The following comes from:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com
Casey supporters disrupt Santorum appearance
By Allison M. Heinrichs
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, April 29, 2006

A news conference by Santorum about rising gasoline prices was briefly disrupted Friday, April 28, by protesters supportive of Casey. The protesters' message was that Santorum supports big oil companies and is out of touch with Pennsylvanians. They also carried Casey campaign signs. Larry Smar, a spokesman for Casey, said he did not know if the protest had been approved by the Casey campaign, but said he agreed with its message. The protesters continued to stand behind the Santorum during his conference to explain the Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act of 2006, which was introduced Thursday by Senate Republicans. The act calls for a $100 rebate check to taxpayers and is tied to the opening of a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration.

It seems like Pennsylvanians, at least a vocal few, believe Santorum supports big oil. This is obviously bad news for Santorum. The gas prices as of more recently are a hot topic. If people believe Santorum is in support of the oil companies and their prices, well, he has no chance. Casey still leads in the polls, by the way.

More about the debate that happened a couple weeks ago. This information is from:

http://www.post-gazette.com
Campaign 2006: Senate candidates meet in debate
Democratic hopefuls level criticism at front-runner Casey
Thursday, April 20, 2006
By Maeve Reston, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Casey piled most of his criticism on Santorum, who he described as content to "stay the course" as Pennsylvania families struggle with health care costs and gasoline prices. The other two candidates, Sandals and Pennacchio, accused Casey of taking cowardly positions on issues ranging from Iraq to accepting money from lobbyists. But the debate did elicit significant differences among the three candidates on some of the most contentious issues and most strikingly on the U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Casey has rejected the proposal by U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, to withdraw troops from Iraq over a six-month period while keeping a special strike force in the region to re-enter as needed. And he also opposes creating a timetable for withdrawal.

By contrast, both Pennacchio and Sandals praised Murtha's call for withdrawing troops.

"We support our troops by bringing them home and redeploying them in areas that actually are hotspots," Pennacchio said.

Looking at Bush's ratings, I would say that the war in Iraq has hurt his ratings. Many are sick and tired of our troops getting killed, with no end in sight. Here, I agree with Pennacchio. Troops are in places that do not require their attention, yet they are being shot down by snipers. As far as Casey goes, I believe his stand is wrong. I do not think, however, his views on the war will make him or break him.

Recently, I've found news about Casey's competition, Santorum, which has made the news nationally.

chicagotribune.com

Santorum among GOP's vulnerable
Pennsylvania senator target for 6-seat swing

By Jill Zuckman, Tribune national correspondent. Tribune national correspondent Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report from Des Moines
Published April 24, 2006

Many of Santorum's problems this election year are of his own making, and that voters are less accepting of his brand of politics. He sparked an uproar when he told a reporter that the right to privacy should not include "man on child, man on dog" or other aberrant acts. Although I agree in this particular instance, I see where this could be a problem. It blurs the line of what should be allowed privately and what shouldn't. It opens the doors to interpretation of what is acceptable and what's not.

In Santorum's book, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," upset many by arguing that more parents (actually, more mothers) should stay home with their kids. I've mentioned this one before.

Such issues have some Republicans insisting that Santorum's struggles do not reflect a broader GOP malaise. Sounds like Santorum is making the republican party look bad. This may lose him votes even by devoted republicans. I've heard bad news for Santorum the whole time I've been following the race, but todays really puts it in perspective for me. He's making the Republican party look bad, he's upsetting women and pro-choice advocates and the list goes on. Casey just isn't stepping on as many toes as Santorum.

Bush's unpopularity here has deepened Santorum's challenge as he fights off soft-spoken Casey. Santorum is still trailing Casey in the polls by double digits. There is a high correlation between voters who have an unfavorable view of the president and those who are reluctant to vote for Santorum, said Terry Madonna, director of the Keystone Poll at Franklin & Marshall College. Santorum has a lot to overcome if he hopes to win.

"Assistant Senate Minority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he remembers the drag of voter frustration in 1994 when he was running for re-election to the House against a little-known construction worker with a then-unpopular President Bill Clinton in the White House. 'Three weeks before the election, we did a poll and I was losing after 12 years in the House,' said Durbin, who ultimately hung onto his seat." This is just proof that when the president isn't popular, his whole party suffers. This is what is happening with Santorum. Good news for Casey though.

More news...
pennlive.com
Santorum outpaces Casey in cash, but lags in polls
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
BY BRETT LIEBERMAN
Of Our Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Sen. Rick Santorum continues to trail his likely Democratic opponent in public opinion but enjoys a 2-1 cash advantage.

The strong financial showing by Santorum shows that donors are not shying away from contributing despite concerns among some party leaders that Casey maintains double-digit leads in most polls. "Symbolically, the Republicans have to do everything they can," said political analyst G. Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College. "To lose Santorum is a real and symbolic loss." People are losing hope in a win by Santorum, they're franticly throwing money at him hoping it will make him better. His weakness in the race is showing, and it isn't pretty. It's on pace to become the state's most expensive U.S. Senate election, topping the $30 million that Republican Sen. Arlen Specter and his opponents spent in 2004. Without Bush's help, Santorum would have barely out-raised Casey. Many Democratic lobbyists and public figures have lent a hand to Casey.

I've been focusing on Casey's competition this week more than Casey himself, but I believe it is important to understand what is going on, on the other side in order to get the full picture. The point is, Casey isn't doing anything so objectionable to make national news. Santorums possible upcoming loss, unfortunately for him, will not be based on his actions and ideals alone. He is standing in the shadow of the president.

Silent Bob speaks out!
Everyone complains about everyone in politics, it's just the way things are. This week, it's Caseys turn to complain about Santorum.

This weeks information is from philly.com, by Dan Nephin.

Santorum has represented big business and has sided with the Bush administration nearly 100 percent of the time, Casey said at the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO convention. With Bush's approval ratings becoming lower and lower, this sounds bad for Santorum. Santorum "has a long history of supporting policies that strengthen our economy, protect the homeland and improve access to quality health care for all Americans," Davis, Santorum's campaign press secretary, said. This does sound like what President Bush has tried to accomplish, but since he couldn't do it, it isn't likely that a Senator could either. Although it would be nice if he could. This is just more "big talk." Supporting the president sounds good and patriotic, but this time it doesn't work. People aren't happy with the president, so supporting him just makes Santorum look bad... well, not BAD, but not good either.

Casey said, he would work to return the country to fiscal responsibility, reduce health-care costs, increase access to early-childhood education, and strengthen homeland security. Casey also claims, "This government has not been held accountable and this senator, Rick Santorum, has not been held accountable." Casey also wishes to complete what the president tried to put into action. Again, just big talk. Since both candidates agree, I guess it's a wash. It doesn't mean much being said from either candidate, I believe.

Casey also criticized Santorum for writing in his book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, that many women in two-income families would be better off not working. In this case, I'll bet Casey took this out of context to his advantage. I've never read the book, but Santorums idea here is probably pointed at families where one income is more than enough, in which case, sure, Mom should stay home with the kids. It's fair to point out though, if Santorum didn't want to step on toes, he could have easily said that the man of the house doesn't need to work. As long as one parent brings in enough to support the family, the other should raise the kids. So, yes, I think Santorums view was taken out of context here to Caseys advantage.

"What they don't need is a politician in Washington telling them they don't need that second income," Casey said. I agree with Casey on this point as well, these days, it is very hard to support a family with one income. Natural gas, gasoline, groceries, electricity, etc. has gone up in price, yet pay has not gone up. This statement probably has support from the middle and lower classes of society of Pennsylvania.

Todays first article is based on one from http://www.politics1.com/ (posted on 03.13.06)

Kate Michelman has decided to not be part of the race for senate. "Despite profound and fundamental differences [on the abortion issue], I have decided that Pennsylvania will be better served by electing Bob Casey to the US Senate than giving his opponent another term," wrote Michelman in a newspaper op-ed this weekend.

This is good news for Casey, as Michelman pointed out. These votes would have only made Santorum win, because Michelman running would only take votes away from Casey. It seems that the cause is more important than the office for Michelman, which is honorable.

From http://www.pennlive.com/
Casey, Santorum promote education views
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
BY BRETT LIEBERMAN

Casey's longtime support for public education and pledges to deliver billions of federal dollars promised for school improvement if he is elected this year is a far cry from Santorums cuts and freezes on educational spending.

Their views on education differ greatly, but they both have their audience. More money for schools is a good idea, but at what cost? Higher taxes. Those being buried by taxes, and those that simply don't want to part with the extra money will not want the extra spending. Many believe the extra money doesn't even benefit the children, just gives raises to the existing teachers and other staff. It is true, money isn't always spent the way it is supposed to. On the other hand, well spent money is beneficial for the children, and therefore the future. Both views, more vs. less spending are typical Democratic and Republican ideals. On this subject, I think the votes will be Democrats for Casey and Republicans for Santorum. All in all, Casey's views are neither beneficial or bad for his campaign.

Casey opposes government vouchers for parents to send their children to private schools, because, he says, the vouchers take away public school resources. Santorum said he believes parents should be able to move children from failing schools and supports vouchers.

Though both candidates promote themselves as supporters of public education, neither sends his children to public schools.

Again, both views on vouchers seem to be primarily Democratic and Republican ideals. In this case, I see Casey as being at a disadvantage. Casey is fortunate enough to be able to afford sending his children to the school of their choosing. For families disadvantaged financially, no vouchers may mean their children have no choice but to go a public school, which may not be a good school. Although allowing vouchers, especially for areas with poor public schools, may worsen the schools situation, it also puts those students at a disadvantage. In my opinion, there is no quick solution on this matter. Voters may look down on Casey for his views, since he has never been in this situation. A minor drawback for Casey, I don't think it will actually make any difference in the polls.

Ah, my attention has been drawn to a new issue...
http://corner.nationalreview.com
MICHELMAN FOR SENATE? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Apparently, she has been asked by a number of women's groups and Democratic donors to jump into the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania as an independent. The final straw? When Santorum's Democratic challenger, Bob Casey, endorsed the nomination of Samuel Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'After Casey announced his support for Alito, I got calls from around the country,' says Michelman.

Kate Michelman, is pro-choice. The question is: If she enters the race, will this hurt Casey, since he is anti-choice?

Some say yes, I say... not really. Independent candidates generally don't do very well in the polls. I think she may get many pro-choice voters, but not all. Casey and Santorum are the frontrunners, and surely, one of them will win. The voting public knows this. Since this is the case, people will want to back the lesser of two evils. Since Casey is a little softer on this issue, he will still get many of there votes. Of course he wont get all pro-choice votes, but much of those he wasn't going to get in the first place. It's not certain, but it is likely, Michelman will not win the race. The votes that could go to her, will not go to Casey, which may hurt Casey in the election. I don't believe every pro-choice voter would vote for Michelman if she ran, mainly because this group doesn't want Santorum in. Lets not forget, there are other issues too. So I guess what my prediction is: Casey will lose some votes, but I don't think this one issue will keep him from winning, he is doing very well in other areas, and he's not too bad in this one either.

The following is based on information from:
http://www.pennlive.com/
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
BY BRETT LIEBERMAN

Gun control is an issue that politicians have to deal with, especially around election time. The frontrunners Casey and Santorum both are on the same side of this issue. Democrats hope Casey can neutralize the gun issue and Santorum's advantage with sportsmen. "I've been a strong supporter of the second amendment, the right to bear arms. That's evidenced not just by what I've said but the support I've gotten over the last decade from sportsmen's groups, including the NRA," Casey said. Casey does not believe they will concede any votes based on his views of gun control. The National Rifle Association backed Casey in the 2002 Democratic primary for governor against Ed Rendell, but they are expected to back Santorum for this election.

Casey's stand on gun control may be less positive in ares like Philadelphia, where violence is more of problem. Casey said more focus and money need to be spent enforcing existing laws. He said Santorum has failed to make sure existing laws are enforced. Since both Casey and Santorum have similar views on gun control, it may be a wash. Neither Casey nor Santorum will get those votes, or they will get votes for other reasons.

Due to the fact that Casey and Santorum are on the same side of gun control, it does not seem to be an issue for the two. Advocates will likely not vote for either candidate, but since they are still the frontrunners, one of them will likely come out on top for other reasons. This sounds good to me. It gives a chance for them to debate about other issues that sometimes are second to these type of social issues. This particular issue seems to be neither good nor bad for either candidate. It's the differences in opinions that make for good debating. This is a non issue between these candidates.

Greetings all! This seems to be a bit of a slow news week for Casey :( BUT I did manage to find some quality news anyways.

2/13/2006
Marc Levy
The Associated Press
As found on http://www.dscc.org/

Poll: More voters see Santorum than Casey as 'extreme'

The title of this article alone is good news for Casey! No one likes an extremest- well, I should say, the voting majority doesn't like extremists.

According to an independant poll relased monday, Casey holds more mainstream views than Santorum. Casey is actually doing quite well for himself now. He is leading in the polls and leads in the populated eastern and western parts of the state.

"In the poll, 59 percent of people surveyed believe Casey holds 'mainstream' views, versus 49 percent who said that about Santorum. Ten percent called Casey 'extreme' compared to 34 percent for Santorum. The rest did not know enough to express an opinion, or had no opinion. Casey also leads Santorum, the two-term incumbent who is the Senate's No. 3 Republican, by 51 percent to 36 percent. In a Keystone Poll released last week, Casey held a 50 percent to 39 percent lead. About one in 10 voters remained undecided, according to both polls.
Santorum and Casey are expected to face off in one of the most competitive and closely watched Senate races in the country. The race is expected to cost a combined $50 million, which would make it the most expensive Senate race in Pennsylvania's history." According to the article. Casey also leads Chuck Pennacchio, a challenger for the Democratic nomination, according to the poll.

This isn't the end though, things can turn around. For now, it is very positive for Casey. It seems like Casey is breath of fresh air when compared to Santorum. Casey faces more than Santorum, however.

Although Casey is leading, some of his leading is for no other reason than "he's better than the other guy."

Posted on Tue, Jan. 10, 2006
They're pro-Casey - but not that pro
By CATHERINE LUCEY
http://www.philly.com/

"Although some women said they planned to support abortion-rights candidate Chuck Pennacchio in the Democratic primary, they'll still ultimately vote for Casey over Santorum."

The front runners for the election are anti-abortion, which makes some women feel ignored. Party insiders say Casey is the best bet, though. The national party has been softening its stand on abortion to attempt to get back socially conservative voters. The other Democratic candidate in the race, attorney Alan Sandals, also supports reproductive rights. Neither Sandals nor Pennacchio is expected to win significant primary votes. After the primaries and Santorum and Casey are left, these voters will vote for Casey, just so Santorum wont win.

I guess a vote is a vote. This will still be positive for Casey. He will get the votes because he is more likely to deliver on the matters that are important to the voters.