Pro vs. Con: Santorum won the debate

By Joe Baker
Collegian Reporter
September 13, 2006

One of the most important political events in recent memory occurred two Sundays ago, yet many of Pennsylvania’s citizens remained entirely unaware. Their excuse, of course, was that they were caught up in the Labor Day weekend festivities. However, this lack of an audience could do nothing to diminish the importance of the first televised Senatorial debate between incumbent Republican Senator Rick Santorum and his Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr.

From the outset, it was extremely evident that national issues would play a key role in this first debate. Concerning the war in Iraq, neither candidate ventured far from their respective party’s talking points on the conflict. However, once the discussion shifted onto the other key issues, it became readily apparent that Sen. Santorum had the upper hand.

For instance, Santorum dominated the discussion on the legalization of the over-the-counter sale of the morning after pill, Plan-B. The senator was much more concise and factual with his arguments against the pill’s legalization and its distinction between being contraception or an abortifacient (Santorum favoring the latter).

He was also able to successfully paint Casey, who claims to be a staunch pro-life advocate, as having shifted his previous opinion on the matter in an attempt to politically center himself in the run-up to the election – even though doing so violated his “moral principles.” Consequently, election history shows that a candidate who has wavered in his views will struggle with the independent vote. John Kerry, anyone?

However, out of all of the discussions in this debate which Santorum won, none are more crucial to his success than his complete dismantling of Casey on any economic issue and, more specifically, the future of Social Security. The state treasurer, whom one would think would have some strong points on this issue, laid out no plan for ending these economic woes other than to offer vague statements such as “economic growth,” “return to fiscal responsibility” and, as if Howard Dean had placed the words right in his mouth, “make changes to the estate tax.” Santorum, in contrast, laid out a concrete plan aimed at fixing the economy along with a step-by-step approach at curing the degenerative Social Security system through privatization.

This debate was crucial for many reasons. First, it marked the beginning of what will most assuredly be a wild ride through November. Santorum, the third-ranking Senator in the Republican-led Congress, is still trailing Casey in the polls, despite a summer-long blitz of campaign commercials, which cut deep into Casey’s once double-digit lead. Second, according to many political experts nationwide, this specific race can be viewed as a microcosm of the entire political landscape as we approach the hotly contested midterm elections; it pits a seasoned, accomplished Republican incumbent against a relatively new and inexperienced Democratic challenger.

This battle will be waged throughout countless states across the nation, as Democrats attempt to regain one, if not both, houses. Capitalizing on the American public’s growing resentment towards the Bush Administration, Democrats are portraying a vast array of Republican incumbents as being rubber stamps for the President’s policies.

If what was seen on Meet the Press two weeks ago is any indication – and this race is, in fact, a representation of the entirety of the midterm elections – it is safe to say that the Democrats may be in trouble. Santorum was able to give concrete answers to questions and prove his worth to the state (Casey-supporting Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell even had to admit that no one does more for the state than Santorum), while at the same time painting Casey as a candidate who gives nothing but vague, roundabout responses.

As the political season kicks into high gear, and even the casual voter begins gaining interest in the issues, debates such as this one will prove that these races are much more then just the Democrats versus the President. Rather, they deal with seasoned politicians, versed in the issues and capable of relating them to the public, facing off against challengers who are running on nothing more than the mere fact that they are not Republicans. Unfortunately for Casey and the Democratic National Committee, more of these debates will continue to take place, voters will listen, and Casey and Co. may very well begin to see the shrinking of their much-heralded leads.

bakerj5@lasalle.edu