Prosecute the torture.

March 14, 2005

More Santorum Fallout -- Lil Ricky Already Running to the Middle

As I re-watched Santorum's appearance on Honsberger Live, I caught this little gem:

"I'm probably in the middle of most Republicans...if you look at Conservatives... Liberals of Republicans."

"If you look at my record, I'm in the middle of Republicans in the Senate"

I'd say Lil Ricky is selling himself short here. Here's how top conservative groups rated him:

Fall 2004 On the votes that the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society considered to be the most important in Fall 2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Eagle Forum considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2004 , Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 96 percent of the time.

2003-2004 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2003-2004 On the votes that the National Association of Manufacturers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time

2003 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the CATO Institute--Center for Trade Policy Studies considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.


Lil Ricky illustrates that he's actually average for most Republican Senators

13 comments:

Gothamimage said...

Thia akin to my last post- in that Santorum might have a 'subjective' definition and an 'objective' definition- such is the marxian style technique of re-defining his political identity

Andrew L said...

You act like these three are bad things ---

2004 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.


2003 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the CATO Institute--Center for Trade Policy Studies considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Anonymous said...

From Daily Kos:

Little Ricky votes for:
deep social security cuts and massive debt.

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.
Rather unremarkable, except that in addition to all 44 Dems and Jeffords, the amendment also garnered votes from five Republicans -- Collins, Snowe, Dewine, Specter, and Graham.
In other words, five Republicans are now on record as opposing any social security plan that would would either add to the deficit or would cut benefits.

Bush's plan is dead.

Update: As noted in the comments, the GOP (with five exceptions) just voted for deep social security cuts and massive debt. Start cutting the ads!

Shawn said...

I'd like to think that after several pre-election bouts of Santorum's posturing that the people of this realise that this guy's a died-in-the-wool theocon. After all, his voting record proves otherwise. OTOH, they don't call this guy "Slick Rick" for nothing.

I hope it was worth the price of his soul.

xranger said...

Don't get too cocky - when has Bush lost at anything he's ever wanted?

Social security overhaul must happen - not if but when. You head-in-the-sand liberals better get on board with a discussion, or you'll be left in the dust.

Get in the debate - don't always be left outside looking silly and irrelevant by being negative about everything.

The freedon train is already pulling out of the station in the Middel East, and you're looking like a bunch of simpletons about that position.

Ol' Froth said...

Ummm...we have been part of the discussion, its just that the administration is ignoring us. Lifting the cap would make the program solvent, possibly into infinty.
As to the "freedom train" in the middle east, I'll repeat. NO WMD's. NO Al-Qaeda ties. 1500 dead US troops. 100,000 dead Iraqis. And despite claims to the contrary, it sure looks like anarchy to me over there.

Andrew L said...

"The freedom train," eh? Sure sure, we talk about bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" to the Middle East, but what exactly is "Freedom?"

from dictionary.com: Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.

how about "Liberty?" Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. and A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: e.g. the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

The Bush administration has taken every opportunity to stress "Freedom" while making no secret about restricting it here.

Oh and while there's lots of good rhetoric around for spreading "Freedom," you don't see too much about the rising tide of fascism in this country.

For more, see my blog.

xranger said...

You need a bit of a history lesson here:

Social Security was developed by FDR as a way to get the largest segment of the American popoulation above the poverty level - the elderly. While this idea is and was noble and correct, it was never intended as a retirement fund in and of iteself. In following with that theme, should there be a means-testing idea that sets the value at the poverty level?

Lifting the cap is another way of saying the higher wage-earners pay more than everyone else. That should be on the table for discussion. Besides, to say it is just that simple makes you sound ignorant of economic reality.

Another idea is to allow people to opt out if they want - that is not an option now.

Moreover, what is fair to all parties?

Finally, the war on terror is just that - any form of terror. It doesn't include just Al-Queda, and there were ties to Saddam. Saddam exported terror and trained terrorists in the name of the Baathists.

Ol' Froth said...

xranger, I really don't know what you want. You say, You head-in-the-sand liberals better get on board with a discussion, or you'll be left in the dust. I respond with one example of how we are in the debate, but we're being ignored by the administration, and you say I need a history lesson?? And then criticism my one example as "simplistic?"

And you are moving the goalposts. The Chimp stated that Iraq had ties to AQ, not to terrorism in general. The link to al-qaeda claim was FALSE. The WMD charges were FALSE.

As I posted over on Comments from Left Field, if Bush had stated in the run up to the 2000 election 'It is my stated policy to remove Saddam Hussain from power by any means necessary, including the use of massive military invasion, whould he have won a single primary?

xranger said...

Well, your example IS too simplistic - it won't solve the problem forever, as you state.

I don't know who the chimp is, but didn't you listen to Bush's axis of evil speech after 9-11? It was pretty clear he meant terrorism in all forms, not just Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda doesn't corner the market on terror these days. They are just sworn enemy number 1.

You must realize that over half of the country agrees with pre-emptive strikes, since we do not want another 9-11. Clinton's inactivity over 8 years, along with treating terrorists simply as criminals, didn't work. Look at this as the opposite to Neville Chamberlain, and what he didn't do to Hitler in the 1930's.

With the constant refrain from liberals about believing that the ugliness in the world will somehow leave us alone, if we live it alone, begs the question:

Why are liberals such wimps now?

Ol' Froth said...

sigh...so many distortions, so little time.

Xranger, you omit the Chimp's SOTU speech, where he repetedly made reference to the non-existint Al-Qadea/Iraqi link, stated that Iraq had WMD's that did not exist, and that Iraq would give those imaginary WMD's to terrorists.
None of that was true.
CLinton's activities over his eight years did work. Purpetrators of the WTC bombing and the right-wing destruction of the Federal building in Oaklahoma were captured, tried, and sentanced. Osama is still on the loose, after the Chimp vowed we would get him "dead or alive," and in fact, he now says he doesn't think about him that much anymore, and we can't find him "because he's hiding." Now, there's simplicity for you!
Also, lifting the cap, while simple, would solve Social Security's funding shortage for at least 75 years, which is as far as projections are made, and possibly well beyond that.
It is obvious that YOU need a lesson in civics, current affairs, and logic.

Maria said...

Froth:

It's not fair, and could be confusing, to use liberal nicknames for people when the other side is involved in discussions.

Let's keep this civil and polite. He IS the president. So use his full name and title:

President Chimpy McFlightsuit

xranger said...

Do you guys really believe all the crap you spout? No wonder the Democrats keep getting their clock cleaned at every turn.

Clinton's policies are precisely why we had 9-11. His slavish kow-towing to public opinion polls kept him from truly acting in a decisive way. Lobbing a few missiles from 100 miles away does not a foreign policy make. Furthermore, treating the World Trade bombers merely as criminals, instead of terrorists, did nothing to dissuade Bin Ladin.

Oh, yeah, him. Didn't Clinton turn down the opportunity to capture him twice during his tenure? And have we been attacked on our shores since 9-11?

Yeah, that Bush is a real idiot. Keep underestimating him.

And for once and for all, put some facts behind your social security blather. Just saying something will last in perpetude, with a simple tax increase, and make everything perfect is just silly. Just ask Greenspan.