Swing State Project

« We All Have a Stake in Midterm Elections | Main | OH-Sen: Decision Coming Soon »

Thursday, August 25, 2005

PA-Sen: The Politics of Blurring

Posted by Tim Tagaris

This morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a piece on Casey v. Santorum (v. Pennacchio) and the issue of the Iraq conflict. I bit my tongue all day until I read one of Casey's chief online supporters, David Siorta, take the leading Democrat to task.

I have given proper applause to Pennsylvania Senate candidate Bob Casey (D) for raising questions about the Iraq War in his 2006 race for the U.S. Senate against Rick Santorum. But I must say, I was disturbed when I read today about his Kerry-2004-style position on the Iraq War vote itself.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that "on the major Iraq votes - authorizing force and funding the operation - Casey said he would have supported those measures, just as Santorum did.

Having helped Chuck Pennacchio get his Internet outreach off-the-ground, I have felt caught between a rock and a hard place since leaving. On the one hand, people seem to get real pissed off when I speak evil of the "golden boy," Bob Casey Jr. But in my mind, Bob Casey is a disaster--the worst possible candidate we could ask for in highest profile race of 2006.

If you thought people across the country were confused about what Democrats stood for, just wait until $100 million plus is poured into the race that will serve as national barometer in the one of the country's largest "swing states." Take a look at some of these newspaper quotes on the race.

War in Iraq Casey faces his own challenges, among them finding a position that portrays him as neither an antiwar defeatist nor a passive war supporter. On the major Iraq votes - authorizing force and funding the operation - Casey said he would have supported those measures, just as Santorum did. (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Terry Schiavo "I think you should err on the side of life. I think some kind of congressional review was appropriate." (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Embryonic stem-cell research Casey: Supports the 2001 action, but not an expansion of it. (Philadelphia Inquirer April 18, 2005)

Ten Commandments Display "I don't oppose [such displays]. I do think politicians spend a lot more time talking about that question than trying to live the 10 Comandments. No matter what your religious beliefs, there are some universal truths in those commandments that we all ought to live by."

After getting his for his MoveOn Endorsement "They (Move On) endorsed him… He didn’t endorse them." -- Bob Casey's Campaign Manager

Nuclear Option The campaign manager for Pennsylvania Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., who is running against Santorum in next year's Senate contest, said Casey welcomed the deal. "Bob Casey is relieved that reasonable people in the Senate were able to find a bipartisan solution," Jay Reiff said.

You know why Casey is forced to take this ridiculous position on the war today? It's because when it started in March of 2003, he did the same song and dance as John Kerry and Joe Hoeffel. When the war started, most of these candidates had to know it was wrong, but their positions, their votes, and their public statements were couched in fear of public that appeared to overwhelmingly support the effort. Now when it comes to Iraq, it's our party that finds itself in the quagmire--specifically for failing to stand on principle from day 1.

And that is what we get from Bob Casey, a candidate who is playing the four corners offense with 15 months to go--A candidate just trying desperately to stay out of trouble, attempting walk the fine line between blurring the differences between him and his opponent, while at the same time attacking him on nuance like the issue of "challenging the president" on the war.

If he beats Rick Santorum, this will become part of the national template for 2008--the blur. And it's not that I don't want Bob Casey Jr. win should the two square off--cause I do. I just hope by that point, the damange isn't already done.

Posted at 06:56 PM in Pennsylvania | Technorati

Comments

I'm pissed...

"highest profile race of 2006"

The Montana race is the highest profile race of 2006, just because the national media hasn't figured it out yet doesn't mean you need to repeat their misconception.

Posted by: Bob Brigham at August 25, 2005 08:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This is especially disappointing because we need people of all political stripes (in our party and out) to oppose terribly misguided, politically-motivated wars. Casey sounds a lot like Republicans such as the Nebraska Senator who supported his chief even as he has constantly criticized the war. I'd give the guy (Casey) a break on the ten commandments (he didn't say he wants to vote to put them in courthouses) and let him speak his morality on these largely symbolic issues so long as he had a moral position on Iraq and other major issues. Otherwise, what does the party stand for?

Posted by: mcittone at August 26, 2005 11:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm sorry, but this stuff drives me nuts. Can you show me a Republican who has a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO? Can you show me a Republican who is against CAFTA and NAFTA? Can you show me a Republican who is against school vouchers and for more federal funding of public schools? Can you show a Republican who is for increasing clean air and clean water standards? Can you show me a Republican opposed to the Bush tax cuts? Can you show me a Republican who wants to increase the minimum wage? Can you show me a Republican who supports gay adoption? Can you show me a Republican who supports state funding of contraception? Can you show me a Republican who is for universal health care? Can you show me a Republican who is opposed to Social Security privatization?

Posted by: jkfp2004 at August 26, 2005 01:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hi Tim,
I read with interest your posting on Bob Casey and the Iraq war, including some criticism of my vote and statements on the war. Just to give a fuller picture, I followed my vote in favor of the war in October 2002 by founding the Iraq Watch in the House of Representatives in March 2003, and I delivered 30 speeches on the floor of the House raising doubts, asking questions and demanding changes in our policies in Iraq until I left Congress in December 2004. In 2002 I voted for the war because I was convinced that we had to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, but I soon became convinced that we were simply lied to by the Bush Administration and taken to war under false pretenses, which I stated repeatedly during my campaign for Senate in 2004. I also said during the campaign that I would have voted against the war if I had known that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. It is clear to me that an abrupt departure now from Iraq by U.S.forces would lead to a quick and disastrous victory for the insurgency, but it also makes no sense to pledge an open-ended military commitment to prop up a new government that may never have the will or support to succeed. We should set a deadline for the Iraqis to get their government together and troops trained, with our help, in order to take over their own security needs. This deadline, in six months or so, would force the Iraqis to demonstrate whether they will ever fight for their own country, and would allow us to decide at that point whether staying in Iraq any longer makes sense.

Posted by: Joe Hoeffel at August 26, 2005 02:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hey Congressman Hoeffel, thanks for responding to my post.

Let me start off by saying that were you running against Bob Casey, I have no doubt I would still be living in Pennsylvania doing what I could to help a mainstream Democrat square off against Santorum in the 2006. Even while working for Chuck online, there was always a part of me that hoped you would pull the trigger and run against Casey. To say I was dissapointed hours after the Casey announcement when Adam B. reported you were not going to run, is an understatement.

That said, I have been looking for the last half-hour to get a better handle on your Iraq stance, and when you came around, during the race against Specter. My best efforts yielded a 9/11/04 Philadelphia Inquirer article when you first stated you would have voted against Iraq knowing what we knew then (a statement Kerry should have followed you on). From The National Journal:

Rep. Joe Hoeffel (D-13) said 9/10 that he would vote not to authorize the war in Iraq if he could vote again. Hoeffel: "Absolutely not. I voted for the war because I was convinced we needed to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. I am now convinced we were lied to. ... We need to redeploy the troops that are bogged down in Iraq because of the obsessions of George Bush. (Sen.) Arlen Specter (R) is not fighting these failed policies. He is supporting these failed policies."

Unfortunately, you were trapped in the middle at that point (which is what I was talking about above), but you made the call I wish countless other Dems who originally voted for the war would have followed you on.

But here is the difference, we are almost a year later and Bob Casey is still saying he would have voted to authorize force. As illustrated in the main entry, this position is just par for the course with Casey and other issues--doing his best to trap himself in the middle, regardless of what is right, and regardless of principle. This was a losing strategy in 2004, and will be in 2006 and 2008.

It was so heartbreaking to hear you, of all people, on the ground while in PA saying things like, "Bob Casey is only bad on choice--he is progressive on everything else." That was the original talking point statewide, and again, is completely bogus. It is difficult to see you still support his campaign as we learn more and more about the candidate on a federal issues and are reminded of his campaign style.

Yeah, Bob Casey looks like he has the best chance to defeat Rick Santorum. But we had two years to help a real progressive candidate (and not just Chuck, but anyone) find themselves in good position to do the same. Some of us tried our best, some immediately and effortlessly jumped on the electability bandwagon, and to me, that still stings.

Posted by: Tim Tagaris at August 26, 2005 03:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

jkfp2004. In a word, yes. These were ridiculous questions, and we should never be forced to say, "hey at least he doesn't call himself a Republican." But they are questions answered easily none-the-less.

Can you show me a Republican who has a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO? -- Can you show me Bob Casey's 100% rating from the AFL-CIO?

Can you show me a Republican who is against CAFTA and NAFTA? -- Here are 27 Republicans in the House against CAFTA. Here are 10 Republicans in the Senate against NAFTA

Can you show me a Republican who is against school vouchers and for more federal funding of public schools? -- Phil English (PA-3)and Todd Platts (PA-19) both voted against the experimental school voucher program for D.C. (I kept it to PA just for you, cause there are plenty more).

Can you show a Republican who is for increasing clean air and clean water standards?

Can you show me a Republican opposed to the Bush tax cuts? -- The "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 passed the Senate by a vote of 50-50 with Cheney providing the tie-breaking vote.

Can you show me a Republican who wants to increase the minimum wage? -- Ted Kennedy's attempt to raise the minimum wage was backed by four Republicans, Sens. Norm Coleman (Minn.), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Pete Domenici (N.M.) and Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) (Link)

Can you show me a Republican who supports gay adoption? -- Show me the roll call number on this "vote" and I will show you Republicans who voted against a restriction of rights. Further, Bob Casey's support of equal rights is new found and wishy washy at best

Can you show me a Republican who supports state funding of contraception? -- Don't have time to look, but there are obviously Republicans who do. I'll start with Arlen Specter.

Can you show me a Republican who is for universal health care? -- Neither is Bob Casey Jr. Unless of course you accept the premise that everyone ultimately wants everyone to be covered.

Can you show me a Republican who is opposed to Social Security privatization? -- Yes. Here are many that not only oppose, but speak out against it. (LINK)

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “Strongly Opposed” to Benefit Cuts. According to the Associated Press, “Sen. Arlen Specter, a prominent Republican moderate, has expressed his opposition to cuts in promised Social Security benefits for future retirees. “I strongly oppose this approach,” Specter says in a letter on his official Web site.” [AP, 1/7/05]

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI): Massive Borrowing to Pay for Privatization is “Ill-Timed.” “Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said that Bush’s plan for private accounts in Social Security and the trillions in borrowing that would accompany the program was “ill-timed.” “I regret that we’re looking at this in the context of huge deficits,” Chafee said. [AP, 12/7/04]

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): Is Against $2 Trillion in Borrowing. “Snowe expressed reluctance to tinker with the basics of a system that has provided a stable monthly income and kept seniors out of poverty for 70 years. ‘I don’t think we want to erode the principles of that system,’ she said. ‘I’m certainly not going to support diverting $2 trillion from Social Security into creating personal savings accounts,’ she added.” [USA Today, 1/24/05]

Posted by: Tim Tagaris at August 26, 2005 04:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Tim,

Can you show me a Republican who supports all of those things?

Posted by: jkfp2004 at August 26, 2005 06:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

But here is my most important question. Can you show me a Republican who will vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader?

Posted by: jkfp2004 at August 26, 2005 11:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Unless I'm mistaken, A Republican (or even a Democrat) couldn't vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, because Democrats are currently the minority party.

Much of Casey's position on environmental issues remains a mystery (at least it's not on his site). What does he think about global warming and stronger emissions standards?

Pennacchio is more progressive than Casey, even on economic issues. Pennacchio is against corporate welfare and wants to fight corporate crime. Pennacchio supports subsidies and estate tax exemption for small family farms. Pennacchio supports universal public healthcare access. Pennacchio is in favor of real campaign finance reform. Pennacchio wants to reform the tax system to remove any incentive for outsourcing jobs. Pennacchio is against the extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Chuck advocates replacing large, multi-lateral trade agreements with more limited, bi-lateral agreements developed and determined on a nation-by-nation basis.

As for Casey's 100% rating by the AFL-CIO, I'm not sure how much that means nowadays. The AFL-CIO recently lost 4.6 million workers — the Service Employees International Union, the Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers; Yeah, it's still the largest union group, but not necessarily the most effective.

I'll grant you that Casey is not as bad as Santorum, but that's setting the bar pretty damn low.

Posted by: Dave at September 9, 2005 08:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I apologize for my crack about majority leader. I take it you're assuming that Democrats will regain majority of the Senate after 2006 and I would like to see that, too. Although that doesn't mean I want them to get it with Republican-lites.

Harry Reid is anti-choice and pro-war like Casey. The real question is would Casey vote for someone like John Kerry or better yet Russ Feingold for Senate minority leader?

Posted by: Dave at September 9, 2005 08:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment