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 3, 2011 at 8:29 pm
I must say I am disappointed in Mr McCarey's comments. I had thought better of him and assumed he was looking at the world straightforwardly. But with all due respect he, like so many others sadly, are blinded by this very unCatholic view of the state of Israel and the propaganda emanating therefom (and Washington).
I have no particular admiration for Ron Paul. Being a libertarian he is not the answer to the problems of this country. No libertarian could be. But certainly the Repubs and Dems are equally misguided. Perhaps more so. To those posters who are so mortally offended by those who find Mr Santorum so shallow and so slavish towards Israel I respectfully recommend that you use the gift of the internet to seek out other opinions. And if you are Catholics you must get yourself better informed. Don't fall for the false choise of the two parties, the Democrats, the Party of Abortion and Sodomy, or the Republicans, the Party of War and Usury. In other words, if you're Catholics then BE Catholics…completely and fully. Don't waste your efforts promoting this politician or that, thinking that any of them will get us out of this awful mess we are in. And as far as the state of Israel goes, it is long past time you folks face the reality of what goes on there. You have no excuse not to know. It's all there for you to read and to see, if you open your eyes and your hearts.
In his day the great Hilaire Belloc ridiculed what he called "the semi-annual puppet shows" which were the elections of his time. Imagine what this noble and brilliant Catholic historian would have to say about our current state of affairs.
December 3, 2011 at 8:53 pm
How sad that Americans no longer support the LIBERTARIAN ideas upon which this country was founded: "Ron Paul, being a libertarian blah, blah". Have you never read Jefferson? Patrick Henry? Even Washington?? What do you think the Constitution is? Use some logic, learn some history people. Israel-bots, why should Israel have as many nukes as they want but the countries surrounding htem (with oil) not be allowed any? And who is the US, the only country to ever nuke civilians-women and children, including the largest Catholic community in Japan, to decree who should have them and who not? When did "regime change" of the governments of other counties become allowable under US law? When did imperialism and murder become "Catholic" and "American"? Do you even see what happened to Gaddafi when he complied with the disarmament? And, yes, you can dismiss with "tin hat" comments but it is old news that Israel trains people to visit websites and wikipedia and spin for them, and it is also true that they follow a very predictable pattern in their postings. Michelle, obviously we travel in radically different military circles. The military folks I know want to defend this country, not murder and be killed for Big Business, ruling elites and Israel.
December 3, 2011 at 10:55 pm
"Gordon Prange was a court historian. He did what he was told."
That is simply delusional. You would realize, if you had ever bothered reading any of his books, that he despised FDR and was highly critical of his administration for not maintaining tight enough security at Pearl Harbor to forestall a sneak attack.
"And for the benefit of truely intellegent, openminded people, the meddling that Wilson did in WWI helped cause the fall of the German, Hapsberg, and Russian Empire's and what took their places?"
The Russian Empire fell prior to American intervention, and America played no role in the fall of the Tsar. In regard to the Austrian Empire the Germans used to say during the Great War in reference to the Austro-Hungarian Empire that Germany was shackled to a corpse. There was no way the polyglot empire was going to survive the War. As for the German Second Reich, they were going to be defeated in 1918 with or without American intervention. America played a role in the victory of 1918, but it was small in comparison to that of the French and the Brits. Ludendorf and Hindenburg shot their bolt with their spring offensive and they lacked the manpower and resources to stem the Allied counteroffensive, which was overwhelmingly British and French. American intervention probably led to a much less severe peace being imposed on Germany than would have been the case if the French and British government had been free to impose a Cathaginian peace.
"Listen to George Washington folks, and stay out of other countries problems and business!"
Indeed, I recommend listening to this passage from his 1793 address to Congress:
“The United States ought not to indulge a persuasion that, contrary to the order of human events, they will forever keep at a distance those painful appeals to arms with which the history of every other nation abounds. There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”
December 3, 2011 at 11:11 pm
"Israel-bots, why should Israel have as many nukes as they want but the countries surrounding htem (with oil) not be allowed any?"
Because Israel has had nukes for four decades and not used them, while most other nations in that area are led by lunatics who have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and would not hesitate to use nukes if they possessed them?
In regard to Ahmadinejad of Iran, a state that Ron Paul could care less if it has nukes, he had this little comment in 2005:
"One of our group told me that, when I started to say 'In the name of God, the almighty, the merciful', he saw a light around me and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change and, for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink."
Some of the commenters in this thread are so blinded by hatred of Israel that they are willing to overlook the fact that in the Middle East we are often dealing with leaders in Islamic countries are very, very loosely wired and quite dangerous to their own peoples and the world.
December 4, 2011 at 1:47 am
Anon, all the military folks I know want to defend this country by keeping the enemy somewhere else, not burying our heads in the sand and pretending that if we just ignore the world, the world will ignore us. My husband would not be in the military if he felt he was in the employ of big business, ruling elites and Israel. But then again, my husband is just a big, stupid field grade officer with a Master's in International Affairs. Perhaps he's just naive.
December 4, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories have as much credibility as 9/11 theories: that is to say, none at all. Stinnett's and Toland's theories that FDR knew about the Japanese attack plan have no acceptance whatsoever in the scholarly community. None. Stinnett uncovered absolutely no direct evidence that Roosevelt knew what he claims he knew about the attack.
I think a lot of us question American involvement in World War I, but to claim that our entry caused the collapse of the European empires is ridiculous, as Mr. McClarey has already pointed out. The Czar was already history. Austria-Hungary was on life support, and Turkey was doomed. It wasn't the war, so much as Wilson's mismanagement of the peace that resulted in an unstable postwar settlement.
However it happened, at any rate, it's just not tenable to say that we could or should have stayed out of World War II.
December 5, 2011 at 2:23 am
Santorum supported Specter — I haven't forgotton. He is a warmongering neocon who is ignorant of Church teaching on just wars and an obvious "Israel firster". Let the Zionists fight their own wars, after all they have nuclear weapons…just in case anyone didn't know. The "regime change" show is getting to be a bore. We need to drop the "empire" schtick.
December 5, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Matt, you and your brother Pat are invited to be on the show tonight (Monday), or either one of you. We will discuss religion and politics. Please call me or email your response to rpconradio@yahoo.com. Thanks. http://www.rpconradio.com.
December 5, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Wow. This post got comment crazy (in more ways than one).
First, as a former, long-time PA resident, I personally think that all those PA-ians who still hold such a deep grudge against Santorum for his backing of Spector to be nothing by full of spite and hypocrisy.
As for myself, of all the (relatively weak) candidates that have thrown their hats in the ring, my first choice has been pretty steady: Rick Perry.
Why? Because of his long-standing record as a executive and of federalism/constitutionalism. He's not perfect (no one is), but he's better than the rest of the lot.
Executive experience is VERY important for the position of President. Very, very few past presidents were elected without having this experience (either as governor, general or vice president).
Santorum is my back-up protest vote if Perry is no longer in the running by the time CA's primary rolls around.
December 8, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Santorum has excellent pro-life credentials. He unfortunately is wasting his time rinning fro President.
1.) He could not even get re-elected to the Senate from PA. He lost badly in a key elctoral state.
2.) He needs a charisma transplant.
Best hope for him is that if the GOP wins the Presidency he gets a cabinet position or a judgeship.