SantorumBlog

The message to the Republican Party is clear - reclaim your conservative roots or be condemned to minority status for decades.

The Republicans must immediately begin to convincingly work for the conservative principles which they promised to support when they got elected. As Michael Savage says, Borders, Language, Culture. Republicans had four years to secure the borders - they didn’t do it. Republicans had four years to make English America’s official language - they didn’t do it. Republicans had four years to get the garbage in the media out of our children’s faces - they didn’t do it. Republicans had four years to cut government spending - they didn’t do it.

The result of these failures, combined with the failure to fight back against liberal partisanship and lies, was the bloodbath we saw on Tuesday. President Bush is called every despicable name imaginable every single day, and what does he do about it? He laughs it off. That’s all well and good for Bush, but when he doesn’t go out and explain how he is being slandered, people start to believe those lies. It’s exactly the same with Senator Santorum.

I am optimistic that most Republicans will get the message and clean up their acts. They have two years starting now to prove to America that they’re sorry for breaking their promises, and that they’re now serious about supporting conservative values - which are American values.

I hate to break it to the moonbats who inexplicably continue to troll on this blog and post asinine comments, but America didn’t reject conservatism on Tuesday. America’s conservatives rejected the non-conservative actions of the Republican Party by sitting this election out.

Most Americans want lower taxes. Most Americans want to cut government spending. Most Americans want restrictions on abortion. Most Americans want to secure the borders. As George Will wrote, this election was a defeat for Republicans - not a defeat for conservatism.

Be honest with yourselves, moonbats. You just elected Bob Casey, a man who says he’s pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-embryonic stem cell research and pro-gun. Does it sound like you just voted against the “Christian fascists”?

Seven states voted to ban gay marriage on Tuesday. Only one state in which a ban was proposed did it fail - Arizona - and it failed by the slimmest margin. And that’s with the Republicans staying home! So much for the “AmTaliban” being repudiated.

Democrats win elections by pretending to be conservative. Republicans lost this election by not being conservative enough. The Republican Party must embrace conservatism for victory in 2008!

Five Reasons to Vote for Rick Santorum:

1 - The Republican tax cuts supported by Senator Rick Santorum have led the Dow Jones Industrial Average to increase by 2,000 points since the 2004 presidential election. The Dow has been propelled to an all-time high. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in five years. The budget deficit for 2006 is $248 billion - down from $412 billion in 2004. Why is it important to remember the 2004 numbers? Because it shows what progress we’ve made since America went out in force to elect conservative Republican leaders two years ago. It shows that we must do it again, and re-elect Rick Santorum.

2 - The war against Islamic fascism could very well be the most important issue of our time. Senator Santorum has shown that he understands this conflict more than any other Senator. He recognizes that we must secure the borders to prevent Islamic fascists from bringing deadly substances into America. He recognizes that we must encourage the people of Iran to fight for their freedom and put an end to the tyranny in their country, not only for their own sake, but for the sake of the world. He recognizes that we must finish the job in Iraq, because if we allow the Islamic fascists to defeat us there, they will be emboldened like never before.

3 - Senator Santorum is a conservative, no doubt about it, but he is also willing to challenge his conservative colleagues when he disagrees with them, and work with liberals when they agree on an issue. He has worked with Democrats to help fight poverty and AIDS. He has stood up and opposed President Bush’s immigration and Iran policies. While he is a conservative and therefore agrees with the President often, he is not a “rubber stamp” for anyone.

4 - We only need one more originalist Justice on the Supreme Court to undo decades of ideological decisions made by left-wing Justices who abused their power and became judicial activists. Senator Santorum has been a fighter to get originalist judges on all courts - judges who will not make decisions based on their own personal opinions, but rather based on the law. In 2004, Rick Santorum supported the re-election of Senator Arlen Specter, and many conservatives were upset - upset that Specter would block originalists from the Supreme Court. Yet thanks to the influence of his Republican colleagues like Rick Santorum, Senator Specter not only allowed a vote on John Roberts and Sam Alito - he voted in favor of their nominations. Senator Santorum and Senator Specter voted together to put Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito on the Supreme Court, two solid originalists who will remain on the Court for decades. We only need one more originalist Justice to have a majority of originalists on the Supreme Court, and that’s why we need to re-elect Rick Santorum.

5 - Agree or disagree with him, you always know where Senator Santorum stands on the issues. Everyone knows that Rick Santorum is pro-life, against euthanasia, and against government funding for emergency contraception and embryonic stem cell research. As a social conservative, I applaud Santorum for his positions on these vital issues. But maybe you’re not a social conservative, so you disagree with Santorum on these issues. Still, you must recognize that he is a man of integrity who stands up for what he believes in and always tells us what he thinks, and that’s exactly the kind of leader we need to represent us in Washington.

Five Reasons Not to Vote for Bob Casey:

1 - Bob Casey wants to ‘roll back the tax cuts’ (in other words, raise taxes) which have been responsible for the improvement in our economy over the past two years. When asked what programs he would cut, Casey couldn’t give a single answer - all he wants to do is raise taxes, and he thinks that will cure all of America’s ills.

2 - Bob Casey is MIA in the war against Islamic fascism. He wants President Bush to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but that’s about all he wants to change in Iraq. In spite of the fact that he constantly blasts President Bush and Senator Santorum for supporting the Iraq War, Casey tells us that he also would have supported the war and that he opposes leaving Iraq. He has no idea about what to do in Iran, and he is not serious about securing America’s borders.

3 - Bob Casey likes to pretend to be a conservative or moderate Democrat, but he says that he will not lead on any conservative issues. Instead, he says that as a Senator he would push for liberal economic policies. He is supported by all manner of far-left groups, from MoveOn.org to NARAL to Daily Kos. These groups are counting on Casey to be a pawn of Chuck Schumer and the Democrat Party leadership.

4 - Bob Casey says that he would have voted to filibuster some originalist justices branded as “extreme” by Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy. Casey is once again MIA on the issue of judicial activism, and frankly doesn’t seem to understand it. Many Americans have voted in favor of State Constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage, understanding that such amendments are the only way to stop judicial activists from redefining marriage on their own whim. When it comes to the issue of judges, Bob Casey is out of touch with the people of Pennsylvania.

5 - Does anyone know what Bob Casey really believes? Does Bob Casey himself know? He says he is pro-life, yet he is supported by NARAL and Planned Parenthood and he denies the scientific fact that the morning-after pill can have an abortifacient effect prior to implantation. He says he’s against gay marriage, yet he is supported by all manner of radical homosexual groups. He says he wants strong borders, yet he supports Amnesty. He says that we need a new direction in Iraq, yet he provides no such new direction. He never gave a straight answer to a question in any of the debates he was involved in. When asked to appear on numerous news and talk shows to discuss his views, he didn’t show up, claiming that he was too busy doing something else to talk to the people of Pennsylvania. We Pennsylvanians must not send a man to Washington when that man absolutely refuses to take a clear and consistent position on any issue. Pennsylvania deserves better representation than someone who will not even tell us what he believes.

Now that Senator John Kerry is rightfully being blasted by the media for his remarks in which he “accidentally” called our troops stupid and uneducated, liberals insist that we talk about issues, not non-issues like John Kerry’s troop bashing!

Liberals want to return to the issues? When have they ever been about issues?

Unless you’re talking about the important national issue of how Rick Santorum wants to spend more time with his wife and kids, so he doesn’t commute back and forth from Penn Hills to Washington DC every day, and that somehow makes him crooked.

Then there’s the issue of Santorum saying that parents should spend more time with their young children. That one makes him “anti-woman”. Hey, don’t ask me how that’s anti-woman. Ask the liberals.

Or how about the issue of how Santorum said that if the Supreme Court can find a right to sodomy in the US Constitution, then the Supreme Court can find a right to any kind of deviant sexual behavior in the US Constitution? Since Santorum showed a perfect understanding of democracy, constitutional law and precedent, let’s bash him as being “anti-gay”.

What about the issue of Santorum describing threats to traditional marriage, saying that homosexual marriage is one such threat. As he said, it’s not man-on-child or man-on-dog, but it is a threat to traditional marriage, nonetheless. But let’s just falsely state outright that Santorum compared homosexuals to dogs and accuse him of blaming all of the world’s problems on gays. Why not? People might even believe it if we say it enough times!

And we can’t forget the issue of Santorum going to pray with his constituents Bob and Mary Schindler as their daughter was being dehydrated to death by order of the state. That just proves that he’s a right-wing wacko, because only a Jesus freak would go pray for an innocent person who is being killed.

And finally, don’t forget about Bob Casey’s number one issue - the issue that Rick Santorum agrees with President Bush too much. After all, why should a Republican Senator agree with a Republican President? That just doesn’t make sense.

Those are some important national issues, alright.

Please. If this election was about actual issues, Santorum would get about 90% of the vote since Bob Casey refuses to take positions on the issues. Instead, this election is all about lies, innuendo, and emotional illogic. The last thing liberals want to talk about is issues.

It’s four days before the election, and I’m still not sure what Bob Casey wants us to do in Iraq. I still don’t know how he’ll vote on issues like abortion and gay marriage. I still don’t know if he’ll vote to filibuster or vote to confirm originalist judicial nominees. I still don’t know if Casey is serious about protecting America’s borders.

All I know for certain, in fact, the only thing that Bob Casey himself seems certain of, is that he wants to raise taxes.

A great conservative endorsement for Rick Santorum, proving that he is serious about protecting America’s borders:

Minuteman group endorses Santorum

““We endorse those who will support the laws of this nation and secure the borders,” said Chris Simcox, honorary chairman of the Minuteman Political Action Committee. “We need him (Santorum) in the federal government because he has stood firm on this issue.””

Chris Simcox is a patriot who gave up his own time and money to patrol the borders himself because our government wasn’t doing the job. Thanks to his activism, more and more politicians are beginning to understand the importance of securing our borders.

Evening Bulletin

In a few days, Pennsylvanians will have the opportunity to vote in what may very well be the most important senatorial race for the country. This November, voters will face a choice between two kinds of politicians: A principled and a contrarian one. A principled politician allows his beliefs to govern how he will vote on any given issue. A contrarian politician defines himself as whatever his opponents are not, letting them do his thinking for him. Sadly, that kind of politician can be found on both sides of the aisle today. The question for Keystone residents is whether we want to continue to be represented by a principled politician or to try our hands with a contrarian one.

Critics and supporters alike can all agree that Rick Santorum has never lost sight of those beliefs that Pennsylvanians were impressed with six years ago when they voted him into office. While Pennsylvanians may disagree with Santorum from time to time on some of his results, he has never voted contrary to what his beliefs tell him are the best answer for his constituents and the country at large.

Over the past couple of months of his campaign, Bob Casey, however, has positioned himself as someone who has no greater interest in the positions he takes beyond knowing that he is on the other side of the divide from his opponent and the administration. The danger with this approach is that Casey will be unable to stand on his own two feet when he does not know what his opponents think, or will compromise his own beliefs when those beliefs are shared by their opponents.

Not convinced that Casey has been running on a contrarian platform, that he has no answer of his own or that he will compromise his own beliefs? Just take a look at the record.

The Citizens-Voice

Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum will hold a news conference today at noon at the Luzerne County Republican Victory Center, 41 S. Main St., Wilkes-Barre, announcing an endorsement from a national group that opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and has mobilized civilians to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border.

Chris Simcox, founder of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, will be on hand to lend his organization’s support in Santorum’s re-election fight against state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. Also appearing will be Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta.

Greg Pollowitz writes in to say that a judge has struck down Hazelton’s anti-illegal immigrant law.

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the city of Hazleton from enforcing a pair of ordinances targeting illegal immigrants, just hours before the measures were to go into effect.

The measures, approved by the City Council last month, would have imposed fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and denied business permits to companies that give them jobs. They also would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

Naturally, the ACLU was involved.

Mayor Lou Barletta, who spearheaded the law, has argued that illegal immigrants have brought an increase in drugs, crime and gangs to the city. The city’s lawyers on Tuesday cited a 10 percent increase in crime between 2004 and 2005 as a reason why the ordinances should be enforced.

Munley, however, wrote that the city “offers only vague generalizations about the crime allegedly caused by illegal immigrants, but has nothing concrete to back up these claims.”

Hazleton’s crackdown, which was announced in June, has spurred other towns to pass similar laws. Municipal officials view the Hazleton lawsuit and a similar one in Riverside, N.J., as test cases.

This of course stands to help Senate Rick Santorum next tuesday.

Why? Federal judges horsing around with laws that elected officials pass, AND illegal immigration. Those two issues piss off conservatives. If the judge would have ruled in favor of terrorists, we would have a “get out the base” trifecta.

Good timing, as usual, by the unelected judiciary.

On Fox News Sunday yesterday morning, Senator Santorum voiced his strong disagreement with President Bush on the borders, saying that if you’re not for securing the borders now, you’re putting our nation at risk:

WALLACE: “Senator, if I may, let’s talk about the reality of this situation with regard to the vote on illegal immigration. All he said was that he would have voted for the comprehensive immigration reform package that was passed by the Senate, a package, incidentally, that was supported by 23 of your Republican Senate colleagues, as well as President Bush. Does that make all of them soft on terror?”

SANTORUM: “Well, I think in that particular respect, yes. I think anything that says to the people of the world, if they can come into this country and break the law and cross our borders and we’re going to give them amnesty, number one, you encourage more people to come and I think that does allow the opportunity for, if we do not secure our borders first, which is what now we’re trying to do, after people rejected the Senate bill.

The overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians have rejected the Senate bill because it puts the cart before the horse. We need to secure our borders first and if we don’t we’re going to have problems.”

WALLACE: “Senator, you’re saying your Pennsylvania colleague, Arlen Specter, and George W. Bush, both of whom supported that bill, are soft on terrorists?”

SANTORUM: “All I would suggest is — I don’t know how I can make it more clear, Chris. If we don’t secure our borders first and what we say to people is that we’re going to provide you amnesty if you cross into this country, you’re going to get more people in this country that I believe could be a threat to this country, and I think we’re seeing that.”

Senator Santorum is exactly right. We need to secure the borders. The borders are a national security issue, and anyone who is for weak borders is, on that issue, weak on fighting terror. Sure, President Bush is excellent on hunting down the terrorists and defeating them, cutting off their money supplies, and preventing their attacks, but he’s terrible on the borders. That’s a fact. All conservatives know it, and it’s one of the main reasons why his numbers are so low.

That’s what makes this latest attack from Casey so ridiculous. After bludgeoning Santorum with the “he votes with Bush 98% of the time” talking point for months, now Casey has done a complete flip-flop and is bashing Santorum for disagreeing with Bush, on one of the biggest issues of disagreement between Bush and his base. Casey is now officially a joke:

BobCasey.com: Santorum Calls Bush Soft on Terror

Bob Casey spokesman Larry Smar: “Responding to a question on FOX News Sunday asking whether President Bush and the 23 Republican senators who voted for the Senate immigration bill were “soft on terror,” Santorum responded “yes.” The question came as Chris Wallace grilled Santorum on his TV ad that features Bob Casey’s picture next to a mushroom cloud and showed pictures of the 9/11 terrorists suggesting that Bob Casey would give the terrorists amnesty. Less than 10 days before the election, Rick Santorum is going to such great lengths to justify his desperate attack ads that he’s running from President Bush and even saying the President is soft on terror.”

It also seems that Smar has been closely following SantorumBlog, since he used the word “grilled” to describe what Chris Wallace did to Santorum. You read it here first. If you’re reading this, Smar, perhaps you should stick with the mindless 98% talking point instead of switching over to the new talking point that Santorum strongly disagrees with Bush in the last few days here. Seems to be kind of silly to start arguing the exact opposite of what you’ve spent months jamming down our throats.

Once again proving that he is no right-wing partisan, Fox News’ Chris Wallace confronted Senator Santorum with some tough questions this morning. As usual, Santorum stood his ground and answered the questions while Casey was off hiding somewhere. (Note: These are not direct quotes, but rather are my paraphrasing of the questions and answers - Update: An actual transcript is up on FoxNews.com):

Wallace: Polls show you behind by more than 10 points. You have been in the Senate for twelve years… why shouldn’t we look at this and say Pennsylvanians know who Rick Santorum is, and they just aren’t buying this year?

Santorum: We have a lot of polls that show different than that, and we’re happy about our position right now. I’m out talking about the important issues of the day. I’ve talked about the “Gathering Storm”, the threat we face. The people are beginning to understand that we need leadership, not people who hide, as my opponent who didn’t come on the show today. He has nothing to offer but ‘let’s raise taxes’.

Wallace: Let’s look at one of your ads. (Shows the last few seconds of the “Baltic Avenue” ad) Bob Casey along with pictures of Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad and a mushroom cloud! How do you justify making the case that he votes for Amnesty and is therefore soft on terrorists?

Santorum: He’s against the missile defense system and he’s against nuclear-tipped bunker busting bombs which would be necessary to take out installations in Iran.

Wallace: But you said he supports Amnesty for illegals and therefore is soft on terror.

Santorum: You only showed a piece of that ad. The other things I mentioned are a part of that ad, including NSA wiretap which he refuses to take a position on. I came out and made a long speech about these issues and he accused me of fear-mongering. I’m not fear-mongering; I’m describing reality.

Wallace: Let’s talk about the reality of the vote on illegal immigration. All he said is that he would vote for the comprehensive immigration reform package in the Senate, which was supported by 23 Republican Senators and President Bush! Does that make them soft on terror?

Santorum: (Nods, “yes”) I think in that particular respect, yes. Anything that says to the people of the world that they can break our laws, come into our country, and we’ll give them Amnesty, then you encourage more people to come and I think that does allow for the opportunity (of an attack) if we don’t secure the borders. An overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians reject the Senate bill.

Wallace: Senator, you’re saying that your Pennsylvania colleague Arlen Specter, and George W. Bush, both of whom supported that bill, are soft on terrorists?!

Santorum: I don’t know how I can make it more clear, Chris. If we don’t secure the borders and if we give Amnesty, then we’re going to get more people in this country that I believe could be a threat to this country and I think we’re seeing that.

Wallace: You also link Casey to US casualties in Iraq since he has opposed energy exploration. (Shows clip of Santorum blasting Casey for playing to environmental extremists at the expense of our troops in the Middle East.) Senator, I thought we went into Iraq to get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Santorum: I think everyone realizes that the principle reason why Islamic fascism is the threat that it is today is that they have resources and they have oil. The only way we’re going to holistically confront this threat is to develop energy security in this country. We need to use all means necessary, but Casey is against offshore drilling. China is drilling 50 miles off the shore of the US, but he won’t allow the US to drill 100 miles off the shore. He’ll allow 3,700 gas and oil wells to be drilled in western PA last year, but he won’t allow us to drill less than 1,000 wells in the north slope of Alaska over the next 25 years. Our men and women are out there and they’re sacrificing because they (Islamic fascists) have resources to be able to project power. The only reason Iran can get a nuclear weapon is that they have the oil revenue. We have to use every resource we have to become energy secure!

Wallace: Pennsylvania does not have a gay marriage ban on the ballot, but are you going to try to make gay marriage an issue because in the neighboring state of New Jersey, the Supreme Court there just said that same-sex couples should have full legal rights?

Santorum: My opponent and I are very different on this issue. He said that he would fight against any state or federal constitutional amendment that would secure the right of the people to define what marriage is. He would allow the courts to decide the issue. I don’t believe in that. On the great moral issues of our time, the people have a right to speak and say what their collective morality is, and what kind of country they want to live in. A few unelected or even elected judges should not impose that. He would go along with the unelected judges. He supports civil unions.

For the record, this program aired on Fox 53 WPGH in Pittsburgh. About halfway through the show, Santorum’s Wrestling ad aired. That means his ads are back on non-cable stations.

Update by AlexC: Mark Kilmer also blogged it at Redstate. He writes…

Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was Wallace’s next guest on FNS. (They invited Bob Casey also, but junior didn’t dare to appear in public. Again.) Wallace pointed out that most polls show Rick trailing by double digits, but Santorum claimed to have internal polls “that show a lot different.” Rick said he is trying to get the message out of what is at stake in this election, and he cited his Gathering Storm speech.

Rick pointed out that Casey “hides from the public… because he has nothing to offer.”
Wallace played a clip of Rick arguing that opposing the use of domestic energy benefits the terrorists. Santorum said that Islamic fascists are taken so seriously because they have oil. Casey, he said, opposes offshore drilling and exploration in ANWR.

Given what just happened with the courts in New Jersey, Wallace asked, is gay marriage an issue in the Pennsylvania race? Rick thinks so, and he pointed out that Casey would remove the ability to define marriage from the people and give it to a few judges. He said that Casey supports gay marriage without the term “marriage,” i.e.– civil unions.

… and I saw the North Korea ad on Philadelphia’s WTXF Fox 29 10 o’clock news.

The Pittsburgh Catholic Newspaper asked Rick Santorum and Bob Casey to answer some questions on issues of concern to Catholics. This is a short version of what appeared in today’s paper:

Pennsylvania Catholic Voter’s Guide - U.S. Senator (pdf)

Santorum and Casey gave similar answers on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and capital punishment.

On homosexual marriage, Casey seems to misunderstand why anyone is pushing for constitutional amendments. Activist judges have been redefining marriage against the will of the people, and we just saw that happen in New Jersey, where judges commanded the legislature to legalize gay marriage or civil unions. The only way to stop this is to amend the Constitution. But since Casey doesn’t understand this, he simply said that Pennsylvania’s state law which bans gay marriage is sufficient. Santorum said that we need to amend both the PA and US Constitutions to protect marriage.

On business tax credits for donations of scholarships to poor schools, Casey opposes them on the grounds that they will drain money from public schools. (Plus, as we all know, Casey never met a tax he didn’t like.) Santorum supports them.

On religious freedom and the conscientious objection of medical professionals when it comes to contraception and abortion, Casey gave contradictory answers. When asked if health care providers should be forced to offer services that go against moral teachings, Casey said no. But when asked if employers should be forced to pay for contraceptives, Casey said yes! In both circumstances, Santorum was on the side of the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion.

On immigration, Casey said that he would have voted for the Amnesty bill, but that he didn’t think it was perfect. Santorum said that he is opposed to Amnesty. Both of them said that they want to secure the borders.

There was another issue mentioned in the printed version of the Pittsburgh Catholic Newspaper today, and that issue was school choice - vouchers. Casey said that he opposes vouchers, while Santorum supports them. Casey says that vouchers would take money away from public schools. So, in other words, Casey is against school choice.