MyDD :: A Letter from Bob Casey (Well not really)

A Letter from Bob Casey (Well not really)

by jkfp2004, Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 07:32:58 PM EST

I know many people on this blog are Pennacchio supporters, which is perfectly fine, but I feel that many bloggers have given fellow democrat, Bob Casey Jr., a bad wrap, which is not. Today, I received a letter from the Casey campaign, and I felt that it would be appropriate to post it.

Dear Derek,

Help defeat Rick Santorum.
Click here to endorse Bob Casey for US Senate.

I wanted to contact you personally to tell you why I've decided to work very hard to defeat Rick Santorum and elect Bob Casey.

This is the most important U.S. Senate race in the country ... because Rick Santorum isn't just another Republican vote in the U.S. Senate. Day after day, he's been leading the fight for President Bush's right wing agenda and ignoring the pressing problems of many poor and struggling middle class families here in Pennsylvania.

Let's not forget that it's Rick Santorum who supported irresponsible tax cuts for millionaires, which have driven up the deficit and left the bill to our children and grandchildren. Now, Santorum's fighting to cut Head Start, public education funding, and WIC which strives to prevent low birth-weight births by subsidizing the diets of low-income pregnant women and nursing mothers.

And it's Rick Santorum who's leading the fight to dismantle Social Security as we know it and shrink the safety net that protects seniors from poverty.

We've got to devote all of our energies to removing him from the U.S. Senate. That is why I have endorsed Bob Casey. Won't you join me?

I've known Bob Casey for more than a decade. I know him to be a person of great compassion and decency, and while he and I don't agree on every issue, I ask you to look at his record of standing up and making a difference for people in need. Bob is an effective advocate for seniors, for children and for working families.

Ask anyone in the children's advocate community who saw him take on Governor Ridge over making child care more affordable for low-income working mothers ... or ask them about who stood up to see that day care centers were held to higher standards so that our children were protected ... or ask them who led the effort to strengthen Pennsylvania's Megan's Law.

Ask seniors in nursing homes and their families who it was that brought desperately needed reform to long term care facilities so that life-threatening conditions in nursing homes are immediately addressed.

And ask Pennsylvania Democrats who fought hard for John Kerry and for me and who helped make health care a centerpiece of our successful effort to put John Kerry over the top in Pennsylvania.

The answer to all of these questions ... is Bob Casey. He's been there to fight along with us and now we need to be there with him. We have got to unite behind the strongest candidate and work for Bob.

There's just too much at stake for all of us.

And after you've endorsed Bob, please pass the word along to your friends and family so they too can join the fight for Pennsylvania's future.

Sincerely,

Joe Hoeffel

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 33 Comments :: Post a Comment

A reply (3.00 / 1)

Dear Congressman Hoeffel,

I read your letter with much interest and amazement. Please allow me to retort.

Ask women who has stood up for their rights, and you know whose name they won't give you? Bob Casey.

Ask gays who led the fight to get them equal protection under the law, and you know whose name they won't give you? Bob Casey.

Ask anti-death penalty advocates who it was that helped them fight against cruel and unusual punishment in Pennsylvania, and you know whose name they won't give you? Bob Casey.

Ask anti-war protestors who stood by them even when it was impolitic to do so or ask veterans of the Iraq war who strove to keep them from fighting Bush's pointless little war, and you know whose name they won't give you? Bob Casey.

As gun-control advocates who has supported them in procuring safety locks to protect children, and you know whose name they won't give you? Bob Casey.

Because Bob Casey did none of those things and supports none of those causes. His frontrunnerhood is based solely on the fact that he shares a name with his famous dad, and not on his having championed progressive causes.

So, when you ask me who I support for the Senate in Pennsylvania, you know whose name I WILL give them? Chuck Pennacchio, for being everything that Bob Casey is not.

Sincerely,
craverguy

by craverguy on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:12:19 PM EST

give it up (3.00 / 0)

people who support Casey are going to support Casey. people who support Pennacchio are going to support Pennacchio. nobody's going to change his or her mind. all this does is provides yet another hundred-post bitching war between the two groups.

by johnny longtorso on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:48:47 PM EST

Re: give it up (none / 0)

I second that. Really what it the point of all this intraparty spating on MyDD? Wait until the primary and do it outside townhalls or in mailing, in letters to the editor, etc. Don't waste server space with this.

by DaveB on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's the point? (none / 0)

The point is that Lieberman, Biden, Feinstein and about a dozen other Democrats have turned on the democratic base.

What's the point? Rendell tried to shut Pennacchio out and essentially have a closed primary. They're tring the same thing with Morrison in Texas. Some of us are a little ticked off that DLC types think they can annoint the priimary winner in favor of their Chosen One.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:35:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's the point? (none / 0)

Exactly. They squeeze us out at every turn, and then they go ballistic when we vote for Ralph Nader or the Green Party candidate.

Well, what the hell do they expect?

After a certain point, the difference in a progressive's mind between voting for the Democrat and voting for the Republican becomes merely a matter of to what degree they want to roll back social progress.

by craverguy on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: give it up (none / 0)

Eh? People don't change their minds, it seems, in Johnny's world.

My guess also is that Dem primary voters are going to have to hear about Pennacchio a bit more before they can make some kind of decision to choose between him and Casey. A good place to start would be having his name printed in traditional media with some level of frequency.

by janfrel on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:51:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0)

Casey will have a lot of liberals who will suffer buyers remorse from voting his way. He wants those people completely assured when they vote for him in the 2006 primary.

On the other hand, as long as Chuck P doesn't turn into a full-fledged rebellion, the Casey people will welcome being painted too far right.

The Casey campaign can run on the Specter "See?! I'm a centrist!!!" platform, which the Club for Growth wankers handed him on a platter.

Casey will then paint Santorum as a batshit crazy, totally corrupt McJesus, Inc shill. 10-point win; becomes hailed as a permanent fixture in American politics (since, that's what a 10-point first vote win means).

I like Casey. He's good people. He sells in the same way folks like Harry Reid sell. Center Democrats will do a lot to reassure America once the GOP finishes shitting all over our bed.

I think a lot of folks are reading too much into Casey's position on abortion, and are thereby completely ignoring his positions on labor and finances.

The fact is, all Bob Casey, Jr. wants is for people to avoid what he sees as a series or mortal sins, including abortions and driving their fellow humans into abject poverty.

Is that really such a terrible thing?

by jcjcjc on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 10:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

Hey, I think drinking is a sin. Shall we make it illegal?

Seriously, yes, it's wrong. It's wrong to tell women that the government has more say over their reproductive organs than they do and it's wrong to relegate people to second-class citizenship because of their sexual orientation.

by craverguy on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 11:01:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One fault with abortion arguments (none / 0)

"It's wrong to tell women that the government has more say over their reproductive organs than they do"

Given that we are, for all intents and purposes, talking about abortions arising from consensual sex (since only the far, far right really argues an absolute ban) is a woman losing control over any reproudctive rights?

Isn't a consenting sex act enough control?

I've never understood this argument. How is it OK to end a life because of inconvenience? Why not just extend that argument, and simply end every life that becomes inconvenient? After all, the #1 problem in the world today is over-population. Surely we can spare a few inconvenient people.

For the record, I'm a complete opponent of abortion (as in, the far, far right view). I don't think it is OK even in instances of rape or incest.

The fact is that a lot of horrible things happen in the world. Many of those horrible thing change your life completely. Does that empower you to take a life simply because you'd rather avert those horrible things?

There are lots of things you are legally stuck with once you make a dumb decision. Hell, the whole mortgage industry is built on it.

You screw up. You get pregnant. Things happen. It doesn't give you any particular inalienable right.

by jcjcjc on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 11:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One fault with abortion arguments (3.00 / 0)

I don't feel that fetuses are "alive," so your argument falls on deaf ears here. A fetus, in the early stages of pregnancy, is a lump of tissue.

by craverguy on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 11:40:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doesn't matter about "alive"? (none / 0)

Psychology tells us that the first step to killing is dehumanizaing what we kill.

It's no different than kicking your dog or conducting genocide. It's no big deal if it doesn't count as human.

by jcjcjc on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:01:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Was Terri Schiavo "alive"? (none / 0)

Your psychology and your analysis are both flawed.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:29:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Schiavo is not the same (none / 0)

Not even remotely.

Terry Schiavo was never going to be lively again. Nothing was going to make Schiavo ever talk, sing a song, dance, or laugh at a fart so long as she persisted in sort-of-living.

On the other, the vast majority of fetuses have that potential if given enough time.

Even that said, I was on the righties' side until I saw the scans of Schiavo's brain, which was nothing but a black hole.

With Schiavo, we're talking about bring a conclusion to a conclusion, rather than dragging it out.

With an abortion, we're talking about interrupting an beginning.

That, sir, is a whole other thing.

by jcjcjc on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's exactly the same (none / 0)

Unless you clarify your postion, you appear to be putting the rights of a lump of biological tissue ahead of the rights of an adult woman, who is perfectly capable of making personal medical health care decison for herself.

When does you mythical "life" begin? Are you opposed to the day after pill that stops the fertilized egg from implanting on the placenta wall?

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 01:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about you? (none / 0)

Aren't you just a lump of bioligical tissue?

This one's a true gem: [When does you mythical "life" begin?].

Seriously? Are you just a fucking asshole? You seem to be nothing but an ultra-liberal troll.

When you start calling life "mythical", you are for all purposes just a fucking asshole.

There is relativism, there is humanism, and then there is just being a fucking asshole.

Congratulations on finding the far end of the scale.

by jcjcjc on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 02:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

Agreed.

Bloggers have not given Casey a fair wrap because of our liberalism. He is not a DINO just because he isn't as liberal as many of us.

I remember many of us feared what Harry Reid would be like. There was a lot of name-calling and whining about his positions. Well, his proving himself to be the most effective Senate Democratic leader since...what, LBJ?

by raginillinoian on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:21:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Which Harry Reid are you talking about? (none / 0)

Harry Reid has been a limp wristed Karl Rove collaborator. Exactly what has Harry Reid done to deserve being compared to LBJ?

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're kidding, right? (none / 0)

For one, Reid got the Democratic cat herd to start voting in line.

Two, he has gotten all but the worst offender, Joe Lieberman, to stop talking shit on the Democratic Party.

Three, he was instrumental in killing Social Security "reform".

Four, he has shown a wily knack for the letting the GOP screw up when they've got it coming, such as the Schiavo case.

Reid has to have the best sense of what fights to pick and when of any politician I have ever seen.

He has caused the GOP more torment in a couple months than Daschle and his Neville Chamberlain approach did in years.

by jcjcjc on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:06:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're kidding, right? (none / 0)

When did Reid's miracles start occurring? Were Democrats voting in line on class action law suit restrictions, bankruptcy and drilling in ANWR?

If Reid got Lieberman to put a sock in it, he's about three months late.

Whoope de doo! Harry Reid stopped Social Security reform? If it wasn't for the grass/netroots pressure, the Dems would have already caved. There are still suggestions that Dems may be caving:

Reflect on that a moment: the same people who didn't pay attention to their base or the facts on bankruptcy or the estate tax are now paying attention to focus groups as a cover for throwing Bush a lifeline on Social Security. And it comes at a time that Bush sees the need to firm up his own support on the issue in a red state today, back in front of Stepford crowds.

A wily knack? No power on earth can stop Tom DeLay from being an idiot. How does Reid get credit for that?

The GOP has caused their own turmoil. What Reid has done is give Bush one of the most successful first 100 days of any second term President in history.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the problem with the Democratic party (none / 0)

From the same Left Coaster article:

But after the last two weeks, does anyone expect the Blue Dog or New Democrat Coalition types within Nancy Pelosi's caucus to protect Social Security and deal with its solvency within the current program first, and then deal with private accounts second and separately?

The DLC is doing focus groups? Focus groups to decide how big of a victory to give Bush on Social Security?

Harry Reid is pathetic. What has his vaunted Rapid Response Team done? Are they hiding in Cheney's secret undisclosed, underground location?

How about Kerry's USA Today ad? What have you heard about that?

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:45:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So, we're all fucked! Hoo-ray (none / 0)

There is a Seoncd Amendment.

If you think the government is beyond repair, the Constituion gives you a very handy remedy should enough people agree with you.

Otherwise, I really don't see what the solution is supposed to be within your framework.

For one, America isn't going liberal. In fact, America never has been liberal.

FDR was largely a conservative applying the only fix people could think of. His entire '32 campaign was a lie to pro-business factions just to shut them up long enough to get down to work.

Kennedy is now far more revered by conservative pro-business types than any president of the 20th century.

Johnson was to social upheaval what FDR was to financial disaster. Same trick.

Clinton . . . well, as a staunchly anti-DLC type, I'm sure you could fill that one in.

The fact is, there were exactly 3 liberal presidents during the 20th century: Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Jimmy Carter.

The rest were either moderates or conservatives.

by jcjcjc on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice right wing frame (none / 0)

Typical DLC hooey. I have very few complaints about Clinton. The biggest problem I had with Clinton's first term was that the Democratic party abandoned him on his health care initiative. It's not about left or right. It's about doing what's right for voters and America.

DLC Motto: Extremism in defense of mediocrity is no vice!

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice right wing frame (none / 0)

You see? There's the beauty.

I'm just a guy. I could give a shit less about the DLC, or whatever the hell other line of crap you happen to think is the source of discomfort in this world.

Like it or not, the left-right argument is important. Ask Howard Dean. He was a moderate/fiscal conservative. But, as soon as the left-right argument slammed into him, he was done.

If you really want to believe left-right is irrelevant, suit yourself.

by jcjcjc on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 02:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice right wing frame (none / 0)

You mean as soon as the DLC slammed into him. The left-right dichotomy is a classic right wing frame. For a sophisticated analysis of voting behavior:

The Future of the Electorate

A National Problem

Halfway there to 2010's Reapportionment, Redistricting; DCCC strategy Reform

Don't blame me if your tiny little brain is incapable of handling complex analysis of partisan issues.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 03:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey Joe! (none / 0)

If this is the most important race in the country, why is John Kerry co-sponsoring the Pharmacists Right to Discriminate Against Women bill with Santorum?

Somebody has their wires crossed her Joe. Maybe you should tell John Kerry that Democrats want to defeat Santorum instead of helping him look like a bi-partisan moderate.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:40:43 AM EST

Re: Hey Joe! (none / 0)

And another thing. What do you know about the ad that Kerry was supposed to run in USA Today? I've been keeping an eye open for it and asking about it. Is Kerry just going to keep the money like he did the Ohio Vote Challenge Fund contributions?

What's up with that?

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Joe! (none / 0)

Gary, Gary, Gary. You should know better. Sign Kerry's petitions and e-mail his crap to people, but never, ever give him money.

Congratulations, you just contributed to the Kerry for President Committee ;).

by craverguy on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 01:00:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Joe! (none / 0)

Not me. I gave the last dime to the DLC or any DLC politician or any DLC related activity when I kicked in to the Ohio Vote Challenge Fund.

I'm so pissed off now that I'm not even giving to the DNC. I think this is a pretty accurate description of the Democratic party:

Too many party intellectuals and politicians drink cocktails on Martha's Vineyard, in Parker's view, and too few spend time on the shop floor learning what issues are important to those sweeping up or manning an assembly line or tending the convenience-store cash register from midnight to six am. Thus, the mass base of the Democratic Party has withered, and without a mass base Democratic politicians listen too much to their rich contributors and turn into Eisenhower Republicans -- people who are interested above all in balancing the budget.

All of my contributions go to BlogPac or candidates like Pennacchio. Contributing to the Democratic Party is just pissing into the wind.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 01:11:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]