Daily Kos

View Story | 521 comments

  •  PA Dems maneuvered (3.71 / 7)

    candidates out the way who had a lesser shot of winning.  Casey is the only competitor -- within the PA field, as well as in the rest of the country -- who has been polling above the incumbent the entire time.  And the incumbent is none other than Santorum!  He will be gone in 1 year, and that is a victory.

    Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

    by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:15:23 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Electability? (4.00 / 2)

      Is that an issue of electability?

      Why isn't Chuck Pennachio just as good or better a candidate for Pennsylvanians than Casey?

      John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

      by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:33:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He may be better (none / 0)

        but he has a 100-1 fundraising deficit to Casey from the get-go.  I like Chuck, and am not calling for him to drop out or anything, but he has a slim-to-none chance of winning, whereas Casey has a 90% chance of winning.  Once we're in the majority, then we can start weeding out the Dem lites.

        Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

        by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:40:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  excellent (4.00 / 8)

          we'll worry about what they stand for after we've won.

          gosh, now where have i heard that strategy before...

          You can lead an elephant to water but you can't make 'em think.

          by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:44:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  On this issue -- (4.00 / 2)

            as has been pointed out hundreds of times on this diary alone -- how they stand is irrelevant because if the Dems are in the majority, no anti-choice legislation will be brought forth and judges that are anti-choice can get filibustered.

            Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

            by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:49:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  smart plan secret squirrel.. (3.16 / 6)

              now all you have to do is guarentee that if you elect some of these bozos you actually take power.

              otherwise, you've just made your position that much more tenious.

              You can lead an elephant to water but you can't make 'em think.

              by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:53:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nonsense: Hyde Amendment (1976) (4.00 / 6)

              The Hyde Amendment is one of the most important pieces of federal anti-choice legislation. It removed federal funding for abortion services. It was passed by both houses of Congress in 1976, when they were both controlled by Democrats.  Although the President who signed it into law was Gerald Ford, a Republican, his decision to do so was largely in response to pressure from Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter who supported the measure and would have made political hay out of it had Ford vetoed the measure.

              In short, the Democratic commitment to choice has faltered in the past, and it could falter in the future.  The Senate Minority Leader is anti-choice.  Dems are pushing for anti-choice candidates in blue states.  And Democrats talk very publicly about adopting more conservative positions on issues like reproductive freedom. Then, at the drop of a hat, they attack groups like NARAL.

              Moreover, this issue is not simply about preserving rights,  when, in practice, those rights are becoming harder and harder for women -- especially low-income women -- to excercise.  We need federal policies that positively increase access to contraception and, yes, abortion services. And, unfortunately, the Democrats simply cannot be trusted to do this without a lot of outside pressure from groups like NARAL. More power to them!

              This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

              by GreenSooner on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:20:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wow (none / 0)

                You are talking about 30 years ago. The make up and policies of the Dems and Republicans has changed dramatically since then. There was no partisan divide on abortion in 1975. Republican were just as likely or more likely to be pro-choice than Republicans then. Gerald Ford was pro-choice. Jimmy Carter was the first President elected with the support of the religious right as a political grouping.

                by friendofliberty on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:28:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Absolutely (4.00 / 2)

                  In the last 30 years, BOTH parties have moved to the right.  Now Democrats are seriously talking about abandoning their commitment to reproductive freedom. Nobody is talking about rolling back the Hyde Amendment.

                  This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

                  by GreenSooner on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:53:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Well, then by all means (none / 0)

                vote for pro-choice Republicans and donate to NARAL -- what can I say?  Or better yet, run for office in a red/swing state as a pro-choice Democrat against a well-funded Republican and see how far that gets you.

                Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

                by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:18:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Huh? (none / 0)

                  In what version of the universe are Pennsylvania and Rhode Island "red" states?

                  No one is suggesting that staunch choice advocates run in Alabama.  RI and PA ain't Ala., though.

                  John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

                  by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:24:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Pennsylvania (none / 0)

                    is a swing state.  It was won by our last 2 candidates by less than 3%.  It's liberal in Philly & Pittsburgh, conservative in between.  Hence a moderate like Specter is somewhat popular, but wingers like Santorum trail in the polls.

                    RI is definitely blue blue blue.  Unfortunately half of their Senate representation is GOP.  But the path to 51 goes through Providence, and it seemed as though Langevin had the edge.

                    Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

                    by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:55:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Stop? (none / 1)

          Perhaps we should stop giving money to Casey and start giving to Chuck?

          This sounds a bit like political expedience.  Not my favorite method of doing things.

          John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

          by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:38:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Adding to AnthonySF (4.00 / 2)

        He also has statewide name recognition and popularity and experience in elected office.

        Ongoing List of Complaints Against George Allen

        by VirginiaBelle on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:46:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In other words . . . (none / 0)

          . . . he's more "electable"?

          John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

          by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:43:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, and that's not a bad thing (none / 0)

            There's a practical nature to campaigns, and being electable shouldn't be a downside. All of these things are excellent reasons why he is a better candidate and why it was smart of the Pennsylvania party to go with him. I hate how being practical is considered a downside by so many.

            Ongoing List of Complaints Against George Allen

            by VirginiaBelle on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:13:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But . . (none / 1)

              but what you are saying is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I don't like Chuck Penachio because he's not "electable."

              I didn't like Dennis Kucinich, but he said it best:  "if you vote for me, I'm electable."

              Where is the blogsphere in getting behind him instead of an Anti-Choice democrat in a Blue state?

              What you are really asking is "what's wrong with winning" and what I'm asking is "what's right about following a guy just becuase he's in the lead" (when you have a chance to affect the lead.

              But, then again, there hasn't been much leadership in the Democratic party lately . . .

              John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

              by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:20:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's not what I'm saying (none / 1)

                I'm talking about logistics. There's more to a campaign then ideals. It's a statewide race in a non-presidential year. Most of the people at the ballot box have not been paying a lot of attention unless you innudate them with ads....which are hella expensive. Hence, fundraising advantages are huge. Name recognition is important as it helps get over the natural advantage of incumbancy. Experience in elected office is important because, well, I like the idea of having prior experience on a resume when I apply for a job. Also, he has volunteers who have worked for him before and know what he is about spread out over the entire state that he can recall. Popularity, people recognize his name and say, hey, I like him and I like his father, as opposed to, who the hell is that?

                If you vote for me I am electable, but how are you going to get people to vote for you? I've worked on too many campaigns and been in too many field offices to ignore how important the basic logistics are of campaigning. Call me a snob if you want to, but it takes more to win then ideals.

                Lastly, I hate this argument in regards to the Pennsylvania race because it's sorta like asking "When's the last time you hit your wife?" It assumes that Casey is this really crappy candidate who the only thing he has going for him is that he's "electable", and the assumption is made that the reason everyone says he's electable is because he's pro-life. So the die hard choicers get up in arms because we're saying that you have to be pro-life to be electable. When it has nothing to do with that. Casey is a popular and well-known member of a political dynasty in Pennsylvania. He is the current state treasurer, and by the way, is pretty damn good to labor. Yes, he's pro-life, but there are a myriad of other issues on which he's a great candidate, and I am not a single issue voter. And on top of that, there are all of the above logistical reasons why he is a better candidate. For all your attacks on going with a candidate because they are electable, well, why is being popular and well-funded now a sign that they're a crap candidate who should be opposed?

                Ongoing List of Complaints Against George Allen

                by VirginiaBelle on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:10:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  PA is not a blue state!! (none / 0)

                I wish it were but it's purple.

                And... Casey Jr.'s pro-life father was a very well-liked governor here.

                by Erin on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 06:34:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Let's see... (none / 0)

        Name rec. (legacies have an advantage; see Kennedy, Bush)
        Elective office experience
        Campaign experience
        Proven massive statewide popularity (leading vote-getter in both his statewide elections)
        Strong, strong labor ties
        Western PA base (to undercut Santorum's)

        Just a few reasons off the top of my head

        The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

        by Superribbie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:42:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let's be realistic (4.00 / 1)

        Choosing Chuck over Casey is not like hypothetically choosing Howard Dean over John Kerry....this is like choosing Al Sharpton over John Kerry. Casey is the most popular politician in Pennsylvania and has statewide campaign experience. Chuck is a college professor who has not held elected government office before. Santorum, although he is a dick who pisses the majority of Pennsylvania off, is a strong and crafty campaigner. Although Chuck would be great if he ever made it to the Senate, you all know and I know that Santorum would hand Chuck his ass on a silver platter. It would not be pretty. Chuck has good intentions but I'm afraid that he simply has too little experience and too little fundraising money to take on a heavyweight like Righteous Rick.

        Either way, settling for Casey is not a huge step down. Bob Casey is a blue-collar, populist Democrat, the kind we're trying to get more of in Washington. Yah, he's socially conservative, but he's not going to whore out to corporations and fuck over unions like the DLC. He may not be perfect for a lot of you, but he's damn good, and he can win in a socially center-right, economically center-left state like Pennsylvania. Remember, his job is to represent Pennsylvanians...he can't exactly come out as a bleeding-heart liberal on all fronts and maintain his popularity.

        by FenderT206 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:18:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (4.00 / 6)

      This is exactly why NARAL cannot sell its soul to the Democratic Party.

      As you nicely illustrate, AnthonySF, many Dems subordinate EVERYTHING to getting folks elected with "D"s after their name.  Therefore, one should always support the candidate with the greatest chance of winning. No litmus tests other than a very broad sense of party loyalty.  

      That's fine. But if you publicly declare that you're willing to sell out any issue to win elections, don't be surprised when those who work on particular issues aren't willing to rubberstamp your partisan commitments.

      This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

      by GreenSooner on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:25:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Totally missing the point (3.00 / 2)

        The problem with NARAL's endorsement of Chafee is its counterproductive -- it hurts the cause of abortion rights because it adds to the Republican majority.  Even though he is pro-life, if Casey is elected, it will further the cause of abortion rights because the Democrats (who are mostly pro-choice) will be closer to the majority. Supporting Casey and not Chafee is not about just winning -- its the best way to protect abortion rights.  Supporting Casey is not in anyway a sellout.   NARAL simply can't see the forest for the trees.

        It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

        by lando on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:35:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good analysis (4.00 / 5)

        ...one should always support the candidate with the greatest chance of winning. No litmus tests other than a very broad sense of party loyalty.

        This is obviously the degenerate form of the approach kos recommends.

        I think this issue is really simple.  NARAL exists to promote reproductive rights.  Democrats exist to get elected.  Democrats' defense of reproductive rights has been increasingly erratic and inconsistent.

        In short, the theory that regaining a Democratic majority will safeguard women's health issues requires a fount of optimism I lack, along with NARAL apparently.  Especially so if those Senators and Congresspeople we help to elect, whose incumbency often guarantees a long tenure, are anti-choice to begin with.

        Here's an example of what kos' partisan prescription may get us on this issue: a 55-45 majority in the Senate for Democrats, but a 40-60 minority for women's health issues.  I'll take that over the current situation, but I don't see why NARAL should.

        Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

        by ubikkibu on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:51:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm glad you agree. (none / 0)

        But for the record, I don't think Casey is "selling out."  He just personally believes abortion is wrong.

        Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

        by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:18:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 521 comments