Midterm elections are never sexy and this year is no different. The headline act is going to be the Senate race between Rick Santorum and Bob Casey Jr.. The Democrats need to beat Santorum to have any chance at winning back the Senate. A defeat for Santorum would be an important piece in an overall effort of discrediting Bushism. Tom DeLay is indicted and not seeking reelection. Bill Frist is not seeking reelection. Santorum is the third ranking member of the Senate. If he loses, it will further cement the end of an unhappy era under a outrageously corrupt Republican leadership. Unfortuantely, Santorum’s opponent offers little opportunity for Democrats to truly embrace the battle. It didn’t have to be this way.
The stage was set for this campaign after the 2004 election, when Democrats were still reeling from their losses in the House, the Senate and the White House. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the new chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, was busily recruiting candidates for 2006, and quickly settled on Mr. Casey, a former state auditor general who had just won election as the state treasurer with a record-setting statewide vote.
Mr. Schumer said he “got some real flak, particularly in the pro-choice community,” when he began advancing the Casey candidacy…
But Mr. Schumer, himself a stalwart supporter of abortion rights, argued, “Democrats have learned that when you have a good candidate, good in so many ways, that because he or she doesn’t agree with the general Democratic Party position on every issue doesn’t mean they should be kept outside the tent.”
Democrats have also learned, through the exemplary examples of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, that letting every camel inside the tent can be a frustrating and dangerous exercise. Bob Casey Jr. is likely to be an unwelcome voice not just on the issue of reproductive choice, but also on stem-cell research, judicial appointments, the war in Iraq, and gay rights. It is very likely that Bob Casey Jr. will promptly supplant Lieberman as Bush’s favorite Democrat.
That is, he will likely do that if he wins. And if he wins it may send a message to Chuck Schumer that he should recruit more anti-woman, anti-science, anti-peace, anti-gay candidates. Both parties are taking a close look at this race.
G. Terry Madonna, director of the Keystone Poll and a political scientist at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said that Mr. Casey was a threat to Mr. Santorum because he cut into Mr. Santorum’s strength among traditional blue-collar voters in Western Pennsylvania and the more socially moderate voters of the Philadelphia suburbs.
“Those suburban voters are more upset with Santorum than they are ‘for’ Casey,” Mr. Madonna said.
He attributed the suburban disaffection, in large part, to Mr. Santorum’s high profile on hot-button cultural issues, including abortion, gay marriage and the intervention of Republican Congressional leaders in the right-to-die case of Terri Schiavo.
I don’t know whether Casey will succeed in attracting ‘traditional blue-collar voters in Western Pennsylvania’. I am sure he will do better there than a truly progressive candidate would. But the real key is for Casey to pick up the votes of the disaffected voters in suburban Philadelphia. These voters are primarily motivated to vote against Santorum over his Alabamanesque positions on social issues. They will not be excited to discover Santorum’s opponent shares his views on choice, science, and gays. Fortunately, the Governor’s race will be on the ballot as well, and that may entice suburban voters (who generally love Rendell) to the polls, where they may cast an anti-Santorum vote.
It’s a tragic race for those of us that live in Pennsylvania and would like nothing more than to go to war against Rick ‘Man on Dog’ Santorum. For now we are focused on sending a message in the Democratic primary by voting for either Chuck Pennacchio or Alan Sandals. They are both progressive on the issues, and they were willing to run on a progressive platform even after the Governor and Schumer asked more prominent Democrats to drop out of the race.
As for Santorum:
Mr. Santorum is scornful of his opponent, arguing that Mr. Casey is “just hiding behind the name.” Once the race is fully engaged, he said, “You have to get on TV, you have to put sentences together.”
“He’ll have to tell people what he’s for,” he added, “and at that time, I feel very good.”
He said that Mr. Casey had a strong lead in 2002, in the Democratic primary governor’s race against Edward G. Rendell, only to see it disappear in the final stretch of the campaign.
I’m afraid that might happen again.
I think this is also the headline race between progressives and democratic party loyalists, as Howie talked about yesterday. I’m damn glad I don’t have to make that choice.
BooMan, I know you’re a party loyalist, but to me you’ve just made the strongest possible argument against Casey.
Were I in PA, I’d reread that in November and vote Green.
I’ll vote for the nominee. But not happily.
At what point did you give up on Pennacchio?
I didn’t give up on him. I’m voting for him. But it’s not like he is going to win. This isn’t a hollywood movie.
Why can’t he win? Money? Personality? Name? Machine politics? He obviously speaks to core Democrat values, so why would a jerk like Casey automatically win a Democrat primary? Do you agree that Casey has a better chance to beat Santorum? Santorum’s analysis sounds fairly persuasive to me.
I don’t think I could bring myself to vote for Casey if I had the great misfortune to live in PA. Yeah, we want the Dems to control the Senate short term, but electing Casey just enables the Dem party to remain the pile of crap it’s been for a quarter century or more long term. Same ol’ dilemma. [Insert some cliche here about how it’s better to have an enemy you know than a treacherous friend.]
Would you vote for Lieberman if you lived in CT? Does party matter above everything else?
He could win if he had more time and more money.
Chuck would be a stronger candidate than Casey, especially after all the buzz of upsetting Casey in the primary.
Would I vote for Lieberman if I lived in CT?
I probably would. I don’t believe in abstaining. I believe in voting for the best choice available. If the choices suck then I am going to vote for a candidate that sucks.
I could vote against Lieberman with certain Republicans, but I doubt that I could this year.
I hope Ned Lamont takes care of business. He has a better chance than Pennacchio or Sandals have here.
Jesse Ventura.
And this is exactly why I will not work for or vote for Ritter in Colorado. I’m taking a longer term view.
We can’t stop this march backwards to the future. And it’s not just abortion. It’s everything; they don’t like any progress that’s been made since the 60s. For a vision of what they want, check out “The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual.” It satirizes everything they want. You can see it at http://www.homelanddecency.com
A pro-choice position can allow an individual and his family to be strictly pro-life while recognizing that their religious options and opinions do not have to be forced on everyone else. If I were a true pro-life progressive, I would be pro-choice even though I would never personally tolerate an abortion or whatever birth control processes my religious beliefs prevented me from practicing. I would be progressive because I (again) would realize that religious tolerance is critical to the survival of this nation, and a pro-choice position allows this tolerance. It allows all the best in people’s personal freedoms.
Okay progressive world, I have just defined how a pro-lifer can be pro-choice. So what does it say about young Bob Casey that he cannot be pro-choice tolerant of others???????
Theocracy in America is the biggest threat, IMO, to our freedoms and future development as a nation! If Bob Casey by being pro-life in the sense of being a lawmaker who wishes to force his religious views into law, then Casey is a lot more dangerous to progressives than on just reproductive issues. I mean just where and how can he turn off or close his religious mandate fllodgates, and see the true freedoms for all that a pro-choice position is indicative of!
It’s interesting how Jr is allegedly so deeply rooted in his Catholicism and is anti-choice. He also reaches to his Catholicism to lead him in his thoughts to allow pharmacists to not prescribe medicines based on their religion stopping people from getting necessary medicines that a schooled doctor wrote a scrip for. But then, he does not look to religion in his stance on the war. Not only would he have voted for the war, but he does not see the need for withdrawal anytime soon. AND he feels that using our nukes as leverage against Iran is a-okay.
People can watch the two debates between the 3 Dem candidates here. The files are huge, 216 and 266 respectively. The candidates address the issue of Iran towards the end of the debate in teh 9th question. I wrote about that segment here.
You make a excellent point in that Casey seems to pick and choose what religious mandates he has to follow and then put into law. If he has such personal freedoms, why is it so hard for him to just flip on the choice question, give everyone else his choice freedoms, and make everyone happy?
hourly in all things concerning politics could ever declare midterm elections to never be sexy. My “sexy” neurons and my “political” neurons don’t even know each other. They haven’t even met yet! Maybe if Andy Garcia ran for president……..Hey, maybe if he ran for Governor of California…….No No No, it just won’t work because my sexy neurons like Andy because he would never do anything so shallow and pin up as to run for Governor of California. Oh Well, I guess they’ll never meet each other.
Tracy, I could have sworn you were waxing horny about Feingold not so long ago. :}
So I guess there’d be no point trying to woo you with a discussion of New Hampshire precinct returns from the ’92 primaries, or anything so unsexy as that…
You can’t split you vote between Pennachio and Sandals. One of them should drop. IF you want to send a message, you must beat Casey.
I have a funny feeling about this one, Booman. You’re a precinct captain, right? Have you gotten any literature about the primary? My husband, who is a delegate for our borough, hasn’t. It doesn’t seem as if Casey is campaigning. Could Casey’s name recognition, even (or especially) if people think he is his father, actually work against him considering the prevalent anti state government mood? Could old Italian ladies press the button beside the Italian name?
Some county parties have not endorsed, and at least one that I’m aware of has endorsed Pennacchio. Any other ones besides Lancaster, Albert?
If there is low turnout could Chuck P pull it out? Remember that people who respond to polls don’t always go out to vote in what they see as a low-stakes election.