Pro Choice - Pro Democracy Dems help this PA Candidate

Once again the media and party leaders are trying to decide who gets to run for office in this country.

Chuck Pennacchio is running for the seat of Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, a GOP hack of the worst odor. I learned about him when he introduced himself over at the Daily Kos. I am not in PA but here is what I know.

Pennacchio is running against Bob Casey for the Democratic slot in the 2006 election, and Casey is a strong anti-choice candidate.

According to the Associated Press, Pennacchio doesn't exist. Despite hearing from the Pennacchio campaign, AP ran a story quoting Ed Rendell's office as saying "we're not expecting anyone to file against Bobby" in the Senate primary - and the reporter did nothing to point out that this was not true.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party may have decided that Casey is their man and AP is dancing to their tune. And many believe that because Casey has the best chance of beating Santorum that we should all get behind him.

Once again, the party and the media are trying to tell voters who they can know about or pay attention to. Having just experienced the Kucinich Campaign where the same thing was done to Dennis - I am not going to sit back quietly and allow the media to determine who is or is not a candidate. At least not without hearing from me.

Handing Casey an easy win is not a good thing. It says we don't care, that we're willing to stand down and safely allow candidates to adopt an anti-choice platform for the sake of political expedience, and that we won't put up a fight.

Tim from Pennacchio's campaign tells the story of what happened during his AP contact over at MYDD. He is asking for people to email the AP reporter, Peter Jackson, and also send a copy to AP directly
http://ttagaris.mydd.com/story/2005/3/4/201827/9953

Republican or Democrat, it should not be easy for either party to decide who the candidate is going to be and then tell the press to toe the line. The best way for the country to get the best representation is is for the public to hear the candidates out, hear them debate their takes on the issues and come to an informed decision.

Atrios writes about it here:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_atrios_archive.html#111003794552252454

Oh – and here is Chuck’s website:
http://www.chuck2006.com/

If you believe that democracy means that anyone meeting the legal requirements to run for office deserves to be judged by the citizens and not the media and party hacks, I hope you will take a moment to make your feelings known as well - especially if you live in PA.

I am glad it got its own thread.

There is a page at his website with videos of his issues.

You know not one other thing about Casey's opponent. Yet you support him over Casey.

I am supporting his right to run and to have his positions heard so that people can make informed decisions.

The media should not get to decide who the people have the right to hear about. The people should get to decide who is the best candidate. The AP KNEW Chuck was running, but elected not to tell the public that there was another Democratic candidate. That is what I object to.

The party and the media don't get to decide (or shouldn't) who is and is not "electable" and who they will inform the public about.

and hope the best man wins. If Hafer had run I would have been happy as well. Then may the best person win. Santorum needs to go and I honestly don't care who replaces him.

we lose everything. That is what you men need to understand.

It's like passing a law that says that men have to register at organ banks and have to be foreced to undergo major surgery if someone is a match and needs a kidney. That means surgery, risk of death or disability, and months out of your life. I'll bet you wouldn't vote for anyone who supported that law, would you?

The fact that our rights are primary doesn't mean we don't notice a candidate's other positions.

It just means that if we are thrust back into reproductive slavery, all those other things become largely irrelevant.

and I have no problem. But don't try to say you aren't. I think single issue voting is stupid (I have voted for many candidates who were lousy on gay rights) but you have a right to do it. What I don't like is to pretend you aren't.

Because one issue is paramount, it doesn't mean we'd vote for someone who is profoundly antilabor, pro empire, pro corporate, and utterly corrupt in all areas.

It just means all other good things a man might embody are irrelevant if we are slaves.

Slaves.

Get it yet?

There isn't a word in this thread about his positions on any other issue nor is there anything on Kos. I admit he probably isn't but neither of us know that. On the basis of one issue you prefer him to Casey. If that isn't single issue voting I haven't a clue what is.

which you'll realize if you reread my posts.

I am speaking in generalities. Generally speaking, no antiwoman, pro slavery candidate is palatable.

You can run them all you want.

Just don't expect women to bother to vote for them.

We won't vote for our own slavery, no matter how men want to sell us out.

... the point being that the party leaders and the media are shutting a legal candidate out of discussion of the issues and the campaign. That concerns me most.

But as I posted at the top, here is his website:
http://www.chuck2006.com/

And the night he posted at Kos he answered questions from posters - including some pretty hostile ones very well.

I will go see if I can find the link.

you called him pro democracy. I will take your point that he is being left out of the discussion but that might be because he has no record to speak of. If I decided to file in my state's primary for Senate, I would expect to be ignored until I proved I was a factor.

he introduced himself at Kos and answered questions:
"My name is Chuck Pennacchio and I am running to take back for all Pennsylvanians the U.S. Senate seat now held by Rick Santorum. Regardless of any other Democrat who announces over the coming days, weeks, and months, I am in this race to stay--I am in this race to WIN."

More...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/28/161340/724

He gets that he will have to do a hell of a lot of shoe-leather outreach to overcome the Repub slime machine, and is a professor with lots of relevant experience working within the Dem party.

for the imprisonment of all homosexuals? Cause essentially thats what the anti-choice crowd is out to do. Make deciding what goes on in your own body a criminal offense.

who come close. But I would like the citation of one, just one, pro life Democrat who called for imprisioning women in abortion cases. I want a citation with a direct quote that can be verified. Imprisioning doctors doesn't count. Of the hundreds of pro life Democrats out there you should be able to supply one quote.

Why cause you say so? As to imprisoning women for having an abortion. What is the point of passing anti-choice legislation if they do not intend to enforce it?

Further if you're willing to vote for rabid anti-homosexual Democrats just because they are Democrats I don't know what to say. Didn't your Supreme Court have to strike down your anti-sodomy laws in Mississippi? Maybe if people were not okay with voting for rabidly anti-homosexual Democrats you coulda solved that in the legislature.

The don't seem to understand that as long as the Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, Bush will continue to pack the judiciary with anti-choice activist judges.

The pro-choice activities are so determined to drive antiabortion politicians out of the Democratic Party that they are willing to reelect Rick Santorum.

or else Santorum will be elected. Casey is no different from Santorum on abortion and gay rights. You're trying to push women to the back of the bus.

He sounds like he could beat a repug (I'd wager Santorum is shakin' in his boots) AND not be a corporate sellout. I don't think the media is terribly fond of this type of candidate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/5/145031/0571

One the DLC endorsed Rendell in 2002 not Casey. Two, the DLC is pro choice (look at their website if you don't believe me). So you are flat out wrong on both counts here.

I am a member of the DLC because they are at least tolerant of pro-life Democrats (I am one). I disagree with them on lots of issues, but I am a member because they at least allow us pro-life Democrats into the discussion, which is more than you can say for more liberal organizations within the party.

The fact is that the DLC is a pro-choice organization. They supported Rendell over Casey in 2002. Casey's views on economic issues don't jive with the DLC. Df you go to http://www.bobcaseyforpa.com you can read them for yourself. If people would get beyond one issue, they'd really come to like Bob Casey.

Casey's a great guy, and he'll be a great US Senator--light years better than Santorum.

And there was no backroom deal made. Hafer had long said that if she thought Casey had the best chance of winning, she'd drop out. Long ago, she made it clear that she wanted to beat Santorum, and therefore wanted to avoid a primary. She really did a nobel and patriotic thing. Unfortunately, some pro-choice groups used her to drive a wedge between Democrats, and be a thorn in the side of Bob Casey, Jr. That said, I really, really respect Hafer, and would gladly support her if she ever runs for office again.