Casey: Romanelli Not Invited to Debates

Larry Smar provided a fast reply to my inquiry about the participation of the Green Party candidate in the upcoming Senatorial debates: 'no way'.

After posting the article today about the upcoming debates and joint appearances, I sent an email to the Casey and Santorum Campaign chiefs asking:

Assuming that Mr. Romanelli is still on the ballot at the time of the two October debates now scheduled, what are your respective positions on inviting him to participate.

If the challenge to Mr. Romanelli's petition is not determined by September 3, what is your position on his participation in the joint appearance on Meet the Press?

Within minutes I had the following reply from Larry Smar, Casey's spokesperson:

From: Larry Smar
To: A Big Fat Slob
Date: Aug 22, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: INQUIRY on Debates

We have a rule: only one representative from each campaign on stage. Rick Santorum bought and paid for Romanelli because Santorum is afraid to face Bob Casey one-on-one.

In 2000, Santorum didn't want third-parties in debates. See the end of the 2000 AP article below.

With the appended 2000 AP article, Smar fairly reminds us that, when Santorum faced a challenge from Ron Klink and three conservative minor-party candidates, Santorum blocked their participation in the debates. (Incidentally, the Libertarian Party candidate that year was John Featherman, who was ousted from his primary challenge to Santorum when he didn't have the money to finance a defense to the Republican challenge to his petitions.)

At the time, I thought it was wrong of Santorum to exclude the third-party candidates from the debates. It is wrong for Casey to do so now.

As an aside, that same article quoted the Santorum campaign as having already agreed to three debates and willing to schedule at least three more (they ended up doing five). Casey should follow that practice and agree to at least five debates (as in "debates" not joint appearances like MTP and KYW radio's "Breakfast with the Candidates".)

[UPDATE (8/23/06 am): The Santorum and Romanelli campaigns were invited to respond to Smar's comments about the Green Party participation in the debates. They have not.]

[UPDATE (8/23/06 pm): Apparently, I sent the invitation to the Santorum campaign to comment to a general email box, although I thought I had sent it to Vince Galko. Virginia Davis, the Santorum Campaign press secretary has sent in this response to Larry Smar's comments:

Tens of thousands of citizens have spoken out that they want real debate on the key issues that matter to the future of our Commonwealth and our nation. Yet Bobby Casey is going to great lengths to silence the voice of a candidate who shares this commitment. One might recall when Governor Robert Casey, Bobby Casey Jr.'’s father, was silenced from the 1992 Democratic National Convention because some feared that his pro-life views would conflict with their political agenda. Isn't it ironic that 14 years later, Casey Jr. is trying to silence a candidate who, too, has an interest in expressing opposing views? What exactly is Casey Jr. afraid of?

While I agree that, if on the ballot (and he is at the moment), Romanelli should have full participation rights in all joint appearances and debates, the response from the Santorum camp doesn't try to deal with the apparent hypocrisy.

The story may be apocryphal, but the legend goes that a pre-politician Abe Lincoln was arguing a case before the circuit court one morning and won. That afternoon, he had a second case to argue which involved the same issue of law but on which Lincoln's client was on the opposite side. The chief justice asked him if he didn't advocate the other side of the question in the morning, to which Lincoln responded, "Yes, Your Honor. But the vital difference is that, this time, I am right."

I guess that's something like what we have from the Santorum camp. They aren't willing to directly answer Smar's charges, either.

And, by the way, it is a fiction that Casey's father was not given speaking time at Clinton's convention because he was anti-choice -- several other speakers at the convention were also anti-choice. The big difference -- Casey, Sr. refused to support Bill Clinton.]