Thank you for your support this weekend after the Associated Press and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party misled readers across the country into thinking this was an uncontested primary.

I wanted to let you know that I spoke with the reporter's editor, and they got the message.  They are very aware of our campaign's grassroots appeal and importance of an open and democratic primary.

I am often asked whether or not a progressive campaign can succeed here in PA. Not only do I believe a progressive campaign and candidate can succeed against Rick Santorum, a progressive message is the only effective means to victory.

Out of the past 14 full-term U.S. Senate elections in Pennsylvania, the Democrats have won exactly zero. The last Democrat elected to represent the blue state of Pennsylvania in the Senate was Joseph Clark, who left office after being defeated in the 1968 elections. In the interim, Republicans Hugh Scott, Richard Schweiker, John Heinz, Arlen Specter, and Rick Santorum have had nearly uninterrupted control of the two Senate seats (progressive Democrat Harris Wofford was appointed after the death of John Heinz, won a 1991 special election shortly thereafter, and was defeated for re-election by Santorum).

To put this in perspective, only one other state has a longer run of uninterrupted GOP U.S. Senate electoral success, and that's Kansas. Utah, Idaho, Alaska, and forty-five other states have elected Democrats to a full Senate term since the last time a Pennsylvania Democrat won a full term in the Senate. In the past four Presidential elections, Pennsylvania has voted Democrat; three of those times, a Republican has won election for the Senate seat.

There are a number of reasons for this GOP domination. Heinz was universally and remarkably popular, as well as a very moderate Senator. Specter, while lacking Heinz's popularity, tows a similarly moderate line, as well as strength in the Philadelphia area. Specter also won a couple of elections by razor-thin margins. Rick Santorum has been the beneficiary of good fortune and bad candidate selection.

When Santorum beat Wofford in 1994, he successfully made Wofford into a one-issue candidate. He tied Wofford to the Clinton Health Care proposals, which had been demonized by the right-wing. As well, he benefitted greatly from the pro-GOP sentiment in 1994, the year of the "Republican Revolution."

In 2000, the Democrats settled on moderate, anti-choice Ron Klink as their candidate to take on Santorum. This aligned very well with the (still-prevailing) conventional wisdom that the Democrats had to move to the center to win a statewide race in Pennsylvania. Ron Klink had slight success at gaining moderate voters in Central PA; however, this was more than offset by the large number of pro-choice voters who did not cast a vote (over half a million more votes were cast in the presidential election than in the Senatorial election), and just as importantly, did not involve themselves in the Klink campaign. Pro-choice women, a major organizational and financial cog of the Democratic party, sat out the race, and the Democrats allowed a radical right-winger to represent them in Washington.

In 2000, a progressive, populist, pro-choice campaign would likely have defeated Rick Santorum. In 2006, it is the only option to defeat Rick Santorum. Unlike 2000, when the presidential election brought voters to the polls (and some pro-choice Democratic voters "held their noses" and voted for Klink), the 2006 Senate race will be the center of attention. Governor Rendell appears ready to coast to victory, and a sizable bloc of Rendell's support comes from pro-choice Republicans. These are voters who, if given a pro-choice option, would vote against Rick Santorum. They will not jump party lines to support an anti-choice Democrat.

Making History

My candidacy provides the strongest progressive option in 2006. But more important

than my stands and views on any given issue is what my campaign represents. Pennacchio for Pennsylvania is committed to becoming a true grassroots movement of people from all over Pennsylvania and the United States. We want to take the principles and ideas of democracy and bring them back into politics. Politics, and this Senate race, shouldn't be about a few "party leaders" in Harrisburg or Washington deciding what is best for the Democratic party or the state; politics should be about all of us, working together to strengthen and build the party, and that is a primary goal of our campaign.

The idea that word comes down from "on high," anointing an establishment candidate as the "Chosen One" is highly un-democratic and insulting to the voters. The party is saying that you lack the ability to decide for yourself who is the best candidate for office. We will not be deterred by the same "conventional wisdom" that has left Democrats in Pennsylvania winless in full-term Senate elections for longer than Democrats in Utah. We will all win when we unite behind a progressive, grassroots campaign.

We have seen what happens when the Democratic party goes to battle against Rick Santorum without the support of progressives. That is the past. Join us, so that all of us, together, can make history in the 2006 Senate campaign.

Best,

Chuck Pennacchio
http://www.chuck2006.com