From the Santorum Blog: Vince Galko, the 12-year old running Santorum's campaign (oh, okay, you got me, he's not 12, but he is very young, especially to an old fart like me), has "reached out" to the Casey campaign chief with this piece of transparent drivel:
Okay, stop it right there for a minute . . . . how did they "reach out" to John Featherman, again? Oh, that's right, here's how:Dear Jay:
I recently reviewed two recent press releases from the Carl Romanelli for Senate campaign. In his statements, Mr. Romanelli called for 'policy debate' in this race and for a campaign focused on issues rather than ‘sound bites and negative attacks.' He further called upon Democrats and Republicans to help him collect the required signatures to get on the ballot and for them not to challenge his candidacy should he obtain the number of signatures needed.
Just as our campaign reached out to John Featherman
A Philadelphia real-estate broker who was U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's only Republican challenger in the Pennsylvania primary is dropping out of the race. John Featherman yesterday said he determined that it wasn't worth the money to fight the state Republican Party, which on Tuesday challenged his application to be on the ballot. Mr. Featherman filed 2,207 signatures with the application. The secretary of state's office tossed out 185 of them, and the party filed a challenge to 1,073 more of the signatures . . . . Mr. Featherman is a moderate Republican who supports abortion rights, gay marriage and a flat tax.Yeah, now I remember. Oh, where were we, that's right, Galko's letter to his Casey counterpart:
With regards to Mr. Romanelli's request for Democrats and Republicans to help him in his efforts to get on the ballot, I believe our campaigns should encourage our supporters to help Mr. Romanelli garner the necessary signatures he needs. Democrats, Republicans and Independents all agree that the democratic process should be open and welcoming to people of differing positions.Sorry, how's that again? "[T]he democratic process should be open and welcoming to people of differing positions" . . . except, of course, to moderate Republicans who want to stand up to a looney wingnut incumbent in the primary . . . . Sorry, picking up with the Galko tripe again . . . .
Should Mr. Romanelli collect enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, our campaign will support his full participation in campaign debates. We hope neither the Casey campaign nor your allies within the Democratic Party will challenge his right to be on the ballot.
If these last sentiments were sincere, then I'd be applauding this kid and urging Casey to respond affirmatively.
But there is not much less sincere than this rubbish. Santorum had his only challenger knocked out of the race -- didn't even give the guy a debate, much less a chance to participate in the "democratic process". "Open?" "Welcoming?" Oh, please, don't piss on me leg and tell me it's raining.
But there is not much less sincere than this rubbish. Santorum had his only challenger knocked out of the race -- didn't even give the guy a debate, much less a chance to participate in the "democratic process". "Open?" "Welcoming?" Oh, please, don't piss on me leg and tell me it's raining.
Santorum will say he didn't know that the Republican Party was going to challenge his challenger. If that's true -- and I don't believe it for a second -- but, if that's true, just what does that say about the level of respect and trust between Santorum and his state party? (Oh, that's right HIS state party is the Virignia Republican Party. That explains it, then.) It tells you that the polls must be wrong -- the level of respect for Santorum in his own party must be a lot lower than the dismal poll results.
Nevertheless, I missed that bit where Santorum called out the state party and cajoled them to be "open", to "welcome" Featherman, and to let him enjoy the "democratic process" by dropping their challenge to his petitions. No, Santorum didn't do that (and if he really didn't know about the challenge in advance, I'll eat an entire tofurkey dinner while rooting for the Red Sox). He didn't stand up and demand anything. That tells me that he either knew about it and approved it in advance, or he approved of the tactic after the fact. So, he either lied about not knowing about it or he is lying about believing in an "open . . . welcoming . . . democratic process". Here's a crayon, kids, draw yer own conclusions.
Casey should ignore Santorum's desperate maneuvers for attention.
That said, if Carl Romanelli does manage to score the necessary signatures, Casey should welcome him to the campaign and the debates. Not because Santorum pretends that he thinks that is the right thing to do, but because it really is the right thing to do.
Casey should ignore Santorum's desperate maneuvers for attention.
That said, if Carl Romanelli does manage to score the necessary signatures, Casey should welcome him to the campaign and the debates. Not because Santorum pretends that he thinks that is the right thing to do, but because it really is the right thing to do.
2 comments:
Sure, sure, that's the way Federal Statewide campaigns are run.
So post the link where Santorum called them out on it and insisted that they withdraw their challenge.
"Casey might not go after Romanelli, and might say "don't do it"... but that doesn't mean no one will."
So, then, Santorum's letter was also insincere in asking Casey to ensure that the state Dems won't challenge?
Either Santorum believes that that's the way things work -- the head of the ticket gets to make that call -- or he believes that the head of the ticket has no say.
IF the former, he's lying about having no control over the Featherman challenge. IF the latter, he's being insincere in demanding that Casey ensure that the State Party not make the challenge.
By the way, I just spoke with someone very high up in the Romanelli campaign who conceded that they are "struggling" to get the numbers that they need.
Surely you can imagine that there are "independantly operating" partisans.
Sure. But there's a huges difference between a loose cannon and the state Republican Party doing something that will affect an incumbent Republican Senator's primary.
But that's not really the point I was trying to make. Rick can't have it both ways.
If he contends that a candidate has no influence over the state party, then it was dishonest to call on Casey to ensure that the state party would not challenge Romanelli.
If, on the other hand, Santorum takes the position that a candidate does have such an influence -- then it was dishonest of him to claim that he had no control over the challenge to Featherman.
Either way, Rick is being dishonest.
I guess the Vecchios might fall under that definition.
You really don't want to replay that debacle, do you?
... and if Romanelli has no chance, why the worry?
I guess that's a question better directed to the Senator. My point has nothing to do with Romanelli's ability to get on the ballot -- I was calling Santorum out for duplicity and posturing, when he should be dealing with the many substantive problems that he and his party have caused for this nation.
Post a Comment