ND: Oh, absolutely. Since the Clinton years, the Democrats have bent over backward to paint themselves as being more centrist than people-focused even though people are supposed to be their focus. I call it a "go-along-to-get-along" mentality. "We don't want to offend anyone. We don't want to get anyone mad at us."
CP: That's right, and the other part of the equation is that Democrats are afraid to stand up because of all the money they're taking from Wall Street, and that money is literally buying up their voices and buying up their capacity to stand up and represent you. Harry Truman's Democratic Party was a Main Street party. The party today of [New York Sen.] Chuck Schumer and [Illinois Rep.] Rahm Emanuel is a Wall Street party. And that's tragic, really tragic.
ND: It's a basic betrayal of everything the party is supposed to be about.
CP: That's right. It's become a money party and not, as you put it, a people party. That's shameful and, frankly, the idea that somehow the Democrats are going to win back control espousing these pro-corporate interests in trade relations, the bankruptcy bill, and privatizing everything under the sun is crazy. The Democrats have absolutely no chance of regaining power because the people - the base of the party - are young and old, parents and singles in the middle, people who focus on questions of Social Security, student loans, environmental cleanup and good-quality job creation, protecting our constitutional rights. Those constituencies are being abandoned in droves, and that's a license for permanent minority status - or token status, really, in our political system.
ND: Right now, on the ballot for the primary election in May, there are actually two progressive candidates, you and Alan Sandals. What makes you the best choice for the job?
CP: Actually, I see Alan more as a moderate liberal. The reason I say that is because I'm the only candidate in the race who is calling for an immediate military exit from Iraq. Alan has taken the approach of a year or more [to get US troops out of Iraq]. I think he's recently said by the end of 2006, but he's maintained that position since the fall of last year. In terms of other issues in the race, I'm the only candidate who calls for living-wage legislation; Alan does not. That's a fact.
ND: How do you call yourself a people's candidate if you don't support a living wage for everyone?
CP: Right, right. Alan supports raising the minimum wage. He's on record as supporting the governor's proposal to raise it to $7.25 over the next couple of years. My position would amount to raising it to $9.30 an hour to bring people out of poverty. So I'm the only candidate in the race who is committed to ending poverty. Literally. There's no hedging about that whatsoever. On trade legislation, and we touched on this before, I'm the only candidate who has a clear fair-trade strategy for restoring the strength of labor and for restoring the principle of environmental protection and for the purpose of protecting human rights around the world. Alan, so far, has said that he opposed NAFTA and CAFTA and the WTO, and I praise him for that, but he has not taken that next step, which is to push for what I call bilateral fair-trade relations with all 192 nations around the world - the US, of course, is number 193. What the United States needs to do is adopt a fair-trade strategy with the other 192 that addresses the unique relationship between ourselves and those other countries. Alan does not have a fair-trade strategy; I do. On substance, on issues, those are some very clear differences that show why I describe him as more of a moderate liberal.
Article comments
1 - Dave De Vetter
I truly believe that Chuck Pennacchio is our only hope of beating Santorum in November. He will actually represent the people's interests instead of giving in to the corporations and righ-wing religious extremists. I hope everyone who reads this visits his site and contributes to his campaign or signs up to volunteer (even if you don't live in PA, there's much you can do). We're an all volunteer campaign fighting for the future of democracy.
2 - Austin
that site is www.chuck2006.com
3 - Natalie Davis
Chuck's name in the essay, as does the Pennacchio button graphic, links to the campaign Web site.
4 - Brenna Lorenz
If you have a chance to hear Chuck speak, absolutely do go. He will have you jumping out of your seat ready to do battle. You can't imagine how wonderful it is to hear a candidate talk sense!
When people ask him tough questions, he doesn't hedge, waffle, change the subject, flinch or dodge. He answers head-on, decisively. He's going to make mincemeat of Santorum.
This man is a true leader.
5 - Natalie Davis
Yes, Chuck is a principled, empowering presence. And a straight shooter. But the fact remains that the Democratic powers that be, including a lot of the major Democratic blogs (Kos, MyDD, etc.) are pushing the centrist-conservative Casey. That makes it crucial for progressives to spread the word far and wide throughout Pennsylvania: Casey is nothing more than a pale image of Santorum. He does not support the basic issues so crucial for Pennsylvania and that represent core Democratic values. I understand that people are used to caving in to the right wing; they're accustomed to bending over for the conservatives and losing for their self-degradation. But come on - a progressive can win and god knows, a change is needed YESTERDAY. It's time for a real progressive, a real people's candidate. If Santorum is destined to win (and I maintain that he is NOT), isn't it better to lose standing tall rather than on one's knees? Casey is the candidate for the acquiescent, the cowardly, the weak. Pennacchio is the candidate for the courageous, for those who want power to rest in the hands of the PEOPLE rather than the fatcat, money-motivated pols. Spread the word.