So with all this talk about candidate Casey, I decided to watch the first extended clip of him on live TV. I had seen teensy clips of him and heard him on the “conference call” last week, but never saw him on live TV. I watched this clip of then Treasurer-elect Casey on PA Newsmakers hosted by pollster Terry Madonna. It was the 11.28.04 show, a few weeks after the election. It’s about a three or four part interview with Casey with a runtime of about fourteen minutes [the whole clip is twenty-three minutes, but Casey isn’t on the last nine minutes of the show].
One of the very first things Casey spoke about were the six debates he had. Yes, this was during the general election, but he lauded the fact that they had so many, he [or Madonna] said that he thinks it was a record. Why not set another record and flush out all the details in this all too important primary we have now? Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals would love to debate him. I think Pennacchio would trounce all of them in a big debate. But Bob Casey is scared to open his mouth in fear that his ever shrinking lead over Sen. $antorum will shink some more with each word spouted from his lips. So he stays at home. And as far as I can tell, he never leaves home; he doesn’t have a calendar/events page up on his site to show for.
Madonna asked Casey for his thoughts on the growing culture gap in the Democratic party, the gap between the elites and everyone else. He said that they needed to change the [paraphrased] “same old thing” way of going about things. If that “same old thing” way of going things is being pro-choice, pro-privacy, pro-balanced budget, pro-environment, pro-healthcare for all, I’d be all for it. But Casey doesn’t stand for all of those things. Chuck Pennacchio is a pro-choice candidate who believes in the rights of the private citizen. He stands firmly against the Alito nomination whereas Casey has backed the nomination [I got my eye on you too Hoagiemaster Rendell].
Casey then went onto suggesting that we need a bigger tent in the Democratic party; I’m assuming so that he’ll feel more comfortable since he’s almost out the door anyways. He said that if the Dems had a candidate who had all of the same stances on the issues as Kerry has, including being pro-choice, but got up to the podium and said that s/he agreed with the anti-choicers that “we should ban partial birth abortion, that alone would be progress” [he used that phrase which is a fallacy, it’s a late term abortion]. Casey wants to ban third trimester abortions without regard for the life of the mother, as inferred from that comment. That is not progress, that is regression. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. As stated in this Inky article:
It would seem obvious: Democratic Senate candidate Robert P. Casey Jr., who opposes abortion, believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
“You can’t say you have the position I have and not believe that,” Casey said in a recent interview about the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made legal abortions available nationwide.
And that’s that. With his backing of Chief Justice Roberts the last time around and his backing of Judge Alito this time, I see that it is crystal clear that it is on his agenda.
It’s actually quite hard to concentrate on him while he speaks. Monotonous. Phlegmatic. Snoozefest. But I got through it, I felt I needed to. If you’re trying to fall asleep late at night, I suggest clicking on the video of this interview.
Supporting Chuck Pennacchio, the Progressive chioce for a Progressive Pennsylvania, is what I’ve been doing for months now. The rest of the blogosphere turned their heads after the word got out on his backing Alito. I hope that the pressure is kept on. We don’t want another Joe “Alf’s Dad” Lieberman on our hands. Well, even Alf’s Dad may vote against Alito. Only Sen. Ben Nelson (D-ND) as of right now would vote to confirm. Casey would further weaken the Democrat’s efforts to can this nomination.
So, in the end, I’d have to agree with Chris’ assessment of Casey‘s presence:
a sandwich bag filled with lukewarm Vaseline and crushed Valium
And how.
From an e-mail I got from someone who went to hear Casey speak a couple of months ago. She wanted to find some reason to support him because she hates Santorum so much, and this was as good as it got:
Casey’s always had the personality of a squishy, overmedicated sandwich bag, and I can’t imagine it ever improving.
If this guy makes it through the primary, he’s gonna get crushed when it is debate time. That fucker $antorum is a dickwad, but chroist can he talk his head off. Pennacchio is a wonderful extemporaneous speaker and can go point to point on just about anything; being a professor of US History helps.
So will there be a seat for Casey at the debate Saturday? You could put a little sign on it: “Do you want Silent Bob to be your voice in the Senate?”
I’ve heard rumors that they were initially going to just put an empty suit on a coatrack. But the think now that an empty chair gets the message across just fine. We’ll see what they end up doing on Saturday.
Neighborhood Networks candidate forum:
Noon-3p
First Baptist Church
123 South 17th Street (17th and Sansom)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
free and open to all!
He said that if the Dems had a candidate who had all of the same stances on the issues as Kerry has, including being pro-choice, but got up to the podium and said that s/he agreed with the anti-choicers that “we should ban partial birth abortion, that alone would be progress” [he used that phrase which is a fallacy, it’s a late term abortion].
Actually, none of the “partial birth abortion” laws proposed so far say anything about “term”, late or otherwise. They would, in all likelihood, mostly ban second-trimester abortions. The trouble is, the language they use in these bills is so vague, nobody can say for sure which abortions would be banned. That’s one of the problems the Supreme Court had with the Nebraska law. But when you say “late term”, I think most people think of “third trimester”, which really isn’t applicable in this instance.
Casey wants to ban third trimester abortions without regard for the life of the mother, as inferred from that comment.
Again, what he wants to ban goes way beyond third trimester abortions. Way, way beyond. As for the “life of the mother” business, if he’s just endorsing the “partial birth abortion” bills that have been passed previously, those bills did include exemptions when the woman’s life was endangered. What they lacked was an exemption for procedures necessary to protect the woman’s health. Unless he’s come out for stricter language, that is.
Anyway, I don’t mean to be such a nit-picker, but we got burned nearly ten years ago for not having all our facts together on this issue, and I’d hate to see it happen again.
Thanks Bill. That’s why I added the “as inferrd from that comment” because he didn’t specify any clauses, if he so believes.
Again, what he wants to ban goes way beyond third trimester abortions.
Indeed, he is on record as being willing and eager to sign legislation which would ban all abortions in any trimester except those caused by rape or incest or to save the life of the woman.
He is a fanatic….