July 15, 2005


Santorum hits back at Kennedy (BRETT LIEBERMAN, 7/15/05, Patriot News)

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., yesterday accused Democrats of dredging up 3-year-old remarks on the Catholic Church's clergy sex-abuse scandal for purely partisan reasons.

Santorum refused to apologize for statements that blamed the church's scandal on Boston's liberalism.

Santorum, a devout Catholic, shot back at U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who upbraided Santorum Wednesday in an unusually personal attack on the Senate floor.

"I don't think Ted Kennedy lecturing me on the teachings of the church and how the church should handle these problems is something I'm going to take particularly seriously," Santorum said during a conference call with Catholic media.

Santorum also questioned Kennedy's following of church doctrine and said he is unaware of Kennedy or Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., getting involved to address the church's problem.

Once again, Senator Kennedy has waded in over his head.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 15, 2005 5:48 PM

Don't worry on Kennedy's account; he's waded out of far deeper waters than these...

Posted by: Just John at July 15, 2005 6:28 PM

Let us hope he's left no one behind to fend for herself.

Posted by: H.D. Miller at July 15, 2005 7:31 PM

Well, we'll drive off that bridge when we come to it.

Posted by: John at July 15, 2005 9:07 PM

Lumping MIT in with Harvard, now that was offensive.

Posted by: Mike Earl at July 15, 2005 10:33 PM

36 years ago, Kennedy made the swim over to Edgartown. Today, fougeddaboudit!

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 15, 2005 11:22 PM

orrin: I think your metaphor is misguided. Kenney dived in headfirst in the deep end and waded back to shore.

Posted by: jd watson at July 16, 2005 4:44 AM


MIT employs Noam Chomsky. Now, THAT is offensive.

As for the Lifeguard of Chappaquiddick, it has always escaped me why Republican Senators feel a need to treat a felon like him with 'Senatorial courtesy.' They should ignore him, not let him address the chamber, not let him ask questions in hearings, close his offices, eliminate his franking privileges and expel him from the body entirely. Instead, we are treated to such as Orrin Hatch being little more than his designated driver, and our President sucking up to him publicly and privately.

Posted by: bart at July 16, 2005 8:50 AM

Ted Kennedy is perfectly at-home with our quasi-secular third-wayer President and realized early-on he could give him "vouchers" without it really meaning "vouchers" while getting favorable stem-cell tradeoffs and the capitulation of the next Supreme Court moderate.

Santorum is another kettle of fish: he is morally serious.

Posted by: Palmcroft at July 16, 2005 10:40 AM

Except that we got vouchers, got stem cell limits and got the courts.

Posted by: oj at July 16, 2005 12:02 PM

Funny, I haven't heard of any conservatives being appointed to the Supreme Court lately. Where did you hear about that, OJ? Crystal ball? Sheep entrails?

Posted by: bart at July 16, 2005 12:27 PM

All of the candidates are conservative and the lower courts have been completely taken over.

Posted by: oj at July 16, 2005 12:40 PM

Alberto Gonzales is a gun-grabber who supports some forms of racial preference. By definition, that makes him not a conservative anywhere but in OJ's Humpty-Dumpty-inspired lexicon.

Posted by: bart at July 16, 2005 12:52 PM

He's tried enforcing American law, which makes him conservative by any definition. He disagrees with you on a couple issues. If such disagreement is a disqualifier then no one is conservative.

Posted by: oj at July 16, 2005 12:55 PM

Those are major issues. If he were conservative except that he accepted Roe v Wade as settled law, would you support him? After all, he'd only disagree with you on one issue.

Tried enforcing American law? Janet Reno did that. Does that make it a conservative?

Posted by: bart at July 16, 2005 1:00 PM

Yes. Belief that precedent should not be disturbed is a form of conservatism.

Posted by: oj at July 16, 2005 1:22 PM

Defining "precedent" to mean "everything after 1960, and nothing before 1935" is not.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 16, 2005 2:42 PM

Zeal to overturn fifty years of law may be admirable, as we believe, but is not, obviously, conservative.

Posted by: oj at July 16, 2005 3:24 PM


So by your definition, Brezhnev was a conservative and Pope John Paul II, a radical leftist? If that is the case, then both words are pointless and should be irrelevant to the discussion of SCt Justices.

Normal people find it easier to conduct conversations using English words in their commonly understood English meanings.

Posted by: bart at July 16, 2005 4:47 PM

Obviously the Pope was the more radical man.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2005 12:24 PM

Advocating stasis, when the status quo is undeniably evil, is not conservative.

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 4:03 PM

Conservation is often evil.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2005 4:12 PM

Conservation and conservatism are not the same thing, nor particularly related, any more than Romanticism and romance.

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 4:24 PM

Or, as we've seen in the two Gulf Wars, Realism and reality.

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 4:25 PM

Romanticism was precisely romance driven--merely emotional and personal. Conservatism need not conserve a culture that conservatives would wish.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2005 4:56 PM

Nonsense. 'Romanticism' had to do with looking back at Roman forms. I don't think any of the French philosophes of the early 19th century like Saint-Simon would be considered 'emotional.'

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 5:32 PM

Saint-simon is notorious for sentimentalism and mysticism.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2005 5:40 PM

Don't worry about Teddy, he obviously wears a life jacket under his suit coat at all times.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 17, 2005 7:38 PM

Teddy can't drown. Fatty tissue and alcohol are both less dense than either fresh or salt water. He'll float to safety.

Posted by: bart at July 18, 2005 9:32 AM