MyDD :: Pennsylvania Democrats Must Allow A Contested Senatorial Primary

Pennsylvania Democrats Must Allow A Contested Senatorial Primary

by Chris Bowers, Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:00:48 PM EST

Last week in Philadelphia, local activist groups succeeded in turning Santorum's Social Security campaign stop into a full-blown disaster for the Pennsylvania's junior Senator. The New York Times wrote:

Mr. Santorum complained that he was dogged all week by opponents of the White House plan who dominated news coverage. Mr. Santorum, who is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership and chairman of the subcommittee on Social Security, was heckled by college students - the very audience the Bush administration was counting on - and peppered with questions from retirees.

"Clearly the other side is better organized," Mr. Santorum said. "They got people to all these events. They had seniors lined up to ask questions, they had staff people running up passing them notes."

And that wasn't even the half of it. At the Santorum event at Drexel, the combined forces of local DFA, Drexel Democrats, and Chuck Pennacchio supporters managed to agitate Drexel Republicans into an idiotic chant that we caught on video and that will prove embarrassing to Santorum for some time. The video spread far and wide, as it was linked by over sixty blogs (including almost all of the big ones), mailed out to supporters by MoveOn, and was mentioned by Paul Krugman. By now, the video has probably been seen by more than two million people, including at least 150,000 in Pennsylvania alone.

In other words, the events of the past week demonstrated what was previously demonstrated with Ginny Schrader's campaign: grassroots and netroots Democratic activism is alive and well within Pennsylvania. We did all of this ourselves, without any help from the party leadership or elected officials. Politicians and party leaders should take notice of this, for they fail to take us seriously at their own peril. This is why the ongoing movement to stop the Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial primary before it starts is utterly unacceptable, and I promise will be met with strong resistance. Here's the story:

Among state party leaders, the conventional wisdom is that a primary fight, which could leave the party fractured and fund-raising impaired going into the general election, must be avoided.

"It's going to be a very tough race, and it's going to be one where all resources are needed," said Penny Lee, Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell's communications director.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York are hoping to recruit Robert P. Casey Jr., who won more votes than any candidate in Pennsylvania history when he was elected state treasurer last fall.

Casey met with Reid and Schumer, chairman of the DSCC, on Feb. 1. He agreed to consider running for Senate and said he would try to give them an answer by the end of the month, which is Monday.

This article is not the entire story. Many people with connections on this issue have insisted to me that the state and party leadership are in fact trying to clear the field for Casey and preempt the primary. This must not be allowed. As Democrats who are working hard, and succeeding, in damaging Santorum's re-election hopes, we deserve to be included in the selection of the candidate who will oppose and defeat Santorum. If, after the primary, that candidate ends up being Casey, then he would immediately find me among his biggest supporters. However, if the Democratic Party wants to continue to build its extremely fragile bridge with the Pennsylvania netroots and grassroots, it cannot shut its members out of the selection process, period. Many of us here in Pennsylvania are already suspicious of the machine-like tendencies and backroom-heavy characteristics of the state party, and something like this could very easily become the straw that broke the camel's back in that relationship.

I also fail to see how a contested primary, no matter what combination of Casey, Hafer, Hoeffel, and Pennacchio it contained, would be damaging to our chances to defeat Santorum. Sure, it would cost money, but that money would also be spent on bashing Santorum, raising name ID for all candidates, and giving the party a wider profile across the state. Rendell and Specter both had hotly contested primary battles in their recent statewide campaigns, and both went on to comfortable victories (8-10%) afterward. The same can be said for many Republican Senate candidates this year. I just don't buy that tons of free media exposure for Pennsylvania Democrats will somehow hurt Pennsylvania Democrats. By contrast, I can see very clearly how pre-empting the primary would go a long way toward hurting Pennsylvania Democrats.

Let the primary run its course. It will be to the benefit of us all.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 65 Comments :: Post a Comment

Agreed (none / 0)

It also develops the farm team for those that dont quite make the nomination, clearing the field for other seats and the governorship too.

You need a deep bench, and PA shold have one.

by Pounder on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:05:24 PM EST

OT: Lakoff in San Jose, CA (none / 0)

** LAKOFF IN SAN JOSE **
WWW.RECLAIMTHEDEBATE.COM

George Lakoff is coming to San Jose, CA for a talk in his first major public appearence in the South Bay on Friday, April 22!!! Lakoff is the UC Berkeley and Rockridge Institute linguist who is the author of NY Times Bestseller "DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT!" Get your tickets/ more info by heading over to WWW.RECLAIMTHEDEBATE.COM right now!

WWW.RECLAIMTHEDEBATE.COM

------------
My apologies for the off-topic post.

by deaniac83 on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:30:17 PM EST

The value of a Democratic primary (3.00 / 7)

Contested primaries are the vital link to the grassroots, the netroots, the people.

Senate primaries offer us all the chance to practice our democratic creed--to educate ourselves on critical national, international, and security issues, and to mobilize our brains and bodies for mass participation in the general election.

Our campaign for U.S. Senate is already creating a positive and pro-democratic influence on debates concerning Social Security, national security, and job security here in Pennsylvania and beyond.

I welcome all interested candidates in the Democratic primary to determine who is best fit to unseat Rick Santorum in November 2006.

I am in this race to stay and to win.

Chuck Pennacchio
http://www.chuck2006.com

by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:39:58 PM EST

Re: The value of a Democratic primary (none / 0)

Thanks for participating in the blogosphere! It's great to see people like you doing that.

Visit Pacific Northwest Portal - the new, recently improved progressive start page for Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Check out 24 syndicated blogs and a blog directory featuring links to dozens of more progressive viewpoints. The directory now includes 16x16 pixel favicons or screenshots next to the name of each blog. The site also includes handy newswires, a business news center, and many other exciting features.

Access over 200 of the Net's finest progressive blogs through Pacific NW Portal - regional politics at your fingertips.

by BoiseLiberal on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:25:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chris, send this post to Howard Dean (none / 0)

While obviously he doesn't control either the DSCC or the DCCC, he has a right to ask Reid and Schumer why they would support a backroom bosses' approach that undermines his efforts -- which are overwhelmingly supported by the State Party Chairs -- to strengthen the party at the grassroots.

by Steady Eddie on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:45:40 PM EST

Re: Chris, send this post to Howard Dean (none / 0)

yeeeeeeaaaaarrrrgh.

That sounds like a good idea.

We need an open primary in Pennsylvania.

Young Philly Politics

Progressive Philadelphia Politics: Young Philly Politics

by DanielUA on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:48:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chris, send this post to Howard Dean (none / 0)

Perhaps if we attached the name of Howard Dean's biggest grassroots coalition -- Philly for Change -- his ears might perk up.

We need an open primary, not a backroom deal.

Come to meetup (dfa.meetup.com/109) We'll have a petition waiting for everyone to sign.

Cheers,
Anne Dicker
Philly for Change

by AnneinPhilly on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Contested primary's are usually good: (none / 0)

They build name recognition which was a pretty big problem for Hoeffel and as long as the canidates don't go really negitive and they keep in mind who the real enemy is then a contested primary is fine.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:08:57 PM EST

Re: Contested primary's are usually good: (none / 0)

Well, there was a lot of debate over whether it was good to have Rendell convince Charlie Crystle not to run in the primary. My hunch is that given all the attention to Specter-Toomey, that any primary challenge to Hoeffel would have been lost in the shuffle and not benefited his campaign.

Casey, though, needs a pro-choice challenger, if they ever expect SE PA to support him actively.

by Adam B on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Play Nice, No Dice! (none / 0)

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a parallel to the "play it safe" strategy embodied in the milktoast, "remind me again why we did that" 2004 DNC?

Not only did we bury our differences with each other, we buried our differences with Bush & the GOP. And the two seem inimately linked. We should be for a robust debate of the issues precisely because (a) that's what Democrats believe in, (b) that's what produces the greatest accountability, and (c) that's what produces the best ideas. The more we promote the practice of robust debate, the more the GOP suffers, because their ideas just don't hold up to robust debate.

Rather than trying to squash the debate, the PA Democratic Party should try to shape it--not to any specific substantative contours, but in a way that maximizes the issue content, the connection to peoples' everyday lives, and the framing of issues to make the content and the connection blindingly clear to every citizen in the state.

I don't want to limit people's thinking about how this could be done, but one good piece of it would be holding a series of cadidate forum town-hall meetings, sponsored by the county party organizations (or even coalitions of more local organizations in the counties, to keep it from getting too far removed from the grassroots). It could be an excellent practice to hold a straw poll after each one--not just on who won the debate, or who to support, but also on a few key issues as well. This would be a way of highlighting issues that the RWCM would sooner ignore.

If organizations wanted to do more--vote on actual endorsements--that's another possibility. But I don't want to suggest that such a tight connection is a necessity. It could actually work against the goal of promoting a robust debate.

I'm sure that others out there have some good ideas about how the party could make the race more fruitful in laying the table for the general election--and even beyond.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:15:50 PM EST

Is the concern over financing? (none / 0)

Just curious, whether there is a concern over depleting money from a general campaign by focusing on the primary campaign? My question is an inocent question trying to understand a) whether a primary challenge really is a good idea just on the financial level and b) if there is a primary challenge will it hurt the democrat nominee whoever it is in the general election?

by bruh21 on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:28:17 PM EST

Re: Is the concern over financing? (none / 0)

Specter raised $15M for his primary, and was still able to raise another $7M for the general. Rendell spent $20M for his primary, and another $20M for his general.

by Adam B on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the concern over financing? (none / 0)

The first is an incumbent and inapplicable as a comparison. The second I don't enough about to respond enough to know whether it is similar or dissimilar enough to offer hope that a primary race would or would not produce heavy financial burdens. I should point out however that one concern is that this is a non presidential year election so the intensity will be less in terms of voter turn out. You've got to assume that even if GOTV does improve that it wont match 2004.

by bruh21 on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the concern over financing? (none / 0)

Well, it was a gubernatorial campaign, which in PA means no contribution limits. But it was an open seat that Rendell was running for, against State Treasurer Casey in the primary and AG Mike Fisher in the general.

Rendell runs a massive GOTV operation -- it'll be pretty damn intense.

# of votes in PA:
Gore 2000: 2,465,412
Rendell 2002: 1,898,214
Kerry 2004: 2,885,773

Let's put it in context by looking at another blue state, Illinois:

# of votes:
Gore 2000: 2,588,884
Blagojevich 2002: 1,824,211
Kerry 2004: 2,866,307

Okay, actually, that's pretty close. Nevermind.

by Adam B on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the concern over financing? (none / 0)

your own numbers point out what I was saying about less GOTV. It doesn't mean not to do a heated primary, but it will take a lot more effort to get out the GOTV in 2006 than 2004. Where is the money to build the organization going to come from? You have to be willing to ask and answer those questions if you want to suceed. Saying well it's just good for us to have challenges to get your candidate in doesn't help your cause, at least, I don't think it does. What helps is figuring out how to stay one step ahead and figuring out where the money is going to come from, the organization, etc.

by bruh21 on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the concern over financing? (none / 0)

You can't get the same level of interest in a non-presidential year -- and, again, Rendell spent around $20M on that general election. He won't have a primary next year.

Basically, the gubernatorial campaign will handle all the GOTV for all statewide PA races in 2006, I'd imagine, because they're not subject to the same contribution limits.

by Adam B on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the concern over financing? (none / 0)

They don't have to spend an arm and a leg on stupid advertising budgets. If the candidates can make an informal agreement to a few, or a lot, debates and the usual alternative grassroot and mailer campaign tactics, a primary would do far more good than harm.

The problem comes when one or more of the candidates decide to a Mutual Assured Destruction advertising budget.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the concern over financing? (none / 0)

So what happens if they don't agree? You have to be willing to ask that question I think before expousing or arguing a position. If you are okay with what may happen, then go for it, but realize that this is a possibility and what that may or may not mean. Perhaps the goal should be to really shame any candidate running counter to spending limits as anti Democratic (again this would be a problem is that candidate later won and ran in the general election). I guess the solution is as you say an agreement, but the question remains

by bruh21 on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I volunteered for Joe Hoeffel and I'm absolutely convinced that he was hurt by not having a contested primary. Joe was a great candidate, but he had very low name recognition once the general election season began. Had Hoeffel had a primary opponent, the press would have covered the debates and the candidates criss-crossing the state. As it was Specter was allowed free reign to cement the notion that he was the "moderate" against Toomey the "far out" candidate in the voters' minds. Hoeffel's campaign spent the entire general election and beyond doing nothing but begging for money to run ads to erase his name recognition deficit.

There's no reason Dems can't have debates that focus on shooting the Bush admin policies and not each other.

BTW, IMHO, the pro-choice issue is overrated.
I'm a pro-choicer living in SE Pa and I'll be voting for Bobby Casey should he choose to run for Senate. For example, Ginny Schraeder was in step with PA-08 voters on choice, but she still lost
because BucksCo voters were familiar with Fitzpatrick and liked him. It will be the same with Casey especially because he takes a consistent, principled position on death. I respect that even if I don't agree on abortion.

by phillydem on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:04:20 PM EST

Casey can win (none / 0)

Though I disagree with some of his positions on social issues, I think Casey would win and that's the goal, isn't it? Santorum's so far right that Casey looks almost progressive in comparison. Hafer might have a shot too, but an unknown probably wouldn't; so as much as Pennachio's views might line up with mine, I wouldn't vote for him in a primary.
I don't think there's anything wrong with compromising some ideals for the sake of victory. For instance, I voted for Dan Hynes in Illinois' Senate primary last year despite being a long-time admirer of Barack Obama. I was worried that the name would be trouble in a statewide election, and if Jack Ryan hadn't turned out to be a perv, that probably would have been a very close race.
If Pennsylvania Democrats were actually trying to cancel the primary and pick the nominee, that would be reprehensible. But getting upset about them trying to clear the field is absurd.
They just want to win.

by ChgoSteve on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:16:05 PM EST

Re: Casey can win (none / 0)

One formula to win is a mistake. Assuming that you can guess which side can have a winning strategy is a misstake. Thinking things through to make good decision about what will be the best choice is the way to go. This mean no pie in the sky analysis and no cynical crass analysis either.

by bruh21 on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey can win (none / 0)

Of the following, can you pick the one who is pro-life?

Ed rendell (D)
Arlen Specter (R)
Robert Casey JR. (D)
Tom Ridge (R)

Don't be so quick to assume a pro-lifer against Santorum is your best bet in PA! It is more a pro-choice state IMO!

by NG on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The contested primary of 2004 (none / 0)

was the best thing we had going for us in the presidential election of 2004. When we had 10 Dems on the stage bashing Bush, we were doing great. The MSM was forced to cover our debate events... all 15 or so of them.

Just imagine if all 10 of those Dem candidates would have been out there in April and May, after the Fallujah offensive, the big Abu Gharib stink, and the contractor's bodies being ripped apart and hung from the bridges.

A short primary is not good.

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:51:28 PM EST

There's no democracy (none / 0)

in an oligarchy. In the US, we hope and expect to be allowed to vote, and there is no point in voting unless elctions are contested.

by smintheus on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 06:07:04 PM EST

Interview with Dr. Chuck Pennacchio (none / 0)

http://kydem.blogspot.com/2005/01/interview-with-dr-chuck-pennacchio.html

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 06:32:28 PM EST

Take Abortion Off the Tables for the Primaries (2.00 / 1)

A contested primary could be a very good thing, even allowing name recognition for future candidacies for the losers.

But a bitter debate over abortion would probably be a bad thing. There is a non-trivial chance that Casey will win the nomination, but an abortion-centric primary will probably create an anybody-but-Casey faction among Pennsylvania Democrats who might stupidly stay home if he wins the nomination.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

by Anthony de Jesus on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:34:52 PM EST

Abortion doesn't play much in PA (2.00 / 1)

The main groups in PA are:

Guns
Labor
Elderly
Families with military

The abortion issues exists for only one reason: way back in 1992, the Clintons did a really dumb thing by excluding Bob Casey from any role in the convention.

Since then, there has been a largely apologist movement that has followed Casey 2 and tagged him hard with the anti-abortion label.

Interesting, given he made his own name as being tough on fraud. Go figure.

Such is the downside of name recognition.

by jcjcjc on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 01:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion doesn't play much in PA (none / 0)

I'm curious, what part of PA do you live in that makes you jump to that conclusion? Have you ever done any voter contact in PA?

by noheadspin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 04:03:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion doesn't play much in PA (none / 0)

Abortion really isn't that important of an issue in Pennsylvania atleast in the West where I live in Pennsylvania there are probably more Democrats against elective abortions than Republicans. Issues will be social security, trade, education, health care, and a couple of social issues throw in here or there.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 02:43:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion doesn't play much in PA (none / 0)

I've lived and worked anywhere from Pittsburgh to State College and points between.

"Voter contact" work? We're not all political operatives. The fact that phrase exists at all bothers me.

I do one better. I live among a load of Republicans. One of my better friends from college was a genuine Clinton-hater in his mid-50s. I used to have a neighbor who the IRS refused to serve a warrant because they were afraid of what might happen if they tried.

I've spent tireless hours trying to explain to most of my friends and neighors exactly why and how America needs to get thing right.

And, frankly, I've had a lot of them spend years trying to explain to me why the Democrats are a bunch of sissies who can't talk straight.

It's actually a nice political environment to live in, ecause folks are very open to discussion.

by jcjcjc on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 04:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion doesn't play much in PA (none / 0)

Well, how about helping to Draft Anthony Zinni for US Senate?

He would help put #s 1 and 2 in the bag and would probablly help with 3. I haven't found any quotes from him on labor, but my guess, given his stances on a number of other issues, would be a balance between labor and business groups.

I also think that his gruff and tough personality would help with the male vote. And his military credentials would help, I would hope, with married women.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:04:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion doesn't play much in PA (none / 0)

We're Democrats we're not going to run a Republican against Santorum think for a minute.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 02:28:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion doesn't play much in PA (none / 0)

That's what I'm askign people to do- THINK.

Think about what it means to be a Democrat, what issues we stand for and what issues the Repthugs stand for.

Think about why people choose to vote Republican and not Democrat. And figure out if those reasons can be changed.

Think about what we need to do to win back a majority in this country.

And think about what we need to do to save our country from the nuts that are runnign it right now.

Whenever you see that R next to someone's name and automatically dismiss them, you're not thinking, at least not rationally, you're relying on a heuristic. And while this heurstic can be helpful at times, at otehr times it can make you act in ways that are against your own interests. In the case of Anthony Zinni, Wes Clark, and all the other people who vote primarilly on Security issues, that heuristic is misleading both you and them. These people vote Republican because they see the Dems as weak-kneed spoiled brats, who can't handle the often horrid task of protecting our nation, and we reject them because they vote Republican.

But there is no reason to believe that the coupling of Republicans and National Security will remain forever, and we can expect more folks like Clark to come back to the Democratic Party, espescially if we move aggressively to recruit them.

Think about whether you'd like to welcome these folks into our big tent, and even have them run for office as people who convey strength and character, or whether you'd prefer to stick with candidates who make us "feel good" or who agree with 100% of you stances.

Yes, choosing Zinni to run for office requires people to abandon many of their heuristics and think, but if we can't seperate security voters from the Republican Party, then I think that we are doomed as a party, at least nationaly.

And I didn't just come up with this idea over night. I put a lot of thought and research into it. So if you want to see why I think that Zinni would be the perfect candidate, then check out the piece I wrote over at Young Philly Politics.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion doesn't play much in PA (none / 0)

For example, here's Wes Clark on why he voted Republican in the past and why he is now a Democrat:

In the United States Army you never have a party, at least most of us didn't as far as I know. You just voted for people that were strong for national security. When Bill Clinton ran in '92 and I listened to him and I had of course known of his record from Arkansas, I found him extraordinarily inspirational and I voted Democratic. I later ended up working around the White House when I was at the Pentagon. I was back and forth across the Potomac for various staff meetings and so forth. And I was impressed with the people in the Clinton administration . . . . That's when I learned that the old myths were wrong. That it wasn't that the Republicans were tough and strong on defense and the Democrats were soft and blame America. It was really that the Republican Party had become shrill and partisan and isolationist and the Democrats were working mightily to craft a new strategy to take us into a new world. And that's where I found myself.

Does this sound like a right-winger to you?

Is the perception of Dems as "soft" and "blame America" something you feel alright with? Is it somethign you feel that we should fight? How do you think we should deal with this?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:25:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Contrarian view (none / 0)

I don't think the field should be cleared by forcing people out. If Dr. Pennacchio wants to stay in so be it. But if Casey will only get in if the field is "cleared" of the "establishment candidates" I say clear the field. In many regards Casey is a special case. The fact of the matter is if his career continues on its current trajectory, within a few years if he mentions his name in connection with either governor or senator any democratic politician will get out of his way. I haven't read up on him recently but it is quite possible that his prefence is not to be a senator at this point but that he would prefer to be governor (first at least). Finally, there are still people who think (I think they are wrong) that his father was given a bum rap by being refused the opportunity to speak at the convention (1996?), to the extent that Casey would have to fight through a primary it would give the Republicans an opportunity to remind people of the evil liberals who control the democratic party.

All that said, I do think that a primary might do him well because it will show that he is a moderate (between Pennacchio and Santorum).

by comotion on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:56:38 PM EST

Re: Contrarian view (none / 0)

If Casey's not going to enter until he's the only "viable" contender, he doesn't deserve the nomination. Nothing in this life should be handed to you, especially if there are other people willing to work for it.

Besides, if he can't take the light scuffing-up of the primary, how can we expect him to take the full-on assault that the RSCC will lay on him?

by craverguy on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

SCHUMER NEEDS TO CLARIFY AND QUICK (none / 0)

As a born and raised New Yorker transplanted in Pennsylvania, I am outraged by this latest news. Can someone explain to me how Chuck Schumer can court Casey as a contender in the Senate race?

How does the author of the Schumer Amendment throw support to a long-established pro-life candidate?

Exactly who's party is this? Are we talking about the same New York, about the same civil rights pioneers? This certainly doesn't represent the progressive minds of our party.

What is the real agenda here? Does the party really want to clear the field for Casey? Or is this a game to nominate another candidate?

It appears to me that Hafer could be the favorite among the people of PA as she is pro-choice, former republican (ie, perceived as more moderate, and therefore more electable), and she works closely with Rendell. Any nod in Casey's direction could immediately mobilize Hafer's campaign, and she could gain real traction.

The problem with this scenario, as Chris Bowers illustrates, is that it leaves little room for true progressive discourse. The Deaniacs all agree that the discourse is NECESSARY. It is oxygen for a sufficating party.

The netroots, DFA, ACT, Moveon, Meetup regular everyday progressive activists did not pour their hearts and wallets out during this last election to be dismissed by the Democratic Party machine who has ignored the local races in our swing states for so long that we are now finally realizing how much catching up we have to do. We did not devote almost every waking moment of this last election to again be starved of party resources for local progressive candidates, and be intimidated, out spent, and out numbered by the conservative republican power brokers.

And this all in the name of electability, poll numbers, and Washington money?

That would be a NO. Think again!

by Proud Liberal on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:07:12 PM EST

Please don't use the term "pro-life" (none / 0)

Please, please, please don't use the term "pro-life" when referring to people who are "against abortion."

We're all pro-life - no one's "for abortion" any more than they're for amputation.

In the reality-based community we understand that safe and legal abortion is the most compassionate thing we can offer to those who need it.

The folks who would kill Roe v Wade are anti-choice. They are for the prosecution of doctors and women.

Don't let the Right frame their side of the debate as "pro-life." That makes those of us who support the right to abortion "anti-life." And that's bullshit.

Thanks for listening.

by pammo on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 08:14:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Remind people of the 2004 Dem primary race (none / 0)

and how it hurt Bush's ratings during the latter half of 2003 and early 2004. A contested primary race provides the best vehicle for pushing messages about the incumbent. Yes, there will be reports of attacks by each Democrat on each other. But there will also be reports of attacks on Santorum and the more those get out there the better.

by Chris Andersen on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 01:36:17 AM EST

We need a liberal attack dog (none / 0)

Santorum is already starting to crack. He's been testy and mean in recent interviews.

If a liberal attack dog shows up in the primaries, it could really nudge Santorum the wrong way.

While I don't think this guy Chuck can win (not without some major efforts to overcome being a Philly liberal prof who teaches at an arts college) it doesn't mean he can't do something incredibly useful.

He can serve as an attack dog for Casey and Hafer, saying things they're not allowed to say because they're "mainstream" and "moderate".

Santorum needs to be shredded. While Casey and Hafer will make good candidates, I'm not certain either one is up to the task of giving Santorum the true trashing he has coming.

Likewise, I think Chuck can serve a role positioning Casey or Hafer as "moderate".

One of Specter's best lines from 2004 was that he should e elected because he's being attacked by lefties and righties and therefore he was obviously a moderate in good standing. The ugly monster that was Pat Toomey allowed Specter to make this claim.

Casey or Hafer could make the exact same claim coming out of the primaries if they are contested.

by jcjcjc on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 01:50:18 AM EST

Re: We need a liberal attack dog (none / 0)

And just out of curiosity, what happens if Pennacchio runs and loses, then simply packs up, goes back to his "arts college," and just hangs a sign out that says, "Do not disturb until 2010?" What then? After all, why would he go through all the trouble and expense of a senate race, only to settle for the status of "attack dog," which could adversely affect his chances in the 2010 primaries?

Bottom line, the man's not Al Sharpton. He's not running to amuse you and he's not running to make a point. He's running to win. Why on earth would he settle for being a made into some sort of political lightning rod for the GOP to take potshots at, when he could be making connections getting his name out for the next race?

Of course, all of this is hypothetical. I fully expect Pennacchio to pull a Wellstone and win the primary.

by craverguy on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 02:26:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They said the same about the Dem Perz PRimaries (none / 0)

ANd it was proven to be utterly false.

The dog fight in the Dem primaries and recogntion that the Dems were there at all.

In the beginning all the media was taunting that only 15% of the population could name all Democratic nominees.

By the end of the debates all nominees were well know.

Also, it was a way to test the message with the people and not have it dictated. That is why in the end Kerry had to take on Dean's message. If he had gone unopposed with his original weak assked message there is no way he could have even come close to winning.

The primaries stirred up the grassroots and opened that money funnel.

Reid is being an idiot

Does he and others in the leadership think that Dean is somehow magically going to get people behind a candidate that they never had a opportunity to select.

It seems like the Reid Deal is:

We decide, you just shut up and pay up

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 02:40:47 AM EST

Re: They said the same about the Dem Perz PRimarie (none / 0)

In the beginning all the media was taunting that only 15% of the population could name all Democratic nominees.

By the end of the debates all nominees were well know

Do you have something to back this up (polling data) or are you just grabbing these numbers outta the air?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:09:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They said the same about the Dem Perz PRimarie (none / 0)

Find it your self ...this was a well known MSM talking point that no one knew the seven dwarves..

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They said the same about the Dem Perz PRimarie (none / 0)

As I suspected, you're just talking that yang. But what else is new?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Casey is a class act with loads of integrety (none / 0)

First, Bobby Casey isn't afraid of a fight. The 2002 Dem primary between Rendell and Casey got pretty rough and nasty and a lot of that came from Casey's camp. As Aud Gen, Casey's office went toe-to-toe with Hafer's Treasury Dept over an planned audit of the state pension fund management. Casey went to court to force compliance.

Second, although some people and groups are fixated on Casey's abortion stand, he's really totally in step with Dems on every issue. He's fiscally responsible and takes the total Catholic position on social responsibility. Not only that, Casey takes the Catholic social teachings seriously and actually lives that way. This guy just oozes honesty and integrety. If you're in Pennsylvania and get PCN, watch the next time Casey's on one of the call-in shows. He's very impressive, very soft-spoken, very comforting to listen to.

Third, Casey got 3.3M votes for a state row office
(Treas) in 2004. That's 500k more votes than Kerry got for President. Casey is tremendously popular and I'll add that popularity does not extend to his brothers, one of whom also ran for PA-15 seat
and was beaten by Toomey.

I doubt a contested primary will bother Casey or affect his decision. The hardest part for Casey will be wrestling with his conscience over whether or not it's the right thing to leave a job he was just elected to. How old-fashioned is that? But that's how Casey thinks.

Last, as stated I think contested primaries are generally good things. Part of the situation here, though, is Santorum won't have a primary opponent either so if the Dems only have one candidate, it's pretty much a wash.

by phillydem on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:42:46 AM EST

Re: Casey is a class act with loads of integrety (none / 0)

Casey takes the Catholic social teachings seriously and actually lives that way

Except for the death penalty, which he supports.

by Adam B on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 11:07:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another Perspective (none / 0)

It's only been three years since Casey went negative and lost to Rendell in the Democratic primary race for governor. Casey painted Rendell as a shifty, big-city politician who could not be trusted and Casey was trounced 44 to 56 percent.

While Casey won Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) 45.8% to 54.2%, that was far lower than expected and needed. I would suggest that the Dem party activists who do the grunt volunteer campaign work in Pittsburgh did not want an anti-choice Dem as governor and their support for Rendell helped to keep Casey's lead down far enough in Allegheny County so that he couldn't win the state.

Go to any meeting of progressives here in Pittsburgh and you'll hear lots of people who are spitting mad at Schumer and Reid for inserting themselves in our race by pushing for the anti-choice and antigay Casey. These are the same folks who were the precinct captains and super volunteers in the 2004 race (where Kerry carried PA).

Do not expect these people (especially the progressive women) to work their butts off for an anti-choice candidate.

We want a real primary and we don't want Santorum Lite (Casey).

2 Political Junkies

by Maria in Pgh on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:00:06 AM EST

What is Casey's Position on Abortion? (none / 0)

How far right is Casey on abortion? I've seen several references that he is in step with the Democrats, but where does he stand on the criminalization of abortion?

Would Casey let a woman choose to abort a first term pregnancy?

by Curt Matlock on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:34:01 AM EST

Re: What is Casey's Position on Abortion? (none / 0)

In his ideal world, no exception for rape/incest/life of mother even, but he'd be willing to sign into law a bill which contained such exceptions.

by Adam B on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 11:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is Casey's Position on Abortion? (3.00 / 1)

Sounds pretty extreme. What about "aborting" a single-cell, fertilized egg? How about a nerveless mass of cells?

No?

If that's his stance then I guess I'm an exclusionary Democrat because he is on the wrong side of an extremely important issue. Just as I would never vote for Joe Lieberman because of his support of Alberto Gonzales and therefore of torture, I wouldn't vote for Casey because of his rejection of a woman's right to control her own reproduction. We aren't talking about aborting children here. If a woman can't even use the day after pill then he is an extremist trying to force his religious beliefs on all women.

A previous poster alleged that Casey is also anti-gay? If that's true then he is not "in step" with the Democrats and does indeed sound like Republican-Lite.

I don't live in Pennsylvania so my stance is moot. Democrats who oppose Casey though have my sympathy and my moral support.

by Curt Matlock on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 11:36:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is Casey's Position on Abortion? (none / 0)

My understanding is that he now supports gay adoption rights which he had previously opposed, but I'm not sure if he's in favor of legalising same-sex civil unions.

He's very good on economic and labor issues; it's this pesky "fundamental equality" stuff he can't handle.

by Adam B on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Casey in SW Pa 2002 (none / 0)

IMO, part of the reason Casey didn't fare as well
in SW Pa as he might have is that Rendell did a great job getting endorsements from county execs, mayors and other politicos in the area. Rendell also courted the sportsman vote, by very effectively appealing to their environmental concerns. Rendell took his campaign bus to every nook and cranny in the state, he held town hall meetings, answered questions forthrightly, shook any hand presented to him and probably ate everything put in front of him, too. I'm sure Rendell got the single issue pro-choice voters, but it's very doubtful they were the sole cause of Casey's not getting as large a voter percent as some might have expected. The bottom line is that in 2002, Casey just plain got out-campaigned. Casey's campaign assumed that the conventional wisdom that no one from Philadelphia could ever be elected governor was right; it was their major mistake.

Just to repeat, Casey got 3.3 MILLION votes in
2004, more than Bush and more than Kerry. He will absolutely clobber Santorum if he chooses to run.

by phillydem on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:26:37 PM EST

Re: Casey in SW Pa 2002 (none / 0)

He was out-campaigned, out-manuevered on tactics and out-fundraised.

He barely had an opponent in 2004; don't read too much into those numbers.

However: Santorum had more votes than Gore in 2000.

by Adam B on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey's elections (none / 0)

FTR, up until Rendell was elected governor, Bobby Casey was the ONLY Democrat winning and holding statewide office. You could even go so far as to say that Casey was for all intents and purposes the Dem party in the state.

Your contention that Casey's 3.3M votes is suspect because he had token opposition could just as well be interpreted as an indicator of Casey's popularity in that the voters went out of their way to vote for him even though his race was down ballot and a walkover.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you to support Casey. Work your tail off for Dr. Chuck if he's your man.

by phillydem on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 01:53:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey's elections (none / 0)

Chuck's not my choice.

Quick and dirty totals from this link:

PA Votes Cast --
Pres: 5,765,764
Senate: 5,558,525
PA AtG: 5,413,269
PA AudG: 5,352,918
PA Treasurer: 5,473,824

Barely a significant difference.

by Adam B on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 02:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey's elections (none / 0)

It's usual for the total votes to be less for each
office in the order of the office's importance, which your stats prove.

Based on what you've posted I take your position to
be that Casey's vote total was a fluke and not representative of anything special. IMO, that's debatable. Isn't it logical that Dems who voted for Kerry also voted for Casey? Then who were Casey's other .5M voters? Surely not fundamentalists. They would've voted for the Republican candidate. Could they be perhaps the kind of populist, but socially traditional voters who have been so hard for Pennsylvania Dems to reach? If so, isn't that a good indication of Casey's overall strength as a candidate? My point is, don't let your dislike of Casey keep you from making an objective assessment of the political waters.

by phillydem on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey's elections (none / 0)

Oh, sure -- I take as valid current polls which show Casey to be the most electable of the major candidates as of right now, and I believe those who say that Casey's not being encouraged because he's pro-life but because he's popular.

I would rather support Hoeffel or Murphy or Hafer or Williams, and I believe they could defeat Santorum as well. I also have severe concerns over Casey's ability to fundraise in SE PA, that he'll have the same cash issues that Ron Klink did in 2000, no matter what the DSCC is promising him now.

by Adam B on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 04:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey (none / 0)

Am surprised you think Casey will have fundraising problems, I think he'll be flush with money. Rendell's machine and labor will raise a ton for him. I'd argue, too, that even if Casey doesn't raise much money, his name and reputation for honesty and integrety will stand up regardless.
In fact, I think if Santorum tries to attack Casey, it will backfire on him simply because Casey is so honest and everyone knows it.

I like Joe Hoeffel, too. He was my rep and I volunteered for him. When I was down at Hoeffel hq
after the election, I asked what he was going to do. None of the staff knew, but my sense was that he might try again in 2006. Hafer's fine, she's won statewide, is well-known and quotable. She does have one problem that could be exploited and that's her management of the state pensions. She sure fought Casey's audit hard and that makes me wonder.

Are you referring to Tom Murphy, mayor of Pittsburgh? Who is Williams? Seth Williams?

by phillydem on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey (none / 0)

Well, Rendell will be raising money for Rendell in 2006, and labor gave Casey massive support in 2002, but it wasn't close to what he needed to beat Ed.

I agree that Casey presents a tough target for Santorum. He'll have to focus on the advantages of incumbency, being in the majority and pork.

I saw recently that Joe has joined a Philadelphia law firm. To me, that suggest he's running in 2006.

finally: Lois Murphy, Connie Williams.

by Adam B on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 12:10:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rendell's machine (none / 0)

Well, think you're being too hard on Rendell. Casey just didn't realize how immensely popular Rendell was in the Philly 'burbs. In fact, a lot of pundits missed it, too. Plus labor was split. AFSCME hated Rendell, but the building trades loved him for all the construction jobs he created with the new building in CC.

Since being governor, Rendell's organization went all out for the state judicial races in 2003. Dems won 3 of 4 and came within a whisker of a sweep.
Last year we won 2 of 3 state row offices and almost got AG, an office Dems haven't won for ages, if ever. Rendell's the one who recruited Lois Murphy and Connie Williams and got Hafer to switch back over to the Dems. I disagree that Rendell's just out for himself. He'll raise plenty of money for Casey and support him 100%. I don't believe Rendell's heart was really into supporting Hoeffel against Ed's old pal Specter, but Ed's got
no love for Santorum, so old loyalities won't be an issue this time around. Don't forget Teresa Heinz over at the other end of the state, she despises Santorum. It won't surprise me to see her and Chris out on the stump for Santorum's opponent in WPa.

As for pork, what has Santorum really brought home to the state? Specter's the one who does, and the public believes it.

While I like Murphy and Williams, they are too unknown to beat Santorum right now.

by phillydem on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:34:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey's elections (none / 0)

You do realize that Tom Ridge and Arlen Specter are pro-choice!

I am a PA dem, and I dislike Tom Ridge on many issues, mainly his censorship tendencies. Still, I would vote for him over young Casey because that is how important the pro-choice decision is to me. I feel that pro-choice reveals how a politician will or will not use religious dogma in crafting his policies. In the America we see developing today, it is critical to get some separation between religion and policies, and I do not see young Casey able to do this!

by NG on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey in SW Pa 2002 (none / 0)

Casey won every county except the ones in the Philadelphia area and the county that Penn State is in. Rendell won cause he had big gambling money and Casey went too negitive.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 02:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey in SW Pa 2002 (none / 0)

Well, hold on: Rendell did win the 5-county Philadelphia area, but I wouldn't call Berks, Northampton, Lehigh or especially Lancaster counties to be Philadelphia-area.

decent analysis here: "Even if Philadelphia is left out of the equation, Rendell still received almost 50% of the vote statewide and while his strongest support was close to home, he had friends in many places.

"In the four suburban counties closest to Philadelphia, Rendell had even wider margins of victory than in the city itself, securing 81.7% of the vote in Bucks; 82.6% in Chester; 86.1% in Delaware; and 88.4% in Montgomery. Collectively, Rendell won the five-county Philadelphia area by more than 293,000 votes.

"The total Democratic statewide turnout was 32.5%, for a total of 1,221,006 voters, but the geographic distribution of the votes was unlike any election in a generation.

"In contrast to the unusually strong turnout (36.4%) in Southeastern Pennsylvania, voters in the rest of the state were surprisingly apathetic about this election. In Northeastern Pennsylvania, near Casey's hometown of Scranton, turnout was consistent with the state average of 32.5%, but much lower than would have been expected based on his candidacy for governor. In the Lehigh Valley, midway between the candidates' home counties, the turnout was approximately 30%. In Southwestern Pennsylvania, the turnout was unusually low at 32.2%. In the rest of the state, turnout averaged approximately 27%."

by Adam B on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PoliticsPA.com reporting Casey will run (none / 0)

PolitcsPA.com is reporting its "sources" telling them Casey has decided to run for Senate in 2006.
Casey's supposed to be in Philadelphia later this week. (FWIW, I heard the same several weeks ago when a former coworker and campaign manager for a local state house candidate, stopped in my place of employment to say hello. This former coworker is now doing lobbying in H'burg, his candidate got a staff job with a state senator and candidate's brother is now working for LtGov Knoll, so he's a reliable source.)

They are also reporting Barbara Hafer will throw her hat into the ring, too.

by phillydem on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 03:47:25 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.