Meet the Press Debate
Pre-Game:
The Santorum team has been anticipating the debates for an entire year now, banking on the fact that Casey is a lousy debator; a pretty boring guy, and weak on the issues. Rick is going to try to pin him down on anything. “Growing the economy” to save Social Security and raising taxes on the rich aren’t really positions. Rick will hammer the War on Islamic Fascism and will press the Iran issue.
Casey has been preparing for this debate for eighteen months. He better have his stuff together. No doubt you will hear the “98%” argument. It’s hard to predict what else Bob Casey will say, since he hasn’t said much to date. Probably boilerplate Democrat talking points and attack attack attack. No positive positions.
(the quotes are “gists”)
10:30: Ha! The Bobby Casey “not showing up for work ad” played just before the show started.
Intro
None, they went right into the issues. Santorum dark suit, red tie. Casey not as dark suit, light blue tie.
War in Iraq
Russert: Knowing what you know today would you have voted for the war in Iraq?
Casey: “Based on today’s situation, Americans would have serious doubts.” “Based on evidence then, Yes, today, vote no. There wouldn’t have been a vote.” Tim had him on the ropes, he tried to avoid the question. He would not vote to cut off funding. New leadership, and no timeline. 1) Need Accountability. Replace Rumsfeld. 2) Need benchmarks. 3) Transform the mission from leading Iraqis, they need to take over. 4) Rebuild the American military, more special forces.
Santorum defends Rumsfeld. Enemy has effectively changed tactics, fight the war on Islamic Fascism, Iraq is only one front. Terror is a tactic. People willing to die for their cause are hard to fight. Questions on process and procedure (Casey’s questions) have been answered.
Russert: Sectarian violence is the problem in Iraq. Iraqi vs Iraqi, what do you do?
Santorum: Iran is the principle stoker of the violence. They would love nothing more to see than Iraq to fail. The violence is Iran’s doing. At the heart is Iran of the problems in the Middle East.
Casey: Santorum says Stay the Course.
Russert: There has been an evolution in Casey’s thinking. Cites the Inquirer on Casey’s Iraq positions… October 2005. “Stay the course”…. June ‘06…. “leave by end of year”.
Casey: I’ve never favored a deadline. Hold Administration accountable. Iraq headed toward civil war. Bob Casey votes “no” on withdrawl.
Russert: Would you acknowledge pre-war WMD threat as false?
Santorum: Over 500 chemical weapons found. We have not found new weapons, old weapons. Report says more.
Russert: Was Iraq a serious and grave threat to US?
Santorum: Yes. They were training terrorists, and relationships with terrorists, including bounties for killing Israelis.
Santorum is defending the war on terror, saying that no one gets credit for no attacks on America in five years. It’s a strong defense, listing the reasons. “There is no question that the Iraq war should have commenced.”
Russert: Is administration getting it right in Iraq? What would you do differently?
Santorum: Iraqi’s take control, international help. We’re not addressing Iranian influence.
Casey: You’re hearing a long speech about other Santorum speeches. More special forces, doubling forces, counter proliferation forces, and interception. “We need accountability in Iraq for this administration.”
Russert: What if you leave behind a haven for terrorists?
Casey: That’s not the objective. Tons of talking Dem points. 2% of disagreement with Bush. “What we need is not a change in terminology, but change in tactics.”
Santorum: “Casey has no plan. More special forces? Your party has been undermining our intelligence programs, what has kept us safe? ”
A bit of an altercation here… some talking over each other.
To Casey: “You fundamentally misunderstand the problem. We’ll lose the war here, not in over there.”
Santorum: “Americans have changed their minds on war on terror because Bush has not correctly defined the complexity of the mission.”
Russert: “Should we attack Iran?”
Santorum is pushing his Iran Freedom and Support Act.
Casey on Iran: “Policy of our government should be to prevent Iranian nuclear program, need sanctions. Agrees with Santorum, and would have voted for his bill. Ugh. Dick Cheney opposed sanction when he worked for Halliburton. (Six years ago) Will you denounce him?”
This is a tip of the hat to the Kossacks and the MoveOn.org’ers.
Santorum: “No. I won’t.”
Distance from Bush:
Russert quotes a Wall Street Journal article about Santorum distancing from Bush, cites Congressional Quarterly voting 90%+ since 2001. Stands behind Bush, “he’s a terrific president.”
Casey says Pennsylvanians need to have an independant voice. 98% of the time talking point. “We could have a machine do that.”
Budget
Russert to Casey: How would you get a balanced budget?
Casey: “Lack of fiscal responsibility. Raise tax cut on > 200K (top 1%), estate tax…”
Russert says that only gets us $56 billion per year. He’s looking for cuts.
Casey is hemming. Cut consultants! (ha!) Limit size of government. Close tax loopholes. Casey isn’t answering this question. Jeez. This is bad. He’s all about raising taxes, but not cutting taxes.
Santorum is questioning Casey’s revenue raising suggestions. “It costs money. Casey has no specifics, no answers. He won’t give you an answer on social security, it’s all talking points.”
Entitlements:
Russert, entitlements are 52% of budget, Santorum will you push retirement age back?
Santorum, “I said it to college students in 1994, and haven’t introduced any bills to do so!” He’s pushing individual retirement accounts. 1) SS Accountability act, 2) Stop the raid on the trust fund by Congress, put it in individual accounts. 3) Younger voters should also be able to put it into personal accounts.”
Casey: “Three steps… 1) Best remedy is economic growth. Russert doesn’t buy it. Casey doesn’t think SS is a crisis. 2) Fiscal responsibilty 3) Estate tax changes”
Russert is not buying any of Casey’s argument. Santorum is saying “no answer!” “yes I do, it’s a better answer than yours!”
Santorum “he wants to grow the economy so we can take more out of it. People reinvest their money and improve the economy. Casey’s against anything that cuts government.”
Casey got killed on social security. I can’t believe he didn’t better prepare.
(Finally a commercial.)
Did Casey have his coffee this morning? The social security/budget segment was a terrible one for him. “I’m for fiscal responsibility,” is a terrible answer, and that’s all he could answer. Even Russert didn’t buy it.
Abortion:
Santorum opposes Plan B pill, it’s an abortifacient, and it’s dangerous to administer without supervision.
Casey is infavor of emergency contraception. But believes life begins at conception. Avoid answering if Plan B aborts a concieved baby. “Science is clear.”
Santorum says Senior Casey would have been upset by that answer.
Pa Politics:
Ha! Russert cites Salena Zito’s quote of Rendell Santorum praise. Casey disagrees with Ed.
Russert: Is it helpful for Rendell to say Santorum delivers?
Casey: Rendell is a tremendous supporter.
Santorum: I bring it back to Pennsylvania, no one will disagree. Brings up payraise. Bob Casey did not fight against the payraise. Signs the payraise checks, then AFTER the election bashes the payraise. Not courage, that’s pandering.
Casey: That was hot air. He’s wrong. Goes after Santorum on the congressional payraises. He came out against the Pa payraise before the election.
Santorum’s killing him on this. Casey looks like a dope with his sarcasm.
Santorum’s residency issue is up, Russert quotes the Post-Gazette return to sender article, and a Santorum/Walgren commercial. Santorum defends the commercial (walgren never lived in the district). Santorum spends a month a year in his Penn Hills house, and pays his taxes, votes, etc there. But he works in Washington. He works harder than anyone for Pa. Ask Rendell.
If Casey wins, will he serve a full six years? Yes. He has made that pledge.
The end
Commentary:
All links to commentary will be below…
Good luck Rick.
If the debates “questions” aren’t overly partisan you will mop the floor.
Don’t forget to ask Casey if he’d prefer Saddam Hussein back in power.
Comment by Mark — September 2, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
Watched the debate — it was delayed here in Maryland. Rick did well — much more comfortable with his positions and arguments than was Casey. When he got excited, as he did on a few issues, he was obviously competent and forceful. Casey never projected that degree of coherence. A couple of more specific observations. Rick impressed me when he stood up strongly in support of Bush. That took guts. Casey’s counter argument was fuzzy and not very coherent. He looked weak and indecisive — trying to straddle the issue. Casey’s big problem is how he would balance the budget and fund new programs simultaneously. He waffled on that and Russert nailed him. The pay raise thing was weak on both sides. Neither benefits from it. Rick took pay raises — Casey weaseled. Both 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 Bob 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 for the polls to see whether or not it changed anyone’s minds.
Comment by D. B. Light — September 3, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
You did a great job on MTP. There is one thing I’d like to suggest the next time you’re asked if Iraq was a danger to us.
Remember the 48,000 boxes of documents confiscated from Iraq? One of them, translated by at least two translators, independent of each other, showed that in the spring of 2001, Saddam was trying to recruit suicide bombers to “attack American interests.” The news media completely ignored it.
This should have been the story of the year.
Comment by D. Joyce — September 3, 2006 @ 11:14 pm
Wow, Saddam Hussein might be put to death in the next 2 days. That is some heavy stuff!
Comment by mr skin — November 4, 2006 @ 10:27 am