Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Casey: It's a Go (Schumer on the Spot)
The American Prowler ^ | 3/3/2005 | The Prowler

Posted on 03/02/2005 8:52:34 PM PST by nickcarraway

Word was coming late Wednesday that Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. was prepared to announce as early as Thursday or more likely Friday that he will throw his hat into the ring to challenge Sen. Rick Santorum in 2006. Casey has been actively recruited by both Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman Charles Schumer.

Casey, a pro-life Catholic, is viewed by the Democrats as the strongest candidate they could field against the conservative Catholic Santorum. Schumer and Reid, according to Democratic Senate staffers, have both reached out to Casey in the past week and before that were checking in regularly, gauging his interest and trying to persuade him to run.

Schumer has gone so far as to promise to clear the field for Casey, which would allow Casey to focus during the primary season on reaching out to undecideds and firming up his Democratic base. It would also allow him to save hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars for the general election.

But Schumer may not be able to keep that promise. Given Casey's Catholicism and well-documented pro-life positions -- which he shares with his revered late father, Gov. Bob Casey -- a number of longstanding Democratic organizations plan to oppose Casey and to finance their own candidate in the Democratic primary.

EMILY's List and the National Organization for Women have been looking for a pro-abortion candidate that they could put forward. Both organizations have in the past been closely aligned with Schumer, and thus far the man from New York has been sidestepping a confrontation. "He's going to have to face these folks down, and deal with his recruitment of Casey at some point," says a DSCC staffer. "But across the board Democrats know that Casey makes Santorum that much more vulnerable in 2006."

Santorum, though, has been anticipating a tough campaign from the beginning -- Democrats had targeted him six months ago as a vulnerable incumbent. Casey will have better name recognition than many incumbent challengers, and Schumer and the national party will make sure that he is well-financed.

But millions of dollars won't buy Casey the kind of energy and personality that Santorum shows on the campaign trail, and that is why Santorum remains a strong incumbent in an election cycle that may see Republicans gain perhaps three additional Senate seats.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New York; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: abortion; casey; catholic; democrats; dscc; emilyslist; naral; now; pennsylvania; prolife; santorum; senate

1 posted on 03/02/2005 8:52:36 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
If the Republicans don't do SOMETHING to bring the high-profile RINOs to heel (particularly in the senate), they won't be gaining any seats. The spineless activities of our GOP senators has me worried that we may be looking at a bloodbath in 2006.

Santorum may have compromised himself with conservatives in PA, but not enough to warrant voting for a democrat. I'd be curious to hear Casey's position on "gay marriage" . . .
2 posted on 03/02/2005 9:00:08 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I thought Casey was in poor health a few years ago.


3 posted on 03/02/2005 9:12:16 PM PST by secret garden (Go Spurs Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Oops, ignore the previous post. Next time I'll actually read the entire article.


4 posted on 03/02/2005 9:13:35 PM PST by secret garden (Go Spurs Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
If the Republicans don't do SOMETHING to bring the high-profile RINOs to heel (particularly in the senate),

What exactly do you have in mind, which will accomplish what electorally?

5 posted on 03/02/2005 9:14:17 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
My guess is Santorum will be unopposed in the Republican primary.

I dont see Chucky Cheese clearing the way for Casey. He will be bloodied by the leftie challenger, while Rick can hit the ground runnng. No contest.

6 posted on 03/02/2005 9:38:33 PM PST by smoothsailing (Eagles Up !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I wouldn't be too sure, with the defeat of Daschle, defeating Santorum would be the closest revenge they could get-- an eye for an eye.


7 posted on 03/02/2005 9:49:43 PM PST by Maverick32984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Santorum....a vulnerable incumbent.

Well to vote for Santorum I would have to cut off my nose, never mind hold it. so yeah I guess he is "vulnerable". I am not the only one who feels this way.

8 posted on 03/02/2005 10:31:57 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

You would have to hold your nose to vote for one of the most consevative, pro-life members of the Senate? Why?


9 posted on 03/02/2005 10:34:50 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

Gee, Santorum hacked Pat Toomey to endorse Arlen "Scottish Law" Specter and continue his reign of terror on the Judiciary committee. I can't imagine why montag would feel that way. /sarcasm

Casey will get the nod, Santorum will lose in the general because conservatives will stay home, and PA will be stuck with two libs in the Senate. Thanks a lot, Rove.


10 posted on 03/02/2005 11:39:06 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (The South will rise again? Hell, we ever get states' rights firmly back in place, the CSA has risen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
I kinda figured. It's a bad reason, I was trying to get you to actually reason it out.

I'm not a big fan of Specter either, but Santorm is a great Senator, and it is arguable that Specter actually did more for us, and the pro-life cause even, then Toomey would have. Lets look at a couple of facts:

1. Toomey may have lost. He may have won, but he may well have lost. Bush lost the state, however narrowly, so it seems like it would be a 50/50 shot at best.

2. Even if he would have won, it undoubtedly would have cost lots of national money and focus. Specter cost no money or focus.

Meanwhile:

Burr: 52%, Bowles 48%
Murkowski: 49%, Knowles 46%
Vitter: 51%, Others 49%
Thune: 51%, Dashle 49%
Martinez: 49%, Castor 48%

All obviously very close. It is very likely that we would have lost one or more of these seats had we had to divert attention to Pennsylvania.

And for all Specters problems, he votes with us 90% of the time when push comes to shove. He has voted for every Bush Judicial Nominee, for everything we wanted in the war on terror, etc.

I don't know what I would have done as a primary voter in Pennsylvania, Santorm did what he thought was right, and he may well have been right for the cause of Conservatives and even pro-lifers everywhere.

'Punishing' Santorum for that is not only downright stupid, it's self-distructive.
11 posted on 03/03/2005 12:13:31 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

I agree with your basic premise that no punishmnet should be meted out to Santoum in any form, since he did what he thought was right and politically expedient then. But it certainly didn't help the pro-life cause. Think then, even if Toomey won the primary and lost the general elections, Kyl would be the new judiciary chairman and we would still possess a 54 seat majority.


12 posted on 03/03/2005 12:46:20 AM PST by Moderate right-winger (BEWARE of 2006 and 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

I agree with your basic premise that no punishment should be meted out to Santorum in any form, since he did what he thought was right and politically expedient then. But it certainly didn't help the pro-life cause. Think then, even if Toomey won the primary and lost the general elections, Kyl would be the new judiciary chairman and we would still possess a 54 seat majority. That being said, h still desreves re-election.


13 posted on 03/03/2005 12:46:59 AM PST by Moderate right-winger (BEWARE of 2006 and 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Torie

What exactly is the point of electing Republicans when they act like Democrats? Santorum is a conservative, mostly. But, he did stab a very conservative Republican on the back not too long ago. That wound would not heal anytime soon.


14 posted on 03/03/2005 1:13:04 AM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; All
EMILY's List and the National Organization for Women have been looking for a pro-abortion candidate that they could put forward.

I've got the ultimate pro-abortion candidate for Emily's List and NOW: Steven Schiovone.

New York Woman Was Murdered Because She Refused Abortion

Long Island, NY -- Relatives of a slain Long Island woman say she was murdered because she refused to have an abortion. Susan Ambrosino was shot in the head last week and then shoved into a car trunk. The alleged killer, Steven Schiovone, was the father of Ambrosino’s unborn child.

Ambrosino’s brother, Anthony Napolitano, said at a news conference that Schiovone wanted Ambrosino to have an abortion, an idea that repulsed her.

15 posted on 03/03/2005 3:49:33 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Casey, a pro-life Catholic, is viewed by the Democrats as the strongest candidate they could field

Casey is a liar and the truth is not in him.

How can he claim to be pro-life and yet support the party of death? He is either lying about being pro-life or lying about being a democrat. And since he is lying either way that makes him a democrat as they are also the party of liars

I pray that God saves and changes him or removes him totally from public life before he drags others into hell with him

16 posted on 03/03/2005 5:33:16 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
You would have to hold your nose to vote for one of the most consevative, pro-life members of the Senate? Why?

Because he threw those credentials in the trash by backing Specter over toomey. Specter feels abortion is akin to removing an unwanted wart. Toomey values innocent human life. Toomey would have won. It was an unacceptable (and unneccesary) betrayal.

17 posted on 03/03/2005 2:17:09 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: montag813
" Because he threw those credentials in the trash by backing Specter over toomey."

Yep. I believe a leading Republican but it this way 'you are either for us or against us'.

18 posted on 03/03/2005 2:40:58 PM PST by ex-snook (Exporting jobs and the money to buy America is lose-lose..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Moderate right-winger
I agree with your basic premise that no punishment should be meted out to Santorum in any form, since he did what he thought was right and politically expedient then. But it certainly didn't help the pro-life cause. Think then, even if Toomey won the primary and lost the general elections, Kyl would be the new judiciary chairman and we would still possess a 54 seat majority. That being said, h still desreves re-election. I think you are missing the key point of my arguement. My arguement was twofold: 1. Specter, while personally bad on abortion, is pretty good on judges, which for all practical purposes are the law on abortion right now. He gets flack for Bork, who, in my opinion, is a little weird (although I would have voted for anyway, but still), but he backed Thomas, and has backed 100% of Bush's appointments. He also won his election with 0 help and 0 money from the national party. 2. Meanwhile, we DUMPED money into other very close Senate races, the ones I listed, and with the exception of Lisa Murkowski, whom is moderate on the issue while her opponent was a standard pro-abortion guy, all were pro-life. It seems reasonable to think that even had Toomey WON, he well could have lost, say, the Florida Senate race, or South Dakota, because he would have drained money and energy from them. And both of which are far bigger victories, for the pro-life cause as well as for the party it seems to me, then getting rid of Specter. It seems to me, that at the end of the day, it was very possible, even likely, that we would have wound up with 53 Senators, and lost 2 seats we now hold, both of which vote our way on judges. I think that keeping Specter, who votes with us on judges, and devoting our money to other, more important races, helped the party and the pro-life cause.
19 posted on 03/03/2005 7:33:16 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Two things:

1. Read my last post, which I detail why I believe that keeping Specter actually helped the pro-life movement as well as the party. Even if you disagree, I'm pretty sure Santorum agreed, and it seems silly to punish him for it, especially when he's one of the most pro-life Senators in the senate.

2. You do know that Toomey was pro-choice till midway through his second term, when he started thinking of running for Senate, don't you?

Don't get me wrong, I think Toomey would be a better Senator then Specter too in a perfect world, but I think in the situation that presented it's self, it worked out best the way it happened, both for the party and for the pro-life cause.


20 posted on 03/03/2005 7:36:58 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Moderate right-winger
(!*#*), Sorry, for reasons I can't figure out, my computer can't decide if I need to put in HTML for page breaks on FR or if it will do it automatically.

Here's what I was trying to say:

I agree with your basic premise that no punishment should be meted out to Santorum in any form, since he did what he thought was right and politically expedient then. But it certainly didn't help the pro-life cause. Think then, even if Toomey won the primary and lost the general elections, Kyl would be the new judiciary chairman and we would still possess a 54 seat majority. That being said, h still desreves re-election.

I think you are missing the key point of my argument. My argument was twofold:

1. Specter, while personally bad on abortion, is pretty good on judges, which for all practical purposes are the law on abortion right now. He gets flack for Bork, who, in my opinion, is a little weird (although I would have voted for anyway, but still), but he backed Thomas, and has backed 100% of Bush's appointments. He also won his election with 0 help and 0 money from the national party.

2. Meanwhile, we DUMPED money into other very close Senate races, the ones I listed, and with the exception of Lisa Murkowski, whom is moderate on the issue while her opponent was a standard pro-abortion guy, all were pro-life. It seems reasonable to think that even had Toomey WON, he well could have lost, say, the Florida Senate race, or South Dakota, because he would have drained money and energy from them. And both of which are far bigger victories, for the pro-life cause as well as for the party it seems to me, then getting rid of Specter. It seems to me, that at the end of the day, it was very possible, even likely, that we would have wound up with 53 Senators, and lost 2 seats we now hold, both of which vote our way on judges. I think that keeping Specter, who votes with us on judges, and devoting our money to other, more important races, helped the party and the pro-life cause.

21 posted on 03/03/2005 7:40:37 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

I appreciate your well-reasoned comments. Thanks.


22 posted on 03/03/2005 10:07:41 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Casey enters U.S. Senate race; Hafer withdraws
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1356076/posts
12:50 pm – 3/4/2005


23 posted on 03/04/2005 10:00:47 AM PST by pittsburgh gop guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson