“The dynamic has changed,” Santorum said. “A lot of folks who might not have thought about running against an incumbent president” are now considering it.

He cited Obama’s lower poll numbers and his failure to “transform” and unify the country.

“A lot of people are going to take a look and see wht they can do to try to confront this presidency, which many of us — as you’re seeing from the tea parties and the like — which many of us believe is injurious to America,” Santorum said, saying the 2012 race is “something that I think I would consider.”

“Pre-buttals” are often sleepy affairs, with local Republican worthies talking to audiences of local media and national reporters in search of quick stories. I’ve been on RNC calls where literally no one else asked a question. So the RNC got an unusual bit of attention out of this. But did it bracket coverage of Obama’s speech, during a time when Republicans admit Obama has stopped or reversed the Democrats’ August slump on health care with his big-ticket speeches? Or did it give a new burst of attention to Santorum, an extremely capable politician who is, nonetheless, one of the party’s most divisive national figures?

U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey called President Obama’s speech today to school children in Arlington, Virginia “an inspiring and moving speech for students across America.”

“Education is the cornerstone of our country’s future,” Mr. Toomey said, “and it is important that we relay that message to our young students.  The President’s emphasis on responsibility and the personal stories about his own education are exactly the kind of inspiring messages our children need to hear from our country’s leaders.”

While some polls have shown Toomey becoming more competitive in his 2010 U.S. Senate campaign in Pennsylvania, the fact remains that he’s a conservative Republican running in a blue state against a Democrat (either Rep. Joe Sestak or Sen. Arlen Specter) who will surely have the backing of powerful local labor unions. Toomey has veered hard to the middle since forcing Specter into the Democratic Party, first by endorsing Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination, now with this.

That prompted a litany: Specter “objected to President Bush’s wireless wiretapping,” provided the “key” vote on the stimulus bill, and saved Roe v. Wade by blocking Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Polite applause, no boos through out; the audience was bemused, many half-paying attention over open laptops.

Then came the questions. Would Specter support stronger climate change legislation? Yes, “I support climate change.” Would he support cloture on any Democratic bill? “A bill on cloture is a procedural vote” and “I would support Senator Reid” but he might filibuster an anti-gay bill, for example.

The questions on Specter’s party switch and alliances with Democrats weren’t that tough, and Specter parried them easily. “Oh, c’mon,” he said to a question about his cross-party friendships, “I’ve been talking to Ed Rendell forever. I’ve always talked to the other party.”

In thinking about the 2010 Election for the United States Senate, suppose you had a choice between Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Arlen Specter. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Pat Toomey or Democrat Arlen Specter?

48% Toomey
36% Specter
4% Some other candidate
12% Not sure

There’s a much lower (43 percent) Toomey vote against possible Democratic nominee Rep. Joe Sestak, which suggests that there’s a peaking anti-incumbent anger driving down Specter’s numbers. There’s a relatively solid 53-47 approval rating for President Obama (in a state he carried 55-45) but robust 53-42 opposition to the health care “proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats.”

To date, Republicans haven’t taken the Toomey candidacy very seriously, and only reluctantly come around to supporting him as their inevitable nominee. One Rasmussen poll isn’t enough to shake that skepticism, but its a start.

Josh Kraushaar notices that Republicans have gotten the U.S. Senate candidates they wanted in New Hampshire and Illinois, where they “lacked a deep bench of viable recruits — and their political hopes were largely dependent on one specific candidate running.” This feeds this week’s meme that Republican candidate recruiting is taking off, and the party is looking at a comeback after two disastrous election cycles.

Two side notes. One, the story of the party’s Senate recruiting is the story of moderates being enticed to run in blue states. If Republicans perform well in 2010, they’ll add Mike Castle (Delaware), Mark Kirk (Illinois), Charlie Crist (Florida) and Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire) to the Senate. That would be a net gain of two seats, with two candidates who supported cap-and-trade legislation, one who supported the stimulus and one who was re-appointed by a Democratic governor. If the party scores an upset in California, it would be with Carly Fiorina, a pro-choice moderate who was silenced by the McCain campaign after angering social conservatives. who was thrown under the bus by the McCain campaign after a series of gaffes.

Second note: The White House failed to get Lisa Madigan to run in Illinois and Roy Cooper to run in North Carolina, but it got the candidates it wanted in Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio and New Hampshire. For all the attention paid to Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s (D-N.Y.) run in New York, the White House scared two potential candidates out of the field to help Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). Rep. Joe Sestak’s (D-Pa.) primary challenge in Pennsylvania doesn’t seem to be creating an opening for former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). It all seems like slightly less success than George W. Bush had in 2002 Senate race recruitments, but much more than Bill Clinton had in 1994 races. In other words, pretty average.

Sestak had been hinting at the run for months. The Hill describes the final hurdle of the decision-making process:

Sestak was expected to run in the Democratic primary, but he was talking things through with various members of his family. Last on the list was his daughter, and he appears to have gotten the go-ahead.

He has a tough road ahead. Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have already indicated that they’ll support Specter.

Winning Working America: How to regain the Hillary Democrats
– Peter Brimelow, Editor, VDARE.com
– Ward Connerly, President, American Civil Rights Institute
– Lou Barletta, Mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania

So, that’s the editor of an anti-immigration Website, a man who travels the country organizating anti-affirmative initiatives, and a Pennsylvania mayor who lost his 2002 and 2008 runs for Congress in the northeastern Pennsylvania counties that went for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the presidential primary. This seems to read much more into Clinton’s infamous comment that she was winning “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” than she meant.

Toomey also is pleased to announce the hiring of Arlen Specter’s former long-time Finance Director, Louisa Boyd, to fill its top fundraising position.

Toomey’s been a bit starved for attention since Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) began hinting at a primary against Specter and nudging the senator to the left.

The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent reports that Sestak told him he wants to challenge newly minted Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter in the 2010 party primary, even if the White House begs him to stay out of the race.

He’ll have his work cut out for him, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll results released today. The survey says … Specter leads Sestak by 30 points in the primary at this time, and roughly 75 percent of voters don’t know enough about Sestak to even have an opinion on him.

Of course, the more people learn about Sestak the more they could grow to love him … but it takes money to introduce yourself to Pennsylvania voters through TV ads and mailers — and as we mentioned yesterday, Specter is doing the grunt work that will make him, not Sestak, the recipient of Democratic National Committee cash and ad buys.

Former Club for Growth President Pat Toomey  — the man who scared Specter from the Republican Party — still trails Specter by nine points, 46-37 percent, according to Quinnipiac, but that’s a big gain compared to the 20 point deficit he faced earlier this month.

Sen. Arlen Specter’s numbers have slipped since the controversy that followed his switch to the Democratic Party, but he’s still better off than he would have been if he stayed a Republican and faced a tough primary challenge from former Rep. Pat Toomey, said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Clearly. The poll’s most interesting finding, I think, is that very few people surveyed (nine percent) said Specter was “too conservative,” while 30 percent found him “too liberal” — most of whom identified as Republicans.  One in four people, however, who responded that way were Independents, while eight percent of Democrats said Specter was too liberal.

Still, to go from being a Republican senator to having nearly one-in-three voters say you’re too liberal within a month seems to validate the GOP argument that Specter didn’t really fit in with the other kids.