Prosecute the torture.

December 23, 2005

Rick Santorum and ID (did he support it before he opposed it?)

And when will the local Pittsburgh Punditocracy begin to call him a flip-flopper on it?

I caught this in the Philadelphia Inquirer today:
The lead defense counsel for the Dover Area School District said yesterday that he was surprised at Sen. Rick Santorum's apparent about-face on intelligent design and questioned the timing of his highly critical comments on the federal lawsuit decided this week.

Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, attributed Santorum's comments, and his sudden resignation Wednesday from the Christian law center's board, to political pressure in a tight Senate race.
The article goes on with some obvious weasel words from our junior senator:
But Santorum denied that his remarks were contradictory, saying he disagreed with the board for mandating the teaching of intelligent design, rather than just the controversy surrounding evolution.

Santorum's communications director, Robert L. Traynham, said the senator stood by the statements made on Wednesday and had nothing more to say on the matter.

Traynham said Santorum was dissociating himself from the law center, which promotes itself as a defender of "Christian values," because it was "time to move on."

"He has a busy plate, and it was not the best use of his time," Traynham said.

Santorum's remarks came a day after a federal judge in Harrisburg ruled that the Dover district had violated the Constitution when it imposed intelligent design as part of the biology curriculum.
Notice the weasel words: He was against mandating the teaching of ID, and only wanted teachers to teach the "controversy" surrounding Darwin. But it should not be a surprise to learn that the only "controversy" surrounding Darwin is that Darwinists refuse to accept Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory. So by mandating the teaching of "the controversy" Santorum is also guaranteeing the teaching of ID - all while still being able to deny doing anything of the sort.

Weasel.

But I am getting off the subject - sorry.

Take a look at the end of the piece:
Former school board member Jim Cashman, who voted for the intelligent-design policy, said the critical statements suggested Santorum was trying to be "politically correct."

"I'm a little disappointed," said Cashman, one of eight pro-intelligent design board members who were ousted in the November election. "He's trying to come to the center more, and that bothers me. He used to be more conservative."
If anything this is, as implied by the first paragraph of the Inquirer piece, another example of Santorum's placing "politics over principle."

Here's another example. Remember waaaaay back when Arlen Specter was running against Congressman Pat Toomey for the Republican nomination? The main conservative criticism of Specter was that he placed "politics over principle." True conservatives were supporting Toomey and were annoyed at Rick for not doing the same. We wrote then:
It seems like a lifetime ago, but I once met Congressman Pat Toomey. The PAC of the lawfirm I used to work for hosted a meet-n-greet with the Congressman. During the meeting, Toomey spelled out basically the same criticism (of favoring politics over principle) when discussing Senator Spector. When one of the more conservative attorneys in the room (a member of the Federalist Society, no less) asked about getting Senator Santorum's endorsement due to their close ideological stands, the Congressman laid out the same argument above. If Senator Santorum moved one inch in the direction of aiding Congressman Toomey, he'd loose his position in the party by the end of the day.

The point that both Toomey and McNickle make is that Senator Man-on-Dog wouldn't have lost his Senate seat had he endorsed Toomey - just his position in the party. All to work for an incumbent already described as favoring politics over principle.

I'm not sure anyone else in the room that day caught the irony of Toomey's situation. And honestly I kinda felt bad for the guy. He should have been welcomed with open arms by Lil Ricky. Instead he got fucked by one of the Senate's leading anti-gay legislators.
And remember last November? Bush's poll numbers had tanked and although the leader of the free-world was visiting our State, Lil Ricky had "other" plans? Read about it here.

Now the same thing has happened to the supporters of Intelligent Design - when it becomes politically expedient, Lil Ricky has other obligations.

Rick Santorum - Politics over Principle

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Santorum is mimicking John Kerry. After all, Kerry is the king of flip-flopping. Yeah, Kerry who said he was for the war on terror before he voted against it. :)

Shawn said...

Heh. If you can't make a salient point, just dig up an old whipping boy. Guess if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, befuddle 'em with bull.

Maria said...

Sorry, Shawn, but apparently this blog only accepts anonymous comments.

;-)

Happy Festivus, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Yeah...both you and Shawn should know all about bull...after all, this blog is chock-full of it. :)

Shawn said...

More to the point, dragging out a "hey John Kerry did it too" won't cut it with voters in the "T" that have become skeptical of Santorum's "repositioning" on the ID issue. Of course, this may well have a minimal effect come next November. Still, I'd have figured that the Senator would stand by his base. That would have been the smarter thing to do politically, and Rick Santorum is nothing if not a politician.

Anonymous said...

And Ed (hic) Kennedy and company are NOT politicans? Man, are you blinded by your bias.

Shawn said...

I don't recall denying that they're politicians. And while that term can and often does have a certain perjorative shading to it, I think it can and should be used as a factual description. Santorum's the no. 4 man in the Senate. One does NOT ascend to such a height without being an accomplished politician. And part of being an accomplished politician is knowing when to play to your core constituencies and when to take a stand against them. Senator Santorum, whom I freely I admit that I dislike immensely, has been unusually skilled at playing to his base. This recent shift on ID, however, strikes me as someone who has begun to panic a little. I think he's miscalculated. I think he has made a (potentially serious) mistake. And I doubt that I'm the only on, left, right, or center who thinks this.

Anonymous said...

Injury lawyers from colorado, atlanta, new york, and the metro areas best Lawfirm resources on the web.