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.

From the Lebanon Daily News, which doesn’t seem to like Senator Santorum very much:

“Some have speculated that Santorum may run for president in 2008. That belief has been fueled by his Churchillian turn to foreign policy and radical Islam during the final days of his campaign against Bob Casey. But a Santorum run seems a long shot at this point. Would any party give their presidential nomination to someone who can’t win in his home state?”

You mean like Al Gore? Plus we can’t forget that 2006 was an anti-Republican year, combined with the fact that the Democrats intentionally ran someone who they could pass off as Santorum-lite. Santorum would have a decent chance of winning the state of Pennsylvania if his opponent is a pro-abortion liberal Democrat.

“Still, if Santorum does run for president, a chilling historical parallel will be noted: the Republican Party once actually did give its nomination to someone who had just lost a Senate race. The nominee, like Santorum, was a polarizing politician with strong views and a deeply rooted ideology. The year was 1860, his name was Abraham Lincoln, and his election kicked off the single most tempestuous period in American history.”

President Abraham Lincoln defeated the human rights catastrophe of his time, too - slavery. In all the US Senate, Rick Santorum was the strongest opponent of our current human rights catastrophe - abortion.

Then he can live in the White House, and the leftist media can complain that he doesn’t drive from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to his home in Penn Hills every night.

Mark Levin:

“I’m going against today’s conventional wisdom and suggesting that Rick Santorum and George Allen should consider running for the Republican presidential nomination. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time politicians who’ve lost elections have run (and won) office. Indeed, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have lost elections. Obviously, Richard Nixon lost for president in 1960 and governor of California in 1962.

I still consider Santorum and Allen among the best and most appealing conservatives on the scene. I believe Santorum has national appeal, despite his loss in Pennsylvania. And although Allen’s campaign was knocked off stride, nobody will care much.”

Even before 2006, there has been talk about Senator Santorum running for president. I don’t see how the media could treat him any worse than they’ve already treated him, and it would be a good way to advance his positions on important issues like national security and Islamic fascism.

(I bet the subject of this post made the lefty trolls flip out)

PennLive/AP

Sen. Rick Santorum on Thursday defended his decision to talk during his Senate campaign about what he perceives as threats from a number of countries around the globe — and said he will continue to speak on the issue.

“I do not rescind a word because those words are words that this country was not receptive to hear tonight, but they are going to continue to hear those words from me,” Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, said in a thank you e-mail to supporters.

Santorum, who lost his seat Tuesday to Democrat Bob Casey, spoke repeatedly during the campaign about what he called “Islamic fascism.”

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here and call for a Santorum gubernatorial candidacy in 2010.

Two reasons why it won’t work.

Actually it’s one.

Bob Casey beat Rick Santorum 59/41. Why rematch?

Santorum would campaign on issues, Bob Casey would campaign on “Jr” and/or the nothingness that was his Senatorial candidacy.

However, 2008 is coming up. I’ve heard from more than one conservative around the country, that the guy they were pulling most for was Rick. He’s earned a lot of goodwill nationwide.

Expect it to be cashed.

Brett Lieberman speculates.

Few who know Santorum expect him to be on the sidelines for long.

There’s already been talk about a run for governor in 2010 or a vice presidential bid in 2008.

Should he want to run for governor, several GOP insiders suggested that Santorum needs to move back to Pennsylvania soon or risk that his residency will remain an election issue.

Others suggest that Santorum, a devout Catholic who frequently spoke out on religion, could become U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Italy or Ireland. Fiercely loyal to the White House, Santorum could be tapped by President Bush, who is known for rewarding loyalty, to fill potential Cabinet or administration posts, others said.

“He will make a lot of money. The future really is his, as to what he wants to do,” one Santorum associate said. Serving on corporate boards, lecturing or lobbying could prove lucrative for him.

Santorum, who is willing to speak out on issues, could become a conservative radio or television host or commentator.

I’ve been thinking about it, and it’s really not that bad. Sure, we’ve lost the best Senator in the US Senate for basically no good reason, and that hurts, but now we need to concentrate on the big picture, and that means the victory of conservatism.

But first, now that I have it all figured out, let me explain exactly why Senator Rick Santorum lost yesterday so that something like this doesn’t happen again. Yes, he is still Senator, and will be until January. I think I’ll keep calling him “Senator Santorum” afterwards, anyway.

First, well, the six-year backlash was the main cause of his defeat. This is the sixth year of President George W. Bush’s presidency, and historically, the president’s party gets walloped in these six-year elections - and the Iraq War and Republican spending didn’t help matters. Yesterday was no exception. To minimize these losses, Republicans must be more economically conservative.

Second, and Santorum could have stopped this, was that the far-left successfully defined Santorum as a gay hating, woman hating, theocratic neanderthal, mostly by either misquoting him, but also by just plain old making up quotes. Rick should have hit back against these people hard and fast. The slurs of radical homosexual Dan Savage and his moonbat allies should never have been allowed to flourish as they did. (By the way, Dan Savage, I see that gay marriage was just banned in a few more states last night. How sad for you. Congrats on helping to elect the anti-gay marriage Bob Casey, though. Great job, guy.)

Third, Santorum’s support of Arlen Specter in 2004. He just shouldn’t have done it, even if Specter usually does vote with the Republicans, and even if Specter is a friend. The conservatives were trying to replace Specter with a true conservative, or at least try to do so, and Santorum’s endorsement of Specter messed up their plans. Unfortunately a large number of conservatives couldn’t put this behind them and thus opposed Rick.

Fourth, and finally, the liberal media was to blame. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s editorial page in particular was horrendous. Their disgraceful, dishonest attacks on everything conservative no doubt had a major influence on this election. As Santorum once said, the P-G hasn’t said a single nice thing about him in 16 years. We must continue to work to expose media bias. And we must not buy newspapers which print outright lies on the editorial pages in order to hurt conservatives and conservative ideas.

Now, as to why this loss wasn’t that bad in the grand scheme of things. Democrats relied on conservatism more than ever to win elections. They ran a pro-life, pro-marriage, anti-embryonic stem cell research, pro-gun candidate in their effort to defeat Rick Santorum. And let’s just consider the possibility for a moment that Bob Casey actually will vote pro-life, anti-embryonic stem cell research, and pro-gun as a Senator. Let’s consider that Casey was being honest when he said that he would have voted to confirm Justice Sam Alito. If that’s true, then we’re in decent shape here.

Taxes rise and taxes fall. That is inevitable. Thanks to the Democrat victory, our taxes will be going up for the next two years. We’re just going to have to live with that. Nancy Pelosi will also try to force us to pay for the destruction of embryos, but hopefully Casey and others - if they vote how they said they would vote - will block Pelosi’s bills in the Senate.

The two issues of the absolute most important now are as follows:

-The war on Islamic fascism

-The Supreme Court

Again, Bob Casey says that he supports the Iraq War, and that he wants to fight the terrorists. If that is true, great! As I said, he says he would vote for Sam Alito. So if Casey sticks to his word and doesn’t make a liar out of himself, he will support the conservatives in the two most important areas.

Also, if you look at the way some of these elections went, it’s something which could only have happened in a six-year backlash election. Districts which are normally 2/3 Republican ended up with Democrats winning. My point is that we’re going to get a lot of those House seats back in 2008, and we’ll win control of some Senate seats in 2008 if we play our cards right over the next two years.

The solution to everything is to return to the principles of conservatism! That was a major part of the Democrat strategy yesterday, and it will be the way for us to win in 2008.

I’m convinced that Rick Santorum lost this election because of the “R” after his name and not because the people of PA rejected him personally. I take some solace in that. The people of America went out today and voted against anyone with an “R” after his or her name, which is clear if you look at some of the local races.

Rick Santorum could not overcome the weight of that “Republican” anchor around his neck, especially not in the majority Democrat state of Pennsylvania. His loss had nothing to do with his social conservatism. His loss had nothing to do with his strong positions on the issues. And that’s because his loss had nothing to do with him and everything to do with an anti-Republican sentiment, which is historically seen in the sixth year of any two-term presidency.

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.

Herb Denenberg says electing Bob Casey would be a monumental mistake.

If the polls are correct, Pennsylvania is about to turn out of office one of the few top-of-the-line legislators and leaders our state’s political system has produced in recent memory.

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, in his first two terms in the Senate, has accomplished more for his state and country than most politicians do in a lifetime, yet he is in danger of being defeated by a politician who, compared to Santorum, at best is third-rate, with no major achievements on his resume, a politician who even hides from the public, the press and his opponent.

Here is the case for re-electing Santorum, whose achievements in even one of these categories would be more than enough to justify his choice over his opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr., whose positions are virtually unknown because he has been in hiding during the campaign, and who offers himself as a cat-in-a-bag whose only platform is that he wants to be elected to another office, one of the four he has run for in the last six years.

and here is the case for Rick.

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

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