Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), when asked if he stands by his three-year-old remarks linking the clergy sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church to the supposedly pervasively liberal attitudes in Massachusetts, had this to say, according to today’s Globe:
”The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people’s behavior," Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.
”If you have a world view that I’m describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.
”I was just saying that there’s an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant" in Boston, Santorum said yesterday. Reminded that the sexual abuse occurred across the country, Santorum said that ”at the time [in 2002], there was an indication that there was more of a problem there" in Boston.
A couple of things. First, perhaps "taking it the wrong way" wasn’t the most felicitous choice of words. Second, any person whose sanity is fully intact would understand that "sexual freedom" and "raping children" have no connection to each other. Santorum’s disgusting ideas about the clergy sex abuse crisis not only make no sense, they trivialize what happened – as if what happened was somehow part of the normal experience of human sexuality. The child-raping priests were violent criminals. Period.
This guy should have no place in public life, and certainly no place in the U.S. Senate. To that end, I have just forked over a substantial contribution to Santorum’s Democratic opponent in 2006, Pennsylvania state treasurer Bob Casey.
Gone insane? Doesn’t that imply that there was some sanity there to begin with?
Insane? Yes, but that would have to mean that there are a lot of insane people out there. It’s a depressing thought and a reminder that there are still a large number of narrow minded idiots out there. Thanks for the link; this guy needs to be defeated.
Is Casey the Dem challenger, or a Dem challenger?I want to support the anti-Santorum, but I don’t want to give money to a guy who’s going to lose in a Dem primary. What’s the scoop?
Everyone is assuming that Casey’s the guy, though I don’t know whether Casey has a primary opponent. The Kossacks are all over this race – a bunch of new polls are up today.
Casey is technically a Dem challenger, but he’s the one who has the name recognition and the support of the political machine. Chuck Pennachio is also running, but he’s a college professor who’s never held elective office before. He’s decidedly more liberal than Casey, but with Casey leading Santorum in most polls, it’s really hard to go for the no-name with more pallatable (to me, anyway) positions.Besides, Santorum is so far gone to the right that even a conservative dem looks like a liberal in comparison.
sco, I agree. Actually, on econ/laor issues, Casey is very liberal, but socially he is more conservative.
Sounds like I’ll be sending some cash his (Casey’s) way.Santorum really is an ugly duckling in Pennsylvania. He’d fit in much better as a Cardinal sometime during the Holy Roman Empire.
I like casey. No surprise there.But anyway… as we all know priests have been and are raping kids all over the “west”.We in Boston, especially catholics, boston catholics, conservative boston catholics,were smart enough to say “hey what the fuck is going on”. If Santorum wants turn a blind eys on what is goiung on in PA then fine. I bet Casey wouldn’t turn a blind eye.
It really bothers me that, so long before the primary, everyone assumes Casey is Santorum’s opponent. And even sending him money! Be clear about this: As of now, Casey is not running against Santorum, he’s running against Chuck Pennacchio, a Democrat. From what I know so far, I like Pennacchio a lot more than Casey. What you’re doing by sending Casey money now, is helping him beat Pennacchio.
sco: it’s too early to let the polls sway you like that. Casey leads because people know who he is, Pennacchio doesn’t have the name recognition. If he beats Casey in the primary, you can bet he’ll have name recognition! And money and volunteers and institutional support and so on. And if he doesn’t win, then Casey will have all the advantages he seems to have today. Choosing to support the more well known candidate now, simply because he’s ahead in the polls, is circular, and, I think leads to dysfunctional politics. Learn about the candidates and figure out who you think is more worthy of support, and likely to attract that support in a year of campaigning.
Cos, your point is a fair one, but perhaps a less than practical one. I think there’s value in sending money to “Santorum’s opponent” NOW, right after Santorum has done something particularly abhorrent (though it’s so hard to choose), because I think it sends an important message. And the earlier campaigns build up their warchest, the bigger a juggernaut they SEEM to be becoming, whether or not they actually are. Now you may well be right that Mr. Pennacchio is an interesting candidate. Frankly, I don’t have the time or the inclination to find out, because I don’t live in PA. The single Google search I did about this brought up a site that is obviously sympathetic to Pennacchio, and even that site assumes that Casey will “cruise to the nomination,” and describes Pennacchio as a “minor challenger.” All of which is to say two things. (1) Casey is a well-known, well-liked Democrat in PA who polls are consistently showing can beat Santorum; and (2) whoever the nominee is HAS to be able to beat Santorum, and PA is a swing state, not a blue state. I haven’t seen anything suggesting that Pennacchio can do that. I didn’t know Pennacchio existed before I send money to Casey today. Now that I know, though, I’m not having second thoughts.
It’s really too bad, because Chuck Pennachio is a lot more palatable than Bob Casey. Casey’s the kind of Democrat that we’ve had too many of in Massachusetts, a pretty knee-jerk socially conservative Catholic on a lot of issues, namely being anti-choice, against stem-cell research, pro-death penalty. At least he’s not against gay rights.Whereas Pennachio is a smart and progressive candidate (see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/4/183813/8404 for more; read the comments for lots of analysis.)Who has no chance. Whereas Casey has the name rec and popularity to win. I haven’t quite figured Pennsylvania out; I guess it’s a weird mix of the Northeast, Midwest, and Beltway.
Brad, James Carville described PA as “Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in the middle.” Which I think is pretty accurate. It’s a moderate state. Philly and Pittsburgh give the most votes to Dem voters. Lots of Dems and moderate Republicans who vote Dem on the national level there. Lots of Reagan Democrats/conservative everywhere else from what I hear. Casey can get those votes.
Oh, and maybe you mentioned it somewhere, but I dont think Romney seems to care that much. Maybe he sees a Romney?Santorum ticket in 08. Notice that Kerry and Kennedy come out with responses(both good, especially Kerry’s I think). Romney has a spokesman make a statement, and then says that Santorum is a fine person, but the comments are unfotunate, and, oh, dont apologize, it’s fine to insult and defame my state. Ok, I made te last part up. Now, I know most public figures use spokespeople in responding to stuff, but I think Romney himself hasnt said anything about this matter. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Another good read on this can be found on The Rudicus Report here