It was my reaction to the pretty much immediate reaction by many that the Dems lost the election due to the "values voters" who were anti-choice and antigay. Right away I started seeing comments appear on the blogs and message boards that we had to "move to the center" on these issues -- meaning "suck it up" and roll over and play dead.
I expected to hear this crap on the national level, but I admit that I did not expect to hear this in my very own Blue State of Pennsylvania. But here it is playing out in our very own upcoming senate race.
The Powers That Be -- Reid, Schumer & Rendell -- have all decided that what PA needs to beat the widely reviled Lil Ricky "Man on Dog Action" Santorum is an anti-choice Democrat: namely Bob Casey Jr.
Reid and Schumer courted Casey to run. Rendell just announced his support for Casey and either cajoled or threatened (depending on who you talk to) pro-choice Barbara Hafer to drop out of the race a day after she announced that she was in it.
I hear the drumbeat by many local Dems (mostly men it must be said) that I should be "pragmatic" and support Casey. (Check HERE for a sample of that discussion.)
Well, I want to say:
"I AM BEING PRAGMATIC."
As James Carville once said of Pennsylvania, "It's Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in the middle." Some of us refer to the middle "T" of PA as "Pennsyltucky." The Conventional Wisdom now goes that we should run a social conservative in order to beat Sen. "Man on Dog Action." But as everyone should know by now, the way to garner a Democratic win statewide is to get enough Dems to come out and vote in Philly and the Burgh. And how, may I ask, does anyone intend to accomplish this by running an anti-choice Democratic candidate?
Just who do you think does the GOTV in PA's two biggest cities? If you have any doubt, just go and volunteer for a Democratic candidate (like I do) and you will find that much of the grunt work is being done by PRO-CHOICE WOMEN.
Just look at who has won in statewide races here over the last few years:
Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Specter, Ridge, Rendell.
What do these guys all have in common? They are all pro-choice.
But what about Lil Ricky "Man on Dog Action" Santorum, you may well ask? He's anti-choice and antigay and he's won. That's right. And who did they run against him last time? An anti-choice Democrat. And who could not bring themselves to pull out all the stops to support that anti-choice Democrat? The pro-choice women!
Are you getting it yet?
Now I keep hearing that the Casey name is "gold" in Pennsylvania. If Casey is so much the Golden Boy, why did he lose against Rendell? The truth is that Casey is a weak campaigner when he has real opposition who couldn't even beat another Dem (Rendell) in a real primary. Yet, I'm to believe that I should just swallow hard, forget my pro-choice principles and support this anti-choice candidate.
Well, I say:
"Fuck that, I am being pragmatic."
I know that running an anti-choice Democrat against an anti-choice Republican will get you bupkis in PA and so I refuse to support a sure loser like Bob Casey Jr.
That IS being pragmatic.
When it comes down to a real race and not just an early poll, Casey will crumble. A real primary without the intrusion of The Powers That Be will help to prove that.
So be pragmatic like me and just say "NO" to Casey and anyone who tells you he will save us from Santorum.