Watch as conservative Casey, currently leading in the polls, tries to hone his oratory skills for his hoped-for debates next fall against incubent Neo-Con Sen. Rick Santorum. Pennacchio and Sandals, both liberals, have the debating skills but need to develop more name recognition.

Their positions on the issues are more in tune with those of most Pennsylvania voters. According to a Zogby poll late January, voters preferred Pennacchio and Sandals over either Casey or Santorum when presented with the candidates’ issue stances.

Pennacchio and Sandals face an ironic possibility: If they remain unknown to most voters, then Casey can win the primary based on name recognition alone, but if they manage to get their positions and names in front of the voters, they’ll likely split the liberal/centrist majority of Democrats, with Casey winning a plurality.

Pennacchio and Sandals have already met several times for debates. Each time, Casey declined his invitation to join them. His campaign manager cited the others’ purported lack of support in the polls and limited fundraising as proof that Casey doesn’t need to bother with debates.

The winner of the May 16 primary will face NeoCon Rick Santorum in the general election next November.

According to the AP report,

He believes such a mandate is unconstitutional and would disenfranchise some of the state’s most vulnerable residents. People including nursing home residents and poorer citizens might not have proper ID and thus could lose their right to vote under the legislation, Rendell said.

“At a time in our nation’s history when voter participation is dropping to alarming levels, the government should not be taking action that will turn away bona fide voters from our polls.”

This from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Seated in front of a dozen of the city’s African American leaders, Democrats all, Rendell said at a news conference that House Bill 1318 would have the effect of denying some people their right to vote.

The legislation, he said, would discourage voting at a time when “we should be doing everything we can to increase voter participation.”

Meanwhile, Lynn Swann, Rendell’s likely Republican opponent next election, seems worried that without the new law not enough Democrats will be turned away from the polls. “The idea that presenting a form of identification would somehow disenfranchise people is as ridiculous as it is untrue,” his campaign dissembled.

The governor’s website lists 22 organizations urging a veto of House Bill 1318. Still to come: Even though passed by the legislature last Wednesday, the bill has yet to cross the governor’s desk allowing his formal veto.

• Stand Up for a Seat – Running for Office in 2006
Panel discussion with elected local officials in their 20s and 30s
Thursday, February 9, 6-7 p.m.
National Constitution Center, 525 Arch St.

• Winning a Political Office: Challenges and Strategies
Panelists include Phila. City Councilman Frank Rizzo, PA Assemblyman Thomas W. Blackwell IV, and NJ Assemblywomen Pamela Lampitt.
Thursday, March 9, 5-6:30
Behrakis Grand Hall at Drexel University, 32nd & Chestnut Sts.

The seminars are free; no advance registration is required. Direct inquiries to the Committee of Seventy’s Anne Mahlum (215-557-3600 ext. 103).

A good place to start in Philadelphia is the position of Ward Committee Member– no experience is required, and there are almost 7,000 openings!

Here’s how it works: The City has 66 Wards which are divided into a total of 1681 Divisions– what are often called Precincts in other jurisdictions. Your Division is your immediate neighborhood. Each Division has just a single polling place (sometimes shared with neighboring Divisions), and the Democrats and Republicans can each have two Committee Members serving a few hundred voters registered in the party.

Committee Members actively support party causes and candidates for higher offices. They’re the link between the neighborhood and the larger political world and have some say in selecting local party leadership. Committee Members often help neighbors interact with City bureaucracies– it’s the essence of retail politics.

All Committee Members are chosen in the May Primary. To run, you must be 18+ and registered in the party. You’ll need signatures of 10 supporters (call 215-686-3460 for forms), collected between Valentine’s Day and March 7. Now’s the time to get moving. Make a difference!

Other offices up for grabs this spring: State Committee Member (100 signatures required) and State Assembly Representative (300). Call 717-787-5280 for forms.

No vacancies? Note that none of the current State Assemblymen from Philadelphia have said that they won’t be running again.

“Not only has Rick Santorum accepted more money from lobbyists than any other senator this election cycle, he is also the leader of the notorious K Street Project,” wrote Jay Reiff, Campaign Manager for Casey.

The K Street Project is the nefarious Tom Delay/Jack Abramoff plan to place “their hand picked Republican friends into the very lobbying firms that Santorum is now being asked to regulate. The K Street Project and Santorum’s selection to lead ethics reform are indicative of an arrogance of power in Washington that needs to change.”

Meanwhile, the Casey people have mounted a petition drive against the selection of Santorum.

Congressman Robert Menendez to fill his seat in the state of New Jersey. Menendez is the highest-ranking Hispanic in Congressional history. You can read more here.

Meanwhile this week’s Strategic Vision poll has Santorum trailing Casey by 15 points and facing a mere 38% approval rating. Perhaps it’s because his right wing fundamentalist supporters are angry at him for admitting that “intelligent design” is a load of crap? On Saturday he told the Beaver County Times that ID shouldn’t be taught in schools and that “Science leads you where it leads you.” Problem is he heartily endorsed it two years ago in the Washington Times.

Yeah, Ricky isn’t just a wacko right winger, he’s also plain stupid. To think just a few years ago he was a shining star in the Republican party. [UPDATE: All Spin Zones points out that Santorum was a fan of intelligent design only 10 months ago!]

Amidst all this conservative foundering it’s easy to forget that there is a Democratic primary, and while the party bosses (Rendell, Reid, Schumer) have picked out good ol’ Casey, there is a truly committed progressive running in the race. Chuck Pennacchio is against the war, for universal healthcare, and believes in both abortion rights and worker’s rights. The more I learn about him, the more I like. He’s got a fundraiser at the Warwick Hotel on December 8th if you’re interested in more than the status quo. Also check out Dragonballyee where Albert’s been doing a great job blogging about Chuck and pushing him as a candidate.

“This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years.

“This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

“The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress.

“The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

“As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

“And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.

“Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

“The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.

“There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.

“The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

“Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false.

“The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.”

“The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims.

“What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

“Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

“Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.

“There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

“For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.

“Given this Administration’s pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

“This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone – the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm’s way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.

“The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration’s Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.

“They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

* How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
* Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
* How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
* What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
* How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration’s assertions?
* Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?

“Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

“At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.

“We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee’s annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.”

Political Wire has this blurb. And I think the Democrats need a pep rally right now. We are poised to really run house in 2006, but that is now, and we are still a year away. We need something in six months that will re-energize the party, re-state our collective platform, and send us into a positive fervor before the mid-terms. If we just “ho-hum” it, and expect to take back the House, we’ll be pretty pissed after the election.

The post was followed up again on Politcal Wire, regarding some negative reaction to the idea, however I still believe it is a viable one, that could not have negative consequences, only positive ones.

[UPDATE: 1:34 PM]
From Roll Call:

GOPers “were able to nationalize the” ’94 elections “by making them a referendum on” Bill Clinton “and his agenda, riding a tsunami to control of Congress.” With everything going wrong for Bush and the GOP, Dems “need to do everything they can to create a ‘national election.’ A” Dem “nationwide television advertising campaign can help make every race a referendum on the president, the” GOP “congress and the status quo. It’s worked before.” National advertising campaigns worked for both the GOP in ’80 (when they picked up 34 House seats and 12 sen. seats) and Dems in ’82 (when they picked up 26 House seats).

Dems “don’t need to offer a positive agenda until next year. For the near future, they can do just fine pointing to” GOP “problems. But a couple of waves of early TV advertising — possibly using the ‘together, we can do better’ tage that has tested so well in focus groups — could help position the” Dems “as the party of change and reform” (Rothenberg, Roll Call, 10/17).