SantorumBlog

We’re done here, but we continue elsewhere.

PaWaterCooler.com

A message from Senator Santorum.

First, let me thank you for your support and your faith throughout this campaign and beyond.

I am so blessed to be surrounded by not only my loving family but so many wonderful supporters committed to the future of our state and our nation.

Although the results were not what we wanted, we couldn’t be prouder of our campaign and the job we’ve done for you and your families. You should be proud too for the hours you spent making calls, knocking on doors, talking to family, friends and neighbors and all the other time you spent thinking about and working on our re-election.

We’re humbled by your devotion and your faith.

My wife Karen and I thank God for the opportunity to have served our nation and the greatest state in the nation. We’ve used that gift to try and do good for Pennsylvania, our nation and our world.

We stood up for the family, for the most vulnerable from the beginning of life to the end of life, and we didn’t forget those in between. We worked for those who are disadvantaged in this country and those who are suffering around the world.

We worked for the greater prosperity of you and your family.

And most important, on the principle that matters more than any other, we didn’t back down from confronting the threat that confronts us from overseas.

People have asked me why I talked about unpopular things like the war … the threat from Islamic fascists, from Iran, from North Korea, from Venezuela … in this campaign. They asked, why didn’t you just talk about the projects you delivered or the things that you accomplished?

My answer is that those are the things in the past, and what leaders are supposed to do is to talk about things that our country confronts in the future.

And I did, and I’m very proud of that. I do not rescind a word because those words are words that this country was not receptive to hear tonight. But, they are going to continue to hear those words from me and I assure you from many others as that threat become my clear, and hopefully our country is called to action to stop that threat before it becomes too serious of a threat to the future of our country.

My time as your U.S. Senator is coming to a close, but I will continue to work for you, and for all of the wonderful people we have met and worked for over the years.

I can’t thank you enough.

God Bless.

-=-=-=-

I’d like to thank the 100K + readers who have been reading SantorumBlog since I started keeping track.

I’d also like to thank my contributors, without their help this would not have been possible.

It’s a bummer that Rick lost, but that’s how elections go.

We’ll be around.

This kind of garbage must be paid attention to, because not challenging evil people like Dan Savage and the moonbats of MoveOn.org and Daily Kos hurt Senator Santorum, since it gave their lies credibility. You can’t just ignore these people - you have to defeat them.

Cliff Bostock is a typical example of a Santorum-hater, though unique in that he is apparently a PhD in psychology. Let’s pray to God that he is not actually practicing psychology, and if he is, may God have mercy on his patients. Here is what he had to say about the election of Bob Casey:

“It’s unseemly to engage in schadenfreude, the German term for taking delight in the misfortune of others. But what special pleasure, watching Rick Santorum get his ass kicked. Now, he’ll be able to divorce his wife and marry his (male) dog without fear of political repercussions. You know he’s into inter-species sex, right? George Bush told me so. He never lies.”

This is what passes for political discourse on the left today. The more outrageous, the more hate-filled, the more obviously false the statement the better - and yet the far-left eats it up like it’s the Gospel Truth. While they weren’t as vulgar, you could find letters which were just as hateful and just as filled with lies in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette every day leading up to the election.

I keep hearing from the far-left that Senator Santorum is somehow obsessed with sex, but they’re the ones who continue to obsess over his remarks from three years ago, which they succeeded in completely changing the meaning of and used to demonize the man.

Now that their boogeyman Santorum has been beaten, the far-left continues to push for radical changes in society. The Catholic Church recently repeated its 2,000 year old unchangeable dogma that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual acts are always sins. The far-left responded by calling the Catholic church intolerant, ignorant, anti-science, demeaning, and various other nonsense. Not only that, but the far-left is not even being honest about this dogma - they’re calling it “new guidelines” when this has been Catholic social teaching since the dawn of the church.

This is just like the far-left’s claims that Americans being religious people is something “new”, or that a President of the United States talking about religion is something “new”, or that people should have personal responsibility is something “new”. Of course none of these are new ideas, but you have to lie and claim that they’re new in order to present the social norms themselves as being radical.

In fact, the dishonest attacks on the Catholic church prove that the far-left doesn’t just want our government to change - they want our society to change at its very core, with any and all religious or moral teachings which they personally disagree with being done away with forever.

Senators Chuck Schumer and Pat Leahy are now saying that they will not support any originalist judicial nominee.

So if in 2007 or 2008 President Bush nominates someone else like Justice Sam Alito for a court, I will expect then Senator Bob Casey to vote in favor of his or her confirmation.

Bob Casey will be the senator of all Pennsylvanians, not just those who voted for him. I will hold him accountable for what he does or does not do, just as Senator Rick Santorum was held accountable by those who did not vote for him. If Casey sides with the Democrats in order to filibuster originalist judges, he can expect to receive letters from my friends and I asking him to be more like his father and oppose judicial tyranny.

Brett Lieberman gets frustrated with Bob Casey.

Those were a long 20 months on the campaign trail and it was definitely frustrating for us dealing with the non-answer answers. Not quite as frustrating as it was for Santorum, but definitely frustrating.

But it’s over now. You can answer questions, especially ones that aren’t complicated or controversial.

Pennsyltuckians actually expect you to provide answers. Rick Santorum’s problem usually wasn’t that he answered questions, but rather voters didn’t like his answers.

Take yesterday for example. You had a photo opportunity/press conference with your new colleague Arlen Specter.

Three times you were asked what committees you wanted to be on. It wasn’t a trick question, nor was it complicated. Three times you avoided answering the question.

“I think any committee that moves the ball forward for Pennsylvania,” you said in one try.

But which ones are you interested in?

“You cannot choose the committees that you are on, you can express some preferences but we’ll have to see what the assignments are,” you said another time.

Where’s Jay Reiff or Larry Smart to answer the question? Surely they’re still around.

He could really go either way right now. Let’s hope that Bob Casey chooses to follow in his father’s footsteps and doesn’t end up like this, if only for the sake of Pennsylvania:

A Casey voter replied to Alex’s post below with this:

“PRO-LIFE wins when you have a Senator who not only supports the anti-abortion movement but also is against the death penalty a true PRO-LIFER.”

From BobCasey.com:

“Democratic opponent Bob Casey shares many of Santorum’s beliefs. He is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and favors the death penalty.“

I find it funny how Santorum statement was endlessly misreported and misstated (despite John L’s repeated attempts to correct the record), yet after the election, it’s presented correctly.

His 2003 comments about gay marriage - legalizing it could result in future protections for polygamy, incest and bestiality - hardened his image. His decision to spend most of his time in Virginia while a Pittsburgh-area school district picked up the bill for his children’s cyber-school education weakened him in the west. His book, It Takes a Family, gave his opponents a fresh batch of ammunition a year before the election.

Usually, the lazy media and bloggers throw in some sort of a man on dog misrepresentation here instead. But in this case, when Rick is no longer a threat, it’s presented accurately.

Senator Rick Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born - -

Senator Barbara Boxer: “The process of being born.” This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn’t obvious.

Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby’s foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.

Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way!

Santorum: I am asking.

Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.

Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?

Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother’s body. The baby is born.

Santorum: I am not going to put words in your mouth - -

Boxer: I hope not.

Santorum: But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby’s toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.

Boxer: Absolutely not.

Santorum: OK. So if the baby’s toe is in, you can’t kill the baby. How about if the baby’s foot is in?

Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.

Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.

Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.

-Senator Rick Santorum challenging Senator Barbara Boxer to explain how she can support partial-birth abortion, October 20, 1999

Every poll shows that a clear majority of Americans think that partial-birth abortion should be banned. Every sane person who is told what partial-birth abortion is immediately opposes it.

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether our elected officials are allowed to ban partial-birth abortion. Let me make it clear; the Supreme Court is not going to decide if it’s legal or illegal, but just whether or not we Americans are allowed to make it illegal through our elected representatives. We’re talking about something that borders on infanticide, and the issue is that only if Justices Roberts and Alito vote the right way will we actually be allowed to outlaw it. That is incredibly perverse.

Every adult American should know what partial-birth abortion is, and it’s ridiculous that the media refuses to tell anyone. The technical name of the procedure is “intact dilation and extraction”, and through this process, a fetus which is somewhere inbetween the late second trimester and birth is killed by inducing labor, then pulling the fetus out of his mother feet first. Before the head is removed from the mother, the fetus’ head is punctured and his brains are vacuumed out, collapsing his head, resulting in death. We would not do this to an animal, and yet there are people in America fighting tooth and nail to keep it legal. Unless the Supreme Court decides correctly next year, Americans will have no right to ban this abhorrent procedure.

One of the millions of mindless far-left bloggers disagrees with my extremely obvious observation that 2006 was an election year properly characterized as an anti-Republican backlash:

Far-left blogger: No, John, Rick lost.

The blogger asks all of his “Republican friends” to come over to SantorumBlog and correct me for saying that 2006 was an anti-Republican year. Naturally, not a single one of them came, because they know I’m right. Millions of conservative Republican voters, angry at the Republican politicians, stayed home on Election Day.

Sure, the far-left and their friends in the media orchestrated one of the most horrendous and despicable smear campaigns in history against Senator Santorum, but the far-left and the mindless media drones would have voted against Santorum anyway. I’m sure that those attacks cost him some votes, but not nearly as many votes as he lost by supporting Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004, and not nearly as many votes as he lost simply by having an “R” after his name after four years of a Republican majority failing to attack conservatively.

Just look at the way some of these elections went. Some of these House seats are only going to be Democrat controlled for two years, because it’s obvious that the Republican base staying home in these heavily Republican areas is what got the Democrats in.

In 2004, Melissa Hart (R) of PA got 63% of the vote. In 2006, she got 48%.

In 2004, Sue Kelly (R) of NY got 66% of the vote. In 2006, she got 49%.

In 2004, J.D. Hayworth (R) of AZ got 59% of the vote. In 2006, he got 46%. He’s hoping that the provisional ballots, most of which are from Republicans, will pull out a victory for him, but it’s not very likely.

It goes on and on like this. The far-left might argue that Rick Santorum hurt Melissa Hart, but did he hurt Sue Kelly, J.D. Hayworth, and many, many other Republicans who either got voted out of office or re-elected by much closer numbers than in 2004, 2002, and beyond? Of course not. The Republican base, angry about spending, angry about a failure to make good on promises, and angry about the length of the Iraq War stayed home on Tuesday. And if the Republican politicians can convincingly get their act together by 2008, the far-left won’t know what hit them as most of their House victories from this year are snatched back away from them. Then since they didn’t listen to me, they’ll blame Diebold for their losses once again.

Republican Majority for Choice:

The pro-active extreme agenda of Senator Rick Santorum and his fellow extreme right cohorts such as Falwell and Robertson were responsible for the loss of this key Senate seat, among others.

Pa’s other Senator, Arlen Specter is still on the advisory board.

Some previous posts about RMC:

Specter’s Defense

Hunt for Real Republicans

Featherman & RMC

Colin McNickle, who is admittedly no fan of Senator Santorum, gives us a glimpse:

“The telephone call of the week — actually four and obviously orchestrated — came from the Tarentum area on Thursday regarding Wednesday’s editorial on the Rendell and Casey victories.

One caller took offense to calling Rendell a “stinking fish,” a term first used in an Oct. 29 editorial that characterized the race as offering “small choice among rotten apples” (from Shakespeare) and “no choice among stinking fish” (from English essayist Thomas Fuller).

“That’s an obscenity,” she said, unable to say why. I guess she knows an obscenity when she reads one.

A male caller also used the “obscenity” word but then leapt off the cliff: “You called Casey a ‘meemee,’” he said.

“A what?” I asked.

“A ‘meemee,’” he confidently repeated himself.

“Could you spell that for me, sir?” I asked.

“‘Meemee,’ m-i-m-e,” he responded.

“That’s ‘mime,’ sir. Do you know what a ‘mime’ is?” I asked.

“No I don’t but I know it’s obscene,” he said.

If this is representative of the core Rendell-Casey constituency, we’re in more trouble than anyone could have imagined.“

From the Lebanon Daily News, which doesn’t seem to like Senator Santorum very much:

“Some have speculated that Santorum may run for president in 2008. That belief has been fueled by his Churchillian turn to foreign policy and radical Islam during the final days of his campaign against Bob Casey. But a Santorum run seems a long shot at this point. Would any party give their presidential nomination to someone who can’t win in his home state?”

You mean like Al Gore? Plus we can’t forget that 2006 was an anti-Republican year, combined with the fact that the Democrats intentionally ran someone who they could pass off as Santorum-lite. Santorum would have a decent chance of winning the state of Pennsylvania if his opponent is a pro-abortion liberal Democrat.

“Still, if Santorum does run for president, a chilling historical parallel will be noted: the Republican Party once actually did give its nomination to someone who had just lost a Senate race. The nominee, like Santorum, was a polarizing politician with strong views and a deeply rooted ideology. The year was 1860, his name was Abraham Lincoln, and his election kicked off the single most tempestuous period in American history.”

President Abraham Lincoln defeated the human rights catastrophe of his time, too - slavery. In all the US Senate, Rick Santorum was the strongest opponent of our current human rights catastrophe - abortion.

National Catholic Register

His dedication to the cause was typified by an unforgettable moment on the Senate floor one day in October 1999, when he confronted Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif, on the issue of partial-birth abortion.

What if, Santorum asked Boxer, almost facetiously, in the course of the partial-birth abortion, the baby’s foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside — “could that baby be killed?” He repeated the question from the vantage of different body parts, prompting Boxer — caught in the absurdity of her position — to snap, “I am not answering these questions.”

Santorum did, however, get an answer from Boxer on this one: “[D]o you agree, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed?” Boxer replied: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has rights.”

This was Boxer’s standard for when life begins — the frightening contradictions of which do not bother pro-choicers, so long as she supports legalized abortion. Her thinking illustrates the jaw-dropping moral relativism that Rick Santorum fought against.

Bob Casey, Jr., like his late father (a former two-term governor of Pennsylvania), opposes abortion, but, unlike Santorum, is hardly an across-the-board champion for life.

Especially worrisome is how Casey will vote for pro-life judges nominated by President George W. Bush. A very likely scenario would be that Bush announces a pro-life, strict constructionist judge only to have Casey reject the judge for a myriad of reasons separate from the justice’s position on abortion. This is a crucial point, since President Bush will likely get one more pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, and that pick will be the swing vote in a pro-life or anti-life court, where the future of Roe v. Wade is in the balance.

Renita Fennick

Rick Santorum lost the election for all the right reasons.

He’s passionate about his beliefs, even when they’re unpopular or old-fashioned.

He’s loyal to his party and his president.

He’s a devoted husband and father, even if it leads to criticism over where he lives.

He’s committed to principle, true to his conscience, and not afraid to stand up and defend his philosophy, even if he runs the risk of being labeled.

In an ideal world, that’s the kind of candidate who would earn the respect of all voters, even those who disagreed wholeheartedly and voted for the other guy.

But, in the practical world of politics, where the most popular guys are the ones who change their views with each opinion poll, and tweak their speeches to suit their audiences, it’s amazing that Santorum lasted as long as he did.

Pennsylvania voters may have gained a senator who is closer to their own beliefs, but they lost an honest man.