Why Not Santorum?

Why Not Santorum?
By Lisa Fabrizio on 4.27.11 @ 6:07AM

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.
_____________________________________________
Rick Santorum? A Keystone State View
By Jeffrey Lord on 4.29.11 @ 2:52PM

My friend Quin Hillyer is asking about Rick Santorum, so as the resident Pennsylvanian here's what I see. Note: I need to try and allow for the old prophet-in-his-own-land syndrome.

His bluntness is at once an asset and a liability. To use the old joke about Christ and his critics, were Rick to walk on water the headline would be "Santorum can't swim"....And he is constitutionally incapable of not being blunt, which in this media environment is a problem for anybody. People will be (will be?...they are surely already!) out to get him...make him look like a homophobic, hate-mongering posterior. Surely the charming quote from ex-Senator Bob Kerrey will surface..."Is Santorum Latin for a--h---?" The left's treatment of a nominee Santorum, not to mention a President Santorum, would make their treatment of Bush look like the coverage of Kate Middleton. You could look forward to a race that would be cast by the liberal media as the Saint versus the Bigoted Jerk and-oh-by-the-way doesn't he look like Hitler?

That's from the left.

From the right, the Specter situation is a problem -- although he can honestly say that without Arlen there may not have been Roberts and Alito. Also, conservatives here balked on his defense of earmarks...interpreted as a defense of the Establishment taste for pork, both a deadly problem with the right.

But integrity? Hard work? A serious vision on Islamic radicals and a willingness to confront that threat? Pro-life? Moral clarity in general? Right (correct) on economics, national security? Top notch. Which means a Santorum supporter will decidedly not be lukewarm. They will love him even more when the BS comes down, as it surely will. Not unlike the Palinistas, Santorumites are not lukewarm about their candidate.

One curious problem is Pennsylvania. As things go in our state, the real political power for either party comes when they hold the governorship. Governors here have real inside-the-party clout unless they seriously alienate. Senators -- with no patronage to speak of -- have never managed well here in this sense, no matter the party. A case in point was when the Reagan brain trust of 1976 tried to put Reagan over the top by naming then-Pennsylvania Senator Dick Schweiker as Reagan's before-the-balloting VP choice. The idea was to snatch the Pennsylvania delegation from Ford. There was no GOP governor at the time (Democrat Milton Shapp had the job). It didn't work. Why? Because even a sitting Senator didn't have the ability to control the party machinery. So -- the gambit lost.

The point? We have a brand new GOP governor, Tom Corbett. You can bet he will have considerable say in the leanings of the Pennsylvania GOP delegation. If he chooses not to back Santorum -- Santorum is essentially starting baseless. That would be a real problem. The only way around this are early primary wins -- NH, SC, etc. The Pennsylvania primary is later -- April 24th or some such.

Does that help? Rick Santorum is a deeply honorable public servant. A real fighter for, as Superman seems suddenly reluctant to say, "truth, justice and the American way." But every one of these prospectives has pluses and minuses and I think this is roughly fair about his.

Can he win? Personally, I think this year is going to be so open anybody can win under the right circumstances. He's not as well positioned as Romney or Huckabee...but is it possible? You remember President Hillary Clinton, don't you?