Email Print

Casey vs. Santorum -- The media coverage

OK. This is clearly yet another kind of thread that can start fairly soon after a debate and that can be updated somewhat frequently. Commenters can add links and whoever is in charge of that debate can see that it gets done.

The first report is from the AP's Kimberly Hefling (as noted on Santorumblog). For our purposes the end of the article was most useful:

The Casey campaign has agreed to three more debates, but Santorum has only tentatively accepted. Santorum has sought to have a total of 10 debates, including some in the state's smaller media markets. The next one is expected to be Oct. 13 in Pittsburgh.

Also interesting is the little bit of "expert analysis" Hefling included:

Santorum is known as a ferocious campaigner, and there had been speculation that Casey might fall flat standing next to him. But Casey talked back to Santorum, and looked him in the eye during the exchange.

"He held his own. He seemed to belong on the same stage as Santorum," said Steven Peterson, director of the School of Public Affairs at Penn State-Harrisburg.

Professor Peterson's CV (accessed here) shows that political communication is not his specialty, but he was also a "pundit" source for a recent Public Radio Capitol News story on Santorum's "Holy War" speech.

< Casey v. Santorum on Meet the Press -- blogosphere reaction | Casey v. Santorum -- the Campaign's spin >
 Display:
Here's a link to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's coverage of the debate.  

The story notes that the debate was "heated" but "breaks little new ground."  Is "new ground" an important criteria for what makes for good debate?

by Tim ODonnell on 09/04/2006 09:09:57 AM EST