Rowhouse Logic - Breathtaking Inanity

Chuck Pennacchio, on running for Senate, progressive power, fighting like hell and so much more:

I saw the prospect of Rick Santorum winning reelection as a train wreck. That’s quite literally how I visualized the Senate Democratic politics of Pennsylvania. Democrats in Pennsylvania don’t know how to win US Senate seats. So my first motivation was: How do we stop Rick Santorum from being reelected in 2006? And I scratched my head and I looked at the history of the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania and realized that they’ve lost 14 straight US Senate elections since 1964. The last one who won, in 1962, was Joe Clark, who was progressive. And I said to myself, this party is not going to choose a candidate who can beat Rick Santorum, I’m sure of it. And it’s come to fruition. That’s the reality: They’ve chosen a guy, Bob Casey Jr., who, is as contrary to Democratic core principles and values - at least the values that I think of when I associate myself with the Democratic Party… He’s as contrary to those principles and values as anyone they possibly could have scrounged up anywhere or any place within the boundaries of the Keystone State. They’ve tried to go with this person who can not beat Rick Santorum; I’m absolutely convinced of that. So, in that sense, the thinking of November 2003 has been competely validated by a party that does not know how to win[…]

I actually talk quite a bit - as a historian, but also because I think it’s a good reminder - about Harry Truman and how he ran for president in 1948. I think he was actually outflanked on the Left by Henry Wallace. But Harry Truman did run as a progressive Democrat in 1948: He ran on full employment and on living-wage legislation. He ran on single-payer health care. He was the first modern civil-rights president. And he ran on a foreign-policy strategy, alliance building, that ultimately enabled the United States to prevail in the Cold War. This is the [Democratic] party that won even when the country was conservative - because the country really was in a conservative mindset in 1948; the Republicans had come back to control the Congress, the country was trying to get back to normalcy and trying to put the world and World War II behind them. Still, Truman was able to tap into the base and he was able to keep the base of the party together by fighting on the very values and principles that tie us together today. Constitutinal rights, rights that people are going to be able to have a quality existence and quality education and housing and employment, a living wage and all those other principles he espoused. That’s who the Democratic Party is when it’s at its best.

It’s not simply that there needs to be a place for progressives in the party. I would turn that question around and say now is the time for progressives to lead the Democratic Party out of the woods and back into majority control in the House, in the Senate, in the presidency, the federal courts and the Supreme Court. The only way to get it back is for progressives to be bold, to be courageous, to stand up and fight like hell.

That’s from an interview conducted by Natalie Davis of Natalie Davis’ All Facts and Opinions. Like myself, Davis is a fan of Pennacchio, and the interview’s questions are reflective of that. Chuck’s words are, as always, a much needed salve for the Pennsylvania progressive’s soul, so be sure to have a read if you have the need. Chuck is the last candidate I intend to endorse or promote for a few cycles. After this one I’m done, as my support doesn’t help the candidate and it doesn’t help my website. That said, have a look at Pennacchio’s positions and think about supporting Chuck with your vote and, if you can, a little cash.

(Via Rubber Hose)

I spoke briefly with Larry Farnese last night. Larry is running against Babette Josephs in the Democratic primary to be the state representative for 182nd district, which is where I live. He seemed like a decent guy, and his positions seem to be solid. He’s definitely worth considering if you live in the 182nd.

Sir Oolius, from She Flies With Her Own Wings, is urging local bloggers to link to Larry Farnese’s campaign website to help get his name associated with his site on Google. Since I love a good old fashioned Google bomb, I couldn’t resist.

I’ve just finished reading Will Bunch’s American Prospect article on how Rick Santorum likes to get his ethical lapse groove on. Will did a great job, so be sure to have a look. Rick’s groove is just about as deadly dull as you might expect. Little Rick seems to have a thing for Arby’s and Burger King and can’t seem to find a way to pay for his fast food without an ethical lapse. It’s really a little pathetic that the man who launched a million man on dog jokes, may well be taken down, in part, by something as mundane as his penchant for roast beef sandwiches from a lousy fast food place. The stuff about the house is obviously going to get most of the attention, as it should, but something about unethical fast food purchases seems perfectly suited to Rick Santorum somehow.

Can you say “Rick Santorum accepts improper gifts?” Sure you can.

There were several interesting posts yesterday on the 2006 senatorial campaign in Pennsylvania. Since it’s a bit late and I’ve never had much of a talent for concise summaries, I’ll just quote a little from each post and urge you to read them all in their entirety.

The post that started the day’s festivities was written by jpol and was posted on both Booman Tribune and Daily Kos. Here’s a little.

For those not familiar with this race, Bob Casey Jr. is the candidate the Democratic Establishment has anointed as its chosen candidate to oppose Santorum this fall. Most of the other potential candidates were muscled into withdrawing from a primary race to make way for Casey, though Chuck Pennacchio, a progressive running an insurgent campaign, remains in the race and is building an impressive grass-roots organization determined to capture the nomination for their candidate. Bob Casey Jr. is the state’s Auditor General and son of Bob Casey Sr., former Pennsylvania Governor. The Democratic Party hierarchy believes that Casey, a Conservative, is the best candidate to beat Santorum both because of his name recognition, and because they perceive of Pennsylvania as “blue” Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with “red” Alabama in-between. The problem is that it is often difficult to tell Santorum and Casey apart, much to the consternation of Progressive Pennsylvania Democrats. Casey is anti-choice and supports over-turning Roe v Wade. He opposes stem-cell research; supported Congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo case; endorsed the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito; supports capital punishment (Santorum actually comes down on the opposite side of this issue); supported going to war in Iraq and opposes an exit strategy with a timetable; supports prayer in schools; supports the Patriot Act; opposes gun control et al. Many of the same large corporate PACs have contributed to both the Santorum and Casey campaigns[…]

The Democratic establishment may be betting that Santorum-haters will vote for Casey simply because he is not Rick Santorum. I for one am working for Chuck Pennacchio. I will vote for Chuck Pennacchio in the May primary. I will not vote for Bob Casey Jr. this fall if he is the Democratic nominee, and if the progressive circles I travel in are any indication, there are a lot of Pennsylvanians who, while wanting desperately to send Rick Santorum packing, aren’t desperate enough to vote for a candidate like Casey, who many of us consider to be Santorum’s Democratic counter-part. How ironic if it ends up that head-in-the-sand Democrats end up re-electing an unpopular Rick Santorum to the United States Senate.

Jpol hits on a point that I’ve been trying to make for some time. Despite all the polling evidence to the contrary, I don’t feel that Casey is the best candidate to run against Santorum in November. Indeed, I can’t imagine a worse candidate. As jpol points out, Casey doesn’t have much support in the hard core, activist progressive base. While this, in and of itself, doesn’t constitute a huge number of votes, it represents the sort of person who will talk to their neighbors and leaflet their neighborhoods. These are the people who will staff phone banks, stuff letters, canvas door to door and work their asses off to get out the vote. Will they do that for Casey? Combine that lack of base support with Casey’s crap political instincts and lukewarm Vaseline stump presence and you have a recipe for disaster.

Chris Bowers disagrees.

The first thing that strikes me about this passage is that the author indicates that it is someone else’s fault that s/he plans to not vote in 2006. I find that a shameful and childish abandonment of responsibility. How can someone indicate that s/he isn’t going to vote in 2006, and then call people who are going to vote “head-in-the-sand” Democrats? Very sad.

The second thing that strikes me not about this passage, but instead about the entire article, is just how wrong it is about Casey’s chances in this election. To say that Casey will probably lose to Santorum is both preposterous and an indication that someone has never really paid attention to election horse-races before. Casey is over 50% in oevery poll against Santorum, even though he is the lower-name ID challenger and lower-name ID challengers receive the bulk of the undecideds in elections. This is called the incumbent rule, and you can read more about it here, and see my research on it here. Further, Casey has actually been pulling further and further ahead of Santorum over the past year according to the Q-poll trendlines. At this point last year Casey was only up five points on Santorum. Now, he is regularly up double-digits. Still further, Casey has over 3.5M in the bank, and has raised more money this cycle than any other Democratic challenger. Yet still further, on election night in 2004, Casey outperformed Kerry by 415,000 votes in Pennsylvania. It is not as though he is a newcomer to this. Thrown in the fact hat Casey’s unfavorables still have not crossed into double-digits despite 60% name ID, and you are looking not just at a Casey victory, but rather at a 15-20% blowout.

I just can’t respect the election analysis of anyone who would argue that Casey does not have an excellent chance to win this race. All evidence points to this being the best chance Democrats have had to defeat in incumbent Republican Senator in decades. If you let your personal animus towards Casey to keep you from recognizing that, then quite frankly I think you should reconsider you ability to analyze the rest of the world in an objective, reality-based fashion

I doubt that Chris has ever had any respect for me (why would he?), so I’m risking little by writing that I think Casey’s chances of beating Santorum in November are piss poor. Casey is trashing Santorum in public opinion polling right now - he’s absolutely murdering little Rick. That’s great as far as it goes. One thing to remember, however, is that one of the candidates listed in those polls is an extraordinarily talented politician who has made a career of winning improbable victories, despite the fact that his views are completely out of synch with the views of his constituents. That candidate isn’t Bob Casey. Another thing to remember is that one of the candidates listed in those polls has shown an unfortunate ability to blow huge leads and yank defeat from the jaws of victory. That candidate, sadly, isn’t Rick Santorum. Not only is this a classic lesser of two evils election, the candidate we presume to be slightly less evil, is politically inept.

Here’s a little of what Booman had to say about the previous posts.

Chris is right. Casey has an excellent chance to beat Santorum. But, what he ignores is that anyone would have a good chance of beating Santorum. The polls have almost nothing to do with how much money Casey has, how good of a organization Casey has, or how well Casey performs as a candidate. It also ignores other polls that show that the more people learn about Casey, the less they are inclined to support him. Jerry took a different analytical tack than Chris.

Jerry focused not on the current polls, or the coffers of the candidates, but on what future polls are likely to look like as voters become better informed about the candidates. The concern is that Casey’s support will erode substantially and perhaps fatally, once voters realize that he is a wingnut.

Chris, Jerry, and I all are supporting Pennacchio. We all know him personally, and his wonderful campaign manager. We are all working for him. We support him because he best represents our values. But after that, our similarities begin to differ. Chris is confident that Casey will win. I am modestly optimistic that he will win. Jerry is pessimistic. Chris and I will vote for Casey in November. Jerry won’t.

Obviously, I have my doubts about Casey’s ability to beat Santorum. But will I vote for him? Right now, I honestly can’t say if I will or I won’t, should it come to that. I’m not a single issue voter and I never will be. I don’t expect perfection out of any candidate and I’m not waiting around for the perfect Democrat with perfect positions. I do have at least a little grounding in reality. But here’s the problem, I don’t have a single issue problem with Bob Casey, I have an every issue problem with Bob Casey. Whether it’s stem cell research, the death penalty, the Iraq War, women’s rights, gun control, gay rights, living wages or universal healthcare, my views are 180 degrees from Casey’s. The only reason I can think of to support him is that, if elected, he may vote for Harry Reid to be Senate Majority Leader, and I’m not at all convinced he’ll even do that…

My server is hosed at the moment so I don’t want to waste time writing new posts as they will likely be deleted. Here’s a rerun of a fairly recent post that isn’t particularly topical. Wheeee!

One of the ideas that has been floating around for a few years now is that if universal health care is ever established in the United States it will be due to pressure from big business rather than the efforts of socialist do-gooders. I’m not an economist so forgive me if I’m completely mistaken here, but my general understanding is that American business faces a competitive disadvantage when going head to head against businesses based in nations with subsidized health care. This is due to the huge cost of insuring employees. Some of that burden has been shifted to the employees over the last few decades, but even with those concessions the cost of insurance makes American workers very expensive. This is exemplified in the current dire financial plight of both General Motors and Ford. Needless to say, the self proclaimed Libertarians of the world will fight any effort to establish universal healthcare tooth and nail. Most will say that this is because they are morons, but I’d also add that they are immoral, spiteful and hateful.

That brings me to a bit of personal history and a strategy for recouping some money I never thought I’d see again. This is a bit embarrassing, so forgive me if I’m not totally forthcoming. You see, I have an entire warehouse of these things rotting away in Shanghai.

That, my friends, is the ProjectGastro Self Surgery Kit. The plan was to sell them for $299 to those with no access to affordable healthcare and to companies looking to cancel their employees’ healthcare coverage. It was the late 90’s and do-it-yourself was all the rage. Why not self surgery? Here’s the original marketing pitch:

The ProjectGastro Self Surgery Kit marks a Major Breakthrough in over the counter consumer health care. Utilizing cutting edge surgical techniques, devices and pharmaceuticals the ProjectGastro Self Surgery Kit allows anyone to perform major surgery on themselves, their loved ones and their neighbors. This remarkable product is designed with the average consumer in mind and is so easy to use that even children and the feeble-minded will be performing major surgery on themselves in days.

Sounds perfect doesn’t it? I bet you’d love to get your hands on one. The thing is, you can’t. Not a chance. The damn things are illegal. My initial mistake was in approaching the Food and Drug Administration for approval during the Clinton administration. Clinton had packed the FDA with goody two shoes pencil necks with degrees from accredited universities and a serious grudge against the kind of innovation I was bringing to the table. Wimps.

Along comes January of 2001; a new administration in office and a fresh chance. These people didn’t care about delusional notions of public safety - surely not where money was involved. At the time I wrote these hopeful words.

Unfortunately, if you live in the United States you can’t get the Self Surgery Kit. This is due to the extreme left wing, anti-capitalist leanings of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Our hope is that the incoming Bush administration will significantly weaken consumer protections and allow the approval of the Self Surgery Kit. At present, the only area of the world where one can legally obtain a ProjectGastro Self Surgery Kit is in Southeast Asia, where consumer protections are very nearly nonexistent. ProjectGastro encourages interested consumers to call their Senators and Congresspersons to protest the communist, anti-corporate leaning of the FDA.

Alas, it was not to be. As it turns out, when you elect people into government who hate government, they aren’t so effective at the whole governance thing. Last I heard, my application to the FDA was being used as a paper hat in an interdepartmental game of cops and robbers. Such is life.

I listened in on a discussion the other evening about establishing a futures market for vaccines. Sort of an Enron of pandemic prevention and it seemed a brilliant strategy, though I must admit to being shade north of too intoxicated to really participate in any meaningful way. Nevertheless, it reminded me of that little warehouse in China and dreams I thought long dead. If we can have an Enron of vaccine, surely we can have self surgery. Perhaps now is the time?

Addendum, clarification and a little madness after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Oh how pathetic the shrill shrieks of ineptitude from the left seem to me. Today we are reborn in the knowledge that we are led by a great and wise man and we shall rejoice. Even I have been shown the way. Now that we have all learned that the Bush administration foiled the ‘blow your own feet off before you storm the cockpit’ plot of 2002, how can anybody who isn’t a depraved, godless, anti-American, hate monger spewing bile continue to question the administration on anything ever?

Just a quick note on what’s happening in Delaware County. Bryan Lentz, an Iraq War veteran, has withdrawn from the Democratic primary for the congressional seat currently held by Curt Weldon. He will instead run for a seat in the Pennsylvania legislature. Lentz withdraw from the race, following the withdraw of Paul Scoles, makes way for an uncontested Democratic primary for retired Vice Admiral Joe Sestak. I’m not familiar with Sestak, but his extensive military and academic credentials (Navy Bio) will serve him well against Weldon, who is just about as entrenched as entrenched comes.

I have to admit to a bit of disappointment that the slate has been cleared (Rendell again). I can’t think of anything that would serve the Democratic Party in Delaware County better than a vigorous Democratic primary featuring an Army Major and a Navy Vice Admiral. Delaware county is controlled by a strong Republican machine and a long shot for any Democrat, so I would think the exposure a dramatic primary produces would benefit the Democratic party. Oh, well.

AP:

Bryan Lentz said that after conversations with Delaware County Democratic Party officials and Gov. Ed Rendell, he decided it was in the best interest of the party to step aside. He said he will run for the state House instead.

Lentz said he will support the candidacy of recently retired three-star Vice Adm. Joseph A. Sestak Jr., who announced last week he was also running in the Democratic primary in the 7th District

In the quarter that ended Dec. 31, Lentz, an attorney and Army Reserves major who volunteered to serve with a civil affairs unit in Iraq, raised $83,372 - nearly matching the amount raised by Weldon[…]

“I met with Joe Sestak and I met with my close supporters and we assessed that the best way to bring change to Washington and to Harrisburg was to move forward on a unified front,” Lentz said.

Sestak, who served in Afghanistan, praised Lentz as a good soldier and candidate. The two are scheduled to appear together at a news conference Friday afternoon in Media.

A lot of us are hoping to see Southeastern Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation go blue (a tall, tall order), and nothing would be nicer than to see Weldon out of congress. Have a look at this for a few of the many reasons why. You might also catch an example of why you might not want to write too much about congressional races well over a year before election day.

(Via Jane and PoliticsPA)

Never use the occasion of somebody’s death for political purposes unless it looks something like this or this. Then it’s ok.

(Via a commenter on Media Matters)

I’m in the middle watching Charlie Rose interview Alberto Gonzalez trying to collect some thoughts on the sludge that is being introduced into my brain as I type. I just wanted to mention that I found it a little odd watching him proudly relive the following exchange from Monday’s hearing.

BIDEN: Thank you very much.

General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I’m almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn’t think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I’m a little confused. How did it damage this?

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I’m just the lawyer.

And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true — you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they’re not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

(LAUGHTER)

One would be tempted to believe that exchange is just further proof that no answer is too dumb if you are a Republican appearing before a servile Congress. Alas, it’s worse than that. If the Rose interview is any indication, Gonzales is going to ride that dead horse until his ass is sore because no answer is ever too dumb if you’re Alberto Gonzales. He really seemed pretty proud of it. Weird.

You want some proof that I’m not making shit up, don’t you? Well, you’re not going to get. Not from me at any rate. The Charlie rose show charges $9.95 for a single transcript and that’s exactly $9.95 over my transcript budget.

Fortunately, Jimmy does.

“Under the Bush administration, there’s been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we’re not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we’re spying on the American people,” Carter told reporters. “And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act.”

Carter made the remarks at a union hall near Las Vegas, where his oldest son, Jack Carter, announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

The former president also rebuked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for telling Congress that the spying program is authorized under Article 2 of the Constitution and does not violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed during Carter’s administration. Gonzales made the assertions in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which began investigating the eavesdropping program Monday.

…
The former president said he would testify before the Judiciary Committee if asked.

“If my voice is important to point of the intent of the law that was passed when I was president, I know all about that because it was one of the most important decisions I had to make.

I’m watching the C-Span replay of Alberto Gonzales’ testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee right now. Sigh. Mostly worthless and highly infuriating. Anyway, have a nice evening. May your dreams be filled with visions of data mining, artificial intelligence, soft triggers and warrentless wiretaps.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This really ought to be exciting, but I can’t bring myself to even the brink of optimism. Have a look.

The Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he believed the Bush administration had violated the law with its warrantless surveillance program and that its legal justifications for the program were “strained and unrealistic.”

The program “is in flat violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” said the chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who will open committee hearings on Monday.

Followed by, as most things are these day, the hedge.

The senator, who has clashed with the administration before, said that it was clear to him that the law had been violated. The program, he said on NBC, “is in flat violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.” But it remained to be seen, Mr. Specter added, whether that statute is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Not an unreasonable premise, or one that I don’t understand, but a hedge nevertheless. Specter, like nearly every modern Republican maverick, has a nasty habit of dangling out on the ledge, only to jump back into the well oiled arms of the Republican party line.

It doesn’t matter. I’d bet good money, if I had it, that Specter won’t do anything more than what is superficially necessary to maintain his reputation as a maverick. Anything beyond what is useful to Specter will likely be out of bounds and quickly rebutted by the chairman (please prove me wrong Arlen).

Whatever useful information emerges, or leaks out, will be quickly shit straight through the Republican party’s well paid spin apparatus and gobbled up by the media. Whatever inanity emerges will be countered by an inept Democratic party spin apparatus along with a pile of lefty geeks with blogs. Needless to say, I’m not optimistic. Until we get this outrage business down, it doesn’t matter. Please don’t get over it.

After this post, I’m going to shut up about Casey for a little while. The last week has been ugly and negative and just not the way I like to conduct myself for long periods of time. But when Casey’s Alito nonsense is combined with Kos’ repeated and wholesale dismissal of the only two Democrats with the spine to run against Casey in the primary, any hope of restrained discourse is out the window.

I’m not a fool and I know the numbers Markos cites are awful. Casey is the overwhelming favorite to win the primary. Don’t lie to yourself by thinking otherwise - that just quells the fire. I can read the writing on the wall, but I’d sure as hell like to play a part of making a lie out of the bullshit on that wall. That does happen from time to time, I think.

The title of Kos’ book is Storming the Gates. In the ads for the book, we read the words ” We are at the beginning of a comprehensive reformation of the Democratic Party– driven by committed progressive outsiders. Online activism on a national level, coupled with offline activists at the local level, can provide the formula for a quiet, bloodless coup that can take control of the party.” That’s great, moving stuff. I definitely plan to buy and read the book. Kos has been one of my favorites for a few years now. He still is.

I do have a few questions though. When Kos stormed the gates, did he find them wide open? It sure seems like it. What was on the other side? Was it a firm handshake, a toothy grin and warm platitudes? Was it all sugar and spice and everything nice? If not, what the fuck? Why is he needlessly reenforcing the gates? Why is he going out of his way to shit on the opponents of the foolish establishment choice in Pennsylvania? If he cares about winning, why is he helping one of the few Democrats in the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who actually can’t beat Rick Santorum in the General Election. What the fuck?

Nothing about this situation doesn’t blow. Almost everybody knows it. We need to beat Rick Santorum, but the Democratic party establishment is backing a candidate who likely can’t do that.

I know that Casey boosters love to go on about how he will pick up some moderate Republican voters. I’d like to remind them that the last several years have been the most partisan in memory. This one doesn’t look so good either. Don’t count on Republicans to vote for Democratic candidates in 2006. Don’t even bother. The Democratic candidate for any statewide office (even against Santorum) needs an excited Philadelphia region or the game is over. I’d bet good money (if I had it), that Casey won’t get much more than a yawn and contempt from Philadelphia. Game over.

Casey boosters also like to go on about how Casey’s Pro-Life stance takes abortion off the table in the general election. They say it deprives Santorum of his only strength amongt people who will never vote for a Democrat. Ok, I added the end. First of all, like it or not, anti-choice is not an overwhelmingly popular position in Pennsylvania. Secondly, taking a controversial policy off the table is only useful if you have a candidate with sufficient political skill to put something else on that same table. As much as I hate Santorum, I do know that he has that skill. I’ve never seen Casey display a hint of the same.

Whatever. I’m not done, but I need to wake up soon so I should go to sleep for a bit. Have a good night.

Have I ever mentioned that I love watching Kos take a shit on our candidates? Probably. I’d hoped we could get through a week without him doing it again. Oh well, enough from me. Have a lovely afternoon.

It looks as though little Rick Santorum is going after the college Republican vote.

“And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what’s at stake. They’re willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country. What I’m asking all of you tonight is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country?”

No comment needed.

Via Jane

There is no center. Don’t get me wrong, just about everybody in America is somewhere far from politically extreme, but if George Bush has proven anything beyond his own ineptitude, he has proven that any attempt to appeal to the fleeting whims of the alleged centrist swing vote is about as worthless as attempting to sprout wings. Even worse than that, it’s as worthless as courting the youth vote. The youth vote like their parents and the center votes their party registration. Most of them don’t even bother to show up at the polls on election day. Whether you love it or hate it (and I do hate it), please do get over it and get a hold of reality. The reality of 2006, and many of the years that preceded it, is that any attempt to appeal to the alleged swing vote at the expense of the political base is doomed from inception.

Over the last several decades, both of our major political parties have positioned themselves further and further to the right. One has done so in an effective effort to mobilize its base, while the other has done so in a futile effort to appeal to the center - a center that votes its registration. Let’s look at the results. Actually, screw it. I think we all know the score.

I attended a candidate’s forum, featuring Alan Sandals and Chuck Pennacchio, last Saturday. At noon on a Saturday in January, that event was very well attended by the very Pennsylvanians that any Democrat will desperately in their camp if they plan to beat Rick Santorum this November. This isn’t about the few hundred votes in the room, though they are important. I am talking about enthusiasts and civic activists who show up at candidate’s forums month out from any vote. These are the people who will go home and talk to their neighbors and leaflet their neighborhoods. These are the people who will staff phone banks and stuff letters. These are the people who will go door to door. These are the people whose civic spirit every candidate for public office needs. But will they bother to lift a finger for Bob Casey?

If they don’t, who will? Before we anoint, let’s think that one over a little.

Update: I probably should have thought this post over a little before I published it. Shit happens.

Albert , Liz and ACM have nice posts on the Neighborhood Networks - African American Coalition Candidate Forum with Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals held on Saturday. I attended the first part of the event, but haven’t gotten around to writing anything and I don’t have much to add anyway. For now, I’ll just say that I walked away excited by what I heard and looking forward to the primary. It’s up to all of us to make sure that the right candidate is representing us in November.

It may well be a symptom of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, but whenever I start focusing on Bob Casey, a paragraph from Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ‘72 winds up in block quotes on this site. Here goes.

How many more of these goddam elections are we going to have to write off as lame but ‘regrettably necessary’ holding actions? And how many more of these stinking double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils? I understand, along with a lot of other people, that the big thing, this year, is Beating Nixon. But that was also the big thing, as I recall, twelve years ago in 1960 - and as far as I can tell, we’ve gone from bad to worse to rotten since then, and the outlook is for more of the same.

Switch out the name Nixon for Santorum and that paragraph pretty much sums up the way a lot of Pennsylvania Democrats are feeling right now. In the case of this year’s Pennsylvania Senate race, the dull grey reality of real and moral defeat is even worse than the one Thompson described.

This should have been easy. This should have been fun. Instead, the powers that be within the Democratic Partly chose, without our input, a candidate who makes beating Rick Santorum very hard. Now it’s up to us to fix it. Regardless of the conventional wisdom, we do have a choice. Let’ make a good one.

Forget the sage advise offered by bloggers in California. Forget the sage advice from hacks who don’t get that the whole “Alabama in the middle” business insults a few million more people than it enlightens. Forget the idea that Bob Casey’s positions on a few dozen issues will enable him to pick up the votes of people who will never vote for a Democrat. Forget the idea that people who would love nothing better than to see Rick Santorum out of the U.S. senate, will hold their nose and vote for Bob Casey’s lesser evil. Forget the notion that Bob Casey can beat Rick Santorum. He can’t.

Here’s something Chuck Pennacchio (the candidate I support) wrote about winning Pennsylvania and losing it.

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.

I doubt it, but it is nice to see the New York Times Editorial Board making a good faith effort every now and again. God bless their hearts. Here’s a sentence I liked, but the rest is worth a look.

But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust.

You had to see this coming.

The Santorum Casey race: When people find out about candidate positions on key issues Casey plummets from a twelve point lead to a dead heat, with a non-significant two point lead.

Santorum loses when matched with any of the democratic candidates. Both of the self identified progressive democratic candidates draw higher percentages than Casey, with Pennacchio having the largest percentage of votes against Santorum, at a not quite significant 4.4 points higher than Casey. Casey, at non-significant levels, actually gets MORE votes from Republicans once they find out more about him and Santorum.

I beleive the muffled groan you just heard was the death of the “Casey is the only viable Democrat” idea dying a painful death. Let’s be sure to clean up the corpse because I’m sure it’s going to start to smell something awful. Via Albert.