So, tomorrow is the Primary. I'm going to stand outside my polling place handing out literature for Chuck Pennacchio.

This is for everyone out there who's a registered Democrat is Pennsylvania: Vote tomorrow. Get out there and use your voice. Now, I know that some of you still don't understand the whole Chuck thing. Some of you might be wondering why I'm supporting a dark horse who is polling at a mind-mubingly low 4% against the front-runner. Some of you are wondering why the hell you should support people like this. Here's the explanation:

1) The simple explanation: Bob Casey is going to win, right? He's going to take this thing easy. In that case, what the hell is the point of voting for him? I know that 95% of Democrats don't agree with him on pretty much anything, so chances are, you don't either. Why would you vote for him? Of course, everyone else is, so why not vote your concience? Why not cast your vote in the hopes that Chuck and Sandals will garner enough of the vote to maybe make Casey think about the things that you disagree with him on? That's what primaries are for. That's what ELECTIONS are for, believe it or not. 51% isn't really a mandate. It's a message from 49% of the country that you'd better be as bi-partisan as possible. Same with primaries. stronger opponents force the winner to listen to the people who didn't vote for him or her. So, if you believe that Casey is going to handily win the primary, then what's the harm in voting for someone who's closer to your beliefs? None.

2) The real explanation: Chuck, despite various attempts to prove otherwise, is actually a very strong candidate who has a larger base than advertised, and actually has a shot of winning. So, give him a hand. To simply say that "Chuck can't beat Santorum" is ignorant. With almost no name recognition is a January poll, Chuck was in a statistical dead heat (41.1 vote for Santorum / 40.5 vote for Chuck) with Santorum. That same poll showed Bob Casey with a 50.5-38.7 lead over Santorum. Since that point, Chuck has actually pulled ahead of Santorum, while Casey has begun to hemmorage points against Santorum. While he still leads, his lead has slipped from nearly 20% to less than 10%, and continues downward.

The biggest thing that needs to be considered is the election in November. In recent polling, Chuck on the ballot encourages 10% more people to vote than if Casey were on the ballot. That means 10% more people will be out voting for other candidates as well. That means 10% more for city council. 10% more for State Senate and Assembly. 10% more for House of Representatives. 10% more for GOVERNOR. Chuck has a 6000-person strong grassroots organization. Every Democratic-aligned interest group out there is poised to start chewing on Santorum's leg the moment the campaign begins in earnest. Don't think for one second that just because Chuck has "no name recognition" and doesn't take PAC money that he won't be able to wage a campaign. Once he wins the primary, Democrats statewide will start throwing money at him. Organizations will start earnestly attacking Santorum, meaning Chuck won't have to waste money slinging mud against Santorum. He'll be able to wage a real campaign. A real campaign that Casey simply won't run. Casey will campaign by attending fundraisers brimming with millionaires, and will continue to alienate the base, causing even more people to stay home. Chuck will be on stages at county fairs shaking hands and actually being a human being. It doesn't cost much money, but it's a hell of a lot more bang for the buck to shake someone's hand.

So, don't fall into the deceit that Chuck has no name recognition. That'll take care of itself when he's on the ballot. Don't fall into the lie that he doesn't have enough money. The money will come, and he'll be make much better use of it by actually campaigning in the field as opposed to blowing his budget attacking his opponent. Don't be fooled by the notion that Chuck can't beat Santorum. He already polls higher.

If you really care about this country, if you really care about this race, if you really care about beating Santorum, I only ask you to look back two years and see the mistake that we made in 2004. We picked a guy that everyone told us was "electable", instead of the guy with fire, passion, and a hell of a grassroots presence. Where did it get us? Four more years of Bush, that's where. Do you really want to repeat that mistake? I don't. I'm not asking you to vote for Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton here, people. I'm asking you to vote for Howard Dean instead of John Kerry. Casey is the Kerry mistake. I'm asking you to vote for Chuck Pennacchio so we can send Rick Santorum packing.


-pb

Bobby Casey who held a commanding lead over Man-on-Dog has watched that lead dwindle to less than 10%. And this is before there's even been real campaigning between the two of them!

Man, who could have fortold Casey's lead slipping away like that? Oh, that's right, I've been saying it all along.

Of course, I've got a good rememdy to this problem. Put a real candidate up against Santorum.

-pb

From Penn Patriot, a conservative PA blog: (emphasis mine)

It is quite obvious, even to a conservative like myself, that Chuck Pennacchio is the true Democratic Party candidate and best represents the party platform. I have to ask my "left, honorable friends", is the spoils of victory over Santorum worth selling out your party's core principles? Do you we really think Casey will stand up to Washington lobbyist? I think my Democratic Party friends know the answers.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

-pb

Chuck Pennacchio is going into his second debate against Alan Sandals and Junior Bobby Casey tomorrow at Franklin and Marshall college in Lancaster, PA. I'm heading out there from Collegeville, hopefully no later than 5pm so I can make the 7pm start. If anyone wants to roll with me Hybrid style, let me know.

-pb

Chuck Pennacchio, Alan Sandals and Bob Notsantorum face off tonight on live television

7pm sharp on PCN, which is only carried on cable. Chuck's going to have a copy on his site afterwards, which appears to be my only option as a) I won't be home and b) I have DirecTV.

-pb

NOW PAC Endorses Alan Sandals for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania

The AP is reporting that "NOW said it picked Sandals because he had a better record on the issue [of women's rights]". I don't think that's the case. I think it's a convenient cover story, considering neither Chuck or Alan Sandals have any official record to speak of, other than what statements they've made, which, when boiled down, are exactly identical (legal, safe and rare). In the actual fleshed-out statement, however, Chuck actually has a plan to benefit women and bring about the "rare" part without taking away the "legal" and "safe". Sandals, as far as I can tell, just has a tagline.

So what's it a cover for? Chuck has made it known that he doesn't take PAC money, not before, not now, not ever. One of his issues is public campaign financing, which would actually undermine NOW's PAC. So, they'll endorse Sandals because he's pro-choice, but they won't endorse Chuck (and his poll numbers) because while he is a champion of their message, he's a threat to their bottom line. Non-profit doesn't mean the leaders eat cat food.

This is how I see this playing out: Sandals is going to get another PAC endorsement from somewhere (don't know where, just speculating), and he'll start sapping numbers from Casey. With more recognition, Chuck will likely see a bump, too. Suddenly, Casey will be forced to campaign, and his numbers will drop even farther. We're in a time pinch with less than two months to go, so awareness is going to be forced on the people. Progressives will start to rally to Chuck or Sandals, and Casey will feel the heat. Sandals will likely take the lead. Casey will start to crumble. The primary will be tight.

I could imagine Chuck bowing out and throwing his support behind Sandals, but I doubt it. Either way, Casey is going to take a major hit and will likely tank in the primary. Chuck or Sandals will be the nominee. I'd much rather have Chuck, but I'm not going to complain if it's Sandals.

Going back to who I will and will not vote for, I will favor the candidate that has the best chance of taking down Casey, plain and simple. The race against Santorum will take care of itself. The anti-Rick money will be flowing like cheddar in Wisconsin on May 17th, so it doesn't matter who the candidate is (as long as it's not Casey). I don't want to vote for Sandals if Chuck is still available, but I can't find any reason not to vote for him, so if the polls put him in a dead heat with Casey and Chuck is more than 10 points behind, I'll vote for Sandals to help push him over Casey. I'll just grumble about it later.

-pb

I know that a lot of progressives are registered Green, Independent, or some other non-Big Two party.

Changing your party affiliation on paper in Pennsylvania is pretty simple. I ask you to consider this, to change your affiliation to Democrat. I understand that most of you don't want to sully yourselves with the stink of one of the two parties, and I respect that, but this is for a bigger cause. I'm not asking you to vote for every Democrat out there. I'm not asking you to contribute money to the party. I'm asking you to change your affiliation until May 17th, at which point you can shower and change back. I ask you to do this to vote for one candidate: Chuck Pennacchio. If you're really concerned about Progressive Values an Ideals, party should be no obstacle. Chuck is running as a Democrat because, as I'm sure you understand, running as an Independent hasn't been the formula for a win recently. He's running inside the establishment to change the establishment.

I know that a lot of people want to oust Rick Santorum, and see Bob Casey Jr. as the means to do it. I say that is wrong. Bob Casey Jr. is every bit as conservative as Rick Santorum. They are, essentially, the same candidate. I can guarantee you that for every Republican Casey manages to flip away from Santorum, a Democrat will stay home. That will translate into a Kerry-like margin of failure for Casey. It won't matter that he manages to get 49% of the vote, he'll still loose. And what's the alternative? Say Casey manages to win? Pennsylvania will still be represented by an anti-choice, pro-war, anti-middle class conservative.

Pennacchio isn't likely to flip many Republicans, that's to be expected. However, he will set the grass roots on fire. He'll have the backing of the entire progressive movement in ousting Santorum, and he'll have Democrats and Progressives lining up to vote for him here. In fact, among likely voters of both parties, Pennacchio polls higher than Santorum, whereas Casey does not.

Pennacchio isn't the alternative. He's the answer. If you're really concerned about Progressive politics, you'll hold your nose, change your affiliation for a month, and get out the vote for Chuck Pennacchio. Opportunities to effect change don't happen very often. Now is your time to act.

-pb

Finally, Pennsylvania media is starting to pay attention to Chuck:

KDKA Pittsburgh interviewed him. Watch the clip. The write-up isn't as good, and it's better to hear it right from Chuck.

Here's the full 19-minute interview.

Kudos to KDKA for not just showing him, but showing him in a positive light. They could have made him look like a whackjob by pulling things out of context or highlighting the more extreme parts of his platform, but they didn't. In fact, their editing, coupled with his quick bulleting and smart wording, made him look like a sane candidate that reaches across all demographics.

-pb

Ok, folks, we've only got a few days left to get petition signatures in! Please let me know PRONTO if you want to sign a petition to get Chuck Pennacchio on the ballot!

I've been informed by HQ that you do not need to be a Montgomery County resident to sign my petition! Although, at this point, you must be a Montco, Bucks or Chester resident AND a registered Democrat.

Let me know! I need to get these things in the mail!

-pb

Good to see Fox 29 reporting on Bob Casey's primary win. Can they tell me what tomorrow's lottery numbers are, too?

And for everyone that replied to my last post, apparently LJ ate my replies. Who wants to sign a petition for Chuck Pennacchio? I'm collecting signatures from registered Democrats in Montgomery County only. I will even come to you! It would help me immensely if you can wrangle some friends up, as well.

Thanks!

-pb

If you're a registered Democrat in Montgomery County, PA, let me know.


-pb

Petitioning to get candidates on the 2006 ballot in Pennsylvania starts next week. meekay and I will be collecting petition signatures for Democratic candidate Chuck Pennacchio, who is running for US Senate. However, in order to sign a petition for a candidate or participate in a primary election, you must be registered as a member of their party.

If you are a resident of Pennsylvania and would like to register to vote, or change your party affiliation, fill out the form on the PA Department of State's website, print it, and mail it in.

http://www.dos.state.pa.us/voting/lib/voting/02_voter_registration_applications/online_english/VoterRegistrationApp2.html

I'm told that the turnaround for voter applications is about two weeks, so if you do it today, you should receive your confirmation in time to sign a candidate petition.

-pb

Chuck Pennacchio - Better than Casey? You bet.

Chuck gets his first official poll, and in a head-to-head against Santorum, scores better than Casey does AND shows more people inclined to actually vote if it's Santorum vs. Pennacchio.

Best political news I've had in months.

Now, if we could just get Alan Sandals and John Featherman into the polls, that'd be awesome.


-pb

http://www.nbc10.com/news/6026579/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news

Rick Santorum says that "liberals" and "the media" are hurting the war effort.

Oh no! Not TEH LIBRULZ! Not TEH MEEDYUH! Give me a break.

I seriously don't understand the media. Really. Every time something goes bad for a Republican, or even not 110% the way they wanted it to go, the first thing they do is blame the media.

Bush only got 50.5% of the vote? It's a mandate! BLAME THE MEDIA!
Bush is illegally spying on the American public, making Nixon's look like a rank amateur? MEDIA'S FAULT.
Bush invaded a country based on fake evidence that the media refused to investigate, and actually helped him drum up support, but now actually reports on what's going on in said war? THEY'RE HURTING THE WAR EFFORT!

And 'liberals'. Wow, there you have it. I'll bet, if asked, Rick Santorum probably couldn't actually name a liberal (he might be able to give you Russ Feingold, but he might not even know who Feingold is), let alone one who's actually undermining the war effort. Santorum is trying to play both sides of the coin. "I'm a moderate! Look at me!" "Wait! I'm a hard-core, poor-hating, anti-democracy Right-Wingnut who hates all nine of those communist motherfuckers on the Supreme Court who are trying to force me to anally violate every man I see!"

He kind of reminds me of Mel Gibson, as portrayed on South Park. "Ohh yeah! You want to torture me? Go ahead! Do it! Twist my nipples! YEAH! ::explosive poop::"

-pb

Finally! Press about Chuck!

It's a very nice article, too. I'd say it's balanced in the manner that it gives voice to both campaign's representatives, and points out the cons and pros of Chuck not having a $3 million war chest.

The best part is this, from Chuck in reference to Bob Casey:

"The only way to [beat Rick Santorum] is to get convictions on the table and have a real debate."

Casey's response? Well, first off, it's his campaign manager, not him:

"This shows he's [Pennacchio] as desperate as Santorum."

Calling for debates makes you desperate?

"I want to talk about our issues so that voters know where we stand."
"YOU'RE DESPERATE AND YOU FORGOT POLAND!"


This is the hack that the Democratic party annointed. Casey, given even a single debate with Chuck, will loose the primary, so he's avoiding them. The problem is, if he wins the primary, he'll likely [stupidly] agree to at least one of Santorum's 10 debates. Santorum will go from below 30% to 50.1% on election day, based on just that.

Unless you want six more years of Santorum crawling through your bedroom window and into your uterus, we need Chuck, and we need debates.

-pb

So, free speech has been been suspended by a rogue moderater in philadelphia when I challenged her on the notion that there should actually be a primary, and the result of said primary is not a forgone conclusion.

Let's take a walk back in history, shall we? Turning back the dial four years to October 2001, we find interesting results from the Keystone poll! What's that, Keystone Poll? Timmy's in the well with Ed Rendell's numbers? Bobby Casey is leading by a convincing 44-27% margin? Why doesn't Rendell just move aside now? Why should he subject the party to such a battle, knowing that Casey will need that money to face the Republican challenger? PULL OUT NOW, ED! CASEY IS OUR MAN!

Fast forward a little, to April 2002, just before the primary. Look! Casey still holds a lead! Granted, it's a one point lead that may well be a statistical tie, but it's still a lead! Casey's campaign has imploded. Once voters actually got a look at him, they slunk away in droves. One month later, that 39-38% Casey lead turned into a 56-44% Rendell win. Rendel then went on to beat Republican challenger Mike Fisher by nearly the same margin.

Casey can't campaign. He's won a single statewide election against a token candidate on the merit that people thought they were voting for his father, back from the dead to take a job as state auditor (hey, people bought that whole WMD bullshit, why not zombie ex-governors with a bookkeepping fetish?).

The same thing will happen in 2006. There's two scenarios:

Scenario 1, or, the "best case" - Either Chuck Pennacchio or Alan Sandals will rise to the preminent "challenger" position. Casey will stupidly agree to debates, and will be utterly destroyed by an opponent that can, you know, talk. He'll loose the primary, and the winner will go on to pound Santorum by showing the world that he's not actually human.

Scenario 2, or, the "nightmare scenario" - Casey manages to win the primary by keeping his bribe money to the media flowing and duping PA Dems into believing that he's the only candidate, and then will go on to win a convincing 49.6% of the vote. He will celebrate his near victory with John Kerry, and they'll call it a mandate to be little bitches who whine. Rick Santorum will barely notice the speed bump as he cruises into his next six years of shredding the Constitution.

I know which one I'd like to see.

-pb

So, victoria_fusion and I handed out a few flyers for Chuck Pennacchio at our polling place this morning. It was pretty cold out, but hey, it's 60° now. Don't like the weather in Pennsylvania? Wait a few minutes.

Anyway, it was very early, and we were not on the top of our respective games when we got into an abortion and tax debate with the local Republican School Board candidate who was handing out his own flyers. Of course, using his long-learned Republican tactics, he just kept hammering on "killing babies", regardless of anything else.

"As poverty rates go down and education rates go up, abortions go down. We need to reduce poverty and raise education."
"So you think killing babies is ok?"

"Outlaw abortion, and you're going to fill prisons with women. You're going to fill hospitals with women. You're going to fill cemeteries with women."
"So that justifies killing babies?"

He then equated abortion to heroin use, arguing that if one is legal, the other should be too, and that's a bad idea.

He also argued that it's unfair (for example) to tax someone who makes $10,000,000 a higher percentage than someone who makes $10,000 per year, pointing out that the first person, at a hypothetical 10% rate is paying $1,000,000, and the other is paying only $1,000, and that's not fair.

We had some pretty good arguments, but not the big guns that all came rushing to me on the ride to work. My best too-late comeback was on his heroin argument: Heroin is a substance that the government is fully within its rights to regulate. Women's bodies are not a substance to be regulated.

He also didn't seem agreeable to the idea that Election Day should be a national holiday or perhaps be held over a weekend. He didn't give any argument to it, he just didn't seem to like that idea. Why do Republicans hate voters?

V. posited that it's likely Democrats have such a hard time arguing against Republicans, because we have a hard time wrapping our brains around the nonsense that they're spewing.

I was too nice to refuse to hold his campaign sign while he took a bathroom break. We didn't hand out his flyers, though. I still feel dirty from holding his sign.

-pb

Good news from the (Pennsylvania) Heartland!

People are making some good sense about Chuck, and that can't be bad.

-pb

Yeah.

-pb

Dear Editor,

I'd like to thank you for the article entitled "Underdogs growl at Casey, Santorum" by Bill Toland which ran September 6th, 2005. This was a great piece on the fact that it's not just a two-man race. You do your readers a great service by informing them about the existance of 'smaller' candidates. Few other publications around the state and country have taken the initiative to support our Democratic process, some even going as far as to inform those who complain that such candidates are not worth covering. I commend you on demonstrating the responsibility of the free press! Keep up the good work.

-pb

I wrote a letter last week to Kimberly Heffling, the AP reporter who's been writing about the Pennsylvania 2006 US Senate race, encouraging her to write about the 'other' three candidates, not just the two everyone else is writing about. I BCC'd both the Pennacchio and Sandals campaign.

Just got this today:

Paul,

Thanks for speaking up for the "dark horses". It's true that the Inquirer has been somewhat spotty in mentioning us, as compared to AP/Pete Jackson and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

I owe you a lunch, or at least a good conversation. Please give me a call sometime and we'll try to set it up.

Alan Sandals

I may take him up on his offer. I want to know what he's all about.

-pb

I know that meekay will likely beat me about the head and neck for violating Hanlon's Razor here, but I've just got to ask: Is Rick Santorum trying to throw the election?

As the third most powerful Republican Senator, and visionary of the new NeoCon stratergy, why is it that every time he opens his mouth, he looses points in the polls? There has been no good news out of the Santorum camp, and every time there is news, it's because Tricky Rick let fly with some new pearl of 16th-century wisdom (Women shouldn't work! Ted Kennedy forces priests to anally violate ten-year-old boys! Democrats are EXACTLY LIKE NAZIS! Etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum...). What the hell is he doing? You'd think that somewhere along the line, this man who has succeeded in two statewide Senate campaigns, and a House election before that, would have some idea as to how to not repeatedly shoot himself in the foot with a gatling gun. You'd think that with all the money flowing into his campaign, and with all the attack dogs he's got access to, he'd be running a devastating campaign right now. But he's not. Of all the Senators up for re-election this year, he's got the lowest approval rating, and it continues to slide. Incidentally, Casey's numbers are sliding, too, which means that Santorum is LOOSING TO HIMSELF. Considering Casey's record, is this some sort of game of chicken? Are they trying to both go as low as possible, and then just before the polls open, try to look like the better candidate somehow? (HE'S RUNNY SNOTTY SHITTY, BUT I'M JUST CORN-CRUSTED CRAPPY! VOTE FOR ME!)

Seriously, Chuck Pennacchio will wipe the floor with both of these morons.

-pb

Just buzzed this off the Kimberly Hefling, the AP writer that's been covering the 2006 Pennsylvania Senate Race:

Dear Ms. Hefling,

You have recently written a pair of articles concerning the 2006 US Senate Race in Pennsylvania for the Associated Press, entitled “Santorum, Casey race in national spotlight” (14 August, 2005) and “Pennsylvania Candidate Lies Low in Race” (24 August 2005). These articles have been distributed by a number of major news publications in Pennsylvania. Someone less informed would be led to believe from these articles that there are only two candidates for US Senator from Pennsylvania in the upcoming election: incumbent Republican Rick Santorum and Democrat Robert Casey, Jr. This is not only misleading, it is completely false, and could be construed as free advertising for these candidates.

You owe it to your readers to not presume for them who the candidates will be. Robert Casey is in fact not uncontested, he himself being a late challenger for his party’s nomination. Dr. Chuck Pennacchio (www.chuck2006.com), an American, European and Diplomatic History professor from Bucks County (a Philadelphia suburb) began seeking the Democratic nomination in November 2004, clearly making Casey, who entered the race nearly six months later, the come-lately challenger. Alan Sandals (www.alansandalsforussenate.com), a pensions and medical benefits lawyer from Philadelphia, has also entered the race seeking the Democratic nomination.

Senator Santorum is also not running unopposed. He was recently challenged by another Philadelphia attorney, John Featherman, who is a social Liberal and fiscal Conservative, like many Pennsylvania Republicans (and Democrats for that matter). In fact, the three candidates that you have failed to mention are more in tune with mainstream Pennsylvanians than the two that you do mention.

To simply report that Casey and Santorum are the candidates for their respective parties effectively strips voters of their choice. What reason do they have to go to the polls in May if you have already decided for them who their candidates will be? In the interest of Democracy and journalistic integrity, I implore you to report fairly and honestly on this campaign. Rick Santorum and Robert Casey are not the only two candidates. Please let Pennsylvanians know that.

Thank You.

-pb

Now we can really beat them with a stick when they say "Casey vs. Santorum":

Featherman to challenge Santorum in GOP primary

Look at that! A moderate, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, fiscal conservative is challenging Santorum!

Wait, I though Chuck Pennacchio was running as a Democrat!

Seriously, though, there are now five candidates vying for the senate seat in 2006, and two of them are Republican. This is awesome. Now Santorum can't just sit back and wait for the Democratic challenger. He's going to have to fight off a challenger, and that's going to require him to spend at least a little time and money defending his crazy ideas. John Featherman, if he's serious enough, stands a good chance of putting a dent in that war chest by drawing moderate Republicans away from Santorum's side.

-pb

In response to my last post, I emailed the author directly with the following:

Mr. Fortier,

In an article you wrote on 10 August 2005 on PHX Online (http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=24045) entitled "The United State's Senate Not Likely to Shift" [sic], you made the following statement:

"[Senator Rick Santorum] is facing a first-tier candidate in Democrat Bob Casey Jr., who will not face a primary challenge."

This statement is not just misleading, it is completely false.

Dr. Chuck Pennacchio (www.chuck2006.com) was a declared candidate before Bob Casey's name even came up as a possible candidate. Alan Sandals (www.AlanSandalsforUSSenate.US), a lawyer from Philadelphia, also announced his candidacy in July, proving that this is actually a race and not simply the coronation that Casey was hoping for. Even if these candidates had not declared, to report that Casey will not face a challenge in the primary when there are 10 months left before said primary is irresponsible and disrespectful to our democratic process. The people should be allowed to decide their candidate, not the media.

I implore you to make a correction to your article, in the name of both democracy and journalistic integrity.

-pb

"He is facing a first-tier candidate in Democrat Bob Casey Jr., who will not face a primary challenge."

Something I missed between Sunday and today?

-js?!

Senator Santorum is trailing Bob Casey, his Democratic opponent, and may be the most vulnerable Republican in the country.

Just a brief snippet from a letter that Kerry wrote to PHX News. Just sent this reply via his website:

"Senator Kerry, Let us vote!

In a letter to PHX News dated August 10, 2005, you made the following statement:

'Senator Santorum is trailing Bob Casey, his Democratic opponent...'

Bob Casey is not Senator Santorum's opponent. Currently, he is the opponent of Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals. If he wins the Democratic primary next year, then yes, he will be Senator Santorum's opponent. However, both you and I know that simply leading the pack, no matter how long, is no guarantee on a primary victory.

While I understand that you support Mr. Casey, your loyal supporters in Pennsylvania deserve to know that you support the Democratic process and that you're not simply naming their candidate for them.

Thank You."

Incidentally, Kerry's Senate site says that he represents the "Birthplace of America". Fuck that. America may have been concieved in a sloppy back alley grope-and-thrust somewhere in Boston, but she was born in Philadelphia.

-pb

This is just sloppy reporting. I don't care that the article is mainly about Santorum. Any piece that uses the line "The problem, however, is that plenty of Democrats aren't necessarily convinced that State Treasurer Robert Casey Jr. has the requisite campaign skills to defeat Santorum" should be including at the very least a mention about Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals.

I can imagine this coming from, say, a San Diego paper, but any political reporter in Philadelphia who is covering the 2006 PA Senate race who hasn't heard of Chuck is getting paid waaaaay too much.

-pb

Just got this from the PA Dems:

-------
Governor Rendell Endorses Bob Casey for U.S. Senate
Governor will campaign on Casey's behalf in the coming months

Governor Edward G. Rendell issued the following statement regarding Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robert Casey's recently announced candidacy for United States Senate.

"Bob Casey will do an outstanding job as Pennsylvania's next United States Senator. Throughout his public career, he has always put the interests of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania's hard working families first. It is clear that he will continue to do so in the U.S. Senate.

"Bob was a terrific Auditor General and has the integrity, the skill, the energy and the experience to be a truly great Senator. He is the kind of public servant Pennsylvania needs. I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse his candidacy, and I look forward to campaigning with him in the months ahead."
-------

Get ready for six more years of spreading Santorum! Bob Casey can't campaign. Plain and simple, the only posts he's been elected to have been ones where the challenger was completely unknown. He was absolutely destroyed in the Democratic gubernatorial primary (by Rendell, incidentally) due to the fact that he can't campaign to save his life. So, going up against rampaging hordes of Toomey-loving, gay-hating Santorum voters, he's going to loose.


If you live in Pennsylvania and want a Senator that LIVES IN YOUR STATE,
if you live in Pennsylvania and like to HAVE SEX FOR REASON OTHER THAN HAVING CHILDREN,
if you live in Pennsylvania and HAVE A VAGINA or love someone that does,
if you live in Pennsylvania and THINK THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE A GOOD IDEA,
please please please get behind Chuck Pennacchio 200%!
-js?!

Neo-fascist, crackpot, and hater of the First Amendment Alan Keyes has apparently evicted his daughter, Maya, and fired her from his employ.

Turns out Maya Keyes is a liberal lesbian, even though she's been known to help her father in his vitriolic ultra-conservative campaigns (he once denounced Mary Cheney as a 'selfish hedonist'). She outed herself because she just couldn't take it anymore, and he kicked her to the curb.

So much for family values!

-pb

So, Bush has become the biggest federal government increaser since Lyndon Johnson. And here I thought he was a smaller-government, states-rights Republican.

And we lost to this? How much simpler can it get in 2006 and 2008?

"Attention Red States: Republicans have increased the federal government and reduced state's rights. They've caused this massive deficit and made you even poorer. I think you remember the nice years between 1992 and 2000? Just think about that when you go into the booth."

"Attention Blue States: Thank you for your support."

-pb

Santorum school costs scrutinized

PITTSBURGH | A suburban Pittsburgh school district is reviewing whether it should continue paying for U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's children to attend a cyberschool even though the senator and his family live in Virginia.

Penn Hills has spent $100,000 educating the Republican senator's children at an Internet-based school since 2001-02, said Erin Vecchio, a school board member who requested the review. She is also head of the local Democratic committee.

"I'm concerned because taking away from my kid. That $100,000 … could be going to my kids, a computer or something,'' said Vecchio, who has three children enrolled in Penn Hills schools. "I'm sick of this man saying that he lives in Penn Hills when he doesn't."

Santorum's spokeswoman said she did not know if the senator and his wife, who have six children, have ever stayed in the two-bedroom house they own in Penn Hills.

The Santorums bought the house for $87,800 in 1997, and it was assessed for $106,000 last year, records show.

The couple's home in Leesburg, Va., was assessed at $757,000 this year, records show.

Under Pennsylvania's 2002 cyberschool law, the district in which a student lives must pay the cost of tuition for students enrolled in cyber charter schools. Virginia has no such provision.

Vecchio asked the school superintendent to conduct a formal review at a board meeting this week. (AP)

So, PA residents are paying for six kids to TELECOMMUTE TO SCHOOL FROM VIRGINIA.

What do you think the chances are that a guy who owns a $800k house is shacking his family up in a $100k house? Pretty fucking slim, that's what.

I swear, the second I find out who the strongest candidate for Democrat contender is in the 2006 PA Senate race, I'm going to be his (or her) #1 volunteer, because this bullshit has got to stop.

I can't telecommute to work, but this homophobe can tell me how to have sex with my wife while I pay for his kids schooling? Fuck that.

(By way of disclosure, I am not a resident of Penn Hills School District. Of course, I'll bet they get a state subsidy of some kind.)

-pb

I have declared the mourning to be over. A list of dos and do nots:

1) Do not ever let go of the fact that they stole 2 straight elections. Just because I'm not slitting my wrists or fleeing to Canada doesn't mean that I've accepted that everything is hunky-dory in FuckedDemocracyLand. It's not. They stole two elections, and goddamnit, they shall not do it again.

2) Do whatever I can to make sure that 2006 is the most united leftist movement in this country since 1776. Let's see how George likes it when congress treats him like Cheney treated Senator Leahy. Gay Marriage Amendment? GO FUCK YOURSELF. Military spending? GO FUCK YOURSELF. Permission to piss while standing up? GO FUCK YOURSELF. See how much fun the 'legacy term' is when you can't get approval for a new roll of toilet paper in the residency.

3) Do whatever I can to make sure that 2008 is the most united leftist movement in this country since 2006. Find a candidate that can win, and get EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA TO LOVE HIM. Preferrably around 2006. The Democratic primary should have exactly as many people on the ballot as the Republicans did this year: One. No squabbling, no wondering if the guy you just emasculated is going to be your VP candidate. No infighting. Pick one. Hillary? Obama? DEAN? I don't care, as long as a) they have a personality, b) they have a spine, and c) they can win on sheer sex appeal. I want John Edwards with Howard Dean's brain. I want a guy who can walk into a Southern Baptist church and have every vote locked up because women will tell their men, "I don't care if he's pro-choice, dear. If you don't vote for him, you're not going to get the chance to make anything that might be abortable. I fantasize about him when you're flopping around on top of me, and I don't care if he says men can marry each other, HE IS TEH SEX."

That is all.

-pb