Post-Gazette Editorial – 10/22/06

This page was last updated on October 23, 2006.

Casey for Senate: Santorum exemplifies the worst of Washington; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; October 22, 2006.

You probably won’t be surprised to find this is nothing more than an exercise telling us Sen. Santorum is Satan and Treasurer Casey is “good-hearted.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“There was a time when conservatives ran against Washington, D.C., but Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, in fighting the challenge by state Treasurer Bob Casey this year, has a problem doing that. He is Washington, D.C.

“More precisely, the 12-year incumbent is the sort of calculating politician who has made the 109th Congress the out-of-touch and ethics-challenged institution that has added to the store of public cynicism.

…

“Whatever may be said about his politics, when he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990 and won his Senate seat in 1994, Mr. Santorum was the brash and reform-minded upstart. Today all that can be fairly said is that he is still brash, but the upstart now has settled into the role of a big man in the ruling establishment.

“For all his talk of being just ‘an Italian kid from a steel town,’ Mr. Santorum, 48, was entirely in character when he was playing happy host every week to well-heeled corporate lobbyists of K Street seeking to shape the public’s business in ways denied to ordinary people. That is what he has become.”

[RWC] Yep, that’s right. Sen. Santorum is the only member of Congress who speaks with lobbyists. If Sen. Santorum didn’t speak with lobbyists, he would be the only one. The editorial refers to “corporate lobbyists,” yet appears to ignore lobbyists supporting abortion, labor union management, et cetera.

“To be sure, Mr. Santorum has his principles, but usually they take the form of some narrow moralizing that reduce the choices of those in a minority -- gays who want the freedom to marry and so live regular lives, women who are in a jam and feel they must have an abortion.”

[RWC] When was it ever considered “regular” for homosexuals to “marry?” The PG ignores the fact a super majority of Americans oppose same-sex “marriages.” That’s why state after state has passed laws prohibiting the practice. Congress itself passed – and then President Bill Clinton signed – a “defense of marriage” act in 1996. Given this, how is Sen. Santorum’s equivalent position “some narrow moralizing?”

Regarding killing an unborn child, I believe most of feel you need more justification is needed than being in “a jam.”

“Some good people share Mr. Santorum’s views on these issues, and actually Democrat Bob Casey, 46, is one of them, but Mr. Santorum, unlike his opponent, finds it hard to disagree without being contemptuous. It is his nature. His politics are not about uniting but dividing.”

[RWC] “Some good people share Mr. Santorum’s views on these issues?” Poll after poll and vote after vote show a majority of Americans agree with Sen. Santorum on these issues.

My experience with liberals is you cannot disagree with them without them considering you to be contemptuous. That’s usually because they get upset when they can’t refute facts and logic.

Regarding the “not about uniting but dividing” comment, it takes two to tango as they say. Libs also allege President Bush is divisive. Since I haven’t compiled a list for Sen. Santorum, I’ll use President Bush to illustrate what I mean. Go here for my examples.

“His supporters count his culture-warrior belligerence as a virtue. He speaks his mind, they say, and you know where you are with him. But far from being a brave resister of political correctness, the senator knows who his friends are and plays to them.”

[RWC] “Far from being a brave resister of political correctness?” If so-called “same-sex marriage” isn’t the height of political correctness, what is?

Could it be Sen. Santorum’s “friends” are his friends because they share common principles? Is it playing to your friends when you and they share common principles and goals?

Was it brave when Treasurer Casey issued checks for the illegal payjacking?

“The latest example is the immigration issue. Illegal immigrants are not the first problem on the minds of Pennsylvanians, but it’s a perfect issue for Sen. Santorum. He has a convenient scapegoat to beat upon and he can finally take a different stand than President Bush, a rare event indeed. But did Mr. Santorum do much in his years in Congress to address the problem of porous borders before the issue became hot? Of course not.”

[RWC] “Illegal immigrants are not the first problem on the minds of Pennsylvanians?” Tell that to Hazleton. As you’ll recall, Hazleton has passed laws intended to cut illegal aliens living within that city.

“On the debacle in Iraq, Mr. Santorum doesn’t get the fact that respected members of his own party are beginning to recognize the morass that is sucking the United States down even as it emboldens the terrorists.”

[RWC] Note the editorial didn’t list the “respected members of his own party …” Are we to believe name dropping is beneath the PG? FYI, you become a “respected” Republican by agreeing with Democrats.

Is Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) a “respected” Democrat? Probably not. According to the PG, by running as an independent, Sen. Lieberman “will do not only his party but also America's political system a disservice.”

Fighting “emboldens the terrorists?” I learned in grade school the way you embolden bullies is by running from them. The same is true for terrorists. Here’s what Osama bin Laden said in 1998 after the U.S. ran from Somalia in 1993: “Our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled …”

“Mr. Casey is not so far apart from Mr. Santorum on Iraq -- neither is for cutting and running -- but the Democrat at least faces facts and is thoughtful. He doesn’t think the way to win the war on terror is to follow blindly a president who has seriously lost his way.”

[RWC] “[N]either is for cutting and running?” Mr. Casey’s campaign website doesn’t say that. Given the Democrat Party’s definition of “exit strategy,” when a Democrat says he “will push for a clear exit strategy” and never once mentions victory, I can read between the lines.

“Sen. Santorum has a bigger problem. This self-described fighter has a black belt in hypocrisy. The issue of his non-residence in Pennsylvania is rooted in his slamming of Rep. Doug Walgren 16 years ago for moving to Washington, D.C. The hypocrisy got worse when Mr. Santorum, the alleged champion of taxpayers, stuck the public for the bill to educate his children in a cyber school when his residence in Penn Hills is just a legal fiction.”

[RWC] This has always been a bogus issue. I addressed it in critiques of PG editorials entitled “Home alone” and “Home school.”

“As much as there is wrong about Rick Santorum, there is much right about Bob Casey. Although both are social conservatives -- pro-gun, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion -- they are not to be confused on issues such as Social Security, health care and the minimum wage, issues very dear to many Pennsylvanians.”

[RWC] I checked the Casey website and it says nothing about his position on abortion. On the other hand, Santorum’s website makes clear his position and is bolstered by his record.

“Mr. Casey would never have led the charge to privatize Social Security, as Mr. Santorum did. This was not a reform but a sure way to kill the system prematurely. (When seniors figured this out, Mr. Santorum quickly covered his tracks by proposing a bogus bill that he said would guarantee them benefits if it were privatized; it went nowhere.)”

[RWC] There was never an effort to privatize Socialist Security and the PG knows it. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by Sen. Santorum was originally proposed by Democrats in the late 1990s and by the bipartisan President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security in 2001. One of the Commisssion cochairmen was former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) and he supported the proposal. No one ever questioned Moynihan’s liberal credentials.

“Mr. Casey would have voted for raising the federal minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15 an hour since 1997 and, being so low, long ago made ridiculous any arguments that job creation would be seriously discouraged. Sen. Santorum has repeatedly voted against raising the minimum wage even as he has voted, along with his colleagues, to raise his own salary.”

[RWC] This is what the Beaver County Times refers to as a “true lie.” Though he should not have, Sen. Santorum actually supported an increase in the minimum wage. Sen. Santorum just didn’t support an increase as large as the PG and Democrats wanted.

“As for health care, Mr. Casey recognizes that millions of Americans are uninsured and has proposed several remedies. Mr. Santorum fiddles around the fringes, but he and his party won’t ever solve the problem. Their priorities are elsewhere.”

[RWC] Go to Mr. Casey’s website and you’ll see there’s nothing new in his “proposed several remedies.” They all involve more taxpayer dollars and price controls on drug companies.

It’s true Samtorum’s “party won’t ever solve the problem,” just as it’s true Democrats won’t either. I believe most of today’s Republicans know what needs to be done (get rid of government interference in healthcare), but don’t have the stomach for the inevitable firestorm it would generate. As with all economic problems, Democrats are just clueless. It will take true conservatives with the courage of their convictions, and there just aren’t enough of them in elected office.

“The differences between these two men are about substance and style -- the difference between ideology and reasonableness, between the loudly harsh and the quietly decent.”

[RWC] “[T]he difference between ideology and reasonableness.” The translation of the previous sentence is, “Sen. Santorum has principles (ideology) and sticks by them. Bob Casey goes with the flow.”

I’ve seen Sen. Santorum quite a few times on TV, and “loudly harsh” is not a description I would have used.

“Mr. Casey is a known quantity to Pennsylvanians. The son of a beloved governor, he is a career politician, too, but his record as both auditor general and treasurer has been about public service in its best sense, not about the power. And he is no hypocrite.”

[RWC] I mean no offense to Bob Casey, Sr., but beloved by whom and for what? I’d ask that question about any politician.

It’s true Mr. Casey “is a career politician” and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. That said, running for three offices (governor, treasurer, and senator) in four years seems a tad excessive.

Regarding “public service in the best sense,” is that what the PG calls Mr. Casey’s role in the payjacking scandal? While he had no role in passing the unconstitutional pay raises, he issued the checks despite the fact he apparently believed the raise was unconstitutional. Mr. Casey’s first public opposition didn’t come until about three month’s after the GA passed and Gov. Rendell passed the pay raise, long after public outcries made a repeal nearly a certainty.

Upon taking office, Mr. Casey took the following oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.” By engaging in an activity (issuing the checks) he believed violated the state Constitution, he violated his oath of office.

“[Bob Casey] is no hypocrite?” What is it when you say one thing (The payjacking was illegal.) and do something else (Issue the checks.)?

…

“It is true that Rick Santorum has done some good things for Pittsburgh -- witness his efforts on behalf of saving the 911th Airlift Wing at the airport and his support for building two stadiums and a convention center for Pittsburgh -- but Mr. Casey would do those things, too.”

[RWC] If Sen. Santorum gave “his support for building two stadiums and a convention center for Pittsburgh” over the objections of PA voters, that’s actually a negative for Sen. Santorum.

“The fact is that the kid from the steel town has left to become something else. On Nov. 7, the folks back home should hold him accountable by voting for an eminently capable and good-hearted replacement, Bob Casey Jr.”

[RWC] The implication is Sen. Santorum is not “good-hearted.”

The way the editorial is written in places, you may be led to believe the PG didn’t always have a problem with Sen. Santorum. That would be wrong. In 2000, the PG endorsed Ron Klink over Sen. Santorum. I’ll take a wild guess and assume the PG endorsed Harris Wofford in 1994.