- The Mayor...
- Stuff I am reading from around the interwebs
- Supreme Court Hands Tom Corbett an Enourmous Amount of Power to Protect Pennsylvanians. Will he Use it?
- ONE GETS LIFT-OFF ON GLOBAL RECRUITMENT DRIVE AS U2 360 WORLD TOUR OPENS
- The Shrinking of our Shrinking: Will Philly Grow Next Year?
- Don't Cut Loose World's Poorest
- Franken Wins
- Federal Court Enjoins Confidentiality Provision of Ethics Act. Philly Repercussions to Follow?
- Workers Report Back from Fight for Healthcare for All
- Watch out world, here we come
An Elephant in Donkey's Clothing
Submitted by albert on Mon, 11/21/2005 - 12:43pm.
While I may not agree with everything Albert says here, the picture below is funny, and, I am thrilled for YPP to continue to grow as a place for progressives of all stripes to debate and network...Click read more to see it all. -Dan
Above is a drawing by Brenna Lorenz from State College, PA, she emailed it to the Pennacchio team and asked us to use it as we pleased so there it is. She very well captures what I feel Bobby Casey Jr. is trying to do to the voters in Pennsylvania.
Jr. is currently running a stealth campaign. Not really running a campaign right now. He's fundraising. Yes, that is a big part of being a candidate, but what he's leaving out is the human interaction/contact part of a campaign that actually wins over voters. Chuck is out there every day meeting people. At house parties in Montgomery County, speaking to groups in Erie, standing in solidarity with students at City Hall where I live in Philadelphia. He's all over the place.
Chuck doesn't have to put on "a face" to go out to talk to people, he is who he is. Jr. on the other hand has to put on his donkey suit before he leaves the house as illustrated in the cartoon above. Brenna's sentiment is one that I share, he is not genuine. He tries to take on "Democratic" stances on issues like stem cell research, choice and healthcare. On embryonic stem cells, he supports the federal funding of existing embryonic stem cells and not of newly cultivated ones [Update: Philly Inquirer article]— the position of the current Bush administration. That's nice, since the ones that we have now are contaminated. Chuck is for the expansion of federal funding monies for embryonic stem cell research [.pdf]. Incumbent Rick Santorum does not want any federal funding whatsoever.
Jr. does not support the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion [Update: PA Catholic Conference 2004 questionnaire]. Chuck Pennacchio is a strong supporter of women's rights. He believes in a woman's right to choose. But let's be very, very, very clear here. Nobody wants abortions. The Democratic party has been misaligned as a group of abortion-party having, unethical, anti-Americans. Abortions are to be rare. But they are also to be safe and they are to remain a legal option on a federal level, albeit a last one. If Roe v. Wade were to ever be overturned, yes, the states would have the right to say yea or nay to a similar piece of legislation, but then what happens to the women who now have to travel thousands of miles for what could be a life saving procedure; a procedure that could have been performed at her local hospital. Incumbent Rick Santorum has a zero rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Jr. does not support a measure to provide universal single-payer healthcare to all Americans [Update: Centre Daily article]. Chuck Pennacchio is for single-payer healthcare [.pdf]. How can Americans live in the most advanced, industrialized nation in the world and actively deny access to those in need. Chuck Pennacchio wants to change that. By not accepting monies from PACs, he will not have to answer to them. He does not owe Big Pharma any favors. Nor the insurance lobby. Incumbent Rick Santorum stands strongly opposed to universal single-payer healthcare and would rather see the current "competition" between insurers keep prices low. Those of us with coverage ["us" meaning PA residents in general since that term currently excludes myself] can attest to how well prices have been kept low. There are some 1,300,000 unisured PA residents uninsured.
And while not a "Democratic" issue, it is an issue that cuts to the core, the war in Iraq. Chuck Pennacchio was against the invasion of Iraq from the start and believes that we need to get out of Iraq. He has drafted an Iraq Exit Strategy [.pdf]. Jr. stated that he suppored the use of force [as did incumbent Rick Santorum]. Jr. had this to say on Iraq and withdrawing our troops:
Some people think that pulling out is a good idea and a timeline is a good idea -- I don't agree with that.
That is not what the majority of Pennsylvanians and Americans thinks. The majority of Pennsylvanians and Americans want out of Iraq and want our troops to come home. The majority of Pennsylvanians and Americans believe in a woman's right to choose. The majority of Pennsylvanians and Americans want access to affordable healthcare. The majority of Pennsylvanians and Americans agree with Chuck Pennacchio on the issues.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
not as liberal as we'd like
...isn't the same as "one of them" pretending. People who've worked with Casey say he cares about real people and real liberal issues, working with women's shelters and arguing for union rights -- Babette Josephs described him as "a good Democratic Catholic." There's no getting around his credentials on abortion, but I don't think that there's anything to be gained by being disingenuous or vindictive about the rest of his record -- holding a lot of financial offices isn't really conducive to developing a record of legislative work or advocacy, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have his heart in the right place in many ways.
You like Pennacchio, great -- then his stances and arguments should speak for themselves. The above drawing does nothing to make me think better of Chuck, and it could do a real disservice to the party and the candidate, should Casey become the Democratic standard-bearer in the Senate race.
You can only elevate the level of discourse one choice at a time. Thus it benefits everyone if we each make our choices in a considered fashion. This tack feels like a poor choice to me.
acm
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
to me, he is what he is
Plain and simple. I really don't see a difference in Bobby Jr. if he were to run as Robert Casey Jr. D-PA or Robert Casey Jr. R-PA.
How have I been disingenuous or vindictive about the rest of his record? I have clearly stated his position on Iraq, Healthcare and Choice - three very important issues to me, Pennsylvanians and Americans. I have left out a ton of other things that I disagree with Jr. and agree with Pennacchio on. I'm not saying that he couldn't have had his heart in the right place many times, I'm saying that his head and heart are in the wrong place on these issues.
I do like Pennacchio. Check that. I love his candidacy and stances on the issues. They do speak for themselves. That political cartoon speaks for itself too. Brenna sent that into the campaign because she felt strongly about the situation here in Pennsylvania. Does the drawing make you think of Jr.'s stances on the issues? Than it has done it's job in my mind. Take a look at what he really stands for, those "Democratic" issues I highlighted. To me and Brenna and scores of others in PA and America, they are just plain wrong and "out of touch" with the majority.
Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Ed Rendell were the ones who did a real disservice to the party when they annoined Jr. as the candidate here. They want to eliminate primaries! What if Joe Hoeffel was in the race? What if Barbara Hafer was in the race? What if Jr., Pennacchio and Sandals were all in the race as well? That sounds like a real race to me and because of Reid-Schumer-Rendell, what we have here in PA is a sad excuse for an annointed one.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
and must more conservative than we can afford
Why would the Republicans co-opt this cartoon, it makes them look stupid too. She did a very good job of expressing what I keep seeing as a common sentiment about Casey. People think he will win because Republicans will vote for him and yet he is on the "democrat" ticket. If Santorum told us all he had become a Democrat would we vote for him? How about Bush?
Political cartoons are as old as this nation
Older, actually. Disingenuous and vindictive? I thought Albert's post reflected his sincerely held belief that Bob Casey cannot be a good standard bearer for most Pennsylvania Democrats.
I'm tired of the line of patter that says we can't say anything critical about Bob Casey or it will somehow damage the Democratic Party. If Casey and the Democrats are made of brown sugar, let's throw water on them and get it over with. It's not as if his critics are saying anything the Republicans don't know and won't use against him. If he's going to fall apart, and it's happened before, then let it be against a Democratic rival, and not Rick Santorum.
Let me ask, since you quote Margaret Mead; how do you suppose a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world? By amassing huge amounts of money from lobbyists, PACs, industry and corporations? By sitting quietly in the corner, being polite and careful not to offend anyone? Because I can't for the life of me recall a single instance in which anyone changed the world for the better by either of these methods. Usually, they do it by getting together, deciding enough is enough, and making some noise. And usually, someone is offended. And usually, it's someone who, for whatever reason, doesn't really want to see things change.
Amen ACM
I agree with your statement 110%
Draft Zinni! It's Security, Stupid!
Casey is a... Casey Democrat
Albert,
I certainly love your passion, and, hey, you found your guy, and you are pushing him hard-- more power to you. I myself, have not been that impressed with Chuck. I had the pleasure of seeing Paul Wellstone give many speeches, and combined with the fact that so many Chuck supporters love that comparison, I have to say, I dont think Chuck is the next Welllstone. That said, he is inspiring people like you, and hopefully getting more people involved, which is great.
But, as for Casey, I think you are wrong, or at least drawing far too much a simple picture. For example, ACM points to Babette Josephs as someone who trusts Casey. Babette is literally as liberal a Representative as you will ever, ever find in Pennsylvania. She is attacked, in fact, for being too partisan. She was run at from the right twice, by a corporate and Johnny Doc funded opponent. In short, she is not someone who looks like a Republican. But, she has also been in Harrisburg for a long time, and knows Bob Casey, Jr. So, when she says she trusts him, that is the kind of thing that, to me at least, really cannot be ignored. And, it is not just State Reps who say it either; people who know Casey say that yeah, he may be boring, but he is fundamentally a decent person, who will vote the right way. Of course, he is pro life, that goes without saying. But so are many Democrats, especially in places like PA. But, who else is a pro-life Democrat? Harry Reid. Reid is currently leading a fight against Alito, and understands that the majority of Democrats are pro-choice, and his actions show that. Arlen Specter, on the other hand, is pro-choice. Did that help with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and the like? He still votes for Bill Frist as majority leader, as well.
The more I hear people who know Casey, the better I feel about him. One more quick example: In 2001, Philly City Council, led by Marion Tasco, started working towards a bill aimed at stopping predatory lending. It passed, unanimously. The State, led by goddamned Reps from Philly itself, then passed a preemption bill written by the PA Bankers Association that absolutely annihilated the bill. (In fact, it went so far as to say that, for example, if the City decided that Bank A was discriminating, we could not even remove our money from them.) So, anyway, this is during the time of the Governor's race. And, between Ed Rendell and Bob Casey, who made contact with the Tasco group to talk about predatory lending in Philly and PA? It was not Ed Rendell.
Casey is going to be what he is: a pro-choice, economically liberal, pro-labor, Democrat. They belong in our party, as well, and I think Casey will be a predictable and reliable D vote, once he is there.
apologies for lumping you in
I don't think that anything you wrote was disingenuous or vindictive. However, the cartoon is really both. Given the knee-jerk opposition that Casey automatically receives over the abortion issue, I think that many (if not most) Dems in PA have already written him off without really knowing much more about him or his views on a range of other issues. They (and you, or I) may be disappointed that a more liberal candidate couldn't fly in this state, but a more liberal candidate couldn't fly in this state! Ed Rendell is way too liberal for most of Pennsyltucky, and he's pretty conservative on a lot of measures (that veto on TABOR seem at all secure to you? remember the pay-hike? etc.). Remember too that Santorum was re-elected once already by the same voters that will be making a decision next fall. If you think that we're likely to make it all the way from Santorum to Pennacchio just because George Bush is unpopular and Rick has written a bit of a crazy book, you are, I fear, more optimistic than realistic. In Philly, maybe, but I'm just not convinced it will fly around the state; even here Specter is pretty popular...
So yes, I think that it is more than trivially misleading to say that there's no difference between a conservative Democrat and a Republican. Folks used to point to Specter as a moderate, but remember how he took Anita Hill apart? He's a party man. Harry Reid is an excellent example (mentioned by another commenter) of a conservative Democrat who's leading a critical (and effective) charge in the fight back against right-wing talking points and initiatives. Casey might not wear all the buttons we'd like, but I think he'd be on the right side of the battles that are likely to be most important in the coming years, and with a debt to leadership to help in that regard. So even if I won't wage a battle for him in the primary, I'd like to see him healthy coming into the general election. Thus my response to this lance.
Only my penny for the pond, as ever,
acm
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
Wellstone
I also saw Wellstone speak in person, and on one occasion had the opportunity to chat with him briefly. Of course it's a matter of taste. Wellstone was very quirky, quick-tempered, and very passionate. Chuck is less temperamental, a bit quirky and just as passionate. Like Wellstone, he has a gift for speaking without a script. To me, the most striking similarity is their effect on a crowd. I don't know where you've seen Chuck, whether in front of a large crowd or a small gathering, but in a big room he has people on the edge of their seats. I saw him give a speech in York the same night Bob Casey was there. The difference in reception was stark. Casey got polite applause, especially when he talked about Rick Santorum. But he's not a riveting public speaker and he has a prepared speech. Chuck spoke for about half as long as Casey and got cheers and thunderous applause, especially when he spoke about the issues, which Casey tends to avoid. And I've never heard him give the same speech twice.
The word I've got from members of a few of the progressive organizations that have met with him -- especially on gun safety issues -- is not good. So, what is a predictable and reliable D vote anymore? A vote for Roberts -- whom Casey is on record saying he would have supported? A vote for Alito? A vote for the Bankruptcy Bill? A vote for Iraq? I'm not excited. And I'm tired of men who are so very sanguine about trading away my reproductive rights for some imagined economic gain. Casey doesn't support a living wage or universal health care. Look, I've supported unions all my life (at the picket line, at the point of purchase and at the ballot box) and where have they been on women's rights? When the going gets rough, they're gone. Suddenly it's every man for himself. No more. Quid pro quo.
Harry Reid is one of the peop
Harry Reid is one of the people involved in annointing Bobby Jr., another anti-choice candidate. Reid, Schumer and Rendell do not want primaries! How absurd is that? They've effectively shut everybody up. Schrader, Hoeffel, Hafer. Gone, gone, gone. It would have been an interesting race with a bunch of candidates.
The more I hear about Casey Jr., the more skeeved out I am. When I hear anything that is. Why isn't he coming out with a stance on, say, almost anything? As he's stepped it up a teensy bit in the last six months, his favorability rating has gone down 10% according to the recent Keystone poll.
And did you just say that Casey Jr. is pro-choice? He is not. He is anti-choice.
Chuck will be what he is: a pro-choice, anti-war, pro-troop withdrawal, pro-universal single payer healthcare, pro-labor, economically responsible candidate. Casey Jr. does not seem to be a reliable "D vote" and I don't know if a "reliable D vote" is what I want - what being a "D" means seems to be changing and I'm not liking it. Chuck Pennacchio will be a solid and reliable Progressive and Liberal vote once he is there. Vote for him with confidence in the primary and back him again in the general election. Do not be scared off by the looming political machine, we the people decide.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
Pro-choice???
Casey is going to be what he is: a pro-choice, economically liberal, pro-labor, Democrat. They belong in our party, as well, and I think Casey will be a predictable and reliable D vote, once he is there.
Did you mean pro-life and wrote pro-choice? Or was that intentional?
healthy in the general election
I think that the political cartoon did what a political cartoon is suppposed to do, get a conversation going via a powerful image within a single frame. It did just that. It is simply what they do, have done and will continue to do for centuries to come. If PA Democratic residents have such a knee-jerk reaction to an anti-choice candidate, why put him up? Isn't he supposed to be the electable one? A pro-choice candidate doesn't have to be a bleeding heart liberal. A pro-choice candidate would've been welcome by me. I think things would be very different if Ginny Schrader or Joe Hoeffel weren't forced out of the race. But the remaining pro-choice candidates are Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals.
Yes, Santorum was re-elected. The message that sends to me is that PA Dems have not had a candidate that they can really get behind, one that energizes the base. One that can stand up to a figure like Santorum.
Do you think that wiping out primaries in elections that Schumer sees fit is the way to building strong candidates? I think that's filling a balloon with hot air. I'd like to see Casey Jr. go into the primary with some battle scars, it'll wake him up. I know that Pennacchio already has many right now.
I don't want my candidate to be in debt to too many people who are not his/her constituents. I think that is very dangerous. When a candidate accepts tons of PAC money and is chosen by a couple of guys in a room, I think that is very dangerous. In how many ways will Casey be accountable to those he represents?
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
"liberal republicans"
We should also remember, that the most liberal Republicans, like Chafee, Snowe and Spector, have more conservative voting records than the most conservative Democrats, like Bill Nelson. They are not the same.
I'll ask the question I ask all the anti-Casey folks
A vote for the Bankruptcy Bill?
So can I expect you to join me in calling on Emily's List to drop progressive turncoat Allyson Schwartz for her vote for the bankruptcy bill? Allyson acted for years like she cared about the middle class and then- wham! - the donkey suit came off to reveal the elephant.
But- I'm sure that most people won't turn on Allyson. Why? She's pro-choice.
Draft Zinni! It's Security, Stupid!
Apparently...
Schumer isn't always against primaries, it seems he's gearing up to fight against NY's Golden Boy and soon to be (but not soon enough) the first Jewish President of the US of A, Elliot Spitzer.
Some side questions- why do you think Democrats haven't won a full-term Senate seat in something like 60 years? Will you join Chuck in FULLY supporting Casey when he wins? Are you willing to sacrifice our chances to defeat our embarassment of a Senator?
And anyone who equates Casey, who may be our candidate, with Santorum needs to go back to grade school and stay the hell out of my face(not that you were doing that here- just another aside). I wish we could have a good candidate for Senate, and I agree that Casey is not a very good one. BUT- I will be working my ass off, every single day, for whomever gets the nod, and the last thing I, or any other person working on the ground, needs is someone taking shots at us from behind our own lines.
If you don't like the way that our party is doing business, great, neither do I. So let's take this biznitch over. But until we do, we CANNOT tear down our own imperfect candidates.
Draft Zinni! It's Security, Stupid!
I meant pro-life.
I meant pro-life.
Klink v Casey
It is silly to compare Ron Klink, the loser in 2000, to Casey. Klink got little money, and had no name recognition. He came close to beating him. Casey will have money. He also has name recognition, and is crushing Santorum in the polls to the point where the incumbent is begging for debates. Santorum sees Casey, and is desperate....
As for the PAC thing, the reality is that most of Casey's money does not come from corporate PACS, which you keep saying. Most of it is from individuals and organized labor. Criticize him, fine. But lets not obfuscate the truth.
what else?
What else is wrong with this Schwartz lady? I'm new to PA. I've heard rumblings about her specifically on the bankcruptcy bill. I believe I read some of her words and she said that the Dems were going to lose the vote anyways so she voted for it - what a crock of shit.
I'm not intimately familiar with Emily's List either. I was under the impression that they were basically a one-issue bloc on choice, am I wrong?
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
who?
You don't think that Casey is not a very good candidate? Who do you think is? Why don't you think he's a good candidate?
Can you blame me for not liking this guy? Would you blame me if I spoke out against Casey Jr in the general election? I'd speak out for him as well, but I gotta call it like I see it. I'd sure as fuck speak out against Santorum if he wins his primary, let's be CRYSTAL clear about that - EVERY FUCKING DAY. I cannot stand Santorum. But to throw my full weight behind a Casey campaign may be too big a pill for me to swallow - I'm not saying that I won't espouse his better points. If a candidate does not speak for me on an issue, it is my duty to speak out for them.
And yes, I saw that up in NY on MyDD, commented there too. Schumer's turning into more and more of a dick every day. Now that he's got the power, he likes to weild his scepter wherever he feels the need.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
By "you," I really mean many
By "you," I really mean many Chuck supporters.
Casey Money
I'm not clear as to what 'organized labor' and 'single issue groups' means in the report. To me it sounds like Unions, which act very much like a PAC and, PACs.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
more on Casey Money
And another thing on Casey money. I don't like it that he's taking donations of $4200 from individuals. When he loses the primary, he will have to give $2100 back to the individuals who gave him $4200 as a primary+general election donation which, while legal, is taking on initial debt.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
Right now
I would certainly join your call to have Emily's List drop support of Schwartz if I still supported Emily's List, which I don't, for precisely this reason. Schwartz, Stabenow and the rest of the DLC are responsible for the decade long crash and burn of the Democratic Party. I won't support her.
And on the subject of security, no one will ever trust us to defend the US if we don't even stand up for what Democrats are supposed to believe in. Which is why supporting Casey is just as bad as supporting Schwartz.
Klink
Daniel,
The same people will end up not voting for him. Pro-choice Republican women have no reason to vote for Bob Casey, and that's the suburbs right there, which Klink lost in spite of Al Gore's huge win. They were trying to tell you something. It might be worth your while to listen.
You're Right
that Emily's List is a one-issue bloc on choice, and that's why I've had it with pro-choice groups. We like to chide conservatives on abortion because they don't want the government to support poor and working class women with children. Well, Dems do the same god damned thing. The #1 demographic group that has to file for bankruptcy is single-women with children and medical debt, and Schwartz, who headed Blackwell Center for years, voted to sell those single mothers to credit card companies. (see this post and the comments for more: http://youngphillypolitics.com/node/223) But where's the outrage from women's advocacy groups?
Our party has been taken hostage by BOTH corrupt/corporate and inept party insiders as well as single-issue tunnel-vision groups who care only for their issue and don't give a rats ass about the broader movement. It's time to take back the party from both the corporate whores and the idiotic single-issue groups- we need a movement not a giveaway to the rich and a series of boxes for our candidates to check off!
To be fair- Emily's List is usually MUCH better then the real pro-choice idiots- NARAL. I'd love to ask the horse-blinded fools at NARAL- how'd that Chaffee election work out for women's rights? How about Specter?
When pro-choice groups take off their blinders and start acting like they want to be part of a broad and diverse movement then I'll take off the blinders I've put on towards their single issue. But until then- they can go jump in a lake.
Emily's List- are you out there? We're waiting. REMOVE THE WORKING-CLASS TRAITOR FROM YOUR LIST!!!
Draft Zinni! It's Security, Stupid!
good candidate?
I don't think Casey's a good candidate, and no, I can't blame you for not liking him at the moment. I would ask that you give him a chance to state his case, which he has failed to do so far.
What candidates are good? In PA we have, to name a few running for congress- Lois Murphy, Pat Murphy, and Chris Carney. These candidates are good IMO because they are very dynamic and will push the debate about what it means to be a Dem, and I'm fairly positive that they will represent the middle-class that is supposed to form their base. I also think that all three will be able to inspire, mobilize, and effectively deploy grassroots support for their campaigns.
As for why I don't think Casey's a good candidate, obviously there are his religious stances, many of which I disagree with (abortion, gays, the role of women, etc). I also have heard that he's a pretty bland guy (though so is Reid and I really have warmed up to him). He hasn't, up until this point, done anything to show that he can mobilize the troops, but I'll personally give him more time on that front.
As far as throwing your full weight behind Casey (I assume you mean explicitly working with his campaign)- that's not really what I'm advocating. During the last election, when I first became fully immersed in politics, I worked night and day to defeat our "special" president, but I didn't work for Kerry, whom I really couldn't stand. Instead I worked with Music for America on a broad, issue based, campaign aimed at young people. We were most definitely trying to defeat W. but most of us were not that interested in Kerry as a person. But the fact was- we had to try and remove the "worst disaster to hit the US." I'd suggest that the same strategy would work for any activist who wants to work to build a true progressive majority but who can't stand the current candidate. Find an outside group doing political work ( a 527, c3, c4, or whatever) and work towards the goal of removing Man-On-Dog without having to explicitly work for Casey or whomever.
Draft Zinni! It's Security, Stupid!
you cannot be serious
Are you implying that you don't think Casey should accept money from organized labor? Seriously???
I would like to hear Chuck say that he does not think the AFL-CIO should be able to contribute money.
chuck cannot have it both ways on money
Here is a problem: Tim, when he was with the campaign, Chuck himself, and others, have said that people should not worry about the huge bank account that Santorum and the GOP will have for the fall. Why? Because if Chuck wins, we are assured that raising money will be easy. While that may be true, implied in that statement is that Chuck will be hitting up the same wealthy donors that are currently giving money to Casey.
Do you really want to say that it is wrong that Casey is getting the maximum amount permissible by law? We both know that Chuck will aim for the same. He is not going be able to raise millions in 50 and 100 dollar donations; it just is not going to happen. There are going to be way too many competetive races around the country for there to be enough people to fund Chuck in those small increments. In his first blogger conference call way back when, Chuck told me that he could do it by raising small amounts all over the Country. I don't see it. This is not the presidential election, nor is it happening in a vaccum. If I am from Ohio, am I going to pay to unseat Santorum, or instead focus on getting rid of Mike Dewine? How about Florida, Missouri, etc...
So, if Chuck pulled off the upset off all upsets against Casey, he would have to then do the same thing Casey is currently able to do: go into wealthy people's homes, law firms, and the like, and get checks for the maximum amount legally available. If he doesn't, he will be clobbered.
I think we need public funding of elections, on all levels of government. But, until we get that, it is hard to tell Casey not to try and even the money battle, especially when it is not mostly coming from corporate pacs, but instead from labor and individuals.
Casey ain't Klink
Ron Klink was a little known Congressman from Pittsburgh who had trouble raising money, and so had to spend way too much time raising money, and not enough campaigning. Bob Casey is one of most well-known people in the state, and is raising more money than Santorum per quarter. He is also absolutely crushing Santorum in polls. Did Klink ever do that?
Plus, the Santorum of 1999 is simply different than the Santorum of 2005, in terms of his notoriety.
Argue if you want that Casey does not share your ideals. But, when a challenger is killing the incumbent in poll after poll, has high name recognition, and is raising a ton of money, arguing that he cannot be elected just comes off as silly.
a chance
He's been declared as the candidate for how many months now? I find it insulting that he won't come out with some definitive stances on issues that matter to Pennsylvanians and Americans. I know he's strong on unions, good for him. But this guy just refuses to speak to anyone unless they pony up $10K up front. I'd love for him to come out and speak to the people at grassroots gatherings, but he's not that kind of candidate, no matter how much Jay Reiff, his campaign manager, tries to say it is. He's running as the big-money guy whose been annointed by the powers that be. Come out to Drinking Liberally. Come out to DFA. Come out to MoveOn Vigils. Come out to the Wal-Mart Week of Action. Come out to stand up for students at City Hall. Alan Sandals and Chuck Pennacchio have been to most if not all of the above. It would mean a ton to me and so many others if more politicians did.
As far as our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he's said that he's not for a pulling out and not for a timeline. He said that there's more work to be done. He's had how many years to make up his mind? Going into this race with a wishy-washy line on the war in Iraq doesn't make my ears perk up.
I didn't mean going and working for his campaign, that's a pill that I'm not about to go close to let alone swallow. I'm totally with you on the 04 election. I was to put it lightly disappointed. In the final week before the election, I went out and hung signs and all that, but it was an anti-Bush sentiment and not pro-Kerry, no matter how hard I tried. I'd much rather be pro-xxxx than simply anti-Santorum. Chuck Pennacchio fits the bill for me and Pro-Pennacchio I stand.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
no, came out wrong
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
dunno
I don't know what was said at the start of the campaign. I wasn't involved in any way. But money is coming in from across the country. I'm sure it's coming into the Casey Jr. camp as well - people all across the country want Santorum out of office. I don't know what the money getting strategy is for the campaign, but I do know that small donations are more than a large part of the target, that's what a campaign not tking PAC money is about.
I didn't say that it was wrong that he's taking $4200 right now, I said I didn't like it. Legal yes.
I'd love to see public funding of elections, a topic you've written on before. It's hard for me to encourage going after big money donors. I'm still worried when a candidate takes $100K in PAC money. Great that he's got $3.6M in the bank. I guess I'm an idealist who is not effected easily by a spooky television ad and don't see the point of them at all. I'm fed up with that shit.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
Also
Remember that Klink was broke at the end of a bitter regional-based primary, in which his pro-life views were featured. Klink basically never left SWPA until after the primary, and had no way to get into the hearts of the financial core of the party in PA.
Casey's PACs
Click here for the FEC report. Really "evil" PACs like SEIU and the Mine Workers.