How Now, Democrats?

When I went to bed late Tuesday night, Bob Casey Jr. had 80 percent of the votes for the Democratic nomination.

No way that can hold, I thought before I went to sleep. Fidel Castro doesn't get those kinds of numbers when he's up for office. Casey will win, but at least one of his opponents is going to get into double digits, I thought as I went to bed.

Wrong again!

The question now is: Will the left-wing of the party, which views Bob Casey Jr. as too Catholic, too conservative, and perhaps most of all, too dull, support him in the fall? Or will they pout and sit on their hands --- thus helping deliver the election to the junior senator from Penn Hills, Virginia, Rick Santorum (R-Inquisition)?

We've seen this before, and it may be the defining difference between Republicans and Democrats. Given a candidate they don't particularly like (say, Arlen Specter) conservative Republicans whine and complain, but come Election Day, they dutifully go to the polls and pull the lever ... er, touch the screen ... for the party's man.

Liberal Democrats like to stand on principle. They stay home, or they vote for a third-party candidate, or they attack the party's standard-bearer. Then, when the Democrat loses, they sit back smugly and say, "See? We told you he wasn't electable. You should have picked our guy instead." It's a nice self-fulfilling prophecy.

Too many Democratic "victories" on the national stage over the last decade have been "moral" ones. In other walks of life, they don't call those "moral victories." They call it "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Some boil it down to an even simpler term: "Stupid."

Remember the 2000 presidential election? When the left said that there was "no difference" between Al Gore and George W. Bush? When a lot of liberals stayed home, or voted for Ralph Nader in protest?

Do you think President Gore would have named John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Donald Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense? Would have cut taxes at the same time he was ramping up massive federal spending increases? Would have ... well, you get my drift. Of course there was a difference. Maybe it was a difference of a few degrees on many issues --- but politics, like life, is often about the subtleties.

John McIntire was right a few months ago when he wrote that "when (Casey) gives his stump speech, there's more charisma coming from the stump." And I found Casey's stealth campaign arrogant. He knew he had it buttoned up: Why bother breaking a sweat?

Why bother? Because you missed a wonderful chance to define the race, and the issues, on your terms when people were marginally interested. Now, you'll have to wait until September or October to get their attention again.

Santorum is weak right now, and he apparently has a strong taste for his own feet, but he's a very, very good campaigner, and the conservative Republican base loves him. The Christian right is going to put on a full-court grass-roots effort to re-elect him.

And Santorum is also folksy and charming enough (admittedly, in a Jim Nabors sort-of way) to appeal to many moderates. Casey is going to have to bring his A-game to beat him --- and he's going to need the support of the entire party.

You may not like the fact that Casey is anti-abortion, but on nearly every other traditional Democratic issue --- fair wage and labor practices, civil rights, community development, health and welfare --- he's far better than Santorum.

And I haven't heard anyone say he's not competent to be a U.S. senator. (I frankly think he's done a good job in his state positions, though they're jobs that require an administrator, not a visionary leader.)

Or is the Democratic Party only about abortion now? Is it --- to put it bluntly --- the "baby-killing" party? Because that's sure what the far right is trying to paint it as. Sometimes, I think they're onto something; abortion certainly seems to be one of the few issues that energize the left these days.

Now, I'll concede that there have to be more charismatic candidates around than Bob Casey Jr. The Democratic Party could do better.

But working-class Pennsylvanians could do much worse. Arguably, they have with Rick Santorum.

And imagine how Santorum might look in two years if he's re-elected to the Senate this year. Just how does "Vice President Rick Santorum" sound to you?

So, how now, Democrats? Are you going to take a powder on Casey? Or are you going to suck it up and move forward?

Because if you're not, you might as well just make a donation to Rick Santorum's re-election committee. At least there won't be any doubt as to where you stand.