Robert Casey Jr. Says He'll Run Against Santorum

KYW1060 ^

[Sub-Driver]

Robert Casey Jr. Says He'll Run Against Santorum by KYW's Tony Romeo

Robert Casey Jr., being wooed by national Democrats to challenge incumbent Republican senator Rick Santorum for his US Senate seat from Pennsylvania, has decided to jump into the race.

Earlier this week, Governor Rendell was asked about the prospects for a fight over the Democratic nomination for US Senate:

“I hope, in all cases, if we can avoid a Democratic primary, that would be a good result. But until anybody declares their intentions, it’s impossible. I’m not going to pick up the phone and talk to other candidates until I hear that someone definitely wants to run.”

After the governor made those remarks on Wednesday, former Pennsylvania treasurer (and former Republican) Barbara Hafer told the Associated Press she would run.

Then on Friday, when current treasurer Robert Casey Jr. also said he would run, Rendell did pick up the phone. Hafer has released a statement saying she’ll honor the governor’s wishes and stay out of the race.

[Soul Seeker]

I was speaking in generalities. I did not accuse you of not voting for Santorum as I had read your comments stating you would but perhaps I could make that clearer in my statements. Context of argument.

Me-Not supporting Santorum is no better than supporting Spectre. You'll be equally wrong

You-I disagree with the supposition. One can make a "political calculation" not to support and fight again another day.

me-we are to speak about political calculations, Santorum made a calculation he felt was right. To support Spectre. He is raked over the coals for it. Yet you suggest another calculation that would result in his loss from the Senate is acceptable. How is that any different? Seems we're right back where we started with my contention there is absolutely no difference. Equally wrong.

You suggested someone could make a political calculation to deny Santorum the Senate. That is no different than Santorum making a political calculation to support Spectre. Morally both individuals are on the same plane. It goes back to my original point that those that choose not to support Spectre, are no better than Santorum choosing to support Spectre and have no moral ground to walk if they emulate the behavior they state to despise. Because he "did it first" is not acceptable justification.

I WILL fault others that turn elsewhere. As they have faulted Santorum. Choose to engage in the same behavior, than they deserve the same condemnation. And I DID condemn Rick for that move.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "It goes back to my original point that those that choose not to support Spectre, are no better than Santorum choosing to support Spectre and have no moral ground to walk if they emulate the behavior they state to despise"

The last part of the above sentence makes no sense to me. But as to "no moral ground" I beg to differ. A person who does not support Specter being a "moral" equal to Santorum supporting Specter is just hog wash. Maybe your moral equal but Santorum says he is pro life and Specter says he is not, for the pro life voter that is not acceptable. He or she has the advantage of consistency when they refuse to vote for Specter and look for a pro life candidate.

The issue of "can they win" is another issue but it is manipulation to demand a vote for a man just because there is a R behind his name. By your supposition an Republican who is not likely to get more than 30%of the popular vote should not be voted for because his more popular Democratic opponent is likely to win. Is not that 30% just throwing away their vote. How on earth are we going to influence these politicians if we do not support a better candidate, even one who may lose. Your formula is guaranteed to produce mediocre and con men in office. You also have no right to demand support where it is not deserved and to suggest they are morally wrong is false and manipulative. People have a right to vote for who they wish even for a man who may loose. Our Constitution has been trashed and the election system is in shambles and attitudes that insist on more of the same will not win me over nor will it fix one da## thing.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "What are Pat Toomeys conservative accomplishments????????"

What are Specter's? I believe you voted for Specter in the Primary or did I misunderstand something?

A random dart thrown at a Pittsburgh phone book would have done better than the PA GOP voters. Almost every single GOP politician has a thiner file than Specter. I think you keep raising this issue because you can not accept the fact many primary voters were just lazy and voted for the devil they knew. (sorry fella you guys broke it you need to fix it)

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "The political calculation was made the Republicans could not afford the loss of one Senate seat, and that Santorum needed Spectre on his side, not actively campaigning against him in '06. And Spectre would have done just that if removed by party rebellion. Whether he ran against Santorum himself or utilized his "friends" in Penn, he'd have waged war against Santorum."

This kind of thinking just drives me wild, it is exactly the problem. By every word you give great examples why Specter needed to be taken out.

I used to raise chickens for fun but they have a tendency to attract snakes. By your line of thinking I should let the rattlesnake sleep in the hen house.

You do what you want but in my hen house I will keep the shovel handy thank you very much.

[Soul Seeker]

I don't know how I can be more clear. I will repeat only once more, after that I must assume we are destined not to be able to communicate.

Santorum made a political calculation to support Spectre. he did so because he did not want Spectre as an enemy. he did so in hopes Spectre would return the favor with support in '06 and in hopes Spectre would return the endorsement by supporting the Republicans that kept him in office. I do not feel he made the choice of his conscience but rather calculation.

A voter that chooses not to support Santorum on basis of "payback" for that endorsement is not on a high moral ground. A voter that dismisses a pro-life conservative in favor of a, he says, pro-life Liberal to make a point with the GOP is following a political calculation of their own. One I feel will do more damage. A calculation that is no different than the one made in '92 with Clinton. Revenge over the endorsement of Spectre is NOT taking the high moral ground as endorsing Spectre because of a political calculus is not taking the high ground. Morally each judgement is wrong.

Neither is assessed on the qualifications of the candidate and which individual best represents the state. Each indication of support is based on what suits that person's emotional needs. Santorum's survival in the Senate and the Penn voter's disgust at the endorsement. Neither earns my respect.

Please spare me the rant in the second paragraph. Name one instance where I stated they couldn't vote for the individual of their choice. You will find not one. You will find my disgust if they don't vote for santorum. YOU have no right to suggest I cannot disrespect that decision anymore than you have the right to suggest I cannot disrespect the decision to vote for Kerry in the general.

Sure, they have the right to do with their vote as they wish. And I can tell them what I think of that vote, as they can tell me what they think of mine. Just as many voters have exercised their right to disrespect the choice of Rep voters in Penn that chose Spectre to represent them in the General. Funny how their wishes are disrespected around here without a thought spared. Everyone wishes to pile on Bush or Santorum but voters in Penn made the call and that is conveniently swept under the rug in condemnation of the other two because it doesn't suit the outraged agenda of people that came close to having Toomey representation in the General.

Nor will you find ONE instance of where I stated someone should vote for someone because they have an "R" by their name. FYI, I wanted Spectre to lose. Blows that theory out of the water, doesn't it? I'm also supporting a Hagel loss.

[TAdams8591]

Rick DESERVES this tough fight and he won't have as many pro-lifers who will be helping him.

[Soul Seeker]

I told YOU the calculation THEY made. It was not MY calculation. To imply otherwise is dishonest. his converstaion is over.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

Santorum has lost a very big club to bash his democratic opponent. Santorum has lost credibility on this issue, no one will like hearing that fact but you can not change it. Casey will be able to make the case he can do more for the prolife possition than Santorum. It will be a lie but he will be able to make it, and a lot will buy it.

Not if Santorum hits Casey over the head over the issue of judges. Casey's pro-life views won't mean beans if he joins the Democratic obstruction cabal. He can easily be tagged as a hypocrite.

[TAdams8591]

You can BLAME the Republican party AND RICK SANTORUM FOR THAT ONE.

But don't worry. Rick will squeak by in the end, that's my prediction.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "A LOT of PA Republicans are pissed about it and I fear that he - and not Specter - will pay the price."

I hope you have better luck with Ramcat on this. Several have been trying to make this clear to him for sometime on this thread but to no avail.

//shuush// don't tell anyone but I think he is feeling inadequate as a voter and instead of getting a corvette or a new stereo with really big speakers he would rather attack those who are pointing out the week position Santorum finds himself.

[Mo1]

AND RICK SANTORUM FOR THAT ONE.

No .. re read my post

[TAdams8591]

Wow, Mo. Some choice. A Republican who callously BETRAYED the pro-lifers and the innocent babies he TALKS about defending (by his enthusiastic support of Specter over TOOMEY) and a candidate backed by RENDELL, a GOVERNOR who did in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and personally pulled a fast one on me and mine.

I will end up voting for Santorum. But I won't encourage others to do so, nor will I give his campaign a lick of help. I cannot FAULT the "true" conservatives who Santorum BETRAYED that will refuse to vote for him. Santorum and the Republican Party brought this on themselves.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "You suggested someone could make a political calculation to deny Santorum the Senate. That is no different than Santorum making a political calculation to support Spectre. Morally both individuals are on the same plane."

No they are not the same. Santorum claims to be prolife and conservative but supported a man who is neither prolife nor conservative and is in fact a clear and present danger to returning the Court to one that behaves in a legal and responsible manner. Santorum did that, he did not have to he could have shut his mouth (it would be refreshing if a few pol did so) A voter who refuses to follow Rick's lead is not morally equal UNLESS he also supports a similar candidate, but that is not what I was describing nor is a voter who stays at home. The voter who refuses to vote for Specter by staying home or the voter who votes for a conservative prolife third party candidate has not compromised their moral position, Rick has compromised his.

He has no leg to stand on on issues such as abortion, or rule of law judges. Words are meaningless when compromised by actions. They are not moral equals. Don't believe me go into any family where one of the parents do drugs or drinks too much and see how effective they are in keeping their kids straight.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "Not if Santorum hits Casey over the head over the issue of judges. Casey's pro-life views won't mean beans if he joins the Democratic obstruction cabal. He can easily be tagged as a hypocrite."

There is no way Santorum can use that with out being pegged a Hypocrite as well. I just used the prolife plank as one example but I would also include the issue of judges as a lost opportunity for Rick as well. You should check out the threads on FR last year when all this was hot and heavy; it was the issue of the Courts as much as prolife that had people mad at Bush and Santorum. Many were quoting Arlin and his "Scottish Law" rulings being ground for some of his votes on the floor of the Senate. I agree Casey will be bad and I do not know what to recommend for the voters of PA but Rick has lost a lot of ammo to protect the back of a snake. Now he is getting bit and I for one am have some trouble mustering sympathy. I fault none who wish to help him but I don't think those who were Rick's enablers (Specter primary voters) have ground to attack those who think Rick brought it on himself.

[Soul Seeker]

Ah, I see.

So the new litmus test of whether someone is pro-life is whether they ONLY support pro-Life candidates. Gotcha. I must have missed the memo where politicians are no longer responsible only for their own actions, but those of their contemporaries.

To extend the natural conclusion of that argument, we have no pro-life politicians. We would also have few "true" pro-Life voters.

The voter who refuses to vote for Specter by staying home or the voter who votes for a conservative prolife third party candidate has not compromised their moral position, Rick has compromised his.

The reason WHY they chose to do this rather than support the conservative PRO LIFE candidate IS subject to a moral compromise. They are not doing so to benefit conservatism or the pro life position, who is kidding whom here. They would be doing so out of malice toward Santorum for not supporting Toomey. I don't care how you attempt to justify this decision, it is still based on the wrong motivation. It makes it morally equivalent to a political calculation on the part of Santorum.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "So the new litmus test of whether someone is pro-life is whether they ONLY support pro-Life candidates. Gotcha. I must have missed the memo where politicians are no longer responsible only for their own actions, but those of their contemporaries."

You presume too much but I am noticing that is pretty common on this thread. What is it with you PA voters?

In one sense they are responsible for the actions of their peers but only too a point. As an example many voters punished the GOP after the Nixon scandal. Was that fair? It does not matter, it is the way of things and you had better take it into consideration. It will always be so so railing at the wind is pointless. I read somewhere you are known by the company you keep. Don't like that, then take it up with the writer of the Bible.

Re: "The reason WHY they chose to do this (not vote for Specter) rather than support the conservative PRO LIFE candidate IS subject to a moral compromise. They are not doing so to benefit conservatism or the pro life position, who is kidding whom here. They would be doing so out of malice toward Santorum for not supporting Toomey."

Again you presume too much, darling this is positively epidemic. You have no window into the soul of thousands of voters, stop pretending you do. I don't buy it and I doubt anyone else does either. The only people who would agree with this pompous pronouncement is someone who wills himself to agree. I can't take this seriously, you are entering into a world of fantasy. People will make all sorts of calculations on the support they give or deny to Santorum, for you to assign a moral value to what you have no idea about is asinine.

[Soul Seeker]

You presume too much but I am noticing that is pretty common on this thread.

I see.

What is it with you PA voters?

I'm in Washington State.

You have deliberately taken statements and mis-characterized them. You have insinuated rationale behind the GOP's decision to support Santorum was my own, you have lied about statements I did not make such as stating I support "R" candidates at all cost, and to end you respond with patronizing insult.

I should have remained with my previous position to end conversation with you. I admit that was an err on my part. One I will not repeat.

[Ramcat]

Still stirring up trouble?
I've never attacked anybody on any thread.
You and ol rotty are thicker than what I'm used to dealing with. All you know is grudge and revenge politics.
Good luck to you friend.
We'll take good care of Pennsylvania thank you.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "We'll take good care of Pennsylvania thank you"

We can see that. Perhaps that is why it is sinking into a deeper blue every election. Even the win by a Republican is a Demoncrat victory. But with former Democrats like you on the side of the GOP how could it be otherwise.

[Ramcat]

Have a nice day Mr. South.
I'm done conversing with you.
Insult as you feel necessary.