PA Pundit

These fascinating comments to a post at MyDD, a liberal blog site, provide insight into the thoughts of the far-left on the upcoming Senate race. A few observations:

• They do not respect Casey's late father and his commitment to pro-life causes. Two choice remarks: "I am so tired about hearing how his father is the greatest thing since Mother Theresa." and "Maybe if Casey is elected his family will shut up about how Bill Clinton and the Democrats have persecuted them."
• They do not respect Casey. Point #2 for "Why vote for Casey over Santorum" is that "if Casey is elected to the Senate he will not run for a position where he could cause real harm, like governor."
• They are concerned about what a Casey victory would mean to the Democratic Party. Under the topic "Why vote for Santorum over Casey," #3 reads "Maybe it will send a message that we need to nominate real Democrats and run that way instead of running away from what most of us really believe."
• The base is angry over the Casey nomination. One comment reads as follows: "One of my biggest reasons for supporting Santorum over Casey in the general election would be to send a message to the party bosses that they cannot take their base for granted." "I am being asked to support a candidate who is 180 degrees in opposition to my most vital issues: Iraq, a woman's freedom to make her own health care decisions, gay rights, universal health care, warrentless(sic) wiretapping and protecting the Bill of Rights, whatever reactionary judicial picks Bush has in his remaining two years. In exchange for sacrificing my principles on core issues, I am told that Casey will vote for a Democratic Majority leader and the minimum way (not a living wage). That seems like a very one sided deal to me that I reject."

I haven't been able to figure out Casey Jr's position on domestic surveillance (aka wiretapping). Since his campaign website doesn't mention the issue, I turned to my research assistant- Mr. Google. After more than an hour of Google searching, I'm still not sure where he stands.

A search for Casey+position+wiretapping did bring up the following Philadelphia City Paper article (April 13-19, 2006). A few choice comments from the article include:

"Casey is a careful speaker, given to caveats, and, much like John Kerry, can be hard to pin down."

"Asked whether he supported the idea of censuring Bush for illegal wiretapping, Casey said no, he didn't, then embarked on a long spiel about investigations, and, again, the importance of holding the administration accountable. Pennacchio, who has a flair for show, took the floor next. He paused for a beat, then said, 'The answer is yes, absolutely.' A roar came up from the partisan Democrat audience, and Casey sat quietly, like a child who'd just been reprimanded."

A search on the Santorum campaign website brought up the following press release, which notes that "Senator Santorum fully supports the President's ability to use all tools appropriate if it means protecting the American people from a deadly terrorist attack." It also included some telling quotes from Casey's radio and TV interviews:

Casey on Fred Honsberger (KDKA radio, 2/7/06):"I think I'd be saying what I think both parties have said, not every leader in both parties, but I think Senator Specter took the lead early and said we should have an investigation, which is underway right now. I think that's a good thing, because if the law was broken, whoever broke the law in the federal government should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And I think that a lot of Americans are disturbed by a policy whether it's legal or illegal that will be determined probably in the near future, but even if it's not illegal, I think people get very concerned about tipping the balance in favor of a policy that impacts how Americans can communicate. And I think that people are concerned about that as well as being concerned about an effort to root out terrorism. And I think there's a lot of bipartisan support for that obviously, but I think that people want to have answers, and that's why you have hearings and that's why you put people under oath. I think even the Attorney General, by the way, should be under oath."

Casey on the Pulse with Corey O'Brien (Fox 56, WOLF TV, 2/12/06): "Well, I don't think, I don't think that the hearings hurt our ability to protect our homeland. What I do think we have to do – and I think most Americans agree with this – we have to give law enforcement – any federal agency – the tools they need to fight the war on terror – that's the most important thing. And while we're doing that I think we can – we can – also respect the rights of Americans in terms of how they communicate, and I think that if the Congress determines after this hearing that our government doesn't have the resources it needs, they can make changes. But if someone broke the law here, they should be prosecuted. We don't know that yet, but we'll see what the hearings tell. But it's a very important question about getting it right. Fighting the war on terrorism as aggressively as possible but doing it within the law."

Huh? So would Casey vote in the Senate to support domestic surveillance or not? I really can't tell from these answers, and Casey's website is no help either.

Is a simple yes/no answer really that hard? I disagree with Chuck Pennacchio's position, but I respect him for having the honesty to answer the question clearly.

The City Paper was right; Casey is "hard to pin down." In my book, that's not an admirable trait. Voters deserve answers from him on questions of national security.

Casey's official website's minimal "issues" section makes it difficult for voters to determine where he stands on key issues. For example, Casey does not mention abortion anywhere on his "issues" page. Whether left or right, pro-life or pro-choice- voters have a right to know Casey's position on every relevant issue. Is it really too much to ask that Casey outline his positions on the "issues" section of his official campaign website? (more…)

In 2004, many of my Democratic friends, despite a lack of enthusiasm for Kerry, voted for him in the Democratic primary. They were "Anybody but Bush" voters, and they wanted a candidate who could win even more than they wanted a candidate who inspired them. They liked Dean or Clark but believed Kerry- as a war hero and a senator- was the man to defeat Bush. These same voters believe Casey- as the son of a pro-life icon- is the man to defeat Santorum. The casey-is-boring-and-uninspiring-but-he-can-win tone of many articles gives me a sense of Bush/Kerry deja vu.

John McIntire, writing in the Pittsburgh City Paper, states that he is an "Anybody but Santorum" voter who would like to see the Democrats win an election. His concern is that when Casey "gives his stump speech, there's more charisma coming from the stump."

One of Chuck Pennacchio's supporters on the Yahoo Group Pennacchio_for_Pennsylvania wrote,

"Casey's lead over Santorum probably tells a lot more about Santorum than it does Casey. How many people are actually excited about the prospect of a Senator Casey?! Even many of his supporters admit he's dull and has no message."

I suspect that even some Casey's supporters would be more excited about a Senator Pennacchio than a Senator Casey, but the Democratic Party has made a conscious decision to sacrifice idealism in favor of perceived electability. The Philadelphia City Paper observes,

"Sure, he's pro-life, but so are a lot of Democrats and swing voters in western Pennsylvania. Casey could pull them back into the Democratic ranks, the thinking goes. As for the staunch liberals and pro-choice moderates in Philly and its suburbs, well, what are they going to do? Vote Santorum?…When Casey takes the stage, he is greeted with raucous applause and cheers – a savior's welcome…He does not mention abortion, but he doesn't have to. Bob Casey doesn't have to agree with them on everything, the Democrats have decided. Bob Casey just has to win."

Some of my Republican friends have told me they are concerned that a Santorum loss would discourage the Republican Party from nominating social conservatives in the future since they could be perceived as less electable. This concern is one reason that they will be volunteering and contributing to the Santorum campaign.

But reading these articles makes me wonder what a Casey win would mean to the Democratic Party as they prepare for 2008. Whether Casey is a social conservative or just a liberal pretending to be a social conservative is a matter of debate. Regardless of Casey's true position, it is clear that a victory for Casey would send a signal to the DNC that abandoning (or at least pretending to abandon) traditional Democratic social issues (abortion rights, gay marriage and gun control) is the path to victory. And that victory would sound the death knell for Democratic support of issues dear to the left-wing base in all but the bluest of the blue states.

Although some commentators may claim that the 1992 Democratic National Convention snub of the late Gov. Robert Casey is ancient history, I'd like to know Bob Casey Jr.'s opinion about it.

While many people (including the late Gov. Robert Casey himself) believed that Casey was banned from speaking at the convention due to his pro-life views, some prominent Democrats have tried to whitewash this incident. (more…)

Following the controversy surrounding a Danish newspaper's publication of caricatures of Muhammad, Comedy Central banned Stone and Parker from showing an image of Muhammad on air but still gave their ok to the defecating Jesus.

The decision by the creators of South Park to show Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag was in extremely poor taste, but Matt Stone and Trey Parker should be commended for questioning the media and entertainment industry's hypocrisy on Islamofascism. (more…)

I recently read Mommy Wars: Stay-At-Home and Career Moms Face Off on Their Choices, Their Lives, Their Families by Leslie Morgan Steiner, but I'll confess that I found the book review in the Atlantic Monthly by Sandra Tsing Loh more thought provoking than the book itself. Have you ever heard of "Afflufemza"?

Here is how Loh defines the term: (more…)

“Will the real Bob Casey please speak up?”- that’s the request of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Sally Kalson who is concerned Casey can’t win by being “no things to all people.” After observing that Casey’s campaign consists of pointing out that he’s not Rick Santorum, Kalson writes that “the Santorum camp has been trying to goad him into saying what he is.”

Based on numerous comments in her column, it’s clear that Kalson is not a Santorum fan. This makes her advice for Casey to speak up even more pertinent. It is telling that many Democrats are already disillusioned with Casey, who is not even the official candidate yet. While Pennacchio and Sandals, who is backed by feminist groups, are unlikely to win the primary, Casey (the presumptive nominee) has yet to excite the Democratic base. After remarking that “ducking the issues won’t work,” Kalson poses several questions:

“How nuanced is his stance on reproductive rights, for example? Some politicians are personally opposed to abortion but won’t inflict those beliefs on others. If that’s not the case for him, what happens if the next president nominates a Supreme Court candidate thought to be “pro-choice”? Would that influence Mr. Casey’s vote either way?

Does his definition of ‘pro-life’ include support for prevention measures like birth control and the morning-after pill? What about teaching real sexual education in the schools, as opposed to the abstinence-only measures that studies show to be ineffective? How about federal funding for clinics that provide pap smears, breast exams and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases? Would he cut off that money if a clinic made abortion referrals?

Would Mr. Casey vote to restore funding for the United Nations Population Fund that Bush and the Republican congress have blocked over baseless charges that the fund backs forced abortions in China? The fund builds and equips maternity clinics in the world’s poorest countries, trains midwives and reduces deaths from preventable disease. Is that a mission he can wholeheartedly support?….

What’s his take on President Bush’s faith-based initiative funneling millions of dollars to religious groups? Or the intelligent design subterfuge that seeks to insert religion into science classes in the public schools? Or warrantless wiretaps and indefinite incarceration of detainees without charges or legal counsel? Or outsourcing torture and censoring photos of soldiers returning home from Iraq in coffins?

And we haven’t even gotten to the Iraq war. Or the health insurance industry’s unconscionable profits, which must rival global outsourcing as a cause of worker layoffs and cutbacks. Or meaningful reform of lobbying regulations.”

I wasn’t able to find these answers on Casey’s campaign website. In fact, the Santorum campaign and Kalson aren’t the only people asking tough questions. Even committed Democratic activists are disturbed by the lack of clarity from Casey.

A google search on Casey+position brings up the following entry “Santorum is better than Casey for Democrats” on MyDD, a liberal blog by Gary Boatright:

“I would appreciate it if someone could explain exactly why any Democrat should support Bob Casey over Rick Santorum. Let’s look at the record. To the best of my knowledge and for all practical purposes, both Casey and Santorum are essentially identical on the following issues:

Iraq
Abortion
Gay rights
Alito and Bush judicial picks
Wireless Wiretapping
Renewal of The Patriot Act”

The post concluded:

“Casey will do far more harm than good if the voters of Pennsylvania are stupid enough to send him to the Senate. We are better off with an openly Republican Senator than another Republican lite Lieberman doppelganger who will simply undermine Democratic positions and in all likelihood be critical of Howard Dean and liberal Democrats.”

Given that Casey isn’t on record on these issues, it is understandable that other site readers did not agree with Gary’s conclusions. One wrote:

“Abortion: Again, how many votes do you think we’ll see on this issue? How many Pennsylvanians are concerned about it? Schumer and Reid have assured DC Dems that Casey is comfortable with the party’s position on choice, and won’t be picking fights with the leadership.

Gay rights: Santorum is arguably the most anti-gay person in the Senate. He will probably pick up the anti-gay marriage banner later this year. Casey, while opposed to marriage (like many Dems, unfortunately) is more supportive of equality than Santorum. Unlike Santorum, he wants companies to extend benefits to domestic partnerships, and he doesn’t have a problem with gay couples adopting.

Judges: Casey has had to position himself on Alito because of his dad and because of Santorum’s love of social issues. He’s assured Schumer and Reid that he’ll be comfortable voting with them on judicial appointments, and I don’t think we’ll see him on the Judiciary Committee. He’s more likely to vote down a right-wing judge than Santorum is.”

So…let me see if I can understand the logic here. Democrats are supposed to vote for Casey because he supposedly assured the DC Dems that he will toe the party line on abortion on judges? But social conservatives also should vote for Casey because he supposedly has the same position as Santorum on Iraq/abortion/gayrights? Well..,which is the truth? Casey can’t have it both ways. He is forcing his supporters, who admit they are “just extrapolating” some of his positions, to grasp at straws in order to justify why they are voting for him. His supporters’ claims that Casey reassured the DC Dems that he will consistently vote with Schumer and Reid should make moderates and conservatives nervous.

Casey could fix this problem by going on the record and clearly answering the questions posed by Kalson and his own supporters on MyDD, one of who observed that “Casey could make things a whole lot easier if he had listed more than five issues on his issue page.”

We frequently drive by a faded Kerry/Edwards 2004 yard sign. Despite the fact that it has been nearly two years since the election, it stands as a testament to the passion of that campaign.

In the February 2006 issue of Commentary (link available here), James Q. Wilson examined the increasing political polarization in American society as well as possible causes. (more…)

Check out this site for information on the following topics:

1. How the Media Vote.
   I’ll give you hint…Democratic. There is also a link to a 2003 poll that showed journalists backed Kerry over Bush by more than a two-to-one margin.
2. Journalists’ Political Views.
   According to a 2004 poll available on the Media Research Center site, “five times more journalists described themselves as ‘liberal’ as said they were ‘conservative.’”
3. How the Public Views the Media.
   I wonder if this explains the falling ratings for network news. Or are we just watching too many Seinfeld and Friends reruns?
4. Admissions of Liberal Bias.
   Some journalists are honest enough to admit that they approach the news from a liberal perspective, but others deny reality. Click here to read Denials of Liberal Bias.

In his new book An Army of Davids, Glenn Reynolds offers some thought-provoking commentary on the power of blogs. (more…)

It's always fun to debunk the arguments of those who deny the existence of media bias. One critic of Bernard Goldberg's book on the subject (Bias) asked,

"If, as Goldberg argues, there's a media tilt toward Democrats, then why have Republicans received a majority of newspaper endorsements in all but two presidential elections since 1932?"

Let's examine this assertion from a Pennsylvania perspective using the 2004 election as an example.

• Papers that endorsed Sen. John Kerry in 2004: Allentown Morning-Call, Centre Daily Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Philadelphia Daily News, The Philadelphia Inquirer.
• Papers that endorsed President George Bush in 2004: The Express-Times (Easton) and the York Daily Record.
• Papers that chose not to endorse either candidate in 2004: Harrisburg Patriot-News and the Scranton Times.

That makes 5 endorsements for Kerry, 2 for Bush, 2 for neither. Kerry had more than double the number of endorsements. If you were to take into account the circulation numbers of the various papers, the Kerry-to-Bush endorsement ratio would have been even greater.In order to be fair, let's revisit this question when Pennsylvania newspaper endorsements for the 2006 election are published.

If you are interested in learning more about the media, we highly recommend two books by Bernard Goldberg. They are Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News and Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite.

Bernard Goldberg, who worked at CBS news, wrote an editorial in 1996 for the Wall Street Journal about media bias at CBS news. The editorial ruffled a few feathers at the network, and Goldberg became a persona non grata at CBS. In 2002, Bias (a book Goldberg wrote documenting cases of media bias) made it onto the New York Times best seller list. In an editorial about the book, the Wall Street Journal summarized one of Goldberg's arguments: (more…)

I'm wondering when we'll see the first newspaper endorsements for Election 2006.

After all, the Philadelphia Daily News endorsed Sen. John Kerry in June 2004– even though there were more than 4 months left before the election and over one month before the Democratic Convention. Here's how they justified the extraordinarily early endorsement: (more…)