SantorumBlog

[Welcome Kossacks, TPMCafe and Reason readers.

Yes, it’s true that as of 20 minutes prior to the debate, Pa Commonwealth Court Judge James Kelly removed Romanelli from the ballot. This was briefly discussed in the opening introduction of the debate.

However, it is also true that Carl Romanelli still has a case before the Pa Supreme Court, which (if Romanelli wins) will lower the signature requirements from 67K to 16K. (Wonkette, the least you could have done was cite this sentence in it’s entirety, and we’re not the Santorum Campaign!) Both sides have agreed that Romanelli did get 58,000 signatures.

The case revolves around the definition of “election” and wheter or not a 2005 statewide judicial retention election counts in the calculation for number of ballot petitions.

See my post at NationalReview for more.-ed]

Green Party candidate for Senate Carl Romanelli and Rick Santorum face off on PCN TV at high noon.

Intros: Santorum says that he brings things home to the state, ask the Governor. Romanelli goes to say that he offers a real difference.

The Format: The host says Casey was invited, but he declined that’s why there’s an empty chair! Both Senator Santorum and Carl Romanelli insisted on it.

It looks like Rick Santorum read Perry Christopher’s post about Casey & Santorum travelling the state together! He says that together they should have been meeting the voters in fora(ums) like this all over the state.

Casey’s avoidance of the issues and of Carl Romanelli himself is a personal offense to Carl.

Ballot Issues: Romanelli is confident that he will be on the ballot, despite this morning’s ruling against him.

Iraq: Santorum defends the war and his positions. Laying out the reasons why we were there.

Romanelli looks for an exit strategy, saying we don’t belong there. Saddam was essentially the “mayor of Baghdad” (except for that shredding machine). Cites the “less secure” now because of the invasion article from over the weekend. The western presence makes our troops more vulnerable, incites more terrorists and compounding insecurities. He argues for partitioning as well as Muslim peacekeepers.

Santorum says that Iraq is only a front in the war on Islamicfascism, but it gets all the press. Iran is trouble in the region. We need continue confronting Islamicfascism.

Nukes & WMDs Why should be believe the administration on Iranian WMDs?

Santorum’s answer is basically that you have to take the Iranian’s word for it.

Romanelli says that the Iraqi occupation has emboldened Iran and North Korea. He says that American double-standard policies have enraged the Muslim world… especially vis a vis Israel.

He says it’s incredible that the Green Party predicted the current Iraqi situation and Congress did not, therefore we should send one or two to Congress.

Santorum disagrees with Romanelli’s saying we’ve oppressed the Muslims via our support of Israel. We didn’t create them. “We’ve ignored them.” He lists the history of Islamic terror… they’ve attacked us for 25 years, with no real response.

It’s got nothing to do with our foreign policy. Islam has been hijacked by fascists.

Foreign Elections What happens if they don’t vote our way?

Santorum says those elections (listed by the questioner) weren’t fair and open. But people are free to elect their leaders. They key is free and fair elections. The 2nd, 3rd and fourth elections are at least as important as the first. Basically, politics is messy.

A midway break for PCN commercials.

So far it seems like the questions have been directed more towards Senator Santorum.
Nothing terribly new, but it’s my first chance to see Romanelli on TV.

No wonder the Democrats are afraid of Romanelli. He’s far more personable that Mr Casey. He’s also willing to discuss the war, candidly, and clearly. He’s aligning himself more with Democrats & liberals on this issue than the vague Bob Casey.

The host again says that Casey declined the invitation.

Gas Prices & Corporate Profits & Energy Policy

Santorum says that Exxon’s board’s compensation was outrageous. Lee Raymond was lucky that he was on the board when oil prices were high. He says that the Exxon shareholders should be furious.

Romanelli tries to answer a question from before the break. War is not a policy, it’s an absence of it. Calls the corporate profits are obscene, and discusses the living wage (not a minimum wage). The workers are getting shafted by those executives.

He argues for more capitalism and competition. Alternative energy sources… he wants to double federal taxes on gas, but eliminate taxes on bio-fuels. Tax breaks for clean energy users…. but says the tax breaks will only be on equipment that’s American made.

Santorum agrees on renewable energy resources, and discusses the energy bill passed year. Calls for more domestic drilling. Opponents are against it. More domestic energy production. Oil driling lowers prices so that Iran won’t parlay their income against us. Discusses potential uses for pennsylvania coal. More nuclear power. The environmental movement has held us up on nuclear power.

Romanelli says we need to plan for society without oil. He agrees with Santorum’s alternative energy plans. Coal gassification, etc. Nuclear isn’t the full answer because of waste. It’s not going to happen overnight, but we need to work towards a comprehensive energy policy.

Q: Should americans conserve?

Santorum says yes. American Transit Association has twice named him legislator of the year. Reduce fuel consumption. Amtrak funding. Introduced tax credits for telecommuters. Hybrid vehicles.

Rendell’s Endorsement of Santorum When does bringing home funds for Pa become pork?

Santorum has cut growth on federal programs. He believes we need to look at discretionary spending. Budgets lately are growing below the growth of inflation. He’s in a position to bring back to Pennsylvania was it needs. (Bunch of stuff here I missed!) He went to all 67 counties in Pennsylvania. He says that if the money’s going to somewhere, it needs to come here.

Romanelli says for “budget sanity” he wants to dismantle bueraucracy. He wants to cut the IRS! Advocates for a flat tax system. He says that universal single payer healthcare will save us money in the federal budget for federal employees (not sure i understand that). Get rid of Congressional pensions. (My window died here. I couldn’t get the 2nd part of his answer.)

Santorum says single-payer health care is a huge expense for countries that have it. Hold down discrtionary spending and grow the economy via tax cuts. Opponents are for tax hikes. Deficits are coming down. Wants to investigate fraud in Medicare, but has been blocked by Democrats. Bob Casey will not come out with a single program he will cut. Talks about Casey cutting Washington consultant’s answer, “He might as well not be going there [Washington] if that’s going to be his answer.”

Santorum disagrees with the way the prescription drug benefit was done. Medical Savings Accounts were a good idea in the bill. But it’s a brand new entitlement, and it’s going to cost us in the future.

Romanelli is for single-payer and countries are not trying to dismantle it. Dual-citizen Americans go to Italy because they can’t pay for it here. A simplification of the health-care system would benefit everyone.

Family Values: What’s the government’s role in family values?

Santorum says traditional values…. with strong families forming a strong society. Marriage is the glue that holds families together, and we need to protect it as one man one woman. Community and civic organizations and volunteering. Discusses “Democracy in America” by DeToqueville. Strong nuclear families… and religous freedom.

We need to respect human life… and we have room for everyone… and they are welcome in our society.

Romanelli “there are many kinds of families” we need to protect all of them. The state needs to protect them all. Santorum’s values are good for a Catholic, but perhaps not for a Senator.

Conclusion: The host once again reminds noontime PCN viewers (the three of us) that Bob Casey declined the invitation.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Overall Thoughts The Senator is a very polished public speaker and debater. It’s obvious that he’s well versed on all the issues at hand and can speak extemporaneously on those issues.

The was my first exposure to Carl Romanelli speaking in public, outside of my interview with him. Unlike Bob Casey, Carl Romanelli is willing to discuss any issue, and it shows. Ultimately, I didn’t know what to expect from him.

Who won? If this debate gets any press, it can only be Carl Romanelli. Not because he trounced the Senator, (which he didn’t do), but because he gets him some more exposure to the Pennsylvania voters. Especially the liberal Democrats who aren’t too keen on Bob Casey.

By the same token, if Romanelli wins the debate AND stays on the ballot, then Casey loses. It’s no wonder they want to throw him off the ballot. He sounds like more of a Democrat than Bob Casey is willing to admit to.

If the three of them got together, Romanelli would walk away from Casey. His performance was far better than Casey’s on Meet the Press. If I were snarky, I’d say that today the empty chair was a capable stand-in (sit-in?) for the Treasurer.

Despite a few promising statements (a flat tax, and bashing of the IRS), I don’t think Carl Romanelli would have taken any votes from Santorum as a result of his performance. Not recognizing Islamic-fascism and instead blaming our support for Israel as causes for the problems in the Middle East won’t really resonate for Republican voters. But for the left, it will definately draw them in.

Screenshots: The shots are terrible!