Tax Cuts for the Rich

One of the things that all three Democrat candidates agree on is their opposition to tax cuts for the rich.

The Bush tax cuts were simply hand outs to the rich, and the middle class is paying for it.

Well....

[N]ew IRS statistics on the taxes Americans pay show that George Bush's tax policies actually soak the rich.

It turns out that the income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the wealthy. The percentage of federal income taxes paid by those who make more than $200,000 a year has actually risen from 41% to 47% in recent years.

In other words, the richest 3 out of 100 Americans are now paying close to the same amount in income taxes as the other 97% of workers combined.

But what about those in the middle?

It's also a common myth that the rich are hording all the wealth, while the middle class stays stuck in economic quicksand.

The IRS data show that the share of all income earned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans has actually fallen since 2001. The rich are earning less of the total income but paying more of the total taxes.

During this economic expansion, the middle class is growing and becoming more prosperous. About 4 out of 10 Americans now make more than $50,000 a year -- that's up from 3 out of 10 in 1990.

What about tax cuts in general? Tax cuts we couldn't afford.

There's more good news. Tax revenues over the past two years are up more than half a trillion dollars — the largest two-year increase in tax collections in history.

Bush cut the capital gains and dividend taxes, but guess what? Now those tax receipts are through the roof in the last two years.

It's true. If you compare budget outlays vs income, we're spending more than we're taking in. But that's not the fault of tax cuts. We're taking in more! (See Laffer Curve) We're just spending a heck of a lot more.

Unfortunately that finger points at all of Congress and the President.

Casey Supporters Protest Santorum

No, that's not a typo.

Actual pro-Casey people.

When Santorum, R-Penn Hills, rolled up in a blue Buick at a Sheetz gas pump in Robinson -- the site of the event -- about a dozen protesters tried to stand behind the senator with fluorescent orange and green signs in view of television and newspaper cameras.

The thrust of the protesters' message was that Santorum supports big oil companies and is out of touch with Pennsylvanians. They also carried Casey campaign signs.

Wow. I figured it would have been Pennacchio supporters or maybe just anti-Santorum protesters.

Larry Smar (Casey spokesman) didn't know if they were authorized by the campaign or not, but he agreed with them.

Since we're talking about oil companies and political posturing, I'd like to know if Bob Casey is for the windfall profits tax on oil companies. I didn't find anything online. Does anyone know?

Flight 93

When Dr Rick at the American Checkup goes into prognotication mode, he goes by Nostradumbass.

Here's what he thinks about the Flight 93 movie.

Nostradumbass predicts that Flight 93, in all of its [somewhat arbitrary] glory, will not only make records at the box office but will also play a pivotal role in the reviving of the conservative party and renewed faith in the President. Nostradumbass has even been so brazen as to say that 45% would not be a far out expectation for favorable in the next week support polls.

I don't know about 45%. That's pretty optimistic.

But an upswing for Bush?

I think so, and I think it will be proportional to the number of tickets sold.

Dr Rick touches on a topic I've been contemplating this week regarding this movie and its effect on popular opinion.

It's no secret that the President and his administration are politically strongest regarding their efforts on the War on Terror... with the events of 9/11 and his subsequent speechifying figuring in to that strength. That's when the President was at his best.

Considering the conventional wisdom that Santorum & Bush are 98% connected at the hip, a Bush drop (which has been happening) pulls Rick Santorum down with him. Shouldn't a Bush rise do the same with the Senator's numbers?

Top it all off with the Senator's recent efforts to secure the funding to get a Flight 93 Memorial built.

This movie probably won't change Bush haters into Bush fans, and it's certainly not going to make Santorum haters love him, but I think it will a go a way to bringing the dissatisfied conservatives back to both the President and the party, as well as a maybe luring a few of the undecideds our way as well.

The President's numbers will be helped the most, but I think it's hard to say it's not going to help Republicans in general.

For what's worth, the Santorum & Bush approval numbers generally do track. On average it would appear that the Senator's approval numbers are 7% better than the Presidents, and disapprovals are 14% better.



If Nostradumbass' prediction rings true*, the Senator will be above 50% approval.

* I have no idea of his track record, and you can always play games with numbers. This whole excercize is purely for entertainment purposes.

Momentum?

Citing recent polls, Human Events says the Santorum campaign has momentum.

Casey's lead has been slowly but steadily declining since November. Considering how little anyone actually seems to know about Casey and where he stands on any given issue, this should not come as a surprise as Election Day draws near and voters take a closer look at the candidates.

"Casey has equivocated or simply refused to articulate a comprehensive platform," says one GOP strategist. "All people really know is that his dad is [former governor] Bob Casey and that his campaign guys keep saying he's pro-life."

Especially in light of Bob Casey's recent proposal to expand childcare program of his father's.

What is odd to me is that people say "everyone knows he's prolife" and then there are polls that say otherwise.[1] [2]

Patrick Casey (no relation) also cautions...

[I]f Casey is depending on Bush to lose it for Santorum, he might want to consider a few things:

For one, it's hard to imagine Bush sinking much lower. At some point his approval rating is going to bottom out. When that happens, Casey is going to be forced to put some substance behind his name.

The Santorum camp has yet to air any of its own ads. As they frame the campaign and make the case for re-election, the impact of the President's poll numbers will decrease and fewer voters will use their vote as a referendum on the administration.

Also, at some point Casey will have to debate Santorum. Santorum is known for being quick on his feet and going toe to toe with him on policy issues is simply not something even optimistic Democrats think Casey can handle.

Finally, the Carpetbagger report adds...

There's little doubt that Bob Casey is leading in Pennsylvania's Senate race; the only question is by how much. While some recent polls showed Casey's leading slipping to the high-single digits, a new Rasmussen poll shows Casey ahead, 51% to 38%.

Momentum? Maybe. But the election is still half a year away.

Incomes

Scranton's Times-Tribune has an article detailing the financials of both Treasurer Casey and Senator Santorum.

As you can imagine, politicians have more income than average.

What surprised me was how little their homes are assessed for.

The Senator's home is at $106,000, and Casey's works out to $107,000. The national average is more than twice those figures.

Ultimately...

There’s little fodder in the disclosure forms for the two men to exploit politically. But the Virginia home where Mr. Santorum and his family live could become a problem, said Thomas J. Baldino, Ph.D., a Wilkes University political science professor.

The senator maintains the Penn Hills home as his voting residence, but the Casey campaign could choose to question whether Mr. Santorum actually lives in Pennsylvania, Dr. Baldino said.

Some political observers expect that to happen because Mr. Santorum made much of the suburban residence of U.S. Rep. Doug Walgren, the Democrat he defeated in 1990 to earn his seat in the House.

“It’s difficult to make anything of these numbers,” Dr. Baldino said. “The differences in this campaign aren’t about personal wealth. It’s more on issues and honesty and integrity.”

Dueling Bandages

Patriot News

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and his likely rival, Pennsylvania Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., appeared a few blocks from each other yesterday on Capitol Hill to promote alternative plans to expand health insurance.

Santorum, R-Pa., appeared with other GOP senators and representatives of the American Osteopathic Association to discuss the need for medical liability reform.

A short while later, Casey spoke with reporters on his proposal to use federal dollars to expand the state Children's Health Insurance Programs, which his father, the late Gov. Robert P. Casey, established. Casey unveiled the plan during a speech in Harrisburg earlier this week.

Casey also supports legislation to allow small businesses to pool their purchasing power to negotiate better health insurance coverage.

Small business can't already pool their power? Is that explicitly banned by legislation?

Shananigans

The Cajun Jew does some research into a Craig's List job posting for Chuck Pennacchio canvassers.

He hunts for the posts and dig around, and comes to a conclusion.

Unfortunately, Karl Rove makes an appearance.

So if Pennacchio's campaign didn't write either of the craigslist posts, then who did? I can see three possibilities:

• The Pennacchio campaign wrote them. I don't see this as likely at all--see why here. They would have nothing to gain and much to lose by hypocritically doing so. Also, they are not that dumb.


• A foolish Pennacchio supporter(s) wrote them. Perhaps someone who likes Chuck, but is ignorant of his all volunteer campaign wrote these craigslist posts. A person or two with good intentions could have written them, but was asked to remove the one offering payment, because it was bogus. This seems like a bit of a reach to me.


• One of Pennacchio's opponents or a supporter thereof wrote them. Attacking your opponent's credibility--in this case Chuck's ethics--is a page right out of Karl Rove's playbook. Unfortunately, Rove's tactics are not limited to Republicans. In politics, tearing your opponent down is one of the best ways to make yourself look better. However, I remain confused about the authenticity of the volunteer phonebanking post.

I'm hoping that the Rove mention is tongue in cheek. But maybe the Craigs List people can give up an IP address of the poster? If it's whitehouse.gov, I'll eat this post. ;)

But, if you're interested in internet forensics, here's a good example.

10 Debates

Regarding the post primary debate offer to Sandals and Pennacchio...

Randy Schulz, a spokesman for Sandals, derided Santorum's outreach to all Democrats as "a transparent political stunt ... to trap Casey."

"The political calculus is simple: If Sandals agreed to 10 debates and Casey does not, the Santorum outreach will undoubtedly be used to score political points against Casey," he said.

[Santorum spokeswoman Virginia] Davis defended the offer, noting that Sandals and Pennacchio have gained some traction since last fall.

Calling Santorum's "bluff" might also help Sandals gain publicity. Casey leads Sandals and Pennacchio in public opinion polls of likely voters.

That's true. Sandals and Pennacchio have been struggling with getting earned media, since the media has declared Casey the victory. They should be open to doing a lot to elevate their name. Especially among Democrats.

The Energy Plan

So I've been meaning to write a little about the latest plan from the Senate leadership on cutting prices at the pump.

But honestly, it's hard for me to get excited about.

Included is a $100 rebate on gas per year. At 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes, that's like getting a break on taxes for about 30 fill ups. Plus to get it will be no doubt byzantine. Yawn.

Taxing oil producers? Senators should know better than that. Companies don't pay taxes! Sure, they fill out the forms, but where does that money come from? That's right! The consumer!

Another call for drilling in ANWR, which is long overdue.

``We have been trying for years to do something about supply without their help,'' said Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said of the Democrats.

``We wouldn't be in the situation we are in today'' if President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation in 1995 to open the Arctic refuge to drilling, said Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

It's all too easy to blame Democrats for the high price at the gas station. Though Ann Coulter does a pretty bang up job of it.

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

Oh, and the hysterical global warming shrieking must end. Other types of shrieking to curtail would include "exhorbitant profits", "price fixing!" and "BushCo oil buddies". It's nonsensical and ungrounded in reality, and worst of all, it's lazy.

Ultimately it's all our fault. It's both a supply and demand problem. There's not enough supply, and there is too much demand.

Increasingly supply is at multi-fold.
1) Open up drilling in more areas of the country (not just ANWR, though we're pretty much right next door). It also creates jobs. Tons of them.

2) Diversify refining locations. Putting a large percentage of our refining capacity in one spot that's in the crosshairs of storms is silly. One large storm takes it out. Severely curbing supply. Dumb.

3) Diversify the kind of supply. E85 and other blended fuels are a start. Biodiesel, obviously. Even CNG. The trouble is, those alternate fuels are not necessarily price competitive with petroleum. (This is also a chicken-egg problem, as well.)

4) Something like 70% of the world's oil reserves are under the control of state-owned industries. Central planning of business is very effective in collosally screwing things up. Where's the motive for those "companies" to extract or produce as much as possible? Plus there wouldn't be political reasons to jerk production levels around. The oil companies just want to get it out of the ground and down the pipeline.

That's a tougher problem to fix, however. ("war for oil" and all that)

Decreasing demand again has multiple facets.
1) Stop driving as much... car pooling, or saving your errands for one day is a start. Most of us can do that, at least.

2) Use hybrid tech. More MPG means more less need to tank up.

3) Easy to do is inflate your tires, drive the speed limit and use cruise control.

4) Some dollar level exists where driving will decrease because the price is too high. Isn't that what the climate change people (ie liberals & Democrats) want anyway?

In the end, we're all swimming in the stream of the energy market and government forces only tend to push prices in one direction. The wrong way.

On Endorsing Casey

Chris Bowers highlights Philadelphia's 27th Ward meeting.

My speech went something like this:
I am not going to say anything negative about Bob Casey. I will not be voting for him the primary, but my vote is neither a "protest vote" nor an "anti-Casey vote." My vote is a pro-Chuck Pennacchio vote. Up and down the spectrum of issues, Chuck believes in what I believe. He believes in full equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, and what Valerie said when she spoke to us, that "we must go way beyond just tolerance." Chuck believes in actually withdrawing from Iraq, not vague promises about withdrawal. Chuck believes that people should have control over their own bodies and their private lives all of the time, not just some of the time. Chuck also believes that campaigns need to be run on the ground, by reaching out to people, not just by money. And on and on and on. I do not worry about what "message" my vote in the primary sends to people, because my vote is what I believe in. I believe that primaries are where you should always and only vote for what you believe in. If I thought my beliefs sent the wrong message to people, I would quit politics right now. Many Americans do not believe that Democrats do not stand for anything. If, in our own primaries, when only Democrats are choosing among potential candidates, we vote not for what we believe in, but rather for what we think will appeal to the most people, then how can we ever combat the belief that Democrats do not stand for anything? I will work for whoever wins the primary, but in the primary I am going to vote for what I believe in. I believe in Chuck Pennacchio.

In the end, Casey won the endorsement 12-9.

Rasmussen: Casey 51% - Santorum 38%

Rasmussen has the results of their most recent poll out today.

For the challenger, that's slightly better than our March 29 poll which showed him leading 50% to 41%. Casey has been ahead in all seven of our Pennsylvania election polls by margins ranging from nine to twenty percentage points.

Santorum is struggling with his base, consistently earning less than 70% of the vote from Pennsylvania Republicans. He's at 65% support from the GOP in the current poll.

Casey, on the other hand, is supported by 77% of Democrats.

The support numbers can not make Santorum supporters feel good. Pennacchio and Sandals supports are probably in the same boat.

All polls


Rasmussen Only


Disclaimer:
I've done yet another tweak to the way polls are shown. I will continue to show all the polls together on one trend, but have added a trend for the individual poll itself. This intended to reduce clutter.

The spike in early March on the overall poll is a Mansfield University poll.

More on Muhlenberg / Morning Call Poll

Some more details are out on the Morning Call / Muhlenberg Poll at Mcall.com.

The latest poll reflects a consistent narrowing of the Santorum/Casey matchup. Two months ago, Casey enjoyed a 16-point edge, but that's been eroding week by week. It fell to single-digits in polls taken earlier this month. A Zogby International survey released March 30 put the margin at 8 points; an April 5 Rasmussen Reports poll had it at 9 points.

According to Muhlenberg polling director Christopher Borick, the erosion of Casey's lead is tied to third-party campaign advertisements taking the Democratic state treasurer to task for his allegedly spotty job attendance.

A Virginia group called Americans for Job Security has spent more than $1 million on ads charging that Casey has missed work ''more than 43 percent of the time'' and was looking for a new job just three months after being sworn in as state treasurer. Casey's representatives have dismissed the spots as mud-slinging.

Calling the ads ''classic image attacks,'' Borick said they have moved voters who might have been in Casey's corner into the undecided category.

How many places have those ads run in? Was it really that many? (I'm going to find out).

The YCOP PAC also ran ads... which ran in the northeast part of the state.

Friend of SantorumBlog, Tim Chapman sums it up.

This past track record combined with this early movement in the polls has to scare the daylights out of the Casey campaign. Santorum has not even begun to spend money on ads yet. If Casey continues losing ground before Santorum goes on the air, he is toast.

Neither ad run made an impression on Tim... but I think he's in D.C.

In anycase, the race is tightening, as many (most) people have been saying.

Polling Opinion

Not much opinioning going on about yesterday's Muhlenberg Poll.

The Garnet Donkey...

Finally, in more sobering news, another poll shows Bob Casey’s lead over Rick Santorum slipping. This poll had Casey up by 12 in March and it now has him leading by only 8. Of course, in one sense, it’s great that we’re worried about an 8-point lead over an incumbent — it shows that Santorum still faces a significant uphill battle in this race. At the same time, Casey is not exactly doing a stellar job of showing the people of PA why they should support him and his campaign seems to be complacent about his slide in the polls. Some slipping was to be expected, but I really hope Casey’s campaign has a clear strategy for presenting an inspiring message to the voters — so far, the evidence I have seen for such a strategy has been limited.

Perry Christopher links and simply writes... "In typical Casey fashion, a free fall in the polls"

A Referenda

Rothenberg Political Report

Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) will need a remarkable comeback to overtake challenger Bob Casey Jr. (D). Santorum is a quicker and more energetic candidate, and he will have more money. But Casey is riding the Democratic wave effectively, tapping voters’ dissatisfaction with the White House and desire for change.

The contest is certain to tighten, but Casey is running well in all areas of the state, and he should win as long as voters see the election as a referendum first on President Bush and second on Santorum.

... and with the Philly "Get of Iraq" Referendum it will.

That's a pretty delicate strategy though.

Because what Bob Casey & the Democrats are hoping for is continued "problems" in Iraq, "problems" with the economy, "problems" with corporate profits, high gas prices, etc... Hoping for the worst would entail the best outcome.

Sandals Comment on Latest Poll

AlanSandals.com

“The erosion of support for Bob Casey in a hypothetical matchup against Rick Santorum is an unfortunate but predictable trend that underscores the great concern of mainstream Democrats about the vulnerability of the Casey candidacy. When he was recruited to run a year ago, the party leadership thought Democrats needed to imitate Republicans in order to win, but I have always disagreed with that strategy. Democrats should stand for the principles we believe in, including women’s rights and the right to choose, an end to the military occupation of Iraq, support for stem cell research, and adequate controls to reduce handgun violence. Casey’s positions on these issues do not match the views of most Democrats and most moderate Republicans and Independents.

Voters in Pennsylvania need and want a U.S. Senate Candidate who will implement real change, but they won't find one in Bob Casey. May 16 is the final opportunity for Democrats to stand up and avert disaster in November.”

Democrats and Abortion

Bob Casey's abortion position has generally nullified abortion as a subject up for debate in November, but it may have electrified the debate within the Democrat Party nationwide.

ProLifeBlogs reviews Ramesh Ponnuru's Party of Death, about a political force that is for abortion and for euthanasia.

There are many groups within the PoD. Chapter 2, "Realignment," describes how the PoD effectively assimilated the Democratic Party. It's a brilliant chapter. Ramesh opens with an eloquent pro-life quote from Jesse Jackson, then goes on to describe the pro-life origins of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Richard Durbin, Dick Gephardt, and even (gasp!) Ted Kennedy. Unfortunately, the Democrats gradually abandoned the hard task of advocating for the unborn in favor of carrying the PoD's message. Ramesh notes the irony:

It was the party of the little guy. Yet somehow it turned its back on the littlest guy of all.

The nadir of the Democrats' descent into the PoD's clutches is chronicled on pages 31 and 32, in which Ramesh tells his readers about the DNC's decision to ostracize Bob Casey in 1992. With the excommunication of the last prominent pro-life Democrat, the PoD's takeover was complete.

Or was it? Skip ahead to Chapter 18, "Pro-Life Democrats," to see the rebellion of those who want to free Democratic ideals from the PoD.

Sherry Wolf writes at Counterpunch.org...

There is no doubt that hundreds of thousands (millions?) would answer the call if women’s organizations were to try to organize a national mobilization in defense of a woman’s right to choose. When the generals leading the retreat finally decamp to the other side, even though the soldiers would fight if a call were made, it’s definitely time to look for new generals.

Santorum on Ingraham Show

As mentioned last week, Rick Santorum was on Laura Ingraham's radio show.

Here's the full segment.

It's only a few minutes long.

Talked about the recent polls, President Bush's help, campaigning in general. Laura Ingraham might be doing some campaign things for him this summer... maybe around the time of the Willow Grove Air Show.

Debate Invitations

Some head games from the Santorum campaign.

They are inviting Sandals and Pennacchio to a series of 10 debates should they be victorious on May 16th.

PoliticsPa has a copy of a letter sent by Vince Galko, Santorum's campaign manager to both Mr Sandals and Dr Pennacchio.

Santorum 2006 has already reached out to Mr. Casey’s campaign on the topic of debates: however, we have not received a response.

Congratulations on the hard work you have done thus far and for your willingness to express your views on the issues important to Pennsylvanians. If you succeed on May 16th, I have no doubt that you will be willing to debate Senator Santorum in order to provide the voters of this Commonwealth an issues-driven campaign based on honest and open debate.

I wonder if there is some internal polling that Santorum 2006 has that shows better than single digits for either of the other two Democrats?

Update:Looks like Alan Sandals challenged Rick Santorum in November to debates! Mr Sandals would like to debate with the Senator at least once BEFORE the Primary. Heh.

Morning Call / Muhlenberg Poll

Casey 46%, Santorum 38%.

Casey, the son of the former governor and the man that nationwide Democrats hope will finally be able to dislodge Santorum from the U.S. Senate seat he's held since 1994, saw his double-digit lead diminished to just eight percentage points in the survey of 518 registered voters.

In a hypothetical match-up held today, Casey leads Santorum 46 to 38 percent, down from the 49 percent to 37 percent advantage Casey commanded in early March. Seventeen percent of those surveyed said they didn't know enough about the U.S. Senate contest to make up their minds.

March's lead in the Muhlenberg/Morning Call poll was 12%, a month later it's 8%.

The average undecideds that I've been tracking have been at 12%. Though lately, they've been bouncing around a bit.



The blow by blow results come out tomorrow. More then.

1st Quarter Money Race

Here are the final 1st quarter 2006 numbers.

The Money Race : Sandals & Pennacchio

The final numbers are posted on the FEC website.

Pennacchio: Total receipts through March 31st, were $100,846 with $80,826 coming from individuals. $17,800 is onhand for spending.

Sandals: Total receipts were $688,443 with $47,059 coming from individuals, $400,000 came from a candidate loan. $35,034 is onhand for spending.

In terms of Cash on Hand, Sandals is down by $15,000 vs 4th quarter 2005.

Pennacchio and Sandals campaigns are both in debt, $8,100 and $400,000 respectively.

Opus Dei

Opus Dei is getting some press lately due to the release of the Da Vinci Code movie.

One of the left's long standing "facts" is that Senator Santorum is a member of the very strict Catholic organization.

Here's a story in Time about Opus Dei.

For years, Catholics in Washington [and liberals -ed.] have kept informal count of possible high-profile Opus people, including Justice Antonin Scalia and almost-Justice Robert Bork, Senators Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, columnist Robert Novak and former FBI head Louis Freeh. The tally was not totally arbitrary: Freeh's child went to an Opus Dei school, and his brother was a numerary for a while; Scalia's wife has attended Opus events, and the Justice is close to an Opus priest; and Brownback, Bork and Novak converted to Catholicism under one's wing. Several have denied the rumors ("I can't stress enough that he is not a member," says Santorum's communications chief). But a bonus of Opus' new candor campaign is that it now states freely that not one of the powerful Washingtonians belongs.

Casey Courting Evangelicals?

Ethics Daily...

Bob Casey Jr., the Pennsylvania Democrat who has gotten attention in his Senate race for his anti-abortion platform, joined a top evangelical leader Thursday to argue that Christians should be concerned about the environment.

Casey, who is trying to oust Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, spoke with the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, at Messiah College, a prominent evangelical campus in Grantham, Pa.

"When you consider it from a faith perspective, it's part of the stewardship of God's creation," Casey said in an interview before his speech. "But it's also part of responsible public policy."

...

The younger Casey served as the state's auditor general before he was elected treasurer in 2004. Casey said he may not agree with the Catholic Church on every policy issue, but said his concern for the environment is connected to his faith.

"I'm like a lot of Americans (where) the work that I do does have inspiration from and is informed by my own faith," he said.

Hmm. I think I've heard that before somewhere...

Santorum wrap

I'll have some things to say about some of the following articles later, but for now read them and check up later!

Santorum race may serve as Bush referendum

Santorum says he supports private funding for new Penguins arena

Santorum sponsors the most bills at 123

PA Leadership Conference wrap-up from Accuracy in Media

"To dislodge Santorum is a pro-choice victory"

Where's the moola?

Bob Casey has yet to prove he is a legitimate politician. Garnering support from various interest groups is one thing, but getting an individual or organization to give their hard earned cash because they believe in you as a person and a candidate is entirely different. Bob Casey has immediate name recognition through the Commonwealth (which many politicos will tell you is probably the most valuable commodity in any election) and yet according to the Associated Press Mr. Casey has only raised $8million compared to Sanitorium's (passing reference to Sunday's Sopranos episode) $16million. Where is George Soros when you need him? I guess when he and Michael Moore are done making DNC propoganda films he can take time to contribute. Until then it seems that Bobby C's got some credibility problems he needs to address to get those contribution rolling in.

And for all you DailyKos readers out there, 76% of Santorum's funds came from individuals so don't complain that its all PAC money.

Sandals & Pennacchio on Foreign Affairs

eRobin covers a Congressional Candidates forum at phillyburbs.com...

Answerers are identified by their initials... and there are some amazing answers.

Question One: Should US troops be subject to an international criminal court?

CP: Absolutely.

AS: Yes, but only if the Sec Def is subject to it as well. The result of Abu Ghraib showed that something isn’t working with the system we have in place.

Whew.

Q2: Can the UN be effective in resolving international conflicts?

AS: Yes. Go to the Darfur Rally on 4/30 in D.C. Darfur is the greatest crime of the decade. Right now the UN works when the offending nation is 2nd or 3rd tier. We need to realign the way the votes work in the Sec. Council but I doubt we’d have much luck with that.

CP: The root cause of most of these conflicts is gross poverty and inequality of wealth around the world. The UN can address that by working to elevate the world to a living wage. We should let the UN do what it does best, which is these kind of programs.

Colin Powell went to the UN with Darfur in September of 2004. The fact that it's still a problem doesn't speak well of the UN.

Q4: Do you support giving US military aid to Israel? Why is it okay for India to have the bomb and not Iran?

CP: We were the first state to recognize Israel for a reason - because of the Holocaust and because of our history in the 1930’s. We could have done better. We support Israel and two-state solution.

It’s not okay for any state to have a nuclear weapon.

AS: It’s hard to know which way the flow of military aid is going. There are weapons being developed in Israel that are coming here. Israel is the only state taht lives with threats to its existence daily. Its geography makes it vulnerable. It developed nuclear weapons as a last resort.

Iran is different because of its rhetoric so the answer is to keep applying pressure.

There was a two state solution to Israel in 1948. Unfortunately, Israel's Arab neighbors decided to invade it. To the winner go the spoils.

More questions and answers here.

I think scheduling conflicts prevented Treasurer Casey and Senator Santorum from appearing.

What About the Senate?

Jay Cost writes about control of Congress starting in 2007.

One of these ignored items has to do with the Senate. It is, according to most, out of the Democrats' grasp. I strongly agree with this estimation. For the Democrats to take the Senate, they would have to defeat incumbents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Missouri, and Rhode Island; win the open seat in Tennessee; and hold seats against strong challengers in Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington. This amounts to a sweep of all 10 of National Journal's 10 most vulnerable races. Most would thus admit that the Senate is not on the table; those who make no such admission usually grow silent when asked to explain why they refuse.

The consensus on the Senate is actually a major problem for the consensus on the House. Historically speaking, the House only switches when the Senate switches. In other words, the improbability of a Democratic capture of the Senate is a sign that a capture of the House is improbable.

Biggest Race of 2006

World Magazine's blog that this is the biggest race of 2006... and notes Bob Casey Jr is a pro-life Democrat.

Barbara Boxer more accurately characterizes his candidacy: "She also reminds her audiences, she said, that Mr. Casey's election would help deliver control of the Senate to the Democrats. 'It's a pragmatic choice,' she said. 'And by the way, to dislodge Santorum is a pro-choice victory.'"

Party of Death

National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru has a new book out called Party of Death. NRO has an interview up between Mr Ponnuru and NRO's editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez.

Pennsylvania politicians get some mentions.

Lopez: Does Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania suggest that the Dems don't want to be the actual party of death? Does the Democratic party have to abort abortion — or do something fundamentally different on the life issues — to survive? Will they?

Ponnuru:The Casey candidacy is an encouraging sign that the Democrats realize that, as one party strategist put it, they "can't just be the party of death." I do think the Democrats have to do something more than just revamp their rhetoric on abortion. Coming out against tax-funded abortions, or being willing to see Roe modified to allow bans on third-trimester abortions, would be steps in the right direction.

Lopez: Members of the party of death increasingly argue that if pro-lifers really cared about reducing abortion, they would more fully embrace contraception, and not be so hung up on abstinence, for instance. Do they have a point?

Ponnuru:Most pro-lifers don't, I think, oppose contraception. Whether promoting contraception or abstinence in school is the best way to reduce abortions is an empirical question on which the jury is still out. But it is clear that if want to reduce abortion, getting rid of taxpayer funding for abortion, enacting parental-consent and informed-consent laws, and restricting third-trimester abortions are ways to do that — and the party of death opposes those steps.

Lopez: Would you excommunicate Arlen Specters from the GOP if you were Ken Mehlman, lest Republicans become cozier with death as their politics?

Ponnuru:Pro-lifers, among others, were right to try to beat Specter in the primary. I think the Republican party organization spent too many resources saving Specter's campaign. But you can't blame the party for supporting its incumbents. That's what parties do. Expecting otherwise is like expecting someone to hold a press conference denouncing his wife.

Democrats, Big Banks, and Fundraising

The self-proclaimed "party of the little guy" pulled in more Wall Street money than Republicans in 2005, according to a new article from Bloomberg.com.

According to the scribe, Dems "outdid Republicans last year in attracting political donations from investment banks, brokerages, and fund managers...." The donkeys captured 52% of the available cash. The information is courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Oddly, "[t]he Democrats got 51 percent of the industry's funds in 1994, the year they lost control of both houses of Congress. Republicans' share rose from then, peaking at 58 percent in 1996."

The article author posits that the GOP has become complacent in addressing concerns of the country.

Pennsylvania's junior senator got a mention in the article:

One Clinton supporter is Morgan Stanley Chief Executive John Mack, who gave her Senate campaign $4,000 last year, his biggest donation to an individual politician, according to FEC records. In 2004, as co-chief executive of Credit Suisse Group, he raised at least $200,000 for Bush, earning him a spot in the Ranger donor club.

Mack's only other individual candidate donation last year was $1,000 to Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, according to FEC records. Jim Badenhausen, a spokesman for Morgan Stanley, declined to comment.

Merrill Lynch, the world's largest securities firm, is home to another one of Bush's 2004 Rangers, Chief Executive Stanley O'Neal. Merrill's political action committee, which pools executives' donations, is on track to give more money to Democratic candidates than to Republicans for the 2006 election for the first time in the PAC's quarter-century history, if current trends hold.

Perhaps the candidates with the better chances of winning attract the money - no one wants to give big money to the losing team. It was also noted that despite the recent lack of strong leadership, the GOP is still the preferred leader in Washington because of conservative fiscal policies.

Hackett on Casey

Update: This post got popular this weekend after Paul Hackett himself posted a comment on it. I've moved it up higher on the page as a result. -ed

Former Senate candidate Paul Hackett gives an interview to Drinking Liberally in Cincinnati. Here's what he has to say about Bob Casey Jr.

Paul believes that Democrats will not win in November unless they offer a significantly better alternative to Republicans. In fact, he predicts Bob Casey will be narrowly defeated by Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania and that Mike DeWine will trounce Sherrod Brown in Ohio because "they (Casey and Brown) don't stand for anything except, 'I'm a Democrat.'" "Big f*cking deal," says Paul. "How does that put food on the table? How does that deal with the war in Iraq?" He predicts Casey and Brown will be unable to attract cross-over votes and moderate votes because they represent more of the same. He singles out Casey as someone who is a Democrat by name, but opposes a woman's right to choose, is against gay marriage and "is pissing down the back of his base." What's worse, Casey is "as inspiring as moss growing on a log."

Paul Hackett was thrown under the bus by the Democrat establishment in favor of Sherrod Brown. I wonder how much of this is sour grapes.

Wake Up Liberals! Progressives!

That's what a Bob Casey Jr primary victory tells you.

... well Chris Bowers at any rate.

I would like to say that obviously, barring something truly spectacular, Bob Casey Jr. will win the Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial primary in a landslide. That neither Pennacchio nor Sandals ever emerged as a serious threat to Casey in the primary is demonstrative of the sorry state of progressives in the state of Pennsylvania. If anything, this should serve (and I think it has) as a wake up call to progressives in my home state that we have a lot of work to do and a lot of progressive infrastructure to build to make sure that this never happens again.

Chris has a pretty good post up on "progressive" strategy.

Go read it.

Why I Support Senator Santorum

It may come as a surprise to anyone that knows me that I even do support Santorum. I am relentlessly critical of his support of Specter, Murkowski, increasing the minimum wage, and his refusal to rule out raising taxes to pay for the cost of Social Security reform. I have had many hard-fought debates with other conservatives about Santorum (I always win, of course), and it may surprise them to know that I will, in fact, be supporting the Senator in his re-election efforts. It may even come as a surprise to the Santorum campaign, which I have been told have taken an interest in some of my past writings in a way that is not necessarily positive.

It is my belief that as Republicans we must hold our own to a higher standard. I expect absolute perfection and ideological purity from every single Republican candidate that wants my support. Yes, very few meet this high standard. However, it is our responsibility to establish this standard and fight for it relentlessly. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t support any candidate that doesn’t 100% fit into this mold. It is a goal that we should strive for. Most candidates fall short. In the case of Rick Santorum, there was a time when he was about as close as you could get. In recent years, we have watched him moderate himself in ways that many find unacceptable. This, in my view, is even worse than having begun from a place of moderation, because it is a way of giving in to the other side.

I realize that thus far this has not been a resounding endorsement. Trust me. I’m getting to that part. The above is simply to illustrate what I expect from a candidate, and also what I abhor. Santorum has crossed a line a few times that I feel that politicians should not cross. But that doesn’t disqualify him from obtaining my support. It simply means that I will be keeping a close eye on him. There are still far more reasons to support the Senator than there are not to support him.

Senator Santorum has been THE conservative voice for years now. He has been a strong proponent and defender of the Bush tax cuts. He supports and fights for Social Security reform, something that young people everywhere should be seriously concerned with. He rabidly defends the unborn (his support of Specter notwithstanding), and this is one of my number one issues. Santorum is a strong socially conservative voice in a world where this position is demonized and forced to the back of the bus. It is rare to find someone of his outspoken faith and unwavering position on social issues in everyday life. When we find one in the United States Senate it becomes critical to support them.

Another key issue is his support of Israel. As a Christian, I believe that the United States must stand with Israel, even when no one else will. Our survival as a nation is directly linked to the future of Israel. Anti-Semitism is rampant in Congress, even if it is thinly veiled. The fate of Israel is probably the most critical and complicated foreign policy issue that exists today. Santorum’s staunch defense of this all-important ally should be reason enough for people of faith to support the Senator.

Santorum and I have differences of opinion on some issues, and I do feel that there are issues and times when he’s let politics trump his principles. Even in his unwillingness to acknowledge these times, it is my firm belief that Santorum struggles internally with the requirement to “play the game” and the desire stand firm on principle. While sometimes it appears that politics wins out, in the end I believe that Santorum is a man of principle. At a time and in a city where so few appear to have true conviction, Santorum is a lone, shining star of hope. Even when that star seems to flicker every so slightly, we can’t help but to be drawn to it. Such is the case with Santorum. Although our star has flickered in recent years, conservatives must draw to it. Santorum’s fate is entirely dependent on the support of his conservative base. Will we allow this shining beacon of principle to die out, or will we ensure his re-election and fight to keep the flame alive? I, for one, will stand on the side of principle and conviction to fight for Santorum.

Why I support Rick Santorum

It has been way too long since I've posted. Life has unfortunately interfered with my blogging, and I want to thank Alex for his patience. He suggested I get back into the blogging groove with a post like this, so here goes.

I support Rick Santorum for rational reasons rather than emotional ones. He's not the conservative firebrand that he was in 1994. He's become establishment, and as a rule I don't support many establishment candidates, but Rick is one of the exceptions. He may not champion many of the causes that are near and dear to my heart (the Fair Tax and reducing government spending to name two), but he's right on the big issues. He's strong on national defense. He supports the War on Terror. He supports the Bush tax cuts. He supports conservative judicial nominees. These aren't petty special-interest issues. These are issues that speak directly to the foundation of the American Republic: sovereignty, liberty, and the consent of the governed. Old Europe has divorced itself from those ideals--you can see it on the nightly news--and as a result it is literally in flames. That is our future as well if we do not return to the first principles of our founding, and we must have leaders who will defend those principles.

I believe with all my heart that we are in the midst of a battle for western civilization and the Jeffersonian ideals which are its cornerstone. In short, we are in a battle for the future, and I trust Rick Santorum to lead us in that fight. I do not trust Bobby Casey to do the same. If nothing else, his past history of job hopping has demonstrated that he views each political office as just another stepping stone to somewhere else. I want my Senator to do his job, not build his resume. Furthermore, he will say whatever he needs to say to whomever he needs to say it in order to get their money and/or their vote. His affiliation with Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are evidence enough of that.

I know that I am tempted at times to give up on politics and delude myself into thinking that it really isn't that important. That's wrong. Politics is hugely important, and it ought to be trusted to somebody big enough for the job. Rick Santorum is that man. Bobby Casey is not. I won't cheerlead for Santorum, and I won't gush over him, but I will support him, I will defend him, and on Election Day I will proudly vote for him. You should too.

Playing Politics

Tim Saler writes about the proposed "Get out of Iraq" petition that Jannie Blackwell would like to see on November's ballot.

[W]hat does the actual referendum say? Here’s an excerpt: “to begin an immediate withdrawal of [American] troops from Iraq, beginning with the National Guard and Reserve and ending with a total withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of 2006.” Fair enough, but an important question presents itself: what is the purpose of having a referendum to that effect on the ballot November 7th?

Even if unofficial returns were used as guidance in “sending a message” to Washington, there would be less than two months remaining in 2006 for all U.S. forces to have been withdrawn. That timeframe is quite obviously unrealistic.

Could there be another reason why a liberal Philadelphia Democrat like Jannie Blackwell would want to put a referendum like this on the ballot? Indeed, there is: such a referendum would turn out liberal Democrat voters in the city of Philadelphia who would subsequently vote for Democrats up-ballot. That means Governor Ed Rendell and State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. would both benefit in their competitive statewide races against Lynn Swann and Senator Rick Santorum respectively.

So what do we have here? We have a ballot referendum with no actual authority or weight scheduled at the end of the year, making its contents virtually irrelevant by the time the election results would be officially certified, that just so happens to appeal to left-wing Democrats that might otherwise be inclined to stay home rather than vote for the pro-life, pro-Second Amendment Bob Casey Jr.

This is the very definition of playing politics with our troops. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. Our brave soldiers in Iraq are being yanked back and forth by public acts such as the one being instigated by Councilwoman Blackwell. Our troops must know that we support them and will not accept or tolerate these shameful acts.

Social Security Security

Pat Boone (yes, that Pat Boone) writes about 60 Plus a group similar to the AARP.

60 Plus is waging a determined and effective battle to strengthen and protect Social Security. They discovered that currently the laws governing this hallowed institution are hardly laws at all; they're more like good intentions or vague promises. Even legislative committees have ruled recently those seniors (you and I, perhaps?) are NOT LEGALLY GUARANTEED the payouts in our old age that we've been contributing to all our adult and working lives!

Oh, the legislators want us to know they'll try very hard to see that we all get what we've paid for, but after all, economic situations and national debt and other priorities may intervene, so we'll all just have to wait and see.

Not on your life, says 60 plus! What we've paid for all our lives, and what our government promised us, we're going to get!

Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, currently facing a serious battle for re-election against a liberal, very well-funded Bob Casey, son of a popular former governor, is leading the battle for seniors in the Senate. He is determined that our government be finally and forever legally bound to honor its long commitment to hard-working, patriotic and productive seniors – and not just make a "best efforts" attempt when our times come!