Coalition of Church and State: Rick Santorum

In the series under this name, I have been writing about the members and goals mostly in general so I thought I would switch gears and report on the individual candidates for President and how they fit into this goal.  I am starting with Rick Santorum because of his late upswing in Iowa, not because I necessarily believe he will win anything.  One thing I have noted is that all of these people were being extremely nice to each other in the beginning because they have an identical goal with regard to religion, but even that goal has slipped as the voting gets closer and they are now showing those fangs.  To understand Santorum, it is probably best to give a bit of info on his background.

Santorum was born in Winchester Virginia and raised in Berkeley County West Virginia.  His parents were of Italian with his mother adding Irish to the mix.  It seems he probably learned how to live off the government dole early in life as both his parents were employed by the Veterans Administration.  After graduation from Carmel HS he attended Penn State University and earned a bachelors in Political Science and a Masters of Business Administration from University of Pennsylvania and five years later a law degree from Dickenson School of Law.  He practiced law until he was elected to the House in 1990.  One of his notable cases was his representation of the World Wrestling Federation arguing that steroid use should not be regulated since wrestling was not really a sport.

In 1994 during the 1994 Republican takeover, Santorum was elected to the U.S. Senate, narrowly defeating the incumbent Democrat, Harris Wolford, 49% to 47%. The theme of Santorum’s 1994 campaign signs was “Join the Fight!”

Santorum was re-elected in 2000, defeating U.S. Congressman Ron Klinkby a 52%-46% margin.

In 2006 his re-election campaign was riddled with controversy and a very good opponent, Bob Casey Jr., son of the popular ex-Governor, Robert Casey Sr.  Casey was a formidable opponent and his opposition to abortion negated one of Santorum’s key issues.  Casey took the lead and at one point in the summer he held a double digit lead as a result of Santorum’s support of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey which social conservatives felt was a betrayal of their social and fiscal cause.  While he did creep up on Casey, a Green Party candidate not being allowed on the ballot, hurt his chances.   He was mired in controversy over his residence in Viriginia while he collected some $37,000 dollars from Penn Hills school district by enrolling his kids in an online school there while they lived “maybe a month a year, something like that” (in his words) at his Pennsylvania residence, which critics argued was hypocritical because Santorum himself had denounced—and defeated—Rep. Doug Walgren, PA for living away from his House district.  In what appears to be some sort of desperation, Santorum ran an ad suggesting that Casey supporters were crooks.  The ad backfired as The Scranton Times found that none of Casey’s contributors had been under investigation, in fact one had died in 2004.

Santorum faced controversy for statements against “radical feminism”, which he claimed had made it “socially affirming to work outside the home” at the expense of child care. Female voters resented his statements, and in his defense, he said that in a family of two wage earners, the second wage earner made only 25% of the first’s wages on average.

Santorum shifted his campaign theme to the threat of radical Islam and Islamic terrorism in the United States. He gave a speech comparing himself to the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who alerted his nation and the world to the Nazi menace in the 1930s, and then fought with America, Russia and others to defeat the Germans, Italians and Japan in WWII.  He pointed to the historical date of a Muslim siege in Europe, Sept. 11, 1683, as evidence that “radical Islamists” were waging a more than 300-year old crusade with the intent to restore Shia clerics to power in the Western World Casey told the press that Santorum’s claims were outrageous, saying, “No one believes terrorists are going to be more likely to attack us, because I defeat Rick Santorum. Does even he believe that?”  Santorum lost in the largest margin for an incumbant in Pennyslvania and Bob Casey became Senator Bob Casey much to Democrats delight.

Rick Santorum has a difficult time owning up to his mistakes and understanding the people in his district.  In 1997 Mr. Santorum was pushing for a tax hike to finance construction of two stadiums and a convention center. Jerry Browyer(chairman of Newsmakers Leadership Group, a media company headquartered in Pennsylvania) was leading the “no” vote, and Mr. Santorum and he engaged in a number of public debates. According to Mr. Browyer Santorum often seemed irritated and genuinely mystified as to why so many of his erstwhile supporters failed to follow him in hiking taxes in order to bail-out some millionaires.  He also went on to say that in 2006 Santorum was not pro-life, in fact he was for the exceptions (rape and Incest) on the abortion issue.  It seems whenever faced with issues and his decisions, he has a hard time telling the truth.

In his book, It Takes A Family, he claims that liberal social policies have devastated the family structure and that prevailing socially liberal attitudes have systematically devalued families across the board. He argues that government should take a proactive role in promoting strong families.  Santorum criticizes alike laissez-faire conservatives and the social welfare liberals for promoting a radical view of autonomy.  In particular, he criticizes the “bigs” — “big government, big media, big entertainment, big universities.”

He explained his views in an interview with NPR

“They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone, that there is no such society that I’m aware of where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

Ruth Conniff, reviewing the book for The Progressive, comments that certain arguments and examples in the book are seemingly at odds. As an example, the reviewer points out that a success story cited by Santorum as an example of a single mother getting off welfare actually showcases a number of strategies the senator opposes — leaving the children’s father, use of public shelters, and use of welfare to support the family while getting an education, rather than leaving school to take a job.

It would appear that Rick Santorum puts his finger in the air and goes with the flow of the wind.  He may have some basic principles he lives by but when confronted with mistakes, he is not forthcoming in admitting them, nor in correcting the mistake.

His ratings and votes on key issues:

Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002

Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move U.S. jobs offshore (Mar 2005)

Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)

Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

Rated 100% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on 1.15 billion per year to continue COPS program (May 1999)

Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)

Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)

Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)

Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)

Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)

Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)

Of course most of this will not matter because many Americans are not the “research the candidate” people.  Then when someone they vote for without doing their own “due diligence” does exactly what he always stood for, they come unglued.  Even at the local level where candidates are supposed to be “non-partisan” due diligence is warranted.  I did so for a local election and I found half of the candidates were either, Libertarian, Republican or Evangelicals.  I found only one who was forthcoming about her party even though she said it was a non-partisan seat(city council) and she was an evangelical.  She declined to talk about it but by admitting the church she attended, I was able to determine how radical her religious leanings probably were just by reviewing the church website.  If you are curious, the link below gives Santorum’s voting and comments on various issues.  The information I posted above is the tip of the iceberg but gives you an idea.  Next up will be Mitt Romney.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm#Immigration