The Times-Tribune - News - 11/30/2005 - Santorum drops off $200,000 for projects in North Scranton:
More Pa Federal Tax Dollars leave Pa then ever come back. But Tricky Ricky Santorum waves a HUD grant around like he was responsible. Tricky Ricky is a shameful blowhard! By the way when is Tricky Ricky Santorum going to reimburse the Penn Hills School District for the money he scammed them for? - Lanny Budd
"Santorum drops off $200,000 for projects in North Scranton
BY LYNNE SLACK SHEDLOCK STAFF WRITER 11/30/2005
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum delivered a $200,000 check Tuesday to help complete a revitalization project in North Scranton that neighbors hope to eventually tie into the planned river walk.
It’s the second time in nine months that Mr. Santorum, a Republican, has come bearing gifts to the hometown of Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., his potential opponent in the closely watched 2006 senate race. Mr. Santorum last March gave Mayor Chris Doherty $300,000 for a South Scranton rehabilitation project. Both grants came from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s highly competitive Neighborhood Initiatives Account.
Tuesday’s money is expected to put phase two of the North Scranton project over the top. The $1.5 million first phase of the project included building new sidewalks, curbs, period lighting and other improvements from Providence Square to North Main Avenue and Oak Street. The estimated cost of phase two, which will carry the work to Green Ridge Street, is about $500,000, neighborhood organizer Dr. Barry Minora said.
Dr. Minora said the neighborhood has generated $375,000 so far in grant money. The federal grant that Mr. Santorum secured with U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter will fill in the rest, he said. The rest of the money might be used to move the project up West Market Street or to make improvements near the Lackawanna River connected to the river walk, Dr. Minora said.
The river walk, backed by a host of local organizations, would potentially connect Carbondale with Luzerne County, serving as an economic engine along the way for restaurants, shops and hotels.
“That’s really where the money is,” Dr. Minora said. “They’re proven winners wherever they’re built.”
Mr. Santorum said he chose the project because residents have embraced it in a bipartisan show of support. “One of the things I feel very strongly about is to work with people in the local communities,” he said.
Mr. Santorum said he’s pushing for money here because he’s “a big fan of the work being done in the city of Scranton.” He added his job is to put political ideology aside and work with elected leaders of local municipalities.
“There’s no Democratic or Republican way to run a city,” Mr. Santorum said.
Contact the writer: lshedlock@timesshamrock.com"
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Is Bush Taking Anti-Depressants To Forget Santorum?
Bush Taking Anti-Depressants To Control Mood Swings: "Bush Taking Anti-Depressants
To Control Mood Swings
Note - This story first appeared in July, 2004. Reports of the ongoing mental and emotional decline of the President suggest things have seriously deteriorated from the conditions first described below. Reports of illegal drugs and drinking are now common. Add these 'passtimes' to SSRI antidepressants and you have a dangerously dysfunctional, potentially catastrophic combination. -ed
11-18-5
By Capitol Hill Blue Staff
7-28-4
President George W. Bush is taking anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.
The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.
"It's a double-edged sword, says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
"Keep those motherfuckers away from me, he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I,ll find someone who can.
Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac and "untreated alcoholic whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad showcase Bush's instabilities.
"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed, Dr. Frank said. "He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.
Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.
The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.
"President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies," Dr. Frank adds.
The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.
The exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President's annual physical, details of the President's health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.
Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush's health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan's second term when aides managed to conceal the President's increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer's Disease.
It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon's final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn't emerge until after Nixon left office.
One long-time GOP political consultant who for obvious reasons asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.
"We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes, he says sadly. "That's not good for my candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good for the country.
© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/
artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=33&num=5141"
To Control Mood Swings
Note - This story first appeared in July, 2004. Reports of the ongoing mental and emotional decline of the President suggest things have seriously deteriorated from the conditions first described below. Reports of illegal drugs and drinking are now common. Add these 'passtimes' to SSRI antidepressants and you have a dangerously dysfunctional, potentially catastrophic combination. -ed
11-18-5
By Capitol Hill Blue Staff
7-28-4
President George W. Bush is taking anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.
The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.
"It's a double-edged sword, says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
"Keep those motherfuckers away from me, he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I,ll find someone who can.
Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac and "untreated alcoholic whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad showcase Bush's instabilities.
"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed, Dr. Frank said. "He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.
Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.
The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.
"President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies," Dr. Frank adds.
The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.
The exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President's annual physical, details of the President's health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.
Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush's health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan's second term when aides managed to conceal the President's increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer's Disease.
It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon's final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn't emerge until after Nixon left office.
One long-time GOP political consultant who for obvious reasons asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.
"We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes, he says sadly. "That's not good for my candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good for the country.
© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/
artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=33&num=5141"
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Asia Times Online: Santorum Supports Expanding the War in the Middle East
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs: "Middle East
Nov 30, 2005
Let's talk about regime change
By Massoud Khodabandeh
As the standoff over Iran's nuclear program steadily deteriorates into a crisis, Washington's policy on the Islamic Republic is coming under sharp scrutiny. While a group of hardcore neo-conservatives want a decisive confrontation with the Iran, the broader US policy-making community is all too aware of the futility and dangers of this approach.
The case for regime change in Iran has been most enthusiastically taken up by the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) , which is largely composed of retired senior military officers and solely administered by a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations officer. Benefiting from close links to the Pentagon, the IPC has been tasked by the Iranian opposition group, Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a proscribed terrorist organization, to provide professional lobbying and public relations services.
On the other side are those who seek engagement. They won something of a victory on Monday when the State Department announced that the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been given permission to meet with officials from Iran. "It's a very narrow mandate that he has," spokesman Sean McCormack said. "It deals specifically with issues related to Iraq."
The IPC is likely to be undaunted, though. Lobbying on behalf of a proscribed and notoriously anti-American organization like the MEK would be controversial enough, but the IPC gives the impression that it has gone beyond advocacy and is now, to all intents and purposes, representing the MEK in the US.
While such sensational gestures generate useful propaganda against Iran in the short term, the doomed fate of the MEK means that individual IPC members are at serious risk of destroying their reputations in the long term.
Regime change in Iran?
A proper understanding of the relationship between the MEK and the IPC requires an understanding of the broader regime-change debate now under way in Washington. While the US built a case against Iraq over its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, the neo-conservatives' case against Iran is more complex. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's recent ill-judged comments on Israel (that it should be wiped off the map), coupled with long-term US concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions, have enabled the neo-conservative camp to build up a case against Iran that leaves little room for negotiation.
In 2003, Senator Sam Brownback introduced the Iran Freedom and Democracy Support Act, which was backed by senators Rick Santorum and John Cornyn. After some changes to the bill, now sponsored by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, it was finally passed on April 13 this year as the Iran Freedom Support Act (HR 282). The act allowed for "financial and political assistance ... to entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran and that are opposed to the non-democratic government of Iran". While Brownback had envisaged the fund going to Reza Pahlavi and pro-monarchist groups and the media, Ros-Lehtinen promoted the MEK as the best recipients for millions of taxpayers' dollars.
The act was opposed by many Iranian groups, including the National Iranian American Council, which said that "while supporters argue that any step short of regime change is unlikely to bring about change in Iran, opponents argue that making regime change official policy eliminates the possibility of diplomacy and makes confrontation between the US and Iran inevitable". Among those groups which lobbied for the bill were the Institute for Public Affairs, the Iranian American Jewish Federation (IAJF) and the Washington-based IPC.
Iran Policy Committee
The IPC, a think tank established in February by Raymond Tanter, professor of political science at Georgetown University, is supported by several neo-conservative politicians and analysts, including Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Tancredo and Bob Filner.
Ostensibly, the IPC's platform echoes the neo-conservative view that Iran poses a threat to US national security and that regime change is the preferred solution. Leaving nothing to doubt, the IPC's website banner reads "Empowering Iranians for Regime Change". A policy paper released on February 10 extends this view to state that "Iranian opposition groups ought to play a central role in US policymaking regarding Iran". It also perfunctorily adds that "diplomatic and military options" should be kept open.
A review of the IPC's first white paper reveals language and propaganda that is eerily identical to that used by the MEK, thus leaving well-informed and experienced analysts in little doubt that the paper was in part, if not in whole, written by agents of the MEK in the US. This style is also evident in the IPC's two subsequent white papers released in June and September. The promotion of the so-called "third way", oddly implicating the Shi'ite Islamic Republic in the spread of al-Qaeda-style Salafi jihadism (which is anti-Shi'ite through and through), and falsely accusing Iran of being the central force behind the Iraqi insurgency, are pure MEK disinformation techniques.
Interestingly, the June white paper, entitled "Sham elections and regime change", was primarily a response to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report that accused the MEK of torturing its dissident members and engaging in other forms of human-rights abuses. Yet again, using language that is the exclusive trademark of the MEK, the IPC had this to say about the HRW report:
The IPC appointed a task force on human rights to investigate allegations about the MEK and its related groups and claims against that organization by the HRW. IPC research concludes that the "credible claims" of HRW are actually statements by agents of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security [MOIS], especially Mohammad-Hossein Sobhani and Farhad Javaheri-Yar. Tehran sent most of those interviewed by Human Rights Watch from Iran to Europe for the purpose of demonizing its main opposition, the MEK.
This reads like MEK propaganda. But leaving aside this important detail, what is striking about the IPC is that nobody on its board is in fact an Iran expert, let alone an expert on the bloody history and intricate cult-like ideology of the MEK. It is perhaps not surprising then that the IPC scrupulously avoids a debate with former members of the MEK.
Leaving aside the highly questionable relationship between the IPC and the MEK, the solution offered by the former to the policy differences on Iran is not altogether convincing. In the IPC's first white paper, the authors review the appeasement and military options before concluding that "Washington should consider a third alternative, one that provides a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change". The problem for the IPC is that the US government instinctively distrusts the MEK, which has a history of anti-Western propaganda, is the only Iranian organization that has admitted to killing Americans, and was for nearly 20 years an unwavering ally of Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, the IPC's lukewarm enthusiasm for the use of military force against Iran is, at best, deceptive. Indeed, if the IPC is serious about promoting MEK interests, then it must realize (as the MEK readily does) that only massive US-led military force against Iran could make marginalized exiled groups like the MEK even remotely relevant.
Furthermore, a brief glance at the IPC co-chair biographies reveals why this MEK-connected think tank secretly lobbies for war against Iran. Composed of retired senior military officers, a former ambassador, and Claire M Lopez, former operations officer with the CIA (and the sole administrator of the IPC and its main point of contact with the MEK), these individuals' expertise and career paths are based on the promotion of military options rather than peaceful ones. Moreover, several of the principals are affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its related think tanks.
MEK: A bad investment
The IPC's emergence as the representative of the MEK in the US is directly tied to the proscription of the latter in 2003. Up to August 2003, the MEK was capable of running its own propaganda campaign through the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the personnel of both being almost identical.
The NCRI was outlawed in the US in August 2003 when the State Department added the cover organization to the list of terrorist entities as a pseudonym for the MEK. Similarly, the MEK's small military wing in Iraq, the so-called "National Liberation Army of Iran" was bombed, disarmed and dismantled by US forces in April and May 2003. Having lost the patronage of Saddam, the MEK is now looking to the US government and Israel-linked lobby groups in Washington for support.
As part of this push to gain acceptance in the West, the MEK has presented itself as a pluralistic, secular and pro-democratic group which promotes the role of women and supports human rights. Its tools in this exercise have been the feminized image of its head, Maryam Rajavi, in civilian clothes, and the placing of the MEK's long-time US spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, in the Fox News network as an independent analyst on Iran.
But even this was not enough to shift perceptions, and congressional support has been falling off as representatives are made aware of the manipulations which led them to sign up to documents purporting to condemn the Iranian regime, but having in their small print support for the MEK.
The creation of the IPC has arguably been the best publicity asset for the MEK in its efforts to reinvent itself. But no matter how the MEK markets itself, it cannot escape its past. The specter of young, brainwashed devotees burning themselves to protest the arrest of Maryam Rajavi in Paris in June 2003 continues to haunt Europe.
Moreover, there is now a determined and organized effort by former members to bring the organization's leaders to account. On November 24, a group of anti-war activists and former MEK members held a press conference in Washington DC, entitled "Saddam's links with international terrorism". The conference showed videos secretly filmed by Saddam's own security services which evidenced the financial, logistical and intelligence relations between the former Iraqi regime and the MEK. Additionally, a documentary exposed the MEK's involvement in the suppression of the Kurdish uprising in 1991, immediately after the first Gulf War.
The day before this press conference, the MEK issued a statement alleging that former MEK members had been sent by Iran's Intelligence Ministry to prevent the organization being removed from the US terror list. The following day, the IPC issued a statement repeating these unsubstantiated accusations. Unfortunately for the IPC, United Press International picked up its statement and printed it. It was clear that the IPC had simply rehashed the MEK's statement and had not checked its information independently. Consequently, Tanter and other IPC members are now being sued by those they allegedly libeled.
While promoting regime change in Iran is a legitimate discourse, supporting terrorist organizations with a documented history of anti-Americanism clearly is not. IPC members might want to reconsider their position and decide whether supporting an organization that is nearly universally despised by Iranians of all political persuasions is worth the price of personal infamy.
Massoud Khodabandeh is a former member of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, and mainly served in the organization's intelligence/security department. Khodabandeh left the Mujahideen in 1996 and currently lives in the north of England, where he works as a security consultant. He has been active in Iranian opposition politics for over 25 years. He works closely with the Center de Recherche sur la Terrorisme in Paris as an expert on Iran."
Nov 30, 2005
Let's talk about regime change
By Massoud Khodabandeh
As the standoff over Iran's nuclear program steadily deteriorates into a crisis, Washington's policy on the Islamic Republic is coming under sharp scrutiny. While a group of hardcore neo-conservatives want a decisive confrontation with the Iran, the broader US policy-making community is all too aware of the futility and dangers of this approach.
The case for regime change in Iran has been most enthusiastically taken up by the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) , which is largely composed of retired senior military officers and solely administered by a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations officer. Benefiting from close links to the Pentagon, the IPC has been tasked by the Iranian opposition group, Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a proscribed terrorist organization, to provide professional lobbying and public relations services.
On the other side are those who seek engagement. They won something of a victory on Monday when the State Department announced that the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been given permission to meet with officials from Iran. "It's a very narrow mandate that he has," spokesman Sean McCormack said. "It deals specifically with issues related to Iraq."
The IPC is likely to be undaunted, though. Lobbying on behalf of a proscribed and notoriously anti-American organization like the MEK would be controversial enough, but the IPC gives the impression that it has gone beyond advocacy and is now, to all intents and purposes, representing the MEK in the US.
While such sensational gestures generate useful propaganda against Iran in the short term, the doomed fate of the MEK means that individual IPC members are at serious risk of destroying their reputations in the long term.
Regime change in Iran?
A proper understanding of the relationship between the MEK and the IPC requires an understanding of the broader regime-change debate now under way in Washington. While the US built a case against Iraq over its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, the neo-conservatives' case against Iran is more complex. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's recent ill-judged comments on Israel (that it should be wiped off the map), coupled with long-term US concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions, have enabled the neo-conservative camp to build up a case against Iran that leaves little room for negotiation.
In 2003, Senator Sam Brownback introduced the Iran Freedom and Democracy Support Act, which was backed by senators Rick Santorum and John Cornyn. After some changes to the bill, now sponsored by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, it was finally passed on April 13 this year as the Iran Freedom Support Act (HR 282). The act allowed for "financial and political assistance ... to entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran and that are opposed to the non-democratic government of Iran". While Brownback had envisaged the fund going to Reza Pahlavi and pro-monarchist groups and the media, Ros-Lehtinen promoted the MEK as the best recipients for millions of taxpayers' dollars.
The act was opposed by many Iranian groups, including the National Iranian American Council, which said that "while supporters argue that any step short of regime change is unlikely to bring about change in Iran, opponents argue that making regime change official policy eliminates the possibility of diplomacy and makes confrontation between the US and Iran inevitable". Among those groups which lobbied for the bill were the Institute for Public Affairs, the Iranian American Jewish Federation (IAJF) and the Washington-based IPC.
Iran Policy Committee
The IPC, a think tank established in February by Raymond Tanter, professor of political science at Georgetown University, is supported by several neo-conservative politicians and analysts, including Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Tancredo and Bob Filner.
Ostensibly, the IPC's platform echoes the neo-conservative view that Iran poses a threat to US national security and that regime change is the preferred solution. Leaving nothing to doubt, the IPC's website banner reads "Empowering Iranians for Regime Change". A policy paper released on February 10 extends this view to state that "Iranian opposition groups ought to play a central role in US policymaking regarding Iran". It also perfunctorily adds that "diplomatic and military options" should be kept open.
A review of the IPC's first white paper reveals language and propaganda that is eerily identical to that used by the MEK, thus leaving well-informed and experienced analysts in little doubt that the paper was in part, if not in whole, written by agents of the MEK in the US. This style is also evident in the IPC's two subsequent white papers released in June and September. The promotion of the so-called "third way", oddly implicating the Shi'ite Islamic Republic in the spread of al-Qaeda-style Salafi jihadism (which is anti-Shi'ite through and through), and falsely accusing Iran of being the central force behind the Iraqi insurgency, are pure MEK disinformation techniques.
Interestingly, the June white paper, entitled "Sham elections and regime change", was primarily a response to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report that accused the MEK of torturing its dissident members and engaging in other forms of human-rights abuses. Yet again, using language that is the exclusive trademark of the MEK, the IPC had this to say about the HRW report:
The IPC appointed a task force on human rights to investigate allegations about the MEK and its related groups and claims against that organization by the HRW. IPC research concludes that the "credible claims" of HRW are actually statements by agents of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security [MOIS], especially Mohammad-Hossein Sobhani and Farhad Javaheri-Yar. Tehran sent most of those interviewed by Human Rights Watch from Iran to Europe for the purpose of demonizing its main opposition, the MEK.
This reads like MEK propaganda. But leaving aside this important detail, what is striking about the IPC is that nobody on its board is in fact an Iran expert, let alone an expert on the bloody history and intricate cult-like ideology of the MEK. It is perhaps not surprising then that the IPC scrupulously avoids a debate with former members of the MEK.
Leaving aside the highly questionable relationship between the IPC and the MEK, the solution offered by the former to the policy differences on Iran is not altogether convincing. In the IPC's first white paper, the authors review the appeasement and military options before concluding that "Washington should consider a third alternative, one that provides a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change". The problem for the IPC is that the US government instinctively distrusts the MEK, which has a history of anti-Western propaganda, is the only Iranian organization that has admitted to killing Americans, and was for nearly 20 years an unwavering ally of Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, the IPC's lukewarm enthusiasm for the use of military force against Iran is, at best, deceptive. Indeed, if the IPC is serious about promoting MEK interests, then it must realize (as the MEK readily does) that only massive US-led military force against Iran could make marginalized exiled groups like the MEK even remotely relevant.
Furthermore, a brief glance at the IPC co-chair biographies reveals why this MEK-connected think tank secretly lobbies for war against Iran. Composed of retired senior military officers, a former ambassador, and Claire M Lopez, former operations officer with the CIA (and the sole administrator of the IPC and its main point of contact with the MEK), these individuals' expertise and career paths are based on the promotion of military options rather than peaceful ones. Moreover, several of the principals are affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its related think tanks.
MEK: A bad investment
The IPC's emergence as the representative of the MEK in the US is directly tied to the proscription of the latter in 2003. Up to August 2003, the MEK was capable of running its own propaganda campaign through the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the personnel of both being almost identical.
The NCRI was outlawed in the US in August 2003 when the State Department added the cover organization to the list of terrorist entities as a pseudonym for the MEK. Similarly, the MEK's small military wing in Iraq, the so-called "National Liberation Army of Iran" was bombed, disarmed and dismantled by US forces in April and May 2003. Having lost the patronage of Saddam, the MEK is now looking to the US government and Israel-linked lobby groups in Washington for support.
As part of this push to gain acceptance in the West, the MEK has presented itself as a pluralistic, secular and pro-democratic group which promotes the role of women and supports human rights. Its tools in this exercise have been the feminized image of its head, Maryam Rajavi, in civilian clothes, and the placing of the MEK's long-time US spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, in the Fox News network as an independent analyst on Iran.
But even this was not enough to shift perceptions, and congressional support has been falling off as representatives are made aware of the manipulations which led them to sign up to documents purporting to condemn the Iranian regime, but having in their small print support for the MEK.
The creation of the IPC has arguably been the best publicity asset for the MEK in its efforts to reinvent itself. But no matter how the MEK markets itself, it cannot escape its past. The specter of young, brainwashed devotees burning themselves to protest the arrest of Maryam Rajavi in Paris in June 2003 continues to haunt Europe.
Moreover, there is now a determined and organized effort by former members to bring the organization's leaders to account. On November 24, a group of anti-war activists and former MEK members held a press conference in Washington DC, entitled "Saddam's links with international terrorism". The conference showed videos secretly filmed by Saddam's own security services which evidenced the financial, logistical and intelligence relations between the former Iraqi regime and the MEK. Additionally, a documentary exposed the MEK's involvement in the suppression of the Kurdish uprising in 1991, immediately after the first Gulf War.
The day before this press conference, the MEK issued a statement alleging that former MEK members had been sent by Iran's Intelligence Ministry to prevent the organization being removed from the US terror list. The following day, the IPC issued a statement repeating these unsubstantiated accusations. Unfortunately for the IPC, United Press International picked up its statement and printed it. It was clear that the IPC had simply rehashed the MEK's statement and had not checked its information independently. Consequently, Tanter and other IPC members are now being sued by those they allegedly libeled.
While promoting regime change in Iran is a legitimate discourse, supporting terrorist organizations with a documented history of anti-Americanism clearly is not. IPC members might want to reconsider their position and decide whether supporting an organization that is nearly universally despised by Iranians of all political persuasions is worth the price of personal infamy.
Massoud Khodabandeh is a former member of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, and mainly served in the organization's intelligence/security department. Khodabandeh left the Mujahideen in 1996 and currently lives in the north of England, where he works as a security consultant. He has been active in Iranian opposition politics for over 25 years. He works closely with the Center de Recherche sur la Terrorisme in Paris as an expert on Iran."
CONGRESS- WHO'S A WAR VET? - Not Tricky Ricky Santorum
CONGRESS- WHO'S A WAR VET?: "CONGRESS- WHO'S A WAR VET?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
Now that the pols in the Bush administration have chosen to attack Korea and Vietnam veteran and Congressman John Murtha for coming out in favor of a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, 'Net commentators are taking off the gloves.
A post earlier this month at the Daily KOS, titled, "The Little Piggies Who Tell You To Support Our Troops," by johninwisconsin, attempted to compare the roster of warmongers with their military service records … and found very little to work with. As their listing notes (after matching a surprising number of Democrats now in office, who did serve in some fashion), a list of 24 Republicans supporting the Bush invasion includes exactly TWO with any military service: Donald Rumsfeld (1954-57, Navy flight instructor, a time when no wars were being fought) and George W. Bush himself (whose National Guard exploits and evasions are now legendary).
The other 22 avoided service entirely, including the biggest sabre-rattlers on the scene today: Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Saxby Chambliss, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, Richard Shelby, Jon Kyl, Tim Hutchison, Christopher Cox, or Newt Gingrich.
Moreover, of the top pundits and talk show hosts agitating for more battles, NONE of them spent any military time either, including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, George Will, Chris Matthews, Paul Gigot, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Ralph Reed, and Michael Medved. The lists also included past politicians, movie stars and even a few pop musical favorites. It was initially compiled by Illinois State Sen. Howard W. Carroll.
staff reports - Free-Market News Network"
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
Now that the pols in the Bush administration have chosen to attack Korea and Vietnam veteran and Congressman John Murtha for coming out in favor of a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, 'Net commentators are taking off the gloves.
A post earlier this month at the Daily KOS, titled, "The Little Piggies Who Tell You To Support Our Troops," by johninwisconsin, attempted to compare the roster of warmongers with their military service records … and found very little to work with. As their listing notes (after matching a surprising number of Democrats now in office, who did serve in some fashion), a list of 24 Republicans supporting the Bush invasion includes exactly TWO with any military service: Donald Rumsfeld (1954-57, Navy flight instructor, a time when no wars were being fought) and George W. Bush himself (whose National Guard exploits and evasions are now legendary).
The other 22 avoided service entirely, including the biggest sabre-rattlers on the scene today: Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Saxby Chambliss, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, Richard Shelby, Jon Kyl, Tim Hutchison, Christopher Cox, or Newt Gingrich.
Moreover, of the top pundits and talk show hosts agitating for more battles, NONE of them spent any military time either, including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, George Will, Chris Matthews, Paul Gigot, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Ralph Reed, and Michael Medved. The lists also included past politicians, movie stars and even a few pop musical favorites. It was initially compiled by Illinois State Sen. Howard W. Carroll.
staff reports - Free-Market News Network"
Governor Rendell Tells Santorum Where The Bear Went Thru the Buckwheat on Medicare Part D Drug Benefit
PA Governor Rendell Responds to U.S. Sen. Santorum's Criticism of Medicare Part D Drug Benefit: "PA Governor Rendell Responds to U.S. Sen. Santorum's Criticism of Medicare Part D Drug Benefit
November 29, 2005 - 2:01 PM
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Governor Edward G. Rendell today issued the following letter in response to Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's misinformed critique of the commonwealth's handling of the merger of the state PACE program with the new Medicare Part D drug benefit:
Dear Senator Santorum:
I am in receipt of your letter of November 22nd concerning the integration of the Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Assistance (PACE) program with the new Medicare Part D drug benefit. I appreciate your concern, but I'm afraid that you might not have complete information about these discussions.
As you know, when the legislation creating the Part D benefit was considered in 2003, it passed the Senate with an amendment added to it that would have created a direct link between the PACE program and the Part D program, so the transition for PACE members would have been seamless. Opposition by the Senate Republican Leadership to that provision was largely responsible for its removal and the substitution of the more complicated process now in place.
Pennsylvania has been working closely with the various federal agencies responsible for implementing the new program. Consequently, we are on the verge of announcing an agreement that will enable the Commonwealth to assist the nearly 300,000 Pennsylvanians, who currently receive drug coverage through our state program, to enroll in the Part D program as well. I have had several conversations with Secretary Leavitt about this agreement, which, as you know, will be announced in the near future.
As you are aware, the federal benefit is complicated both in terms of the benefits provided and the choices that consumers have to make from among the many plans. As you point out, many seniors, not just PACE beneficiaries, are confused about the decisions that confront them. We have been working diligently for many months with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a model that will facilitate PACE beneficiaries enrolling in the new benefit program while enjoying the same level of coverage that they have enjoyed under the state PACE program for over twenty years. These efforts were hampered by the fact that the details of the federal program, the identity of the vendors who would offer coverage in the Commonwealth and the benefit levels that they would offer was not known until early October. As you know, Pennsylvania was not alone in having to develop a strategy to integrate its state program with the federal program and we have benefited by the arrangements that several of these states forged.
I am confident that the agreement that Secretary Leavitt and I will announce later this week will result in a significant partnership between the PACE program and the providers of the federal benefit.
I also want to take the opportunity to correct another statement in your letter. You point out that, if the Commonwealth were to wrap the PACE benefit around the new federal program, filling the gaps in the federal benefit, Pennsylvania could "save" hundreds of millions of dollars. Specifically you wrote that "Pennsylvania stands to gain $500 million per year or more if only a fraction of the PACE beneficiaries enroll in Medicare Part D."
I'm not sure of the source of this misinformation. In point of fact, the PACE program only costs the state $415 million to operate. Covering the large gaps in the Medicare D benefit, so that PACE beneficiaries continue to receive the same level of benefit they currently enjoy, will reduce the potential savings significantly. So clearly, if only a small portion of the nearly 300,000 PACE beneficiaries enroll in the federal program, the state savings would be substantially less than $500 million.
Finally, in your letter you mention the assistance available to states to assist in integrating their state prescription drug plans with the federal benefit. I understand that you were instrumental in securing this assistance. As you know, because the details of the federal plan weren't available to the states in time, Pennsylvania and many of the other twenty-two states that operate state programs were unable to draw on this money. Pennsylvania and these other states are working to ensure that this money is still available to us. Of course as you know, the Senate passed a bill earlier this fall to extend the life of the money so it would not be lost to the states. That legislation is now in conference with the House. We would greatly appreciate your support for including this funding in the final legislation.
Pennsylvania is committed to ensuring that seniors who currently benefit from the PACE and PACENet programs continue to receive the same high level of coverage that they now enjoy. The array of options that they face in electing a Medicare Part D plan can be confusing for many seniors. The state is committed to making this transition as easy and as simple as it can be and that they will have the ability to choose a plan that suits their needs whether or not they are enrolled in PACE or PACENet.
Sincerely,
Edward G. Rendell
Governor
The Rendell Administration is committed to creating a first-rate public education system, protecting our most vulnerable citizens and continuing economic investment to support our communities and businesses. To find out more about Governor Rendell's initiatives and to sign up for his weekly newsletter, visit his Web site at: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/.
CONTACT: Kate Philips
Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
717-783-1116
Source: Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
CONTACT: Kate Philips, Pennsylvania Office of the Governor,
+1-717-783-1116
Web site: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/ "
November 29, 2005 - 2:01 PM
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Governor Edward G. Rendell today issued the following letter in response to Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's misinformed critique of the commonwealth's handling of the merger of the state PACE program with the new Medicare Part D drug benefit:
Dear Senator Santorum:
I am in receipt of your letter of November 22nd concerning the integration of the Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Assistance (PACE) program with the new Medicare Part D drug benefit. I appreciate your concern, but I'm afraid that you might not have complete information about these discussions.
As you know, when the legislation creating the Part D benefit was considered in 2003, it passed the Senate with an amendment added to it that would have created a direct link between the PACE program and the Part D program, so the transition for PACE members would have been seamless. Opposition by the Senate Republican Leadership to that provision was largely responsible for its removal and the substitution of the more complicated process now in place.
Pennsylvania has been working closely with the various federal agencies responsible for implementing the new program. Consequently, we are on the verge of announcing an agreement that will enable the Commonwealth to assist the nearly 300,000 Pennsylvanians, who currently receive drug coverage through our state program, to enroll in the Part D program as well. I have had several conversations with Secretary Leavitt about this agreement, which, as you know, will be announced in the near future.
As you are aware, the federal benefit is complicated both in terms of the benefits provided and the choices that consumers have to make from among the many plans. As you point out, many seniors, not just PACE beneficiaries, are confused about the decisions that confront them. We have been working diligently for many months with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a model that will facilitate PACE beneficiaries enrolling in the new benefit program while enjoying the same level of coverage that they have enjoyed under the state PACE program for over twenty years. These efforts were hampered by the fact that the details of the federal program, the identity of the vendors who would offer coverage in the Commonwealth and the benefit levels that they would offer was not known until early October. As you know, Pennsylvania was not alone in having to develop a strategy to integrate its state program with the federal program and we have benefited by the arrangements that several of these states forged.
I am confident that the agreement that Secretary Leavitt and I will announce later this week will result in a significant partnership between the PACE program and the providers of the federal benefit.
I also want to take the opportunity to correct another statement in your letter. You point out that, if the Commonwealth were to wrap the PACE benefit around the new federal program, filling the gaps in the federal benefit, Pennsylvania could "save" hundreds of millions of dollars. Specifically you wrote that "Pennsylvania stands to gain $500 million per year or more if only a fraction of the PACE beneficiaries enroll in Medicare Part D."
I'm not sure of the source of this misinformation. In point of fact, the PACE program only costs the state $415 million to operate. Covering the large gaps in the Medicare D benefit, so that PACE beneficiaries continue to receive the same level of benefit they currently enjoy, will reduce the potential savings significantly. So clearly, if only a small portion of the nearly 300,000 PACE beneficiaries enroll in the federal program, the state savings would be substantially less than $500 million.
Finally, in your letter you mention the assistance available to states to assist in integrating their state prescription drug plans with the federal benefit. I understand that you were instrumental in securing this assistance. As you know, because the details of the federal plan weren't available to the states in time, Pennsylvania and many of the other twenty-two states that operate state programs were unable to draw on this money. Pennsylvania and these other states are working to ensure that this money is still available to us. Of course as you know, the Senate passed a bill earlier this fall to extend the life of the money so it would not be lost to the states. That legislation is now in conference with the House. We would greatly appreciate your support for including this funding in the final legislation.
Pennsylvania is committed to ensuring that seniors who currently benefit from the PACE and PACENet programs continue to receive the same high level of coverage that they now enjoy. The array of options that they face in electing a Medicare Part D plan can be confusing for many seniors. The state is committed to making this transition as easy and as simple as it can be and that they will have the ability to choose a plan that suits their needs whether or not they are enrolled in PACE or PACENet.
Sincerely,
Edward G. Rendell
Governor
The Rendell Administration is committed to creating a first-rate public education system, protecting our most vulnerable citizens and continuing economic investment to support our communities and businesses. To find out more about Governor Rendell's initiatives and to sign up for his weekly newsletter, visit his Web site at: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/.
CONTACT: Kate Philips
Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
717-783-1116
Source: Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
CONTACT: Kate Philips, Pennsylvania Office of the Governor,
+1-717-783-1116
Web site: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/ "
Monday, November 28, 2005
Casey hints of campaign during appearance - PittsburghLIVE.com
Casey hints of campaign during appearance - PittsburghLIVE.com: "Casey hints of campaign during appearance
By Paul Peirce
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, October 31, 2005
Although the 2006 general election is more than a year away, Westmoreland County Democrats on Sunday got an advance taste of the much-anticipated U.S. Senate race ahead.
State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., who is expected to challenge U.S. Republican Sen. Rick Santorum next year, lambasted the two-term incumbent as an "arrogant" politician who has grown out of touch with the concerns of average Pennsylvanians.
"What the other guy (Santorum) has done is push his own narrow ideology over the everyday concerns of Pennsylvanians. I intend to focus on issues important to Pennsylvanians ... not promote an ideology ... fueled by arrogance, and political partisanship," Casey said.
Casey told more than 300 county Democrats attending the local committee's fall banquet at Four Points Hotel by Sheraton in Hempfield Township that they can send a message to the nation next year that citizens are "sick and tired of partisan political extremism" by supporting his campaign for Senate.
The race is expected to be among the most closely watched in the nation and that was evident yesterday. A handful of protesters along the driveway leading up to the hotel held placards promoting Santorum's candidacy even though the election is more than 365 days away.
Casey pointed to his nine-year record in state office, first as state auditor general and most recently as treasurer, as an indication that he will focus on matters important to state residents. He said voters are ready to elect a senator who holds himself "personally responsible" for decisions and not afraid to ask the tough questions.
Among his first priorities, Casey said, will be curbing the rising cost of health care. He said staggering increases in health care are stifling business development statewide and throughout the country.
He also complained that the Republican administration has turned "record surpluses" under the Clinton administration into deficits.
Casey complained that despite the enormous amount of spending for hurricane relief and the war in Iraq, Republicans, including Santorum, "are unwilling to roll back the tax cuts they enacted for the top 1 percent" to help pay those costs.
He said it is time that Washington Republicans take a lesson "from the American soldiers fighting in Iraq with valor, and all of us roll up our sleeves ... working together ... we have an obligation."
Casey also pledged to "stand up for people who don't have a voice."
He complained that Santorum refuses to question the administration, even about the Federal Emergency Management Agency's response after Hurricane Katrina.
"Here's hundreds of thousands of our own people ... helpless, abandoned by their own federal government, and we hear nothing from our senator. Rick Santorum had a chance to say something, but the only thing he bothered to say is maybe there should be tougher penalties for those who choose to ride out the storms," Casey said.
After speaking in Hempfield, Casey, the son of the late Gov. Robert P. Casey, traveled to speak at the Washington County Democrats' fall banquet.
Paul Peirce can be reached at ppeirce@tribweb.com or (724) 850-2860. "
By Paul Peirce
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, October 31, 2005
Although the 2006 general election is more than a year away, Westmoreland County Democrats on Sunday got an advance taste of the much-anticipated U.S. Senate race ahead.
State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., who is expected to challenge U.S. Republican Sen. Rick Santorum next year, lambasted the two-term incumbent as an "arrogant" politician who has grown out of touch with the concerns of average Pennsylvanians.
"What the other guy (Santorum) has done is push his own narrow ideology over the everyday concerns of Pennsylvanians. I intend to focus on issues important to Pennsylvanians ... not promote an ideology ... fueled by arrogance, and political partisanship," Casey said.
Casey told more than 300 county Democrats attending the local committee's fall banquet at Four Points Hotel by Sheraton in Hempfield Township that they can send a message to the nation next year that citizens are "sick and tired of partisan political extremism" by supporting his campaign for Senate.
The race is expected to be among the most closely watched in the nation and that was evident yesterday. A handful of protesters along the driveway leading up to the hotel held placards promoting Santorum's candidacy even though the election is more than 365 days away.
Casey pointed to his nine-year record in state office, first as state auditor general and most recently as treasurer, as an indication that he will focus on matters important to state residents. He said voters are ready to elect a senator who holds himself "personally responsible" for decisions and not afraid to ask the tough questions.
Among his first priorities, Casey said, will be curbing the rising cost of health care. He said staggering increases in health care are stifling business development statewide and throughout the country.
He also complained that the Republican administration has turned "record surpluses" under the Clinton administration into deficits.
Casey complained that despite the enormous amount of spending for hurricane relief and the war in Iraq, Republicans, including Santorum, "are unwilling to roll back the tax cuts they enacted for the top 1 percent" to help pay those costs.
He said it is time that Washington Republicans take a lesson "from the American soldiers fighting in Iraq with valor, and all of us roll up our sleeves ... working together ... we have an obligation."
Casey also pledged to "stand up for people who don't have a voice."
He complained that Santorum refuses to question the administration, even about the Federal Emergency Management Agency's response after Hurricane Katrina.
"Here's hundreds of thousands of our own people ... helpless, abandoned by their own federal government, and we hear nothing from our senator. Rick Santorum had a chance to say something, but the only thing he bothered to say is maybe there should be tougher penalties for those who choose to ride out the storms," Casey said.
After speaking in Hempfield, Casey, the son of the late Gov. Robert P. Casey, traveled to speak at the Washington County Democrats' fall banquet.
Paul Peirce can be reached at ppeirce@tribweb.com or (724) 850-2860. "
Santorum Weaker in Fundraiseing than Expected Compared to Casey
35 WSEE: "Santorum Out-Fundraises Casey; Still Trails in Polls
National Republican leaders are having a rough fall season. A failed Supreme Court nominee, indictments implicating the Vice Presidents office as well as the House majority leader and growing dissatisfaction with the president's war policies among Americans.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's investment holdings and the way he sold his family's hospital stock.
The majority leader, thought to have his eye on the presidency in 2008, isn’t the only one having trouble; the Senate’s third-in-command, Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum, is having a tough time with his upcoming re-election bid.
Muhlenberg College political science professor Christopher Borick says, "For an incumbent with high name recognition and a prestigious position in Washington, it seems to be a precarious position."
That’s because Santorum has been trailing behind his opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., in every major poll since Casey announced back in February he was seeking Santorum’s senate seat.
Money is a big factor in a race as high profile—and as tight—as this one.
"I wouldn’t be surprised if Santorum outspends Casey two to one, or at least by a very large margin," Borick said.
Santorum has the money to spend. As of mid-October, Santorum had more than twice the amount of cash available as Casey.
In 2000, Santorum raised and spent four times his Democratic opponent Ron Klink but only won by eight percent of the vote against the former Congressman.
"If we are to assume right now that because Casey’s been doing so well in the polls and taken on the mantle of front-runner--a front-runner doesn’t usually need as many resources," Borick said.
Borick also says Santorum may be too far right for mainstream Pennsylvania politics. The combination of a lagging incumbent and outsized campaign fund-raising—and spending—may make this the most closely watched Senate race in 2006.
Sarah Mirza
WSEE Washington Bureau"
National Republican leaders are having a rough fall season. A failed Supreme Court nominee, indictments implicating the Vice Presidents office as well as the House majority leader and growing dissatisfaction with the president's war policies among Americans.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's investment holdings and the way he sold his family's hospital stock.
The majority leader, thought to have his eye on the presidency in 2008, isn’t the only one having trouble; the Senate’s third-in-command, Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum, is having a tough time with his upcoming re-election bid.
Muhlenberg College political science professor Christopher Borick says, "For an incumbent with high name recognition and a prestigious position in Washington, it seems to be a precarious position."
That’s because Santorum has been trailing behind his opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., in every major poll since Casey announced back in February he was seeking Santorum’s senate seat.
Money is a big factor in a race as high profile—and as tight—as this one.
"I wouldn’t be surprised if Santorum outspends Casey two to one, or at least by a very large margin," Borick said.
Santorum has the money to spend. As of mid-October, Santorum had more than twice the amount of cash available as Casey.
In 2000, Santorum raised and spent four times his Democratic opponent Ron Klink but only won by eight percent of the vote against the former Congressman.
"If we are to assume right now that because Casey’s been doing so well in the polls and taken on the mantle of front-runner--a front-runner doesn’t usually need as many resources," Borick said.
Borick also says Santorum may be too far right for mainstream Pennsylvania politics. The combination of a lagging incumbent and outsized campaign fund-raising—and spending—may make this the most closely watched Senate race in 2006.
Sarah Mirza
WSEE Washington Bureau"
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Santorum Calls Destroying Social Security "Reform"
Senators Santorum and Demint Address Social Security Reform Groups - Students for Saving Social Security: "Senators Santorum and Demint Address Social Security Reform Groups
By Students for Saving Social Security (11/02/05)
Washington, D.C.- Leaders of Students for Saving Social Security, (S4) www.secureourfuture.org, joined with the senior, business and other advocacy group members of the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America’s Social Security to listen to Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) plan to strengthen Social Security.
“Students across the country are grateful for Rick Santorum’s and Jim DeMint’s leadership on the issue of Social Security,” said S4 founder and national director Jonathan Swanson. “Our generation has been waiting a long time for members of Congress to take the lead on reform.”
“Congress knows the system is heading toward insolvency,” Swanson said. “Every year reform is delayed costs each member of our generation another $2,000. After listening to the Senators speak we are confident that they are working hard to make the rest of the Senate take action on Social Security in this Congress.”
“The generation that we represent knows that it is vital for Congress to re-engage the issue of Social Security,” Chris Schrimpf, S4 Director of Media Affairs, added. “S4 is committed to ownership and choice, but we also recognize the need to protect current retirees. We’re confident that Senators Santorum and Demint have a plan to safeguard our grandparents’ retirements and our own.”
“The time for political posturing is over,” concluded Mr. Swanson. “It’s time for Congress to stop playing roulette with our retirements. We’re happy that Senators DeMint and Senator Santorum are pledging to tackle the problems of Social Security without employing scare tactics. Proponents of the status quo in Washington must know that their game is up.”
Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily or any sane sober person with half a brain."
By Students for Saving Social Security (11/02/05)
Washington, D.C.- Leaders of Students for Saving Social Security, (S4) www.secureourfuture.org, joined with the senior, business and other advocacy group members of the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America’s Social Security to listen to Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) plan to strengthen Social Security.
“Students across the country are grateful for Rick Santorum’s and Jim DeMint’s leadership on the issue of Social Security,” said S4 founder and national director Jonathan Swanson. “Our generation has been waiting a long time for members of Congress to take the lead on reform.”
“Congress knows the system is heading toward insolvency,” Swanson said. “Every year reform is delayed costs each member of our generation another $2,000. After listening to the Senators speak we are confident that they are working hard to make the rest of the Senate take action on Social Security in this Congress.”
“The generation that we represent knows that it is vital for Congress to re-engage the issue of Social Security,” Chris Schrimpf, S4 Director of Media Affairs, added. “S4 is committed to ownership and choice, but we also recognize the need to protect current retirees. We’re confident that Senators Santorum and Demint have a plan to safeguard our grandparents’ retirements and our own.”
“The time for political posturing is over,” concluded Mr. Swanson. “It’s time for Congress to stop playing roulette with our retirements. We’re happy that Senators DeMint and Senator Santorum are pledging to tackle the problems of Social Security without employing scare tactics. Proponents of the status quo in Washington must know that their game is up.”
Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily or any sane sober person with half a brain."
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Capitol Hill Blue: Bush runs, but can't hide, from failures
Capitol Hill Blue: Bush runs, but can't hide, from failures: "With polls showing 57 percent of the American people believe Bush lied to lead this country into war in Iraq, Republican political strategists now tell their candidates to avoid any association with the President and to moderate their views away from the extreme right wing positions of the GOP.
“The President has gone too far and the party has gone too far,” says Harleigh. “Those who return to the center might stand a chance in next year’s midterm elections. Those who stick with the President and the far right do not.”
Even notorious conservatives like Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, are avoiding appearances with Bush. Santorum citied “scheduling conflicts” that kept him from appearing with Bush during the President’s Veterans Day attack on Iraqi war critics but Santorum also told radio talk show jock Don Imus that he does not intend to appear with the President for the time being.
“Santorum needs a degree of separation, to establish independence from the President so voters believe he represents their interests,” says Terry Madonna, political analyst and pollster at Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania. “Republicans like him have every reason to be concerned and they are.”"
“The President has gone too far and the party has gone too far,” says Harleigh. “Those who return to the center might stand a chance in next year’s midterm elections. Those who stick with the President and the far right do not.”
Even notorious conservatives like Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, are avoiding appearances with Bush. Santorum citied “scheduling conflicts” that kept him from appearing with Bush during the President’s Veterans Day attack on Iraqi war critics but Santorum also told radio talk show jock Don Imus that he does not intend to appear with the President for the time being.
“Santorum needs a degree of separation, to establish independence from the President so voters believe he represents their interests,” says Terry Madonna, political analyst and pollster at Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania. “Republicans like him have every reason to be concerned and they are.”"
Thursday, November 17, 2005
.: US News - Lame Duck Bush Flies to Asia -- Santorum Happy to Be As Far Away From Bush as Possible
.: US News - Lame Duck Bush Flies to Asia -- GOP Happy to Be As Far Away From Bush :. .: All American Patriots :.: "GOP Senator Rick Santorum: Distancing Himself From Bush on Iraq War. "Sen. Rick Santorum took a rare swing Friday at President Bush, saying the war in Iraq has been less than optimal and that some blame for that lies with the White House. Santorum, a conservative Republican and usually a strong Bush ally, said the unpopularity of the war should be shared between the White House and the media. 'Certainly, mistakes were made,' Santorum said of the war's conduct... The comments, made after a Veterans Day speech at the Union League in Philadelphia, came at the same time the Pennsylvania senator stressed he wasn't trying to distance himself from the president, who spoke moments earlier about 80 miles away at the Tobyhanna Army Depot." [AP, 11/14/05]"
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Moody's Investor Service Gives Bob Casey a High Rating - PittsburghLIVE.com
Plan gets thumbs-up - PittsburghLIVE.com: "College savings plan gets thumbs-up
By Bill Zlatos
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Moody's Investor Service has given the state's guaranteed college savings plan a thumbs-up -- an A-3 rating.
"It gives the assurance that Pennsylvania is doing everything to make the Tuition Account Program the best in the country," state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. announced Tuesday at a news conference.
TAP allows its 50,000 investors to buy future college credits for themselves or relatives at current prices. Casey hired Moody's, a Wall Street rating firm, after the TAP Guaranteed Savings Plan posted a $44 million deficit as of June 30.
"The credit rating we assigned to the program is about in the middle of the investment grade category," said Martin Duffy, a vice president and senior credit officer with Moody's.
He said the evaluation balanced the volatility of tuition increases and the program's own investments with its strong backing from state lawmakers and the governor's office.
"I view it as certainly an indication that the odds are really good that the program will live up to its promises," said Joseph Hurley, founder and CEO of Savingforcollege.com, a Web site that evaluates Section 529 plans.
The plans, named after the part of the Internal Revenue Service Code that authorizes them, are a popular way for parents to save for their children's college education.
Duffy and Hurley said they would have rated the program even higher if it was guaranteed by law with a "full faith and credit" pledge. Programs in several states -- including Ohio, Mississippi and Florida -- have such backing.
Hurley said Moody's rating supports his own evaluation. He rates all Section 529 plans on a one- to five-cap scale, with five caps going to the best programs. He gives TAP's Guaranteed Savings Plan four caps.
He was somewhat concerned, however, by the program's projected deficit.
"It's a red flag indicating on an actuarial basis the program does not have enough funds to meet its projected payout," he said.
Bill Zlatos can be reached at bzlatos@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7828. "
By Bill Zlatos
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Moody's Investor Service has given the state's guaranteed college savings plan a thumbs-up -- an A-3 rating.
"It gives the assurance that Pennsylvania is doing everything to make the Tuition Account Program the best in the country," state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. announced Tuesday at a news conference.
TAP allows its 50,000 investors to buy future college credits for themselves or relatives at current prices. Casey hired Moody's, a Wall Street rating firm, after the TAP Guaranteed Savings Plan posted a $44 million deficit as of June 30.
"The credit rating we assigned to the program is about in the middle of the investment grade category," said Martin Duffy, a vice president and senior credit officer with Moody's.
He said the evaluation balanced the volatility of tuition increases and the program's own investments with its strong backing from state lawmakers and the governor's office.
"I view it as certainly an indication that the odds are really good that the program will live up to its promises," said Joseph Hurley, founder and CEO of Savingforcollege.com, a Web site that evaluates Section 529 plans.
The plans, named after the part of the Internal Revenue Service Code that authorizes them, are a popular way for parents to save for their children's college education.
Duffy and Hurley said they would have rated the program even higher if it was guaranteed by law with a "full faith and credit" pledge. Programs in several states -- including Ohio, Mississippi and Florida -- have such backing.
Hurley said Moody's rating supports his own evaluation. He rates all Section 529 plans on a one- to five-cap scale, with five caps going to the best programs. He gives TAP's Guaranteed Savings Plan four caps.
He was somewhat concerned, however, by the program's projected deficit.
"It's a red flag indicating on an actuarial basis the program does not have enough funds to meet its projected payout," he said.
Bill Zlatos can be reached at bzlatos@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7828. "
Democrats Modifying Abortion Stance
Democrats Modifying Abortion Stance: "With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2005 4:53 p.m. EST
Democrats Modifying Abortion Stance
The Democrats are so intent on unseating Republicans in Congress next year that they’re even moderating their strong pro-choice stance on abortion.
Case in point: The party has chosen Robert Casey Jr., who is pro-life, to run against Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, the third-ranking GOP member of the Senate and the Democrats’ chief target in the 2006 election.
Writing in The New Yorker, Peter J. Boyer reveals that New York Sen. Charles Schumer – chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – told him: "When we sat down and looked at the map we said our No. 1 take-back seat would be Pennsylvania.”
Schumer asked the advice of Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who Schumer says told him: "There’s only one guy who can beat [Santorum]. But he doesn’t want to run, and you guys wouldn’t want him even if he did. He’s not pro—choice.”
State Treasurer Casey is not only pro-life, he’s linked in many Pennsylvanians’ minds with his father Robert P. Casey, who as governor of the state promoted and signed the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act.
The bill placed significant limitations on abortion. A Planned Parenthood group sued the state, with Casey as the named defendant, and the Supreme Court eventually struck down most of the Act’s provisions.
But Schumer backed Casey Jr. despite his pro-life stance – presumably in large part because in the 2004 election he received the largest number of votes in Pennsylvania’s history.
Turning the Democratic Party away from a staunch pro-choice position has not been an easy task. When Tom Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana, campaigned to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee, his platform included "tolerance of differing views on abortion,” Boyer reports.
Pro-choice activists lined up behind Howard Dean and against Roemer, and Dean won out.
But even a Democrat as liberal as Hillary Clinton may be reading the handwriting on the wall when it comes to her party’s unrelenting support for abortion-on-demand.
Regarding those who oppose abortion, Clinton said at a conference of Family Planning Advocates of New York State earlier this year:
"I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available.”
As NewsMax reported in October, an analysis by the Third Way, a policy group for centrist Democrats, stated that if the party wants to return to power, Democrats, "could continue to support the core of Roe v. Wade while dropping their intransigence on questions such as parental notification and partial-birth abortion.”"
For the story behind the story...
Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2005 4:53 p.m. EST
Democrats Modifying Abortion Stance
The Democrats are so intent on unseating Republicans in Congress next year that they’re even moderating their strong pro-choice stance on abortion.
Case in point: The party has chosen Robert Casey Jr., who is pro-life, to run against Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, the third-ranking GOP member of the Senate and the Democrats’ chief target in the 2006 election.
Writing in The New Yorker, Peter J. Boyer reveals that New York Sen. Charles Schumer – chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – told him: "When we sat down and looked at the map we said our No. 1 take-back seat would be Pennsylvania.”
Schumer asked the advice of Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who Schumer says told him: "There’s only one guy who can beat [Santorum]. But he doesn’t want to run, and you guys wouldn’t want him even if he did. He’s not pro—choice.”
State Treasurer Casey is not only pro-life, he’s linked in many Pennsylvanians’ minds with his father Robert P. Casey, who as governor of the state promoted and signed the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act.
The bill placed significant limitations on abortion. A Planned Parenthood group sued the state, with Casey as the named defendant, and the Supreme Court eventually struck down most of the Act’s provisions.
But Schumer backed Casey Jr. despite his pro-life stance – presumably in large part because in the 2004 election he received the largest number of votes in Pennsylvania’s history.
Turning the Democratic Party away from a staunch pro-choice position has not been an easy task. When Tom Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana, campaigned to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee, his platform included "tolerance of differing views on abortion,” Boyer reports.
Pro-choice activists lined up behind Howard Dean and against Roemer, and Dean won out.
But even a Democrat as liberal as Hillary Clinton may be reading the handwriting on the wall when it comes to her party’s unrelenting support for abortion-on-demand.
Regarding those who oppose abortion, Clinton said at a conference of Family Planning Advocates of New York State earlier this year:
"I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available.”
As NewsMax reported in October, an analysis by the Third Way, a policy group for centrist Democrats, stated that if the party wants to return to power, Democrats, "could continue to support the core of Roe v. Wade while dropping their intransigence on questions such as parental notification and partial-birth abortion.”"
Monday, November 14, 2005
AP Wire | 11/14/2005 | BIG DIRT ON CHOIRBOY RICK - Santorum "using threats or coercion" to influence hiring decisions of lobbying firms.
AP Wire | 11/14/2005 | Casey unveils ethics plan; Santorum calls for debates: "WASHINGTON - Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. on Monday criticized Sen. Rick Santorum's involvement with lobbyists and unveiled a plan to require lobbyists to report every substantive conversation with federal lawmakers.
Casey, a likely Democratic challenger to Santorum in 2006, said the two-term senator is a leader of the "K Street Project," a GOP effort to pressure lobbying firms to hire Republicans and keep money flowing to the party.
"What happens at those meetings and as a result of those meetings, is at best of questionable ethics," said Casey, whose plan would bar members of Congress from "using threats or coercion" to influence hiring decisions of lobbying firms.
Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff also have ties to the project, which is named after the street where many lobbyists work. Both have been indicted on charges unrelated to the project and have denied any wrongdoing. Casey's press briefing was held at Signatures restaurant in Washington, which used to be owned by Abramoff."
Casey, a likely Democratic challenger to Santorum in 2006, said the two-term senator is a leader of the "K Street Project," a GOP effort to pressure lobbying firms to hire Republicans and keep money flowing to the party.
"What happens at those meetings and as a result of those meetings, is at best of questionable ethics," said Casey, whose plan would bar members of Congress from "using threats or coercion" to influence hiring decisions of lobbying firms.
Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff also have ties to the project, which is named after the street where many lobbyists work. Both have been indicted on charges unrelated to the project and have denied any wrongdoing. Casey's press briefing was held at Signatures restaurant in Washington, which used to be owned by Abramoff."
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Beaver County Times Allegheny Times - News - 11/13/2005 - Santorum: Pro-Life is not always Pro-God
Beaver County Times Allegheny Times - News - 11/13/2005 - Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom: "Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
Bill Vidonic - Times Staff
11/13/2005
The Times/BILL VIDONIC
BEAVER FALLS - U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday that he doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom.
Santorum's comments to The Times are a shift from his position of several years ago, when he wrote in a Washington Times editorial that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom."
But on Saturday, the Republican said that, "Science leads you where it leads you."
Santorum was in Beaver Falls to present Geneva College President Kenneth A. Smith with a $1.345 million check from federal funds for renovations that include the straightening and relocation of Route 18 through campus.
Santorum's comments about intelligent design come at a time when the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power, an alternative to the theory of evolution, has come under fire on several fronts.
A federal trial just wrapped up in which eight families sued Dover Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania. The district's school board members tried to introduce teaching intelligent design into the classroom, but the families said the policy violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
No ruling has been issued on the trial, but Tuesday, all eight Dover School Board members up for re-election were ousted by voters, leading to a fiery tirade by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
Robertson warned residents, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city."
Santorum said flatly Saturday, "I disagree. I don't believe God abandons people," and said he has not spoken to Robertson about his comments.
Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is "a legitimate issue," he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.
Earlier this summer, President Bush said he favored teaching intelligent design in the classroom.
With Santorum running for re-election next year, and with Bush and the Republican Party taking some significant hits in public confidence in recent months, Santorum insisted he is not trying to distance himself from Bush.
Santorum said he still supports President Bush, even though on Friday, he said in Philadelphia that mistakes had been made in the Iraq war, and that at least a portion of the blame lies with the White House.
Saturday, Santorum said of Bush, "I don't agree with everything he does," but said that overall, he considers Bush a good president and that he has "done a lot" for the country and for Santorum himself.
On the Iraq war, Santorum said he's talked to troops who have returned from overseas and that they've told him U.S. troops have had to change tactics based on what the enemy has done.
Santorum said that no matter how the war is going, the country should continue to support the troops.
Bill Vidonic can be reached online at bvidonic@timesonline.com.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
©Beaver County Times Allegheny Times 2005"
Bill Vidonic - Times Staff
11/13/2005
The Times/BILL VIDONIC
BEAVER FALLS - U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday that he doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom.
Santorum's comments to The Times are a shift from his position of several years ago, when he wrote in a Washington Times editorial that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom."
But on Saturday, the Republican said that, "Science leads you where it leads you."
Santorum was in Beaver Falls to present Geneva College President Kenneth A. Smith with a $1.345 million check from federal funds for renovations that include the straightening and relocation of Route 18 through campus.
Santorum's comments about intelligent design come at a time when the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power, an alternative to the theory of evolution, has come under fire on several fronts.
A federal trial just wrapped up in which eight families sued Dover Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania. The district's school board members tried to introduce teaching intelligent design into the classroom, but the families said the policy violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
No ruling has been issued on the trial, but Tuesday, all eight Dover School Board members up for re-election were ousted by voters, leading to a fiery tirade by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
Robertson warned residents, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city."
Santorum said flatly Saturday, "I disagree. I don't believe God abandons people," and said he has not spoken to Robertson about his comments.
Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is "a legitimate issue," he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.
Earlier this summer, President Bush said he favored teaching intelligent design in the classroom.
With Santorum running for re-election next year, and with Bush and the Republican Party taking some significant hits in public confidence in recent months, Santorum insisted he is not trying to distance himself from Bush.
Santorum said he still supports President Bush, even though on Friday, he said in Philadelphia that mistakes had been made in the Iraq war, and that at least a portion of the blame lies with the White House.
Saturday, Santorum said of Bush, "I don't agree with everything he does," but said that overall, he considers Bush a good president and that he has "done a lot" for the country and for Santorum himself.
On the Iraq war, Santorum said he's talked to troops who have returned from overseas and that they've told him U.S. troops have had to change tactics based on what the enemy has done.
Santorum said that no matter how the war is going, the country should continue to support the troops.
Bill Vidonic can be reached online at bvidonic@timesonline.com.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
©Beaver County Times Allegheny Times 2005"
HoustonChronicle.com - Hines: Speaking of politicians on the ropes... Republican Sen. Rick Santorum running 16 percentage points behind
HoustonChronicle.com - Hines: Slumping along together: Blair follows Bush again: "Speaking of politicians on the ropes: Texas Republicans accustomed to being hit up for campaign donations from desperate candidates around the country should be preparing for another piercing shriek from Pennsylvania.
The latest Keystone Poll, a statewide survey of Pennsylvania voters conducted by Franklin & Marshall College, shows conservative Republican Sen. Rick Santorum running 16 percentage points behind his likely Democratic challenger next year, Bob Casey Jr.
Santorum's polling deficit appears to be the biggest of any incumbent senator facing re-election in 2006."
The latest Keystone Poll, a statewide survey of Pennsylvania voters conducted by Franklin & Marshall College, shows conservative Republican Sen. Rick Santorum running 16 percentage points behind his likely Democratic challenger next year, Bob Casey Jr.
Santorum's polling deficit appears to be the biggest of any incumbent senator facing re-election in 2006."
Saturday, November 12, 2005
::.Angus Reid Consultants.: 20 Point Lead for Casey in Pennsylvania Senate Race - In Desperation Santorum Turns on Bush
Angus Reid Consultants: Lead for Casey in Pennsylvania Senate Race
(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the Keystone State would support Bob Casey in next year’s election to the United States Senate, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 54 per cent of respondents in Pennsylvania would vote for the Democrat in a head-to-head contest against Republican incumbent Rick Santorum.
Santorum garners the backing of 34 per cent of respondents, while four per cent would vote for other contenders. Since July, support for Casey increased by two points, while backing for Santorum dropped by seven points.
Casey has been Pennsylvania’s state treasurer since January 2005, and previously served as the state auditor general for eight years. Casey is the son of former Pennsylvania governor Robert P. Casey, and lost the 2002 Democratic primary to current governor Ed Rendell.
Santorum was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994, and earned a second term in 2000, defeating Democrat Ron Klink with 53 per cent of all cast ballots. He had previously served for two consecutive terms in the House of Representatives.
Yesterday, Santorum appeared to express disappointment with the state of affairs in Iraq, saying, "Certainly, mistakes were made. But that’s a criticism you can make of every conflict."
Polling Data
Which candidate would you support in Pennsylvania’s senatorial election?
Nov. 2005
Jul. 2005
Bob Casey, Jr. (D)
54%
52%
Rick Santorum (R)
34%
41%
Other
4%
4%
Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 500 Pennsylvania adults, conducted on Nov. 7, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent."
(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the Keystone State would support Bob Casey in next year’s election to the United States Senate, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 54 per cent of respondents in Pennsylvania would vote for the Democrat in a head-to-head contest against Republican incumbent Rick Santorum.
Santorum garners the backing of 34 per cent of respondents, while four per cent would vote for other contenders. Since July, support for Casey increased by two points, while backing for Santorum dropped by seven points.
Casey has been Pennsylvania’s state treasurer since January 2005, and previously served as the state auditor general for eight years. Casey is the son of former Pennsylvania governor Robert P. Casey, and lost the 2002 Democratic primary to current governor Ed Rendell.
Santorum was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994, and earned a second term in 2000, defeating Democrat Ron Klink with 53 per cent of all cast ballots. He had previously served for two consecutive terms in the House of Representatives.
Yesterday, Santorum appeared to express disappointment with the state of affairs in Iraq, saying, "Certainly, mistakes were made. But that’s a criticism you can make of every conflict."
Polling Data
Which candidate would you support in Pennsylvania’s senatorial election?
Nov. 2005
Jul. 2005
Bob Casey, Jr. (D)
54%
52%
Rick Santorum (R)
34%
41%
Other
4%
4%
Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 500 Pennsylvania adults, conducted on Nov. 7, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent."
Friday, November 11, 2005
ABC News: Santorum and Wife Linked to Lawsuit Abuse - Jury Awards Senator $321,200 to Carry laundry Up Stairs
ABC News: Lawsuit Abuse Critic Explains Suit: "Lawsuit Abuse Critic Explains SuitSenator's Wife Sued a Chiropractor for $500,000, Was Awarded $350,000 by Jury
Though some critics have call for tort reform, some also still engage in big lawsuits. (PhotoDisc)
Nov. 10, 2005 — In recent years many doctors and politicians have complained that frivolous malpractice lawsuits and disproportionate jury awards are a problem in need of reform.
The Senator's Wife
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says that the No. 1 health care crisis in his state is medical lawsuit abuse and in the past he's called for a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage awards or awards for pain and suffering. "We need to do something now to fix the medical liability problem in this country," he declared at a rally in Washington D.C., this past spring.
But Santorum's wife sued a doctor for $500,000 in 1999. She claimed that a botched spinal manipulation by her chiropractor led to back surgery, pain and suffering, and sued for twice the amount of a cap Santorum has supported.
Santorum declined a request for an interview, so "Primetime" caught up with him at the signing of his new book in Pennsylvania this August to ask if he thinks his stance and history are in conflict.
"I guess I could answer that in two ways," he said. "Number one is that I've supported caps. I've been very clear that I am not wedded at all to a $250,000 cap and I've said publicly repeatedly, and I think probably that is somewhat low, and that we need to look at what I think is a cap that is a little bit higher than that."
'Of Course I'm Going to Support My Wife'
But the fact is that Santorum has sponsored or co-sponsored a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages two times — even though he testified in his wife's case against the doctor.
"Of course I'm going to support my wife in her endeavors," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that she does."
But Santorum agreed enough to tell the jury that he had to carry the laundry upstairs for his wife and that, because she suffered humiliation from weight gain, she no longer had the confidence to help him on the campaign trail. The jury was so moved it voted to award Karen Santorum $350,000.
"That's where again you're misled is that a lot of, there was cumulative damages," he said. "The medical bills, lost income, all those other things that were out there."
Those medical bills totaled $18,800, yet she sued for $500,000. And lost income? The judge made no mention of that when he slashed the jury's award in half, saying it was excessive.
The judge noted that the remaining damages "awarded amounted to something in the neighborhood of $330,000 or so for injuries sustained and the effect upon Mrs. Santorum's health, her past and future pain and suffering and inconvenience.""
Though some critics have call for tort reform, some also still engage in big lawsuits. (PhotoDisc)
Nov. 10, 2005 — In recent years many doctors and politicians have complained that frivolous malpractice lawsuits and disproportionate jury awards are a problem in need of reform.
The Senator's Wife
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says that the No. 1 health care crisis in his state is medical lawsuit abuse and in the past he's called for a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage awards or awards for pain and suffering. "We need to do something now to fix the medical liability problem in this country," he declared at a rally in Washington D.C., this past spring.
But Santorum's wife sued a doctor for $500,000 in 1999. She claimed that a botched spinal manipulation by her chiropractor led to back surgery, pain and suffering, and sued for twice the amount of a cap Santorum has supported.
Santorum declined a request for an interview, so "Primetime" caught up with him at the signing of his new book in Pennsylvania this August to ask if he thinks his stance and history are in conflict.
"I guess I could answer that in two ways," he said. "Number one is that I've supported caps. I've been very clear that I am not wedded at all to a $250,000 cap and I've said publicly repeatedly, and I think probably that is somewhat low, and that we need to look at what I think is a cap that is a little bit higher than that."
'Of Course I'm Going to Support My Wife'
But the fact is that Santorum has sponsored or co-sponsored a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages two times — even though he testified in his wife's case against the doctor.
"Of course I'm going to support my wife in her endeavors," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that she does."
But Santorum agreed enough to tell the jury that he had to carry the laundry upstairs for his wife and that, because she suffered humiliation from weight gain, she no longer had the confidence to help him on the campaign trail. The jury was so moved it voted to award Karen Santorum $350,000.
"That's where again you're misled is that a lot of, there was cumulative damages," he said. "The medical bills, lost income, all those other things that were out there."
Those medical bills totaled $18,800, yet she sued for $500,000. And lost income? The judge made no mention of that when he slashed the jury's award in half, saying it was excessive.
The judge noted that the remaining damages "awarded amounted to something in the neighborhood of $330,000 or so for injuries sustained and the effect upon Mrs. Santorum's health, her past and future pain and suffering and inconvenience.""
Philadelphia Daily News | 11/10/2005 | Can it get any worse for Santorum? Polls Say YES!
Philadelphia Daily News | 11/10/2005 | Poll shows Ed, Santorum slipping: "Posted on Thu, Nov. 10, 2005
Poll shows Ed, Santorum slipping
By DAVE DAVIES
daviesd@phillynews.com
Pennsylvania's incumbent politicians may soon be hiding under their desks if they read the latest Daily News/CN8 Keystone poll. It shows Gov. Rendell and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum both losing support among voters.
"We have a full-scale populist revolt under way," said poll director Terry Madonna. "Not everywhere, but in enough pockets of the state to create a historic event - taking down a sitting justice of the state Supreme Court."
Voters Tuesday removed Justice Russell Nigro from office in a usually routine retention election.
The vote was largely driven by the summer legislative pay raise, which generated such fury that lawmakers voted last week to rescind the increase.
The poll showed that six out of seven Pennsylvanians know about the pay hike, and 57 percent are less likely to vote for someone who voted for it.
"Legislators' ratings are below sea level," Madonna said.
It appears voters were at least somewhat mollified by the pay boost repeal, which still must be finalized. Only 32 percent said they are less likely to vote for a legislator who voted for the pay hike but then supported the repeal.
The poll showed Rendell with the lowest favorability rating since he took office. Thirty-nine percent had a favorable view of the governor, while 38 percent held an unfavorable view.
By contrast in spring 2003, Rendell's ratings were 50 percent favorable and 19 percent unfavorable. He runs for re-election next year.
"On the one hand, things generally look better for Democrats next year. On the other, he's stuck in this anti-incumbency mood," Madonna said.
Madonna noted that Rendell has recently made statements questioning the size of the Legislature and lamenting the lack of competition in legislative races.
"Rendell could run in a sense against the Legislature," Madonna said, "in effect becoming a reformer and capturing some of that anti-incumbent sentiment."
Rendell's Republican opponents are pointing out that he signed the pay-raise bill.
The poll found former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton leading the Republican gubernatorial pack, followed by Lynn Swann with 24 percent, state Sen. Jeff Piccola with 3 percent and Jim Panyard at zero.
The good news for Democrats is that Republican President Bush's popularity also continued to sink, with 54 percent viewing him unfavorably, the worst mark since he took office.
The poll shows Republican Santorum's fortunes also sinking. His job-approval ratings are at a six-year low, and the poll shows him trailing Democratic opponent Bob Casey by 16 points, 51 to 35 percent.
"You may see Santorum try to make Casey the issue, and convince voters he's the least objectionable candidate," Madonna said. "So it's likely Santorum will go negative, and harshly negative."
The poll found Casey leading his announced opponent, Chuck Pennacchio, in the Democratic senatorial primary, 67 to 5 percent, with 28 percent undecided."
Poll shows Ed, Santorum slipping
By DAVE DAVIES
daviesd@phillynews.com
Pennsylvania's incumbent politicians may soon be hiding under their desks if they read the latest Daily News/CN8 Keystone poll. It shows Gov. Rendell and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum both losing support among voters.
"We have a full-scale populist revolt under way," said poll director Terry Madonna. "Not everywhere, but in enough pockets of the state to create a historic event - taking down a sitting justice of the state Supreme Court."
Voters Tuesday removed Justice Russell Nigro from office in a usually routine retention election.
The vote was largely driven by the summer legislative pay raise, which generated such fury that lawmakers voted last week to rescind the increase.
The poll showed that six out of seven Pennsylvanians know about the pay hike, and 57 percent are less likely to vote for someone who voted for it.
"Legislators' ratings are below sea level," Madonna said.
It appears voters were at least somewhat mollified by the pay boost repeal, which still must be finalized. Only 32 percent said they are less likely to vote for a legislator who voted for the pay hike but then supported the repeal.
The poll showed Rendell with the lowest favorability rating since he took office. Thirty-nine percent had a favorable view of the governor, while 38 percent held an unfavorable view.
By contrast in spring 2003, Rendell's ratings were 50 percent favorable and 19 percent unfavorable. He runs for re-election next year.
"On the one hand, things generally look better for Democrats next year. On the other, he's stuck in this anti-incumbency mood," Madonna said.
Madonna noted that Rendell has recently made statements questioning the size of the Legislature and lamenting the lack of competition in legislative races.
"Rendell could run in a sense against the Legislature," Madonna said, "in effect becoming a reformer and capturing some of that anti-incumbent sentiment."
Rendell's Republican opponents are pointing out that he signed the pay-raise bill.
The poll found former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton leading the Republican gubernatorial pack, followed by Lynn Swann with 24 percent, state Sen. Jeff Piccola with 3 percent and Jim Panyard at zero.
The good news for Democrats is that Republican President Bush's popularity also continued to sink, with 54 percent viewing him unfavorably, the worst mark since he took office.
The poll shows Republican Santorum's fortunes also sinking. His job-approval ratings are at a six-year low, and the poll shows him trailing Democratic opponent Bob Casey by 16 points, 51 to 35 percent.
"You may see Santorum try to make Casey the issue, and convince voters he's the least objectionable candidate," Madonna said. "So it's likely Santorum will go negative, and harshly negative."
The poll found Casey leading his announced opponent, Chuck Pennacchio, in the Democratic senatorial primary, 67 to 5 percent, with 28 percent undecided."
Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/10/2005 | Santorumin a Huff over Bush Snub ** Has Santorum Been Dragging Bush Down
Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/10/2005 | Blaming schedule, Santorum will miss Bush's visit to Pa.: " Posted on Thu, Nov. 10, 2005
Blaming schedule, Santorum will miss Bush's visit to Pa.
The senator's aides say he is not distancing himself from the struggling President.
By Thomas Fitzgerald
Inquirer Staff Writer
When President Bush touches down in Wilkes-Barre to talk about the war on terrorism Friday, the Senate's No. 3 Republican - the vulnerable Rick Santorum - will be 116 miles away in Philadelphia addressing the American Legion.
Unavoidable scheduling conflict, Santorum's office says.
As the GOP loss in the Virginia governor's race Tuesday showed, however, it might also be a blessing to be in a different media market when Bush and his rock-bottom approval ratings come to your state.
Many analysts said that the result of the race in Republican-leaning Virginia offered hints that the President's sagging popularity could drag the party down in 2006. Some even suggested that Bush's 11th-hour visit to Richmond doomed GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore by inviting voters to take out on him their dissatisfaction with the White House.
Santorum already is trailing in polls against his likely Democratic opponent next year, State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr.
"Republicans have every reason to be concerned," said Terry Madonna, a political analyst and pollster based at Franklin and Marshall College. "Santorum needs a degree of separation, to establish independence from the President so voters believe he represents their interests."
But there was no intent to keep away from the President, Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham said. He said Santorum received the invitation on Oct. 6 to address the Legion's annual Veterans Day luncheon at the Union League and accepted the next day, while Bush's travel plans were not set until just a few days ago.
Santorum's staff and the White House tried to juggle the schedule, but the two events are both set for midday, and it would have been impossible to make it work, Traynham said. "The senator really wants to be there," he said, but "to cancel now would be completely disrespectful to the veterans."
After Air Force One lands in Wilkes-Barre, Bush is scheduled to visit Tobyhanna Army Depot in nearby Monroe County for an event.
Bush's job approval rating has slid to below 40 percent in several national and Pennsylvania polls, and Santorum's own rating has dropped along with the President's. In a survey last month by Quinnipiac University, for instance, 43 percent of Pennsylvania voters approved of Santorum's performance while 37 percent approved of Bush.
Several factors - including the handling of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, the unpopular war in Iraq, high energy prices, and a scandal over the leak of a CIA officer's name - have contributed to Bush's difficulties, analysts say. And that could entail some risk for Santorum, who as a Senate leader has been closely identified with the White House agenda.
Casey's campaign has been stressing those ties at every turn, and it seized on the scheduling difficulty to accuse him of running. "Election Year Rick doesn't want voters to remember he was President Bush's cheerleader," said Jay Reiff, the challenger's campaign manager.
In recent months, Santorum has been more vocal about disagreements with Bush: He said the President muffed the salesmanship of his stalled plan to reform Social Security with private accounts. He criticized the recently withdrawn nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and has fought White House plans to cut Amtrak funding.
"We're beginning to see a little case of separation here," Madonna said.
But Santorum said in June at a fund-raiser at which Bush raised $1.7 million for him that the President can "come as often as he likes." And Vice President Cheney hosted a fund-raiser for Santorum last month.
John Brabender, Santorum's media consultant, cautioned against drawing conclusions about 2006 from Tuesday's off-year elections. Democrats won governorships in New Jersey and Virginia four years ago, when Bush's popularity was soaring after 9/11, and then got hammered in congressional races in 2002 and 2004, he said.
"Until the candidates are on TV, until there are debates and people know where Bobby Casey and Rick Santorum stand, there are secondary factors that influence the race, such as the national environment and the President's approval rating," Brabender said.
"But ultimately each race will be decided individually... when people see the candidates in action side by side," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Thomas Fitzgerald at 215-854-2718 or tfitzgerald@phillynews.com."
Blaming schedule, Santorum will miss Bush's visit to Pa.
The senator's aides say he is not distancing himself from the struggling President.
By Thomas Fitzgerald
Inquirer Staff Writer
When President Bush touches down in Wilkes-Barre to talk about the war on terrorism Friday, the Senate's No. 3 Republican - the vulnerable Rick Santorum - will be 116 miles away in Philadelphia addressing the American Legion.
Unavoidable scheduling conflict, Santorum's office says.
As the GOP loss in the Virginia governor's race Tuesday showed, however, it might also be a blessing to be in a different media market when Bush and his rock-bottom approval ratings come to your state.
Many analysts said that the result of the race in Republican-leaning Virginia offered hints that the President's sagging popularity could drag the party down in 2006. Some even suggested that Bush's 11th-hour visit to Richmond doomed GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore by inviting voters to take out on him their dissatisfaction with the White House.
Santorum already is trailing in polls against his likely Democratic opponent next year, State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr.
"Republicans have every reason to be concerned," said Terry Madonna, a political analyst and pollster based at Franklin and Marshall College. "Santorum needs a degree of separation, to establish independence from the President so voters believe he represents their interests."
But there was no intent to keep away from the President, Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham said. He said Santorum received the invitation on Oct. 6 to address the Legion's annual Veterans Day luncheon at the Union League and accepted the next day, while Bush's travel plans were not set until just a few days ago.
Santorum's staff and the White House tried to juggle the schedule, but the two events are both set for midday, and it would have been impossible to make it work, Traynham said. "The senator really wants to be there," he said, but "to cancel now would be completely disrespectful to the veterans."
After Air Force One lands in Wilkes-Barre, Bush is scheduled to visit Tobyhanna Army Depot in nearby Monroe County for an event.
Bush's job approval rating has slid to below 40 percent in several national and Pennsylvania polls, and Santorum's own rating has dropped along with the President's. In a survey last month by Quinnipiac University, for instance, 43 percent of Pennsylvania voters approved of Santorum's performance while 37 percent approved of Bush.
Several factors - including the handling of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, the unpopular war in Iraq, high energy prices, and a scandal over the leak of a CIA officer's name - have contributed to Bush's difficulties, analysts say. And that could entail some risk for Santorum, who as a Senate leader has been closely identified with the White House agenda.
Casey's campaign has been stressing those ties at every turn, and it seized on the scheduling difficulty to accuse him of running. "Election Year Rick doesn't want voters to remember he was President Bush's cheerleader," said Jay Reiff, the challenger's campaign manager.
In recent months, Santorum has been more vocal about disagreements with Bush: He said the President muffed the salesmanship of his stalled plan to reform Social Security with private accounts. He criticized the recently withdrawn nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and has fought White House plans to cut Amtrak funding.
"We're beginning to see a little case of separation here," Madonna said.
But Santorum said in June at a fund-raiser at which Bush raised $1.7 million for him that the President can "come as often as he likes." And Vice President Cheney hosted a fund-raiser for Santorum last month.
John Brabender, Santorum's media consultant, cautioned against drawing conclusions about 2006 from Tuesday's off-year elections. Democrats won governorships in New Jersey and Virginia four years ago, when Bush's popularity was soaring after 9/11, and then got hammered in congressional races in 2002 and 2004, he said.
"Until the candidates are on TV, until there are debates and people know where Bobby Casey and Rick Santorum stand, there are secondary factors that influence the race, such as the national environment and the President's approval rating," Brabender said.
"But ultimately each race will be decided individually... when people see the candidates in action side by side," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Thomas Fitzgerald at 215-854-2718 or tfitzgerald@phillynews.com."
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Times Leader | 11/08/2005 | Bush Snubs Santorum and Sherwood to appear wth Dem Kanjorski at Tobyhanna Army Depot on Friday
Times Leader | 11/08/2005 | Kanjorski to join Bush at depot: "Posted on Tue, Nov. 08, 2005
Kanjorski to join Bush at depot
By MICHAEL P. BUFFER mbuffer@leader.net
U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski plans to accompany President Bush during a Veterans Day speech at Tobyhanna Army Depot on Friday.
Bush is expected to make a 50-minute policy speech on fighting terrorism at about noon, said Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke. The audience will be mostly depot employees, the congressman said.
The White House will issue a limited number of tickets, Kanjorski said. The depot, which repairs and maintains electronic equipment, is the largest employer in Northeastern Pennsylvania with more than 4,300 civilian workers.
White House spokesman Allen Abney confirmed the president will give a speech Friday in Northeast Pennsylvania to discuss terrorism and thank and honor veterans. Abney said the White House plans to issue an advisory about the speech and its location tomorrow.
The president is not visiting the area for political reasons, Kanjorski said. On Oct. 21, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a fund-raiser for U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pittsburgh, in Jackson Township.
Michael P. Buffer, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 829-7230."
Kanjorski to join Bush at depot
By MICHAEL P. BUFFER mbuffer@leader.net
U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski plans to accompany President Bush during a Veterans Day speech at Tobyhanna Army Depot on Friday.
Bush is expected to make a 50-minute policy speech on fighting terrorism at about noon, said Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke. The audience will be mostly depot employees, the congressman said.
The White House will issue a limited number of tickets, Kanjorski said. The depot, which repairs and maintains electronic equipment, is the largest employer in Northeastern Pennsylvania with more than 4,300 civilian workers.
White House spokesman Allen Abney confirmed the president will give a speech Friday in Northeast Pennsylvania to discuss terrorism and thank and honor veterans. Abney said the White House plans to issue an advisory about the speech and its location tomorrow.
The president is not visiting the area for political reasons, Kanjorski said. On Oct. 21, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a fund-raiser for U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pittsburgh, in Jackson Township.
Michael P. Buffer, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 829-7230."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)