What we are up against on the Right and my response
Some of you may be familiar with Chuck Muth. He's a conserviative/libertarian activist, who has no problem telling it like it is. I am on his mailing list and received the follow update from Chuck, which surprised me. His mailing list is wide and extensive and I'd say he has a following. Which is why I was surprised to see what I saw and why I felt the need to resond to his e-mail. I'll post his e-mail, along with my response below it. This isn't a pleasent e-mail, but it is necessary for people to see so that we can take care of these issues now and have a much stronger candidate Santorum going into election season. I didn't address all the specifics of the e-mail, since a few were already addressed in this blog, i.e. intelligent design. This is all a bit lengthy, but I think it's worthwhile. My ultimate point is this - Santorum advances the conservative agenda, Casey does not. That's really all that matters in the long run.
MUTH'S TRUTHS
December 26, 2005
_________________________
I sure hope Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, has a good chiropractor. 'Cause he's gonna need one by the time this election year is over - what with all his flip-flops, back-flips and political 180s. Either that, or he's got a great future as an Olympic gymnast if his senatorial career comes to an end next November.
I'm trying to keep track of all the strange things Santorum has said and done since kicking his base in the teeth last year when he aggressively stumped for liberal Republican incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, who was being challenged by conservative Rep. Pat Toomey. But the list is just getting too long - including supporting Specter for Judiciary Committee chairman and calling for a hike in the minimum wage.
Nevertheless, social conservatives have stood by their man, through thick and thin. He hasn't been able to shake their loyalty. Call it "Battered Conservative Syndrome." But maybe some of them will now finally have had enough. Perhaps the latest from Sen. Santorum will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
As I'm sure you've read, a federal judged ruled last week that an updated version of "creationism," now called "intelligent design," could not be taught in the Dover School District as science. Social conservatives are, as you would expect, outraged by the decision. As surely Sen. Santorum must be, right? After all, Santorum wrote an op/ed in 2002 declaring that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Ah, but that was in 2002. This is an election year. And "Election Year Rick," as his Democrat opposition is now calling him, is singing an entirely different tune now.
An organization called the Thomas More Law Center defended the Dover School District's decision to teach intelligent design in its science classes. Santorum is on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center.
Or I should say, WAS on the advisory board. He quit last week, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer, "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."
Huh?
If Santorum thought intelligent design was "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes," why is he now resigning from a Christian-rights organization which defended the school district that said intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes?
Santorum's election-year political rush to the middle just might leave his base behind. It's a high-risk gamble on his part. He's betting there's nothing he can do to cause his conservative supporters to stay home on election day or vote for another candidate. I hope he's not betting the farm on it.
Or at least has Olga Korbut as his campaign manager.
(My Response)
Chuck,
I'd like to address the whole situation of what's going on in PA, especially with Sen. Santorum. I'll be open and upfront and admit that I am a Santorum supporter and very much a conservative. In fact, I'm one of the writers for Santorumblog.com. This blog has no affiliation with Santorum's campaign, except that it is run by people who like Santorum and really don't want to see Bob Casey win. Is Santorum a perfect candidate? No, but then again, if one were to look for perfection in a candidate, they would be hard pressed. Has Santorum shifted his positions on things - I'm sure. Do I like that he is supporting a minimum wage increase, no. Do I like that he supported Specter, hell no. Do I like other aspects of Santorum, no. But as a whole, I like him and he is better than Casey would be by far.
Santorum did his duty when he supported Specter. He's in leadership and is expected to support incumbents. That's the price one pays for being in leadership. Furthermore, Specter should be beneficial with the suburban Philly voters who are more liberal than the rest of the state. That's the theory anyway.
Let's look at the positives on Santorum -
He's ardently pro-life - leading the charge on a bill to ban partial birth abortion,
supports lower taxes - was one of the Senators who pushed the Bush tax cuts, if I am not mistaken,
supports our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
supports Judge Alito.
That's the short list I could come up with off the top of my head. There are more good policy positions as well.
Now for Pennsylvania politics. Pennsylvania voters are, well, weird. Republicans are generally more moderate than the rest of the country. And Democrats are generally more moderate than the rest of the country.
Republicans ended up supporting Specter because of Bush's campaigning for him, more than anything else. Republicans in PA are very loyal -= almost to a fault in some circumstances. Although that is changing. It was Republicans, no, really conservatives who raised hell over the pay jacking that our Republican-led legislature passed this summer. We were able to force these guys to repeal the pay raise. The anger is still pretty think over the matter and many incumbents have decided to call it quits rather than face angry voters. There will be changes in PA, but no one knows to what extent. Heck we threw out a Supreme Court Judge who was up for retention because of the pay raise issue.
My own analysis is that the political class doesn't know what to do with the voter anger. That includes Santorum. He could be the victim of an anti-incumbent voter back lash, or people could recognize that he has nothing to do with the pay raise mess at the state level. Frankly, PA is not that conservative - it has gone with the Dem presidential ticket for several elections now. I think Santorum is reading his constituency pretty well - he may be changing some positions to match those of the voters of the state. Yes he has a conservative base and that base will stick with him because as a whole he's good for the conservative movement. On the whole Santorum will advance conservative policy far better than any of the other federal politicians in PA. He has a leadership post and so has a say in what the Senate will address. That leadership post can be costly to the conservative agenda sometimes, but look at it this way, for every step backwards, we'll take two steps forward. That's progress. We don't have to win every battle, it's the overall war that matters. Santorum helps conservative wage the war of ideas.
Thanks for hearing me out. Most of the time I'm with you on the issues you write about. This would be one of those rare occasions where we disagree. That's ok too. If in the end we end up with better candidates and policies then we are better off.
Take care Chuck, keep up the good work, and have a happy New Year.
Matt Best
Carlisle, PA
MUTH'S TRUTHS
December 26, 2005
_________________________
I sure hope Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, has a good chiropractor. 'Cause he's gonna need one by the time this election year is over - what with all his flip-flops, back-flips and political 180s. Either that, or he's got a great future as an Olympic gymnast if his senatorial career comes to an end next November.
I'm trying to keep track of all the strange things Santorum has said and done since kicking his base in the teeth last year when he aggressively stumped for liberal Republican incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, who was being challenged by conservative Rep. Pat Toomey. But the list is just getting too long - including supporting Specter for Judiciary Committee chairman and calling for a hike in the minimum wage.
Nevertheless, social conservatives have stood by their man, through thick and thin. He hasn't been able to shake their loyalty. Call it "Battered Conservative Syndrome." But maybe some of them will now finally have had enough. Perhaps the latest from Sen. Santorum will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
As I'm sure you've read, a federal judged ruled last week that an updated version of "creationism," now called "intelligent design," could not be taught in the Dover School District as science. Social conservatives are, as you would expect, outraged by the decision. As surely Sen. Santorum must be, right? After all, Santorum wrote an op/ed in 2002 declaring that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Ah, but that was in 2002. This is an election year. And "Election Year Rick," as his Democrat opposition is now calling him, is singing an entirely different tune now.
An organization called the Thomas More Law Center defended the Dover School District's decision to teach intelligent design in its science classes. Santorum is on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center.
Or I should say, WAS on the advisory board. He quit last week, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer, "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."
Huh?
If Santorum thought intelligent design was "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes," why is he now resigning from a Christian-rights organization which defended the school district that said intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes?
Santorum's election-year political rush to the middle just might leave his base behind. It's a high-risk gamble on his part. He's betting there's nothing he can do to cause his conservative supporters to stay home on election day or vote for another candidate. I hope he's not betting the farm on it.
Or at least has Olga Korbut as his campaign manager.
(My Response)
Chuck,
I'd like to address the whole situation of what's going on in PA, especially with Sen. Santorum. I'll be open and upfront and admit that I am a Santorum supporter and very much a conservative. In fact, I'm one of the writers for Santorumblog.com. This blog has no affiliation with Santorum's campaign, except that it is run by people who like Santorum and really don't want to see Bob Casey win. Is Santorum a perfect candidate? No, but then again, if one were to look for perfection in a candidate, they would be hard pressed. Has Santorum shifted his positions on things - I'm sure. Do I like that he is supporting a minimum wage increase, no. Do I like that he supported Specter, hell no. Do I like other aspects of Santorum, no. But as a whole, I like him and he is better than Casey would be by far.
Santorum did his duty when he supported Specter. He's in leadership and is expected to support incumbents. That's the price one pays for being in leadership. Furthermore, Specter should be beneficial with the suburban Philly voters who are more liberal than the rest of the state. That's the theory anyway.
Let's look at the positives on Santorum -
He's ardently pro-life - leading the charge on a bill to ban partial birth abortion,
supports lower taxes - was one of the Senators who pushed the Bush tax cuts, if I am not mistaken,
supports our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
supports Judge Alito.
That's the short list I could come up with off the top of my head. There are more good policy positions as well.
Now for Pennsylvania politics. Pennsylvania voters are, well, weird. Republicans are generally more moderate than the rest of the country. And Democrats are generally more moderate than the rest of the country.
Republicans ended up supporting Specter because of Bush's campaigning for him, more than anything else. Republicans in PA are very loyal -= almost to a fault in some circumstances. Although that is changing. It was Republicans, no, really conservatives who raised hell over the pay jacking that our Republican-led legislature passed this summer. We were able to force these guys to repeal the pay raise. The anger is still pretty think over the matter and many incumbents have decided to call it quits rather than face angry voters. There will be changes in PA, but no one knows to what extent. Heck we threw out a Supreme Court Judge who was up for retention because of the pay raise issue.
My own analysis is that the political class doesn't know what to do with the voter anger. That includes Santorum. He could be the victim of an anti-incumbent voter back lash, or people could recognize that he has nothing to do with the pay raise mess at the state level. Frankly, PA is not that conservative - it has gone with the Dem presidential ticket for several elections now. I think Santorum is reading his constituency pretty well - he may be changing some positions to match those of the voters of the state. Yes he has a conservative base and that base will stick with him because as a whole he's good for the conservative movement. On the whole Santorum will advance conservative policy far better than any of the other federal politicians in PA. He has a leadership post and so has a say in what the Senate will address. That leadership post can be costly to the conservative agenda sometimes, but look at it this way, for every step backwards, we'll take two steps forward. That's progress. We don't have to win every battle, it's the overall war that matters. Santorum helps conservative wage the war of ideas.
Thanks for hearing me out. Most of the time I'm with you on the issues you write about. This would be one of those rare occasions where we disagree. That's ok too. If in the end we end up with better candidates and policies then we are better off.
Take care Chuck, keep up the good work, and have a happy New Year.
Matt Best
Carlisle, PA
Comments on "What we are up against on the Right and my response"
-
Anonymous said ... (1/05/2006 04:11:54 PM) :
post a commentPlease answer this question for me. Why should I vote for Rick when he will not even live in the state of PA?