If you are like me, Paul Wellstone was one of your favorite senators. It wasn’t just Paul’s politics, but much more. I liked his attitude. I liked his eloquence. I liked that he was a professor. I don’t think our government should be run by professors, but I do think we should elect a few more of them.
Chuck Pennacchio is the Director of the History Program at University of the Arts in Philadelphia. He is running for the Democratic nomination to face Rick ‘man on dog’ Santorum in the 2006 election.
He reminds me a lot of a young Paul Wellstone and that is why I am supporting him.
First of all, he looks a bit like Wellstone, only with more hair. But he also has a passion for Democratic principles. Last night, at his fundraiser here in Philadelphia, Chuck spoke about his commitment to a woman’s right to choose, his commitment to universal health care, his support for stem-cell research, and his support for raising the minimum wage.
Some people have questioned why I am willing to support Chuck when we have a better known and financed candidate in Bob Casey Jr. The first answer can be provided by Chuck:
“Democrats have muddled the message nationwide,” Mr. Pennacchio said. “The Republican Party has been hijacked by right-wing religious fellows, Fortune 500 business groups and neo-conservatives. The Democratic Party has been hijacked by inside-the-Beltway consultants. The consultants are paid win or lose, but they tell all the Democratic candidates, ‘Don’t say anything,’”
“It’s a losing formula. Their formula for running away from issues, running away from messages is disastrous. One thing about Santorum, one thing I give him is he’s a person of conviction. The only way to beat him is to match him conviction for conviction and Bob Casey has no convictions as far as I can tell. The only way to win is to get convictions on the table and have a real debate.” Scranton Times-Tribune
Bob Casey may have some convictions, but they are not Democratic convictions. He does not support a woman’s right to choose, he has made no commitment to universal health care, he opposes further stem-cell research, he opposes letting gay couples adopt children, he opposes a withdrawal from Iraq. On too many issues he comes down on the same side as Rick Santorum. Of course, Bob Casey would be an improvement over Santorum and I fervently hope that Santorum, Frist, and DeLay are all out of power by 2007. But, I hope that it is Chuck Pennacchio and not Bob Casey Jr. that replaces Santorum in the Senate.
Joan Vennochi expressed the situation very well in the Boston Globe:
When it comes to abortion, Democrats are embracing the position John Kerry tried to establish during the 2004 presidential campaign: for it and against it. The Democratic presidential nominee said he was personally opposed to abortion, but in favor of the basic right protected by Roe v. Wade.
At the time, Republicans scoffed…
Still, when it comes to taking both sides, it is hard to top the Democrats.
They actively scoped out Casey as their weapon of choice against Santorum; Casey’s antiabortion stance, they believed, would strengthen his chances against the much-despised Santorum. Casey, the current state treasurer of Pennsylvania, was recruited by party leaders, including Senator Charles Schumer of New York — who believes that fealty to the precedent established by Roe is required of any Supreme Court nominee. Prominent prochoice Democrats such as Kerry, DNC chairman Howard Dean, and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York made fund-raising pitches on Casey’s behalf.
To add to the irony, Casey is the son of the late Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey, the defendant in a famous abortion rights case — Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The suit challenged a 1989 Pennsylvania law that included a list of restrictions on abortion, including the requirement that a woman notify her husband.
Before the case made it to the Supreme Court, it came before the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Alone on the three-person panel, then-Appeals Court Judge Alito voted in 1991 to let the spousal notification restriction stand. He argued that it did not put an ”undue burden” on the woman. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Today, Alito’s dissent in the case is used by Democrats as an example of Alito’s antiabortion extremism. These are the same Democrats who back an anti-abortion candidate for the US Senate, one who happens to be related to the defendant in this very case and who, so far, declines to say where he stands on Alito. Asked yesterday whether Casey backs the right protected by Roe, a Casey campaign spokesman answered by saying, ”He is prolife.”
Supporting Chuck Pennacchio is about more than Chuck. It’s about making a statement that the Democratic voters should decide who our candidates will be, not the senior Senator from New York. It’s about having a candidate that represents core Democratic values, not merely a pro-labor version of Rick Santorum. Last night Chuck said that if we could raise $200,000 for him he would guarantee victory and also “give us his last pint of blood”. I don’t know if $200,000 will be enough for Chuck to prevail, but I do know that he deserves the chance and we deserve a representative like Chuck Pennacchio. The people of Pennsylvania do not deserve the rat-fucking we have been dealt by power brokers Chuck Schumer and Ed Rendell.
You can contribute to the Pennacchio campaign here. If you believe in the principles of the Democratic Party contributing to Chuck will make you feel better. It’s better than just being an outraged witness.
Since I haven’t heard him speak — even in this day with all our technological wonders, I can’t zoom into a room in Philadelphia over 3,000 miles away where you were standing and listening last night — what does he sound like?
How does he speak to people? Does he draw on his knowledge of history?
What kind of people did you see at the event? Who’s attracted to his campaign?
Supporting Chuck Pennacchio is about more than Chuck …
That’s how I felt about Howard Dean and, back in 1999, about Bill Bradley. It’s so important to make those statements. Every time.
What does he sound like, how does he speak to people and does he draw on his knowledge of history? Check out the videos available for viewing on the campaign blog. Scroll down a bit and see the “Multimedia” section. The Frist Filibuster stuff is wonderful.
What kind of people were there and who’s attracted to this campaign? People who have not sold out their ideals. People who are concerned about issues, some single issue, some broader picture. Chuck reaches people at all levels: Choice, PAC money, anti-war, universal healthcare, living wage, ballot integrity… issues that effect every one of us. He has a principled stance on all of them. He’s not standing up for an issue becaue a lobbyist shoved an envelope in his jacket pocket, he’s standing up for an issue because he believes in it and I believe in him.
I think the campaign is working on mastering a DVD that can be available for viewing at house parties all across the US. Not 100% sure about it though. But I was at the house party here in Philly a little while ago when they filmed it.
no dog poop this time Albert. And thanks for the photo. It’s a good one.
ha! three cheers for no dog poop!
he’s a good speaker. As a professor he is used to speaking to large groups and explaining things concisely. He gestures a lot which reminds me of Wellstone. He’s pretty good one on one too. Duncan and I talked to him for about 15 minutes after it was over. I talked to him for about 10 minutes before it began. Of course, we have now met several times. He thanked us for our job on Peter Jackson.
I’ve met him a few times too (meetings in Philly), and I was impressed by the fact that he actually listened to what us regular people were saying about the challenges we’re facing in this country. His positions on the issues that matter to me are great too. I’m sorry I missed last night’s fundraiser, but I’ll just have to hit his website up today.
OT, but has Peter been more fair in his coverage lately?
good question. I’ll have to find his latest dispatches to form an opinion on that one.
I haven’t seen a single AP wire story with his byline attached to it.
Hey, Albert –
Go Google “Peter Jackson AP Pennsylvania” and you can see what he’s been up to. “Peter Jackson AP” won’t work unless you want to sort out all the stories about Peter Jackson of the Lord of the Rings movies (I tried that first).
All I’ve seen Chuck do is divide the progressive community and turn us against each other. At first his candidacy was about taking down Rick Santorum and now its about taking down Bob Casey and anyone who doesn’t get on the Chuck-wagon.
In any case, I was talking to friend the other day about the Wellstone comparison — cuz Wellstone was a guy that brought progressives together and made them stronger. My friend lived in Minnesota for years, and worked on Wellstone’s campaigns. His reply, echoing a debate a few years back, “I knew Paul Wellstone, and Chuck Pennacchio ain’t no Paul Wellstone.”
I agree he is not on Wellstone’s level, but Wellstone grew in office. He reminds me of a young Wellstone, not the mature Wellstone at the end of his life.
Anyway, I don’t know any progressives that support Casey. I know Democrats that do and I know some people that just want to unify behind the likely winner of the primary. But no progressive could actually support Casey.
Hi Lad, I noticed you’re new here at the pond, but you look really familiar. Have we met somewhere else before?
“Turn us against each other”??
PA resients have been put in a shitty position by Reid-Schumer-Rendell with an annointed candidate who didn’t want to run with credentials as his father was the Governor a little while ago. Casey Jr. is not the Progressive candidate for me, I don’t see a division.
Reid-Schumer-Rendell has turned the Democratic party against itself is more accurate I’d say.
In any case, what do you think of the issues brought forth by the good Doc? Do your views stand more aligned with his or with Casey Jr’s?
My views: I’m a lefty. I’m an environmentalist. And I have fought hard to stop the NeoCon’s imperial aspirations.
And I will vote to ensure that Harry Reid becomes Majority leader so we can begin to hold the Bush Administration accountable.
I wonder: If the Supreme Court sends the control of the abortion issue goes back to the states, that leaves the governor as the sole person standing to stop a pro-life legistlature. Perhaps Rendell was actually a genius by trying to take Casey out of the potential pool of Governors? Just what-ifs…
Why don’t we elect a Senator who will help keep Roe v Wade a fedaral issue and not let it get to a state decision.
By the time November rolls around, Bush will have his anti-choice pick. Unless someone is fattening up the Supremes pork rinds and lard, we don’t have too much chance.
…and let’s get real here: Most poor woman can’t get abortions anyway. Medicaid won’t cover it. Neither will the military. They are already screwed. At least Casey beleives in birth control, pre-natal and post-natal care….hey and perhaps Medicaid would cover anesthia during labor too while they are at. (Talk to my friend’s sister who had anthesia withheld during labor while she was screaming for it.)THAT would do a world of good…but it ain’t gonna happen if Frist continues to be majority leader.
I’m not sure if I get your point: poor women are already screwed and can’t get abortions, so you’d just to like to make it unanimous for all women? But you think it would be more important for women who have gone through an enforced pregnancy to get anesthesia?
BTW, does anyone know Casey’s position on the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals legislation that would gurantee patients right to medication prescribed by their physicians??
Of course I want abortion access for all women. And good medical care. I’m not very good with words, but I am pretty good at understanding strategy and tactics…And mowing down a decent, but flawed candidate that has a fair chance of defeating a nightmare one — seems to be the outcome of Pennacchio’s campaign tactics in the last few months.
How has Chuck been “mowing him down”? Pointing out his stances on the issues? Standing up for himself? You’ve slung a lot of shit Chuck’s way, and provided nothing to back it up. In fact, as I pointed out in a comment below, you’re simply, unquestionably wrong about some of the things you’ve said about Chuck.
From what I’ve seen, Casey’s backers have been the ones trying to mow down a better candidate.
I haven’t seen or heard Chuck “mow” anyone down, and as I said upthread, I’ve seen him in person.
Politics is about differentiating oneself from other candidates based on your positions on the issues. Casey’s positions are what they are.
I’m so glad y ou asked CabinGirl! From the 2004 PA Catholic Conference Election Questionnaire when Casey Jr. ran for Treasurer:
15. What is your position on legislation that forces Catholic health care providers to deliver services contrary to their conscience and moral teachings?
Casey (Treas – D): Oppose
He’d let a pharmacist base his/her decision whether or not to fulfill a prescription written by a doctor on his/her own beliefs rather than have them simply do their job.
That’s a shame that he would allow someone who has a sworn responsiblity to the public to use their position to interject their personal beliefs into the decisions made by a physician and patient. If pharmacists don’t want to dispense legally prescribed medications, they should work in the pharmaceutical industry or home healthcare, don’t you think?
Ah, well, Casey never claimed to be progressive, did he?
Nope, he didn’t. But Joe Hoeffel says he only supports Progressive candidates, whatever that now means in his head and that has me so pissed off. I’ve now written semi-rebuttals to his last two posts on his lacking blog.
So your logic is that if he is a bad candidate for the Govs office he should be the Senator?
A bad candidate is a bad candidate. Period.
That is the real “what if?”
Interestingly, I’ve seen far more attempts to “turn us against each other” from Casey’s supporters than Chuck’s. Casey’s seem to talk about nothing but how Chuck’s supporters as demonic evildoors; Chuck’s seem to talk about nothing but how great Chuck is.
Hm.
We [Chuck supporters] like to point out facts about Casey’s stealth campaign – Casey supporters don’t like that and see them as attacks
Yeah. They seem somehow upset that we expect their candidate to actually do things like campaign, articulate his positions, confront the Republicans, that kind of thing. And get even more upset when we talk about his positions.
I wonder why?
I put up a diary here with some more facts. It’s about PAC money and the whole Americans for Job Security thing that Casey’s camp is livid about, as I am, but points out the hypocrisy in it for the Casey camp who recieves monies from the same people who donate to Santorum.
More info coming on FEC reports for this Senate race in the next week. We’re digging deep.
give me one example where chuck divided the progressive community.
its the ass fuckers rendell and schumer who are dividing us and people i used to have respect for who are supposed to be progressive activists who are going along with this shit.
What’s so amazing about an Associate Professor of History at an Art School, whose previous experience was teaching history at an Agricultural College?
Would you be more impressed if he taught at Penn?
You criticize him for being an elitist’s candidate by suggesting his professorial manner is a detriment, but then say his position is too lowly to serve as a credential?
Chuck Pennacchio repeatedly waives his academic creditionals…and yes I would be more impressed by this if he had taught history at a place with a history major.
Well, if he waives his credentials, I don’t see the problem.
Let me be plain — he speaks from his authority as a professor of Diplomatic History. And it sounds puffed up to me. In the academic world, you are hired and judged by your peers. That neither UArts nor Delaware Valley College have History degree programs suggests that perhaps his academic creditials are questionable.
Hold on, let me get this straight. Are you a history professor or graduate student? If not, how are you qualified to question his academic credentials in any way? By your own admission, you can’t.
Chuck’s Wikipedia article implies that you’re simply wrong. It says that he’s the director of the history program at the University of Arts in Philadelphia. Five seconds of searching that you couldn’t be bothered to do yourself.
As an aside, not teaching somewhere that has a History program implies little about his expertise in his field. Where he got his degree from is the important bit. According to his Wikipedia article, he graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder. This is apparently ranked as the 11th public university in the world, and the 31st best university in the world.
My! Such questionable credentials!
From the UArts.edu website:
UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS
Art and Design
Animation
Crafts
Film/Animation
Film/Digital Video
Graphic Design
Illustration
Industrial Design
Painting/Drawing
Photography
Printmaking/Book Arts
Sculpture
Minors/Concentrations
Foundation
Media and Communication
Communication
Multimedia
Writing for Film & TV
Minors
Performing Arts
Dance
Music
Theater Arts
Diplomas/Certificates
Minors/Concentrations
Liberal Arts
GRADUATE PROGRAMS
Art Education/Teaching
Book Arts/Printmaking
Ceramics
Crafts Post-Bacc
Industrial Design
Jazz Studies
Museum Studies
Music Education
Painting
Sculpture
Doesn’t mean that they don’t have a history program. Just that they don’t have a history degree. Their history program could well be a part of another degree. As an example, if memory serves, for the longest time, the University of Waterloo had no Computer Science degree or major. (They still might not) What they had instead was a Computer Science program in the Mathematics major.
Yet they’re one of the best Computer Science schools in Canada, if not the best.
Also, the arts programs that I’m aware of have a significant history component.
NONE of these disciplines have history associated with them??
Is that it?
Becuase he is not a professor in some tightly defined academic discipline box, he is less educated? Please. How much time have you spent in university history departmens or ANY for that matter? Would his qualifications be less questionable or less elitist (still don’t know how you’ve gotten away with THAT particular contradiction in thinking) is he had been tenured 10 years ago at an institution that “has a history major”?
Try a little out fo the box thinking, would you PLEASE?
I’m skeptical of his speaking with authority just because of his PhD in Diplomatic History. Not every strong academic can or wants to teach at some fancy-pants, perhaps stiffling elite history departments…but it could be a sign of weak academic cred among his peers.
Potential puffery detector going off.
gives you the idea that he “speaks with authority just because of his PhD in Diplomatic History?
Speaking from experience, one may speak with a great deal of authority about a great many things with or without a PhD in anything.
Oh and by the way, do you usually equate holders of PhDs with “puffery” and “elitism”? If the answer is “yes”, mind if I ask why?
You’ve now crossed the borderline from “polite disagreement” into “Warning”. I will be 2-rating your posts until you demonstrate a solid grasp of reality.
There’s no “puffery” to be found here, except in your posts.
So again: What’s your fucking point? You’ve presented no evidence that there’s any dirt in Chuck’s academic background. None whatsoever.
Do I know know just how hard it is to attain a PhD?
Yes, and I say that from experience. (No, I do not hold one yet…as you can guess from my writings, I won’t be getting one in the humanities.)
And I also say from experience I know many PhD’s whose authority I very, very much question. I once knew a Chair of Department who thought he was quite the king of the university — until he was caught plagerizing his own students work. I also have knew Asst. Professors who couldn’t get tenure, not because they weren’t brilliant or great teachers, but because their work didn’t match the dominant ideology of the department.
I’ll ask a question: does anyone know what Chuck Pennacchio’s fellow History professors think of his academic achievements? Is he a true authority? Has anyone looked up his academic papers?
Yes, ok, all well, and good, fine, no one has questioned YOUR credentials — your entire comment is beside the point as far as MY questions to you are concerned — I really would be interested in hearing your answers.
(The questions were about what credentials you think are necessary to run for office and the equation of PhD-holders with “eletism” and “puffery” — just incase you missed them!)
Oh, and just so I’m not hypocritical, I’ll respond to your questions:
I’ll ask a question: does anyone know what Chuck Pennacchio’s fellow History professors think of his academic achievements? Is he a true authority? Has anyone looked up his academic papers?
I’m sure SOMEone (or many someone’s do), I’m not one of them.
Authority on what?
No.
To answer your question more plainly. The puffery of which I suspect is in conflation of being a real authority in history with being the Director of a history program at an Art school. I suspect he over-states his work in academia. I’ve heard that Pennacchio always argues from this credential, wheather the topic’s in his field or not…THAT’S puffery.
I don’t worry so much about intellectualism….heck it worked for Daniel Patrick Moynahan, PhD and Rush Holt, PhD.
Er, that was an answer to my questions?
Oh, I guess that was an answer to “what’s your fucking point?” Fair enough. That one is answered. The other two still remain asked — looking forward to your responses!
Why are you even humoring this guy by bebating Pennacchio’s credentials? It is a totally meaningless effort to hijack this thread. If the fire department decided to watch a child burn to death in a burning building, and a civilian decided to enter the building and try to save that child, would we then grill him about whether he had experience in fighting fires or saving children?
Pennacchio is running because someone has to do it, and no one else stepped forward. I am grateful to him, and I don’t care if he even graduated from high school. It doesn’t matter.
If we ignore this silly debate maybe he will go away.
I am not bebating [sic] credentials, I am asking questions that I actually have an interest in answers to.
fwiw, I agree completely with you about CP. I do not, however, appreciate being called out about “thread hijacking” by someone who is not the author of the diary (who, if they had a problem with it, I would hope come right in here and say so, and I would respect their request). Yours sounds too much like STFU about this why don’t you. Sorry, but no, if you find it offensive, apologies.
If you ignore me, in your own world, I will be gone!
My comments were directed more at Lad the Dog. I was simply wondering why we are humoring him. It is him who I think is hijacking the thread, intentionally or otherwise.
The issue here is that we now have a choice in the Primary. It is that simple. This was originally a crowded field, but Schumer, Rendell, and Dodd put pressure on the other democrats to drop out so Casey would have no competition in the primary. Whether Pennacchio is qualified or not (and I believe he is) is a totally different discussion.
Because he hasn’t hit the “zero-rate on sight” threshold yet. Though he’s certainly trying his best to reach it at record speed.
This is a pretty baseless argument against Pennacchio. Do you have any real arguments (with actual evidence of your point, not just innuendo) against his candidacy?
From what we’ve seen here, you have very little of substance to back up your pro-Casey leanings.
The case you cite is an argument for having faith in the general aptitude of a PhD in their field. It shows, quite succinctly, that PhDs without that aptitude are detected and eliminated fairly rapidly.
You’ve also got the shoe on the wrong foot, as it were. Pennacchio doesn’t have to prove his innocence. He doesn’t have to prove that he’s competent or respected. You have to prove that he isn’t. Presumption of innocence and all that. We don’t live under the Code Napoleon, thank God.
Dominant ideologies are usually dominant because they’re more successful or better-supported than the alternatives. (There’s a reason why the vast majority of dominant ideologies these days in the humanities seem to be liberal) Work that “doesn’t match” the dominant ideology requires significantly more evidence, as it contradicts a basis of commonly accepted knowledge on which other work has been built. Once your work that “doesn’t match” has proven itself sufficiently, others in your field generally have no choice but to acknowledge it.
Reality, after all, always eventually takes precedence over public relations.
Yes, it means the system is slow to respond to new work. But it also means the system works.
And I’m not talking out of my posterior here. I’m working on a masters degree in Computer Science. I have yet, in five years of taking classes at the university level, to encounter a professor that was truly incompetent in his field. Poor teachers? Certainly. Misguided as to their area of focus or interest? More than a handful. Not entirely up to speed on the meaning of recent developments? A couple. Lazy? One. But none whose authority I’d actually insult. (Question, certainly. That’s part of the process. Besmirch? Never. That’s bad form.)
Now, if I had to guess, I’d say you were part of that whole “Academic Freedom” mess. Probably in computer science or engineering, given your comments about humanities. Possibly a libertarian, perhaps even an Objectivist. Am I right?
And a prolife stance could be a sign of weak political cred among progressives.
This is about politics afterall.
(Go figure?)
Not to mention proWAR, proBusiness, and any number of issues that are at direct odds with the grassroots progressive movement.
doesn’t have a major in a particular subject does not make that subject unimportant. A lot of those subjects require a great deal of historical knowledge, to appreciate the significance of events. And even in other colleges, all majors require a certain level of study in history and other subjects…even totally unrelated subjects like engineering or sciences.
I’ve been biting my tongue to resist giving you a “2”, but I can’t really see your point. We’re supposed to fall in line like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse and support Casey, just because of the false notion of “electability”? Last I heard, Kerry was a shoo-in for President because he was “electable”, and we know how that turned out. And when faced with the devil you know and the devil you don’t know, if both sides are virtually equal, voters will pretty much go for the known quantity. So if Pennsylvania voters are asked to choose between Santorum and Casey, how is Casey going to distinguish himself from Santorum? “I’m not Rick.” “Well, then, who are you?” (I feel like the Caterpillar with the hookah right now, from Alice in Wonderland…)
I do appreciate your support for your candidate…but when people ask about Casey, there needs to be an explanation of what he stands for. If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything…
‘Nuff said for now…
I’m not sure that I do support Casey yet. I will definitely support him after the primary, which at present seems inevitable. I’ve watched Pennacchio’s campaign for a while…and for a while, I saw it do good (i.e. attacking Santorum), but now I don’t see the purpose. And because I think his campaign is hurting more than helping, I started to look into his creditials…which I find puffed up.
a candidate?? What are the job requirements, in your view?
My guess, based on his past posts: the name “Casey”.
As long as we are being frank, Pennacchio, while never having run for office before, has run several progressive campaigns.
Why is he running? Because the Democratic leadership browbeat all the progressive candidates into getting out of the race because Casey refused to run if he had competition in the Primary. Pennacchio stepped up to the plate because every one else was afraid to take on the party leadership. Good for him.
As far as his knowledge of history, I watched him debate the head of the Constitution Party recently at Millersville University on whether there was an inherent right to privacy embodied in the Constitution (he believes there is). I was really astonished at his knowledge of history.
Instead of knocking him for his lack of credentials, give him credit for standing up for the right of progressives to have a candidate other than Casey to vote for. I doubt he would have run if a “more credentialed” progressive Democrat had been willing to defy the leadership.
After meeting him I was delighted to discover that he is more than just an alternative to Casey. I think he is an excellent candidate who could beat Santorum.
About running these campaigns — what exactly was his role in those campaigns? Was he the Campaign Manager for the entire campaign or was it a support role?
To quote from his website Chuck Pennacchio “organized winning campaigns for Senators Tom Harkin, Tim Wirth and Paul Simon.” What EXACTLY were his roles? To what degree was he in command or in a leadership position?
I know I’ve heard Chuck say his exact roles before, but I can’t recall right this second, I’ve put in an email to the campaign to find out [something you could’ve easily done too instead of just complain about it].
You left out the first part of the paragraph from the website describing Chuck’s history:
Chuck is an expert in international diplomacy, served as Personal Aide to US Senator Alan Cranston and as Military Personnel Advocate for Congressman Ron Dellums, organized winning campaigns for Senators Tom Harkin, Tim Wirth and Paul Simon. Unlike his competitors for Pennsylvania’s 2006 Senate race, Chuck knows how to win tough races and fight successfully for all Pennsylvanians as your United States Senator.
Emphasis added.
Personal Aid to a person of high importance.
Qualifications for that are…?
Seriously…start picking it apart. Be a skeptic for 10 minutes. I’ve read resumes for years and its pretty easy to break the code once you’ve interviewed enough people.
you seem to have a real bug up your ass for credentials — as far as I can recall, the only credentials spelled out in the constitution are the age requirement and citizenship….
What do you feel are the minimum credentials for s senator? Are they different from that of a representative? A state legislator? Why?
I seem to recall he was campaign manager, but I refuse to debate you or argue with you on his credentials because they are irrelivent.
What part of “he is running because every one else is afraid to, and he believes progressive voters ought to have an alternative to Casey” don’t you understand?
If Pennacchio had not come forward Casey would be running unopposed for the Democratic nomination. If it were an open field with lots of candidates it would be perfectly appropriate to closely examine how Pinnocchio’s credentials stacked up against the others in the race. If that were the case, however, it is extremely doubtful that he would be running.
He has only one credential that is important under the present circumstances: He is a progressive candidate who is pro-choice.
So basically Tuna Fish sandwhich vs Casey? Tuna wins?
Has it come to this? When this whole thing started out, it was all about getting Santorum and now its all about getting Casey. THAT’S what I find reprehensible.
nah, I’d just rather the guy who helps take away my rights as a person not be the person I voted for.
So an alternate strategy would be to get very close Casey, deliver the election for him through your tireless efforts (while perhaps holding your nose, knowing that his win in the primary is inevitable, but not assured in the general) — and make goddamn sure that he knows you are holding his balls, if he ever dreams of being re-elected.
I suspect that Arlen Specter may be under just that kind of pressure (from many sides) right now. I bet that who ever is squeezing hardest wins.
I’d love to have a more liberal candidate too, but I forsee Pennacchio getting his head figuratively served up on a platter for Rick Santorum…and the odd and unfortunate turn his campaign has decided to take, isn’t helping defeat Santorum and make Harry Reid majority leader.
He was just on CNN spouting “the war is winnable militarily”, Harry Reid has no problem with Democrats for the Third Way”….lessee if I have this straight, vote for an anti-abortion D-candidate for Senate so we can have an anti-abortion D-Majority Leader. Whoo hoo, sign me right up! NOT!
I wouldn’t want to hold Casey’s balls in any case, but why wait until he’s elected (or more likely, loses the election) to let him know we won’t stand for him? That makes no sense!
Your “ball-squeezing” strategy doesn’t work if said ball-squeezers are “let’s toss the women overboard, screw science and put it in the hands of the Lord, repub-lite” enthusiasts as well!
I like some of the things Harry Reid has done in the past… (I am still pissed that he let Lieberman give up the 3 court nominations over the “Nuke” deal) But I am 100% with you on this!
WTF is he thinking?
WTF is he thinking? Some would say that he is planning yet another brilliant strategy move as he “keeps his powder dry” — I say, horseshit.
Telling Dean that his “place” is to organize, not set policy is the last straw on my “well, I’ll try to give him the benefit of the doubt” pile. That fucker’s about to be lit afire!
(my straw pile, not Harry Reid, for all of you hyper-sensitive folk out there).
You are either abtuse or you are being deliberately disruptive.
I never denigrated Pinnocchio’s credentials. You did. I simply refused to get distracted by a meaningless debate.
What this is all about is that Democratic voters do not deserve to have a candidate with Republican values forced upon them, and that is what the Democratic leadership attempted to do. It was Casey who insisted that he have no competition for the nomination. Just what does that say about him?
Because of Pennacchio, progressive Democrats can now vote for someone who embodies their politics, and we can also send a powerful message to the leadership in the process: namely, that we won’t be bullied into supporting a Republican wannabe just because he is running against Santorum.
That is what this thread is all about. I think you are simply trying to muddy the waters. If you want to debate Pinnocchio’s credentials why not write your own diary. You can debate the matter there if any one cares to debate the matter with you.
More like DLC/NDN/Third Way soup-salad-sandwich v Chuck…
I looked at what Casey was offering. On almost every progressive issue he falls way short. He is not a progressive, heck, he is hardly a Dem, unless you are talking about a “Joe Liberman type Dem that will vote against abortion rights”?.
From the campaign brochure:
Haven’t heard back as to what his role in Sen. Harkin’s campaign was.
He was a state wide field organizer for Sen. Harkin.
Might not be that great in the grand scheme of things. But compared to Casey, he’s Einstein.
he wants to be a senator…not a brain surgeon
id rather have someone with his creds than another lawyer (nothing against tha lawyers out there)….i want someone smart who is PROGRESSIVE and will vote for the things that are important to me.
Thanks for this information Boo. Not living in PA, I haven’t paid as much attention to this as I should – given the stakes.
I’d love to support Chuck for several reasons:
I’ll contribute to Chuck’s campaign as soon as I can. As I write, I have someone trying to figure out why my furnace is not producing heat. This could eliminate all spending on anything temporarily – so send me all of your hopes for news that isn’t too bad.
I have the same attitude on voting while we live in a country with a two-party system as we do now. I will be voting with my heart for the best candidate that is out there in the primary in PA and that candidate is Chuck Pennacchio. When Chuck wins the primary, I’ll be able to vote for a person who is more than simply the ‘lesser of two evils’ which is a nice change of pace.
Conviction wins.
ill tell you what the assraping dems were thinking….they got their dicks cut off once again last november and someone convinced them to win they would have to run someone more like a republican…they want their dicks back in the worst way and they dont see that if they abandoned casey and threw their support behind chuck not only would they/wee still beat the pants off dogsex boy but we’d come out the other end with a real democrat…..AND empower the grassroots progressives.AND not alienat6e women in the process.
they are not only dumber than joe cunts dog, they are absolutely abandoning women with their move.
of supporting a candidate based on “electability”, which is what the Powers That Be seem to be doing with Casey — we’ve been there, done that, got the f-ing T-shirt in the 2004 elections.
And even if Casey’s a “Democrat”, what’s going to stop him from crossing the aisle and voting with the Religious Reich Republicans on any issue involving women’s health, especially since we’re likely going to be stuck with Bush for two more years, meaning two more years of anti-choice judges.
I wish I lived in PA so I could vote for Chuck…but I zapped him some money last week and when I get the unexpected money that’s coming through (hopefully by the end of the month), I’ll zap him another donation. 🙂
of the primary between Mike Miles and Ken Salazar here, although I think Ken’s a much better Democrat than Casey will be. In the end, the furor over Salazar’s “anointment” caused a replacement of leadership in our State Party, and a much healthier, more grassroots approach within the organization. For example, yesterday I noticed Bill Ritter being mentioned as “the Democratic candidate for Governor” in a fundraising email sent by the state party. I emailed them, asking them to drop the word “the,” since State Representative Gary Lindstrom–a more progressive Democrat from Eagle County–had also declared his candidacy days earlier.
The response was immediate and sincerely apologetic, although I wasn’t mad, only helpful. This would not have happened before. When I pointed out that the party seemed somehow to have left Mike Miles’ name off the list when describing the debate (although Miles was confirmed to be there) or similar instances of favoritism, I got no reply.
So my long-winded point was: Fight for Chuck. He can win. And if he doesn’t, it still helps in many ways.
Chuck is an honest and smart person with passion for progressive issues. He deserves all of our support. I’ve given him money twice and I’ll see if I can do so again today.
I hate that word/theory “electability” – to me it translates into, can his strings be pulled if we back him?
In that sense, Chuck has NO “electability” because his strings will not be pulled by anyone. What makes him an appealing candidate is his conviction.
How many times did we see polls stating how people thought Kerry may be a good guy, but he was wishy washy and that W, while an ass and wrong, stood firmly for something.
Conviction wins and Chuck’s got it. We cannot let the Democratic party continually slide to the Right.
I know I must sound like a broken record, since I’ve posted what I’m about to say more than once before, BUT . . . .
Someone may very well jump on Susan’s comment above and say, but Dean lost. To which I say, so did Kerry.
The Democratic Party was complicit (at the least) in taking down Dean, preferring to go with the “electable” candidate. And – news flash – Kerry was not elected. The Rove machine and their MSM co-conspirators were successful in destroying Kerry’s credibility and they may very well have done an even better job with Dean, had he been the nominee.
But the spin and smears will always be with us. I do firmly believe that if we are to have any hope of winning, it will be with candidates, like Chuck, who actually offer voters an alternative. Going with the “electable” candidate like Casey is a classic example of that old definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
(I just sent Chuck $76.)
Gore was elected. Kerry may well have been. But it 2004 shouldn’t have been close enough to steal.
thanks Janet. I told Chuck last night that he has support from all over the country. And I know he will be happy to see a donation from Texas.
And the main difference between a Dean candidacy and a Kerry one was that Dean actually inspired the grassroots… and he would have kicked Bush’s ass in the debates (although Kerry did too, but Dean would have been on the same level in terms of ‘populism’ as Bush supposedly is).
Great recap Boo, glad to see you pushing this forward. Did you cross post this anywhere I can go reco it?
Bravo Booman!
I’ve met Chuck and spoken with him. He has good politics, is articulate, and is good on his feet.
I do not know a single progressive who is happy about Casey, and more and more are planning to vote for Pennacchio. We do need to send a message to the Democratic leadership that the time has past where they can force wannabe Republicans on us and think we will blindly vote for them on election day.
In the last election Joe Hoeffel came surprisingly close to unseating Arlen Specter (6-points if memory serves me). Hoeffel was a liberal Democrat from Philadelphia with little state-wide name recognition. He was outspent by a very wide margin by Specter, a Republican who many perceive as moderate, and who, unlike Santorum, gets a lot of cross-over Democratic votes. It astounds me that the Democratic leadership read these results as an argument in favor of running a conservative Democrat against Santorum. One would think it would have sent exactly the opposite message.
Then there is the issue of Casey’s electablilty. He was the candidate preferred by the Democratic leadership for the governorship in 2002. He entered the race with a huge campaign chest and a 15-point lead in the polls over Ed Rendell. Casey’s bland campaign style won the day for Rendell, who ended up winning the primary by 12-points and then went on to win the governorship. Little wonder that Casey refused to consider a run for the Senate until the leadership assured him he would have no competition for the nomination. Good for Chuck Pennacchio for throwing a monkey wrench into those well-laid plans.
Even if you don’t live in Pennsylvania, please consider sending a contribution to Chuck Pennacchio. He can win this thing if people are exposed to him. The media in this state is acting as if Casey is running unopposed, so it is up to us to force them to give Pennacchio some coverage.
We don’t need another Democratic Senator who will vote with the Republicans on so many important issues (or worse, may allow Santorum to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat). That’s why we need to support Pennacchio.
Ya know… If every person that wanted to get rid of the unwanted undesirables that the “power-brokers” put up as candidates year after year just sent $1 or $2 to each of the “more desirable” Dem candidates across the country these darkhorses would all have the needed primary funds to at least be heard. The rest would be up to the grassroots of each part of the country working on the ground and, of course, the candidates themselves.
To be honest, about how many candidates across the country fit the category of “You know what kind of candidate I am talking about”? 20? 30? 40? Maybe 50?
For a hundred bucks OR likely much less, we could all make a huge difference.
That is just my “outsiders” independent view.
What you said.
Grass roots fundraising for those of us who can afford it, boots on the ground for those who can’t (via computer terminal if health and/or obligations prevent actual out in the world work). And there are a lot of us who can do both.
Imagine if all of the energy – or even a significant fraction of it – that is currently being used up ranting at “Vichy Dems” were put into work for the candidates that really, honestly believe in our values. OK, we need a certain amount of ranting – so we can remind ourselves why it’s important. But energy isn’t limitless. We need to direct what energy we have constructively.
Onward to the 12 Days for Justice!
but I still believe in the democratic process — the candidates should be chosen by the people, not anointed in back room politics.
It’s why I wish that there were candidates with balls to even challenge incumbents in the primaries — one of the reasons California was subjected to the idiocy of the special election (though it may have raised turnouts in places holding local elections, such as my own town’s City Council races) was because incumbents are seen as getting a free ride. It’s also why so many places are turning to term limits as a way to control incumbents’ power. If someone would stand up and challenge an incumbent in a primary, then perhaps that incumbent would actually have to take a stand on the issues rather than just grandstanding.
Just my not-so-humble opinion, of course…
Go BooMan. Nice one. Bring on the convictions. Ditch the contradictions. No nuanced positioning. Tried that. Doesn’t Work.
Just sent Chuck $51, and tipped ActBlue for the job they do.
thanks ooze. Any word on our 20th reunion? Jesus! 20th?
Gettin’ older, yep.
I’ll probably be in Australia by then, and doubt I’ll make it back for the reunion. I never was big on reunions, but have some regrets about the people with whom I’ve lost touch.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Before I was banned from the orange blog (for emitting the first name of one of the most heinous there when confronting him on his misuse of the control panel there) i spent many a thread defending Pennacchio, and this mind you was on Pennacchio’s own Diaries there! He was treated to the most miserable reception i’ve ever seen someone running for office given there. It was deplorable.
It’s very nice to see an MP here recongnize his worthiness to hold public office.
The dilemma that Americans have been facing for years. How to win elections with an intelligent candidate on a state or national level, when there are SO MANY STUPID voters. With this country’s antipathy for intellectuals, we’ve had to “compromise,” and accept dumbed down alternatives for decades. And it looks like this is just another example.
Even if Chuck P could win the primary, I have little faith the good people of PA would not return Santorum in that match-up. And what a disaster that would be.
On the other hand, if he’s replaced with Santorumlite, it seems we weaken our message, and our party in the long run, for temporary gain. Tough choice. Political life in America sucks sometimes.
This is no tough choice. Chuck’s the better candidate for me; I vote for him in the primary.
What I don’t understand is why anyone would feel the need to hold their nose and vote for Casey in the primary. Why vote for a candidate you don’t like in a primary? Do you think everyone else will like him better in the fall? Probably not…even Peter Jackson has admitted that Casey is a stiff, boring campaigner. And Santorum is not.
ps-I keep seeing more and more anti-Santorum bumper stickers on cars here in SE PA…not a good sign for Ricky.
The wing-nuts WILL turn out for Santorum. His solid, core base is as deluded and motivated in their delusion as ever.
Democrats who will vote in every election, with increasing desperation, will vote against him. But not FOR Casey.
But candidates like Casey erode more and more of the Democratic base. The only way Democrats can win is if they a) mobilize their base – with enthusiasm and energy, and Casey’s not going to do that, and b) get a significant number of sometimes voters to the polls. Many of those voters stay home – not because they are stupid and lazy, but because they are understandably cynical about “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” choices. Casey’s not going to get them to the polls.
Turn out, I think, will be the key.
This does seem like a golden opportunity to back a progressive and influence the party’s message in 2006. I’m making a donation Pennacchio as soon as I pay my credit card. Lets try to get the guy the money he needs to be heard. He’s saying all the right things. Even if he doesn’t get the nomination we can make a lot of noise and send a message to the party.
Why the #^&*! do we need another one in the Senate?
Why can’t Democrats run as something other than “I’m almost, but not quite, as jejune, odious, and loathsome as the Republican candidate”?
I guess these questiona are why I’m not making the big bucks as a Democratic Campaign Consultant.
Thanks for this Booman.
I’d like to offer this suggestion to all true liberals and progressives in PA. If Casey wins, with his chances so much improved thanks to the heavy thumbs of Schumer, Reid and Gov. Rendell on the electoral scales, LEAVE THE D LINE FOR SENATOR BLANK ON YOUR BALLOT NEXT FALL. This kind of bullshit won’t stop if we buckle under and end up voting for the piece of republican-lite shit they foisted on us time after time. You have three tools as a citizen in our political system. Your $$$, your voice and your vote. If, after they treat Pennachio like shit and rig the system for Casey, you REWARD that behavior w/ a vote for Casey, then you are part of the problem. If you’ve been rendered relatively powerless by those with connections, your only option is to strike. Vote on EVERY other line on that ballot, but when it comes to Senator, STRIKE.
I hope Pennacchio runs a strong campaign. I think he’ll do far better than the state party and the DSCC expect. But remember, they are part of the same corrupt system as the Republicans. They benefit from that system, and seem perfectly happy with their subservient position within that system.
The vote is yours, don’t buy the arguments that you HAVE to give it away to someone who will act like a Republican in nearly every way that matters.
Don’t reward behavior you don’t like.
you are right madman
this shit will never stop unless we hold back money and support from the assfuckers
indeed. It’s also VERY important to vote in the other races, to show the lost votes. The higher number of votes the Feingold got over Kerry here in WI adds to his argument that standing for things HELPS with voters.
oh, and one slight quibble, being assfuckers isn’t a reason to dislike them, it’s the fact that they don’t ask nicely first and they aren’t gentle about it.
Lube is your friend…
(okay, that was just wrong… leaving thread now…) 😉
Great article! It is nice to see Chuck quoted accurately and completely.
Chuck is well-spoken and interesting. He sounds like listening to a favorite college professor or knowledgeable friend rather than a stodgy politician. You can see that he is thinking about what he will say rather than giving a canned speech, which is nice for a change.
We can only take back our government if we take back our primary. Just because the Republicans are the ones under fire for their involvement with dirty money right now doesn’t mean that the democrats aren’t next. We should all applaud Chuck for not getting involved in the mess.
If you are looking for a good holiday gift for a progressive you know and love, send a donation to Chuck and then tell them that you gave them the best gift you could think of.