-wide race. When Ed Rendell, the former mayor of Philadelphia, won the Governorship, he was the first Philadelphian to do so in over 100 years.
Why is that the kiss of death?
that people in the center and west of the state don’t trust city slickers.
BooMan, this is wonderfully written narrative. You have a gift for explaining things so clearly and in an interesting way.
(We once had the same problem with a Wash. state Supreme Court candidate against the Chief Justice. The candidate had the same name as a famous TV anchorman. He easily defeated the Chief Justice. Everyone was hysterical because he was just an “ambulance chaser” attorney. Funniest thing, unlike the Bob Casey story, after a few years, he became a well-regarded jurist..)
Is it time for your annual bonus, Susan? ;^)
.
BREAKING NEWS :: 10 min. ago …
Controversial anti-terror legislation defeated 322 – 291 in House of Commons where Labor has a clear majority. Detention proposal for 6 months without charges were seen as too aggressive for British communities.
BBC News – Tony Blair Defeated Over Terror Laws
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
.
Both 90 and 60 day plan rejected
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
“I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I’m pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can’t insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can’t anymore. …
Winning at any cost. Are they so desperate that long-standing Democratic values will be tossed aside? I’d rather fail valiantly than win based upon softening of of our positions. Apparently I’m not supported by my own senator in this regard.
it seems to me that there should be only one progressive position on this issue. the best way i know to say it is by paraphrasing Dr Warren Hern in a letter he wrote to Bill Ritter, who’s a candide for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Colorado.
I want to see a Democrat return to the office of Senator of Pennslyvania, but not at the cost of reproductive freedom for the women of Pennsylvania, and not at the cost of freedom for Pennsylvania physicians to help them.
When the desire to win trumps doing what’s right, you can count me out.
Casey’s wrong about reproductive freedom. My fear is that if he is elected, for some women, he’ll be dead wrong.
you are so right bay!
That is because the chattering class keeps touting lies
[Democratic run Senate [regardless of anti abortion Dems] will uphold them [reproductive rights] better than a Republican run Senate http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2005/11/7/111422/359/75?mode=alone;showrate=1#75]
This statement is CATEGORICALLY FALSE.
They only thing that matters in this fight is the number of anti abortion politicians versus the number of pro choice. Adding to the contingent of anti-abortion politicians will in NO WAY protect women’s rights even if they are Democrats…. this is proven DAILY. Your argument that these same people… in GREATER numbers will magically reverse their anti abortion positions and support women’s reproductive rights is one of the boggest lies floating around… right up there with WMDs.
A Democratic run Senate will NOT uphold reproductive rights of women if the numbers of anti abortion Democrats INCREASES to a level where they can maintain an overall anti abortion Senate mojority in league with anti abortion Republicans.
The ONLY means in the Senate in which we can protect reproductive rights is to ensure that anti abortion politicians do not become a majority. Since we have no influence over anti-abortion GOPers… that leaves making sure there are a few anti-abortion Dems as possible.
Democrats for Life spell out the same rationale… they want to ban abortion therefore they are working to INCREASE the number of anti abortion legislatures in the States, the House and the Senate… and openly work in league with the GOP…to make sure that anti-abortion maintains a majority vote.
Funny how the same people “overlook” that it took LIEberman just seven Senators to hijack the will of the entire Democratic party… it will take less anti abortion to hijack reproductive rights of women.
you need to take a civics class so that someone can physically hammer home into your head how the Congress actually works.
All that really matters is whether is there is a majority of pro-choice people on the judiciary committee, and whether they are willing to vote against judges that are anti-choice.
Right now the judiciary committee is evenly split, but Specter won’t cast his vote the way he should. Therefore, Roe may be overturned.
But if the committee was held by Dems, those Dems would not let Alito to the floor.
A majority of the Senate could remain pro-life and that wouldn’t change this basic fact.
Therefore, the Dems need to take the Senate. We also need to take either chamber in order to get subpeona power, which would quickly drum these thugs out of power.
Civics class:
The MOST VOTES WINS… what part about that don’t you understand…?
really are as dense as a rock.
The most votes DO NOT WIN. The party in power wins.
And the vast majority of the Dem Party is pro-choice. There are no anti-choice Dems on the judiciary committee and there won’t be any anytime soon. Winning a majority just adds two pro-choice votes to the judiciary committee WHERE THE MOST VOTES WIN. Duh.
Then you are as blind as a fucking bat… or did you miss the part where LIEberman hijacked the entire Democratic Party with just seven senators….
oh, you mean the part where Lieberman and six other democrats agreed to vote for loathesome judges to prevent the nuclear option?
That would not have been necessary if those judges had not been passed through the judiciary committee. If the those 7 democrats (none of them on the JC) were in the majority, they would never even get the chance to vote for the judges and most of those judges would not even have been nominated.
Yes I mean when Schumer sighed a sigh of relief because he was afraid that LIEberman was going to make a deal with the Rethuglicans and sell the Democratic party out on Social Security with just 7 senators…
If the those 7 democrats (none of them on the JC) were in the majority, they would never even get the chance to vote for the judges and most of those judges would not even have been nominated.
You mean like librul and moderate Dems calling in the House calling for a ban on abortion…
The point is the Democratic leadership has already thrown out the pro choice plank now they are just trying to justify their unilateral decision with the base. If we actually TRUSTED the Dem leadership to protect our rights there would be no arguments today… but they lie and will continue to lie…
I’m tired of your games Parker.
You know that I don’t support Casey, did YOU READ THIS ARTICLE?
You know that I don’t support Kos’s attack on NARAL or his position on Rhode Island.
And you know that I have said that I don’t support anti-choice candidates, except maybe in some very anti-choice districts and a few states. But NOT in Pennsylvania or Rhode Island.
All I am trying to explain to you is that replacing Santorum with Casey will be a move in the correct direction because it puts us one vote closer to adding two pro-choice votes to the judiciary committee.
Obviously I think Pennacchio would be better or I wouldn’t have written this article.
This is the freakin game:
replacing Santorum with Casey will be a move in the correct direction because it puts us one vote closer to adding two pro-choice votes to the judiciary committee.
and a lie.
put up or shut up. You call me a liar you better explain why I’m a liar.
Seriously.
Explain to me why the excerpt you just quoted is a lie. If you can’t, retract your comment.
you and Parker, but I need a civics class, I guess, because I have a question:
How do people get onto various committees in Congress? Are they appointed? Voted in?
The majority gets more people on each committee than the minority or are they eually composed?
If all of the answers to the above are yes, I am still not sure how a majority in the Senate gets us closer to a por-choice majority on the Judiciary Committee. Is it not possible that anti-choice senators would get appointed? Or do the dems have a litmus test for committee appointments?
I am ignorant, I admit.
There are 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats. All Democrats are pro-choice (by design) and all GOP members are anti-choice (by design) except for Arlen Specter, who chairs the committee.
If we were to win the Senate, then Reid would assign two new members to the Committee and Frist would drop two. Reid would be forced to pick pro-choice replacements because his causus would demand it.
Right now the committee is split 9-9 over Roe v. Wade. It would be split 11-7 if the Dems gained power.
1. Arlen Specter
CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA
1. Patrick J. Leahy
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
2. Orrin G. Hatch
UTAH
2 Edward M. Kennedy
MASSACHUSETTS
3. Charles E. Grassley
IOWA
3. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
DELAWARE
4. Jon Kyl
ARIZONA
4. Herbert Kohl
WISCONSIN
5. Mike DeWine
OHIO
5. Dianne Feinstein
CALIFORNIA
6. Jeff Sessions
ALABAMA
6. Russell D. Feingold
WISCONSIN
7. Lindsey Graham
SOUTH CAROLINA
7. Charles E. Schumer
NEW YORK
8. John Cornyn
TEXAS
8. Richard J. Durbin
ILLINOIS
9. Sam Brownback
KANSAS
10. Tom Coburn
OKLAHOMA
With a Dem majority, the party gets to adjust the ratios for the cmtes. It’s been a while, but the equivalent of a ldshp cmte chooses which Sen. will serve on which cmtes. So yes, a Majority Ldr Reid would likely make sure all Ds on Jud cmte are pro-choice. Boo’s right, short term.
BUT–unlike the House, in the Senate most of the leg action happens on the floor … meaning amendments to bills right on the floor. In theory, the number of amendments on any bill are limitless, but in practice they agree on the number b/4hand.
Meaning what? Quite conceivably, all it takes are a few anti-choice Ds to team up w/ rethugs to wreak havoc. And if there aren’t enough pro-choice Ds to stand up to this? That could happen rather easily. Parker’s right, long term.
That is exactly how LIEberman has been able to hijack the party.
It is disengenous to keeping touting the lie that a majority Dem Senate with an INCREASE of anti Abortion Democrats will protect women’s rights… it ain’t so… and this has already been proven false by the actions of LIEberman.
The short term prospects ain’t go good either.
Maintaining a pro-choice Dem bench will dissolve the moment the Democratic Leadership “opens it arms” to anti abortion Democrats… they will argue that anti abortion Dems have “earned” a seat on these committees since they where elected by Democrats to “represent” Democrats…
The crux of Boo’s fable is that the dymanics of the Democratic Party legislation will not change if there is an INCREASE of anti abortion Dems elected… which is undeniably and categorically FALSE and a LIE.
I agree. It won’t happen right now, but we keep going down this road and it will. We’ve been saddled with the Hyde amendments since the late 70s when Ds held both houses and the presidency (though to be fair, the segregationists hadn’t fully switched sides yet).
Another thing is that I don’t hear anyone dressing down DFL (sorry to Minn.) as divisive and to just get behind the pro-choice Ds. Interesting.
The hubby & I were talking a/b this and he reminded me of Strom Thurmond. That fucker spent decades sucking up senatorial air for one thing and one thing only–segregation. Name 1 pc of major leg. he sponsored. You can’t, b/c he didn’t. The southern senators of most of the 20th century were groomed to do 1 thing and 1 thing only: maintain segregation. They had no vision; just keeping rights away from people. And I’m sorry, but that’s what these types remind me of.
Wow…I didn’t realize that… then to add insult to injury…Strom did not even believe in the racist rhetoric he was spewing. There was an illuminating interview with his African American daughter…whom he loved and privately acknowledged. After his death, she was asked about his racist political leanings… and replied that he told her that it was an act and it was what his constituents wanted… so he played to their hatreds and became every powerful.
This is why I think promoting this lie to the Democratic party is so dangerous… what are we going to do next …wear white hoods and sheets to lure “swing voters”…. ? In fact all this strategy does is to insure the GOP status quo in the south … FOR EVER.
I do not believe for one second that Harry Reid will protect women’s reproductive rights… look how quickly he rolled over for LIEberman coup d’état… this is the same man would did not stand up for the disenfranchised voting rights of hundreds of thousands of the staunchest members of the Democratic Party… yet praises a fool and a complete neocon Lapdog like Harriet Miers.
what are we going to do next …wear white hoods and sheets to lure “swing voters”.
Shhh! Don’t give them any ideas!
In the early 90s it was all about affirmative action and the angry white man. Lieberman, the former SNCC member, led the way questioning affirmative action–code for, haven’t we done enough for them?
So now, women are the expendable ones. (Damn! Still a target!) Being pro-choice will sink the party. Arghhh!
Someone wrote recently that Ds have “base envy” and it’s true. (I now believe that Kerry didn’t fight the voter disenfranchisement b/c he knew he’d be cut off at the knees–by Democrats who didn’t want to fight for a bunch of black folks.) See a pattern here? At the end of the day, the reason our politics are so fucked up is b/c of America’s original sin–race.
The dirty li’l secret of our society is that abortion is as much a/b controlling women’s sexuality as it is a/b race. When no one’s looking or listening, people talk about the declining white birthrates–the fear of some that the entire country will soon look like LA. And that scares the shit out some of people.
It’s the perfect foil. Right-wing Black preachers (and others of color, too) serve as cover–we’re all good Christians here, and Jesus doesn’t want you killing the little babies. Also we cling to the Christian b/c we’re always being portrayed as hot in the ass. Black women, especially, are always ready, always willing, we never say no–except when we do–but we really means yes. Add to that Margaret Sanger’s own cozy relationship w/ eugenics and there you have it.
Of course it’s bullshit. They are cavorting with folks who believed in sterilizing Black women, since using us as breeders in slavery was now illegal. What gets lost is women controlling our bodies for sex and childbearing on OUR OWN TERMS. Well, no one wants that. Like I said, though, useful foil.
My insanely long point is that folks don’t want women controlling childbirth–I’m only asking why. I don’t believe it’s only because these types hate women. And really, is there any surprise to where the most “Christian” opposition to choice is located?
I forgot to add that these are the votes that some Ds hunger for, b/c they believe them to be the majority.
Also at this very moment Reid and Pelosi are manuevering to destroy the pro-choice grip on the Democratic Party. They are openly lobbying Dean to “let in” anti abortion Democrats… if that happens we can no longer expect that All Democrats are pro-choice (by design)… that is what the anti baortion Dems are going after…to get on these committees to break up the little power left of the pro-choice plank…why the hell do you think Reid and Pelosi wanted Roemer as chair of the DNC…
Oh, for the love of God and all that is holy, do not get me started a/b Roemer. Never liked him. Never trusted him. He’s always just rubbed me wrong.
Now as DNC chair, he’d still have no influence on who the Dem Steering Cmte (they rec. folks for cmte assignments). Just as a point of her own politics, Pelosi would be CRAZY to let him dictate to her how to run the Dem Caucus. What both she & Steny (Dem Whip) have been convinced of, even though they both are pro-choice and represents districts that are pro-choice (even though Steny’s views have gotten a bit more conservative owing to the nature of his district–in ’92, his CD was re-drawn which paved the way for the 1st Black Rep from the area). TPTB & their rec’d wisdom keeps telling them that. It’s as if they’re saying, Hey, don’t you remember the glory days of Clinton? Trust us!
Of course, they forget that under Clinton, we lost the House & Senate (except the for the tie in 2000).
Timmy represented the view of the establishment Ds and their learned opinions du jour–which is to say, what some Ds think the nation wants to see. Timmy is seen as a “centrist.” But of course now, it’s not enough to even be that–now you gotta be anti-abortion, anti-fair trade (or for so-called free trade). Dean’s power & influence didn’t come from them so naturally he doesn’t represent their thinking.
One last thing: b/w Timmy & Evan Bayh (who, for reasons unknown to me, is a perennial candidate for pres/vp) I could just vomit. What IS it with parties hyping up folks b/c of their damned daddies? Didn’t we fight a war b/c the whole divine right of kings and class distinctions chafed folks’ asses?
I know … but I’m just sayin’.
They wanted Roemer as the DNC chair to lobby for anti abortion Dems from the inside. The chair may not speak for the party but they can do a hell of a lot of good (or damage as we all saw McAullife sabotage Dean from the inside).
Having that same ability to promote anti Dem candidates from the chair of the DNC was their plan. Which is why Hilliary has had to openly allign herself with the republican funded DLC to have a nationwide organization behind her to do her bidding as she can not count on an “unfair advantage” from the DNC in the primaries… that would be the case if McAuliffe was there …who regularly sent out fundraising request to the DNC mailing list on behalf of “Friends of Hilliary”.
At the end of the day, we have to stop being so damned reactive–ESPECIALLY when we’re reacting to manufactured manure courtesy of wingnut repubs. Just stop buying into their worldview, b/c once you do, you’ve already lost.
Oh–and the burning irony? There seems to be more pressure to swallow all the anti-choice stuff that the pro-choice Pelosi/Hoyer seem to accept than under Gephardt/Bonior who weren’t (the “seamless garment” thing for Bonior, but in the end, they didn’t “like” abortion but always voted in favor of contraception. Stalwarts on rights of unions, fair trade).
No you see quite clearly… this is a smoke screen to get more anti abortion Dems elected.
It is an absolute LIE that a Dem controlled majority with an INCREASE of anti abortion Dems will protect womens reproductive rights.
Politicians who politicize womens bodies for their own political gain… are funded by wingnut lobbiest… WHO WANT TO BE PAID… that is why Biden will never vote against the credit card companies… and anti-abortion Dems just as their GOP wingnut counterparts…. are paid and bought to vote the way their anti abortion masters want them to.
This is an erosion process. Once we let down our gaurd to let in MORE anti-abortion Dems… they will inevitable DEMAND a seat in these committee as “fair” compensation for helping the Dems to gain a “majority”… at that point I do not see ANYONE in the Democratic leadership saying no… not even Hilliary.
And those who spout this crap today will just mutter some inane “Mea Culpa” (like Armando’s “I failed” pathetic diary) and keep on stepping promoting MORE anti abortion Democrats.
I wonder. Did you observe closely the machinations during the Thomas nom and hearings? Biden, no friend to liberal causes, was in charge ofthe committe. Yes he voted against Thomas, it made no real difference.
He/Biden has recently stated (hardball 5/24) that he values clean air over abortion rights. Quite dismissive he was too. And happy to say that Dems had “learned their lesson” about filibuster. Later in the same transcript Lott clearly says that Republicans count on Red State Dems to vote the “right” way on judges. Bush did fine thru 108th and 109th congress. Conservatvie Dems vote wtih Republicans. over and over and over.
Democrats have never fully supported a woman’s right to abortion.
And look where we are now, EC is under assault.
This is a mild version of the mismanagement and the sheer power of the aides to Strom, who was on the judiciary committee as well during Thomas…. And likely a lot of weakness from the Dems who were in “power”. No news there. There are harsher takes on Biden and the Dems in that go round, Jane Mayer is but one….
Women are not buying the electoral games. They really are not. “Hammer our heads” if you wish. Dumb choice of words.
this pandering to the right is only going to get worse now that the odious Kaine won. We’ll hear over and over that he’s some kind of poster boy for a winning candidates.
If we end up w/ a-holes like Casey in major races, or a Presidential candidate like Warner, I’m leaving this party and will actively work AGAINST the Democrats.
me too
I am a loyal Democrat. I am captain of my precinct. I make ten brazillion calls, and round up volunteers, and put out signs, and give money, and attend boring events.
But when Chuck Schumer says shit like this:
“I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I’m pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can’t insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can’t anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry (Reid) using his very…Harry has amazing insights into people…and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run.”
I really wonder why I do it. Since when is “the best candidate” a right to lifer so extreme he wouldn’t even endorse Bill Clinton for president?!? Since when are my – and my daughters’ – most fundamental rights part of an 18 point checklist?
I wouldn’t be nearly so furious if people like Schumer would at least admit that this is a sub-optimal strategy that is bound to piss off one of largest constituencies in the Democratic party. But he acts like it’s this great thing and we all ought to be so happy!!
Pfui!
I hear you. I’m still precinct captain and have some responsibilities in the county Dem Party, but I’ve made clear to our county chair that I’m not lifting a finger to help Bill Ritter if he’s Colorado’s Democratic Governor nominee. If she’d be more comfortable with someone else doing my duties, I’d be glad to step aside, I told her. I am a team player for the Dems because I see the strategic value partisanship can actually have, but I won’t support Republican-style candidates.
I’m still precinct captain. She let me know I was far from the first one to make such a statement.
Pennacchio’s exclusion by the power elites is entirely similar to Mike Miles’ primary run against Ken Salazar last year. Mike lost, but might not have. Chuck is better prepared and has an internet base in addition to local grassroots. Chuck can win.
Lieberman needed Salazar to hijack the Democratic party… I doubt it will take less than seven anti-abortion Senators to hijack the Democratic party and install an anti abortion plank eventhough the majority od Democrats and AMERICANS are pro choice.
That is why it is a TOTAL LIE that anti abortion Democrats will protect womens reproductive rights. IF the indictments had not been in the pipeline LIEberman would have hijacked the party and sold us out on Social Security… I ahve no doubt certain Dems (including Harry Ried) would have no problem selling out women for their own political gain…
… those who say women dying in red States justifies Democrats getting into power are as vile and hyocritical as as the “Yellow Elephants”… kill your own mother, wife, sister or daughter first before you sign the death certificate of other women…even Republican women in red states.
If we were to go by this new Democratic strategery then perhaps Democrats should also emply Nixon’s Southern strategy and don white hoods and capes to attract “swing voters”… yet these are the same folks who winge the “Framing” is beneath their moral aptitude… give me a fucking break…..
I have my issues with Salazar, but he is pro-choice.
openly opposes Ritter for the same reason. In a nine page letter to Bill Ritter that was released last week to the Rocky Mountain News, Dr. Hern made plain that he could have had understood that position if Ritter was personally “pro-life,” while accepting of a woman’s right to make her own choice. But no; Ritter is against abortion.
And that is a difference that matters.
is a genius whom I’m very proud to call neighbor. He is exactly right in pointing out that Ritter will not put his personal views on abortion aside to respect the majority view. Neither will Casey.
Dr. Hern made me think long and hard with his letter to Governor Dean a couple months ago, about how even our framing of “safe, legal, and rare” is intellectually dishonest. Humans have terminated pregnancies since forever, and implying it’s a bad habit we can marginalize not runs against nature, but furthers the moralistic and judgmental attitudes that people like Ritter and Casey share.
for reducing access to abortion through TRAP laws that antis sell to a credulous public as measures for women’s health and safety.
Sometimes one of them slips up and calls TRAP laws and regulations what they are intended to be: “clinic-killers.”
Am I remembering right that you are in Denver? I’m in Lafayette (Boulder County).
I doubt they will let you go because there aren’t exactly people lining up to do this job. 🙂
…that boy Casey is running to somehow avenge his father, nothing more.
Haven’t we been here before?
My husband and I have donated a little to Chuck P. though we of course can not vote for him…and we will donate more later as well.
It is too soon to even consider Florida viable for change, though some of us are trying hard. Our Democrats are Republicans and proud of it, sadly. And they don’t even know they are doing it. It just comes naturally after all these years of abuse. Reminds me of a post by Matthew Gross’s wife called “The Politics of Victimization”, or something like that.
It is almost like the Stockholm Syndrome that Governor Dean said our Democrats had in relation to the Republicans. Mustn’t upset them or irritate them, they take care of us. (a little sarcasm there.)
This was a nice post, and we will be giving more to Mr. Pennacchio later. I know others who will…just because they are ignoring him.
It’s disturbing, and there’s no reason people shouldn’t support the person they feel is the better candidate in the primary. But after that, it’s either the dull guy or Santorum the evil stiff. If it’s Casey, he’s a Democrat who counts when they figure out who gets to the run the Senate, and that’s the most important thing, in my view.
His father was a good governor, and his position on abortion didn’t even come up until his last year or so. In the Senate he votes on judges, which is troublesome, but he’s subject to some pressure from fellow Dems, and anyhow, it’s more important who is appointing them.
It’s disappointing that my native state can’t come up with good candidates and, when they have them, (like Harris Wofford, who Santorium defeated) good campaigns. But in the end, you do the best you can. You’ve got a position and the choice of two people to fill it.
we should agree to disagree then, you say
But in the end, you do the best you can.
i say you do whats right…
until the end.
always.
if the “best” is anti-freedom.
don’t do it.
The one head-to-head poll with Casey shows me ahead 58-41.
Is Chuck spinning here, or is he really that politically incompetent? It’s an internet poll, for God’s sake.
Calling Peter Jackson is fun, but you can also call his boss, Larry Rosenthal. Phone number is (215) 561-1133, email address is lrosenthal@ap.org (wow, dot org!).
Now how about Peter Boyer’s New Yorker article?
Got a link for it (the article?)
I guess Larry and I can have a little chat tomorrow…
Given the tactics of the State Party, at some point Chuck will have to make a decision about the eficacy of staying in the Democratic party. Have you thought about the dynamic if he wins narrow (50% + 1)?
Just sayin. The way you’ve described the power balance he wouldn’t exactly be welcomed with open arms. Then what?
It seems like a lot of people here (on both sides) are focusing mainly on the issue of reproductive choice (&stem cell research) as what separates Casey and Pennacchio. While I believe these issues to be extremely important, and I’ve never voted for an anti-choice candidate, there are many other issues to consider. Here’s a sample:
(1) The Iraq War; Chuck Pennacchio says he would have voted against the war and he now supports a timeline and exit strategy to bring our troops home as soon as is feasible. Bob Casey has said he would’ve voted for the war “given the evidence at the time” and has said we need to stay the course; meaning no plans for an exit strategy and indefinite US military occupation of Iraq.
(2) Universal healthcare: Chuck Pennacchio supports universal, single-payer healthcare coverage. I’ve heard Casey make vague references to making healthcare better “more affordable”, but he hasn’t endorsed any universal healthcare laws.
(3) Gun control: Chuck Pennacchio supports the assault weapons ban and laws requiring gun makers to include child safety locks with all new firearms.
Bob Casey is opposed to any gun control laws. The Casey supporters often say Casey’ll win over the NRA, but considering that Santorum’s very friendly with the gun lobby, I don’t see that happening. On the other hand, people living in cities strongly favor some gun control laws. The African American community tends to strongly support them as many of them face a very real threat of gun violence everyday.
(4) Living wage: Chuck Pennacchio supports living wage legislation; meaning raising the minimum wage enough to bring working families above the poverty line pronto. Bob Casey says he supports increasing the minimum wage, but you know what, so does Santorum (he recently changed his position). Raising the minimum wage in occassional 50-cent increments doesn’t cut it for parents worried how they’re going to put food on the table.
(5) Death Penalty: Chuck Pennacchio favors a moratorium on the death penalty. He believes it should be replaced with life imprisonment. One important reason being far too many innocent people have been executed. Bob Casey strongly supports the death penalty and also wants to limit the right to appeals of inmates on death row.
(6)Campaign finance reform. Pennacchio has vowed not to accept any PAC money for his campaign, because PACs are usually funded primarily by corporations. Pennacchio calls for public financing of federal candidates. Bob Casey accepts PAC contributions. The question to ask here is, can we really trust someone who takes PAC $$$ to support serious campaign finance reform and fight pay-to-play politics?
(7) Separation of church and State: Chuck Pennacchio supports separation and therefore opposes posting commandments in public / court buildings. Casey doesn’t have a problem posting religious doctrines. Casey also supports laws that would allow people to refuse doing something for their job that goes against their religious beliefs (i.e., pharmacists refusing to sell birth control / emergency contraception).
(8) Judicial independence; Pennacchio supports an independent judiciary body. In other words, he would oppose any law that seeks to turn over a previous court decision, as the “Terry Schiavo bill” did. Casey supported the Terry Schiavo bill.
(9) Environmental Conservation and Protection: Pennacchio wants to end tax subsidies to polluters such as big oil / coal and invest in clean, renewable energy sources. He wants to strengthen protection (i.e., Clean Air Act) such as tougher emissions standards and promoting smart growth and more funding for public trans. Like Pennacchio, Casey has said he would’ve opposed ANWR oil drilling and says he’d support alternative energy funding. However, Casey’s website says nothing about opposing corporate welfare to polluters, nor does it say anything about actually developing and enforcing stricter EPA standards.
(10) John Roberts. Pennacchio would’ve voted against confirming Roberts; not merely because he was conservative, but also because the Bushies went to such lengths to cover up his record and avoid releasing all documents. Casey would’ve voted to confirm him.
Its somewhat difficult to compare Pennacchio and Casey on the issues because Casey’s own website says so little about where he stands on specific kinds of laws. However, we know where Chuck Pennacchio stands. I’ve seen him at several events now and he never avoids a question.
http://www.chuck2006.com