« Israel Attacks Bridge in Gaza | Main | An Interview With Mort Kondracke »

An Interview with Rick Santorum

John Hawkins of Right Wing News interviewed Republican Senator Rick Santorum who is in a tough Senate race against Democrat Bob Casey. Not only is Santorum convinced that he'll win reelection to the Senate, he's planning on running for Whip. Here's a portion of the interview:

John Hawkins: If someone said to you, "Rick, I am undecided between you and Casey. Give me three differences between the two of you that would convince me to vote for you." What would you tell them?


Rick Santorum: First, I'd say taxes are a big difference. He is against the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003. He said he would like to raise...rates up to 50% for the top bracket. He is absolutely a traditional tax and spend Democrat. So on taxes and spending, he is for spending a bunch more and taxing a bunch more....

The second issue that I think is especially important, particularly for Pennsylvanians, is medical liability reform. That's an issue that is just killing our commonwealth. We are losing doctors hand over fist. We had 9 maternity wards close down in the city of Philadelphia, 5 in the city of Pittsburgh. We have a real crisis on our hands and Bobby Casey is a trial lawyer. That's what he did. He sued doctors before he got into politics and there is a big difference between him and me on (that) issue.


...Those are the two big economic issues that are facing us. On the cultural side, probably the biggest difference is on the issue of marriage. I strongly believe we need to protect the traditional family in America and he does not feel that way. He is not in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. He is not in favor of a State Marriage Amendment. He would do nothing to stop the courts from doing what they (inevitably seem to do), which is to...take this issue of what marriage is out of the hands of the people and have the courts decide it for us in a way that is against the way most Americans think it should be.


Comments (28)

He would do n... (Below threshold)
Lee:

He would do nothing to stop the courts from doing what they (inevitably seem to do), which is to...take this issue of what marriage is out of the hands of the people and have the courts decide it for us in a way that is against the way most Americans think it should be.

If the majority of Americans believed it was ok enslave black people that wouldn't make it right, and we would expect the courts to prevent that from happening, to take it "out of the hands of the people and have the courts decide it for us in a way that is against the way most Americans think it should be."

Yep, that's the way it works when what you propose goes against the constitution. No wonder this loser is losing....

Is that why the Supreme Cou... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

Is that why the Supreme Court decided to send Dred Scott back into chains, Lee?

The courts are not infallible.

Last I checked, Lee, most A... (Below threshold)
blueeyes:

Last I checked, Lee, most Americans voted against slavery when they elected Lincoln (and this was really the only reason to have gone Republican that year, since the other planks of his party were pretty damned soft). And then the people voted pretty favorably for it.

Odd how that... who was it? Dred Scott? Thing occured before all of the above set the courts right.

But, hey, go ahead. Show to me where the "right to have your union recognized by the federal government" is. Or anti-discrimination clauses reference sexuality.

Come on. It's not like "Right to privacy" (as phantom-like that 'right' is) covers what you do in public.

Or, hell, if you can't do the above, tell me how upset you'd be if, say, a voter referendum went against the "Right to bear arms", which is pretty obvious in the Constitution. Or if the courts decided that the anti-discrimination clauses prohibited racial quotas like those so popular in ordinary colleges.

To make things clear : I'm ... (Below threshold)
blueeyes:

To make things clear : I'm not against gay marriage (although before we do that, we need to get rid of the existing marraige tax shelters, and move them over to child-based ones).

I just don't want to see the sort of reflex crap that's destined to happen when you force your viewpoint on people who, as a majority, don't like it.

If this were slavery, or pleasure, or business, maybe. A piece of paper with some tax shelters attached doesn't justify something that could result in rioting and death.

blueeyes An... (Below threshold)
mak44:

blueeyes

And modt of the South, while having no choice but to give up slavery, kept bigotry and racial discrimination in place until forced by the Courts & Civil Rights acts to give it up. Then they became Republican again when they saw, under Nixon, which party was inclined to overlook if not soothe their bigoted souls.

Blueyes: Show to me wher... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Blueyes: Show to me where the "right to have your union recognized by the federal government" is. Or anti-discrimination clauses reference sexuality.

Then we don't need a constitutional amendment to stop gay marriages, if it isn't permitted by the constitution... Someone should tell Bush, he thinks we do.

How slavery can be compared... (Below threshold)

How slavery can be compared to a marriage amendment escapes me right now. Terrible, terrible analogy there.

First, the 50% tax (or even 45%) screams "Punish those rich bastards!" And anyone who thinks medical liability is just AOK the way it is, isn't paying attention. They're going to need that 50% from whoever is left if doctors and care facilities keep getting run out of town.

Now, back to the marriage thing. IMO there's nothing wrong with amending the definition of marriage. However, I do believe that gay people need legal protections from being exploited by disgruntled family members who would gleefully take everything away from "Bob" should their son "Ted" die after he and Bob have spent twenty years together. Wills are too easily annulled and over-ridden when a mean spirited or greedy family gets into the business of smearing reputations of who are, for all intents and purposes, good and productive people. I don't know if Santorum has any inclination to entertain that idea; it wasn't asked, but that's what *I* think anyway.

Lee, by that logic, we shou... (Below threshold)
blueeyes:

Lee, by that logic, we should have never needed an ammendment to make clear what was stated quite early in the Constitution, that "All men are created equal".

(Hint: we did need an ammendment then, thanks to asshole judges that fit the Constitution to their own pockets and beliefs. Again, Dred Scott.)

I doubt we need one here, since I'd prefer not sullying a decent writing like the Constitution with something that should eventually change, but I'd still prefer a spare ammendment with no meaning over a bunch of bigots rioting and blasting the 'gay pride' community back to the stone age (on both the right and left, don't think rightists are the only folks with homophobic assholes around, as you can see pretty much any time a Republican comes out of the closest).

I'm voting for blueeyes.<b... (Below threshold)

I'm voting for blueeyes.

This weblog really likes Sa... (Below threshold)
jp2:

This weblog really likes Santorum...

I suggest googling him. Great results.

Of course it's a bad analog... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Of course it's a bad analogy. Look at the source :)

Mak44, explain the southern segregationists that stayed in the Dem party, such as Hollings, Fullbright, Gore (Sr) and Byrd.

Only one democrat senator that voted against the civil rights act jumped ship to become a republican. He later renounced his opposition to the CRA, and voted for the VRA in 1980.

In 1968 when the presidential election began, polls had Nixon at 43%, Humphrey at 29 and Wallace (Fire Hose George) at 22. Then the dust settled, Nixon was still at 43, but 9 percent left the Wallace camp to joing Humphrey, contributing to his overall 43.

Under Nixon black colleges saw their federal dollars doubled, and southern desegreation of schools went from 10% to 70. BTW, MLK Jr thanked Nixon personally for his work on the 1957 CRA.

mak44 at June 27, 2006 08:1... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

mak44 at June 27, 2006 08:16 PM

...Then they became Republican again when they saw, under Nixon, which party was inclined to overlook if not soothe their bigoted souls.
Michael, why do you continue to make the south out to be nothing but a bunch of bigoted rednecks, and paint Republicans from the south with this broad brush? I've told you my history, you know where I'm from. I've leaned right since the 60s. I wasn't raised in a racial atmosphere, although my folks harbored some racial prejudices that I didn't and don't agree with. My friends weren't raised that way, either. In Greenville, SC, we integrated the schools in February, 1970, in the middle of the school year, with no race riots. As far as I can remember, there were no reported incidents. For the most part, we learned to get along with each other.

Yes, Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat for president in '48, opposing Civil Rights. In '64, he became a Republican. In '65, President Johnson got the Civil Rights act passed, but only with the support of the northern Republicans. But in the '80s, when asked about his opposition to Civil Rights earlier in his career, he had the stones to admit, frankly, "I was wrong". He continued to receive broad support from many blacks in SC throuout the '90s.

There are redneck idiots in the south. Here in Georgia, we've got a small faction of, as Neal Boortz refers to them, "Flaggots", that are opposing the current Republican governor because he didn't change the flag back to the former '56 version that included the Battle Flag. "Sonny Lied". [Sound familiar?] The head idiot that is running against him lives about 4 miles from here. But the majority of folks think they are just a bunch of idiots, and they will fade following the primary.

Yes, there was a history of overt racial prejudice that lasted into the '70s in many parts of the south. But many school districts in the enlightened north were not integrated until after the south had integrated, and they also did so under court order. I seem to remember unrest in Boston when it happened there. Guess the south emptied out and moved up there to escape integration. Oh, that's right, the south continues to grow. For some reason, lots of folks want to move here. That's why Atlanta traffic gets worse and worse...

Sorry for the rant, everyone, but I get so tired when people paint the south in general, and southern Republicans in particular, as a bunch of backward, toothless, ignorant, bigoted imbeciles. Sure, ignorant people are here, but they are everywhere... you might want to visit below the Mason/Dixon sometime. You might be surprised.

GASP. A righty blog likes ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

GASP. A righty blog likes a conservative republican.
Who would have guessed?
Next, you'll be telling us the Kos backs lefties and DU favors borderline to outright socialists.
I am shocked. Shocked to find partisanship in the blogosphere.

SCSIwuzzy, ROTFLMAO!... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

SCSIwuzzy,
ROTFLMAO!

As a Pennsylvanian, I actua... (Below threshold)
jaymaster:

As a Pennsylvanian, I actually get to cast a vote on this one.

Santorum happens to be one of my most despised republicans. But Casey is no slam dunk opponent. On social issues, he is probably as conservative as Santorum.

So I still haven't made up my mind.

But I'll tell you this:

People like lee, mak44, and similar commenters here are actually starting to influence me.

If such incessantly illogical folks back Casey, I'll vote Santorum.

And feel very good about it.

He may be an asshole (or, m... (Below threshold)
blueeyes:

He may be an asshole (or, more precisely, a combination of asshole and frothy lube), but he seems to be the lesser asshole. That really doesn't reflect well on his opponent.

American politics is a matt... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

American politics is a matter of picking the lesser of two weevils.

I'm also from PA, and Santo... (Below threshold)

I'm also from PA, and Santorum appears on my ballot. I'm not sure who's going to get my vote this time. In my mind, Casey is far too pro-tax. However, he is fairly socially conservative, especially for a Democrat. If he does win the seat, I'd expect his party to eat him alive.

Oh, and I am too young to r... (Below threshold)

Oh, and I am too young to remember life under his father, Robert Casey Sr. He was governor in the late 80s-early 90s. I was in kindergarten when Clinton was first elected, so that shows how young I was/am.

Thanks Jaymaster for expres... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Thanks Jaymaster for expressing my sentiments. I too am from the Philly area in PA and have been trying to decide myself where to go on this one. Casey's tax stance bothers me in a State that needs all the economic health it can get. I am not sure why some of the things Santorum stands for have not been done already.....you can't get much more than a Repub President, Congress, PA State Legislature that could strong arm Rendell if necessary. But, I agree with you. When I see the complete cast of characters here who are anti-Santorum it influences my thinking also.

Not a PA resident. But I h... (Below threshold)
just me:

Not a PA resident. But I have to say-since Santorum and Casey mostly cancel each other out on social issues, Casey would be a stupid risk. His typical high tax, nanny state liberalism is going to fit nicely with the dems in the senate, but he isn't going to do much to affect much change in the direction of the social issues. In general it seems like dems get to Washington, and they get roped into towing the party line, or they get ostracized. While Lieberman's woes aren't over social issues, one need only to look at him to see what happens if you fail to toe that line.

Nope, even if I was debating the vote would be a no brainer for me, and Casey wouldn't get my vote.

As for race relations-the South sure had/has its problems, but some of the most racist people I have known lived North of the Mason Dixon line. Geography doesn't have anything to to do with it, but you non racist bluestaters can keep patting yourself on the back as if it does.

Bottom line for PA healthca... (Below threshold)
DBR:

Bottom line for PA healthcare - Rick Santorum supports medical liability reform which will HELP to solve the alarming loss of physicians here in PA, and Bobby Casey Jr. DOESN'T - in fact, Casey tells people all the time that the reason there's a medical malpractice problem is that PA doctors stink. (OK, that's paraphrasing, but it's the sentiment he expresses....)

Refusing to support medical liability reform is not an effective way to reverse the trend of 92% of the residents who train in PA taking their training and skills elsewhere - when only 10 years ago, more than half stayed to practice in PA....

FYI, Santorum has ALSO supported measures to prevent the annual reduction in Medicare reimbursements written into Bill Clinton's budget act in 1999, a flawed formula which would reduce physician payments 37% over the next several years - which would pretty much GUARANTEE that doctors won't be seeing Medicare patients in the future, since they're already losing money on them...

Disagree with Rick on social issues all you like, but if you want quality health care in PA, you HAVE to vote for him - because the other guy is POISON to the medical profession...and since abortion is off the table anyway in this election, since Casey is ALSO "pro-life" and since Santorum has recently come out in support of certain types of stem-cell research (another sticking point for some folks), there's every reason TO vote for Santorum and very few reasons, even for a Democrat, to vote for Casey....

How slavery can be compa... (Below threshold)
Lee:

How slavery can be compared to a marriage amendment escapes me right now. Terrible, terrible analogy there.

Aparently you haven't talked to many gays. The conservative right marginalizes them into second class citizens, and President Bush as actually suggested a constitutional amendment which will give them fewer rights than straight people.

Care to cite what those "ri... (Below threshold)

Care to cite what those "rights" are, Lee? And the conservative right marginalizes them into second class citizens? Odd ... I'm conservative right myself, although I lean more onto the libertarian side. Most of my friends are as well. And none of them seeks to "marginalize" gays as "second class citizens". In fact the majority of them are for enforcing equal rights for gay couples. A good many of them go to church regularly, yet, they feel as I do about adding protections for gay couples who are exploited or left behind because they can't legally bind together.

They feel no animosity and most simply want to reserve the term "marriage" to mean between a man and a woman. Many of these people see marriage as more than just a legally binding contract. They see it as a contract with their Christian God as well. I personally don't see the harm in limiting "marriage" as an exclusive term in that regard.

I think you're speaking from an emotional standpoint rather than a logical, rational one that would show you, given a little attention, that your view of the "conservative right" is not entirely justified. Conservatives are comprised of a broad cross section of the public. Everything from religious to atheist, from politically active to indifferent, from ditch diggers to CEOs. You can cite examples all you want and construe them as indicative of an entire group of people, but you'd be wrong. Perhaps you have us confused with Pat Robertson and Westboro Church followers.

Now of course, some here may not feel as I and many others do, but that's America, my friend. We're free to have our opinions.

By the way. I've been in t... (Below threshold)

By the way. I've been in the restaurant business for 30 years, so why yes! I've spoken to many gays. I've worked with lots and lots of gay people for all these years. My roommate for three years was gay. And I've yet to find one with as much sneering and sniping as some straight people who think they're helping them.

"Many of these people se... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Many of these people see marriage as more than just a legally binding contract. They see it as a contract with their Christian God as well. I personally don't see the harm in limiting "marriage" as an exclusive term in that regard."

And your contract with your Christian God should apply to Jewish gays because...?

Now you're going off into l... (Below threshold)

Now you're going off into left field or reading something into what I've said that's not there. What that might be I'm not sure. For one thing, it's not my Christain God. For another thing, I have no frigging idea what you're talking about.

Just thought I'd give it a chance to engage you in reasonable debate. I can see you're having none of that. Good day, sir.

Sorry, Oyster, but when I r... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Sorry, Oyster, but when I read:

Many of these people see marriage as more than just a legally binding contract. They see it as a contract with their Christian God as well. I personally don't see the harm in limiting "marriage" as an exclusive term in that regard.

I took that to mean that you saw no harm in having the Christian definition of marriage imposed on ALL americans. If that's not the case, my apologies.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy