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