Michelle Dubert | Bob Casey: the anti-Santorum

In the 2004 presidential election, 62,028,285 people voted for George W. Bush, and 59,028,109 people voted against him. And some of those 59,000,000 actually voted for Sen. John Kerry. Here in Pennsylvania, we might be witnessing a 2004 redux in the race for Rick Santorum's Senate seat.

In many ways, the Senate race has been reduced to a lesser-of-two-evils decision. As State Treasurer Bob Casey comfortably leads Santorum in every published poll, the basic horserace lineup doesn't reveal what's really vital in this contest. It's a subtle observation, but important: Casey's 10-plus point margin doesn't prove what voters think of Casey.

The most important figure in this election is President Bush, but he's not on the ballot. His closest ally, however, is. It appears that the same forces who voted against Bush in the last election cycle are acting again here, employing Santorum as their effigy. And, for most of this contest, the antipathy Santorum generates has been Casey's most useful campaign tool.

James Carville once noted that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one end and Pittsburgh on the other with Alabama everywhere in between. Casey is devoutly Catholic, anti-abortion and pro-gun, neutralizing Santorum's advantage in the Alabama region. In other words, his social views are not a liability, so he can speak of them freely. But when the discussion turns to the chief issue that will drive Pennsylvania voters to the polls in one month - Iraq - Casey cowers.

Casey, who in a generous estimation has the charisma of a Duraflame log, is either a wretched communicator or a brilliant political strategist.

"He is the human equivalent of Ambien," said English professor and Philadelphia Inquirer political columnist Dick Polman. "It's probably better for Casey if he doesn't try to get into a charisma contest with Santorum." So Casey keeps his lips zipped and lets Santorum do the talking, knowing the senator will sink deeper into his hole. As a result, Casey doesn't have to offer an alternative solution on Iraq. In fact, he doesn't even have to have a position. And if he's not on the record advocating his views, he can't actually be challenged on them. When that happens, the voters suffer more than anyone else.

In some sense, Casey's caginess is emblematic of the Democratic position as a whole: castigate Republicans, call them horrendously and irreparably wrong, but offer no solutions. Casey has been asked extensively on Iraq but hasn't served up much of an opinion. He's called for the firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and for a "new strategy," but little else. He doesn't want a timeline for troop withdrawal, but in June he told the Inquirer we should get out by the end of the year. On NBC's Meet the Press last month, Casey called for doubling Special Forces, yet wouldn't answer whether we need more troops.

"What we need right now in Iraq is more accountability for this administration," he told moderator Tim Russert. On the same program, he refused to say - not once or twice, but four times - if he would have voted for the war today. Reduced to common terms: John Kerry redux.

Breathtaking to me is that Casey's greatest skill is to reincarnate a tough question on any given issue into an attack on his opponent. What's even more astounding is how this doesn't seem to trouble voters preparing to elect him.

"He's asking for Pennsylvania's vote, yet he won't speak out on what he believes," says Santorum spokeswoman Virginia Davis. "He's trying to be all things to all people."

For months now, Casey has struggled to distinguish himself on his own terms, but he will never do so as long as he presents himself exclusively as the "anti-Santorum." Right now, though, there's little incentive to change while his opponent is the lightening rod. Casey's television ads "say very little about what Casey would actually do in office if he wins," Polman said. "That's not necessarily fair to the voters, . . . especially to any voter who wonders whether Democrats like Casey would handle Iraq any better than Bush has. The first objective is to win, and Casey's people believe that the anti-Bush and anti-Santorum strategy will carry them."

Santorum elicits unease from many Pennsylvania voters, but at least they know their poison. "You might not always agree with him, but you know what he thinks. You always know what you're going to get," Davis said. On such an important issue, in such a divisive election, in a crucial year, that should stand for something.

Michelle Dubert is a College senior from Closter, N.J. Her e-mail address is dubert@dailypennsylvanian.com. Department of Strategery appears on Thursdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.