On Monday afternoon I had the chance to speak with Bob Casey, Treasurer of the state of Pennsylvania and Democratic candidate for Senate.

Over the course of our conversation, which you can read below or listen to here (warning: a very large .wav), Casey and I discussed a number of topics including Social Security, net neutrality, abortion, Iraq, domestic surveillance and Casey's message to the progressive blogosphere.

Jonathan Singer: President Bush recently said that he will renew his effort to partially privatize Social Security during the next Congress. What is your stance towards his plan?

Bob Casey: I've been against it from the beginning for a lot of reasons. One reason is that I really believe that - and I've said this before and it bears repeating - that what that privatization scheme is all about - and I don't think we should call it a plan, it's a scheme - it's a scheme to take away part of a guaranteed benefit from older Americans and replace it with a guaranteed fee for Wall Street. And it's not the way that we should try to approach the challenge that we have as Americans to make sure Social Security is always there for future generations.

There are a lot of ways to strengthen that program, but one way to really exacerbate or further injure that program is to try to privatize it. And I think the people of Pennsylvania have spoken loudly and clearly, but I think they get another chance in November because Senator Santorum has not just been one of the supporters of the Bush privatization scheme but he's been leading the band, so to speak, on that issue.

So I think it's going to be on the ballot to a certain extent this November as Senator Santorum and I square off.

Singer: How do you bring it back to the fore? A lot of people thought the program was done, or the scheme, as you say, was done, and the battle was won to save Social Security, but how do you bring it back to the fore to remind Pennsylvania voters exactly the difference between you and Senator Santorum?

Casey: Well, I think that elections are about accountability, especially for an incumbent. And I think 2006 will be the first time in Rick Santorum's career that he's been held accountable in a substantial way on very tough issues, and Social Security is one of them.

Part of the way you bring it back, I think, is through the course of your advertising. I think it will be coming up in debates and in interviews. So I know it's been an issue that hasn't been talked a lot about recently in the last few months. But if you remember, Rick Santorum... The night of President Bush's State of the Union speech back in early 2005, the President threw out a concept about Social Security and Rick Santorum was interviewed right after the speech, and I remember watching it - he was on Hardball - and he immediately embraced the idea and went on the road to try to sell the idea to the people of Pennsylvania.

What he didn't bet on was that there are a lot of people in Pennsylvania and across the country who were not selfish. He was betting on people under the age of 55 who the President tried to focus on those under the age of 55 - young people - to try to convince them that the Social Security privatization scheme was good for them, they could make their own decision. And he also said to people over the age of 55, "Don't worry, this won't hurt you." So he was trying to appeal to selfishness in both groups and both groups rejected it.

And I think we're going to remind the voters of Pennsylvania that our US Senator, Rick Santorum, was trying to privatize Social Security, still believes it and will push it forward as long as he has the power to do it.

Singer: One of the big issues in the blogosphere is so-called "net neutrality." Something that's very important to bloggers but to many others. I know that on the other hand one of the largest cable providers in the country, Comcast, is located in your state. Where do you come down in this debate on net neutrality?

Casey: I'm sorry, I didn't hear all of that.

Singer: Sorry. Where do you come down on this issue of net neutrality? Whether cable companies and other internet providers should be able to tier the internet or whether there should be only one band so that companies can't charge more for certain services or certain sites?

Casey: I think it's important in addressing a problem like that to make sure, first of all, how it impacts consumers before we toe the corporate line. And I haven't seen the particular legislation or any proposal on it, but I'm going to take a look at it.

But I think too often in Washington these well-funded special interests that have had not only influence but they've had, I would argue, undue influence because they're dealing with the Republican Congress, the Republican White House that is allowing the corporate special interests not only to be a participant in the debate about important issues but in many cases to write the bill or write the regulation or to have an undue influence on how regulatory matters are dealt with and how legislation before the Congress is crafted and implemented. So I think that's the most important thing to address in the question like the one you've raised.

Singer: One concern that many in the progressive blogosphere have about your campaign is your stance towards social issues, particularly the issue of abortion. To what extent will these social issues drive your actions in Congress? Or, put another way, would you seek a spot on the Judiciary Committee or other committees that are very focused in the battle over the social issues?

Casey: I think in terms of... To work backwards for your question, in terms of any committees, Jonathan, you should know that because I'm both Irish and cautious, I never talk about committees.

[Laughter]

Not when and until I'm elected. But to be serious about the question you raised, I think that one of the most important factors in the way a lot of Americans look at the issue of abortion is the question that they hope would happen more in Washington but it doesn't, and that is that a lot of Americans want people to be honest about where they stand and I have been, even when some members of the Democratic Party disagree with my position, and I think it's important to be honest about differences.

I also think it's very important to be respectful of people that disagree, and I've done that I think well as a public official. I've tried to be very respectful of people that disagree, especially when it comes to an issue like abortion that's important to people on both sides of the debate.

Despite all the division about it there is, their honest differences, I think there's a great consensus in this country, whether it's from the left or the right or the middle, that most Americans and most Pennsylvanians want to reduce the number of abortions, want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. They know what was in the recent New York Times column by Nicholas Kristoff where he talked about 3 million unintended pregnancies every year which lead to more than a million abortions, among other things.

So I think that there's a great consensus on family planning and birth control, which I have always supported as a public official and would support United States Senator. Also the newer issue within the family planning discussion is emergency contraception, and the big difference between Senator Santorum and me in this race, I support it and he doesn't. And I've been criticized by some leaders in religious community - even in the Catholic community - for supporting emergency contraception.

And I also don't support litmus tests for judges and presidential candidates like Rick Santorum, who will always support the Republican candidate for President, I always support the Democrat even when that Democrat disagrees with me on an issue like abortion or any other issue.

And I think with regard to very important related questions, Rick Santorum and his Republican friends will talk about family and talk about life and all of that, but when it comes to supporting a woman who makes a decision to bear a child, they don't do much for her. They abandon the mother and the child before, during and after birth. That's what they do when they cut or freeze Head Start, when they cut childcare, when they don't support public education, when they don't support food and nutrition programs that are essential for a child in the dawn of his or her life and the mother who has to take upon herself the very difficult burdens of responsibility of raising a child.

So they completely abandon those families, so when they start lecturing me or lecturing Democrats about life, we're going to remind them about their pathetic voting record - really an insulting voting record - when it comes to those important programs.

And the final point I'd make is if someone wants to know the priorities that I will keep as United States Senator, I think they should look at my record as an Auditor General for eight years and state Treasurer for the last 15 months where I have made healthcare a principle focus of mine, even with limited power. And I'm going to use the opportunity I would have as United States Senator to focus on healthcare, because it has a lot to do not just with the life of the family or a business but also has a lot to do with whether Pennsylvanians can be competitive economically and whether we can develop the high-skilled jobs of the future.

So I think that's going to be my principle focus. The economy of Pennsylvania and, in a very substantial way, healthcare.

Singer: Let's move over to an international issue, Iraq specifically. What we hear repeatedly is the next six months are important. We've been hearing that for several years now. And there doesn't seem to be a plan on the Republican side of the aisle or the White House to get America out - perhaps any time. Where do you come down? Do you believe that we should set a timetable? Do you support the Levin-Reed amendment that would have called on the White House to begin withdrawing troops in the next year? Or do you see a different path that should be taken?

Casey: I don't support a timetable or any kind of immediate withdrawal. At the same time, I don't think what the President has been saying in the last couple of months - or frankly in the last couple of years - is acceptable. I think it's unacceptable that the President of the United States presided over an administration that lied to the American people about how we got into Iraq, has not been straight about the plan to win that conflict and to help our troops win in the battlefield every day and to keep them safe as they could possibly be.

And I think it's the job of the United States Senate, especially at a time of war, to hold the President accountable. That means asking the tough questions and demanding answers to very tough questions about body armor, about plans for success, about how we're going to be successful in conflicts like this, now or in the future. And unfortunately in the Senate you not only have a rubberstamp Senate but we have a rubberstamp United States Senator who has voted with the President 98 percent of the time, ratifies the President's Iraq policy virtually at every turn to the point where the only thing that Senator Santorum seems to have said about the war in Iraq the last six months is that all you get in the news every day is the body count.

Well I think the body count is pretty damn important. When the people of Pennsylvania lost 122 lives in Iraq and hundreds of wounded, I think we should have a Senator who has the character and the integrity and the independence to be independent of this administration. Ask tough questions, have hearings if necessary, investigative hearings on all of the money that was wasted, the billions of dollars that was wasted on Halliburton and these private contractors and the billions of dollars that is still unaccounted for. And we should also have a Senator who has the character and the integrity to have hearings about why the hell our troops were sent into combat with a lower-grade body armor instead of the best body armor that we could provide them.

But that's what happens when you have a rubberstamp Senator and a rubberstamp United States Senate. They did not hold the President accountable. And if this administration does the same thing when we confront an even more difficult problem in Iran or in any other conflict and we have a rubberstamp Senate, we're going to be in big trouble.

So I think the most important responsibility of any US Senator right now, any Senator in the next term of Congress when it comes to war and the horror that can be visited upon our troops in combat, is to make sure they're getting all of the help that they need no matter what the cost, and that requires Senators who are going to be truly independent. And I think that's what has not been happening in Iraq and that's why we don't have a clear - the President hasn't presented a clear plan for getting Americans out of harm's way. Because he doesn't have a Senate and a House that's holding him accountable.

I wish Senator Santorum asked this President the series of questions he asked the last President when it came to Kosovo in 1999. But he doesn't have the guts, the integrity or the commitment to ask President Bush the tough questions. That's why he should no longer be in the Senate. He lost his way somewhere along the way.

Singer: Two more questions, this one on domestic surveillance programs. We see a difference between your state's two Senators, Senator Santorum and Senator Specter, on whether to hold the administration accountable or try to get them within the legal bounds on some of these wiretapping issues and surveilling bank accounts, things like that. And on the other end, you even see some Republicans in the House calling for The New York Times to be tried for treason for reporting some of these stances. Where do you come down on these issues? Do you think we should be trying The New York Times for treason? Or bring the programs under legal scrutiny? Or perhaps support the Feingold censure position? What's your stance on this?

Casey: Well I think when it comes to law-breaking, if anyone breaks the law they should be held accountable and be prosecuted. We don't know whether there was there.

But I think generally when it comes to these questions about striking the right balance between the rights of Americans and the important priority of giving law enforcement and any federal agency that has anything to do with combating the threat of terrorism, we've got to make sure we give them the tools that they need.

But I think it's a pretty sad day in America when a very powerful chairman of a committee who happens to be a Republican - I'm speaking of Senator Arlen Specter - said the following, and I'm quoting here. He said,

"They" - meaning the administration - "have denigrated our constitutional authority for oversight."

Now if the Republican Judiciary chairman, who has enormous power in his party and enormous power in the United States Senate, when he says that about the administration, you know something is really, really wrong.

And I think it's very important that even as we fight night and day to give our law enforcement and federal agencies the tools that they need to root out and find terrorists to destroy them, we have to make sure that the rights of Americans aren't going to be adversely impacted.

And that's why if there is ever a reason when it comes to Iraq, when it comes to these questions that you just raised, when it comers to the economy and healthcare, on a whole range of international and domestic issues, we need a Democratic Senate to hold this administration accountable, even though they will only have two more years. This administration can still do a lot of damage to our country in two years. That's why a Democratic Senate that is led by people with the guts and the integrity to ask tough questions. I think that's essential, that we have that kind of check on power that this administration hasn't been [facing].

Singer: Final question. If there's one message that you would like to send out to the progressive blogosphere, the Netroots, what would that be?

Casey: Well first of all that we have to take a new direction in America. And I think that applies to people across the political spectrum.

But also I think there are a lot of Democrats across Pennsylvania and across America who know that not only are we on the wrong road that we have to move in a new direction, but we also know, if we're honest with ourselves, that the new direction that we talk about isn't going to be the path of least resistance, it's not going to be the easy path. But it's the path that we must take.

And we have to be able to roll up our sleeves and get something done when it comes to lessening the burden with regard to healthcare costs that American families are bearing, that in the life of the American family now the cost of everything in their lives is going up, the cost of college education is going through the roof, the cost of healthcare, the cost of gasoline and energy are going through the roof. And the Rick Santorum-Bush-Cheney response to that is stay the course because things are good for oil companies and Wall Street and the corporate elites. But it's pretty bad for a lot of families in America who have to struggle every day to make ends meet.

And one of the reasons I think we can win this year is because I have never seen young voters, especially, more energized across our state and across America to win. And I think a lot of voters are keenly aware that winning isn't the only objective here. In order to win we have to put ourselves on a different path, and that means getting things done on healthcare, lowering the cost of [inaudible], it means reducing the deficit, but it also means holding Washington accountable for things like ethics reform. That's why I put forth a plan very early in this campaign, a very tough, no nonsense ethics reform plan, which in many ways would get both parties mad. And I think we have to challenge both parties to make sure that they're doing the job on ethics reform, that they're doing the best that can be done to make is easier for our families to struggle and survive in this economy. That's why the minimum wage is very important, that's why accountability is very important for the United States Senate. So this new direction that I've been campaigning about is not a magic wand, but it's a path we must take I think to bring our country together and to move down a more hopeful path.

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you so much for your time and good luck in your campaign.

Casey: Thanks very much and I appreciate this opportunity.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]