SantorumBlog

… Bob Casey wants to raise taxes.

I’m still wondering how he’s going to save Social Security, AND balance the budget on the backs of the top 5%. That’s not even getting into the additional spending he proposes.

Sunday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has three (!) pro-Santorum/anti-Casey letters in it. Keep up the good work, folks! The P-G must be getting bombarded by our letters giving a more conservative point of view:

“The PG endorsement of Bob Casey Jr. is no great surprise (”Casey for Senate: Santorum Exemplifies the Worst of Washington,” Oct. 22). However, it is a shame that the hometown newspaper of the third-ranking senator in the United States does not acknowledge what it means to the region to have the third-ranking senator represent this state.

We all know about the 911th Airlift Wing that Sen. Rick Santorum worked to save. Sen. Santorum secured funding for educational programs at the Pittsburgh Symphony, the African American Cultural Center, the Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG Aquarium, the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, the National Aviary, the Senator John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center and the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

Sen. Santorum also has secured more than $11 million for adult stem-cell research, helping to transform Pittsburgh from a steel town into a biotechnology research leader.

Additionally, he was instrumental in funding of the renovations to the Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs Hospital, construction of a parking facility at the hospital and increased operational funding, which has resulted in vastly improved patient care.

The PG said Bob Casey Jr. could do those things, also. He may want to do those things but he will not be able to get them done, because he will be a freshman senator. I plan on supporting Sen. Rick Santorum because he has been a true fighter for Pittsburgh and we all have benefited from his efforts.”

LOU NUDI
Vietnam Veteran
Ross

“So the PG endorsed Bob Casey Jr. for senator … what a surprise! And what an endorsement. About 70 percent of your editorial was about Sen. Rick Santorum.

Let’s review what you cite about Mr. Casey. He and Mr. Santorum are about the same on Iraq, pro-gun, pro-death penalty and anti-abortion.

Mr. Casey has no clue concerning Social Security and wants to do something about health care. And, of course, the coup de grace — he wants to increase the minimum wage! That will solve all the nation’s problems.

He has political experience but no legislative experience. Let’s face it: Bob Casey doesn’t have the guts to tell us how he will make a difference. That is probably why the PG endorsed him; he will be a faithful foot soldier for the Democrats.”

ROBERT McGRATH
Wilkins

“Surprise: The PG did not endorse Rick Santorum. But you might have had the decency to acknowledge that the weary slurs trotted out yet again have all been answered. If you find the answers lacking, you have an obligation to acknowledge the answers and identify any weakness. The fact that you did not do so points to the hypocrisy of the PG, not Rick Santorum.

Take, for example, the tired charge that Mr. Santorum’s residence situation as senator is just like Doug Walgren’s. When Mr. Santorum ran against Mr. Walgren for the House, he correctly pointed out that Mr. Walgren did not live in the district, or in Pennsylvania. When Mr. Santorum represented his district in the House, he lived in the district. When he was elected to the Senate, the situation changed: He no longer represented one district but the whole state — and promised to visit every county every year (a promise kept).

There’s another difference: The Senate is in session 70 to 80 days per year more than the House — a huge difference for a family with young children. A weekly commute from Pittsburgh would take a toll on the family and on his commitment to visit every county. The Santorums did the responsible thing as parents: Like many Senate families, they got a second residence in the D.C. area. That residence does not replace the Penn Hills home — where they vote, pay their taxes, serve jury duty and maintain their official residence.

The PG knows these facts and ignores them, yet charges hypocrisy?

Likewise the silliness about using the Pennsylvania cyber school: The Santorums are lifelong residents of Pennsylvania, where they vote and pay taxes. By what state should their children be educated?

It’s bad enough to distort his record. Why make his family a political football?”

JOHN KAUFMANN
Murrysville

And there’s another pro-Santorum letter in Sunday’s Patriot News:

“In recent months there has been a steady drumbeat of criticism directed at Sen. Rick Santorum, ranging from the trivial to the downright dishonest. Most of it is partisan in nature.

Let’s get down to facts. Santorum is the third-ranking senator, has a national following and is considered to be presidential timber. In his position of leadership, he is poised to do more for the state than any newcomer possibly could.

Even if you think his opponent in the current campaign, Bob Casey, has the right values, you might as well be voting for Teddy Kennedy because Casey would vote with Kennedy, as a member of the Democratic caucus, on most issues.

In addition, Santorum is a zealous and outspoken advocate. Casey, on the other hand, gives every indication of being a mild-mannered backbencher. And his work ethic or lack thereof is a matter of record.

We need to keep Santorum working for us in the Senate.”

JOHN SOPENSKY
Mechanicsburg

Bobby Casey is fighting back.

Sort of.

Democrat Bob Casey said Friday that U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum’s contention that a win for Democrats would be disastrous shows that Republicans are desperate.

With just 11 days to go in one of the nation’s most competitive Senate races, Casey spoke to about 150 students at the University of Pittsburgh. With his jacket off and white shirt sleeves rolled up, Casey warned the group that Republicans would use fear to try to win the vote.

Newspapers quoted Santorum earlier this week as saying a Democratic victory on Nov. 7 would be “a disaster for the future of the world.”

“It shows you that, in the end of the campaign, that they’ll do whatever it takes to win,” Casey said.

Watch him handle the tough questions.

Bonnie Linville, 21, a Pitt student and president of the Student Global AIDS Project, interrupted Casey at one point to ask him about his stance on funding for HIV/AIDS education and the worldwide shortage of nurses.

“Are you going to do more than Santorum?” Linville, a Democrat, shouted from the crowd.

“I”m going to do more than Santorum on a lot of things,” Casey said.

How about abortion? Is that high on the list? Not really.

Islamic terror? Bzzt.

Supporting traditional marriage? Not exactly.

Fix social security? “There’s no problem.”

How about cutting spending? (silence)

Call for more taxes? Indeed.

More spending? “I’m a Democrat!”

Pocono Record Letter to the Editor

Based on what Bobby Casey Jr. has stated in debates and on his Web site, he has no conflicts with national Democrats on many issues facing the country today.

Casey supports:

Obstructionist tactics that prevent qualified judges from getting up or down votes in the Senate, partial-birth abortion, judges imposing gay marriage on states, and giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

Casey is against: building a wall to protect our borders, and acting now to save Social Security resulting in automatic benefit cuts by law.

On Nov. 7 ask yourself, do I want to support Bobby Casey who goes along with the crowd and signed the checks for an illegal pay raise, or do I want a true leader in Senator Rick Santorum, who has been fighting for Pennsylvanians on all these issues?

Do we Pennsylvanians want to trade number 2 in the majority for number 48 in the minority?

Mat Toenniessen at Red State thinks that Santorum will win in spite of the polls. Why? Because he thinks that the media’s cheerleading for the Democrats is firing up the conservatives. He also thinks that the fact that Santorum obviously bested Casey in every debate will lead honest Pennsylvanians to support Santorum.

In other words, it’s all about voter turnout. If you haven’t done so already, start making sure that people you know who support Santorum are going to vote on November 7th. If you know people who aren’t particularly political and aren’t sure about who to vote for, use all your intelligence to convince them that Santorum’s their man.

-If they’re pro-lifers, show them how Santorum has led on that issue and how pro-abortion groups want Casey to win.

-If they’re anti-gay marriage, point out that Casey opposes any constitutional amendment to protect the definition of marriage and how the most radical pro-gay marriage people support Casey.

-If they’re fiscal conservatives, show them how the Republican tax cuts have helped the economy, and show them Casey’s promise to raise those taxes. One easy to remember bit of good news to point out is that in November 2004, when the Republicans won big, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 10,000. Today, it’s 2,000 points higher at 12,000. Also remember that the federal budget deficit is shrinking much faster than predicted, and federal tax revenues are higher than ever.

-If they’re serious Catholics, point out Casey’s desire to have the government pay for more contraception and give more money to abortionist organizations. Casey won’t even admit that emergency contraception can cause a human life to be destroyed after conception but before implantation.

-If they’re worried about Social Security, show them how Santorum is leading the fight to save Social Security for the future while preserving it for those who are getting it now, and Bob Casey wants to ignore the problems and hope they go away.

-If they heard that Santorum hates the poor, point out Santorum’s record on helping the poor, including his work to help people on Welfare stand on their own two feet as well as make housing more affordable for the poor.

-If they heard that Santorum hates gays, inform them that Santorum never compared gays to pedophiles and people who want to marry animals. Show them the actual quote which makes clear that Santorum was contrasting, not comparing homosexuality and bestiality. Also point out that obviously Santorum doesn’t hate gays, because he employs a gay man. He opposes homosexual acts, not homosexuals themselves. That is not nonsensical, either, because the official Catholic teaching on homosexuality is the same.

-If they heard that Santorum hates women and doesn’t want them to work, inform them that Karen Santorum, his wife, works outside the home. He also employs many women. And in his book, he never said that women should not work. He said that both men and women should maximize the amount of time they spend with their small children.

-If it’s another issue that I haven’t addressed here, go to ricksantorum.com/issues to find out where Santorum stands on that issue and what he has done about it, then use that information to help you out.

-If they aren’t interested in any of these issues but just want the best person for the job, then show them how Santorum is a strong, honest leader while Casey is a wimp who thinks he can win an election by hiding under his desk. How is Casey going to fight for us when he can’t even give a straight answer to a question because he’s afraid of how people will react?

We can win this election and we will win it if we want to badly enough. Don’t give up until the last polling place in PA is closed on the night of November 7th.

A letter in The Patriot-News:

“After seeing the Santorum/Casey debate, I’m wondering what Bob Casey stands for. Why doesn’t he talk about what he has done for Pennsylvania? Why doesn’t he respond to the allegation he doesn’t have a good attendance record? Why doesn’t he answer the ad that he is wanting to give illegal immigrants Social Security benefits?

As a senior citizen who receives Social Security after paying into this fund for many years, I’m angry that any candidate would propose such an idea. Why should these people who have broken our immigration laws be rewarded?

Sen. Rick Santorum has a record of being there for the military. In the 2004 election, he and state Sen. Jeff Piccola brought the need to public and the governor to give extended time for the military ballots to be received and counted.

Santorum gives Pennsylvania seniority in the Senate. He cares about our military. He has taken action to ensure that they have the right to have their vote counted when they are serving overseas.

Santorum’s record is clear and positive.“

Tribune-Review has a bunch of Letters to the Editor.

One.

After watching both debates between Sen. Rick Santorum and Bob Casey, I am firmly convinced that Pennsylvania needs to return Santorum to the U.S. Senate.
In both debates, Casey didn’t have the slightest understanding of the critical issues that we face today.

When asked about the upcoming Social Security crisis, Casey said that we could grow the economy by raising taxes.

When asked about the Middle East, Casey was unable to name Khatami as the president of Iran, who just visited the United States.

When asked about his support of amnesty for illegal immigrants, Casey couldn’t even define amnesty.
Thankfully, Santorum spoke with poise and confidence and was able to look into the camera and tell me what he believes. Santorum has worked on reforming Social Security, opposed the Bush administration’s handling of Khatami’s visit and is fighting for better immigration laws.

This election is not about a conflict between Republicans and Democrats. This is an election between a famous name without substance and a U.S. senator who is working for Pennsylvania.

Two

As the debates between Rick Santorum and Bob Casey rage on, I keep hearing Sen. Santorum say, “We must stay the course in Iraq” and “We cannot abandon the cause.” Santorum goes on to blast Casey for not offering a plan on how he would get us out of Iraq.
As with most recent wars, it is far easier to step into the quicksand than it is to get out of it. It will require a lot of forethought and prolonged effort to extract our troops from this deadly morass.

As long as Casey says, “I will not stay the course; I will do something different,” he will get my vote.

What’s the different course though?

Three.

The debate between Sen. Santorum and Mr. Casey was an eye-opener for me as a Iraq war combat veteran.

I am a registered Democrat but usually split my vote, as there are good people of all political views and ideals.

My view, as a soldier, was that Santorum came off as the tested leader and Mr. Casey, as much as he is a likeable guy, came off as the soldier who always complains and wants to go home and gripes about any mission handed him.

It seems that this election is more about “I hate Bush” than it is about getting serious and fighting this war how it should be fought. That goes for both political parties.

But then again I am only a retired soldier.

Four.

I am an 18-year-old freshman at Carlow University and have decided to vote for Bob Casey. Although Bob Casey is pro-life and I am pro-choice, Casey’s Bible, unlike Santorum’s, seems to have all its pages intact. Casey hasn’t torn out the chapters where prophets demand leaders take care of the poor.

Casey is Catholic and shares his church’s beliefs on abortion but he also shares its belief in protecting the dignity of working people by supporting an increase in the minimum wage. This is clearly something Santorum opposes. [except when he votes for it.ed]

Casey wants to support and protect programs like Social Security and has the strong support of unions across the state. Lastly, Casey understands that Pennsylvania is a huge hunting state, but recognizes the importance of keeping the environment healthy. Casey favors healthy forests to hunt in, unlike Santorum.

If you believe in helping the poor, protecting Social Security and in a clean environment, I strongly urge people of all ages to vote on Nov. 7 for Bob Casey!

I’m not a biblical scholar, but I’m wondering where government’s involvment in poverty programs is listed. I did not know that Rick Santorum was anti-tree and pro-dead forests. I’ll have to keep that in mind.

Five

While you’ve gotta hand it to Rick Santorum for sticking to his guns of staunch conservatism mixed with Christian activism, that also may explain his sagging poll numbers.
Independents and conservative Democrats (many of whom voted for Bush) don’t like Santorum and many feel the Religious Right has too much influence over the Republican Party.

I tend to agree. I go to church on Sunday but not to hear about foreign policy. Benchmark Goldwater pillars like individual freedom have a populist appeal that middle-of-the-road voters aren’t seeing in Santorum, and the reverberations of this could signal a potential schism within the GOP.

Free-market capitalists have long tolerated the Religious Right as a means to an end, but how many Wall Street bankers wish to have Katherine Harris making policy decisions?

Crazy idea here. Indepedents and conservative Democrats aren’t Republicans. Who cares what they think about who influences the Republican Party? It’s a free association of people.

That would be like saying conservatives say the baby-killer caucus has too much influence in the Democrat Party.

Yeah. That’s why we’re not a Democrats. That and creeping socialism.

Looking back at the debates, Rick Tucker writes…

It’s time for Americans to push back against the political consultants. As Bono said about the song Helter Skelter, “This is a song Charles Manson stole from The Beatles. We’re stealing it back.” We should do the same and steal back our political process. We can start by reclaiming a critical word: “privatization.”

Casey repeatedly uses this word as a point of attack. “The crisis [in Social Security] is Sen. Santorum’s privatization scheme. He and the president cooked up a scheme which will drain the Social Security trust fund by a trillion dollars,” Casey announced on Oct. 16. He’s repeatedly demonized “privatization,” which means it must poll-test poorly.

But what’s wrong with privatizing something? As a general rule, private industry works and the government doesn’t. People know this in their bones. An ABC News/Washington Post poll last year showed that 80 percent of Americans under age 30 don’t think Social Security will have enough money to pay them what it promises.

That’s why most people these days invest in 401(k) plans and IRAs. We trust Vanguard and Fidelity — private, for-profit companies — but we doubt the government. Seems what people really want is more privatization, not less.

The facts about Social Security haven’t changed. It was a growing problem last year when the president was proposing a reform package, and it’s a growing problem this year. It’ll be a growing problem until we allow workers to invest some of the money that’s taken out of their paycheck for Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts, which will allow them to earn a better return on their money than Social Security can provide.

Al Gore famously called that a “risky scheme” and Casey would no doubt agree. But just this month the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached record highs. People are voting with their wallets. Millions of people are pouring billions of dollars in after-tax earnings into stocks. Plus, as Santorum noted during one debate, Casey himself (as state treasurer) has allowed Pennsylvania to invest in Halliburton stock. So how dangerous can the stock market really be?

In their final debate, Santorum reminded Casey that “issues are important.” Well, they should be. But they clearly aren’t to Casey’s political handlers. For them, what’s important is winning, and Casey may well do so. That would be a political victory for one man, but a defeat for politics everywhere. If it happens, Americans will once again have missed a chance to reclaim the political process, or at least the critical concept of “privatization.”

Read the Whole Thing

First question, for Casey: You said that the US has to do everything possible to stop North Korea and Iran from getting nukes. What specific lines would North Korea and Iran have to cross for you to vote for war?

Casey says, we need to use every option before the military option. Unfortunately these other options have been degraded by the administration. Because of this administration, we’re in worse shape in North Korea and Iran. There’s no line that I can identify (of course not, Bobby). Bush should listen to military experts, which it hasn’t done in Iraq. North Korea and Iran are threats.

Santorum praises the Constitution center. Then tells us that Casey gives us another non-answer. North Korea has nukes, and Casey is against bunker busting bombs. We need those weapons, and while Casey is against them, I am not. We need all the tools on the table.

Casey says, this is more of the same Santorum fiction. I am not against bunker busting bombs. We have to be smart on North Korea and stop them from advancing. What Santorum said isn’t true, he didn’t answer the question.

Moderator says to Casey, you didn’t answer the question (Ha!). What lines would North Korea have to cross?

Casey says, we have to ask the military experts. We can’t draw lines.

Santorum says, with respect to Iran, I would strike. Iran cannot have a nuke. Iran would use a nuke for offensive purposes.

Casey says, Santorum is talking about Iran but won’t close the Halliburton loophole. (Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton)

Question two, for Santorum: If there is no improvement in Iraq, should we pull out?

Santorum says, we need to have a second look at Iraq. We need suggestions, like partitioning. But you don’t negotiate with terrorists who are clear in their intentions. They want to defeat us and we must not stall for time. We must go after them and defeat them. Going after them has kept us safe for five years.

Casey says, Santorum is for more of the same. He’s satified with where we are in Iraq and in fighting terrorism. We need new leadership in Iraq. We need to replace Rumsfeld. We need to change course in Iraq. (I will have a heart attack if Casey ever gives a straight answer to a question). Santorum is for rubberstamping, more of the same.

Moderator asks, what about negotiating with insurgents?

Casey says, no, we just need to replace Rumsfeld.

Santorum says, Casey is two for two - two questions, two non-answers. Rumsfeld follows policy, he doesn’t make policy. How would replacing him help? Tell me about the Halliburton loophole, because I don’t think you know what it is.

Casey says, it prevents American businesses from doing business with Iran.

Santorum says, nope, not true.

Casey says, plug the loophole.

Question three, for Casey: Do you agree you should talk to your enemies? Bilateral talks in North Korea?

Casey says, we needed a better effort in the six-party talks in North Korea. Bush didn’t do enough. We need to keep options on the table. We need to talk to the other five countries in the six party talks and see if they can be productive, or else we should go bilateral (wow, don’t take a position or anything Casey). Santorum joked about the threat of North Korea, you shouldn’t joke about this threat.

Santorum says, three-for-three. Three non-answers. What he described is exactly what the administration is doing. We’re talking to the other five countries. We’ve tried hard, but North Korea said no. There’s a website which says Casey opposes bunker busting bombs. There are websites collecting money for you saying you oppose those bombs; tell them otherwise if that’s wrong. When North Korea tested a bomb, I made a statement, you did nothing. I guess you didn’t think it was that important.

Casey says, you can’t joke about North Korea, it’s serious business. Santorum shouldn’t take potshots at me.

Question four, for Santorum: The military is stretched thin, how can we go to war in Iran? A draft?

Santorum says, we need to be more aggressive toward Iran. I’m more aggressive than the administration because of the violence in Iraq caused by Iran. I understand the situation, I proposed the “Iran Freedom and Support Act” which the administration opposed. It promoted democracy in Iran. We need a change in Iran in favor of democracy. I led on the issue, and eventually it passed.

Casey says, I agree with much of what Santorum said on this bill. But the Halliburton loophole must be plugged! Halliburton problem! (Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!) We need sanctions. Economic sanctions, travel bans will stop Iran (yeah, sure).

Santorum says, Casey invests PA funds in Halliburton (Haha!). “The current law is that Halliburton nor any of its subsidiaries may invest in Iran.”

Question five, for Casey: Is it a war on Islamic fascism as opposed to terrorism, or is that wrong?

Casey says, the biggest threat of our age is terrorism. Whether the terminology is wrong, I’ll leave to others (naturally). The terminology isn’t important; what’s important is meeting the threat. We need to double special forces so that they can hunt down and kill terrorists all over the world. We need counter-proliferation. We don’t need talk over terminology.

Santorum says, it is important to define your enemy. FDR didn’t say it was a war against blitzkrieg; it was a war against Nazism. It’s important to know your enemy, and I have been giving speeches all over the state about this issue.

Moderator asks, some say the term Islamic fascist does more harm than good, should we drop it?

Santorum says, we insulted Germans and Japanese in WWII, also. We need people to understand the war to keep our resolve.

Casey says, this is nothing new. Santorum has no plan. We need to double special operations, and need an energy strategy to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Bush talks about the greatest threat of our age, and uses it to divide Americans.

Question six, Santorum asks Casey: Healthcare - we’re in a physician crisis. Number of physicians is decreasing. You oppose liability reform from physicians and ob-gyns. You support the importation of unsafe drugs which would hurt jobs in PA. Why?

Casey says, I oppose caps on damages. If someone is damaged by malpractice, they should be compensated. We need to have a real strategy on healthcare, not this preaching you’ve done. We need the safe, FDA approved importation of drugs from Canada (Casey’s for outsourcing, I guess). You talk about job loss, but those numbers are inflated.

Question seven, Casey asks Santorum: I’m going to release five years of my tax returns tomorrow, will you?

Santorum says, yes I will release them, if that’s what you want.

Question eight, for Santorum: You voted against the immigration bill which would allow illegals to become immigrants and legitimize the underground economy. You can’t deport 13 million illegals, so what is your proposal?

Santorum says, Casey is for amnesty. I don’t believe in that. We need a workable system. We need a border security first approach. I voted for all border security I could. I voted for more detention facilities to hold non-Mexican illegals crossing the border. I voted for a 700 mile fence and would vote for more if necessary. We need to throw the book at employers who knowingly hire illegals. We need a temporary worker program. The 13 million can go back to their country, sign up for temporary worker, and enter here legally.

Casey says, this question has become central to Santorum’s campaign. But this question is about hypocrisy. Santorum has a lot of new interesting positions. Santorum has been in Washington 16 years, but about 16 weeks ago, he came out with this issue. He voted against border patrol agents, he voted against employer verification. He’s been in the Senate while numbers went in the wrong direction.

Santorum says, I voted for the Specter employee verification bill which was replaced by a bill Sen. Specter and I didn’t find appropriate. Casey is shocked that I actually want an issue to be part of the campaign rather than where my children sleep at night (zing!). I want border security first.

Question nine, for Santorum: Do you believe Social Security is in crisis? Do you support privatization or raising the age limit?

Santorum says, Casey direction on Social Security is to “do nothing”. I believe Social Security is in crisis in the long term, starting in about 10 years. We’ll see huge deficits as more money goes out than comes in. President Clinton talked about the crisis years ago. We were making progress on this issue, but everyone got sidetracked. “Doing nothing” was not an option for Bill Clinton. Casey wants to raise taxes by over a trillion dollars over ten years. That’s not how you grow an economy. I’m against raising the age limit.

Casey says, more fiction on taxes. Is there a crisis? The crisis is Santorum’s privatization scheme. His scheme was to drain from the Social Security trust fund and wouldn’t fix the solvency problem. The AARP will tell you that (I’ll bet). We need to grow the economy and stop privatization.

Santorum says, his plan is to do nothing. Again. More people agree there is a crisis. We don’t want to cut benefits for retired people. We want to let people invest their money to stop the raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Casey says, the Philadelphia Inquirer called your plan “snake oil.”

Santorum says, yes, on their (leftist) editorial page.

Question ten, for Casey: Gun violence plagues Philadelphia and other large communities. How can you oppose gun control? (is that for real? Good grief)

Casey says, we need solutions that work. New gun laws don’t work. We shouldn’t try to eliminate the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act like Bush did. We shouldn’t cut back on the COPS program. We need more ATF agents in Philadelphia. The DA supports my campaign and has worked to drop gun violence.

Santorum says, you want endorsements? The FOP and the PA state troopers endorsed me as being someone doing something about crime. An ATF agent told me that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Get your facts straight. I worked with Sen. Specter on stopping gun violence. I worked on an anti-gang initiative. Project Safe Childhood, School Safe Act, my legislation which passed.

Casey says, endorsements?! The Philadelphia FOP’s for me.

Question eleven, for Santorum: The Heritage Foundation says that Bush has increased spending. Is that conservative? What cuts would you suggest?

Santorum says, we’ve had problems with spending, largely because of the recession, war, and natural disasters. But that’s no excuse. We have cut the deficit in half, however. Deficits happen if you don’t cut things. I’ve voted for many cuts which didn’t go into effect. I did support the Medicare drug plan, though it’s cost was high, because we needed it for our seniors. I voted for Medicaid reductions. We need to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

Casey says, Santorum has voted for big deficits. He voted for more debt to foreign governments. We’re more dependent on those other countries. His prescription drug coverage was a giveaway to special interests. Rick, you should have worked on a better bill.

Santorum says, 85% of seniors surveyed are for the bill. And once again, you didn’t answer the question - what would you cut?

Casey says, we can cut consultants and contractors and pork. Stop giving money to “your oil company friends”. My plan is to reduce the deficit.

Santorum says, by spending a trillion more dollars.

Question twelve, for Casey: How would you reduce dependence on foreign oil?

Casey says, Santorum thinks we can drill our way to energy independence. I don’t. We need alternative energy. We need 40 miles per gallon standards in the future. We need to combat the greatest threat to the human race, global warming (yes folks, not Islamic fascists, but global warming will destroy us. Talk about hot air)

Santorum says, Casey wants Kyoto which would destroy the PA economy. His high fuel standards would destroy the economy. We need to have all the options on the table, and Casey takes some off. We need to drill for our own oil. Casey refuses to support this.

Casey says, every expert supports 40 mpg (sure they do). It wouldn’t hurt the economy (sure it wouldn’t).

Question thirteen, for Santorum: Why are political ads so negative?

Santorum says, first of all, on the previous question, I’m for alternative fuel. For the first several weeks, I ran all positive ads. Casey does little but attack, attack, attack, he answers nothing, he dodges, bobs, and weaves. Casey has done two events a week, I do two events by 10AM almost every day. Casey wants to tear down, tear down. These tactics made Rendell furious.

Casey says, there’s no question who the negative campaigner is. He started the attack ads (waah, mommy, he started it!). His first negative ad was called particularly sleazy. People want change. People want a new direction. I have ten plans. Your plan is to privatize Social Security. It’s a joke what you want to do. You support Bush 98% of the time (*sigh*).

Question fourteen, for Casey: Do we need an independent commission to govern ethics in the House and Senate?

Casey says, yes, we need more disclosure. Lobbyist discussions with politicians should be reported. Shut down K Street, we need more sunlight and more scrutiny.

Santorum says, I led the charge on ethics reform. I worked with Sen. McCain to get that done. Most papers reported what I did. In the ad, I pointed out your shady deals with politicians in New Jersey. You transferred money to an old auditor general account and transferred money to New Jersey. You opposed dredging, then you supported dredging and all of a sudden you got money. We need ethics reforms to stop that.

Closing statements

Casey says, we need change. Millions don’t have health care. We need to do more to confront terrorism. I don’t want to talk about who I took money from, I want to talk issues (Casey wants to talk issues! Ha!).

Santorum says, Casey’s the only man in this race who took Abramoff money. I gave mine back. I worked hard for PA and I had to earn this job. I didn’t inherit this job because of my last name. My father was an immigrant. I was raised in public housing. I worked hard with my wife Karen and we knocked on doors when I ran for Congress. It’s not handed to me, I work for it. Casey says he works hard; is two events a week hard work? Is five days a month hard work? Maybe it is for a man named Casey, but it’s not good enough for a man named Santorum, and it shouldn’t be good enough for the people of Pennsylvania (great line to go out on!).

-=-= Opinion Roundups =-=-

Media

Opinion VI

Winners

Santorum or Casey?

Blogs

Debate Opinion I

Commentary II

Casey’s Self-Contradiction

Opinion VII

Machine
Opinion III : The Machine

Tribune-Review

Democrats didn’t unearth the Social Security hobgoblin to commemorate the Oct. 1, 1968, premiere of “Night of the Living Dead” in Pittsburgh. It just seems that way because the zombies in George Romero’s classic devour the living and refuse to die.

Party leaders are telling congressional candidates that by using the perennial Democrat tactic — terrify senior citizens into thinking they could lose their retirement entitlement — they could win the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

There is bipartisan agreement about the voodoo economics of Social Security — liberals and rational people admit the underfunded system will have enough for today’s seniors but not tomorrow’s.

Those with backbones — such as President George W. Bush, Sen. Rick Santorum and some of their fellow congressional Republicans — champion personal retirement accounts (akin to a 401(k) plan). That would help younger workers offset the money being taken from them to be handed to retirees.

I have long said that in it’s present form, if the Social Security system were run by a private entity there would have been arrests long ago.

It’s the worst form of ponzi scheme.