Rick Santorum - PA Senator

[Undertoad]

I had an email exchange with John Featherman, the gent running against Santorum in the primary.

What you didn't know Santorum had a primary challenger? Well that's the Featherman style unfortunately, but he's a good guy, a far better choice than Santorum. I know him from the Libertarian days. I expect him to get about 10% in the primary.

There is a possible independent challenger, Kate Michelman of NARAL, but she will not be able to get on the ballot.

[Griff]

Tom Martin is running for the LP. The absurd number of signatures will probably keep him off the ballot as well.


from a March 9th press release
"There is no way I'm going to ask the Libertarian Party to attempt to collect over 100,000 signatures to get my name on the ballot", Krawchuk explained during a brief address to convention delegates. Third-party candidates such as Krawchuk must receive their party's nomination, then collect a minimum of 67,070 signatures to get on the statewide ballot this November, plus an extra 30,000 or more to ward off challenges. Democrats and Republicans need no further signatures after receiving their party's nomination.

The system is very effectively rigged for Santorum.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's a good system. Keeps those do-gooders from getting elected and setting an example that would be impossible for the rest of the Senators to live up too.

[richlevy]

I saw some of his statments about liberals, or more specifically liberalism being responsible for child abuse by priests in Boston.

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Actually, in a way he might be right. Liberals are more likely than some conservatives to blindly question authority, so that makes them more likely not to let the subject drop. Liberals did not cause the problem, but they were most likely the ones who forced the issue into the open.

My picture of an investigation into clergy child abuse by Santorum goes something like this.

Santorum hears rumors of abuse by priests in Boston and opens investigation.
Santorum meets with Cardinal Law, possibly kisses ring.
Cardinal Law assures Santorum that such abuse is 'rare' and being investigated by church.
Santorum poses for photo opportunity with Law.
Santorum brings back signed photo and closes investigation.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Actually, in a way he might be right. Liberals are less likely than some conservatives to blindly question authority,

I'm guessing you meant more likely. Or less likely to blindly follow authority without question.

Liberals did not cause the problem, but they were most likely the ones who forced the issue into the open.

That seems to be the current Republican definition of a problem- someone brings a crime out into the open.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm guessing you meant more likely. Or less likely to blindly follow authority without question.That seems to be the current Republican definition of a problem- someone brings a crime out into the open.

Mea culpa. I did mean 'more likely'. Blind obedience is not a good attribute in someone who is supposed to be representing the interests of a diverse group of constituents.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Well, you see, that's the problem. It's almost impossible to represent a bunch of diverse groups.
That's why we must hammer these groups into conformity. One goal, one party, one thought process, one religion and one uniform.