Wednesday, February 8, 2006

Hillary Backing Casey for Santorum's Seat

Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat strongly endorsed by Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, is the "establishment" choice to challenge uber-Republican Rick Santorum for a Senate seat in November. So, it's hard to fault any Establishment politician too strongly for supporting him -- and Santorum is so bad that, contrary to my usual position, I'd back almost any Democrat who runs against him.

Problem is, Casey is pro-life. He came out against the Alito filibuster. Ed Rendell, who is Casey's biggest backer, also came out against the Alito filibuster. And careful statistical research shows that another, truly progressive Dem candidate would do just as well against Santorum. All things being equal -- and I do believe, contrary to the MSM blather, that they're at least equal -- I'd rather elect a Progressive like Chuck Pennacchio than a potential Vichy like Casey to Santorum's Senate seat. And there's almost NO reason for a prominent Democrat to pick one candidate over another, so long as they're all reasonably viable, in the primary; the statesmanlike thing is to let the primaries sort things out then back the winner in the general election.

In that context, a news nugget:

February 3, 2006 -- WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — who supports abortion rights and is the darling of pro-choice women's groups — gave $10,000 to a staunchly right-to-life candidate in Pennsylvania, The Post has learned.

Clinton ponied up the maximum donation allowed under the law to Democratic Senate hopeful Bob Casey, even though he has been skewered by pro-choice groups for his anti-abortion position.

It was the largest donation Clinton gave to any politician in 2005 and was made by her political action committee, HillPAC, records show.


And, yeah, I've considered the source.

I don't like Hillary. I've made that pretty clear in the past. I hope her run for President ends early, so the other candidates get a chance to communicate their messages free from her shadow. I think she's an opportunistic triangulator. But I hadn't labeled her a Vichy.

Now she's giving unusual support to someone I suspect is a Vichy. She's pushing the DLC-style candidate, not even giving real progressives a chance. So my question is: is Hillary a Vichy? Or is it too soon to say?

At the very least, if you think Chuck Pennacchio deserves more of a change, give Hillary a call and tell her what you think. I'll edit this post to include her contact info a little later on.

6 comments:

wet pants said...

Hillary does seem to like fronting the DLC preferred candidates. So, she supports him even after what he said about Alito?

Though, perhaps she feels she can get something if she helps unseat Santorum.

california_reality_check said...

Look, we'll deal with the aftermath later. Get rid of Ricky then we'll talk.

Thersites D. Scott said...

California Reality Check:

If Casey had already won the primary, then I'd be with you on your comment: as I said, I'll back almost anyone against Ricky "Man On Dog" "Let the Children Play With the Fetus" Santorum.

But we're still in the primaries, and the good polls show that Pennacchio has at least as good a chance -- maybe better -- at beating Santorum than Casey has. Yet the DLC crowd is backing Casey to the hilt. So what, if anything, should we do at THIS stage?

I'm really asking you.

Katherine said...

The NYTimes has the same item about Hillary today, buried way down in an article about her response to Ken Mehlman, who called her a "lefty."

She's my Senator and all, but half the news items I read on her drive me nuts. Yes, maybe that's the media painting her in an unpleasant light, but she doesn't have to help them along...

FYI, she's not completely the darling of the pro-choice movement. She called abortion
"a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," which seriously irritated many of the Planned Parenthood/NARAL crowd. (The idea is to not stigmatize it!)

Thersites D. Scott said...

Katherine:

So, is she a Vichy?

That wouldn't mean we oppose her re-election to the Senate. Only a few Vichys warrant active opposition, as we marshal and carefully invest our resources.

But it would mean that we oppose her in the Presidential primaries, and I don't know what percentage of the VichyDems readership would disagree with that.

Any input appreciated.

Katherine said...

Hillary's re-election is a sure bet, because she has NO OPPONENT. Everyone the R's try to prop up against her either makes a huge public flub (Jeanne Pirro) or wimps out. The Spitzer race for governor is where Democratic donor money should be going in NY.

I, like many of her constituents, stay up at night praying to a pantheon of gods that she does Not. Run. For. President.

Is she a Vichy? Eh, not so much. She's just all politics and no heart, if you ask me. (Damn wimmin! We elect ya, and we can't even count on ya to be overly emotional.)