PA Pundit

Inventing a Controversy: The Post-Gazette on Santorum’s Residency May 30, 2006

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is trying hard to create a controversy where none exists. On May 26th, they published the following attack:

"Before every election, the Post-Gazette routinely sends letters to the candidates seeking material for the Voters Guide. Back in March, as part of that process for the primary, the newspaper sent a letter to Rick Santorum at his home address, at least the one that he claims. Back from Penn Hills came the letter with a sticker from the U.S. Postal Service checked as "Not Deliverable As Addressed — Unable To Forward."

That is all you need to know about the nasty dispute between the Republican Sen. Santorum and his Democratic opponent, Bob Casey Jr., in the November election. The whole thing is rooted in one inconvenient fact for Sen. Santorum: He doesn't live here anymore."

This seems fishy to me. If Santorum really didn't live in PA, don't you think he'd be smart enough to set up mail forwarding? The article (my comments inline) reads like a smear campaign:

This is not to say that he doesn't visit Penn Hills from time to time. But while he may meet the legal requirements for residency, his home is in Virginia with his wife and children. [Papundit: Isn't it weird that the attack article is about how Santorum doesn't live here, yet the Post-Gazette admits he meets the legal requirements for residency. Facts don't matter to the Post-Gazette when it's trying to smear a Republican.]This is well-known and it has been for quite a while. Indeed, it was at the heart of the objection by some Penn Hills residents to the local school district paying for the senator's children to be enrolled in a cyber charter school. The theory was that — let us emphasize it again because it is central to the current problem — he doesn't live here anymore. [Papundit: If Santorum meets the legal requirements for residency– as the Post-Gazette just said he did– he is entitled to the benefits of residency– including schooling for his children.]

In furtherance of that objection, two local Democrats, Ed and Erin Vecchio, tried to revive the residency issue on primary election day, which was covered by a subsequent KDKA-TV report. A radio ad for Sen. Santorum flagrantly distorts that report, suggesting that "operatives" for the Casey campaign had trespassed on the Santorum property. (It also sneeringly calls Mr. Casey "Bobby" — as if the Democrat wore short pants.) [Papundit: Since when is using a nickname, "sneering"? Articles have referred to Casey as Bobby in the past. Is it also sneering to refer to former President Carter as Jimmie Carter?]

First, the couple criticizing Sen. Santorum have denied a connection to the Casey campaign, an assertion confirmed by Mr. Casey. (Perhaps Sen. Santorum thinks that just being a critical Democrat makes people "operatives.") [Papundit: Double standard watch! The media thinks that just being a critical Republican makes people "operatives." Don't believe me? Do a few Google searches. Here's a hint: look at just about any story on the Swift Boat Vets.]

Second, no one has admitted to trespassing on the Santorum property or peering through windows. The KDKA report merely quoted Mr. Vecchio as saying the house was vacant, with no curtains or furniture. But you wouldn't have to be a trespasser to find that out; you could ask neighbors — or the local mail carrier. [Papundit: Except…Mr. Vecchio didn't ask neighbors or the local mail carrier. Mr. Vecchio admitted on KDKA-TV to viewing the inside of the Santorum home. This would require him to trespass on the property.] After all, the senator's absence is not in serious dispute because he doesn't live here anymore.

Mr. Casey described Sen. Santorum's claims as "weird" and "bizarre." [Papundit: Very objective of the Post-Gazette to quote Santorum's opponent and to agree with him.] Actually, they are beyond weird and raise serious questions about the senator's ethics that go beyond the residency question. In a letter to Mr. Casey, he speaks of his "outrage" regarding the actions of the Casey campaign "which have put our six young children at a serious safety risk."

Though that suggestion is far-fetched to the point of absurdity, [Papundit: I doubt most parents would find Santorum's concern for his children weird or absurd.] it would be a potential source of fear only if the senator actually lived in Penn Hills, but — let us repeat one last time — the Santorum family is at no risk because he doesn't live here anymore and the family is in Virginia most of the time. So what we have is the senator making untrue [Papundit: The Post-Gazette said Santorum met legal residency standards, yet they want to call Santorum's statement about his residency untrue? The Post-Gazette may think Santorum's statements raise questions about the senator's ethics that go beyond the residency question, but articles like this one raise questions about the Post-Gazette's ethics. Are they a newspaper, or are they an unofficial part of the Casey campaign?] and outrageous comments while seeking to hide behind his wife and kids in order to get around an inconvenient fact.

We have a feeling that those who do live here may have something to say about this cowardly tactic at the November polls.

What One Democratic Voter Thinks of Casey’s Candidacy May 13, 2006

This letter to the editor of the Patriot News makes a good point (my bold): 

Recently I told a friend I was for Chuck Pennacchio in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate Primary. My friend said, yes, she liked everything she'd heard about Chuck, but she thought that maybe Bob Casey Jr. could be more "winnable" against Rick Santorum in November. She's wrong.

I asked if she knew that the Pennsylvania Democratic Party hasn't picked a winning candidate for U.S. Senate in 44 years. The last Democrat to win a full term Senate seat was a solid, progressive, mainstream Democrat — Joe Clark, in 1962.

Casey, like Santorum, is pro-war and anti-choice; he supports many of Bush's worst policies, and Casey is beholden to many of the same big corporate PAC donors, as is Santorum.

The "Republican-lite" strategy also assumes that Republicans must be stupid. But nearly 50 years ago Harry S. Truman said, "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

Remember, the so-called "flaming liberals" Al Gore and John Kerry both won Pennsylvania. So did Ed Rendell (after trouncing much-favored Casey in the primary).

Voters who want to end this cycle of losing Senate races should follow my lead and vote for Pennacchio on May 16.

— KEITH STAMAN, Lancaster

Voters know where Santorum stands. But Casey is trying to play to both sides, and this could backfire. The Republican base is smart enough to spot the real Republican, and they won't fall for Casey's Santorum-lite act.  At the same time, Democratic loyalists have watched the candidates who support their ideals pushed aside on Casey's behalf. Time will tell if they reward the betrayal with their votes. 

The End of Idealism May 8, 2006

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed Casey on Sunday May 7th:

"If he is given the unified support of his party, state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. could be U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's worst nightmare….Bob Casey also has the potential to cause problems for Sen. Santorum among the Republican's base."

A prescient Washington Times editorial theorized that the Democratic strategy of dividing the conservative base by nominating pro-lifer Casey to the senate could backfire.

Calling Santorum "kryptonite to liberals," the Washington Times observed that Santorum is "toxic" to the Democratic coalition. The reasoning behind this bold statement was that Santorum's policies on poverty, AIDs, Third World debt relief and other issues could woo voters away from the Democratic party:

"By advocating alternatives to liberal social policies and articulating a vision of hope, opportunity and empowerment for the underprivileged, he potentially attracts significant chunks of non-traditional voters to the Republican camp — defections Democrats cannot afford. Mr. Santorum is an antidote to arrogance for those who believe Democrats take them for granted and for those weary of more promises, failed policies or unacceptable results. Triggering even a minor rebellion among black, Hispanic and other traditionally solid Democrat base voters could end decades of thankless, liberal hegemony within these communities. Mr. Santorum leads this revolution, and the Left wants him stopped.
He has spearheaded welfare reform and the CARE Act, a bill to promote more charitable giving and strengthen the institutions providing needed services. He also coauthored the Senate Poverty Alleviation Agenda, a series of bills that reform programs for the poor and promote housing ownership. Working with Irish rocker Bono, Mr. Santorum prodded his colleagues to act on issues like Third World debt relief and the AIDS pandemic in Africa."

I suspect that the Casey nomination could divide the Democratic base, but not for the reasons the Washington Times does. Casey was handpicked by top Democratic strategists and endorsed by the press as the man who can beat Santorum, but his candidacy represents the end of Democratic idealism. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette acknowledged that the selection of Casey upset some activists:

"Some Democrats were annoyed that party leaders, including Gov. Rendell, asked the pro-choice Barbara Hafer not to run for the Senate in the interests of improving Mr. Casey's chances."

Although the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's editorial board is pro-choice, they endorsed Casey over his pro-choice primary rivals for the following reason:

"In the event of a minor miracle in the primary, neither man could hope for a major miracle head-to-head against Sen. Santorum."

The Philadelphia Inquirer espoused a similar opinion in its endorsement of Casey:

"Casey is antiabortion and opposes gun control, positions some think doomed Klink in 2000 vs. Santorum….If Pennsylvania Democrats want to capture that elusive Senate seat, their choice in the primary should be BOB CASEY JR. If they want someone who'll preach to the choir, but make few converts outside the congregation, they can pick one of the other guys."

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette both endorsed Casey in the primary, but there was pessimism in the endorsements– a recognition that Democratic ideals and values have to be abandoned if the Party wants to reverse its losing streak. Electability has now trumped Democratic idealism.

Feminist groups and gun control activists have worked hard to elect Democratic candidates for years, but DNC strategists saw that a pro-choice, gun-grabber wouldn't poll as well. A Casey victory would prove their hypothesis and possibly move the Democratic Party to the right in 2008. And that would be bad news for the special interest groups who make up the Democratic base.

Political Bias Behind Endorsement in Dinniman/Aichele Race May 5, 2006

Today the Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Andy Dinniman over Carol Aichele for the State Senate seat in the 19th District (Chester County). Their reasoning:

"The Inquirer's recommendation to district voters is ANDY DINNIMAN. This close call comes down to two things: his 15 years as commissioner, as opposed to Aichele's two years, and that word, interconnected."

Let's evaluate these reasons:

1) Reason #1: Years in Office
Somehow Carol Aichele, who has more than 10 years of public service as a School Board Director, County Controller and a County Commissioner, had enough experience in 2003 to please the Philadelphia Inquirer. So has she become less qualified as the years passed?

Here's what the Inquirerwrote about about Carole Aichele in 2003, when they endorsed her and Dinniman for Chester County commissioners:

"As Chester County commissioners, CAROL AICHELE and ANDREW E. DINNIMAN would have the depth of knowledge and experience to hit the ground running. Aichele, of Tredyffrin, has seven-plus years as county controller."

Does the Inquirer views years in office as a valid reason to endorse one candidate over another, or does this logic only apply when a Democratic candidate has seniority? One way to tell will be the endorsement in the 2006 Senate Race. Will the Inquirer pick Rick Santorum for his experience, or will it endorse political neophyte Bobby Casey Jr? The answer will be telling.

2) Reason #2: Interconnected

I always thought the job of a local politician was to serve his/her local constituents. Apparently, I was wrong. Their job is to be "interconnected." Here's the Inquirer's cliche-ridden, wordy explanation of the concept:

"Dinniman believes that the well-off in one of the state's wealthiest counties shouldn't overlook its poor. They're interconnected. And he's stepped up with his work for the homeless and the hungry. He believes you save open space by revitalizing urban spaces. The issues are interconnected. He's stepped up there too, helping create the county's acclaimed Landscapes program. He's earned a promotion to State Senate, where he plans to keep stepping up, reminding Harrisburg lawmakers that property taxes, education, health care, the environment, globalization are all – you guessed it – interconnected. They should pull up a chair and listen."

The Philadelphia Inquirer's endorsement is "interconnected" alright. It's interconnected with their desire to see a Democrat- any Democrat- win. Just read this article. If you can't spot the bias, here's some help.

1) Sometimes phrasing shows a reporter's true feelings. For example, read this:

"Both are running for a vacant state Senate seat that local political leaders say the Democrat actually has a chance of winning. Such a feat, last seen almost 20 years ago, would end Republican control of the Harrisburg delegation from Chester County."

Such a feat?! Great example of neutral, unbiased language, right? I can almost feel the reporter's excitement at the thought of a Democrat taking back Chester County. A later quotation called the prospect of a Dinniman victory "earth-shaking."

2) Next, contrast the following lines from the article to see how the same exact thing (getting party support) is described differently depending on a candidate's political party:

"Gov. Rendell is expected at a fund-raiser for Dinniman in Tredyffrin Township on Friday."

"Aichele, 56, who has been a county commissioner since 2004, is being helped by operatives sent in by the Republican State Committee to run her campaign."

Operatives. That's a dirty-sounding word, isn't it? Nobody likes someone who needs "operatives" to win. I guess we better vote for Dinniman. Surely, he isn't being helped by any Democratic "operatives" like Gov. Rendell for example.

3) Finally, there's a matter of the number of words devoted to their respective accomplishments. Here's what it says on Dinniman (the Democrat):

"During his terms as commissioner, Dinniman's initiatives have included efforts to build a homeless shelter when homeless people were sleeping in the courtyard of the courthouse. Working with county farmers, he started a gleaning program that has attracted hundreds of volunteers and has distributed 150 tons of fruits and vegetables for the needy over the last five years."

Here's what it says on Aichele (the Republican):

"The campaign has its edges. Dinniman says that Aichele made a fuss in 2005 over a commission report she sponsored that called for a variety of efficiencies to make government cost-effective. The committee met for several months in 2004, and in January 2005 issued a report that, among other things, called for the county to adopt a strategic plan for guiding county operational, policy and financial decisions. And then nothing happened. Aichele said the other commissioners were reluctant to pursue radical change. Dinniman disputes that. 'I was prepared to move forward, but my colleagues withdrew,' he said."

I've gone to both candidates' websites, and they both have significant accomplishments. Yet the Inquirer devotes space only to Dinniman's. To make the contrast even more apparent, the last paragraph is devoted to what Aichele's opponent views as her failure as a commissioner. Aichele's response to the mud-slinging is only paraphrased whereas Dinniman gets the first and last word on the issue. Is this what passes for balanced coverage?

Thoughts on Gas Prices May 4, 2006

It's a shame I can't run my car on politician-powered hot air. I'm not happy with gas prices, but I'm even more annoyed with how politicians are trying to manipulate and simplify the issue.  Some are more effective at it than others.

For example, the DSCC issued the following press release, "Democrats Go After GOP on Gas Prices." Here's what it said on PA:

"PENNSYLVANIA DEMS:As gas prices hit record highs, PA Democrats hit Santorum for being one of the top recipients of money from the oil and gas industry. [PA Democrats Release, 4/20/06]"

The PA Dem strategy was apparent when Casey supporters crashed a press conference held by Rick Santorum. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review covered the story:

"The protesters continued to stand behind the senator during his conference to explain the Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act of 2006, which was introduced Thursday by Senate Republicans. The act calls for a $100 rebate check to taxpayers and is tied to the opening of a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration.

Here's a hint to the Casey campaign: if you're going to be a political opportunist on the gas price issue, you should offer a plan instead of disrupting those who are at least trying to present a solution. 

I suspect the reason PA Democrats haven't provided a plan is that they understand there's no silver bullet to fix gas prices. But admitting that would hurt their efforts to bludgeon the GOP on the issue. Pandering is more politically advantageous than planning. Why waste time discussing the complexity of supply/demand, annual reports by oil companies, ANWR drilling and other issues the electorate might find boring when you can crow about price gouging and greedy corporate executives?

It will take more than finger pointing and band-aid solutions to lower gas prices. One way to fix the problem is electing politicians who are intellectually honest and courageous enough to communicate the complexity of the issue and to propose long-term solutions. 

While I wouldn't mind receiving a $100 tax rebate, that's only a band-aid solution.  Unfortunately, this aspect of the plan has received the majority of press attention. I'd like to hear more serious debate on the other ideas in the proposal, which addresses price gouging protections, refinery capacity, ANWR and more. If Casey disagrees with the proposed solution, he should offer more than criticism if he truly wants Pennsylvanians to pay less for gas.  

Double Standard Watch: 12th Street Gym Boycott May 3, 2006

I feel strangely compelled to applaud the Philadelphia Inquirer for pointing out that Bob Guzzardi, the gym owner targeted by Democrat and gay activists for donating to Santorum, had also given "at least $84,840 to Democratic candidates." Nevertheless, the Inquirer article gives the boycott organizers a sympathetic hearing (and the only quote in the feature):

"Bob Guzzardi agreed in early April to sell his interest in the 12th Street Gym after activists threatened a boycott of the business, which is popular in the city's gay community. At the time, organizers cited, among other things, Guzzardi's $4,100 in contributions to Santorum's reelection committee during 2005.

Boycott organizers said those contributions can't outweigh Guzzardi's support for Santorum and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R., Colo.), a leader in the fight against gay marriage.

"They are the incarnations of everything that's wrong with the radical right in this country," Ray Murphy said. "There's no reason to give those folks a cent."

I guess there's no atonement for someone who supports an enemy of the left. How does the saying go — "The friend of my friend is my enemy if he's also a friend of my enemy, even if he's better friends with my friend?"

The real question here (rhetorically, of course) is how would this have read if it were right-wing activists targeting a businessman for contributing to Democratic candidates? How many editorial-page features would follow the incident lamenting the "chilling effect" of the boycott on political activism, the growing threat of fundamentalist neoconservatives to free speech and civil rights? The poor businessmen who are collateral damage of the Christian right's war on democracy?

Double Standard Watch: When Candidates Skip Work May 2, 2006

Casey is skipping work, collecting a six-figure salary, and spending more than half his workdays away from his Harrisburg office. In comparison, Rick Santorum "has been present for 96 percent of votes since Casey announced his bid in March 2005." Yet a Philadelphia Inquirer headline paints the story as just another GOP attack (Carrie Budoff, "GOP Keeps After Casey on His Work Hours," Philadelphia Inquirer, May 1, 2006). A previous Inquirer article on Casey's poor work ethic also had a neutral headline (Carrie Budoff, "For Santorum And Casey, Fund-Raising Is Constant," The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 13, 2006).

Can you imagine the headline if the situation were reversed and the Republican candidate was skipping work 50% of the time while making a six-figure income? And do you think that such a story would attempt to paint the Democratic candidate's absences in the worst possible light as the Inquirer article did with Santorum's trivial absence rate?

Budoff wrote that "After missing four votes, and the possibility of a fifth on the Patriot Act, Santorum cut short a trip to Texas and Arizona" before she revealed that "Santorum did make 96 percent of his Senate votes between March and December – the key indicator for determining a senator's whereabouts." Although 96% sounds pretty good, Budoff warned, "that tells only part of the story." After noting that Santorum made his votes by "weaving 154 events throughout his Senate schedule," Budoff insinuated that such effective time-management was somehow connected to Jack Abramoff- "The mixing of public business and fund-raising has come under scrutiny since lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea in a bribery investigation that magnified the clubby relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists." Including this kind of gratuitous and unfounded insinuation against Santorum in the article while partially excusing Casey's work record by claiming that "The pressure to raise mounds of cash stems, in large part, from Santorum" just isn't fair.

The Philadelphia Inquirer Thinks This Merits a First-Page Story?! May 1, 2006

This article made the first page of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) has crossed the boundary separating mere politicians from pop-culture symbols.

America's favorite fictional mob boss, Tony Soprano, quotes him as a moral authority on homosexuality. On UPN's Veronica Mars, a character trying to blackmail gay high school students uses "Rick Santorum" as an alias.

And then there's the disgusting definition for "santorum," coined by a syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage, still spreading like kudzu on the Internet.

As these references illustrate, Santorum has evolved into a kind of cultural shorthand, analysts say: His name means "social conservatism." Throughout his political career, Santorum has waded into the most divisive issues in the culture wars – forcefully opposing gay rights, abortion, and coarseness in entertainment, along with what he sees as other threats to the American family. He wrote a book last year called It Takes a Family that challenges, among other things, two-income families and the "weird socialization" in public schools."

I follow PA political news closely, and I try to focus on the issues, voting records, and press releases. Yet it wouldn't have occurred to me to search for the words "santorum and anal" on Google. I suppose I should resign myself to the fact that I'd have to be a professional journalist to break a serious news story like that on the front page.

Was it a slow news day, or does the front-page placement of this story show media bias? It's reasonable to interpret the placement of the story as politically motivated. The inaccurate description of Santorum's book seems trivial in comparison to other comments in the article. Santorum was compared to Senator McCarthy, called "garbage wrapped in skin," and described as someone who "epitomizes intolerance and inspires contempt." These are quotes from Democratic activists, and I'll give the Inquirer credit for actually identifying them as such. However, the article includes several attacks on Santorum without balancing them with an equal number of remarks from Santorum supporters. Here's an example:

"There's sort of a smug, self-righteous smirk that he has," said Ray Murphy, who founded Philadelphians Against Santorum. "People want to punch him in the face."

Then again, a really cynical person could view this article as an example of conservative bias since it exposes the anti-Santorum activists as a violent and crude group.