|
|
Bob Casey on Principles & ValuesDemocratic Sr Senator (PA) |
At the campaign rally this month, Mr. Trump told voters that Mr. Casey has opposed every one of his proposals to toughen immigration policy and border security.
He also came up with a nickname for the low-key Mr. Casey. "Sleeping Bob," Mr. Trump announced to the crowd. "That's it--Sleeping Bob. "I hear that Bob Casey is afraid to debate Lou Barletta," Mr. Trump told the crowd. "Is the president of the United States allowed to come into the debate forum? Is he allowed to sit in the front row watching Lou Barletta destroy Bob Casey? That will be great entertainment." He called Mr. Barletta "a star."
Sure, everyone understands busy campaign schedules. Pennsylvania is a big state to travel around, and candidates do have to hold a certain number of fundraisers and meet and greets. But no debates?
You have to wonder whether either candidate wants to be accountable and accessible to the public if they will not even take time for a debate. When The Patriot-News Editorial Board reached out to the two campaigns Thursday, their answers were unimpressive.
"The race has been tightening for the past several weeks, and we are optimistic there will be a debate. Should anything be finalized I will let you know," wrote a spokeswoman for Tom Smith's campaign in an email.
Casey's team would not speak on the record, although it, too, expressed optimism there would be a debate. The responses are not reassuring, considering there are only 26 days left before Election Day.
The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania said it is trying to arrange two debates between Democratic Sen. Bob Casey and Republican challenger Tom Smith, but nothing was final Wednesday. The league has even had trouble getting responses from Smith and Casey for its voters' guide, said the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania: "This has been one of the toughest years yet to get information out of people."
SANTORUM: Absolutely. I agree with the president a vast majority of the time. When I agree with him, I say it. And when I don’t agree with him, I say it, too.
CASEY: I think what the people of Pennsylvania expect and deserve is someone who’s going to be truly independent. Being a rubber stamp for the president is not in the best interest of the people of America.
Q: But have the Democrats sometimes been obstructionist, & opposed everything that Bush proposed?
CASEY: I’m sure they have. But when you have two politicians that agree 98% of the time, one of them’s really not necessary. We need someone who’s going to be truly independent, who has the character and the integrity to stand up to his party and his president, especially at a time of war
A: Yes. My Catholic faith and the values reflected in that faith have always had a profound impact on me as a person and as a public official. I try to live up to the teachings of my faith in my personal life and in my public life.
A: The most important lesson I learned from my father was the unconditional love he had for my mother, his eight children, and his grandchildren. As a candidate and a public official, he taught me and many other Pennsylvanians that public service was a trust and that trust must be earned every day as a public official. He also said “the most important quality a person can bring to political office is a passion for justice and a sense of outrage in the face of injustice.” My wife Terese and our four daughters influence me every day in the most profound way by their love and support for me.
"In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law--it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress's intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand."
Explanation of 1/6/21 Electoral Certification, by Emily Brooks, Washington Examiner:Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Paul Gosar led an objection to counting Electoral College votes from the state of Arizona, the first formal objection to state results in a series of moves that will delay the certification of Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election over President Trump. Cruz is advocating for an `emergency 10-day audit` of election returns in disputed states. The usually ceremonial joint session of Congress that convenes to count and accept Electoral College votes will be put on hold as the House and Senate separately debate the objection.
Bill summary:The select committee must (1) conduct an investigation of the relevant facts and circumstances relating to the attack on the Capitol; (2) identify, review, and evaluate the causes of and the lessons learned from this attack; and (3) submit a report containing findings, conclusions, and recommendations to prevent future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, and to improve the security of the U.S. Capitol Complex and other American democratic institutions.
CBS News summary, by Grace Segers on June 30, 2021:H.R. 3233 would have created a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the root causes of the breach of the U.S. Capitol, modeled after the 9/11 Commission.
On May 28, the House passed the bill by a vote of 222 to 190, including 35 Republican votes. It then failed in the Senate, where it received an insufficient number of Republican votes to advance.
In response, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on June 24 that the House would establish a select committee [appointed by House Democrats, instead of a bipartisan independent commission] to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection and general security issues related to the incident. Pelosi said its leadership and members would be announced later. The House passed the resolution to form the committee on June 29, 2021, by a vote of 222-190.
OnTheIssues note: The Senate voting record refers to the earlier rejected bill H.R. 3233, and the House voting record refers to the later bill H.Res.503. The later bill had no Senate vote (but the two House votes were almost identical).