Who would do/fight more fore choice in the US and PA? Senator Chuck Pennacchio or any of: Casey Jr / Specter / Santorum?

Senator Chuck Pennacchio.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com

Yeah, but why?

Right, but couldn't you make a principaled stand in the primary and then vote for Casey in the genera?

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate.

I'm sorry Vern, you just haven't made the case. It doesn't follow that voting for Chuck in the primary will result in Casey losing a general election. If Casey loses it will be because he's a lousy candidate.

And as a person whose fundamental rights and whose future survival you are talking about, I'm not at all consoled by the offer to get Casey to vote the right way. Too little, too late, and not likely to work. That's not taking a principled stand, it's trying to make up for a mistake.

I'm tired of hearing from men that it's somehow acceptable to give ground on a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for any reason, or capitulate on church/state issues of Constitutional dimension for any reason, especially when they can't even articulate how voting for the candidate whose positions they agree with would result in disaster. You're prepared to let the Democratic Party sell out to the same interests that the Republican Party sold out to. You're prepared to ratify a decision made by four old white men in a room for every Democrat in PA (and you can't get more Republican that that.) That's the bottom line here.

Out of curiosity how is your wife voting after all of her work?

It seems after your comment that you feel defeated in your quest for choice here in this state of Pennsylvania [and in the US in general]. After all of that. Standing up for what you believe in. In the face of protest. Just laying down now, one of, if not _the_ most important value you and your family hold. It is daunting and discraceful to look at how Casey Jr's candidacy came to be, but there is an alternative, no he's not an alternative - he's the clear choice, Chuck Pennacchio. He's the guy that will be standing right next to you and your wife and your family.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com

So you're asuming that if enough of us stand up for our beliefs that our beliefs will lose out and that Casey, who I'm inferring stands against your beliefs will win?

If enough of us take a principled stand for what we believe in, we _will_ win, don't you understand that? But people all over the state are laying down, feeling defeated for one reason or another and voting for the candidate that has been annointed as the one in the primary.

Taking principled stands after the fact will be too late. Casey Jr has already made up his mind [one of the few things he's made up his mind on] on the issues of embryonic stem cell research and the issue of choice. What about stopping him from getting into office and electing Senator Pennacchio who you _know_ is pro-choice and pro expansion of embryonic stem cell research?

Stop fighting your conscience.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com

If there was any good reason to think that close primary races hurt the eventual winner in the general election, I would agree with this analysis. But political scientists have been studying this issue for years. (I wrote a research paper on the subject 30 years ago.) And there is just no evidence to support this claim.

Sometimes a primary gives a candidate a chance to become much better known throughout the state. Ed Rendell was much better known after his primary with Casey. Hoeffel was not very well known going into the general election. He might have benefitted from a primary.

In addition, a primary campaign gives a candidate a chance to develop his message and practice delivering it. From all reports. Casey could use the practice.

Whoever is the opponent to Casey is going to be well funded this year. Should Pennachio or Sandals pull off an extraordinary upset, they will have tons of money for the general election. And, of course, so will Casey.

That is not to say I am going to support one of the alternatives to Casey. I haven't made up my mind yet. But fear of damaging Casey won't be one of the concerns I will bring to that decision.

Wow, really? Glad you can tell someone what they are and are not! congrats!

How humbling must it be to dictate the future with such certainty?

There is no moral tension for me in defending the fundamental right to privacy, which underlies, Roe, Lawrence v. Texas and every other decision touching on an individual's control over life, limb and personal relations. None whatever. What will you give ground on next, civil rights?

And what do you anticipate gaining in return. As far as I can see from his public statements, Casey will vote for more employer tax incentives to cover workers' health insurance. These are not mandatory, they don't contain costs, they don't assure affordable coverage, they don't eliminate administrative costs and they will not solve the health care crisis, even with an extension of CHIP. We'll still have tens of millions of Americans who don't have health care coverage. And he's taken lots of money from the insurance industry so don't expect that to change.

On the environment he appears to be an incrementalist -- although to read his issues section it's hard to tell what he thinks. Incremental change won't stop global warming or address the depletion of oil and natural gas stocks. Neither will hybrid and alternative fuels, although we will need them. He says nothing about capping emissions. Neither will staying the course in Iraq, which Casey advocates. We need rebuild our public transportation infrastructure, especially rail infrastructure, because we're going to need it. But Casey has taken a lot of money from the energy industry and defense contractors, so how likely is he to take bold measures in this area?

With all due respect, and I mean that, I think you are being sold a bill of goods here.

Sure, you can tell someone what they are and are not. It just makes you look silly.

Lets switch sides: If you were most concerned with having a pro-lie party, would you, as a Republican, have voted for Arlen Specter, pro-choice, or Pat Toomey, pro-life, in the primary? Toomey was for more likely to lose, and so the GOP chose Specter, and protected their pro-life majority. They voted strategically.

I am all for open primaries, and all for Chuck running. But, what will not get him support is people who support Casey as a bigot; that is ridiculous. The fact is that you have someone who is obviously pro-choice telling you why he is voting for Casey, and your response is to tell him what his outlook on life it. That is quite diffrent than saying someone is a bad president.

The problem is that Chuck has some fine points, and seems like a nice guy, but you are not going to make friends by coming on here and insulting people who have been fighting the same fight. Just out of curiosity, if you had people from NARAL-PA or other places say there were supporting Casey, would you call them pro-life too? If so, isn't that a little off, considering all the work they have done?

Vern says, "lord knows Chuck stands for what I believe in more than Bobby does." I totally understand why he says that and kind of understand. However, as messed up as Casey may be on choice and LGBT rights, etc, he is better than Santorum.

That's irrelavent though cause Chuck is better than Casey on these issues (though his LGBT stance is in the long-run just as weak: Chuck is a Seprate but Equal supporter who supports civil unions but not ammending the marriage laws to take off the man-woman only cap).

But where does Chuck stand on the right of workers to organizE? Where is Chuck on issues like repaying child care money to welfare recipeints who were wronged by the state? I mean Chuck can claim whatever position he wants on these issues, but Casey really does have a solid record working to protect economic human rights,

This doesn't mean I believe we should all line up behind him now per se. A primary is healthy, we do still have a choice. Sandals and Chuck deserve the chance to make their points.

BUT trashing Casey blindly and worse pretending that we don't identify with key portions of his leadership record only deepen the problems in our party. After all it is not ok to be anti-choice, but it's also not ok to only run to the super left and enagage only privelleged progressives without addressing core economic issues.

We need to see the problems in our party wholistically and understand that all of us, social issue Dems and economic rights Dems, were given a Sophie's choice by the party. That's not to say that sexism and partiarchy didn't triumph in this little game of chicken, by knocking choice out of the running, but nonetheless we need to move beyond divide and conquer and figure out to get EVERYTHING we deserve.

I want guns and butter!

my father voting for Dick Gregory in 1968 because he decided that given what happened in Vietnam, he couldn't ever vote again for the lesser of two evils again.

This debate has been around for a long time. It is intractable. And I'm struck at how easy it is to get caught up in one side or the other without recognizing just how difficult striking an appropriate balance here can be. Whenever I hear Bush "opining," I get angry at Nada - and then I see Kerry and Edwards so unwilling to articulate progressive economic or foreign policy stances, and I think Nadar was right - a vote for a corporate hack is a vote for a corporate hack, no matter their party.

But with respect to the Casey/Chuck - Abortion rights/single issue voter debate, there is one aspect I haven't seen mentioned on this site yet. As it stands now, some feel that this debate is largely academic - a debate of principle only. However, it seems at least possible that in the near future the Supreme Court will be begin to give state courts more autonomy over certain rights issues - specifically gender rights issues and abortion rights. Such changes might not occur, but if they do, it seems that specific judges and legislators sitting in specific states will be making decisions on these issues that directly affect our lives. As such, what are the implications of supporting a "pro-life" candidate in this election? Would such changes make it even that more important that Pennsylvania "progressives" draw a line in the sand around these issues?

Regardless, "progressives" will need to find a way do deal with this conundrum without it becoming a "wedge-issue" if they want to maximize their influence on legislative and judicial outcomes.

if she follows her heart to vote for a real progressive.

At this point in the game, progressives need to unite, not divide. So let's say that it is a sure thing that Casey will win 80% of the democrat primary and then you go on to support him in the general election because he is the lesser of two evils. Great - no one in their right mind will fault you for that. But please don't sell out before the primary. It is anti-democratic actually. If you really really like Casey, vote for him. But if you don't, send Rendell, Schumer, and other party heads a message. We will acquiese to you in the general, but dammit, the primary is ours. It's okay to vote your heart in the primary. But let's pretend (my fantasy world) for a minute that either Pennacchio or Sandals wins the primary. Do you think that the Democrats will not go out to vote? That Rendell will tell people to endorse Santorum? That people who were going to vote for Casey would vote for Santorum? Not likely. Instead, we would send a real progressive to Washington.

I worked my tail off for the Kerry campaign. 40+ hours of volunteer time per week for 4 months (on top of a 45 hour per week job). But I begged my friends in Red states to vote for Nader. I found them trade votes in swing states to make sure they were heard. Why? because the two party system isn't working anymore. It's becoming the red vs. the blue rather than the red and the blue and it's creating major rifts in our society. It's also forcing otherwise good people to accept major contributions from really horrible corporations and we are reaching a point where corporations, rather than people, determine the law.

By the way, Pro-choice (while important and representative more of women's rights than abortion) is not my issue. The war in Iraq is. Last time I heard Casey talk he was almost verbatim with Bush about how we need to support our troops by supporting the war. Support the troops - bring them home to their families and give them the benefits they are entitled too.