Author: albert

Former President of NARAL Pro Choice America, Kate Michelman, had this to say in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer in regards to running as an Independent in the 2006 PA Senate election:

With conservatives controlling the White House and Congress, and the addition of clearly anti-choice justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the principles embodied in Roe and the right of every American woman to make reproductive health decisions face an uncertain future.

But with challenge comes opportunity. Rather than buckle or retreat, it is time to rally the pro-choice community and for women to control their own futures. Under similar circumstances, the pro-choice movement was critical to Democrats’ recapturing the Senate in 1990 and the presidency in 1992. The silence of many pro-choice senators regarding Alito’s confirmation and the specter of Democrats recruiting anti-choice Senate candidates at this critical time is a real concern for woman’s rights supporters.

Sounds like she’s taking a stand there, eh?.

Every fiber in my body tells me that these principles should be defended. It is difficult to imagine that the right for which so many have worked so hard can be whisked away by politicians more interested in accumulating power than standing up for a fundamental right.

Sounds like she’s really pissed off and wants to effect change.

Despite profound and fundamental differences, I have decided that Pennsylvania will be better served by electing Bob Casey to the U.S. Senate than giving his opponent another term. I do this knowing that I may forever regret not responding one more time to the clarion call of principle.

And with that, Kate Michelman is a backstabber in my eyes and I presume that many other people who feel that the issue of choice is an incredibly important one will feel similarly.

I was an apathetic schlep for the first twenty years of my life and slowly my eyes opened after the 2000 5 to 4 vote to hand George W. Bush the presidency and since the 2004 election I’ve been mad as fucking hell about it. I’m tired of not responding to the “clarion call of principle” that Michelman speaks of. I’ve only been a Democrat for six years now, but I’ve been a “good Dem” and followed the pack. But the Democratic party has veered to the Right and I don’t like how things are looking down the line. I don’t like how the “clarion call of principle” is being ignored by the Democratic leadership and treated as an annoying cacophony of cries from a bunch of loonies outside of the mainstream. They are wrong, we are the base and they are losing more of us each and every day.

Choosing to endorse an anti-choice [among other things] candidate instead of an incredible Progressive Democrat in Chuck Pennacchio makes Kate Michelman a backstabber. It has been six days since the candidates filed to be on the primary ballot. [And just to be clear, I am a hard working volunteer on the Pennacchio campaign, but I was saying this after I had heard him speak and before I started to actively volunteer my time on his campaign]

Supporting a candidate who believes this:

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.

makes Kate Michelman a backstabber.

Casey apologists will see Michelman’s decision to 1) not run as an Independent and shove the issue of choice onto the top of the 2006 PA Senate election and 2) not endorse one of the two pro choice Democratic candidates [the other being Alan Sandals] as a dose of pragmatism. I simply call it selling out. And when you sell out your base as a former President of a national organization, that makes you a backstabber.

I’m not much of a single-issue voter. I despise Democrats like Casey for a host of reasons including his stance on the Iraq War, embryonic stem cell research, his lack of support for a living wage and universal healthcare, his stance on forcing pharmacists to not fill prescriptions based on their private beliefs, his soft stance on equal rights for all… But Michelman was the president of a huuuge single-issue voting bloc. And she just sold them out. Big time. That makes her a backstabber. I know that she fought hard for nearly thirty years on the national level, but today, she stopped fighting. Most of her activities were before my time and I’m sure many here in this community witnessed it and were a part of it firsthand. I’m curious to hear your reactions to her change of heart.

Chroist!

I was out for close to six hours Saturday circling my four by three block division getting signatures. I settled in in front of Whole Foods for several hours. I collected about fifty signatures for Chuck Pennacchio and all of one for me in my division. So, very unscientifically, I’ve deduced that people from my division don’t go to Whole Foods during the Saturday afternoon peak time [we go late at night during the week].

Then I went door to door in my division for a few hours collecting enough signatures to get me on the ballot. I have nineteen right now and even met another person who is running for committeeperson in my division. We won’t be running against each other per se since there are two seats up for grabs. I did, however, learn something very interesting. She’s lived in this division since 1998 and has NEVER met the two committeepeople. That is a complete travesty. The whole purpose of committeepeople is to be the first point of contact between each small precinct and the upper levels of the government which represents them. I can understand they didn’t get to her one year or maybe even two, but eight years without seeing them in an official capacity? She told me that she’s been to just about every committee meeting for the past two years and had not met them. I guess they’ve REALLY dropped the ball. And she and I plan on changing things.

I still have five spots to fill up on my petition to get me on the ballot; a little more extra insurance over the ten required signatures. I already know that one of the signees is out of my district, but only after he had signed did I notice that he lived on the wrong side of South St, arg.

I’ll be heading out early tomorrow to run some errands, but after that, I’ll be petitioning with Booman on the other side of Center City in the afternoon for his run for committeeperson [we’re fucking taking over!] and me with my Pennacchio petition for more sigs.

I was hesitant at first, but things got going and I was confident enough to go door to door which is something I really didn’t think I’d be able to do. But I’m glad I did. Getting involved in this manner really felt… right.

And now, at 1a, I’m poofed. After petitioning all day, we went out to dinner with some friends and after that, I still had more work to do! I had one more shoot for freelance photography gig in West Philly. At 11.30p my day was done and I was too tired to head on over to my friend Hannah’s 30th birthday par-tay. Arg. I really wanted to go, but I was/am dead tired. She’s the one who finally pushed me to run and I’m sure she’ll understand I was beat after all this. I’ll see her soon enough. Hopefully after finding out I qualifiy to be on the May 16th ballot. That’s going to be weeeiiird. Going into a voting booth and seeing my name right there!

Why I’m getting involved.

Who better than to appoint to the Presidential HIV/AIDS Advisory Council than Rev. Herbert Lusk. The same Rev. Lusk who hosted Justice Sunday III which I attended and at which I took photos. The same Rev. Lusk who has preached Bush from the pulpit and is openly anti-gay.

From the Philadelphia Gay News:

Lusk served as a Bush adviser on faith-based funding and his nonprofit organization, People for People Inc., which helps low-income residents break the cycle of poverty through education, counseling, training and entrepreneurial development, has received about $1 million of “faith-based” funding from the government since 2002.

And from Philadelphia Will Do [a blog for one of two alt-weeklies in town]:

But isn’t it just like the Bush administration to (1) reward a loyal, vocal, visible supporter with a cushy advisory position that meets only three times a year and (2) pick someone who seemingly stands opposed to gay rights to a council that advises on a disease that affects a disproportionate amount of members of the gay community.

The Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS was set up by President Bill Clinton in 1995 to make recommendations to the government on the worldwide AIDS epidemic. And the Council is co-chaired by the crazy Sen. Tom Coburn who, if you’ll recall, once said lesbianism was

so rampant in some of the schools… that they’ll let only one girl go to the bathroom [at a time]

The other co-chair is Louis W. Sullivan, former Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George H. W. Bush.

So, what I guess I’m trying to say is that this Council may not be in oh so good hands. But when has this president appointed people who have not been safe, and by safe I mean obedient, choices who will back down when told to and not stir the pot. So, I’m not surprised, but this guy coming out of Philly, it made my ears perk up.

I’m not familiar with the Council’s previous track record and accomplishments and recommendations, but I can’t imagine the addition of Lusk would improve matters. If Lusk were to change his views for the greater good of humanity, that would be wonderful, but if he’s going to continue to treat gay people as heathens, his placement on this council means bad news.

Lusk will be sworn in on March 15.

Update [2006-3-5 1:16:38 by albert]: I got the required amount of sigs to get me on the ballot! A little update here

So, I done decided to do it. I’m running for committeeperson in Ward 5 Division 8 of Philadelphia County. Why? Because I really want to get involved. More so than just going to meetings, talking to friends, writing, commenting… I want to have a bigger voice, even if it is only amplified by a tenth of a percent via the authority of committeeperson.

I’m doing this because I’ve been inspired by people I’ve known through the years and by people I’ve only met in these last twenty months in Philadelphia and in the land o’ blogs.

I was inspired by one of my best friends, Austin, who drove from Chicago all over Iowa for Dean in 2004. I’m inspired by Chuck Pennacchio [for whom I am a volunteer] because he was fed up with the losing campaigns the Dems here in PA have ran for fourteen years and he wants a better Pennsylvania and a better United States for his family, his students and the whole lot of us. I was inspired by Chris Bowers from mydd.com who shook the political organizational tree out in West Philly by becoming a committeeperson and organizing his ward to oust their inactive Ward Leader. I’ve been inspired by the activists and groups of activists I’ve met online and offline and their enthusiasm for everything for which they stick their necks out. And by my friends here in Philly who are also running or have ran: Sabra, Danie, Aaron, Andrea, Hannah…

And I’m committed to this city of Philadelphia where I moved to after some shitty times back home in NY. A city that has taken me in with open arms and never asked questions.

But what the hell does a committeeperson [CP] even do? I’m not sure how local politics works all over the country – fuck, I’m not even 100& sure how it works here – but here in Philadelphia, it starts with the committeepeople.

From what I understand…

A CP is the first point of contact between the citizens and their elected officials. CPs are unpaid. There are two Democrats and two Republicans voted into their voting districts every four years. They represent a tiny fraction of the entire city. Each Division is between 500 and 1000 people, about four square blocks in my area of town.

The main task of the CP is to get out the vote. Each CP has a “Street List” with the names, addresses and sometimes phone numbers of all the registered Dems in their division. It’s incumbent on them [and all those other GOTV groups] to go knock on doors and get people out to the polls to fulfill their civic duty, it is the least people can do on Tuesday. CPs are supposed to report to the polling spot at 6.30a to help set things up. In my case, my polling spot is actually, no joke, the maintenance shed of the park in my division. I was quite shocked when I went to vote there in the May primary. I circled the block once to make sure I had the right address and then I saw people going in and out of the shed so I went in. About enough space for a few booths, a folding table and a few storage lockers and a wheelbarrow.

And the CP is to head back to the polls when they close at 8p to watch the recount/tally. Each CP is usually given poll watcher certificates by their ward leader to have access inside the polling place before and after the polls are open/closed.

That, in a nutshell, is what I’m getting involved to do right now. But first, I gotta get on the ballot to run which means I need ten signatures from registered Dems in my division. I’m going to do that through the weekend and file in City Hall on Monday. Wish me luck folks and soon, I could be Committeperson Yee! Now doesn’t that sound powerful and authoritative? Nevertheless, everyone will have to respect my authori-tay if I am elected.

Yesterday it was announced that the South Dakota Senate passed a bill 23 to 12 in favor of banning abortion in nearly all cases. Today, the House voted to approve the same bill 50 to 18 and Gov. Mike Rounds plans to sign the bill into law and it would go into effect July 1.

From AP:

Under the legislation, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life.
…
Opponents of the bill argued that abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a women’s health.

If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.

“The idea the rapist could be in the child’s life … makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice,” Heeren-Graber said.

There is only one clinic performing abortions in all of South Dakota, Planned Parenthood, and they have pledged to challenge the law if Gov. Rounds signs it into law.

Will this case reach the SCOTUS before or after the eighty-five year old Justice Stevens retires?

A victory for Chuck Pennacchio, a pro choice Democrat, would give us two pro choice senators representing a predominantly pro choice state. Now before everyone assails me by saying that Sen. Specter isn’t really pro choice with his defending of now Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, by voting by party lines, that’s part of the point I’m building on here.

While candidate Casey had no reason to come out in support of the nominations of Roberts and Alito, he did and now it’s out there for all to see and judge and point at and sound the fucking alarms with. If he were a Senator as of last month, knowing everything that we knew about pro corporation and anti choice Alito, Casey would’ve broken party lines to vote in favor of his confirmation. Senator Pennacchio would’ve raised hell in the chamber, and would have voted with his party and with his heart against the nomination. This is, of course, assuming that the nominations would have already made it through the Judiciary Committee.

And what happens on Alito’s first day at the office? The NY Times Editorial page called it: “Starting off with a splash” as the SCOTUS agreed to hear a case concerning late term abortion with two newly confirmed conservative justices. But that case won’t be heard by the court for some time. And on the heels of that announcement, came the news that South Dakota lawmakers wanted to pass legislation that would outlaw almost all instances of abortion.

If the bill passes a narrowly divided Senate in a vote expected on Wednesday, and is signed by Gov. Michael Rounds, a Republican who opposes abortion, advocates of abortion rights have pledged to challenge it in court immediately — and that is precisely what the bill’s supporters have in mind.

Optimistic about the recent changes on the United States Supreme Court, some abortion opponents say they have new hope that a court fight over a ban here could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal around the country.

“I’m convinced that the timing is right for this,” said State Representative Roger Hunt, a Republican who has sponsored the bill, noting the appointments of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the court.

And looking even further down the line, the issue of an 85-year-old Justice John Stevens. Could W possibly have the opportunity to place a third über conservative justice on the highest court in the land?

Update [2006-2-22 19:45:10 by albert]: The bill passed 23 to 12. Via Argus Leader of Sioux City:

House Bill 1215 would ban most abortions in South Dakota.

It now goes back to the House, which passed an earlier version and must now decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate.

The bill would then go to Gov. Mike Rounds.

I was also taking a look at the numbers in the 2004 election. In the Senate, the Dems lost four seats, but they had a popular vote margin of nearly five million votes. But in the House, the Dems only lost three seats and also lost the popular vote by three million [the numbers]. The Dems are going to need every single vote they can get to defeat candidates on the other side of the aisle so why not fire up the base? Chris Bowers just noted some alarming numbers, that according to a recent Gallup poll, the Dems have lost some 10.5% of their registered voters in the last two mid-term elections. That’s the 10.5% of the base that sit at home because the leadership decides to put up a bunch of fuckwads as candidates thinking everyone will pull the big D lever [or push that button or smack that chad]; obviously we are not.

Which brings me back to the point[s].

How does anointing a candidate who stands on the other side of the aisle on the hot button get out the vote issues help in getting out the vote? It is this angry voter’s opinion that by anointing candidate Casey, the Dems are actively engaging in the tactic of voter fucking suppression, there, I said it. How refreshing would it be to have a Democratic candidate who would fire up the base. Would go town to town to speak with the people in small gatherings, standing next to them and discussing the issues side by side instead of down to them from a podium? How refreshing would it be to have a pro choice, pro universal healthcare, pro higher education, pro embryonic stem cell research, pro privacy anti war / pro troop withdrawal and anti Patriot Act [in it’s current verbiage] candidate representing a long list of real Progressive Democratic ideals. Ideals that the Democratic party seems to laugh at while trying to find niches of non-existent swing voters and a fraction of a percentage of conservative voters. Ideals that the Progressive and Moderate bases of the Democratic party stalwartly stand behind.

Democrats did not agree with the confirmation of Alito, but Casey did. Pennacchio stood with his fellow democrats in condemning the confirmation [and the nomination] of such an extremist judge. Casey couldn’t even find it in himself to stand along party lines. The pro choice Specter stood along his party lines when he voted to confirm. With his support of Alito’s nomination, Casey has demonstrated that as Senator, he cannot be counted on to vote along party lines when it comes down the two most important things a Senator does: vote to go to war and vote to confirm judges.

Supporting Chuck Pennacchio first in the PA Democratic primary and then in the general election against Sen. Man on Dog is more than a step in the right direction, it is a leap to the roots of the Democratic party; the people on the ground, in the streets.

Conviction wins.

I was upset that my local Democracy for America chapter, Philly for Change didn’t endorse Chuck Pennacchio for the US Democratic Senate primary here in PA [the group did not endorse anyone], but other DfAs across the state have picked up the ball in my group’s stead and we’ll keep on trucking with the momentum. I learned via the Pennacchio blog that DfA Lancaster endorsed Pennacchio [who says that his message doesn’t do well in the middle of the state!] and I learned from the Pittsburgh based 2 Political Junkies that DfA Pittsburgh endorsed Pennacchio.

At the meetup during the month prior my local DfA branch’s endorsement vote, there was much discussion as to whether or not a group of our size, about forty or fifty active members, should be making an endorsement. As the group organizers spoke of the process of endorsement [nominee, committee meeting, questionnaire, 75% majority for endorsement, who’s allowed to vote…] one woman got up to oppose a vote. I immediately thought she was a Casey backer. Why would anyone oppose a vote in this Progressive/Liberal group in a Democratic city which spawned from a Presidential candidate with a rabidly Progressive base? Because she was scared that her candidate would lose I thought.

She said that a group our size will have no impact on the bigger picture. That the Democratic nominee was already chosen and that coming out potentially against the anointed one would make the group look bad. She was quite vehemently opposed to a vote. I wanted to walk over her and punch her in her fucking face. But, well… I didn’t. She was essentially saying We don’t count, we don’t matter! And that pissed me off. This is the kind of opposition Progressives could/will face if we try to take our party back to the Left as Booman suggests. People who are too scared to take a stand. People who don’t want to cause a stir.

It’s been some forty years here in PA of Democratic candidates who have failed to excite people. And after forty some odd years, who does the party leadership throw down? A candidate for the Democratic nomination who is anti choice, anti universal healthcare, pro Patriot Act with no revisions, anti expansion of research in embryonic stem cells, pro Iraq war, anti troop withdrawal with a timeline and pro the SCOTUS nominations for Roberts and Alito. I can’t think of a single Democrat currently in the Senate who believes in all of that. Seems out of the mainstream to me.

And it is groups like Philly for Change who can start from the roots to form a presence for the simple Democratic values [if this party really has any defined core values anymore] let alone the really Progressive ones. What are we telling each other when we say that we don’t matter and we’ll look like fools if we back a Progressive choice in the fucking primary let alone the general? What are we telling the leadership if we roll over and die when they send in an anointed candidate to lead us to the Right? What are we telling our leadership when we accept the shutting down of primaries? Candidate Casey in a 2002 Philadelphia City Paper [one of two alt-weeklies in town] interview said when asked if he thought competitive primaries were hurtful to a general election campaign:

Some people have made that argument. I don’t think that that’s going to happen. I really don’t. I base that upon a lot of history. This is really my fourth statewide race. I had a very rough primary in 1996 for auditor general, then I had two general elections on top of that. I worked very hard in the ’86 campaign for governor. My father ran against Ed Rendell. It was a very tough primary. In many ways, the ads were tougher that year. People don’t remember, but they were real tough ads. But that was a tough primary, which ended up being a big deficit at the end, at the end of the race. But it was a very tough primary, both sides spent over two-and-a-half-million dollars, which doesn’t sound like much now but was a record then for a combined primary. And the party came together that year and beat a candidate who, you could make a strong argument, was a lot tougher than Mike Fisher. Someone –[Bill] Scranton, who had a lot more name identification; he was a statewide name. He was coming off a very popular administration. He was a very hard guy to beat and the party came together. There are plenty of examples where this state has had a lot of tough primaries and then come together. In fact, the history shows, if you look at it, that the party with the tough primary usually wins.

So it looks like he’s all for a contested primary. He says so little, I’m going to have to rely on this 2002 interview as a basis for him wanting a contested primary.

But the party leadership doesn’t want it that way, they want to clear the tables for a race against one of the biggest Republicans out there, Sen. Man on Dog. Yes, he is vulnerable, but he’s one hell of a campaigner. He’s charismatic. He’s a good public speaker. He’s engaging. He’s got a hardcore stance on his issues and he energizes his wingnut base like a motherfucker. And so who should we be putting up against such an opponent? To quote from the Pennacchio campaign website:

Every six years, the Democratic Party seeks the perfect Senate candidate – a combination of name recognition, ideology and fundraising skill. In 44 years this formula has produced 14 consecutive full-term election defeats.
…
Everyone agrees that defeating Rick Santorum is a top priority for 2006, but to win we must provide a sharp contrast to his right wing agenda.

There’s an interesting discussion going on on MyDD at this diary and one comment sticks out in particular:

I completely understand the “vote for a Dem you don’t like in order to promote the party” theory of voting. I have even advocated it. But the only problem with that approach is that, in the last twenty years or so, it hasn’t resulted in Democratic Party victories.

On the contrary, it has helped to promote the image of the Democratic Party as a collection of unprincipled politicians who stand for nothing in particular and who will do anything to get elected.

This helps the Republicans win in two ways. The bad image is backed up by the facts and a significant portion of the electorate that might vote Democratic remains disaffected.

Why not try it the other way for a while and see what happens?

[Thanks Lady for the heads up]

So when do we say enough’s enough? After twenty years? After thirty years? After forty years? How about forty-four? Chuck Pennacchio is the only candidate who can do it and that’s why he’s got my vote.

Conviction wins.

There is no grey area for me on voting for Chuck Pennacchio in this upcoming primary here in PA on May 16th. One of the reasons for this is Pennacchio’s strong stance on the issue of choice. There is no grey area for me on the issue of choice. It is legal and should remain legal. That is that. No ifs ands or buts.

He believes that a woman’s right to have control over her own reproductive choice is inviolate, and as our Senator, he will stand up to protect this fundamental Constitutional guarantee.

Pennacchio would have voted against the appointments of now Chief Justice John Roberts and now Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States. Both Justices have a record of blech. Both Justices would most likely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade when it comes to the SCOTUS; I have no doubts that it will. There are so many people out there who believe that the issue of abortion is the bread and butter of the Republican party and their single best way to get out the vote. They have plenty of other issues they can and have ramped up as the downfall of humanity, I don’t think they’ll have a problem energizing their fanatical, wingnut, batshit fucking crazy base.

The most chilling remark candidate Casey has said on the subject of choice is this rabidly anti-choice and anti-Roe v. Wade statement from a December 18, 2005 story in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

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 Senators Schumer and Reid assured all their friends that Casey wouldn’t let his anti choice views influence his votes for extremist judges to be appointed to things like, say, the SCOTUS. But then Casey went and opened his mouth to do just that.

On September 29, 2005, Casey told the Inquirer, through his campaign, that he would have voted to confirm Roberts. Not only that but his campaign manager, speaking on Casey’s behalf, stated:

[Casey] was initially concerned that Roberts would “bring an ideological agenda to the bench.”

“Based on his testimony and statements, Bob Casey believes Judge Roberts adequately addressed this concern,” Reiff said.

Yes, Roberts’ incredibly frank testimony. And Reiff added:

Judge Roberts is clearly a conservative, but it would be difficult to argue he is out of the mainstream

Riiiight. Casey’s version of “mainstream” that is.

And then fast forward a few months to January 25, 2006 and the Alito nomination for another Inquirer story where Casey chimes:

The arguments against Judge Alito do not rise to the level that would require a vote denying him a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I recall people like Sen. Schumer going bonkers over how extremist Alito was [and most likely currently is]. The Inquirer remembered too

Top national Democrats, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.), who personally recruited Casey to run, singled out Alito’s past statements on abortion as evidence of his being too extreme.

I wonder if Schumer and Reid gagged when they heard that Casey had come out in favor it the nomination. I wish they just puked all over Casey. Told him that he had family business to attend to and bow out of the damn race and then get fully behind the Progressive Pennacchio campaign. But then they swallowed hard. Like a chunk of gristle in a bad cheesesteak. Yeah, I guess Casey is like that hunk of shit in a bad ‘steak that Schumer and Reid are trying to force down our throats here in PA. Me, I like to spit that shit out.

An excerpt of Pennacchio’s statement on the confirmation of Alito:

I stand with the overwhelming majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate and Independent Senator Jim Jeffords and pro-choice Republican Lincoln Chaffee who opposed the Alito nomination. It’s revealing that Bob Casey stood with the far right today instead of with the Democratic Senators who voted 40-4 against Judge Alito’s confirmation.

My reasons for opposing the Alito nomination are clear. Judge Alito’s decisions and earlier work in the Reagan Justice Department demonstrate that he favors broadly expanding the power of the President and corporations while he would weaken individual rights and our constitutional system of checks and balances. On the U.S. Supreme Court Judge Alito will be a serious threat to privacy rights, abortion rights, employee rights, and minority rights.

I’ve been an obedient Democrat for sometime now. But fuck that. My political views and philosophies have grown and become much more complex. I want candidates who will stand up for things. I won’t simply pull the D lever anymore. I won’t vote for whomever I’m told to vote for. I won’t simply vote against someone either. I will vote for people I believe in. I will give money to candidates I believe in [give to Pennacchio here and specificially through Act Blue here]. I think lazy apathetic Americans should get off their asses and inform themselves of their candidates’ stances. I think that newspapers should inform their readers and stop making excuses over whom and what they cover.

Sen. Man on Dog is about as batshit fucking crazy as they come, and on paper, Casey isn’t too far behind, especially on the issue of choice. We need to get Sen. as Batshit Fucking Crazy as they Come out of office. Putting Sen. Almost as Batshit Fucking Crazy as they Come does not help. Senator Chuck Pennacchio has a nice ring to it.

The ongoing Pennacchio Online Petition Drive/blogswarm. More from The Hippo and The Sideshow.

Conviction wins.

In the past few weeks there’s been a fire lit across the internets [all six of ’em] about Ned Lamont and Ciro Rodriguez who are running against some serious DINOs in Democratic primaries in Connecticut and Texas respectively. Great for them, they need the help. But little has been said about the race in Pennsylvania — the race involving, in my humble opinion, the biggest fucking anachronistic DINO out there, Bob Casey. There’s an incredible Progressive Democrat in the race and his name is Chuck Pennacchio and he needs our help.

Yesterday it was announced that Paul Hackett was withdrawing from the race in Ohio and he cited that much of his decision was due to the pressure put upon him by senior dickheads Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Harry Reid. Questions have been raised about what the party leadership is up to in knocking out healthy contested primaries. I am not trying to say that Sherrod Brown is better or worse a candidate than Hackett, but that there is now a distinct in-your-face pattern emerging against candidates with a strong netroots base [remember that guy Howard Dean who ran for Prez]. The same two people [along with PA Gov. Ed “The Hoagiemaster” Rendell] anointed candidate Casey as the person to be to represent Pennsylvania Democrats in the Senate race against Sen. Man on Dog.

They anointed a candidate who falls in line with the Bush administration on the issues of going to war in Iraq and staying there, troop withdrawal [or lack thereof], embryonic stem cell research, choice, universal healthcare, child safety locks on guns, the SCOTUS nominations of Alito and Roberts and on top of all that, he was all for meddling in the Schiavo family’s personal affairs when he said:

I think you should err on the side of life. I think some kind of congressional review was appropriate.
[Philadelphia Daily News 4.29.05]

What a fucking dick. He’s stuck both his feet into his snore-inducing word hole many times since, but there’s more time for all that.

Chuck Pennacchio is first and foremost, not a dickhead. Right off the bat, that puts him ahead of Sen. Man on Dog and the sandwich bag filled with lukewarm Vaseline and crushed Valium that Schumer and Reid call a candidate. Fortunately, he’s got a lot more going for him. Like that he’s pro choice! Whodathunkit. In a state that is predominantly pro choice and has a pro choice Republican Senator [and a pro choice Democratic Governor], why not get behind a strong proponent of this right? Pennacchio was against the war then and he’s against the war now and has been touting troop withdrawal, with a timeline, since mid-2005 way before fellow Pennsylvanian Rep. John Murtha brought it to the forefront and made it cool. Pennacchio also wants universal healthcare. Tens of millions of Americans [myself included] do not have insurance and the only visits to medical professionals are usually the emergency room when things have gone way past Robitussin’s healing powers. He believes it is a moral and economic imperative that every American has access to high quality basic care; a “safety net” is not enough. I couldn’t agree more. More about Chuck here and his stance on the issues.

A group of bloggers have decided to start a blogswarm to get the word out about what’s happening here in PA. Kathy, Thomas, eRobin and I have taken it upon ourselves to say what needs to be said in this crucial time. Yesterday was the start of petitioning within PA to get Dr. Pennacchio’s name on the ballot for the Senate race. We have about a month to get a few thousand physical signatures, but we’re going to at least double that. And for the next fortnight or so, we will be spearheading an online petition of sorts to get more eyes on this race. This is only the first of a series of concentrated posts on the race. Please help spread the word, we won’t be getting any help from the leadership and while there is a strong all-volunteer grassroots network laid out across this commonwealth of twelve million people, this race has inter/national implications and we need all the help we can get. If you have any questions about Pennacchio, Pennsylvania or how many dickheads it takes to screw in a lightbulb, comment away!

Conviction wins.

Holy shit I love The Nation magazine. I’ve been reading it for almost two years now; I subscribed right around the 2004 election. And in this week’s issue, they printed their second article not only addressing the PA senate race, but the Progressive candidacy of Chuck Pennacchio.

I got word of the story via Liz’s post on the Pennacchio blog. The article is supposed to be accessible to subscribers only, but that print page link may do the trick. But to quote just a bit from it:

The Casey controversy illustrates the perils of early intervention by Washington Democrats in the process of selecting Senate candidates at the state level; in their drive to find a strong contender, DC power brokers often bet on candidates who are more conservative than the grassroots activists who form the party’s base. It’s especially frustrating to Pennsylvania activists, who watched national Democrats elbow out of the contest Barbara Hafer, a popular prochoice woman who’d won a number of statewide races, to make way for Casey. “A lot of women feel ignored, like the boys decided that this is a throwaway issue,” Kathy Miller, outgoing president of the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Organization for Women, told the Philadelphia Daily News.

There is similar frustration in Tennessee, where another Senate candidate anointed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Congressman Harold Ford, came out against an anti-Alito filibuster on the day civil rights groups endorsed the last-ditch effort to block the nomination. Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, described the move by Ford, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, as “deeply concerning to us.” Ford’s primary foe, State Senator Rosalind Kurita, hasn’t made a big issue of Ford’s stand. It’s a different story in Pennsylvania, where Chuck Pennacchio, a college professor and former Congressional aide, has positioned himself as the progressive alternative to Casey on issues ranging from abortion rights to the Iraq War. Along with another candidate who’s challenging Casey, attorney Alan Sandals, Pennacchio seized on Casey’s defection to the Alito camp. “Democrats will have a choice between a watered-down version of Rick Santorum and a strong Democrat who will consistently stand with them on the issues they care about,” argues Pennacchio. Recalling that his party lost when it ran a social conservative against Santorum in 2000, Pennacchio says: “An antichoice Democrat cannot beat an antichoice Republican in a high-profile race.”

Aaaaand, they even mentioned the PA Zogby poll that the MSM won’t touch with a ten foot pole. The Zogby Poll which I wrote about here indicates that any Democrat on the ballot beats Sen. Man on Dog and Chuck Pennacchio fares the best out of all of them once people know everyone’s stances on the issues. What does this show? That A) PA wants a Democratic senator representing them in DC. B) That when given very quick rundown on the issues [choice, stem cell, PAC $, Iraq war/withdrawal, universal healthcare, raise min. wage, NAFTA/CAFTA, SCOTUS] they choose the real Democrat in the race, Dr. Chuck Pennacchio.

The money will come in from across the country in boatloads [in individual donor amounts, no PACs!] when Pennacchio wins the primary on May 16th. And then there’s the name recognition argument. People whine and bitch about how Casey has etter name recognition and that everyone should just accept it and roll over and die. Fuck that. Help boost Pennacchio’s name recognition! You can’t boost name recognition by saying you can’t.

Thank you The Nation for saying things that need to be said.