An argument for why Santorum is worth the fight...
By AcademicElephant Posted in 2006 — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
...and why Bob Casey should never be a US Senator can be found in today's WSJ.
It's actually quite simple. Mr. Casey is a rudderless lightweight whose stock-in-trade is a famous family name. He will be easily swayed by the extremists in his party. Those who tout his "strong" stance on abortion, which is in reality a warmed-over version of his father's policy, as evidence of his independent-mindedness should pay close attention to what Jason Riley called the "bobbing and weaving" of his campaign on Iraq until the electoral wind seemed to be blowing in the anti-war direction, at which point he quickly endorsed Ned Lamont. This is hardly encouraging.
Read on . . .
Riley also points out that Rick Santorum is more than the poster child for conservative social values:
Among the handful of Upper Chamber Republicans facing difficult races this year, however, a Rick Santorum loss easily would be the most damaging to political conservatives. Mr. Santorum, the No. 3 man in the Senate, is much more than a reliable vote for lower taxes and a strong national defense. He's also been a true reformer who's often willing to champion unpopular causes. Sen. Santorum floor managed the welfare-reform bill that turned 10-years-old this week. He's backed medical savings accounts and pushed for Social Security personal retirement accounts long before George W. Bush. That takes chutzpah for a senator from a state with a higher percentage of senior citizens than anywhere but Florida.
With the Democrats eating each other alive in Connecticut, it would behoove Republicans to refocus on Pennsylvania. I'm all for Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, but if your considering making a donation to Lieberman, why not give to Santorum instead? The dynamics of the two races are rather similar, and Santorum is, after all, a staunch Republican. This is still a winnable race for the senator, especially if he can keep up his effective TV campaign and prevail in the debates, as he should. While George Bush never carried PA, he did gain more than two percentage points between 2000 and 2004, so the state should not be considered an unassailable Democrat strong hold. And as Jason Riley points out today, this is about more than holding a reliable "R" vote in the Senate. Of course we all want that, but this race is also about replacing a capable man of conviction with a, well, with a Bob Casey, Jr.
Santorum is worth the fight.
to read this sentence:
"Mr. Rendell will win re-election easily over his Republican opponent this fall, the pro football great, Lynn Swann."
Are Swann's chances really that hopeless?
There is new keystone poll out that has santorum only back 5.
Casey 44-santorum 39-green 4. the problems is Santorum never seems to poll over 40 and the green party will probably not make the ballot.
check out politcal wire, they have a bunch of new polls listed, one interesting one has granholm back up 7 points.
A candidate who runs almost two months of un-countered tv advertising and can't move his numbers up isn't going to win.
than some would like, he is a far more reliable conservative than Casey would be.
I also like the "ruderless" analogy. If you are going to go into the senate as a "moderate" at this point in time, you better have some backbone, and a willingness to stick to your principles, even if you get shafted (one thing I respect Lieberman for was that he didn't back down, even when the lefties in his party were battering him).
I think the abortion area is one of the big pig in a poke issues of this race. Casey doesn't appear to have backbone, and from other posts on the race, I have the impression he doesn't really have too many ideas either. His main campaign issue seems to be "vote for me, you liked my father." I think voters looking for a pro lifer but not Santorum are going to get a pig in a poke, and we will have one more "pro life in name only" democrat in the senate.
This race epitomizes my frustration with many in the “sit this one out crowd”. Yes, I was upset as well in 2004 that Santorum helped Specter, but the chance to take out your frustration was the primary. Sitting out now will only allow yet another Democratic empty suit who is easily swayed by the Kos wing of the party in DC.
As a way OT observation, but is it just me, or are many of the hyped star candidates of the Dems this cycle nothing more than empty suits? Casey and Lamont have been well documented, but Klochubar (Minn), Tammy Duckworth (House Candidate in IL), Claire McCaskill (MO), Tester (MT) and Webb (VA) come to mind. They say little of substance on policy and rely on personal stories, connections, family names or the hoped for “wave” to carry them over the finish line. At least in 1994, our people at least had a brain and could defend policy and ideology statements.
"Are Swann's chances really that hopeless?"
I can give you 30 million+ reasons why they are (Rendell $$). Not time to throw the Hail Mary yet...
The last thing we need is one of the few conservative leaders to be shown the door.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.