Ouch. Santorum is considered one of the top debaters in the entire US Senate, and Casey - whom Santorum is trying to paint as some kind of empty shell - whooped him good. Which begs the question: If Casey is supposedly devoid of substance, then what does that make Santorum if he can't even win a debate against the guy?
From one of the local PA papers:
The early consensus is that, if there was a winner of this morning's debate, it was Casey.
....The Cliff Notes debate guide:
Santorum: George Bush is a 'terrific president' and Donald Rumsfeld is doing a great job. Neither should be fired. There are still WMD in Iraq even if the Bush administration says there aren't. Casey doesn't provide specifics on, well, anything and is a tax and spend liberal, who could not explain how he would cut the federal deficit or pay for new programs he backs.
Casey: Santorum is a George Bush clone/rubber stamp who won't change directions or ask tough questions on Iraq. He doesn't even live in Pennsyltucky, won't take a position on the state legislative pay hike and votes himself raises but won't raise the minimum wage. Oh, and he voted against anything and everything that would benefit Pennsyltucky.
