Opinion: The Senate Race That Isn't

by Victoria A. Brownworth

Which candidate will you be voting for in the upcoming senatorial primary–Bob Casey, Jr. or...one of the other guys?

Current polls, like the one two weeks ago from Quinnipiac put the incumbent Democratic senator 12 points ahead of any of the likely opposition (six Republicans and one Democrat are running against him). Casey’s approval rating holds steady at 47 percent, but he can’t seem to break 50. The question is, does it matter?

Pennsylvania reads as a swing state in national elections because with the exception of Democratic Philadelphia and to a lesser degree, Pittsburgh, the state is conservative Republican throughout its largely rural mid-section, hence the satiric moniker “Pennsyltucky.”

The last gubernatorial election saw all the Democratic contenders trounced by Gov. Tom Corbett’s bid, even though Corbett ran a pretty lazy campaign. But whether that was voters tired of the Rendell Administration, voters genuinely seeking a Republican after eight years of a Democrat or voters unimpressed with a lackluster Democratic lineup, it’s impossible to say.

Casey is running the same kind of lazy campaign Corbett ran, and is likely to have the same result–an overwhelming victory in November.

I wish I could be pleased that Casey looks more and more like a shoe-in for another term, but I’m not. I would prefer to be in Massachusetts where an incredibly exciting senatorial campaign is being waged between incumbent Scott Brown, the Republican who won the seat held for decades by Ted Kennedy, and Elizabeth Warren, Harvard law professor, former Chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, creator of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a former advisor to President Obama.

Alas, this is not Massachusetts and the Senate race here is neither national news nor, apparently, even local news. The interest level in this race hovers somewhere between none and zero.

Why?

In September I wrote a column asking whether Casey deserved re-election and listed the many reasons why he didn’t. Quinnipiac and several other pollsters asked similar questions and got an appalling lack of consistency in answers that culminated in that not-quite-50-percent approval rating.

With six other men vying for the position of senator, why do Pennsylvanians still know so little about the not-Caseys when the primary is April 24th?

Many of the candidates running against Casey–a career politician from a political lineage–are businessmen. Considering the state of both the national and state economies, that might be a good alternative. Might be. The Democrat running against Casey, Joseph Vodvarka, is a spring maker. But does manufacturing Slinkys qualify you to be senator? I’d love to see a true Democrat run against Casey, but if Vodvarka has the right stuff, we haven’t heard about it.    

Nor have we heard much about the field of opposition candidates. The list of Republicans includes former state representative Sam Rohrer and Marc Scaringi, an attorney and former legislative aide to Rick Santorum. Both men are serious conservatives to the right of Sen. Pat Toomey.

Other contenders include John Kensinger, pharmacist, Steve Welch, businessman, David Christian, businessman and veteran’s advocate and Tom Smith, farmer and former businessman. Smith’s are the only political ads running in the Philadelphia market. In those ads, in which he appears to be very engaged with people, he refers to himself as a fiscal conservative and a true conservative. 

There is one thing everyone running–Casey and all the challengers–have in common: none is from Philadelphia.  In his six years as senator, Casey hasn’t been a great friend to this city, despite his love of the Phillies. Toomey made it clear when he was running for Senate that he thought Philadelphia was a drain on the system.  Harrisburg has always been happy to set this city off on an ice floe and without a strong voice for the city in the Senate–as Arlen Specter was throughout his years in the Senate–will Philadelphia get what’s needed?

Also at issue is the stunning lack of third party candidates on the ballot, because both mainstream parties do everything in their corrupt power to keep third parties off the ballot.

Six years ago there were several challengers to Casey, who was the Democratic machine candidate despite being against many basic tenets of the traditional Democratic platform . So six years ago, among those challenging Casey and his centrist politics was a Green Party candidate. But in the current race, third party candidates are MIA, even though progressive voters like myself are desperate for alternatives.

Why are we progressives so desperate? Because Casey’s tenure in the Senate has been both lackluster and deeply centrist, providing none of the forceful leadership that the fifth most populous state with the fifth largest city in the country deserves–and needs.

An early supporter of Barack Obama, Casey used that decision to propel himself forward once Obama was elected. But as the President’s approval ratings dipped, Casey distanced himself from Obama. Does that mean Casey is a proponent of Obama’s failed policies and civil liberties violations or that he’s an opponent? Or just that he’s a political opportunist?

It’s distressing that Pennsylvanians are so close to primary day and we have little information about our choices at the polls in this race. Is there a centrist among the Republicans and if so, who? Is the other Democrat running a Blue Dog like Casey, or is he more left-leaning? What do these other candidates bring to the equation of what’s best for the state, given the economy and other issues plaguing both Philadelphia and the state as a whole?

I want answers before I step into the voting booth April 24th. The new law passed last month restricting voting to people with valid state-sponsored ID is bound to influence the November election because inevitably many people–likely Democrats–simply won’t have the ID required to vote. Which makes the primary choices all the more vital.

Here are concerns Philadelphians should have: The anti-Philadelphia tenor of the race; that none of the candidates is pro-choice, especially Casey; that none of the candidates has provided a clear plan for either job creation or debt resolution–two of the major issues for voters; that none of the candidates is addressing the fracking controversy which does impact Philadelphia, even though the drilling is being done primarily in central Pennsylvania, because it impacts our water supply.

Also, none of the candidates has addressed the closing of the refinery in Philadelphia–a major source of jobs and also an important part of energy demand. Lack of refineries is a huge problem with regard to utilizing our available energy resources. We have more oil than most people think, but we also have no refineries, which means no gas, which has contributed to the higher prices at the pump. Why are we closing a refinery when they are so desperately needed? Why isn’t this a topic for the candidates, given the fact that gas was almost $2 less a gallon a year ago?

We will have to live with our choices for the next six years. It would be great if we could support a candidate with a progressive stance who is willing to work hard for the state. But thus far, no such candidate is on the ballot. Which is why, perhaps, despite the importance of Pennsylvania come November, no one is shining too bright a light on our Senate race. It’s just too discomfiting to watch a Senate race that isn’t.

Follow me on Twitter @VABVOX and follow my political blog at www.victoriabrownworth.com