Rick Santorum
Most Popular Posts in This Category
09.27.06
Richard Cranium of The All-Spin Zone has reposted an important Daily Kos diary that details the connections between Rick Santorum and Jack Abramoff.
Check it out:
Some weeks ago, I posted a Diary, The Abramoff 64 + 34 Competitive Races = BIG GOP Trouble. At the time I feared that I was missing somebody.
I was.
I forgot Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
Now it is The Abramoff 65.
Turns out that Abramoff billed the Mariana Islands for two meetings with little Ricky in 1996, then his team billed the CNMI for an event, hosted by Santorum’s PAC just before the 1996 GOP convention. This was the meeting where Team Abramoff introduced the sweatshop owners to the Republican Conservatives. Attending for the Tan Family was Willie Tan, Ben Fitial and Eloy Inos. And as a gesture of gratitude, the sweatshop owners of Saipan gave Santorum’s PAC a $10,000 donation. . .
Head on over and read the whole thing.
Share This
08.25.05
Back in July, Thom at Societas raised a ruckus about the renewal of The Patriot Act. Thom pointed out that many liberal bloggers lost sight of the Patriot Act amid coverage of the Rove scandal and the Roberts nomination.
I did what I could at the time — I put up a post about the Patriot Act, and called my Senators to urge them to vote against reauthorizing it.
I recently received a letter from Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum in response to my phone call. In it, Santorum writes that he “appreciate[s] hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.” He goes on to tout the power of the Patriot Act, noting that “this bill enters new and uncharted territory by breaking down traditional barriers between law enforcement and foreign intelligence.”
Acknowledging concerns that the Act could endanger American civil liberties, Santorum reassures constituents like me that the FBI has not used the Patriot Act to request library records:
In case that’s hard for you to read, the text, which appears in bold, is as follows:
Notably, at no time has the FBI used its authority to request records from libraries or bookstores.
In a press release today, the ACLU reports that, in a direct rebuttal to Santorum’s claim, the FBI has indeed gone after library records:
FBI Uses Patriot Act to Demand Information with No Judicial Approval From Organization with Library Records
ACLU Seeks Emergency Court Order to Lift Gag As Congress Prepares to Make Patriot Act Permanent
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today disclosed that the FBI has used a controversial Patriot Act power to demand records from an organization that possesses “a wide array of sensitive information about library patrons, including information about the reading materials borrowed by library patrons and about Internet usage by library patrons.” The FBI demand was disclosed in a new lawsuit filed in Connecticut, which remains under a heavy FBI gag order.
The ACLU is seeking an emergency court order to lift the gag so that its client can participate in the public debate about the Patriot Act as Congress prepares to reauthorize or amend it in September.
“Our client wants to tell the American public about the dangers of allowing the FBI to demand library records without court approval,” said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, the lead lawyer in the case. “If our client could speak, he could explain why Congress should adopt additional safeguards that would limit Patriot Act powers.”
Papers reveal that the client, whose identity must remain a secret under the gag, “strictly guards the confidentiality and privacy of its library and Internet records.” The client is a member of the American Library Association.
The lawsuit challenges the National Security Letter (NSL) provision of the Patriot Act, which authorizes the FBI to demand a range of personal records without court approval, such as the identity of a person who has visited a particular Web site on a library computer, or who has engaged in anonymous speech on the Internet. The Patriot Act dramatically expands the NSL power by permitting the FBI to demand records of people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit, ACLU v. Gonzales, was filed on August 9, and is pending before Judge Janet Hall of the U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut. It names as defendants Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and an FBI official whose identity remains under seal. Both the national ACLU and its Connecticut branch said they were forced to file the lawsuit initially under seal to avoid penalties for violating the gag provision, which they are challenging on First Amendment grounds.
The court has set an emergency hearing for Wednesday, August 31, 2005 on the ACLU’s request to lift the gag.
Whether the Patriot Act has been used to obtain information about library patrons has been a flashpoint in the Patriot Act debate. The government has repeatedly dismissed the concerns of librarians that the act could force them to violate their ethical responsibility to protect the privacy of library users. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft even called these concerns about the Patriot Act “baseless hysteria.”
It looks like I may have to place another call to my esteemed Senator, to ask him why he lied to us again.
Share This
07.25.05
Before Rick Santorum appeared on a Washington Post chat today, Atrios urged his readers to pose questions to the Senator.
My wild guess is that the reader who asked this question is not an Eschaton regular:
Washington, D.C.: Mr. Santorum, I read parts of your book and it’s solid writing. I read most of the “capitals” in the book, but I didn’t read ‘Cultural Capital’. Could you sum up what is ‘the cultural capital’, and why it is necessary for a stronger society?
In fact, as Chris points out, Man-on-Dog was able to decide which questions he would answer:
Editor’s Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Thankfully, Santorum does not get to pick and choose who will vote in the next election — though his party is working on that.
Share This
05.26.05
Is spending a day at an amusement park, surrounded by whining kids, dirty diapers, and half-eaten ice-cream cones your idea of hell?
Well, how about spending a day at an amusement part listening to the musical stylings of LeAnn Rymes as Sean Hannity, Oliver North, Ann Coulter, Zell Miller, and Rick Santorum sing along?
That’s right, folks, it’s time for the 2005 HANNITY FREEDOM CONCERT! (via blonde sagacity). Tickets, surprisingly, are still available.
If attendees get lucky, John Ashcroft will show up to croon “Let the Mighty Eagle Soar.”
Perhaps next year, Great Adventure will combine the Hannity Freedom Concert with Great Muslim Adventure Day (find out more about that event here).
Now that is something I would pay to see.
Right-wing Conservatives enjoying last year’s Hannity Freedom Concert
Share This
03.16.05
Call me starstruck, but last night I was utterly charmed to find Chuck Pennacchio among the Philly blogger cognoscenti who frequent Drinking Liberally.
Chuck wants to run for Rick “Spreading” Santorum’s Senate seat. The senatorial battle is likely to shape up as one of the biggest races in 2006; as All Spin Zone reports, the GOP has made Santorum’s seat a top priority, and the race is likely to draw financial contributions from across the nation.
That’s all well and good, because polls show that Santorum is beatable. The only problem is that the PA Democratic machine (I’m talking about you, Govna) has already crowned Bob Casey, Jr., son of former Governor Bob Casey, the presumptive Democratic nominee. That’s just a mite problematic when said candidate is not pro choice. As Young Philly Politics, MyDD, All Spin Zone, Rowhouse Logic, and countless others have pointed out, uncontested primaries mean zero publicity, which keeps the candidate out of the public eye, takes the spotlight off of progressive issues, and allows the candidate to cater not to the base, but to the center. And it’s time that this base got some love.
As the flyer Chuck handed out says:
Every six years, the Democratic Party looks for the perfect candidate: a combination of name recognition, ideology, and ability to raise money — and for the past forty-four years, this formula has produced losing campaign after losing campaign. Dr. Pennacchio’s background and experience make him the only credible Democratic option to break that streak.
I’ve been impressed by Chuck’s efforts to reach out to the netroots. I have no idea whether or not he can win, but he certainly deserves a chance in the primary. Last night, he showed himself to be a completely unpretentious, earnest, whip-smart man who believes deeply in the issues he’s fighting for. When he came to the end of the table where I was chatting with some fellow DLers (the subject at the time, I kid you not, was [disgusting link ahead; click at your own risk] maggot brain), he introduced himself simply as Chuck. I recognized him from all of the BlogAds I’ve seen on sites like All Spin Zone and Eschaton, and sadly blurted out his full name and ruined his cover.
In the conversation that followed, he talked passionately about a number of progressive issues, and (upon request) named the politicians he admired (Paul Simon, Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin). He sounded completely confident about his chances to make a dent in Casey’s campaign, and revealed several clever campaign slogans. I know that many bloggers in the area support his efforts.
Can he win? I don’t know. Is his campaign a quixotic tilt at the proverbial windmills? Maybe. But I’m all for fighting the power, and you have to love a politician who comes to a bar sporting a backpack.
Share This
03.09.05
MyDD tears the Kerry gang a new one:
Now that Bush has been defeated by the nationwide netroots/grassroots uprising against his efforts to privatize Social Security, in steps in the trio, James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, and Marshall Wittmann, with a “memo” of what the Democrats are doing wrong, with their pointman John Kerry trying to set Harry Reid straight.
A few days ago, Balz wrote about Reid and Kerry clashing over tactics. Yep, Kerry is said to have told Reid he was missing the boat, “and needed a plan to prevent Bush from seizing the middle ground in the Social Security fight.” A plan– the party needs a plan…. for what, why and when? Democrats are in the minority, and still, we have this trio with John Kerry’s ear telling him he needs a lead with a plan. Nonsense, this does nothing but cover George Bush’s failure.
The Note was right, Republicans, as the governing party that cooked up this great “crisis”, will succeed in not even releasing a plan by Bush, as they need only let the likes of Carville, Greenberg, and Wittman to smoke out the Democrats to release a plan for the “problem” before Bush, and without a doubt, it will suggest raising taxes on the wealthy. Then Democrats will go on the defensive as the Republicans attack the tax-party, then Carville, Greenberg, and Wittman will blame the liberals… I agree with MyDD and its commentors, and want to note that the Bush Administration has yet to offer a plan for Social Security. Yes, they’ve talked about a plan, but they have not presented one or given specifics on it. Why should the Democrats be in a rush to present one? Let the Rethugs hang on their own noose.
The larger issue, it seems to me, is (again) party discipline. The Dems need to stand as one right now. The way to win the public relations battle is to show some backbone, not to seek the middle ground, and certainly not to undermine Reid, who has largely done a great job of getting the Dems on message.
I like this comment on the MyDD post:
S.S. Gouging Will Hurt Repubs in 06′ (none / 0)
Hurting Bush shouldn’t be the goal at this point. He’s been elected for the last time. What the goal needs to be is to hang Republican Senators and Representatives with the label that their votes always go to their fatcat contributors at the expense of ordinary Americans.
For example, in 2006 Santorum will have to answer to his constituents on why he voted to gouge their retirements while voting to let credit card companies gouge them today.
Santorum voted to allow credit card rates over 30%!
Santorum voted against helping combat veterans with bankruptcy!
Santorum voted to give trillions of dollars of Social Security money to rich fatcats who contribute to his campaign!
That’s how the Social Security and Bankruptcy fiascos can play out if Dems handle it correctly. Share This
|
