PA Senate Endorsements from the 'roots

I was upset that my local Democracy for America chapter, Philly for Change didn't endorse Chuck Pennacchio for the US Democratic Senate primary here in PA [the group did not endorse anyone], but other DfAs across the state have picked up the ball in my group's stead and we'll keep on trucking with the momentum. I learned via the Pennacchio blog that DfA Lancaster endorsed Pennacchio [who says that his message doesn't do well in the middle of the state!] and I learned from the Pittsburgh based 2 Political Junkies that DfA Pittsburgh endorsed Pennacchio.

At the meetup during the month prior my local DfA branch's endorsement vote, there was much discussion as to whether or not a group of our size, about forty or fifty active members, should be making an endorsement. As the group organizers spoke of the process of endorsement [nominee, committee meeting, questionnaire, 75% majority for endorsement, who's allowed to vote...] one woman got up to oppose a vote. I immediately thought she was a Casey backer. Why would anyone oppose a vote in this Progressive/Liberal group in a Democratic city which spawned from a Presidential candidate with a rabidly Progressive base? Because she was scared that her candidate would lose I thought.

She said that a group our size will have no impact on the bigger picture. That the Democratic nominee was already chosen and that coming out potentially against the anointed one would make the group look bad. She was quite vehemently opposed to a vote. I wanted to walk over her and punch her in her fucking face. But, well... I didn't. She was essentially saying We don't count, we don't matter! And that pissed me off. This is the kind of opposition Progressives could/will face if we try to take our party back to the Left as Booman suggests. People who are too scared to take a stand. People who don't want to cause a stir.

It's been some forty years here in PA of Democratic candidates who have failed to excite people. And after forty some odd years, who does the party leadership throw down? A candidate for the Democratic nomination who is anti choice, anti universal healthcare, pro Patriot Act with no revisions, anti expansion of research in embryonic stem cells, pro Iraq war, anti troop withdrawal with a timeline and pro the SCOTUS nominations for Roberts and Alito. I can't think of a single Democrat currently in the Senate who believes in all of that. Seems out of the mainstream to me.

And it is groups like Philly for Change who can start from the roots to form a presence for the simple Democratic values [if this party really has any defined core values anymore] let alone the really Progressive ones. What are we telling each other when we say that we don't matter and we'll look like fools if we back a Progressive choice in the fucking primary let alone the general? What are we telling the leadership if we roll over and die when they send in an anointed candidate to lead us to the Right? What are we telling our leadership when we accept the shutting down of primaries? Candidate Casey in a 2002 Philadelphia City Paper [one of two alt-weeklies in town] interview said when asked if he thought competitive primaries were hurtful to a general election campaign:

Some people have made that argument. I don't think that that's going to happen. I really don't. I base that upon a lot of history. This is really my fourth statewide race. I had a very rough primary in 1996 for auditor general, then I had two general elections on top of that. I worked very hard in the '86 campaign for governor. My father ran against Ed Rendell. It was a very tough primary. In many ways, the ads were tougher that year. People don't remember, but they were real tough ads. But that was a tough primary, which ended up being a big deficit at the end, at the end of the race. But it was a very tough primary, both sides spent over two-and-a-half-million dollars, which doesn't sound like much now but was a record then for a combined primary. And the party came together that year and beat a candidate who, you could make a strong argument, was a lot tougher than Mike Fisher. Someone --[Bill] Scranton, who had a lot more name identification; he was a statewide name. He was coming off a very popular administration. He was a very hard guy to beat and the party came together. There are plenty of examples where this state has had a lot of tough primaries and then come together. In fact, the history shows, if you look at it, that the party with the tough primary usually wins.

So it looks like he's all for a contested primary. He says so little, I'm going to have to rely on this 2002 interview as a basis for him wanting a contested primary.

But the party leadership doesn't want it that way, they want to clear the tables for a race against one of the biggest Republicans out there, Sen. Man on Dog. Yes, he is vulnerable, but he's one hell of a campaigner. He's charismatic. He's a good public speaker. He's engaging. He's got a hardcore stance on his issues and he energizes his wingnut base like a motherfucker. And so who should we be putting up against such an opponent? To quote from the Pennacchio campaign website:

Every six years, the Democratic Party seeks the perfect Senate candidate - a combination of name recognition, ideology and fundraising skill. In 44 years this formula has produced 14 consecutive full-term election defeats.
...
Everyone agrees that defeating Rick Santorum is a top priority for 2006, but to win we must provide a sharp contrast to his right wing agenda.

There's an interesting discussion going on on MyDD at this diary and one comment sticks out in particular:

I completely understand the "vote for a Dem you don't like in order to promote the party" theory of voting. I have even advocated it. But the only problem with that approach is that, in the last twenty years or so, it hasn't resulted in Democratic Party victories.

On the contrary, it has helped to promote the image of the Democratic Party as a collection of unprincipled politicians who stand for nothing in particular and who will do anything to get elected.

This helps the Republicans win in two ways. The bad image is backed up by the facts and a significant portion of the electorate that might vote Democratic remains disaffected.

Why not try it the other way for a while and see what happens?

[Thanks Lady for the heads up]

So when do we say enough's enough? After twenty years? After thirty years? After forty years? How about forty-four? Chuck Pennacchio is the only candidate who can do it and that's why he's got my vote.

Conviction wins.

Comments

[Davey D]

I think it was bullshit that they allowed a vote of "no endorsement" at Philly for Change. Chuck won the plurality of the votes, but lots of people voted for "no endorsement". What the fuck is that? Why would you vote for no endorsement? If you're undecided then don't fucking vote. I'm guessing that these people were worried that an endorsement would divide the group or some shit like that. But christ what the hell is the point of having a progressive meetup group if you don't support progressive candidates?