Posted on 06/05/2005 6:53:48 AM PDT by buzzyboop
At a recent forum on increasing savings, Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was asked how difficult it would be to persuade his fellow Republicans to set aside several billion dollars a year to help low-income children save for college and retirement.
In response, the senator put forward what is likely to be a key message in his 2006 re-election campaign:
"I've always said the president has a compassionate conservative agenda, and [former Oklahoma Rep.] J.C. Watts [Jr.] and I are the two Republicans who are going to try to enact it," Santorum said half-jokingly. "Now it's just me."
As he primes for what may be the most difficult race of his political career -- he's likely to face state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., a socially conservative Democrat next year -- Santorum is highlighting his proposals to help low-income Americans build wealth.
(Excerpt) Read more at postgazette.com ...
This is politics. He has to try to appeal to the voters of Pennsylvania. Specter's problem is that he is duplicitous, he is a back-stabber, he is amoral, he is dishonest and uncompromising. The fact that he's liberal is almost an afterthought. Santorum is none of those things.
I've got a better idea. Require colleges receiving federal funds (which they all do) to establish free scholarships for low-income children. Otherwise, you're just feeding the leftist factories with tax dollars. There's precedent for this: in my city, anyone who wants to build residential housing is forced to build "low-income" units in order to get a permit. Let's just extend the concept to something the liberals cherish, like colleges and universities.
Santorum has a tough task ahead of him. Not only will the media's demonization of him hurt his chances with the 'moderate' suburbanites, but he will also have to work to keep those social and cultural conservatives who may otherwise favor Democrats on other issues, but who vote GOP because of that social conservatism.
Casey Jr is no doubt a phony, as what good does it do to be pro-life, or anti-gay marriage if your very presence in the senate (caucasing with Dems) increases the chances of horrible judges getting appointed, thus making both of those stated positions meaningless? He's already said he doesn't favor a Constitutional approach to fighting gay marriage, and that of course translates into support of letting judges have the final say. And I think he has sided with the Dems in the judicial filibuster fight.
If Santorum hopes to keep these social conservatives he must make all of this clear to them.
It will be interesting to see how the media treats Casey for his alleged holding of the same general beliefs as Santorum on these hot-button issues. It will be fascinating to see how they portray Santorum as an extremist pro-life, anti-gay marriage ideologue, while Casey as an enlightened pro-life, anti-gay marriage moderate.
We already give, give, give to the poor. Like schools, it's a bottomless pit and never enough. And, a middle-income family is just as likely as a poor one not to have enough money to send their little precious to college; the gubmint is busy taking 40% of what they make.
The 'ownership society' will be built at the expense of the liberal welfare state.
What's important about these ideas to encourage savings is that they cost far less than direct 'aid' programs and they encourage the low-income people to think like investors instead of like dependents.
We see the same struggle in the social security arena, with the democrat opposition to personal accounts ...
Govt aid to help create personal savings will drive a stake through the heart of the democrat coalition.
Santorum will have a tough race against Casey, but can win, if he convinces blue-collar social conservatives that he is the right man for them.
"Casey Jr is no doubt a phony, as what good does it do to be pro-life, or anti-gay marriage if your very presence in the senate (caucasing with Dems) increases the chances of horrible judges getting appointed, thus making both of those stated positions meaningless? He's already said he doesn't favor a Constitutional approach to fighting gay marriage, and that of course translates into support of letting judges have the final say. And I think he has sided with the Dems in the judicial filibuster fight."
WELL PUT. His position is just a fig leaf ... he'd be worse than a RINO. Remember, he'd pick Kennedy, Schumer and Leahy to run committees if he's elected.
We have seen this before "conservative Democrat" Nelson is one who signed the 'compromise' that throws some good Bush nominees overboard. 'moderate' Lieberman has been one of the filibusterers, and is against protecting marriage with an amendment. Their voting records (ACU ratings) is even worse than moderate RINOs like Snowe and Chaffee. Casey will end up, IMHO, no better than Lieberman - a so-called 'moderate' who is really a reliable liberal Democrat.
Pro-life is a sham if you don't explicitly favor overturning Roe v Wade; then you can pretend to be 'prolife' but always know the courts will keep abortion-on-demand.
But .. why don't people realize that in order for Santorum to remain in the Senate where he can be supportive of conservative issues .. HE HAS TO GET ELECTED. Part of his constituency is not conservative.
Why don't people try to realize that instead of suspecting Santorum is caving or catering .. it has nothing to do with that .. it has to do with winning elections. You have to represent ALL THE PEOPLE .. not just the conservatives.
His voting record tells the real story.
" why don't people realize that in order for Santorum to remain in the Senate where he can be supportive of conservative issues .. HE HAS TO GET ELECTED. Part of his constituency is not conservative. ... You have to represent ALL THE PEOPLE .. not just the conservatives.
His voting record tells the real story."
Another good point.
Imagine someone more conservative than Santorum ... now imagine how likely he would be to get elected in PA.
Yeah, lots of people are 'personally pro-life', but its just that they don't think its right to try and impose their personal views on the nation. Having as few as five people impose their views on some ridiculous reading of the Constitution apparently doesn't bother them however.
I don't see how one can be pro-life if they don't support getting rid of Roe and returing the matter to the people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.