Thursday, October 27. 2005
The Wilkes-Barre Citizens' Voice published an editorial ripping Rick Santorum and Dick Cheney for the exclusivity of the event that Cheney attended in support of Rick last Friday. Here's part of what the Citizens' Voice had to say:
Given these realities, you would think Senator Santorum and the vice president would be doing everything possible to ingratiate themselves with regular people, the ones who cast ballots.
But, instead, their visit here Friday was as exclusive as could be.
No information for the public or press was provided in advance of the visit. When the Vice President arrived at the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International airport, photographers were kept at a distance so far away that their most powerful telescopic lenses could barely get a picture. And at the location of the event, police contingents ranging from the Jackson Township force to the Secret Service made sure only the invited we allowed anywhere nearby.
Yesterday the Philadelphia Inquirer printed the following letter from Lisa O'Brien of Swarthmore. Coincidentally, this article from the Swarthmore College Phoenix identifies a Lisa O'Brien as the chairperson of the Swarthmore Republican Committee. If it is the same Lisa O'Brien, we're sure that her defense of Rick Santorum had nothing to do with any political motives that she may have wanted to obscure by not disclosing her role in the Swarthmore Republican Party to the Inquirer.
Santorum's stand
Re: "Budget cuts for hurricane relief: Too painful for the poor," editorial, Oct. 20:
It is unfair of you to assert that Sen. Rick Santorum's vote against deeper cuts in food stamps may be motivated by the politics of the forthcoming election.
Santorum (R., Pa.) is and always has been a champion of the poor. He has a career-long, easily documented record of fighting poverty by empowering individuals and families. He has spearheaded the antipoverty agenda of the Senate Republican Conference. He travels the country to study successful antipoverty initiatives and then supports and promotes these successes.
Santorum works with both Republicans and Democrats to fight poverty. He is sponsoring Senate Bill 595: The Encouraging Work Act of 2005, with Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.). It provides greater incentives to employers who hire workers off welfare, replacing welfare with work. He is also sponsoring S.B. 922: The Saving for Working Families Act of 2005, with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.), which provides low-income working Americans with the opportunity to build assets through government-matched savings accounts. He supports S.B. 183: The Family Opportunity Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), to aid parents of severely disabled children to earn higher wages without losing health-care benefits for their children.
The senator's full record is available at www.santorum.senate.gov.
Lisa O'Brien
Swarthmore
Wednesday, October 26. 2005
The Washington Times reports that Rick Santorum is putting forth amendments to a spending bill being considered by the Senate in order to demonstrate his approach to fighting poverty.
What does Rick's anti-poverty program consist of? Job training funds? No. Improving access to higher education? No. A living-wage bill? No. Encouraging marriage and charitable giving? YEP.
What works, Mr. Santorum said, is building strong marriages and families and communities that depend on each other, not government. "The Democrats fundamentally get it wrong," he said.
His proposed amendments call for funding to promote marriage and teach fathers to be more responsible -- two pieces of the stalled Republican welfare-reform bill -- as well as funding to provide technical help to small charities, and to determine through a commission which federal social programs could be restructured as vouchers. The proposals call for about $411 million in grant money and represent pieces of the 12-point anti-poverty agenda introduced by Senate Republican leaders last spring.
Mr. Santorum also will try to attach a $7 billion charitable-giving proposal to a separate piece of legislation next week. The long-stalled charity bill would create a series of tax incentives to encourage individuals and companies to give to faith-based and secular social service charities.
"This is an opportunity for us to ... put forth some ideas," he said.
As an interesting aside to his new war on poverty, yesterday Rick voted against an amendment that would have increased the maximum amount of Pell Grants. Pell Grants are need-based grants given to students to help them pay for college.
This isn't particularly surprising considering what Rick told us in his book about college and poor women: "The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong."
It seems that Rick believes that the most "cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder" is to have them get married. However, we're still not sure what Rick thinks is a cost-effective way for poor, low-skill fathers, or married mothers, to move up the economic ladder. We suppose he'll let those "faith-based and secular social service charities" figure that out with the $7 billion he apparently wants to funnel to them.
Wednesday, October 19. 2005
That's right, a new poll, conducted by the Republican firm Strategic Vision, shows that Rick Santorum's job approval ratings have fallen below their previous low, set just two weeks ago. Here are Rick's approval numbers:
13. Do you approve or disapprove of United States Senator Rick Santorum's job performance?
Approve 40%
Disapprove 47%
Undecided 13%
Whoa! That means, since October 6th, Rick's approval rating has dropped 3 percentage points, while his disapproval rating has increased 6 percentage points. October has apparently not been a good month for Rick.
Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, has penned an op-ed in the Harrisburg Patriot-News calling on Rick Santorum to apologize for blaming the clergy abuse scandal on the city of Boston. As you know, we completely agree with the Attorney General. However, we won't hold our breath. Here's an excerpt:
But Sen. Santorum, perhaps motivated by national ambitions within the Republican Party or suffering from blind ignorance, decided to take a cheap political shot at another state. The fact that his remarks politically exploited child victims of abuse seems lost on him.
He has since tried to claim that "people are sort of taking that out of context because in 2002, that was the story; it was Boston. I mean, yes, we found out subsequently that it occurred in a lot of other places."
Wrong. In fact, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently corrected Santorum's weak attempt at damage control by pointing out that, at the time, the senator was laying blame on Boston, "the widespread nature of the problem was apparent and had been extensively reported."
What's even more appalling is that, even after Sen. Santorum's shameless attempts to excuse his remarks proved to be untrue, he has still refused to apologize. Not a single word of apology to the people of Boston or to the victims and their families throughout the country.
As a prosecutor and attorney general, I am accustomed to looking for patterns of behavior and I see a pattern in Rick Santorum of ill-considered statements unbecoming of a leader. They reveal insensitivity, mean-spiritedness, and even vindictiveness.
Monday, October 17. 2005
NewsMax.com is now reporting that the New York Times has wrongly accused them of misrepresenting Rick Santorum's fundraiser at Sunday night's U2 concert in Philadelphia as a U2 concert in support of Rick Santorum. Here's how NewsMax puts it:
...the Times reported that the NewsMax story was "incorrect” and U2 was, indeed, not holding a fundraiser for Santorum.
But here's the rub: NewsMax had never claimed that U2 or Bono were holding their concert for Santorum – though several liberal blogs claimed as much. Apparently, the New York Times has bought into the NewsMax-Santorum-Bono conspiracy theory.
Several liberal blogs, huh? How about Kathryn Jean Lopez and John Podhoretz of the anything-but-liberal Corner at the National Review Online? Does NewsMax.com consider them to be part of the conspiracy too? So what did NewsMax.com originally report, before they edited their story without issuing a correction? As we told you on Tuesday, here's how the story read:
Teaming up with the legendary rock group U2 for a one-night only appearance will be Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.).
The thousand-dollar-a-seat concert has been put together by Sean and Ana Wolfington and will take place at the Wachovia Center in Philadelphia in support of Santorum’s re-election, reports NewsMax's James Hirsen. (emphasis ours)
Um, that last paragraph says that a $1,000-a-seat U2 concert in support of Rick Santorum's re-election will take place at the Wachovia Center. Perhaps the folks at NewsMax.com think that there is a major difference between "in support of" and "for." That would seem to be the only way they could honestly claim that they, "...never claimed that U2 or Bono were holding their concert for Santorum."
Friday, October 14. 2005
CNN's "Situation Room" just reported that Rick Santorum is expressing reservations about President Bush's Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers (video at bottom of post).
Here's how the Chambersburg Public Opinion reported what Rick said yesterday about Miers:
When asked his opinion about federal Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Santorum said he had not yet made up his mind.
"I don't know yet," Santorum said. "But I am concerned President Bush nominated someone who is a blank slate. I'm disappointed he wanted to nominate someone like that instead of someone with a record."
Why would Rick express these reservations now, after keeping quiet on the Miers nomination for the last couple of weeks? The answer may lie in the following passage from a recent Newsweek piece by Howard Fineman:
The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult. Religious conservatives have an inferiority complex in the Republican Party. In an interesting way, it’s the same attitude that many African-Americans have had toward the Democratic Party over the years. They think that the Big Boys want their votes but not their presence or their full participation.
And what really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth—by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront.
Here's the CNN video:
Thursday, October 6. 2005
A New Quinnipiac University poll released today shows Rick with his lowest job approval rating ever (43% approve - 41% disapprove). His approval rating is down 8 points since July 13th.
What could Rick possibly have done since July 13th to cause his approval ratings to drop so far? We have a few ideas...
Perhaps it was when he said he doesn't believe in a constitutional right to privacy, or that he repeatedly refused to back down or apologize for his comments blaming the clergy sexual abuse scandal on the city of Boston.
Or it might have been when he claimed that birth control harms women and America.
Then again, it may have something to do with his belief that the pursuit of happiness is harming America.
But maybe it was due to his support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Come to think of it, perhaps it was a result of Rick winning the distinction of Worst Person in the World for suggesting that people who don't evacuate prior to hurricanes should somehow be penalized.
While we're on the subject of recent awards that Rick has received, we shouldn't forget that being named one of the most corrupt members of Congress probably didn't help those approval numbers.
It's also possible that it had something to do with Rick using Hurricane Katrina to, once again, go after the National Weather Service.
We're not really sure which one of those things could be directly responsible for the 8-point drop in Rick's approval numbers. Maybe each of them alone caused a 1-point drop and now we're just seeing their cumulative effect.
Monday, October 3. 2005
An op-ed in Saturday's New York Times by Matthew Continetti, a conservative writer for The Weekly Standard, examines the role that Rick Santorum's baby - the K Street Project - has played in bringing about the recent corruption scandals involving Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff. Here's his take on it:
Led by Mr. DeLay in the House, Rick Santorum in the Senate and Grover Norquist downtown, Republicans worked not just toward the partisan realignment of the country, but of the influence industry, too. They tracked which lobbyists were Democrats and which Republicans, refused to meet with the Democrats and pressured business groups and law firms to hire the conservatives. Their strenuous efforts to blur the boundaries between corporate America and the Republican Party came to be known as the K Street Project.
It was an incredible success. By 2002, if you look at numbers from the Center for Responsive Politics, industries that had long made bipartisan campaign contributions largely abandoned the Democrats, leaving Republicans with an overwhelming edge in corporate donations. By 2004, the lobbyists themselves gave the Republicans $1 million more than they gave Democrats. The number of Republican lobbyists grew. And so did the number of lobbyists, period - from about 9,000 when the Republicans took power to more than 34,000 today.
Now the seamy side of all this explosive growth, the fundraising and lobbying scandals like those plaguing Mr. DeLay and Mr. Abramoff, poses a serious threat to Republican power.
At the end of his article, Continetti tells us that there is a silver lining to these scandals for young conservatives like himself:
But then you take solace in the idea that the Republican Party has once again bested the Democrats, who after all took 40 years to sprout the warts of power.
Well, then I suppose congratulations are in order.
|
