With Senate candidates like these, one thing's certain: Women lose.
Many Pennsylvanians long ago abandoned hope of progress in a place where change is anathema. Our politics,
to say nothing of Philadelphia's shenanigans, are ossified to the point of dust. It's like the 19th century - without the
fun.
There's a paucity of politicians gathering excitement, let alone new ideas. You would do better betting
on the Phils.
So lo and behold, Gov. Rendell has done something radical...
He effectively canceled the 2006 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, tapping his former gubernatorial rival,
Bob Casey Jr., as the de facto candidate. The two other challengers, Barbara Hafer and Joe Hoeffel, immediately dropped out.
If Casey defeats Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania will have the dubious distinction of fielding one of the Senate's
most moderate Republicans and one of its most conservative Democrats, so conservative the Republicans will wonder why he isn't
theirs.
Casey was chosen for several reasons: name, name, name, and that his politics are virtually indistinguishable
from those of Santorum, to say nothing of his looks, age and family life.
Like his father - did we mention that his father was the late governor Robert Casey? - the state treasurer
is staunchly anti-abortion. He's also staunchly against gun control.
Choice as an issue will not matter in the Pennsylvania race. There is no choice.
Any candidate arguing for less gun control when Philadelphia lost 22 people in 11 days is so out of touch
as to seem alien. Who knows? Maybe they need their guns in Scranton.
Casey is not an appealing choice to progressive women. Specifically, he makes this progressive woman ill.
Santorum and Casey are like the old Patty Duke Show, they walk alike and talk alike and, gee, if you can
tell them apart, please, let me know.
Actually, Casey, a Roman Catholic, supports the death penalty (which Pope John Paul II vehemently opposed)
while Santorum, also a Roman Catholic, recently announced that "we have to be more cautious" and "I could see a legitimate
rationale for not executing juveniles." Which would make him more moderate than the Democrat.
In 1992, the original Robert Casey wanted to speak about abortion at the Democratic National Convention
and was barred. Which was wrong.
Both parties should be open to more voices. I just don't want Bob Casey's voice representing mine.
Casey's Web site offers no positions yet, though he's uttered plenty of hollow platitudes about "supporting
working families." Aren't we all for working families?
He supports various welfare entitlements which, a cynic might point out, poor women are going to need, especially
if access to choice keeps diminishing.
Like all voters, Philadelphians ought to be selfish. Women voters ought to be selfish. I don't see either
candidate representing my interests, or those of a lot of other women.
I've asked social and political activists why, more than a year before the election, this huge state can't
produce better candidates instead of Brylcreemed clones. One organizer said to me, "I tend to support causes that have a realistic
chance of getting accomplished."
There has to be more choice than none.
In the meantime, gentlemen, go ahead and show us which one of you best represents our interests and deserves
our votes.
You've got more than a year to do so. Prove it.
