Dude’s been all over the place in the past couple of weeks as he gears up for what by all accounts will be a tough 2006 re-election campaign.
He’s rethinking his support for the death penalty:
“I still support the death penalty, but what I’m suggesting is, number one, we have to be more cautious,” Santorum said Tuesday, adding that its use should be limited to the “most horrific and heinous of crimes.”
He said his examination “has narrowed its application, but it’s not saying that I fundamentally believe the death penalty is wrong.”
In an interview published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Tuesday, Santorum said: “I agree with the pope that in the civilized world … the application of the death penalty should be limited. I would definitely agree with that. I would certainly suggest there probably should be some further limits on what we use it for.”
The Pope, for the record, doesn’t believe the death penalty should be limited. He thinks it should be banned. But isn’t it nice that the senator has let his religious convictions lead him in a new direction?
But he’s not getting too far from his roots:
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has organized a course for members of Congress on Catholic doctrine that is being taught from his Senate hideaway in the Capitol.
The senator’s move comes at a time when members of both major political parties are talking more freely about their faith.
Santorum has brought in the Rev. Michael Sliney, a local priest, to oversee the course, which seeks to broaden the members’ understanding of Catholicism during the weeks leading up to Easter.
The list of attendees looks like a wingnut roll call:
Santorum invited six House members and 10 senators to the event, all of whom are Catholic Republicans. Among those invited is Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a former Protestant whom Santorum helped convert. Other Republican senators invited are Mel Martinez (Fla.), John Ensign (Nev.), Mike DeWine (Ohio), George Voinovich (Ohio), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Pete Domenici (N.M.), John Sununu (N.H.) and Jim Bunning (Ky.).
What’s going on, of course, is that Santorum wants to plump up his religious image to maintain support in Pennsylvania’s traditionally devout–and very conservative–“T”, the areas of the state outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. If Robert Casey, Jr. wins the Democratic nomination, Santorum will have an extremely difficult battle on his hands, since Casey is himself a pro-life Catholic. At the same time, this is going to be very tight race no matter who Santorum faces, so he can’t go too far out on the rabid right-wing limb. He can’t simply piss away the cities, in other words.
So he’s got a delicate balancing act to perform in the next year-and-a-half. Thankfully, this is Rick Santorum we’re talking about, a man whose right knuckles are scarred from dragging on the ground. A recent interview in Christianity Today gives some good examples of how difficult Santorum finds the tightrope. (CT, for those of you who don’t know it, is the evangelical “magazine of record.” Granting them an interview is sure to get Santorum a sympathetic hearing that will be read in the T.)
He starts off sounding more or less reasonable when asked about facing Casey:
As the No. 3 Republican in the Senate right now, the Democrats seem to have you in their sights, even to the point of tapping Bob Casey Jr., who’s another pro-lifer, to run against you. As someone with a strong pro-life voting record, how do you view his candidacy?
You know, every candidate you run against has strengths and weaknesses. I don’t know if he will ultimately be the person who runs against me, but if he is, I’m sure he’ll have some positive attributes and negative ones from the standpoint of the voters of Pennsylvania, just as I will. It’s a matter, from my perspective, of looking at, more importantly, what I’ve done [as senator] over the last 10 years—at that point, 12 years—to serve the people of Pennsylvania, and what my plans are in continuing to serve them over the next 6. That really is the more relevant issue. People end up voting in these kinds of elections, high-profile elections like Senate races, based on: 1) does the incumbent deserve to be re-elected, and then 2) if that’s not the case, is there a reasonable alternative? My first obligation is just to let the public know what I’ve been doing and how effective I’ve been for the commonwealth, and what my plans are for the future.
He’s right; as someone reminded me in Stirling Newberry’s thread this morning, elections against an incumbent are referendums on that incumbent. Whether or not he can convince Pennsylvanians that he’s been effective for them is another question, of course. But whatever. Who ever expects pols to to highlight his weaknesses?
From here, though, it’s a downhill slide. First there’s the follow-up to the question above:
Do you think Mr. Casey’s candidacy would take abortion off the table in your campaign?
I don’t think you can run a campaign without having those issues addressed. Our positions may be similar, [but] my understanding is he’s never really taken much of a position on the issue beyond a questionnaire or two. But when you’re running for a state auditor and state treasurer, those are not necessarily positions where this becomes an important issue.
There may be nuance differences between the two of us; I don’t know. But in either case, I think I have a record. He does not. Certainly [my] record has been one of leadership and a variety of different important issues that have actually been issues that have brought people together on the issue of abortion. That’s an important thing. I’m known as a pro-life leader on issues where we’ve gotten people from the other side of this issue to join us.
It’s a decent shot at Casey in the first paragraph, stressing the difference in their resumes. But that second one will surely not win him any votes in the critical–and pro-choice–Philly suburbs.
The slide accelerates from there:
In 2003, you spoke out against the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision [overturning state anti-sodomy laws].
Yes, I did. And I also turned out to be right.
Do you feel vindicated?
Well, I was right. The bottom line in what I said was, this is going to lead to a whole lot of consequences. I had to assume the justices understood what they were doing. And of course, the decision was cited in the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts [in which the state Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on homosexual marriage]. I knew that’s what courts would say. So this is, again, the problem with courts usurping democratic powers, powers that were clearly given to the legislatures and to the Congress. This judicial activism is a very, very scary thing for the future of this country.
He wasn’t right: he predicted a short march from Lawrence to legalized polygamy and bestiality. And any idiot knew that the case would be cited in the Massachusetts decision. So much for Santorum’s prescience.
More interesting is his slam at the courts, a refrain we’re hearing more and more these days. Republicans can’t run against Congress or Bill Clinton anymore, so who else can they blame? Well, okay, liberal pastors, but we’re somewhere down the list, after Sponge Bob and Fox, uh, Sony, uh, those damn Hollywood smut peddlers!
In any case, so it goes. Read the whole article, especially the end, when Santorum begins to try on the “compassionate conservative” mantle. He has some very interesting things to say about What’s the Matter With Kansas? Memo to Chuck P.’s staff: find this article and hang every last smug, prevaricating, sanctimonious word around Sen. “Man on Dog’s” neck. Dude is in trouble, and he knows it.
You can almost smell the flop sweat rising off the newsprint.
Cross-posted with love here.
If Tim T. or the other Pennacchio folks are reading this, drop me a line. I’d be more than happy to get the future Senator’s response to these quotes.
I strongly oppose the death penalty.
I believe that poverty, in a time and place of plently like America is today, is morally wrong. I work to bring an end to poverty, in America and the world.
I am morrally opposed to, on the strongest terms, war. I am opposed to any and all wars of aggression, wars of offense and wars in place of political solutions.
On the issue of abortion, my personal beliefs are clear. But since I will never be in the position to choose or not choose to have an abortion – or be party to one in any other direct way – I keep my mouth shut. I understand how the answer of when life starts can be considered gray, especially when the question takes place inside a woman’s womb.
I am opposed to state and medical systems that fail to protect human life of the disable and the elderly. (And I am also fully in favor of the right of each person to willingly decide when to end his or her own life, and on what terms.)
I don’t eat animals – because I prefer they remain alive and there is no need for me to eat them.
I am pro-life. I love life, and I wish that it be fully celebrated and experienced by all. I love life’s messyness and mystery. I love everything that there is to know and to experience about life. And this, to me, should lead all persons to strongly oppose the state killing anyone – for any purpose whatsoever. Life is to wonderful a thing for the state to control its fate.
of three, seperate and equal, branches.
The United States is a democratic republic, based on the principles of liberal traditionalism. Liberal democracies are first and foremost concerned about respecting the will of the majority while also protecting the rights of the minority. Even if 95% of Americans wanted to the other 5% of the country, it would not matter that such an overwhelming majority wanted the country to move in such a direction. According to the principles of a liberal democracy, the will of those 95% of Americans would be suppressed by constitutional law. And our legal system places the burden of enforcing such law on the judicial branch. If you are not happy with the judicial branch (especially if you oppose its existence), you are – in fact – opposed to our constitution. You are also, most likely, oppose to liberal democracy – or to the American regime. Your only recourse would be, therefore, to replace the current traditional liberalist regime with something else — say a facsist or a theocratic system.
Attacks on the judiciary are dangerous. They are attacks on liberal democracy itself. Yes, corrupt judges should be attacked and kept from doing harm. But no, the judicial system should not (unless there is truely a crisis) should not attacked. Attacks on the judiciary are analogous to questioning wheter or not there should be the office of the president, or the Congress altogether. Sure, you can make such calls — but to do so would be considered radical beyond all reason from the start. That people can (and are) making these assertions on NPR and other “mainstream” press outlets, and a very bad sign.
The enemies of the democratic republic, based on the principles of traditional liberalism, are attacking the very foundation of the very system of American democracy. We should be deeply concerned about this. Given that Bush has repeatitly dismissed the rule of law, that the Attorney General doesn’t think that states are subject to the the sumpreme law of the land, that the government openly tortures, and that the ruling elite are fueling anti-democratic movements – we have a lot of reason to be dead afraid of what is coming.
at Terri Schiavo’s hospice, and was being interviewed by Aaron Brown on CNN, according to someone on Kos’s open thread.
Yes–someone pointed it out to me on the cross. Egads, this boy is determined to do it all wrong.
Arron Brown is IMO one of the better Cable shows going. I think he is smart, I really think he knows what’s what, and is a closet lib. I saw him interviewing the Demon spawn tonight, Santorium just kept demonizing Judge Greer and Judge Whittemore saying they made the wrong decision..and no one above them (all the way up to the US Supremes) would take the case or over turn Greer because he, Greer didn’t do what congress TOLD THE JUDGE TO DO. WTF? He can’t keep track of the lies that are coming out of his mouth.
I don’t know anything, anywhere that gives congress the right to tell a judge what to do or how to rule (not to mention this is the most litigated case in the history in Florida, it has been up and down the legal ladder for 7 years, been in 34 courts, including 7 stops at the Florida Supreme Court, 4 stops at federal courts, 4 at the US Supreme Court..not to mention Jebbie creating “Terri’s Law” in ’03 and putting her feeding tube back in(after it had been out for six days) until Jeb’s Terri’s law is declared Unconstitutional, and then Delay, Frist, Chimp, Santorium et al making up another fake law that all the judges shoot down including the Supremes again (did you know in April of ’01 this case went all the way up to the US Supreme Court and the feeding tube was ordered to be pulled then, it was out for 2 days, until her parents filed a new civil suit to introduce “new bs evidence” and that went up and down the court system for two and a half years until they lost and that was when jeb got involved)..This is what has given all these Freakshow prolife people time to organize. It is like a 10 million dollar budget Broadway show…Is this the United States of America. How can he (Demon spawn) still be out there defending his wrong decision to pass a bullshit bill?
80% of Americans what them(Govt) out of our bedrooms and hospital rooms. Santorium is an Ass. The Demon spawn should be at the TOP of our list to exterminate next election. I would fly to PA on my own dime to knock on doors to get his PRO Bullshit ass out of politics. Talk about brain dead. He makes my skin crawl. The more I get involved in politics the more my blood pressure goes up..I’m damn Mad….<end rant>
this post (not my own).
Funny what GOP politicos will say to get elected. I remember a while back there was this guy claiming to be a compassionate conservative, too.
Dean: We’ll do ”anything we can” to defeat Santorum
Prior to his visit to Pennsylvania today, Dean gives a phone interview to the local press, from AP. There’s a longer story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, but you may have to register to read it. “National Democratic leaders urged Casey, the son of a former governor, to run after he won election as treasurer in November with the most votes of any candidate in state history. Casey, who opposes abortion and gun control, did well in counties that have often rejected Democratic candidates. “Somebody’s position on choice can’t be a litmus test,” Dean said yesterday. “I’m as pro-choice as they come, [but] Bob Casey has been a tremendous friend of working people.” Some abortion-rights supporters in the party have protested the move to anoint Casey, but Dean said that the “progressive community” would quickly realize that Casey has the right positions on health care and other important issues and is a better choice than Santorum.”-from the Inquirer story.
from http://www.seattlefordean.com and http://www.howieinseattlefordean.com
Sorry if this was posted already, I couldn’t find it:
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
Published: March 30, 2005
St. Louis — BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html