There are some interesting posts out this week.
A Smoke-Filled Room suggests we take a look at this post from the Daily News. It's just awful when you end up voting for a candidate you don't like that well but is better than the competition.
Joe Hoeffel has some interesting thoughts on initiative and referendum.
Bill Bostic is suggesting we contact our state representative and senator and ask them what they are doing on a given day. You might also quiz them on PennDOT traffic light timing regulations and riparian buffers.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Blog Round-Up
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Above Average Jane,
With respect to the Daily News article, Democrats don't have to vote for Bob Casey. Sure, that's what the party bosses want, but they can always cast their votes for Chuck Pennacchio or Alan Sandals. How any liberal Democrat could vote for a candidate who wants to criminalize abortion is beyond me. But guess what? A whole bunch did 5 years ago, when pro-life Ron Klink won the Democratic nomination over several fine pro-choice Democrats. I know this first-hand, as I ran in the general election in 2000 against Santorum as the Libertarian Party’s nominee. Back then, I was the only pro-choice candidate out of 5 candidates (Santorum was the GOP nominee; Ron Klink was the pro-life Democrat; Bob Domske was the pro-life Reform Party nominee; and Lester Searer was the pro-life Constitution Party nominee).
Ultimately, choice will not be enough for Sandals or Pennacchio to railroad Casey. They’ve got to make the case that they are all-around the best candidates to defeat Rick Santorum or John Featherman. They can easily make the case they are the better purist Democrats. But by being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, anti-embryonic stem cell research, and pro-keeping people live Schiavo alive, Casey can go after Santorum’s camp in ways that neither Sandals nor Pennacchio can.
As Rick Santorum’s sole Republican opponent, I feel for Mr. Sandals and Dr. Pennacchio. Ultimately, they will never get a fair shake from either the mainstream media or the pollsters. Their best shot for fair coverage comes from you, Jane, and other progressive blogs in the Philly area (allspinzone, dragonballyee, etc.).
Ultimately, I am in this race to convince Republican voters that I’m the best chance to defeat Bob Casey. I don't think that's hard to do since Santorum is consistently trailing Casey by double digits in practically every poll taken.
Those uncomfortable with Casey have another choice: They can change their registration from Democrat to Republican, and completely shock the system and Rick Santorum by voting for me -- John Featherman, his pro-choice opponent.
John Featherman
Republican Candidate, US Senate-PA
www.featherman.com
John,
I agree that voters can speak in the primary and the Daily News article did mention that a lot of people were expected to vote for either Chuck Pennacchio or Alan Sandals. I'm not sure anyone is realistically expecting an upset though.
Jamison,
I will politely disagree with both the logic and tone of your commentary.
With respect to your logic, I never state nor imply that my candidacy is based upon being able to make a difference with a single vote. I believe that parties evolve over time, and that the Republican Party is going through a positive change as we speak. Do you believe that the Republican Party is becoming more or less controlled by the "right wing." I believe it's becoming less controlled by it. If anything, the recent Abramoff scandal is forcing some of the "right wing" Republicans out of leadership positions.
Likewise, I believe the Democratic Party is going through a shift, started by Howard Dean, where he said that the Democratic Party will become more inclusive by including social conservatives. As a perfect example, the Democrat's party leader in the Senate -- Harry Reid -- is in favor of criminalizing abortion. We're talking the party leader -- not an individual.
As for your tone, to wish that my "candidacy never sees the light of day to guarantee the safety and future of the United States" is not only one of the most offensive things anyone has ever said about me, but it's just flat wrong. Before you assassinate my character and make generalizations unbefitting the intelligent Democrat that you obviously, why don't you research my work and see what I have specifically done, in fact, to "guarantee the safely and future of the United States." [Hint: Take a look at http://www.bottomlinesecrets.com/blpnet/article.html?article_id=33901] Why don't you Google my name, and see about the valuable contributions I've made to people that have been stalked, been victims of identity theft (http://kyw.com/seenon/local_story_011082353.html), or had their medical privacy compromised (http://bottomlinesecrets.com/blpnet/article.html?article_id=33680&sid=E0).
Certainly, we can agree to disagree on which party we like more, but to imply that my candidacy hurts America's future and safety is just ignorant.
Jamison,
I appreciate your civil response this time, and I am sensitive to your concerns about corrupt politicians -- specifically, corrupt Republican politicians.
I can understand why you are cranky, and I don't blame you. As you say, your freedoms have been sold away by the highest bidder. But please don't limit it to Republicans. I live in Philadelphia, a city where members of the Democratic mayor's cabinet (the former city treasurer is the higest one thus far to admit guilt) and plenty of his friends are going to jail for pay-to-play payoffs.
Corruption exists on both sides of the aisle. Usually it exists more with the power in control. So we see most big cities having corrupt mayors who are Democrats and the federal government having corrupt leaders, which are often Republican.
Again, in Philadelphia, which is a predominantly Democratically controlled town, we read stories everyday about corrupt ward leaders, city council representatives having their credit cards paid off by political beneficiaries, and mayoral candidates whose contributions seem tainted.
Is that a Republican conspiracy? Nope. Does it mean that all Democrats running cities are corrupt? Nope. Does it mean that evil is party blind? Yep.
I agree with you entirely that there have to be some fundamental changes in the Republican Party. I'm trying to be the one who will be the changemaster. Now, you may feel that my "principles will be sold out," but you don't know me, and you don't know my compelling personal story.
Why would anyone run against Santorum in the primary? Unless you know my personal life story, Jamison, you can't understand my motivation, my energy, or my principles.
From the time I was 7 until age 20, I was unable to breathe through my mouth or nose. I had to wear a tracheotomy tube due to a horseriding accident, not unlike the one Christopher Reeve went through.
For 13 years, every specialist I saw believed I would have to breathe through those tubes the rest of my life.
I had a choice to make; I could either accept the unacceptable, or search for a solution. I was determined to find a doctor who would repair me.
I found that doctor. He performed a risky procedure, and now I can breathe through my mouth and nose, with no assistance from any machine.
I have learned that when people say it can't be done that it can. I teach classes at Temple University that help people make the most of themselves and realize their potential.
Call me a dreamer, Jamison, but don't call me a sell out. There are plenty of those to go around.
Thanks for viewing my issues page. The fact that we agree on most issues (except for three) is great, but I am not asking for you to like my views. My views are not for everyone. I am a small "l" libertarian, with a few exceptions, and that doesn't appear to everyone.
What I am asking is simply to consider the self-fulfilling prophesies you make, and whether they do more harm than good.
Again, you are a bright guy, Jamison. If you would like to see -- as I would -- a meeting of the minds, then let's talk further about what you would like to see Republicans stand for? As a Democrat, what would you like to see the other side represent, in a best case scenario. Go there, and be sincere and respectful, and then we can make some real progress. I'll be listening, and maybe I'll even run with some of your ideas?
You have to get past the fact that a bad Democrat is still infinitely better for the country than a good Republican.
Specter's hearty support for Alito is a good example of this -- party above principle. It doesn't have to be that way, but the pressures to toe the line seem higher than they've ever been...
However, I actually opened comments merely to note that I linked that article out of a sense of obligation (thus the header "blah") rather than as an enthusiastic recommendation. I'm not sure that running down the likely victor will do anything other than depress turnout (and definitely volunteerism) in the general election, and I think we all want Santorum out almost more than life itself.
ACM,
Yes, I do want Santorum out. However, I can't muster a lot of enthusiasm for the likely Democratic nominee. Minorities and women are often asked to put their interests aside for the good of the whole and the reward is seldom more than a kick in the pants. Since Mr. Casey is not all that interested in making his views known on a number of topics it is difficult to say how they compare to Santorum's. What do I have to go by? WAIT, HOLD THE PRESSES, he's updated his web page with issues!!!! Now, I just have to read through his economic plan and some other things.
Post a Comment