The conventional wisdom seems to be that the two incumbent Republican senators who will face the toughest races for reelection in 2006 are Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. In the last few weeks the Democratic leadership in those states seems to have been coalescing around the candidates that they think will pose the strongest challenges against the Republican incumbents - Bob Casey in Pennsylvania and Jim Langevin in Rhode Island. Polls have been done that suggest both Casey and Langevin would in fact defeat the incumbents if the 2006 races were held today. That's interesting, and so unusual that it's not hard to understand why the party would be trying to boost their candidacies. But one thing about these actions stands out to me - both these potential Democratic candidates are anti-choice. Given the large number of progressive Democrats in both of these Kerry-supporting states I am rather concerned about the party officials annointing someone to speak for them who doesn't share their values. Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see Santorum defeated. But I hope that the voices the people who are most imperiled by his presence in the Senate are not drowned out in the attempt to remove him from office. Casey would be better than Santorum - but just because he's electable doesn't mean he's necessarily the best candidate the Democrats can come up with.
Posted by armand at January 19, 2005 11:43 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politicsone can hope that Hoefl runs against Santorum.
Posted by: joshua at January 19, 2005 02:31 PM | PERMALINKJoshua - Do you know anything about Hafer? I was reading last year that Rendell was pushing her candidacy - but those rumors seem to have entirely evaporated in the last couple of months.
Posted by: Armand at January 20, 2005 09:04 AM | PERMALINKi'll know more about her when you send me a first name so i can run a google search. which is to say, if nothing else, her name recognition must be running a bit low.
rendell, however, seems to still be doing well with the electorate, so his endorsement and active assistance can't hurt.
Posted by: joshua at January 20, 2005 10:05 AM | PERMALINKBarbara Hafer - she served as both state treasurer and state auditor. She used to be a Republican but switched parties.
Posted by: Armand at January 20, 2005 11:18 AM | PERMALINKBarbara Hafer: bo-ring. not good, in addition to low name recognition.
Posted by: binky at January 20, 2005 12:54 PM | PERMALINKWhy would any Democrat want to unseat Chafee? His positions are arguably more democratic than most of the (south of the mason-dixon line) Democrats in the Senate. Leave him be. Like Jeffords, he might switch if the Dems really needed him to take back control of the Senate (no evidence for this, but it sounds good).
Posted by: baltar at January 25, 2005 02:08 PM | PERMALINKActually, I really like Linc Chafee. I like his votes and he seems to be a really good guy personally. I wasn't sad at all about him winning in 2000. But I think the general idea is that as long as he's voting for the Republican organization of the Senate he's not really supporting a lot of the causes that even he likes (since the Republicans won't allow votes on those). That said, I wouldn't put him on top of my list of incumbents to oust ... but I think the view of the Democrats is either switch parties or we're going after you.
Posted by: Armand at January 25, 2005 04:01 PM | PERMALINKMy point is only that Chafee isn't worth whatever money the Dems want to throw against him. He already votes more that way than, say, Zell Miller, so why waste money on him rather than use it to retain or win a competative seat?
Posted by: baltar at January 25, 2005 04:06 PM | PERMALINK