-
The Role of the Federal Government
June 12, 2013 | 47 comments
-
The Seriousness of the Charge
May 29, 2013 | 68 comments
-
The Seventeen Year Itch
May 15, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Questions
May 1, 2013 | 50 comments
-
Stifling Our Children
April 15, 2013 | 39 comments
Another Perspective
Why Not Santorum?
A plain speaker in a mendacious political climate.
I’ve always subscribed to the notion that, by and large, the leaders most admired by the American people are those who speak plainly; that is, they represent themselves as who they are and what they believe, and not as folks would like them to be. They come to the table and lay out the bill of fare they’ve prepared, then serve it up as advertised.
Love him or hate him, George W. Bush had a firm set of moral convictions that he employed when dealing with issues, particularly in the arena of foreign policy. To call out the “Axis of Evil” was the most natural thing in the world for him. There was no mistaking his aims, or from whence they derived. He saw evil in the world, and said so. Compare the attitudes of our enemies — and our allies, sadly — toward our nation now that the Oval Office is occupied by a man of confusing and even questionable beliefs.
After three years of the enigmatic Barack Obama, we desperately need someone who can and will be willing to cut through the lies and propaganda of the left and explain his views and values to the American people in a clear and cogent manner. As we peruse the so far thinnish field of GOP presidential candidates, it’s worth noting that there may be just such a man in the running.
Rick Santorum, who has long been involved in a love-hate relationship with many on the right — the hatred hinging on his support of Arlen Specter in 2004 — looks like he will be tossing his hat into the ring. And like George W. Bush, whether you agree with him or not, you know where you stand with him, especially on certain topics. Chief among these is the right to life for children in the womb. Many politicians have paid lip service to this issue, but how many have the guts to confront the left on this, and to hoist them by their own petards?
A case in point was an interview Santorum gave to CNS News earlier this year where he questioned President Obama’s inability to say whether a human life is protected by the Constitution, basically couching the debate in terms of civil rights; a concept that, in this context, was unfamiliar to those on the left. He said that if folks like Barack Obama decide that a child in the womb is not a person under our Constitution, that it would be “almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”
What did he mean by this? Well, in a totally unbiased Politico piece titled, “Rick Santorum plays race card on President Obama,” the senator further explained:
For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.
This burst of common sense was, of course met with the usual howls of indignation from leftists — “ludicrous!” shouted one of them — although it was a perfectly legitimate use of an analogy that, when employed by them to justify gay “marriage,” becomes totally illegitimate. Unborn children, like blacks before them, are denied their rights by virtue of circumstances beyond their control, not by a choice of sexual preference. Maybe the plainspoken yet passionate Santorum can explain to the nation exactly to whom the phrase “ourselves and our posterity” actually applies.
But can Santorum get votes? Well, he served two Senate terms until he famously lost his last re-election bid in a landslide to a so-called pro-life Democrat in purple Pennsylvania, a state that went big time for Obama in ‘08. Some say this was because conservatives sat on their hands and stayed home, while others attribute it in part to accusations of residency violations that wouldn’t have drawn a yawn in Obama’s hometown of Chicago. In any case, it remains to be seen whether he can garner votes nationally, given the wild hatred of him by the media because of his views on homosexuality and Islamism.
There are still many conservatives who will not forgive Santorum for his support of the duplicitous Specter, though without it, we may have not gotten John Roberts or Samuel Alito confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But in him, we have a man who has everything we need to defeat Barack Obama and his polyester policies; a man who is not only able to enunciate conservatism in clear, concise terms, but is totally unafraid to live it.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (104) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Lisa Fabrizio
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/27/why-not-santorum
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Gold BC| 4.27.11 @ 6:57AM
Santorum's crushing election defeat in '06 plus his Roman Catholicism puts him at a severe disadvantage. People will wonder could he win his home state in a general election and his religion will impact the number of votes he receives in southern GOP primaries. But he is a possibility for a VP pick.
Charles Martel| 4.27.11 @ 7:22AM
How is Catholicism a disadvantage? It's a plus in my reckoning and that of many other conservatives. I'm a Protestant southerner, and I anticipate supporting him in my state's primary, if he makes it that far. And given what we have so far, he's head and shoulders above the other candidates.
+++
W| 4.27.11 @ 9:57AM
there are several, or one posing as several,bigoted, anti-Catholic bigots who regularly post anti-Catholic rants on this site. any topic remotely connected to Catholicism will set them off. they, or she, sit around all day waiting for the chance to post some bigoted drivel masquerading as political analysis. it is their on line version of the KKK. i am surprised, though, that only a few will respond to denounce the bigotry.
Doctor Right| 4.27.11 @ 12:10PM
Being skeptical of Roman Catholicism does NOT make one a bigot, or a member of the KKK.
It merely makes one skeptical.
Knee-jerk Catholic apologists are SUCH a hoot!
Doctor Right| 4.27.11 @ 12:11PM
And BTW...I personally think Santorum would make a GREAT candidate, and a GREAT President.
W| 4.27.11 @ 2:42PM
why do you have the need to respond, hit a nerve? being skeptical is not the same as being a bigot.Santorum was a good senator and would be a good president, i voted for him for senator.
apologists is not the same as apologize, look up the meaning.
PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 8:06PM
Yeah, I got a feeling a lot of southerners would have as hard a time pulling the lever for a Catholic as the member of a NOW rally.
Margie| 4.27.11 @ 9:25PM
That's a pretty racist statement, don't you think? Or is the word bigoted?
Mike Rogers| 4.27.11 @ 7:47AM
I have great respect for honest Catholics, and I have great respect for Mormons - religion that respects the rights of others is a good thing. (Guess which one doesn't)
Con Chef (NB) | 4.27.11 @ 12:31PM
Gee, you wouldn't be talking about the Religion of Pieces, would you?
Con Chef (NB) | 4.27.11 @ 12:30PM
Gold BC:
'06 ain't 2011 or 2012. This state (PA) went red last November, in case you forgot. We elected a Repub governor (Tom Corbett), a new & VERY conservative Senator (Pat Toomey) & our State House went red as well. Ole Rick stands a better change now than he ever has. Especially here in Western PA.
Gold BC| 4.27.11 @ 5:14PM
A close election defeat in most cases can be shrugged off, but the magnitude of his '06 will bring on scrutiny, why? because maybe he began to drift to the left like supporting the former President's more liberal domestic agenda and perhaps Santorum supporting policies like milk subsidies, doesn't sound like a conservative policy wonk more like a convereted new dealer. No matter what one's religious beliefs will become an issue during a presidential campaign and amongst non-catholics catholicism is an issue.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.27.11 @ 7:08AM
Abortion will not be a winner precisely because it is a moral issue.
What America wants now is jobs and an improving economy.
Politicians and political parties who do not seize that issue and run with it are doomed.
William Z| 4.27.11 @ 8:29AM
Interestingly enough, Santorum is pro-business and therefore pro-job creation, but people will sacrifice both because they care more about pro-choice.
russel| 4.27.11 @ 10:16AM
Agree Bill . For the life of me , abortion is an issue that the R's just can't leave alone . It's a no win in politics . To answer the author's question , no . Simply because the average six-pack has never heard of him , and prob. won't up and past the election .
PCC| 4.27.11 @ 10:40AM
Why not Santorum? Because he is first, last and always an anti-abortion candidate. That alone is not sufficient to be president, especially in these times.
"Get thee to a nunnery, not to the White House, pal."
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Santorum supposedly extracted a pledge from Specter that Specter would not block conservative judicial nominees; and from 2005 onward, that is largely what happened. You other correspondents are failing to address the author's argument that we might not have Alito or Roberts on the court if Toomey had been the nominee and gone down to defeat, possibly giving control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2005.
These are all hypotheticals. But they were very real concerns in 2004. Personally, I do not agree that Santorum should have endorsed Specter in the Republican primaries. But, dear readers: please try to give Santorum credit for a modicum of reasoning for doing what he did!
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Santorum supposedly extracted a pledge from Specter that Specter would not block conservative judicial nominees; and from 2005 onward, that is largely what happened. You other correspondents are failing to address the author's argument that we might not have Alito or Roberts on the court if Toomey had been the nominee and gone down to defeat, possibly giving control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2005.
These are all hypotheticals. But they were very real concerns in 2004. Personally, I do not agree that Santorum should have endorsed Specter in the Republican primaries. But, dear readers: please try to give Santorum credit for a modicum of reasoning for doing what he did!
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Santorum supposedly extracted a pledge from Specter that Specter would not block conservative judicial nominees; and from 2005 onward, that is largely what happened. You other correspondents are failing to address the author's argument that we might not have Alito or Roberts on the court if Toomey had been the nominee and gone down to defeat, possibly giving control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2005.
These are all hypotheticals. But they were very real concerns in 2004. Personally, I do not agree that Santorum should have endorsed Specter in the Republican primaries. But, dear readers: please try to give Santorum credit for a modicum of reasoning for doing what he did!
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Santorum supposedly extracted a pledge from Specter that Specter would not block conservative judicial nominees; and from 2005 onward, that is largely what happened. You other correspondents are failing to address the author's argument that we might not have Alito or Roberts on the court if Toomey had been the nominee and gone down to defeat, possibly giving control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2005.
These are all hypotheticals. But they were very real concerns in 2004. Personally, I do not agree that Santorum should have endorsed Specter in the Republican primaries. But, dear readers: please try to give Santorum credit for a modicum of reasoning for doing what he did!
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Santorum supposedly extracted a pledge from Specter that Specter would not block conservative judicial nominees; and from 2005 onward, that is largely what happened. You other correspondents are failing to address the author's argument that we might not have Alito or Roberts on the court if Toomey had been the nominee and gone down to defeat, possibly giving control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2005.
These are all hypotheticals. But they were very real concerns in 2004. Personally, I do not agree that Santorum should have endorsed Specter in the Republican primaries. But, dear readers: please try to give Santorum credit for a modicum of reasoning for doing what he did!
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Santorum supposedly extracted a pledge from Specter that Specter would not block conservative judicial nominees; and from 2005 onward, that is largely what happened. You other correspondents are failing to address the author's argument that we might not have Alito or Roberts on the court if Toomey had been the nominee and gone down to defeat, possibly giving control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2005.
These are all hypotheticals. But they were very real concerns in 2004. Personally, I do not agree that Santorum should have endorsed Specter in the Republican primaries. But, dear readers: please try to give Santorum credit for a modicum of reasoning for doing what he did!
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Santorum supposedly extracted a pledge from Specter that Specter would not block conservative judicial nominees; and from 2005 onward, that is largely what happened. You other correspondents are failing to address the author's argument that we might not have Alito or Roberts on the court if Toomey had been the nominee and gone down to defeat, possibly giving control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2005.
These are all hypotheticals. But they were very real concerns in 2004. Personally, I do not agree that Santorum should have endorsed Specter in the Republican primaries. But, dear readers: please try to give Santorum credit for a modicum of reasoning for doing what he did!
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Santorum supposedly extracted a pledge from Specter that Specter would not block conservative judicial nominees; and from 2005 onward, that is largely what happened. You other correspondents are failing to address the author's argument that we might not have Alito or Roberts on the court if Toomey had been the nominee and gone down to defeat, possibly giving control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2005.
These are all hypotheticals. But they were very real concerns in 2004. Personally, I do not agree that Santorum should have endorsed Specter in the Republican primaries. But, dear readers: please try to give Santorum credit for a modicum of reasoning for doing what he did!
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Santorum supposedly extracted a pledge from Specter that Specter would not block conservative judicial nominees; and from 2005 onward, that is largely what happened. You other correspondents are failing to address the author's argument that we might not have Alito or Roberts on the court if Toomey had been the nominee and gone down to defeat, possibly giving control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2005.
These are all hypotheticals. But they were very real concerns in 2004. Personally, I do not agree that Santorum should have endorsed Specter in the Republican primaries. But, dear readers: please try to give Santorum credit for a modicum of reasoning for doing what he did!
PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 8:08PM
We get it, we get it!
I Survived Arlen Specter| 4.27.11 @ 10:56AM
Abortion will not be a winner precisely because it is a moral issue.
What America wants now is jobs and an improving economy.
Politicians and political parties who do not seize that issue and run with it are doomed.
The above post is a perfect encapsulation of everything I personally am fed up with in the thinking of those running the GOP & those who support them & their candidates. I do not trust politicians of any stripe with my life, my future, or this country. I trust God & only God with these things. I also fully comprehend God, being Holy will not bless a nation whose government uses taxpayer dollars to fund those who slaughter His children (they're His before they're ours) & I personally do not want my tax dollars supporting abortion providers. The jobs & improving economy the poster says the American people want more than anything come from God, not the government. They are called blessings & do not come from fallible men & women, especially politicians. A "leader" that will put aside social issues that deal with evil because "they are moral issues" & claim he/she will turn the whole country around fiscally cannot be trusted, period. It is said morality cannot be legislated. This is true. It is also true God will not hear the cries of, or bless a nation whose Federal Gov't is financing the slaughter of God's children. Those who are content to turn a blind eye to blatant sin against God, in this case in the form of government funded abortions on demand are part of the problem along with Planned Infanticide & the Federal government. Until the GOP nominate candidates who stand for not only what is best for the American people, but also will stand unwaveringly for defunding organizations of taxpayer dollars that practice blatant evil in the sight of God against God, I will utilize the write-in vote and vote very carefully for candidates who I believe through my faith in God's wisdom will. You are either for evil or against evil. There is no gray area here. Trust fallible politicians or God. The choice to me is very simple. If the left want to murder their own children let them fund it out of their own pockets! Don't make me complicit in the evil of abortion on demand through my tax dollars by supporting spineless GOP politicians who want to & do ignore the issue & hope it goes away.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 4.27.11 @ 10:56AM
Abortion will not be a winner precisely because it is a moral issue.
What America wants now is jobs and an improving economy.
Politicians and political parties who do not seize that issue and run with it are doomed.
The above post is a perfect encapsulation of everything I personally am fed up with in the thinking of those running the GOP & those who support them & their candidates. I do not trust politicians of any stripe with my life, my future, or this country. I trust God & only God with these things. I also fully comprehend God, being Holy will not bless a nation whose government uses taxpayer dollars to fund those who slaughter His children (they're His before they're ours) & I personally do not want my tax dollars supporting abortion providers. The jobs & improving economy the poster says the American people want more than anything come from God, not the government. They are called blessings & do not come from fallible men & women, especially politicians. A "leader" that will put aside social issues that deal with evil because "they are moral issues" & claim he/she will turn the whole country around fiscally cannot be trusted, period. It is said morality cannot be legislated. This is true. It is also true God will not hear the cries of, or bless a nation whose Federal Gov't is financing the slaughter of God's children. Those who are content to turn a blind eye to blatant sin against God, in this case in the form of government funded abortions on demand are part of the problem along with Planned Infanticide & the Federal government. Until the GOP nominate candidates who stand for not only what is best for the American people, but also will stand unwaveringly for defunding organizations of taxpayer dollars that practice blatant evil in the sight of God against God, I will utilize the write-in vote and vote very carefully for candidates who I believe through my faith in God's wisdom will. You are either for evil or against evil. There is no gray area here. Trust fallible politicians or God. The choice to me is very simple. If the left want to murder their own children let them fund it out of their own pockets! Don't make me complicit in the evil of abortion on demand through my tax dollars by supporting spineless GOP politicians who want to & do ignore the issue & hope it goes away.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.27.11 @ 4:15PM
Absolutes do not get candidates elected. Meat and potatoes do. Although the government does not create jobs, the government certainly destroys them. In fact, California is losing close to 2 million jobs a year which may force a change at some point.
As far as the political parties, they are all we've got. If they don't create the climate for jobs then they've created the climate for jobs destruction.
That's precisely what's holding up the circus right now. The public doesn't trust the government any longer and why should they?
The recent budget battle displayed the hypocrisy of both parties for all to see.
In the meantime there's an election coming. The public can sit and whine all day and let the election go by, or the politicians can come up with a winning plan.
The winning plan is the economy. That's all you need.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.27.11 @ 4:15PM
Absolutes do not get candidates elected. Meat and potatoes do. Although the government does not create jobs, the government certainly destroys them. In fact, California is losing close to 2 million jobs a year which may force a change at some point.
As far as the political parties, they are all we've got. If they don't create the climate for jobs then they've created the climate for jobs destruction.
That's precisely what's holding up the circus right now. The public doesn't trust the government any longer and why should they?
The recent budget battle displayed the hypocrisy of both parties for all to see.
In the meantime there's an election coming. The public can sit and whine all day and let the election go by, or the politicians can come up with a winning plan.
The winning plan is the economy. That's all you need.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 4.27.11 @ 8:26PM
Again, why would a Holy, sinless God who abhors evil & sin bless this nation with a robust economy while the Federal gov't funds abortion providers with tax dollars to slaughter God's children? Not wanting to pay for the evil deeds of others is not whining & if you truly believe politicians is all we have to straighten out the mess this country is in you need to re-examine your priorities. God is still in control of the universe, not the politicians. Please remember to whom we will all answer to in the end. It sure won't be the politicians! The winning plan is trusting God. Politicians who won't confront the fact the Federal gov't is funding evil & take a stand against forcing the taxpayers to fund evil through their tax dollars will not improve the economy, period! Social issues & fiscal issues go hand in hand. Trust God. Politicians will betray you every time!
Margie| 4.27.11 @ 8:48PM
WELL SAID. Bravo!
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 5:37AM
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).
I Survived Arlen Specter| 4.28.11 @ 12:40PM
So your point is pay your taxes, fund abortion through the gov't & learn to like it because the politicians "are all we have". I'm not angry because I have to pay taxes. I am angry because of the evils politicians are funding with those tax dollars. But you already knew that. Keep on voting for just anyone with an "R" after their name. If you only care about winning & not about knowing whom you are electing to win you are not really winning. The sanctity of God's gift of life is much more important than hollow political victories.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.11 @ 8:37PM
You sound angry. Angry doesn't win anything.
Margie| 4.28.11 @ 9:50PM
Anger doesn't win anything? I guess you haven't heard about the TEA Party.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 4.28.11 @ 10:45PM
Over 50 million children have been slaughtered in the name of "choice", convenience, & profit in this country & the Federal gov't helps to fund it with tax dollars. Angry? You bet. The fact that it doesn't seem to bother you in the least really makes me wonder what it will take outside of God stepping in after He's had enough & opening the eyes of those who can't see the forest for the trees that abortion is pre-meditated murder & taxpayers should not be forced to fund it. Angry doesn't win anything, but passively condoning taxpayer funded murder does? I may be angry, but at least my conscience still has a heartbeat. Trust God, not politicians. They will betray you every time.
Seek| 4.28.11 @ 2:46PM
Your post perfectly underscores why the American people should not trust politicians who proclaim themselves to be God's mouthpiece. Santorum positively radiates an aggressive and arrogant moralism far better suited for the pulpit than the presidency. Plus, anyone who gets stomped 59%-41% for re-election in his own state isn't exactly a confidence-builder for a national election.
Lawrence Boccardi| 4.27.11 @ 7:08AM
I live in PA, and have always admired Mr. Santorum. Gold BC, is spot on. I think Rick is running for VP.
Mike Rogers| 4.27.11 @ 7:54AM
Nice article, LisaFab. Santorum has been working hard in NH and IA. My short description of him, comparing this year's speeches with last year's speeches, is that he's trying to "Break out of Boring" .
He's a really nice, really sincere guy. He would be a fine president, if he could get elected.
Since a lot of the "front runners" chosen for us by the media have significant baggage, Santorum automatically gets more serious consideration as being clean and decent.
Meanwhile, my personal favorite, much ignored by most media, is Herman Cain - a first class business exec and inspirational leader, with no baggage that I've been able to find.
Dai Alanye | 4.27.11 @ 9:22AM
I fail to understand the enthusiasm for Cain, an inexperienced man whose Godfather's Pizza--one of my favorites in its early days-- has for decades been sliding downhill. We've no idea how he might perform in a high executive position, and it's a mistake to encourage politicians to start at the top. Let the man run for lesser office so we can see his performance.
irish19| 4.27.11 @ 1:00PM
I tend to agree. Both Cain and West will make excellent candidates-in the future. They are not quite ready for the bigs, and another season or two at AAA will serve them well.
PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 8:09PM
Jeebus Xmas, either of them would be light-years beyond Sock Puppet.
Michael L. Hauschild| 4.27.11 @ 8:19AM
Why would anyone want a proven idiot? (other than the obvious ringers posting here) If you run through Snarlin Arlin's resume from the Clinton impeachment foreword it will begin to dawn on you the mental derangement (or worse, political malfeasance) accomplished with Santorum’s endorsement. How could anyone with any comprehension of what we need to do to save the country place any faith in such a craven clown and his in his lust for both redemption and power?
The only loser more worthless that wants back in the game is Specter himself and it took a nearly a decade to get rid of his treachery.
Next one of you clowns want to endorse Santorum might as well endorse Spectors return as well, they will have equal chance of election.
Jeremiah Smirking| 4.27.11 @ 8:27AM
Michael, thank you for the proof that, indeed, you are an idiot.
Michael L. Hauschild| 4.27.11 @ 10:18AM
This man, your man, made a choice. He looked at the political landscape decided what was best for his own political future and instead of doing what was best for America, he chose (this choice could not have been in the interest of the party or the country) for “political expediency” the demagogic Specter. The damage he mandated, and it did propel Specter into office, is still resonating; it damaged the party, it damaged our democratic system, and it cheapened the political process. It is the single most example of self agenda hypocrisy contribution to mistrust of true representative government.
Now you lament, chastise me for my anger at this unforgivable endorsement but I will never, as you, be so complacent with those who have contributed to the slovenly mess Washington has become. You are as gullible as Santorum; do you actually think after the most imbecilic decision in latter day politics that you can field this man as a viable candidate? I think not.
Specter is not dead, he still has juice left. He is angry, and as Santorum, wants in from the cold. He would endorse Obama to “get even,” he would be front and center with all the gory details of Santorum endorsement. Your attempt to resurrect such “damaged goods” is a local phenomenon; it is symptomatic of the Republican mental illness of “our man can do no wrong.” We do not need has-beens, we do not need retreads, and we certainly do not need candidates such as Romney or Santorum with so much baggage that the issues will be in the background.
PJ| 4.27.11 @ 10:32AM
Amen!
Ryan| 4.27.11 @ 8:32AM
What did Santorum do to you, kill your dog or something? Sheesh...
PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 8:10PM
He kills puppies and eats them!
PJ| 4.27.11 @ 10:29AM
Michael,
I agree with almost everything you've stated & I'm a Catholic.
Everyone knew that Spector was a far out progressive including those who did not live in PA. Yet, conservative Santorum endorsed him over a proven conservative Toomey in 2004. Why !!!??? Backdoor shenanigans? You bet!
I'm a believer of redemption. At this point I'm not too sure what Santorum can DO to redeem himself & prove to me that the Spector endorsement was a 1 time lapse of very poor judgement.
Today, I would vote for Santorum for president, with no reservations if only he stayed neutral in 2004.
John Navratil| 4.27.11 @ 11:25AM
PJ,
Bush backed Specter as well - one of his many failures - as did much of the PA Republicans. The thought was that in 2004 we needed the (R) on the seat and that Toomey could not win in the general election. It was stupid then, and we all knew that Specter was as unreliable as any could be and still claim the (R). By the time Toomey demonstrated his electability (he lost by less than 2 percent to Specter) it was too late and the political die was cast. Still Specter won in a three-way with 52+ percent of the vote. Hardly a rebuke of political calculation.
It was an error made clear in retrospect. At the time it was not so clear. Ryan should never have endorsed Specter, but no one in political office can ignore the party either.
W| 4.27.11 @ 4:55PM
I am not a fan of snarlin arlin, BUT, remember anita hill. arlin's cross examination of hill exposed her lies. and remember the senate debate on hill when arlin told teddy kennedy " if you believe that, i have a bridge to sell you."
those two, especially the kennedy incident, is what i will remember, as well as getting Robers and Alito confirmed.
W| 4.27.11 @ 4:57PM
arlin is also responsible for getting justice thomas confirmed, along with roberts and alito.
Ford gave us Stevens, Bush 1 gave us Souter, Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy.
William Z| 4.27.11 @ 8:33AM
Santorum is a practicing Roman Catholic and that is seen as a disadvantaged. Pelosi and Reid were the title like lapel pin, but no one seems to see that as a greater problem, especially the way they both ran their houses for the past two years.
Dai Alanye | 4.27.11 @ 9:14AM
Santorum is the best candidate presently out there. The Spector endorsement was unfortunate but everyone is entitled to one mistake, and there were arguments in favor of what he did. The Catholic matter is an issue--that is, it WAS an issue in 1960, but only left-wingers are bothered by it now.
One important factor not mentioned is that Santorum is not only a good speaker but a strong debater, one of the few who can out-argue even Al Sharpton and his ilk. Whether for Pres or VP, Santorum is worthy of support.
David T| 4.27.11 @ 5:44PM
I agree Santorum has great qualities. His lack of executive experience is a drawback, though. But I'd support him over any other candidate now that Haley "gentle-as-a-dove-but wise-as-a-serpent" Barbour is out of the race.
Margie| 4.27.11 @ 8:53PM
Well said, Dai. I have always admired and respected Rick Santorum. He seems genuine to me. I'd be thrilled to cast my vote for him.
rightasrain| 4.27.11 @ 9:24AM
I like Santorum but unfortunately there's the lingering odor of "loser" on him.
DRed| 4.27.11 @ 9:39AM
Because he's a wildly unlikeable bigot, maybe?
PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 8:11PM
TROLL ALERT!!!
Frisbee| 4.27.11 @ 9:08PM
Rick Santorum is a wildly likeable statesman.
I loved his take on stare decisis during the Roberts confirmation hearings.
Narwhal| 4.27.11 @ 9:40AM
Not to mention his "Google problem."
PCP Smoker| 4.27.11 @ 9:08PM
Anyone who served in the Narwhal is a fucking asshole.
Michael L. Hauschild| 4.27.11 @ 10:24AM
"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office, they have to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that they become indistinguishable from a streetwalker" - as revised from H.L. Mencken
"Suppose you were an idiot, then suppose you were a politician - - but I repeat myself" - as revised from Mark Twain
cicero| 4.27.11 @ 10:47AM
On the Spector matter: The Republican National Committee, at the time, stated that its purpose was to make sure that incumbent Republicans got reelected. Stupid, but that was the party position. Santorum was a Republican following the party line. That is not a matter principle, but one of politics.
Speak from conviction on any of the true moral issues, and you don't need a script, you don't stutter, and you don't have to search for answers . Reagan and Bush II are proof of this. You may not agree with their positions, but they spoke with clarity and conviction. More Americans agreed with their moral positions than did not. Santorum will carry the Republican base, and a goodly majority of the middle. In order to cater to the left and the left leaning center, you need someone who has no anchors, and no principles - Clinton and Obama (to be kind and non-conspiratorial). We have already seen where that leads.
Joe R| 4.27.11 @ 10:48AM
If Santorum got trounced by 18 points in his Pennsylvania re-election bid, then how in the hell is he going to attract any type of support nationwide? Get a clue, folks.
John Navratil| 4.27.11 @ 11:28AM
Joe R,
By his message being considered relevant today. Churchill had a similar problem.
Joe R| 4.27.11 @ 3:37PM
Don't go comparing a hack politico like Rick Santorum to Winston Churchill. That's assinine. You can do better than that, John.
John Navratil| 4.27.11 @ 7:44PM
Joe R,
I didn't compare the characters, merely the timing of their message that each had to deal with.
There were many who considered Churchill a political hack both before and after the war.
One needn't equate the two actors to compare their circumstances. You may disagree with Santorum on the issues, but you must admit that the political winds had shifted in the intervening years.
PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 8:12PM
Hey, an untalented, inexperienced, incompetent political hack got elected last time.
JohnB| 4.27.11 @ 11:42AM
To those correspondents who think that abortion is not or even should not be a major issue leading into next year's election: You fail to appreciate just how important this issue is to single-issue pro-life voters, thereby betraying, perhaps, your own "squishiness" on this issue. And you call yourselves conservatives?
Indeed, there is no other issue equal to abortion, for a couple of reasons:
1. Roe v. Wade was patently un-Constitutional in its reasoning, and at the least smacked of Federal supremacism on an issue that had largely been left to the States. (New York had already legalized the practice.) Roe v. Wade was THE signal moment for the Left by which they knew that they could literally do anything at all -- that there was no limit to our Federal Government's powers. Personally, I mark the death of our Constitutional Republic to January 1973. How long before the elderly in nursing homes with Alzheimer's are declared "non-persons," and disposed of?
2. Roe v. Wade violates what Catholics call "natural law," in that one need not even appeal to religious-based arguments to know that abortion is the killing of another human being. A society that allows these unborn humans to be declared "non-persons" by the Supreme Court has just committed suicide.
3. Indeed, a lot of you "conservatives" out there complain and bitch and whine about immigration. Here's a thought for you: if we have roughly 50-million Hispanics in the U.S. as of the 2010 Census; and there have been roughly 50-million abortions since 1973, then I say this: "We've imported the babies we aborted." ("We" taken generically, of course -- don't write a screaming post declaring that you are not part of the "we." In fact, however, to the extent that you vote for ANY politician who is not committed 100% to pro-life, then "you," dear "conservatives," ARE part of the "we" that has aborted 50-million babies.
4. Abortion is the ultimate rejection of God's plans for marriage. It is, truly, the logical conclusion of the contraceptive mentality, in which people "dominate" life itself. We tell God that we will take His gifts only if and when we decide to! Besides, "Doesn't God take care of all the little aborted babies?" Such presumption! Such arrogance! Takes us right back to Adam and Eve, arrogating to themselves the "right" to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; only now, it is the tree of life (also in the Garden of Eden) from which we pluck -- including cryo-embryos from IVF; abortion of so-called "defectives"; and the incipient euthanasia movement that declares that some lives are "not worth living."
For shame!! You so-called conservatives need to see Santorum for what he is: a principled man of integrity who made a calculated political move in 2004. Arguably, it WAS the best decision; we might NOT have Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court if it hadn't been for Santorum!!
I Survived Arlen Specter| 4.27.11 @ 1:41PM
Very well put John. Thank you & may God bless you & yours always!
Frisbee| 4.27.11 @ 9:10PM
Thanks JohnB. Well said.
Seek| 4.28.11 @ 2:51PM
The notion that mass immigration is the result, desirable or not, of Roe v. Wade is beyond preposterous. Regardless of how many abortions were performed since (or for that matter, before) that ruling that has nothing to do with the ongoing attempt to replace the American people without their consent. We don't need tens of millions of limited-English-speaking Hispanics of varying legal status coming here on the premise that their presence takes the place of the would-be born.
Rich| 4.27.11 @ 12:35PM
You are right.
The issue is foundational.
All other concerns for people's wellbeing (whether their healthcare, job situation, financial savings) has be built on a respect for lfe.
How can you say you want to improve my healthcare, if you don't respect my right to life?
How can you say you want to protect my rights, if you don't respect my right to life, the right of any person not to be intentionally killed without just cause?
What's great about Santorum, too, is that he also brings moral principles to the big issues of economics and foreign policy, on which he is also strong. He wears his faith easily and is not afraid to mention God.
vtwin| 4.27.11 @ 12:36PM
Why Not Santorum? Are you kidding me?Try Googling Santorum.The number on hit: “The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. (aka, Senator Rick Santorum.)”
Anommynous| 4.27.11 @ 2:03PM
That says more about the deviant and scatological interests of Santorum's opponents than it does about Santorum. They speak from experience, I'm sure.
Joe D.| 4.27.11 @ 12:41PM
I agree with you Lisa. I think he would be a great candidate. I, too, was agree with what he did for Spector, a turncoat. And I think without him and with our current Senator we would have pasted both Judges. However, I am one of those who can forgive.
As for you dumbies with your head in the sand. Pro-life is a winning issue. The majority for the first time again that abortion is wrong, should be limited and not paid for with tax dollars. It is a very winning issue. Keep it up Rick.
gary siebel| 4.27.11 @ 12:57PM
I get it; the Spectator has been floating various trial balloons in regards to Repub prez candidates, apparently starting with about the worst, and least likely (Bolton), and working their way up from there to the current balloon, who is also made of lead.
How much money you want to bet that Santorum has been unfaithful to his wife? People who pretend to the higher moral ground are always immediately suspect, and with good reason.
BTW, women who are not allowed to control their own bodies, are SLAVES.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 4.27.11 @ 1:50PM
The human body was created by God, therefore our bodies belong to God. Which makes the last sentence of your post total rubbish. The child growing inside the womb is God's as well. God did not create children to be disposed of as yesterday's trash. Life is a gift from God & God & God only has the right to give life & take life away. Those who play God & slaughter His children for profit or convenience are slaves to sin.
PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 8:17PM
Agreed. And those who commit infanticide against the body of another lodged within them exceed their bounds.
Funny, pro-abortionists can't make up their minds sometimes. Sometimes the baby is nothing but an extension of the mother's body, sometimes it is an alien, parasitic intrusion. Whatever suits the argument of the moment, I suppose.
Frisbee| 4.27.11 @ 9:12PM
Thanks PsychoDad for pointing out that contradiction.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.27.11 @ 1:01PM
Santorum has never said a word that I heard or internalized.
Conversely,
Sarah has stamped her name on a LOT of critical issues.
I am still praying earnestly that she runs....and serves though we don't deserve her.
Nancy in NC| 4.27.11 @ 3:02PM
Which is more important...Palin run or Obama loses?
I think Palin cannot defeat Obama...the MSM will see to that, and in some ways, she has defeated herself...too much exposure.
Surely there is someone out there that is a true statesman or woman. I personally liked Mike Pence, but he's not running.
Santorum's issue on abortion shouldn't be a killer, but perhaps he might move it away from the front of his mind. In all reality though, the country and our morality has gone to hell in a handbasket since the Roe v Wade decision. A correlation?
Anommynous| 4.27.11 @ 6:00PM
If Palin actually runs and wins the nomination, people will have to actually listen to what she has to say. The people who think they hate her actually hate a SNL caricature of her, but people will actually have to pay attention to the nominee. And when people actually listen to what Sarah has to say, she will win the battle of ideas because Obama's are terrible.
McCain was the safe choice. Bob Dole was the safe choice. Republicans make this mistake time and again, and I'm amazed at their stupidity. Trump's not a conservative, but at least he's shown that he's willing to fight. Sarah's both a fighter and a conservative, and that's what we need. Who else in the field right now can say that?
Noah| 4.27.11 @ 1:12PM
The more I have listened to Rick Santorum as he filled in for Bill Bennett on the radio, the less impressed I have become. Mr. Santorum is old-school Catholic: his understanding of economics does not appear to be based in the freedom of the human person as laid out in Rerum Novarum in the late 19th Century and re-presented in Centesimus Annus twenty years ago. We need a candidate who can articulate the first principles that drive our policy recommendations. Those must be life (Santorum is solid on this), liberty and property rights. Every individual position paper must be harmonious with those first principles, or let's just run a Demopublican like Donald Trump.
Dan| 4.27.11 @ 5:14PM
Why not ? Because he would be, next to Ron Paul a candidate who does not see the potential Muslim threat, an easy candidate for Obama to beat.
Dan| 4.27.11 @ 5:46PM
What do we know about Santorum ? He wears his religion on his sleeve and traveled from Pennsylvania to inject himself in the fight to stop the husband of Karen Quinlan from pulling the plug on his brain dead wife. Wow, that certainly is enough to run for president
We have an unqualified president in the W.H. now, do we really need another ?
PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 8:20PM
At least we know what his religious persuasion actually is.
And where he was born.
Nick| 4.27.11 @ 8:22PM
Dan,
What do we know about you? For one thing, we know you are ignorant of facts one could find in a 2 second internet search.
Karen Ann Quinlan was a woman whose parents fought to have removed from a ventilator. When she continued to breath on her own, her parents cared for here for another 10 years, until she died of natural causes.
It was Terry Shiavo who was murdered by her husband and a state judge by denying her water and letting her dehydrate to death. One of the worst ways to die, by the way.
The only one exhibiting signs of being brain dead is...you, sir.
P.S. What is wrong with wearing ones religion on ones sleeve? Christains are commanded by Christ to share the Truths of the Faith.
Margie| 4.27.11 @ 8:59PM
Bravo, Nick!
Nick| 4.28.11 @ 12:31AM
Thanks Margie!
God Bless.
Dan| 4.28.11 @ 12:08AM
Nick, you are correct I did get Karen Quinlan and Terry Shiavo mixed up. However Shiavo's husband far from murdering her gave her the gift of love by allowing her to die a painless death since she was brain dead. I seem to remember her parents, who kept her in the vegetative state, received a great deal of money while keeping her in such a state, but it stopped when she was declared dead.
I said nothing more than Santorum couldn't beat Obama because he wore his religion on his sleeve and since my brain is alive I will not comment on your Truths of the Faith statement except to say comments like that are probably one of the main reasons Santorum will never get the nomination for president.
I would suggest that when you answer someone on e-mail you keep a civil tone, it's the right thing to do.
Nick| 4.28.11 @ 12:52AM
Dan,
I suggest that you go without water for a few days, and see how painless it feels. Better yet, try doing some research on what the human body goes through when it is dehydrated to death.
The first thing one feels are all the symptoms of the flu, because that is what happens when we get the flu, we dehydrate. Within a day, the eyes start to dry out, making each blink of the eye feel like you have sand in your eyes. Each day brings more pain than the next.
To call death by dehydration "painless," again, shows your complete ignorance of this subject. Also, it was Terry's murdering husband who was getting the money, not her heroic parents. Do you know any facts concerning this story?
Finally, I did not answer you by e-mail. I replied to your factless and fatuous comment. And, I used the same civil tone that you used towards Mr. Santorum. It was the "right thing to do" to someone who has embraced the culture of the death.
Nick| 4.28.11 @ 12:57AM
That should have been: "Each day brings more pain than the last."
Seek| 4.28.11 @ 2:54PM
Wearing one's religion on the sleeve is fine, so long as one does not inject it into speeches made from the Oval Office.
Nick| 4.28.11 @ 5:25PM
So....the president loses his free speech and free exercise of religion rights when he takes office?
How strange, in a free society.
That's like thinking priests and pastors should lose their free speech rights, just because they're ordained.
Seek| 4.28.11 @ 6:03PM
Nobody is saying that Rick Santorum shouldn't have freedom of speech. I am saying, however, that consistently inserting religious content into political matters raises suspicion levels about the candidate's commitment to preserving religious liberty for those who don't agree with him. The right to run for president doesn't imply a moral right to be elected.
Nick| 4.28.11 @ 7:06PM
Seek,
It only "raises suspicion" to those who are already suspicious of religion. Most Christians believe in freedom of religion. Catholics certainly do, as we were discriminated against by other Americans for about a century and a half.
Christians don't want to dictate what others believe, because we don't want others dictating what we believe. Like liberals are trying to do today.
"The right to run [...]."
Now you are moving the goal posts. You stated that Mr. Santorum could not inject his religion "into speeches made from the Oval Office." You can refuse to vote for him for this reason, but you are implicitly saying he doesn't have the right to free speech if elected president.
This is a litmus test that would have kept most of our presidents out of office. Have you ever read the speeches of Presidents Washington or Lincoln. Candidate Lincoln quoted Christ, in 1858, when he said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (Matthew 12:25)
Even the socialist Polio Prince, FDR, went on the radio and lead the nation in prayer on June 6th, 1944.
Your attitude on religion and polititians has no basis in American history. The Christian religion is what made America great. The decline of Christianity in American will be the cause of it's demise. It is totally up to we Christians to stem the tide of destruction.
Margie| 4.28.11 @ 10:01PM
I guess Seek hasn't read the Founding Fathers speeches or writings. Proclaiming and praying to the God of Heaven.
How about George Washington for one?
The problem isn't wearing one's Religion on one's sleeve. The problem is when the leaders have no fear of God whatsoever.
PCP Smoker| 4.27.11 @ 8:41PM
L-O-S-E-R
Bubba Shawn| 4.27.11 @ 11:14PM
Rick Santorum is a good guy. I believe the country is looking for a former conservative governor that governed as a conservative.
Senators and Congressmen don't have the administrative experience needed to fix the damage that Obama and the Democrat majorities have done.
2012 can't get here soon enough.
sex toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:18AM
Moyers' phony quote has one thing correct. NPR/PBS is a gift to liberalism. Why would they fight so hard against de-funding?
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 9:44PM
is good