Casey: Romanelli Not Invited to Debates

Larry Smar provided a fast reply to my inquiry about the participation of the Green Party candidate in the upcoming Senatorial debates: 'no way'.

After posting the article today about the upcoming debates and joint appearances, I sent an email to the Casey and Santorum Campaign chiefs asking:

Assuming that Mr. Romanelli is still on the ballot at the time of the two October debates now scheduled, what are your respective positions on inviting him to participate.

If the challenge to Mr. Romanelli's petition is not determined by September 3, what is your position on his participation in the joint appearance on Meet the Press?

Within minutes I had the following reply from Larry Smar, Casey's spokesperson:

From: Larry Smar
To: A Big Fat Slob
Date: Aug 22, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: INQUIRY on Debates

We have a rule: only one representative from each campaign on stage. Rick Santorum bought and paid for Romanelli because Santorum is afraid to face Bob Casey one-on-one.

In 2000, Santorum didn't want third-parties in debates. See the end of the 2000 AP article below.

With the appended 2000 AP article, Smar fairly reminds us that, when Santorum faced a challenge from Ron Klink and three conservative minor-party candidates, Santorum blocked their participation in the debates. (Incidentally, the Libertarian Party candidate that year was John Featherman, who was ousted from his primary challenge to Santorum when he didn't have the money to finance a defense to the Republican challenge to his petitions.)

At the time, I thought it was wrong of Santorum to exclude the third-party candidates from the debates. It is wrong for Casey to do so now.

As an aside, that same article quoted the Santorum campaign as having already agreed to three debates and willing to schedule at least three more (they ended up doing five). Casey should follow that practice and agree to at least five debates (as in "debates" not joint appearances like MTP and KYW radio's "Breakfast with the Candidates".)

[UPDATE (8/23/06 am): The Santorum and Romanelli campaigns were invited to respond to Smar's comments about the Green Party participation in the debates. They have not.]

[UPDATE (8/23/06 pm): Apparently, I sent the invitation to the Santorum campaign to comment to a general email box, although I thought I had sent it to Vince Galko. Virginia Davis, the Santorum Campaign press secretary has sent in this response to Larry Smar's comments:

Tens of thousands of citizens have spoken out that they want real debate on the key issues that matter to the future of our Commonwealth and our nation. Yet Bobby Casey is going to great lengths to silence the voice of a candidate who shares this commitment. One might recall when Governor Robert Casey, Bobby Casey Jr.'’s father, was silenced from the 1992 Democratic National Convention because some feared that his pro-life views would conflict with their political agenda. Isn't it ironic that 14 years later, Casey Jr. is trying to silence a candidate who, too, has an interest in expressing opposing views? What exactly is Casey Jr. afraid of?

While I agree that, if on the ballot (and he is at the moment), Romanelli should have full participation rights in all joint appearances and debates, the response from the Santorum camp doesn't try to deal with the apparent hypocrisy.

The story may be apocryphal, but the legend goes that a pre-politician Abe Lincoln was arguing a case before the circuit court one morning and won. That afternoon, he had a second case to argue which involved the same issue of law but on which Lincoln's client was on the opposite side. The chief justice asked him if he didn't advocate the other side of the question in the morning, to which Lincoln responded, "Yes, Your Honor. But the vital difference is that, this time, I am right."

I guess that's something like what we have from the Santorum camp. They aren't willing to directly answer Smar's charges, either.

And, by the way, it is a fiction that Casey's father was not given speaking time at Clinton's convention because he was anti-choice -- several other speakers at the convention were also anti-choice. The big difference -- Casey, Sr. refused to support Bill Clinton.]

Summary only...

Finally, Casey Sets Two Debates, Promises More

The Casey campaign has apparently agreed to two debates -- one in Philadelphia on October 16 and one October 12 in Pittsburgh. This information by way of the Philadelphia Inquirer and KDKA, respectively. I assume that someone will take care of getting directions to those locations to Larry Smar, since Casey apparently doesn't know where they are.

Okay, snark aside, it is good to finally see Casey agree to face off with Santorum. Doubtless his shrinking lead in the polls has something to do with his sudden willingness to schedule the debates. [UPDATE: Larry Smar responded to this post with the following statement, accusing the Senator of dragging his feet on setting the debate dates: "for the record on your previous post, we’ve been talking to debate organizers throughout the summer. Santorum has dragged his feet on agreeing to dates."]

The two candidates have also scheduled joint appearances on Meet the Press and KYW Radio in Philadelphia, but those are not debates. The MTP joint appearance might work out to 14 minutes, and that's not including Russert's lame, long-winded, self-promoting questions. The Philadelphia date is something of a debate-lite -- it is only an hour long. Barely time to scratch the surface. But, with the Pittsburgh face-off within the week (no word on the length) and the hope for at least two more real debates (Smar, Casey's campaign chief, promised that Casey will agree to more debates), if they aren't repetitive in subject matter, enough of the key issues could be covered.

None of the reports mention the Green candidate. By the time of these debates, the Democrat's attempt to oust the Green Party candidate from the ballot should have been decided. At that point, assumin g he is still on the ballot,we would expect to see him invited to attend. It is less than certain that the issue will be resolved before the September 3 Meet the Press date. Repeated inquiries to MTP about Romanelli's participation on that program have gone unanswered.

[UPDATE: I just saw this much better coverage of the same issue by 2 Political Junkies. Nice job, there.]

Summary only...

Good News for Santorum in New Approval Numbers

For only the second time in the last twelve months, Rick Santorum's approval numbers in the SurveyUSA poll are greater than his disapproval figures. With a series of recent polls showing a narrowing of the race, maybe now Casey will start to wake up and do some real campaigning.

The poll results, released today, hand Santorum a 48% approval rating, against 45% who disapprove of the junior Senator's performance. That is a five-point swing to the good in both numbers from last month's figures. Santorum's 48% approval is the highest SurveyUSA has polled for him in this election cycle. Regionally, SurveyUSA has him at 51% approval in every region (including Casey's home turf) except his own -- the Southeast, where his approval is 41% versus 48% disapproval.

Santorum has managed to get the Casey campaign all kinds of distracted with the Green candidacy and, in the meantime, pound away with advertising designed to appeal to his base and, to a degree, soften his image. Meanwhile Bob Casey is on a bus going to meet a couple dozen voters someplace where the woods meet the road. And when he gets there, he's got nothing to say.

If he keeps this up, he could be the proud proprietor of yet another historic blown election.

h/t to Santorum Blog for the heads up.

Summary only...

Bush -- A Man of Genius

If there are among my readers any young men or women who aspire to become leaders of thought in their generation, I hope they will avoid certain errors into which I fell in youth for want of good advice.

When I wished to form an opinion upon a subject, I used to study it, weigh the arguments on different sides, and attempt to reach a balanced conclusion. I have since discovered that this is not the way to do things.

A man of genius knows it all without the need of study; his opinions are pontifical and depend for their persuasiveness upon literary style rather than argument.

It is necessary to be one-sided, since this facilitates the vehemence that is considered a proof of strength.

It is essential to appeal to prejudices and passions of which men have begun to feel ashamed and to do this in the name of some new ineffable ethic.

It is well to decry the slow and pettifogging minds which require evidence in order to reach conclusions.

Above all, whatever is most ancient should be dished up as the very latest thing.

* * *

One of the most important elements of success in becoming a man of genius is to learn the art of denunciation.

You must always denounce in such a way that your reader thinks that it is the other fellow who is being denounced and not himself; in that case he will be impressed by your noble scorn, whereas if he thinks that it is himself that you are denouncing, he will consider that you are guilty of ill-bred peevishness. Carlyle remarked: ``The population of England is twenty millions, mostly fools.'' Everybody who read this considered himself one of the exceptions, and therefore enjoyed the remark.

You must not denounce well-defined classes, such as persons with more than a certain income, inhabitants of a certain area, or believers in some definite creed; for if you do this, some readers will know that your invective is directed against them. You must denounce persons whose emotions are atrophied, persons to whom only plodding study can reveal the truth, for we all know that these are other people, and we shall therefore view with sympathy your powerful diagnosis of the evils of the age.

Ignore fact and reason, live entirely in the world of your own fantastic and myth-producing passions; do this whole-heartedly and with conviction, and you will become one of the prophets of your age.

-- "How to Become a Man of Genius" by Bertrand Russell (1932)

Summary only...

Feingold's Progressive Patriot Fund - "Pick a Candidate" Vote

Two Pennsylvania candidates are on the list -- Joe Sestak and Pat Murphy:

Milwaukee – US Senator Russ Feingold today announced the Progressive Patriots Fund will hold another installment of its popular “Pick a Progressive Patriot” online contest. As with past contests, people will be able to cast a vote for their favorite candidate on the Progressive Patriots Fund website.

This, the sixth round of the “Pick a Progressive Patriot” contest, will feature 12 candidates for congress. Past events have featured congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative candidates. The candidates featured for this event are: Joe Sestak (PA – 7), David Gill (IL – 15), Tim Barnwell (TX – 26), Phyllis Busansky (FL – 9), Carol Voisin (OR – 2), Chris Murphy (CT – 5), Nancy Skinner (MI – 9), Patrick Murphy (PA – 8), Patty Wetterling (MN – 6), Larry Kissell (NC – 8), Ed Perlmutter (CO – 7), and Jim Hansen (ID – 2).

Voting will begin today, at www.progressivepatriotsfund.com and will run through Wednesday, August 23rd. Winners will be announced on Thursday, August 24th. The candidate who receives the most votes will receive a $5,000 contribution to their campaign.

“Today marks the beginning of our sixth round of online voting for the next ‘Progressive Patriot,’” Feingold said. “These contests let the people decide who we should support financially and I'm proud we’ve been able to support more then 35 key Democratic campaigns across the country with this program. Democrats have a historic opportunity to bring a much needed progressive majority to all levels of government this November and the Progressive Patriots Fund will continue to work toward that goal."

Past winners of the “Pick a Progressive Patriot” are John Courage (TX-21), Bill Winter (CO-06), Rich Olive (IA-5 Senate District), Jerry McNerney (CA-11), and Phil Angelides (CA Governor).

Feingold formed the Progressive Patriots Fund to promote a progressive reform agenda and support candidates across the country. More information is available at the newly redesigned www.progressivepatriotsfund.com.

Summary only...

New SV Poll -- Casey 47, Santorum 41, Romanelli 4

Strategic Vision just released its latest poll numbers and they confirm the Quinnipiac results earlier this week that the Green Party candidate just is not having an impact on the election. In the latest SV survey, in the three-way race, Casey gets 47%, Santorum 51 41%, Romanelli 4%, with 8% dunnos. Head to Head, Santorum stays put at 41% and Casey picks up one point for 48%. The seven-point Casey lead in the head to head match up is a three-point drop from last month's SV poll which gave Casey 50% and pegged Santorum at 40%.

On the approval ratings, Santorum's are virtually unchanged from a month ago. The August survey says 47% approve, 45% disapprove; last month it was 46% approve, 46% disapprove.

Interesting swing over on the gubernatorial side of the ledger. Last month SV's poll put the race at 49-36 for Rendell, with 13% undecided. Swann seems to have moved some undecideds his way. The August results narrowed the 13-point gap to ten, with Rendell at 51% (+2) and Swann at 41% (+5) and the dunnos at six points. Fast Eddie's favorables are up two points over last month, sitting at 49% this month, while Swann's approval dropped two from last month's 50%. The same 60% say the state is heading in the wrong direction. Swann could move up a bit with numbers like those (and with the extra cash Bush is helping him raise).

As with the SurveyUSA poll earlier this week, the Prez approval numbers are better, but still dismal. The August SV survey put Bush's approval at 32% versus 59% disapprove, up from last month's 26-64% split. Yeah, Pennsylvania still says "Bush sucks!".

Summary only...

New Bush Approval Ratings -- Shoring up the Base

The latest SurveyUSA Bush approval ratings are out and, in Pennsylvania, Bush's dismal 40% approval rating is only slightly less dismal than last month's 32%. That increase comes mostly from respondents who identified themselves as Republicans. Two percent more admitted to registering R this month than last, and this month's survey had two percent fewer Independent respondents. Some Rs are starting to come out of the closet.

In the July poll, 58% of Republicans approved of The Decider. In the August tally, that number jumped to 69%. The balance of the rise seems to come from the Independents, whose approval of the President increased to 46% from last month's 30%.

Broken out by self-identified ideology, 77% Conservatives of conservatives approve of Bush this month, up from 68% last month; 27% of Moderates, down a point from the last survey; and, someone explain this one to me, last month only 5% of self-labeled Liberals approved of the way the President was handling his job. This month that figure jumped to 22%.

The more education one has, the less likely one is to view the President favorably. His highest scores in this breakdown come from those who have no more than a grade school education -- 50% support the President. In the abortion camps, he jumped to 61% approval among the anti-choice contingent, up from 48% last month (only 43% of Pennsylvania respondents identified themselves as anti-choice; 52% are pro-choice).

Regionally, the President is still below the 50% mark everywhere -- 44% Western, 39% Northeast, 31% Southeast, 45% in the T. His biggest jump from last month came in Santorum's area -- the Southeast. In July, he scored a 19% approval rating there. The August numbers were a 12-point increase.

Some good news for the President and his loyal supporter, Rick Santorum. But, no matter how you slice it, the bottom line remains the same -- Pennsylvania says the President still sucks.

Summary only...

Casey Suffers 11-Point Slide in Quinnipiac Latest -- Green Party Not a Factor

Quinnipiac University has released the first poll of the Pennsylvania Senate Race since the Green Party candidate filed his nominating petitions. In a three-way race, Casey leads with 45% of respondents favoring the state treasurer, against 39% for the incumbent Senator. Carl Romanelli, the Green Party nominee, picked up 5% support. In Quinnipiac's prior poll, back in June, Casey had a 52% to 34% lead over Santorum. In the latest poll, 11% of the respondents are undecided or do not plan to vote.

While at first blush the Romanelli entry may seem to have affected Casey's numbers, the two-way results don't really bear that out. Quinnipiac asked respondents for their preferences if Casey and Santorum were the only choices. In that scenario, Casey's lead increases only one point -- 47% to 40%, with 13% undecided, not voting, or intending to write in. Casey's seven point lead against Santorum is an 11-point decline from the head-to-head results in the June Quinnipiac poll.

In a three-way, some of Romanelli's support clearly comes from Casey. Not all of it, not even most of it. Santorum goes up a point on the 2-man race, the undecideds/not voting go up 2 points, and Casey goes up 2. So an argument can be made that Romanelli slices 2 points from Casey and one from Santorum (go figure, those conservative soccer moms who are pro-choice maybe). The Greens have a net effect on Casey of -1. No big deal.

Casey lost those 11 points head-to-head all by himself. Fully 49% of the respondents told Quinnipiac that they do not believe that Santorum deserves to be reelected -- but Casey comes away with only 47% support in the head-to-head. A significant portion of Casey's support in the polls came from the 42% of respondents who said that they were not voting for Casey, but against Santorum.

The anti-Santorum factor shows up in Casey's continued low favorability ratings. His favorables remain below Santorum's. Only 26% say they have a favorable opinion of Pennsylvania's biennial candidate, versus 30% who say they look with favor on the junior Senator from Virginia Penn Hills. On the other hand, Santorum's UNfavorables are twice Casey's. One-third of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Santorum, as against 14% who thought similarly of Bobby Casey Junior.

While it isn't even Labor Day yet, it cannot be comfortable for Casey to see his numbers declining in this way. Santorum has recently begun an intensive advertising blitz, and has managed to get Casey distracted by the Romanelli petition challenge.

With his favorables in the negatives, nearly fifty-percent wanting him out of office, and Pennsylvania voters giving President Bush record low marks, Santorum is still in a much worse position than Casey, and it would take some doing for him to pull this out. But with Casey himself having such low favorables, his policies being rather short on substance (his Iraq plan seems to be nothing more than a promise to ask (unspecified) "tough" questions), and such a large portion of his support being a vote against Santorum, Casey's lead is very soft. Tellingly, despite Casey having been on nearly every state-wide ballot for nearly a decade, 31% of the Pennsylvania respondents say that they don't know enough about Casey to form an opinion.

Casey may well have to decide to actually agree to a real debate (a joint appearance on MTP doesn't count as a debate -- with Russert it hardly qualifies as an interview). More important, he may finally decide to start talking about the issues with some substance instead of his normal pablum.

The next month will be very telling.

Summary only...

The American Planet -- Pluto -- At Risk Again

Pluto, the only planet to be discovered by an American, is again facing a fateful vote on whether it will continue to be listed among the planets of our solar system, or relegated to a big ball of dirty ice.

The issue has come up before, and Pluto has won out several times. The last by a tie going to the planet. This week, the International Astronomical Union will meet in Prague for it's 12-day General Assembly. A proposed definition of "planet" is due to be released tomorrow and voted on next week. (In the photo, that's Pluto in the foreground; slightly below and to your right is its moon, Charon.)

NPR claims to have inside information that Pluto will be permitted to retain its planetary designation, but the definition would result in other objects being added to the planetary classification. Others aren't so sure.

I hope NPR is at least partially correct -- Pluto deserves to remain in the class of planets, even if only for historical purposes. I've actually seen the little guy with my own eye and, knowing the history of the discovery, it is something worth keeping around.

Clyde Tombaugh was born in 1906, in Illinois. Soon after, his family moved to Burdett, Kansas (2000 pop - 256 souls). There, as he grew up, he became interested in astronomy. He taught himself the subject and, as the family could not afford even the most meager of telescopes, he taught himself how to make them. He ground the glass for his lenses in the root cellar. After a hard day in the fields, Clyde spent many late nights back out in the fields, with his home-made telescopes, investigating the heavens. As a boy, he dreamed of discovering a new planet the way some of us dreamed of hitting the game-winning homer in the bottom of the ninth in Game 7 at The Stadium.

He built a couple of dozen telescopes as a teenager and in the late 1920s completed work on a very precise 23-centimeter reflector telescope. He used the crankshaft from a 1910 Buick and old parts from a cream separator for his mount. With this telescope he made some close observations of the planets and highly detailed sketches. He sent his drawings and data to the Lowell Observatory, hoping to get some helpful suggestions. Instead, he received a job offer. He was to help in the search for the theorized Planet X. Within a year, at age 24, he discovered Pluto. After that, he went to college and onto a distinguished career in astronomy.

At the time, Pluto was believed to be about 500 times the mass of the Earth. Today, it is estimated to be smaller than the moon. The planet was named Pluto at the suggestion of a girl in England, whose father wired the suggestion to the Lowell Observatory. They adopted the name because Pluto was the god of the underworld, which they thought apt for such a remote, dark and cold place, and because the first two letters -- PL -- were the initials of Percival Lowell, who had theorized Planet X and started the private observatory bearing his name, in which the planet was finally discovered 15 years after his death.

Today NASA's New Horizons spacecraft is on a mission to Pluto, expected to rendezvous in 2015. On board, tucked amid the cameras and scientific instruments, are Clyde Tombaugh's ashes. It is only fitting that Pluto still be a planet when he gets there.

UPDATE (8/15/06): Tom Gehrels, an asteroid expert from the University of Arizona, is leading the charge to preserve Pluto's status as the ninth planet in the solar system and to desginate Xena as the tenth. In a front-page article in today's Dissertatio -- the IAU conference's daily newspaper -- Gehrels offers the following proposal:

The regular asteroid observers, including amateur astronomers, are doing well with their CCDs in faint follow-up astrometry. However, large wide-angle telescopes and special equipment are needed to explore the outer solar system, including the rare objects that might qualify as planets. The searching is done with expensive telescopes by experts who are not always asteroid observers. The greatest encouragement for exploration of the outer solar system is the excitement that a new Planet might be found. Observatory directors and funding agencies are well aware of that.

This proposal is therefore to stay with the 75 years of popularly considering Pluto the Ninth, as the IAU agreed to in Manchester, and to adopt Xena as the Tenth Planet because it is intrinsically brighter than Pluto. The proposal is further that the same accurate and convenient criterion be used for naming an Eleventh Planet and so forth, namely that they be intrinsically brighter than Pluto, measured in “absolute V-magnitude.” Pluto's absolute visual magnitude is –0.76, Xena's –1.2. The present proposal is written on behalf of people who are doing the observing and discovering, who see the need for prompt recognition and the fastest return in naming. This has been explained before, in Nature 436, 1088, 2005 and Sky & Tel. 111, No. 1, 14, 2006, and this Letter has been circulated in draft form, but there has been no response from the two naming committees of the IAU. Considering roundness due to gravitational stability is complex, time consuming, subject to change, and impossible due to faintness at great distance.

A compromise for proper study and distinction of the various objects and populations is to attach to Pluto and to any new Planets also the usual comet or asteroid designation. Xena already has 2003 UB313, which eventually will be a 6-digit catalog number. The dual assignment, as Planet and comet or asteroid, will also stimulate discussion in schools and colleges of the rich variety of solar-system objects.

A curious potential result of the conference -- the astronomers and physicists could end up selecting a planetary definition which could see our solar system grow from nine to 53 planets. Moms and Dads across the country are going to have to stock up on a whole lot more play dough for those school projects if that happens.

UPDATE (8/16/06): Okay, so now it's looking like Pluto is going to become a pluton -- a planet beyond Neptune. AND they are adding three more planets, Ceres (previously classified as an asteroid), Charon (previously classified as a moon of Pluto), and Xena, a large orbiting orb beyond Pluto.

Summary only...

Iran's Supreme Leader Got Some Splainin' to Do!

In reviewing the Iranian President's blog (UPDATE: which may have been either hacked or taken down already) for the article below, I followed the link to the official English language site of The Office of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. Purusing the site, I found this featured article of interest, in which the Supreme Leader commends Iranian scientists (here reprinted in it's entirety):

The Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on Sunday commended a team of specialists who made a breakthrough in medical science to cure spinal injuries. The Islamic Revolution Leader said that the medical breakthrough is very significant in terms of developing scientific theories and making progress in research studies.

Ayatollah Khamenei said that those who are involved in hard work of research studies to help the nation overcome backwardness imposed on Iran for many years, would be rewarded by the Almighty.

Ayatollah Khamenei said that research studies in the field of basic sciences and developing theories need extra investment that should be provided by the government. In a reception for the team, the Leader appreciated the services of Dr. Saberi, the Executive Director of the Team of Researchers on Methods for Curing Spinal Injuries and Mrs. Firouzi, a professor of biochemistry and biophysics at Tehran University. The Iranian researchers have made a breakthrough in helping the patients with spinal injuries with culture of schwann cells enabling those suffering from paralysis to move.

Named after the German Physiologist Theodore Schwann, the Schwann cells are a variety of neuroglia that mainly provide myelin insulation to axons in the peripheral nervous system of jawed vertebrates.

I was not entirely sure what a Schwann cell was and did a Google search. Stumbling into a Wiki entry, I was surprised to see the following first sentence of the Wiki article (here reprinted with original Wiki links in place):

Named after the German physiologist Theodor Schwann, Schwann cells are a variety of neuroglia that mainly provide myelin insulation to axons in the peripheral nervous system of jawed vertebrates.

Hmmm, sound familiar? As I see it, the Supreme Leader has two problems. One, he stole the Wiki entry without making the required attribution, and therefore violates Wiki's copyright interests. Two, and more seriously for him, Wiki is, together with most of the rest of the extra-Iranian internet, banned in Iran. You see, it is a crime there to access "non-Islamic" sites.

So, not only did the Supreme Leader rip off an internet entry, he ripped off an illegal "non-Islamic" internet entry. tsk. . .tsk . . . tsk . . .

Funny, I didn't think the Supreme Leader looked anything like Captain Renault!

Summary only...

Newest Poliblog: A President Blogs

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has started the newest and, to my knowledge, most unique of political blogs -- his own. I am not aware of any other blog by a head of state. It even has a poll which would warm the hearts of our own neocons -- is the Israel-Hizbullah conflict a prelude to WWIII:

"Do you think that the US and Israeli intention and goal by attacking Lebanon is pulling the trigger for another world war?"

"No" is ahead as of this writing , 94% to 6% (apparently, Iranians are never unsure, much like our own neocons, so there is no "dunno" option).

His first entry is a rambling autobiographical essay. Among other things, we learn that in the first grade he realized that America was an enemy of the people of Iran:

I remember one day, when I was in first grade, by looking through a newspaper - with the help of the adults in our house - I read the news of the capitulation passage by the shah'’s so called "“parliament."” Even though I did not understand the meaning of that issue at that time, . . . I realized that Mohammad Reza attempted to add another page to his vicious case history which was the humiliation and indignity of the Iranian people versus Americans. That was the year that the extinct shah slaughtered many followers of Imam Khomeini.

Wow. When I was in first grade, I recall that the Pirates defeated the Yankees in the World Series, despite having been dominated throughout, with the most improbable of home runs in the home ninth . . . .

Nevertheless, even if the Iranian President's story is iconic, it is noteworthy that enmity against America had naught to do with our love of freedom, as much as it did our propping up of a brutal dictator. It was similar inept and immoral foreign policy which caused another revolutionary to develop such a strong hatred for America that he turned from the life of a comfortable middle-class physician to the proponent of people's revolutions against governments more friendly to American benefactors than to their own poor and working class.

The President goes on to tell the story of his tough life in a lower middle-class family, in which he had to work while attending high school. But he was a smart one, he tells us, and scored 132nd out of 400,000 on the exams for college. (Geeze, I was happy ending up about 20th out of 300 in my high school class (I goofed off the first two and a half years).)

He tells the story of the revolt against the Shah and the war with Iraq -- backed by the United ("why do they call us Satan") States. After several thousand words, he apparently tires and promised to be back with shorter entries in the future.

I left a comment, but I guess it must be moderated as it did not appear yet.

(A tip 'o the bowler to The Guardian for the report.)

UPDATE (8/14/06): It seems as if the President's new blog has either been taken down or hacked. After receiving "busy server" messages all morning, now the Iranaprez's blogsite URL pulls up a page called the "National Integrated Services Network", in Arabic or Farsi or something similarly unattainable to me. So much for the experiment. Or maybe he forget that political blogs are illegal in Iran.

UPDATE II: It appears that the Iranaprez may also be a bit of a clumsy oaf -- one site is claiming, with some detailed evidence, that the Iranaprez' website is attempting to send viruses to the computers of visitors originating in Israel. Nice touch. It also appears that the Iranaprez' site was not hacked -- the National Integrated Services Network is the Iranian government web censor/portal. They probably took the site down because after all of the reports this morning, and apparent publicity on Iranian television, half the world was trying to access it.

UPDATE III (8/14/06 3:05 pm ET): The Iranaprez' blog is back, but the English-language version of the site takes forever to load. The Poll is now closer, and has about 25000 more responses than last night. "No" is still ahead, 58-42.

Summary only...

Pure Evil, Incredible Violence

It is Fidel Castro's 80th Birthday. Thanks to the American politics of the post-revolution era, American School children never learned the real stories behind the 1959 overthrow of Batista. Instead, for generations it was enough to label Castro a "Communist Dictator", as if that said everything we needed to know. We were neither a Communist nor a dictatorial society, so painting Cuba as a Communist dictatorship made it obvious -- Cuba bad, US good. This myopia combined with blinders, ironically, opened the way for glorification of Castro and his right-hand in the revolution, Che Guevara.

This unintended consequence of the American tendency to rewrite history, censor open discussion, and prefer easy labels, is unfortunate. College students have, for decades, declared -- and still declare -- their dissent with one of the popular high-contrast drawings rendered from Alberto Korda's famous photo of Che (reprinted above). This is unfortunate because Che and, even more than Fidel, his more aggressive and brutal younger brother, Raul, were extremely brutal and cruel. They were particularly cruel to their own subordinates during the revolution. Che executed, or had executed, underlings for a wide variety of transgressions, from suspicion of passing information to the Batista regime to drunken insults. One example.

In 1958, Che had a devoted lieutenant serving under him -- Armando Rodriquez. Armando was older than Che, but looked to Che as a wise leader and, as important, social philosopher. Armando's son, a 16-year old firebrand named Israel Pardo Rodriquez. Che was moving his forces westward towards Mt. Turquino to meet up with Fidel, when two of his troops has deserted with their weapons. After a fruitless chase of the two, Che learned that the two had previously been involved in marijuana trade with Israel and another of his group. Suspecting that the four had planned to raid a nearby marijuana farm and desert, he ordered Israel and the other to chase after the two deserters, not expecting them to return. After they left, Che learned of a wider desertion plan among his men and suspect Israel and the other three as being the leaders in the plot.

As it happened, Israel returned alone, having been separated from his companion. Che summarily tried and condemned Israel. Che assigned Armando to carry out his orders. Armando begged Che to relieve him of the assignment to execute his own boy, but Che was unmoved and demanded that Armando prove his loyalty. Tears in his eyes, Armando tied his son to a stake, placed a hood over his eyes, and prepared to fire the fatal shot when, at the last moment, Che stopped him. In effect, Che told the shaken man that he was merely testing his loyalty and had already received evidence clearing Israel of any complicity.

This was an extreme and cruel ordeal for the old man and his son. No man who could order such a thing can be even remotely considered a man of peace or love, or even sane. It is pure evil and unspeakably cruel to test a man to the limit in this way and to forever undermine a young son's faith and confidence in the love of his father. Not to mention putting the young man through the psychological ordeal of a faux execution

Over this last week, especially, numerous Bush Administration representatives, apologists and stand-ins have repeated the latest talking points on the war on terror by labeling their enemy as "Islamic fascists", as pure evil. Many have gone so far as to assert that Islam is a religion of violence. On Hardball Friday, one even proudly preferred her own "peaceful" Christian religion to the "violent" religion of Islam. We've heard similar claims from this Administration and their defenders before. Ann Coulter speaks of the godless liberals and proudly proclaims her devotion to the god of the bible. But the god of the bible is an infinitely more evil and murderous entity than even Che and Fidel. While I don't know much about Islamic beliefs, or the Quar'an, I find it hard to believe that it could be any more violent and evil than the bible.

I apologize, dear reader, for the ruse. But the story of Che and Armando and Israel, while using actual historical events, is otherwise false. Che never made any such order to Armando or anyone else. Che was indeed a cruel and harsh leader, but not as cruel and harsh as to demand a father execute his son to prove his loyalty. But, as you've deduced by now, that story is familiar to all of you -- it is the bibical myth of god and Abraham. Armando is Abraham and Israel is his son, Israel, whom god commanded Abraham to sacrifice for no reason other than to demonstrate Abraham's commitment to god.

Such is the face of the god of the bible. It is a god who is incredibly cruel, violent and evil. The bibical god appears to enjoy death, blood, and destruction. According to the bibical mythology, that god killed 70,000 (innocent men) because King David decided to take a census of the Israelites: "So the LORD sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men of Israel fell dead." (1 Chronicles 21:14). David, and his family, were spared. But the god of the bible thought it just to kill 70,000 innocent for David's transgression.

The god of the bible wiped away the residents of 60 cities -- men, women, and children -- so that the Israelites could plunder and take the livestock, possessions, and towns for themselves. He sanctions the killing of all men and non-virgins in a town to provide a stock of virgins to serve as forced breeders for his people and, when that isn't enough, the kidnapping and rape of even more virgins. (Judges 21). This god and Jesus endorse killing children for cursing their parents (Matthew 15), and they apparently enjoy the sounds of babies being bashed on rocks (Isaiah 13:15-18, Hosea 13:16, Psalms 137:9). Revelations glories in the coming blood bath.

By some reckonings, the bibical myths recount god directly killing over 370,000 and ordering the murder of nearly 2 million more. (We haven't even touched on how the bible endorses slavery and the selling of one's own daughters into prostitution.) And christians are labeling Islam as a violent religion?

The Bush Administration has moved the enemy from Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, both having grown stronger and further from our reaches since September 11, to evil doers, to haters of freedom, to Islamic extremists, and, finally, to "Islamic fascists". The formulation of this label for our enemies leads directly to the conclusion that the earliest of the post-9/11 Bush labels, quickly withdrawn, was no slip of the tongue.

You will recall that, shortly before invading Afghanistan, Bush called his war on terrorism a 'Crusade'. Nice touch -- shortly before going to war with an Islamic state, a President who hastens to publicly claim his christianity in word (but not in thought, action, or policy) uses the one term that will remind everyone of one of the most violent wars in history, perpetrated by christians against muslims in the middle east. He quickly withdrew the comment but, in fact, it revealed his true mindset -- when this administration speaks of terrorism, they mean Islam.

By reducing the enemy to the label "Islamic Fascists" they need say nothing more to create the unspoken conclusion -- they are evil, we are good, and therefore our war against them is good. Like the "Communist Dictator", the "Islamic Fascist" label advances the unspoken premise of the conclusion -- they are evil not only because they are fascists, but also because they are not christians.

With this latest turn of a phrase, Bush and Rove and Cheney are giving cover to bigots everywhere who are anxious to parrot Coulter and Pat Robertson and declare all who disagree with them evil:

Q -- Are churches that don‚’t agree with your politics or religious beliefs not really churches?

Coulter -- Correct: They‚’re called ‚“mosques.‚”

Interview with Ann Coulter

Television evangelist Pat Robertson yesterday described Islam as a violent religion bent on world domination . . . . In mid-September, he and fellow evangelist Jerry Falwell sparked controversy by suggesting on the same show that abortionists, feminists, gays and liberal groups were partly responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. . . . Islam, [Robertson] concluded, "is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then if need be destroy."

The Administration's "Islamofacists" labels give cover to Robertson and others to continue with those kinds of hateful attacks. Each time a bushite repeats the lie that the terrorists attack us because we are free and they hate freedom-loving peoples, they give credibility to truly evil people, like Coulter and Robertson -- and at the same time distract attention from their horribly-failed policies and strategies, their lies, and lack of ideas. (Anyone who believes that they hate us for our freedom is either ignorant or a liar; the Bush administration would do well to spend some time learning exactly what Che's revolution was about and how a moderate, middle-class doctor became the icon of 20th Century revolutionary movements.)

When you strive so hard to create that kind of divisive atomosphere, when you legitimize hateful attacks on people who are not-christian, or not-white, or not-whatever-you-are, you also give cover to other expressions of bigotry and hatred -- such as against brown people who risk life and limb for a few dollars more, or against those who oppose the failed policies of the administration.

It is hard to recall when it has been so acceptable, in our so-called tolerant and pluralistic nation, to attack those who disagree, those who dissent, those who are in the minority, those who are different, as it is today. This so-called christian president bears great responsibilty for that. (Cheney image stolen from Jesus' General.)

It is a true threat to our liberty. As despicable events and their hateful statements pile up, I cannot help but suspect that 9/11 became, for this cabal, the perfect excuse to wage this divisive war against America and the liberties -- the freedoms -- that they do, in fact, hate.

Summary only...

Local Anti-Immigration Laws -- It's All the Rage

One after another, township supervisors and borough councils are dabbling in ordinances relating to immigration. Forget for the time being that this is a federal problem and it is unlikely that any of these local laws are legal. That hardly matters to the local yokels pushing them -- the anti-immigration frenzy gives them cover for their bigotry. Some clear thinking today from the Pocono Record on yet another municipality caught up in the latest fad:

The federal government — with a president, a House of Representatives and a Senate all controlled by one political party — has done nothing about immigration laws in the last five years. Now, with that President's popularity at an all time low and midterm elections looming, that party has reached into its arsenal of campaign weapons and pulled out "fear of illegal immigrants" as a way to win elections in November.

Folks, if they did nothing to solve this problem for five years, why let them use it as a campaign issue now?

And why encourage municipalities to act in an area where effective action is only possible at a national level?

This political party has, since the first campaign of George W. Bush, specialized in mobilizing its voters through fear. Do not encourage them. Do not help them. And do not think that a municipal ordinance is going to solve a problem that may not even exist.

What should be happening right now is this: Millions of Americans ask the political party in power why it is shouting about an alleged problem it has had the ability to solve any time it wanted. Do they think we are all gullible, that we can't see through the threadbare tactics of xenophia?

Summary only...

In today's news . . . . .

Stolen from Roxtar at Black Sky Theory.

Summary only...

Raj Bhakta-- Opponent "B*tch", Campaign "Sh*t"

Thanks to PolitcsPA which had this up today, awarding Republican Congressional Candidate Raj Bhakta their prize for the "Worst Campaign Implosion of the 2006 Election Cycle" for his recent performance in Washington.

According to The Hill, Bhakta was noticed in Poste standing on a chair and singing the "Battle Hymn of the Republic". He then went on to call his opponent, Democrat Allison Schwartz "a liberal bitch", and declared that "I don't give a shit about the campaign" (good thing). Raj boasts about being on "The Apprentice", but I'm betting that today he is more fit to star in a revival of the MTV hit, "Jackass".

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...

Sing Me Sweet and Sleepy

Jerry Garcia

August 1, 1942 - August 9, 1995

When the last rose of summer pricks my finger
And the hot sun chills me to the bone
When I can't hear the song for the singer
And I can't tell my pillow from a stone

I will walk alone by the black muddy river
And sing me a song of my own
I will walk alone by the black muddy river
And sing me a song of my own

When the last bolt of sunshine hits the mountain
And the stars start to splatter in the sky
When the moon splits the southwest horizon
With the scream of an eagle on the fly

I will walk alone by the black muddy river
And listen to the ripples as they moan
I will walk alone by the black muddy river
And sing me a song of my own

Black muddy river
Roll on forever
I don't care how deep or wide
If you got another side
Roll muddy river
Roll muddy river
Black muddy river roll

When it seems like the night will last forever
And there's nothing left to do but count the years
When the strings of my heart start to sever
And stones fall from my eyes instead of tears

I will walk alone by the black muddy river
And dream me a dream of my own
I will walk alone by the black muddy river
And sing me a song of my own
And sing me a song of my own

"Black Muddy River"
Words by Robert Hunter; music by Jerry Garcia

Summary only...

Bush Rewriting Law While You Were Distracted by Lamont

At the end of July, we wrote about how the Bush Administration was worried over the potential for prosecutions under the War Crimes Act. That is understandable as the War Crimes Act imposes an entirely unreasonable standard -- it makes it a crime to torture or degrade prisoners of war, or to otherwise violate the Geneva Conventions in their treatment.

Bush has a personal stake in this as he directly ordered the torture of prisoners from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and departures from the Geneva Convention, and endorsed Rumsfeld's earlier directive to the same effect.

Apparently, the Bush Administration has completed the drafting of its proposed amendments to the War Crimes Act. According to the Washington Post, the amendments would delete criminal liability for Bush's ordered violation of Article 3.1.c of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment".

In typical Bush procedure, the Administration has not released the text of their proposed "stay out of jail" amendments.

ITMFA

Summary only...

Weird Like Me

One of my favorite poliblogettes recently advised me that I was "tagged". Being a little out of the loop and way out of hip, I had to surmise from her post what that meant. Apparently, it means that I have to reveal five weird things about my self and select five additional saps to do likewise. I asked my children for their suggestions, since one of the weird things about me is the inability to see myself from "the other's" POV. My daughter noted something about me of which I was not previously conscious, but when she mentioned it, I realized that she was correct. So, here goes my list and my apologies to those whom I feel compelled to tag because I'd like to know more about them:

1. I have an unusually strong sense of smell (this was my daughter's contribution).

After my daughter said this, I thought back and could racall many instances over the years when an odor I thought was strong and noticeable was entirely unrecognized by anyone else. Ironically, one instance was in my then-infant daughter's bedroom (she's now in her mid-twenties).

I was downstairs and on the other end of the house when, around ten pm, I picked up the smell of something burning. My then-wife denied there was anything of the sort in the air. Sniff sniffing my way through the house finally led me up the stairs and into her closed bedroom. Quickly, I narrowed the smell to one wall of her room, behind which there was a small crawl/storage space. I touched the wall and felt that it was warm. When I entered the crawl space to investigate, I found a wiring short and the wall board with a brown-black spot about 8 inches across. I shut the power off to the outlet and doused the wall. The next day the electrician opined that the wall likely would have ignited overnight.

What is very weird is that, despite similar stories I can recall, I never ever suspected that there was anything unusual. I do recall, however, that the ability to pick up the smell of something burning -- even behind closed doors with towels stuffed in the bottoms -- served me well in college . . . .

2. Also from my daughter -- I celebrate America's independence on July 2 and tell my family, ever year, why. Recently, I've begun telling my co-workers and, starting this year, dear reader, the same. Although she allows that it is a weird habit, she says she likes it.

3. Again, from my daughter, my reading habits. Not my serious reads -- which tend to historical biography, politics, law, and literature -- but my entertaining reads. She thinks that it is weird that I'll pick up a random Encylopedia volume, or dictionary, and just start reading at whatever page opens up. To this, I'll add something I rarely confess -- I read the fine print on all those endless offers, contests, and credit card statements that we all get -- for fun. It is a left-over from a past life as a corporate lawyer, but I do enjoy seeing how cleverly the fine print is put together to screw someone. Which leads me to the next entry --

4. In college, I had hair down to there; I've attended several score Dead concerts, Who, Kinks, Patti Smith, Stones, Neil Young, Nils Lofgren, Joe Cocker, Airplane/Starship, Alvin Lee, Allman Bros, and dozens other relix of the 60s and early 70s. In politics and social philosophy, I am reliably not corporate in outlook. Way back when, I had a working knowledge of many recreational diversions then easily available and realtively safe. All this merely to set up the weirdness of then spending two decades -- happily -- in New York City with a very large international law firm. There I toiled as a corporate lawyer for multinationals, and even a foreign power or two, and in criminal court defended wise guys and white collars against the likes of Rudy Gulliani. I concede that the combination of deadhead and corporate gunslinger is weird.

Finally,

5. I love Julia Roberts movies. I don't think they are art; I know she is a movie star and not an actress. And I know that they are derogatorily called "chick flicks". But I really do enjoy them and even own a few. I had a friend in college, a brilliant person, now an outstanding writer for a publication you know and a regular panelist on a weekly talk show. This friend's spouse is a leader in the literary world. Elvis movies are that friend's Julia flicks. I recall that conversation, from 30-odd years ago (and I do mean odd), and my inward shock and near mockery of the admission. But it was that conversation, and the respect I have for that person, which permitted me to finally admit of my cultural soft spot for Ms. Robert's mindless sugar baths.

So there you have it, mock away.

I tag

Will Divide
Gort
Blue Wren
Liam McEneaney
The Cajun Jew

Gort having been previously tagged, and none too happy about it, I hereby tag . . . .
Bernie

Summary only...

Santorum and the Art of Distraction

Doesn't Bob Casey's campaign get it?

Santorum and his peeps have political smarts. They know that Carl Romanelli will have the same impact on this race that a 7 year old relieving himself in the waters off Wildwood Crest has on the ocean levels. Santorum realizes Romanelli isn't going to siphon enough voters off Bob Casey to make any real difference.

But, if the Casey camp has to spend some of its (far less than Rick's) cash on hand and force some of its top people to waste precious manhours and devote strategy sessions to the "Green problem", for a couple of weeks, while Rick goes off to beat the drum on immigration or some other hot-button issue, then what an accomplishment for the Santorum campaign. As a bonus, they've now got people -- bloggers, press, and real folk -- talking about Romanelli and how much Casey is hurt by this. Casey looked, to most of the people on the street, at least, fairly unstoppable. But, by not spending a dime of its own cash on hand, the Santorum campaign has managed to create an impression of vulnerability in the Casey drive to November, and gotten the press to talk about "Casey's Romanelli problem", instead of Casey's message (whatever that is).

The Patriot-News has an editorial today creating some sympathy for the poor Greens, which can't help the Casey cause as they are preparing to challenge the Green petitions:

There is a lot to be said in be half of the two-party political system. But it becomes too much of an old-boy, incumbents' protection club when third-party candidates are required to overcome a very stiff challenge to get on the ballot. Indeed, it is just plain wrong that it requires a mere 2,000 qualified signatures for Republican and Democratic statewide candidates to get on the ballot, while third-party candidates have to come up with a whopping 67,070 this year. That's anti-democratic and eliminates candidates and ideas that could lend interest to races that turn off millions of Pennsylvanians who find no inspiration compelling enough to bother to vote. . . . The Green Party appears to have reached that threshold by collecting more than 90,000 signatures, reportedly with the aid of supporters of Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who is running well behind Casey in the U.S. Senate race. Santorum could be helped if Green Senate candidate Carl Romanelli can siphon some votes away from Casey.

From CityPaper.net comes this report of Washington Post's Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist David Broder's warnings at the Eastern Regional Conference of the Council of State Governments in Philadelphia:

Addressing Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, Broder said, "Casey should not take his current lead for granted. And if he does, he may be in for a surprise because Santorum is a fighter."

Will Bunch is talking about the unusual situation of uber-conservatives giving big bucks to the decidedly left of center Romanelli and how Casey can be hurt by this:

Federal Election Commission records show that all $66,000 of the money raised by the Green Party came from donors who back conservative causes or GOP candidates, particularly Santorum. And it's Santorum who benefits if liberal voters desert Casey for the Greens.

His compatriot, Attytood, gives Romanelli's positions full play, lists Casey's conservative credentials, and talks about the harm to Casey:

For a guy who's positioned himself as the candidate of the left in the Pennsylvania Senate race, Carl Romanelli has some very strange bedfellows on the far-right side of the mattress. The Green Party candidate -- who'll likely siphon some votes from liberals angry at Democrat Casey's conservative views on abortion, gun control, and other issues -- has a real shot at making the fall ballot thanks to an effort funded with $66,000 in donations to the Green Party of Luzerne County (where Romanelli lives) that paid for his petition drive. As you may have read over the last couple of days, it's now being reported that many of these donors are allies of GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, who will benefit if disaffected Democrats defect to the Green Party. A most brazen ploy indeed, yet that doesn't even begin to capture the stunning level of cynicism here.

And in every news report on the issue, Romanelli talks about how hard it was to get on the ballot with the oppressive signature requirement, Santorum talks about inclusiveness, and Larry Smar (Casey's brain), sounds like he's whining. This from the AP:

"I think I've demonstrated the fight I've brought to this campaign, because we weren't going to let a system bully us out of an election," Romanelli said yesterday. . .

Casey campaign spokesman Larry Smar said Santorum was actively encouraging Romanelli's candidacy to hurt Casey. "This is about stealing votes from Bob Casey," Smar said. . .

Santorum campaign spokeswoman Virginia Davis said Santorum welcomed Romanelli's candidacy because he is willing to debate the senator. . . . "We welcome participation by a third-party candidate who shares a commitment to sharing his views on the issues," Davis said.

It is hard for me to see what Casey gains from challenging Romanelli. If Casey boots Romanelli, it will still cost him a coupole of weeks of message and manpower. If he loses, his overreaction elvates Romanelli's status.

A Goolge search for Carl Romanelli turned up 75,000 hits today. I didn't think to save the searches I've done before all this hit, but it was a boatload less. I think it's pretty fair to say that Romanelli would not have gotten any of this attention if Casey had responded like Romanelli was irrelevant. Instead, CASEY has managed to make him a factor.

Is now a bad time to remind Democrats what happened when Casey had that 26-point lead over Rendell with 8 weeks to go in the 2002 Gubernatorial primary?

Summary only...

PA Dems to Challenge Green Party Petitions

Well, that didn't take long. Claiming that the company hired to gather many of the signatures has a history of forgery and fraud when it comes to nominating petitions, Pa Dem boss T.J. Rooney said that the state party is preparing to challenge the Romanelli nominating petitions, filed yesterday.

When the petitions were filed, it was widely reported that Santorum & Co. had labored to raise the money, some sources said $100,000, used by the Green Party to collect the signatures.

The company, JSM, Inc. out of Florida, was hired by Nader to get on the ballots in 2004. They had a lot of problems in Ohio, where they needed 5,000 signatures. Despite having turned in 15,000, they came up short after all but 3500 or so were invalidated. JSM is a Republican-connected firm. Nader had to use them after the Democrats warned off their contractors. JSM used sub-contractors to get the job done nationally and they were successful in most challenges brought against them -- Ohio being a pretty egregious example of an unsuccessful effort.

The Green Party press release said that they had filed 100,000 signatures, or over 30,000 more than the 67,000 required. Others said the figure was 90,000+. Regardless, if the Greens submitted that many signatures over the minimum, the Democrats should have solid evidence that every third signature is a forgery. They have had plenty of time to spot check 1,000 signatures by now -- by contacting the voters listed and asking whether they have signed. If they've done that and they have several hundred questionable signatures, then fine, I'll support their challenge.

But, if they haven't done that. If they are playing politics with my electoral system, then they are flat out, dead wrong to waste their time, and everyone's money, trying to save Casey from having to face someone who talks more like a Democrat than a Republican.

I don't think there is any chance for Romanelli to affect the outcome of this election. But he could have a salutary effect by forcing Casey to move a little left (which would take him towards the center) as he tries to shore up the Democratic base in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. If that happens, that would be a bonus, as far as I am concerned.

But, if he does affect the outcome, it will not be Santorum's fault nor Romanelli's -- the fault lies in the Democratic leadership. Those among them who pushed Casey -- at Rendell's suggestion to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid -- they are the ones that the Democrats would have to thank for blowing yet another US Senatorial election.

Rooney's statement makes it sound as though the Democrats are challenging the petitions based on fear and speculation. If that's the case, it is shameful.

Summary only...

Pssst, Buddy, I Can Get You a 235 Year Old Log Cabin - Free?

I'm departing a bit from the norm here. After politics, my second love is history. My children have fond memories of rolling their eyes and impatiently waiting as Dad explored nooks and crannies, or just soaked in the human history behind whatever historical site or building we happened upon, intentionally or not, in our travels. They still gleefully recall the eight hour self-guided tour of the Gettysburg fields. Although the tape said it was a two-hour tour, Dad found the information wanting and repeatedly stopped the tape and ushered the family and the dog out of the station wagon and onto the fields for extended lectures about the goings on that spot so many generations ago. Sigh, dem were the days. Funny that neither of them became history majors, huh?

Anyway, today's Penn Hills Progress reports on the availability of a 1770's log cabin -- free to anyone capable of removing it from the owner's property. I desperately hope that one of the two or three people who stumble accidentally on this blog might know someone, who knows someone in a local historical society or such, who might want to take advantage of this rare opportunity. Isn't there a town out there with an empty town square which can be turned into a tourist destination for very little expense? Why, I bet there are even government or private grants available to assist.

It seems the cabin is in bad shape but restorable. There are relatively few historical buildings from the Revolutionary-War era. For a long time after the Revolution, there was very little interest in preserving historical sites -- the mindset being a separation from England and the past. It really wasn't until after the Civil War that Americans as a whole began to think about preservation of such sites.

So here's your chance to save a piece of that history.

Summary only...

Oops, I Did it Again

In the Shameless Self Promotion category, I am honored to have been tabbed with a Silver Medalist award in the latest Carnival of the Liberals hosted by reyonthhill.

This time featured was the analysis of the Washington State Supreme Court decision upholding the state's ban on gay marriages. It was particularly gratifying to be included in the company of so many outstanding selections for this Carnival. Check out the others selected in COTL 18.

That regular reader out there will recall our selection for the June COTL for our piece on The New Gays.

Summary only...

Green Party Files for PA Sen -- This Could Get Interesting

The Green Party of Pennsylvania announced that it had filed 100,000 signatures to place Carl Romanelli on the ballot alongside incumbent Republican Rick Santorum and Democrat Bob Casey.

Among other things, Romanelli is pro-choice, favors universal health care, advocates an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, equal marriage rights, and the elimination of pension benefits for members of Congress.

News reports say that Santorum and his Republican pals ponied up most of the $100,000 that Romanelli and the Greens spent to collect the required signatures. The Casey campaign is whining about that tactic and the Santorum camp is issuing "no comments" on it.

Many liberals in Pennsylvania are simply pissed off that the Party greased the slide for the Casey nomination on Rendell's recommendation to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Polls show a small backlash, of about 3-5% who may not vote in this election because they do not want to support a pro-war, anti-choice Democrat. Santorum, flagging in the polls for over a year, has been humoring Romanelli and encouraged his supporters to help get the Green Party on the ballot. Like Nader before him, Romanelli will draw nearly all of his support away from Casey. Santorum is obviously hoping to squeak in with a plurality.

It's doubtful that the Greens can draw that much, but they already have 100,000 votes (presumably) and this election, for all of its national hype, may not be that well attended. Certainly, Romanelli is hot to take Santorum up on the 10-debate demand. Santorum is already on the record that Romanelli should get full participation in the debates. It will be interesting to see if Santorum agrees to debate Romanelli one-on-one if they can't get Casey to commit. We also wonder if Santorum is going to insist that Meet the Press invite Romanelli to join Casey and Santorum on September 3, when they are achedule for a joint appearance (Russert calls them "debates").

Casey ran from five of the primary debates, showing up only for two in the most remote locals he could snag. Sandals and Pennacchio debated each other while Casey ran off to fundraise in California, Texas, and Chicago. Of course, that was after Santorum's Republican friends (without Santorum protesting in the least) bounced a moderate Republican challenger off the primary ballot to give Santorum the nomination unopposed. Romanelli is expecting to receive similar treatment from the Democrats. In the Green Party press release announcing the filings, Romanelli said,

"The Democratic Party seems to show an aversion to political competition. Greens want the ballot in the hands of the voters, not the Democratic Party machine. Their lawyers will now look for any technicality to subvert the will of our signators."

Casey's campaign has been mum (there's a shocker) on this issue. Time will tell. Challenges must be filed by August 8.

Summary only...

New Rasmussen Poll Instructive for Bob Casey

Rasmussen has released the results of its July 2006 Poll on the PA Senate race, but only to Premium Members. I'll wait for a leak or the public release . . . .

But in another Poll released today, Rasmussen reports that 78% of potential voters consider the immigration issue as "important". Senator Santorum has been turning over the stones looking for an issue that will stick, and he thinks he's found it in immigration. As usual, he grossly distorts the proposals out there for dealing with the problem and offers no substance on what he would do with the 11-million or so undocumented aliens working in the United States today. Over the last month, he managed to win back a majority of his uber-conservative base by pounding away at the imaginary amnesty being offered in the bi-partisan proposal on the table now.

Similarly as usual, the Casey campaign seems unable or unsure how to handle the Santorum spin. But if the latest Rasmussen poll on the issue does anything, it shows Casey two things.

First, that three-quarters of voters think it is an important issue -- 47% said it was "Very Important" and 31% "Somewhat Important". This really isn't "new" news. Anyone paying attention has seen that develop over the last three months. But, the Casey campaign is all but ignoring the issue. Although a top or near top priority for such a huge percent of the voters, the issue gets no heading in Bob Casey campaign site page on the "Issues". I would have done a search of the site, but the Casey Campaign hasn't provided a search mechanism for its website.

The Casey Campaign's blinders on immigration isn't a great surprise, though. The other top-of-the list issue for everyone is --- all together, please -- that's right, "IRAQ". But, click on "Issues" on the Casey front page and you can see that Iraq isn't even on the drop-down menu. If you guess that it might be under "National Security", you'll find three paragraphs on Iraq -- below the fold. (And they don't say anything.) But this post isn't about Iraq.

On immigration, Casey needs to recognize the passions which the Republicans and Santorum have inflamed. He needs to address the issue head-on and say which of the pending proposals he supports and why. Clearly and up front. If he keeps assuming a win in this election, he'll give a better and smarter campaigner the opportunity he is looking for to close the gap.

I said there were two lessons from this poll and there are. The second lesson is that Santorum and his Republican buddies may have fooled many into thinking that the undocumented workers have been offered amnesty, and therefore generated significant opposition to the plan. Rasmussen says that 39% favor the plan put forward by Republicans Hutchinson and Pence, while 49% oppose it.

BUT, support soars to 55% when respondents are told that

as part of the proposal, illegal immigrants would have to leave the U.S. and apply for re-entry. Providing that they have a job awaiting them, these workers could then return to the U.S. legally. After working legally for a period of 17 years, these individuals would then be able to apply for citizenship.

I know, it's a lot to ask. Casey has got to figure out a way to string together the information in two sentences as effectively as the republicans chant "no amnesty". But most people aren't complete idiots and they can be made to understand that Santorum is flat-out lying to them about the extant proposals.

I'm not really expecting the Campaign to change their ostrich strategy. I just hope that their seeming arrogance and refusal to give the voters substance (including a few debates in heavily-populated areas) doesn't result in us getting stuck with Santorum for another six.

Summary only...

Senate Democrats Should Block Minimum Wage Bill

Last week, the House passed a minimum wage increase -- if you can seriously call a couple of bucks spread out over three years an increase -- to which the Republicans attached a permanent reduction in the estate tax for the super richest 1%, a huge R&D tax break for the biggest of the big corporations, and other help the po' rich folk-type legislation. As the Washington Post is reporting today, in the Senate they are attaching other pork barrel measures in order to try to convince half a dozen Democrats to vote for the bill.

Senate Democrats should stand up against this tactic and fight for a pure minimum wage increase, unattached to special-interest benefits which these Republicans are so adept at doling out. As it stands, the current raise will not lift a single blue-collar soul out of poverty, it will not allow one mother to stay home a little bit more with her kids, it will not help any of the million children in this country who go to bed hungry. It is two dollars on a ten-year old minimum wage, which is phased in over three years. It is an embarrassing joke and we don't need to further insult the working poor by tying this cake to feasts for the wealthiest Americans.

Summary only...

They Just Can't Help Themselves

Bob Casey's Scranton office has issued another newsletter (a/k/a The Scranton Times-Tribune). As usual, the Times-Tribune, whose owners and editorial board members have plunked hundreds of thousands into Casey campaigns over the years -- including that of Casey's brother -- elected to ignore basic ethics by not even bothering to disclose their conflicts of interest. This time it is a puff piece on an old story by Casey Times-Tribune staff writer Borys Krawczeniuk.

The Casey campaign has been savaged in the blogosphere over the last week (see, for example, "Bob Casey is a Fucking Idiot") after it was learned that the campaign returned a donation from a gay sex columnist who has been waging a war against Santorum. Krawczeniuk gave his bosses's favorite acquisition plenty of column inches to prattle on sanctimoniously about why they gave the money back. But, as befits a house organ, Krawczeniuk never asked Casey about some of the other questionable dollars his campaign happily accepted.

Casey never had to explain to Krawczeniuk why he didn't give back any of the money he took from Jack Abramoff's partners, good 'ole Boris didn't ask Casey about all those hundreds of PACs who gave money to both Santorum and Casey, he didn't ask him about why he was so high up on the list of recipients of money from lawyers and lobbyists, and he never asked him about taking money from a disbarred New York lawyer, sex offender, and felon.

Nope, that would have been against his bosses's interest -- you don't pour that kind of money into a candidate and allow your employees to cover him objectively, like he was just any other candidate. You don't, unless of course you run a real newspaper that follows standard journalistic ethics.

But, hey, its Scran'en. Ethics, schmethics.

Summary only...