Paul Zummo writes a great piece at American Catholic about Rick Santorum and his puzzlement as to why Catholic conservatives aren’t supporting Senator Santorum. Why?
The guy’s a conservative. He’s Catholic. Really Catholic.
I think at some level this kind of stuff becomes self fulfilling. With Rick scoring so low in the polls, when people are asked who they want for President they kinda’ think saying Santorum is tossing their choice away so they pick from between the current batch of big names like Romney, Gingrich, and Cain (still?).
Paul Zummo lists a number of other valid reasons including Santorum’s endorsement of Specter over Toomey. I can tell you I lived in Pennsylvania and I spoke to many pro-lifers who felt betrayed by Santorum over his endorsement and they thought they couldn’t do worse on that issue with Bob Casey, the son of a famous pro-life Democrat. (How’d that work out for ya’?)
There’s a part of me that doesn’t want to go for Rick because I think he’s easily demonized. It was the same reason I was skittish about Sarah Palin. The media has done so much damage to Santorum and Palin that trying to get them elected would be difficult.
But I think for the time being when asked by anyone and everyone I’ll say I’m throwing my weight behind Rick Santorum. Honestly, if I had my druthers of which one to pick, I’d pick Rick. I trust him the most. It ain’t even close actually. Well, wait I also trust Ron Paul to never lie to me but I just don’t like what he says some of the time.
But check out Zummo’s piece. It’s definitely worth a read. I think he’s right on.
December 1, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Rick Santorum is my first choice and Newt Gingrich my second choice. I think Rick's lack of charisma hurts him. Conservatives in Pa (I had just moved to Pa at the time of this vote) don't understand that the reason Santorum endorsed Specter is because Arlen had promised to vote Yea on the supreme court nominees if Rick supported him. Specter only cared about political expediency and he was an opportunist. And, Pa being a blue state at that time still supported Specter. Dems sure do like the crooked politicians. Rick is an honest politician who is a faithful Catholic.
December 2, 2011 at 12:06 am
I have no desire to vote for Santorum and never have. He's a neocon who only pretends to respect the Constitution. It's Ron Paul or bust for me.
December 2, 2011 at 12:10 am
Santorum is the best, clearly.
December 2, 2011 at 12:17 am
Three reasons to start with.
1. He placed party over principle – a typical politician.
2. He is a warmonger who supports unjust wars.
3. He's cranky.
And before all you camo-wearing, American-exceptionalists on this blog start calling me a Communist, a coward, etc., read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
December 2, 2011 at 12:39 am
Thanks for the link, Matt. My post wound up meandering beyond my initial question. It is odd that he's polling as low as he is considering the fact that he does have a natural constituency, but his negatives are difficult to ignore. As I said, I can live with either of the Ricks. Newt is a distant third, and the rest of the field is just abysmal.
December 2, 2011 at 1:26 am
Gardasil Rick? You've got to be kidding, Zummo.
December 2, 2011 at 1:34 am
He's a warmonger. And that really bothers me.
December 2, 2011 at 1:43 am
Sorry but Santorum needs to brush up on his Bellum Iustum in order to justify your "really Catholic" description of him. In the past, he was magnificent in arguing against same-sex "marriage" but for the love of God, do we REALLY need to go to war with Iran?
Yes, he is yet another neocon coat-holder for Israel who wants another Middle Eastern war too much to suit me. Let's face it folks, the GOP field of candidates is weak for 2012 so the best we can pray for is that they take both houses of Congress so they will be able to stifle any and all of Obama's future America-destoying plans.
December 2, 2011 at 1:45 am
Just gotta say that if you measure a man by the quality (or lack thereof) of his enemies, Rick Santorum is looking even better.
December 2, 2011 at 1:49 am
Why does advocating the defense of nation equal being a "warmonger"?
What other nation in the Middle East is a staunch, unwavering supporter of the U.S. besides Israel?
What is rooted in all this jealousy or hate of Israel?
Should Iran have a nuclear weapon? No. Santorum wants to ensure that they never attain a nuclear weapon because that would be a nightmare scenario.
December 2, 2011 at 1:57 am
@Teresa
Defense of what nation? Is Iran an existential threat to us? No, it is not. Can Israel fight its own battles if necessary? Yes, it can. It has nothing to do with jealousy or hate. End of story.
December 2, 2011 at 2:01 am
How is Iran not an existential threat if it has nuclear weapons? Are we just supposed to sit back and watch while Iran obtains nuclear capabilities and threatens Israel? If so, some friend the US and citizens like you are to Israel. With friends like that who needs enemies?
December 2, 2011 at 2:26 am
Hey, isolationist halfwit (the one using the name of a certain Chiricahua Apache—whose people considered torture-unto-death a wholesome family entertainment), I'm curious: if the only thing you want to do with other countries is trade, what'll you do if they all go communist or Islamist?
You seem to think the world would be a perfectly peaceful place of generosity, goodwill, and wholesome, intact families if not for American "Imperialism". Let's ask Poland about that, huh?
You are not a communist or an Islamist. You are just a weakling who refuses to fight them, and therefore is complicit in their misdeeds.
So you're a Vichy. I'm glad we cleared up this nomenclatural dispute.
PS. Personally, I think "Hashkehagola" is a better username for you, little boy—"picker-of-fights" in Apache—but you might as well just use the English equivalent.
Troll.
December 2, 2011 at 2:39 am
So, Teresa, some nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons and others are not? Who decides that?
Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, how would they deliver it to the U.S. on the other side of the world? And the U.S. has thousands of nuclear weapons to retaliate. Try to think these things through, instead of accepting the usual warmongering of the American politicians and media.
Iran has never attacked another nation. The U.S., on the other hand, overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953, and installed the American puppet Shah as dictator. And in the 1980s the U.S.-backed Iraq, (led by none other than Saddam Hussein) attacked Iran. Based on history, perhaps Iran wants a nuclear weapon to keep from being attacked by the U.S. again.
Last time I checked, Israel was not one of the fifty states. Defending your country does not mean going around the world picking fights with every two-bit dictator who runs his mouth.
Santorum would be a disaster – he'd probably start World War III.
December 2, 2011 at 2:41 am
Sophia's Favorite that is a comment for the ages! Well done!
December 2, 2011 at 2:51 am
Sophia's Favorite – why can't you carry on a discussion without calling people names?
Are you aware that the number one U.S. trading partner is a ruthless, thug, Communist regime? So your argument about trade is absurd.
Why do you call people who disagree with you a troll? Why have this blog at all if only people who repeat the same things are welcome? Just talk to yourself.
December 2, 2011 at 2:56 am
Sophia's Favorite – why can't you carry on a discussion without calling people names
And the winner of the award for unintentional irony goes to geronimo. Just hand in your ticket before you leave and you'll receive your gift basket.
December 2, 2011 at 2:57 am
He doesn't pass muster with the Catholic Purity Party.
December 2, 2011 at 3:05 am
1. A lot of pro-lifers still feel betrayed by his support of Specter over Toomey when Specter was pro-life public enemy number one for the 20+ years the man was in office. Santorum was once viewed as a pro-life untouchable. His move to support Specter showed that he could be bought for cheap.
2. A lot of people are turned off because he's out campaigning with a deathly ill child at home–a child he actually tried to take on the campaign trail (presumably to be close to her) but actually jeopardized her health further.
3. He is, as another poster noted, squishy on his jus ad bello creds.
4. He's also soft on torture.
5. The public HATES him and he is unelectable.
In his favor, he's still definitely the most pro-life and pro-traditional family candidate out there (which is, frankly, a depressing fact of the Republican slate), but taken with the other factors, he's hardly anyone for a Catholic voter to be unequivocally excited about.
December 2, 2011 at 3:11 am
Zummo- your comment makes no sense. I am willing to discuss things civilly. Sophia's Favorite resorted to name-calling instead. And you apparently do not want to discuss the issues either, but would prefer to make sarcastic comments about me. We were talking about Santorum as a Catholic presidential candidate, but you two just ridicule anyone who disagrees with you. Your ad hominem attacks on me are really not very witty. No wonder so many people around the world are sick and tired of arrogant Americans.