If Chris Matthews wants to run for Senate against Arlen Specter, he’d better get moving. So Rick Santorum, former senator from the Keystone State, tells National Review Online. “I think Chris would be a credible primary candidate under the right circumstances,” Senator Santorum says. “Since Chris would have no geographic base in the state, he would need to have at least one primary opponent from each of the Democratic strongholds — Pittsburgh and Philadelphia — to be competitive. The real questions are, how soon will he come back to the state to begin running full time, and how much retail politics does the celebrity have in him? Others are organizing and raising money now and are getting around to the county Democratic dinners sewing up support.”

Would it be a good move for the MSNBC star? NRO asked some additional Pennsylvania and media specialists.

JOHN BRABENDER

Chris Matthews running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania is an absolutely marvelous idea. That is, if you are Arlen Specter. If the Specter campaign could design their perfect opponent, it would look remarkably like Chris Matthews.

This is not meant to be a harsh criticism of Matthews, but rather an honest reality of the complexities of Specter. Specter’s poll numbers over the years reveal he is far from a typical Republican. The paradoxical truth is that he is frequently viewed more favorably among Democrats than Republicans. And in a state with a 12-point Democratic majority, that’s not a bad thing.

In 2004, Specter sweated out a razor-thin primary victory over Congressman Pat Toomey. This would appear to predict a difficult general election, particularly in a presidential year where turnout in the almost unanimously Democratic city of Philadelphia would be high — yet Specter was reelected by a comfortable 9 points.

A Matthews candidacy does for Specter what he has trouble doing for himself: It solidifies his support among conservatives. Specter’s angst on wedge votes like Card Check vanishes. And although Chris Matthews has no voting record to defend, his years of pontificating would be an opposition researcher’s dream come true. — John Brabender is a Republican media consultant.

ALEX CHARYNA A number of Pennsylvania politicos’ names have been mentioned as challengers to Senator Specter in 2010: Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz, Congressman Joe Sestak, former deputy speaker of the Pennsylvania House Josh Shapiro. But unless Governor Ed Rendell (who is term limited in 2010) decides to run, no candidate will have the name recognition that Chris Matthews instantly brings to the race.

The Matthews campaign and the Pennsylvania Democrats need to balance that recognition with a number of factors. There are miles of videotape of Matthews saying things that could eventually end up in a campaign commercial. Matthews has also received a lot of derision from the Left, as a result of some perceived transgressions against liberalism.

The other factor is Specter himself. Conservatives in Pennsylvania have long had heartburn over his voting record, and as a result Pat Toomey nearly took the sitting senator out in the 2004 primary. There have been whisperings about another conservative primary challenge to Specter; a Chris Matthews candidacy might just rally the conservative base in his direction.

Specter’s political epitaph has been written prematurely many times before, and he has overcome them.

As for whether Matthews should drop Hardball, the more pertinent question is: With such low ratings, would anyone notice or care? — Alex Charyna blogs at pawatercooler.com. MARK DION The speculation that Chris Matthews is looking to run for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania is intriguing, for no other reason than that a debate between Matthews and Sen. Arlen Specter would be quite a match-up of two long-winded, pro-choice, self-absorbed, tax-loving, pork-supporting know-it-alls. O.K., there wouldn’t be much to debate, but it does hold certain entertainment value. But before we can get to that point, both Matthews and Specter would most likely have had to survive bruising and costly primaries. Matthews’s entry into the race wouldn’t necessarily clear the Democratic field. Democrats such as Rep. Allyson Schwartz and State Rep. Josh Shapiro have laid groundwork for their own campaigns and aren’t likely to bow out to an unproven vote-getter like Matthews. In addition, in a closed primary, the left wing of the Democratic party could make Matthews pay for all his Hillary-bashing during the 2008 presidential primaries. Lastly, Matthews may have fantasized about sitting in the Senate, where they let you talk as long as you want; but getting there is much tougher. Matthews has never had to raise money, build an organization, ask for a vote, and — most important — listen. He is a television personality who will bring some early energy to the race, but how long does he last — having to answer questions, not ask them; listen, instead of lecture; and work for votes, rather than ratings? — Mark Dion is a Republican strategist and media consultant. He was (former Penn. congressman) Pat Toomey’s chief of staff and campaign manager for his 2004 Senate run. TIM GRAHAM I have no doubt Chris Matthews would enjoy the life of a senator, but whether he is electable or whether his constant blabbering would eventually lead to widespread public disgust is anyone’s guess. The worst idea in the next few months would be for Matthews to try and run for the Senate and simultaneously hold on to his Hardball chair at MSNBC. It’s already getting difficult to watch him mock Sarah Palin’s potential 2010 Senate ambitions or witness him interviewing key Democratic operatives without wondering about his own political motives. On the other hand, his current media career and a Democratic Senate career don’t really look that different. Matthews defined himself in 2008 as every conservative’s favorite caricature of Obama obsequiousness. From the infamous “thrill up my leg” comment to his cock-eyed classification of Obama’s very Clintonesque race speech with the American literary classics of Mark Twain and F. Scott Fitzgerald, Matthews was the Best Poodle in Show. His post-election declaration that his job as a journalist was to help the Obama presidency succeed also blurred all the lines between professions. There is a silver lining: In today’s media culture, a Senator Matthews would be much less omnipresent on TV. — Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center. CRAIG SNYDER Arlen Specter is my former boss and a personal mentor of mine. I’ll pretend, however, that this is still a country in which arguments are judged on their merits, not on the presumed motivations of those making them. Chris Matthews should find something else to do when he grows up, rather than seek to unseat one of America’s best senators. The Senate has no finer legal mind — perhaps never has had — than Specter. The Constitution has no more zealous defender than Specter. Dissembling bureaucrats and unprepared witnesses generally have no greater fear than the words, “Senator Specter will ask the next question.” At the same time, moderate, paradigmatically “swing” Pennsylvania has never had a more fitting representative than Specter. He is, like the diverse millions in his constituency, a study in nuance, balance, even necessary inconsistency, rather than a ritualistic follower of any ideological orthodoxy. And, of course, his seniority is among the state’s greatest assets in the national context. That Matthews is contemplating this run is a triumph of ego and ambition over what is either good or right. It makes a chill run up my leg. — Craig Snyder, managing partner of Ikon Public Affairs, was chief of staff to Senator Specter in 1996-97.