Monday, December 26. 2005
The Pennsylvania chapter of Donald Wildmon's ultra-conservative American Family Association has warned Rick Santorum that "he needs to be careful" as a result of his ever-evolving stance on intelligent design. Here's how the York Daily Record describes the situation:
A conservative organization that touts itself as a supporter of traditional values blasted Sen. Rick Santorum for his withdrawal of support for the Dover Area School District's unconstitutional intelligent design policy.
"Senator Rick Santorum's agreement with Judge John Jones' decision ... is yet another example of why conservatives can no longer trust the senator," the American Family Association of Pennsylvania said in a news release Friday.
The association's president, Diane Gramley, said Santorum - who is expected to face a tough re-election challenge next year from state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. - should heed her organization's remarks.
"It's a warning that he needs to be careful," Gramley said. "That he's beginning to lose his conservative base."
Uh oh, Rick. The conservatives are beginning to get restless. Here's the AFA's full press release.
Tuesday, December 20. 2005
Rick Santorum's spokesman tells the Philadelphia Inquirer that Rick believes "that in times of war, the President has the constitutional oversight or the constitutional ability to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," including spying on American citizens without any sort of judicial approval or oversight.
Really Rick? Well then, who gets to decide exactly what qualifies as "whatever is necessary?" The king President?
Under Rick's interpretation, couldn't Nixon have claimed that he wanted to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee because we were fighting in Vietnam and he thought that Democrats presented a threat to the American people?
Here are excerpts from the Inquirer:
Key members of Congress from the Philadelphia region voiced skepticism yesterday about President Bush's contention that he has the legal authority to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and others without judicial review.
Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.), though, said the President needed leeway in fighting terrorist threats to the nation.
...Santorum, a member of the Senate GOP leadership, had no qualms.
"The senator recognizes that in times of war, the President has the constitutional oversight or the constitutional ability to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," Santorum spokesman Robert L. Traynham said. "He fully supports the President's ability to protect American lives by going this step in terms of listening in on conversations."
"Listening in on conversations" makes it sound so quaint doesn't it? He was just listening in on some converations. I mean, c'mon, what's the big deal here? It's not like he was taking notes or anything.
Monday, December 19. 2005
Last week the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO gave Rick Santorum the lowest marks of all the members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation on their annual report card. However, there was one guy at the AFL-CIO press conference who really likes Rick. You might know him as the "person" who was waging his own war on Christmas long before Bill O'Reilly started whining about it ad nauseum -- the Grinch.
Watch the video below to see the Grinch, along with Bill George from the AFL-CIO and Dan Shulder from the Pennsylvania Alliance of Retired Americans talking about why Rick gets an F this year.
Thursday, December 15. 2005
The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO has released a report card rating the voting record of each of the members of the state's congressional delegation. Guess who came in dead last on the issues that the AFL-CIO considers important to working families? That's right, Rick Santorum wins yet another prize.
Here's the story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Wednesday, December 14. 2005
Howard Fineman believes that Rick Santorum's appearance at President Bush's speech earlier this week in Philadelphia may have been the result of some heavy pressure applied by the White House. Either that or Rick just really likes the special peanuts on Air Force One.
But the key is keeping the GOP base together. And that’s what the Philly event was all about. One reason why Bush went to Philadelphia last week to speak to the World Affairs Council was history. White House speechwriters wanted a suitable backdrop for discussing the difficulties of forging a democracy. But the other reason was political: the chance to get (read require) Santorum in the picture. Since it was Philadelphia, Sen. Arlen Specter would want to be there, giving a sense of formality to the occasion. And the august, non-partisan Council gave additional cover: this was an “official” event, not a campaign rally. Then there was the biggest inducement of all: a ride on Air Force One.
Just in case Santorum had had any reluctance to come aboard, there was another factor for him to consider. Being “independent” of the White House can have its costs. If Santorum is going to win reelection, it’s going to take out-of-state help -– and, more specifically, money. Millions already are pouring in from across the country to help Santorum. Can Rove affect the volume of that flow from conservative, activist sources? Maybe just a little bit….
So, as the door of Air Force One swung open, there was a smiling and waving president. A few steps behind him, smiling a little sheepishly: the junior senator from Pennsylvania. They didn’t walk down the gangway to the tarmac arm-in-arm. But it was close enough to suit the political purpose at hand.
A recent Citizens Voice editorial accuses Rick Santorum of diguising himself and "changing his stripes." What makes their editorial board say that and why would Rick want to disguise himself?
Read the editorial to find out.
Sunday, December 4. 2005
The extremely conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Editorial Board gives Rick a good smack today. They seem to believe that, in supporting the Milk Income Loss Contract, Rick is abandoning sound economic principles in order to pander to Pennsylvania's many dairy farmers.
Rick Santorum choosing pandering over principle??? We are, once again, completely shocked!
From the Trib:
This is the "genius" of agricultural subsidies and tariff-rate quotas that benefited farmers large and small by $46 billion in 2004. The government is managing the market instead of allowing the market to manage itself.
One of the outcrops is higher food prices that the poorest Americans cannot afford.
Mr. Santorum has described the Milk Income Loss Contract as a "little program to help the little guy, who's living out there in rural America trying to make ends meet."
One of the purposes of such statements is to get all the "little guys" watered by Santorum at the taxpayer-filled trough to vote for the "big guy."
It's standard politics. But Senator, it's lousy economics.
A Centre Daily Times editorial rips Americans for Job Security, the Virginia organization that is currently spending $1 million on TV ads supporting Rick Santorum, comparing them to Tom Delay and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Rick may want to think about getting himself some new friends. Here's an excerpt:
According to OpenSecrets.org, Americans for Job Security is "a pro-Republican, pro-business organization" based in Virginia "established to directly counter labor's influence. ... Its ads support 'pro-market, pro-paycheck issues' and candidates."
Public Citizen's StealthPacs.org, citing an Associated Press report, adds, "Americans for Job Security ... is under investigation by a Texas grand jury for potential violations of a law prohibiting the use of corporate money to influence state elections."
The editorial headline, it would appear, also warrants a correction.
Perhaps, with references to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, it should have read "More politics, as usual."
Friday, December 2. 2005
Remember Americans for Job Security? They're the shadowy, Virginia-based, anti-labor group that has been running $1 million worth of ads in support of Rick Santorum. Instead of asking who their donors are, reporters may want to ask AJS who produces their ads.
The Associated Press is now reporting that an Americans for Job Security ad contains some of the same video footage as an ad that Santorum recently produced for the Web. That is quite a coincidence, isn't it?
Here are screen shots of the ads in question, via Atrios:
Americans for Job Security ad:
Santorum ad:
Do you think grandpa and his grandson are from Pennsylvania or Virginia?
Thursday, December 1. 2005
After reporting yesterday that the Virginia-based group Americans for Job Security is now spending $1 million on tv ads in support of Rick Santorum, the Philadelphia Daily News has an editorial today asking Santorum who owns him:
...Santorum doesn't seem too concerned about who is behind Americans for Job Security, a Virginia-based anti-tax group that refuses to identify contributors. He declined to tell one of our reporters whether his financial backers should step out of the shadows. How discreet.
If supporters of Americans for Job Security want to step into our state and influence our elections - fine. Just have the guts to tell Pennsylvania voters your name as you send your checks.
As for Sen. Santorum, he should remember he owes the voters of this state a lot more than he owes some slippery little front group.
|
