Pro vs. Con: Casey won the debate

By Sam Fran Scavuzzo
Collegian Editor
September 13, 2006

“Let me tell you, Tim, Rendell’s endorsement, residency and any other small issue is not the point in this election; what matters is that Sen. Rick Santorum voted with President Bush more than 90 percent of the time. This is what he will have to answer to the voters come Election Day.”

These closing remarks by State Treasurer and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Bob Casey, Jr. effectively describe why he won the debate and, in turn, will become the junior senator from the Keystone State.

The Sept. 3 debate on Meet the Press allowed the Pennsylvania electorate and nation as a whole to see Santorum and Casey square up for the first time.

The debate saw Santorum admirably stick to his guns with the issues of the war in Iraq, the job performance of both Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Social Security. However, I believe this is precisely why he lost the debate.

Early, MSNBC moderator Tim Russert fired questions at Santorum that challenged his stay-the-course approach involving Iraq. Santorum defended his stance well, but offered nothing new to the public. Possibly going for a sound bite, Casey called for the unpopular Rumsfeld’s resignation; much to the challenger’s delight, Santorum refuted this point and further cemented his alliance with the Bush administration.

One could tell this wasn’t Santorum’s first big campaign as he pulled veteran punches, questioning Casey’s roll in the state pay raise, his incomplete plan in Iraq and the support the pro-life Casey has for “Plan B,” the morning after pill.

I thought Santorum had some cheap blows as well that hurt his strong points against Casey. When discussing the candidate’s hypocrisy regarding the morning after pill, he stated, “I think his father [deceased former Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey, Sr.] would be very upset if he were alive today and heard him be supportive of something like this.”

Additionally, Sen. Santorum appeared a little too power hungry when saying, “Currently, I am the number three man in the Senate and with a victory, I hope to be number two.”

Although Casey certainly couldn’t be described as elegant, I believe he did defend his points more effectively than Santorum did. When Russert read statements noting the apparent deferring remarks regarding his stance, Casey clearly affirmed he never called for a deadline in Iraq and emphasized his push to increase and improve armor for the troops.

It seemed the best check on Casey during the entire debate did not come from Santorum but, instead, from Russert. He pushed him several times on the candidate’s unclear stance regarding the budget, Social Security and also his unwillingness to cut any programs. However, because the moderator instead of the incumbent said this, I can’t give the credit to Santorum.

Also, I’m not sure how many people noticed, but La Salle University got a mention [it helped the slightly aided the Casey side]. On Oct. 18, 1994, the then-challenger Santorum spoke to Explorer students in his first senatorial campaign. A statement from that speech has haunted Santorum; the senator did jokingly say it is the only thing everyone in the state has heard him say, as every candidate running against him always uses it.

“It is ridiculous that we have a retirement age in this country of 65 today,” said the younger Santorum. “Let’s push it back to 70. I’d go farther if I could, but I don’t think I could pass it.”

This issue was quickly dismissed by the senator, calling it a wide-eyed policy by a rookie senate candidate; he assured Pennsylvanians he never has written a bill calling for this nor will he. Still La Salle got a mention.

Most importantly, aside from allusions to La Salle, the decisive factor in the debate for me was Casey’s numerous jabs at Santorum for undeniably being a rubber stamp for the Bush administration.

Casey called Santorum out and Russert backed it up with numbers saying Santorum voted with the president “95 percent, 100 percent, 99 percent, 96 percent and 99 percent” of the time in each year of the Bush regime respectively.

Casey told the public it’s time for a change in Pennsylvania and the nation. Bush and Republicans in Congress need to be held accountable; you can see if this assertion of mine is true in November. Although the Santorum-Casey race will be too close to call, the trend of incumbents holding office nationally may change. Come January, you may see a Democrat be sworn in as majority leader in either congressional chamber.

For this debate, though, I am going with Casey as he finally defined who he is as a candidate and clearly told Pennsylvanians that if they want a senator to question President Bush, then they better not vote for Rick Santorum.

scavuzzos1@lasalle.edu