The front page of today's Philadelphia Inquirer features a piece on Rick's new book. Carrie Budoff's article, "Senator's book puts blame on liberalism," claims that in the book Rick "confronts liberalism as the primary source of America's troubles."
Wow, how surprising. Rick blames the liberals? But, that's so out of character. It does make you wonder though, with his radical far-right views, who doesn't Rick consider a liberal?
The Inquirer also gives us some issue-specific excerpts from the book. Here are a few:
Sen. Rick Santorum's Views
On unmarried couples living together: "Despite all the evidence, as a society today we will go to almost any length to avoid telling ourselves, and others, the truth: marriage is better than living together. Too few of us dare say living together without the benefit of marriage is wrong."
On working mothers: "Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more 'professionally' gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment. What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else - or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon - find themselves more affirmed by society. Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders."
On abortion: Abortion puts the liberty and happiness rights of the mother before the life rights of her child.... This was tried once before in America, when the liberty and happiness rights of the slaveholder were put over the life and liberty rights of the slave. But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave.
Makes you want to run right out and grab a copy, eh?
By Jonathan Mengel
As a 23 year old History student who has been raised in a politically aware family, I have been following the tenuous relationship between the Democrats and Republicans since the 2000 Presidential Election. I remember feeling secure in the notion that even if my guy didn’t win, our government would continue to function as it had in the past. After all, my high school and college experiences instilled in me the notion that the framework of our government serves to preserve and promote Democracy. In “The Federalist Papers No. 51” “PUBLIUS” (either Alexander Hamilton or James Madison) argued that the interior designs of each of the three branches of government; executive, judicial and legislative, would work to constrain the other two and promote a balance. For nearly 217 years, our government has functioned as a result of these “Checks and Balances.”
I can still remember Election Night 2000 as I stared transfixed at the television to see if my candidate, Albert Alan Gore, took the White House. The rest as they say is History. Gore didn’t win (or did he?) nor did the 2004 candidate John Kerry. In fact, the Republican Party was able to pick up seats in the Senate and House. Life goes on and so does the government. I respect that while I disagree with many of the Republican Party positions concerning foreign policy, Church and State, and so called “moral issues”, they were elected by the voting public. What I do not respect nor condone is the flagrant disrespect that some of our elected officials have for their government; namely the junior senator of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Richard Santorum.
Mr. Santorum’s actions and remarks concerning both the judicial and legislative branches during the last three months serve to undermine and erode the foundation of our Democracy.
During the Terri Schiavo tragedy, Mr. Santorum and fellow ideologue Tom Delay practically demanded that federal judges order an injunction against Michael Schiavo from removing his wife’s feeding tube as per her wishes. Polls overwhelming indicated that even among those who supported the actions of Terri’s parents, the Schiendlers, from preventing the removal, they were not in favor of forcing the judiciary to comply with their wishes. In fact, many of the judges who ruled in support of Michael Schiavo on every level of the court were conservatives who were merely upholding the decision of the Supreme Court.
I wrote to Mr. Santorum in late March asking him for an explanation. I simply wanted to know how he could justify his actions as the number three ranking official of a party that does not condone government interference in the lives of private citizens. I asked how he could rationalize his attempt at bullying the judiciary into a particular ruling when he has stated in the past that he believes many of our civil rights laws enacted in the sixties were done at the whim of liberal judges overstepping their bounds.
After roughly two weeks I realized a reply wasn’t coming and drafted a second letter. On May 20th I received a reply conspicuously dated May 2nd. In a two page letter, Mr. Santorum outlined the case in general and, in the last paragraph, stated that he felt compelled to act. While the tone of the letter was very polite, I did not really receive an answer justifying his actions aside from a feeling of uneasiness. While I respect Mr. Santorum’s personal beliefs, I don’t know if uneasiness warrants an overhaul of the judiciary.
As if outright “ordering” of the judiciary weren’t bad enough, last month Mr. Santorum likened Democratic efforts to filibuster judicial nominees to Hitler’s invasion of France. Santorum said, and I quote: ''It's the equivalent of Adolph Hitler in 1942.” He went on to state that the Democrats’ filibuster would be like Hitler expressing shock over the allies’ declaration of war over the invasion of France by stating: “I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.” The senator later apologized.
On June 14th, Mr. Santorum received upwards of 2 million dollars from a fundraiser held at a private Residence in the West Chester area. President Bush was in attendance. As many Republicans of various degrees of conservatism are distancing themselves from the President, Mr. Santorum still embraces him. This should not come as a shock as the only branch that thus far seems to be unscathed from Mr. Santorum’s snarky comments and outright bullying is the Executive Branch. One I’m sure he has designs on filling at some point. How ironic. During the inception of our particular brand of Democracy, many of our Founding Fathers debated the extent of the Executive’s Power. Many feared that the Executive Branch would slowly erode in favor of an all encompassing monarchy; or, to use a present day comparison, a dictatorship. Now that seems rather totalitarian to me.
The one question I am left asking time and time again is this: Do Mr. Santorum’s myopic beliefs truly represent those of the Commonwealth?