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!

Republicans staying home, fine, I don’t agree with that attitude, but I can sort of understand it. But Republicans voting Democrat because the Republicans are not conservative enough? That’s just crazy.

With the votes actually being counted, it’s looking like Casey is going to win by some insanely high percentage. So now we know why Fox News called it so early. That couldn’t have happened without Republicans going out and voting for Casey.

So, folks, it’s looking like we’re going to have at least two years of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and either a Democrat controlled Senate or a barely Republican Senate. Frankly I’m too disgusted to analyze this foolishness - did people vote on Iraq (which the Dems have no plan for), did they vote on the economy (I guess it’s doing too well), did they vote for Democrats to restore fiscal responsibility to our government (Ha) or did they just say, “Bush sucks, I’m voting Democrat!”?

OK, people, here is what needs to happen NOW:

-Bush needs to solve the Iraq problem. Whatever he needs to do to win in Iraq, it must be done immediately. More troops, fewer troops, WHATEVER IT TAKES to leave Iraq a stable country. The Dems WILL pull funding from the Iraq War in order to force us to retreat. We have to win before that happens or else it really will become another Vietnam. It would be a catastrophe if Pelosi and her friends, after campaigning for our defeat in Iraq for three years, finally succeeded in making us lose that battle.

-Republicans need to re-commit themselves to economically conservative principles. Period. Economic conservativism is supposed to be the one thing that all Republicans have in common, but the Republican base has been infuriated by all spending.

-This wasn’t a failure of conservative ideas; it was a failure of the Republicans to be conservative enough, combined with the treasonous behavior of the media. Americans support conservative ideas. Americans want lower taxes. Americans want to protect the definition of marriage. Americans oppose judicial activism. Our ideas are right, and we need to cling to those ideas.

Lost Bobby Casey just loves dangerous over-priced Short Term State health insurance for children and ends his debates with Children Insurance sound bites, exactly like all Democrats from coast to coast.  (They want your children)

   Losing your child’s health insurance can be deadly.

Rendell should just drop out of this campaign.  Rendell could say he had a mild stroke or heart attack and everybody would believe that.  Look at him!!

Rendell signed the dangerous “Cover All Kids” state insurance for Pennsylvania children.  Now, federal taxpayers (Me) will be paying $143 a month to Blue Cross or UPMC for “Short Term” health insurance on Pennsylvania children (If their parents are “OFFERED” a group-employer-based-health-insurance) and pay OVER 600% more than the real cost of coverage with the security of portable INDIVIDUAL HSA Qualifying Health insurance on a child (from America’s oldest health insurance company) in Pittsburgh.  This is too pathetic.  Why are taxpayers paying 600% too much just to put Pennsylvania children in danger?

I talked with Rosanne Placey (717-787-3289) who Rendell lists as the “Contact” for his “Kid Ploy.”  I asked Rendell’s Spokesperson, “If a child gets cancer or breaks their neck at 18 years of age, will their “Cover All Kids” health insurance be terminated when they turn 19 years old?”  Rosanne said, “They Age-Out.”  I said, “My question is a yes or no question.  If a child gets cancer at 18 will they have their state insurance cancel at 19 years of age?”  Rosanne said, “They Age-Out.”  These people are scam artists.

A 30-year-old couple can put their child on HSA Health insurance for $23 a month that the child can keep if they get sick or hurt as a minor.  The whole family (30 year-old couple plus 1 child) can get insurance for $98 a month.  The State should pay the $98 for the [[family’s health insurance]] and then put $44 every month in the families HSA for 1^st dollar coverage for medical, vision and dental expenses.  This way the State saves $1 below the price of paying Blue Cross for just ONE child ($143) with “Cover All Kids”.

Why won’t Rendell pay for private insurance on parents who work for small employers who don’t offer coverage to employees?  Why won’t the State pay for PRIVATE insurance for the self employed?  Why, because Blue Cross wouldn’t like that and the Blues have Rendell on a short lease and always have.  Rendell is like a poodle.
       
It would be easier for Rendell to fake a heart attack and quit than try and explain this corruption after the election.  Putting the children of the Commonwealth in DANGER just to pander to Blue Cross is an indefensible position for Red Rendell in the future.

Vote for sanity / Vote Swann and Santorum

Cross-Posted at Swannblog

Powerline:

You hear some Republicans saying that Democrats running for Congress aren’t really for anything — they’re against the administration, but offer few concrete proposals of their own. That’s partly true. The Democrats, wisely, aren’t offering many new ideas or alternatives, unless you count gestures like raising the minimum wage and adopting the rest of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations.

But that doesn’t mean the Democrats are bereft of ideas. They actually have lots of them, and simply choose not to share them with the voters at this time. One big idea the Democrats continue to hold is the need for government control of healthcare. As Democrat control of government increases (if it does), expect them sooner or later to start pushing this idea hard again.

And don’t bet against “sooner.” The state of our current health care system has many Americans worried, especially folks my age and older who are relying more and more on that system. And Republicans, constitutionally, have trouble talking about health care issues in ways that consistently appeal to American voters. Thus, the Democrats have reason to believe that the politics of the issue coincide with their abiding desire for government control.

While it’s possible that Bobby Casey is an empty-suit (his debate performances are exhibits 1 through 5), it’s also possible he knows exactly what he wants to see.

Once he slips in under the radar, that is.

Today, the DOW broke 12,000 for the first time. The budget deficit is shrinking at a much faster rate than expected, homeownership is up, federal tax revenues are up, and everyone is enjoying a tax cut which is trickling-down just like how Reaganomics is supposed to work.

We’re on the fight against the Islamic fascists, and we haven’t been hit by a terrorist attack on our soil in five years.

We’ve put more originalist judges on the bench, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito on the Supreme Court of the United States.

We’ve pushing the social conservative agenda with laws attacking abortion-on-demand and defending the definition of marriage.

So when Bob Casey asks if I want more of the same, my answer is, yes! Except I want even more conservatives in Congress so that the liberals can’t filibuster our judges and block our legislation.

Here’s the real choice in November for conservatives. Either you can try to put more conservatives into office so that we can finally put an end to abortion-on-demand and make the tax cuts permanent, or you can sit out the election for God knows what reason and help to put more liberals in power who will not simply not pass the laws you want, but will pass laws which have the exact opposite effect of what you want.

If the liberals take over the Senate, forget about President Bush nominating another originalist justice for the Supreme Court. Do you hear that, pro-lifers? Do you hear that, Second Amendment supporters of gun rights? Do you hear that, Fifth Amendment supporters who are against eminent domain abuse? Do you hear that, patriots, who don’t want foreign law to trump the law of the United States in our own courts? We need at least one more originalist justice on the Supreme Court, but if you don’t vote conservative, it’s not going to happen.

If the liberals take over the House, forget about conservative legislation. Get used to liberal legislation passing, and we all know how much President Bush likes to use his veto. Do you want higher taxes, pro-abortion laws, and anti-gun laws? If not, then you had better vote for conservatives.

I can’t believe that there are conservatives who would actually sit back and allow liberals to take over either house of Congress. It’s ridiculous. It’s like having an employee who shows up late sometimes, and doesn’t always do what you want, so you decide to replace him with a new employee who almost never does what you want and steals from you. What kind of sense does that make?

Forget about whatever problems you have with the conservatives, because at least you can call them up and complain to them, and possibly get them to support more conservative measures. That is never going to happen with a liberal-dominated House or Senate.

Senator Rick Santorum hit the campaign trail immediately after the debate.  Hat tip to Philly.com:

Continuing his bid to claim the harder line on national security and illegal immigration, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum criticized Democrat Bob Casey Jr. yesterday as too timid to lead at “a time of war, a time of real threat.”

While Casey stayed out of the public spotlight, Santorum cut across eastern Pennsylvania, aiming to capitalize on Thursday’s confrontational debate between the two U.S. Senate candidates in Pittsburgh. He denounced Casey’s backing of a Senate immigration bill described by critics as an amnesty measure during campaign stops with families of 9/11 victims and the Hazleton mayor, who became a national focal point in the illegal-immigration debate.

***

Santorum’s campaign has launched a Web site, CaseyforAmnesty.com. It printed yard signs and bumper stickers with the tagline, “13 Million Illegal Aliens Are Counting On Him.” And Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who made headlines in June when he introduced an ordinance cracking down on illegal immigrants, recorded a telephone message for voters describing Santorum as the only candidate who “understands this threat.”

***

Santorum pressed the attack yesterday as he grilled hot dogs with Barletta at a Hazleton diner and accepted the backing in Yardley of four 9/11 family members.

Joan Molinaro, whose son was a New York City firefighter, said she approached Santorum’s campaign.

“I am standing here as a registered Democrat supporting a Republican because I am supporting the man,” said Molinaro, a Hawley, Pa., resident and leader of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, which has pressed Congress for tougher immigration laws. “I’m supporting a person who understands that you are only as safe as the weakest link.”

(emphasis mine)

Ouch.  So, Casey takes the day off after a major debate.  Santorum gets the backing of the most anti-illegal immigration mayor in the country.  Santorum meets with families of the Terrorist Attacks.  And Casey takes the day off.  You can bet he didn’t show up for work, either.

Again, Casey brought out the now-debunked 98% line during the debate yesterday.  He “hammers” Santorum about voting with Bush 98% of the time.  As noted in the link above, that assertion is based upon faulty evidence.  But what if it were “true”?

First, so what if he does agree with President Bush 98% of the time?  I would hope that the members of the same party would agree most of the time.  I voted for Bush and Santorum to advance Republican/Conservative policies.  If one of them falls out of line, I hope the other brings him back into the fold.

Is Casey advocating, that if he wins, he will agree with Bush some of the time?  He wouldn’t want to vote against him 98% of the time!  Perhaps Casey is also stating that if he is elected, and a Dem is elected President in 2008, that he would disagree with that President a large amount of the time.  After all, 98% is rubberstamping - and Casey says that one of those people is unnecessary.  The same would apply for Bobby and a Dem President.

Second - and this is critical - President Bush doesn’t vote!  The House writes up a bill, passes it, then sends it to the Senate for a vote.  The Senate then votes.  If the bill passes, the President then signs the bill into law.  Surely the Dems remember Schoolhouse Rock!

This President has not been exceedingly active in telling Congress what to do.  In other words, President Bush has been agreeing with Senator Santorum most of the time!  Aren’t you glad that our Senator has the nearly full backing of the President?

Bobby is wrong with his facts - and he is wrong with his assumptions.  Again.