Monday, July 18. 2005
I'm gonna climb out on a limb here and guess that Santorum is a guy who likes to see his name in the headlines -- but still, I doubt he's been happy about what they said over the weekend (heck, for that matter, over the last 10 days). In newspapers all over the country, there was a whole lotta Santorum exposing goin' on. You can check out the plethora of stories on our Santorum In The News page. The absolute must-read was Tom Ferrick's column in The Philadelphia Inquirer -- questioning whether "the Wacko Factor comes into play" with Santorum such that he fits "Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic - a man who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." I had a long conversation about Santorum just about 2 weeks ago with a Philadelphia activist, lawyer and Republican. During the hour or so we sat over our coffee, he must have used the word "fanatic" to describe Rick about 15 times -- he was totally convinced that sometime within the next year, everyone would see Santorum this way. After last week, it may be sooner. Anyway, back to Ferrick:
Santorum's people have a stock response to criticism of his wilder comments: Rick is an honest, bright guy who speaks his mind. So there.
I agree. Judging from his recent comments, I'd say that Rick Santorum has one
of the finest minds of the 13th century.
If you haven't read it already, be sure to check it out.
Friday, July 15. 2005
From Religion News Service:
Santorum did not address the substance of the criticism and on Thursday fired back at Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., accusing them of dredging up his 3-year-old comments for political purposes because the Pennsylvania Senate election is considered the next year's premier contest.
"It's sort of sad that they would use religion and this tragic time for purely partisan, blatantly political purposes," Santorum said. "I guess there is no depth in which they will stoop, including impugning and digging up very, very difficult times and difficult feelings and emotions from people who were harmed by that scandal."
So, according to Santorum, it’s not what he wrote in 2002 and then restated this week that’s at issue here. It’s some sort vast left-wing conspiracy. Oh, and apparently one other thing:
At the time he wrote the column, Santorum said he was working hard with people within the church "to resolve that scandal, to bring the people who were involved to justice, to begin changes within the church so this would not happen again -- none of which I'm aware that either Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Kerry did."
Santorum then took Kennedy to task for not strictly adhering to "proper orthodox formation within the teachings of the Vatican."
"I don't think Sen. Kennedy would follow that very closely," he said, adding, "I don't think Ted Kennedy lecturing me on the teachings of the church and how the church should handle these problems is something I'm going to take particularly seriously."
Santorum also held a conference call yesterday with members of the Catholic press, during which he refused to take questions from a reporter from the Harrisburg Patriot News
Read more about this controversy: Words about Boston from '02 come back to bedevil Santorum, The Philadelphia InquirerRomney begs to differ with Santorum remark, The Boston Globe
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.
Rick is having a banner day in the press, especially from editorial boards.
First, the Boston Globe tries to set the record straight with regard to Rick's ridiculous claims that Boston was somehow responsible for Catholic priests molesting children:
SENATOR RICK Santorum can't be serious when he says that localized liberalism has something to do with the sexual abuse scandal that convulsed the Archdiocese of Boston. But he repeated his three-year-old calumny this week, so a few facts are in order. More...
Meanwhile, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's spokesperson fails miserably in trying to deflect the controversy by making what he must have thought was a joke:
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who like Santorum has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008, called the remarks unfortunate, but did not ask for an apology, according to his spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.
``I think Sen. Santorum may be upset that the Red Sox swept the Phillies, and we think it's unfortunate,'' said Fehrnstrom, referring to the three-game sweep in late June. ``Senator Santorum is a fine person, and we're all entitled to make a mistake once in a while.''
Um, hey Eric don't quit your day job... On second thought, perhaps you should.
Both the Harrisburg Patriot News and the Allentown Morning Call feature editorials about the Penn Hill's School District's attempts to recoup the money that they paid for Rick's children to attend a cyber charter school while they lived in Virginia.
Here's some of what the Patriot News Editorial Board has to say:
Santorum insists that the school district's demand for compensation is purely political and was engineered by a school board member who is also the local Democratic Party chair.
But even if the law is on his side, what about the ethics of having local taxpayers shell out tens of thousands of dollars to educate children who clearly don't reside in the school district? What does this say about the character of a senator who holds himself up as an arbiter of cultural values in America?
...The Santorum family's residency is less a legal question -- the Constitution requires only that senators live in their home state at the time they're elected -- than a moral or ethical one. The relevant question is not whether it's legal to live in one place and demand that taxpayers in another pay for your children's nonpublic education, but whether it's right.
Maybe Rick will blame Boston for his residency troubles, too. Nothing would surprise us.
Wednesday, July 13. 2005
Update: Senator Kennedy appeared on CNN's Inside Politics this afternoon to reiterate that Rick needs to apologize to the victims of priest sexual abuse, their families and the people of Boston. Watch the video below:
As we posted in our "Rick on the Record" section (last entry on that page) -- Rick Santorum actually managed to link (and blame) Boston to the recent clergy sex abuse scandal.
Yesterday, as reported in The Boston Globe, he refused "to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston's 'liberalism' with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city's 'sexual license' and 'sexual freedom' nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur."
''The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people's behavior," Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol. ''If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.
As reported by the Associated Press, today Senator Kennedy (D-MA) launched "a rare personal attack on the Senate floor," calling Santorum "self-righteous and insensitive." Kennedy also "called for Santorum to apologize to the people of Boston and Massachusetts," saying "The people of Boston are to blame for the clergy sexual abuse? That is an irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable thing to say."
Senator Kennedy is right, of course, but saying irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable things is a well-established pattern for Santorum. We're not holding our breath waiting for this apology to occur.
Tuesday, July 12. 2005
“One of my political heroes, the eighteenth-century British statesman William Wilberforce, argued that hypocrisy can often be a social good.” -Rick Santorum, It Takes a Family, p. 280
Uh, what?
WOW, that explains quite a bit doesn't it? In defense of William Wilberforce we have not found any other reference to his pro-hypocrisy argument, but we'll defer to Rick on this one.
It must make Rick feel all warm and fuzzy to know that his political hero would be proud of his many examples of hypocrisy. Let's take a look at some very recent examples, shall we?
Rick opposes stem cell research, but takes money from companies that perform stem cell research...
Rick gives Senator Dick Durbin apology lessons...
Rick says comparing Democrats to Hitler was just a joke...
Rick votes to allow the EPA to test pesticides on pregnant women, infants and fetuses...
Rick votes to increase Veteran's Affairs funding and takes credit as the main sponsor, after voting against funding increases 3 times...
Rick advocates for military base closures, and then tries to play the hero when PA bases are slated for closure...
Maybe Rick can explain to us how each of these examples of his hypocrisy constitute a "social good." Because we certainly can't figure it out.
At least we now have an explanation for why Rick seems to be so comfortable being hypocritical. His hero convinced him that its actually a good thing.
Monday, July 11. 2005
Today a hearing officer for the Pennsylvania Department of Education recommended that the education secretary dismiss the Penn Hills School District's request for a refund of money that it spent for Rick Santorum's children to attend the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School.
Did the hearing officer find that Rick is, in fact, a resident of Penn Hills? No, the officer recommended the dismissal because the school district didn't file its objections quickly enough. So even though Rick has withdrawn his children from the cyber charter school because of questions about his residency, the school district may not be able to recoup the money it spent on his children because of a technicality.
Of course, Rick sees the dismissal recommendation based on a technicality as a vindication. Today he called the allegations that he owes the school district money "baseless and politically motivated."
Baseless??? Rick, your family did not live in the Penn Hills School District. But you took taxpayer funds from that district to pay for your children to go to a cyber charter school. When challenged by the district to prove your childrens' residency you simply chose to withdraw them from the school because it was clear that they were not residents. If they were not residents at the time that the money was spent on their schooling, then you had no right to take the money and you should be responsible for repaying the money to the school district.
Rick may get away with this based on a technicality, but that in no way vindicates him or proves that he doesn't owe that money to the taxpayers of the Penn Hills School District.
Sunday, July 10. 2005
A good day to talk about the weather would be a day like today – when Hurricane Dennis is bearing down on millions of Americans in Florida, Alabama and Mississippi.
CNN reports that as Dennis came ashore, “the storm snapped limbs, tore off roofs and knocked out power to tens of thousands of residents.”
No doubt those thousands of residents, having lost television and internet service with their power, were left to scramble for something like battery-operated radios so they could tune to local stations for reports on the path and strength of Dennis – reports they could get from the National Weather Service.
Folks in Florida, Alabama and Mississippi owe no thanks to Rick Santorum for that, because, believe it or not, Santorum recently introduced Senate Bill 786 to limit the information the National Weather Service can provide the public.
Who would benefit from such a bill? The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says it would “favor the interests of private entities, such as AccuWeather, which is based in State College, Pa. AccuWeather has a great reputation and it can succeed on its own merits; it shouldn't need Sen. Santorum to act as its rainmaker.”
We’d like to agree, but there’s the matter of that April 12 Santorum campaign fundraising event in State College, where a $2000 contribution came in from Joel Myers, the CEO of AccuWeather. Two days later, Santorum introduced his bill.
Barry Myers, AccuWeather’s executive vice president and Joel Myers’s brother, told the Associated Press “it was ridiculous to think there was a correlation between the ‘modest’ donations and the filing of the bill.” But the AP also reported that the Myers brothers “have donated more than $11,000 to Santorum and the Republican Party since 2003, according to FEC filings compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine, a campaign finance tracking group.”
Not everyone agrees the correlation is “ridiculous,” including Senator Bill Nelson of Florida -- Florida, where an awful lot of people rely on information from the National Weather Service.
Nelson’s press secretary said the contribution "certainly raises questions about motivation as to why someone would push a policy that is so obviously crummy.”
In fact, Nelson thinks it’s such a crummy bill that he wrote to President Bush about it, noting it “would bar weather service forecasters from giving one-on-one interviews to media” and “could inhibit pilots' access to data the weather service provides to the Federal Aviation Administration online.” He also noted that when Florida was socked with four Hurricanes last year, the weather service Web site received 9 billion hits. 9 billion!
It’s not too surprising that Santorum could turn even the weather into a controversy – but, given the circumstances, we’re now going to keep a suspicious eye on that bill.
That's the headline from a little tidbit Gar Joseph wrote in Friday's Philadelphia Daily News about Santorum's book, "It Takes A Family." Apparently, Joseph doesn't think publishing the book is the savviest thing Santorum's ever done:
What could hurt is Santorum's view that married women ought to stay at home.
That horse left the barn long ago. And Santorum is right, liberals are to blame.
What killed the housewife was equal rights for women. Back in the 1950s, women had few career choices. And women who did work faced discrimination in pay and in duties.
Today virtually any job, even race-car driving, is open to a woman.
Barring a takeover by Islamic clerics, there is zero chance this society will revert to the housewife era. Not to mention the impact that removing married women from the work force would have on the economy.
If Santorum is smart, that's one opinion he'll keep to himself.
In fact, we wouldn't minding hearing Santorum's opinion on that.
Friday, July 8. 2005
Bill Press writes a great column today on Rick's book and how it shows off exactly the kind of "family values" that Rick believes in. Press' piece is appropriately titled "Family values, Santorum-style."
Here's a little taste for you:
Santorum first laments that the rest of the country is not like the U.S. Senate, with only one black member. America started falling apart, according to Santorum's myopic world view, when "sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of 'diversity' as a central education value." Shocking! How dare universities reflect the general population?
And, besides, who needs a college education, anyway? Certainly, not single women trying to better themselves. Argues Santorum: "The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas ... move up the economic ladder is just wrong." Santorum doesn't suggest what a better route out of poverty might be. Flipping burgers? Taking in laundry? Selling their bodies?
If he has little room for universities, Santorum has less room for public schools. The ideal form of education, he insists, is home schooling. Otherwise, kids risk being exposed to – God forbid! – kids who are different. "Never before and never again after their years of mass education will any person live and work in such a radically narrow, age-segregated environment," Santorum laments. He continues: "It's amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools." The truth, in fact, is just the opposite: Imagine how abnormal and socially unfit most kids would turn out if they didn't go to public school!
But Santorum reserves his most outrageous comments for working moms. According to the second-most powerful man in the Senate, most mothers working outside the home do so not because they have to, but because they want to. If only they were honest, Santorum argues, parents with young children "might confess that both of them really don't need to ... work as much as they do. And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home." In other words, women who say they're working to help feed their kids are lying. They're really saving up for the big Paris vacation.
Spoken like a man totally divorced from reality. And guess what? As a United States senator – with two homes, car and driver, annual salary of $165,200 and full benefits and pension – he is divorced from reality!
Santorum has no idea what it's like for most families where both parents work because they have to and, even then, can't pay their bills at the end of the month. But what do you expect from a man who once defended his opposition to childcare tax credits with the observation: "Making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing."
So, women of America, at last you know what the Republican Party has in store for you. Take it from Rick Santorum: no college education, no job, no career, no dignity, no self-worth. Stay home, change diapers, cook meals, scrub the floor, wash and iron your husband's boxer shorts. And, if you have any time left, watch Fox News. You may call it demeaning. He calls it "family values."
Thursday, July 7. 2005
The front page of today's Philadelphia Inquirer features a piece on Rick's new book. Carrie Budoff's article, "Senator's book puts blame on liberalism," claims that in the book Rick "confronts liberalism as the primary source of America's troubles."
Wow, how surprising. Rick blames the liberals? But, that's so out of character. It does make you wonder though, with his radical far-right views, who doesn't Rick consider a liberal?
The Inquirer also gives us some issue-specific excerpts from the book. Here are a few:
Sen. Rick Santorum's Views
On unmarried couples living together: "Despite all the evidence, as a society today we will go to almost any length to avoid telling ourselves, and others, the truth: marriage is better than living together. Too few of us dare say living together without the benefit of marriage is wrong."
On working mothers: "Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more 'professionally' gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment. What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else - or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon - find themselves more affirmed by society. Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders."
On abortion: Abortion puts the liberty and happiness rights of the mother before the life rights of her child.... This was tried once before in America, when the liberty and happiness rights of the slaveholder were put over the life and liberty rights of the slave. But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave.
Makes you want to run right out and grab a copy, eh?
Wednesday, July 6. 2005
A small bit of coverage on Rick's new book hit the press today -- including The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's "Santorum's book urges more moms stay home" and the AP story "Santorum compares abortion to slavery in new book" on CNN.com.
On ABCNews.com, there's a slightly different twist on the AP story, "Santorum Criticizes Views of Sen. Clinton.":
Sen. Rick Santorum compares abortion to slavery in his new book "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," which is being promoted as an alternative to the views of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The book by Santorum, R-Pa., was in Washington bookstores on Tuesday. It describes his evolution from a young politician uncomfortable with abortion to a major player in the anti-abortion movement.
Continue reading "Rick's book in the news"
Tuesday, July 5. 2005
 Rick Santorum's first book hit bookstores this weekend. It's called "It Takes A Family." (Shall we give Rick a gold star for that very clever title?)
If you're the type who needs to read a review or two before you drop $25 on a hardcover, then you simply must check out the customer reviews on Amazon -- where the book is currently rated with a whopping 5 stars.
When we finally get to the end of page 430, we'll compose a review, too. In the meantime, if you want some quick excerpts, you should check out Capitol Buzz.
On Friday, when the first woman on the Supreme Court -- Sandra Day O'Connor -- announced her retirement, that Master of the Obvious, Rick Santorum, revealed this gem to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "the next Supreme Court justice could make it easier for conservatives to curb some abortions."
Well, duh. Hope he didn't hurt himself straining to come up with that original thought. Next he'll be telling us things like "Paris Hilton can't act."
Anyway, proving that he quickly memorized the right wing's Friday talking points, Rick told the Trib-Review "we don't want a judicial system that sees itself as the supreme branch of the government" and "judges should not be reinterpreting the Constitution at the drop of a hat."
Pennsylvania's other Republican Senator, Arlen Specter (who happens to chair the Judiciary Committee), had some strong words for Democrats who, like Santorum, are voicing their own vision of the next Justice. From Sunday's Meet The Press:
"When Senator Kennedy makes a statement that if the president doesn't make a nomination in accordance with Senator Kennedy's core views of the Constitution, that he's laying down a marker. You could say he's picking a fight. I don't think that's the best way to proceed," Specter said. "The very day that Justice O'Connor retires to come up with fighting words isn't in the best way to approach the issue."
Perhaps Senator Specter could have a word with his junior colleague, Santorum, about "laying down a marker."
Monday, July 4. 2005
Adlai Stevenson famously said of Richard Nixon that he was “the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” I can’t help but think that ol’ Tricky Dick is looking at Rick Santorum with admiration for the way that Santorum is trying to use the issue of military bases closures in Pennsylvania to his advantage. As reported in the Pocono Record, Santorum vowed to oppose further base closures when he was running for the Senate in 1994, but completely flip-flopped on the issue after he was elected (so much for Santorum’s much-ballyhooed commitment to his principles…)
Since 1999, Santorum has been a vocal advocate for more military base closures, even though most Democratic and Republican legislators from Pennsylvania opposed another round of base closures because of the likelihood that Pennsylvania would lose thousands of jobs.
Not surprisingly, the latest round of military base closures threatens to cost 1200 jobs in the Philadelphia suburbs and 700 jobs outside Pittsburgh. If I were Santorum, I’d be too embarrassed to go anywhere near these bases. But the man has no shame. He’s been traveling around the state pledging to use his influence with the Bush Administration to reverse the closures. In other words, he’s positioning himself to look like the white knight if he is successful in preventing job losses that he was responsible for creating in the first place.
Thankfully, some of the people most affected by the base closures are beginning to get wise to Rick’s tricks.
|
