Thursday, January 05, 2012

George Will on Rick Santorum

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/suddenly-a-fun-candidate/2012/01/04/gIQAnn0jaP_story.html
He can, of course, be tenaciously serious. On Sept. 26, 1996, the Senate was debating whether to ban partial-birth abortion, the procedure whereby the baby to be killed is almost delivered, feet first, until only a few inches of its skull remain in the birth canal, and then the skull is punctured, emptied and collapsed. Santorum asked two pro-choice senators opposed to the ban, Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), this: Suppose the baby slips out of the birth canal before it can be killed. Should killing it even then be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say no.

On Oct. 20, 1999, during another such debate, Santorum had a colloquy with pro-choice Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.):

Santorum: “You agree that, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?”

Boxer: “I think that when you bring your baby home . . . .”
This is one of the reasons why liberals demonized him in 2006. Yes, he raises other questions. No, he is not known outside of Iowa (but he will now get both intrigue and notice in national news outlets); No, he is not flush with cash (but there is a possibility that he will become largely the focus of donors who would otherwise have given to other "anti-Romney" candidates); Yes, he lost an election in 2006 (because he was targeted by liberal groups who made him their #1 enemy in a Republican party whose "public face" was George W. Bush), and yes, I think he can win the nomination (I see Romney and Paul with "ceilings" of 20%-25% among Republicans, whereas Santorum can become a rallying point for the other 60%). Would that make him a shoe-in vs Obama? No, national elections are never easy. But in an otherwise un-inspiring Republican race, Santorum is the sole "conservative" choice. As Will says,
If the Republicans’ binary choice has arrived, and if new technologies of communication and fundraising are repealing some traditional impediments to fluidity in political competition, Santorum can hope to win the nomination. Yes, in 2006, a ghastly year for Republicans (who lost 30 seats and control of the House, and six Senate seats), Santorum lost by 17 points in his bid for a third term. But, then, Richard Nixon was defeated for governor of California six years before being elected president, carrying California.
By the way, Karl Rove thinks Romney will win the nomination. We shall see.

16 comments:

  1. Santorum would be another George W. Likes to spend big money, and build nations.
    His Catholicism makes a staunch pro-lifer, which I like.

    The guy is a good man, but is incapable of cutting a trillion dollars from our budget, but he will let it grow as Bush did, and Obama did. And my small business will still be hurting, as more taxes come and regulations.

    And I realize the President is only one branch of the gov. and there is the other 2 branches; and the Supreme Court to boot.

    So, I need to really simply seek our Lord more than I ever have really.

    I like George Will. Another good man to listen to.

    Thansk for the post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Santorums wife had an abortion. Go ahead, deny it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From 2006

    Q: If you believe that life begins at conception, then why do you support exceptions for rape, incest, and life of mother?

    SANTORUM: Yeah, I would vote for things like that.

    Q: But it’s the taking of a life.

    SANTORUM: The Hyde Amendment allows rape, incest, life of the mother. That is the common ground we could get, and I would support that.

    Q: But by your standards, it’s the taking of a life.

    SANTORUM: It is, there’s no question it’s the taking of a life. But it is an attempt for me to try to see if we can find common ground to actually make progress in limiting the other abortions. So yes, that’s what I would do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Santorums wife had an abortion. Go ahead, deny it.


    That's not true at all. The baby, in-utero, was found to have trisomy 18, a genetic defect which, in the best of circumstances, claims the lives of more than half of all babies before birth -- the percentage is much higher for boys.

    A good friend of mine recently lost his son to Trisomy 18.

    In the Santorums' case, the pregnancy was a difficult one also, and the choice was, administer antibiotics, which would save the mother's life, or allow both mother and child to die. This caused an early delivery. Their son lived through the delivery and died two hours later.

    Santorum's wife wrote the book Letters to Gabriel in honor of their son.

    It was not an abortion in any way, shape or form. No fetus was carved up in-utero.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Don -- I don't like everything about Santorum -- I like some things, and right now, it looks to me as if it's going to be a three, maybe four-person contest for the Republican nomination. (Bachmann is out, and Perry may be out soon. I still think Gingrich may have some life left in him, but I would rather see "the conservative vote" coalesce around someone like Santorum than to see it split in a way that will allow Romney to capture the nomination unchallenged.

    Among other things, "politics is the art of the possible", and I'm just looking at the possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I prefer Santorum over Romney, that's for sure.

    Q: Does he regret supporting Specter over Toomey?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Truth, I don't know the answer to that question. He was, at one point "the junior senator from PA" and also, later the #3 Republican in the Senate. It certainly seemed possible to me that his support for Specter was either (a) returning a favor, or (b) doing a favor in return for future consideration. And I think, to a large degree, that's the way some things get done in the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If your conscience tells you to vote for Santorum, then you should follow your conscience.

    But Rick Santorum is no conservative. Sure he's pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but what other conservative credentials does he have? At best you can say he is a social conservative, but that's it. It frustrates me that many evangelicals are going to be drawn to Santorum because he is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, and that's all they think is important.

    Santorum is openly critical of the concept of the "right to privacy", he wants the government regulating what goes on in people's homes, their bedrooms, and I don't think he has any desire whatsoever to shrink the government. In fact, I think he wants the government to enforce Catholicism on everyone. Not only is he pro-life but he wants to ban all forms of birth control. And make no mistake, Santorum will recklessly lead us into more wars.

    http://youtu.be/1Gwwmm-cQxU

    Santorum has voted in favor of gun control legislation, he has voted to increase taxes, he has voted to expand the government (in favor of establishing the Department of Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D), he has voted numerous times in favor of foreign aid, and of course, he voted for the Iraq war.

    President Santorum would not address the debt crisis and would continue to spend us into oblivion, and he will take us into war with Iran. I don't see how this will help our country, and personally, I will stay home on election night before casting my vote for Rick Santorum if he is the Republican nominee.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Santorum is more reliable as a conservative than Romney. But Romney still has a major electability advantage over his opponents, including Santorum. I still don't think any of Romney's opponents have improved their electability enough to be worth the risk. But there's a small amount of time left for that to change.

    Santorum has some advantages over other alternatives to Romney. He hasn't made as many mistakes or wasted as many opportunities as a frontrunner as Perry and Gingrich have. But he also hasn't yet received as much scrutiny as a frontrunner. I expect electability to be an ongoing concern that Republicans will have about Santorum. I don't think he'll overcome it.

    It looks like Romney's going to win. And I think he'll beat Obama.

    One of the problems with a candidate like Santorum is that he has higher moral standards than a lot of voters, and he puts a lot of emphasis on moral issues. I expect many Democrats and independents to resent that. I suspect that a lot of non-Republicans would dislike Santorum and would project faults onto him to justify dismissing him (he's arrogant, he's judgmental, etc.). People are often punished for success, including in the context of morality. A large percentage of voters would punish Santorum for his high standards. Much as a lot of people seem to resent Sarah Palin for living out her pro-life stance, they'd resent Santorum for the same reason. His life is a rebuke of theirs. People often inordinately vote on the basis of factors like intuition, emotions, and personal characteristics of a candidate that aren't of much significance. I'd expect that to occur to an unusually large degree with Santorum, to his detriment. Something like his youthful appearance, his voice, his seriousness, or his aggressiveness in debates could go a long way in motivating many voters to prefer Obama. That's how irrational a lot of voters are. Santorum probably wouldn't be as disliked as somebody like Palin, but he'd be more disliked than the average Republican. In that sense, I think voters' unfamiliarity with him is a temporary advantage. I don't think his recent surge reflects how well he'd hold up over the long run.

    Maybe he could develop something that would outweigh the factors I've mentioned above. There's a small window of opportunity for him to do that. I'm skeptical that he'll do it, but it's a reasonable possibility. He could use his newfound attention as a frontrunner to develop a reputation he didn't have when he was in Congress. Something significant has to change. The Santorum who lost so badly in 2006 isn't enough.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Craig Sowder,

    What evidence is there that Santorum "wants the government to enforce Catholicism on everyone"? Your suggestion that he only has conservative credentials on homosexuality and abortion is easily disproven. See here and here, for example. He has some significant weaknesses, but he's much better than you're suggesting.

    And I don't see how it would make sense to not vote for Santorum if he were to become the nominee. When we're so quickly heading in the direction of Europe, and Santorum is so much better than Obama, why should we think that the benefits of not voting for Santorum outweigh the benefits of voting for him? He would be a significant improvement over Obama. What convinces you that we shouldn't vote for him? If you think that not voting for him would send a message that we want a more conservative candidate, then I question whether many people would join you in sending that message, whether the message would be understood by many people, and whether it would accomplish anything significant in a timely manner.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jason,

    When I said "I think" he wants the government to enforce Catholicism, I had in mind his position of favoring the state's rights to outlaw birth control altogether, even non-abortive types, but he doesn't favor a state having the right to legalize gay marriage. I don't know what could possibly lead him to feel this way except his Catholic faith. He has been critical of the concept of a right to privacy many times and thinks government should be able to get involved in people's private sexual lives, and when I look at that, I can't help but feel like he wants to enforce his Catholic views. Obviously he hasn't said that is what he's trying to do; it's just an interpretation on my part.

    Also, you made me realize that my comment about him not being a true conservative assumes that voting in favor of such things as the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, forming the Department of Homeland Security, increasing the debt ceiling, gun control laws, repeatedly voting for foreign aid, the Military Commissions Act, and being favorable to the NDAA, is not being very conservative. But others may disagree with my understanding of what it means to be conservative.

    Aside from the social issues, I don't feel there is any real difference between Santorum (or Romney or Newt) and Obama, except maybe for Obamacare. When you're 15T in debt, there's not a lot of difference anymore, and the government is already way too big and involved in our personal lives. They all are big spenders and are going to continue to spend us into oblivion. None of them are going to end the wars, and Santorum has made no bones about the fact that he is ready and willing to bomb Iran if they don't comply with America's demands.

    When I said I will not vote for Santorum, that is my decision. I'm choosing to vote for a candidate based on principle rather than on the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. I am choosing to vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Craig,

    Even if we assume your characterizations of Santorum for the sake of argument, what you've described doesn't amount to "the government enforcing Catholicism on everyone". Catholicism consists of far more than opposition to birth control and homosexual marriage. Some non-Catholics have opposed both. And allowing states to pass laws against something if they want to isn't equivalent to making the states do it. Furthermore, if the relationship between Santorum's Catholicism and his stances on birth control and homosexual marriage is enough to claim that "he wants the government to enforce Catholicism on everyone", then what about the relationship between other individuals' religious beliefs and their political views? If a Protestant believes that the God of the Declaration of Independence is the God of the Bible, is he "wanting the government to enforce Protestantism on everyone" if he wants the government to uphold the human rights mentioned by the Declaration? If a Protestant's opposition to abortion is motivated by his Christianity, is he "wanting the government to enforce Christianity on everyone"?

    You go on to argue that Santorum was "not being very conservative" when he supported some positions he's held over the years. You're not addressing the point I made. I was discussing whether his conservative credentials go beyond abortion and homosexuality. Saying that he's sometimes been wrong on other issues doesn't tell us whether he's also sometimes been right. You aren't addressing the point I was making, and you aren't addressing the documentation I provided.

    You then say that Santorum is better than Obama on social issues and possibly healthcare. In the next paragraph, you say that you want to vote for something rather than against something. If you agree with Santorum on social issues and healthcare, then those are things you would be voting for if you'd vote for Santorum.

    But we often have to choose the lesser of two evils. If your nation is invaded by another nation, or if somebody breaks into your house at night, there are going to be evils, so to speak, in any response you choose. Going to war to defend your nation isn't pleasant, and it isn't pleasant to shoot somebody who breaks into your home, if you choose to do something like that. You choose among the options available to you.

    You refer to voting "on principle". There are principles involved in choosing between two imperfect candidates. If your fellow citizens have given you a choice between Santorum and Obama, then conservative principles would lead you to prefer Santorum's more conservative stances on issues.

    The two web sites I linked above give many examples of Santorum's conservatism, and not just on social issues and healthcare. Here's a post I wrote in 2008 regarding the differences between Obama and John McCain. Santorum seems to be somewhat more conservative than McCain, but even McCain is far better than Obama. Apply the same principles I outlined in that 2008 post to the election this year.

    ReplyDelete
  13. With all due respect, you are spending way too much time and effort addressing the "enforcing Catholicism" remark. It doesn't matter if it's Catholicism, Protestantism, or whatever... if Santorum was a member of a PCA church, I would still say the same thing. I don't agree with the basic things Santorum believes about a person's right to privacy. I believe the government's job is to protect our freedoms and enforce the rule of law, not tell us how to live. I think Santorum's philosophy on this issue is dangerous and continues a dangerous trend that has been going on in this country since World War II, that we need to give the government more and more control and sacrifice more and more of our liberties to be "safe".

    And that's fine, Jason, I will concede that maybe Santorum's conservative credentials go farther than social issues, but at best I would say he is a neo-con, and he represents more of the same politics as usual that has gotten our country into the mess it is in.

    ReplyDelete
  14. John, causing an "early delivery" knowing the child would then die is an abortion.

    You are the one playing with words.

    I will be more blunt...doing something you know will result in the death of a human being is murder.

    Oh, there may be exuse, but lets face it...its sitll murder.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Morrison, would you just do nothing and let your wife die too, which would have killed the child anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sometimes there are simply hard decisions to make, no matter what your worldview.

    ReplyDelete