Prosecute the torture.

August 15, 2005

NO PRIMARY FOR YOU!

Mike from Comments from Left Field via Mark Crispin Miller's New From Underground has am audio clip of a speech given by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a private party.

The gist of it is:

The Democratic leadership no longer trust the people to pick a candidate in what they consider to be important primary elections. Chuck Schumer and his buddies know what's best for us.

The part that's relevant to the people of Pennsylvania:

"So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but A he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to run. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."

"I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."

(unintelligible)

"And we're doing this in the other states."

As Comments from Left Field notes:


A couple of things worth noting here. First, Governor Rendell gave two points according to Schumer "A - he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to run." Let me repeat that, Governor Rendell said point blank to Chuck Schumer that Casey would not run and that we would not want him to run.

Well, Rendell got that right -- we don't want Casey to run!

Listen to the audio yourself at Comments from Left Field



13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I want Casey to run.

aahpat said...

I just had an interesting conversation with the latest announced Democrat, Alan Sandals. I like his (still beta) web page about him and his conversation was open, honest and agreeable to my decidedly left leaning values. Actually he was even critical of one of my favorite left wingers, John Conyers.

Most important, to me, is the fact that he is discussing, on the campaign trail, drug policy reform and how the drug war negatively impacts our society. This is my interpretation of our five minute conversation focusing on my opinions. I had called only to get a banner to put on my LeftIndependent blog along with the Pinnachio banner to give better exposure to alternatives to the all Casey propaganda wave out of the Party and media establishment here in PA.

So far I like this guy

Maria said...

Well let us know when his website is public!

Ava said...

Could this be the infamous "echo chamber"? I'm not sure that when Maria says "we don't want Casey to run" it reflects the entire Democratic party, or for that matter, everyone who's reading the blog. It certainly doesn't reflect how I feel. Like the anonymous post, I also want Casey to run.

We've spent years lamenting why Republicans win elections and part of the reason is they are able to eliminate costly and often ugly primaries which do our candidates more harm than good. It's time we started to do the same, especially in key races like the one against Santorum.

Jonathan Potts said...

I think it would be interesting for someone to study elections in which one candidate faced no primary challenger and see how they fared in the general election. Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but not having a primary opponent didn't help Mike Fisher much, and the nasty primary battle with McCain didn't hurt Bush that much in 2000. For that matter, Kerry won the nomination early (more or less) and squandered whatever opportunity it may have given him.

I think the real test for Democratic activists is what they do when a nominee has been chosen. If Casey's views on other issues like the war, Social Security, health care, are to their likeing, will they sit on their hands simply over abortion?

Shawn said...

"I think the real test for Democratic activists is what they do when a nominee has been chosen. If Casey's views on other issues like the war, Social Security, health care, are to their likeing, will they sit on their hands simply over abortion?"

Face it, in Pennsylvania, pro-life Democrats comprise a strong faction that will not hesitate to put a concerted effort into electing "one of their own."

What's more, I think that many pro-choice Democrats (and not a few Republicans) would support Casey as well even if they disagree with him on this issue becuase it is NOT their number one priority issue-wise. The economy, Social Security, and the war would likely trump the abortion issue. Also, they think, correctly, that Santorum is a world-class creep.

So I say, if some out there want to "sit on their hands", so be it. There will still be enough who are willing to fight for a pro-life Democrat to balance this absence out.

Funky Dung said...

I'm thrilled Casey is running. If he's only half the man his father was, he's still head an shoulders over most politicians.

I was drawn to this post by the title. I think the horrendously flawed primary and caucus system is one of the biggest reasons why many Americans, such as myself, don't feel represented by elected officials. The whole thing is about money. It's all about raising as much dough as you can and hanging around until your opponents go broke. Setting all primaries and caucuses to the same date would remove that problem, however it's very unlikely to happen. A more immediate solution for Pennsylvania would be to move our primary to an earlier date - a promise Rendell made and to my knowledge has not delivered on. By the time we get to vote, all the decent and/or moderate candidates have bowed out and we're left with whomever the party has given its blessing to. We don't get the best man for the job. We get to richest.

Maria said...

"So I say, if some out there want to "sit on their hands", so be it. There will still be enough who are willing to fight for a pro-life Democrat to balance this absence out."

They didn't fight for any of the other pro choice Dems they ran against Santorum, now did they?

Maria said...

"A more immediate solution for Pennsylvania would be to move our primary to an earlier date - a promise Rendell made and to my knowledge has not delivered on."

I may have it wrong, but I belive that it's not entirely in Rendell's hands. Doesn't New Hampshire have some sort of promise to be first?

Shawn said...

"They didn't fight for any of the other pro choice Dems they ran against Santorum, now did they?"

Or do you mean "pro-life?" I am assuming this is what you mean. (If I've misconstured what you mean, let me know.)

If by "pro-life candidates" you mean Ron Klink, I would point out that circumstances have changed since 2000. Klink wasn't given much support (read: $$$) by Redell, then the head of the DNC, becuase he feared a pro-life Senator would support Casey in a primary runoff against...Ed Rendell. Now both Rendell and Casey hold elected office at the state level. Bob Jr. is now in a position to get direct support from a pro-choice governer and former rival. Rendell's macine most definitely won't be sitting on their hands for this one, including, I suspect, Philadelphians and Philly suburbanites who are pro-Rendell and who are pro-choice.

Maria said...

Sorry, I did mean pro life (or anti choice).

Rendell probably won't be sitting on his hands if only to keep Casey from ever being a potential rival for governor.

"Rendell's macine most definitely won't be sitting on their hands for this one, including, I suspect, Philadelphians and Philly suburbanites who are pro-Rendell and who are pro-choice."

Some won't and some will. I talk to many pro choice women who are party activists and you have no idea of the depth of their anger at the push from the Powers That Be to make Casey the primary winner. And, again, to go on like a broken record, Rendell was helped in his primary fight against Casey by THOUSANDS OF REPUBLICAN PRO CHOICE WOMEN WHO SWITCHED PARTIES to vote in the primary -- they also coughed up the cash.

The issue of choice is how many of these women got into politics in the first place. It IS a line in the sand.

The push for Casey angers an extremely reliable portion of the base (Democratic pro choice women) as well as a segment of the swing voters: Republican pro choice women.

Moreover, Schumer's grand strategy demonstrates his lack of knowledge about PA politics. Yeah, Casey's name is golden as long as he doesn't have tough competition because Casey is a LOUSY CAMPAIGNER and, make no mistake, Santorum will be tough competition.

Patrick said...

I have to disagree with Shawn, albeit slightly: Rendell did nothing for Klink because it was payback to Santorum in exchange for Ricky NOT putting a hold on Margorie Rendell's elevation to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (if you recall, Ricky blocked every Clinton nominee in the Western District for several years).

As far as Casey being a lousy campainger, I'll agree that his run for Governor was lousy. The buck stops with him, but his media consultants did a lousy job in attacking Rendell. Non-substantive and ineffective (there was plenty to go after, but they fumbled).

Remember, that was a primary, and it was against the only person in the state that could have beaten Casey. Rendell was extremely popular in the Philly area. Casey has never lost a general election - his problem is with lefties in the primary.

And the question of whether or not pro-life Dems have supported pro-choice Dems in the General elections (against Santorum, Bush, etc.) I submit that pro-life Democratic activists have been extremely loyal (after all, if they were only single-issue people, they would be Republicans by now). And a lot of those activists will be extremely energized by the prospect of supporting one of their own.

Funky Dung said...

"I may have it wrong, but I belive that it's not entirely in Rendell's hands. Doesn't New Hampshire have some sort of promise to be first?"

I'm not asking for first. Within a week or two from the first would be nice, though.