Philly Inquirer: Pennacchio v. Casey v. Santorum on Issues

by Tim Tagaris, Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:57:26 AM EDT

The largest paper in Pennsylvania, and eighth largest in the nation, The Philadelphia Inquirerpenned another piece on Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race today.  This one focused on a few of the "social issues," and ended with a nice illustration of where each of the candidates in the field (Chuck Pennacchio, Bob Casey Jr., and Rick Santorum) stand on them.

It's a strange political environment we are operating in, where pointing out a candidate's positions on the issues is seen as an attack.  But as the Inquirer notes, there is a primary, and one one that provides a clear choice between candidates.

To win the nomination, Casey must first get by Chuck Pennacchio, a University of the Arts professor who supports abortion rights.

Of course, this primary is about more than just choice.  Certainly it's about advancing issues of progress.  It's about building a grassroots movement in Pennsylvania that will win elections in 2006, 2008, 2010, and beyond.  And it's about the need to elect just one U.S. Senator who will always stand up in the Senate, deny unanimous consent, and provide a voice for people.

I am compelled to post this diary for a few reasons.

1.) It is always a big day for the campaign when the eighth largest newspaper in the country mentions Chuck Pennacchio.  Every mention is an affirmation of our growing grassroots organization.

2.) Because there is a serious misconception (or deliberate misinformation) that Bob Casey Jr. is only not progressive on abortion, and he "isn't even that bad on it." So, please, stop misconstruing his position on issues.

3.) People need to know there is not only a choice in this primary, but a clear choice.  But the time to act is now, if you choose to wait, we will all be left in May of 2006 thinking, "what would have happened if we just would have gotten involved in April of 2005?"

http://www.chuck2006.com

I will stop talking now, and let the candidates do the talking for themselves.

On Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem-cell research

Santorum: Opposed President Bush's 2001 decision allowing federal funding for limited research on stem-cell lines.

Casey: Supports the 2001 action, but not an expansion of it.

Pennacchio: Favors increased federal support for the research.

On Federal Judges

Casey said he would, as a senator, avoid a litmus test on any issue in voting on judicial nominees.

Chuck Pennacchio"I will not vote for extremist judges who openly oppose fundamental constitutional rights." Not included in the article, but given in the interview with the reporter for this piece

On the Issue of Choice

A bill requiring doctors to inform women before obtaining an abortion after 20 weeks that their fetus might feel pain and to offer pain-relief medication

Santorum: Cosponsored the bill

Casey: Supports

Pennacchio: Opposes

A bill making it a federal crime for adults with no parental rights to transport minors across state lines to obtain an abortion

Santorum: Cosponsored the bill

Casey: Supports

Pennacchio: Opposes

Ban on late-term abortions

Santorum: Sponsored a 2003 law prohibiting the procedure, also known as "partial-birth abortion."

Casey: Supports the ban.

Pennacchio: Opposes the ban.

Also from the article on Choice

He [Casey Jr.] would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Candidate Quotes on Choice

In fairness, the article does cover other aspects of the choice debate that touches on care before and after delivery.

Casey obliges when discussing those and other abortion-related questions, but his answers veer quickly into broader discussions about his support of government programs for women and children.

"Someone who's pro-life does have a corresponding obligation to help the mother and child after birth," Casey said. "Too often, the issue has been framed in a more limited way."

Chuck"We can either choose to eliminate rights or improve lives, and I choose to improve lives.  Nobody wants to see another abortion, but what we need to do is make our society a stronger, more supportive environment, in which women will have a real choice."

"The most critical question, the common ground question, is how do we reduce the abortion rate without criminalizing women and doctors?  What we need to address, all of us, is how to give women a real choice by providing life affirming support in the form pre-natal care, post-natal care, and economic opportunity." -- Chuck Pennacchio omitted from article, but given in the interview.

The end.

Tim

Tags: (all tags)

  • 80 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

80 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Ode to Anna...
If you made it this far, I salute you.  More importantly, if you ever thought for a moment that Chuck Pennacchio is the kind of candidate you can be proud to vote for--now is the time to get involved.

This especially goes for those in Pennsylvania.

If we choose to wait, we might be left in May of 2006 thinking, "what would have happened if we just would have gotten involved in April of 2005?"

http://www.chuck2006.com

by Tim Tagaris 2005-04-18 09:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
taking back our Party happens in the primaries
Good diary, this needs to be read now, while there is plenty of time before the primary election.

The Democratic Party is what we make of it.

by PA08 2005-04-18 09:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Guns
Do you have any quotes/deliniations of stance on gun control?  I remember Cheney gave a speech in Pittsburgh to anti gun control audience last September just as the assault weapons ban expired. I can guess Santorum's stance, do you have any information on Chuck and Casey's positions on the assault weapons ban specifically and guns in general?
by dre2k5 2005-04-18 10:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Here ya go...
We are about to put this up on the website shortly.

GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION

1) THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS ACT

I support renewing the Assault Weapons Act that expired in September 2004 as the most logical and sensible way to roll back American-style street warfare as practiced by terrorists, would-be terrorists, gangsters, and drug runners.

The federal law banning the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons, known as the Federal Assault Weapons Act, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.  President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.

Tragically, since the assault weapons ban ended by way of "sunset" in September 2004, UZIs, AK-47s and other semiautomatic assault weapons have, once again, begun flooding our streets as the arsenal of choice for gang members, drug dealers, and would-be terrorists.

2) CHILDPROOF SAFETY LOCKS

I support mandatory childproof safety lock legislation as the only responsible position to protect our children's lives.  It shouldn't take a school shooting or an inner-city neighborhood shooting to make us realize that American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation.  In 1997, for example, firearms killed 5,285 children in the United States, 153 in Canada, 57 in Germany, 19 in Great Britain, and no children in Japan.

In the United States, young children die or are badly injured because their parents or other gun owners don't store their firearms properly, and children find loaded guns and use them unintentionally on themselves or other children.  Older children are more at risk from horseplay with available guns, while teenagers use guns for impulse suicides and for crime. All are vulnerable to getting caught in the crossfire from guns used in domestic violence and in crime. Meanwhile, the gun lobby opposes every common-sense measure to reduce the accessibility of firearms to kids, from Child Access Prevention to the mandatory sale of trigger-locks or childproof, "personalized" guns.

by Tim Tagaris 2005-04-18 02:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Here ya go...
This guy just keeps getting better and better in my view.

Tell me, does he support single-payer universal health care?

by craverguy 2005-04-18 05:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Here ya go...
Are you going to move onto Democratic wedges at some point?
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 12:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
A Glorious Battle!
Casey is an old school DLC burnout. Pennacchio is the future of the Democratic party. Casey and From should both pack their bags and get out of the way.

Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way old man!

Politics is a young man's game now. We don't have time for dinosaurs like Casey.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-18 10:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I took the time
To look at Chucks webpaige his reading sounded too much like a college professor for my taste, I know he is one.  I have relatives in PA and they are for the most part Bob Casey Democrats.  My sister even now considers herself an Irish Catholic, although by birth she is Scottish Presbyterian from North Carolina. If Chuck were running for Student Body President of Penn U he would win, but he is not, I doubt he gets 30% of the primary vote against Casey.  And the Casey Santorum race will be close but give Casey the edge.
by THE MODERATE 2005-04-18 11:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I took the time
I'm sure Santorum appreciates John Kerry's help in his re-election campaign. What on earth was going through Kerry's mind when he co-sponsored the pharmaceutical right of refusal legislation with Santorum? Is the man daft?
by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-18 11:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Pharmacists for life?
He [Casey Jr.] would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

I don't have a problem with a pro-life candidate, per se, but siding with Karen Brauer and the "Pharmacists For Life" is very extreme.
by fwiffo 2005-04-18 12:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
Unfortunately, I can't let his more conservative leanings when it comes to abortion stop my support for Bob Casey. While Pennachio may be more in keeping with the spirit of the liberal grassroots community, he just can't beat Santorum. Period. And I would rather get rid of Santorum with someone who will at least stand up for working class people than make a stand by endorsing the kind of values that, while they may be more logical, don't win elections.
by PantslessYoda1 2005-04-19 05:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
The amount of hypocrisy I find among the netroots is really amazing to me.  Here we are supposed to be the "heart and soul" of the Democratic Party working to "retake" and "rebuild" the party, while at the same time decrying the focus-group, weak-willed tactics of the DLC.  Yet again and again, I see the same tired logic.  "I'd rather vote for someone who will win than someone who not only stands up for what they believe, but what I believe as well".  

Conservatives have no issue whatsoever running extreme-right candidates against "moderate" republicans, vis a vis, Specter vs. Toomey.  Everyone said that such a right-wing candidate would lose the general.  Would it?  That's a really tough gamble to play by and all it shows me is that the Rightwingers have balls.  Even though Specter won it sent a powerful message to the rational moderates of the Republican party - tow the line or be crushed.  

There are rumors that Chafee in RI will face the same challenge.  

But here we, the "reality-based" left, are pussy-footing around.  "I like Dean, but Kerry is electable".  Sound familiar?  

Let's say Casey wins the primary and he loses against Santorum because the Dem socially progressive base is unmoved by a Santorum-lite candidate.  How many times do we have to get burned on the stove before we learn that it's hot?

Let's say Casey wins both - then social progress takes a backseat for what?  So we can have another Lieberman or Salazar that we will bitch and moan about on here and Kos?  

It's the asinine, douche-bag logic like this that make me think sometimes that Democrats, and by extension progressives, get what we deserve.  Watch as the Conservatives/neocons/theocons/et al slowly take over the last remnants of moderation and reason in the republican party.  Watch as they eliminate the filibuster and turn this country into a facist banana republic.  

If you dont stand up for what you believe in and for those who believe in what you believe then you will lose.  Conservatives know this.  They have balls.  

All you weak, pussies out there make me sick.  

Vote for "electability" and reap what you deserve.  

by dayspring 2005-04-19 06:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life? - addendum
Case in point from an interview with Brian Schweitzer  

http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/04/19/montana_governor/index.html

And then it was "electability." Democrats were thinking, "Oh gosh, we've just got to win. Let's get somebody that's electable." And they thought, "This guy Kerry, he's a smart guy, a senator; he served in the war, so they can't ding him for that; he voted for the war." So they started making it into a thinking thing rather than using the heart. Now, Kerry may have been the best candidate, but he wasn't selected because he was the best candidate from the heart. He was selected because in Iowa and New Hampshire people intellectualized it. They said -- and remember, this wasn't Joe and Mary Six-Pack making this decision -- "I love Howard Dean, but I think I'll marry John Kerry because Mom and Dad are going to like him better."

by dayspring 2005-04-19 07:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
So much to say.

  1. For the record I am more in line on issues with Casey than Chuck anyway so I would have no trouble voting for him(Casey) in a primary.  However chances to defeat a Senator like Santorum do not come often so it would be difficult to ignore it in the name of purity.

  2.  If Casey loses to Santorum it would not be because social liberals were not motivated by Casey, they would be motivated by the town drunk if he filed, it would be because it was just too high of a hill to climb.  However the chance to get Santorum would be one hell of a plumb and Casey is the only one who can do it.

  3.  After carefull consideration the Democrats have decided not to worship the abortion rights line anymore.  They are still a pro-choice party but for lack of a better word it is a watered down pro-choice party.  
by THE MODERATE 2005-04-19 07:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This is where you're wrong
The Democrats are in serious danger of losing their "liberal" base. The bankruptcy bill and Lieberman are only the most prominant examples of ways the grass/netroots is being disenfranchised. If could very well be that the Democrats lose big in 2006 because the DLC shuts out the base and they get fed up.
If Casey loses to Santorum it would not be because social liberals were not motivated by Casey, they would be motivated by the town drunk if he filed, it would be because it was just too high of a hill to climb.

Here we go again. The old "electability" canard. That's the same mistake the party made with Kerry. The DLC sockpuppets keep repeating the same old platitudes and hope nobody notices.
However the chance to get Santorum would be one hell of a plumb and Casey is the only one who can do it.

Unfortunately, the large majority of registered Democrats are hard working folks who don't have time to pay attention to how the DLC and the Democratic party are selling them out to corporate corruption. That could change very quickly.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 10:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
If you dont stand up for what you believe in and for those who believe in what you believe then you will lose.  Conservatives know this.  They have balls.  

All you weak, pussies out there make me sick.

LOL. Say it to my face, sucka!

Let's say Casey wins the primary and he loses against Santorum because the Dem socially progressive base is unmoved by a Santorum-lite candidate.

How, besides Abortion, is Casey "santorum-light?" From what I have read the guy is pretty liberal on most every otherr topic.

Are you a single-issue voter, or just a simple minded poster?

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 09:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
Except for the War in Iraq, gay rights, taxes, and guns.

Have I left anything out, Tim?

by craverguy 2005-04-19 09:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
Well, here we go- let's here what the differences are on these issues.

Guns- I don't really care that much, beyond trying to make them safer, and harder to get for criminals. I also think that in PA teh gun issue is just about as close to a third-rail issue as you're going to find. Want a quick way to alienate most voters in PA- take a strong position on guns.

War in Iraq- if he doesn't admit that it was a mistake to go to war then he can kiss any hopes of winning goodbye.

Gay rights- Again, a republican wedge.

Taxes- What's his stand here? This is also much more important to me than the "social morality issues". This was also the area where I've been told he was pretty progressive. If this isn't the case, then what is he progressive on?

The point is- all anyone is focusing on at this point is gun ownership, gay marriage and abortion rights. They have a term for those three issues- "Republican Wedges".

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 10:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
Gay rights and abortion may be "wedge issues." But that doesn't mean that they aren't important. Saying that we should ignore them because they might alienate voters is folly. The only voters it will alienate are people who vote Republican anyway.

Protecting civil and human rights is important and anybody who is against it can kiss my ass. And then he can kiss my vote good-bye.

by craverguy 2005-04-19 10:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
Defining who we are as a party based upon them is suicide.
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 10:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
While I would never consider myself a "single-issue" voter I do have my hot-button issues.  I believe very strongly in glbt equality.  I dont think civil rights should take a backseat to anything.  

That being said, my argument was that you should vote for the candidate who is in line with your positions.  If you think women shouldnt have the right to choose and gays shouldnt have the right to protect their families then vote Casey.  If you like Pennacchio then vote for him.  However, DO NOT vote on the MYTH of "electability".  Vote for who is more in line with your positions.  

Personally, I disagree with Pennacchio's stance on guns.  While I concur that there should be a federal ban on assault rifles I think gun control should be left to the individual states since each state has its own needs and culture regarding this topic.  

Also, the most important thing in voting your values is that it sends a powerful message to the spineless/DLC Democratic establishment.  While, personally, Pennacchio is my candidate, I think the most important thing is that, win or lose, he gives Casey a run for his money.  

by dayspring 2005-04-20 07:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Casey - The DLC Annointed One
You are exactly right dayspring. The DLC continues to sell out the base and the base continues to be the DLC ATM. I couldn't believe Kerry was asking the netroots for contributions for an ad in USA today a while back. After he rips us off on the Ohio Vote Challenge Fund, he comes back to milk the netroots cow dry. And fools kick in again.

Did Kerry's USA Today ad ever run? I never heard another word about it once Kerry plugged in the ATM machine again.

Pharmacists for life is only an indicator that Casey is a solid DLC supporter for bankruptcy, class action law suit restrictions and anything else the DLC decides to give their corporate contributors.

This is a choice between a DLC-Al From crony or a grass/netroots candidate who will represent the voters instead of corporate fat cats. And the DLC will probably win again. Who gives a damn about the voters anyway?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Casey - The DLC Annointed One
Now we're getting somewhere. If Casey supports the DLC position on "bankruptcy, class action law suit restrictions and anything else the DLC decides to give their corporate contributors" AND he holds non-progressive/liberal social stances than he is what we call in Pennsylvania a "Republican."

But I gotta tell you- I find that a little hard to believe...

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Casey - The DLC Annointed One
You must have missed the bruhaha when the DLC tried to shut Pennacchio out of the race altogether.

Party tries to close primary

Democrats must allow a primary

I can't prove Casey would support the bankruptcy bill, but look at the entire record of his positions. Everything about Casey smacks of DLC-Al From crony.

The DLC is tring the very same thing with a Democrat in Texas named Morrison. Morrison ran against DeLay last time and has kept the pressure on since then. Now that DeLay is vulnerable, the DLC asked Morrison to step aside in favor of their annointed candidate.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 11:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Casey - The DLC Annointed One
In all honesty.  Casey is not DLC.  I would like to think he would have voted against it though.

I wanna be fair.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris 2005-04-19 11:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Casey - The DLC Annointed One
And you get props in my book for that.
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 12:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Casey - The DLC Annointed One
What do you base that conclusion on? Casey may not formally be DLC, but everything I've seen about Casey indicates that he is cut from the DLC mold.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 12:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
This is the same legislation that John Kerry is co-sponsoring with Santorum. For some reason the DLC has made the decision that they would rather cater to Santorum and the religious right than their own base.

Who benefits most from Kerry co-sponsoring this bill? Kerry and the Democrats or Santorum and the Republicans?

Kerry has just helped Santorum look like a reasonable Republican who is bi-partisan and not at all extreme. The Republican party will get credit for accomplishing something for their base.

What do Kerry and the Democrats get out of this bill? Is Kerry daft?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 10:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Pharmacists for life?
Oh- stop being coy- you know the answer to that question~!
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 10:43AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You're right I do
John Kerry is not daft. He's corrupt. Kerry is as corrupt as Tom DeLay. He just plays his hand better.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 11:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're right I do
Actually I'd put him someplace between corrput and stupid. Is there a good word for that? Sturrupt? Corrupid?
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're right I do
Corrupt? You need to back that up if you plan to smear Dem politicians.

Also, what's the deal with insinuating that the ad never ran? If you don't think it ran call USA Today and verify whether it did or didn't. If it didn't you'll have me on your side lambasting Kerry for it. But otherwise, turn the guns on someone else.

Man. The environment has gotten completely toxic around here with infighting.

Disclaimer: I gave money to John Kerry because he was the ABB candidate. Eventually, I decided he wasn't half bad. I now would like to see him continue to slam Republicans and am not going to dwell on what he should have done to win. He's well down my list of preferred 2008 candidates and I don't think there's much chance he'll get the nomination. In the here and now I'm glad he's on our side and can't see why Democrats keep smearing his name.

by Curt Matlock 2005-04-19 11:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're right I do
Curt-
I would say that he has become moraly corrupt. If you look at pre-DLC Kerry he was pretty bold and principled (voted against teh first Gulf war), but since Clinton he seems to have consistantly walked the DLC line, esp. in areas like Welfare Reform and NAFTA, all of which marks a decline in his morals standing...
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're right I do
Perhaps. Look ... I know there is a need to smackdown Dems who attack other Dems. Case in point, Joe Lieberman. Earlier Tim Roemer. But I see it as self-defeating to be attacking Kerry when on balance he is generally voting the way we'd want and saying the things we'd want.

I understand many think his allowing Santorum to sign on to Kerry's pet Workplace Religious Freedom Act was a bad move. Kerry had earlier had another wingnut, Dan Coats, as co-sponsor. I don't have a problem with Gary or anyone else criticizing Kerry for that bill. At all. I'm not sure what I think of that bill myself and can see that some of the criticisms have merit.

But I don't think that makes Kerry corrupt and I think he still has value.

When you add in that with the attacks on liberals as if every ill of the party were their fault ... I can tell you I'm getting pretty fed up because it is not gonna help us win in 2006 or 2008. We need ALL of our assets fighting for the party to make something good happen in '06. That includes Kerry and that includes the liberal wing of the party. Of course, I'd like to see the DLC layoff the liberal bashing as well because that's just another toxic cloud that obscures the real adversary.

by Curt Matlock 2005-04-19 11:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Prove a negative?
Why should I have to prove the ad didn't run? I heard plenty when Kerry was raising money for it. If the ad ran, why didn't I hear about that?

I've provided plenty of links to my arguments that the entire DLC is nothing more than a corrupt fund raising machine for the Democratic party. They milk the grass/netroots for money and then vote for the corporate fat cats. I'm tired of being played for a fool

by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 11:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Prove a negative?
I hear you on not wanting to be played for a fool.

But why should you have to prove the ad didn't run? Because you are the only one even insinuating that it didn't.

Like I said, if it didn't run then I'm with you 100% and will gladly call Kerry plenty of names right along with you. I actually took a quick look to see if I could find out whether it ran but wasn't clever enough to manage to find online any resource that would tell me if an ad ran in USA Today weeks ago.

You've got plenty of fodder for criticism of Kerry so why use something so iffy as to suggest the ad didn't run the way he said it would?

Regarding fund-raising I think we probably agree that Democrats would be better off giving their money to the DNC, to MoveOn, or directly to the campaign of the candidate of their choice than to the DLC. Kerry obviously doesn't need the money at this point so I wouldn't advise anyone to send him more until he spends down the surplus from the election.

All this flaming is wearing me out.

by Curt Matlock 2005-04-19 12:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's a fight for the soul of the Democratic party
What do you expect Alex? We just had a couple of anti-DLC diaries posted. I expect Andmoreagain and SLinVA or some other fresh faces to show up and come to the defense of the DLC. It's a pattern. Harry Reid's rapid response team isn't doing anything productive, so they get sent out to the internet to defend the DLC.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 12:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's a fight for the soul of the Democratic pa
Ex-squeeze-me? Not sure if you posted this in reponse to something I wrote, or if you mistook who you responded to.
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 12:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's a fight for the soul of the Democratic pa
Perhaps I could have been clearer. I was not accusing you of anything. I was just responding to your observation that there was a lot of flaming going on.

The last couple of days have been rather robust shall we say. The DLC trolls insist on being hateful to Howard Dean and pretty much everything liberal.

I've decided to take off the gloves as far as criticizing the DLC. Liebermanlives and Proud Democrat are truly representative of how the DLC thinks about the base of the party. We will never be able to cooperate with the DLC because the really do get along better with and have more in common with Republicans than they do with us.

Sorry if my shorthand comment appeared to be directed at you Alex. It was just sloppiness on my part.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 04:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's a fight for the soul of the Democratic pa
Nah- you're missing my point- you were responding to Curt, not me. It's aight, I wasn't taking it personally!

Long day? ;-)

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 06:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Just curious about where DFA stands
on this race.  

PA DFA'ers: has this come up at your meetups?  Are local meetups planning to endorse a candidate in the primary?  Any sense of whether national DFA will endorse Casey or Pennacchio?

by pammo 2005-04-19 06:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
All About Abortion?
No offense Tim, but if you guys are making your capaign all about abortion then you are going to really piss off a lot of potential Democratic allies. I really can't see the logic of attacking Casey, who will almost definitely win the primary (and despite your job, you have to realize this), with an issue that is a Repulbican wedge.

Is keeping abortion safe and legal extremely important? Yes. Is it the most pressing issue we are facing today? Not in my book.

We are fighting a war of choice in the Middle East, as well as emerging threats from all sorts of non-traditional actors and methods, our economy continues to sour as the dollar continues to fall, more and more people are left without any healthcare, our environment is under serious attack, our rights are impuned upon every day (in more ways than just abortion), wealthy Americans and large corporations keep getting tax breaks while working-class Americans are sold to credit card companies in the form of bankruptcy "reform", and all you can focus on is abortion?

Keep up the good work! In no time you'll help get Santorum elected and further push the hot-poker we're all getting up the rear from the Republicans.

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 09:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
...Said the man who wants us to draft Anthony Zinni, a damn Republican, to run.
by craverguy 2005-04-19 09:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
Just an FYI, I just found that Anthony Zinni worked on LBJ's 1964 campaign, so that would, in my book, indicate that he is a security voter, not a "values/fascism" voter, as I have guessed all along.
 
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 09:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
And Howard Dean was a Goldwater Republican as a child.

Are you actually admitting that you want to run this man for Senate and you don't actually know what his positions on the issues are? I see a direct shot to the foot coming if you get your wish.

by craverguy 2005-04-19 09:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
Hmmm. I have an idea- why don't you go look at some of the stuff that I've written about him.

Do I have a quote about where Zinni stands on abortion? No. Do I care? No.

And I'm reserving that foot for the rears of those "allies" of mine that do in fact shoot our causes in the foot. You know the type- whiney little pissants who won't discuss broad strategy if it doesn't include their pet issue.

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 10:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
Well then you're barking up the wrong tree coming after me, since abortion isn't actually my pet issue. Health care is.
by craverguy 2005-04-19 10:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
So then what the hell is his stance on healthcare?
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 10:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Oh, please.
If you know, just tell me and stop playing coy.

If you don't know, you ought to find out stuff like that before you back a candidate. Health care is important.

by craverguy 2005-04-19 10:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Please is right...
I meant Pennachio... I'll assume you don't know.

Healthcare is a national security issue, and I'm sure that Zinni would listen to the medical experts who say that the best way to protect us against a biological attack (manmade or natural) is to build up and improve our national health care capabilities.

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 10:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Please is right...
That seems to be your writing, not Zinni's. Do you have an actual quote from Zinni?

Meanwhile, I do know Pennacchio's stance on health care. It's on his site:

"The fact that even one American must subsist without access to affordable health care or health insurance is appalling; the fact that some 48 million Americans go uninsured is a tragedy. The richest and greatest nation is morally obligated to provide high quality health care for all of its citizens without driving them into debt. What could and should be a point of national pride, the ability to ensure a healthy America, is instead becoming a blight upon the moral landscape of our country.

Rick Santorum (R-VA) has consistently chosen to champion the cause of insurance companies and drug-makers over that of his constituents. His votes have helped to ensure that the price of insurance and pharmaceuticals remain high, thereby forcing millions of Americans to survive without adequate health care.

Chuck believes that every American should have access to high quality, affordable health care. There are a number of ways to go about this, and many of them have merit. The technical discussion and determination of how health care can be provided for all is an urgent matter. However, insuring every single American is the higher priority. While Congress spends time debating a number of different single-payer and private universal health care proposals, people are suffering and dying needlessly. The federal government must commit to the principle that every American should have access to affordable insurance and health care; after this, we can determine the technical aspects of how best to provide comprehensive health care.

The pharmaceutical and insurance industries have taken advantage of their money and misused their influence to block our goal of providing affordable and comprehensive health care for every American. Drug companies receive billions in tax breaks to help defray the cost of research and development; yet, they still pass these costs on to American, and only American, consumers. Chuck supports permitting the re-importation of safe, non-narcotic pharmaceuticals from other developed nations, and permitting government purchasers like Medicare to buy in bulk and negociate for lower prices. These are two specific cost-saving measures expressly prohibited by the 2004 Medicare prescription drug benefit program championed by President Bush and Sen. Santorum (R-VA). No senior should be forced to choose between food and medicine; no pharmaceutical company's bottom-line is as valuable as the health and well-being of our people."

You can read his positions on the rest of the issues here.

by craverguy 2005-04-19 10:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Please is right...
OK, how about Casey's? Are they different?

And that is my position on health-care, shared by the experts charged with protecting us against these types of threats. I know that Zinni would listen to and respect the views of these experts, as he did the experts who dealt with supposed WMD in Iraq and the threat that Iraq posed. Protecting ourselves from bioligical catastrophies shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it has become one, along with every other sane way to deal with the threats we face.

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 10:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Please is right...
So your candidate's position is "whatever the experts say"? What if different experts say different things? For every expert that supports universal health care, I can show you one who opposes it. The question isn't what "the experts" think of this issue. The question is what Zinni thinks.
by craverguy 2005-04-19 11:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Please is right...
Right now Zinni's not running, so where does Casey stand?

And this is complete BS: "For every expert that supports universal health care, I can show you one who opposes it."

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Please is right...
Actually it's not. The right-wing has just as many "experts" as the left-wing has "experts." How can you be sure that Zinni will listen to the experts you want him to listen to?
by craverguy 2005-04-19 11:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Please is right...
There's a big difference between an expert and a wonk, the later of which the RNC has plenty of. I am pretty sure that Zinni will listen to the most proven and respected experts in their field (for example the State Dep's intelligence agency, rather than the politicaly tinged garbage that often comes from the DIA or CIA).
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
And please, pray tell, since you seem so knowledgable on the topic, where does Zinni stand on THE ISSUES? I'm sure you don't care...
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 09:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
I don't know. Why don't you tell me?

"That would, in my book, indicate that he is a security voter, not a 'values/fascism' voter, as I have guessed all along."

That would seem to indicate that you don't actually know what his issue positions are.

Barry Goldwater, I might add, was pro-choice.

by craverguy 2005-04-19 10:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
Depends on the issue. I do know what his prinicples/personal attributes are:
honesty, courage, open-mindedness, a sane and rational based foreign policy, creating alliances instead of acting like a bully, taking the time to udnerstand the viewpoints of others...

For example, look at this quote and try to think how it might apply to the debate about abortion:

"I have spent my life as a U.S. military man in the Caribbean, in the Far East, in Africa, in the Middle East, in Southwest Asia, and in Central Asia, in Europe, Eastern Europe. Our biggest flaw is that we never take time to understand the culture. Some things we do that make perfect sense to us do not make perfect sense in another culture.
Sound like someone who would try and illegalize abortion, against the wishes of doctors, because the Pope or Jerry Falwell opposes it?

Or how about this, since you think the war in Iraq was a mistake (I obviously agree):

"Obviously there are differences" between Vietnam and Iraq, he says. "Every situation is unique." But in his bones, he feels the same chill. "It feels the same. I hear the same things -- about [administration charges about] not telling the good news, about cooking up a rationale for getting into the war." He sees both conflicts as beginning with deception by the U.S. government, drawing a parallel between how the Johnson administration handled the beginning of the Vietnam War and how the Bush administration touted the threat presented by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "I think the American people were conned into this," he says. Referring to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the Johnson administration claimed that U.S. Navy ships had been subjected to an unprovoked attack by North Vietnam, he says, "The Gulf of Tonkin and the case for WMD and terrorism is synonymous in my mind."

Remind me- what was John Kerry's position on the war?

Zinni is on distinguished Military fellow at the Center for Defense Information, whose mission statement includes:

dedicated to strengthening security through: international cooperation; reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict; reduced reliance on nuclear weapons; a transformed and reformed military establishment; and, prudent oversight of, and spending on, defense programs.

And last, take a gander at these threats that Zinni points out, and try to imagine how these might correspond with Democratic issues:
We have a very real danger of many failed or incapable states that are sort of hot beds or sanctuaries that breathe instability in regions like Afghanistan and Somalia. We have the threats of international terrorism and extremism. We have the tremendous humanitarian catastrophes the could be out there, either man-made or natural, threats to the environment, international crime, non-state entities like Osama Bin Ladin and others who pose threats that were only posed, basically, by nation states before. The asymmetric threats of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of fanatics, not in the hands of accountable nation states, so that you could hold something as a counter-value --that you could strike, but maybe instead, we are dealing with people without state power, like terrorists, and we lack the means to act against them.

p.s. all the links can be found in the orginal Draft Zinni post.

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 10:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
So, your entire knowledge of his stance on abortion and other issues is extrapolation from a speech he gave on foreign policy?

I'd like something a little more solid than that, especially when I have Chuck Pennacchio getting explicit about his stances on the issues.

by craverguy 2005-04-19 10:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
He's a soldier, so he's not going to do that unless he could be convinced to enter into politics. And as someone who studies human behavior, I'm sure as hell a lot more comfortable with someone who has a proven track record and who backs up his words with actions than I am with some unkown U of the Arts professor.
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 10:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
Considering that he and the unknown U of the Arts professor have the exact same track record when it comes to politics, that's sort of a silly position.
by craverguy 2005-04-19 11:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
Really? Huh. I would think that coming out in public against the President, calling the WMD fiasco another Gulf of Tonkin affair, while risking his good name and career, would provide you with an idea of his track record. Or, how about the years of public service? How about his attempts to broker a ME peace deal?

Not a track record?

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
Well, if that's his track record, than I mispoke. Pennacchio actually has more of a track record in politics than Zinni, being as how he has managed and/or organized for two presidential campaigns and three senate campaigns. I'm talking about politics here.
by craverguy 2005-04-19 11:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
lol. Are you going to pass that pipe? War is politics by other means... And working on some capmaign is a little different from running one...
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
Exactly. He ran a campaign. Ever heard of Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa? Pennacchio managed his first Senate campaign. How about Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado? Yup, he managed him, too. They both won.

And I think you already are high on something if you're seriously going to compare being a field general to being a politician. the two are completely different animals. Face it, Pennacchio has experience as one, Zinni as the other.

by craverguy 2005-04-19 11:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: All About Abortion?
I haven't voted yet, and I realize that Zinni has no chance of getting onto the PA ballot, but I'm going to need to be convinced to vote for Pennachio on somethign other than abortion, which is not something I would vote on (primarily) in the first place. I also want to see that Pennachio is a "team player", that he'll put the broad base of democratic issues (yes, we care about more than gays, abortions ,and guns) ahead of his desire to become a Senator.

If Casey really is bad on taxes and other middle class issues, if he really would have the lame intellect to claim that Iraq was still worth it, if he wouldn't committ to turning back Bush's horrendous tax cuts, or vote against the bankruptcy bill, then I'll vote for a dead cat over Casey. But if he does hold these positions, all of which speak to Dem. wedges, then why the hell does this keep coming back to abortion?

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You're falling for the right wing frame Alex
Did you see the Walmart Discriminates Against Women diary. That's exactly what the bill that Casey supports and Kerry co-sponsored with Santorum is all about.

The DLC is more Republican than many Republicans. The DLC is the heart of corporate corruption in the Democratic party. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with this primary. It is about a DLC power grab, just like they are trying to do in Texas with another grassroots candidate who is running against DeLay.

Screw Casey. Screw Kerry. Screw Biden. Screw Lieberman. These guys are the face of corruption in the Democratic party.

Do we want open, honest government or do we want a Democratic version of George Bush?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 11:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're falling for the right wing frame Alex
What right-wing frame am I falling for exactlly? That we should focus our campaigns on wedge issues that help, rather than hurt, our causes?

I'm not sure I get you here:
Do we want open, honest government or do we want a Democratic version of George Bush?

How is Casey the Democratic equivilant of Shrub?

by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're falling for the right wing frame Alex
He's Bob Casey Jr. Senior was the governor, and little Bobby has been trading on Poppa's name his whole life.
by craverguy 2005-04-19 11:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're falling for the right wing frame Alex
I realize that, but I still want something to back up the claims on non-social (i.e. abortion/guns/gays) issues...
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're falling for the right wing frame Alex
Gary, how do you feel about Rendell and Spitzer? They're both DLCers, if I'm not mistaken...
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Rendell wanted a closed primary
As far as I can tell, Rendell is also part of the problem. I am against closed Democratic primaries so the DLC Annointed One gets a clear shot at every open seat.

Each politician has to be judged on their merits. Obama and Spitzer I give a pass to, until they vote against the interests of the Democratic party. As an organization the DLC has no reason to exist except to cater to corporate fat cats and sell out the voters the party is supposed to represent.

Think about this. The Republican party does not have an equivalent to the DLC. The RNC runs the party and decides on the message and PR campaigns. How did the DNC get shut out of making decisions on behalf of the party? The DLC is not even a formal Democratic party stucture. They have no meetings (that we know about), no transparency and no accountability.

There is no reason for the DLC to exist except as a funnel for corporate corruption.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 11:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rendell wanted a closed primary
you don't have to convince me to hate on the DLC- they suck ass. However, some of the politicians in the DLC aer still pretty good. Rendell is a real oportunistic jerk sometimes, and he doesn't always put the interests of reglular Pennsylvanias ahead of corporate interests, but what Governor does? My point is that even if we shut down the DLC, something I'd love to see happen, we'd still want to work with many of the people who are members now for various reasons (I would guess that reasons #1, 2 and 3 are money).
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 12:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're falling for the right wing frame Alex
Sorry dude, your analysis does not cut it.

Yes, the pharmacist fascism act is ridiculous, and Casey is obviously strongly pro-life. If you want to vote against on that fine, that is your choice.  And, Casey really needs to rethink his position on the Santorum/Kerry abomination.

But lets be clear, there are virtually no Senators who are as economically liberal as Casey.  Everything he says about working and middle class issues is music to my ears.  He understands the impact of low wages, of rpedatory lenders, etc.  He has a real potential to put the spotlight back on issues that have gotten the shaft lately.  

How many Senators today talk about bringing people up out poverty?  Casey would, and does.

And, frankly, name me one non-choice issue that Pennacchio and Casey differ on, honestly?  Read the article... Casey really tries to focus on other things, such as Healthcare.  

Again, if choice is the most important thing to you, Casey just is not your guy.  But, do not pretend he is DLC lite, cause he really is not.  He is a typical Pennsylvania, Catholic Dem, which we need in our party.

And no way in hell he votes for the bankruptcy bill.

by DanielUA 2005-04-19 12:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're falling for the right wing frame Alex
I can name you a bunch of issues where they differ, besides choice, right off the top of my head:

  • Gun control (Pennacchio is for a moderate increase in gun control, Casey is against any increase in gun control.)

  • The War in Iraq (Pennacchio opposed it, while Casey went around telling everyone how wonderful it was.)

  • Gay rights (Pennacchio is for them, Casey is against so much as a civil unions bill.)

  • The death penalty (Pennacchio opposes it, Casey supports it.)

  • Universal health care (Pennacchio likes single-payer, Casey backs some Gephardt-esque monstrosity that just makes it easier for employers to pay for it, but doesn't actually guarantee it to anyone.)

I support the Pennacchio position on all of the above, and those are just the things I know they differ on. I will probably be able to name more if Casey ever puts up an "Issues" section on his site. Since I agree with Pennacchio, I support Pennacchio.
by craverguy 2005-04-19 12:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
tired of hearing about abortion
I'm not a big fan of making this all about abortion.

Do Pennacchio or Casey have visions for the future? What are they?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-04-19 10:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Exactly
Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with this primary. The DLC Rove collaborators always push the issue that direction to scare uninformed moderate Democrats into supporting their annointed candidate.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 11:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Exactly
Uh. Did you read the diary?
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-19 11:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Exactly
I saw stem cell research, federal judges and abortion. Pennacchio has to take a firm stand on all these issues because the opponent is Santorum. The Pharmacist's Right to Discriminate bill is another part of the puzzle.

I'm saying there is a bigger picture that includes the conservative push for Compassionate Fascism. The whole agenda. Abortion is just the sideshow that gets all of the attention, because it benefits both the Republcan party and the DLC.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-04-19 12:15PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------