In case you missed it, yesterday’s debate on [tag]Meet the Press[/tag] between Sen. Rick [tag]Santorum[/tag] (R) and Bob [tag]Casey[/tag] (D) wasn’t all that bad. Too often, candidate debates are overly-rigid affairs, with stilted rules, specific time limits, turgid opening and closing statements, and formal questions that don’t allow for any real discussion. [tag]Russert[/tag]’s not great at getting to the heart of issues, but as formats go, it’s certainly watchable.
At a minimum, viewers got a glimpse of why Santorum is losing. Consider, for example, the senator’s take on WMD in Iraq and whether the war was necessary.
“[W]e have found weapons of mass destruction, they were older weapons, but we have found chemical weapons. The report was just released not too long ago that, that said that there were over 500 chemical weapons found in Iraq.”
Yep, he’s still harping on this. In June, Santorum announced, falsely, that we’d found WMD in Iraq by pointing to old munitions shells that Saddam Hussein used in his war against Iran long before the first Gulf War, which weren’t even new since everyone already knew about them. Every military and intelligence official in DC said Santorum was wrong, including Bush administration officials and the president’s hand-picked WMD investigators.
But there Santorum was yesterday, insisting once again that maybe the war in Iraq is defensible because “we have found” WMD. Indeed, Santorum, still stuck in his 2003 Twilight Zone episode, went on to say that Iraq was “a serious and grave danger to America” and that the war was a “necessity.” It’s as if he’s counting on a large number of voters being easily manipulated and confused. Let’s hope he’s wrong.
One other, more personal, moment stood out.
During a discussion on the FDA approval of Plan B emergency contraception, Santorum explained why he takes a rigid, far-right line — and why he’s claiming the mantle of former Gov. Bob Casey Sr.
“[Casey] says the science is clear and it is clear. In fact, it is an abortifacient in certain circumstances. If the, if the egg has been fertilized and, and the, and the pill is taken, it does cause an abortion. It’s inconsistent with his previous position. It’s a classic attempt of him, how in a general election, to try and middle and, and, and violate his principles. And I think his father would be very upset if, if he were alive today and, and heard him be supportive of something like this.” (emphasis added)
Putting the substantive policy point aside, I’m curious, what kind of person tries to score cheap points of an opponent’s dead father? Seriously, have we reached a point in which it’s okay to play the dead-father card?
If Santorum wants to defend his policy position, fine. But it’s pathetic to claim to speak for a man who can’t speak for himself, and proclaim, with no justification or class, that a father would be disappointed in his son.
Casey kept his cool, but I would have been thrilled if he turned and asked Santorum, “Have you no decency left?”