Do you think it is because Bob Casey Jr lied?

Earlier this week, we talked about how Bobby Casey Junior was going to vote to flush left over blastocysts down the drain rather than let scientists use them to see if they can't come up with a cure for Alzheimer's, or spinal cord injury, or any other similarly frivolous research projects just itchin' to get their hands on federal funds to help mankind.

Junior, being the good roman catholic tool that he is, decided that god wanted the throw-aways to stay in the toilet and out of our research labs. In the course of it, he got a supporter reporter to write a puff piece about how Junior had struggled, oh so hard, and spent many months in many meetings with those on both sides of the issue before making up his mind.

Admittedly, we questioned that, since Junior made it clear in the primaries that he can't think on his own (gawd, how awful was he in the debates?) and that he was going to let his knee-jerk theology do his thinking for him. Nevertheless, he said he had all these months of all these meetings, and Bobby Junior is a feckin US Senator and he wouldn't just make that stuff up. So we did what anyone else would have (well, anyone except a certain AP reporter who had been giving Junior the journalistic equivalent of head since who knows when), we asked him -- who did you meet with and when.

We asked Larry Smar, Casey's spokesmouth, via email, twice THREE times {updated 4/18/07}.

But, just to cover the bases, we also asked his "scheduler", Sara Mabry, also twice THREE times {updated 4/18/07}.

Now, we aren't entirely certain, but we are pretty sure that they, or at least someone who reads their emails, received these requests for information. This because, soon after they were sent, someone using the official US Senate ISP visited our blog here. Actually, it seems like there were multiple someones, as we received seven EIGHT NINE TWELVE {updated 4/16 4/17 4/25} separate visits from someone using the Senate network in the several days after the emails were sent (compared to, about, none in the month before).

Yet, Junior has not released the information on who all those meetings that he conducted were with. And, it makes us wonder, is it because he just made that part up?

We're beginning to think so.

Summary only...

Silent Bob Giving Bush Veto on Stem Cell Research

The Hill reports today that Senate Democrats expect to come up one vote short of a veto-proof majority on Senate Bill 5 -- the bill allowing federal funds to be used to conduct research on stem cells taken from blastocysts headed for the trash bin anyway. The one vote they need -- Bobby Casey Junior, the theocrat from Pennsylvania whose agenda includes advancing the policies of the Roman Catholic Church.

Earlier this week, Junior Casey told a supporter reporter that he only came to the decision, to support the Bush regime and deny more federal funds for stem cell research on purely religious grounds, after "months of meetings" with people on both sides of the issue.

Casey spokesman Larry Smar and scheduler Sara Mabry have failed to respond to requests for a list of the meetings that Casey claims to have had since taking office. Too bad the AP didn't bother to ask Casey for the list before reporting that the meetings happened. Too bad Casey's office won't provide information about Casey's alleged meetings which supposedly formed his opinion on the crucial stem cell bill which could be voted on today. Too bad theocracy is more dear to Casey than democracy. Too bad Casey is from my state.

More on the bill itself here.

{UPDATE: Junior voted NO. philly was right.}

Contact Senator Casey:

Email: senator@casey.senate.gov
Fax: 202.228.0604
Phone: 202.224.6324
Casey's Senate Web Contact

Further Reading:

WaPo: Stem cell vote set for U.S. Congress this week
WaPo: Senate Revisits Debate On Stem Cell Research
NYTimes: Senate, Bush Head for Showdown on Stem Cells
Cleveland Plain Dealer: Ohio senators split on stem-cell bill
Des Moines Register: Harkin rekindles stem cell battle
CQ: Stem Cell Research Backers Disagree Over Prospects for Senate Veto Override
Orlando Sentinel: A chance for breakthroughs
Kaiser Network: NIH Director Zerhouni Calls for Expanding Federal Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Summary only...

Casey Strikes A Blow for Theocracy

In a scene to repeated endlessly until this no-talent man shadow is removed from office, Bobby Casey Junior is backing the Bush Regime, this time it is on stem cells.

Senate Bill 5 is the bi-partisan Senate version of the bill that passed the House in January by a vote of 253-174. It is similar to the 2005 bill which passed the House and the Senate, but was vetoed by Bush on purely religious grounds.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo. This reverses the theocratic limitation placed on federal funding of stem cell research by Bush.

The bill would limit research to stem cells that meet all three of the following requirements:

(1) the stem cells were derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics for the purpose of fertility treatment and were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment;

(2) the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded; and

(3) such individuals donate the embryos with written informed consent and receive no financial or other inducements.

Did you get that? Under this bill, the only additional sources of stem cells from research would come from blastocysts recovered from the trash bin. These stem cells will "die" regardless if this bill is enacted.

Bobby Casey Junior chooses to ignore this fact, to ignore science, and to advance his own mythological constructs through the legislative process. He tells the AP {but not us, a search of his (pathetic) Senate website for the term "stem cell" produces no results} "I remain opposed to federal funding for research that involves the destruction of living embryos."

{An aside -- The AP article is written by a reporter either incompetent or a Casey supporter. The so-called "news report" opens with what could be the opening gaf of a Casey press release. With neither attribution to source, nor reported facts supporting the claim, the lead in this article reports, as if it were handed down from the Mount as fact: "After months of meetings with people on both sides of the stem cell debate, Sen. Bob Casey said Monday he will oppose a bill that would clear the way for government financing of new embryonic stem cell research." There are similar examples of poor journalism in nearly every gaf of this piece of crap posing as news. As you were.}

Bobby Casey Junior, after months of meetings (we've sent an email to Junior, asking for a list of those meetings -- which any real reporter would have done -- we'll let you know), has decided that it is more appropriate to destroy these little balls of cells by throwing them in the trash can than by developing potentially life saving scientific study. Junior says these blastocysts are human life. And on what science is this based? Let's hear from President Bush's own science adviser on that issue:

"Objections to embryonic stem-cell research are rooted in ethical principles", says White House science adviser Dr. John Marburger. In other words, there's no scientific basis to oppose stem cell research as the destruction of life -- the objections flow purely from religious dogma. Rather, Casey's position stems direct from the Roman Catholic dogma which he substitutes for logic and personal responsibility in his own life. In The ethics of funding embryonic stem cell research: a Catholic viewpoint, Richard M. Doerflinger, representing the US Conference on Catholic Bishops, gives the Casey/Catholic line: "Stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos is incompatible with Catholic moral principles, and with any ethic that gives serious weight to the moral status of the human embryo." Pure religion, no science. Casey wants to impose his religion on the rest of us.

The scientific community has long had mechanisms for resolving, on scientific bases, ethical dilemmas. When legislators like Junior start referring to their own mythological dogma to support legislative decision making, they are telling us that their religious beliefs are more important that everyone else's religious beliefs. They are telling us that they prefer theocratic to secular democracy. Junior is telling us that as a Senator he will advance his own Roman Catholic ideology over Constitutional principles.

{h/t to philly}

{Image Credit: Photo of Human Blastocyst like those used to gather stem cells, Institute for Stem Cell Research}

Contact Senator Casey:

Email: senator@casey.senate.gov
Fax: 202.228.0604
Phone: 202.224.6324
Casey's Senate Web Contact

Further Reading:

Philly, Bob Casey, You're an Asshole
Scientific American, Stem cell vote set for U.S. Congress this week
The Scientist, Senate to support stem cells -- again
Genetics Policy Institute, Stem Cell Folly - the Coleman-Isakson 'No Hope for Patients Act'
American Diabetes Association, Senate Should Send White House Strong Message of Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Reuters, Stem cell vote set for Congress this week
WaPo, Female Mice Stem Cells Better to Build Muscle
Salth Lake Tribune, Hatch: Stem cell fight should be pressed on
St. Petersburg Times, Stem cells are Congress' new call to arms
France24, US Senate to brave new Bush veto of stem-cell bill
Brisbane Times, Democrats prepare to fight Bush on stem cells
Washington Times, Senate stem-cell vote seen short of veto override
NY Daily News, Dems are close to stem-cell win

{UPDATE: This morning we sent an email to Larry Smar, Junior's Communications Director, and also to Sara Mabry, his scheduler, asking for a list of the meetings that Junior told the AP he had had over the last several months, regarding the stem-cell research issue. While we haven't had a response, after the emails were sent we had two SIX TEN (updated) separate visits from Washington, DC to the blog -- one THREE SEVEN (updated) using the Senate ISP and the others using a public ISP. While they are checking us out, again, we're not holding our breath for the information on the meetings.}

Summary only...

Senate Blocks Minimum Wage Bill

Senators earn $165,200.00 a year. At the current minimum wage, they'd have to work over 32,000 hours this year to earn that much (that's 87 hours a day). The last time that the minimum wage was increased, 1997, Senators earned $133,600 -- the $31,600.00 raise which they have taken in the interim is nearly three times what a full-time worker earns on today's minimum.

With only 54 votes in favor of raising the minimum wage for the first time in ten years, supporters of the bill came up six-votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate. Arlen Specter (R-PA) voted in favor of the bill, as did all Democrats and the two independents. All of the "no" votes were cast by Republicans.

From Senator Casey's floor statement in favor of the bill:

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 2 which will increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. I speak today of an issue which I believe is one of economic justice. Those earning this minimum wage have not had an increase in ten years!

Who are these Americans who have not had an increase in years? Most are adults working full-time and 60% are women working to make ends meet, supporting their children. If the minimum wage is raised, six million children will benefit. Recently, the Children’s Defense Fund reported that a single parent working full time at the current wage of $5.15 earns enough to cover only 40% of the cost of raising children.

Those who earn the minimum wage are not people who are connected to the wealthy and the powerful. They don’t have high-paid lobbyists here in Washington advocating for them.

No, these Americans are people who lead quietly triumphant lives of struggle and sacrifice, overcoming hardships and setbacks. They do hard work -- like waitresses carrying heavy trays, on their feet hour after hour even as they dream of a better life for their children. At the end of a long day, they return home exhausted, often after working two jobs. The dignity of their labor gives meaning to their lives but no one, no matter how hard they work, can keep pace with the avalanche of cost increases over the last ten years.

Here are some of those cost increases since 1997:

Congressional pay has risen 24%, which is approximately $31,000. This has occurred while the value of the minimum wage has eroded by 20% The cost of living has risen 26% The cost of food has risen 23% The cost of housing has risen 29% The cost of gas has risen 134% The cost of health care has risen 43%. The average premium for a family of four costs is $10,880, which is more than a minimum wage worker earns in a year.

The cost of raising a child has risen 52% The cost of educating those children has risen 61% The cost of heating a home has risen 120%

So, what we’re talking about here is an issue of economic justice.

There's more on his website, which is finally up and running.

{MORE}

If you're interested in talking points, well, then, there's comedian Rush Limbaugh, on a radio near you every afternoon. For the other 72%:

• Hundreds of Economists Say: Raise the Minimum Wage
• The minimum wage relative to the average wage, 1950-2006
• Minimum wage trends: Understanding past and contemporary research
• Minimum Wage Rises, Sky Does Not Fall (A visit to Washington state, which has the highest minimum wage in the country, reveals a booming economy with none of the problems Big Business had been warning about.)

Washington State is an interesting example. The last Federal minimum wage raise went into effect in 1997; Washington's 1996 unemployment rate was 5.5%. Beginning in 1999, the state raised it's minimum on January 1 every year. At the end of 1999, Washington state's unemployment rate was 4.7%; The 2006 rate was 5.0%. On January 1, 2007, the state's minimum wage increased to $7.93. In the eight years since Washington began raising the state minimum wage, the impact on unemployment has been negligible and today it is half a point lower than it was before the last Federal increase.

From a recent New York Times article:

LIBERTY LAKE, Wash., Jan. 9 — Just eight miles separate this town on the Washington side of the state border from Post Falls on the Idaho side. But the towns are nearly $3 an hour apart in the required minimum wage. Washington pays the highest in the nation, just under $8 an hour, and Idaho has among the lowest, matching 21 states that have not raised the hourly wage beyond the federal minimum of $5.15.

Nearly a decade ago, when voters in Washington approved a measure that would give the state’s lowest-paid workers a raise nearly every year, many business leaders predicted that small towns on this side of the state line would suffer.

But instead of shriveling up, small-business owners in Washington say they have prospered far beyond their expectations. In fact, as a significant increase in the national minimum wage heads toward law, businesses here at the dividing line between two economies — a real-life laboratory for the debate — have found that raising prices to compensate for higher wages does not necessarily lead to losses in jobs and profits.

Idaho teenagers cross the state line to work in fast-food restaurants in Washington, where the minimum wage is 54 percent higher. That has forced businesses in Idaho to raise their wages to compete.

Business owners say they have had to increase prices somewhat to keep up. But both states are among the nation’s leaders in the growth of jobs and personal income, suggesting that an increase in the minimum wage has not hurt the overall economy.

“We’re paying the highest wage we’ve ever had to pay, and our business is still up more than 11 percent over last year,” said Tom Singleton, who manages a Papa Murphy’s takeout pizza store here, with 13 employees.

Now, if you really want to explode the heads of the 28%, talk to them about a LIVING wage.

Summary only...

Casey Speaks

We have covered the First Words of the new Pennsylvania Democrats in Congress, and in the process gently chided Bobby Casey, Jr. for being the last of the new delegation to open his yap in earnest.

We were wondering if he was going to set a record for silence on the Floor (as we believe that he must have for silence on the campaign trail), but he has spoken. Yesterday, during the debates on Senate Bill 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (on which we rambled yesterday), Senator Casey rose to support his amendment to the bill. The amendment makes it a crime for a member of Congress to use their influence to get lobbying jobs for their staff or others. Here's the guts of the Casey amendment:

"Whoever, being a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress or an employee of either House of Congress, with the intent to influence on the basis of partisan political affiliation an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity--

"(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act; or

"(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another;"

Now, Senator Casey on the floor:

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this amendment prohibits the wrongful influencing of a private entity's employment decisions and/or practices in exchange for political access or favors.

As we all know from the recent activity in this body, Reid-McConnell, S. 1, is an ethics reform bill, I think a critically important bill for this body and for the country. One of the things we want to make sure happens in that bill is that we provide all the protections possible to give confidence to the American people that what is happening in Washington speaks to some of their concerns. This amendment speaks to that by providing criminal penalties punishable, in this case, by a fine or imprisonment for up to 15 years for anyone who would engage in the practice of wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment decisions and/or practices, as I said before, in exchange for political access or favors.

Also, one of the penalties that is contemplated in this amendment is to disqualify an individual from holding public office--any office--if they engage in that activity. What we are talking about is activity that has gone under the umbrella of the name of the K Street Project which has been written about extensively in the public press for several years now, and what we are talking about there, in particular, I believe, is an effort to have a corrupting influence, in my judgment, on a couple of important areas of activity in Washington--first, a corrupting influence on hiring decisions in the private sector in Washington, a corrupting influence on political fundraising which we know has all of the challenges that those of us in Washington who care about doing it the right way have concerns about, and certainly the activities of the K Street Project or any other similar effort, any other similar practice in Washington also has a corrupt influence on the priorities of the Government of the United States. That is why this amendment is so important.

It is long overdue. It is high time to end this corruption, to end this practice which for too long has been a part of the culture of corruption in Washington. I believe this amendment will strengthen S. 1, it will strengthen any effort to provide, as the main bill contemplates, both transparency and accountability, and I do believe this amendment will speak directly to that issue. There is broad bipartisan support for this amendment, as there is for the Reid-McConnell bill.

I also appreciate the fact that as a new Member--and, Mr. President, I include you in this as well as someone who cares very deeply, as you do, about the question of ethics and ethics reform--the bill we are talking about in the Senate was arrived at through a bipartisan effort, and I think it is important this amendment, which deals with the K Street Project or any other similar effort in Washington, also be a bipartisan effort by people in both parties, on both sides of the aisle to make sure we can once and for all tear out by the roots the corrupt practices that, unfortunately, became known as the K Street Project.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

"Absence of a quorum"? I guess no one was listening. Nevertheless, he has spoken. Now, if only he could get that website up and running . . . .

Summary only...

Official Web Pages for Pennsylvania's New Members of the 110th

Jason Altimire, PA-4
Joe Sestak, PA-7
Pat Murphy, PA-8
Chris Carney, PA-10

All of these new members of the House had their fully-functioning web pages up and running at least a week ago.

Bobby Casey, Jr., is the only new member of the Pennsylvania federal delegation who hasn't bothered to get his official web page up and running. But, give him a break, what with his fire-brand calling for "more study" on ethics reform, and preparing those scintillating first words on the Senate floor, he's a really busy guy these days.

Summary only...

More First Words from the 110th

More from our series on the first words spoken from the floor of the House and Senate by the members of Pennsylvania's new federal delegation. Today, Chris Carney and Jason Altimire finish out the House and we have, momentus as they are, finally heard the first words uttered on the floor of the Senate by Bobby Casey, Jr.:

Chris Carney, PA-10, January 10, in support of the Minimum Wage Act:

Mr. CARNEY. I would like to thank my colleague from California for the time.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote for bipartisan legislation aimed at increasing the minimum wage and making an important change for the families of nearly 13 million American workers.

It is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, that the minimum wage has remained unchanged for nearly 10 years. During the past decade, consumer costs have skyrocketed. Energy, health care and education costs have all risen, while my constituents have seen their real incomes drop.

It is wrong that millions of Americans work full time and year around and still live in poverty. I am voting to give them a raise, a raise that is long overdue.

This bill will increase the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour over 2 years. This will mean an additional $4,400 for a family of three equaling 15 months' worth of groceries or 2 years' worth of health care. Helping them to keep up with the rising costs of these necessities is something that we have the moral obligation to do.

As the father of five, I understand, I keenly understand the impact of rising costs on a tight family budget.

Raising the minimum wage is the first step to a stronger economy for all Americans, not just for the privileged few. Our action today will make a real difference in the lives of America's working families and I am proud to vote for it, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to stand with our working families, as well.

Jason Altimire, PA-4, January 11, in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act:

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Having worked for a large academic medical center, I have seen the promise that embryonic stem cell research holds for Americans suffering from chronic disabilities such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

We all know people with these disabilities and a vote for this bill is a vote for them. This bill says specifically that it only applies to embryos that would otherwise be discarded by the fertility clinics. So a vote for this bill is a pro-life vote. We must pass this bill for the millions of Americans that suffer from debilitating medical conditions today and the millions more that will tomorrow.

This is something that is deeply personal to me. I am a pro-life Democrat. The reason I am supporting this bill is because this is a pro-life vote. There is nothing more important that we can do in this Congress than to support life. This is a pro-life vote. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

That completes the House -- all of the new House members from Pennsylvania have delivered their maiden speeches, on matters of particular interest to them. Previously, we had Pat Murphy on PAYGO and Joe Sestak introducing himself to the permanent written record of the United States Congress with his speech on the adoption of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Now, gentle reader, brace yourself, for we take you to the floor of the Senior Chamber, the United States Senate, where the gathered 100 are hushed to hear new Senator Bob Casey utter his first words on the floor of that august hall:

Bob Casey, January 11, 2007:

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Just gives you the chills, don't it?

Summary only...

New Keystone Poll -- Santorum Down 15 Points

With less than a week until election day, two-term incumbent Rick Santorum has fallen behind his Democratic challenger by 15 points according to the October Keystone Poll. State Treasurer Bobby Casey, Jr. leads Santorum among registered voters 53% to 38%, with 9% undecided. Santorum has not moved at all from over last month's Keystone, while it appears that all of the third-party vote and all of the undecideds are moving to the Democratic candidate.

Casey had a whopping one-month 8-point increase in support for the challenger. The previous Keystone included Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, who garnered 5% support in that poll. Casey & Co. had Romanelli thrown off the ballot. Casey's increase equals the total of Romanelli support and the drop in undecideds.

Santorum's wacked-out attacks on Casey over the last month (see, Classless Santorum Claims Treason, Santorum and the Four Horsemen of Calumny, Santorum: 'It's 1930's Germany All Over Again'!, and Santorum: 'Nazis on My Mind') have succeeded in giving the incumbent Senator his highest unfavorable rating since 1994, when the Keystone Poll began taking the voter's temperature on Santorum -- 46%. During the last month, Casey's favorables rose from 29% to 39%.

Santorum has been emphasizing the war on terror and immigration in his scare out the vote campaign. That has been as ineffective as his attacks on Casey. Those issues rank below "Something Else" on the list of issues with which respondents to the Keystone Poll are concerned.

The poll also shows that 79% of Pennsylvanians want to keep abortion legal and 51% want tighter gun restrictions. Both candidates are on the wrong side of Pennsylvania voters on those two issues.

Oh, yeah, the poll suggests that there might be a Gubernatorial election next week. Sumguy named Rendell seems to have a 25-point lead (and a 54% favorable) over some ex-jock.

Summary only...

Another New Poll - Santorum Down 12

If the election were held today, the flailing reelection campaign of Senator Rick Santorum would come crashing to an end with the incumbent losing to his Democratic challenger Bobby Casey Junior by 12-points (corrected). That is the conclusion of a new poll released today. The McClatchy/MSNBC Poll by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research gives Casey 51% and Santorum 39%, with ten percent unsure/other. This is a three-point increase over the 9-point deficit Santorum had in this poll's prior release in early October.

Poll respondents, surveyed by telephone between October 18 and 21, gave two-term Senator Rick Santorum a favorable rating of only 33%. His opponent, perennial campaigner and son of a dead governor, received an approval rating of only 44%. Casey's 28% unfavorable rating was far less than Santorum's 48% -- which summarizes why there is no room for Santorum to turn this around in the last two weeks. According to these numbers, nearly ten percent of respondents are voting for Santorum despite their negative feelings towrds him.

While Santorum is going to lose this election, the polling throughout the campaign clearly show that Casey Junior is not winning it -- he's merely the beneficiary of a widespread abandonment of Santorum and the failed Republican policies which he has enthusiastically supported over his two terms as Senator. According to this poll, 32% of the respondents are voting AGAINST someone in the Senatorial race. Unfortunately, the numbers released today do not break those responses down between Casey and Santorum supporters.

Over on the Gubernatorial side, Ed Rendell parlays his robust 57% favorable rating into a 21-point lead over ex-jock Lynn Swann. Fifty-six percent of poll respondents said that they would vote for the incumbent Governor, against only 35% support for Lynn Swann.

Respondents, by a wide margin, disapprove of the manner in which the Republicans have been running things. The President gets a 56% DISapproval rating from Pennsylvania voters, which includes a 46% STRONGLY disapprove number. Congress does even worse -- 63% disapprove of how the Republican-controlled Congress is doing it's job. Remarkably, only 1% strongly approve of Congressional performance. That's ALOT of Republican voters holding noses this midterm.

In the more-bad-news-for-Santorum department . . . .

+ Voters rank Iraq & Health Care as the top issues for them. Santorum's scare-out-the-vote message on immigration isn't exciting anyone, at 6% it ranks below "Other" as an issue of concern.

+ The Bush/Santorum Iraq policies are rejected by 60% of Pennsylvania voters. Even more -- 66% -- say that the Bush/Santorum economic policies have them worried.

+ Still MORE -- 69% -- aren't buying that the Bush/Santorum policies are making us safer -- they expect another successful terrorist attack in the United States.

Throughout the campaign, Santorum has blamed the media for his impending retirement from Government work. What this and all other polls from this past year demonstrate is that the fault lie not in the media, but in Santorum.

The Republicans control it all -- the failures of this Government are theirs. As the third-ranked Republican in Congress, Santorum, more than most, has direct personal responsbility for those failures. Now, he is being held to account for creating, supporting, and engineering failure.

Gee, Senator, I guess buying that "santorum2008" domain name (in 2004) was a mite premature, huh?

Summary only...

New SV Poll, Santorum Down 7

In the new Strategic Vision poll out today, incumbent Senator Rick Santorum trails his challenger by seven points. While other polls have shown the undecideds moving to a candidate, this SV poll has the dunnos at 9% -- only a point less than last month's 10%. The SV poll was conducted by telephone between October 20 and 23. Last month the same poll put the difference at 10% and in August, it had the Senator down by 7.

In the Gubernatorial contest, SV gives the Governor at comfortable 20-point margin over his challenger, football player Lynn Swann. This is a two-point gain over last month and double the difference from August.

The respondents gave Bush low marks, with 60% disapproving of his over all job performance.

The poll has a solid respondent base of wackjobs, with almost one in five saying that the Foley scandal makes them more likely to vote for Republicans this year. On the same topic, only 12% thought the Republicans handled the Foley matter correctly and 58% think Hastert should step down over the affair.

Summary only...

Wolf Blitzer is an Idiot

Traversing Pennsylvania yesterday, I was able to listen to CPSAN radio's rerun of all of the Sunday talk shows on my XM radio.

Denial, desperation, and diversion seemed to be the theme of the day for the republicans when it came to the midterms.

Arlen Specter blamed Clinton for 9/11 and for Bush's defeat of Gore, Bush refused to answer if he thought the current Iraq strategy was working and pretended the question was about tactics, he also promised to bring back his social security dismantling project, Al Haig thought the performance of Rumsfled was only a political question not worthy of discussion, and Elizabeth Dole warned that the terrorists would be here on November 8 if we elected the Democrats.

But Wolf Blitzer, who I find even more annoying than those neocon puppets on Fox, made the stupidest claim of them all.

In his ponderous proclaimative style he informed his listener that "all polls show that" the Santorum-Casey fight "is a very, very close race", with "Casey slightly ahead".

"Close"?

"Slightly ahead"?

Wolf is either an idiot or believes that of his audience.

Hey, Wolf, you moron, take a look at the actual polling data instead of listening to the little voices in your head:

Zogby/WSJ: 10/19 Casey 52.4% Santorum 44.3%
Greenberg Quinlan: 10/17 Casey 54%, Santorum 37%
Rasmussen 10/15 Casey 54% Santorum 41%
Strategic Vision 9/28 Casey 50% Santorum 41%
Quinnipiac 9/26 Casey 51% Santorum 39%
Temple/Inquirer 9/24 Casey 49% Santorum 39%
Keystone 9/21 Casey 45% Santorum 38%
Issues PA/Pew 9/21 Casey 52% Santorum 31%

Summary only...

First Post Debate Poll -- Santorum Down 13

Rasmussen's latest figures on the Pennsylvania Senate race show that, despite dismal, lackluster, or uninspiring debate performances by the Democratic challenger, Republican incumbent Rick Santorum is not making any positive movement with less than three weeks to go until election day.

The results made public today put the margin at 13 points, the same as Rasmussen's previous release on October 10. In the latest survey, Casey is favored by 54% of the respondents, as against Santorum with 41%. This spread is in the same range as the 12 point difference reported in the latest DSCC internal polling on the race.

As per usual, Rasmussen is stingy with the crosstabs -- for which you have to pay big bucks. But they offer that the margin barely moves when leaners are included. In that case, Casey picks up 1% of the undecideds and Santorum 2%, for a 12-point difference. Santorum's favorables are at 46% and Casey's at 57%.

Summary only...

DSCC Internal Poll Puts Santorum Down by 12

From Deborah White:

"Democratic polling numbers are simply extraordinary. We need to win six Republican held seats to take back the Senate and we have a real chance to win as many as eight," wrote Sen. Chuck Schumer, Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over this past weekend in an insider status report.

"We are leading in six of these races and within striking distance in two others. I can assure you that we will not let these Republicans up for air for even a second between now and November."

The article goes on to list the latest DSCC internals, which give have Santorum down in double digits, with Casey at 48% and Santorum 36%.

Meanwhile, The New York Times is reporting Republican operatives, money, and hopes are abandoning Mike DeWine in Ohio and are expecting Santorum to be forcibly retired from the Senate.

Summary only...

Casey Killed in Debate

No, I don't mean he won. Casey was killed in the debate. I sure hope no one saw this thing, because it confirmed what a good friend has said, in a slightly different context -- Bob Casey is a Fucking Idiot!

I hate Rick Santorum's policies. I think Santorum's policies are without sound basis. I think anyone with warm spit can skewer Santorum's failed and miserable policies. But, not Chuck Schumer's guy. Bob Casey made Santorum look smart -- how is that possible??!!! Casey handed Santorum softball after softball when they should have been hand grenades.

I was going to do a blow by blow but I am too discouraged right now. Maybe tomorrow.

If Santorum wants to use his money well over the next three weeks, he will simply buy TV time to run this debate over and over and over again.

Christ, I hope he doesn't do that.

Summary only...

Latest Rasmussen -- Casey up by 13

The latest Rasmussen Poll[link added in update] gives Casey a decided 13-point advantage over the floundering Santorum reelection bid a scant month before the election. Although the Rasmussen October survey is still under wraps, two birds have flown by my window with 13-point leads for Casey in the October tally. Curiously, their numbers were a bit different -- one had it 52-39, the other 50-37. Until we see the report we don't know if they were looking at different figures (H2H, 3way, likely, registered) or if they both are still on drugs.

I've relied on both before and they have not let me down, so I am going with the sober assumption that Santorum is still losing this race by double digits.

For those interested in keeping track, the August Rasmussen survey had the spread at 8 -- Casey 48%, Santorum 40%. In September, Rasmussen put Casey's lead back into double digits, 49% to 39%.

Santorum's circling the drain.

[UPDATE 10/10/06: After our post early this morning, Rasmussen released the survey results to the public. It seems both of me birds had it right. The 50%-37% numbers are H2H Casey v Santorum; the 52%-39% results are when undecided but leaning voters are counted in their leanee numbers. However you look at it, that load sucking sound is eminating from Virginia.]

(Image from Arizona artitst David Sours)

Summary only...

SV: Casey +9; WSJ: Casey +6; Survey USA: Rick 99th Worst

Well, we did say it would be a sad week for Rick Santorum.

The latest poll by Strategic Vision -- a Republican Pollster -- has no good news for the floundering reelection campaign of Pennsylvania's Junior Senator from Virgina.

SV's September 2006 Poll puts Casey at 50% and Santorum at 41% in a three-way with Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli (5%) (eeew, Santorum's not the only one who would shudder about such a three-way). A two-way race apparently sends the SV respondents into confusion -- Casey stays at 50%, Santorum drops to 40%, and all of Romanelli's supporters, and the defecting Santorum supporters, all fold into the 10% "idunno" category. This same poll gave Casey a six-point lead a month ago, pegging the Favorite Son's favorite son at 47% to Virginia's son's 41%. So I guess Santorum can tell his pillow "it's okay, I didn't go down".

This wasn't the Santorum team's game plan when they began spending their huge cash lead in August on television buys, soft image commercials, and lying, devious, attack ads. That's alot of money to spend and not gain an inch in nearly two months. Santorum can run on immigration, he can run on Casey's perennial campaigning, he can run on the subtle bigotry and irrational fear of Muslims, but he can't run from his record, which Pennsylvanians find dismal. The policies he supports are walking around the White House -- and EVERYone knows that. Pennsylvanians think Bush sucks (58% in this SV survey). Santorum's record is Bush's record, and that's broken.

Sliced with or without Romanelli, the meat of the Poll shows Casey winning this race handily.

The SV Poll puts Rendell comfortably ahead of the Republican challenger, Lynn Swann, 55% to 37%, despite 63% seeing Pennsylvania heading in the wrong direction. Hmmm, I wonder which party is in control of the Pennsylvania legislature . . . . oh, yeah, the Rs.

UPDATE 9/28/06: WSJ/Zogby Poll -- Casey up 6 Points

The Wall Street Journal/Zogby Poll released another set of figures today. According to this interactive online poll, Casey leads Santorum 45.8% to 39.8%. This represents a three-point drop for Santorum over the preceding WSJ/Zogby numbers and a one-point fall for Casey. The Poll was conducted between September 19 and 25. Your correspondent participated in the Poll. No other data is made available with these polls. They state that Carl Romanelli was part of the poll, but they do not give his numbers nor the undecided tally. The margin of error is 3.3%. The previous WSJ/Zogby poll, taken August 29 to September 5, had Casey at 47%.

Santorum 43%. Santorum continues to fall in every poll. In the last week, these are the polls we have seen:

Strategic Vision 9/28 Casey 50% Santorum 41%
Quinnipiac 9/26 Casey 51% Santorum 39%
Temple/Inquirer 9/24 Casey 49% Santorum 39%
Rasmussen 9/21 Casey 49% Santorum 39%
Keystone 9/21 Casey 45% Santorum 38%
Issues PA/Pew 9/21 Casey 52% Santorum 31%

Throwing out the 21 point Issues PA/Pew poll (because, we've never seen the actual poll results and it's a little out of line with the rest), the last six polls give Casey and average lead of 9 points. (N.B.: Where available, we used the three-way poll result.)

UPDATE II 9/28/06 -- SurveyUSA Releases September Approval Ratings for All US Senators

Look, we weren't kidding when we said this was gonna be a really, really bad week for Santorum.

Survey USA has released its latest Approval Ratings for All US Senators as of September 2006. Santorum is back down at the very bottom of the list, the 99th worst Senator in the United States, ahead of only Conrad Burns. A solid 53% say that they think Rick Santorum is doing a lousy job as their Senator.

This comes a scant month after the Virgina resident scored his highest approval rating in over a year (48%). This month's 53% number isn't as low as he's gone, though. That would be the 57% disapproval score he earned in May, 2006. But we have all the confidence in the world that Santorum can equal or "better" that 57% mark.

Independents (14% of respondents) trash the junior Senator with a 54% disapproval ranking; Moderates (39% of respondents) reject him with a 64% disapproval figure; Regular church goers (36% of survey), 50% disapproval, 45% approve; those never attending college (21%), give him thumbs down with 49% disapproval, 38% approval.


Mmmmmmmm, toasttt!

(PS from the "Ain't We Special Department" -- As near as we can tell, we were the first to bring you these three poll results.)

Summary only...

Quinnipiac - Casey Up By 12 Points

This is going to be a very sad week for two-term incumbent Republican Rick Santorum.

It started off with the Inky/Pew poll showing the floundering Virginia resident down by ten points, which came on the heals of two polls last week showing the faux Penn Hills resident down by 10 points and 7 points. Now comes the new Quinnipiac poll of likely voters showing Casey trouncing Pennsylvania's junior Senator 51-39% in a three-way race and 54-40% in a head-to-head match up. And it will not be ending there, also due out this week are polls from Strategic Vision and, my favorite, the Survey USA rankings of all United States Senators.

In August, Quinnipiac showed the spread at a mere six points, with Casey at 48% and Santorum at 42% among "likely voters" (Quinnipiac -- despite several requests -- has never said how they determine if a voter is likely to vote. Their cross-tabs do not show that they ask any of the series of questions usually designed to ferret out likely voters. While we are suspect of their "likely voter" claims, they are used here for comparison purposes. The spread among all respondents and likely voters is roughly the same, anyway.)

Quinnipiac was one of the rare polls over the last year which showed Santorum above 40%. Not any more.

"Sen. Rick Santorum's comeback momentum has been stopped dead in the water. Santorum's attack ads against Casey have failed to spark voters' support, and 50 percent of voters say the Senator does not deserve re-election," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

While we take issue with any claim that Santorum had any comeback momentum -- he has consistently been looking at the ass-side of 40% throughout this campaign -- it is clear that Casey's support is solidifying. Actually, it may be more correct to say that the anti-Santorum sentiment is solidifying:

Among likely voters who back Casey, 55 percent say their vote is mainly against Santorum, while 40 percent say their vote is mainly for the Democrat.

You can count your loyal correspondent amongst that 55 percent. (On November 8, we start looking for ways to replace Casey in Washington with a real Democrat. Guess we'll have to draft him to run for Governor.)

The Quinnipiac Poll found that only 38% of the multi-term Senator's constituents think he's been doing a good job -- everyone else thinks he sucks, or is too confused to make up their minds. On the other hand, Casey's favorables are going up, which surprises your truly, but is a good sign for the Favorite Son's favorite son.

Romanelli (4%), as we have long said, is having no impact and, in fact, is pulling support from twice as many Republicans (2%) as Democrats (1%), according to the Quinnipiac numbers.

Santorum is strongest in the Northwest (47-47%) and Central (48% Santorum - 41% Casey) which have the fewest numbers of voters. In heavily populated Allegheny County, Casey is leading Santorum with 57-38% and in Philly Casey is walking away with 75% support.

Santorum is no doubt sending his resume out to his friends on K Street this week.

Summary only...

New Poll -- Casey up by 10

A new poll, released today, shows Democratic challenger Bob Casey leading Republican incumbent Rick Santorum by ten points among likely voters. The poll was conducted by Temple University for the Philadelphia Inquirer among 666 (nice touch) likely voters. Respondents gave Casey 49% support, Santorum was stuck below 40% again, at 39%, and Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli pulls in an insignificant 3%.

Even if Rick picks up all of the undecideds, he loses. More likely, as we move closer to election day, the undecideds will break towards Casey. Santorum is seeking his third term -- these voters know where he stands better than most of the people who live on their own street. When a multi-term incumbent is unable to make a solid case for himself a scant month before election day, an "undecided" vote is already a vote against the incumbent.

From the Republican faithful, you'll start hearing the myth about Santorum coming from behind. Don't let those talking points worry you -- at this point in his last reelection campaign, Santorum was trouncing Ron Klink, 43-24%. The challenger managed to pull in most of the undecideds over the last month of the campaign, ending up with 46% of the vote on election day in 2000.

As the Inquirer article points out, the last ten polls we've seen (which goes back to August 6th), give Casey an average lead of 9 points. Santorum has been looking at the underside of 40% virtually throughout this campaign. In the 25 public polls since April, Santorum has broken 40% on only six of them, and never by very much. There is no evidence that he has moved any Casey support to his side of the ledger and, with only 8% undecided at this point, he is unlikely to do so.

NOW it's time for the butter, Mabel!

Summary only...

Rasmussen Releases Latest Survey

Rasmussen released the results of hte latest PA-SEN Poll to the public today. Previously it had only been available to Premium Mebers, who leaked the results, which we reported on here. This is part of the Rasmussen analysis (crosstabs are reserved for Premium Members):

In August, the Rasmussen Reports election poll showed Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. leading Republican Senator Rick Santorum by just 48% to 40%. It was the closest the candidates had been all year and many wondered if it marked the beginning of a surge that would enable Santorum to draw even closer.

So far the answer is No. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows very similar results; with Casey leading 49% to 39%.

Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli continues to attract 5% support and it's unlikely his slice of the electorate will grow much larger.

The two major-party candidates recently debated for the first time, clashing over the war in Iraq, pay raises for politicians in Pennsylvania and DC, and abortion. Many independent observers say Casey, not exactly renowned as a speaker, surpassed low expectations and was at least on a par with the more fiery incumbent. Some argue that Casey won the debate.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) view Santorum "very favorably," 30% "very unfavorably." For Casey it's 19% very favorable, 18% very unfavorable; only 4% are still "unsure."

The rest of it is here.

Summary only...

Rendell Trashes Santorum Tactic

Summary only...