Here's to Your Health

After his recent Senate primary campaign, Chuck Pennacchio did what all good activists do -- looked around for the next project. He found it. Working with a dedicated group of P4P volunteers, and others, he created Citizen Solutions for Pennsylvania.

As the major initial project of Citizen Solutions, Chuck is pushing for passage of the Balanced and Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act in Pennsylvania, pending in both houses of the state legislature (SB 1085, HB 2722). The bill provides for full medical coverage of all Pennsylvania residents though a government-administered health care insurance plan. As drafted, the plan is fully funded through a 10% employer-paid payroll tax and 3% personal income tax (reduced to 1% for employers and employees covered by health insurance under a collective bargaining agreement).

There are many reasons to support the plan, here's over a hundred.

Citizen Solutions is conducting an action conference on the bill on December 15, at West Chester University. It is a busy time of year, but if you can, attend the meeting and learn more about the bill and what you can do to help get every Pennsylvanian covered by medical insurance by Thanksgiving, 2007.

Chuck's letter:

I learned some amazing lessons during the course of my campaign for United States Senate, among them that the vast majority of Pennsylvanians are not ideologically 'conservative' or 'moderate' as the party bosses, career politicians, consultants, pollsters, lobbyists, and corporate media – the Political- Industrial complex – would have us believe. In reality, Main Street Pennsylvanians, urban, suburban, and rural alike, are not ideological at all. They simply want positive, measurable, balanced, and fair policies that will improve their lives -- everyone's lives.

So, how do we achieve positive, helpful results in the face of a Political-Industrial Complex set up to defeat the popular will? How do we make our government represent us and our interests? My answer is: set a goal that benefits 98 percent of us; focus all our energy on that goal; and let legislators know that there is a large constituency prepared to hold them accountable if their votes are not consistent with that goal.

The goal I am working for is health care for all Pennsylvanians by the end of 2007. How achievable is this? Very. The legislation is drafted and ready to be introduced in the State House (HB 2722) and State Senate (SB 1085). There is broad statewide support for these bills. The State House is now in control of friendlier (Democratic) forces for the first time in 12 years, which means real hearings and real votes. There is, at present, no competing legislation; and the bills address all foreseeable obstacles to passage by addressing financing, lost insurance industry jobs, and malpractice insurance, in positive ways. Most important, health care security is a concern shared by the 98% of Pennsylvanians not wealthy enough to withstand unrestricted increases in health care costs and cuts in service.

We have established a coalition of allies that includes doctors, lawyers, business people, labor unions, and consumer advocates to help in this effort. Now we need citizens of every stripe to make their voices heard in Harrisburg. That's where you come in. Educate yourself on the topic, register at Citizen Solutions for PA, check the site for updates, write letters to the editor, and organize in groups to meet with your State House and Senate representatives face-to- face as soon as possible. And if you can make it, attend our organizing meeting on December 15th in West Chester.

UPDATE (2:29pm): PAWatercooler's AlexC posted on this report about Rendell's as yet undisclosed health care plan:

In a broad sense, he said he would push to increase access to health care for adults and to cut costs. . . . Overall, Rendell provided little detail about his health care plans. He said he would not propose a "single payer" or government-run health care system.

Summary only...

It Takes (several) Million

Ned Lamont's win in Connecticut is widely credited in these parts (that is to say, the blogosphere) to the "netroots". So-called liberal bloggers who jumped on the anti-Lieberman bandwagon to support a somewhat awkward novice campaigner who, oh, by the way, had four million of his own to dump into his campaign. Among those taking bows after Lamont's 4-point win over Lieberman were Markos Moulitsis of Daily Kos, Duncan Black (a/k/a Atrios) of Eschaton, and Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, and Jerome Armstrong, all of My DD. Together, these leaders in the self-labeled "liberal" blogosphere personally donated the aggregate sum of $750.00 to Lamont (and all of that came from Bowers and Stoller). But they leant him the more valuable support of their blogs.

These same liberal bloggers also supported Democratic candidates who supported the Bush Administration policies much more consistently than did Joe Lieberman who, regardless what you think of his position on the war, was a much more reliable Democratic vote than most other Democrats in Congress. Here in Pennsylvania, supporters of Chuck Pennacchio (your correspondent included) were astounded that they were unable to raise the kind of blog support for their man that Ned Lamont could raise. Particularly since his opponent in the primary, Bob Casey, held positions further to the right than Joe Lieberman.

The main talking points of these self-described liberals were that Pennacchio had never been elected to any office before and lacked financial support of the public. They apparently considered Lamont's township supervisor position superior training for the US Senate over Pennacchio's decades of expertise in foreign affairs and political science as a college professor.

The major difference between Pennacchio and Lamont was that Pennacchio had a few thousand bucks to throw into his campaign, while Lamont had a few million. That was Pennacchio's mistake -- before running for the Senate, he should have become a millionaire. Then he'd get the liberal blogger support.

Am I wrong? Ask Hong Tran. She's a smart, anti-war Democrat opposing war-supporter Maria Cantwell in Washington's Senatorial Primary. Like Pennacchio, she has very little personal wealth to throw into her candidacy, but a legitimate liberal record. Like Lamont, she's opposing a party-preferred candidate with a record of supporting the Bush administration's failed policies. But she has received little traction among the liberal bloggers. If only she had four million of her own money laying about . . . .

I love it that Lamont won and I hope he goes on to defeat Lieberman in the general election. I was anti-Lieberman long before it was popular. Lieberman's attempts to impose censorship on entertainment he found personally embarrassing long-ago painted him in my little mind.

But trading Joe Lieberman for Bob Casey in the Senate is a bad move. And that's the choice that the so-called liberal bloggers made when they decided to throw their weight behind Casey. Casey will get my vote, but not my support.

Summary only...

Smelling Santorum's Goose

Rasmussen finally released the poll that we reported on last week, and it is worse than we thought for good old Senator Santorum. Casey is up by 23 points over Santorum -- 56 to 33 -- after falling, in some polls, to a little as 6 points ahead.

According to Rasmussen, only 67% of Republicans in the Commonwealth (which has majority Democratic registration), now say they will vote for the junior Senator's reelection. Even better for the Dems, Casey is now pulling 87% support from his majority party -- that is a ten-point gain since the last (pre-primary) poll put out by Rasmussen (and about equal to what Chuck Pennacchio pulled down in the May 16 face-off).

But wait, it gets worse for the Senator and better for the perennial Pennsylvania candidate, Bobby Casey Junior -- Senator Santorum's favorable rating is down to 42% and nearly half of his constituents view him unfavorably -- 47%. Nearly 6/10 Pennsylvanians have a favorable view of the challenger -- 59%.

Hard to see how things can get much better for Santorum -- according to Rasmussen, Pennsylvania voters -- by a wide margin -- prefer the Democrats over the Republicans on issues like the economy, energy policy, and Iraq.

Casey now has the race to lose and Santorum, well his anti-immigration policy makes more sense. Since he'll be looking for work soon, he needs to keep the competition out. (And, if I were a betting Slob, I'd give you 1,000 to 1 odds that, come December, the Santorum tribe will not be moving back into that little rental unit they own (and claim to live in) in Penn Hills. Boy, it was an incredibly stupid move for Santorum's boy-campaign manager to spend so much time on that faux incident -- all it did was remind people about Santorum's absentee representation.)

PS -- Just posted this on the Santorum Blog (worth checking into, they do one of the better jobs of covering the race), which wondered if this poll was a trend or an outlier:

Gee, didn't think I'd be going out [on] a limb to call it a trend. Basically, Casey has picked up support from about 2/3rds of the supporters of his primary opponents.

After the primary, the 70% or so who only vote in winter months start tilting a head towards the TV, just a bit, when "that politics stuff" leaks out. This is where the "trend" for Santorum is -- those just starting to pay attention are writing off the Senator. Absent some major national-security kind of event, I think it will be near impossible for the Senator to get that train back on the track.

The Rasmussen results, a little dramatic, but in line with the (even more dramatic) right/wrong track numbers which SurveyUSA came out with a week or so ago -- 57% disapproved of the Senator according to that one.

I think this may be a short campaign season.

So, think Rick will move into the Penn Hills home in January? (me neither)

Summary only...

The Sullen Wings of Fortune

The Sailor gave a least a try, but the lady, in this case, was unfaithful to her word.

Now, we all need to decide what next. A number of Chuck supporters are refusing to vote for Casey and that, to point out the obvious, is their choice. I think it is a mistake, however. They accomplished something meaningful with this campaign and now is the time for them to pull together and figure out if it's an end or the beginning. Casting off the Democratic Party will bring it closer to an end than a beginning, I fear.

Casey is terrible on many of the things most important to me and to most of the Pennacchio supporters -- stem cells, choice, gay rights, the war(s), standing up to BushCo, church and state issues. To be sure, his best friends in the Senate are likely to be other members of the same party -- Specter, McCain and Lieberman.

But, as my Cajun friend notes, Casey IS at least a reliable vote for Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. I hope Casey has that opportunity.

I have serious, serious reservations about whether the Democratic Party will take back the Senate this year. Sure, I see the polls that say how low the President's approval is, how low the Republican Congress's approval is, and how much the general electorate intends to vote for a change. But, the "general electorate" doesn't vote in these elections and "change" is not on the ballot.

Individual States, themselves made up of individual communities, themselves made up of indidividuals, vote, and they vote for their individual Senator. There is a long, long road separating an answer to a pollster's general question of discontent with "the Congress", to a decision, six months from now, to vote against Senator Talent or Senator DeWine or Senator Whomsoever. So, to me it is far from certain that a Senator Casey (just typing that makes me cringe) will have an opportunity to vote for the majority leader.

But, the upside is so great -- the investigatory power, the repeal of the worst excesses of BushCo (even without Casey's support on some of them -- like stem cells and the tax cuts), the return to sanity and balance in judicial appointments, a stiff-arm on the last floundering twitches of the Bush Administration, keeping us from invading Iran, just to name a few, that it would be foolish -- no, tragic -- if we let our anger and disappointment in our party (and fellow-citizens), and our disgust at the very idea of a Senator Casey, allow us to threaten all those great things which could be accomplished, and all those awful things which could be stopped, with a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Casey is nothing I would want to see in a Senator -- he is not smart, he is not principled, he favors appeasement over the good fight, he does not inspire, he has no vision (much less long range vision). A vote for Casey is a vote based on two things and two things ONLY -- he is not Santorum, and he has a "Dem" after his name. We deserve better, but we don't have anything better right now.

A write-in for Chuck or, even worse, a vote for Santorum, will do all sort of horrible things. It will help return Santorum and it will diminish the strength of the progressive voices that came together -- over 100,000 of them -- to say "enough!" We do not have to become another Joe H. and appease the Party. To the contrary, we need to fight the inertia of the party at every turn -- fight everywhere, at every level, to make your voices heard. Go to the ward meetings, run for County and State committee positions, run for convention delegate spots, become active in local and statewide campaigns. It takes work and dedication -- it is harder than voting for Casey, and it is more rewarding than voting for Santorum. Apart from his preference for blackened carp, Shlomo usually makes sense and here he is right on -- you can't change politics without changing politics -- we need to BECOME the Democratic Party:

[T]he Democratic party has already moved too far to the right, and Bob Casey's election will not change that fact. Whether it be supporting the bankruptcy bill, Hillary Clinton's cuddling up to Rupert Murdoch, or the 34 Democrats who voted to renew the USA PATRIOT act, the Democrats are not going to lurch rightward with Bob Casey in office; they are already there.

The only significant way for progressives to move the Democratic Party back to the left is by becoming the Democratic Party. By uniting us, Chuck Pennacchio's campaign has carried us a long way toward achieving that goal; but we must remain active in politics and shape and affect our local parties throughout the year--not just on election day. Those perched at the top of the Democratic hierarchy are supported by the roots of local politics that we must become. Go to your local Democratic functions, run for precinct chair, donate $50 to a candidate in whom you believe; do anything, but do it often. Through a concerted gradual effort we can become the change we want to see in the Democratic Party.

Summary only...

PA-Sen Race - What the Pennacchio Campaign Did

Our most optimistic expectations were way off, but so were the polls. If we were counting on a grassroots swell to take a complacent Casey campaign by surprise, I thought Chuck Pennacchio needed to be pulling double-digits in the polls by mid-April. That never materialized, although I was somewhat heartened with his increase from 2 to 4 points late in the campaign. But those were insufficient numbers, translating into only around 150,000 votes, when I felt that 350,000 would be needed to win.

As it was, it appears that Chuck's supporters did turn out in greater percentages than Democrats as a whole -- assuming 3.8 million registered Demcorats in Pennsylvania, and assuming those 4% numbers were correct, then 42% of Chuck supporters turned out for the election, as opposed to a little under 19% of Democrats as a whole. (While the same logic would show that Sandals' supporters came out at a 60% clip, I think the polls did under represent his support, which came nearly exclusively from Philadelphia.) THAT much of our expectations did hold -- although I was frankly hoping for a 60% turnout for Chuck. I thought if Chuck could get into the 12-15% range in the polls by mid-April, then the much, much greater enthusiasm of his supporters would carry the day against the lackluster support for Casey.

Chuck's focus on the "super voters" was a smart one -- get to those 15% of registered Democrats most likely to vote on election day. (Although the campaign volunteers seemingly applied differing standards of measurement for "super voters" -- some included only those voters who voted in each of the last five elections, others those who voted in the last three elections, etc.) But I never fully bought into the logic that the likely voters were being under represented in the polls.

But what the race means to me is more than analysis of the vote -- which I intend to do more of as I gather the breakdowns over time. The race was important because Chuck and his team managed to force some public examination of issues which need to be discussed. Universal Health Care. Living Wage. Equal Rights. Impeachment. PACs.

Now that we have Casey v. Santorum, these issues will again fade into the immediate background, as both men either agree with one another on each of these issues, or at least agree that the issues aren't worth talking about. But, the ripples that flow from the Pennacchio campaign will continue to grow with the legions of young people -- and the dozens, at least, of middle-aged farts like me -- who learned (or re-learned) the importance of engaging in the public discourse, of speaking truth to power, of fighting the good fight even against near-universal opposition and very long odds.

The campaign claimed 6,000 supporters on its mailing list. Now there are 6,000 progressive voices across the Commonwealth who can be the start of something bigger -- a solid progressive voice in Pennsylvania politics. It has started, with some from the Pennacchio campaign already obtaining or seeking County and State Democratic committee positions. The Pennacchio people need to encourage more of this -- provide an information source for how the state party operates, a primer for the young and young at heart on getting involved in a meaningful manner, and a source of organized support for their efforts.

The Pennacchio campaign activated many, many young people across this state and inspired many aging liberals. Let's hope that they can figure out how to keep that movement going forward, broadening, and deepening.

Summary only...

PA-Sen Unofficial Returns

Unofficial Pennsylvania Returns
2006 General Primary

Returns are unofficial until they have been certified.
Returns were last updated 5/17/2006 3:42:08 AM.
9,030 out of 9,368 Districts (96.39%) Reporting Statewide.
United States Senator

Democratic Primary

Candidate Votes Percent

CASEY, BOB JR (DEM) 603,055 (84.5%)
SANDALS, ALAN (DEM) 46,614 ( 6.5%)
PENNACCHIO, CHUCK (DEM) 63,764 ( 8.9%)

Summary only...

Message from Chuck: A BEGINNING

Posted on his blog:

A BEGINNING

Our 2006 Senate campaign was a critically important step in a larger citizen movement to restore Pennsylvania's politics to Pennsylvanians. Thousands of citizens in hundreds of communities across the state over the last thirty months have inspired me, time and again, to speak truth against a political system near bankruptcy.

My heartfelt thanks go out to each volunteer and every supporter who has given so much to advance our people-first politics -- Pennsylvanians who embrace meaningful reform over politics as usual. Tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians are taking a stand for a better kind of politics. A politics built on the talent, imagination, and energy of Pennsylvanians. A politics that promotes the common good instead of narrow, big-money special interests and party bosses. A government that guarantees universal health care, a liviing wage, civil liberties, and a sane foreign policy.

The issues we care about are not going away, and neither are we. In the coming days and weeks I look forward to talking with my supporters and other Pennsylvanians as we decide together what our next steps will be.

Yours in solidarity,

Chuck Pennacchio

Summary only...

NEW PA-Sen Zogby Poll Puts Pennacchio at 45% to Santorum 43%

Today, Zogby International released the newest poll on the Pennsylvania Senate Race. The Poll, sponsored by OpEdNews, and it shows some payoff for Chuck Pennacchio's grassroots effort. Despite no on-air advertising to speak of, head-to-head against Santorum, Chuck pulls down 45% support to Santorum's 43%. Casey, consistent with yesterday's Quinnipiac results, polled at 47% against Santorum at 37 points. A third candidate, having spent half a million of his own money (because he raised almost nothing else) running TV and radio ads, was the weakest performer.

This newest poll helps the Pennacchio campaign put the lie to the name recognition + money raising ability formula adopted by Charles Schumer and Harry Reid when they decided who would be Pennsylvania's Democratic challenger to Senator Santorum this year. Being the son of a very well-liked Pennsylvania governor, with the same name as his father, and having the likes of Hillary fete him at $1,000/plate dinners in Chicago, Texas, Washington and any other place that he could be sure to avoid main street Pennsylvania Democrats, earned Junior an entire two more points support over a college professor unknown until he decided to take his campaign to the people over 30 months ago.

Pennacchio has been telling everyone that the same tired formula used by Schumer and Reid have contributed to 14 consecutive full-term Senatorial losses in Pennsylvania and that the last Democrat to win such a race (in the 60s) was, surprise, a legitimate Democrat who stood for clear progressive values. This lates poll seems to bear him out.

Here's part of Rob Kall's take:

The PA Democratic senate primary race is very interesting. Poll respondents gave Bob Casey, who has spent over $3 million on his campaign, 47% to Rick Santorum's 37%. This is very consistent with the Keystone polls finding of 47%.

Alan Sandals who reportedly spent close to $500,000 on television advertising, received 43% to Santorum's 43%.

Chuck Pennacchio, who has raised a total of under $100,000, but who reports having built a grassroots base of 6,000 supporters statewide, received 45% to Santorum's 43%.

(Kall is the proprietor of OpEdNews.com, the organization which sponsired the Zogby Poll.)

The poll also puts the lie to the Casey forces' insistence that their guy is the only one who can beat Santorum. Casey, who has seen his November '05 20-point + lead in some polls dwidle to 6 to 10 points, before Santorum has virtually lifted a finger against him, is on the down-tick.

Pennacchio, coming on strong with a clear message, offering the voters a real choice between Santorum and a REAL Democrat, has made his case for support from main street Democrats tired of being on the losing end of race after race after race after, well, you get the idea.

Summary only...

BASTARDS!! House Extends Bush Tax Cuts, 12 Dems Join Reps

I watched it on c-span, getting more pissed by the moment. From the NYTimes' more measured coverage:

WASHINGTON, May 10 — The House of Representatives approved a $69 billion bill to extend President Bush's tax cuts for two more years this afternoon, sending the measure to the Senate, where passage is expected by Thursday.

The House vote was 244 to 185, with nearly all Republicans voting in favor. Although most Democrats voted no, more than a dozen voted in favor.

Including Harold Ford. So, we all benefit anyway, right? Here's what the Times has to say about that:

Opponents of the tax cut for investors, which reduced the rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent, said the new tax bill would overwhelmingly benefit the very wealthiest taxpayers.

The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, recently estimated that the top 10 percent of income-earners would get 81.8 percent of the benefit from lower taxes on investment profits and 73 percent of the benefit from freezing the alternative minimum tax.

In the last Senate Debate, Bob Casey Jr. said he'd keep most of the Bush tax cuts in place, except for the top 1% of income in the country. Chuck promised to roll back the Bush cuts for the top 2% and to restore a progressive tax structure, rasing the maximum tax on the higest income earners to 50% -- less than it was during the robust economy of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years. Here's how Chuck's campaign describes Chuck's view that the Bush tax cut gifts to the wealthy harms the middle class:

The irresponsible and selfish fiscal policy espoused by the Bush Administration and Rick Santorum (R-PA) have put our government into debt; their recklessness has created a birth tax of $36,000 on every child born in the United States. The regressive and irresponsible tax cuts for their elite friends have turned the record surplus left by Bill Clinton into a record deficit that Bush and Santorum intend to pass on to our children and grandchildren. The results of greed and mismanagement are not the legacy Americans want to leave for the future of this country.

Chuck will be a voice of responsibility in the Senate. He will oppose the Bush-Santorum’s war on working people and work to bring our budget back into balance. By spending more wisely and following a prudent, common-sense corporate and individual taxation policy, we can grow the economy and cut the deficit. Leaving this debt hanging over the heads of our children would be a rejection of the values that we Americans hold sacred.

Let's turn this around!

On May 16th

Support Chuck Pennacchio
the REAL Democrat for US Senate

Summary only...

THIS Time, Vote for What You Believe In - Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate in Pennsylvania

Summary only...

Bob Casey Jr. -- Flipping & Flopping on Gay Rights

In the Pennsylvania Senate Race, more than a few eybrows were arched around here when the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Bob Casey Jr. in the Democratic Primary. We were surprised because Casey was already on the record as opposing, among other things, the rights of gays to adopt and the HRC is a leading advocacy group for Gay rights. In announcing their endorsement, the HRC had these things to say about Casey:

In stark contrast stands Bob Casey’s commitment to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. One of the first actions Casey took when he was elected Auditor General in 2001 was to implement a non-discrimination policy for his office that included sexual orientation. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, and any attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to deny rights to same-sex couples and their families. He supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as well as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and believes that adoption decisions should be made without prohibitions or limitations based on the sexual orientation of the parents.

We can only assume that these statements were based on something Casey told them. The written record before this announcement is somewhat different.

Casey announced his candidacy for the US Senate in March, 2005. But a few months before that, he was running for (and won) the State Treasurer's post. In that race, he had appeared before the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the advocacy orgainzation of Pennsylvania's Roman Catholic Bishops.

The Catholic Bishops had Bobby Junior fill out their positions questionnaire, in which Bobby was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:

7. What is your position on government requiring that benefits be provided to same-sex partners?

Casey (Tr): Oppose

8. What is your position on legislation allowing homosexual couples to adopt children?

Casey (Tr): Oppose

Casey was (and remains) on the record as supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton in 1996, which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Casey told the Philadelphia Daily News a few months after being elected Treasurer in November, 2004:

"I support the Defense of Marriage Act . . . . to have a great constitutional debate about this issue is completely unnecessary. "

How a candidate can say two diametrically opposed things within a few months of one another -- giving two different interest groups what they want to hear -- and not have a single member of the MSM even report on the difference, much less challenge at least the sincerity of the candidate, is simply astounding.

My guy, Chuck Pennacchio, refuses ALL special interest money. He therefore doesn't need to worry about flipping and flopping his positions to satisfy the money pusher de jeur. His position on equal rights for everyone is the same today as it was when he first articulated it:

For too long we have been separated and divided by artificial lines of race, religion, class, gender and sexual orientation. The politics of division is a troubling proposition for a country founded upon the creed, “all men are created equal.”

The issue of equal rights is fundamental for all Americans. Since women’s suffrage and the end of racial segregation we have prided ourselves on our concepts of freedom and liberty. Congressman John Lewis, who was beaten unconscious in Alabama while marching for equal rights said, “I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color to not stand up for discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

When Americans struggle against the natural tide of equal rights for all Americans, they are defending a history of discrimination that has persisted since the birth of our nation. Similarly, when the radical right attempts to write bigotry into our U.S. Constitution they reflect that same dark impulse to deny equality to a class of citizens.

The gay community has been exempted from the concept of equal justice under law by a system of apartheid that creates two classes of citizens based on sexual orientation. Every American who works hard, pays taxes, and plays by the rules deserves the same benefits and protections the rest of us are afforded. The right to visit a loved one in the hospital and peace of mind that comes with shared tax, health, and inheritance benefits are rights all Americans should enjoy, regardless of sexual orientation.

Same gender unions in no way pose a credible threat to the sanctity of marriage. The national divorce rate is 49%, and the only place where same gender marriage is legal, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Also, Vermont’s civil union law has been a particular success, and a boost for that state’s economy.

The issue of equal rights extends beyond Republican attempts to divide us on the single question of gay marriage. As a moral authority in the world, our country must take the lead on curing the scourge of global AIDS. We must also participate in a rational discussion to determine appropriate responses to hate crimes at the state and federal levels. Ensuring a freedom from fear of prejudice is a goal that should unite us; creating an artificial fear of our neighbors is a Republican tool used to divide us.

With Casey supporting judges like Alito, with more and more conservative groups urging anti-gay amendments and legislation, I'd rather not see Pennsylvania represented by someone who, at the very least, uses both sides of his mouth to talk about equal rights.

Summary only...

Bob Casey Jr -- He'll Take Money from Anyone

Today's NYTimes has a front-page story on the political donations made by a disbarred lawyer again under legal scrutiny and how some of his recipients have returned the money -- but not Bob Casey. He silently stuffed the dirty money into his pockets, as he did with the Abramoff firm donations.

We've already seen that Bob Casey Jr is a heavy favorite of Lobbyist donations, happily taking more money from Lobbyists and Lawyers than 96% -- NINETY-SIX -- of actual, sitting members of Congress. He is not only the only Democratic candidate for US Senate in Pennsylvania who declined to take that pledge against such donations, he is proud to take money from the likes of the members of Jack Abramoff's firm (yes -- THAT Jack Abramoff).

We've also seen that Bobby Junior is also a favorite of HUNDREDS of the very same PACs who are also supporters of Santorum. Now why would these PACs give money to Casey and Santorum -- do you think it is because Casey has made it is clear he is an independent guy and that their money won't affect him, or is it because Casey is clearly adverse to their interests, or is is because they know he can be bought or because they know he will support them just like Ricky? We report, you decide.

Today's NYTimes article tells the sad, sad tale of John R. Burgess, and his latest venture, International Profit Associatesm("IPA"), a management consulting company in Illinois. Mike McIntire's article neatly summarizes poor Mr. Burgess's problems:

A disbarred New York lawyer with a criminal record for attempted larceny and patronizing a 16-year-old prostitute, Mr. Burgess owns International Profit Associates, a management consulting company in Illinois.

Federal authorities are pressing a sexual harassment suit against the company on behalf of 113 former female employees.

The Illinois attorney general is investigating accusations of deceptive marketing tactics, officials say, and the company has been the subject of 470 complaints to the Better Business Bureau across the nation in the past three years.

Some guy, eh? The Times reports how he and his associates used their donations to buy them face-time and photo-ops with the powerful. They then used these relationship to impress their clients and score bigger consulting jobs -- sound familiar?

His problems aren't NEW news -- Andrew Cuomo (son of Mario, then candidate for NY Governor) turned back $20,000 from IPA folks in 2002 and Rod Blagojevich, the Democratic governor of Illinois, returned $125,000 in 2002.

So, of course, Bob Casey is a stand-up guy, with this history he wouldn't take this tainted money now, would he, especially not in 2005, right?

Well, the Times didn't mention it but your intrepid Slob did a little sleuthing and guess what? Bob Casey was happy to include IPA donations among the many millions of other tainted funds he has happily collected while "campaigning" at high-ticket fund-raisers for the wealth influence-brokers in Illinois, DC, Texas, California and any other place as far from real PA Democrats as he could get.

Our friends at OpenSecrets.org have collected the data from Casey's campaign reports that show that Burgess et al from IPA contributed to Casey in November, 2005 -- three years after others returned the money -- and Casey kept it.

So, tell me again, Ed Rendell and Chuck Schumer, how the guy you picked is going to call out Rick Santorum on ethics & money in politics?

Time to get behind the only PAC-free, special-interest-free candidate in the race, who also -- BONUS! -- happens to truely stand up for traditional Democratic values --

Support CHUCK PENNACCHIO!!!

You can't change politics, without changing politics.

Summary only...

Pennacchio Endorsed by League of Young Voters

Yeah! for Chuck. Adding their boots to his army of 6,000 spread out over the Commonwealth is no small factor as we approach May 16. WTG P4P!!

For Immediate Release:
For information contact: pittsburgh@indyvoter.org

Pittsburgh, PA – May 5th, 2006

On Thursday May 4th, 2006, The League of Young Voters PAC held their primary 2006 election endorsement meeting for the Pennsylvania primary. Invited to speak were candidates running for U.S. Senate, U.S. Congress, PA Governor, PA Lt. Governor, PA State Senate and PA State House.

Numerous candidates were present including: The Honorable State Representative Don Walko (20th House District), Lisa Bennington (21st House District), Mark Purcell (20th House District), The Honorable Recorder of Deeds Valerie McDonald-Roberts (PA Lt. Governor), Susan Banahasky (20th House District), Edward Gainey (24th House District), Chelsa Wagner (22nd House District), Mike Isaac (14th Congressional District) and The Honorable State Representative Joe Preston (24th House District). Representatives spoke on the behalf of Georgia Berner (4th Congressional District), Rick Santorum (U.S. Senator), Chuck Pennacchio (U.S. Senator) and The Honorable Congressman Mike Doyle (14th Congressional District).

After an extensive discussion on the merits of all candidates appearing on the May 16th primary ballot, our membership voted on which candidates they would endorse.

The League of Young Voters PAC endorses the following candidates:

US. Senator: Chuck Pennacchio

PA Governor: Ed Rendell
PA Lt. Governor: Valerie McDonald-Roberts
U.S. Congress (District 4): Georgia Berner
U.S. Congress (District 14): Mike Isaac
PA Senate (District 38): Jim Ferlo
PA House (District 19): Jake Wheatley
PA House (District 20): Susan Banahasky
PA House (District 21): Lisa Bennington
PA House (District 22) Chelsa Wagner
PA House (District 23): Dan Frankel
PA House (District 24): Ed Gainey
PA House (District 27): Shawn Flaherty

The League of Young Voters supports young people to build power to create solutions in our own communities. We develop leaders and build political power to create public policies which reflect our core values: family, community, inclusion, freedom, equality, sustainable jobs, the environment and peace.

Summary only...

What Bob Casey Doesn't Get is that Choice is NOT about Abortion

Choice is not about abstinence, contraception, education, rape, promiscuity, terminating pregnancy, irresponsibility, or any of those things. Choice isn't even a "woman's issue".

Choice is a privacy issue, it is an issue of personal liberty, it is a fundamental rights issue.

The decision in Roe v Wade was predicated on the legal determination that there exists in the Constitution a personal privacy or liberty interest which is not expressly stated. The legal issues are explained at the beginning of the Court's opinion:

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id. at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring).

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a statement about a personal right of privacy. Before Roe, the Court had found not a broad, general right of privacy, but a series of discrete instances in which privacy rights "trumped" governmental prerogative. When they found them they called them "fundamental" and said that they were "implicit" in the Constitution as necessarily a part of the "concept of ordered liberty".

Where the State runs up against a "fundamental" right -- explicit or implicitly protected in the Constitution -- the State has the burden of demonstrating some important state interests are at stake. Not only does the State need to show an important state interest, but it then needs to demonstrate that the regulation at issue is narrowly tailored to serve that interest and that it doesn't infringe on the fundamental right at issue more than is minimally necessary to satisfy the state interest at stake.

This is why the state can require mandatory immunizations and can require children to attend schools, for example.

It isn't necessary to go into all the back and forth in Roe on the legal issues of the State interest at stake and the degree of regulation appropriate.

For the purpose of this discussion, my point is that if we, as a Party, refuse to acknowledge Roe as settled and inviolate law, then we must necessarily be rejecting the fundamental personal privacy right to make decisions relating to our own bodies on which the Roe holding was based.

THAT right is not only a woman's, but all of ours. And this is why I think the Democratic Party needs, must, inviolately stand for Roe and choice. It should be one of our core values and we should be embarrassed to endorse someone like Casey who is dedicated to overturning Roe and criminalizing a person's exercise of their personal privacy interest.

Even if you are against abortion, you should be for choice because it's your damned liberty interest at stake, too.

THAT's just another reason why I am not voting for Casey on May 16 and supporting Chuck Pennacchio.

Summary only...

Pennacchio Gets All the Love

Well, twice in one day, but this, again, from PA's most foremost Cajun Jew:

Nine Pennacchio Editorials in One Day

Today's edition of The Centre Daily Times (State College and Centre County) printed a special section for primary election letters in its op/ed section. Nineteen letters were printed. Ten letters were written on behalf of local candidates. Nine letters were written about the US Senate race--all of them supported Chuck Pennacchio. I have tears welling up in my eyes. This is absolutely beautiful.

To all those who say that Chuck Pennacchio cannot win in central Pennsylvania, I submit to you these nine letters.

Voting values, not fears

I will vote for Chuck Pennacchio for the Democratic nomination for U.S. senator from Pennsylvania in the May 16 primary election.

I met with Pennacchio in January, February and March when he came to Centre County. On those occasions, he appealed to the audiences to vote their values and not their fears.

He spoke about his principal values.

+ On Iraq: an immediate withdrawal of our forces.

+ On abortion: protecting a woman's right to choose.

+ On civil liberties: supporting full liberties for all.

+ On PAC money: ending political action committee donations to political campaigns. It pollutes elections and gives us the best government money can buy.

Democratic voters, if these values are yours, Pennacchio deserves your vote on May 16.

Mike Sletson
State College

Talking about the issues

Discovering where Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate candidates stand on issues is challenging when media coverage emphasizes fundraising, polls and mudslinging.

The Internet information on the candidates' positions regarding nuclear weapons causes concern, especially in light of the current administration's willingness to actually use nuclear weapons.

Pre-emptive first strike and tactical use of nuclear weapons are radical departures from decades of U.S. foreign policy established and upheld by both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses.

Despite the recent bandwagon behavior of Congress, I think one senator can make a difference, especially one with effective communication skills and knowledge of history and foreign policy to bring credence to his arguments.

Chuck Pennacchio thinks the United States should take a leadership role in enhancing diplomacy and reducing nuclear weapons, and that we should fully support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Alan Sandals, who echoes Pennacchio on almost every domestic policy issue, differs starkly on nuclear weapons and recently said he would oppose the adoption of a "no nuclear first-strike policy" by the U.S. Bob Casey Jr. has supported the use of nuclear weapons as an option in dealing with Iran.

Further information can be found at www.pcntv.com, where U.S. Senate debates are available as pod casts, and at other sites.

Caryl Byrne
State College

An expression of anger

There are plenty of angry Democrats out there. We are angry at the Republican-controlled government for messing up our country.

But we are also angry at the Washington Democrats for their hapless lack of leadership and their craven appeasement of the Republican radical right.

We Democrats are facing a critical election. We have a clear choice to make.

Do we want a Democrat more interested in courting Republicans than Democrats? Someone who wants to revoke Roe vs. Wade and stay the course in Iraq, who thinks a censure of President Bush is a worthless piece of paper, that nuking Iran is a viable option, that Samuel Alito is an acceptable Supreme Court Justice? An unresponsive candidate who refuses to talk to voters? Someone who is bought and paid for by lobbies and corporations?

Do we want more of the same lack of leadership? Then Bob Casey is our man.

Or do we want someone who will fight for the Democratic values of living wage, universal single-payer health care, an immediate end to the war in Iraq, the use of diplomacy rather than nukes, the separation of church and state, and a woman's right to choose?

Someone who has accepted no PAC or corporation money? Someone with the guts and passion to fight for us, and the knowledge and experience to do it?

Someone with the skills and personality to defeat Santorum in the fall? Then vote for Chuck Pennacchio on May 16.

Brenna Lorenz
State College

Experience to be senator

If you're a registered Democrat, Chuck Pennacchio needs your vote in the May 16 primary, in which he is running for U.S. Senate against Bob Casey and Alan Sandals. The primary winner will face off against incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum in November.

Pennacchio has the experience he needs be a U.S. senator.

Trained in U.S. constitutional and diplomatic history, he teaches at the Philadelphia University of the Arts.

He knows the Senate. He has served on Sen. Alan Cranston's staff and helped run the successful Senate campaigns of Tom Harkin, Paul Simon and Tim Wirth.

He served as military personnel advocate on Rep. Ron Dellums' staff. He has formulated policy positions on Social Security, health insurance, a living wage for workers, veterans' benefits, women's rights and ending the Iraq War.

He has spoken clearly and forcefully in the debates against his Democratic opponents. He is the candidate most apt to convince his audience in any debate that might take place with Santorum this fall.

Please vote for him now.

Art Goldschmidt
State College

Another political perspective

As an immigrant from Britain, I see politics from two different perspectives and continue to be astounded at the vast sum of money re-quired to elect a candidate.

When asked in a recent interview how the Senate had changed in 43 years, Ted Kennedy answered, "Money now plays the major role," referring to the $10 billion spent by lobbyists every year.

We accept this institutional corruption as the norm, ignoring that there must be quid pro quos in services rendered for all that cash.

A consequence of this financial thirst has been the reduction of the work week for the average senator, Kennedy said. Typically they start work on Tuesdays at noon and finish on Thursday, returning to the serious task of seeking funds for their next election.

Only one candidate in this year's Democratic primary election for the Senate refuses to accept lobbyist PAC money. That candidate is Chuck Pennacchio.

Consequently, if elected, he will be batting for all Pennsylvanians, not splitting his loyalty be-tween us and the organizations to which he's beholden. He will spend every weekday working on Senate business and not using the time to raise funds for his re-election.

Pennacchio is the kind of Democrat we need representing us in the Senate.

I look forward to the day when we will hear his voice on the Senate floor addressing issues that matter to us, not those of some major corporation. This can happen only if we vote for Pennacchio in the primary.

Karl Mierzejewski
State College

High praise for a candidate

Chuck Pennacchio is the kindest, most knowledgeable, humblest, wisest, courageous, intuitive, visionary person I have met in my 50 years of voting.

His energy is endless. He has traveled from east to west and north to south in Pennsylvania in the past two years meeting with more than 200 small groups of residents, getting to know the people and what would make their lives better.

He has done this at his own expense and with the help of volunteers because he loves people and his country and sees the need to unite people for the good of the country.

For the past 15 years he has taught college courses in American history, European history, politics and media.

He knows what makes an effective United States senator: being informed about foreign policy, national defense and homeland security.

His deep understanding of the roots and causes of war and the pitfalls of making decisions when you know only the surface without thinking of the outcome is sorely needed in Washington.

If you have been discouraged and thought there was no one qualified, truthful, honest and courageous left in the world, I'd like you to vote for Pennacchio. You can trust him to stand up for what is right and not for the big-money people. He accepts no PAC money. You can count on him to support you and the United States.

Joyce Luzier
Philipsburg

A real Democrat

In the race for the Democratic nomination to oppose Rick Santorum in November, the anointed candidate is Bob Casey Jr. The leaders of the party chose him and did what they could to keep other candidates from running against him in the May 16 primary.

But grass-roots Democrats have not yet spoken. We can all agree that Santorum must go. He's an embarrassment and his views are extreme, way out of the Pennsylvania mainstream.

If nominated, will Casey be able to beat him? Conventional wisdom says yes. Casey leads in polls. The problem is that the race hasn't started. The Republicans haven't begun spending their millions.

This time, they don't even have to do much outright smearing. They only have to point out that Casey and Santorum agree on most issues; that Casey and Santorum receive money from more than 200 of the same PACs.

As Harry Truman said: "In a race between a Republican and somebody who acts like a Republican, the real Republican wins every time."

I urge you to vote May 16 for a real Democrat: Pennacchio. He does not agree with Santorum and Casey on the Iraq war, on choice, on stem-cell research. He takes no PAC money.

Unlike Casey, Pennacchio is a dynamic speaker who does not hide what he believes in a fog of words. He can beat Santorum in November.

Peter Morris
State College

Recurring problems

Some problems never go away.

In Philadelphia in 1787, the Founding Fathers worried about despotism, aristocracies, kings, armies and ways to keep the republic they were creating democratic. When they finished the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin said he thought it was sound and could "only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

As long as we allow corporations to continue to control our political process in the 21st century, we can't expect anything but corrupt and despotic government.

Bob Casey and Rick Santorum both answer to the same corporate sponsors. They both feed at the same corporate troughs. If we have to choose between them, we will have to endorse a corrupt political process. We will be selling our democracy to the highest corporate bidder and we will fulfill Ben Franklin's pessimistic vision.

But we are not there yet. On May 16, we can decide who our candidates will be. We do not have to select corporate candidates.

Democrats can vote for Chuck Pennacchio, the only candidate for the U.S. Senate who does not receive corporate or any other PAC money.

As the only candidate for Senate who does not represent corporate power, Pennacchio is the clear choice for independents, Democrats and Republicans alike. Democrats can vote for him in the primary election. Independents, Republicans and others will have to wait until November.

Paul Durrenberger
State College

For, not against

For many years, my husband and I have voted against a candidate with whom we were uncomfortable, and felt miserable about the need to do that.

Times have changed. We will truly feel good on May 16 voting for Chuck Pennacchio for U.S. Senate.

When we first went to www.Chuck2006.com, we were amazed and delighted to find that he stands for many issues with clarity and integrity. Whether support of a living wage, universal health care, expanded stem-cell research, an exit strategy for Iraq or equal rights, Pennacchio explains his convictions and stands behind them.

PAC money does not change Pennacchio's decisions -- his support is solely grass-roots. He believes in people power, not money power, and in Washington he will continue to spend time with constituents, not lobbyists.

Democrats lose in Pennsylvania because they have not backed a strong candidate. Pennacchio can beat Rick Santorum. We do not think Bob Casey can do that. His views are almost identical to Santorum's.

Pennacchio has taken on tough political challenges for decades, against long odds. As a historian, he knows how to avoid the errors of the past.

Vote for your principles, not your fears.

Judith Walter Heald
Potters Mills

posted by Shlomo Boudreaux @ 3:17 PM

Summary only...

The Cajun Jew: Down, Down, Down?

This, from Pennsylvania's foremost Cajun Jew:

Down, Down, Down?

Casey's going down, down, down, in a burning ring of fire...right? According to a survey of 578 registered voters, Casey's lead over Santorum has dwindled to 6%. Casey leads 47-41.

However, this survey oversamples Republicans. According to Santorum Blog:

The poll included 46.8% Rs, 42% Ds 9% Independants. State wide the registration numbers are 47.6% D, 40.8 R, 11.6% other. Democrats were underpolled and Republicans were overpolled.

Despite this statistical tomfoolery, Casey's lead has been collapsing over the past month or two. Maybe Chuck Pennacchio was right to criticize the methodology of Terry Madonna and Keystone Polling?

As an aside, remember when Casey had a double digit lead over Rendell less than one month before the 2002 Gubernatorial race only to lose in the primary election? Does anyone else see pattern behavior here?

Summary only...

Montgomery Co - Meet Chuck Pennacchio Tonight

In what will likely be his 300th-something public, non-fundraising event in the Campaign Chuck Pennacchio will be in the Ft. Washington area this evening. He will be attending and speaking at the Horsham Democratic Committee Candidates Night. It'll be a crowded event, with many local and state candidates in attendance.

Do yourself a solid -- get out and meet Chuck, talk with him, and hear him rouse the crowd with his appeal to traditional Democratic values. Here's the 4-1-1:

Event Schedule & Details:
7:00 - 8:15 PM
Upper Dublin Township Building
Loch Alsh Ave. off Fort Washington Avenue
Fort Washington, PA 19034

Summary only...

Polls Confirm: Bob Casey Jr. Can't Hold Lead vs Santorum

Today a Keystone Poll (reported in advance of release by Politics PA) shows Bob Casey's lead over Rick Santorum is down to 6 points. The candidates are firmly entrenched in the sub-50% support range, with Casey at 47% of respondents and Santorum at 41.

At one time, some polls put Casey's lead at at least 20 points. Before the primary has even ended, Casey's lead has plunged a startling 14 points.

Those following this race closely are not at all surprised. The biggest reason for the drop is not anything Santorum has done in the campaign -- he's barely started going. Rather, many put the blams aquarely on Casey. An early Quinnipiac Poll strongly suggested that once the voters knew about Casey's strident anti-choice positions, his lead practically vanished.

Later, a Zogby/OpEd poll was the first to poll "educated" voters -- respondents were advised of candidate positions on major issues, as described by the candidates or their materials -- and to poll all of the Democratic candidates individually against Santorum. Casey was the weakest of the three, head to head against Santorum, when people were advised of his positions.

The conclusion was becoming obvious -- the more people learned about Bob Casey Jr., the less likely they were to vote for him:

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. The pollster's analysis:

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.

Santorum wants Casey as his opponent because he wins the demographic game. Casey loses massively in some categories, when voters find out about Casey, which Santorum will sure insure.

With Casey having clearly demonstrated he is not the right man to take on Santorum, it is time for the Democrats in Pennsylvania to look for the person who CAN beat Santorum -- Chuck Pennacchio.

The same polls that show Casey tumbling when voters learn about his Santorum-lite positions, show Chuck as the strongest Democrat in the race. HE gives voters something to choose -- a Santorum fighter, not a Santorum-liter.

Summary only...

Chuck Pennacchio on Immigration Reform

From Chuck Pennacchio:

April 30, 2006

America needs immigration reform. Throughout U.S. history immigrants have made important contributions to our nation but our current immigration system is dysfunctional. Our borders are not secure. Many of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U,S. are working in unsafe conditions for poverty-level incomes. The large supply of low-cost immigrant labor depresses wages for less-skilled citizens and has contributed to the stagnation of median family incomes in the U.S. over the past two decades.

We need immigration reform that: 1) reasserts control of our borders; 2) treats immigrants with respect and creates realistic opportunities for them to gain legal status; 3) improves working conditions and living standards for low-income workers both inside and outside the United States.

Too many employers are exploiting immigrant laborers as a source of cheap labor. That must end. As we bring immigrant laborers into legal status we should also enact legislation that will enable both immigrants and American citizens to earn a living wage.

We also need to insist on worker health and safety standards and locally adjusted living wage provisions in international trade agreements. This will reduce the pressure for immigration by making it more attractive for potential immigrants to stay with their families in their home nations. These wage and safety standards will also help level the playing field between American employers and their foreign competitors that are gaining an unfair advantage by underpaying their employees. Finally, as the only PAC free candidate in this race, Chuck is uniquely qualified to stand up to the corporate interests that are manipulating America’s immigration and trade policies at the expense of working people.

The immigration issue is a troubling one. I don't see the jobs being taken by immigrants as "American" jobs, nor do I see them as jobs no one else wants. I just see them as jobs. Employers should have the right to fill those jobs with whoever they want to fill them with regardless of nationality. And Employers will fill jobs with people who meet two criteria -- they will work for less than the next guy and they will get the job done. (Well, except when it comes to CEOs -- there it seems that they will hire the guy who demands the most money.)

How do we solve the "immigration" problem? One big step towards a solution is to return to a LIVING WAGE and make EVERY American employer pay it-- including Dole and McDonald's.

Pay a living wage and you'll see 4,000 people -- Americans and "guest workers" -- line up for 100 openings to pick corn in Ohio. I know this results in higher prices at the supermarket, but this is where the real effect of the living wage comes in -- the "trickle up" effect. Take a million or so families out of poverty and watch what could happen to our economy. (And, frankly, how much better off would we ALL be if we ate a million or so fewer Big Macs?)

Coming back to the current immigration issue -- I am not sure where Chuck stands on legalizing the current batch of illegal workers in America, or on the guest worker program. I'd like to know more.

But, I do know, having seen Chuck speak and read everything on his site (including all of these position papers), that I am perfectly comfortable in trusting in his ability to reason it out with reference to real facts. I know that he will approach this issue with deep appreciation for the suffering and needs of everyone affected. Equally important -- and something I cannot say about any of his opponents-- he'll do it without reference to the special interests represented by all of those hundred of corporate PACs that simultaneously give money to Santorum and Casey.

Summary only...

Chuck Pennacchio on Iraq: "Out of Crisis Comes Opportunity"

For me, one of the key differences between Chuck Pennacchio, on the one side, and Rick Santorum and Bob Casey Jr on the other, is their approaches to Iraq.

Santorum and Bob Casey Jr supported President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. Senator Santorum and Treasurer Casey also endorse President Bush's "stick it out" policy in Iraq. At the last Senate Campaign Debate, Bob Casey Jr refused to consider a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Chuck Pennacchio did not support the decision to go to war and does not support the Bush cum Santorum cum Bob Casey "fight 'til we win" approach. In Chuck's view, withdrawal from Iraq is a vital national security issue:

[I]t is important to remind ourselves why an American military pullout is vital to our national security.

As a diplomatic historian, national security studies professor, and student of the Vietnam War, I can clearly see that the Iraq War has created long-term diplomatic, cultural, economic, political, and military damage to ourselves among our traditional allies, non-aligned yet cooperative nations, rival states, and heretofore neutral nations. This damage in international relations means that our global war against al Qaeda and related offspring, based in over 60 nations (according to the CIA), continues to backslide badly.

In other words, continuation of the Iraq War--with attending human rights debacles at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo--dramatically fuels the recruitment process of radical, anti-American, Islamic warriors around the globe, while undermining our intelligence gathering efforts against al Qaeda and its clones.

It is bitter irony that the perpetration of this war -- on false claims and weak argument -- has in fact harmed out national security interests. Ironic because strenghtening our national security was the undercurrent of all of the shifting arguments used to justify this highly unusual pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Bitter because of the thousands of our brothers and sisters who are dead or maimed because of this wrong-headed policy.

Chuck points out that, not only has this war permitted our foreign antagonsists to "get away" and grow stronger abroad, but it has weakend our ability to protect against them at home. The Bush/Santorum/Casey-endorsed Iraq policy is a two-edged sword with both edges cutting US:

[O]ur nation is weaker at home, and more vulnerable to attack, than it was on 9-11. Why? Because federal-level budget cuts have meant first responder support is diminished at the local level; because homeland security dollars are now part of the up-for-grabs pork barrel politicking that defines our undisciplined federal spending--and, as such, unthreatened mid-American towns and cities are, effectively, robbing vulnerable coastal cities, ports, waterways, and nuclear and chemical plants of needed support; because military recruitment has fallen prey to our overstretched, under-armed, poorlycompensated soldier, national guard, and veteran populations.

The first step in corrective action, meaning to strengthen our national security, is a sound Iraq withdrawal program. Chuck sees this celarly and has always seen it. He proposed an exit strategy last year -- while Casey was still making up his mind about whether he supported a war then-two years old. In June, 2005, Chuck laid out three fundamentals as the basis for the withdrawal framework, which he hoped, with Congressional, Administrative, and public support, could be accomplished within three months:

First, the United States needs to promote an international peace-keeping force made up of soldiers from neutral and Islamic nations. The United States and NATO should actively court the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to lead-organize and staff this global force. . . .

Second, we need to support Iraqi self-rule and free and fair elections both now and after America's military occupation has ended. . . . The divide between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will make consensus-building difficult, but not impossible, as was the case when all parties came together in the 1950s.

Third, since the U.S. broke much of Iraq's infrastructure during the early phase of the war, it is on us to provide humanitarian aid to allow Iraq to rebuild for its future. For without economic promise there can be no hope for democracy.

As Chuck has said at each of his nearly 300 non-fundraising campaign events to date:

"Out of crisis comes opportunity" -- We must not miss this opening for a just and lasting peace in Iraq, the non-violent extension of democracy and self-determination across the Middle East, and a revival of America's moral suasion as a means to combat al Qaeda-led terrorism and to advance international goodwill.

I'd like to see us give him the opportunity to take his plan to the people in this Commonwealth, to challenge Rick Santorum's support of the Iraq war and the "stick it out" non-plan, and let the voters decide in November with whom they agree. If we give the voters Casey their choice will be between someone who agrees with the President and is in the same Party, or someone who agrees with the President and is not. Some choice.

Choose Change. Choose Chuck on May 16.

Summary only...