PA Senate 2006: Casey 52% Santorum 41%

July 22, 2005--The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is living up to his reputation as the most vulnerable incumbent at this point in the 2006 election cycle. Santorum trails Democrat Bob Casey, Jr by eleven percentage points, 52% to 41%.

Casey is viewed favorably by 49% of the state’s likely voters while 27% have an unfavorable opinion. For Santorum, 44% say favorable and 43% unfavorable.


source:
http://rasmussenreports.com/2005/PA%20E ... 202006.htm

Catherine

Rick Santorum completely offends my sensibilities. He's so flagrantly crazy that you wonder how he could have ever gotten elected in the first place. I think it's just so delightfully appropriate that in Latin, his name means 'anus.'

Couldn't happen to a more deserving fella...

I don't think it's Latin. It's become part of the vernacular. The man is reviled.

Santorum as defined by the Urban Dictionary

Quick... Someone tell me what this phrase means... "Go and Cheney yourself!"

I think his name is missing 2 eyes and it's the place he should be put away in. You know, Belleview.

Extra, Extra- Sanitorium to appear on Daily Show this week. Grab the popcorn, get your tinfoil hats on and cheer on your favorite lunatic. No, no, not the little jewish fellow. The lunatic to his right.

Did you see him last night? Sanitorium had the nerve to write a book. Called- "IT TAKES A FAMILY- Conservatism and Common Sense- he stresses the two points Character and Virtue- two things he is obviously lacking. This from a man that doesn't seem to comprehend that some of the virtues he ignores are understanding and compassion. If only these 'conservatives-by-name-only' would think about what conserving something means, i.e. to save something, like the Declaration, or like their conscience about EQUALITY and JUSTICE, then they wouldn't try to manipulate the constitution to suit their needs at the sacrifice of the basis of democracy. Just because it gives them the right to be bigoted and biased, by using the vagueness of the constitution and the power of the courts to push their agendas of seperation of people and the state, while promoting their bias against people, who have as much character and virtue as the next person,they shouldn'f judge who is fit to be a parent based on "tradition". Just because they perform sex differently or choose to decide what they do with their bodies, doesn't give the state the right to dictate the terms of freedom and equalty upon its people. Most heterosexuals do a piss poor job of raising their children, and it's about time there was a shakeup in the structure that creates this right to bias and bigotry that seems rampant in our society.

As someone once said "Common sense ain't so common no more". It applied back then, it still exists today.

Santorum is another turd that walks like a human.

i noticed he didn't get much of an applause when he walked out. and jon was "polite" with him...more than i would have been. also, jon's remarks got more response from the audience.

sadly, i fell asleep before it was over...the first commercial did me in.

Santorum has a way of doing that to the thinking mind. Lull it into passivity.

Here's a quote that sums up our present state. MLK was indeed a man who understood the purpose of party politics and the hypnotic effect they implant in our psyche. Lie down, sleep do nothing. It's all being taken care of.

“Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.”” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Never heard that before. If anyone is named correctly, he's your guy!



Such a leader--such a loss.

DO.g's: I think the source of your "common sense" quote might be Mark Twain. Sounds like him. (I took a minute out to look it up...that's the wonderful thing about sitting in the middle of the greatest information resource in the history of human thought; I LOVE this Internet!! It was NOT Twain; it was Voltaire.)

Here's something cool: Go to Google, type in "Santorum" and then hit the I'm Feeling Lucky button...

Thanks AOM. Like you I thought it was Ol' Sam C., but when I googled it, there was a similar quote by him, but not the same. For the sake of authenticity to quotables, I opted to say someone, and now you've clarified.

That site is wonderful. I'm going through the comments now. Love the one about them being #2 to santorum When you google "ricksantorum." Lets get busy and put them on top where they belong.


"Just thought I should point out that, while your site is the first thing to come up when someone runs a Google search for santorum, the senator's home page is still the first thing to come up on a search for rick santorum. Maybe people should start working on that now.

Computer Lit
Dear CL:

Thanks for sharing, C.L. Spreadingsantorum.com is currently the second thing that comes up when you search "Rick Santorum," and that is simply unacceptable. So let's get to work people: Google "Rick Santorum," then click on this webpage. Let's get on top of Rick Santorum -- it's where we belong!"

i wasn't sure if it was true or not, but there is a comment about a bill santorum is sponsoring and has the support of h. clinton and j.kerry.

anyone know more about this? it's at this site :

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/index2.html

From www.spreadingsantorum.com
Santorum Letters
June 09, 2004
The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) warns of a bill sponsored by Rick "the frothy mixture" Santorum that would expand the scope of accomodations employers, public and private, must make to the religious practices of employees. The text of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act makes it sound as though it's mostly about religous clothing or taking off religious holidays, but the ACLU worries its vague wording would force employers to countenance proselytizing on the job or even employee refusal to work with gay or female clients or colleagues.

Interesting side note: Santorum's joined in sponsoring this one by Senators Clinton and John Kerry (the sponsor of a previous version of the bill in the late 90s).


Just the facts MA'am.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/a ... aWRFA.html
http://www.bjcpa.org/news/news/050318_wrfa.htm
Sens. Kerry, Santorum reintroduce Workplace Religious Freedom Act
March 18, 2005
(ABP and staff reports) – Congressional supporters of religious freedom will try once again with an employees' religious rights bill they have been trying to get passed for more than eight years.

At a Capitol press conference March 17, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Rick Santorum, R-Pa., announced they had reintroduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Kerry has introduced a version of the bill in every Congress since 1996.

"No American should have to choose between practicing their faith and working at their job," Kerry told reporters.

"This is an attempt to balance the scales," Santorum said of the legislation. "This is not a bill that attempts to elevate religion over all other rights; it simply is an accommodation."

In an April 7 speech at the annual religious liberty banquet of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the bill, spoke passionately about the need to protect employees' religious rights in the United States.

"From my perspective, religious liberty is one of the most important issues on the world stage today," Clinton said. "Our nation has been, I would argue, the exemplar of religious freedom and tolerance amongst a diverse people."

Clinton said maintaining that tradition is what has inspired her to support the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, as she has in every session of Congress since she joined the Senate in 2001.

WRFA would place a greater legal burden on employers to prove they have good reasons when infringing on an employee's expression of religious faith – such as refusing to work on the Sabbath or wearing religious garb or jewelry in the workplace.

Supporters of WRFA believe that federal civil rights laws, as written, were intended to provide such a legal standard of protection for employees, but that court decisions have eroded it. Now, employers only have to prove that the business would incur minimal inconvenience or financial burdens by accommodating an employee's religious expression in order to deny such an accommodation.

The bill is supported by a wide array of religious and civil rights organizations, including the Baptist Joint Committee, the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the American Jewish Committee and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.

Kerry, when asked by a reporter if his sponsorship of the bill was part of the campaign to make Democrats look more faith-friendly, laughed. "Look, I started this years ago," he said. "I believe in this because I have constituents – two Catholic ladies who lost their jobs because they wouldn't work on Christmas – and I said, you know, 'What's going on?'"

Bill supporter Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., backed Kerry up, saying the support for WRFA was a "rare kind of bipartisan moment."

Souder noted that when the bill was originally introduced in the House, there were more Democrats who co-sponsored it than Republicans. He also said WRFA may face more opposition on his side of the aisle than the Democrats' because of his ideological cohorts' employer-friendliness.

"We have to work on the Republican side as well, if not a little harder," Souder said. "There, we may face some business opposition."

The Senate version of the bill is S. 677. The House version is H.R. 1445

Religious freedom is viewed differently by Republicans than by Democrats.