This is one of the reasons I am not big on third parties. They are not always third parties.
As reported today by the AP and the Philadelphia Inquirer,
the Green Party managed to get their candidate Carl Romanelli on the
ballot with a costly petition drive, which was mostly funded by
contributors who had also given to Rick Santorum’s campaign. The party
raised $66,000 for the effort, all of which they spent on a private
company to collect signatures. TPMmuckraker was able to establish that
at least $55,000 of that came from conservatives.
Good on Rick. When we talk about having no choices in Pennsylvania, we mean it.
The Greens should return the money, though I do recognize that the realities of political fundraising make this highly unlikely.
they should stop running statewide candidates, period. Except in states like Louisiana with some level of proportianality.
We could go help the Libertarians with the same rationale. It’s pointless for these third parties and they just allow the parties to drift toward the center.
MORE DEBATE IS HEALTHY!
Why is that so damned hard to understand? This line of crap from the Democrats (vote for us OR ELSE) is nothing more than extortion.
ANYBODY who considers themselves a progressive or liberal, ANYBODY who gives a fuck about women, ANY of those people who votes for Casey is a fool.
This line of crap from the Democrats (vote for us OR ELSE) is nothing more than extortion.
Got a call from one of the local dems awhile back. They’re trying to get more to vote for some of the lousy candidates that are running–what else is new?
They’ve been persistent as hell lately, so I actually listened to the bullshit they’re feeding people about how everything is going to get better if Graholm is re-elected. (That way they don’t call back.) The caller then said something like (paraphrasing) “If DeVos is elected and things get worse, then it’s your fault if you vote third party.”
My answer (not paraphrasing): “Fuck that! I don’t need that shit!” Then I hung up.
I mean, come on! She’s supposedly a dem governor, not me! Bet I could do a better job than she did.
The Greens should return the money
Yeah, when the dems return money after they blow another election!
I mean, come on, with all of the ways the repubs have screwed up…if the dems don’t take both the House and Senate, they don’t deserve to win! Bet it won’t happen–they’ll just start w/the “Wait until 2008.” And it wouldn’t suprise me in the least if people will actually fall for it!
Herein lies the basic problem. Rants against the Greens and Ralph Nader because they messed up the election for Democrats, and simultaneous rants against the DLC and Joe Lieberman because they are too centrist.
Why is is ok to support Lamont or Feingold, when they stray so far from the official Democratic party line?
Until people give up on “strategic voting” (which leads to votes for centrists, and start to vote for candidates that they agree with, the centrists will win. If the Green party is the only one that actually has the platform planks that you agree with, what’s wrong with voting for them?
“I won’t vote for them because they can’t win. They can’t win because nobody votes for them.” Sounds like a circular argument to me…
Editing mess-up. “Until people start voting for candidates that they agree with…”
they can’t win, and they are funded as often as not by Republicans, who at least understand what a two-party system means. Greens voting green is what makes it easy for Dems to be centrist.
Greens have a role to play, but not in winner take all state wide elections.
Not in presidential elections. The better a green does in these elections the more likely a GOP candidate will win.
And there is no chance of the GOP doing anything remotely green.
As though the fact that the Dems run backstabbing, wishy washy assholes for their candidates has NOTHING to do with their continual losses.
Easy to blame it on leftists who actually GIVE A FUCK to vote for what they actually believe. We get centrists because the Party precludes and open contest between true leftists and Vichy corporatist hacks.
Vote for Casey, and you vote to re-enslave women, PERIOD, and you merely give the Democrats more incentive to sell out more of us.
Billmon has finally come to face it, and the rest of you should too:
Time to chuck the national party, support the rare good voices there, and start rebuilding locally. Save the cities and progressive smaller towns, and let the Republicans take the blame for the coming disasters and social breakdowns. It’s plain that the Democrats aren’t willing to take the chances needed to undo the damage. Better to abandon them until they can be replaced.
pfft.
Well, that was an intelligent response! </snark>
BooMan, I know you understand this position more than you are letting on here.
Let’s face it, a vote for Casey is a vote for Santorum. Casey is no different, but he does have a D after his name. He will bolster the votes of all the other DINOs and so any real reform the dems offer if they win the majority will be squashed by the likes of him.
This news makes me have even less respect for the Green party. Now, instead of voting Green, I will write in a candidate or not vote for that position at all. The Green party had so much potential, but they blew it, and accepting money from the republicans to split the democratic vote is a strategy that they have invoked many times. To hell with the Green party.
But, that does not change the fact that we simply must show the Democractic party that they have ignored the left too long. That they have spit on their base and we will not support them.
I simply do not believe that a Democratic majority is worth selling our soul. If Lamont wins and Casey loses, the message sent will be loud and clear. Maybe we will have to deal with Man-on-dog for six more years, but you can bet the next candidate will not be Casey or his ilk. There is a good chance that Casey will win anyway, but every vote will be analyzed and when more Dems vote for other offices, the message will still be clear.
As a woman and a bleeding-heart liberal, Casey does not even come close to representing my voice. I will no longer vote party lines when my party deliberately chooses candidates that refuse to even consider my position.
Make a stand. Vote with your conscience. That vote may make a difference to the future of the Democratic Party.
Six more years of Santorum? You’ve got to be kidding me. This is my Senator you are talking about. I fought this battle in the primaries. There is no way that I am going to tolerate another term for Ricky. No freaking way. Over 80% of democrats in this state voted for Casey. I wish they had made a different decision but I respect their decision. Ricky needs to go. He can join DeLay and Frist in the hall of shame.
TO-mato, to-MAH-to …
either way, it’ll be women’s blood on the ground. All of this bleating in the Scoop-o-sphere to get rid of Holy Joe, but you guys are going to support a guy who is even WORSE?
Casey doesn’t advocate a SINGLE progressive position. NOT ONE.
and you know it.
Sigh. Ok. You have lost all right to say one word on this blog or anywhere complaining about what a dick Casey is should he win the election and turn out to be the next Lieberman. You know Casey is a woman-hating, gay-hating, worker-hating asshole and if you vote for him, you lose all right to complain later. It’s not like Clinton where we actually thought he might accomplish something. You know Casey is anti-women, anti-gay, anti-worker, and anti-liberal. You will have no excuse and it would be extremely hypocritical if you later complained about your choice. Should Casy turn out to be a real Dem, then you will have every right to rub it in. :>)
How you can claim to support women’s rights, gay rights and worker rights and still vote for this republican wanna-be is beyond me. I will take such claims with a grain of salt in the future. Actions are more important than words.
I’m curious why you warned me. Did you just disagree or did you think I crossed a line?
I didn’t call BooMan names, I just said that he forfeited his right to complain should his boy win. If he votes for Casey, he supports Casey and his right wing agenda and he can’t complain later because he knows he is voting for an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-worker candidate. I also said that his rhetoric of pro-women, pro-gay, and pro-worker ideology is shallow if he votes for someone who is knowingly opposed to these ideals. This is basic logic.
So, why the warning? If I crossed a line, please let me know how and I will apologize.
P.S.: I may disagree strongly with Booman on this, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like him or that I don’t side with him on any number of other issues. All it means is I strongly disagree with him on this issue and feel comfortable enough that I can call him on it.
It’s too bad Arminius won’t respond, but I will.
You made a good point in your post.
Granted, it might be unfair to brand Casey as Boo’s “boy” since he favored Pennachio.
Still, you point about forfeiting the right to complain after giving one’s approval was perfectly legitimate, and expressed in a decent manner. The downrating was totally unjustified.
I’m coming to the conclusion that every blogger whose screen name begins with “Ar” is abusive. (But not only them, of course!)
OK…the “boy” jab was a bit unfair. :>)
I know Booman does not like Casey. But if he is going to tell me that he supports his campaign because the majority does, then I consider that an endorcement and fair game.
I like Arminius and often agree with him/her. I just wanted an explanation because if I am crossing lines, I want to know. If I am just pissing people off because they don’t agree, that is something else entirely.
Thanks no3. I appreciate your feedback.
I just wanted an explanation because if I am crossing lines, I want to know.
I understand, and even though it didn’t seem to me that you’d crossed any lines, I wanted one too. I don’t expect one, however.
I like Arminius and often agree with him/her.
Yeah, me too, at least where it comes to the “often agree” part. The test for me is how a person responds to disagreement — even if I agree with the person responding.
Arminius never seemed to me to rank very high on that test, and sank lower by the idiotic low-rating of your post.
Who’s arminius, where’s the post, and where does he/she get off “warning” anybody about anything?
Ah, I get it ignore the above. I think it does point to the “warning” rating as ready to retire. “Warning” suggests authority. We don’t like authority around here.
It’s a little rich for you question my commitment to these issues after the flood of words that I have written about Casey, which has no doubt cost me lots of advertising money, and when the green candidate is financed by Santorum’s funders.
Why don’t you tell all the Democrats in Connecticut that they have no right to criticize Lieberman if they voted for him in the past.
Or maybe you can explain to me why I would want to be represented by Santorum instead of virtually anyone else.
I guess my agony of being given these choices counts for nothing unless I become a Santorum supporter.
Or maybe I am morally obligated to abstain from voting at all? I don’t believe that. I’ll vote for the least bad choice in this race. I do not believe that a GOP majority in the Senate is a more important goal than getting rid of Rick Santorum.
is repeated all over the country, but in different circumstances. Here in Colorado, we voted for Salazar over the arch conservative Coors. Is Salazar better? Undoubtedly. Is he a good senator? No. Apparently he has said he’ll support Lieberman even if he leaves the party and runs as an independent. And of course, his support for Gonzales (and even worse his lame reasoning for that support) was/is despicable. Those are only a few of my gripes.
I am totally disgusted with the Democratic Party and change is coming too slowly. Some days I vow never again to vote for half a loaf (candidates like Casey). Then other days, I say, well, half is better than none.
you are witnessing the solution in Connecticut. The solution is not Pete ‘I drive drunk’ Coors.
I agree. And the Democratic Party here in Colorado creamed the more progressive candidate (Mike Miles) to bring in Salazar, because he was electable. Miles had his problems, primarily organizational, but Salazar is another Lieberman, so far as I’m concerned.
get organized out there. Do you know of any Colorado progressive blogs?
Here’s pne.
Start early and get behind a progressive candidate. It’s too late for Governor, but there are other races including the whole house in 2008.
The problem is that Salazar types don’t run in a vacuum. Everyone in Colorado pulled together behind Salazar simply because it felt like Armageddon would happen if we didn’t. Now my 10 year old daughter, the one who canvassed for Salazar, can be strip-searched without a warrant. Salazar has been on the wrong side of every single important issue from torture to bankruptcy to whether women have souls.
Now we are being asked to get behind Ritter, the anti-choice democratic candidate for governor. No one I canvassed with before is helping. Many of us refuse to work the phones or give money. Others will leave the ballot bank for the governor slot.
We know that party insiders like Schumer are watching these races to see if they can run more anti-women candidates and actually get women to vote away their humanity. That’s why we stop here.
That’s the news from Colorado.
Frankly I am glad the Green candidate will be on the ballot regardless of how he got there. The requirements for getting on the ballot in Pennsylvania (67,000 valid signatures) are a disgrace. Who can blame the Greens for accepting Santorum’s help. And let’s be honest, if the Green candidate was a threat to Santorum instead of Casey, does anyone doubt that the Democrats would have helped put the Greens on the ballot?
I will not vote for Santorum or Casey. At least I now have someone to vote for rather than just skipping the Senate race.
I fully understand your refusal to vote for Casey and I agree that 67,000 is too high of a threshold.
But.
If they can’t raise the money to get the signatures they are not a viable party. It only cost $66,000.
And I hope the Green Party does terribly because the last thing we need in Pennsylvania is a vibrant third party on the left of the Dems. That is precisely the reason that the GOP keeps funding Greens at higher numbers than the Greens themselves.
It’s a two-party system and if we don’t like the left party then we need to work to make it better, which we have been doing. Both parties are pathetic.
The Greens should stick to local races which they have an actual chance of winning. That should be their test. Can we win? If they any shot at all, go for it. Otherwise, the better they do, the worse the result.
I might agree under normal circumstances, but this year those progressives who reject both Casey and Santorum can send a clear message to the Democrats that they need to stop interfering with the Pennsylvania Primary process. It will be difficult for the Democrats to ignore a large Green vote for the Senate, especially if Casey loses. It will also make it difficult for them to justify imposing right-wing Democrats on us in future elections.
In my opinion, that was what the primary was about.
We got 16%. We needed to top 30% to make a statement and we failed.
If we get a 50-50 Senate and Casey loses by less than his green vote, then Santorum will be a genius and people will be cursing the green voters all over the world.
Oh come on. You know very well that the Democrats totally marginalized both Pennacchio and Sandals with the help of the pollsters and the media. That was after they forced Joe Hoeffel and Barbara Hafer to quit the race so Casey would have no competition from established figures who would have commanded more media coverage. If it had truly been an open primary and Casey had won on a level playing field I would have much less of a problem with him. Of course I do not believe he could have won if it had been an open contest. The guy is not only a right winger. He is also an imbicile who is almost as inarticulate as George W. Bush. That’s why he is ducking debates and only speaks to the media through his spokesman.
of course I know that.
But here is the critical point. We couldn’t overcome that and make a statement. One major reason is that other bloggers, even Pennsylvania bloggers that voted for Chuck, would not give him their public support and give him the free media he so desperately needed.
We’re not about to push for a Santorum funded Green Party candidate to make a point now. Not with the Senate so evenly split and in the balance.
I can’t see any chance for a Green Party candidate to even get in the debates, let alone get any free media or fundraising (unless Santorum gives it to him).
So, there is absolutely no hope of making a statement. And what would the statement be? That we would rather have Mitch McConnell running the Senate and Arlen Specter running the Judiciary than have Schumer get the impression that he can close down primaries?
If we want to teach him a lesson we need to win in Connecticut.
In any case, I can’t ask you to vote for Casey and I won’t. But I have no desire to see the Green Party gain strength in the state. It’s hard enough to elect good Democrats as it is. We just need to make sure we are ready the next time a state wide race comes up.
I think Romanelli will be included in the debates. Santorum will certainly push to include him, and 100,000 signatures represents a pretty strong argument for inclusion. I’m sure Casey will protest, but I have a feeling he’ll lose the argument.
We’ll just have to disagree about the impact a Green vote can have. I believe a strong Green showing will send an unmistakeable message to Chuck Schumer and the whole DSCC/DFL crowd. Not voting for anyone sends a mixed message that is easy to rationalize away. There is no way to spin a strong Green vote, and I suspect that there are tens of thousands of voters in Pennsylvania, perhaps more, who are just aching to send a message this year by voting Green. I agree with you about the impact a Lamont victory will have, but a one-two punch is even better IMHO.
Tehanu said this below and it bears repeating:
“We know that party insiders like Schumer are watching these races to see if they can run more anti-women candidates and actually get women to vote away their humanity. That’s why we stop here.”
As I have said before, I do understand that you are in between a rock and a hard place. We all know that Santorum is evil. I know you have no real choice and therefore I do think you are morally obligated to abstain from voting for the Senate race.
Schumer’s tactics of pushing DINOs and working against valid primaries went too far for me.
I think the Salazar example also used below is a good one for why we have to stop somewhere.
Oh well. I can understand why you feel the way you do, I just completely disagree. We (as in the left) have simply got to move the “center” back to the center and voting for Casey will not do that.
Salazar is a case in point.
He is the only guy coming out an endorsing Lieberman as an independent. Why?
Because he fears us. Because he knows his brand of politics makes him a natural target for Lamontization.
And he will get Lamontisized if Colorado progressives get their act together like Connecticut’s did. That is the way to teach Schumer a lesson.
Don’t give money to the DSCC or DCCC. Give it to individual candidates through your favorite blogs or ActBlue pages. Help finance the party thru people-power not thru Chuck Schumer. A party within a party.
We need to win in PA. The party is 84% behind Casey. We will be ready for Casey when he runs for re-election. But right now we are stuck with him. As Coloradans are stuck with Salazar and Connecticut is stuck with Lieberman.
Another factor you are missing here is that Schumer is not pushing DINO’s necessarily. Brown is much more progressive than Hackett. Schumer is just annointing people he thinks will win. That’s the problem. I would have voted for Brown if I lived in Ohio, but I think he should have earned it by beating Hackett.
Lieberman is a perfectly good liberal, according to ALL of the Senatorial vote counters. He’s taking one single position that you disagree with, and as a result you’re willing to throw away his seniority and risk his otherwise-safe seat (if the Republicans run somebody sensible in the election). If that single position was one that had some small amount of traction in the Democratic party it would be one thing, but it doesn’t. There have been plenty of opportunities for the Democrats, even as the minority party, to work against the war in Iraq but they don’t because they agree with it. For example, did you notice the vote in the Senate just recently on the defense budget? Where were all the Democratic votes against the ridiculously wasteful and immoral weapons programs?
You are trying to pull the party way over to the left, but it’s a centrist party. Lieberman is closer to your positions on most issues than most other Democrats.
This whole anti-Lieberman thing is irrational and based entirely on emotion. It’s populist politcs at its worst. The most likely outcome is the loss of one of the Connecticut seats.
good job typing out Holy Joe’s talking points. Bravo.
Lieberman is good at voting in such a way to help the right, then trading votes so that he can keep his liberal cred. For example, he’ll vote FOR cloture on a terrible judge, then AGAINST the judge when it’s clear he has the votes. He does this over and over again.
He crusades for censorship. He is at the beck-and-call of the insurance and death industries.
Liberal my ass.
As for this being a “centrist” country: most Americans want single payer healthcare FOR THEMSELVES, just not some other despised class. Most Americans want a higher minimum wage, want overtime pay protected, want the 40 hour week protected, want safe workplaces. Most Americans want a robust social security system. Most Americans want readily available public and higher education (at least for themselves and other Americans LIKE them). Those are ALL leftist positions.
Quit swallowing the agitprop the mass media has been feeding you for their corporate masters.
If there is any swallowing of anything around here it’s by the anti-Lieberman crowd. If Lieberman is the leader of the Republican underground in the Democratic party, what do you say about the 30 or so Democrats who are closer to the center than he is?
And upon what basis do you support his opponent other than the one issue that he ever talks about? You’re going to take a solid liberal and replace him with a big-business multi-millionaire? This guy hasn’t released his tax returns, is funding his campaign out of his trust fund, is (well, was, until he decided to run for office for the first time in his life) a member of the Bush family country club, and supports Israel in ITs part of the war on terr’r. He’s going to be closer to the center than Lieberman ever thought of being. It’s just a matter of time before he’ll be getting his funding from the DLC.
Luckly there’s a Green candidate in the race…
so fourteen senators are to the left of Lieberman is what you are saying? I’ll give you fourty-four.
Sure, if you heavily weight the ONE ISSUE that Lamont is running on. This is going to be a first rate disaster for the party. We’re voting out a solid liberal in favor of an unknown, based on a completely untested theory that the unknown is FDR resurrected, because of one issue. Just Plain Stupid Politics.
One issue?
Sorry. It’s more than one issue.
So, you’re not familiar w/ my work? I spent MONTHS getting smacked around at the Big Orange Cesspool over my attacks on those very same Vichy Dems. I take regular potshots at all of them, as many here can attest. I loath Lieberman, Hoyer, Reid, Schumer, Nelson(s), Emmanuel, Clinton et. cetera, et. cetera, et cetera. Take a walk thru the archives at Liberal Street Fighter if you want me to help raise your ire further.
I don’t support his opponent. I support the PEOPLE who are supporting his opponent. I support the idea that people are learning that when they roar, they can make their rulers nervous. I think Lamont is a tool, nothing more. I wish Lowell Weicker had chosen to pursue a rematch, as that old Rockefellar Republican is FAR more liberal than most of what passes for Democrats these days. Don’t forget that Republican-in-Dems-clothing Lieberman was recruited by William F. Buckley Jr. to take out Weicker, and he’s been a trojan horse for them ever since, playing on his long-ago good work in the civil rights movement.
I know enough history to not care that Lamont is rich if he learns the lesson that FDR learned, that he has his job, if he runs, because THE LEFT HELPED HIM WIN IT. I support movements of people who find someone willing to take on a worthless/dangerous incumbent, and I hope that they understand that they have to hold Lamont’s feet to the fire if they do help him win.
If they can’t find someone like that, if the institutional party shoves someone like Casey down voters’ throats, then I advocate either striking that line of the ballot, leaving it blank while supporting every other progressive on the ballot, or voting for a third party. That’s how the far-right took over the Republicans, and if leftists learn to quit listening to people like you and kos, if they quit selling out their votes to the extortion of “what choice do you have”, then they can be once again the force they were when the New Deal was built and built the foundation for the American middle class.
Don’t lecture me about this stuff, because I’m plainly looking at history and reality with a much clearer eye than you are.
Name the other Dems that shilled for shrub’s social security deform…uh, “privatization” scheme.
Name Sean Hannity’s other favorite Dems.
And as for votes…you have to look closely at them. Sometimes votes on passage are meaningless. Sure, he voted against Alito, but what did he do to stop him before reaching the floor? Nothing. So his vote, knowing the rethugs have the numbers, didn’t mean anything other than a CYA move on his part. Not to mention what amendments he champions or does not; and how he votes on said amendments as bills are being considered.
This man was selected as our Dem VP fer cryin’ out loud, and he reserves his ire for Dems only. He is meek when it comes to rethugs, but for his fellow Dems, he is a sanctimonious creep who will gleefully undermine them if they have the temerity to get in his way.
All that said, you should educate yourself on how votes are used. Votes on passage sometimes are beside the point.
Lieberman is not a perfectly good liberal. He’s a DLC Democrat. He’s a neo-conservative on foreign policy. You might as well ask me to vote for a ticket of Rumsfeld and Woolsey.
Where’s his liberal cred? Is it in trashing affirmative action, telling victims of rape to go for car rides, privatizing social security, pushing for faith-based solutions, vouchers for religious education, cloture for Alito, cloture for the bankruptcy bill, nor criticizing the President in a time of war, or something else?
Where’s that liberal cred?
How is he your senator when he lives in Virginia?
:<) Just couldn’t help it. Besides, Virginia has its on wingnut problems w/ that California confederate masquerading as a senator.
I only read him occasionally. Why does he think Dean is a fraud? I happen to think Dean is one of the few Democrats on the right track, which doesn’t mean I always agree with him.
Deans got a history of following where the wind blows, which just makes him a politician. For a while there it looked like he’d learned a new way, and people let themselves hope. However, much of what he’d learned and developed seems to be getting stripped away now that he’s “inside” the party leadership. Maybe he’ll make the 50 State Strategy work, and some new blood will take over the party. Maybe not. That’s the only thing he’s doing now that looks at all hopeful to me.
I also think Billmon is especially disgusted with his more recent comments about Israel, or maybe the pandering at the 700 Club, or …
I think calling him a fraud is too strong. I agree about the pandering and the Israel statement. We need to keep all their feet to the fire, but there is no such thing as a perfect politician or leader.
Save the cities and progressive smaller towns, and let the Republicans take the blame for the coming disasters and social breakdowns. It’s plain that the Democrats aren’t willing to take the chances needed to undo the damage. Better to abandon them until they can be replaced.
Hell with them! Yeah, there are a few good ones, like Conyers. But, they’ll be able to survive this, if anything, come out of it w/a stonger base of support (both locally and nationally) who really give a damn about this rebuilding this country. Right now there are just too many sell-outs who say one thing and do another.
Who needs that? Best thing they could do would be to bow out gracefully, but they won’t. Hell, if every damn one of them is indicted, they’ll still whine and find a way to blame it on someone else.
People who are willing to actually lead are needed, as opposed to the “let’s-hold-hands-and-everything-will-be-fine” bullshit artists that only give a damn about getting re-elected.
Unfortunately the Greens do this sort of thing all too often. Here in Washington we have a guy named Aaron Dixon running for Senate as a Green, ostensibly to challenge Maria Cantwell for her stance on the occupation. On paper Dixon looks like he might be an OK candidate. He was a Black Panther back in the day and has been an inner-city advocate here in Seattle for some time.
However, when one looks more closely at Dixon one finds that he has apparently never voted in an election in his life, and has a number of questionable traits that make it hard to imagine him as a serious candidate for Senator. (If anyone is really interested I’ll go find the details. I’d have to look them up.) In addition, he appears to have done next to no campaigning. His name only ever shows up in the paper in stories that include the words “Also running for Senate are . . . “
One would think that if the Greens were serious they could find someone to run who was at least of the caliber of Hong Tran or Mark Wilson, both of whom were running against Cantwell as Democrats. (Tran still is; Wilson has thrown his support behind Cantwell.)
I like the Greens’ enumeration of their core principles and wish they had a shot at winning an election once in a while. Here in the reality-based community, however, it just isn’t happening.
You’re right, Greens won’t get into office as long as so-called “liberals” keep on voting for Democrats.
your sources for the statement that Republicans support them more often than not.
Seems to be the best role third parties like the Green Party can play is in local elections. If they gain strength there, then they can move on to bigger offices.
Also, since some of the third parties are very decentralized, they are vulnerable to manipulation. Which is what appears to be going on in PA.
I, for one, am sick of voting for the “anything but” candidates. I am working to reform the Democratic Party, but not holding my breath. Incredibly discouraging.
I feel touchy about my cyberrelationship with BooMan, such as it is. Posting here is like being in his living room, and I often find myself secretly condescending to him, imagining that he’ll see things more my way after about another 20 years of life. Thus, I almost never give him a rating for a post, and he never gives me any ratings either. But I had to give him a 4 for his eloquent pfft above, because it did in fact hit the nail on the head.
This is an old debate on the blogosphere. I remember many fierce tangles on this from years ago.
I’m on the side that says that the stakes are so serious these days, with a fascist dictatorship in power in the United States, that the third parties are all collaborators with the dictator. The resistance must be unified. I think the third party people should be politely but firmly neutralized. This is LIFE AND DEATH. I think most of the Greens and other such people are frivolous and nonserious.
If Ralph Nader had not run his narcissistic campaign in 2000, there is NO DOUBT that Al Gore, the real president, would have won. Thus, the GREENS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BUSH AND CHENEY!!!
Death to the Greens! They are traitors! [I add this strophe not quite there but on the way to full volume]
Your general condescension has not been missed, however you may have tried to conceal it from Boo when it was directed toward him.
Your right to it, however, has yet to be demonstrated.
OMG! We have the winner of today’s Irony Award!
If Al Gore hadn’t run a shitty campaign, there’s NO DOUBT he would have won.
If Al Gore hadn’t picked a sanctimonious Republican as his running mate, there’s NO DOUBT he would have won.
If Al Gore’s campaign had effectively responded to an obviously hostile press, instead of kow-towing to it, there’s NO DOUBT he would have won.
If the Democratic Party gave a FUCK about African Americans, they would have responded vigorously with court challenges to Jeb Bush’s Jim-Crow-inspired voter suppression, and there would have been NO DOUBT Al Gore would have won.
If Al Gore had fought the way the Republicans fought after the vote came in so close, there is NO DOUBT he would have still won (as the later newspaper financed study of the Florida vote demonstrated). (Look at Mexico if you want to see a politician who actually wants to fight for his constituents).
If Democratic voters weren’t such fucking scared sheep, extorted into giving their votes to people who manifestly work against their best interest, there’s NO DOUBT our country wouldn’t be heading straight to hell.
Blame Nader, if you want. Blame the weather. Maybe Jerome can show you that Gore’s lost was in the stars. Maybe all those jews really DID want to vote for Pat Buchanan in a sudden spasm of self-loathing. BLAME EVERYBODY BUT A MORIBUND AND CORRUPT POLITICAL PARTY THAT REFUSES TO ACTUALLY PRACTICE POLITICS AND FIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE.
Go ahead, it’s what you do.
And if Nader had not run, Al Gore would have won.
We asked him not to jeopardize the race because Bush was obviously unqualified for the job. He didn’t care if the Dems lost. And they did, and Nader was why. Yes, a butterfly ballot was also responsible, as well as all the things you mention.
It’s really boring to hear how the Dems don’t fight. There is a fight on in Connecticut and the establishment is throwing their weight behind lieberman and hoping to deny the ‘anti-war left’ a victory even as they push an anti-war platform (suddenly). Yet, I have never seen you waste one word of print on the race in Connecticut. We are part of the party and we are fighting, but for you the only party that matters is the Schumer side of the party.
I’m sorry, but that is ALL bullshit.
I’m happy for the populists in CT making themselves heard, but I hear little from Lamont that makes me think he’s anything exceptional. At least he’s pro-choice …
dude, I swear if your job was to stalk progressive blogs and demoralize people, your writing would be NO different.
So, taking out Joe Lieberman and making the halls of Congress quake in fear is not enough for you now because Ned Lamont is not ‘special’ enough?
Just give up. Why are you interested in politics at all if you find it so pointless?
my hope in CT rests in the PEOPLE who’re making themselves heard, NOT in Ned Lamont. I sense, on many of the blogs, that Lamont is elevated in many people’s minds the way Dean was. THIS is not healthy. The whole reason I support Feingold is his steadfast resistance to being put on the pedistal, the way he pushes the idea that he WORKS for us, NOT the other way around.
Americans lean on the idea of a “white knight” way too heavily. Lamont will only work for the left if he’s made BEHOLDEN to the left for support. That’s how politics works. To make the left viable, candidates who are wingers, like Casey, and the party leaders who push them, must be PUNISHED. The ONLY way to punish them is to keep them out of office.
If you’re in PA, and you are truly liberal, you will vote Green or strike that line on the ballot. THAT is the ONLY way to bring the corporatist, militarist party hacks to heel.
POLITICIANS in and of themselves are pointless, a motivated and engaged activist voting bloc is the secret to taking this country back, and it will be a struggle that will take at least my lifetime, if not longer. The first step in that process is firmly refusing to support Casey, as Schumer et. al. ill take a victory as a sign that they need move FURTHER to the right.
Follow you’re conscience, but I’m not going to stop trying to wake people up.
We’ll see how Lamont staffs his office. Should be interesting to see. But one thing is for sure, he is going to be a lot more responsive to progressives because progressives made it possible for him to win. He will not be totally beholden to the grassroots, but he will be responsive.
Defeating Casey cannot be separated from electing Santorum. It can’t be separated from denying Leahy the judiciary, Kennedy Health and Labor, Rockefeller intelligence, Biden Foreign Affairs, Levin Armed Services, and so on.
Here’s a quick test for you. What would have happened if Alito was nominated to Leahy’s committee? He would not have made it to the floor. And because of that, Casey would have no opportunity to vote for him. And because of that Alito would not nominated at all.
If Schumer is going to be taught a lesson it won’t be losing in Pennsylvania, or losing in Ohio. That won’t teach him about the real problem, which isn’t DINO’s but coronations. Building a structure so that we can Lamontisize DINO’s is the answer.
Here’s how a Redstate commenter put it:
Alito would have been confirmed. They would have weasled out a way, vote traded. I have NO faith in that bunch of hacks.
Remember Clarence Thomas, one of the worst and most unqualified justices in the history of the Supreme Court, was confirmed with the help of 11 Democrats, many of them the same “leaders” we have now. This when Biden was chairman of Judiciary. We have the DEMOCRATS to thank for the most conservative Justice on the bench.
Elect Casey, and you elect another Nelson, another Salazar, another Reid … one more superstitious corporatist stooge who hates women, hates women having freedom … a homophobe who hides behind his religion while helping to restrict the civil liberties of his fellow citizens. If you think that Schumer, Reid, Biden, Clinton, etc etc etc will do ANYTHING to save this country and wrest it from the claws of the rich and greedy when they their little golden boy’s vote you’re fooling yourself.
It’s not just the coronations, it’s who’s pointy little head they pick to wear the tiara.
Well, one good thing about Lamont is that he’s the multi-millionaire great-grandson of the President of the J.P. Morgan company. He’ll get along great with the other millionaire Democratic senators, like Kerry.
I’d give you a 10 if I could. Whatever one thinks of Nader, he has become a scapegoat for a poorly run campaign and an even more dismal fight for honest elections. We need to look to the real reasons Democrats are in trouble. Bashing the Green Party isn’t going to advance our position. And perhaps we should find out why these people feel so disaffected when they should be voting for Democrats. But then, you look at some of the candidates running under the Democratic banner, and it’s not hard to see why people are so disaffected.
Living where I do, I have done what I can by contributing money and writing my good-for-nothing Senator Salazar asking him how it helps the people of Colorado for him to be in Connecticut campagining for someone who has no loyalty to the party.
“The resistance”? Casey and the Dem Party? Thanks for bringing some humor into this testy discussion. And now pardon me while I go laugh until I puke.
I’m angry with the Democrats myself, but the best hope of resisting the tyrant comes from Democratic patriots like John Conyers and John Murtha. There are no alternatives.
What the fuck is up with most of you? You’ve all gone completely bonkers?
If a piece of news like this gets you all riled up and at each other’s throat then I beleive what they’ve figured out over at the Brad Blog is more than right:
Throw in a green candidate in the mix, get people and the media to talk about this to set it up as the reason Casey will lose in November. All the while everyone’s eyes is distracted away from manipulations of the e-vote.
I’d say they’re shooting fish in a barrel.
I think I felt another nail in the coffin of my belief that the Dems can get us out of this mess when I finally watched the documentary “Why We Fight” last week. After all, it was John Kennedy who ramped up the concern about our “deficit” of missles as compared to the Soviet Union, Johnson who lied us into war in Vietnam and then there’s that issue of the supposed “peace dividend” that Clinton never realized in the few short years between the Cold War and the War on Terrorism.
I think the movie documents that both Dems and Repugs have worked together to build up our current military-industrial-congressional complex. And its going to take US as the people to stop it.
I’m hoping more folks will go visit NorthDakotaDemocrat’s diary on Effective Counter Attack – Part IV to talk about what is perhaps our only possibility for doing that.
People like me who are old enough to remember these events never cease to be amazed at the pedestal some of these politicians have been put on when they had many, serious faults and missteps. Just because they were Democrats doesn’t get them off the hook. The first mushroom cloud ad was run by Johnson..
Hey BooMan, I’m curious: what would Casey have to say and/or do to lose your vote? I mean, not like molest a child or something that would get him arrested and withdrawn from the race anyway — at least, I hope that would; since shooting someone in the face while in office is apparently Not A Problem I’m personally no longer sure of much of anything.
I guess my question is: Is there anything that Casey could say or do, that would let him stay in the contest, and that you would consider to be so morally repugnant and/or dangerous to such a large chunk of the population that you just could not justify voting for him, regardless of what the majority of Democrats in PA think? If so, what?
If Casey did something that made me think he is a worse person than Rick Santorum then I would not vote for him. And I am not saying that people have some obligation to vote for Casey. I’m only pointing out that the green candidate is backed by Santorum and only on the ballot because of Santorum, and has only one purpose, which is to save Santorum and the GOP majority.
Well okay, and I appreciate the response, but you didn’t really answer my question. That’s probably my bad for not asking it directly enough. Let me take another run at it.
What, specifically, would Casey have to say or do that would make you go, “Okay, that’s it, I can’t vote for that fucker”? If you could just give me an example, a for instance, of any specific position or action that would allow him to stay in the race but would mean you couldn’t vote for him, that’s what I’m asking.
if he pulled a Mel Gibson that would do it.
Would that be the drinking or railing against a subset of humanity? Because as a woman it feels like Casey has already made the equivilent of Mel’s anti-semitic remarks, and is prepared to put his bias into action as soon as we let him. Need I say “Alito?”
Damn. Who am I to question what you are doing- after all your effort. I just feel like I’m screaming into the wind to save my daughter and no one cares.
that’s why I am not saying that people have an obligation to vote for Casey. I understand that his position on abortion can feel like straight misogyny.
Here is why I am voting for him, in order of importance.
Those are my reasons, although I respect your position and am very sympathetic to it.
BooMan’s point number 4 is no small issue. Every year, we fight multiple battles here to maintain funding for women’s health initiatives and family planning, and last year, Governor Rendell did a line-item veto to maintain/increase that funding in the budget. Despite his claims of being pro-family planning, I don’t think Casey would do that, given his history of going after Planned Parenthood when he was auditor general. Thus, he could have a greater impact on the reproductive rights of women in PA than he might have as a senator.
That is about the only reason I would ever consider voting for Casey (which I am not; if Chuck Schumer was sure they could win without my vote, I think he should try to prove his point).
You had me going there for a minute Cabin Girl. I thought you were saying you had changed your mind about not voting for Casey.
My thinking is that Casey will never again run for a major office in this state without facing serious competition in the primary. If he faces serious competition he loses because he can’t get away with refusing to debate, and as soon as he opens his mouth he is toast.
Consider the fact that Santorum is viewed favorably by only 28% of Pennsylvanians (Casey comes in at an even lower 27%), and according to Survey USA, Santorum has the lowest job approval rating of any U.S. Senator. Yet every poll but Quinnipiac shows Casey with only a single-digit lead. I believe that any one but Casey would be 30-points ahead of Santorum by now. The decision by the DSCC to back Casey for this contest may cost the Democrats a Senate seat that they almost certainly would have won with any other nominee.
Are you saying that you think that if Casey got pulled over drunk and started bashing Jews, he’d still be in the Senate race? I have a hard time buying that but like I said upthread, fuck if I know anymore, maybe that’s actually true and maybe the New Democrats would be cool with that.
Now, this next thing is probably going to sound prickish because we’re on the net and you can’t see my concerned face or hear the damn serious non-prickish tone in my voice, but I hope you trust from my previous behavior on this site that I am always respectful when I ask hard questions. I am just trying to get clear on your personal definitions around what constitutes an acceptable Democratic Senatorial candidate.
That said, would it be the Jew-bashing that would push Casey over your personal line? The DUI? The sexist and demeaning remarks to the female officer? Or would Casey have to be guilty of all of that all at once for you to decide that he would be too dangerous to put into the Senate?
I’ve met Bob Casey and he is a very nice, personable guy. From people I know that are friends of the family, I hear that they are a super group of people. He is wrong on social issues, but that derives from his strong religious beliefs and is not some pandering to the wingnut fringe. So, I really don’t find this exercise to all that on point. It’s highly doubtful that Casey secretly harbors anti-Semitic views or is a drunk or would ever refer to a police officer’s ‘sugar tits’.
But, to answer your question, I wouldn’t care about the DUI, but if he abused a female cop or made Nazi like remarks (either one) I would consider him dead to me. The DUI would only concern me in a Presidential candidate, since we can’t have a commander-in-chief making decisions when he/she is soused.
Plenty of racists, sexists, and homophobes are perfectly capable of presenting as nice, personable people, so that’s neither here nor there.
I have never really understood how someone’s sexist, homophobic politics are any more palatable to anyone just because they’re grounded in religion — and frankly, I find it impossible to deny that Casey not-so-secretly harbors both sexist and homophobic thoughts; he just rationalizes them as religious faith — but I do understand that plenty of other people give religious folks a pass for their nasty, harmful beliefs. I mean, I don’t know why they do, but I know that they do.
As you probably know, you and I disagree strongly w/r/t political strategy, but to correct your misperception, this wasn’t an “exercise”; this was merely an attempt at engaging you directly enough to understand some things about your thinking and your political strategy that don’t make any sense at all to me. It was not entirely a successful attempt, since I am rather much more confused now than I was when I asked the first question, but I appreciate your responses nonetheless.
when it comes to politics, most politicians hold a view on abortion (publicly) that is convenient for them. That’s why Poppy Bush flipped in 1988 as did Al Gore in the other direction. I have contempt for those people (it’s one of the main reasons I have always hated Al Gore and worked for Bradley).
But some people have sincerely held religious convictions. I obviously don’t agree with them and think they should set them aside when it comes to policy (like Cuomo and Kerry). But it does change how I feel about them. A religious conviction is different from pandering to other people’s relgious convictions.
If I thought Casey was peo-life just because it was convenient then I would be much harder on him. However, as I have recounted, I have trouble believing he’s had any epiphany on gay rights, as his staffer claimed. I acknowledge that he now supports gay adoption. I recognize the the HRC has endorsed him. But I suspect that his position is mere convenience. I hold that against him more than anything else.
Still, I’m glad he has promised to vote the right way on that issue.
There’s much you and I agree on, philosophically and ethically, which is why it confounds me so much that we veer off so sharply w/r/t strategy. I suspect that some of the differences arise somewhere around your second paragraph.
I mean, sure, I understand perfectly well that plenty of people honestly do believe that God is telling them that women are not quite as good as men, or at least ought not be as free, and that gay people are basically the devil’s own. And I agree with you that ethically, that is not quite the same thing as just pretending to believe these ugly fictions in order to manipulate other folks. However, when it comes to electing someone to make policy, that’s a distinction without much difference. A religiously-based vote against equality in a secular democratic republic is still a religiously-based vote against equality in a secular democratic republic regardless of someone’s personal motivation for making it. I think I view each one of those votes as being far more dangerous than you do.
And then I think another part of our different strategic approaches might just come down to trust. You seem to trust things about Casey and other Democrats that I don’t even begin to trust. I’ve been screwed one too many times, I guess — which makes sense, considering I’m in the general populations these guys are all rationalizing screwing over, and you’re generally not, so your radar is probably just not as tuned in to the danger signs.
so your strategy is what?
It’s nothing new to you, you’ve heard it before and you don’t agree with it. But since you asked, I’ll lay my thinking out a little bit about why it’s my preferred strategy. Sorry for going long, such as I have.
As an independent, when I think about what my vote and my voice means, and how best to use the scant political power I have, it’s not tied to party, it’s tied directly to my political goals such as equality, sane foreign policy, and all the other things that are presently being abused by our govt. When I examine the field of available options, it’s clear to me that Democrats have generally been better about these things than Republicans. They have not been a whole lot better, but I figure sometimes you have to take what you can get and political change can be excruciatingly slow. I mean, up until now, I have always voted straight ticket Democrat in major elections because I thought that was the best available choice from a field of shitty choices.
However, lately something new has been afoot. BushCo ain’t my Daddy’s Republican party. They are way more dangerous than Nixon ever was. And curiously, lots of Democrats have been aiding and abetting these particular Republicans in things like the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, Medicare D, DOMA, new bankruptcy laws, taxation laws, the list goes on. If the Democrats had fought these things…well, we can all speculate, but the fact is that they did not even fight, they helped.
So, when I boil out all the extraneous crap, what our current context comes down to for me is this: at this point, I think the majority of the folks who are representing Democrats and controlling the Democratic party machine are either: a) dumber than a box of hair and need to be replaced as soon as any legal means can achieve it; or b) willing co-conspirators in what the Republican party is doing w/r/t our currently disastrous foreign policy and this concentrated drive to bring back the general social environment of 1956 with all the attendant lack of rights & social power that that means for anyone who’s not at the top of the identity hierarchy. Either way you slice it, that’s a death-blow to my politics and therefore they must be replaced.
Frankly, I am scared shitless of my own government — of all of them, not just BushCo. I think we sit on the brink of fascism (if we are not already falling; it’s kinda hard to tell when I feel so damn queasy all the time). I think the best chance we have to save ourselves — from ourselves as well as from global retaliation resulting from our behavior abroad — is to drastically change the way we are politicking as quickly as is humanly possible, and that means (among a lot of other things) giving the collective Finger not only to Casey, but also to the thoroughly fucked-up politicking that gave us Casey.
I understand that. But that is not a strategy. Giving the finger to Casey is not a strategy.
What we are doing to Lieberman is a strategy. What we are doing on the ground in the wards of Philadelphia is a strategy.
Beating Morrison in Montana is a strategy.
Kid Oaklands’ progressive election project is a strategy.
Supporting Chuck Pennacchio in the primaries is a strategy.
Beating Lieberman only to have him replaced by Casey may seem like treading water, but we can’t do everything at once. Casey won’t go unopposed next time. There is no way the activist community in Pennsylvania will let it happen a second time.
I understand your frustration with the Dems. But if we want them to do better we have to pay for it. The money has to come from somewhere. First we need to identify candidates and get them elected at the local level. We have to build an alternative financing for those candidates.
It’s about building the party in our image instead of the image of pharmaceutical companies and HMO’s.
BooMan, I said in my first pgph that I wasn’t laying out a strategy because you’ve heard it before and you don’t agree with it. I read here far more than I post, and I appreciate that you probably lack the time and/or interest to pay much attention to who’s lurking, but I read lots of things you write. As I said in my post, I was just trying to explain my line of thinking re: why I embrace a different strategy than you do.
Just for the record, though, yes, opposing Casey is indeed a strategic move — hell, any action(s) you plan out in advance to try to effect certain consequences is a strategy by definition, the only questions revolve around whether or not it’s useful, effective, etc.
Opposing Casey is something you don’t think is useful and/or worth the risk. I was trying to explain why I think it is worth the risk, even if it fails. There’s a reason why I keep asking probing questions about what people believe, why people believe whatever they believe, and making very careful sentences about fascism. I think it’s clear as day that it’s not just the Republicans who are dangerous to democracy right now, and it’s very frightening to me that so many Democrats don’t seem to see that.
If I can be forgiven for trying to inject some levity into this context: fascism doesn’t roll up on you in a tricked out Monte Carlo with a big neon sign, “HEY, WE’RE FASCISTS!” As a matter of course, it calls itself names like Justice and Populism and Good Christian.
I have to tell you, I have heard many times that Casey is a nice person, but I don’t buy it. The guy supports capitol punishment, supports jailing any one who performs an abortion, opposes tabling the nuclear option in Iran, opposes allowing a person die with dignity, supports criminalizing flag desecration, supports making the courts subservient to Congress, supports the Patriot Act, supports warrantless wiretaps, and has never revealed even a hint that he is troubled by Abu Ghraib or any other form of official torture or the indefinite detention of prisoners without access to counsel or the courts.
Perhaps Casey is pleasant, but I can’t square his belief system with “nice.” He is a borderline fascist.
I know plenty of nice people whom I’d never vote for in a million years precisely because they would support position that I find abhorent. Niceness and good intentions matter very little to me these days (we all know about what the road to Hell is paved with, right?). I’m more interested in what a candidate will do concretely to further progressive aims, and I will glean that from past stances that they have taken. Actions speak louder than words.
Don’t have time to read through all these comments to see if anyone mentioned it, but in their defense, the Greens were the only ones to stand up in Ohio in 2004.
I think there’s some hypocrisy going on here when it comes to the Greens’ donors. How much far-right GOP money backed Casey in the primary? We’ll never know because they’re smart enough to hide it. Both parties are manipulated by money to the extent that that becomes all that matters. To get all high and moral about Green money is to enter a state of extreme denial about where all political money and power comes from in this country. Their money is no dirtier or more dishonest than Casey’s for 95 percent of what keeps the Dem and Rep candidates in business.
That said, I’m just glad I don’t live in PA. I’d share Boo’s agony but not necessarily his conclusions. Seems obvious to me that a Casey loss as a result of the Green candidacy would be a good thing in the long run: It would show that the left can no longer be ignored by the Dem power brokers, and it might even set off the bloody purge that the party so desperately needs. Maybe it would even help seed the ultimate overthrow of the current one-party system. I think the country will be better off in 20 years or so if Casey loses by a margin that makes it impossible to deny that the Green candidacy was responsible.
And yet, the immediate pain would be almost too much to bear: to see that piece of idiot dirt grinning his idiot victory grin, to hear to paid-up pundits proclaiming how PA shows the country is still moving to the “center” (ie radical fascism), to endure the possiblility of a Senate still controlled by an organized criminal majority, for starters.
I don’t know how I’d end up voting on that day, if at all. I’m sure a change in residence and citizenship would call to me louder than ever.
Of course this situation will be repeated over and over as long as the current electoral system is not torn down and replaced to take the absolute political power away from money. I’ve harped about this here and elsewhere to complete indifference, but it’s the prerequisite to changing all the other issues, from privacy to social policy to military/international behavior. If the liberals and the left put our energy into this above all, we’d have a chance a real change in this country. Without it we’re doomed to sad reruns on every issue for the foreseeable future.
Please note, by the way, that the American Greens (for better or worse) are a decentralized political party, and decisions like the ones made recently by the Pennsylvania Greens are, indeed, made locally. Be careful inferring a lesson about Greens nationwide based on the Pennsylvania Greens’ choices. Else, what lessons would you infer about Greens nationwide based on the California Greens’ official vote to forgo an electoral challenge to Senator Barbara Boxer? The reason for that decision, by the way, was as you’d expect: the California Greens consider her progressive enough to support, or at least to refrain from challenging (in a way that the Pennsylvania Greens, apparently, do not feel about Bob Casey). Do we, from that, infer that US Greens are clearly progressive team players, worthy of support? Or do we only draw inferrences about the Green Party as a whole when the circumstances happen to fit our Dems-uber-alles narrative?
Finally, if you’d like to minimize the effect of such electoral challenges in the future, please please please join Greens nationwide in supporting Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). IRV eliminates the spoiler dilemma, and Greens have been working for 6 years straight to get Dems to support this sensible, consitutional, simple electoral reform. Sadly, the Democratic hierarchy tends to ignore the Green pleas for action on IRV, dooming us to this annual event of election-spoilage, finger-pointage, and name-callage.
To help make IRV a reality in your city/county/state, visit the Center for Voting and Democracy at: http://www.fairvote.org
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Gonna dig into it when I have its not so late–I’m on eastern time.
Romanelli didn’t have the potential of affecting this race one wit. But now, because of the way Casey has overreacted to it, everyone is talking about him, looking at his web site, and hearing how he can really hurt Casey.
Casey’s braintrust has managed to move Romanelli from the irrelevant fringe third party candidate to a factor. Without spending a dime of his own money, Santorum created quite a distraction. All he had to do was depend on the Casey folk to be unable to resist the bait.
Anyone recall that huge lead that Casey had in 2002 . . . . ?