No office in Pennsylvania politics has been quite as frustrating as that of State Attorney General. Ever since 1980, when the position became an elected one, the voters have never opted to send a Democrat to that seat. Even as Pennsylvania has, ever so slowly, turned a bluer shade of purple, giving its electoral votes to every Democratic Presidential nominee since 1992, and sending Democrats to the Governor’s office, the State Auditor General and State Treasurer’s offices, and one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats, the State Attorney General’s office has remained firmly in Republican hands.
Tom Corbett, the current Republican to hold the State Attorney General’s office, will be up for re-election next year. And, according to Philadelphia Daily News columnist John Baer, the PA Democratic Party may be dipping into the state’s most well known political family to find a challenger for him.
From Baer’s column, in the August 8th, 2007 Philadelphia Daily News:
Philly lawyer Chris Casey, son of the late Democratic Gov. Bob Casey and younger brother of U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr., is looking at running for state attorney general next year.
"I'm seriously considering it," Casey tells me. "I feel I have the right experience for the job."
Casey, 46, is a former assistant U.S. attorney who worked in the state's middle district from 1999 to 2006, ringing up several major drug convictions.
Certainly, any Democrat would be an improvement over Tom Corbett, who, earlier in his career, earned the nickname "Toxic Tom" for his advocacy of polluting corporations. When looked at from the perspective of shooting for overall improvement of the state, having another Casey running for statewide office wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Regardless of whether or not it’s "fair," the Casey name, at the very least, gives any Republican a run for their money.
Nevertheless, the idea of the Pennsylvania State Democratic Party "doubling its Casey," so to speak, still gives me pause. Partly, it may just be that I’m fearful of us falling into a "let's just run a Casey" mindset every time a potentially difficult race is coming up in Pennsylvania. But, part of it also has to do with what the Democratic Party should stand for – and, a fear that, perhaps, in the name of winning easily, we may begin to sacrifice too much of our platform.
Don’t get me wrong. I worked for Bob Casey Jr. in 2006. I voted for him in both the primary, and the general election. I continue to maintain that the Democratic Party should be big enough to tolerate some differences in opinion on issues like gun control and abortion.
However, tolerating some differences in some candidates is a far cry from willingly and readily stocking your state party with candidates who disagree with the party’s platform on those issues, all in the name of having a slightly easier time winning. This is especially the case in a state where – as we’ve been shown by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Ed Rendell – a socially progressive candidate can, indeed, win. A party has to stand for something. And, like it or not, social issues like abortion and gun control – no matter how much we might prefer them to go away – are still important. There are two parties so the populace can have a choice between different perspectives on the issues. It would be awfully nice for a majority of our state office holders, and our state candidates, to reflect that.
At the same time, the wariness I’m feeling towards a candidacy by Chris Casey reflects a deeply felt disappointment I currently hold with Senator Casey.
Although I disagree with Senator Casey on a number of social issues, I have, in the past, been quick to defend him. He may not be perfect on everything, but on the "bread and butter" issues that make up the core of the Democratic Party – fair trade, unions, expanding health coverage – his record is unimpeachable. I have generally felt that not having Casey’s vote on the abortion issue, while unfortunate, is a tolerable sacrifice for someone who I expected to have an otherwise outstanding record.
Then, Senator Casey voted to capitulate to President Bush on FISA revisions.
Such a vote cannot be defended. Economic issues may be the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, but basic civil liberties are the heart and soul of a free nation. And, no civil liberty is more basic than freedom from unjustified government interference in free speech and communication. I would expect Senator Casey, as a trained lawyer, to be able to acknowledge that, and to be capable of finding the courage to stand up to a 26% approval rating president, who lost Pennsylvania in both of his national campaigns. When the time came, however, Casey – along with far too many other Democrats – chose to cave to the administration’s demands. Whatever else his record in office may show, that has caused me to question whether he truly has the backbone to stand up for his nation, his state, and his party, in an elected position.
My feelings on Senator Casey are mirrored by many of the feelings I have recently had for the Democrats in general. Bob Casey Jr. was, after all, but one of the Democrats who was willing to give in to President Bush’s demands on FISA. At the same time, this has been a year where we have seen the Congressional Democrats not only capitulate on warrantees wiretapping, but also abandon comprehensive sex education, opt not to fight on raising emissions standards, and, perhaps most irritatingly, given the salience of the Iraq War in the 2006 elections, send President Bush war funding without any kind of a timeline for withdrawal.
Different Democrats are responsible for different defeats. And, while I suppose one could cite the political difficulty in getting anything done in Washington, it certainly doesn’t help that elements of the leadership – notably Harry Reid – seem unwilling, at times, to even try fighting. From the Washington Post:
At times Reid has been a legislative Las Vegas showman. For example, he staged a highly rare all-night debate on an amendment to shut down Iraq war operations next spring. But Reid has been prone to folding quickly when he realizes defeat is at hand, which he did immediately after the Iraq withdrawal amendment failed a few weeks back, giving up on the underlying annual Defense authorization bill and not allowing other Iraq-related amendments.
Ornstein noted that Pelosi had little choice on the FISA legislation but to push the Bush-preferred version because Reid had "already caved".
I might have been able to tolerate the party throwing in the towel on, say, one or two issues. However, the fact that we’ve seen a whole slate of issues on which they’re unwilling to fight, combined with surrender on FISA, has hurt. A lot. Where, in the past, I was willing to defend the Democrats, due to the difficult position they find themselves in while staring down an incumbent president, I now find defending my own party to be increasingly difficult. Certainly, after FISA, it became harder to muster the enthusiasm. If Congressional Democrats lacked the spine to stick up for America this summer, why should I have reason to think that they’ll have the spine to do so six months from now? If they lack the courage to stand up on a broad range of issues, from sex education, to withdrawal from Iraq, why should I have faith in the ability of a Democratic President to push a positive agenda on those issues?
That is how I have been feeling of late. That the Democratic Party, despite its gains in 2006, despite all of our hard work, is still all too willing to give up on its principles, all to willing to "double its Casey" in the name of getting a few extra votes, and in the name of avoiding criticism from a president that a majority of the country now hates.
It’s a feeling that can all to easily lead us to giving up, if not on politics entirely, than on the Democratic Party itself. Which is why we need, every now and then, to stop and take a reality check. Which is why, every once in awhile, we need to remind ourselves about what, for all their mistakes, the Democrats have done right.
As easy as it is to get upset with the Democrats for their performance of late, the country is, at least, moving in a somewhat better direction than it was before. I was reminded of that, yesterday, when I read the news. Since taking office, the Democrats have passed an increase in the minimum wage. They have pushed through a lobbying reform package. They have increased funding to SCHIP – an accomplishment that will help many of our fellow citizens. They have provided a record number of votes for the Employee Free Choice Act, the most important revision of U.S. labor law since the 1930s – enough so that it could potentially pass if we pick up a few extra seats in future elections. And they have initiated oversight hearings on the Iraq War, and the various scandals and misconduct that have been produced by the Bush administration over the past 8 years.
None of that, in any way, justifies the fact that the Democrats gave up on fights that needed to be fought. It especially doesn’t justify what happened with FISA. But, it still, nevertheless, makes the situation a little more bearable. Would any of us prefer a world where Dennis Hastert is still Speaker? Would any of us prefer not to have made at least some progress on labor, the minimum wage, and health care? Would any of us prefer to live in a country where the administration continues to get a free pass on oversight?
The Democrats haven’t been perfect. And, on many issues, it’s still hard, if not impossible, for me to defend them. But, they’ve still managed to accomplish a hell of a lot. When we start to get depressed, when we start to feel as though they’ve let us down entirely, it might be nice to take a moment and reflect upon the things that the Democrats have done correctly.
They should be proud of those things. And, we should be proud too, for the role that we’ve played in helping the Democratic Party to slowly inch towards standing up for itself again.
The Pennsylvania Democratic Party – and the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania – will decide next year whether or not they want another Casey representing them statewide. The national Democratic Party will decide for itself how to handle its own "Caseys," its Congressmen and Senators who have shown a willingness to let the country down on critical issues like FISA.
But, as they’re making those decisions, as they’re trying to push the party in the direction that they want it to move, we will we be there. And we’re going to work hard, and we’re going to fight, to make sure that the Democratic Party moves the way that we want it to, to make sure that our Democratic officials remember to bring their backbones along with them to Washington D.C.
It’s going to be a long fight. As the vote on FISA shows, it’s a fight that we haven’t won yet. But, it is a fight that we can win. And, it’s a fight that we’ve already made some progress on.