Skip to main content

Today, the eighth largest newspaper in the United States, The Philadelphia Inquirer, introduced Chuck Pennacchio's U.S. Senate campaign to over 750,000 people.

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."

-- M Gandhi

I would say we are now somewhere inbetween steps 2 and 3.  And regardless of the final tally on primary day we will win.  We have no choice but to win, because as the article points out, this campaign is about "fighting for a rebirth of the Democratic Party."

It is a fight we cannot afford to lose--no matter what establishment figures choose to ignore, laugh, or fight us.

You can read the piece in its entirety here (subscription only online)

Here are some of the highlights:

Pennacchio, a Darby native, said he would mesh the Internet with the skills he honed as a political consultant and an organizer in the 1980s on three U.S. Senate campaigns, including those of Tom Harkin of Iowa and Timothy E. Wirth of Colorado.

He devises his strategy out of the basement of the Plumsteadville Grange, an organization that promotes rural living and agriculture. An air mattress hugs the wall. A sign on the door screams "BELIEVE."

The article does tend to focus a bit much on the campaign's Internet outreach. However, it also does a relatively decent job of capturing the "personal feel" of the campaign, the candidate, our emphasis on offline organizing, and the heavy-handed tactiics of the Democratic Party in their attempt to clear the field for Bobby Casey Jr.

Aiming for something larger than party nuisance, Pennacchio contends he is in the race to unseat incumbent Republican Rick Santorum, and there's nothing Democratic leaders can do to bump him aside, as they did with former state Treasurer Barbara Hafer and former U.S. Rep. Joseph M. Hoeffel.

"They can't touch me," said Pennacchio, 45, a Plumsteadville, Bucks County, resident and history program director at Philadelphia's University of the Arts. "They have nothing I want. I want a rebirth of the Democratic Party as a whole. I am not looking for patronage, a job, a career."

The piece continues, addressing stage three:  "then they fight you."  It highlights, for the first time in the mainstream media, that the Casey campaign is actively fighting us, online, as the establishment continues to deny our existence offline.

Casey's campaign, only three weeks old, has taken notice.

It hit Google with paid ad links, Internet yard signs of sorts that flash Casey's Web address in the right column when users search for "Chuck Pennacchio." It hired a Washington firm, M&R Strategic Services, to launch an "aggressive" Internet operation that includes reaching out to bloggers for support, said Marc Farinella, Casey's campaign adviser.

"Regardless of who our opponent would be," Farinella said, "we would be devising our Internet strategy right now."

Yeah, right.  Nice try Marc.  That wouldn't be so transparent if your first piece of outreach to the blogosphere wasn't a lecture filled with missives  about electability and plea to toss aside issue differences in the name of defeating Rick Santorum.

Why make that argument if we didn't exist?  Good effort though.

I would say that the only negative part of the piece was the headline (which was better in the print version). While we will always trumpet the campaign's willingness to talk directly to the grassroots, it is obvious the editor who probably spent thirty seconds thinking of a headline, doesn't get it, and thinks of two-way communication as nothing more than a novelty.  Too bad.

The piece concludes by interviewing two bloggers.  SheaBrianna of Urban Democracy and Daniel from Young Philly Politics.  SheaBrianna has taken the time to organize our first ever Pittsburgh event this Friday night.  And dare I say, she is doing a fantastic job.

This is just the beginning.  We will use this exposure to create more exposure in the mainstream media, while never forgetting our (grass/net) roots.

Speaking to the people, without a filter, will always be what drives this campaign forward.  Again, I ask you to aid our effort in creating a grassroots network across Pennsylvania with the goal of unseating Rick Santorum in November of 2006.

Thanks,

Tim

P.S. They did include a quote from me.  A pretty obscure one.  They took something I wrote on another non-campaign blog.  Maybe you guys will get it.  Unfortunately, most Inquirer readers won't.

"Wherever you look - we'll be there. Like a bad pop-up ad for the University of Phoenix," Pennacchio's 28-year-old blogging guru, Tim Tagaris, wrote on one Web site, referencing that school's Internet saturation.

Originally posted to ttagaris on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:33 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Gratuity Jar (4.00)
    Please, consider recommending this diary.  As a Democrat, I abide by the rule of law, and rule one here is not to repost content in an additional diary.  There are many people who would be very excited to learn about our entry into the mainstream media.  

    Also, please consider filling out a DF-A List candidate recommendation for Chuck Pennacchio.  "If you're ever going to support a progressive candidate [in a contested primary], there's hardly a better, more cost-free opportunity to do so than this."

    http://www.democracyforamerica.com/candidates/recommendation.php

    For more information on filling out the form, check  the campaign website  After you done, please take the time to forward the information to your friends.  Feel free to include me in that list of ten.  tim - at - chuck2006 dot com.

    Thanks,

    Tim

    •  Tim: (4.00)
      did you see this piece last night? I really would like to talk to Chuck about these issues, if he's open to it.

      The UCC: to believe is to care, to care is to do. Also, they have cookies.

      by pastordan on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:11:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup. (4.00)
        I addressed it in a piece I wrote later in the evening, if only cursory remarks.

        That said, why don't we get you and Chuck on the horn for a discussion/interview/whatever you want to call it.

        Swing me an email and let's set something up.  I would love you two to actually talk.  After all, we are probably going to be in your neck of the woods a few times during the campaign as well.

        Tim

        •  Okay, I'll do that-- (4.00)
          probably later today or tonight. (In theory, I have paid work to get done.)

          Tell Chuck that if he thinks he can get away with coming to Lancaster and not stopping at our house for dinner at least once, he's sadly mistaken. I would even go so far as to try to set up a dinner/meet the local press event.

          The UCC: to believe is to care, to care is to do. Also, they have cookies.

          by pastordan on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:27:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Nobody thought Wellstone would win, either (4.00)
    It is good to see the phrase, "the upset of all upsets" getting some ink in the Philly papers.
  •  Congratulations, Tim (none)
    We know how hard you and Chuck are working. This must have been a sweet result. Hope it's the first of many!

    The public wants what the public gets, but I don't get what this society wants -- Paul Weller

    by jamfan on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:48:18 AM PST

    •  Thanks... (none)
      We will use this piece to generate more pieces.

      <sarcasm>

      As an aside, The Hotline chose to include my quote in their wake-up call.

      I guess that means I am establishment now.  Excuse me while I go look for a consulting firm to jump on board with.  

      Rest assured, I will only work for ones that charge good Democrats 15% for placing ads--cause that is a real good deal for our side </sarcasm>

      Thanks for the support.

      Tim

  •  To kill the Google ads... (4.00)
    There could be ways to fix this.  

    1. Trademark your name, then ask Google to kill the competitor's ads.  

    2. If that fails, take out an ad using "Rick Santorum" as the key word that links to some particuarly nasty truth about Santorum, then publicize what you did. Big-time politicians are not likely to stand for this kind of shenanigans in their races for office, so make it their problem...

    This month, Mr. Dariot triumphed in his year-and-a-half-old lawsuit against Google's French subsidiary, which has been ordered to pay him $97,000 in fines and legal costs.

    ...

    Keyword advertising, as it is known, is the main source of revenue for Google, which posted $3.19 billion in sales in 2004, largely through charges of a few cents each time a user clicks on an ad.

    ...

    Mr. Dariot's company is one of the first to win against Google; similar cases in the United States and Germany that challenged the search engine's use of keywords have failed.

    ....

    That has quietly changed in France, where rival advertising has been eliminated on Google's French Web site next to search results for prominent brand perfumes like Dior or Chanel. Yet similar advertising still surfaces with the same brand names on Google's Web sites in Britain and Germany.

    Asked about those international differences in advertising from rivals, Google's spokeswoman in France, Myriam Boublil, said: "I can't really get into technical specifics. What I can tell you is that it was necessary to take down when a trademark issue is raised in France. Companies get back to us and let us know, and then we take it down."

    Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.
    ePluribus Media - Donate!

    by mataliandy on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:48:52 AM PST

    •  Didn't see the ads (none)
      Just did a google search and didn't see any adds for Pennacchio.  Have they already started running to google ads or...?

      BTW the Pennacchio 2006 site is first hit for Pennacchio but not for Chuck Pennacchio, you may want to see if you can up the counts for that.

      The only international crime is losing a war

      by Luam on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:33:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Two problems... (none)
      (Speaking informally as a trademark lawyer)

      1.  Getting a federally registered trademark in a name of a political candidate alone is very difficult.  Even if you could, registration process would take 9-12 months at a minimum.  

      2.  Google has (in the U.S.) consistently won litigation brought by trademark holders challenging the practice of competitor ads on trademark keywords.  I've been involved in one of those challenges, and Google fights those tooth and nail.

      The appropriate response is likely to respond quasi in-kind, buying keywords like "Santorum" "Casey" and "Pennsylvania Senate" rather than to litigate.
      •  Just to clarify... (none)
        Trademark holders have had some success overseas in this sort of litigation, but I know GEICO recently lost a challenge in the U.S., and most (though not all) challenges to spyware pop-up ads (which are even more problematic) have been losers.
        •  Bummer onthe trademark side (none)
          But it would still be fun to use Google's own policies make the point for us.

          I've been thinking over the last several minutes that it would be fun to create a fund whose sole purpose is to buy ad words that lead to information about wingers and their policies, and perhaps one or two about Google itself...

          Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.
          ePluribus Media - Donate!

          by mataliandy on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:03:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Google... (none)
            Does reserve the right to decline ads that are offensive or explicit, so they would likely refuse an explicit "Google SUCKS!" ad.  Interestingly, Casey has also bought ad space triggered by "Santorum" and Santorum has bought ad space triggered by "Casey."  In addition, "Santorum" has a link to a different anti-Santorum site in its ads.

            An interesting tidbit--Google only gets paid by its advertisers when you click on the ads.  So, want to waste Santorum's money and have nothing better to do?  Just click on his ads when they show up on Google.  (The down-side is that the higher the clickthrough rate, the higher up on the search results page the ad appears.)  And when you're trying to find a friendly site, don't click on the ad, but try to find it in the result--save a few pennies.

  •  Congratulations. (4.00)
    I know how hard you all have worked for this. It's a good milestone to have on a long journey.

    This quote: "They have nothing I want. I want a rebirth of the Democratic Party as a whole. I am not looking for patronage, a job, a career."

    Is particularly good, reform candidate meat and potatoes.

    Recommended, and I did fill out the DFA form as well.

    Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
    We are the resistance.

    by boadicea on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:50:26 AM PST

    •  Thank you. (none)
      This is the first major landmark on the road ahead with the mainstream media.

      As important, thank you for the letter you wrote to Peter Jackson a few weeks ago.  

      And thank you for filling out the DFA form.  That is VERY MUCH APPRECIATED in campaign HQ.

      Tim

      •  My pleasure on both counts. (4.00)
        I grew up during the Watergate era, which gave me a rosy view indeed of the role of journalists in the political process. So Hearstesque editorial behavior's a guaranteed way to get me fired up.

        And I think Chuck's campaign, and your efforts, are an immeasurably important vehicle for cleaning up the political process.

        Keep up the good work.

        Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
        We are the resistance.

        by boadicea on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:16:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  In the interests of balance (none)
    I might suggest the other article on the Inqy today:

    http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/11262057.htm

    I quote the relevant section below:
    National Democratic leaders urged Casey, the son of a former governor, to run after he won election as treasurer in November with the most votes of any candidate in state history. Casey, who opposes abortion and gun control, did well in counties that have often rejected Democratic candidates.

    "Somebody's position on choice can't be a litmus test," Dean said yesterday. "I'm as pro-choice as they come, [but] Bob Casey has been a tremendous friend of working people."

    Some abortion-rights supporters in the party have protested the move to anoint Casey, but Dean said that the "progressive community" would quickly realize that Casey has the right positions on health care and other important issues and is a better choice than Santorum.

    •  Casey could be a great candidate (4.00)
      But his moves to stifle competition in the primary really turn me off.  If he's scared of a contested primary, and will resort to somewhat shady tactics to eliminate any primary challengers, then that tends to make me not want to support him.

      All I ask of him is to be a stand up guy and run a primary campaign based on the issues, not dirty tricks and 'electability' rhetoric.  If Dean supports him, great, but still, don't discourage people from running for office, that's not the way to win my support.

      Strength without wisdom is a chimera, resolve without competence a travesty. - David Neiwert

      by SleepyG on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:02:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Has he actually stopped anyone from running (4.00)
        From what I understand, Casey said that he didn't want to run if there was going to be a "mainstream" opponent in the primaries.  That means that he would step aside if certain other notables in Penn did so.  They did.  They could have said that they wanted to run and he would have stepped aside for them.

        Now Chuck wants to run, and Casey is willing to run against him.  Casey has the head start with funding and name recognition, so Chuck has to fight hard.  Casey can fight from a dominant position a significantly favoured candidate always does.

        That the field was cleared for Casey actually give Chuck a better chance of making a name for himself and of actually have a shot.

        Just don't forget the goal post is the general in November 2006, and we don't want either candidate too injured to beat Santorum the general.

        The only international crime is losing a war

        by Luam on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:29:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Primaries (4.00)
          First, there is obviosuly no evidence that Casey forced anyone out.  However, I do believe that he and his campaign were working the angles behind the scenes to make sure he was the only candidate up for nomination, trying to make it easy sailing for him.  Which I guess is okay, as long as it didn't get too dirty, but I have no way of knowing what went on.

          I am more disappointed with the Democratic leadership in PA who met with Chuck, and then completely ignored his bid for the nomination, continuing to proclaim Casey as the lone primary candidate.  How much Casey had to do with that I have no clue.

          Just don't forget the goal post is the general in November 2006, and we don't want either candidate too injured to beat Santorum the general.

          I thought we all witnessed last election that contested primaries actually boost the primary winner going into the general election.  For whatever reason (I think it's increased name recognition, plus defining the issues to be discussed, plus a general sense of momentum), the primary winner comes out with an edge over their generl election opponent.

          The Democrats need to take advantage of this phenomenon and promote a clean primary to boost the winner going into the general election.

          Strength without wisdom is a chimera, resolve without competence a travesty. - David Neiwert

          by SleepyG on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:37:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  what trends? (4.00)
            Each race is a little different. I'd be careful about declaring a primary good or bad in terms of overall outcome. I think in principle, we'd always want primaries so that nobody's rights are trampled on, but in practice, yes, there are times when a "bruising primary" does eventually hurt a candidate, or a lack of primary doesn't hurt a candidate.

            The 2000 primary to fill this very seat landed us, fair and square, with a lackluster candidate who lost to Santorum. That particular race was (it seemed to me) filled with too many people that nobody had heard of. Nothing in particular was gained politically by having it. If PA dems seem a little gunshy about primaries recently--that is a concrete reason why.

            The recent Colorado senate race (which if you ask me is little talked about here because it disproved a lot of assumptions that people around here have) was an example of how the candidate with a not very difficult primary was able to beat a candidate who came out of a tough primary.

            In the end, it comes down to the candidates, not what whether there was a primary or not. If a candidate comes out of a primary a tougher campaigner with a better campaign, then the primary is helpful. If the candidate comes out of a primary having spent too much money and seen as damaged goods because of things that came up during the primary--not so good. So in principle, primaries are always good. In practice, it varies depending on the specifics.

            Abortions go up under Republicans. Business is better under Democrats. Pass it on.

            by JMS on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:03:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  looking to see heads exploding... (none)
      the worst thing Casey could do is make this primary thing a bigger issue than it has to be. Do people think Pennochio is really going to defeat Casey in a primary, under any normal circumstances? (Remember, Democrats outside of Philadelphia also vote in primaries)

      So if Chuck isn't going to be a typical politician and step aside, Casey should just run in the primary, win, and move on. Making a stink about trying to run Pennochio out just leaves bad feelings that he can ill afford when taking on Santorum.

      Being realistic, I hardly think a Casey/Pennochio primary would be bruising to Casey(and remember folks, a lot of--probably most--of these average voters do NOT spend any time on political blogs and not a whole lot of time on the internet) so it wouldn't harm anything to leave Chuck's name on the ballot.

      So Casey folks--stop making a stink--welcome Chuck to the party--then just ignore him until it's time to crush him in the primary. It'll make everyone happier in the end.

      Abortions go up under Republicans. Business is better under Democrats. Pass it on.

      by JMS on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:11:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've got no problem with Chuck running (none)
        The only thing that hurts Casey in a primary is NARAL and their likes. It doesn't matter if Casey and Pennacchio keep it clean, bank on there being attack ads comming from outside the Pennacchio campaign, and some of Chuck's supporters are going to be all for it.

        "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

        by bluestateLIBertarian on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:18:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think it will matter (4.00)
          I don't remember anything in the way of civility in the race between Casey and Rendell. In fact, Casey's campaign seemed so heavily based on trashing Rendell that I counted Bob out motnhs ahead of the election. Rendell won the general handily (and was the first person I ever voted for who won, both times) despite the negative ads.

          I also agree NARAL would be out of their minds to not run ads against Casey, because they are a pro-choice group, not a Democratic Party group. But my one worry is that if the primary in-fighting goes so far as to destroy any support for Casey with the Dem. base, and he wins the primary anyway, it'll go a long way to help Santorum (not to mention Casey's poor campaigning skills make it a double-whammy).

          We talked about this a lot yesterday, which got me thinking. I guess my thing is, if we in the base are going to make this ugly for Casey, we had damned well better make sure Chuck wins the primary.

          I wrote a diary that ended up as a forum for campaign suggestions, which led to a number of readers site e-mailing me - I keep hearing so much concern about the Pennacchio campaign not quite having the Wellstone touch and seeming amaturish though, it's hard to believe they are going to pull it off.

          Tim, maybe an update on some of the ideas raised might help. I'll e-mail you some of the concerns I've heard later in the day if your interested.

      •  "May the Best Candidate Win" (4.00)
        This is exactly what primaries are for, to let the voters pick their candidate.

        The 'Clear the Field' people actually weaken their own candidate.

        I am not living in PA so I can not affect this race directly, but I can withold my donations. And my personal policy is to withold from NON-democratic 'Democrats' (in otherwords - DINOs).

        If the 'strongest Democratic candidate' can not face a primary challenge, doesn't the whole electability thing fall into doubt?

        I mean, really!?!

        LL

        Lefty Limblog - It is time to WIN instead of "Appease and Cringe". Fight the Rethugs!

        by LeftyLimblog on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:18:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anyone remember (4.00)
          Anyone remember that candidate "clearing" that took place in Iowa a bit over a year ago?  That sure left us with a strong Presidential contender.

          Now that it's effectiveness in winning the presidency has been amply demonstrated, we should be sure to replicate that model in as many races as possible, up and down the ticket.

          </snark>

          Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.
          ePluribus Media - Donate!

          by mataliandy on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:07:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Cheering for "Let's keep it clean" (4.00)
    I don't know enough about either candidate to know who would do a better job at removing Santorum from the seat, but I do think that a good, hard-fought, positive primary race would be the best way to end the incumbent's advantage. It can be done if Pennacchio and Casey keep their campaigns positive and focus on why Santorum is bad for Pennsylvania and bad for the US, and how they would be better.
  •  sweet tim (4.00)
    how is that fundraiser going?  dont forget people they are working on raising money to continue their online outreach.  so throw them some turkee.

    Yeah the revolution starts now..So what you doin' standin' around? -Steve Earle

    by juls on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:12:48 AM PST

  •  Interesting (4.00)
    " It hired a Washington firm, M&R Strategic Services, to launch an "aggressive" Internet operation that includes reaching out to bloggers for support, said Marc Farinella, Casey's campaign adviser."

    If it is so aggressively reaching out to bloggers, why haven't I seen anything about it? Is he going to try to buy blogger opinions and posts? I think Tim that you have this market.

    Also, note Chuck hires Tim - from the grassroot and Blogosphere - to work his Internet outreach. Casey hires a DC firm. Netroots vs. the Beltway.

    •  Aggressive (4.00)
      Aggressive means that the firm costs more money than it should.

      Aggressive means that the firm will try to use "non-traditional" methods, to make sure the story is about the firm and the campiagn moreso than the candidate himself.

      Aggressive means that they don't understand how the internet can actually help a campaign, but they do know how to create a DC 'buzz' around the campaign, sometimes with the word 'internet'.

      Aggressive means same ol' DC Beltway BullShit re-packaged to pick up on this new-fangled internets fad.

      But that's just how I read it.

      Strength without wisdom is a chimera, resolve without competence a travesty. - David Neiwert

      by SleepyG on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:28:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sign me up (4.00)
    I've been rooting for Casey on the "anybody but Santorum" principle and rationalizing that Democratic constituents could help reign him in. But I was pondering just last night what it would be like to unseat Santorum only to get another Lieberman.

    I wake up this morning to an alternative. I'm interested, and I'm close to Darby. I want to know more.

    •  that's the rub (4.00)
      Will he be a Reid, fighting for Democratic values that we all agree on and and on issues that he is conservative on still using it as an attack on the Republicans or will he be a Lieberman who will be on TV stabbing Democrats in the back every chance FAUX news and the SCLM give him.  

      It's not Blue versus Red. It's Blue versus Gray.

      by Sedge on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:42:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Casey is not a DINO (none)
      Yes, he has firmly held moral beliefs about abortion, but he is definitely a fighter for working people.  He will probably be much like Reid in his stances.

      And, yes, it does bother me that we seem to be vetting more anti-choice candidates, but I don't think it's at a crisis-level yet, and I don't necessarily like the idea of a litmus test.  Yet.  If things change, we might have to make pro-choice a litmus test.  For right now, Anybody But a Conservative is a good strategy.

      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

      by TheCrimsonKid on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:46:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ask Casey... (none)
        How he comes down on certain issues.

        Here is a hint, he won't answer.  And just for your, and other's edification, he went completely out of his way last to announce he would not necessarily stand with Harry Reid and the Democrats on fillibustering extremist judges.

        The conversations that you describe regarding abortion, stem cell research and filibusters simply never took place. And at no time did Senators Reid or Schumer put forward any conditions for supporting Bob Casey's run for the Senate.

        Tim

        •  I'm confused (none)
          Was that "The conversations..." supposed to be a quote from somewhere?  I think your formatting got screwed up.  If you would, please clarify, cause the post seems a little confusing.

          Thanks.

          They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

          by TheCrimsonKid on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  "Electability" doesn't cut it (4.00)
    I implore people considering Mr. Casey to consider what I believe to be our past mistakes and I would encourage the Democratic Party to stop trying to convince people not to run and start working to get Democrats to run for every office out there.

    Whether you choose Mr. Pennacchio or Mr. Casey, pick the person you BELIEVE in most, the person you feel would best represent you and your fellow Pennsylvanians.

    It irritated me to no end when people voted for John Kerry simply because "he's going to win the nomination any way".  Why vote for someone who you feel in your heart doesn't represent you just because someone who does believe in him tells you he's "more electable".

    I'm tired of settling for allegedly electable candidates that are so bland and uninteresting that they end up losing.

    •  John Kerry (4.00)
      was "electable" too. Good point.

      "Blogging doesn't make it so" - Sen. Hayworth (R) AZ 1/6/2005. Oh yeah?

      by bejammin075 on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:37:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  electability is BS (4.00)
      It is a trite phrase for people who don't want to go into more depths as to why they are supporting someone.  If you want to say it's because he has more money and name recognition and that you don't give a damn about actual stances, fine!  But voting for someone because they are "electable" in a primary is a cop-out if you do care about issues and it doesn't necessarily work anyway.  

      I wonder how many would've voted for Kerry in Iowa back in January '04 if they had the powers to see what would happen in the fall.  

      It's not Blue versus Red. It's Blue versus Gray.

      by Sedge on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:39:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't (none)
        dismiss "electability" out of hand. My problem with that particular primary was not that we should nominate an "electable" candidate. Of course we should. That is, we should not be in the business of nominating people who are "unelectable". My problem was with the assessment that Kerry was the only one who was electable. I didn't think that was true at all. On the other hand, I didn't think Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun, or Lieberman were at all "electable" either. Now, people should not be telling anyone else how to vote in any election. So if you want to vote for an "unelectable" candidate--do it! That's the way the system is supposed to work. (unless it's 2000 and the unelectable candidate is Ralph Nader of course...)

        The problem is less with how people vote as with how they view certain races. If you voted for Kucinich, knowing he was unelectable, that's fine. If you voted for Kucinich and expected he was going to win the nomination, I'd be suspicious of your grip on reality. Same thing here.

        But here's the challenge I'll put down... Chuck Pennochio seems like he might be trying to be the poor man leftist's Pat Toomey. And Pat Toomey got pretty far before he had to bow out, largely on the strength of the right-wing purists backing him. Those purists showed that they didn't quite have enough muscle to overthrow an evil centrist, but they had enough muscle to make him sweat--a lot. Does the purist progressive wing have that much muscle? It will be interesting to find out.

        Abortions go up under Republicans. Business is better under Democrats. Pass it on.

        by JMS on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:12:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Toomey didn't 'bow out' -- he lost (4.00)
          to Specter in a nail-biter by approx. 15,000 votes.

          And to fine tune it -- it's not purity or muscle -- it's money, honey ;)

          ...Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things....

          by PhillyGal on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:17:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Toomey (none)
          was House Rep, and was backed by The Club for Growth. I don't think the comparison holds up that well. Alot of Repubs in PA are still pissed at Santorum for bailing out Specter.

          "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

          by bluestateLIBertarian on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:18:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  seriously (none)
            Toomey raised $3-5M and had a similar amount spent on his behalf by the Club for Growth.  Specter raised $15M, had Bush/Cheney/Santorum on his side and won by 2 votes per precinct.

            not sure how this cuts; just the facts.

        •  electable (none)
          Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Lieberman clearly are electable as they have won elections in the past.  Now most likely they are never going to win the Presidency and it is foolish to support them thinking they can.  

          However, personally I think that Jews, non-whites, women, and vegans are not going to be elected President in my lifetime.  But that has more to do with bigotry than with any of their actual stances on issues.  

          The thing is, I don't think their is a chance that any of the unelectable in the general election folks are in any way going to win a primary.  People vote for candidates for the same stupid reasons in the primary as in the general elections, i.e. their hair, their folksiness, how good their commercials are.  If they are unelectable then you shouldn't worry about it because they won't win the primary.  If they win the primary then worrying about electability is a copout.

          It's not Blue versus Red. It's Blue versus Gray.

          by Sedge on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:44:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  If I never hear the term "electability" (4.00)
      again it will be too soon.
  •  Ask ForVow of Non-Negativity, Cross Endorse Winner (none)
    I ask of Chuck, as well as Casey, that they each
    1. promise not to go negative during the Primary on the theory that negative primary attacks are free fodder for the GOP.
    2. Vow to endorse and campaign for the Primary winner, sharing all appropriate e-mail and mass mailing lists as well as merging staff/volunteers as appropriate.

    With these promises, each can campaign freely knowing that little harm will be done to chances of a Blue win in November 06.
    •  I can't see... (none)
      1 happening, not because Casey won't agree to it, but because if Pennachio wants to win, the campaign is going to have to be (at least at the start) "Bob Casey's not progressive enough on issue X."  That, to me, would be "negative."

      #2 raises significant privacy concerns.  The mailing lists and the like may be protected by privacy rules preventing sharing, etc.

      I'm all for a clean, well-fought, primary, but a primary that's shapring up to be heavily "You're pro-life!/You're not progressive enough!" directed toward Casey, and "You're not electable!" directed toward Pennachio is bad for whoever wins.

      •  Truth be told... (4.00)
        This campaign, if it has any shot to succeed, will have very little to do with Bob Casey.  It will be about creating a movement that rescues the Pennsylvania Democratic Party from itself.

        It will be about building a grassroots infrastructure, statewide, that will carry us to election victories for decades to come.

        Tim

        •  Pennacchio's Campaign (4.00)

          And this is why I think the blogsphere really has to put muscle behind Pennacchio and push. He seems to understand that his election can't just be about his election - it has to be about starting to build a Democratic election machine in PA like the ones the Republicans have spent the last 40 years building in the south. Casey's given no indication that he's in this for anything but himself which, combined with his pro-coathanger anti-woman beliefs, makes me not very inclined to support him.

          Monsters think it's all right to be a monster, after all. - Hitherby Dragons

          by RHunter on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:46:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  C'mon (none)
            Don't stoop there.  Is Casey pro-life?  Yes.  And, there is no problem with making that clear.  That said, he has consistently advocated for issues that touch working and middle class people, and is probably to the left of most Democratic Senators on economic issues.  Saying he stands for nothing but himself just makes no sense, is not true, and is not the way any sort of upstart candidacy will gain traction.

            The reality is that most people in PA seem to think Casey is a pretty decent guy.  So, if you are going to beat him, you will have to do it on issues, facts and organization, not distorting his character.

            •  That advice cuts both ways. (4.00)
              So, how about a little less sneering toward Pennachio and a little more substance about Casey, Jr?

              (Comment is not to you personally, in general.)

              Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
              We are the resistance.

              by boadicea on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:49:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Have a Clue-by-Four (none)

              Did you even read any of the context? Or did you just go "Hey, that sounds remotely disapproving of Casey! ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!"

              Yes, Casey is pro-coathanger and anti-women's-rights. He's said that he would prefer if all abortion were illegal, no matter the circumstance.

              As for saying he's nothing but himself, it is abundantly clear from context that this was not referring to his "positions", but, rather, to his campaign. His campaign is to get Casey Jr. into the US Senate. Pennacchio's campaign is trying for something larger. Are you saying that we should just focus on the careers of politicians and abandon the larger effort to build a working party structure? As that is what you're advocating by taking issue with this point.

              Monsters think it's all right to be a monster, after all. - Hitherby Dragons

              by RHunter on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:53:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  um (none)
                Casey's given no indication that he's in this for anything but himself which, combined with his pro-coathanger anti-woman beliefs, makes me not very inclined to support him.

                Then you:

                As for saying he's nothing but himself, it is abundantly clear from context that this was not referring to his "positions", but, rather, to his campaign. His campaign is to get Casey Jr. into the US Senate.

                So, is he just trying to be a Senator for Senator's sake?  Is that based on any fact you have?  Or does he possibly think he could do a lot of good by eliminating Santorum, advocating for the working class, etc?  

                I like Pennacchio, and I like what his campaign is trying to do.  But the idea that any candidate not trying to start an entire movement is only in it for the simple act of getting themselves into office is a little strange.

                Name me a Senator you really like, any one not named Wellstone, and show me the movement he or she created when running for office.

                •  That's Just The Way It Is.... (none)

                  Ah... I so love that argument. "Things are bad, so we shouldn't try to make things better." Do you truly believe that it's better to support more of the same than take a risk and try and improve the world? Or to support more of the same instead of actually standing up for your beliefs?

                  Yes, I do believe that anyone who tries to run a campaign in a vacuum and is concerned merely with their own power as opposed to helping - in however small a way - rebuild the structures of Democracy in this country is a bad candidate. And this is what Casey is intent on doing. Allow me to refer you to, for example, attempting to deny that any legitimate primary opponents exist and trying to impose media black-outs on those that challenge him... While at the same time running ads that appear on Google searches for those very same challengers.

                  I also believe that a pro-coathanger candidate is bad, just as I believe an anti-rule of law, pro-torture, or pro-theocracy candidate would be bad. The fact that, as a male, I would never directly feel the impact of Casey's anti-woman stance doesn't change that in the slightest.

                  Monsters think it's all right to be a monster, after all. - Hitherby Dragons

                  by RHunter on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 12:38:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  give me a break (none)
                    First off all, my point was asking you whether there were any US Senators you liked, and what movements they led.  You answered:  Oh, right, you didnt answer.  Does that mean you don't support any US Senators?  

                    The fact is that party politics, and an office as big as US Senator make it hard to use a candidacy, especially a winning candidacy as a movement.  That is not to say Pennacchio shouldn't do what he is doing, but to say you are putting quite a big burden on Casey.  Why do expect your Senator's to be Messiahs?  The fact is that the act of removing Rick Santorum from the Senate, and replacing him with an Economic populist, is unquestionably a net gain for America.

                    I like what Chuck is trying to do.  I do not like Casey's position on choice.  That said, what will not get Chuck elected is any holier than thou crap which you are espousing.

        •  Well, here's your challenge, Tim (none)
          This campaign, if it has any shot to succeed, will have very little to do with Bob Casey.  It will be about creating a movement that rescues the Pennsylvania Democratic Party from itself.

          It will be about building a grassroots infrastructure, statewide, that will carry us to election victories for decades to come.

          I was born and raised in PA and care very much what happens there. So I will hold you to your word, Tim, and hope you succeed.

          The proof of your success will come when Casey wins the primary (which he will, do not kid yourself), and the movement you have helped build carries him to victory over Santorum, with the support of you, Chuck Pennacchio, and everybody who is reading this.

          "Lash those conservatives and traitors with the pen of gall and wormwood -- let them feel -- no temporising!" -- Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1837

          by Ivan on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 11:09:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But that's his job!! (4.00)
            The proof of your success will come when Casey wins the primary (which he will, do not kid yourself)

            But that's exactly what he's supposed to do - believe in his candidate! What is the point of running a campaign if you're not running to win? The point is to defeat Santorum, whether Casey is the one to do it or Pennacchio is and all you people who are here to knock Tim down a notch ARE NOT HELPING!

            •  Say what? (none)
              The point is to defeat Santorum, whether Casey is the one to do it or Pennacchio is and all you people who are here to knock Tim down a notch ARE NOT HELPING!

              I'm here to knock Tim down a notch? Like hell I am! Just because I think Casey will win doesn't mean I think Chuck should quit. Quite the contrary. I want more Democrats running, not fewer. Competition is good for us.

              The Democrats haven't win a Senate race in PA since Wofford beat Thornburgh. That has to change, and what Chuck and Tim are doing should help that happen whoever wins the primary. Of course Chuck should run to win.

              I just don't want Chuck's supporters to fail to support Casey after (as I assume) Casey wins the primary, any more than I would want Casey's supporters to sandbag Chuck if he were to win. Is that clear now?

              "Lash those conservatives and traitors with the pen of gall and wormwood -- let them feel -- no temporising!" -- Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1837

              by Ivan on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 12:51:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  hmm (none)
        But if Casey is attacked for being not progressive enough, how on earth will the rightwing fodder?

        It's not Blue versus Red. It's Blue versus Gray.

        by Sedge on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:36:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I will vote for the most (4.00)
    progressive candidate. Regardless of "electability".

    Good luck in the primary.

    "Blogging doesn't make it so" - Sen. Hayworth (R) AZ 1/6/2005. Oh yeah?

    by bejammin075 on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:35:24 AM PST

  •  Great (4.00)
    I would gladly support a Casey over a Santorum fully, but I really could use another Kennedy, not another Lieberman Salazar.
  •  Lafayette (none)
    I believe my schools college dems are trying to bring Mr. Pennacchio to campus.

    looking for an entry level job in sales/marketing or advertising

    by upsavr on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:29:23 AM PST

  •  Thanks for your work, Tim (none)
    Just wanted to say that, and that I'll bet I'm not the only Mercer County DFA'er who's rewarding Mr. Pennacchio's trip to our Meetup (in the rain, no less) a few months back w/ a DFA-list recommendation.

    Meanwhile, I'm still having trouble logging in at the site.

    I don't mind it if I'm not exactly on your "to do" list, though!

    Give Dean some mojo here.

    by Shelley on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:33:46 AM PST

    •  you are... (none)
      my advice, to correct the problem asap would be to create an account using another email address.

      Follow the link in the email that is sent to you as soon as you get it.  And go from there.

      There is a small small small small chance it might appear in your bulk mail folder.  Check that as well.

      Thanks,

      Tim

  •  how do we feel about pennacio now? (none)
    to all you liberals reading this pay close attention!!  chuck pennacchio is not so liberal after all!!  for all of you'se (yes i am from philly) who thought casey was "conservative" because of his stance on guns and abortion, look at mr. pennacchio.  he supports the balanced budget ammendment!  he is against gay marriage!  who is more "liberal" now?  just because he is the internet candidate and casey is the establishment candidate DOES NOT MAKE HIM A LIBERAL MESSIAH!!  open your eyes and get behind casey!!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site