Tribune-Review Editorial – 10/14/12

This page was last updated on October 20, 2012.

For U.S. Senate: Elect Casey, Raese & Mandel; Editorial; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; October 14, 2012.

Here’s an excerpt from a Trib TV commercial: “Sure we lean to the right with our editorial opinions. … The Trib. Conservative views. Objective news. Get it RIGHT. Now.”

Endorsing U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (D), over Tom Smith (R), the Trib wrote:

“We don’t agree with some of the policies advocated by the first-term Democrat. But we have come to appreciate him on a personal level and to admire the congenial manner in which he interacts with not only his constituents but also Pat Toomey, his junior Republican colleague in the Senate. It’s that kind of personal comity that serves Pennsylvania and the nation best.

“Mr. Casey is being challenged by Republican Tom Smith. He was a Democrat committeeman as recently as 2010. Despite our policy differences with Casey, we prefer the Democrat we know to the Republican of convenience.”

For the life of me, I don’t know why the Trib endorsed Mr. Casey for re-election. I don’t buy the “reasons” given. An endorsement based on Mr. Casey’s alleged “congenial manner” and “personal comity” instead of his policies/principles? Seriously? If the Trib “has come to appreciate him on a personal level,” fine. Mr. Casey may be a nice guy for all I know. That said, did the Trib need to show its personal appreciation for Mr. Casey by endorsing him over Mr. Smith instead of sending him Christmas and birthday cards?

We’re not talking about a mythical conservative or “Blue Dog” Democrat. Mr. Casey has an Americans for Democratic Action lifetime Liberal Quotient (ADA terminology, not mine) of 92.5%, an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 5.6%, and voted for Obamacare. During this period, the average LQ for Democrat senators was 90%.

As for the “Republican of convenience” comment, the Trib was a bit less than forthcoming. Yes, Mr. Smith was a life-long registered Democrat until 2011 when he became a registered Republican. Mr. Smith says his Democrat registration was out of respect for his parents and that he’s always been a conservative. Mr. Smith’s campaign contributions tend to back up his assertion. Since 1990, Mr. Smith made substantial contributions to federal candidates and all went to Republicans and right-leaning groups/PACs except for $2,400 to the Altmire campaign in 2009. I didn’t find the reason Mr. Smith made that contribution. I don’t have comparable data for local and commonwealth candidates. Even if we buy the “Republican of convenience” comment and Mr. Smith morphed into a next-generation version of Arlen Specter, how could he be worse than Mr. Casey? What leftist policy of consequence could Mr. Smith possibly support that Mr. Casey would not?

It would be bad enough if we were talking about a House race. Republicans currently hold a 50-seat edge in the House. Therefore, even if Republicans lose a few House seats, Republican-supported bills would likely still pass easily as in the last couple of years. The Senate, however, is a different story. Democrats (plus two independents who caucus with Democrats) currently hold the majority, 53 – 47. To get a filibuster-proof majority (60), Republicans would need to pick up a net of 13 seats in the election. This election, 33 seats are up for grabs. Ten are currently held by Republicans with the remaining 23 held by Democrats and the two independents. To get a filibuster-proof majority, Republicans would need to hold their 10 seats plus pick up 13 (57%) of the remaining 23. In fairness, this would be a huge and unprecedented accomplishment for Republicans. Since the Senate added the cloture rule in 1917, Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority. Since 1931, the closest Republicans got was 55 seats. Democrats have enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority at least seven times, the last for several months in late-2009/early-2010 during which they passed Obamacare 60 – 39 without a single Republican vote.

Let’s look at repealing Obamacare. Should Mitt Romney become President we will have the chance to repeal Obamacare if Republicans retain the House AND become the majority in the Senate. In this case, it’s pretty close to certainty the House would vote to repeal Obamacare. In the Senate, however, a simple majority will be insufficient. Since every single Senate Democrat voted for Obamacare, it’s unlikely any – whether they were Senators at the time or not – would vote for its repeal. Repeal of Obamacare will require a Senate supermajority vote of 60 to force cloture of a Democrat filibuster. Without a filibuster-proof, anti-Obamacare majority (a tall order as mentioned above) in the Senate, repeal of Obamacare is unlikely. Even if we don’t get a Republican supermajority, we still want to minimize the number of Democrats we need to flip to vote for repeal. One vote could easily be the difference as it was in Obamacare’s passage. We know Mr. Casey will vote to keep Obamacare. Mr. Smith has pledged to vote for Obamacare’s repeal. We simply don’t have the luxury of electing an Obamacare-supporting Democrat over a Republican because of his alleged “congenial manner” and “personal comity.” Should repeal fail by one vote, would you want to be the conservative who helped elect Mr. Casey because you “appreciate him on a personal level,” “admire [his] congenial manner,” and like his “personal comity?”

FYI, there are scenarios in which a supermajority is not needed to stop/rollback implementation of portions of Obamacare, but the cleanest way is to repeal Obamacare in its entirety.