PA Senate 2006: Is Pennacchio the Anti-Santorum?

Lately, we've had quite a bit of interesting speculation here in PA about who will or won't be running in the 2006 senate race against Rick Santorum (R-VA/PA).  More on that in a moment; first, a little review of recent dKos history.

In the past few weeks (months, maybe?) there has been a great deal of discussion here on dKos regarding the Democratic party's pro-choice position on abortion.  Some diarists and posters have suggested giving up the defense of Roe v Wade-thus depriving the Republicans of one of their wedge issues-with the hope for political gain in future elections.  

My response to this has been horror at the thought that my own political party would even consider jettisoning my rights in exchange for a few votes from the other side. Of course, many people here at dKos were saying that the Democratic leadership would never do such a thing.  And I believed them.  After all, isn't this the party that built its reputation on defending those who couldn't defend themselves, such as the poor, the elderly, children, minority groups, and WOMEN?  

We were wrong. (More on the flip...)

Here in Pennsylvania, the established Democratic party leadership has made the decision to back Bobby Casey, Jr (an anti-choice, anti-gay rights candidate-almost a Republican, isn't he?), against Rick Santorum (R-VA/PA).  Worse, they have done their best to "clear the field" of any other candidates, with the intent of having an uncontested primary.  This approach has eliminated one of the 2 pro-choice democratic primary candidates that I am aware of, and leads me to believe that the Democratic establishment in PA thinks of women as second-class citizens.  Why don't they think the voters here should have a say in who the best candidate would be to run against Santorum?  And why have they crowned Casey as their champion when he doesn't even represent the Democratic party on the major issue of women's rights?

Because one of my goals for 2005/2006 is to do anything I can to help get rid of Santorum, I spent part of my Saturday this weekend down in Philly at the first organizational meeting for the Pennacchio for Pennsylvania senate campaign.  For those of you who might not know this, there IS another democratic candidate running, his name is Chuck Pennacchio (www.chuck2006.com), and he's a progressive.

I have to admit, I was curious.  After all, this guy doesn't have the "name recognition" some others might, and he's a professor of American history at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, not a career politician.  As others on this site have pointed out, neither of these points are traditional strengths for a Senatorial candidate.  In fact, there have been some rather vitriolic comments directed against Pennacchio lately on this site, simply because he has the gall to be running against Casey, the anointed one.  

But as someone who often wonders whether our elected representatives even live on the same planet as I do, it was good to hear a political candidate from Pennsylvania voicing views and concerns similar to my own.  After introducing himself and giving us a short history of his previous political experience, which is admittedly limited, Chuck noted that the Democrats keep shifting away from their traditional base and towards the center in search of votes from the other side.  As I have often wondered, why do the Dems keep selecting and anointing candidates based on "name recognition" and "electability" when has been a losing strategy in the past?  After all, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is considered insanity, isn't it?  

Chuck went on to say that the last 14 Democratic bids for PA senate seats have all been unsuccessful, and it's time for a new approach.  I agree, and I actually think this is where his knowledge of American history is a benefit, as he spoke of taking the best parts of previously successful campaigns and incorporating them into his own campaign, making the best use of the grassroots/netroots and getting people to feel some ownership of the political process again.  He talked about how the Democrats used to stand for the protection of the people in our society who are least able to defend themselves (children, the elderly, etc), and how this has shifted to a situation in which politicians are beholden to corporate interests instead of the interests of the people.  While he was talking about the importance of the people in this process, he also pointed out that when people mobilize, they can win out against the monied interests, and start to take back our democracy.  Like so many of us, he dislikes where our country is heading, and feels a need to do something about it.  So he's running for the Senate, and needs our help with the campaign.  Judging by the number of people who took some time on a weekend to attend the meeting, people are interested and getting involved, and there are more people interested in the western part of PA as well.

After meeting him in person, I can see that Chuck is sincere in his desire for change.  More than this being about who can beat Santorum (and YES, I am aware that that is the critical and ultimate goal here), it's about the autocracy of the democratic party.  What is the harm in a contested primary, particularly if everyone seems to think one candidate has the money and connections to just steamroll the other in the primary?  There is an opportunity for everyone to hone their messages about what they stand for, and how to defend those messages.  As Pennacchio's team said, they want to keep taking the fight to Santorum, putting the spotlight on what he's doing to hurt our state and our country.  So far, they've been doing just that (as in the "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Social Security's got to go" video http://www.chuck2006.com/videos and the screenshot of the unflattering social security poll results from Santorum's website), and it ultimately benefits whoever wins the primary.  I think Pennacchio deserves some respect for what he's doing, which is attempting to bring forth a change in the way politics are being conducted.  Yes, it will take time to change things, but if no one new ever runs for office and we are only allowed to vote for the candidates whom the democratic establishment has told us we must, we will continue to have the same problems we're suffering from today.  

We all know that the PA senate race is a critical race for 2006.  Why is the PA state Democratic party hell-bent on running their own "Santorum Lite" candidate against Santorum?  Why are they afraid of a contested primary, when it affords them an opportunity to test their strategies prior to the real race in the fall? And why are the people here on dKos attacking a progressive candidate for taking the initiative and running for election?

Say what you will, but I will be helping Chuck Pennacchio with his efforts to run as progressive who believes in some of the same principles I do.  How about you?

•  My first-ever diary entry

  Say what you will.

  by CabinGirl on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:57:03 PM PDT

  •  Great Points

    in your diary, but this line:

    "He talked about how the Democrats used to stand for the protection of the people in our society who are least able to defend themselves (children, the elderly, etc)"

    ...is one in which Caseyites will extend to "...and unborn children in the womb."  They are least able to defend themselves out of any of society's groups.

    I'm definitely pro-choice, but as that seems to be the sticking point here, maybe it should be framed a little differently.

    by AnthonySF on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:05:49 PM PDT

•  Easy

  Casey won more votes than any other candidate in 2004. Pennachio has never run for office or held any elected position. He has never served in Congress and he comes from Philadelphia. PA already has a senator from Philadelphia: Arlen Specter.

  Casey is reliable; Pennachio is a risk. Based on the facts at hand he can't beat Santorum in a general election. He is a weak candidate that the far left will love, but everyone else will reject.

  Pennsylavnians aren't abortion or gay rights fanatics. For all the talk about Pennachio being another Wellstone all I can say this is: live in the real world.

  by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:59:53 PM PDT

  •  Will Casey act like a Democrat?

    That is the key. I don't care if he is more conservative than the rank-and-file Democrats in the senate. However, if he acts like a Republican rather than a Democrat, then he will get into big trouble.

    That is what cost Tom Daschle and Martin Frost their seats. They ran ads of themselves and Bush in the same picture; that turned a lot of people off. If people want a Republican, they will vote for the real thing, not a phony.

    If Bob Casey wants to win in 2006, he needs to act like a Democrat and not try to fake being a Republican.

    by Eternal Hope on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:04:34 PM PDT

    •  Why Daschle and Frost lost

      Frost--the Republicans threw him intoan ultra-GOP leaning seat in the Dallas area. They didn't turn out Frost because he wasn't a far left liberal; it was because he was a Democrat.

      Daschle--the Republicans smeared him non-stop for years. He lost because the GOP portrayed him successfully as an "obstructionist".

      As for Casey, while he is pro-life and somewhat unfriendly to gay rights issues, I think he is within the Democratic mainstream on economic issues.

      by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:08:54 PM PDT

      •  That's how they will smear everybody.

        Casey will not be immune to smearing just because he is to the right of the party on some issues. And Frost and Daschle did not help their own causes by running ads of them and George Bush. That is the sort of thing that Casey needs to avoid if he wants to win.

        by Eternal Hope on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:22:07 PM PDT

      •  Daschle

        South Dakota went 60 to 38 for Bush in 2004.  Daschle's tenure was always precarious.  

        by johnny rotten on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:29:32 PM PDT

    •  Nah

      Daschle and Frost both lost because they were running in heavily Republican jurisdictions.  They surely did not lost because the voters thought them insufficiently Democrat.  The only lesson you can draw from those races is that it is hard for Democrats to win (or hold seats) in heavily Republican districts.  

      by johnny rotten on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:28:29 PM PDT

      •  Right

        Daschle was running against Thune and Bush in a state Bush carried easily. Daschle's loss had NOTHING to do with Democrats being upset that he was insufficiently Democratic enough.

        I'm a liberal Democrat. On any issue, I'm as liberal as anyone here, but I'm also realistic. I'd rather have a pro-life Democrat in the Senate than a pro-life Republican anyday. Why, because most of the time, the Democrat's going to vote on my side of the issue, in favor of Social Security, workers' rights, civil rights,etc.

        Too many people on DailyKos and similar liberal blogs get overly upset when a Democrat votes against the Democratic line just once. Occassionaly, the member of the Senate or House might disagree with his fellow party members. That's ok. (You know, that's what the "big tent" is all about).

        It's not the one occurrence (votes for the bankruptcy bill, for Gonzales) but the pattern of voting against the party (Zell) we should raise hell about.

        by bullet2382 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:34:39 PM PDT

        •  Herseth

          If South Dakotans were turned off by Republican lite Democrats, they would never have elected Herseth.  

          by johnny rotten on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:37:42 PM PDT

          •  Herseth and Johnson

            Both Herseth and Johnson would be unacceptable Democrats according to the intolerant standards set forth by many on these boards. But the Democrats in the state and many thousands of Republicans and Independents had no problem voting for Herseth and Tim Johnson.

            by bullet2382 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:42:56 PM PDT

            •  Actually...

              One of the major defenses of Herseth was that she is pro-choice.  

              However, there are certain parties out here who assume that the only good Democrat is a pro-choice Democrat.  

              What I worry about is a Democratic party that considers a pro-life pro-labor Democrat to be a Republican, but welcomes a pro-choice anti-labor Democrat with open arms.  The Republicans have played the Democrats on this for about 10 years now, and some folks keep rising to the bait.

              by astralagos on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:45:44 PM PDT

        •  This should have nothing to do with right or left.

          Both Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman are conservative Democrats. I respect Harry Reid because despite some of his conservative views, he acts like a Democrat. He stands up (for the most part) to the President on the key issues.

          Joe Lieberman is also convervative. What is my problem with him? He acts like a Republican. He sucks up to Bush, he openly criticizes other Democrats, and he does not stand with us on many of the key issues. And he also buys into right-wing spin as well.

          Joe Lieberman and his DLC friends TALK about a big tent, but then they try to exclude the liberal wing and lump us into a spiderhole of denial.

          This has nothing to do with whether people are liberal or conservative. This has everything to do with whether or not they are a team player.

          by Eternal Hope on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:10:29 PM PDT

        •  Daschle and Frost

          My problem with Daschle and Frost was that many of their wounds were self-inflicted. They ran ads of themselves and Bush. They were acting like Republicans and they lost.

          Stephanie Herseth, however, acted like a Democrat and won in South Dakota. This tells me voters are turned off by people they think are phony.

          by Eternal Hope on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:13:06 PM PDT

  •  So are you saying

    that people who have never run for office shouldn't give it a try?  

    I am not advocating for Casey to pull out of the race for Pennaccchio here.  I AM saying that he deserves a fair chance, and that we as PA voters deserve some choices in the primary.  I am in the real world, and will support whoever wins the primary because I want to vote against Santorum (even if I find Casey personally distasteful).  I am angry that the democratic party thinks my rights are trumped by Casey's vote-getting potential to the point that he shouldn't have any competition in a primary.

     

    by CabinGirl on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:15:16 PM PDT

    •  Pennachio has every right to run

      You write:

      "that people who have never run for office shouldn't give it a try?"

      Well Chuck P has every right to run, but frankly he brings no experience. Your question is fair if this were for a state legislative seat or even for a House seat. But Pennachio is running for the Senate. Generally rookies don't win Senate races.

      You will get "choices" in the primary, but the candidate you support is unelectable. That's the reality.
      

      by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:36:07 PM PDT

      •  Unless they are millionaires

        ...or celebrities. Chuck is neither so some people are rightly scared- just as some people are scared of a Dem they think will help to further weaken a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body.

        That said, I'm glad Chuck is running. No one is forcing him to quit. He will get a lot of support from people on here and will make Casey Jr. answer some tough questions. I think both sides should welcome the debate. Actually Chuck can make Casey look even more moderate by running to his left which might help Casey even more against Santorum who historically runs to the middle which will now be very difficult. I think both sides should quit tearing down the other side and make a case for their guy and the voters will decide next August.

        by Joe Willy on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:52:50 PM PDT

        •  Unfortunately Chuck will get

          "a lot of support" from here. It seems like some people would rather "send a message" and support an unelectable candidate than actually win. That is something I don't really understand about the left. The right at least picks and rallies around candidates they know can win. The right doesn't fool around with unelectable candidates the way the left does.

          by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:09:18 PM PDT

          •  At it again

            Look, let's call anybody "unelectable." If Bush can get "elected" with sucky approval ratings and the majority of people disagreeing with the majority of his policies then I don't know what exactly means someone is electable besides a nice smile and good hair! This is why you rub my Joementum nerve sometimes- you cut down liberals for supporting their own beliefs and insist we're just trying to send a message by fighting for our beliefs- especially when many Americans agree with us one choice, on Iraq, and on many other central issues. Let the voters sort out who's electable and quit ragging on us because we represent core Democratic Party principles instead of the principle of selling out to some imagined "middle" which hasn't been kind of our centrist tendencies except for one guy with enough extra charisma to blast through
            a coordinated effort to destroy him.

            FYI: The right has "fooled around" with many people who couldn't win- Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Steve Forbes, etc. Just wait until the Lame Duck can't run and see what wing nuts come out of the woodwork... who is going to vote for Candidate Kitten Killer?

            by Joe Willy on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:28:57 PM PDT

            •  You honestly think

              Pennachio can win? You can "fight for your beliefs" but it means nothing if you're on the wrong side of the scoreboard on election night. And Pennachio is not electable in PA. But I guess you would rather "fight for your beliefs" by supporting a candidate who will most certainly lose to Santorum on election night?

              If Pennachio wins the primary, and then loses the general election, I'll be here saying "I told you so!"

              Then of course you'll probably blame the DLC or the moderate wing of the party for his loss.

              by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:57:05 PM PDT

              •  The God of Elections Has SPOKEN

                None may disagree!

                His Anointed, Bob Casey, must be uncontested in the primary.

                The feelings of actual PA democratic activists and voters must not be listened to, only the 'Losership'  (Zero for Fourteen) knows what to do.

                All you nice ladies do what we tell you, ya'heah me now?

                LL

                by LeftyLimblog on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:48:33 PM PDT

                •  Whatever

                  I said that Pennachio had the right to run but that he would lose if he won the primary. Anyway, even if Pennachio wins the primary, he will go onto lose. And people like you will then blame the DLC for his loss.

                  Do you honestly think PA voters share the same values as far left wing "activists?" I think Casey is more in line with PA's values.

                  Look, if Pennachio had held lower office, had more experience, the way Rendell did in 2002, I'd be willing to consider him.

                  But he is a rookie. Casey has the track record. It's a no brainer to me.

                  And in any event I expect Pennachio to lose the primary because more Democrats in PA share Casey's values than his.
                  

                  by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:04:10 PM PDT

                  •  We Want Primaries and Elections in this Democracy

                    You are welcome to your opinion and so am I.

                    But stop hiding from primaries and voting, OK? If you are so certain, you would just promote your candidate's good points and let the others fall by the wayside.

                    All this vociferous backstabbing to crush a primary challenge just makes you look like you are scared to let people vote.

                    And what is it about those Democratic activist ladies who want a voice and a pro-choice candiate to back in the primaries that scares you so anyway?

                    LL

                    by LeftyLimblog on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:27 AM PDT

                  •  WELLSTONE

                    I can name 100 examples (at least I could if I did some Googling to jog the memory) of candidates who ran and won with no prior experience. Wasn't Wellstone a college professor when he ran?

                    It's a no brainer to you, but you only get one vote and there are a few million Pennsylvanians who would like to express their own opinion who haven't declared you emporer. How about letting our democracy work? Besides, I come from the school that competitive primaries actually draw attention to races and issues. I doubt Casey will expend too many resources fighting the primary unless the race is tight, in which case it will serve as a warning that he's not the invincible candidate you declare.

                    by Joe Willy on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:11:12 PM PDT

          •  Your argument is idiotic

            Let's assume that you're correct and that PA is conservative enough that Casey's anti-choice stance is a net plus for him.

            How does a primary opponent who will challenge him on his conservative values hurt him? If, as you seem sure, PA voters want more centrist, socially conservative candidates, then Chuck's run will do nothing but cement Casey's legitimacy as a centrist in the eyes of PA voters and help Casey win the general election after he wins the primary.

            If you're wrong, however, Casey's stances are not popular in PA and (assuming Chuck can get sufficient name recognition), Chuck wins. He may be too liberal for you, but the Democratic voters of PA will have chosen him.

            Santorum is going to be especially weak this time. Too many "screw the people" votes in the Senate, the deal with screwing that PA school district for homeschooling money when he'd rented out his "residence" are enough. If somebody was willing to really go after this nutjob about Opus Dei, bringing a miscarriage home for his young children to say "goodbye" to, and the hypocrisy of his public opinions on lawsuits and privately benefitting from them.

            This is a great time to run a truly progressive Dem in PA. Many who normally wouldn't will pull the lever for ABS in the midterm. (No presidential election to help him pull up his numbers, either.)

            by Bill Rehm on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:01:28 PM PDT

      •  Fair statement on your part

        My real problem here is with the anointing of Casey (and yes, I understand how many votes he got for treasaurer against an unknown candidate last fall) over even those people with experience whose stance on the issues was more in line with the accepted Democratic party platform, and the clearing of the field for him.  

        by CabinGirl on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:58:19 PM PDT

    •  That's not a fair reading

      of jiacinto's argument.  Your response to him was:

      So are you saying that people who have never run for office shouldn't give it a try?

      No, what he's saying is that a guy who has not run for any office should not, as his first attempt, run for the U.S. Senate in the sixth largest state in the country, against a well-known and well-financed incumbent Senator.

      You turned jiacinto's argument into a caricature, which made it easy to mock him for it.  But it was not a fair reading of his statement.  

      The debate over Casey/Pennacchio has the potential to turn ugly.  In order to avoid this outcome, it would be nice if we could agree to argue with each other in good faith.  

      by dtj on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:44:34 PM PDT

      •  Fair enough...

        I hope that when people begin to represent candidate's positions on the issues we can do so with honesty and in good faith as well.

        by ttagaris on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:47:57 PM PDT

    •  I agree........................

            only about 100%. I like Pennacchio, too. A Santorum clone is hardly worth the trouble, in my book.
            Why pick a democrat that holds the same views, as a republican? If you do that, why not just vote republican?
             Do not vote for anyone, just to put a rear-end in that seat.
             If the candidate you vote for holds conservative views, he/she may hold onto them after the election, as well.
             In the long run, someone like this may do the republicans more good than he could ever do, for the democrats.
              I'm not moving either to the middle, or to the right.
              I'm staying right where I am.

      by lyvwyr101 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:57:24 AM PDT

  •  "The real world":

    Support a Republican, get a Republican. If we learn only one thing from Lieberman and Biden, it's that nominal party affiliation doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the hard issues.

    At this stage, I think the country -- and the Party -- will be much better off with Santorum getting another term. At least he galvanizes opposition and  makes a good foil for pro-gay and pro-choice fund-raising.  

    by matt n nyc on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:24:26 PM PDT

    •  That seems to be the idea behind

      Pennacchio's campaign.  Keep Santorum in office, just so we can have something to run against.

      by bullet2382 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:27:09 PM PDT

    •  So then

      you admit that you'd rather have Santorum, who represents 10%, maybe even 20% of your interess, instead of Casey, who probably represents 60-80% of your interests because you'd rather have have Santorum to "galvanize" the opposition.

      Spare me. I know that Casey isn't to the very far left, but he is probably the only Democrat who can win.

      But as a I said you'd rather have Santorum. It really says a lot about the mentality of the far left. Only among the far left can losing be construed as "winning".

      by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:33:09 PM PDT

      •  It worked for the right

        Remember when Republicans were "throwing away" votes on Buchanan? Your argument doesn't carry water when you say that the Democratic left is responsible for us losing because progressives are "too extreme" while the other party wins elections while arguing against evolution, against science, against people's economic self interest, against common sense policies of any kind, and even against the majority of people's opinion in numerous polls on numerous issues! How is it that Santorum can win in a state that disagrees with him on many issues? It certainly isn't because he's a moderate! It's completely understandable that after years of watching the GOP move further to the right and won while the Democratic Party chased it and lost that Democrats would finally begin to realize that chasing an illusory middle is the very reason we're losing! The question is- when will you and the DLC get it?

        by Joe Willy on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:35:47 PM PDT

        •  Thank you

          for reading all of my diary, not just the words Pennacchio, Casey, and Santorum!

          If no one steps up to try to get the state/country/whatever back on track but instead keeps on running along behind the right-wing republicans, we'll keep on heading in the wrong direction.  And losing.

          by CabinGirl on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:51:17 PM PDT

          •  Well

            When Pennachio loses to Santorum, if he wins the primary, I will be here on election night telling everyone who supported him on this site:

            I TOLD YOU SO.

            by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:09:26 PM PDT

        •  Well

          Pennsylvania is not Rhode Island. The voters there aren't pro-gay marriage and pro-choice fanatics. They just aren't. Pennsylvania leans Democratic, but they aren't to the far left on social issues. That's why Casey has been so successful. More Pennsylvanians share the same vales as Case than Pennachio.

          How you can conclude that Democratic candidates for US Senate have lost because they didn't run to the far left is beyond me. If you asked Democrats who voted for Specter, Santorum, and Heniz, I doubt they would tell you that they voted Republican because the Democrats who lost them were not "liberal enough".

          Mark my word, though, if Pennachio wins the primary and loses the general election, you and many others will be here blaming the DLC anyway for his loss somehow.

          by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:00:58 PM PDT

          •  PA appears to be liberal enough

            Pennsylvania is not Rhode Island. The voters there aren't pro-gay marriage and pro-choice fanatics. They just aren't. Pennsylvania leans Democratic, but they aren't to the far left on social issues. That's why Casey has been so successful. More Pennsylvanians share the same vales as Case than Pennachio.

            BZZZT! Wrong answer. Here's a Politics PA report on that very issue.

            Which candidate would you prefer?

            Statement	All Voters	Democrats	Republicans	Independents
            A candidate who supports a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion	51%	60%	40%	54%
            A candidate who opposes abortion and led the fight to ban partial birth abortions	37%	25%	50%	36%
            Don't Know	12%	15%	10%	10%

            (In case you didn't know "A candidate who opposes abortion and led the fight to ban partial birth abortions" is Rick Santorum.)

            by Bill Rehm on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:50:58 PM PDT

            •  Well

              Is this an internal poll for the Hafer campaign?  

              by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:09:47 PM PDT

              •  It's a published poll on PoliticsPA

                I did provide the link.

                Here's a Keystone poll from Oct 2004 PDF:
                

                
                ABRT Do you think that abortion should be...
                Oct
                2004
                29% Legal under any circumstances
                51% Legal under certain circumstances
                17% Illegal in all circumstances
                3% Do not know
                

                Notice that only 17% of PA voters support Santorum in this. It doesn't dig down into the details the way the other poll did, though. "Legal under certain circumstances" covers a lot of ground and Casey only accepts life of the mother as justification for an abortion.

                Of course, you could also look at polls that show how important abortion is to PA voters. It usually tips in at 1%. I don't have the links handy. It might have been in one of those 2 polls. If not, it's definitely in other Keystone polls on the site I linked here.

                by Bill Rehm on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:28:45 PM PDT

                •  Clarification

                  I was imprecise above. The actual question you'd be looking for actually explores what PA voters think is the most important issue.

                  by Bill Rehm on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:30:09 PM PDT

      •  You do this all the time

        It really says something about matt in nyc's mentality. But you don't know where he stands on enough issues to even brand him reliably a member of  "the far left".

        But even if he is, you have a sample size of one. You keep confusing folks who believe that a democratic process should decide who is the Democratic nominee with folks who would take their ball and go home.

        Although matt's position is, IMHO, stupid, your gross generalization from it is downright offensive.

        by Bill Rehm on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:07:19 PM PDT

    •  This is an excellent way

      to guarantee that more people will oppose Pennacchio.  I want Santorum out of office.  If Pennacchio's supporters start making the argument that we're better off with Santorum in office, then that's a big red flag.  

      by dtj on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:55:06 PM PDT

•  good luck, but a word of caution

  I sympathize with your situation. In the Iowa governor's race for 2006 I am supporting Ed Fallon, a true progressive and long-shot, against the more established candidates. He will raise the issues that need to be raised during the campaign.

  I caution you not to dismiss Casey as "Santorum lite," however. To cite just one example, Santorum would like to eliminate the 40-hour work week and most other laws protecting labor in this country, including the minimum wage, whereas Casey's record on labor issues is rock solid.

  I also disagree with Casey on some of the issues, but I think Pennachio supporters will not be helping his cause if they treat Casey as an enemy of the people.

  by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:02:11 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for your support

    At the organizational meeting, I was impressed with how Chuck and his team were focusing on the getting the truth out about Santorum, and were very clear about not attacking Casey as an enemy of the people.  "Enemy of the people" is Santorum's area of expertise.
    

    by CabinGirl on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:18:34 PM PDT

  •  That's not going to matter much

    I caution you not to dismiss Casey as "Santorum lite," however. To cite just one example, Santorum would like to eliminate the 40-hour work week and most other laws protecting labor in this country, including the minimum wage, whereas Casey's record on labor issues is rock solid.

    to a woman trying to raise a child or two on her own and particularly in low wage jobs. She needs to work a couple of them anyway just to make ends meet. I understand that eliminating the 40 hr work week would be hard on many people but most of them won't be pregnant or poor or even women. Why should I give a shit? You guys clearly don't.

    Besides, I'm willing to take bets that if the establishment dems succeed in overcoming the apparently totally unnecesary primary process as they're wont to do and the pro-choice voters (who will be aware of just how extreme Casey is in his positions on women's reproductive issues by that point in time) are left with two revolting candidates they won't vote for either and he will lose. And, I might add, the DSCC will experience some difficulty in their fundraising because I'm damned if I'm going to see one red cent going to elect a man who believes I'm a walking incubator and a cheap labor source.

    by colleen on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:39:18 PM PDT

    •  pro-choice voters will not abandon Casey

      He got more votes than any other PA politician in November. Are you saying that all the Dems who voted for him in 2004 will not vote for him in 2006 against the egregious Santorum?

      I don't think so.

      by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:27:41 PM PDT

      •  C'mon

        In 2004, he wasn't running for a position where his views on abortion mattered.

        And plenty of Democrats who voted for Al Gore also voted for Rick Santorum in 2000 here.

        by Adam B on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:18:32 PM PDT

      •  They will

        pro-choice voters will not abandon Casey

         in large enough numbers to make a difference.

        Are you saying that all the Dems who voted for him in 2004 will not vote for him in 2006 against the egregious Santorum?

        no. I'm saying that we will actively work to inform pro-choice voters about his positions and that about 25% of them will. I'm saying that you won't pick up enough votes from r-w christians to make up for that vote loss.  As a  state treasurer his views on reproductive rights would not make one wit of difference. As a US senator the situation is quite different.

        by colleen on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:28:43 PM PDT

        •  So you admit

          that you will actively work to undermine Casey's candidacy, even as nominee?

          If so, you're no Democrat. You'll feel more comfortable with the Greens, who aren't unencumbered by silly notions like winning elections.

          by Desroko on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:14:27 AM PDT

    •  Typical far left illogical thinking

      So you'd rather have Santorum, who represents NONE of your issues, because Casey isn't an abortion fanatic? Casey probably represents your position on the issues 60-80% of the time; but, because he isn't an abortion fanatic, you'd rather have Santorum who represents maybe 10-20% of your interests. Typical far left logic. Because someone isn't an abortion or gay rights fanatic he or she should lose to someone far to the right.
      

      by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:08:42 PM PDT

      •  Casey IS an abortion fanatic

        He doesn't stake out some reasonable, middle-of-the-road stance here.

        Here's a survey he completed in 2000 for the PA Catholic Conference.

        He also opposes gay people adopting children.

        by Bill Rehm on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:00:05 PM PDT

        •  So

          you would rather have Santorum then because you can't get Barbara Lee elected in PA?

          by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:07:18 PM PDT

          •  This has nothing to do

            with what I would "rather have". You were wrong. Factually incorrect. I corrected you.

            As far as what I would rather have, that would be actual participatory democracy in the PA Democratic primary. If Casey wins, go Casey! If Chuck wins, go Chuck!

            You seem to keep missing the fact that people object to the smoke-filled backroom action in all of this. Casey deserves a chance to run. So did Hafer. So did Hoeffel. So does Pennachio. That's a real Democratic process.

            Now, I would actually be the first one to agree that Pennachio has an uphill battle to get the Dem nomination. But he should be able to run and he should be able to raise his issues and the Dem leadership in PA are depriving Democratic voters of their right to vote on a candidate (in the case of Hafer and Hoeffel) and are actively attacking Pennachio's candidacy.

            That's not right and it's not healthy for the party or the state.

            by Bill Rehm on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:41:44 PM PDT

            •  Uh

              Last I thought Pennachio's name was on the ballot. They aren't "depriving" anyone of the right to vote for Pennachio. Criticizing him is not tantamount to "depriving" someone from voting for him.

              by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:16:09 PM PDT

              •  Disingenuous

                First, you ignored the point I'm making. Second, Hafre and Hoeffel are not running. They were pressured to back out.

                I don't know Pennachio from a hole in the ground. You were wrong about PA and you're ignoring the substance of people's criticism to make your all-too-familiar whine about how people have something against conservative Democrats because they don't want to clear out any primary challengers to those conservative Dems.

                by Bill Rehm on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:02:40 PM PDT

      •  OK, now you have seriously pissed me off

        Typical far left illogical thinking

        How dare you. It's not as if you've ever evinced any interest in what my positions are or in what I hold as a high priority. Rest assured (and I say this after reading a couple of years of your nasty, vicious politics) they don't resemble yours in the least. Indeed I regard men like you as unfortunate in any culture and something of an albatross around the neck of a formerly decent political party. I trust I have made myself clear?

        by colleen on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:15:30 PM PDT

        •  It's out of frustration

          It's like no candidate is good enough for some people on this board.

          by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:17:55 PM PDT

•  How about me?

  I'll be backing Casey.  The former candidate for Treasurer who received the most votes in the state's history last November.  And nearly a half million more votes than John Kerry.

  First and foremost I want Santorum to go away and someone who is an improvement (however mild) of a Democrat to win in that seat.  When Democrats regain a good Senate majority, let the purges begin.  But not before, IMO.

  Chuck should be able to run, and as long as he doesn't pull a Nader in the general election, I don't have a problem with him.  Good luck.

  by Viktor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:07:24 PM PDT

  •  Also

    I should say that I live in PA.

    by Viktor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:07:49 PM PDT

  •  It's about electability

    Casey will defeat Santorum.

    Santorum would crusch Pennacchio.

    It's that simple...either nominate Casey and take back a Senate seat or nominate Pennacchio and assist the GOP and W.

    by bullet2382 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:11:28 PM PDT

    •  How about

      Have a vigorous primary that gets people talking about Democratic issues and ideas and motivates the base to get involved, and build on that energy with a strong, united general campaign with the candidate that emerges from the process?

      by The Cunctator on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:17:44 PM PDT

      •  This won't be a vigorous primary

        This will be a giant swatting at a fly.

        I'm all for a vigorous primaries. We are going to have one in Minnesota. The final here will be Casey 75% Pennacchio 25% at best; and that energy running in the Democratic primary is better suited at trying to defeat Santorum.

        by bullet2382 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:20:20 PM PDT

        •  So Swat Away

          Primaries serve a purpose and 'the energy' you think is wasted is needed debate in many Democrats book.

          Stop trying to silence democracy, try to win.

          So what do you like about your candidate and why?

          LL

          by LeftyLimblog on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 03:00:51 AM PDT

    •  electability is, like, So yesterday!

      by primate on the left on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:19:01 PM PDT

      •  Our party will be yesterday

        if we don't stop attacking Democrats, like Casey who are 98% of the time on our side. Just because he's pro-life doesn't mean we should send Santorum back to the Senate for six years. Casey will fight for working families everyday, and he can beat Santorum---that's it, no reason to debate it.

        by bullet2382 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:21:55 PM PDT

        •  Uh, and today

          The democratic party isn't exactly swimming to victory.

          by primate on the left on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:56:34 PM PDT

    •  Not a guarantee

      Has anybody ever heard Casey speak?  He's not exactly inspiring.  And he doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb in the basket.  Not that I'm pushing Pennacchio -- I heard him on some leftie radio show and I was not impressed at all.  

      God, I wish we had some third alternative.

      by angryandy on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:54:19 PM PDT

    •  One question

      If you are certain that Casey will crush Santorum, then you must be certain that he will crush Pennacchio.  Why are you so angry that Pennacchio is running, then?  If this will be like "a giant swatting a fly" for Casey, why are you giving it so much of your energy?

      I think I made it clear in my diary that I want Santorum to lose, but I would like it to happen without having to vote for someone who I disagree with on matters that are important to me (and no, I didn't like the father either).  

      by CabinGirl on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:08:42 PM PDT

•  Casey

  I'm gay and while I am not thrilled about some of Casey's views on gay rights, they are better than Santorum. I'm not a one issue person. And,

  I know that real power lies in getting Senate seats for the Democratic party as a WHOLE. The poswr is in the numbers.

  I'll support Casey 100%, and even plan on sending him a check, as long as I believe he has a good chance at beating the uber-consevative psychopath Rick Santorum.

  by GregNYC on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:24:09 PM PDT

  •  Well, I won't

    be sending him a fucking penny. Who needs another Democratic homophobe in Congress?

    And, as I said above, Santorum is the best thing to happen to pro-gay and pro-choice fundraising since Fred Phelps.

    by matt n nyc on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:28:07 PM PDT

•  Can someone bring me up to speed on the gay thing

  I am not a PA voter but I am watching this race with interest.

  I know all about Rick "Man-On-Dog" Santorum and his bizarre HATRED of "the homosexual agenda", whatever the hell THAT is. I've certainly never received one. Maybe it is in my "Homosexual Trapper-Keeper".

  When you guys say Bob Casey is anti-gay, what exactly do you mean? Does he ooze anti-Gay venom like Santorum, or is he more of the "equal rights not special rights" bigot that we Cincinnatians encountered in the last election?

  In other words, is he WORSE than Santorum on this issue? I would google it but I would rather have a "straight" (no pun intended) answer from an interested Democrat.

  by BlueGoo on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:43:14 PM PDT

  •  Apparently

    back in 2000, Casey filled out a survey for the PA Catholic Conference, saying that he opposes the government requiring that benefits be provided to same-sex partners, and opposes allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.  In the same survey, he stated that he opposes repealing the death penalty, and supports legal protection for unborn children, with an exception for the life of the mother.  This survey seems to be the origin of much of the venom that has been directed at Casey.

    However, Casey had a different answer on same-sex benefits in 2004.  Responding to the same group's survey four years later, here is what he said:

    Employers should be permitted to extend domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples in committed, long-term relationships.

    This answer does not mean that he supports requiring such benefits (although he does not say that explicitly this time, so it's not entirely clear).  But it does clarify his stance a bit.  

    In these surveys, Casey also states that he is against vouchers, in favor of universal health care, and in favor of government funding of contraceptives.  

    by dtj on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:15:17 PM PDT

    •  Thank you very much.

      Based on this info he certainly DOES sound like the lessor of two evils. Pennachio sounds great too but sounds like Casey will be the guy.

      by BlueGoo on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:19:22 AM PDT

•  Where I live in PA,

  there is a different slant to things.  I live in the far corner of NW PA.  This is the 4th largest city in PA, and along with the city the county is small towns, about 14,000 and under for at least the surrounding 150 miles.  

  The city is a catholic city and usually goes Democratic where the rest of the area goes Republican.

  I don't like Casey, but here is why I think he has the far better chance of beating Santorum, and it is why I'm going to vote for him.

  People here have never heard of Pennachio. I haven't heard of him other than on this blog.  

  Last fall, an unknown Democrat from this county ran against Rep. English, a long time incumbant in the House.  Since the Dem was never heard from before, and didn't have much of a history (he was a teacher) the republican party masaquered him.  They waged the dirtiest campaign against him that I have ever seen. Without solid money behind him, the same fate will hit Pennachio.

  A number of years ago, I demonstrated in a local prochoice rally outside of a hotel where Santorium was speaking at an antichoice dinner.
  It was an eye opener how much support he has amongnst these people.  The stream of money is bottomless.  

  I have some family members, also Catholic, who are registered as Democrats, but haven't voted for a democratic candidate in years because of the choice question.  Maybe, just maybe, they will vote Democratic if Casey is the candidate.

  I work in a union shop, where union members are enthusiastically for Casey because of his prounion history.

  Again, non of us here have ever heard of Pinnachio.  He has a hell of a road ahead of him if he is going to win.

  I do not like Casey.  I think he appears weak in his speaking style.  I don't like his views.  I didn't like his father, and I don't like the present gov. but the pragmatic aspect of electing Casey is that he can withstand the Republican onslaught better than Pinnachio, and when we get the Senate in Congress then we can say what comes to the floor, and what does not.  There is no way that Roe. vs. Wade will be overturned in a Democratic Senate and a Democratic appointed Supreme Court.

  Unless Pinnachio starts showing his face here, and there is indication that he can beat Santorum, it is crazy to pick this Election in PA, a basically conservative state to make a statement.  Better to pick another state where the failure of our candidate doesn't have such dire consequence.  That is where I stand now.  It is up to Pinnachio to change my mind and he is not doing a very good job of selling himself.

  A number of years ago,

  by hopscotch1997 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:43:59 PM PDT

  •  The campaign...

    Will be in your neck of the woods the first week of April.  Our organizers are already expecting 100 people for the event.

    More information coming, but I hope we will see you there.

    Tim

    by ttagaris on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:49:48 PM PDT

    •  All in a name

      Some folks might have a hard time remembering Chuck's last name, whereas Casey's is a little easier. But your signature exhibits an interesting opportunity. Penn for Penn...something along those lines.

      by primate on the left on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:38:24 PM PDT

•  Oh Pleez

  Bob Casey is not almost a Republican.  Not even close.  

  Don't bring that weak shit here.

  by Cheez Whiz on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:46:26 PM PDT

•  Look.

  Argue for Pennacchio, but to characterize Bob Casey as Republican-lite is untrue and unfair.  The man may be to the right on some issues, but he's to the left of a lot of current Democratic Senators on other issues.

  I'm taking no position in the Dem primary, but Pennacchio's supporters would do well to stop all the false info thrown around about Bob Casey (and the state of PA) and from getting overly optimistic.  There's a sense of loyalty in the blogosphere to blogosphere friendly candidates/officeholders, which is certainly understandable. It is also understandable that the blogosphere is skeptical of the establishment and how they handle campaigns.  However, the blogosphere shouldn't get too big for its britches re: campaign advice.  Naivete won't do anything to increase the power of the blogosphere. Part of being a part of the reality based community requires taking a realistic, impartial look at the landscape before analyzing a race or situation.  

  FYI, I'm not registered in PA, although I go to college in PA (and therefore have a stake in it).

  by Newsie8200 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:09:27 PM PDT

  •  Where do you go to school in PA

    I'm an alumni of Dickinson College.

    Personally I think Pennachio is unelectable. But see, watch what happens. If Pennachio wins and loses to Santorum badly, as I think would happen if that does actually happen, look for everyone here to blame the DLC for his loss.

    by jiacinto on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:06:14 PM PDT

•  Look

  I wish my former boss and friend Joe Hoeffel had run for this seat.  He isn't, and will be supporting Casey 100%.

  I wish Barbara Hafer, Connie Williams, Dwight Evans, Michael Nutter, Lois Murphy, Dan Wofford or Joe Torsella would run for the seat.  They're not.

  They're not because they know that Bob Casey presents the best chance for our party to beat Rick Santorum.  

  I'm not crazy about Bobby Casey.  I think he's a flat, unspiring speaker and ran a weak campaign in 2002 when he had so much behind him against Ed.

  But he gets us votes in parts of this state where we couldn't otherwise compete, and his pro-life stance, while distasteful to me, neutralizes Santorum's key electoral strength.  His being pro-life forces Santorum to run on economic issues, and on that, we can slaughter him.

  If you credit Tom Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? at all, you know that the reason people who ought to supporting us on economic issues aren't because of the three G's: God, Guns and Gays.  Well, Santorum can't do that in this race.

  We can win.  We can get closer to 51.  I'd rather have Hoeffel than Casey, but I'd sure as hell rather have Casey than Santorum.

  Which leads us to Chuck.  He has no money, as much name recognition as I do and the same chance of winning.  I wish he and Tim would use their skills to help Casey reach out to our grassroots, because it really is important.

  But in the alternative, as I've told Tim, let's keep Casey honest; let's force him to articulate a progressive message.  And may the best man win.

  by Adam B on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:25:57 PM PDT