The Pennsylvania chapter of Donald Wildmon's ultra-conservative American Family Association has warned Rick Santorum that "he needs to be careful" as a result of his ever-evolving stance on intelligent design. Here's how the York Daily Record describes the situation:

Uh oh, Rick. The conservatives are beginning to get restless. Here's the AFA's full press release.

Rick Santorum now says that he will cut ties with the Thomas More Law Center because he is unhappy with their decision to defend the Dover Area School District's policy on intelligent design. Rick served on the advisory board of the center. He says he chose to resign partially because, as he told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy."

We might understand that, except that this is the mission statement that appears on the Thomas More Law Center's Web site:

By its own admission the Thomas More Law Center is committed to restoring and preserving religious freedom. Therefore, wouldn't Rick assume that any case they chose to litigate would be motivated in some degree by religion? How is it then that Rick was surprised and troubled to find out that some of the school board members were motivated by religion in adopting the intelligent design policy?

Put another way, if the policy hadn't been motivated at all by religion, why would the law center, on whose advisory board Rick served, have taken the case and defended the school district? If Rick thought that there was no religious motivation to the case why didn't he resign in protest of the center's decision to pursue it when that choice was originally made, rather than after the case was lost?

In an opinion piece from January 2005, here's what Rick Santorum said about the Dover Area School Board and intelligent design:

Yesterday, one day after the Dover Area School District was told by a federal judge that their new "more balanced approach to teaching evolution" was unconstitutional, Rick's point of view seems to have, um, grown an opposable thumb. Here's how today's Philadelphia Inquirer describes it:


As you may have previously read on our blog, Santorum's view on intelligent design began to evolve in August 2005 when he told NPR that he wasn't "comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." Click here to listen to the NPR interview.

That was especially interesting in light of the fact that, in 2002, Rick wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times in which he claimed: "intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

Well, it's no wonder Rick is starting to question intelligent design. His changing opinion of it over the past few years is clear evidence that evolution occurs.

Rick Santorum's spokesman tells the Philadelphia Inquirer that Rick believes "that in times of war, the President has the constitutional oversight or the constitutional ability to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," including spying on American citizens without any sort of judicial approval or oversight.

Really Rick? Well then, who gets to decide exactly what qualifies as "whatever is necessary?" The king President?

Under Rick's interpretation, couldn't Nixon have claimed that he wanted to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee because we were fighting in Vietnam and he thought that Democrats presented a threat to the American people?

Here are excerpts from the Inquirer:

"Listening in on conversations" makes it sound so quaint doesn't it? He was just listening in on some converations. I mean, c'mon, what's the big deal here? It's not like he was taking notes or anything.

Last week the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO gave Rick Santorum the lowest marks of all the members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation on their annual report card. However, there was one guy at the AFL-CIO press conference who really likes Rick. You might know him as the "person" who was waging his own war on Christmas long before Bill O'Reilly started whining about it ad nauseum -- the Grinch.

Watch the video below to see the Grinch, along with Bill George from the AFL-CIO and Dan Shulder from the Pennsylvania Alliance of Retired Americans talking about why Rick gets an F this year.

Judging by some recent letters to the editor that have appeared in Pennsylvania newspapers, central Pennsylvania residents are not buying what Rick Santorum and Americans for Job Security have been selling when it comes to Rick's record on Social Security.

First, we have "Santorum's Gall", which appeared in the Harrisburg Patriot-News. Lynwood E. Outzts of Carlisle has this to say:

Next up we have "Santorum Should Go", submitted to the York Dispatch by Thomas Clarke of York:


It seems that at least a few Pennsylvanians don't see Rick as the savior of Social Security that he apparently believes he is.

The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO has released a report card rating the voting record of each of the members of the state's congressional delegation. Guess who came in dead last on the issues that the AFL-CIO considers important to working families? That's right, Rick Santorum wins yet another prize.

Here's the story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Howard Fineman believes that Rick Santorum's appearance at President Bush's speech earlier this week in Philadelphia may have been the result of some heavy pressure applied by the White House. Either that or Rick just really likes the special peanuts on Air Force One.

In case you missed it, "the political purpose at hand" was the president demonstrating that Rick is still his... um, uh... friend. Yes, friend, that's the word we were looking for.