Sunday, July 31. 2005
Rick had himself a little freak out on ABC's "This Week." As George Stephanopoulos pressed him on answers regarding his recent statements about working moms and the clergy sex abuse scandal, Rick became extremely flustered and started to raise his voice, stammer and fumble for answers. He also had a bit of a wild look in his eyes for a few minutes there.
Here are 4 clips from today's show:
 In the first clip, Rick says he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Windows Media QuicktimeIn clip #2, Rick claims that Gloria Steinem has turned society against stay-at-home moms. He also demonstrates just how well he knows those "radical feminists" that he babbles about ad nauseum. C'mon Rick, you can only name one feminist? And Gloria Steinem hasn't been considered a radical for well over 30 years. At least make an effort if you're going to try to back up your ridiculous arguments. The freak out begins.Windows Media QuicktimeIn clip #3, George challenges Rick on his assertion that in 2002, when he made his original remarks blaming Boston for clergy sexual abuse, Boston was the "epicenter" of the scandal. Rick, confronted with actual facts, has a bit of a problem defending himself. The freak out is in full effect.Windows Media QuicktimeIn the final clip, Rick still can't seem to make up his mind about running for President. He definitely won't run, unless, of course, he will. But he's sure that he won't be campaigning all over the country. Wow Rick, thanks for the straight answer. Windows Media Quicktime
Thursday, July 28. 2005
Yep. He said it Thursday night. Birth control is harmful to women and society and it's "not a healthy thing for our country." See for yourself:
Continue reading "Birth Control Harms Women"
Rick just appeared on CNN's "Inside Politics," and repeated his convoluted argument comparing abortion to slavery. He went on to say that he hopes every Pennsylvanian reads his book because, "90% of what's in this book, 80% of Pennsylvanians are going to agree with." We're still trying to figure out what that means, much less how he arrived at those numbers. What's that old line about statistics?
But in the interview's finest moment, Rick claims that his book represents "the mainstream of thought in Pennsylvania." We respectfully disagree. Here's the clip:
Wednesday, July 27. 2005
"Just when he seemed to take himself out, he pulled himself back in."
That's the lead graph in Steve Goldstein's Philadelphia Inquirer article, posted today after a Santorum breakfast with reporters.
Yes, even though Santorum said in an online chat with The Washington Post on Monday that his "intention" is not to run for president in 2008 -- today, he's backpedaling.
Goldstein quotes Santorum: "The reason I leave this little window open is because I have no idea what's going to happen between now and 3 1/2 years from now," he said in a breakfast meeting with reporters.
Santorum, who is facing reelection to his Senate seat next year, said it would take "a strange, remote set of circumstances" to alter his plan not be to a candidate for the GOP nomination for the White House.
"It would be easier for me to say no, absolutely, positively, under no circumstances. But in my mind that wouldn't be honest," Santorum said. This flip-flopping on whether he'll run for president in 2008 seems relatively harmless, right?
But it isn't harmless when he does it over things like Amtrak funding (saying he'll fight the president on funding cuts on one day, and a few days later voting against an amendment that would have saved the funding). Just ask some of the 3,000 Pennsylvania Amtrak employees if they think his flip-flopping is harmless.
And it isn't harmless when he proposes a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice cases for us, but his wife sues a chiropractor for twice that amount, seeking $500,000 for her pain and suffering. Rick calls their lawsuit a "private family matter" -- this from the guy who believes the rest of us have no right to privacy.
Yeah, this may all seem harmless -- but it isn't. It's a very bad pattern.
Echoing Goldstein's piece, CNN ran a short bit on "Inside Politics" today (see below) -- and they promised to try to "pin Santorum down tomorrow on Inside Politics, when he's a guest." That's a lot of fun for them, but we'd sure like to see them "pin Santorum down" on some of his more egregious flip-flops, like those above.
Rick appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" tonight and Chris brought up the negative comments in Rick's book about working moms.
In the following clip Rick tells Chris that the "cultural elite" do not respect stay-at-home moms. How is it that a sitting U.S. Senator doesn't believe/realize that the term "cultural elite" applies to him? Rick goes on to say that the reason he thinks stay-at-home moms are not affirmed is that the members of the "cultural elite" don't value the family and liberals believe in "selfish freedom."
Finally, Matthews asks Rick why he doesn't stay at home and Rick uses his answer to let us know that some of his best friends are stay-at-home dads. At the very end he almost says, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Have at it:
Tuesday, July 26. 2005
While Rick continues shilling his book all over cable TV, two central Pennsylvania columnists are skewering him today.
First, we have Francis Volpe in the Carlisle Sentinel. Francis believes Rick should stop digging himself such a large hole:
...Santorum's book idealizes the "Ozzie and Harriet" family at the expense of everyone else's living arrangements. Hardly anybody opposes the two-parent-family model, no matter what conservatives like Santorum would have you think.
But there's an old saying: Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. A lot of Harriets-in-training lost their Ozzies in job accidents, military service, or because their particular Ozzie ran off with Donna Reed, leaving Harriet to bring up David and Ricky alone.
Santorum, for all his "takes a family" posturing, is, in his book, a lot more worried about Harriet receiving a welfare check. And though he doesn't say it straight out, he strongly implies that accepting government assistance is directly related to moral turpitude.
Whatever happened to "judge not lest you be judged?" Plenty of good church-going people receive direct government aid, as Penn Hills School District will be happy to affirm.
Santorum has picked a peculiar career path for someone concerned with strengthening our moral fabric. Inside the Beltway, the Ten Commandments play second fiddle to the Seven Deadly Sins on a regular basis.
Ever hear of the "K Street Project?" It's a GOP initiative to strong-arm lobbying firms into firing Democrats and hiring Republicans. Santorum is a big player in this initiative, which reflects no New Testament value I'm familiar with.
You will recall the junior senator voted with the minority to impeach a Democratic president over a sexual peccadillo. Presented with the sorry saga of U.S. Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Wilkes-Barre — he kept a mistress for five years and is accused in a civil suit of assaulting her — Santorum said, "… we should look at the job that Congressman Sherwood is doing and make decisions based on the facts and the work that he's doing."
Like they say on the liberal blogs, IOKIYAR — It's OK If You're A Republican.
And Santorum doesn't do real well as a senator with "culture of life" issues outside of abortion. He's on board with capital punishment and the invasion of Iraq — both of which were condemned by Pope John Paul II, his spiritual leader.
For most people, religion and morals are a means to live a good life and try to make sense of life's big questions. For Santorum, they're a truncheon to pound political opponents with. Unfortunately, there's a big constituency for that, too.
Next up is Nancy Eshelman in the Harrisburg Patriot-News. Nancy takes issue with the fact that Rick seems to only want to speak to reporters on his terms:
...In the midst of all this attention, Santorum arranged a conference call with the Catholic press.
Brett Lieberman, who writes for this newspaper from Washington, D.C., heard about the call and dialed in, even though neither he nor The Patriot-News fits the bill.
Santorum was on the line, decrying the controversy, accusing his political enemies of trying to weaken him while he runs "the top political race in the country."
Then he said, "It's sort of sad that they would use religion and this tragic time for purely partisan, blatantly political purposes."
'Cause, you know, Santorum would never do that.
Then, all of a sudden, Lieberman voiced a question.
"Senator," he said, "what I'm hearing from a lot of victims' groups ..."
Santorum interrupted. "Is this Brett Lieberman?"
When Lieberman said yes, Santorum demanded to know what he was doing on a conference call for Catholic press.
"You're not going to be on this call, and you're not going to ask a question," Santorum ordered.
Talking later to Santorum's communications director, Lieberman tried to justify his participation by noting The Patriot-News has Catholic readers and prints in the senator's home state.
He scored no points.
But when it comes to hawking his book, Santorum isn't fussy who's on the other end. Last night, for example, he was scheduled to appear on FOX News with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes and on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart.
His PR blitz calls his book "It Takes a Family," "one of the most profound and comprehensive books of political thought ever written by a sitting United States senator."
It's also one of the scariest.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Does anyone else find it problematic that Rick would kick a reporter from a Pennsylvania newspaper off of a conference call for reporters? One can only guess that Rick didn't think Brett Lieberman would be as sympathetic as members of the Catholic press.
Rick appeared on CNN's "Newsnight" last night, and Atrios asked if he had heard him correctly about his view of Griswold v. Connecticut:
"Did little Ricky just say on Aaron Brown what I thought he said? That Griswold was wrongly decided, and that therefore the state has the right to regulate the use of birth control by married couples?"
Yes he certainly did. Here's the video:  Windows Media QuicktimeAaron Brown also asked Rick about his remarks blaming the clergy sexual abuse scandal on the liberal culture of Boston. Rick said that when he originally made the statement, in 2002, he didn't realize that the abuse had happened in other cities. He says that now he understands that his statement actually applies to many other cities as well. Here's the video:
Second segment, in which Rick says that as a society we are less virtuous now than when segregation was an accepted practice:
Monday, July 25. 2005
Here's the first segment:
Windows Media Quicktime
Rick's book tour juggernaut continues at 9pm tonight when he'll appear as a guest on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."
Here's how they're billing the show:
The controversy that has Hillary Clinton seeing red! -- Senator Rick Santorum's new book "It Takes a Family" is the Pennsylvania Republican's response to Senator Clinton's bestselling book "It Takes a Village". His tome takes on public education, working moms and says liberal politics have weakened the American family! We'll find out more when Senator Santorum joins us this evening!
In case it's too much to ask for you to actually watch Fox News (which is completely understandable), we'll be posting video from the interview as soon as we can edit it and get it online.
Stay tuned. Lots of new video of Rick coming soon.
Sunday, July 24. 2005
That's right. Tomorrow night, Rick will be Jon Stewart's guest on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show." For those of you who won't be able to watch, we'll be posting the video on the blog shortly after the show ends. So, if you have to go to bed early tomorrow night, be sure to check here on Tuesday to see what Rick and Jon chat about.
In the meantime, we thought we would whet your appetite with a clip from Thursday's show of Jon Stewart telling his audience that Rick will be on Monday's show: 
Windows Media Quicktime
Friday, July 22. 2005
Here's a letter to the editor that appeared in yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
Not moral messages
As a teacher for the Diocese of Pittsburgh for 14 years, one important lesson I learned was that no matter what I said to the child, whatever the parents said superseded my message. What parents say and how they live sends a message stronger than any teacher's voice no matter what the issue.
Sen. Rick Santorum and his wife have taught their children a powerful lesson on civic responsibility by refusing to pay any tuition money to the Penn Hills School District for their children who attended the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School ("Penn Hills Loses Bid to Charge Santorum," July 12). Released from that payment on a technicality shows that even an upstanding, moral gentleman like Sen. Santorum teaches his children the following lessons:
1) Take advantage of the system whenever you can.
2) The little guy pays while the rich and powerful guy gets away with it.
3) As a Catholic, you have no obligation to pay your share to the common good in spite of Catholic social doctrine.
Finally, I am shocked that our religious leaders who see Sen. Santorum as some sort of faith-and-morals hero have not spoken up on this issue at all.
SISTER LIGUORI ROSSNER
Sisters for Christian Community
Bloomfield
Very well put.
Wednesday, July 20. 2005
Last night, after President Bush announced John G. Roberts Jr. as his nominee to the Supreme Court, Rick told the AP that Roberts is "brilliant" and "head and shoulders above the crowd."
In light of his pronouncement, we want to make sure you understand where Santorum is coming from in terms of judicial philosophy. Yesterday, the National Review published an excerpt of Rick's new book that deals specifically with judges and the courts. The excerpt is titled "The Constitutional Wrecking Ball."
And what does Rick consider to be the ball that is wrecking the constitution? If you guessed the "right to privacy," give yourself a treat. That's right, as we've discussed before Rick does not believe that there is any constitutional right to privacy. And he blames the 1965 Griswold decision, which gave married couples the right to use contraception, for beginning the country's long slide down the slippery slope toward personal privacy.
If you can't bear to read the whole excerpt, Jesse at Pandagon has put together a good analysis.
Monday, July 18. 2005
The controversy swirling around Rick in the past week has focused on his remarks blaming liberals and the city of Boston for the Catholic Church's clergy sexual abuse scandal. But Rick has had even more to say about this than what the Philadelphia Daily News unearthed from the Catholic Online website.
Two years ago, in 2003, an Associated Press reporter asked him to clarify his original remarks about Boston. Once again, Rick stood by them, then went on to say this:
"In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."
Post-pubescent men? Is Rick saying once a boy hits puberty he is an adult? Is he saying that 12, 13 and 14 year old boys who were molested by trusted authority figures were not actually raped but engaging in a "basic homosexual relationship"?
Wow. Does that mean that if a middle-aged man (or, for that matter, a 21 year old man) engaged in a sexual relationship with a 12, 13 or 14 year old girl, Rick would consider that a basic heterosexual relationship? Is he familiar with statutory rape laws, and why those exist?
Once again, in this interview, Rick takes the culpability for sexual abuse off the abuser-priests -- as if teenaged boys who were molested had some say in the matter, or possibly even consented (12, 13, 14 year olds!) to sexual relationships with the priests who were preying on their trust, vulnerability and innocence.
It is insensitive for Rick to blame liberals or Bostonians for priests who molest children. But, it is absolutely unconscionable to place any responsibility at all on the children that were victims of this horrifying abuse.
Sign this petition and tell Rick to apologize publicly for his appalling insensitivity.
Thursday, July 14. 2005
Last night a local news progam in Boston spoke to victims of clergy sexual abuse about Rick's comments blaming the culture of their city for the abuse they suffered. Needless to say, they're not big fans of the senator.
Crooks and Liars has the video, please watch it.
|
