The Cajun Jew

The Great White North

2006-06-22T19:48:00.000-04:00

30 hours later, I've made it to Whitehorse, Yukon. Internet access is very expensive here, so posting might be light for the time being. On the plus side, the sun is up past midnight.

Until the next,
Shlomo

Heading to the Yukon

2006-06-20T22:00:00.000-04:00

I'm heading to the Yukon on a thirty-hour bus ride tonight, so I probably won't be able to post for a while. I have tons more Yearly Kos posts in store but they will have to wait for a while until I have more time online. Post-Kos posts (say that five times fast) about my journey will follow as well.

Cheers

P.S. That was a very phonically satisfying post.

P.P.S. Sorry about not addressing your comments lately. I am so far behind on my posting as it is that I have not had the time to reply, but I do read and appreciate every one of them.

Yearly Kos: Thursday Night Festivities

2006-06-20T21:12:00.000-04:00

Thursday night of Yearly Kos offered keynote addresses by Markos and Tom Tomorrow in the large ballroom of the Riviera, which was very well attended. It is estimated that over 1,000 people showed up to Yearly Kos, and I believe it. The room was packed.

Funky patriotic light displays bathed the walls.

I'm sure that the quality of the speakers was an important reason for the success, but the bountiful free buffet might have had undue influence. It was quite a spectacle--everything from lox to chicken fingers--but that's Vegas. While I stood there, belly churning, I watched John Aravosis of AMERICAblog cut in line.

Is nothing Sacred? John Aravosis, in brown, cuts in line.

To be fair, there was a gap in the line and he was in the middle of a conversation, so he might not have noticed. Either way, what was I going to say? Aravosis is my blog hero.

When people took their seats--I went for food first and had to sit on the floor--there were a few intros and Tom Tomorrow took to the podium. If you have not seen any of his cartoons, check out This Modern World, he pens absolutely hysterical political satire. Tomorrow showed off a bunch of his classic cartoons and even unveiled a few hysterical unpublished ones. Here are a few quotes:

That's what we're up against here most of the time: people who just make shit up.

I noticed that some of our right wing media friends are here, so I'd like to point out that this is satire.

For this weekend at least, what happens in Vegas should not stay in Vegas.

Tomorrow held a book signing on Friday morning (that's a weird sentence). Do yourself a favor and buy Hell in a Handbasket. On Saturday night I hungout with a few people by the pool and had a chance to talk with him. It was funny, out of all the "celebrities" that I me, Tomorrow was the only one with whom I had a real conversation--by that I mean more than 60 seconds. He is friendly guy from New Haven. When I asked about his creative process, he said that basically he locks himself in his office on Monday and Tuesday and works relentlessly for two days. His wife agrees not to bug him on those days if he is a normal husband for the rest of the week.

Markos took to the podium with massive applause and ovation. His speech was riveting and inspiring for blognerds like myself.

Markos at the podium (sorry about my crappy zoom lens)

What most shocked me was his statement that the average Daily Kos reader is 45 years old...He might have said 44; I can't remember. Either way, real adults read blogs. I could go into detail about his speech but I think this quote sums it up best:

We can now choose for ourselves what media we want to consume. The old media are no longer the gatekeepers.

After Markos' speech Will Keenan aired a satirical sketch entitled "Mission Accomplished Man," about conservative reporter, Christian Right. Whose alter ego is republican superhero who frightens people with consevative talking points. After watching Mission Accomplished Man, I think we all need to be very concerned about whether or not the gay immigrant terrorists will win.

Yearly Kos: The Science Caucus

2006-06-20T14:25:00.000-04:00

I eagerly anticipated the Science Caucus. Would all the big-wig science bloggers be there? What would be the topics of conversation? How do we bloggers save the world, fight creationism, who knows? When I approached the door, DarkSyde, Daily Kos' head science blogger, was greeting those who came through the door. He seemed genuinely pleased to shake everyone's hand and say "hello."

The science caucus was not held in a huge room, so I grabbed a seat in the circle. A few minutes later, the room was packed. Darksyde introduced himself and opened up the floor to discussion, acting as a moderator. For the next hour or so, everyone screamed bloody hell about the infiltration of creationism into the classroom. I have to admit, that it felt good--complaining about one's foes with his compatriots always does. My favorite quote is from an anonymous Atheist fellow:

I don't think I've ever convinced a person that God didn't exist or that Jesus Christ wasn't their personal savior. It's much easier to convince them to vote Democratic.

At this point, when the hubbub had reached its height, DarkSyde interjected that we need to be more constructive in our efforts to fight the right rather than continue to talk about religion.

They [the right] have a lot of channels to get their message out. For us, Democrats and science, this is it--this room. We have all of the top science bloggers here in this room, probably with an audience of a million people. What are we going to do? [slightly paraphrase]

That was a sobering point. The Discovery Institute is a well funded conservative think tank that continually pumps out pseudoscience to further the goals of creationists and opponents of carbon dioxide reduction, etc. The science caucus was an opportunity to collectively fight the right's pseudoscience, and what did we do? We played directly into their hand. The caucus didn't improve much from their, as it was almost over. Other's continued:

This session terrifies me. I didn't expect to talk about religion.
--Jerome a Paris

If this is the state of science in America, it's finished...We need to use the same tactics they use on us, fear and greed. Tell people that if their children are not properly educated, all of the good jobs will go to China.
--London Yank (paraphrase)

Jurors don't know enough to tell when a District Attorney is lying to them,
--Anonymous

We need to become constructive, not make fun of the right all the time. They are winning.
--Chris Mooney (author of The Republican War on Science)

After the session ended people were noticeably depressed--myself included. Two lines of a chat between DarkSyde and an anonymous person sum it up best.

Well that was depressing.
--Anonymous

--Yeah, that was fucked up.
--DarkSyde

For more info on the Science Caucus and Friday's science panel, read DarkSyde's post.

Yearly Kos: The Northeast Caucus

2006-06-20T13:48:00.000-04:00

Several caucuses were set up for bloggers to network with their local colleagues. I dropped by the Northeast caucus in the hopes of meeting some fellow Pennacchioites to grumble about Casey--I know, I should be more positive, because he is better than Santorum.

Once the room filled up (to standing room only) people were asked to say their names, handles, and offer a bit about their blogging interests. When it came around to my turn, I gave my name and said that I write The Cajun Jew. At which point I went on to say, "Lately, I've been writing a lot about the Pennsylvania Senate primary. Unfortunately, when the progressive candidate lost, we were stuck with Bob Casey, who will be the next Joe Lieberman, to challenge Rick Santorum." Someone hissed--very mature. I love the irony of how so many Kossacks supported Ned Lamont to the extreme yet also support Bob Casey.

After everyone introduced him/herself, we split up by state affiliation. I wanted to hear other PA bloggers' opinions about Casey. Many thought that all the fuss was about Casey's anti-choice position. When I mentioned his other "problem areas," a few people appeared unsettled. I chatted with the blogger, Adam B, who had hissed at me. We bickered back and forth about Casey and Chuck. The fact that I agreed to vote for Casey in the general election helped my case with him. He was a nice guy but didn't seem to mind too much about Casey's negatives. Oh well...

Yearly Kos: The Student Caucus

2006-06-19T19:52:00.000-04:00

The student caucus was my first Yearly Kos event. When I walked in, about 20 young folk were sitting in a circle of chairs in a small conference room. The turnout was a little depressing. I wanted to see more young faces full of fire, eagerly seeking to drive out the Bush regime. Oh well.

I was a few minutes late, so everyone had completed introductions when I arrived. The caucus consisted of three or four experienced activists monopolizing the conversation. That's not to say that others couldn't speak, but many of us kept our mouths shut. The caucus was a worthwhile event for someone of my age, but I walked away with little useful information. My notes from the caucus are as follows:

There is a need for a coordinated plan between the College Democrats and the DNC. The Republicans seem to be much better at recruiting, mentoring, and rewarding young talent than the Democrats. We need to find a way to take activists from heavily Democratic areas and ship them off to swing districts for campaign activities. For example, pack a bus full of Berkeley College Dems and send them down to Orange County.
Use Rovian Tactics. Someone asked how to defeat the charismatic young mayor of her college town, who is a rising Republican star. Apparently, he gets along quite well with the locals, youth and otherwise. He even occasionally hangs out at local taverns greeting his constituents. Someone responded that he should be taken down by scandal, that someone should set him up at the bar and snap an incriminating picture. This really pissed me off. I loathe Karl Rove's dirty tactics. We need to defeat Republicans with better policy and stronger leaders, not by stooping to Rovian tactics. Sorry, but I'd rather not sacrifice integrity for personal gain.
College Dems should have a progressive lobbyist speak to their groups about how to lobby a State Senator. State and local officials are much easier to influence than national ones. Ten people in t-shirts can have a real impact on a state and local officials.
Use the anger generated by hate-mongers to motivate and recruit progressives. For example, the next time an anti-choice group demonstrates at your campus, brandishing pictures of aborted feti and equating abortion with the holocaust, use it to your advantage. Channel that energy into good progressive recruitment.
Campus progressives should be on MySpace and Facebook. Seriously, people my age check social networking sites maniacally. Facebook is a great way to keep campus progressives informed.
Stage a well publicized event. When a bunch of people show up to one well-run event, far more buzz is generated than from a weekly meeting of fifteen people. This requires a few dedicated activists, but can dramatically improve the membership of your organization.

The Student Caucus was run by Alex Barrio, a young, energetic activist with delightfully crazy hair. I spoke with him about a couple issues after the caucus and ran into a few times during the conference. On Saturday he was writing a diary about the Student Caucus while being interviewed by Matt Labash, a reporter from The Weekly Standard. He asked me to proofread his diary. While doing so, I chatted with the reporter, who asked me a few questions. He got a kick out of my blogger handle and my blog's name. He was really excited when I mentioned "drunk diarying" my Mark Warner Party Kos diary the night before. Truth be told, I enjoyed chatting with him. His article has just been published. He actually mentioned Shlomo Boudreaux, the Cajun Jew, in the article, which is my first major plug!

Yearly Kos: Beginnings

2006-06-19T18:26:00.000-04:00

When Yearly Kos Began on Thursday there was a bustling energy in the air. I don't think that any of us really knew how the world's first blogger convention was going to turn out. What struck me immediately was the preponderance of middle-aged people in the room. The media likes to portray bloggers as a bunch of pajama-wearing geeks fervently typing away from their mothers' basements. Being a 23 year old--no, I don't live in my mother's basement, and I am a nerd, not a geek--surrounded by 40 year old progressives was a pleasant surprise.

The bustling Riviera conference hallway
full of middle-aged bloggers typing away

Coincidences have a way of looking like intentional happenings. Now, by pure coincidence, I'm sure, the National Society of Accountants' convention happened to coincide with Yearly Kos. I know that the NSA is unlawfully wiretapping America citizens, reporters, and dissidents but couldn't they have been a little more creative? It reminds me of the Upright Citizens Brigade episode when their clandestine surveillance van read United Cake Bakers. Now, I'm no conspiracy wacko, and I'm sure that the National Society of Accountants is a legitimate organization that coincidentally convened at the same time in the same place as the foremost gathering of liberal bloggers in the world, but seeing the NSA at Yearly Kos gave me a hearty chuckle.

Big Brother is watching

The afternoon featured several caucuses for bloggers to meet, great, and discuss. I went to the Student, Northeast, and Science Caucuses.

The Floodgates are Open

2006-06-19T17:35:00.000-04:00

It's been about a week, and I'm in Edmonton, travel having gotten the best of blogging. Having spent a few more days in Vegas and Calgary, I decided to hop up to Edmonton for game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals, in the hopes of finding a local pub to watch the game. Win or lose, being in the milieu of real Canadian hockey fans during game seven of the cup finals will be an anthropological experience.

I wanted to post more from the road, but finding affordable internet access and time to post has been difficult. That being said, I've been keeping a journal, so I have plenty of posts in waiting. At the moment I have a chance to write some posts, so here goes!

Yearly Kos First Impression

2006-06-10T20:22:00.000-04:00

I think that I am the only blogger at Yearly Kos without his laptop...argh. Being that I'm going to travel for a few weeks, it just wasn't feasible to lug around the west. Finally, I have found an somewhat affordable internet connection (20 cents per minute). So, here goes.

I don't know where to begin. Yearly Kos is phenomenal. I've met John Avarosis, Markos Moulitsas, Wes Clark, Joe Wilson, Mark Warner, and the best Bush impersonator I've ever seen. But Yearly Kos is about more than celebrity bloggers and politicians. It is convergence of the Netroots. Never in my life have I been surrounded by so many fellow progressives engaged in an earnest effort for change. Whether discussing the virtues of a candidate or metablogging, there is a real comfort in being surrounded by fellow Kossacks.

That being said, the media is out in force. Adam Nagourney wrote a huge article for the NyTimes, Maureen Dowd wrote an editorial, Time Magazine, Newsweek, even the Weekly Standard sent two reporters. (I might be quoted in The Weekly Standard about a Kos diary I wrote last night.) It's fantastic to see the old media acknowledging the blogosphere in such a positive manner.

I have lots more to say, but I'm running out of internet time/cash and will have to wait until tomorrow (hopefully).

The Cajun Jew Road Show

2006-06-07T09:54:00.000-04:00

Friends and family alike know that I tend to procrastinate...a lot. Personally, I prefer to think of it as delayed diligence. After the Yearly Kos, I'm taking three of four weeks to travel, but have not been able to decide where. So, I intend use procrastination to my advantage and am planning nothing. I've booked a one way ticket to Vegas and am flying by the seat of my pants for the rest of the trip. Somehow I'll find a way to my next destination. Somehow I'll have an adventure. Somehow I'll find my way home. After Vegas, my first decision is to turn left or right (South or North). I'm leaning toward North.

Viva Las Vegas

2006-06-07T09:45:00.000-04:00

Tonight, I'm off for Vegas and the Yearly Kos. Being thrown into the milieu of top bloggers, policy wonks, and politicos will be quite a change of environment from State College, cosmopolitan as it is. Aside from education and networking, I have one major goal: to meet Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos, and ask him directly why he supported Bob Casey over Chuck Pennacchio. Hopefully I'll have the chutzpah to call him out on the hypocrisy of supporting both Bob Casey and Ned Lamont.

Al Gore on NPR

2006-05-31T15:16:00.000-04:00

Here is a link to a Fresh Air interview of Al Gore from yesterday. If An Inconvenient Truth is not playing near you, then you might want to give this a listen.

Yearly Kos

2006-05-31T13:46:00.000-04:00

Next week I am heading out to Las Vegas for Yearly Kos, the progressive bloggers conference coordinated by DailyKos. It's going to be the event of the season for anyone who frequents the liberal blogosphere. All of the big bloggers will be there (Markos, Aravosis, Amato, Hamsher, Bowers to name a few). Speakers include Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Gen. Wes Clark, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and others. The whole event is being covered live by Air America Radio and there will be free WiFi.

Yearly Kos is a tremendous opportunity to unite the netroots for positive political change. Anyone else going to Yearly Kos? I think that reservation remains open and flights are still cheap. (I booked mine yesterday for $170.)

Kirkstock

2006-05-27T21:15:00.000-04:00

My friend Kirk is hosting a free two-day music festival called Kirkstock in Centre Hall this Friday/Saturday June 2nd/3rd. The preliminary band list is as follows:

FRIDAY:
8:00pm - Projekt Dipak
9:45pm - Northern Shoveler
11:30pm - The Man

SATURDAY:
1:00pm - A Brown Leaf
2:15pm - Filthy Gringo
3:30pm - Charles Ramsey
4:45pm - Darren Deicide
6:00pm - Brownbird Rudy Relic
7:15pm - The Wilcox Hotel
9:00pm - Slacks
10:45pm - Alien Red

Kirk put me in charge of food, so I intend to make 30 pounds of sausage. If feasible, we'll try to provide a vegetarian alternative. Because Kirkstock is a free event, we will sell T-shirts and my 30 pounds of sausage (while they last) to recoup some of the costs from hosting a free show--there are many. There is parking nearby and all are welcome to bring tents for the night. If you intend to stick around for a while, you will definitely need to bring food and drink. Kirkstock is BYOB and please respect the carry in, carry out policy. Visit Kirkstock.net for more info.

Also, if your band wants to play at Kirkstock, I can put you in touch with Kirk.

Voting Machines in Centre County

2006-05-27T20:57:00.000-04:00

Centre County is trying to decide which type of voting machines to purchase: the black-box electronic machines or paper ballot optical scanners. Tough call eh? I know that the ATM voting machines are really shiny, but silly conservative Shlomo prefers an actual record of his vote. After all,

Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything--Anonymous

In any event, Invisible Ballots: A Temptation for Electronic Vote Fraud is playing this Thursday (June 1st) in State College. The tagline reads:

Governments are installing computerized voting systems with no paper record to verify accuracy. Elections will be controlled by companies that do not allow voters to inspect their software. If vote counting becomes privatized, there may be no way to get it back. Hightech vote fraud is already a reality. If you value your vote, you must get this information to your friends -- and fast!

I have not seen the film myself and cannot speak to its accuracy, but if you are concerned about this issue, check it out.

State College Municipal Building
243 S. Allen St, State College
Thursday, June 1st @ 7:30 PM

A New Direction

2006-05-27T20:15:00.000-04:00

Sorry for dropping off the face of the Earth this past week. Not posting at regular pace is a blogger's Cardinal sin, and to my readership, I sincerely apologize. Ever since the primary election, I've been struggling with what to write. The Cajun Jew was not formed as a blog for Chuck Pennacchio, although I did become passionate about his campaign shortly after creating this blog.

There are many causes to fight and banners to waive. For dear Shlomo, Bob Casey's bid to unseat Rick Santorum is not one of them. If Casey defeats Santorum in November, I will smile; however, I no longer have any passion or real interest in this Senate race. While I begrudgingly suggest that you vote for Bob Casey, I cannot bring myself to campaign actively for him.

That being said, The Cajun Jew will continue and thrive. This blog's charter remains open and it, as always, will offer a truly unique perspective.

Daily Kos' Anti-Chuck Vibe

2006-05-19T23:22:00.000-04:00

Why do so many people on Daily Kos hate Chuck Pennacchio? Honestly, throughout the campaign, Daily Kos--a community dedicated to getting democrats elected--has been full of vitriolic anti-Chuck rhetoric. (Isn't it ironic that they are fervent supporters of Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman)? Every time I wrote a diary about Chuck [here, here, here], trolls would instantly pounce on me in the comments section, calling me an idiot. Usually. their arguments were rather ignorant, but nonetheless, hostility toward Chuck was and remains rampant on Daily Kos. Now, this diary on Kos reacts to Chuck posting his supporters' comments on his website. Unfortunately, for the diary's author, a few of them criticised Casey:

Pennacchio chose to take the low road...Now I find no fault with the commenters, they were sharing personal feelings with a candidate they belived [sic] in. I do however find it irresponsible for the Professor [sic] to post negative comments on his site. It is in no way prodcutive [sic] or helpful to the goal of dicthing [sic] Santorum. We need Chuck Pennacchio to get behind policy positions that he shares with Bob Casey, not continuing to point out their differnces [sic]. I'm calling on Chuck to put an endorsement for Bob Casey on his website, will Pennacchio supporters do the same?

The author of this diary--obviously, he has never heard of a spell checker--has a real problem with Chuck posting comments critical of Casey on his site--boo hoo. Chuck and his supporters oppose many of Bob Casey's positions; that's not going to change. Chuck has not come out for or against Casey; he is simply posting the views of his supporters, some of which criticise Bob Casey.

There's even a poll about whether Chuck went too far (go vote). Let it go man; some people just hate Bob Casey and will not stand to vote for someone whose values are so foreign to the Democratic base. While I think that we should vote for Casey in November for strategic reasons, as enumerated here, not everyone shares that view. Sorry that you guys no longer have a real Democrat to attack, but Pennsylvania's progressives are not going to suddenly fall in love with someone to to right of Arlen Specter, because Chuck lost the primary.

Hat-tip to Jaekos.

Becoming Change

2006-05-18T22:53:00.000-04:00

The flow of election returns for the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary preceded my emotional cascade. All of the day's jubilation and optimistic projections were at once crushed under the weight of Bob Casey's boundless endorsements and multimillion dollar war chest. Despite an army of grassroots supporters holding a fervent belief in his righteousness, Chuck Pennacchio lost his bid for U.S. Senate, badly; Dr. Pennacchio only received nine percent of the votes. After twelve hours on my feet at the polls in a chilling rain, myself, a once proud idealist, returned home a dejected cynic.

Fortunately, for my sake, my cynicism did not last. While Chuck Pennacchio only received nine percent of the vote throughout the state, he captured a full third of the vote in Centre County, and won the Borough of State College by a healthy 16 point margin. Chuck Pennacchio didn't win State College by spending lots of money or diverting most of his efforts here; Dr. Pennacchio won because an organized band of passionate volunteers convinced the people of State College that he was the best candidate for Senate. If progressives can win in State College when the students have left for the summer, we can win anywhere. Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 Presidential election to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide, but it was in Goldwater's grassroots candidacy that the modern conservative movement coalesced. We progressives did not achieve our goals by defeating Bob Casey in this election; however, we created something far more valuable: an organized grassroots movement in Pennsylvania. Sometimes the greatest hope emerges from the most tragic of defeats.

Many Pennacchio supporters refuse to vote for Bob Casey in the general election, and I will freely admit that I don't want to vote for him. For a progressive voter, Casey is wrong on many--but not all--issues (stem cells, the war, gay rights, abortion, separation of church and state, judicial appointments, gun control, executive power, and universal health care). However, he is right on one key issue: voting for Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. A Casey victory will bring the Democrats one member closer to majority control of the U.S. Senate. The benefits of Democratic control of the Senate will will far outweigh the regressiveness brought to the body by Bob Casey. Imagine, if the Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee? (It's highly unlikely that Bob Casey would be on this committee). Samuel Alito's nomination would have never made it to the Senate floor. Nor would have the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. A Democrat controlled Senate could push through legislation that would raise the minimum wage, roll back tax cuts for the rich, and allow the government to negotiate drug prices. It could investigate the warentless NSA wiretapping and the intelligence failures run-up to the war in Iraq, whether or not Casey agreed to it. Although Casey will move the Democratic Party to the right, he will move our government to the left. While Casey is a social conservative, he is more liberal than Rick Santorum, and defeating Santorum will negate the influence of a powerful ultra-conservative. If the Democrats stand any change of regaining control in the Senate, we must win in Pennsylvania, which, unfortunately, means voting for Bob Casey.

No one should have to hold his nose to vote for a candidate, but politics are not games of pleasure, they are ones of strategy. Some will argue that the long-term harm to the party produced by Casey's election will outweigh the damage done by six more years of Santorum--that Casey's election will further an "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" mentality among Democrats, that stymies the creation of a real opposition party. Unfortunately, for the sake of progressives, the 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.

Brief Results

2006-05-17T08:35:00.000-04:00

Casey's corporate machine rolled over the little guys.

Casey: 84.5%
Pennacchio: 9%
Sandals: 6.5%

I'll have commentary and thoughts later, but I'm heading out to a double shift at work. Until then, here is Chuck's response:

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

A Long Day at the Polls

2006-05-16T20:37:00.000-04:00

I just got back from 13 hours on my feet in the rain...oy. These dogs are kickin'! Today, I definitely changed a few minds in Chuck's favor. Now its off to the Pennacchio after party.

Vote in Today's Primary

2006-05-16T00:08:00.000-04:00

Today, May 16th, is the Pennsylvania primary election. I know that its probably raining, but get off your ass and do your civic duty. Our liberties erode on a daily basis, so please exercise your right (responsibility) to vote. Turnout will be low, so you won't have to wait in a long line. Polls are open between 7 am and 8 pm, so you can swing by before or after work.

As if it's not patently obvious, central Pennsylvania's foremost Cajun Jew is endorsing Chuck Pennacchio for U.S. Senate. Also, Valerie McDonald Roberts is my choice for Lt. Governor.

In the race for Centre County's two members of the state committee, I probably will be writing in candidates. Ruth Luse and John Saylor ignored the majority preference for Chuck Pennacchio by the Centre County Democrats (yes, that's true) and endorsed Bob Casey at the State Democrats meeting. Joanne Tosti-Vasey of NOW convinced Sandals to flip-flop on parental consent and notification for abortion. To all three, a solid middle finger.

The other big races in Centre County have no competition, but I am going to endorse Ed Rendell versus Write in Candidate for Governor.

We Democrats

2006-05-15T12:31:00.001-04:00

Here is one last pitch for Chuck Pennacchio.

For what do we Democrats stand? Is it privacy? Perhaps it is equality and the separation of church from both state and science. Do we believe in protecting the environment? Do we favor diplomacy over preemptive war? Should we asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes? In short, do we believe in the common good?

For far too long in the face of fear, we have lived by a policy of appeasement. As the reactionary right has ascended to dominance, we Democrats have softened our beliefs to fall in line with Republican values. As Republicans have overtaken our elected majority by vigorously appealing to their base, we Democrats have asked ourselves the wrong question: Are we too liberal? Furthermore, should we pursue a more conservative path? Instead of reconnecting with our base--the people who would regularly vote for us--Democrats have sought to capture the less reliable swing-voter. While trending to the right, Democrats have falsely assumed that our base will automatically turnout on election day. The result, rather than being a viable alternative to the Republicans, has been a muddled Democratic vision attractive to no one.

The watershed moment occurred during the Supreme Court confirmation process of Samuel Alito. Replacing Justice O'Connor with Mr. Alito represented a genuine threat to the balance of the court. In an unsuccessful effort, 42 Democrats voted against his nomination. However, only 25 voted to support the filibuster of Mr. Alito. The 42 Democrats who voted against Alito's nomination could have stopped his ascent to the court by supporting the filibuster, but they didn't. 17 Democrats feared being labelled "obstructionists" by the right and voted against extending the filibuster. Instead of stopping a legitimate threat to the court, the Democrats, appeased the right and sold out their own.

Bob Casey Jr. represents everything that the Democrats should not be: conservative, disconnected with the base, and boring. Casey would make a wonderful challenger to Rick Santorum in the Republican primary. He opposes reproductive choice, universal health care, an Iraq exit strategy, stem cell research, a living wage and yes, he supported Samuel Alito. For good measure, Casey accepts money from scores of the same PACs as Santorum.

Pennsylvania's Democrats must avoid voting for Bob Casey Jr. in tomorrow's primary election. A Casey victory tomorrow will only serve to validate the Democrat's paradoxical notion that electoral success is contingent upon a slide--or in Casey's case a leap--to the right. While Bob Casey might be a marginally better Senator than Rick Santorum, there is no acceptable reason for a Democrat to vote for Bob Casey in the primary election. Primary elections are a time to vote for one's beliefs, not one's fears. Many people choose to stomach Casey, because they believe that he can beat Rick Santorum in November. While Casey has had a large advantage in the polls, his lead is slipping-drastically. Over the past year, Casey's lead has fallen from near twenty to less than ten percentage points. Casey's success in November is no longer imminent.

The only real Democrat in Pennsylvania's US Senate race is Chuck Pennacchio. Dr. Pennacchio is running a campaign free of corporate and special interest money, so he is beholden to no one but the voters. He supports reproductive choice, stem cell research, a living wage, getting out of Iraq quickly, and would have lead the Alitio filibuster. Chuck Pennacchio represents everything that the Democrats ought to be: progressive, charismatic, and honest. Two recent Zogby polls have found that Pennacchio can beat Santorum, so why should we settle for Casey?

Blogad for Chuck

2006-05-10T10:35:00.000-04:00

Last week, at WoodChuck '06, I spoke with a Pennacchio higher-up about the need for Chuck to advertise on blogs through blogads--the little sidebar advertisements on most blogs. At her behest, I created a blogad for Chuck that night.

The Pennacchio campaign received it with rave reviews, but I have not seen it anywhere online yet. Being the week before the primary, I imagine that they are swamped with work. Additionally, with such limited time, they might not have been able to find an available blog before the primary. If anyone is interested in using it shoot me an email.

You Can't Do That on Television

2006-05-10T09:32:00.000-04:00

This is a great campaign video of Chuck Pennacchio presenting his clearly held views. Being free of corporate and special interests affords him the unfamiliar ability to speak candidly...Weird, wild, wonderful stuff.

Making Waves in Centre County

2006-05-07T14:39:00.000-04:00

Over the past week, The Centre Countians for Chuck Pennacchio have been holding impromptu daily rallies for Chuck called "waves," where we gather at busy intersections around town during rush hour traffic (usually 7:30-8:00 and/or 5:00-5:30). Today's wave was fantastic. Thirteen of us showed up to cheer for Chuck (not all pictured above). Lots of cars drove by and honked in support. We handed out some pamphlets during red lights, and one enthusiastic driver even took a yard sign!

Waves are a great way to get Chuck's name out to people in your hometown. You only need four or five cheerful people with yard signs to get started. Homemade signs are great too. My favorite above reads,"Chuck Pennacchio in, Chuck Santorum out."

Let's make some waves across the state!

MyDD Asks Who to Support

2006-05-07T01:48:00.000-04:00

MyDD is asking readers who the netroots should support financially. I found out about this a bit late, but please hurry and write a supportive comment about Chuck! The three criteria are:

1) There should be a netroots presence in the state or district.

2) The candidate should be a populist and/or a progressive, preferably both.

3) Candidates falling into the 'blue state' or 'northeastern strategy' bucket make sense. These are people running in Democratic leaning states against moderate or right-wing Republicans.

Chuck Pennacchio, of course, meets all three. Here is what I had to say:

Chuck Pennacchio for PA-Sen
1)Pennsylvania provides Pennacchio with solid, growing netroots support (Booman Tribune, Fasctesque, Chris Bowers of MyDD, Dragonballyee, The Cajun Jew, A Big Fat Slob).

2)Chuck is running a PAC-free, corporate-free campaign for Senate in Pennsylvania against Bob "Santorum-lite" Casey. Chuck is a populist like no other. He has personally spoken to over 30,000 Pennsylvanians at more than 300 events. Chuck's vigorous grassroots campaign is run solely by over 6,000 volunteers. Just the other day, The Centre Daily Times (Centre County, PA) published 9 letters to the editor favoring Chuck and zero supporting Casey.

Chuck is a progressive like no other. Unlike Bob Casey, Chuck Pennacchio wants to get out of Iraq, keep the nuclear option off the table for Iran, is pro-choice, wants universal health care, and wouldn't support judges like Alito and Roberts. Most importantly, his campaign is people powered--no corporate or PAC money--so he really needs and deserves netroots money. Some people have called Chuck a "non-viable candidate," because he doesn't have enough money--that's too be accepted from someone who doesn't accept PAC and corporate money. To the naysayers, we can make Chuck "viable" by funding him!

3)Pennsylvania is a blue state in the northeast. Rick Santorum is so disliked that any Democrat can beat him. A recent Zogby poll confirms that Pennacchio can beat both Casey and Santorum when people are informed about their positions (info at www.chuck2006.com). Why should we settle for another Lieberman like Bob Casey when we can have a real Democrat in Chuck Pennacchio?

Go support Chuck! We need more voices!

Pennacchio Diaries

2006-05-05T00:19:00.000-04:00

There were multiple widely read pro-Pennacchio diaries today on Daily Kos.

Casey Tanking, As Predicted, But Faster. Poll
New Keystone Poll spells trouble for Bob Casey Jr.
(frontpaged on BooMan)

and my personal favorite ;-)

9 Pennacchio Editorials on One Day in Central PA

Give 'em a read.

Nine Pennacchio Editorials in One Day

2006-05-04T15:17:00.000-04:00

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.

u On Iraq: an immediate withdrawal of our forces.

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

u On civil liberties: supporting full liberties for all.

u 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

Down, Down, Down?

2006-05-04T14:39:00.000-04:00

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?

WoodChuck '06

2006-05-01T15:35:00.000-04:00

I ended up getting to WoodChuck '06 about an hour after it had begun--lunch in State College went a bit longer than expected. It was really a great time. Unfortunately, Chuck Pennacchio was wrapping up his speech as I climbed the stairs of The Appalachian Brewing Company's Abbey Bar in Harrisburg.

Apparently, I missed quite the rousing speech.

About 75 people showed up on Sunday. I had a chance to talk with Chuck, Liz and finally meet several other Pennacchio activists whose work I have read online. Matching faces to screenames is always satisfying. When mentioning that I was from State College, jpol asked me if I knew Shlomo. I responded, "I am him." I was flattered to have a number of people tell me how much they enjoyed The Cajun Jew.

Valerie McDonald Roberts arrived around 5:00pm. She is another great progressive candidate running for Lieutenant Governor.

Valerie McDonald Roberts

This was my first time hearing her speak. She's remarked on the positive side of being an underdog; it keeps her quick on her feet and makes her tough. McDonald Roberts has a unique charisma. Something about her attitude feels comfortably personal. I liked her. She and Chuck have been reciprocally supporting each other throughout their campaigns.

Chuck and Valerie

I recorded both candidates speaking and would like to post the audio online. Hopefully, I will have that available within in a couple of days. First, I need to find a good podcast host.

(As an aside, avoid The Appalachian Brewing Company's "Bangers and Mash" [bratwurst and mashed potatoes] at all costs. Seriously, it was a glorified butterflied hot dog. Try Herwig's Austrian Bistro in State College--their accents are real.)

Head on out to WoodChuck

2006-04-30T12:28:00.000-04:00

If you're bored, why not head on out to WoodChuck, today's progressive festival for Chuck Pennacchio (2pm-5pm, directions). Music, food, and Chuck sound like good times to me! As an added bonus, you can meet central Pennsylvania's foremost Cajun Jew (and his lovely girlfriend too [2nd from the bottom on the link]).

Tickets are $20 at the door to support Chuck.

Another Interesting Coincidence

2006-04-29T00:34:00.000-04:00

I mentioned in my last post that one of Chuck's opponents seemed like the most likely source of the spurious craigslist advertisement. Isn't it interesting that the one spreading the news about Chuck's supposed hypocritical craigslist ad is a fervent Sandals supporter? I'm not pointing any fingers here, but isn't it also interesting that Alan Sandals is the only one of the three Democrats in the US Senate race who advertises on craigslist? The text reads:

field organizers wanted-$1000/month
Reply to: campaign@alansandals.com
Date: 2006-03-16, 10:57PM EST

Field organizers wanted for exciting US Senate campaign. Help get rid of Rick Santorum while getting paid!

Alan Sandals is seeking highly motivated, energetic activists who can multi-task and be team player.
Must have excellent communication skills and be able to speak in public.
Must provide a writing sample.
Must have own transportation.
All resumes must be received by 3/20.

Compensation is $1000/month paid biweekly.
Job location is philly and suburbs

Compensation: $1000/month paid biweekly

no -- Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.

no -- Please, no phone calls about this job!

no -- Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

yes -- Reposting this message elsewhere is OK.

142609532

Wow, Sandals has to pay his canvassers 1,000 bucks a month. Myself and the Chuck's 6,000 other volunteers support him for free. Isn't it amazing what an inspirational candidate can do?

Hat-tip to A Big Fat Slob.

More About Chuck and craigslist

2006-04-28T13:17:00.000-04:00

(Sorry, this is a long one, but it is thorough and worth a read if you are curious about this topic)

An anonymous commenter to my last post provided the text of the bogus craigslist post, in which someone claiming to be from the Pennacchio campaign offers to pay canvassers $7/hr.

Senate Campaign Help Wanted
________________________________________
Reply to: job-153423369@craigslist.org
Date: 2006-04-21, 11:54PM EDT

Our grassroots campaign is looking for individuals who seek to stand up for the issues that they believe in. Canvassers needed now, before the May 16, 2006 Primary. www.chuck2006.com

Apply to e-mail listed.
• Job location is PA
• Compensation: 7 dollars/hour
• This is a part-time job.
• This is at a non-profit organization.
• no -- Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
• no -- Please, no phone calls about this job!
• no -- Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
• no -- Reposting this message elsewhere is NOT OK.

153423369
________________________________________

http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/npo/153423369.html, 4-27-06

Unfortunately, when typing in that url, a craigslist page is brought up stating that the post was removed:

Also, there is no cached version of this particular page that I can find anywhere. It is therefore unclear to me how much of the anonymous commenter's post was actually on craigslist. Not to be rude, but for all I know, the anonymous commenter could have written in the payment information by him/herself. When Googling "153423369@craigslist.org" two pages come up: the aforementioned page and one entitled "philadelphia nonprofit jobs classifieds and want ads - craigslist" The latter page is a printer friendly list of recent nonprofit jobs on Philadelphia's craigslist.
This list (continuously updated) makes no reference to Chuck Pennacchio's campaign. There are several posts offering payment to get Democrats elected, but none is affiliated with Chuck's campaign. Fortunately, there is a cached version of this page from Wednesday, April 26th, which does list the post in question:If you don't feel like enlarging the image above, the posting reads as follows:

Senate Campaign Help Wanted -- Fri Apr 21 -- (PA)
email: anon-153423369@craigslist.org: Our grassroots campaign is looking for individuals who seek to stand up for the issues that they believe in. Canvassers needed now, before the May 16, 2006 Primary. www.chuck2006.com Apply to e-mail listed. no -- Please, no phone calls about this job! no -- Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests. no -- Reposting this message elsewhere is NOT OK.
(This is also available on SimplyHired.com.) This text is identical to that which the anonymous commenter submitted to The Cajun Jew, except it curiously omits any reference to payment. However, the printer friendly version is not always as complete as the original posting, so the original posting--for which I have no cached view--could have included the payment information. Until someone submits a cached version of the page in question, it will remain difficult to judge these allegations fairly.

There is one more way to test the authenticity of the bogus craigslist post. Does the writing style above match that of previous, legitimate craigslist postings for the Pennacchio campaign (i.e. were they written by the same person)? The Pennacchio campaign (or someone claiming to be from that group) posted a request for phonebanking volunteers on March 17th, 2006. This post remains available today

The text of this post reads (formatted for space):

Help get a progressive Democrat elected
Reply to: comm-142825397@craigslist.org
Date: 2006-03-17, 4:55PM EST

The Pennacchio for Pennsylvania campaign is looking for volunteers to help with phonebanking. The primary election is May 16, and we need your help! We are going to be contacting Philadelphia area voters to find out who they support for the primaries, and providing them with information about the Pennacchio campaign if they're interested. Help get a progressive, pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-universal health care Democrat elected. Go here for more info: http://www.chuck2006.com

this is in or around Phila
no -- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

142825397

This post is clearly written by a different person.

The email addresses are different--then again I have three email addresses, so it could be from the same person.
More importantly, take a look at the two writing styles. The bogus post--the one offering payment--refers to the "Primary." The volunteer post refers to the "primaries." I would expect that the same person to be consistent with capitalization and pluralization of the same word. I might have written both in the past, but I'm not a campaign official who would post this sort of thing on craigslist and presumably be consistent at it.
The March 17th post includes "http://" in the link to Chuck's website, while the bogus post does not.
The bogus post (as submitted by the commenter) includes a bullet point list, while the March 17th post does not.

Other differences probably exist, but this is a short list. Of greater interest it the fact that the Pennacchio campaign claims that they do not post on craigslist at all. According to LizM:

I remember seeing Alan [Sandals] offering $15.00 per page to collect petitions. But we don't post on Craig's List, we don't pay our staff, our CONTROL Chiefs, our circulators, our canvassers, our flyer squadron, our designers, our organizers, our rapid response, our bloggers, our photographers, our musicians, our officers, our surrogates, or anyone else who does the work of this campaign. We don't have to. Our petition drive was 100% volunteer, just like the rest of our efforts. Alan's, not so much. Alan's campaign is a conventional media campaign, largely self-funded, but on a much smaller scale than Casey's.

So if Pennacchio's campaign didn't write either of the craigslist posts, then who did? I can see three possibilities:

The Pennacchio campaign wrote them. I don't see this as likely at all--see why here. They would have nothing to gain and much to lose by hypocritically doing so. Also, they are not that dumb.
A foolish Pennacchio supporter(s) wrote them. Perhaps someone who likes Chuck, but is ignorant of his all volunteer campaign wrote these craigslist posts. A person or two with good intentions could have written them, but was asked to remove the one offering payment, because it was bogus. This seems like a bit of a reach to me.
One of Pennacchio's opponents or a supporter thereof wrote them. Attacking your opponent's credibility--in this case Chuck's ethics--is a page right out of Karl Rove's playbook. Unfortunately, Rove's tactics are not limited to Republicans. In politics, tearing your opponent down is one of the best ways to make yourself look better. However, I remain confused about the authenticity of the volunteer phonebanking post.

Chuck on PCN

2006-04-28T01:11:00.000-04:00

This afternoon, I watched Chuck Pennacchio on PCN's call-in show--free to view here. Chuck, as always, was wonderfully articulate and inspiring. A clear majority of callers voiced favorable opinions of Chuck. A couple Sandals supporters called in, but Chuck took care of their weak arguments in no time.

One item of interest was a caller claiming that Chuck posted a craigslist ad offering to pay canvassers $7/hour. Chuck told the caller that the ad was bogus and his campaign is composed of 100% volunteers. So, who is telling the truth here? Well, let's think about this critically folks.

First, Chuck is not an idiot. If your going to hypocritically pay your own canvassers, then you have to do it clandestinely. Someone running an all-volunteer campaign would have to pay loyal canvassers in secret. Publishing an advertisement negating one's own credibility would be completely ridiculous. Chuck is too credible and not stupid enough to do this.

Secondly, Chuck advocates a living wage of about $9/per hour. Why would he pay his canvassers anything less? I don't know about you, but if I were a paid canvasser I would be pretty pissed.

Thirdly, Chuck doesn't have enough money to waste on paid canvassers. Chuck uses his limited cash on hand to the fullest. Blowing through $7/hour on a bunch of paid canvassers would be pretty dumb when he already has dedicated volunteer canvassers, and he needs to spend his money on advertising. Paying for canvassers is just not fiscally smart for Chuck.

Finally, this seems like the work of someone opposed to Chuck's candidacy. I am accusing no one of malfeasance. However, it would benefit one of Pennacchio's opponents if Chuck's credibility was smeared. Karl Rove's tactics are not reserved for Republicans, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of Chuck's opponents were involved.

I don't know who posted this bogus advertisement, but I do know that Chuck is too smart to have done it.

Update:

Does this craigslist link even exist? I understand that it was taken down from the site--obviously because it was bogus--but there still should be a page image in google's cache. If it was posted recently, it should still exist. Does anyone have a link?

Sandals Deleting Criticism from His Blog?

2006-04-25T22:16:00.000-04:00

I have heard reports that Alan Sandals is deleting critical comments from his blog. If this is the case, it truly signals his weakness as a candidate. I'm not talking about trolling here; rather, I mean legitimate arguments against his candidacy that are washed from his blog. When encountering a reasoned argument--or even a poorly worded one--the proper approach is to articulately refute it. If Sandals (or an agent of his) is actually erasing criticism from his blog, then he has lost my respect.

According to Charlie Crystle:

The Sandals blog has deleted my comments twice--safe, easy, non-confrontational comments that asked readers to watch the debates and decided for themselves. I'm stunned at the miscalculation.
That kind of thing might play in the top-down PA Democratic Party, but it doesn't play here. If you disagree with something, we don't remove it. That's all. Feel free to express your opinions. Our rights are being trampled all over the place. But you can speak freely here.

Sandals, I can only shake my head. What were you thinking?

Tom Ford wrote this comment in a post I wrote last month.

Also an interesting coincidence -- after the NOW PAC announced an endorsement, I submitted comments to the Sandals site which asked what changes he made to his position on parental consent for minors seeking abortion in order to secure the NOW PAC money, and if he would release the position questionnaire that the NOW PAC had him fill out.

Today, not only were my comments not posted, but my access to the Sandals site was removed.

What's going on here?

PA Senate Race in The New York Times

2006-04-22T14:19:00.000-04:00

EXTRA! EXTRA! The New York Times mentions the existence of Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals! Tomorrow's edition of The New York Times will publish an article by Robin Toner about the Pennsylvania US Senate race entitled "Pennsylvania Senate Race Tests Democrats' New Abortion Tack."

Toner does a pretty good job of discussing Democratic dilemma of Bob Casey:

National party leaders recruited him [Casey] for this Senate campaign, despite his position on abortion, because they believed he was the strongest potential challenger to Mr. Santorum. With that, they established a high-stakes test: can the Democratic Party, nationally and in the state, rally its abortion-rights base for a candidate who disagrees?

All of this has been said before. Unfortunately, Toner essentially treats Casey's victory in the primary as a forgone conclusion--sigh. Out of the entire article, she devotes six whole sentences to Casey's challengers.

Not everyone is on board; there is still anger and resistance to the Casey candidacy among some Democrats, which bubbled over in a Democratic primary debate here on Wednesday night. Alan Sandals, a pension lawyer challenging Mr. Casey for the Democratic nomination in the May 16 primary, has argued that abortion rights are under siege and that the party must not waver in its defense. Mr. Sandals was recently endorsed by the National Organization for Women. Chuck Pennacchio, another candidate in the primary, has assailed the party's national establishment for anointing Mr. Casey in defiance of what Mr. Pennacchio asserts Pennsylvania Democrats really want. Both candidates sharply criticized Mr. Casey on Wednesday for his endorsement of the Supreme Court nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. "Be brave, Bob," Mr. Sandals admonished.

Toner's article is written from Lancaster in the aftermath of the second primary debate. Apparently, she wasn't in attendance that night. Nowhere does she mention the drubbing that Bob Casey took during that debate. Nowhere does she mention that Chuck Pennacchio's supporters outnumbered Casey's by 4-1 and Sandals' by 10-1. She sets up Sandals as the pro-choice alternative to Casey and gives Pennacchio third wheel status with a one sentence mention as "the other guy." By the way Ms. Toner, NOW PAC endorsed Sandals, not NOW. There are many furious NOW members who were not consulted for their PAC's endorsement. Sorry if Chuck--who is adamantly pro-choice--didn't roll over for NOW PAC's money, but Sandals was for parental consent before he was against it.

Toner could have done more to explain who these candidates are and how they differ from Casey, but--optimist that I am--seeing Chuck's name in the Times makes me smile.

Pennacchio on Living Wage and Immigration

2006-04-21T10:35:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned in my last post, I was a little confused by Chuck's comment during the debate that an American living wage could leverage foreign nations to slow the pace of illegal immigration. It seemed a bit out of left field at the time. Dr. Paul Durrenberger of The Centre Countians for Chuck Pennacchio clears it up:

Good work on the coverage in the blog…I’d disagree on only one thing…chuck’s bit on living wage and world-wide wages—the dilemma this guy faces is that he really does understand this stuff as a complex series of relationships, but it’s not easy to get all that into a 2 minute statement—hell, try giving an academic paper in 15 minutes when you’ve just figured out how to explain the whole world—anyway—I saw that as maybe tripping him up—he may have too much respect for his audience, but he won’t talk down to them or simplify for them—so the deal is like this—u.s. pays living wage and then in trade agreements sets terms for other countries to be our trading partners—instead of opening the whole world to corporations w/ world bank help, the idea is a bilateral agreement w/ each country—that would specify that they have to meet environmental rules, human rights rules, labor rights rules—and here the u.s. is a big offender--, and guarantee living wages—here also u.s. is offender. So if the u.s. leads the way, and demands trading partners follow, that brings everyone up—rather than making a race to the bottom as we have now w/ the wal-martization of everything—and walmart controlling retail markets to the extent that they can demand suppliers reduce their wholesale prices, and then manufacturers pushing that down as repressive labor policies in their countries (e.g. china, Columbia) and paying poverty wages. So current system is race to bottom; chuck’s alternative is to that u.s. sets the floor for wellbeing of working people. epd

Actually, this make a whole lot of sense. Thanks Paul.

The Debate

2006-04-20T00:41:00.000-04:00

Phew...I've just returned to State College from the debate in Lancaster. So what is the verdict? Bob Casey sucks as much in person as he does on paper. Casey was awful--really awful. Maybe Casey looked better on TV, but in person he seemed uncharasmatic, inarticulate, and just plain dull. Unlike both Pennacchio and Sandals, Bob Casey didn't say anything of great substance. He just spent the majority of his time talking about Rick Santorum. Even when Chuck or Sandals critically indicted him on an issue, Casey just blathered on about how Rick Santorum votes with the Bush administration 98% of the time. Hello? Bobbie? Did you forget that this was a primary debate? Until this point, I've based my distaste for Casey on his stated positions. Now, I can tack on an utter lack of personal magnetism.

Both Pennacchio and Sandals' websites have declared victory. So who won the debate? Well, it's tough to say, but one thing remains certain: Bob Casey lost. I'm not basing that soley on my opinion. According to the level of crowd noise and everyone to whom I spoke afterward, Casey lost. No one is excited about Bob Casey, and I'm not saying that as a Pennacchio supporter. While I did talk to one woman who said that she would vote for Casey, it was only because she felt that Chuck and Sandals didn't have a chance. Be that as it may, she said her views would be best represented by Chuck Pennacchio.

I think that Pennacchio and Sandals broke even. While each offered some well-formed answers, both Sandals and Chuck gave the occasional wierd response. For example, Sandals proposed an absurd 18 month moratorium on outsourcing. That sounds nice, but how the hell is that possible. Chuck sounded a little disconnected when explaining how a US living wage could leverage other countries to reduce illegal immigration.

Chuck did much better on the Iraq issue than last time. He was the only candidate to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. Casey wanted to stay the course, Sandals wants out soon, but Chuck came across as really wanting to get out. Chuck definitely seemed like the strongest anti-war candidate. Regarding Iran and nuclear proliferation, Casey wants to keep the option of nuking Iran on the table--jackass--while Chuck argued that the US must renew the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Sandals made a weird reference to the "Axis of Evil." He was trying to make a point about Bush invading the wrong country, but ended up calling Iraq "not that evil." Now, don't get me wrong, the whole "Axis of Evil" line sounds like a cheap line from Hulk Hogan, but Sandals sounded ridiculous here. Although Saddam had no WMD, he sure as hell was a monster.

I have to admit that I liked Sandals' emphasis on the need to address global warming immediately. He also called Darfur the greatest moral issue of our time. I don't think Chuck disagrees with either issue, but credit is due to Sandals for bringing them up.

Pennacchio really hammered both Casey and Sandals on the issue of money in politics. Sandals tried to act like money doesn't influence him, but Pennacchio rebutted him for flip-flopping to get the NOW PAC endorsement. Casey kept calling himself an independent candidate (I guess a Democrat with Republican views counts as an independent), so Chuck hit Casey hard for accepting so much PAC money. Chuck kept coming back to campaign finance reform as the root problem for many issues. Career politicians don't bite the hands that feed them, and Chuck is the only candidate who accepts zero PAC and corporate dollars.

Casey was a dud, Sandals was kind of funny, but Pennacchio had passion. Chuck was really fired up. I'm hoping that he didn't sound too abrasive. I talked to people who went into the debate supporting Casey, but left voting for Chuck. I also heard from a couple that liked Sandals as a moderate choice. Many of Sandals positions are in line with Chuck's but Sandals tried hard to paint Pennacchio as unrealistic. It's kind of ridiculous, but that's Sandals' niche. In the end, I think that both Chuck and Sandals performed well, but Chuck has my vote.

Update:

CBS 3 in Philadelphia has the video of the entire debate here if you missed it!

Debate Tonight

2006-04-19T12:58:00.000-04:00

Chuck Pennacchio, Bob Casey Jr., and Alan Sandals will be debating tonight at 7:00 pm in Lancaster. Be sure to watch it on PCN tonight (PCN channel listing)! If you don't have cable, you can stream it for free, live, on the internet. I'll be there, proudly wearing my Air America Radio T-shirt!

86% Pure Nerd

2006-04-17T22:47:00.000-04:00

I found this quiz over at Dragonball Yee. It tells you how much of a Nerd/Geek/Dork you are.

A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia.
A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.
A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.

I am quite honored to be a "Pure Nerd," but I am a touch worried about my dork factor.

Pure Nerd
86 % Nerd, 34% Geek, 43% Dork
The times, they are a-changing. It used to be that being exceptionally smart led to being unpopular, which would ultimately lead to picking up all of the traits and tendences associated with the "dork." No-longer. Being smart isn't as socially crippling as it once was, and even more so as you get older: eventually being a Pure Nerd will likely be replaced with the following label: Purely Successful.

Take that you dorky geeks! However, I have to admit that I love their picture of the "Pure Nerd."

Report on Chuck's Visit to Greensburg

2006-04-15T14:33:00.000-04:00

I'm a little late in posting this, but Joyce Luzier of Centre County heard Chuck Pennacchio and Ed Rendell speak in Greensburg a week or so ago. As always, Chuck was his dynamic self. Here is her account:

We arrived just in time to hear Chuck give his talk as he was one of the first ones to speak. His talk was interrupted many times with loud applause!!! The crowd loved what he had to say. He was his usual COURAGEOUS, TRUTHFUL, DYNAMIC, and PASSIONATE SELF. I thought, "How lucky we were to be there!" When leaving, he stopped and talked to me and remembered me from State College. He asked if I had come to hear the Governor and I said, "No, I didn't even know he was going to be here. I came to hear YOU!" He was very honored and appreciative. He said he was on his way to Altoona and I said "I'll see you there tomorrow!"

THE NEXT SPEAKER WAS OUR GOVERNOR RENDELL! I was very impressed as Gov. Rendell listed many of the accomplishments of his administration -- and THERE WERE MANY -- and many have not gotten into the newspapers. I was trying to remember them all, but then he said he is working on making a list of them so we can have it available when we talk to people. He said that what he was most proud of in his term as Governor of Philadelphia was that he was working as hard for the people on his last day as he was on his first
day -- and he will KEEP working!!!!

Almost all the candidates that were running for office were there, except Casey -- and Catherine Knoll who was attending the funeral of a dear friend. It was a very interesting two hours and then when leaving we were treated to a package of chocolate chip cookies from Rendell/Knoll and coffee and punch. I talked to several people and said I was there to hear Chuck Pennacchio, and if they were for someone else, I said "We just have to stay united so that we WIN and
get our country back!!!"

Gotta love the chocolate chip cookies. Thanks Joyce.

Rally for Chuck Before the Debate

2006-04-15T13:11:00.000-04:00

Before the next Democratic primary debate (Wednesday, April 19th--more details below) there will be a rally for Chuck Pennacchio supporters beginning at ~~4:30 5:30~~ 4:00 pm. You should attend. A well-voiced opposition to Casey by Pennacchio supporters will send a signal that Pennsylvania refuses to accept the undemocratic, DC elitist anointment of Bob Casey Jr.

When the PA press swoops down upon Lancaster to cover the second debate, an ocean of Pennacchio supporters is what they must find. Chuck has six thousand volunteers. Each and every one of us ought to stand by our commitment and support Chuck in this most visible of ways. Imagine if only one sixth of us attend. The presence of one thousand Pennsylvanians fed up with the state of politics--protesting, cheering, clogging the streets of Lancaster, and demanding change--would shock the media. Indeed, it would validate Chuck's candidacy, thereby forcing the press to take him more seriously.

From Philadelphia to Erie, Allentown to Pittsburgh, everyone who calls him/herself a volunteer for Chuck must find a way to attend this debate. Drive, carpool, take a Greyhound, or ride your bike--Chuck, Pennsylvania, and the nation depend on you.

Here are the details (Update):

The debate itself will be held at 7:00 pm on Wednesday April 19th at Franklin and Marshall College's "Alumni Sports and Fitness Center," which is located on 931 Harrisburg Pike in Lancaster.

~~The Pennacchio rally begins at 4:30 pm presumably outside the aforementioned auditorium. I'm told that there will be several speakers. When the specifics are ironed out, I will post them~~.

According to chuck2006.com, the rally runs from ~~5:30~~ 4:00-6:00 PM outside the Alumni Sports and Fitness Center at Franklin & Marshall College. I have heard that some people are going to be attending earlier though.

Calling All Independents and Greens

2006-04-12T11:36:00.000-04:00

Do you loathe Rick Santorum? Would you prefer a real progressive Senator like Chuck Pennacchio, but as an Independent or Green you cannot vote for him in the primary election? Well, I have good news for you: you can vote for Chuck in the primary.

It's easy; all that you have to do is temporarily change your affiliation to Democrat by April 17th. Switch party to vote for the one candidate who you actually believe in, and then change back to Independent, Green, etc. after the primary election. Changing affiliation to vote for a progressive candidate should not breach your ethics; indeed, it is the most progressive thing to do (read more here). Which would you prefer: to remain independent and further Bob Casey's chances, or to change your affiliation in name only to give Chuck Pennacchio a fighting chance? I changed my affiliation (from Green) to vote for someone who I believe in, so can you.

All that you need to do is pick up a voter registration form at a post office, or party headquarters. If you don't feel like getting off your ass, then download a form to mail to the PA Department of State. Remember, you need to register by April 17th (this coming Monday).

Back Online

2006-04-10T00:00:00.000-04:00

I've been in Boston for the past few days without internet access. Sorry for the lack of posts, especially with the debate going on. I intended to post from the road, but the pcmcia connector on my motherboard snapped--quite a bummer--leaving me without an internet connection. I'll write some posts ASAP.

Casey's Lead Plummets in Wake of NOW PAC Endorsement

2006-04-06T11:04:00.000-04:00

According to a new Rasmussen poll, Casey's lead is shrinking. The latest poll has Casey at 50% Santorum at 41%. This seems to be the trend lately. But that is not the shocking news. Get this: when told about the NOW PAC endorsement, Casey's support plummets.

The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll in the Keystone State shows Democrat Bob Casey leading Santorum 50% to 41%. That's the first time in all six polls we've conducted on this race that Casey's lead has slipped to single digits. It's also the first time Santorum has moved above the 40% mark since last July. However, another aspect of the poll might be even more encouraging for Santorum... and troubling for Casey.

After asking survey respondents who they would vote for, we informed them that the National Organization for Women (NOW) is concerned about Casey on the abortion issue and is endorsing another candidate in the primary. We then asked a second time about how each respondent would vote.

Twenty-four percent (24%) of Casey's initial voters changed their mind upon hearing this news. Half switched to Santorum while the others split between "some other candidate" and "not sure." The change was dramatic enough that, having heard the new information, voters favored Santorum by a five-point margin (46% to 41%). This suggests a lack of voter knowledge about Casey that could make the race more competitive than it seems at this time.

This is great news for Pennacchio (and Sandals) supporters. It validates everything that Chuck has been saying. When given a choice between Santorum and a watered-down version of himself, people prefer the real thing. However, people also prefer a real alternative like Chuck Pennacchio. If Casey wins the primary, I am going to be scared in November.

Definitely read the full story; it's worth it.

Hat-tip to Santorumblog.

We're Talking About a Fish with Feet

2006-04-06T01:03:00.000-04:00

Cheers to Neil Shubin of The University of Chicago for making creationists shit in their hands. As if Archaeopteryx--the feathered dinosaur--wasn't convincing enough, Shubin's team discovered a 375 million year old fossil fish/tetrapod transitional creature. For those of us who are not biology nerds, a tetrapod is a four legged animal like a reptile, amphibian, or mammal.

The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.

So, as a creationist, how do you fit a fish with primitive fingers, wrists, elbows, shoulders into your understanding of the world? Isn't it an awfully interesting coincidence? I guess God just put it there to test our faith, right? Or it was Satan trying to tempt our will away from God?

One creationist site on the Web (emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs /evid1.htm) declares that "there are no transitional forms," adding: "For example, not a single fossil with part fins, part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."

Dr. Novacek responded: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land, and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"
Duane T. Gish, a retired official of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said, "This alleged transitional fish will have to be evaluated carefully." But he added that he still found evolution "questionable because paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story."

Creationists always point to a dearth of transitional forms as evidence against evolution. Well, we've had Archaeopteryx for over a century,and now we have a fish/tetrapod. I'm sorry, but when a fossil so beautifully demonstrates evolution in front of our very eyes, how can a person not be convinced? We're talking about a fish with feet. When creationists have to deny the simplest, most logical explanation for a natural phenomenon, and follow a convoluted rationale in order to fit reality into their worldview, scientists are flabbergasted--and why shouldn't they be? Like I said, we're talking about a fish with feet.

As a side note, I almost went to grad school for organismal biology & anatomy at U of Chicago; it's a tremendous place. I can hardly imagine the energy in the halls right now.

Delay "Retires" in Disgrace

2006-04-04T00:06:00.000-04:00

Oh, how long have I yearned to write those words. Delay is gone. Raise your glasses high and mighty guzzlers, for tonight, we celebrate!

The Quotable Bob Casey Jr.

2006-04-03T13:25:00.000-04:00

Need some more ammunition when convincing fellow Democrats to vote for Chuck? Booman Tribune has posted a tremendous resource for anyone with mixed feelings about Bob Casey Jr. (crossposted on a Daily Kos diary). Entitled "The Quotable Bob Casey Jr.," it provides a succinct list of Casey quotes on all of the important issues. Here are a few of my favorites (i.e. those causing me to repeatedly bash my forehead against the coffee-shop table):

Bob Casey Jr. on the Iraq War:

"I don't think we were intentionally mislead [in the runup to the war in Iraq]." citation

Bob Casey Jr. on warrantless NSA Wiretaps [and on their legality]:
"Well, that is a judgment that lawyers are going to make," said Casey, a lawyer citation
Bob Casey Jr. on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court:
"the arguments against Judge Alito do not rise to the level that would require a vote denying him a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court." citation

Bob Casey Jr. on Congressional intervention in the Terry Schiavo Case:
"I think you should err on the side of life. I think some kind of congressional review was appropriate." citation

Perhaps another great name for the post would have been: "The Top 24 Reasons to Vote for Chuck Pennacchio."

Prayer Does Not Heal the Sick

2006-03-31T18:12:00.000-05:00

A new study shows that praying does not heal the sick. This is actually kind of funny. Talk about the dream study of every agnostic in academia. Or maybe this is just further evidence for the long-held American War on Christianity--yes, I'm being sarcastic...

Members of three congregations - St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Massachussetts[sic]; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City - were asked to pray for the patients, who were divided into three groups: those who would be told they were being prayed for, those who would receive prayers but not know, and those who would not be prayed for at all.
The worshippers starting praying for the patients the night before surgery and for the next two weeks, asking God to grant "a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications".

The study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers. Fifty-two per cent of patients in both groups suffered complications after surgery. But 59 per cent of those who knew they were prayed for went on to develop complications.

Yikes...

Hat-tip to Op-Ed News.

Contribute to Chuck Pennacchio!

2006-03-30T21:43:00.000-05:00

Contribute to Chuck Pennacchio! Tomorrow is the deadline for first quarter fundraising. These numbers are reported by the media and have a significant effect on a candidate's perceived viability. So come on, shell out some cash! How about 25 or 50 bucks? Think about how many times you have spent that much on a single dinner! Enjoy some mac & cheese with a hefty portion of self gratification tonight. Any amount will help.

Contribute here.

Response from Alan Sandals

2006-03-30T17:54:00.000-05:00

Update:

This bumped post was taking up way too much space on the blog. Consequently, I've decided to change this into a post with links to the two previous posts that were reproduced here. Keep in mind, that there was no new original content in this post--just a repetition of two previous posts--so nothing is being purged from the site.

Open Letter to the Alan Sandals Campaign About NOW PAC Endorsement Flip-flop

Response from Alan Sandals

I've also written about my exchange with Alan Sandals in my Daily Kos diary.

Sandals Mentioned on Kos

2006-03-30T14:10:00.000-05:00

Kos just mentioned the NOW PAC endorsement of Alan Sandals on the front page of Daily Kos. Go fight for Chuck in the comments!

State Democratic Committee Breaks Rules to Suppress Pennacchio's Supporters

2006-03-27T23:47:00.000-05:00

I've been curious about what went on at the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee meeting where Casey was endorsed. It seems odd that Casey would roll over Chuck so easily. Sure, Casey is the front-runner, but multiple counties have supported an open primary. Shouldn't the vote for keeping the primary open have been closer? I contacted someone at the Pennacchio headquarters for more details. Apparently, the meeting was rather chaotic and certain pro-Casey forces pressured and intimidated Pennacchio's supporters. What follows is my transcription of her account (this is a long post):

No one expected Chuck to win the state endorsement; rather, the hope was that Chuck could force an open primary. Although the State Committee meetings were dominated by Casey supporters, Chuck managed to speak with all of the caucuses individually. While many remained staunchly in favor of Bob Casey, a significant number of committee members said that they were afraid to buck the party in the open, but would vote for Chuck during the secret ballot election to endorse a candidate.

Officially, two motions were made: a motion to vote for no endorsement and a second motion to vote for a particular candidate's endorsement. The first took place during the Business Meeting, which convened at 11:30. Originally, the campaign was told the candidates would speak during the Business Meeting. Instead, New Business was called for at the beginning of the meeting instead of at the end, which is customary, and no opportunity was given for candidates to speak. So Chuck couldn't argue for the motion. The first motion (against endorsement) was proposed by John Fox of Lancaster. It was seconded by a state committee supporter in the audience. John made the motion in the precise form given to Pennacchio's people and to the Chairman of the Lancaster County Dems by the Parliamentarian. He was not permitted to offer an argument in favor. Then Bill George, of the AFL-CIO, went to the podium and belligerently attacked the motion. Many people cheered, as this was predominantly a Casey crowd. The motion was defeated.

Immediately thereafter, the endorsement meeting was convened. The second motion--to endorse a specific candidate--was proposed. Casey needed a two-thirds vote to win the endorsement. Alan Sandals had already withdrawn his name from running for endorsement. This was probably because no state committee members would likely propose and second the motion that he be endorsed. For Sandals, removing his name was the politically expedient thing to do. Chuck, however, kept on fighting. The motion to endorse Chuck Pennacchio was made by Chuck Pascal of Armstrong County and seconded by John Fox of Lancaster County. The procedure for endorsements is as follows: A voice vote, which is challenged; followed by a stand-up vote, which is challenged; concluded with a final secret ballot vote.

This time, Pennacchio did have a chance to speak. He said something along the lines of, "My name is Chuck Pennacchio, and I'm going to be your next US Senator. I'm going to win the primary on May 16th. I'm going to win the general in November, and I'm going to go to Washington in January and fight everyday, of every month, of every year I'm in the Senate for what Pennsylvanians want." He criticized the State Committee members for thinking that their only reason for being was to endorse candidates. Chuck told the State Committee members, that, historically, they used to build, recruit, organize and mobilize the party--exactly what his campaign was doing. Chuck was fearless.

The chairman, T.J. Rooney, proposed skipping the first two votes, because he knew that they would be challenged. Once again, Bill George objected, motioning that the stand-up vote be held as official. When Chuck Pascal asked asked about the basis for this motion, Mr. Rooney said that he was the Chair and he was recognizing it, and it was based in "Rule 10," which allows for the suspension of the rules. This passed by a 2/3rds majority. About 15-20 people then publicly stood-up in the vote for Chuck Pennacchio, so Casey was declared the victor.

Pennacchio, he's so hot right now, Pennacchio.

2006-03-27T01:45:00.000-05:00

Gosh it's that damn Pennacchio! He's so hot right now! Ok, that's only funny if you have seen Zoolander. Be that as it may, according to the authoritative source on what's hip, PennPatriot Online's Hot & Not, Chuck Pennacchio is so HOT right now.

State Democratic Committee Endorses Casey

2006-03-26T20:56:00.000-05:00

As expected, the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee endorsed Bob Casey Jr. for US Senate. My inner Lebowski reacted with an immediate, "this is a bummer, man." I was hoping that Chuck and Sandals combined would secure enough votes (one third plus one) to force a mandatory open primary endorsement from the committee. Apparently, Casey received near unanimous support. What really annoyed me was the subheading on the AP article written by Peter Jackson (not the The Lord of the Rings guy):

Casey easily wins state committee's vote

The Democrat will take on Rick Santorum, who he said was out of touch with Pennsylvanians [emphasis my own].

Excuse me? Just because the State Democratic committee endorses a candidate does not mean that the he has won the primary election. Last time I checked, Bob Casey Jr. was endorsed by the State Democratic committee in 2002 when he lost the primary election for Governor to Ed Rendell. In fact, Casey also had a double digit lead in that primary. So, yes, Casey is the front-runner, but by no means has he won this election.

Daily Kos Diary About Sandals' Flip-flop

2006-03-24T19:23:00.000-05:00

I just posted a diary on Daily Kos about the Sandals flip-flop. I heard that Kos readers have been hostile to Pennacchio supporters. Judge for yourself. Here is my favorite anti-Chuck comment referring to my belief in his campaign, followed by my retort:

Shark Repellent
I'm selling some, and you don't see any sharks around me, so it must work.
by UpstateNYDem on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:05:40 PM PDT

Regarding Sharks
To rip-off Woody Allen: A campaign, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies.

Chuck Pennacchio has appeared at 278 events during his campaign so far. He has personally spoken with over 30,000 democrats in this state. Being a upstate New Yorker, you are obviously not one of them.

by Shlomo Boudreaux on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:14:29 PM PDT

Come fight for Chuck in my diary's comments!

Pennacchio and Sandals LIVE on Radio Right Now

2006-03-24T13:35:00.000-05:00

I just found out: Pennacchio and Sandals are LIVE on the radio right now. Here is the live stream link:

~~http://www.wnwr.com/wnwr%20script.asx~~

Update:

Here is an archived link that should be up for one week. The interview, conducted by Bob Rovner, was pretty interesting. Both candidates had 1/2 hour to speak--Chuck Pennacchio first and Alan Sandals second. I really wanted to be invigorated by Sandals, but I have to admit that I felt unemotional throughout most of his interview. Chuck was inspirational as always. By the end of his segment, I was cheering, "Go get 'em Chuck!" Sandals had good positions, but he lacked Pennacchio's passion for people-to-people democracy. Reports on Sandals often feature the word "articulate," but he was clearly outspoken by Chuck.

Casey Finally Agrees to Debate Pennacchio and Sandals

2006-03-24T12:03:00.001-05:00

It's about freakin' time. Casey has been dodging debates left and right. According to State College's own Centre Daily Times (well, really the AP):

HARRISBURG, Pa. - The three Democrats competing for the nomination to take on Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum have tentatively agreed to square off in two debates before the primary.
The format of the debates - April 8 at Slippery Rock University and April 19 at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster - and other details are still being negotiated, the three campaigns said Thursday.

State Treasurer Bob Casey, the front-runner in the May 16 primary race, had originally said he would participate in only one debate. Casey's campaign agreed to two debates at the urging of the debate sponsors, said campaign manager Jay Reiff.

"We are holding time on our schedule right now for both debates while we work out the details," he said.

Chuck Pennacchio, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, and a campaign spokesman for Philadelphia pension lawyer Alan Sandals concurred, although Sandals' spokesman Randy Schulz voiced frustration over the pace of discussions.

"The Casey campaign is a lot less cooperative than they present themselves to be publicly," Schulz said.

The debate in Slippery Rock, about 40 miles north of Pittsburgh, is sponsored by the North Hills Democracy for America chapter and other local Democratic groups. The Lancaster debate is sponsored by Franklin & Marshall College.

You know what's really amazing about this article? The AP refers to Casey as the "front-runner" instead of the "Democratic challenger." FINALLY, they realize that Pennsylvania has a primary election for the US Senate. Hazah and kudos!

Response From Alan Sandals

2006-03-23T17:52:00.000-05:00

Alan Sandals responded to my letter; unfortunately, he evaded its primary intent. While I am extremely grateful that he composed a thoughtful, personal 700 word letter for me in one day's time--if only our current elected representatives were so prompt--I remain irked by his dodging of my abortion question. The third sentence of my letter read as follows:

I would like to know Mr. Sandals' current position on parental notification and consent for abortion.

In fact, the obvious intent of my letter was asking whether or not Sandals changed positions on parental notification and consent for abortion to obtain the NOW PAC endorsement. Sandals did not mention the words "parental, notification, consent," or "abortion" in his letter...Argh! However, Sandals does state that:

[he is] willing to accept contributions from non-business PACs, such as issue advocacy groups and labor and other non-business associations, whose positions on the issues are consistent with [his] own positions.

The only problem is that NOW's position on parental notification and consent for abortion is inconsistent with Sandals' stated position. According to Sandals (August, 2005):

Limited parental notification and consent requirements are about the only condition or qualification that I would think is appropriate.

According to Washington State NOW:

Laws which pressure young women to carry pregnancies to term are dangerous…Even with judicial by-pass provisions, parental notification laws in other states have caused up to an 18% increase in 2nd trimester abortions due to the delay of telling a parent or going to court. Other states with by-pass provisions have experienced arbitrary and unfair decisions depending on which judge heard the case. Some judges granted all requests and some judges granted none.

So, if Sandals’ position on parental notification and consent for abortion is inconsistent with NOW’s, why did he accept NOW PAC’s contribution? Perhaps he flip-flopped on consent to appease NOW?

Anyway, Alan Sandals’ letter is posted in its entirety below. Give it a read; it’s a good letter. Don’t get me wrong, Sandals would be an excellent alternative to Casey—definitely not as good as Chuck Pennacchio—but I do find the circumstances surrounding his NOW PAC endorsement to be suspect. I have more commentary coming, but this post is already too long.

--

March 23, 2006

XXXX a/k/a Shlomo Boudreaux

Dear XXXX:

Thank you for your letter of March 22, 2006. Your initial blog post on March 21st stated that my receiving the endorsements of the National Organization for Women PAC and the Feminist Majority PAC was “great news for Pennsylvania.” Your post also revealed that you were disappointed that the endorsements did not go to your preferred candidate, Chuck Pennacchio.

Regarding the concerns stated in your letter, I can respond as follows. First, I cannot speak for the endorsing organizations or describe their evaluative process in selecting me for the endorsement. But during the press conference on March 21, both Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority and Kim Gandy of NOW addressed the reasons for their endorsement decisions. Their March 21 statements explaining the endorsement decisions will be posted shortly on the campaign, website, www.alansandals.com.

Although we do not yet know each other (and I hope to meet you in the near future), I assume you have had an opportunity to research my background of service and legal advocacy for ordinary working people. Unlike my two opponents in the Democratic primary, I have been fighting for Pennsylvanians and against abusive corporate behavior for my entire adult life. My cases to preserve or recover pensions and medical benefits involve great risk and commitment to my clients. This is one of the most difficult areas of legal practice due to the weaknesses and traps of the federal pension and benefits law, ERISA. Most lawyers simply refuse to get involved in these cases because of their difficulty and risk.

On the issue of PAC money, I have made clear in public forums as recently as last Sunday in Northwest Philadelphia that I do not seek and will not accept contributions from PACs organized by businesses or trade associations. In contrast, I am willing to accept contributions from non-business PACs, such as issue advocacy groups and labor and other non-business associations, whose positions on the issues are consistent with my own positions. As you know, federal election laws appropriately place relatively low limits on the amount of direct contributions that a PAC can make to a candidate. Unlike some candidates who solicit and rely on a multitude of PAC contributions from business and non-business sources, my own campaign rejects this approach. In fact, my campaign has not received any PAC money to date.

Despite your personal disappointment about the endorsement outcome, there is no reason for you to doubt my political integrity or my commitment to justice for all Americans. The fact is that I am a lawyer who regularly works to save senior citizens and others from corporate abuses, even to the point of having to watch clients break down on the witness stand due to the financial distress caused by the abuses that I fight against. I never represent management and have no interest in doing that.

During my years at Haverford College, I became familiar with the commencement address by Isaac Sharpless to the class of 1888. I carry around in my briefcase a brochure containing this excerpt from his address:

I suggest that you preach Truth and do Righteousness as you have been taught, whereinsoever that Teaching may commend itself to your Consciences and your Judgments. For your Consciences and your Judgments we have not sought to bind; and see to it that no other Institution, no political Party, no social Circle, no Religious Organization, no pet Ambitions put such chains on you as would tempt you to sacrifice one Iota of the Moral Freedom of your Consciences or the Intellectual Freedom of your Judgments.

This 2006 campaign calls on each of us to “preach Truth and do Righteousness.” I am glad to see that you and so many others I meet are ready to do the hard work of changing our political system to serve the real needs of ordinary citizens. We are running out of precious time to make this change. But, fortunately, my campaigning around the state shows that there is near universal awareness – despite our geographic, economic, social and political party differences – that we have to do this work for ourselves and our children, and that entrenched politicians must join us or get out of the way.

I look forward to meeting you and I appreciate the thought and concern that went into your letter and posts.

Sincerely,

Alan Sandals

A Strange Coincidence

2006-03-23T01:51:00.000-05:00

Regarding my recent post about Pennacchio and Sandals splitting the progressive vote in the Democratic primary, some one named "rebecca" commented:

[I]f the goal is to get rid of Santorum while remaining true to Democratic values, then Alan Sandals is the candidate to do it. His appeal is broader than Chuck's and will not alienate moderate Republicans and Independents, whose votes any Democratic candidate will need in order to beat Santorum in November.

This was written well before the NOW PAC endorsement went public. I responded:

On what EXACTLY are you basing your statement that Sandals' "appeal is broader than Chuck's and will not alienate moderate Republicans and Independents?" I have seen no polling indicative of this viewpoint. I'm curious to hear your evidence.

I agree that the goal is to remove Santorum from office. In fact, I would certainly choose Sandals over Santorum in an election. However, I have to respectfully disagree with you rationale. Pennacchio and Sandals have very similar positions on most issues. What precisely is so much more radical about Pennacchio than Sandals?

If attracting moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats is the goal, then we should be supporting Casey. If we are trying to fire up the base, then Pennacchio is the answer, because he already seems to have a stronger grassroots following than Sandals. Like I said, I have nothing AGAINST Sandals, I just BELIEVE in Pennacchio.

At the time hers was a peculiar statement, and she is yet to refute my criticism. I didn't really think about it again until Sandals' webmaster responded to my letter. Her name is "Rebecca Cesarz." Isn't it a strange coincidence that a random Sandals supporter who wrote an unfounded argument in the comments has the same first name as Sandals' webmaster? These could very well be two different people. I guess it's not really a big deal, but it just strikes me as interesting.

No Word Yet From Sandals

2006-03-23T01:34:00.000-05:00

No word yet from Alan Sandals. Yesterday, I wrote a letter to Alan Sandals' campaign asking about his potential flip-flop on parental notification & consent for abortion in order to get the NOW PAC endorsement. On my way to work, I realized something peculiar about the response from Sandals' webmaster, Rebecca Cesarz, that I received shortly thereafter: why didn't she brush aside my allegation that Sandals' flip-flopped for the NOW PAC endorsement?

If my accusation is false, then why not tell me so before forwarding my letter to Sandals himself? Perhaps she didn't know the answer--I would think she should--but when someone accuses your campaign of impropriety, isn't a quick, direct dismissal of the claim appropriate? Of course, I'm speculating about Ms. Cesarz's motives, but that's because I am awaiting Sandals' response to my letter.

Open Letter to the Alan Sandals Campaign About NOW PAC Endorsement Flip-flop

2006-03-22T14:26:00.000-05:00

Did Alan Sandals change his position on parental notification and consent for abortion to curry favor with NOW PAC? Let's get to the bottom of this flip-flop (Sandals...flip-flop...oy) issue. I wrote a letter to the Sandals campaign addressing the matter. Let's see how they respond.

To whom it may concern:

First and foremost, congratulations on the NOW PAC endorsement. It is certainly great news for Pennsylvania that NOW PAC has endorsed someone other than Bob Casey, Jr. for US Senate.

I would like to know Mr. Sandals' current position on parental notification and consent for abortion. According to an interview with PoliticsPhilly.com () on August 1st, Mr. Sandals stated the following:
My view is to recognize the traditional Roe v. Wade approach. The hardest question, and I appreciate it more now being a father, is how to deal with situations where a parent would appropriately want to know, for all the best reasons, if some procedure were going to be done for a daughter who is a minor. But the laws in most states correctly say that if the minor has reason to fear that there will be some physical violence or some emotional repercussions, then there must be ways to get consent without parental involvement. Limited parental notification and consent requirements are about the only condition or qualification that I would think is appropriate [emphasis my own].
Recently, I have heard rumors that Mr. Sandals' position on parental notification and consent for abortions has changed. Is he no longer in favor of "limited parental notification and consent requirements?" If this is the case, I find it quite troubling in light of the NOW PAC endorsement. My immediate assumption would be that Mr. Sandals changed his position in order to curry favor with NOW PAC. While I approve of Mr. Sandals as a pro-choice candidate, I am concerned about his susceptibility to special interests. If this is all bogus, please correct me. I'll be happy. But if he changed his mind on this issue--on any issue--because an interest group offered him money and publicity, then who knows where his allegiances are. Will Mr. Sandals change his mind when ExxonMobil, Citibank, or Alcoa offers him money?

Cheers,
Shlomo Boudreaux

Update:

Blogger keeps giving me an html error for the link to PoliticsPhilly. See my previous post for the link.

Update:

The Sandals campaign forwarded my letter to Alan Sandals himself. More to come...

From: Rebecca Cesarz
Reply-To: rebecca@alansandals.com
To: The Cajun Jew
Date: Mar 22, 2006 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: Mr. Sandals' position on parental notification and consent for abortion
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?

Dear Schlomo.

I have forwarded your email to Alan.

Thanks for contacting the campaign.

Rebecca Cesarz

Webmaster

Alan Sandals for US Senate

www.alansandals.com

Did Alan Sandals Flip-Flop to Get the NOW PAC Endorsement?

2006-03-22T02:49:00.000-05:00

I've seen some buzz that it looks like Sandals might have flip-flopped to get the endorsement from NOW PAC. According to an interview on PoliticsPhilly from August 1st, 2005, Sandals said:

My view is to recognize the traditional Roe v. Wade approach. The hardest question, and I appreciate it more now being a father, is how to deal with situations where a parent would appropriately want to know, for all the best reasons, if some procedure were going to be done for a daughter who is a minor. But the laws in most states correctly say that if the minor has reason to fear that there will be some physical violence or some emotional repercussions, then there must be ways to get consent without parental involvement. Limited parental notification and consent requirements are about the only condition or qualification that I would think is appropriate [emphasis my own].

Some bloggers (here and here) have posted that Sandals' position on parental notification has conveniently changed just in time to get the NOW PAC endorsement. Pennacchio still supports parental notification (not approval) for abortions, with qualified exceptions, of course. Sandals might have just changed his mind on that. This sounds like cover for NOW PAC to endorse the pro-choice candidate, Sandals, who will accept PAC money over the more qualified and successful pro-choice candidate, Pennacchio who won't. This sounds fishy...

I'm not trying to smear Sandals here, and if this is all bogus, please correct me, I'll be happy. But if he changed his mind on this issue--on any issue--because an interest group offered him money and publicity, then who knows where his allegiances are. Will Sandals change his mind when ExxonMobil, Citibank, or Alcoa offers him money? This is exactly why I support Chuck Pennacchio: by not taking any PAC money, Pennacchio is not beholden to their interests.

Update:

I fixed the broken link to the PoliticsPhilly interview. Sorry about that.

NOW Endorses Sandals: Why Didn't They Endorse Pennacchio?

2006-03-22T01:06:00.000-05:00

Well, this certainly is some big news.

Immediately, my reaction was one of disappointment. This is bad news for Chuck, I thought. Chuck's message is finally starting to sink in across Pennsylvania and the publicity from an endorsement by the National Organization for Women could have really jumpstarted his campaign. Hearing NOW PAC endorse Sandals was quite a shock to my system. Why on Earth would NOW PAC endorse the progressive candidate with less grassroots support? Why would they ignore Pennacchio's political experience and support a neophyte like Sandals, when their positions are pretty much the same? On the face of it, this doesn't really make sense. So what's the deal?

NOW PAC claims that Sandals "will best protect and advance our rights in the U.S. Senate." As if Pennacchio wouldn't do the same. Sandals' website claims that, "Alan is pro choice; he believes that abortions should be safe, legal and rare." That sounds a quite similar to what Pennacchio's website says: "Chuck believes that abortion should be safe, legal and rare." Except that Chuck's website continues with the following:

He believes that a woman's right to have control over her own reproductive choice is inviolate, and as our Senator, he will stand up to protect this fundamental Constitutional guarantee. While people of good conscience disagree on the propriety of abortions, it is the right of a woman to determine whether abortion is appropriate or not.

So, save me the garbage about Sandals being better on abortion.

For all things political, the answer, of course, is money. Think about it, NOW PAC--like any political action committee--is an organization that works to elect candidates who support their special interests. NOW PAC will assist the Sandals' campaign with money and publicity in exchange for his support when legislation they care about comes to the Senate floor. Effectively, Sandals is beholden to this interest group

Chuck Pennacchio, on the other hand, refuses to accept PAC money of any stripe. Despite the fact that Pennacchio vehemently favors reproductive rights, he will not be beholden to any interest group, including those with whom he agrees politically.

So, think about it from NOW PAC's perspective. They want to spend money on a candidate who they can have in their back pocket. Sandals and Pennacchio are rather similar on the issues, but Pennacchio doesn't want to be under their thumb. Bingo! Sandals is their man. Regardless of the fact that Chuck has political experience and is in a better position statewide, NOW PAC, by its very nature, cannot support Chuck Pennacchio.

With this endorsement, Sandals is back in business. Earlier, I posted on my worries about Pennacchio and Sandals splitting the progressive vote (here and here). I had not heard much from Sandals' campaign and was hoping that he would fade away, leaving Pennacchio as the sole competitor to Bob Casey, Jr. With NOW PAC dumping money and publicity into Sandals' campaign, it looks like that won't be happening.

BREAKING: NOW PAC Endorses Alan Sandals!

2006-03-21T21:19:00.000-05:00

The National Organization for Women's (NOW) has endorsed Alan Sandals for Pennsylvania's contested US Senate seat. This is huge. I definitely would have preferred an endorsement of Chuck Pennacchio, but NOW's endorsement of someone other than Bob Casey is great news for Pennsylvania.

More to come...

Update:

To be correct, NOW PAC has endorsed Sandals, not NOW itself. Technically, only NOW's political action committee has endorsed Sandals, not the organization itself. Thanks to nepa tom for pointing out this typo in the comments!

Pro-Casey Fools in the Blogosphere: Part II

2006-03-20T14:50:00.000-05:00

My criticism of the blogger at YoungPhillyPolitics was met with a lengthy, well-written retort. It's always refreshing to have an intelligent critique. Regardless, I still think that the original author was way off base in his attack on Chuck Pennacchio. Here is the response by DanielUA:

First, you know, Alex was over the top here. He actually said so in this post. But, you know what else what [sic] that post pointed out? That Chuck's little ode to Santorum was completely stupid. The very next day, GOP lawyers kicked Featherman off the ballot. How honorable! I know that Chuck does not like Santorum, but when he says things like that, he is feeding into the BS frame that Santorum is principled, when he is anything but. It was a really dumb thing to say, made to look even sillier by what Santorum did to his opponent the very next day.

In my estimation, Chuck's first words to describe Santorum would not be "honorable" and "principled." Just because a person (Santorum) is corrupt and shameless, does not mean that he cannot, from time to time, do something respectable. Frankly, Santorum's extending a debate to his challenger was the right thing to do. Yes, GOP lawyers pressured Featherman off the ballot, but challenging the signatures of someone who barely made it onto the ballot is not abnormal. As much as we loathe Santorum, he is not a hideous demon sent from the depths of Hell. Even the worst person can do something right now and again. Besides, Chuck was criticizing Casey more than applauding Santorum. Here is how I responded:

I don't understand why Alex had to spew so much vitriol toward Chuck. If you claim to be a progressive and don't think Chuck's candidacy is viable, that's fine. Be that as it may, an angry, childish rant about a fellow progressive does little to help the cause, especially when it is picked up by Santorumblog. I did read Alex's statement about being "over the top," but I remain displeased with his original post, which was rather unbecoming of anyone claiming to be a progressive. What is the point for progressives to attack Pennacchio?

To be honest, I don't see how Chuck's post can be described as a "little ode to Santorum." More than anything, it was a criticism of Casey for being unprincipled and lacking the chutzpah to debate Chuck. I think that you, Chuck, and I agree that Rick Santorum is a horrible Senator. Yes, he is corrupt and unprincipled, but at least he had the courage to offer Featherman a debate. Chuck was not calling Santorum an honorable person overall; rather, he was reflecting solely on Santorum's willingness to debate Featherman in contrast to Casey's discourteous behavior. Regarding the GOP lawyers: if Pennacchio had submitted the bare minimum number of signatures, don't you think Casey would have had the Democrats' lawyers involved?

DanielUA continued:

Second, I have 1)spoke with Chuck on a conference call, 2)heard him speak in person, twice, 3)watched the whole TV interview he has posted on his site, 4) listened to the entire radio times interview. I have also read his blog regularly, promoted Albert's post to the front page here about Chuck, been interviewed about his candidacy by the print media multiple times. So, you know, I think I am pretty well informed. I am also a pretty progressive person. And, you know what? I cannot take Chuck seriously, period.

Take the radio interview as an example. Chuck was asked about his position on Iraq (that we should withdraw within 10 to 12 weeks). He said, in a moment of bizarreness, that Jack Murtha, when coming out strongly against the war, was "following" his lead. Jack Murtha was following Chuck? Really? Do you think Jack Murtha had ever heard of Chuck? Do you think Jack Murtha had ever been influenced by Chuck? Hell, I think we should withdraw from Iraq, and I thought the war was a terrible error. Maybe Jack Murtha is following my lead!

I'm glad to hear that DanielUA is so well-informed about Chuck Pennacchio. It's too bad that he is also vehemently opposed to Pennacchio's candidacy. I find it odd that fellow progressives feel the need to attack Pennacchio. In other words, what good is produced by ridiculing someone who shares your own beliefs? If they choose to believe that Pennacchio doesn't stand a chance against Casey, that's fine. Pennacchio is standing up for progressive beliefs because Bob Casey will not. Perhaps the Murtha comment was kind of odd, but what's the big deal? At least Pennacchio wants to get out of Iraq ASAP unlike Casey. Furthermore, Pennacchio doesn't have paid speech writers and political consultants, so occasionally he will say something peculiar. If saying weird things kept people out of office, someone else would be in the White House.

Then DanielUA wrote:

What Chuck does not seem to get is that just saying that you have progressive positions has never, ever been enough to get someone elected. EVER. You are probably progressive, right? If you declare for Senate next time, should I vote for you?The blunt reality is that as nice and principled as Chuck and Alan Sandals are, they would not likelly [sic] win a race for City Council. Assuming they can go straight to the very, very top without millions upon millions of dollars is a little off.

DanielUA is pretty down on Chuck Pennacchio. I don't deny that the odds are against Pennacchio. That, however, doesn't change that I believe in Pennacchio. Nor does it change the fact that Pennacchio's platform is far more in line with my own beliefs (and those of most Democrats) than Bob Casey's. I think it's pretty sad when a liberal blogger writes off a candidate because he doesn't have much money. I'm not going to support Bob Casey in the primary just because he has lots of money. The conclusion of my comment to DanielUA was a follows:

Let me ask you: what precisely should Chuck do, besides have progressive values, to get elected? I get the impression that, in your eyes, money is more important than values. Are you suggesting that a candidate needs millions of dollars to be worth our time? That sounds rather antithetical to the grassroots movement. I for one am not going to support a candidate with money and no values. I respect Chuck Pennacchio's positions and will vote with my conscience.

Pro-Casey Fools in the Blogosphere

2006-03-19T16:25:00.000-05:00

Idiocy abounds...

While searching for recent blog posts about Chuck Pennacchio, I came across this childish diatribe from a Casey Jr. supporter:

Chuck Pennacchio is either a complete fool or a Santorum tool. How else can you explain the blithering nonsense that Adam B points to over at Daily Kos? But first, queue the violin music, cause this here is a Penanchio[sic]-Santorum love fest (the stuff in italics is me inserting words Chuck wanted to express but couldn't because his heart runith over):
For those of you who wonder about Santorum, yes, he's got an easy smile, he's very engaging, and he's personable. He also has a chiseled chin, sumptuous lips, and eyelashes that set my heart on fire every time he winks approvingly at me and my campaign. One on one, he's charming and has a genuine gift for retail politics. These are the skills that make him a formidable opponent and, unlike that big meany, Bob Casey, a wonderful human being. It's not until he starts talking (and legislating) ideas that things get scary. So scary that I jump right in his arms and beg him to hold me in his strong protective grasp!

Oy, this is one of the most offensive and idiotic criticisms of any candidate that I have ever heard--unfortunately, it's just an excerpt. Sadly, it's this kind of garbage that makes bloggers look bad. Posts like this further the perception of bloggers as ill-informed partisans without credentials. Feeling outraged, I responded with a comment (also an excerpt to save space). I tried not to be angry, but a little ire slipped through.

Have either of you actually heard Chuck Pennacchio speak? Pennacchio is devoted, honest and believable. Furthermore, he actually holds traditionally Democratic values, unlike Bob Casey, Jr.

Anyone who does not recognize that Rick Santorum is a formidable opponent with a history of electoral success in Pennsylvania is a fool. Your attempt at satire was both ignorant and offensive. If you disagree with Pennacchio's politics, that is fine. When offering your support of Casey, a thoughtful well-reasoned essay is much more effective than questioning his sexuality through a childish diatribe calling his opponent stupid. To be frank, your post has done a disservice to Democrats. "Santorumblog" has used your post as an example of Democratic hypocrisy. Here is a link.

http://santorumblog.com/2006/03/dems-eating-their-own-
to-promote-casey.html

Before you write an angry, ill-informed critique of my comment, I suggest that you learn a little bit about Chuck Pennacchio. Here is a link to a radio interview with Chuck Pennacchio. Give it a listen before you write him off.

http://chuck2006.typepad.com/pennacchio_for_pennsylvan/
2006/03/for_your_listen.html

And no, I am not a paid tool for Rick Santorum. I am just one of many people who BELIEVE in Chuck Pennacchio.

It's perfectly acceptable to have legitimate debate about Pennacchio and Casey--indeed, it's a necessary condition for a Democracy to function--but let's try to be a bit more rational in our arguments folks. Sadly, but truthfully, Santorumblog has used the post in question as an example of Democrats "Eating their own." While I have to admit that plenty of establishment Democrats are attacking Chuck Pennacchio and his supporters for challenging Casey, Democrats as a whole don't need a childish, offensive blogger making the party look like hypocrites. Thanks a lot pal.

Chuck Pennacchio Radio Interview

2006-03-16T00:17:00.000-05:00

Chuck Pennacchio is giving an hour-long radio interview today (Thursday, March 16th) at 10 AM on WHYY in Philadelphia with Marty Moss-Coane on her program Radio Times. If your in the Philly area give it a listen on 91FM. If your an out-of-towner, you can stream the interview live on the internet here [old link--see update below]. This is a great opportunity to learn more about Chuck and hear for yourself what a tremendous candidate he really is.

Update:

I listened to the whole interview this afternoon archived on the "Radio Times" site, and it is exceptionally good. If you have any interest in Chuck Pennacchio, you need to listen to this. Hell, If you have no idea who Chuck Pennacchio is, then you definitely need to listen to this. Believe it or not, you will believe in Chuck Pennacchio after listening to this interview.

You can listen to the archived interview here, just be sure to select "March 16th, 2006" in the drop down boxes.

Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals: Splitting the Progressive Vote

2006-03-14T03:05:00.000-05:00

So, there are officially three U.S. Senate candidates in the PA Democratic primary: Chuck Pennacchio, Bob Casey Jr. and Alan Sandals. Casey, is too conservative to appropriately represent the actual interests of most Democrats.

Bob Casey, Jr.
On abortion – pro-life
On stem cell research – opposed
Accepts PAC money – yes, but not corporate or industry
War in Iraq – supported
Troops in Iraq – stay the course
National Health Care – opposed
Raising the minimum wage – supports
NAFTA/CAFTA – opposed both
Alito confirmation to Supreme Court – supports confirmation

Unfortunately, Casey has enormous name recognition, because he is the son of PA's former two-term governor Bob Casey Sr., which makes him the front-runner. Chuck Pennacchio, on the other hand, is a Democrat who actually represents Democratic interests.

Chuck Pennacchio
On abortion – pro-choice
On stem cell research – supports
Accepts PAC money – no
War in Iraq – opposed
Troops in Iraq – out as soon as safely possible
National Health Care – supports
Raising the minimum wage – supports living wage with different levels depending on where the worker lives
NAFTA/CAFTA – opposed both
Alito confirmation to Supreme Court – supports a filibuster

Alan Sandals is also more progressive than Bob Casey Jr., but is not preferable to Pennacchio, as illustrated in my previous post. See Sandals' positions here.

The matter of concern becomes the splitting of the progressive vote in the Democratic primary. What happens if the vote tally ends as such:

Casey 49%
Pennacchio 30%
Sandals 21%

Because Pennsylvania does not has a runoff primary election, this could be an actual outcome of the race. In this case, if either Pennacchio or Sandals had dropped out of the race, the progressive candidate would likely have won the election. Who knows if either Pennacchio or Sandals will garner this much of the primary vote--I believe that Pennacchio can--but the already arduous task of beating Casey in May is made twice as difficult when both Pennacchio and Sandals are fighting for votes from the same subset of PA Democratic primary voters.

When two people are running as the anti-Casey, progressive efforts are spoiled. Pennacchio or Sandals (preferably Sandals) needs to drop out of the race if Bob Casey Jr. stands a chance of being defeated in May.

Chuck Pennacchio v. Alan Sandals: What's the Deal with Alan Sandals?

2006-03-14T01:44:00.000-05:00

What is the deal with Alan Sandals?

In case you were unaware, Bob Casey Jr. is running against two primary opponents: Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals. While I've made a great deal out of Chuck Pennacchio, I have not really mentioned Alan Sandals. In fact, I've had a hard time finding much info on Alan Sandals outside of his own website. In the Blogosphere, there is a mixed reaction to Pennacchio. Many bloggers, like myself, fervently support Pennacchio. We loathe Santorum and find Casey too conservative to be a real Democrat. Others, like Kos, don't think Pennacchio is viable and will countenance Casey thinking he can beat Santorum. But what about Sandals?

After searching the Google's "Blog Search" and diaries from Daily Kos and MyDD, I found hardly anything written on Sandals, other than his being a candidate in PA's Senate race. Granted, there are a decent number of hits when searching for "Alan Sandals" on Google, but that does not address his lack of blogger support. Many of Sandals positions are quite similar to Pennacchio's positions, and he has raised more money than Pennacchio, so why does he almost entirely lack netroots support?

Here are some possible reasons why the Blogosphere prefers Pennacchio to Sandals.

First off, Pennacchio has charisma and is believable. When I met him at a rally in State College, Pennacchio wasn't just captivating; he made me want to get off my ass and help him fix this country. Pennacchio made me believe in a politician, which is a rare thing. I can't say whether or not Sandals has the same personal magnetism, as I have not heard him speak. However, such an affecting personality is rare.

Pennacchio seems to have a stronger grassroots following. Sandals submitted over 5,000 signatures and Pennacchio submitted over 4,200 signatures. However, Sandals' signatures were collected by paid supporters, while Pennacchio's were collected entirely by volunteers. If Pennacchio can petition just as well as Sandals without having to pay his people a dime, Pennacchio's followers must really believe in him.

Pennacchio is a history professor who studies diplomacy and national defense, while Sandals is a well-regarded lawyer specializing in pension, healthcare, and retirement issues. There are lots of lawyers in the Senate, but Pennacchio offers something unique while Sandals does not. Frankly, this country is desperately in need of leaders with a historical perspective.

Sandals dumped a lot of his own money into his campaign. Sandals is better funded than Pennacchio because he was wealthy to begin with. Almost all of Pennacchio's money has come from individual donors. While Sandals believes in public funding of elections, Pennacchio has sworn not to take any PAC money, thus actively practicing what he preaches.

Pennacchio is more progressive than Sandals. Both men agree on abortion, stem cells, the environment, election reform, etc. However, unlike Sandals, Pennacchio supports living wage legislation (raising the minimum wage to $9.00 so that people can get out of poverty), rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and fair trade with the rest of the world.

Pennacchio has been campaigning for far longer than Sandals. Sandals formally entered the race on July 15th 2005, while Pennacchio's campaign began in November of 2003. This is actually a little depressing. I'm not sure why Pennacchio doesn't have higher name recognition if he has been pushing this for so long.

Clearly, Pennacchio is the better candidate for Pennsylvanian progressives. However, both men are good candidates and Senator Sandals would be preferable to Senator Casey. I'm not as convinced that Sandals has what it takes to beat Santorum, but if he becomes strong enough to beat Casey, then all bets are off.

Chuck Pennacchio Interview on KDKA Pittsburgh

2006-03-13T02:34:00.000-05:00

FINALLY the media is starting to mention the Pennacchio campaign for U.S. Senate. For months, all I've heard has been "Bob Casey, the Democratic challenger from Pennsylvania," with no mention of the Democratic primary. Just because Chuck Schumer, Ed Rendell, and Harry Reid anointed Bob Casey as the golden boy to beat Santorum this fall doesn't mean that he actually is the Democratic candidate. On May 16th Pennsylvania's Democrats with chose Santorum's challenger among Bob Casey, Chuck Pennacchio, and Alan Sandals. How frighteningly undemocratic is it that the powers that be have tried to chose our Senate candidate without our input! Punks...

Anyway, the point of this thread is that KDKA Pittsburgh's CBS affiliate aired segments of an interview with Chuck Pennacchio on March 10th. Chuck comes off as fiery straight-shooter who knows what he is talking about. He's fed up with the status quo and wants to change people lives, not his career. Finally, we have a Democrat with passion and a brain. The links to the full 19 minute interview and the abridged news segment are posted below. Spread the word!

Full 19 minute interview

Abridged news segment

Pennacchio Files Ballot Petition

2006-03-07T16:05:00.000-05:00

Hazah and Kudos!

Pennacchio for Pennsylvania submitted 4212 signatures on their petition to get on the primary ballot for US Senator. 4212 is more than twice the amount of signatures necessary for access to the ballot, so there will be plenty of legitimate signatures to outweigh any nefarious "I.P. Freely" or "Heywood Jablowme" who signed the petition. With Chuck officially on the ballot, the media better get off their collective punk ass and stop calling Casey the Democratic challenger to Rick Santorum.

Missouri Legislature to Establish Christianity as State Religion: Part I

2006-03-05T14:08:00.000-05:00

I heard about this a few days ago from Atrios, but my brain could not comprehend it. Honestly, I actually had to disregard it for a while at this risk of aneurysm. Chew on this for a minute:

The Missouri legislature could pass a resolution establishing Christianity as the state-approved majority religion.

Is this legal...possible...conceivable? How can Missouri have the balls to come out that directly in opposition to the separation of church and state? I'll have to let this one digest for a while before posting on it in more detail. What do you think?

P.S. Sorry for the lack of posts over the past few days. I've been busy at work.

Progressives for Pennacchio, Not Casey

2006-03-02T13:44:00.000-05:00

My last pos t was a little long winded, so I want to express the message in a more concise manner. Progressives and Democrats who vote for Casey in the primary election are making a mistake. Santorum has become so unpopular that any reasonable Democrat can beat him (look at this Zogby poll to prove it). So, why should we support a conservative like Casey when we can vote for someone like Pennacchio who we actually believe in? Any true progressive should feel obligated to temporarily change his/her affiliation to the Democratic Party and vote for Chuck Pennacchio in the primary.

The Democratic leadership might think running to the right is the path to victory, but the more people learn about Casey's conservative positions, the more their support for him dwindles (again, check the Zogby poll). Powerful Democrats anointed Casey before Santorum published his offensive book and before Santorum's involvement in the K-Street scandal really hit the fan. Pennacchio might not have much money now, but if he wins the primary, cash will flood his campaign from the national Democratic Party.

Changing Party for Pennacchio

2006-03-02T02:21:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am a registered Green. Beyond that, I discussed my displeasure with the Democrats, and how I don't want to become one.

"The thought of registering as a Democrat makes me feel dirty and slimy."

Yesterday in the comments section of another post, Chuck Pennacchio: Part I; Chuck v. Casey, Charlie Crystle wrote:

"Would you switch your registration to Democrat to vote for Chuck? That is what all Greens should do. He's a green in Dem clothing, which many of us are."

Good question. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Crystle for posting a comment on (and reading) my blog. It's an honor to have a former U.S. Senate candidate take an interest in The Cajun Jew. To answer his question: yes, I am going to register as a Democrat for the May 16th PA primary election. Now, the issue is why would (should) a Green do this. I have written that registering as a Green is a political statement. That,

"if enough progressively minded folks register as Greens it could send a message to the Democrats that our opinions are relevant and that in order to earn our votes the Dems. must become more liberal."

My thinking has not changed. More progressive Democrats and independents should register as Greens for the aforementioned reason. However, in states like Pennsylvania, which operate a closed primary, members of third parties cannot vote in the primary elections of the two major parties. So, Pennsylvania will not allow me, as a Green, to vote for Chuck Pennacchio. Be that as it may, I hold the power to vote for Chuck Pennacchio--all Greens do--by changing our affiliations temporarily to the Democratic party. We all can vote for Chuck Pennacchio, but some of us won't vote for him, because of our foolish pride. What matters more: having progressive ideals or progressive leaders to enact those ideals? Greens and progressive Independents must not be fooled by loyalty to our party or lack there of. I love being a Green, but frankly, my political beliefs are not beholden to party membership. If the person who I judge to be the most capable candidate is a Democrat, then it is my obligation to vote for that Democrat.

We Greens and Independents often call ourselves progressives, but look at that word for a minute progress-ive. We define ourselves as those moving toward a greater good, but what good, indeed what progress, can be made by not voting for the progressive candidate. Some will vote for Bob Casey Jr. believing that his conservative tendencies will lure moderate Republicans away from Santorum. It would be reasonable to vote for Casey over Santorum in the general election, because Senator Casey would be a minor improvement over Senator Santorum, bringing Harry Reid one Senator closer to majority leadership. But a vote for Casey in the primary election would not produce nearly as much progress as a vote for Pennacchio. If Pennacchio had no chance of beating Santorum, I could understand voting for Casey. However, a recent Zogby poll, shows that both Casey and Pennacchio can beat Santorum. So why should progressives vote for Casey?

There is no Green party primary election for U.S. Senator. In the general election, some progressives will vote for the Green Party candidate, Carl Romanelli. If people truly cannot stomach voting for Casey in the general election, I understand voting for Romanelli but respectfully disagree with it. I want the Democrats to hold a majority in the Senate, because that will give them the power to investigate the Bush administration's illegal and disgraceful actions (e. g. warentless wiretapping). If Pennacchio is not the Democratic candidate in the general election, and that means voting for Casey, then I must hold my nose and do so for the greater good.

Some Greens and Independents will not vote in the primary elections. That is a mistake. Complaining about not having the right to vote in the primary is silly and incorrect. Changing your registration to the Democratic party for one month does not mean sacrificing your progressive beliefs; on the contrary, it more fully expresses them. In all honesty, what do we as Greens and progressives have to lose by temporarily affiliating ourselves with the Democrats so that we can vote for Chuck Pennacchio? If we want Dr. Pennacchio to be Senator Pennacchio, then as good citizens we are obligated to vote for him. It's not hard. Just drop by your local post office (how about tomorrow before work?) and pick up a voter registration form. Fill it out and hand it to a postal worker (make sure you do this by the April 17th deadline). Then show up at your precinct on May 16th and vote for Pennacchio. Afterward, you can switch back to the Green Party or no affiliation. In a choice of pride or progress, we cannot betray each other.

Update:

I encourage you all to read Chris Bowers' excellent post on MyDD entitled, "The Ultimate Validation of Progressive Ideals." It's a marvelous essay on the meaning of being progressive, defining progressivism through actions rather than words.

Fat Tuesday

2006-02-28T00:34:00.000-05:00

Well it's Fat Tuesday or Faschnat Day if you are Pennsylvania Dutch. Being employed at a Cajun restaurant--seriously, I'm not lying about this Cajun Jew thing--means I'll be working a double shift today (9am-midnight), so I don't expect to post until late tonight or early tomorrow. Sorry folks. I've got a good post brewing, but will have to hang onto it until tomorrow.

If only I didn't need to sleep I could post all night...drat.

New Interview with Pennacchio

2006-02-27T01:58:00.000-05:00

Natalie Davis of All Facts and Opinions just posted a spectacular interview with Chuck Pennacchio. This is a MUST READ for anyone who wants to know more about Pennacchio and his positions. Read it and spread the word. Hell, print it out and post it in your office. Here's the link.

Fun Exercise:

Compare Chuck Pennacchio's capacity for the spoken word with that of President George W. Bush. Grab some crayons, paper plates, and rubber bands to make cool Bush and Pennacchio masks. Then try having a conversation by reading quotes from both men. See whose head explodes first!

Pennacchio v. Bloggers

2006-02-26T00:12:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I heard Chuck Pennacchio speak last week in State College. After the speech, I asked Pennacchio a question that had been bothering me for the past few weeks:

"Progressive blogs like Daily Kos and MyDD have had a serious impact on the fundraising efforts of progressive candidates like Ned Lamont in Connecticut, Paul Hackett in Ohio, and Ciro Rodriguez in Texas. I have not noticed a lot of support for you on the blogs. In fact, Daily Kos has called you 'not a viable candidate [link2].' Why do you think this is the case?"

Before Pennacchio could respond, a women in the front of the room, who I believe was affiliated with the Pennacchio campaign in Centre County, belligerently interrupted

"But they lost, they lost THEY ALL LOST. Every one of Kos' candidates LOST."

This was a statement of fact. Each of the 15 candidates that Kos raised money for in 2004 lost their respective elections. However, these candidates were progressives who were not expected to win and would probably not have come close to victory were it not for Kos). To the woman I responded,

"Be that as it may, wouldn't someone (gesturing toward Pennacchio) with very little cash on hand like $100,000 from progressive supporters?"

Again, she exclaimed,

"But THEY ALL LOST"

Clearly--at least in my estimation--this is a moot point. It is not as though Kos and other bloggers cursed the candidates to which the directed reader contributions. Pennacchio is sorely in need of any money that he can get. I love that he only accepts ethical contributions, but when his campaign organizers shun money from the very people who ought to support him, something is amiss. In any event, Pennacchio decided it was time to interject (this is a paraphrase of his response):

"I think that I have had success with many bloggers. I have received endorsements from Chris Bowers at MyDD, and the Booman Tribune, among others. The reason that some blogs don't support me is because they are influenced by push polls showing Casey in the lead based on name recognition. I also don't think a lot of what Daily Kos writes is very insightful." Pennacchio then looked at me and with the most honesty I have ever seen in a politician's eyes and said, "But write to them. Let them know."

I was not aware that Bowers had supported Pennacchio, but I don't think that all of MyDD has--correct me if I am wrong. Pennacchio's response seemed like a good one. His biggest problem is name recognition. According to Zogby, most of those who hear what Pennacchio has to say would vote for him. However, I do think that much of Kos' writing is insightful, and I doubt that Kos has not heard about the aforementioned Zogby poll. I can forgive Pennacchio for not being a huge Kos fan, especially when Kos has the power to fundraise for him but refuses to do so, but clearly Pennacchio needs to actively pursue the netroots if he wants to earn our contributions.

Pennacchio asked me to write, so that is what I am doing. I support him tooth and nail, but if Pennacchio wants solid netroots support he will need to pursue it himself. So, here is my suggestion to you Dr. Pennacchio:

Write an open letter to Daily Kos, Mydd, Americablog, Eschaton, Crooks and Liars, and all the other popular progressive blogs. Explain who you are, what your fighting for, and why Pennsylvanians will support you over Casey and Santorum. Ask for their support. Indeed, actively pursue it. You challenged me to become an active citizen, and I challenge you to become an active candidate. Matt Brown, a progressive candidate for Senate from Rhode Island, recently held a conference call with bloggers discussing his background and politics. He even wrote a diary for Daily Kos. I implore you to do the same.

Update:

Pennacchio held a conference call with 10 Pennsylvania bloggers [listen here] exactly one year ago today according to Young Philly Politics. I think it is imperitive that Pennacchio try again. This time he also needs to go after the national blogs as well.

Workers' Rights

2006-02-25T14:39:00.000-05:00

Being a progressively mined guy, I have this silly, antiquated notion of workers' rights. Now, I know what you're thinking.

"Workers' rights, bah! Those damn pinko commies. Don't they know their history? Marxism failed."

Slow down. I'm not going to sit here and rail about the abomination of capitalism while praising the glory and insight of dear sweet Karl Marx as we dirty liberals do according to the fanatical ravings of Ann Coulter. Be that as it may, corporations have a responsibility to both society and their employees. In this country, any entrepreneur or corporation has the express right to pursue wealth. However, when that entity's pursuit of wealth begins to detrimentally effect its workers or the world in which we live, the excess of the entrepreneur/corporation must be check for the good of us all. For example, when Wal-Mart violates child labor laws or provides its work force with poor health care, the state files suit or legislates that Wal-mart must improve its workers' rights. Now, I'm not writing this post to complain about Wal-Mart (although, I certainly have plenty of issues with that place).

Today's displeasure is directed at one of my employers (while taking this year off before graduate school I am working in two restaurants--as an aside, a living wage is a whole other issue). As I mentioned in my last post, I have been sick for the past several days. Last night, I went to work despite having received antibiotics and a codeine cough syrup from my doctor that morning--what can I say, I'm a dedicated employee. I probably should have called in sick yesterday but didn't want to hear the manager complain. Frankly, the management is not very receptive to hearing about sick employees, and I can understand their dismay. In a college town, where unreliable employees call in "sick" so that they can attend a party or study for an exam, why not be a little skeptical?

However, I am not an unreliable student employee. I am an honest person and hard worker. I received an oustanding employee review and have never been reprimanded. Furthermore, in the seven months that I've worked at this establishment I have never called in sick. To be completely honest, a few weeks ago I broke my glasses--without which I cannot see--and missed two hours of a shift while scrambling to find an optometrist appointment that morning. I didn't think it unreasonable to miss a shift due to blindness, however management disagreed.

As of last night, I felt crummy, but still intended to show up for my 3:00 shift today. When I awoke at 11:30 am (I got home from work at midnight last night, so I went to bed late), I could barely speak. My voice was--and remains--so hoarse that I physically could not have waited tables tonight. If you have ever seen American Splendor, I sound like Harvey Pekar. When I contacted the restaurant at noon, the manager was annoyed that I had not called earlier. She explained that there was a party of 50 coming in tonight and that she needed enough servers to cover it. After apologizing for circumstances outside my control (which infuriated my lovely girlfriend), she told me call other employees to pick up my shift.

Is this the greatest travesty to befall mankind? No. Are there places in the world where an employee would give anything for the opportunities that I have and the fairness with which I am accorded? Of course. But in the United States, employers are supposed to treat their workers fairly. At least they always claim to do so.

What really irks me is that when an honest, responsible employee calls in for a legitimate sick day (the manager could hear my hoarse voice), he deserves the benefit of the doubt and maybe even a "get well soon." If I called in sick all the time, then it's permissible not to trust me, but when I call in sick for the first time ever with an awful cold that was exacerbated by working the night before, cut me some freakin' slack.

Rabble...

Pennacchio in Town

2006-02-25T01:23:00.000-05:00

Just a heads up: Chuck Pennacchio will be in State College today. Anyone who is free at 4:00 pm should stop by Webster's to hear him speak. He is an excellent speaker (as I mentioned earlier) and what do you have to lose? Maybe your skeptical about him or don't really care about primary elections, but how many times have we all talked about how much we hate Bush and fear the direction in which the country is headed? Well, stop complaining and start doing something to empower the opposition! Give Pennacchio a listen and you won't be disappointed.

Pennacchio will also be walking around town with a group of local Democrats (headed by Dr. Durrenberger) around 11:30 . His schedule according to Durrenberger is as follows:

The route will be this:

a. Kashmir T-Shirts
b. New China Town Restaurant
c. Indian Pavallion
d. Sunshine Imports
e. Websters [sic]
f. Ben and Jerries [sic]
g. Winding up at Schlow Library

12:30 Meet with CCC and discuss state-wide plans.
4:00 Event at Webster's.

Tentative-go to acoustic brew concert at Center for Welbeing at Lemont. Stay tuned on that one. But the rest is set. So we need your help to join the entourage after the breakfast and to come to the meeting at the Library. We need you to help turn folks out for the Webster's event at 4 too.

Unfortunately, I have to work and cannot attend the Webster's event, but I urge you all to check it out.

P.S. Sorry about the lack of posts this week. I have been sick and preoccupied.

Chuck Pennacchio: A Voice of Conscience

2006-02-19T13:38:00.000-05:00

"In me you will have a voice of conscience. I will never stop fighting. I will never stop fighting. I will never stop fighting!" --Chuck Pennacchio

On Friday, I had the good fortune to hear Chuck Pennacchio speak in State College. About 100 people showed up to standing room only at the local municipal building--a pleasant turnout. Despite arriving expecting to hear what I wanted to hear, Pennacchio was really, really good. While Pennacchio spoke, I was struck by his passionate desire to change the status quo: to navigate around corruption and self-interest and vigorously preserve our civil liberties--much like Al Gore did recently (highlights, full speech). At first glance, he appeared mild mannered, and slightly resembled Steve Carell. While Pennacchio displayed an earnest, personal need to protect our constitution. He spoke out against the Bush administration's quest for absolute power and the crumbling wall separating church and state. Most importantly, Pennacchio stressed the need for people to engage in politics, lest we lose our power. To retain our fundamental rights against authoritarian government, we must be active citizens. This very much reminded me of Chomsky's point in Imperial Ambitions that no one can change society by attending one peace rally then returning to his couch full of good intentions. Social change requires perpertual action. Pennacchio quoted Jefferson to bring home the point that every generation much fight anew for our democracy.

He contrasted himself with Casey at great length (see my earlier post), but also identified himself as a principled individual with thoughts of his own. Pennacchio is running a publicly funded campaign and unlike Casey who has received large sums of money from the establishment, corporations, lawyers, and PACs that also fund Santorum, Pennacchio is not beholden to their interests. He stressed that Casey's support of Alito was a tipping point for many Pennsylvanians--that people become disillusioned with Casey when they find out that he mimics Santorum on so many critical social issues. According to a recent Zogby poll, when people hear Pennacchio's positions alongside Casey's and Santorum's, Pennacchio wins the hypothetical election. This is of critical importance, because it shows that Casey is ahead because of name recognition. If Ed Rendell and Harry Reid had not dubbed Casey as the man to beat Santorum--indeed, if the people are allowed to decide--Pennacchio suddenly shifts from non-viable candidate to Senator.

Chuck Pennacchio: Part II; Ethics or Strategy?

2006-02-17T15:02:00.000-05:00

Now, the progressive netroots have not made a concerted effort on behalf of Pennacchio. He has little name recogontion and even less cash on hand (about $9,ooo). Pennacchio's campaign might never get off the ground. It seems that Casey's double digit lead over Santorum made Democratic primary challengers a non-issue for fundraisers. After all, a win is a win, right? I think not.

The netroots are positively giddy about Ned Lamont (the progressive challenging Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primaries). They scream about how much of a scoundrel Lieberman is and that he must be replaced with a real Democrat and I couldn't agree more. What irritates me is that Casey will be another Lieberman. In six years, everyone will yell about how much of a pseudo-Republican Bob Casey is and hope that he loses in the primaries. Maybe if Pennacchio was funded today, we wouldn't have to fight Casey in the future.

Yes, Casey would make it one person closer to a Democratic majority in the Senate. At which point there could be investigations into all of the scandals and lies from the past five years. But dammit, I can't vote for a man with whom I fundamentally disagree on so many issues.

Ethics or strategy...

Chuck Pennacchio: Part I; Chuck v. Casey

2006-02-17T13:51:00.000-05:00

Lately, I've heard a lot about Chuck Pennacchio. Let me rephrase: I noticed a pamphlet at Webster's used book store/coffee shop (State College's progressive hangout). Pennacchio argues for many of my big issues: a living wage, reproductive rights, universal health care, separation of church and state to name a few. Oh, and by the way he stated opposition to the Alito nomination.

Bob Casey is the establishment favorite to challenge Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum for Pennsylvania's contested Senate seat in 2006. Casey opposes every woman's right to her body, stem cell research, an Iraq exit strategy, approves of the Alito nomination and Los Diez commandments in public buildings. Overall, he pretty much sounds like a wang. If I were a Democrat, I would vote for Chuck Pennacchio over Bob Casey Jr. any day

Be that as it may, the powers that be have picked Casey and their man against little Ricky "women belong at home" Santorum. By pumping lots of money into Casey's campaign (he has 3.5 million at present) the establishment is throwing Chuck under the car. Apparently, they think that the best way to beat Santorum is to take a Republican-lite approach (i.e. if you can't beat'em join'em).

Pardon me while I dry heave...

The Green Party

2006-02-17T13:31:00.000-05:00

Update: The PA primary election is actually on May 16th. That was a typo below.

I am a registered Green Party member. Thanks to Pennsylvania's closed primary law, I cannot vote in the primaries on May 17th--a total bummer. The thought of registering as a Democrat makes me feel dirty and kind of slimy. Either major party seems devoid of ethics. I suppose that once a group or an entity attains that much power it loses its integrity. Having to appease so many constituents, lobbyists, superiors, donors, etc. often makes a politician impotent and corrupt. Registering as a Green is more of a political statement than a belief that the Greens will win major elections. If enough progressively minded folks register as greens it could send a message to the Democrats that our opinions are relevant and that in order to earn our votes the Dems. must become more liberal.

Initial Post

2006-02-10T15:09:00.000-05:00

Oy...

The time has come for me to begin posting political and social commentary. This is not merely an attempt at self-aggrandizement; rather, I hope to engender some amount of change in the world--change toward the betterment of humankind. At present, I remain uncertain about how much one man can do armed only with his wit and tenacity. Nonetheless, I am compelled to try.