Casey vs. Santorum Verdict: Annihilation

I just read the transcript of the Santorum vs. Casey debate on Meet the Press. To say that Casey was beaten badly is understatement. Here's what I'm talking about:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me also ask about the funding. Earlier in the week I had said that Democrats had not sought to cut off the funding. In fact, Congressman Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and 17 other Democrats have called for the End the War in Iraq Act of 2005 to cut off funding for the war. Would you vote to cut off funding?

MR. CASEY: I don't think we can, Tim. I'm not ready to abandon this mission; I think a lot of Americans are not, either. What has to happen in Iraq is what you've, you've not seen. We need new leadership. We don't need a deadline, a timeline; we need new leadership. And part of that leadership, I think, involves a couple of things. Let me just go through four of five of them.

One of them is a question of accountability. Our troops have been accountable with their lives, and yet a lot of politicians in Washington haven't been held accountable. You know the, the work of Thomas Ricks, who wrote a book recently based upon his, his work at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. In that book he lays the blame squarely on the Congress failing to hold the Bush administration accountable. Accountability, I think, means replacing Donald Rumsfeld; Rick and I disagree on that; it means finding out how and whether we were lied to with regard to intelligence.

The second thing we need, I think, in Iraq, in terms of a new direction is to make sure that we have clear and measurable benchmarks. Not just from the president, but from the Iraqis as well. What is the plan that the president can tell us about with regard to disarming the militias? What is the plan to bring oil production above the pre-war levels? All of that kind of accountability and clear benchmarks.

And thirdly, I think what's happening in Iraq should tell us that we need to transform the mission on the ground. There's no reason why American soldiers have to continually lead, lead on the ground, and, and go ahead of the Iraqis. The Iraqis need to take over and take on some of these street patrols, patrols in Baghdad and so many other places.

As my friend (and blogging partner) Leo Pusateri has reported, more districts have been turned over totally to Iraqi forces. What this means is that (a) Leo knows more about the situation in Iraq than does Mr. Casey; (b) that Mr. Casey isn't being honest with the people or (c) all of the above. Personally, I choose (c).

Notice, too, the talking points answer of "finding out how and whether we were lied to with regard to intelligence." That's a telltale sign that he's grasping for answers at that point. That isn't what a polished policy wonk would've answered there. Remember, too, that people don't always demand presidents to be policy wonks but they defintely demand that of legislators.

Here's another example of how overmatched Casey was:

MR. RUSSERT: I think there's an evolution in your thinking. Let me go back to April of '05, the Philadelphia Daily News said, "The key thing now is to finish the job." That's Bob Casey, quote/unquote. October, "Some people think that pulling out is a good idea and a timeline is a good idea, I don't agree with that. We've got more work to do to make sure that we get it right." Then in June of '06, Bob Casey said, "He doesn't believe U.S. troops should be removed from Iraq immediately but should be by the end of the year. He said the country has a new government and that it's time for the Iraqis to take a greater role in defending themselves." Should we finish the job? Or should we remove the troops by the end of the year?

MR. CASEY: Tim, I've never favored a deadline in, in, in this whole campaign. Because we have to do everything we can to, to hold the administration accountable. And when you're, when it's not going well, you, you see the, the Pentagon report this past, just in the last couple of days, this thing is headed toward civil war. We don't know if it's there yet. We hope it's not. But when you have it heading in the wrong direction, you've got to have a new course. And, and...

Mr. Casey can say that he doesn't favor a timeline all he wants but saying that he wants them removed by year's end is setting a deadline. Here's another answer that I thought was suspect:

MR. RUSSERT: And what if you, what if you left behind a haven for terrorists? Then what do you do?

MR. CASEY: Well, I don't, that's not the, that's not the, the objective here. The objective here is to make sure we're doing everything possible to give the American people the information they need and to protect our troops. And I think it's an abomination, Tim, when you have people like Rick Santorum, who have rubber-stamped this administration 98 percent of the time, did not call for or insist upon the best body armor when those troops needed it.

Mr. Casey obviously thinks that this is an effective talking point. Democrats have been using it since Hillary raised it right after the MLK holiday. Here's what Marine Sgt. Jared McNerney said about body armor:

Marine Sgt. Jared McNerney actually modeled the kind of up-armored uniform Clinton indicated she preferred. But Sgt. McNerney explained that if he was forced to carry that much weight, it could get him killed.

"I'm climbing walls, I'm jumping through windows," McNerney complained. "What I need most is mobility." With the heavier gear, he said, "I can barely extend my arms over my head."

Does Mr. Casey want to stick with his answer or is he willing to admit that he was wrong on the issue. As is often the case with liberals, his heart's in the right place but his head isn't.

I prefer that policymakers' heads are in the right place over policymakers who have their hearts in the right place. I suspect that most soldiers would agree with that on this issue.

The bottom line is that Bob Casey looked like a politician who (a) was running on name recognition and (b) didn't have command of the issues. I don't think that I'm going far out on a limb to predict that Sunday's debate is the biggest turning point in this race. Mr. Casey has his work cut out for him because of his inept handling of the questions. I don't know that he's capable of digging himself out of that deep a hole.

UPDATE: Stop past SCSUScholars to read King's analysis of Casey's statement about Social Security.

---

Posted Monday, September 4, 2006 11:36 AM

August 2006 Posts

Comment 1 by Bill Levinson at 20-Sep-06 03:36 PM

Casey will soon have a bigger problem than the debate with Santorum if he does not reject and disown MoveOn.org's endorsement as vigorously as Ronald Reagan rejected the Klan's attempt to endorse him.

It is on record that MoveOn.org's moderated (i.e. they are responsible for the content) Action Forum is a veritable sewer of anti-Semitic slurs and 9/11 conspiracy theories, with a garnishing of racist, anti-Christian, and anti-veteran slurs as well. Furthermore, other Action Forum participants voted overwhelmingly in favor of comments to the effect that Jews own all the media, Jews are more loyal to Israel than the U.S., and even one that said Black soldiers should be segregated and disarmed because they might mutiny against their "oppressors."

As a moderate Democrat, Casey should find MoveOn.org as repulsive as most other Pennsylvanians, Republican and Democrat alike.