Wednesday, February 1. 2006
Norm Ornstein in Roll Call and Tom Ferrick in the Philadelphia Inquirer have unearthed more statements, made as far back as 1998, that make Rick Santorum's assertions that he wasn't involved in the K Street project and that the K Street project didn't pressure lobbyists to hire Republicans seem increasingly suspect. Ornstein:
From a Sept. 13, 2004, Roll Call piece by Brody Mullins:
“As recently as this summer, the GOP failed to convince the Motion Picture Association of America to hire a Republican to succeed Jack Valenti, who is set to retire as Hollywood’s man in Washington after a long and legendary tenure.
“Instead, the trade association announced in August that it had hired former Clinton administration Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.
“The move infuriated Republicans. Santorum even raised the issue of Glickman’s hire at a closed-door meeting of high-ranking Republican Senators.
“‘Yeah, we had a meeting and, yeah, we talked about making sure that we have fair representation on K Street,’” Santorum said soon after the hire. “‘I admit that I pay attention to who is hiring, and I think it’s important for leadership to pay attention.’”
Ferrick:
The public record is replete with references of Santorum leading the effort to get lobbyists to meet with GOP legislative leaders in regular sessions. The aim was twofold: to get the Republican message out, especially to friendly lobbyists, and to get lobbying firms to hire more Republican-friendly lobbyists. It has a lovely symmetry.
Santorum is on the record complaining publicly about industry groups' picking Democrats over Republicans to lobby.
As his chief of staff, Mark Rodgers, told the National Journal in 1998, the message of the K Street effort was simple: "Hire Republicans." Do you think Rick didn't get that message?
Friday, December 23. 2005
Rick Santorum now says that he will cut ties with the Thomas More Law Center because he is unhappy with their decision to defend the Dover Area School District's policy on intelligent design. Rick served on the advisory board of the center. He says he chose to resign partially because, as he told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy."
We might understand that, except that this is the mission statement that appears on the Thomas More Law Center's Web site:
Defending Religious Freedom
We live in a culture increasingly hostile to Christians and their faith. America has become a nation where public school students are prohibited from praying, acknowledging their dependence upon God, and forming religious clubs; where schools and communities are challenged from displaying nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments, and other symbols of our religious and moral heritage. The Thomas More Law Center affirms the right of Christians to publicly practice their religion and freely express their religious beliefs. Our Founding Fathers fought for a nation built on a foundation of religion and morality. Our lawyers are committed to restoring and preserving that foundation.
By its own admission the Thomas More Law Center is committed to restoring and preserving religious freedom. Therefore, wouldn't Rick assume that any case they chose to litigate would be motivated in some degree by religion? How is it then that Rick was surprised and troubled to find out that some of the school board members were motivated by religion in adopting the intelligent design policy? Put another way, if the policy hadn't been motivated at all by religion, why would the law center, on whose advisory board Rick served, have taken the case and defended the school district? If Rick thought that there was no religious motivation to the case why didn't he resign in protest of the center's decision to pursue it when that choice was originally made, rather than after the case was lost?
Thursday, December 22. 2005
In an opinion piece from January 2005, here's what Rick Santorum said about the Dover Area School Board and intelligent design:
Recently, the Dover Area School District in York County updated their biology curriculum in an attempt to create a more balanced approach to teaching evolution. A statement regarding the status of evolutionary theory and the existence of alternative theories will be read to all students during the time evolution is studied in the high school biology course. Additionally, students will be able to voluntarily view reference books in the library that present a variety of cutting-edge scientific views both supporting and opposing Darwinian theory. The Dover Area School District has taken a step in the right direction by engaging in the debate and attempting to teach the controversy of evolution. (emphasis ours)
Yesterday, one day after the Dover Area School District was told by a federal judge that their new "more balanced approach to teaching evolution" was unconstitutional, Rick's point of view seems to have, um, grown an opposable thumb. Here's how today's Philadelphia Inquirer describes it:
And, he (Santorum) said in an interview, he disagreed with the board for mandating the teaching of intelligent design, rather than just the controversy surrounding evolution.
Santorum - who sits on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center, which defended the school board in court - said the case offered "a bad set of facts" to test the concept that theories other than evolution should be taught in science classrooms.
"I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," Santorum said.
...Santorum said his statements are not contradictory, nor has his position changed.
As you may have previously read on our blog, Santorum's view on intelligent design began to evolve in August 2005 when he told NPR that he wasn't "comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." Click here to listen to the NPR interview. That was especially interesting in light of the fact that, in 2002, Rick wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times in which he claimed: "intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Well, it's no wonder Rick is starting to question intelligent design. His changing opinion of it over the past few years is clear evidence that evolution occurs.
Sunday, December 18. 2005
Judging by some recent letters to the editor that have appeared in Pennsylvania newspapers, central Pennsylvania residents are not buying what Rick Santorum and Americans for Job Security have been selling when it comes to Rick's record on Social Security.
First, we have "Santorum's Gall", which appeared in the Harrisburg Patriot-News. Lynwood E. Outzts of Carlisle has this to say:
Just when I thought I had seen how far Sen. Rick Santorum would go, I couldn't believe my eyes and ears upon hearing the Pennsylvania Republican's latest spin on his support for Social Security.
I believe this is an all-time low even for him. After his solid and unwavering support for President Bush's effort to privatize the system, now he wants us to believe that he supports those 55 and older and to make sure they get their full benefit.
Who does he think he is kidding? After all the arrogant comments he has made in the past, this TV commercial has got to take a lot of nerve.
Next up we have "Santorum Should Go", submitted to the York Dispatch by Thomas Clarke of York:
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum was seen on TV behind President Bush when he was trying to privatize social security. Now he is running TV ads telling us that he is the person who will save Social Security if we vote for him.
It seems that at least a few Pennsylvanians don't see Rick as the savior of Social Security that he apparently believes he is.
Tuesday, November 15. 2005
On Monday the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette asked Rick Santorum about the ethical implications of his role as leader of the K Street Project, in which he has worked with such paragons of virtue as Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff. Here's how the Post-Gazette describes his response:
But Mr. Santorum said yesterday that his regular meetings with the lobbying groups are part of his leadership role as the Senate's third-ranking Republican. He described the meetings as a way to inform influential groups who can filter the Republican message out to clients to help achieve Republicans' goals.
While job candidates are discussed, Mr. Santorum said, "there is no pressure to put Republicans in those roles, period -- no pressure. ... I absolutely abhor that."
"The K Street project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town," Mr. Santorum said. "From my perspective, it's a good government thing."
In case you are unfamiliar with the K Street Project or you need your memory refreshed, here's how the Washington Monthly described the Project and Rick's involvement in it:
...But there's one confirmation hearing you won't hear much about. It's convened every Tuesday morning by Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania, in the privacy of a Capitol Hill conference room, for a handpicked group of two dozen or so Republican lobbyists. Occasionally, one or two other senators or a representative from the White House will attend. Democrats are not invited, and neither is the press.
"The chief purpose of these gatherings is to discuss jobs--specifically, the top one or two positions at the biggest and most important industry trade associations and corporate offices centered around Washington's K Street, a canyon of nondescript office buildings a few blocks north of the White House that is to influence-peddling what Wall Street is to finance. In the past, those people were about as likely to be Democrats as Republicans, a practice that ensured K Street firms would have clout no matter which party was in power. But beginning with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and accelerating in 2001, when George W. Bush became president, the GOP has made a determined effort to undermine the bipartisan complexion of K Street. And Santorum's Tuesday meetings are a crucial part of that effort. Every week, the lobbyists present pass around a list of the jobs available and discuss whom to support. Santorum's responsibility is to make sure each one is filled by a loyal Republican--a senator's chief of staff, for instance, or a top White House aide, or another lobbyist whose reliability has been demonstrated. After Santorum settles on a candidate, the lobbyists present make sure it is known whom the Republican leadership favors. "The underlying theme was [to] place Republicans in key positions on K Street. Everybody taking part was a Republican and understood that that was the purpose of what we were doing," says Rod Chandler, a retired congressman and lobbyist who has participated in the Santorum meetings. "It's been a very successful effort." It seems to involve giving as much power as possible, in both the public and private sectors, to his Republican cronies.
Tuesday, October 18. 2005
Rick Santorum's office today sent out a press release touting Rick's co-sponsorship of an amendment to block a Congressional pay raise this year. That's interesting simply because Rick has voted against similar amendments three times since 2001, and as recently as just two years ago.
You may ask, why would Rick have a change of heart now? The Washington Post might have the answer to that question:
As early as today, senators are expected to vote on a GOP-offered measure to freeze their 2006 cost-of-living adjustment. One prominent co-sponsor: Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who blames his poor poll numbers back home in Pennsylvania in part on public furor over a pay raise that state legislators granted themselves.
Don't you love it when Rick stands on principle?
Tuesday, October 11. 2005
Yesterday NewsMax.com ran a story that claimed that U2 was coming to Philadelphia to fundraise for Rick Santorum:
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.
...
Wolfington puts it this way: "It's truly appropriate for U2, a band with a purpose, to be involved in a fund-raiser with Senator Rick Santorum, a politician with a purpose. Both men are passionate about what they believe and their faith is very important to them.”
We thought it seemed odd that U2 would put on a concert in a 19,000 seat arena as a political fundraiser for anyone, much less Rick Santorum. And we were right. Here's a statement that DATA issued today:
STATEMENT BY JAMIE DRUMMOND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DATA (debt AIDS trade Africa), THE AFRICA ADVOCACY GROUP CO-FOUNDED BY BONO:
“It is not uncommon for politicians, from both parties, to organize events at all kinds of music concerts. If any such events take place at a u2 concert, it is without the involvement or knowledge of Data, U2 or Bono. U2 concerts are categorically not fundraisers for any politician - they are rock concerts for U2 fans."
So, it seems like Rick has access to a luxury box that he is using during the U2 concert for a $1,000-a-head fundraiser. That's just a little bit different than U2 "teaming up" with Rick Santorum. Perhaps someone close to Rick misrepresented the situation to NewsMax.com? Via JoeTrippi.com
Tuesday, August 2. 2005
Rick Santorum says that the "liberal" view of freedom is "not the kind of freedom our founders envisioned." Elaborating, he says "It is an entire culture that focus (sic) on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness and personal pleasure. And it is harming America."
Actually, Rick, here's what those wacky founders wrote in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (emphasis ours)
Not only does Rick have the audacity to claim that he knows what sort of freedom the founders envisioned, he believes that one of the three "unalienable Rights" they chose to enumerate is harming our country. Here's the video: Oh, and of course he blames our country's divorce rate on "the left." Even though the divorce rate in America is actually highest in the " Bible Belt"--hardly a bastion of liberalism. This is a sitting United States Senator arguing that our founders were wrong in their belief that we are all entitled to the "pursuit of happiness." In the same breath, he says he knows what those same founders envisioned for this country. Honestly, we wish that there was something funny about this. There isn't. Tags: Santorum, Rick, Politics
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.
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 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.
Thursday, June 30. 2005
The Senate unanimously approved yesterday $1.5 billion in emergency funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs' health care programs. The bill's main sponsor was Rick Santorum, and we commend him for that.
So why is this post in the "Rick's Hypocrisy" category? Well the problem is Rick had previously voted against increased funding for the Department of Veteran's Affairs at least 3 times. So why did he suddenly change his tune? From the Washington Post:
The Senate vote yesterday was on a bill sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who had opposed a past Democratic amendment to raise VA spending. He was given the honor of becoming lead sponsor because he faces one of the toughest reelection fights next year among incumbent Republicans.
Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), who is orchestrating the party's campaign efforts, refused to give Santorum a free ride, noting that on three previous occasions, "Senate Republicans, including the lead sponsor [Santorum] . . . voted no. No to additional funding for our veterans. No to giving them the quality health care they have earned. No to keeping our nation's commitments to those who have served."
I guess the real question is, why did he vote against increased funding 3 times? Was it based on any sort of principle? If it was, he certainly seems to have abandoned it for expediency's sake.
Sound hypocritical?
Wednesday, June 29. 2005
Today, the Senate approved a bill that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using tests that intentionally expose people to pesticides when considering permits for pest Killers. As the AP reports:
New EPA rules under development envision permitting the agency to accept data from human tests on children, pregnant women, newborns, infants and fetuses. Even newborns of "uncertain viability" could be tested under the draft EPA rule.
This bill is meant to stop those human tests from happening.
Guess who voted against the bill... That's right, Rick Santorum!
Judging from today's vote, Rick doesn't have a problem with pregnant women, newborns or even fetuses being exposed to pesticides that are not known to be safe. So fetal stem-cell research is wrong, but testing potentially dangerous chemicals on fetuses is okay?
Anyone else smell hypocrisy?
David Sirota has more on this...
Imus recently asked Rick about comparing his Democratic colleagues to Adolf Hitler. Rick was quick to correct Imus and clarify that he did not compare the Democratic filibuster to something that Hitler did, but rather to something he didn't do.
So, by his own admission, what Rick said was that Democrats were doing something that not even Hitler would have had the audacity to do. Hmmmm, does that mean that he was really saying that Democrats were behaving worse than Adolf Hitler?
Rick went on to tell Imus that he was just trying to make a joke. Somehow it must have gone over our heads.
Watch the video.
Last Thursday, Rick made an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" to discuss whether Senator Dick Durbin had properly apologized for his recent remarks regarding possible prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay. In a stunning show of hypocrisy, Rick told Imus that Durbin had not apologized satisfactorily and used his own "apology" for his recent remarks comparing democrats to Hitler as an example of how to say you're sorry.
Let's look at the two apologies, shall we?
Senator Durbin put his statement of regret on his Senate web site and read it on the floor of the Senate. Here is an excerpt:
“Mr. President, it is very clear that even though I thought I had said something that clarified the situation, to many people it was still unclear. I'm sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.”
“I'm also sorry if anything I said in any way cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. I went to Iraq just a few months ago with Senator Harry Reid and a bipartisan Senate delegation. When you look in the eyes of the soldiers you see your son and daughter. They are the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them.” So how did Rick "apologize"? He released a statement to the media in which he said that his comment "was a mistake and I meant no offense."
Which of these two statements seems like an honest, heartfelt apology to you? In the future, Rick might want to leave etiquette advice to Emily Post.
|
