Posted on 10/09/2005 8:47:33 AM PDT by Crackingham
At the end of a long stretch of bad news for Republicans, approval ratings for both President Bush and Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., plunged to new lows among Pennsylvania voters this past week -- spelling out new warning signs for Mr. Santorum that winning re-election in 2006 may be a far steeper climb than it seemed even a few months ago.
It has been an unquestionably brutal summer for the president -- from waning support for the Iraq war, to the slow and almost certain death of his plan to restructure the Social Security system, to criticism over his handling of Hurricane Katrina, to concern about gas prices and the economy. If those trends continue, a looming question for candidates like Mr. Santorum is to what extent the public's dissatisfaction with the administration will spill over into the midterm elections in 2006.
Though much could change, a number of political analysts have begun to note similarities between the 2006 election and 1994, when Republicans capitalized on the failure of President Bill Clinton's health care plan, among other initiatives, as well as scandals within the Democratic Party, and swept into power with 54 new House seats.
Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, points out that the second midterm election in a president's tenure tends to produce the steepest losses, though Mr. Clinton defied that pattern in 1998.
"Midterm elections tend to be referendums on the current administration and they are more easily made referendums when the president's party is in control of Congress," Mr. Mann said. "It's shaping up to be an unfortunate time for [Mr. Santorum] to run for re-election; it would have been easier in 2004 or 2002."
(Excerpt) Read more at postgazette.com ...
Roost, my little chickens. The quest for a conservative Senate begins now.
With Santorum gone, that goal will be one seat backward.
The Miers pick is putting Republican Congressmen and Senators in an impossible situation in 2006. I think it's time for full pressure to be put on Bush to withdraw this nomination. Perhaps a watergate-like "intervention" from a group of conservative Senators.
Sen. Santorum: stay loyal. People like that.
Are you a Pennsylvanian? I am.
Are you involved in PA Repub. politics? I am.
Did you ever consider that Toomey likely would have lost in the general election? It's not just "conservative bona fides" that means something--your party has to believe you can go the distance beyond the primary. Right or wrong, the Repubs here, and nationally, didn't think that Pat had the chops. I don't think he did, either: He is HORRIBLE on TV, and not much better in print interviews. (I know the primary was close, but the Dems here were rooting for Toomey to win, even contributing to him, because they knew they could beat him in the general).
Santorum read the equation, and thus endorsed Specter. I don't especiallly like Arlen, but frankly it was beyond my control. It was a political calculus.
People like you want to punish Santorum for not endorsing a candidate that everyone knew would lose. Good move: Let's knock down one of our most conservative senators, with one of the biggest national profiles on our side of the aisle, and give up a Senate seat while we're at it.
"The quest for a conservative Senate begins now."
With payback-minded "conservatives" like yourself, that quest's start date might have to be pushed back.
At this point, it probably doesn't much matter. He's toast.
Perhaps Rick now regrets helping get Arlen Specter reelected in the Republican primary last year. If not for Specter and the RINOS in the Senate, we'd likely have a known originalist the base could rally around and Santorum would have a base ready to turn out and vote for him.
If Santorum gave two figs for the base, he would have backed Toomey. As for the Miers nomination, that is entirely an outcome of having that feeble squish Specter chairing the Judiciary Committee. Santorum bought and paid for what's coming to him, and he deserves to receive it in full measure.
It was politics over principle. Bush traded Santorum for Specter. If Casey stays quiet and 'hides the salami', he wins.
It's not President Bush he should distance himself from, its specter....he should NEVER have endorsed him....we were going for Toomey...
Now Ricky, you can sit in your home and think about who you represent...or better yet, WHO you should have represted!!
I'll vote for a democrat before I will vote for you...thats how much I destest what you did...
He'll still be able to endorse Toomey - as a private citizen.
I thought I read at the time that Specter had supported Santorum when he ran, and Santorum owed him for that. (I'm not from PA, and I could be remembering wrong.)
"I thought I read at the time that Specter had supported Santorum when he ran, and Santorum owed him for that. (I'm not from PA, and I could be remembering wrong.)"
That was a piece of the equation I spoke of. Beyond that, the biggest thing was that Toomey would have lost us a Senate seat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.