The AP Has A New Must-Read Story On The Upcoming Santorum/Casey Contest

Gotta read this.

Will this shut up the PA AFA?

The Pennsylvania affiliate of the American Family Association[AFA] has been carping at Senator Santorum saying "conservatives can no longer trust the senator" because of his distancing himself from the dubious scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Well apparently the PA AFA is lonely in the Anti-Santorum camp as the Senator will be a featured speaker at the third edition of Justice Sunday, a nationwide telecast shedding light on the role of liberal activist judges and their effect on God in the public square. So much for Santorum shedding his Conservative skin and not being trusted by conservatives.

The PA AFA, in my opinion a marginal group in PA politics, is trying to get some exposure in the press by attacking a Conservative. Santorum, a leader of the Conservative movement beyond a shadow of a doubt, deserves better from this so-called conservative group.

If the PA AFA wants to help defeat conservatism they should continue writing these petty press-releases driving their proverbial knives deeper into the back of Senator Santorum

It Takes a Family Review: The beginning at the end.

I would like to start at the end. About a quarter of the way through this book I was so moved and inspired by Senator Santorum’s insight that I contacted Chris Lilik and brought up the idea of a review posted on SantorumBlog.com. He wholeheartedly agreed and from that point on I began to form the outline in my head of how I would go about reviewing It Takes a Family. Up until the Conclusion I thought I had it figured out.

I was going to write about a new Santorum-led socio-political theory, a neo-traditionalism if you will. This neo-traditionalism would be focused on primarily on the family and the government’s role in building and nurturing families. Unfortunately for me, Senator Santorum was a step ahead of me. In the final chapter of the book Senator Santorum specifies that this is not what he was attempting to do. He insists that the ideas in the book are Conservative and nothing more.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

For the past week or so I pondered the scope of the Senator’s admonition. This book talks almost entirely about family. Isn’t the Conservative movement about opening markets, keeping government small, and most importantly keeping government off our backs and out of our business? How does talking about family accomplish those basic tenets?

Then I had a eureka moment. The tenets mentioned above are secondary motivations of the Conservative movement. One of the basic fundamental building blocks that allow us to talk about these secondary items is Liberty. Senator Santorum reminds us that in order for Liberty to be successful we must agree to certain norms and give up a small piece of that liberty for the common good. In past generations, the Family has always been the place where Liberty has been nurtured. It has also been the place where those social norms have been instilled in us. The idea of the lack of the family structure was something previous generations did not have to consider.

The erosion of the family unit over the past fifty years has had debilitating effects on our economy, our social order, and most importantly, the safety of our Liberty. Recognizing this, Senator Santorum is attempting to refocus our efforts on this much more basic building block of Conservatism.

I plan on taking you through this book in order to further illustrate Senator Santorum’s ideas on how to do this. Sometimes I’ll do this a chapter at a time, sometimes a few chapters at a time. I also may bounce around as the news of the day may dictate. My only hope is that I do justice to the ideas and premises that Senator Santorum has so clearly laid out in the book. I also hope that you'll be able to use my posts as a sort of "Cliffs Notes" and reference to the original.

Pittsburgh Students Launch New Pro-Santorum Blog

Check out this new pro-Santorum blog put together by Billy Valentine, Founder of Pittsburgh Students for Santorum.

What we are up against on the Right and my response

Some of you may be familiar with Chuck Muth. He's a conserviative/libertarian activist, who has no problem telling it like it is. I am on his mailing list and received the follow update from Chuck, which surprised me. His mailing list is wide and extensive and I'd say he has a following. Which is why I was surprised to see what I saw and why I felt the need to resond to his e-mail. I'll post his e-mail, along with my response below it. This isn't a pleasent e-mail, but it is necessary for people to see so that we can take care of these issues now and have a much stronger candidate Santorum going into election season. I didn't address all the specifics of the e-mail, since a few were already addressed in this blog, i.e. intelligent design. This is all a bit lengthy, but I think it's worthwhile. My ultimate point is this - Santorum advances the conservative agenda, Casey does not. That's really all that matters in the long run.


MUTH'S TRUTHS
December 26, 2005
_________________________

I sure hope Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, has a good chiropractor. 'Cause he's gonna need one by the time this election year is over - what with all his flip-flops, back-flips and political 180s. Either that, or he's got a great future as an Olympic gymnast if his senatorial career comes to an end next November.

I'm trying to keep track of all the strange things Santorum has said and done since kicking his base in the teeth last year when he aggressively stumped for liberal Republican incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, who was being challenged by conservative Rep. Pat Toomey. But the list is just getting too long - including supporting Specter for Judiciary Committee chairman and calling for a hike in the minimum wage.

Nevertheless, social conservatives have stood by their man, through thick and thin. He hasn't been able to shake their loyalty. Call it "Battered Conservative Syndrome." But maybe some of them will now finally have had enough. Perhaps the latest from Sen. Santorum will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.

As I'm sure you've read, a federal judged ruled last week that an updated version of "creationism," now called "intelligent design," could not be taught in the Dover School District as science. Social conservatives are, as you would expect, outraged by the decision. As surely Sen. Santorum must be, right? After all, Santorum wrote an op/ed in 2002 declaring that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

Ah, but that was in 2002. This is an election year. And "Election Year Rick," as his Democrat opposition is now calling him, is singing an entirely different tune now.

An organization called the Thomas More Law Center defended the Dover School District's decision to teach intelligent design in its science classes. Santorum is on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center.

Or I should say, WAS on the advisory board. He quit last week, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer, "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did."

Huh?

If Santorum thought intelligent design was "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes," why is he now resigning from a Christian-rights organization which defended the school district that said intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes?

Santorum's election-year political rush to the middle just might leave his base behind. It's a high-risk gamble on his part. He's betting there's nothing he can do to cause his conservative supporters to stay home on election day or vote for another candidate. I hope he's not betting the farm on it.

Or at least has Olga Korbut as his campaign manager.


(My Response)

Chuck,

I'd like to address the whole situation of what's going on in PA, especially with Sen. Santorum. I'll be open and upfront and admit that I am a Santorum supporter and very much a conservative. In fact, I'm one of the writers for Santorumblog.com. This blog has no affiliation with Santorum's campaign, except that it is run by people who like Santorum and really don't want to see Bob Casey win. Is Santorum a perfect candidate? No, but then again, if one were to look for perfection in a candidate, they would be hard pressed. Has Santorum shifted his positions on things - I'm sure. Do I like that he is supporting a minimum wage increase, no. Do I like that he supported Specter, hell no. Do I like other aspects of Santorum, no. But as a whole, I like him and he is better than Casey would be by far.

Santorum did his duty when he supported Specter. He's in leadership and is expected to support incumbents. That's the price one pays for being in leadership. Furthermore, Specter should be beneficial with the suburban Philly voters who are more liberal than the rest of the state. That's the theory anyway.

Let's look at the positives on Santorum -
He's ardently pro-life - leading the charge on a bill to ban partial birth abortion,
supports lower taxes - was one of the Senators who pushed the Bush tax cuts, if I am not mistaken,
supports our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
supports Judge Alito.

That's the short list I could come up with off the top of my head. There are more good policy positions as well.

Now for Pennsylvania politics. Pennsylvania voters are, well, weird. Republicans are generally more moderate than the rest of the country. And Democrats are generally more moderate than the rest of the country.

Republicans ended up supporting Specter because of Bush's campaigning for him, more than anything else. Republicans in PA are very loyal -= almost to a fault in some circumstances. Although that is changing. It was Republicans, no, really conservatives who raised hell over the pay jacking that our Republican-led legislature passed this summer. We were able to force these guys to repeal the pay raise. The anger is still pretty think over the matter and many incumbents have decided to call it quits rather than face angry voters. There will be changes in PA, but no one knows to what extent. Heck we threw out a Supreme Court Judge who was up for retention because of the pay raise issue.

My own analysis is that the political class doesn't know what to do with the voter anger. That includes Santorum. He could be the victim of an anti-incumbent voter back lash, or people could recognize that he has nothing to do with the pay raise mess at the state level. Frankly, PA is not that conservative - it has gone with the Dem presidential ticket for several elections now. I think Santorum is reading his constituency pretty well - he may be changing some positions to match those of the voters of the state. Yes he has a conservative base and that base will stick with him because as a whole he's good for the conservative movement. On the whole Santorum will advance conservative policy far better than any of the other federal politicians in PA. He has a leadership post and so has a say in what the Senate will address. That leadership post can be costly to the conservative agenda sometimes, but look at it this way, for every step backwards, we'll take two steps forward. That's progress. We don't have to win every battle, it's the overall war that matters. Santorum helps conservative wage the war of ideas.

Thanks for hearing me out. Most of the time I'm with you on the issues you write about. This would be one of those rare occasions where we disagree. That's ok too. If in the end we end up with better candidates and policies then we are better off.

Take care Chuck, keep up the good work, and have a happy New Year.

Matt Best
Carlisle, PA

Merry Christmas

No blogging for the next couple days. I'm starting early on my resolution to stop thinking about politics every waking second.

Merry Christmas!

Santorum Has A New Townhall Column On Our Military Service Members

Just in time for the holidays, Senator Santorum has a new Townhall column entitled "Our Service members, the Best of America."

"[O]ne truth that all Americans have been able to rely on during every difficult time our nation has faced, has been the strength and character of those who serve in our armed forces," sums up Santorum.

Santorum and Intelligent Design

OK I HAVE HAD IT!!!!!

People are saying that Santorum is flip-flopping on the Intelligent design issue. This is not so.
Rather Senator Santorum has maintained that intelligent design can be taught in schools not that intelligent design should be mandated in schools.

This is why Senator Santorum opposed the Dover school districts decision to mandate the teaching of intelligent design in their schools. Santorum simply thinks that the school board shouldn't tell Science teachers that they MUST teach intelligent design.

Santorum broke his ties with the Thomas More Law Center because rather than promoting the scientific aspects of intelligent design their motivations for representing the Dover school district were largely religious, which would be inappropriate for a science class room.

Casey will try to make hay out of this because that's what candidates who don't want to reveal what they think do. The criticism is disingenuous. Santorum has not changed his position, he has applied it to a new circumstance and he has, in my estimation, done so correctly.

Santorum on the Sean Hannity Show

I have to admit I was working on something and missed the first part of the interview when I realized that Rick was on.
Some soundbites:

On the NSA domestic wiretaping: President withing his constitutional authority to authorize the domestic wiretaps.

Disagrees with Specter on NSA spying and Sununu on the Patriot Act filibuster.

ANWR: Not dead far from dead. Will be brought up next year. Agrument is over; if you want energy independence you must find new sources of energy.

Host says that re-election will be a breeze to a hearty laugh by Senator Santorum.

Santorum to be on Hannity today

Senator Santorum is slated to be on Sean Hannity's show today detailing Republican plans in light of recent events. I hope to hear it but if I don't hopefully someone will have heard it and can provide a recap.

Santorum starts closing the gap in another poll

The Republican polling firm Strategic Vision is confirming a trend that we say in the Quinnipiac Poll and in the Survey USA poll, Santorum's numbers are going up and Casey is either remaining stagnant or going down.

When the last PA Strategic Vision Poll came out Casey commanded a 16 point lead over Santorum 52-36.
In today's poll that number is stands at Casey 50% to Santorum's 39%, a 5 point swing in Santorum's favor.

This year the war on Christmas seems to be heating up and the difference can be even seen on Casey and Santorum's website.

Casey: Democratic Secularism as usual

Santorum: Our Judeo-Christian Values

More on Santorum's Iran efforts

As Tim Chapman pointed out to us last week Senator Santorum has been working hard on condemning The President of Iran's irresponsible rhetoric and support the efforts for freedom within the Iranian nation while the Democrats have just been playing politics. The Democrats in the Senate held up the bill because they objected to phrasing in the resolution that called for a democratic process in Iran. Santorum removed these lines, which would have inspired hope on the Iranian street, from the bill to get the resolution through the Senate. For more information on these efforts check out this website! [Hat-tip to NRO The Corner]

The USA Patriot Act and Spineless Senators

Reuters is reporting that the Senate finally voted to extend the USA Patriot Act--if only for six months. This comes in the wake of the NSA controversy Rich mentioned and four Republican senators' defection on Friday during the first reauthorization vote.

As we all know, Rick Santorum is not perfect. He showed a remarkable lack of principle by opposing Pat Toomey's Senate bid last year--the fruits of which we are all now seeing in Arlen Specter's awful chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, as even his then-backer Hugh Hewitt now admits. But as Chris has said before, no one is perfect, and and as Rich's last post emphasizes, Santorum is getting some very important things right. As important as the Toomey fight was, the War on Terror is more important. Losing the former didn't mean the death of our civilization, but the latter would.

Santorum is providing an infusion of backbone into an otherwise spineless Senate on that issue--and we need him to stay. After all, do you trust Bob Casey to stand up to Harry "We Killed the Patriot Act" Reid and Chuck Schumer if he wins this race?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

When the Votes Count

In case you missed it, the Senate cut about $40 billion in spending today thanks to a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Cheney.

Stop me if you've heard this one before, but Rick voted with us (again) on this one. Here's the roll call from the vote on the spending cuts. Note the "None." where they would normally list "Democrats who voted for the spending cuts." Not a Donk to be found--not conservative Ken Salazar (D-CO), not conservative Ben Nelson (D-NE), and not conservative Mark Pryor (D-AR). Rest assured that not-conservative Bobby Casey would be in that same company if he had Rick's seat.

All of these Democrats have been hailed at one time or another as being "mavericks" or "New Democrats" or "independent". Guess what. When it comes down to it, they toe the line just like the rest of their caucus. Count on Bobby Casey to do the same.

Santorum Backs Bush Use of NSA

US Senator Rick Santorum is continuing to ally himself with the President and the US War on Terror. In this technological age, and given the ferocity of Islamic Jihadists, the administration has been secretly monitoring those inside the US with ties to terror groups. This monitoring has been successful in stopping attacks, such as the aborted plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.

There has been no word from the Casey camp about his views on monitoring terrorists.

According to William Bender of delcotimes.com, Santorum is siding with the President.

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum...defended the program Monday and said whoever leaked information to the New York Times committed "a shameful act."

Friday’s report that the NSA has intercepted phone calls and emails of U.S. residents without consulting the courts -- which some observers believe is a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- has angered many Democrats and some Republicans in Washington.

Santorum isn’t one of them, according to his spokesman, Robert Traynham.

"The senator believes that in a time of war the president should have the ability -- the constitutional ability -- to be able to use whatever means is necessary and legal to fight and win against our enemy," Traynham said.

In light of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Traynham said Santorum "supports the president in his effort to fight the war on terrorism, including using tactics that will keep our enemy on the run."

The Democrats have clearly shown selective outrage over this program. Several of the most recent presidents have done it, including Clinton and Carter.

The real outrage should be directed to the person who leaked this information to the press. "Loose lips sink ships" was the rallying cry to secrecy during World War II. Today, the dems are showing that Bush (and his supporters) must be defeated at all costs.

Casey Discontent

There has been some rumbling in the Pennsylvania blogosphere regarding Casey vs Pennachio vs Sandals.

NEPa's Gort links to the latest opinions.

When Bob Casey was selected by the power brokers in Washington to run against Rick Santorum (R-VA) it was deja vu all over again. In 2000 Ron Klink was the insiders choice to take on Ricky because of his stands on abortion and guns. Of course the abortion hotheads and gun nuts all backed Santorum anyway and Klink could not raise enough money from Democratic donors to be competitive. I find it insulting that the rest of the country thinks that all we have to do is nominate a Republican-lite candidate to have a chance.

Of course California Senator Barbara Boxer would disagree with the "Casey is Republican-lite" idea, but go read the whole thing.

Santorum given starring role in new Naral cartoon

Need a reason to support Rick? Try this new NARAL animation on for size. Rick is a leader of the Pro-life movement. They know to stop the Pro-life movement they must stop its most forceful advocate, Senator Santorum.
Cost of a re-election: 20 million dollars DONATE TODAY
Feminists made angry when they cannot win at the ballot box: Priceless

Senator Boxer on Pa '06

Speaking at a JACPAC event in Montgomery County on Thursday, California Senator Barbara Boxer spoke about Treasurer Casey.

She stressed the importance of state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. winning Rick Santorum's Senate seat. "Casey may not be a perfect 10, but he's a nine. We'll take him," she said referencing Casey's pro-life stance. "Santorum is a minus 10."

She said that Santorum is out of the mainstream, especially for a blue state like Pennsylvania.

I smell an ad campaign...

"Bob Casey... almost as liberal as Barbara Boxer."

"Bob Casey... liberal enough for other liberals."

Casey would like to have it both ways

This is taken straight from the Casey for Senate website under the Issues heading of Veterans:

Ensuring Our Security and Honoring Our Veterans Bob Casey supports our
brave men and women who are serving their country, especially those who are
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will work to ensure they have all
necessary equipment and support. Our military must remain strong.

Bob Casey understands that Washington must do more to train the Iraqi
security forces so we can bring our troops home as soon as possible.

Bob Casey also knows that Washington needs to do more to protect the
United States and our interests abroad from terrorist attack. More needs to be
done to protect the rail system, ports, chemical plants, and nuclear power
plants. This is an especially urgent problem for Pennsylvania.

My thoughts on the subject: In what ways has Bob Casey supported our troops overseas, especially in Iraq? Has he voted to fully fund the equipment they need? Has he campaigned for and supported other legislators and our President who have urged, prodded and pushed to be able to fully supply our military - or has he just said that he supports our troops? Pennsylvania voters deserve to know!

Comments on paragraph 2 - Ok, so give us some details - what's your plan Mr. Casey. Especially in light of the fact that Iraq has just held its 3rd election since the US ousted Saddam. I have seen Santorum's comments on the election, but Mr. Casey has remained silent, maybe for fear of upsetting the lunitic left who has invested themselves in military defeat and in him all because Mr. Casey is not Mr. Santorum - Why else would they be supporting Mr. Casey? It didn't work for the Kerry campaign, why should we expect a different result here?

Paragraph 3 - again, give us some details - how would you do it differently? What would you fund and how would you pay for it? At what point do we have reached our goal of protection? How do we measure that?

What's Bob Casey Up To?

Over at Townhall's Capital Report, Tim Chapman notes some very interesting.

Senate Democrats on December 14th objected to a Santorum introduced bill condemning the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The next day, Dec. 15th, this press release appeared on the website of Bob Casey, Jr., the presumptive opponent of Santorum in 2006. The release condemned the Iranian President's comments and it was initially stamped Dec. 15. Later, the campaign clumsily backdated the piece to Dec. 9th. (The campaign still, at 9:50 a.m. on Friday the 16 has not completely covered their tracks. Look at this list of his releases under "click here for more headlines" and you see the missive marked Dec. 15. But when you click it, it goes to Dec. 9th.)

Tim also provides screenshots showing the discrepancy should Bob Casey's web team "solve the problem."

Why would Casey do that?

Tim quotes a Senate aid familiar with the situation:

"It was obvious that there was collusion between Senate Democratic Leadership and the Casey campaign. They objected to Santorum's bill so that Casey could get out in front and try to win over the Jewish vote."

Read the whole post.

The Real Bob Casey: Did Casey Flip-Flop On Israel?

click here

Tim Chapman Of Townhall.com Ponders, Will the Casey Candidacy Crack?

The talented Tim Chapman of Townhall.com has a brand new column on the Santorum/Casey contest titled, "Will the Casey Candidacy Crack?"

"Casey's lead, while still substantial, is down 6 points from Quinnipiac’s last poll in October while Santorum’s approval rating rose 5 points in that time. The momentum factor plays well for Santorum, who has developed a reputation as the "comeback kid" of sorts," writes Chapman.

"Likely to be more disturbing to Team Casey is a question buried deep in the new poll. When pro-choice Casey supporters are told that both Bob Casey, Jr. and Senator Rick Santorum oppose legalized abortion, nearly one third of Casey supporters switch their candidate preference. The question is central to the dynamics of this race."

PA GOP Launches "The Real Bob Casey" Website!

click here

Kellyanne's Take

GOP Pollster Kellyanne Conway writes optimistically on the Quinnipiac poll at National Review Online.

Santorum will continue to trail the untested, recognized-but-not-known Casey throughout the cycle. Re-election campaigns are always about incumbents. And despite large blotches of red, Pennsylvania is a blue state. The President camped out there in ’04 and fell short against Kerry. He lost to Gore there four years earlier in an election that truly showed Santorum's mettle in that he won handily even though the top of the ticket went Democratic.

Of course Bob Casey has a high favorability rating. Despite the obvious — that he is the namesake of a popular and now deceased (which generally spikes up one's favorability, although so few politicians seem willing to make the investment) former governor — Casey benefits from being vanilla, which remains a deliciously popular flavor, even in politics.

In a reference to the 34% of polled who don't know enough about Bob Casey she writes...

Voters in Pennsylvania do not dislike Casey for the same reason people don't kick puppies they encounter or spit upon strangers in the street: they have no reason to . . . yet. A couple of choice misstatements or deer-in-headlights moments by Casey, and a well-funded ad blitz defining the guy, could change matters.

There again is the explantion for the Treasurer's oft-noted silence... and given his performance at the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Association event, it's probably a good strategy. It's also why the Senator wants a debate. There's blood in the water.

“Shadowy” Santorum backers also gave to Casey

According to Op-Ed News Casey and Santorum have received many donations from the same organizations. While Op-Ed News is no fan of Santorum, they have done some quality research into what entities have given money to Americans for Job Security. This is that 527 Casey accuses of being Shadowy backers of Rick Santorum. It turns out the American Insurance Association (AIA) is one of the largest contributors to this 527 as well as CHRISPAC which has donated money to the Casey campaign.

It seems that Jay and Bob should check their own donor list if they want to identify the “Shadowy” backers.

The Quinnipiac Poll

Ben has been all over the latest Quinnipiac Poll. As always, take polls with a grain of salt, but they are fun because a poll is always an easy news story and good blog material. Plenty of "what ifs?" for professional and amateur analysts.

Among the questions asked...

If I told you [pro-choice Casey voter] that Bob Casey Jr. and Rick Santorum both oppose legalized abortion, what would you do - Would you still vote for Bob Casey Jr, would you vote for Rick Santorum, or would you not vote at all?

63% of his supporters would still vote for him.

22% of Casey voters would not.

Only 1% would switch to Santorum (huh?), but 22% wouldn't vote for anyone.

That 22% is an amazing number. Nearly one in four of Casey's supporters would abandon him because of one issue. That has to be an eyebrow raiser for the Casey election time, but also for the Governor Rendell re-election effort. If the pro-choice Dems (particularly in SePA) choose to not vote for Casey, they might choose to not go to the polls at all. We could have the first four year governor in a long time.

Both Chuck Pennachio and Alan Sandals have already seized on this news.

Mr Sandals:

"For over thirty years, Democrats and Republicans have worked to preserve a woman’s right to choose. Unfortunately, neither Rick Santorum nor Bob Casey agree that this essential right of personal privacy must be protected."

Dr Pennachio:

"Bob Casey can't win a tough campaign against Rick Santorum without a strong turnout from the pro-choice majority in Pennsylvania. The history of contested statewide elections during the last decade shows that pro-choice candidates like Ed Rendell, Arlen Specter, Al Gore, and John Kerry win in Pennsylvania. Democrats should not repeat the mistake we made in 2000 in nominating an anti-choice candidate (Ron Klink) who failed to mobilize core Democratic voters and ran well behind the winning pro-choice candidate (Al Gore) at the top of the ticket,"

As an exercise, I leave it to ToomeyBlog alumni to roll their eyes at the curious inclusion in the above list.

I have to give this round to Dr. Pennachio. His press release has the necessary red-meat to energize his base support.

Perhaps Mr. Sandals can do better on the next Bob Casey position. Whenever that day may come.

Survey USA Poll: Santorum Approval Rating: 47-43

Santorum is showing positive movement in two polls released today. First the Quinnipiac poll and now theSurvey USA Shows Senator Santorum with a 47%-43% Approval Rating. This is from a low of 43%-49% in September. The poll has a margin of error of 4.1%

Check out there website. You can get almost any sub-category imaginable, though some of the categories have a small sample.

Some key numbers though. Many of these are just for trends and not for accuracy because of the high margin of error:

• Western PA has a positive for the first time in the history of this poll since June of this year[51% approve]*high margin of error*
• Approval Rating among men even at 46%
• Approval rating among Women 48%-41% approve

Some interesting numbers and another illustration of the positive movement of Senator Santorum!

AFL-CIO targeting Santorum

Well now Bobby Casey Jr's special interests are jumping into the fray. Bobby Casey's record of being a favorite pet and puppet of labor Unions. This should give Pennsylvanians' pause. From Phillyburbs.com:

Four senators singled out by the AFL-CIO for their voting records are Jim Talent of Missouri; Conrad Burns of Montana; Mike DeWine of Ohio and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. All are up for re-election in 2006.

National Review Online sees hope in New poll

From Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review's the Corner:

So 34 percent say they don't know enough about Casey and 45 percent say they think Santorum deserves to be reelected. Thats the first good news I've heard for him in a while.

From John J Miller at the Corner:

The best number for Santorum in that Pennsylvania survey is 6 -- the
percentage of people who have a negative view of Bob Casey. That figure will do nothing but go up, up, up as we approach Election Day. As it does, Casey's support will deteriorate -- he may yet beat Santorum, but in a sense he's at his strongest right now and will only get weaker.

Looking at the new Poll

Well there seems to be good news and bad news for Senator Santorum in the latest Quinnipiac Poll:
Good News:

• Closes the gap from an 18% gap to a 12% gap. Still large but at least the bleeding has stopped
• Re-elect number is at 45%-40% in favor of re-election compare that to 42%-41% does not deserve re-election from the last poll in October
• 22% of pro-choice Casey voters when told that Casey opposes legalized abortion say they will not vote!!!
• Santorum even with Casey in NE PA; Casey leads 40-39.
• Santroum within in 5 at 46%-41% in SE PA

Bad News

• Trouble in the T: Casey up 47%-42% in Central PA
• Casey's negatives in single digits.
• 20% of Republicans vote Casey.
• Unfavorables in Allegheny County way up at 28% approve 43% disapprove
• 33%-9% Republicans favorable opinion of Casey

More analysis of these numbers later. Overall though this poll is good news for Rick Santorum. Memories of the controversial comments are beginning to fade and pople are now looking at Bobby Casey Jr and Rick Santorum side by side. Hopefully in the next poll the folks at Quinnipiac can ask about the American for Job Security Ads to see if they are having any effect yet.

More later!

New Quinnipiac University Poll: Santorum Narrows Gap From 18% To 12%...

A new Quinnipiac University Poll has Santorum narrowing the gap between him and State Treasurer Bob Casey.

"The poll showed Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. leading the two-term Republican incumbent by 50 percent to 38 percent in the 2006 Senate race, compared to a 52-to-34 percent lead in Quinnipiac's October poll," states an Associated Press story on he results.

According To John Baer, Santorum Outshines Casey At PA Society Speaking Engagement

Perhaps this explains why Senator Rick Santorum wants so many debates...

According to Philadelphia Daily News columnist John Baer, there was a night and day difference between Casey and Santorum's public speaking abilities at a Metropolitan Club event sponsored by the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association.

"The difference, to be kind, is galactic. Santorum orates, Casey does substantially less," states Baer. "And though the audience is more a Santorum crowd, even backers of Bobby shake their heads."

Questions for Casey

I'm not really one for posting press releases as blog news, but this one I had to post.

The Santorum Campaign inquires of Silent Bob Casey his position on the War in Iraq.

During the 2004 Presidential campaign, you campaigned heavily for John Kerry, appearing with him at public events as well as producing campaign commercials in support of his candidacy. You have also solicited the help of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean as demonstrated by the money he has raised for you. Do you agree with the extreme statements made by Dean and Kerry that the United States cannot win in Iraq and that our military in Iraq are terrorists?

For what it's worth, Senator Kerry has proof of his terrorist accusation.

The next question is a two part one.

You have accepted significant financial support as well as the endorsement of MoveOn.org. Do you agree with MoveOn’s position that our Nation should have acted with “restraint” following the September 11, 2001 attacks?

This might be a question of his position on Afghanistan, which only the far left was against. But it's in the context of questions on Iraq and the Global War on Terror, so it's fair game.

Further, Moveon.org opposed emergency funding for our military. Do you agree with their position to not provide our military with the resources necessary to fight and win this war?

MoveOn.org would argue that they "Support our Troops."

And finally a debate...

Are you willing to debate Rick Santorum on the War in Iraq, the broader War on Terrorism or foreign relations as a whole?

In my mind, it's too early to debate with Treasurer Casey. He still hasn't defeated Chuck Pennachio or Alan Sandals. I would heartily encourage the three declared Democrat candidates to debate each other.

It would be refreshing to hear a new position from Mr Casey, instead of the boilerplate DSCC talking points.

Voter Identification

YoungPhillyPolitics has an interesting twist on PA House Bill 1318 that would change voter eligibility requirements.

Among other things, HB1318 would require one form of photo identification and would make released felons in-eligible to vote.

Here's the twist...

This is basically a version of what Southern states tried to do in the 1930s. [states run by Southern Democrats? -ed.] The ID requirement was understood then explicitly as being a way of keeping poor people and black people - all of whom were Democrats [well... maybe those blacks were Republican -ed.]- from voting. Poor people didn't have cars, so they didn't have driver's licenses, so they were the ones turned away. [Maybe true then, but total red herring today. You can get a non-drivers ID -ed.

Insofar as felonies go - this is totally also a race thing. The whole system is racist: the incarceration rate for black people is way higher than for equivalent crimes committed by whites. Regardless of your take on this, if you serve your time, I think you should be able to reengage with society.

I basically see this as Republicans gearing up for the Senatorial campaign in 2006. We all know how much Karl Rove and friends want to protect Santorum - this smacks of some awful national-Republican-party move to try to keep Philly and Pittsburgh from going to the polls.

I guess there are no poor people outside of Philly or Pittsburgh. If you actually follow the link and read the bill, PennDOT will issue a voter ID card for free.

Similiar laws have cropped up in other states over the last few years (including Mississippi) and I feel that this is a national-party directive.

Because sensible national trends and laws always come from the party's inner-sanctum.

I can't wait to hear the analysis on the new electronic voting machines that counties are required to install.

In any case, our Republic is only as good as the system which installs it. If we can remove more doubt from the operation of the electoral system it's a good thing(tm).

UPDATE: GOP Releases web ad decrying democrats for defeatist rhetoric

This cuts at the heart of the Democratic attack in '06 against Republicans and Santorum in particular.
See the video here. It is devastating

The Candidate has no Clothing

The Casey campaign reminds me of the old story - The emporer has no clothing. Here's a great example of why:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/archive/s_401694.html

The link above will take you to a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial which states in part:

Truth in campaigning: When Bob Casey speaks, Bob Casey gets exposed. The Democrat state treasurer says Republican Sen. Rick Santorum's claim that he's protecting Social Security for seniors is a "smoke screen." After all, Mr. Casey says, Mr. Santorum supports personal accounts. But Santorum clearly is on the record as guaranteeing current seniors their benefits while allowing younger workers to take control of a portion of what they now pay into Social Security. What "smoke screen"? And Casey's Social Security plan? He doesn't have one.

My analysis - Mr. Casey fits right in with all the national Democrat Party leadership. All they do is bitch, moan, complain and find fault in others. Ask them what their plan is and you'd think you were in the middle of a studderers convention because they don't have a plan. An organization without a plan is a plan for failure. People do not vote for candidates who complain, they vote for candidates who have a vision. So please Mr. Casey, or who ever speaks for you, keep it up. As you do, we'll see those polls tighten right up.

Hannity and Colmes offer to host Santorum-Casey debate!

From an exchange on the Hannity and Colmes show:

COLMES: Well, we just talked about -- we'd love to do a debate with both of you on this show, if your opponent would agree.
SANTORUM: Let's do a debate.
COLMES: We'd do it. We'd love to do it.
HANNITY: Just you two doing the debate?
SANTORUM: Just the two of us and you two.
COLMES: And, listen, we'd love to do it.
HANNITY: Well, Alan can get Casey on.
SANTORUM: You can get Casey -- can you get him on?
COLMES: We'll try. We'll ask him. We'll ask him to do it.
SANTORUM: We'll do it.

...
HANNITY: You know something, Senator? Has anyone ever heard from your opponent? He's hiding. Where is he?
SANTORUM: He does press conferences and doesn't take questions. He, you know, issues statements basically from his campaign manager.

Look, people from Pennsylvania, you know, don't understand the name Bob Casey, who's a former governor -- the son of a former governor, who was very popular. You know, the Planned Parenthood v. Casey cases...
HANNITY: Sure.
SANTORUM: ... he was the Casey. He stood up to President Clinton at the 1992 convention and had a very strong following in the state. And I think there's a lot of substitution between the two, and he's basically hiding behind that name, trying to keep any kind of idea...
HANNITY: You want a debate on the issues, and you're willing to come on this program right here for a full hour and debate the issues.
SANTORUM: I'll do it next week.
HANNITY: We're going to do everything we can do to make that possible.

My guess: not even the liberal icon Alan Colmes will be able to get Casey to open his mouth...

Terri Schiavo's estranged husband to target Santorum

Michael Schiavo continues to exploit Terri for his own gain, first financial and now political. He has started a political PAC called Terri's PAC Sad
From Lifenews.com

So far, pro-life Texas Congressman Tom