SantorumBlog

Philly Inquirer Letter to Editor…

For the undecided voter, and for those who will be voting against Sen. Rick Santorum, rather than for Bob Casey Jr., look at what the citizens of Pennsylvania would be losing without Sen. Santorum. He is the No. 3 ranking U.S. senator. What comes with that are the many perks of power and the clout to bring things home for the good of his constituents.

What do we gain if Casey gets the seat? At best, with Republicans still in power, he would probably rank 98th in the Senate. Even if the Democrats were to win, he would not rank much higher as a freshman. Nor would he gain in stature with his low-key, soft-spoken style.

Sen. Santorum is highly respected in the Senate. In his next term, he may rank even higher, all promising greater things for the people of Pennsylvania.

Even Gov. Rendell recognizes the contributions Sen. Santorum has made. If you want something done, you go to the person who has a proven record of producing.

One has to ask: Is it better to be represented by a senator ranking No. 2 or 3, or one at No. 98 or 99?

Productivity

As Pennsylvanian go to the polls on Tuesday, please think carefully about the vote for senator. We currently have a senator who has worked his way to the No. 3 spot in his party.

He has been responsible for helping to save military bases, helped pass farm bills, helped get a coal refinery plant and represent the interest of all people of this state with aggressive action. Think jobs.

I’m sure Bob Casey would be a very nice dinner guest, but he doesn’t appear to have the push and knowledge to fight for the people of this state the way Sen. Rick Santorum has. Why trade a productive, energetic senator for a “nice guy” with no clout? Vote for the betterment of Pennsylvania, not for a “nice guy.”

The Record.

Rick Santorum was co-sponsor of the “Covering Kids Act of 2005,” which gives more kids health insurance, he helped Pennsylvania’s small businesses provide health insurance to their employees, wrote legislation to provide screening for prevention of breast and cervical cancer, helped expand access to home health care and worked to expand research for Parkinson’s disease.

He supported the Patients’ Bill of Rights, a leading advocate for program which funds community health centers, a leader in the fight to cut down frivolous lawsuits that are forcing doctors out of Pennsylvania, fought for prescription drug coverage, was instrumental in adding $1.5 billion emergency funding for veterans. How in the world can anyone say he is bad for regular folks?

Judges

It is interesting that The Patriot-News and others have so widely covered the New Jersey Supreme Court’s forcing of gay marriage, by whatever name, upon the people of New Jersey. The decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court only makes it all the more clear why the appointment of judges is such a critical function and why I am supporting Rick Santorum for re-election to the Senate.

Bob Casey opposes Pennsylvania adopting a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He supports civil unions, exactly the same result as the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Casey tries to hide his opinions by refusing to answer questions in debates and by trying to walk a fine line on these critical issues. Whether you always agree with Santorum or not, you know where he stands, and you know that, in the words of Gov. Ed Rendell, he fights for Pennsylvania.

Let’s keep Santorum fighting for Pennsylvania and for the values of Pennsylvanians.

Deserved

Your Oct. 29 editorial endorsed Robert Casey for senator because he will listen and learn? Of course he would. What else can he do? Casey’s a confirmed lightweight; a known quantity in Pennsylvania politics. He hasn’t held an office long enough to become good at any of them.

For that matter, he hasn’t shown much interest in those he has held, preferring to dedicate the majority of his time, as he has done since his last election, to his next opportunity. He’s invisible, stonewalling the voters of Pennsylvania, counting on his supporters in the press to carry his water.

Your endorsement damns Casey with faint praise. If you were to do an article headlined, “Bobby Casey: In his own words,” you’d have trouble finding meaningful content. Rick Santorum deserves re-election. As you fairly noted, Santorum has served the commonwealth effectively. The governor agrees. So should all thinking voters.

Letter to the Editor

On Oct. 23, The Patriot-News ran an editorial against Will Gabig, because Pennsylvania needs a “clean sweep” of politicians, even though you admitted that he later went against his party to call for the reversal of the illegal pay raise.

The Patriot-News, after calling for a “clean sweep of the politicians,” endorsed Gov. Ed Rendell and Rep. Ron Buxton, who both supported the pay raise.

Don’t you consider this a biased endorsement? Maybe these types of editorials, and the news selectivity practiced by The Patriot-News, is one reason your subscriptions have decreased.

For example, you have endorsed Bob Casey with positive articles, and have run negative articles against Sen. Rick Santorum, President Bush and the entire Republican administration. There must be something positive about an administration that has protected America from another 9/11, has freed Iraq from a dictator who had killed over 2.5 million in 10 years, has decreased the deficit by decreasing taxes, etc.

Believe me, people see through this biased news selectivity practiced by The Patriot-News.

Since I’ve been linking to Letters to the Editors, I’ve noticed that the Patriot-News provides FAR more pro-Santorum LtoEs than pro-Bob or even anti-Rick letters. I’m wondering if the op-ed department is out of step with it’s readership.

Most of the big paper’s circulations are down. I wonder about them.

Patriot-News Letter to the Editor

I’m not happy with Republicans who’ve forgotten the Contract with America (line item veto, fiscal
conservatism, lobby reform, citizen privacy rights, government size and ethics, etc.). Weeks ago, I wasn’t even sure I’d vote again for Sen. Rick Santorum.

I listened to Santorum speak at the Cumberland/Dauphin GOP Dinner recently. I was impressed with his concerns for our nation’s security. He explained the threat of Islamo-fascists committed to killing any and all not embracing their dogmatic religious beliefs.

These people aren’t interested in dialogue or negotiations with America. They despise us. They do not seek nuclear weapons for defense.

The president of Iran has said he hopes to see Israel wiped from the face of the Earth. These wide-eyed zealots see us as a religious mission to bring us to our knees and force us to either convert to their views or die. They teach their children to want to die killing nonbelievers. Leaving Iraq will not appease these zealots or make our worlds more secure.

I’ve seen nothing separating Bob Casey from the likes of Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi. I have no idea how they or Casey would better protect us or our interests overseas. Then I pondered this question: Who would the presidents of Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela want me to vote for?

I’m proudly voting for Santorum.

Tribune-Review Letter to the Editor

At this critical time in our history Pennsylvania and the nation simply cannot afford to throw away the valuable national and international experience Sen. Rick Santorum has gained in the last 12 years.
His steadfast support for strong national security in the war against terrorism and Islamic fascism is vital to winning this war and securing America and its children against further acts of terrorism and wholesale murder at the hands of our nation’s enemies.

To place our country’s national security in the hands of an inexperienced newcomer to Washington with absolutely no knowledge of international affairs like Bob Casey would be suicidal to say the least.

Sunday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has three (!) pro-Santorum/anti-Casey letters in it. Keep up the good work, folks! The P-G must be getting bombarded by our letters giving a more conservative point of view:

“The PG endorsement of Bob Casey Jr. is no great surprise (”Casey for Senate: Santorum Exemplifies the Worst of Washington,” Oct. 22). However, it is a shame that the hometown newspaper of the third-ranking senator in the United States does not acknowledge what it means to the region to have the third-ranking senator represent this state.

We all know about the 911th Airlift Wing that Sen. Rick Santorum worked to save. Sen. Santorum secured funding for educational programs at the Pittsburgh Symphony, the African American Cultural Center, the Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG Aquarium, the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, the National Aviary, the Senator John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center and the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

Sen. Santorum also has secured more than $11 million for adult stem-cell research, helping to transform Pittsburgh from a steel town into a biotechnology research leader.

Additionally, he was instrumental in funding of the renovations to the Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs Hospital, construction of a parking facility at the hospital and increased operational funding, which has resulted in vastly improved patient care.

The PG said Bob Casey Jr. could do those things, also. He may want to do those things but he will not be able to get them done, because he will be a freshman senator. I plan on supporting Sen. Rick Santorum because he has been a true fighter for Pittsburgh and we all have benefited from his efforts.”

LOU NUDI
Vietnam Veteran
Ross

“So the PG endorsed Bob Casey Jr. for senator … what a surprise! And what an endorsement. About 70 percent of your editorial was about Sen. Rick Santorum.

Let’s review what you cite about Mr. Casey. He and Mr. Santorum are about the same on Iraq, pro-gun, pro-death penalty and anti-abortion.

Mr. Casey has no clue concerning Social Security and wants to do something about health care. And, of course, the coup de grace — he wants to increase the minimum wage! That will solve all the nation’s problems.

He has political experience but no legislative experience. Let’s face it: Bob Casey doesn’t have the guts to tell us how he will make a difference. That is probably why the PG endorsed him; he will be a faithful foot soldier for the Democrats.”

ROBERT McGRATH
Wilkins

“Surprise: The PG did not endorse Rick Santorum. But you might have had the decency to acknowledge that the weary slurs trotted out yet again have all been answered. If you find the answers lacking, you have an obligation to acknowledge the answers and identify any weakness. The fact that you did not do so points to the hypocrisy of the PG, not Rick Santorum.

Take, for example, the tired charge that Mr. Santorum’s residence situation as senator is just like Doug Walgren’s. When Mr. Santorum ran against Mr. Walgren for the House, he correctly pointed out that Mr. Walgren did not live in the district, or in Pennsylvania. When Mr. Santorum represented his district in the House, he lived in the district. When he was elected to the Senate, the situation changed: He no longer represented one district but the whole state — and promised to visit every county every year (a promise kept).

There’s another difference: The Senate is in session 70 to 80 days per year more than the House — a huge difference for a family with young children. A weekly commute from Pittsburgh would take a toll on the family and on his commitment to visit every county. The Santorums did the responsible thing as parents: Like many Senate families, they got a second residence in the D.C. area. That residence does not replace the Penn Hills home — where they vote, pay their taxes, serve jury duty and maintain their official residence.

The PG knows these facts and ignores them, yet charges hypocrisy?

Likewise the silliness about using the Pennsylvania cyber school: The Santorums are lifelong residents of Pennsylvania, where they vote and pay taxes. By what state should their children be educated?

It’s bad enough to distort his record. Why make his family a political football?”

JOHN KAUFMANN
Murrysville

And there’s another pro-Santorum letter in Sunday’s Patriot News:

“In recent months there has been a steady drumbeat of criticism directed at Sen. Rick Santorum, ranging from the trivial to the downright dishonest. Most of it is partisan in nature.

Let’s get down to facts. Santorum is the third-ranking senator, has a national following and is considered to be presidential timber. In his position of leadership, he is poised to do more for the state than any newcomer possibly could.

Even if you think his opponent in the current campaign, Bob Casey, has the right values, you might as well be voting for Teddy Kennedy because Casey would vote with Kennedy, as a member of the Democratic caucus, on most issues.

In addition, Santorum is a zealous and outspoken advocate. Casey, on the other hand, gives every indication of being a mild-mannered backbencher. And his work ethic or lack thereof is a matter of record.

We need to keep Santorum working for us in the Senate.”

JOHN SOPENSKY
Mechanicsburg

Suburban & Wayne Times Letter to the Editor.

Who is the better leader and better for Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum or Bob Casey? I would ask your readers to pause and consider the case for re-electing Senator Rick Santorum.

Senator Rick Santorum is one of the most effective leaders on the national stage, “delivers for Pennsylvania” (Ed Rendell’s words) and he has always had particular strong ties to Chester County and in Tredyffrin. He is the third ranking Republican leader in the Senate at such a relatively young age because he is a dynamic, confident and effective leader and communicator. He rose by sheer merit from humble circumstance, being the son of an Italian immigrant in a steel town, and is likely to become the second ranking Republican in the Senate if he wins this election.

Senator Santorum acts out of convictions and principles. He is a moral man. This is rare for a politician, as a good number of them are plastic, malleable, calculating and self-interested. More importantly, he is not ashamed to show his love for God and country. He knows it’s important to all of us that our children to grow up in a country that respects time-honored values. He has (unfairly) been the victim by our media elite of an overwhelming barrage of negative coverage. But why listen to those who hate America, hate organized religion and wish our children to be exposed at the earliest age possible to sex, violence and questionable ethics? Politics and the national debate is better because of his courage and his leadership. Even if you as a voter wish a more libertarian approach to things, which I do not, the national debate is better for a few national leaders who actually have values.

Both incumbents and challengers for the U.S. Senate should have something to add to the national dialogue on solving the great issues of the day. A U.S. Senate seat is one of the 100 most important political leadership offices in the nation. Santorum has shown strong and effective leadership on the important issues of the day: the fight against Islamic terrorism, the war in Iraq, welfare reform, Social Security reform, tax reform and immigration reform. He is not a Bush clone, and has critiqued in a positive way the Administration’s lackluster prosecution of the war in Iraq. As a leader of the U.S. Senate, Santorum has a detailed and hands-on understanding of the issues that are facing our country and our state. His opponent, Bob Casey, avoids like the plague the great issues of the day. His issues: raising the minimum wage and health care. Bob Casey really adds nothing to the national debate on great issues, and doesn’t really even get the notion that this is a national platform to lead. Moreover, for someone interviewing for the U.S. Senate, Mr. Casey doesn’t even seem to know the specifics of the many areas he needs to know to be effective. Casey is truly “mailing in” his candidacy. He will have no political capitol to draw on once elected.

Senator Santorum is also a very able “bring home the bacon” politician. In fact, he has used his clout successfully to stop many military bases from closing, to stop jobs from leaving to other locales, and to bring federal funding for projects to our state. His campaign Web site shows, by county, the effective work he has done for Pennsylvania. Additionally, he has been very active on a host of issues for the good of our nation and the world, from dealing with child molesters locally (Aimee’s law) to dealing with AIDS in Africa.

There are certain leaders who mark themselves as special in politics. Independent voters select them because they are special, not necessarily because they are liberal or conservative. They add to the national debate. They are especially influential among their peers. They are able to “deliver” for their home state. They energetically approach a wide range of issues. They reach across the aisles and work out compromise bills that do great things. Sure, they may disappoint on occasion or make a misstep now and then. But when you go into the voting booth, you know who the better person is for the nation, for your children, and for your home state. They want to do something and leave a mark, not simply “be someone” important. Senator Rick Santorum is one such leader.

Pocono Record Letter to the Editor

Based on what Bobby Casey Jr. has stated in debates and on his Web site, he has no conflicts with national Democrats on many issues facing the country today.

Casey supports:

Obstructionist tactics that prevent qualified judges from getting up or down votes in the Senate, partial-birth abortion, judges imposing gay marriage on states, and giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

Casey is against: building a wall to protect our borders, and acting now to save Social Security resulting in automatic benefit cuts by law.

On Nov. 7 ask yourself, do I want to support Bobby Casey who goes along with the crowd and signed the checks for an illegal pay raise, or do I want a true leader in Senator Rick Santorum, who has been fighting for Pennsylvanians on all these issues?

Do we Pennsylvanians want to trade number 2 in the majority for number 48 in the minority?

Patriot-News Letter to the Editor

Bob Casey supporters complain the Santorums reside in Virginia. Perhaps they aren’t aware that the U.S. Senate is in Washington; our senators represent the entire state, not a legislative district.

Sen. Rick Santorum owns a house in Pennsylvania, paying school district and other taxes. Neither house is a mansion.

If elected, Casey from Scranton will reside in D.C., Virginia or Maryland, with his family remaining in Pennsylvania. Apparently, one of them believes the role of father and husband involves actually being together as a family.

There is nothing new in Casey’s New Direction for Pennsylvania. It’s the tax and spend old direction. Health care for everyone (a new entitlement), pre-kindergarten for all Pennsylvania children (a new entitlement), energy independence (but no drilling in Alaska), fiscal discipline (a concern only when Democrats aren’t in power), and canceling tax cuts (to fund all the new spending). Casey’s direction is the wrong direction for our state and the nation.

Of foremost importance is national security. Pennsylvania rarely has one of its own, like Santorum, in top Senate leadership. He has the knowledge, experience and leadership required in the scary and difficult world we live in today. It isn’t the right time for an inexperienced rookie like Casey.

Patriot News Letter to the Editor

There are many vitally important reasons to vote for Rick Santorum rather than Bob Casey for the U.S. Senate. I believe the most important reason concerns the security and future of our country.

Casey is weak on the terrorist threat. He supports Rep John Murtha, who wants to pull our troops out of the current war. Casey also says he is opposed to closing our borders and increasing border security.

Santorum has stated repeatedly that we are at war with Islamic fascism. He says our enemy is a people with an ideology, who use terrorism against us.

If we cut and run, they will be right behind us, fighting us in America. Santorum said that when al-Qaida bombed the Madrid train station, their communique was, “You love life, and we love death.” Try to negotiate with those kinds of people.

If we elect Santorum and he turns out to be wrong about the “war on Islamic fascism,” then our country will be better off. But if Casey is elected, and Santorum is then proven right about the great threat to our country, what are we going to tell our children and grandchildren (if they survive) if we didn’t do our best to get Santorum elected?

Patriot-News Letter to the Editor

The upcoming November elections are of very great importance regarding the future welfare of America and may be our last opportunity to reject the amnesty bill passed by the Senate.

This is a bill which would not only continue the erosion of our economy but would greatly aggravate it.

The laws of the United States regarding illegal immigration have never been enforced and taxpayers continue to be forced to pay for benefits and many other freebies for people who are not American citizens, who thumb their collective noses at our laws and customs and really don’t like us.

These benefits should be stopped immediately, and punishment for those who hire illegals should be jail, not fines that employers would simply use as a “cost of business” and use it as a deduction.

It is incomprehensible to me that any intelligent person would support amnesty but, unfortunately, Bob Casey, along with the likes of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Arlen Specter, does. How short-sighted can one be?

Taxpayers and environmentalists both should be worried about the ramifications of the amnesty bill — I sincerely hope they are and will vote accordingly.

Patriot-News Letter to the Editor

The U.S. senatorial election in Pennsylvania is critical, not just for our state, but for our nation. The wrong choice, Bob Casey, could have serious consequences for America. On major issues that face America today, issues such as homeland security/national defense; border security/immigration; the economy and family/moral values, Rick Santorum and Bob Casey differ greatly.

Casey, while pro-life, stands squarely in the camp of homosexual activists. He said he supports the Senate’s immigration plan that is soft on border security and grants amnesty to “illegal” immigrants. And, unlike Santorum, who is a ranking senator with power and influence, Casey would be a junior senator with little power. I fear he would just be a puppet in the hands of extremist liberal Senate ideologies like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Chuck Schumer, who wish to appease the terrorists, “cut and run” in Iraq, and raise taxes.

A Casey victory in Pennsylvania would pave the way for the most serious consequence of all — a takeover of the Senate by extremist liberals. All of them spew hatred and bitterness every time they open their mouths, and I believe their politics are guided more by a passionate desire to bring down President Bush than what is in the best interest of our nation.

Patriot-News Letter to the Editor

It’s hard to ascertain whether Pat Carroll (column, Oct. 8 ) has actually read Rick Santorum’s It takes a Family or the chapter, “Work and Human Dignity.” To put the quotation, “The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers … move up the economic ladder, is just wrong” in context, here are some other quotes from that same chapter.

“… Welfare reform moved millions off welfare. The rolls have been more than cut in half.

“… We pushed … welfare reform law in 1996, we were purposefully heavy on work and light on education … Data show that welfare recipients who are put in jobs see their earning increase twice as fast over five years as welfare recipients who are put in education programs before going into work.”

As a stay-at-home mom, I am aware of the attitude that being a homemaker is an unworthy profession. The pressure to return to work is constant.

My heartfelt gratitude goes out to Sen. Santorum for his efforts in repealing the marriage penalty, promoting the child tax credit and most of all for affirming the value of a mother’s place in society when she chooses to stay home with her children.