Abyseeinya, Little Ricky

July 15, 2010

Santorum_Card
As noted here, yesterday marked the final “regular” (???) column in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Former Senator Man-On-Dog himself, Little Ricky Santorum. And, true to form, he conjured up all kinds of “Oooga Booga!” scenarios in response to the news that “a federal district court judge in… Boston ruled that the majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act for the one purpose forbidden by law: ‘to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves’.”

To which I reply, well…duuuuh! And of course, it is also appropriate that Santorum ended his stint at the Inky by taking another shot at Beantown, as he did here.

As noted here, “The (Boston) ruling relied on two arguments: that the law interfered with the rights of states guaranteed in the 10th Amendment, and that it violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. “

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that a “tenther,” “states rights” argument was used to refute a position or belief most commonly held by Tea Party wingnuts?

Well anyway, I should note that, on the occasion of Santorum’s final Inquirer column, it really behooves us all to take a look back at some of his less stellar moments (I’m just providing excerpts here – if I included all of them, it would take two days to write this post)…

  • Said President Obama was “detached from the American experience” here
  • Said Obama’s “charm offensive” was a bust in Muslim nations, though the numbers state otherwise (here)…
  • Blamed President Clinton for inflating the housing bubble here (seriously)…
  • Argued here that if a government-run public option had been included in health care reform, it would have meant fewer dollars for the life sciences industry in Philadelphia…
  • Defended Dutch filmmaker and politician Geert Wilders from Muslim attacks without noting that Wilders had drawn a correlation between the Koran and Mein Kampf here
  • Criticized Joe Biden for blocking a resolution he sponsored against Iran when he was senator, though Santorum voted against a resolution penalizing companies doing business with Iran (here)…
  • Asked (and answered), “But are any treatments with embryonic stem cells being used today? No,” and also asked/answered, “Are there any anticipated in the near future? No,” and he was wrong on both counts (here)…
  • Said that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was “replacing legitimate popular elections” here (uh, no – if that country rids itself of him, they’ll be able to do it without our help)
  • Criticized Obama for trying to control the manipulation of gas prices on the futures market here – meanwhile, he voted No on a bill to reduce our oil usage by 40 percent instead of 5 percent by 2025, voted Yes on terminating Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards for vehicles within 15 months, and voted Yes to defund renewable and solar energy…
  • Kept up the same theme as his signoff column about how “teh gay” is trying to destroy marriage here
  • And just to let you know that I actually agreed with Santorum once in a great, great while, I did so in response to this column in which he criticized a PA voter for switching his party allegiance from Republican to Democratic in 2008 to vote for the “weaker” Dem presidential candidate in the primary election (Pennsylvania has “closed,” primaries, I should point out).
  • Finally, for what it’s worth, this was my reaction when I first heard that The Inquirer was going to give Santorum a “soap box” for his blather.
  • So there you have it, and with that, one “regular” right-wing ideologue columnist for philly.com bites the dust (don’t worry, though, since they still have at least three more between Kevin Ferris, Christine Flowers and John Yoo).

    And I have no doubt that we’ll hear from Little Ricky again – I’m sure either The National Review or The Daily Caller is beckoning, probably among others.

    Advertisements

    What Joe Pitts Did On His Congressional Recess

    January 8, 2009

    j_pittsI’m probably the only person outside of the PA 16th U.S. Congressional District who actually cares about what (sadly) returning Repug Rep Joe Pitts did during his time away from voting “No” while taking up space under the dome, but I must confess that curiosity inspired me to find out.

    Well, this link to a right-wing site (of course) tells us that Pitts wrote an opinion column for Lancaster County Online (also for a Phoenixville, PA paper) about the supposed liberal quest to revive the Fairness Doctrine, even though (as it has been pointed out many, many times already, including here) no such quest is being or will be considered; indeed, the only “liberal” I ever heard who wanted to see the Fairness Doctrine return was a former Repug senator noted in this post.

    Also, Pancake Joe was in full-on umbrage mode over the prospect of the Dems overturning Dubya’s ban on embryonic stem cell research by legislation or executive order from President-Elect Obama, as the New York Times notes here…

    “Pro-life members in both caucuses will fight strongly to preserve sanctity of life ethics,” said (Pitts). “If they force it by legislation, those will be the votes the pro-life community will score to educate the voters as to where members stand on these issues.”

    Yeah, sure, you let me know how you make out with that, OK Joe?

    Meanwhile, in the reality-based community (from the same story)…

    Stem cells from human embryos, “are the gold standard,” said Dr. George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children’s Hospital in Boston and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Before they can be replaced by cells derived from skin cells, researchers have to know, at a detailed molecular level, how similar the two types of stem cells are, and how different.

    “There are still so many unknowns,” Dr. Daley said. “I am going to continue to have my lab use both at the same time.”

    And by the way, I was amused when I used that Google thingie to get to Pitts’ congressional home page, and I noticed that he had a link supposedly to a topic page dealing with what he called “Women’s Issues.” Well, I clicked the link, and it took me to an opinion column Pitts wrote in August 2005 called, “Women’s Rights In Iraq And America,” (no idea if this was published anywhere else) in which Pitts claimed that, “In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women’s suffrage.”

    I was unable to substantiate that claim anywhere, and Pitts doesn’t cite his source, of course, but what I can tell you from this Wikipedia article is that the battle for women’s suffrage began, more or less, in 1867 after African Americans won that right, and the right of women to vote faced opposition from both parties – the article tells us that, “The defeat of women’s suffrage in New York strengthened the Republicans’ position against women’s suffrage.” The fight ended in the summer of 1920 with the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which guaranteed women the right to vote; in his column, Pitts conveniently glosses over the fact that it was passed largely due to the efforts of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson.

    To those who worked on behalf of Bruce Slater last year but came up short, take heart that, one day, Pitts will be gone by one legal means or another. To those who actually support Pitts, may you continue to comfort yourself in your invincible ignorance with the false belief that you will never be betrayed by a partisan political hack masquerading as a high priest of moral rectitude.


  • Top Posts & Pages

  • Advertisements