- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
- Stop losing the war on health insurance reform
Bob Casey makes a really dumb move
Yesterday, Bob Casey made what I can only describe as a titanically bad decision: He stated that if he were in the Senate, he would vote to confirm all around nutcase SCOTUS nominee, Sam Alito. I have been trying to defend a lot of things about Casey, to a lot of people. But a decision like this is so bad, it sure makes me think twice.
Casey is pro-life. We all know that. So, if that were the sole reason of concern about Alito, then I might understand. The trouble is, that even as Casey acknowledges, Alito is incredibly dangerous on many more fronts, including the economic issues which Casey wants to highlight in his run against Santorum.
From the article:
"I do not agree with everything that Judge Samuel Alito has done or said - particularly many of his rulings which too often result in corporate power prevailing over the interests of consumers and workers," Casey said.
But, he said, "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."
...
Asked to elaborate on Casey's concerns, [Casey Spokesman Larry] Smar cited Alito's rulings on the Family and Medical Leave Act and the minimum wage, both of which he said show Alito's tilt toward business.
Saying Alito has a tilt towards business is like saying Kobe Bryant has a tilt towards taking a lot of shots. Or that Terrell Owens has a tilt towards bad decision making. Alito has a stunningly poor record on economic issues. If Casey would not vote against Alito, is there anyone at all he would vote against? He said this had something to do with the hearings? Those hearings were a ridiculous sham, where Alito refused to answer almost any real question.
It is not like this makes Casey a "moderate Democrat." Senate Democrats are never going to be mistaken for radicals, and only Ben Nelson, the Conservative Democrat from the very conservative Nebraska, is going to vote for Alito. At this point, even Joe Lieberman looks like he will be voting against him. For Bob Casey to say that he will vote for the guy who overturned the Family and Medical Leave Act, who doesn't seem to particularly believe in a federal minimum wage, who will give President Bush even more unchecked power, is deeply troubling, and just a plain old dumb thing to do.
(And, I put zero stock in the fact that Rendell said he would vote to confirm Alito, as well. Rendell's wife sits on the same court as Alito, and he is likely only trying to cover for Casey anyway. If Rendell had any hopes of running for higher office, which he now cannot seriously consider, he would not be saying this. But, now that he is going into a reelection battle with low approval ratings, the Governor is not running for anything else.)


Pennacchio
Chuck Pennacchio has been and continues to be against this nomination. He's the best choice for this state and country of ours. Everyone at YPP [we're basically all in Philly, right?] should come out to the Neighborhood Networks & African American Heritage Coalition candidate forum on Saturday the 28th. It's at the First Baptist Church at 17/Sansom Sts. It's from Noon to 3p and free to all.
I expect this backing of Alito to be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many [I can't believe it took this long though].
I'm a Pennacchio guy myself as I've stated over and over and over here, but Alan Sandals will be there making his case as well. Jr will not be there, duh.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
any response?
Casey Jr has now placed himself outside of the rest of the Democratic Senators aside from Ben Nelson (D-ND) by backing Alito.
Vern, Ben, Ray, Alex, Phantom... Have your thoughts on the race changed in any way? Why or why not?
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
A Change of Mind
I don't feel that Sandals or Pennacchio are viable, statewide candidates at this point, but I'll likely end up voting for one or the other in the primary. I am personnally against abortion - but that's my personal policy. Good public policy allows women (and couples to some extent) reproductive freedom. Alito and Casey threaten that. Not good.
Zogby Poll
peep it
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
viability / electability
Those words, the way leadership throws them around, are hollow.
Pennacchio is electable and viable because his stances on the issues are clear and in line with the majority of his to be constituents. If people keep telling themselves that Casey is "electable" and "viable" because he has shrinking leads in polls months ahead of even a primary victory, because Rendell says so [who also approves Alito] and because his daddy was Governor, it's only blowing hot air into a balloon.
If you're around, I'd love to see you at the candidate forum I mentioned above. See why I'm so gung ho for Chuck Pennacchio. He's a very good public speaker.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
Two Words...
Draft Zinni!
Casey has proven himself to be as smart as Santorum. Too bad the other two candidates can't and won't win, despite Albert's love for one of them, because I'm going to find it really hard to vote for this monumental ASSHOLE now.
That's It
I was going to wait until after the candidate forum to announce that I would not vote for Casey in the primary. As one of the hosts of the forum, I thought it was polite not to keep my decision to myself for a little while even if, as seems likely, Casey stiffs us and does not show up.
The hell with politeness, now.
No one who reads this blog has any doubt that Alito is a terrible choice for the Court. It is bad enough that the Democrats in the Senate do not have the guts to mount a filibuster. But to actually vote for this guy?
Neighborhood Networks has not yet decided how to pick a candidate in the primary. I am going to urge out steering committee and membership to come up with a process quickly so that we can begin working for a progressive alternative to Casey.
But I am not sure whether I favor Pennacchio or Sandals. And I am concerned about dividing NN when we are still in an early stage of life. How crazy would it be for us to form two caucuses right now, working for each of the two progressives and then possibly decide in mid to late April to join together to support the one candidate with the best chance of beating Casey?
...yawn...
Really, my eyes just glaze over when I hear statements like this. Whatever happened to progressives being "reality based"? I'll believe Pennachio can win something after he wins a race for school board, the state house, or city council. I bet he'd even have a hard time winning these smaller races.
Vanity candidates are so 2000 (see Nader, Ralph)...
Draft Zinni! It's Security, Stupid!
great to see you willing to v
great to see you willing to vote for an asshole in a primary and vote again for an asshole again in the general. oh wait, that's MONUMENTAL ASSHOLE.
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
other candidates who were not
other candidates who were not "reality based" with no experience like school board, the state house, or city council:
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
* John Edwards (D-NC)
* Herb Kohl (D-WI)
* Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
* John Corzine (D-NJ)
* Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
* Joe Biden (D-DE)
* Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
Off the top of my head, some differences
I don't know the background of all of these Senators, but, lets just look at a few of them, and why their candidacies' were not the same as Chuck:
Frank Lauternberg- very, very rich, used some of his own money.
John Edwards- Ditto. Also, somewhat known statewide, especially amongs lawyers who wrote him tons of huge checks.
Herb Kohl- Have you heard of the store Kohl's? Yeah, thats him. How about the Milwaukee Bucks? Yeah, thats his team. Again, very rich, could put in his own money.
John Corzine- Spent what, ten million of his own money at least?
As you know, I detest the place that money has in politics. But, we cannot simply disarm as Santorum cruises to victory. If you cannot raise millions, you cannot compete. That is the reality that we are dealing with.
So there is that group. And, Albert, are you serious with these two?:
Hilary Clinton?
Ted Kennedy?
You think being extraordinarily well known, and having a brother or husband being the President, might help a little?
I do not know Biden's history, nor Hagel's. That leaves us with one: Wellstone, the college professor, etc. But, one thing I do know is Paul Wellstone. And Chuck is no Wellstone, PA is no Minnesota, and the PA Democratic party is sure as hell not the Minnesota DFL.
If Chuck really wants to help, if he has ideas on how to reinvigorate the PA Democratic Party, let's hear them! Seriously. Why can't he put that energy into running for an office he can win, into helping statewide Democrats win? If he is such a good organizer, help get the PA Dems organized!
Instead, running for this office, he just makes himself look like he is on an ego trip, based on his perceived power of the internets.
Alex asked for candidates who
Alex asked for candidates who had never held office, I gave them to him.
I'm just fed the fuck up with you two now who continue to put down a candidate who stands for everything you stand for. Willing to lay down for a candidate whom neither of you agree with wholeheartedly [or even the majority of issues?] simply because he's got money. I see $$$ in your eyes.
later
--
Albert Yee
http://dragonballyee.blogs.com
Albert, you probably stand up
Albert, you probably stand up for just about everything I believe in. That does not mean I think you are a viable candidate, even if you are a good guy, and would be a good Senator.
This a high stakes game, and I do not think Chuck has the chips to buy in. What did Chuck poll at? 6 percent? For him to have any chance of competing, he will need to raise that a whole hell of a lot. The reality is that in a state with this many millions of people, the way the average person is going to see you is through TV ads. How many, given our current system, can Chuck afford?
Again, this is not about what I prefer, this is about what I think is realistic. And, I will state again, that if Chuck is so impassioned about the state of the PA Democratic Party, I hope that when the race is over, and assuming he does not win, he is willing to turn his energy into helping turn the PA House blue.
Forget Draft Zinni. It is time to Draft Hoeffel.
Electable
Lest we forget, Kerry was the Dems candidate because he was "electable." Perhaps it is time to stop using the "lesser of two evils" strategy. I don't see solid evidence that it is any more effective than voting based on your beliefs, and at least if you vote for your beliefs you don't have to shower immediately after leaving the voting booth.
Electability and Reality
There is a difference between the mistake of saying that John Kerry was more electable then say, Wesley Clark or Howard Dean vs. comparing the electability of Casey v. Chuck Pennacchio.
I am not being "cute" or trying to be a jerk, but I am not sure Chuck would win a race for City Council.
Draft Joe Hoeffel.
fair enough
Maybe you're right.
Still, the difficulty of making determinations about gradients of electability is easily underestimated. I think it is a dangerous game, and I'm not sure you win if you're calculations were right anyway.
Unsettled in my mind is whether or not forcing a fight hurts Casey in any way. And anyway, battles might be won on a lesser of two evils platform, but what about the war? I wonder whether or not legacy of Clinton is that his moving to the right has left us in the situation we're in: where progressives are scrambling just to hold on any thin thread of political relevance. Is there an element here where each time we sell out hoping for a short range victory, we only set ourselves up for further compromises in the future?
And consider if Santorum wins in a campaign against Casey (analogous to what we have now after we sold out to Kerry, and Kerry lost). Where would we be then? Would we be regretting having gone down to defeat after supporting a lesser of two evils?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I don't know if any exist. But they've been around for a long time, and I think that it doesn't serve anyone to assume that there are clear-cut benefits one way or the other.
Don't Worry About the Primary or Electability
1. I don't think Pennacchio or Sandals have a good shot at winning. But, if one of them beats Casey, the result will be such a surprise and shock that it will give them a lot of momentum going into the general election. The Democratic Party nationwide will still dump a ton of money into the campaign. And Rendell will still head the ticket. So our candidate will have a decent chance of winning.
While I would grant that Casey has some advantages as a candidate, I don't buy the idea that Casey is going to win easily. He is, by all reports, a terrible campaigner. His positions on abortion and related issues, as well as his stance on Alito, are not going to help him win the suburban Philadelphia votes that a Democratic candidate needs to win statewide. And his name is not going to carry him either. A popular name is a vastly overrated advantage in politics especially when the current holder of the name doesn't quite live up to his or her predecessor. Remember that the only time Casey had a tough race in his life--against Rendell--he lost despite his initial lead.
2. One of the first pieces of empirical research I did as a political scientist was on the impact of a contested primary on the general election. And I have followed the literature on the subject for twenty years. I have never seen any good evidence that contested pimaries hurt in the general election. They do cost money. But they also give candidates more time to become better known and to practice their pitch. Joe Hoeffel was not very well known going into the general election against Specter, in part because he did not have a primary opponent.
So while I expect a Casey victory in the primary, I am not worried about a serious primary challenge or an upset by Sandals or Pennacchio making it harder to defeat Santorum. It is always difficult to balance political realism against idealism. But, in this case, I see no serious downside to supporting an opponent to Casey. And I don't know what kind of party we are if the right to abortion and the checks and balances on President tyranny are not issues that should be central to us.