From: The Pennsylvania Democratic Party

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
April 25, 2005                                                                                      Contact:  Don Morabito
                                                                                                                           717-238-9381


Santorum's So Extreme, Now he wants to Go Nuclear

Extremist Senator Putting the Fate of the U.S. Senate in the Crosshairs


HARRISBURG, PA: Over the years, there have been a lot of reasons to call Rick Santorum an extremist out of touch with Pennsylvania citizens.  Now it's clearer than ever that Santorum's quest for raw political power has completely overtaken any sense of what's really important to Pennsylvanians.

As detailed in the attached editorial from yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, Rick Santorum is hard at work in Washington these days promoting the so-called “nuclear option,” or the shut down of the United States Senate in an effort to get the Bush/Santorum extremist judicial nominees appointed to the federal bench.

“Unfortunately, Santorum's extraordinary behavior these days is hardly surprising,” said Rep. T.J. Rooney, Chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.  “He's willing to ignore the past and destroy the future of the most powerful legislative body in America just to make his zealot supporters happy.  Of course, for Rick Santorum, everything is about Santorum and Santorum alone.”

Santorum is Washington's biggest proponent of the "tyranny of the majority", these days.  In his effort to fundamentally change the rules of the Senate and make the filibuster all but useless, Santorum is making one thing clear: if you don't agree with his radical views, you're not only wrong, but you don't deserve to be heard.  Even Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania's other Republican Senator, has rejected Santorum's ugly political tactics. 

Rooney followed, “The ‘nuclear option’ would have sent a chill up the spine of the framers of the Constitution,” Rooney concluded.  “Fundamentally changing the laws of the land in order to create radical rule also sends a chill up the spine of our citizens.  So while Santorum is hard at work tearing down institutional protections for Pennsylvanians, Democrats are working harder than ever make sure Santorum's tenure ends next year.”


###



The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Sunday, April 24, 2005

Editorial | The Filibuster Rule Don't drop the bomb
 
Pennsylvania's two Republican senators, Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, are approaching the fate of the Republic differently these days.

Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is working with colleagues in both parties to get qualified judicial nominees confirmed. He wants to prevent the Senate from cracking apart under the partisan burden of a few stalled nominees.

Meanwhile Santorum, the chamber's third-ranking Republican, is fomenting a showdown with Democrats, one that might in effect shut down the Senate.

Santorum is urging Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) to unleash the so-called "nuclear option" against Democrats. What's that? It's a procedural maneuver Senate leaders might unleash this week; it would prevent the minority party (Democrats) from using the filibuster to block judicial nominations. It's called the "nuclear option" because the white-hot partisan rancor it would unleash might melt down the Senate.

The filibuster, i.e., unlimited debate, is an odd animal. In its history, it's been used for some lousy purposes, such as blocking civil-rights law. But it's also been a key tool for coaxing bipartisan compromise and thwarting the "tyranny of the majority" that haunted the Constitution's framers.

The Senate careens toward a historic choice. It must follow Specter's consensus-building example, not follow Santorum over the cliff.

At stake are constitutional principles: The Senate should be more than a rubber stamp for the President; the judiciary should be insulated from the dominant political passion of the moment.

The very idea of an independent judiciary is under fierce attack by radical conservatives whose definition of "judicial activist" comes down to: "any judge who rules in a way I don't like."

The Senate currently requires 60 out of 100 votes to end a filibuster. The Republicans' planned action would require only a simple majority, 51 votes, to approve a judicial nominee. Because Republicans now hold 55 seats, the GOP could approve any and all of President Bush's nominees.

This would be nothing more than an exercise of raw majority power. One party controls the White House and Congress and seeks to extend that grip by packing the courts.

Overheated GOP rhetoric aside, the confirmation process hasn't broken down. Democrats have used the filibuster to block 10 of President Bush's candidates for the federal bench. The Senate confirmed 204 judges in Bush's first term, and the vacancy rate in the federal judiciary is as low as it's been in 15 years.

That's hardly a crisis calling for an end to any hope of compromise.

Trying to sound reasonable, Frist says he won't end filibusters on legislation, only on nominations.

But that's illogical. Filibusters are most justified on judicial nominations, which are lifetime appointments. A bad law can be amended or repealed in the next session. An extremist or ill-qualified judge is there for life.

Frist and Santorum say they only want to ensure that Bush's nominees receive yes-or-no votes. They were not concerned with this principle when Republicans used a variety of gimmicks to block more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees, many without a hearing or a vote.

(And Clinton rarely dared to nominate jurists as hard-line as Bush routinely does.)

Filibusters don't always work. Frist should know. He voted in 2000 to block the nomination of Richard Paez. The filibuster failed. At least 60 senators finally agreed, after Republicans had blocked his nomination for four years, that Paez was qualified for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Perhaps, rather than propelling the Senate over the edge, the President might want to try nominating judges worthy of a filibuster-proof majority.

But the GOP's conservative base is clamoring for Frist and Santorum to go nuclear. Both men seek to please that base as they gear up for presidential bids in 2008.

Frist has even taken the obnoxious step of agreeing to participate today in a telecast that will accuse Democrats who block Bush's nominees of being against "people of faith." Apparently, he has never bumped into devout Christians, Jews or Muslims who believe in checks and balances.

Or maybe he thinks insulting the religious faith of millions of Americans is a good way to stoke his ambitions.

The vivid backdrop to all this maneuvering is the prospect of a vacancy on the Supreme Court as soon as this summer. Some Republican senators, including Santorum, are trying to clear a path to confirm a very conservative justice.

Santorum, Specter, Frist and their Senate colleagues are headed for a vote that will be remembered for decades. While Frist chatters on TV today, perhaps people of faith ought to pray that the deliberative body that he leads figures out how to step back from the brink, rather than taking steps to tear itself, and the nation, apart.

Senator Rick Santorum's Voting Record: Abortion, Environment, Civil Rights, Education, Budget & Economy, Energy & Oil, Etc.

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Rick_Santorum.htm

Storm over weather service initiatives
Santorum bill would protect private forecast firms
Tuesday, April 26, 2005

By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05116/494329.stm

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rick Santorum has introduced legislation that would limit the information that the National Weather Service can provide to the public, in what the Pennsylvania Republican's aides describe as an effort to make sure that private weather companies -- particularly those in his home state -- can compete in the marketplace and retain jobs.

Santorum's legislation directs the U.S. secretary of commerce to limit the National Weather Service's offerings to just those services that private-sector weather companies cannot or are unwilling to offer -- unless the information is related to "severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property" or information that the government must provide under international aviation accords.

Some have criticized the legislation as a giveaway primarily intended to help Pennsylvania-based AccuWeather, whose employees have contributed to Santorum's campaign fund. But a spokeswoman for the senator dismissed that assertion as being without merit.

Foes of the legislation view the bill as a major change to the role the National Weather Service plays, one that could drastically restrict free information for the public as well as airplane pilots and farmers, who are among some 6 million people who each day access weather service data on the Web pages of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.

The legislation "could be read to say that it prohibits the National Weather Service from providing any services online that are available from private vendors," said Chris Dancy, director of media relations for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. "The National Weather Service provides weather data online and through a number of other outlets that are vital to the safety of all flight. ... Everyone needs to at least start on the same page with the same basic information."

Staff members for Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat from hurricane-prone Florida, said they were already working to prevent Santorum's bill from even coming out of committee. Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin said that during four hurricanes last year, many Floridians depended on National Weather Service data for information that ranged beyond emergency warnings.

"The legislation appears to be aimed at restricting or closing off a free information service for consumers and, in turn, benefiting one or two big companies that sell weather forecasts and other information," McLaughlin said.

"For Pete's sake, no one suggests shutting down the post office because FedEx has a system of delivery," McLaughlin said. But private weather companies have argued that the legislation is necessary to protect their rights in the marketplace. One of the companies advocating for the bill is AccuWeather in State College, Pa., whose employees have contributed at least $5,500 to Santorum since 1999, according to Federal Election Commission reports. AccuWeather also provides weather data to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and post-gazette.com.

Individuals who identified themselves in FEC reports as AccuWeather employees also contributed at least $2,250 to Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. A Specter aide yesterday said his staff was reviewing Santorum's legislation but had not yet taken a position about it.

Until December 2004, the National Weather Service -- which falls under the purview of NOAA, which is part of the Commerce Department -- has been guided by a series of agreements designed to make sure that the federal agency does not compete with private firms, which use National Weather Service data to provide their own specialized services.

But late last year, NOAA argued that the agency's most recent policy about competition -- known as the 1991 public-private partnership policy -- was too strict in delineating the roles of the weather service with regard to private companies. The agency then dropped that policy as "untenable" because "there may be good public-policy reasons" for the weather service to provide some services that the private sector could also offer.

The private companies saw that stance as a sign that the National Weather Service might endanger their businesses by expanding into new areas with competing products or offerings.

"What we see [the National Weather Service] doing is providing specialized information for business and industry, commercial users within society, products and services that the public, really, itself doesn't need," said AccuWeather Executive Vice President Barry Myers.

Providing generalized public information that parallels the private firms' services is "not the function of our government," Myers said, "and I don't think you'll find any other agency in the U.S. government that does that kind of thing."

The pre-2004 weather service policies on competition led to "the entire explosion of weather information in the United States and gives us probably the best weather available to the public anywhere in the world," Myers contended. He argued that Santorum's bill was a necessary measure to put back in place a firm anti-competition policy for the federal agency.

Santorum is also funded by the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group.

He occasionally writes cover letters for their fundraising mass mailings.

Senator Brownback is on their board.

Montgomery County Democrats Endorse Casey for U.S. Senate




For Immediate Release
April 25, 2005
For more information, contact the Bob Casey for Pennsylvania Committee at 717-233-3211
www.BobCaseyForPA.com

MONTCO Democrats Endorse Casey For U.S. Senate

The Montgomery County Democratic Committee (MCDC) has unanimously endorsed state Treasurer Robert P. Casey, Jr. for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Republican Rick Santorum. In doing so, the county Democrats became the first county organization in Pennsylvania to endorse Casey.

Casey received the endorsement at a recent meeting after MCDC Chair Marcel Groen and former Congressman Joe Hoeffel made impassioned speeches on behalf of Casey.

Groen told the Democrats that "we can beat Rick Santorum now, or we can beat him when he runs for president of the United States. Which would you rather do?"

Hoeffel, who was mentioned as a possible Senate candidate himself, took himself out of consideration several weeks ago and has enthusiastically been supporting Casey's candidacy.

"Bob Casey is the right Democrat to beat Rick Santorum in 2006," Hoeffel told the gathering. "Bob has the name recognition, state-wide support and political skills to win the election -- and his basic decency and government experience will make him a compassionate and outstanding Senator."

In announcing the endorsement, Groen said, "Montgomery County Democrats are excited to lead the charge for Bob Casey. Voters understand how important this election will be and I think it is especially significant that Democrats in the most progressive county in the state of Pennsylvania have so enthusiastically embraced Bob Casey."

This is from a blog, with links to souces on the actual blog site.

domains bought up for Santorum bid for President in 2008 Casey says he'll be defeated as Senator in 2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                    
May 12, 2005                                                          


Santorum Attack Misfires, Again


HARRISBURG—A Rick Santorum attack on Bob Casey's morality backfired in today's Roll Call newspaper when it revealed that Santorum accepted contributions from donors that distributed pornography.  The National Republican Senatorial Committee attempted to attack Casey for accepting a contribution from Hollywood B-movie producer and director Roger Corman by artfully editing movie reviews from such household newspapers as The Irish Times (yes, that would be from Dublin, Ireland).

While Corman's campy, low-budget horror films might not win an Oscar, a line from his cult classic "The Little Shop of Horrors" is in order: "Feed Me the Truth!"  Here are some facts the NRSC forgot.


·    Corman actually contributed to NRSC member Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), along with dozens of other high profile campaigns.



·   Santorum should watch his own house.  Roll Call reported that Santorum "accepted $12,000 from Adelphia Communications, the first cable company in the nation to offer hardcore pornography."  Santorum has also received $2,000 this year in PAC checks from Time-Warner cable.  The national anti-pornography group Morality in Media called Time-Warner “a major corporate polluter” because of its ties to the porn industry. (www.moralityinmedia.org)


Yesterday's NRSC press release is another example of what non-partisan political commentator Stuart Rothenberg calls "mindless press releases" from Santorum and national Republican groups trying to attack Bob Casey. (Roll Call, 5-9-05)

It seems that Santorum and the national Republicans have set their bar for the truth at a very low level.  If they have already sunk to this level of mudslinging and distortion 18 months from Election Day, how much more mud will they throw at Bob Casey and the people of Pennsylvania?

This is a perfect ad for Howard Dean to use for a commerical when Santorum runs for re-election and hopefully he'll lose next year.

Quoted in the NYT, Santorum advocates laws to control people's desires.




http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/politics...artner=homepage

Sometimes I wonder if these "strict moralists" have a difficult time controlling their own desires, so they believe that most people have to have laws to keep those "nasty" inclinations in check. Notice the "moralists" who have been caught engaging in less than moral situations. Reminds me of Puritan New England. Need a wrathful God and punishing courts to keep those "base" human desires from oozing through to the surface.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/19/20815/1528

for video of the remarks: http://www.chuck2006.com/blogDetail.asp?id=139

Another good one about Little Ricky:

Santorum's Weather - Related Bill Criticized
The Associated Press

Friday 27 May 2005

Washington - Two days before Sen. Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the National Weather Service, his political action committee received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading provider of weather data.

The disclosure has renewed criticism of the measure, which Santorum, R-Pa., maintains would allow the weather service to better focus on its core mission of getting threatening weather info out in a "timely and speedy basis."

Opponents say the bill would endanger the public by preventing the dissemination of certain weather data, and force taxpayers to pay for the data twice. The bill would prevent the weather service from competing for certain services offered by the private sector.

AccuWeather, based in State College, Pa., provides weather data to a variety of outlets, including media organizations such as The Associated Press.

"I think the timing of it is what makes it so suspect," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government, a Democratic-leaning watchdog group. "It's like here's the money and you're going to do what I want."

Santorum said the $2,000 contribution, received from AccuWeather CEO Joel Myers on April 12, came during a fundraiser in State College that happened to be two days before the bill was filed. He said he has worked on the issue for three years.

The donation was disclosed in the April filing to the FEC by Santorum's PAC, America's Foundation.

"I don't think there's any coincidence between the two," Santorum said. "It's just that I happened to have a fundraiser in the town he was in."

Combined, Joel Myers and his brother, Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice president, have donated more than $11,000 to Santorum and the Republican Party since 2003, according to FEC filings compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine, a campaign finance tracking group.

Barry Myers said it was ridiculous to think there was a correlation between the "modest" donations and the filing of the bill.

Santorum said his campaign could likely raise and spend $25 million for the 2006 election.

"We have no connection to how bills are filed, or how they are drafted or dropped at any given point in time," Myers said.

Dan McLaughlin, press secretary for Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, which is home to the weather service's National Hurricane Center, said the April 12 donation is suspect. Nelson has written to President Bush in opposition to the bill.

"It certainly raises questions about motivation as to why someone would push a policy that is so obviously crummy," McLaughlin said.

Under the proposed legislation, the weather service would be allowed to offer particular types of services only if the private sector does not offer them, a provision similar to rules the agency was guided by for 14 years until last year.

When the rule changed, the weather service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration expanded into areas already served by the commercial weather industry, according to Santorum's office.

In his letter, Nelson said Santorum's bill would bar weather service forecasters from giving one-on-one interviews to media. He also said it could inhibit pilots' access to data the weather service provides to the Federal Aviation Administration online. When four hurricanes struck Florida last year, the weather service Web site received 9 billion hits, Nelson said.

He urged Bush to "publicly oppose this legislative attempt to push the weather service back to a pre-Internet era and restrict the public's right to access government information."

Trent Duffy, deputy White House spokesman, said the administration typically does not comment on legislation that has not reached the floor of the House or Senate. The bill has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, but no hearing has been scheduled.

Santorum said critics have misinterpreted the bill's purpose. He said severe weather information would still be released, and it would restore the old rules that were changed last year.

"The National Weather Service is not focused on it's core mission of protecting the nation's lives and property," Myers said. "There have been numerous examples in the last year, situations where they have not devoted the resources to that."

In the next election I hope Lil' Ricky gets beat like a red headed step-child.

As a Pennsylvanian, I'm counting on MR. Santorum receiving his Senate "walking papers" in 2006!

Santorum's nailing of the base at WG may have cost him quite a few Republican votes in Bucks County

I hope you're right! Forgive my ignorance, but wht does WG stand for?

WG = Willow Grove - it's in Bucks Co, NE of Philly

All they have to do is run that clip of Santorum waving to the repubs chanting "hey hey, ho ho, Social Security's got to go" on every commercial break on every TV station in PA.

"hey hey, ho ho, Rick Santorum's got to go"

Thanks. My husband was raised in Bucks county and has a relative in Willow Grove-nice area! We now live in NE PA, but we visit the Philly area quite a bit. BTW, I'm confident Bob Casey will carry NE PA.

C-span reported an article today that has a new poll out--- Santorum is at 37% approval/re-elect; Casey is at 45%.

Santorum is moving toward the middle.....

Santorum polishes his compassionate credentialsSunday, June 05, 2005
By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05156/516041.stm

The two faces of the stem-cell debate: Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum
Santorum leads foes of Specter's bill to fund research
Sunday, May 29, 2005

By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05149/512508.stm

Of which Specter comes off looking really good, considering that he's got cancer himself. He's looking pretty, um, spectral lately.

Bush raised over $1 million for Santorum yesterday in PA. He then went back to DC to raise more money for all other republican congress people.

Editorial cartoon of Santorum

Editorial cartoon: Tim Menees
Monday, June 06, 2005

http://www.post-gazette.com/timmenees/

------------------------

Santorum defends Schiavo visit
Saturday, June 18, 2005
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05169/523762.stm

HARRISBURG -- Regardless of what his critics say, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum insists he did the right thing by visiting brain-damaged Terri Schiavo in Florida before she died March 31.

In a visit to the state Capitol yesterday, Santorum said the autopsy of Schiavo, which came out this week, hasn't caused him to regret or second-guess his actions.

The autopsy showed Schiavo's brain had atrophied to less than half its normal size and that she was irreversibly brain-damaged and beyond treatment, as her husband, Michael, had claimed in seeking to have her disconnected from a feeding tube.

Social, religious and political conservatives had disputed Michael's desire to take Terri, 41, off life support. Her mother and father went to court in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

"I absolutely do not regret going there," said Santorum, a conservative Republican who faces a difficult race for a third term next year.

"I stood up for what I believe was right in defending a disabled person from being executed. I don't think we should execute disabled people who have not expressed their desire as to how they should be handled, how their life should be dealt with.

"I don't think we should end their life simply because they are disabled. That's a very telling thing about a society that is willing to say that because they are not someone that is normal in the eyes of the world, that they have a life not worth living."

The Schiavo case was difficult because she hadn't left a living will or other written instructions about what she wanted done if she became incapacitated.

"Had I not gone down there, there would have been some who would have criticized me for not going," said Santorum, who likely will face a re-election challenge next year from Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr.

What about critics who complained that he was engaged in a political show by visiting Schiavo?

"Oh yeah, that was a great political show, to go down there when the polls were showing that [getting involved with Schiavo] was something the Congress shouldn't have done," he replied, somewhat testily. [I don't think that the polls were out at that time]

"I got involved in this case and I believe in this case," he said. "I still believe that if someone is given a death sentence by a state court ... that person's federal constitutional rights should be protected with a federal court review."

On other issues Santorum:

Said the military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where alleged Islamic terrorists are being held, should not be closed, as some critics of President Bush have said.

"We need to protect the American people," he said, and releasing terrorists isn't the way to do it. He said the Cuba prison has better physical facilities for its inmates "than half the prisons in Pennsylvania." [we spend about $30,000 per inmate in PA --- spending more in Gitmo is ridiculous! Halliburtin just got another contract to add more prisons space in Gitmo]

Refused to discuss recent polls that have shown him as much as 14 points behind Casey. With 17 months to go before the November 2006 election, he said it's far too soon to worry about polls.

Wouldn't give a preference on which of three GOP candidates should be the party's choice for governor in 2006. Santorum said he's too focused on his race to worry about that.

Criticized Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee for refusing to discuss compromises or alternatives to reform the Social Security system.

"Democrats have made this a purely partisan political issue," he said. "They refuse to come to the table." [Bush hasn't put forth a proposal - Bush has only campaigned on private accounts. Also, repubs are in charge, not the democrats.]

Santorum likes the idea of permitting private investment accounts for younger workers, proposed by Bush. Santorum said he's willing to discuss all Social Security bailout options except one -- there should be no reduction in benefits for workers who were born before 1950.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Harrisburg Bureau Chief Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 1-717-787-4254.)

oh right, he care's about the disabled...........let them starve.

Letter to editor 6-21-05
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05172/525444.stm

Santorum's soft spot

The June 12 letter "Sen. Santorum Deserves Praise for His Animal Welfare Bill" shows his concern for the welfare of animals. But why doesn't the senator show the same concern for people who need prescription drugs?

When a bill came before Congress to allow the importation of less expensive drugs from Canada, Santorum initiated a letter to members of Congress stating that if they passed this bill, "The sky would fall."

Drugs from Canada would save everyone, especially senior citizens, thousands of dollars a year.

Political cartoon

Editorial cartoon: Tim Menees
Monday, June 06, 2005

http://www.post-gazette.com/timmenees/

See also

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=32521

SANTORUM VOTES TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON FETUSES, BABIES, PREGNANT WOMEN
http://politicspa.com/Press_Releases/063005dscc.htm

Penn Hills legislator says cyber school bill not aimed at Santorum
Wednesday, June 29, 2005

By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05180/530020.stm

HARRISBURG -- A Penn Hills Democrat insists he's merely trying to tighten up residency rules for online charter schools and isn't trying to embarrass U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum.

However, because the two-term Republican senator with a home in Virginia was, until recently, a high-profile user of cyber schools for his children, some people think the political intent of the measure is unmistakable.

"My aim is not to take a shot at Rick Santorum," state Rep. Tony DeLuca said yesterday about a measure to make residency rules for cyber charter schools more restrictive.

The measure was approved by the state House last week, but its fate in the Senate is uncertain.

A 2002 Pennsylvania law requires local school districts to pay tuition of residents enrolled in a cyber charter school, but it doesn't make clear whether that requirement applies to students whose families live out of state, DeLuca said.

"It's time to clear up the confusion," DeLuca said.

Under his proposal, a Pennsylvania school district would pay for a student's cyber school tuition only if that student physically lives in the school district with his parents or guardians for "at least 183 nights of the paid school year."

Santorum, who owns a house in Penn Hills, faced criticism last year when it was disclosed that the Penn Hills School District had paid more than $67,000 for the cyber school tuition of five of his children, even though they lived most of the year in Virginia, not Penn Hills.

The children had been enrolled at a Beaver County-based cyber school since 2001-02. The tuition cost would have risen by another $37,000 for 2004-05, but the children were enrolled for only the start of the school year before Santorum withdrew them in favor of home schooling.

National Democrats have said that one of their main goals in 2006 is to defeat Santorum, the third-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate. He will almost certainly be facing a well-known and tough Democratic opponent, Robert P. Casey Jr., the state treasurer.

A Santorum political adviser, John Brabender of Pittsburgh, agreed there is "a need to clarify the residency rule for cyber schools'' because different school districts have interpreted it differently.

He added, "I hope this is being done with no political considerations in mind and in the best interests of Pennsylvania's children."

DeLuca said, "What I'm proposing is the right thing to do," because costs of cyber schools can impose a hefty financial burden on local school districts.

DeLuca's victory is somewhat surprising, though, because the House, like the Senate, is controlled by Republicans. DeLuca thanked GOP House leaders for allowing a vote on his amendment, but it could still die in the Senate.

DeLuca said his bill isn't part of the national Democratic effort to defeat Santorum. He conceded that Santorum "happened to be the catalyst" for the change in residency rules and the issue of cyber school residency "probably wouldn't have come up if he weren't a high-profile person."

"Cyber schools are continuing to grow," he said. "This could cost school districts all over the state a ton of money. We need to have some type of control on these schools. I would be doing this regardless of who the U.S. senator was, regardless of whether he's a Democrat or Republican."

Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham called DeLuca's bill "a misguided piece of legislation" that would have negative ramifications far beyond one particular family.

"This is legislation that severely limits the options of individuals who are serving their country but want to maintain their home state ties" by enrolling their children in their home school district, he said.

Traynham contended that requiring children to live in a particular school district for 183 days a year would hurt "individuals serving in military or with the clergy, as well as elected officials that are serving the country here in Washington and abroad."

$antorum Watch
http://mysite.verizon.net/lardil/
----------------------------------------

VA Faces $2.6 Billion Shortfall in Medical Care
Agency Undercounted Size of Returning Force

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; Page A19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062800545.html

.....Senate Republicans, embarrassed and angered over the revelations, yesterday announced plans to pass emergency legislation this morning to add $1.5 billion to the fiscal 2005 appropriation. The move is designed to appease angry veterans groups and preempt a Democratic proposal calling for $1.42 billion in increased VA spending.

The action represents a reversal of GOP policies toward the VA. For the past four months, House and Senate Republicans have repeatedly defeated Democratic amendments to boost VA medical funding.

Nicholson, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, faced criticism from House and Senate committee chairmen at two hearings.....

As GOP House and Senate leaders scrambled to deal with the politically damaging shortfall and quell criticism from veterans' advocacy groups, Democrats intensified charges that the Bush administration and the Republican congressional majorities are failing to care for those who put their lives on the line for the country.....

------------------------------

Senate Votes for $1.5 Billion In Extra Veterans Affairs FundsMeasure Aims to Close Shortfall in Medical Care Budget

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 30, 2005; Page A21

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062902714.html

The Senate, after a series of angry partisan exchanges, unanimously approved yesterday $1.5 billion in emergency funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs' health care programs. The action is the first step in what now appears to become a total increase of at least $2.5 billion in fiscal 2005 and 2006.

Hours before the Senate's 96 to 0 vote, the last opponents in the House and Bush administration to boosted VA spending told reporters that they have abandoned their resistance......

The developments yesterday marked the failure of the administration and GOP congressional leaders to force tough spending constraints on the department, which is backed by some of the most influential lobbies in the capital. With the 2006 midterm elections approaching and President Bush's favorability ratings at low levels, Republicans in the House and the Senate clearly had no stomach for risking the wrath of former service members in the cause of deficit reduction.

Virtually all veterans groups -- including the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- have complained bitterly that the administration and the Republican leadership have abandoned a commitment to treat VA health care as an integral "cost of war." John Furgess, commander in chief of the VFW, denounced Bush's spending proposals for the department as "especially shameful during a time of war."

The Senate vote yesterday was on a bill sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who had opposed a past Democratic amendment to raise VA spending. He was given the honor of becoming lead sponsor because he faces one of the toughest reelection fights next year among incumbent Republicans.

Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), who is orchestrating the party's campaign efforts, refused to give Santorum a free ride, noting that on three previous occasions, "Senate Republicans, including the lead sponsor [Santorum] . . . voted no. No to additional funding for our veterans. No to giving them the quality health care they have earned. No to keeping our nation's commitments to those who have served.".....

Animal Groups Praise Sen. Rick Santorum

By KIMBERLY HEFLING
The Associated Press
Monday, June 27, 2005; 2:50 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062700047.html

WASHINGTON -- Puppies and kittens likely are not the first things that come to mind when many think of Sen. Rick Santorum _ the conservative No. 3 Senate Republican known for his tough stance against abortion and gay marriage.

But Santorum, R-Pa., has won high praise from the Humane Society of the United States for pushing legislation aimed at ending breeding facilities known as puppy mills.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals also finds him a friend. "He's a man with a heart, and he doesn't think it's any more acceptable to treat animals cruelly than humans," said Mary Beth Sweetland, director of research and investigations for the Norfolk, Va.-based PETA.

Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said those who think of animal rights as a liberal cause should not be surprised to find him in this camp. A father of six who has a 2-year-old German Shepherd named Schatzie, he said having pets makes for a healthier home.

"To me, it's part of a society that's caring, sensitive to life," Santorum said in a recent interview. "Obviously, the life of animals is fundamentally different than the life of a human being. But to me, we have a responsibility to God's creatures to treat them humanely, and the government's laws should reflect that."

Pennsylvania is among the top 10 states with breeding facilities regulated by the Agriculture Department. It also is home to countless puppy mills, which Santorum said is "not something I'm particularly proud of."

Santorum recently introduced a bill co-sponsored with Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., called PAWS _ the Pet Animal Welfare Statute _ that would require USDA to regulate breeders who sell seven or more litters of dogs or cats per year.

The bill also would require better oversight of importers, Internet sellers and other non-breeder dealers who sell more than 25 dogs or cats per year.

He introduced another bill with Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., that would require manufacturers to add a bittering agent to antifreeze so it tastes bad to animals. In addition, Santorum has promoted anti-cockfighting legislation and more funding for federal oversight of animal breeding facilities.

The animal rights political action committee Humane USA gave $5,000 to Santorum's 2006 re-election bid and has pledged to campaign aggressively for him.

"We support elected officials who have a proven record of leadership on animal welfare issues and Rick Santorum fits that characteristic precisely," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society and a Humane USA board member.

His track record supporting animal health issues goes back a decade, said Nancy Perry, also from the Washington-based Humane Society. About the only legislative issue on which Santorum has gone against PETA's view was oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Santorum isn't the first conservative to support animal issues.

Former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., was an architect of the 1985 amendments of the Animal Welfare Act that required that pain be minimized for laboratory animals. Then-Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., took heat for speaking out in 1995 against the use of elephants at a circus on the Capitol grounds.

Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Wayne Allard, R-Colo. _ both veterinarians _ have pushed animal causes such as anti-cockfighting legislation.

Santorum filed an anti-puppy mill bill in 2001 similar to the PAWS bill. It passed the Senate and was part of the 2002 Farm Bill but was deleted before final passage, in part because of opposition from small breeders worried about over-regulation, Santorum said.

The American Kennel Club had opposed the bill in the past, but working with Santorum has addressed more of its concerns, spokeswoman Lisa Peterson said.

Santorum wrote a book! Lynn Cullen on WPTT 1360AM radio was talking about his views in the book today.

Santorum's book urges more moms stay home
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05187/533421.stm

WASHINGTON-- Sen. Rick Santorum's bid for re-election in 2006 is already the most closely watched race in Washington and the "never say never" part of his answer to whether he'll run for president in 2008 only keeps those rumors flying.

So not long after his first book, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," hit Washington bookstores over the Fourth of July weekend, his opponents were sifting through the 430 pages at warp speed -- culling controversial passages in which the Pennsylvania Republican criticizes public schools, America's "divorce culture" and argues that more American families should consider whether both parents really need to work.

Many early conversations about the book yesterday on the Internet centered on a section in which Santorum advocates parents spending more time at home with their children -- part of the book's central theme that fostering the traditional family headed by a married man and woman can solve many of society's ills.

"In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don't both need to," Santorum writes.

Many women, he adds, have told him that it is more "socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children."

That ideology, he says, has been shaped by feminists who demean the work of women who stay at home as primary caregivers.

"What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else -- or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon -- find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism," Santorum writes.

"Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root," said Santorum. "The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness."

Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman Rep. T.J. Rooney jumped on that assertion yesterday as one that would alienate female voters.

He described the excerpts he had seen as a "mind-bending read" sure to create fodder for the campaign against Santorum in 2006, when he is expected to face off against state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., a socially conservative Democrat.

"References to how families are compromised when both parents work outside the home, how it takes a societal toll on Pennsylvania families or American families, it just shows a complete lack of understanding of the real world in which the vast majority of Pennsylvanians reside," Rooney said.

In much of the book, Santorum focuses on what he describes as his brand of compassionate conservatism -- which has been a key theme in many of his recent speeches that have drawn criticism from Democrats who say he is engaged in pre-election maneuvering.

He writes that until now there hasn't been a coherent conservative agenda for low-income Americans, but that in contrast "liberal" economic policies have been "devastating to the poor" and have dismantled the traditional family.

Drawing on oft-quoted sources ranging from Alexis de Tocqueville to Robert Putnam, author of the 2000 book "Bowling Alone," Santorum argues that many of the problems of America poor can be solved by championing initiatives that encourage connections to family and community -- often through faith-based organizations.

They include fatherhood training programs, more tax relief for families raising children, changes that make divorce more difficult -- and even training professionals from hospital workers to welfare case workers to public educators on how to help couples see the benefits of marriage.

He touts his work on initiatives such as the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, signed by President Clinton, as an initiative reversed a program that he describes as a "spin cycle" -- one that had kept families running in place instead of helping them out of poverty.

Throughout the book, Santorum targets "liberals" who, he says, advocate s "no fault freedom" or freedom without responsibility. He aims his fire at entities he calls --"the Bigs" -- a category that includes "big media," "big universities and public schools" and some "big businesses" run by the "liberal elite," who he says shape American life and values in a way that is destructive.

He criticizes policies put forward by a likely 2008 contender Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. -- in part in her book "It Takes a Village" -- stating that they boil "down to little more than feel-good rhetoric masking a radical left agenda."

One example of the consequences of no-fault freedom, he says, is how sexual freedom has resulted in "the debasement of women, mental illness, and an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, causing infertility cancer, even death."

He also rails against the "hostile cultural climate" -- influenced by the moral values shown on television shows such as "Friends" and "Sex in the City" to violent video games -- where parents must raise their kids, and praises companies such as Wal-Mart for refusing to sell some music CD's with offensive language.

He also explains his decision to school his children at home -- an issue Democrats say they will raise in the 2006 campaign. Santorum's wife Karen Garver Santorum, who has written two books of her own, is raising their six children at home and home-schooling them.

Santorum states that schools are not mentioned in the Constitution and writes that he believes America's founders agreed that education would be best accomplished by the family and voluntary associations rather than the state.

While noting that he admires the work of thousands of teachers across America, he said the people who "sit atop" the nation's educational systems, from the faculty at education schools to heads of teachers unions, have "a clear liberal agenda." He defends home-schooling as an opportunity to interact with children in a more complex way, to teach them moral values and give them more individual time, and tries to refute criticisms that home-schooled children are not as well adapted.

"By asking the right question, we can see that when it comes to socialization, mass education is really the aberration, not homeschooling," he writes. "Never before in human history have a majority of children spent at least half their waking hours in the presence of 25 to 35 unrelated children of exactly the same age (and usually the same socio-economic status)..." he writes. "It's amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools."

Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee who picked up his copy at a bookstore on Capitol Hill, said if there were "any lingering questions about whether Rick Santorum is out of step with the mainstream, this book firmly lays them to rest."

The book's official publication date is July 25.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Maeve Reston can be reached at (202)488-3479 or mreston@nationalpress.com.)

Man, what HAS this guy been smoking???

Hey, come on, now....you've seen this guy. This is the only type of culture he would EVER be able to get a lay with.

Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant, and "willin' to serrrve da Lord".....

He's a weenie, first class. (he also likes to throw little hissyfits on the Senate Floor infront of his "elders".....tsk, tsk, Rickie...)

Hey you all might want to go over to Amazon and write a review on his book

Here's one:


Santorum exposed. A link to check out

http://www.santorumexposed.com/

Santorum book stirs debate on child care
Do kids do better with parent home?
Thursday, July 07, 2005

By Mackenzie Carpenter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05188/534117.stm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

All three believe they're raising great children and wouldn't presume to judge other parents for their choices, which may be why none was comfortable yesterday with Sen. Rick Santorum's assertion in his new book that American families should try, whenever possible, to have one parent at home.

"I think it's all individual for each family," said Severyn, mother of a 13-year-old and a 16-year-old. "I have friends who work full time, while some don't, and some are in between. I don't want to judge them."

Santorum's new book, "It Takes A Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," lays out a vision of a traditional family in which one parent works while the other stays at home with the children while they are young, on the grounds that it's best for the kids.

Given that Santorum is running for re-election in 2006 and is eyeing a 2008 presidential bid, his comments -- and the book's title, an apparent dig at Hillary Clinton's own paean to the family, "It Takes A Village" -- have already become fodder for Democrats. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued a news release crowing that Santorum was "wildly out of step with America."

But his argument resonated with other organizations, including the conservative Independent Women's Forum.

"I think he brings up a number of important points," said Carrie Lukas, the IWF's director of policy. "We do need to look at some of the effects of a radical turn away from the family. Even the feminist movement itself has moderated its views a lot. There was a hostility to stay-at-home moms back in the Betty Friedan days, but now I think most women realize they get their greatest personal fulfillment from families and relationships."

That being said, Lukas objected somewhat to Santorum's implied criticism that many women, egged on by radical feminists, go back to work for "social affirmation."

"That may be going too far," she said. "Many women have an absolute right to pursue their career dreams and balance work and family responsibilities and society should be supportive of them. But in doing that, we've degraded the work and contribution of stay-at-home moms, and that has to change."

While many work-family experts say there's no proof that children in two-income families do any worse than children with one parent at home, the notion that parents should spend more time with their kids is an idea with some traction: U.S. Census statistics show that the number of stay-at-home moms increased 15 percent during the 1990s. Another recent survey by Harvard Business School found just 38 percent of its female graduates were in the workplace full time in their child-raising years.

Still, it's not clear that most Americans would buy into Santorum's single-breadwinner proposal, even if they could afford to.

A poll conducted earlier this year by Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research Inc. found that 30 percent of working moms would choose to stay at home full-time if money were no object. At the other extreme, however, 10 percent would choose to work full-time, while a majority -- 59 percent -- would work part-time.

That may be because parents have figured out what many studies have already shown: Some exposure to the workplace is good for the psychological well-being of mothers, said Rosalyn Barnett, senior scientist and executive director of the Communities, Families and Work Program at Brandeis University, who has conducted numerous studies on family and workplace issues. One study of women working "really crummy jobs" at a seafood processing plant in Groton, Conn., found that most chose to work even if they didn't have to, "because of the social contact, the challenge and the structure of their days. There was a real mental health benefit here."

Not only that, she said, "maternal employment is irrelevant to child outcomes," noting that dozens of studies have found no negative effects on children in two-income families compared to those where only one parent works.

"No matter how you measure them, whether on attachment, school readiness or cognitive development, they don't find it," said Barnett. "It's not about maternal employment, it's about maternal sensitivity. There are plenty of stay-at-home mothers who are not sensitive to children, and plenty of working mothers who are. And the other way around. But in the end, it has nothing to do with the work itself."

Lest observers interpret his comments as an attempt to revisit the "Mommy Wars" of the 1990s, when stay-at-home moms and working moms faced off over whose child-rearing arrangements were better, Santorum took pains yesterday to say he wasn't aiming at women in particular.

"A parent should stay home. I didn't say whether it should be moms or dads. I have a lot of friends where the mom works and the dad stays home. I'm very flexible on that," he said.

"Clearly I'm an advocate for families and staying home with your kids, but I'm very specific about not saying which [parent] should and which shouldn't [stay home]. I'm saying women should have more choices not to be forced to work to have social affirmation.

"Someone needs to be home with the kids. ... Someone needs to be there but [we shouldn't] force one or the other [to do so]."

Nonetheless, some feminist observers took it that way.

"Who is he kidding?" asked Joan Williams, a professor at American University Law School and author of "Unbending Gender," a book about family and workplace conflicts. She noted one Santorum quote where he blames radical feminists for undermining the traditional family "and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness."

"If that isn't about mothers, I don't what is," said Williams, who added that Santorum also relates conversations with women who tell him it is more "socially affirming" to go back to work after having children.

"I don't see him quoting men saying they work because it's 'socially affirming,' " she added. "What the senator is saying is that it's best to raise children with one woman who is economically vulnerable and socially isolated."

But Danielle Crittenden, a conservative commentator and author of "What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Women," said she was worried that feminists were overstating Santorum's remarks.

"My alarm bells are going off," she said. "When you have a conservative politician like Sen. Santorum making those comments, you have feminist groups trying to do to him what they did to [Harvard President Lawrence] Summers -- take his words and try to hang him with them"

"[Santorum] is not saying anything different from what most American women themselves would say or express," she stressed. "Do we think children are better off with a parent at home? Of course we do. Women themselves say they should stay home."

Crittenden said she was skeptical of data showing no ill effects on children of two-income families.

"You can always pull up an individual case, but you should also question the responsibility of a father or mother who would go ahead and have children without thinking about the consequences. As a society, what are we saying? That it's more important for parents to spend more time at the office? Or that when they have children that they should be willing to make the sacrifices to raise those children?"

Most experts believe, however, that stay-at-home parents are clustered at the upper end of the economic spectrum and don't have to make much in the way of sacrifices at all.

Margie Severyn tried going back to work part time after her oldest son was born 16 years ago but quickly abandoned that plan once she and her husband realized they could afford to have her quit her job as a sales representative.

"I was not trusting enough to interview strangers to watch a baby of mine, and I wanted to be the one to do it," she said. "You have to look at your financials like we did and see if you can do it. Luckily enough, we could do it."

"What's so annoying is that we're having a debate about a rarefied group in society, in families where mom doesn't have to work. It's an elitist debate," said Carrie Leana, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh's Katz School of Business. For working parents who try to juggle family and career demands, "society and government legislators have said you're on your own. Staying at home is simply not a realistic option for most people."

Not so, countered Lukas. If anything, working parents get more sympathy from government, not single-income families.

"A lot of our infrastructure on public policy has been geared towards making life a little easier for working mothers but not for stay-at-home moms," she said, noting that legislators frequently propose increased tax credits for child care while ignoring "the economic struggles of the family where one parent opts out of the job market."

Leana is one of those parents who, perhaps, Santorum was talking about when he described, in less than positive terms, those who work for "social affirmation." She could have stayed home but chose to go back to work, in a workplace with some flexibility about her hours, since she was a tenured professor. Today, she has no regrets.

"Happy children have happy parents, and if those parents are not going to be happy staying at home, then I don't know that it is good for the children. I don't know if my children would have been better off if I stayed home 24/7 because I wouldn't have been happy. But that doesn't mean parents should be saying, 'Whatever's good for me is what matters.' It's up to each person."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mackenzie Carpenter can be reached at mcarpenter@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1949.)

Likely Democratic rival joins in criticism of book

Thursday, July 07, 2005
By James O'Toole, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05188/534142.stm

Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. yesterday joined the chorus of Democratic criticism for Sen. Rick Santorum's book, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good."

In a statement released by his campaign, Casey, Santorum's likely opponent in next year's Senate race, said that excerpts from Santorum's book showed that he was "out of touch" with economic reality.

"For many Pennsylvania families, having a stay-at-home mother is simply not an option if they want to make ends meet," Casey said, referring to passages in the book that criticize the consequences of having both parents work outside the home.

"Mr. Santorum is clearly out of touch with the economic realities many families are facing. Accusing these working mothers of being selfish or bad budgeters is simply wrong and sadly ironic given the lack of fiscal discipline Mr. Santorum has shown with our federal budget."

John Brabender, a consultant to the Santorum campaign, shot back that it was out-of control Democrats, rather than out-of-touch Republicans who had created the conditions that increased the stress on families.

"Obviously, he didn't read the book in its entirety," Brabender said. Shifting the focus from the passage Casey had criticized, the GOP strategist argued that if the Democrat was genuinely committed to working families, "Mr. Casey should join Sen. Santorum in working for middle-class tax relief. ... Mr. Casey has refused to join Sen. Santorum in working to eliminate the marriage penalty; he's refused to join Sen. Santorum's efforts to make child tax credits permanent."

While Republicans control the White House and both chambers in Congress, Brabender said the budget deficits Casey cited were largely the responsibility of "the out-of-control Democrats." [who does he think will believe this? ha ha ha ha!]

"Mr. Casey needs to get a better alignment on why so many families are facing tough times. A lot of it has to do with his support and his party's support for higher taxes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(James O'Toole can be reached at jotoole@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1562.)

Strange, the only unmovable force in all of this is considered to be business and industry, which should make flex work time. This country should be doing a better job of meeting day care needs as countries in Europe do.
Companies are outsoucing every job to other countries but can't do a better job of meeting family needs. Male and female parents could be doing some of their work time at home with computers.

Why is Santorum sticking his wife with all the child care?

Prior to the option of working outside the home for social affirmation, the only way women had to obtain social affirmation was by being a wife and a mother.

Santorum will be happy with this help from the Catholic church on Intelligent design.

Editorial: His own words / Sen. Santorum plays the scold in a new book

Sunday, July 10, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05191/535261.stm

Like an old-fashioned mother, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania knows best -- and he has written a book to show the rest of us in the American family the error of our ways. Of course, there's nothing wrong with him becoming an author, and it's helpful to be reminded of what he believes. To some extent, the problem with his book is less what the senator says and more how he chooses to say it.

In fact, what he says about society is not all that surprising and some of his critique isn't completely wrong, although that point may not be conceded by those trolling through the 430 pages for future political advantage.

But even though what he writes has a commonsensical ring to it, he can't help getting carried away. For example, public schools have their problems, but they don't deserve the hostility Sen. Santorum displays toward them in the pages of "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good."

Similarly, the senator is right to be dismayed by America's divorce culture, which is particularly destructive to children's lives, although his hopes to discourage divorce could cause more misery by keeping unhappy couples together. And, taken in isolation, he's right that stay-at-home parenting can be good for children.

Yet this last point -- widely accepted as reasonable by all sorts of parents -- has raised the biggest hackles. That's because Sen. Santorum has a talent for talking down to people in a judgmental tone. To him, life is a hockey game wherein those dreaded liberals must be checked into the boards at every turn. Even the name of his book is a dig at Sen. Hillary Clinton's foray into this field, "It Takes a Village."

His aggressive piety has always been an irritant, and here it is again writ large. Sen. Santorum's wife Karen is a homemaker who home-schools their six children. The proper response to this is -- good for them if they can afford it and their circumstances allow it. Not every parent can do this.

Sen. Santorum is particularly disturbed by career women who are also mothers. As he tells it, women who find it "more socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children" are under the influence of "radical feminism."

This myopic and patronizing view ignores several realities, including the importance of America remaining competitive by harnessing the brainpower of men and women both. It has the breath of the 19th century about it, when a woman's place was decidedly in the home.

Yet while Sen. Santorum seems to suggest turning back the clock to the 1950s and making the country into one large episode of "Leave It to Beaver," the senator's own staffing arrangements are family-friendly. Out of 64 staffers in the senator's various offices, eight are working moms with kids under age 18, including three who are welfare-to-work single moms.

In short, he practices in his offices what he does not preach in this book -- and good for him. Perhaps he could learn from such practical experience that in 2005 there are different families with different needs -- and no one prescription for raising children other than love, protection and care.

If Sen. Santorum wants to convert people to his brand of compassionate conservatism, he needs to deliver his preachments with less attitude.

If you are interested, several conservatives wrote letters to the editor supporting Santorum's opinions.

Issue One: Sen. Santorum and families
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05191/535274.stm