A few months ago, I had noted that Bob Casey, Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania would face major problems with the nomination of Alito. In large part, this is due to the fact that Alito's big case which Democrats would like to address (Casey Vs. Planned Parenthood) not only bore his name, but was also argued by him in front of Alito. Continued mention of this case would help polarize people as to what they thought of Casey. Well, Democrats did their best in the Senate to "address" it, but also to move past it in very quiet hearings certain to not taint their candidate. Low and Behold, Casey Returns the favor by helping to shackle their hands by coming out, and announcing he would support Alito - giving political cover to Santorum and Spector, and removing this as a political wedge issue in the fall.
When I first referenced this problem (
http://www.dailykos.com/... ) I was basically told "well, yeah, but.."
The reality is, more then any other candidate in the nation, Casey had a chance to define himself with Alito. During confirmation hearings, the Bush nominees have been able to effectively say "that may be true, but I did so at the behest of my client, but the views do not necessarily represent myself." Which was basically an utter dodge, but one which placated many.
Casey, who had argued Casey Vs. Planned Parenthood, however, was in a different position. Not responsible to a client, but responsible to his party and voters, Casey chose a strategy of endorsing Alito - a strategy which in effect offers him no such cover. He cannot claim he endorsed Alito's policy at the behest of a client - he did so with full knowledge and a better comprehension of Alito then most in the senate.
This puts other democrats on their heels in a sense, and hurts any motion toward a fillibuster. In effect, Casey is the ONLY democrat in elected office or running for a major office who can claim he has argued a case in front of Justice Alito. And Casey is saying: he passes my litmus test as a fair judge.
This places incredible firepower at the behest of republicans. In the end, it now becomes: Your candidate, in his home state has argued a case in front of him, and he believes he is a fair and openminded jurist.
And Republicans are not stupid enough to drop that ball. Effectively, the gauntlet is: challenge the assessment of your own candidate, who has been before this judge; or go along with his opinion.
Alito will still get a flow of votes against him; but it provides unique cover for any democrat who will vote for him. And more then that, it makes it all the more unlikely that a fillibuster would be sustainable, as Republicans will repeatedly echo his endorsement as a means to show how "out of step" Democrats are (true or not).
In the end, this establishes what I believed to be true at the beginning: even if elected, it will be very difficult to argue that Casey will be the "Liberal" senator from Pennsylvania.
Ideological purity does not win you elections. But Democrats have slowly been brought to the acceptance of a vague "middle" in the idea of "we just have to win". Casey's stance today makes the race for him in November more difficult. I can see 100 polls saying how far ahead Casey is. Fine. But the reality is, in an off year election, it is normally those who are motivated who vote. And Casey made a big move to demoralize those on the left who are hoping to oust Santorum.
Republicans are already sending out Casey's notice. Along with this comment:
"We can judge a man by his record," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio. "We can judge him by his judicial philosophy. But, really, there is no better judge of a man than those who really know him best."
Team the two together, and they are making the case to democrats: who are you willing to hang? Thanks, Bob.