Thursday, September 29. 2005
In the October issue of The Progressive, Ruth Conniff provides a good analysis of It Takes a Family. Conniff does a nice job of pointing out a few glaring examples of the hypocrisy in Rick's book. Here's a quick example:
Santorum’s get-tough attitude on welfare reform, though, clashes rather dramatically with his every-life-is-precious anti-abortion stance. In one section of his book, he says liberals screwed up by trying to protect children born out of wedlock from cuts in welfare. Stigma and shame should attach to illegitimate births, he argues. But later he laments the high rate of abortion among poor, African American women.
Likewise, when he writes about a former welfare recipient whom he actually knows, his staff assistant Michelle, his admiration runs afoul of his policy prescriptions. He doesn’t seem to notice that Michelle’s success is the story of a woman who left her children’s father (a big no-no in Santorum’s book), got help in a publicly funded shelter (which he doesn’t support), and used welfare money to supplement her while she got a technical-college education (welfare recipients should be compelled to drop out of school and take the first job available, Santorum argues). Though he praises Michelle, most of her achievements result from choices Santorum opposes and has sponsored legislation to combat.
If you find it impossible to conceive of actually purchasing, much less reading, the book, you should give Conniff's article a read.
 Mike Newall writes a well-researched cover story on Rick in this week's Philadelphia City Paper. Here's one of the more interesting passages (be sure to read all the way to the bottom to see the picture of Rick from high school):
When she met Rick, Karen was living with Tom Allen, an OBGYN who in the early-1970s cofounded Pittsburgh's first abortion clinic. It was a somewhat unusual pairing. Allen was the doctor who delivered Karen. She began living with him while an undergraduate nursing student at Pittsburgh's Duquesne University. She was in her early 20s, he was in his 60s.
"When she moved out to go be with Rick, she told me I'd like him, that he was pro-choice and a humanist," said Allen, an elderly but vibrant man, during a brief conversation on the porch of his Pittsburgh row home. "But I don't think there's a humanist bone in that man's body."
Santorum has often said that at the time of their meeting neither he nor Karen were that devout in their faith. Upon falling in love, he says, they embarked on a soul-searching examination of their lives that brought them both closer to God.
A cousin of Santorum's with whom I'd corresponded over e-mail remembered Santorum becoming decidedly more serious after meeting Karen, whom he married in the summer of 1990.
Rick was a funny guy," wrote the cousin. "He sported a bushy moustache for a time, wore Hawaiian shirts and smoked cigars. He liked to laugh, drink and call things 'horsey-assey.' He was very popular and fun to be around. I think the change happened when he met Karen."
Santorum's views on abortion changed around this time as well, recalls the cousin.
"Our extended family has many strong women in it, who are intelligent and outspoken. There was one year Rick stopped by a family reunion for an hour or two. It was around the time he was 'rising to power' and becoming rabidly, ridiculously conservative. His views on abortion were quite contentious that year, and for those few hours of his visit, the women all descended upon him like flies, calling him on his change of views. He had always been pro-choice to my recollection. That's why it was such a heated issue that year. The women in my family felt betrayed."
As promised, here's the picture from the story of Rick "Rooster" Santorum (top left) as a baseball manager in high school. Time for a caption contest, fire away:
Sunday, September 25. 2005
The Philadelphia Inquirer is accusing Rick of "peddling snake oil" with his latest remarks and legislation dealing with Social Security privatization. From Sunday's editorial:
"I've been very concerned from the beginning that the administration led with the issue of Social Security immediately after the elections and took a two-to-three month break before" detailing its plan, Santorum told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspaper last week. "You've just defeated your opponent, and, you know, you take a 3-iron to the beehive. You go out there and whack the beehive, and you wonder why all these bees are buzzing around your head."
This, from the guy who is the GOP's message man in the Senate.
It wasn't the President's political strategy that derailed this plan, senator. It was the plan itself, which seeks to wreck the most effective social program of the last 100 years.
With all those bees in the senator's bonnet, he introduced his own Social Security bill on Thursday. It would provide a written guarantee to people born prior to 1950 that they will receive all promised Social Security benefits and cost-of-living increases. His bill is a two-fer, at least on paper. It attempts to soothe seniors who fear that Santorum is trying to take away their benefits, and it insinuates the concept that people born after 1950 do not enjoy the same guarantee (hence the need for private accounts).
Technically, this guarantee is no guarantee at all. Congress could rescind it at any time. This proposal is just one more attempt to give private accounts an ideological foot in the door, while the larger problem of Social Security's pending insolvency goes unsolved.
It's a transparent ploy; it's sad to see such stuff coming from someone who, before the President came along, had been a leader in the public debate over Social Security.
We'll take that as the Inquirer's answer to the question we posed last week about Rick's new Social Security bill.
Today's Allentown Morning Call reports that Rick has been named one of the 13 most corrupt members of Congress by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
And why has Rick won this latest distinction?
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.: The senator encountered controversy over disclosures that Pennsylvania taxpayers paid for his children's schooling while they lived in Virginia. Santorum maintained he did nothing wrong, and he has since pulled his children out of the school, according to news reports.
Congratulations Rick, we hope the trophy fits well on your mantel.
Monday, September 19. 2005
The Washington Times reports that Rick will introduce a bill to calm the fears of people over 55 about Social Security privatization:
Sen. Rick Santorum, in an attempt to revive the Social Security debate in the Senate, is pushing a new strategy to combat Democratic criticism and calm seniors' fears by legally guaranteeing that those born before 1950 will receive their promised benefits.
The chairman of the Senate Republican Conference soon will introduce legislation guaranteeing that people 55 and older will receive their monthly Social Security benefit check and an annual cost-of-living adjustment.
"It's basically a bill that attempts to take a step towards resolving uncertainty," the Pennsylvania Republican said. "No more scaring seniors. It's in the law."
However, there seems to be a major obstacle for Rick's attempt to stop scaring seniors. The Bush Administration has already told Rick's office that they oppose his bill:
One glitch for Mr. Santorum's bill could be the White House -- a Santorum aide said they were told the White House would oppose it.
So, is Rick really trying to alleviate the fears of seniors, or is he just posturing so that he can talk about how he tried to protect their Social Security benefits? We'll let you decide.
Sunday, September 11. 2005
Tom Ferrick's column in today's Philadelphia Inquirer takes Santorum to task for "doing the waffle" over Bush policy in Iraq.
As pointed out on this blog (and others) a little over two weeks ago, Rick's claim that he has publicly expressed concerns about Bush's Iraq policies can not be backed up by any evidence. Santorum, clearly looking at summer polls that showed public opinion has moved against Bush on this issue, lamely responded that lack of evidence didn't matter. "I do a lot of interviews on TV, on radio, with print reporters who don't happen to write everything I say," he said. "The fact that it hasn't turned up in print doesn't mean I haven't said it."
Ferrick says that opens up some other possibilities, including: "Maybe he never made any critical statements but didn't want to admit it because he would look like an administration lapdog. Weef! Weef!"
Giving Santorum's staff their due, Ferrick points out that they did find this 2004 statement he made in 2004 about the security situation in Fallujah.
"There are concerns - I have concerns - about tactics and decisions that were made," Santorum said. "I think you'll find a lot of Republicans who are very willing to second-guess our tactics in Fallujah, for example."
He added: "And, in my opinion, it was not the right call, but you know what? That's not my decision."
Weef! Weef!
John Brabender, Santorum's media consultant, said: "This shows he is not afraid to stand up to the administration, or to say things could be better."
I'm not making that up. Brabender really said that.
Santorum's problem here is a political one. He has supported the administration's policy in Iraq and has not criticized any significant aspect of it. In short, he has been a loyal soldier.
But he faces a tough reelection campaign. He sees the opinion polls that show the public turning against the war. He knows others have raised legitimate questions over strategy, tactics and progress of the war.
So he's doing the waffle.
If it were Arlen Specter, we'd all shrug and say: Well, what else is new?
But this is Rick Santorum, the guy who has made his rep as a no-nonsense, straight-talker.
There's no mistaking Santorum's usual style, his take-no-prisoners prose. Want a sample?
Here's a Santorum statement criticizing the President for "once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell Congress how much this operation will cost. And, he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home." , and as Ferrick notes today, that last statement was not aimed at Bush. It's Santorum in March of 1999, criticizing President Clinton's policy in Bosnia. Santorum goes to great lengths to portray himself as courageous and independent -- as Ferrick says, "a no-nonsense, straight-talker." As noted time and time again on this blog and this website, that image doesn't stand up well against the facts. In this instance, Santorum wants people to believe he's been a bulldog, when the facts say he's just a lapdog.
Saturday, September 10. 2005
From today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
President Bush is weighing a proposal to create a temporary federal commission with its own director to coordinate reconstruction efforts in Gulf Coast states devastated by Hurricane Katrina, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Friday.
Santorum, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, said he spoke with Bush about the concept on Thursday at the White House.
"I referred to it as 'The Marshall Plan for the Gulf Coast.' He seemed to like the idea," the Penn Hills Republican said in an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "Ideally, this would be a presidential initiative with a presidential appointee."
Which one of President Bush's cronies do you think Rick suggested for the director position? Maybe Michael Brown should pad update his resume and apply for this new job.
Do you think "coordinate reconstruction efforts" might be a euphemism for "choose which corporations get federal contracts and money?"
Friday, September 9. 2005
The AP reports on Rick Santorum's latest claim that the National Weather Service didn't give sufficient warning about Hurricane Katrina. It seems that Rick's fellow Republican Sen. Jim DeMint completely disagrees with his assessment of the weather service's performance. From the AP:
But a fellow Republican senator, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, praised the weather service's performance, calling it in a statement Friday "one of the most accurate hurricane predictions we have ever seen." Spokesman Wesley Denton said DeMint was unaware of Santorum's comments or the union's response.
DeMint cited the same documents referred to by Greaves and Sobien indicating that 2 1/2 days before Katrina hit New Orleans, the agency had accurately predicted it would hit there. "These early and accurate forecasts saved countless lives along the Gulf Coast," DeMint said.
Uh Rick, it's starting to look like you might be trying to use a national tragedy to advance your own agenda.
Rick Santorum was recently interviewed by WITF in Harrisburg about Hurricane Katrina. He took the opportunity to place blame on the National Weather Service. From the WITF web site:
(Washington) -- U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is suggesting that early mistakes in predicting the path of Hurricane Katrina may be a symptom of lost focus at the National Weather Service. Santorum, who introduced legislation earlier this year to curb the output of government weather forecasters, says tracking life-threatening weather must be central to what the agency is doing.
Asked about Katrina by WITF, Santorum described weather service warnings for Florida, where the storm first made landfall, as “not sufficient." Santorum’s bill instructs the government to abandon weather prediction and data reporting efforts that duplicate private-sector activity. He came under fire when it was revealed that the head of State College-based AccuWeather, which would benefit, has given his campaigns thousands of dollars
The National Weather Service Employees Union has asked Rick to retract his statement:
The National Weather Service Employees Union issued the following statement today in response to Rick Santorum's misguided comments about the performance of the National Weather Service concerning Hurricane Katrina.
"The bottom line is that we did our job well and everyone knows it. By falsely claiming that we got it wrong, Rick Santorum is continuing his misguided crusade against the National Weather Service. It’s unfortunate that Senator Santorum would try to use this tragedy to push his own agenda. Senator Santorum's comments are aimed at jumpstarting his bizarre stalled legislation to undermine the mission of the National Weather Service, legislation that has failed to garner the support of even one of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate.” said Paul Greaves, President of NWSEO.
The early warnings about Hurricane Katrina issued by the National Weather Service have been praised for their accuracy by news organizations such as NBC News, The New York Times and even internationally by The London Times.
"The fact is that we issued several warnings about the oncoming storm. Sadly, many of those warnings fell on deaf ears.
"We urge Senator Santorum to retract his remarks about the National Weather Service. Senator Santorum would be providing a better service to the nation if he focused his efforts on helping the victims of this hurricane, instead of lashing out against the hardworking men and women of the National Weather Service who prove their worth each day." said Mr. Greaves.
Via Capitolbuzz and Atrios
Thursday, September 8. 2005
Tonight, Rick Santorum won the title of "Worst Person in the World" from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. Here's the video:
Tuesday, September 6. 2005
The Associated Press is reporting that, on Tuesday evening, Rick Santorum clarified his statement from this weekend that those who did not evacuate New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina should be penalized. After being criticized for the remark, Rick now says he wasn't speaking about people who didn't have the means to leave the city.
In a weekend interview with WTAE-TV about the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Santorum said: "You have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving."
On Tuesday night on WTAE, Santorum clarified his comments.
"Obviously most of the people here in this case, an overwhelming majority of people just literally couldn't have gotten out on their own," he said. "Many didn't have cars ... and that really was a failure on the part of local officials in not making transportation available to get people out."
Hmmmm, "local officials" eh Rick? Shocked, shocked we are to hear Rick blame local officials and not the Bush Administration. Didn't President Bush say that we shouldn't be playing the blame game?
Friday, September 2. 2005
The Times-Tribune reports today that Vice President Dick Cheney will be in Notheastern Pennsylvania on September 23rd to hold a $1000-a-person fundraiser for Rick Santorum.
Dick must not yet have heard about the concerns that Rick has about the Administration's war policy in Iraq. We would bet that Rick won't be very critical of that, or any other Administration policy this month.
|
