Pennylvania Politics -- Santorum, Casey Debate

Rick Santorum and Bob Casey squared off on Tim Russert's Meet the Press this morning. It was a revealing encounter.

My take on it:

Santorum did well. He appeared to be much more comfortable with his positions and arguments than was Casey. When he got excited, as he did on a few issues, Santorum was obviously competent and forceful. Casey never projected that degree of coherence and confidence.

A couple of more specific observations:

I was impressed by Santorum's strong support for Bush. That took guts. Casey’s counter argument was fuzzy and not very coherent. He looked weak and indecisive — trying to straddle the issue. He wants better management, but doesn't specify just what he would do differently.

Casey encountered big problems when asked how he would balance the budget and fund new programs at the same time. He waffled on that, saying that raising taxes on the rich would cover it and Russert nailed him. On the other hand Santorum's endorsement of Bush's privatization plan for social security probably hurt him somewhat. Neither man looked good on economic issues.

The pay raise issue [it resonates here in Pennsylvania where the State legislature boosted their salaries this year and paid a severe political price] was a weak point for both sides. Neither benefits from it. Rick took pay raises — Casey weaseled, first approving the raise, then denouncing it. Both men should drop the subject.

Casey also looked weak on the morning-after pill position. He seemed to be catering to the feminists to some extent. Once again, waffling looks weak.

The most devastating item was the Rendell quote, “Santorum delivers.” It shows that Santorum can bring in the pork [and let’s face it — Pennsylvanians love pork] and that he can work effectively with the opposition party.

I have to admit that Casey looked better than I expected. He passed the minimum bar. He won’t embarrass us in Washington. But Rick was by far the more knowledgable and forceful figure. He did himself some good here.

Now it will be interesting to see next week's polls to see 1) if anyone was watching and 2) if it changed anyone's mind.

MSNBC has a transcript up here.

Blogger reactions:

Alex at SantorumBlog.com thought Santorum was "forceful" and "generally did pretty well." By contrast "Mr Casey managed to make himself look like an empty suit. Outside of standard Democrat talking points that anyone can argue, he seemed unprepared on his own positions."

Atrios, writing from the far left, was disgusted with Santorum's positions and Casey's ineptitude. After about twelve minutes he wrote: I can't take it anymore. Casey is awful and Tim Russert makes me want to shoot people in the face.

Jbird, from Philadelphia, has much the same reaction. "I managed to get through 12 minutes of "Meet the Press" before turing it off and ripping large chunks of hair out of my head." He concludes: "Mr. Casey's record and his lack of idea's are not suitable for this office" and asks, "Is there anyone else we can vote for?"

Redstate, viewing from the right, "Junior [Casey] was such a poor debate opponent in the Meet the Press debate, Tim Russert wound up standing in for him."

In a separate post:

"The Democrats blew it here in a big way. Rick Santorum was vulnerable, and the Democrats could have had a good chance of picking up this seat had they ran someone who could win. They blew it, banking on Casey's name." [here]


AP reports the debate here. Mostly a summary of the points raised with a sprinkling of quotes. Go to the transcript instead. The only outside opinion cited, pro Casey of course, was from a left-of-center Penn State professor.