SantorumBlog

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.

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.

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!

The polls are closed, so it’s time to turn off the extreme optimism and turn on the realism. All we can do is wait to see what happens. Now we find out if the contemptible MSM has succeeded in brainwashing enough people to vote for the empty suit Bob Casey. Now we find out if the unbelievably dishonest liberals have managed to make people vote against sanity.

To be honest, it doesn’t look too great. But if we lose, then that means we dedicate ourselves to fighting even harder against these maniacs. These liberals have spent the last six years calling George Bush the devil, demonizing conservatives, telling blatant lies with the assistance of their friends in the media, making up nonsense about Rick Santorum, and doing everything they can to make us lose the Iraq War.

Even if we lose every close race, I’ll still be optimistic for the future, because I know that we’re right on the issues. I know that Rick Santorum is right. I know that the liberals are madmen who seek to destroy truth. I’ve also read the Book, so I know that Truth ultimately wins out in the end.

Scranton’s Times-Tribune has some keys to the Santorum-Casey race.  It’s a fairly good read, but by no means comprehensive.  It fails to mention notables, such as the GOP GOTV efforts and the weather.  Still interesting, though.

Clicky-clicky.

The liberals love polls.  They love to manipulate them every possible way then present them as fact.  The media love polls even more.  They are too lazy to dig into stories, so they count on polls to provide “news.”

Here we are on election day.  We’ve heard for months how conservatives don’t care and how conservatives are going to sit this one out.  We heard about this in 2004 - and look what happened.  We showed up, we voted, and the media and Dems cried about how we stole the election.  How dare we vote!

Here we are on election day.  We’ve heard for months about how conservatives hate Rick Santorum and anyone remotely connected to the Bush administration.  Yet, we are turning out to vote - in huge numbers.  We’re doing it again.

Perhaps we don’t like participating in polls.  Perhaps we don’t like listening to polls.  Perhaps the media, in their attempt to sway the election, simply report the wrong findings so often that they start to believe their own lies.  For months they have been telling themselves how it was going to be a GOP bloodbath.  Yet, we are turning out to vote - in huge numbers.  We’re doing it again.

Reports are coming out from across the Commonwealth.  There was a statewide effort to vandalize Santorum signs last night.  Dems are blocking GOP poll watchers in Philly.  GOP members are filling up polling stations - some with lines as long as fifty yards.

We’re doing it again.  We didn’t believe the lies.  Dems have - and now they are set up in a nice little pattern, waiting for that fateful push.  And they will fall.  Polling station by polling station, district by district, county by county, state by state.

On to victory!

Rick Santorum will be on Larry King tonight at 9:40 eastern, and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC at 11pm.

Update: Bobby Casey had a “scheduling conflict” with Larry King, and couldn’t make it.

Maybe he was on the road with Barack Obama? Perhaps a drive with Senator Kennedy.

The Patriot-News Editorial Board has been setting on crazy Bobby Casey’s views on the issues and released them on Saturday. Saturday is a low readership day for newspapers. If the Patriot-News had this information about exactly how lost Casey is, they should have released it sooner. Casey says “bizarre” 4 times to these newspaper people.

Q: You mentioned health insurance and loss of jobs in Pennsylvania earlier. What do you see as the key issue for the state? How would you go about attacking it?

A: I think for Pennsylvania, and I think the same is true for America, it’s the economy, and I think obviously that is the top domestic concern. Internationally, it’s a fight against terrorism in Iraq. When you talk just about the domestic front, I think that most people now understand, like we did have a sense even five years ago, and certainly not 10 years ago, that when you talk about the economy, if you’re not talking about health care and deficit starting with those two, you are not really serious about economic growth of progress.

Unfortunately, what this administration has not done is focus in any way on the crisis that we have in health care. I consider a big fat zero, association health plans and health savings accounts. If they work, you know, fine, but it doesn’t put any dent in the big problem.

That’s why in this campaign I have had two specific ideas, among others, on health care. One is children’s health insurance. There’s a bill in the Senate that specifically targets that to do a number of things. First of all, to allow states to have more resources for the children’s health insurance programs which we know in Pennsylvania has been supported by the last four governors, started by one that I knew well in 1991, supported by Gov. Ridge and Gov. Schweiker and supported in my judgment, not just because I am a Democrat, because I think the evidence shows, supported mightily by Gov. Rendell, who has been trying morning, noon and night to expand the CHIP program. But he needs help with federal dollars, and we should give it to him to make sure that you can expand the number of kids enrolled. We still have kids that are eligible but not enrolled, and we also still have a lot of work to do on Medicaid, which this bill would do as well.

The second part of it, I think, is small business. One of the ideas in the Senate, and it’s a great idea, by Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Dick Durbin of Illinois, to come up with a model or a proposal which is modeled upon the federal employees plan where you have a large and open purchasing pool for insurance, where many entities, in the case of the federal plan employees and in the case of the business world a lot of small businesses, can pool their risk and you want to model it so that they can choose from a lot of different plans, just like federal employees can. My point is, why should members of the House and the Senate get the benefit of this wide and open purchasing pool where they have 10 different plans they can chose from? It is a Cadillac plan that they get to chose from. Beneficiaries of collective bargaining and all of that. Why shouldn’t we have a similar opportunity for small businesses? It’s a really good idea to move the ball down the field, and I think when we talk about …

Q: The federal plan is underwritten by the federal government. Are you suggesting that the federal government should likewise underwrite the health care for employees of small businesses?

A: For starters, absolutely.

Q: Isn’t that going to be a huge amount of money?

A: You’re talking billions of dollars, at least [TRILLIONS]. When I talk about health care for kids and health care for small business, and we talk about investments in education, all of these things I think are important investments. One of the ways you pay for that, if I have my way, is to repeal the tax cut for the top 1 percent. It doesn’t solve all the problems, but unless you are using … I think it’s an abomination, is probably the best way to describe it, that we have a tax cut for the top 1 percent or even further, for people making $200,000 and up, in a time of war. The first time in American history. At a time of record deficits and a time of health care crisis. If there is anything that should happen in the next couple of months and years, job one should be repealing the tax cuts, using some, not all, but using some of those savings to reduce the deficit and to focus on priorities like health care and education.

Q: I’d love to see the numbers on that. If you’re going to spend what would be billions and billions of dollars, why maintain a system that is tied to employment? What about when these people get laid off or shift jobs? Don’t we need a different basic change in the system?

A: Some believe, and a lot of Democrats believe, that we should have a national health insurance plan and it should be funded through the Medicare program. I think the goal has to be to cover every American. We’ve got 46.6 million Americans with no health insurance, more than 8.3 million American children. The goal has to be to cover everyone. The question is, how do you get there in a way that is realistic and achievable? I don’t think some of the proposals that I have heard for the national health insurance are achievable or realistic in the short run. I frankly do not want to wait until some far off time, 2009, where Democrats hope there is a Democratic president. I want to make progress on this issue in 2007, preferably in the first couple of months of 2007.

One of the ways to do that is to focus on children and small business and to make substantial progress. I think it is critically important that these bills get passed in the Senate, which won’t solve the problem, won’t insure 46.6 million Americans, but you are moving down the road to covering more people, just as you are doing deficit reduction.

We can’t wipe out the deficit in one year. This crowd put us in a hole over five years, but you have to commit yourself to a new direction on health care and the deficit and move in the direction of making progress on both. Bullet all of these proposals; every proposal that I have made in this campaign has to be subjected to the discipline of fiscal responsibility and pay as you go, as Democrats in Washington have been pushing for years now.

The Republicans are the ones who voted down pay as you go, over and over again. That may mean that my health care ideas have to be scaled back next year if we are going to make progress on lowering the deficit. It might mean that we have to scale them back over time, but I think you have to put these ideas out there, show how you are going to pay for them, and then get about the business of implementing them. Maybe it will take longer than I wanted. I think the economy is the central challenge in this state and the deficit and health care. I think also work force development is a big part of this, and it’s not a real exciting thing to talk about. It’s dry, but it’s critically important.

Casey does not have a health care plan. Casey has health care sound bites. Bad sound bites I might add. Democrats are all clowns when it comes to health care and Socialism.

Democrats are too bizarre / Vote Swann and Santorum

Cross-Posted at Swannblog

Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader endorses Senator Rick Santorum’s reelection.

WE’D LOVE TO have a senator with local roots. There’s no denying that someone with an intimate knowledge of Northeastern Pennsylvania could help our area.

We’re also impressed with Casey’s track record as a financial watchdog while serving as state treasurer. He could use his numbers-savvy to address the national debt.

But we were turned off by Casey during our interview. His message felt scripted. He spoke less about what he’d do as senator and more about what an awful job he believes Santorum has done in office.

Casey seemed to know his lines inside and out. But we wondered how deep his knowledge really is about the issues he’d face as a U.S. Senator.

And it concludes with this.

Santorum deftly outlined his platform, rarely attacking his opponent in the process.

Bob Casey is a robot. Programmed by his handlers to stay on topic, and not stray from the talking points. When they can’t control the situation, they a) don’t show up b) get physical.

Rick Santorum knows what he’s talking about. All the of the debates proved that. All of his interviews proved that. All of his rallies proved that.

In the waning days of the campaign, Bobby Casey still fails to do so.

The Tribune-Review’s Whispers section, YET AGAIN, “Whispers” about something I wrote. The last time was about the Amoros family. Husband is chief mouthpiece for the Democrat Party, wife is a spokesperson with the Department of State.

That time, they used nearly identical words.

This time they just plain don’t attribute.

BARACK-ADING HIMSELF IN HIS OFFICE? Looks as though Bob Casey Jr.’s campaign staff got caught in a bit of a fib last week.

The Democrat U.S. Senate nominee failed to show for a Philadelphia NAACP candidates forum on Oct. 27 that attracted Gov. Ed Rendell, Swann and Santorum.

“I am peeved he did not show up,” chapter President J. Whyatt Mondesire told the Philadelphia City Paper.

The newspaper quoted Eleanor Dezzi, a volunteer spokesperson for Casey, as saying he tried to make the event but also was scheduled to attend a rally in Pittsburgh with Democrat U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

The only problem with that explanation was that no rally was scheduled in Pittsburgh that day. According to numerous news reports, Obama was in California rubbing shoulders with actor Ben Affleck and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

With a comfortable lead in the polls, it’s understandable that Casey wanted to keep a low profile leading up to Tuesday’s election. What is not understandable is that he would do so at the expense of the truth.

All stuff from my all-original post or it’s links from the other day.

Fool me once, fool me twice?

Reluctantly. The Tribune-Review says that it wishes Senator Santorum was more conservative, but considering that he’s a powerful leader in the Republican Party and a strong advocate for Pennsylvania, combined with the fact that Bob Casey is an empty suit, they have to go with Santorum.

The Trib on Santorum:

“Allow us to stipulate at the outset that we don’t know many U.S. senators who work harder. And unlike most, we generally like Santorum’s demeanor; the Senate could use a few more good eye-poking balderdash busters. His properly strident stance against amnesty for illegal aliens is a good example.

That said, Santorum has done himself, his party and the country no favors in aligning himself with some of the Senate’s more liberal practitioners in the name of “compromise.” As we like to say, “compromise” makes a good umbrella but a poor roof.”

The Trib on Casey:

“We can’t even say Mr. Casey, the state treasurer, is one of those fellas who says everything but says nothing; he simply doesn’t say much of anything. And when he does speak, it’s so passive and intellectually vapid that silence would have been more engaging and informative.”

“It’s by design, of course; the less you say the less you’re held accountable. And while House Democrats have been busy measuring for new curtains in the majority offices they are certain they’ll reclaim, Casey’s Senate Democrat benefactors carefully have been measuring his posterior — to make sure their hands fit into the puppet that he will be.”

So you have liberal newspapers across Pennsylvania complaining that Rick Santorum is too conservative, and you have a conservative newspaper complaining that he’s too liberal. Normally when something like that happens, a politician gets labeled a “moderate”, or even a “maverick” by the media. That’s not going to happen with Santorum, though - for whatever reason, the media just doesn’t like him, as he made clear in this ad:

Let’s show the media what we think of their games by turning out in force to re-elect Senator Santorum on Tuesday.

Popular Christian musician Michael W. Smith has made a radio ad in support of Senator Rick Santorum. I just heard it broadcast on WPGB 104.7 FM in Pittsburgh.

Smith recently wrote the following about Santorum on his website:

“Weeks ago….actually months ago I was able to find a date on my calendar to go to Pennsylvania to campaign with, support and encourage my good friend Senator Rick Santorum. Rick is an amazing guy and one of the finest individuals ever to serve our country on Capitol Hill. I believe in him as a candidate and more important as a brother in Christ.”

So much for the talking point that Evangelicals are abandoning the conservatives. Don’t be fooled by the media!

Rudy Giuliani critcizes Bob Casey Jr about his defense of Senator John Kerry’s thought on our troops.

He opened by saying John Kerry meant what he said. Then he brought Bob Casey in to it…

“Rick’s opponent, decided he was going to approve it, when even Hillary Clinton decided to apologize. I think it’s pretty clear.”

See the Video Here

The Towanda Daily & Sunday Review tells us to vote for Bob Casey for a “new direction”. The paper has no clue exactly what that direction is, and it also doesn’t seem to care. This really says it all:

“Here’s how it was put by G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Public Affairs and Politics at Franklin & Marshall College, director of the Keystone Poll, and one of Pennsylvania’s most astute political analysts:

“In Pennsylvania, as nationally, it’s the unpopularity of the war in Iraq and the president’s low approval ratings that are the short-term problem (for Republicans). But longer term, it is the reaction of the suburban Republican voters to the activism of the social conservatives in their party that is at the root of Republican problems.” ”

“It is time for a change. The country needs a new direction.”

So they’re saying that Rick Santorum has to go because of his social conservative activism. Wait a second - doesn’t Bob Casey claim to be socially conservative as well? Doesn’t Bob Casey say that he’s pro-life, and that he’s against euthanasia and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? How would voting for him give us a new direction on such issues?

Consider their other point as well - Iraq. Bob Casey’s incoherent Iraq policy just seems to involve wanting President Bush to replace the Secretary of Defense. In other words, he supports the war, and he does not want us to leave Iraq now. So again, how is that a new direction?

They’re grasping at straws here. No, in reality, they’re just making it up as they go along. They don’t like Senator Santorum for whatever reason, so they’re actually making up reasons why you should vote for his opponent. Every year, the mainstream media becomes more and more blatantly partisan. We can only hope that a majority of Americans come to understand this eventually.