Santorum: Family holds key on another White House bid (USA Today)


#1

http://republicanredefined.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Rick-Santorum-Family-500x252.jpg

usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/11/18/rick-santorum-president-2016/3632923/

I hope he runs. His last run accomplished a lot for him.

  • He was depicted as an irrelevant "loser" due to his losing a past senatorial race in the first wave of pre-Obama "Hope and Change*". But then he won primaries all over the country.

  • He was for a time the poster boy for what an "anti-gay" was supposed to look like. Until his increased exposure per his campaign allowed him to explain his position as and dispel the accusation of homophobia - traditional marriage stand, but against discrimination or persecution of someone on those grounds. He was defended by a former long time staff member Robert Traynham (who respected Santorum though they disagreed on the issue).

  • Due to a smear campaign against him (the most disgusting aspect of which was a coup whereby upon Googe-ling his last name on the internet the first choice at the top of the page (for a long while) transported the information seeker to an X-rated "definition" of Santorum's name (coined by San Francisco sex columnist and gay activist Dan Savage) enshrined in the so-called "Urban Dictionary". This got thousands of "dislikes" on that site though. And more positive "definitions" of his name appeared even there from backers.

  • Even many who preferred Santorum as their favorite among the primary choices got
    pragmatic and voted for Romney because the latter had the money to possibly defeat
    a sitting President. A groundswell of grassroots support for Santorum propelled him into second in a large field of candidates, however, and on election day he often topped Romney, winning several states ... and coming close to winning several others in which Romney had racked up a large lead with early voters (somewhat due to his "inevitablility").

  • His conservative credentials were questioned at the beginning for having backed
    incumbent Senator Arlen Spectre (with encouragement from the Bush Administration) against the more conservative Pat Toomey. By campaigns' end though, that was forgotten and Santorum seen as THE conservative standard bearer.

Santorum, who represented Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate from 1995 to 2007, is CEO of EchoLight Studios, a Dallas-based company that makes movies for Christian audiences. He's been out promoting the studio's The Christmas Candle, which debuts in theaters Friday.

During the 2012 Primary the so-called Christian right, usually considered to be Evangelical and Pentecostal Protestants and Non-denominationals backed Santorum, a Catholic, quite strongly. His reiteration of that credential in the heart of Rick Perry country (Texas) will likely help him to win Iowa again should he decide to run.

It's nice to know there is some group making movies for Christian audiences. I may go see the Christmas Candle this weekend if I can find it!

Without naming any names, Santorum said he has a "big concern" with Republicans thinking about running for president in 2016 who don't have the courage of their convictions. "They tend to be apologists for certain positions Republicans hold instead of being advocates for those positions," Santorum said in his interview. "Democrats have never nominated someone like that."

bigstory.ap.org/article/santorum-not-ruling-out-presidential-run-2016

Santorum said Republicans need "an authentic conservative" as their next nominee, "someone who can go out there and lay out a positive vision for America based on the principles that made our country great."

He's out there early and branding himself ... and conservatism as a positive thing. The "Morning in America" idea redux. Or maybe "The REAL hope ... and change!"

What's more important, the AP and USA today are listening, interviewing - and per Romney's recent reticence - perhaps positioning Santorum as a front runner if he goes with YES.


#2

You should see the mountains of ink spilled on Wikipedia over Dan Savage's "definition" and whether that constituted an attack violating Mr. Santorum's biographical rights. It spans across 12 archives and multiple megabytes, not including the various noticeboards where the drama played out even more during the 2012 campaign.

And I back Santorum wholeheartedly. He is a faithful Catholic politician who is an excellent foil for many of the so-called catholic liberals who push evil into their agendas. I was so happy to see him run for president and I follow him eagerly in everything he has done since then.


#3

What’s this now?


#4

One of the most uninformed people i ever listened to. His arrogance alone disqualifies him for public service in my view. Also a very unkind person in my view. Not a nice person.


#5

I linked the last archive in an edit of my previous post. You can follow the links at the top of that page if you really want to read the other 11. It’s quite a sad and lame story. Wikipedia is, in theory, solidly neutral and even-handed on treatment of all subjects, but editors tend to lean politically left and much of the resulting product betrays certain biases that belie the written policies.


#6

Politics seems to cycle between extremes.

Carter beget Reagan.
Obama will precede ???

I hope Santorum runs and wins.


#7

Same here. He is one of the most authentically Catholic politician I have ever come across.


#8

[quote="Elizium23, post:2, topic:345659"]
You should see the mountains of ink spilled on Wikipedia over Dan Savage's "definition" and whether that constituted an attack violating Mr. Santorum's biographical rights. It spans across 12 archives and multiple megabytes, not including the various noticeboards where the drama played out even more during the 2012 campaign.

And I back Santorum wholeheartedly. He is a faithful Catholic politician who is an excellent foil for many of the so-called catholic liberals who push evil into their agendas. I was so happy to see him run for president and I follow him eagerly in everything he has done since then.

[/quote]

Luke 6: 22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.

23 Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.

Not to equate Rick Santorum with a prophet, but by simply defending faithfully the teachings of his Church (when asked, which he WAS all the time ... as if he were running for Bishop or something) -- he seemed to be publicly HATED. All out of proportion to what he'd really said, too, IMO.

The scripture seems to point toward a reward that is NOT of this world, but I still like to see people of character elected and I reject the "conventional wisdom" that one must forever compromise and back safe candidates who don't stand for much in the first place, and less when they are elected!

Santorum is not the only worthy candidate the GOP has of course -- but he is vetted (the worst attacks on him are behind him and he's come through), has established himself as a national candidate, AND ironically, has positioned himself AS the compromise candidate as well as just the conservative one! In some ways, he did a bit of that in the 2012 primary.

He was Newt ... but with one solid marriage and no angry ex-spouse. A more mainstream and moderate "Christian" candidate than either Romney or Perry. Had more national and big state experience than Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain. A more moderate and mainstream "big change" than Ron Paul. But he wasn't able to overcome the unlimited funding his main rival had (although his fundraising increased exponentially as he won many states and threatened to take the lead in the primary at one point).

washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-for-santorum-the-fight-goes-on/2013/10/25/a8d23356-3d92-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?hpid=z3

Excerpt, George Will article, Washington Post 10/25/2013 -

The party is, he (Santorum) says, in danger of becoming “a one-legged stool.”

The “Eastern establishment types” want to saw off the cultural conservatism leg, concentrating on economic issues.

The rising libertarian faction, exemplified by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, wants to saw off the strong foreign policy leg. Furthermore, Santorum says,

“Americans are not ready for a dramatic withdrawal of government from their lives” of the sort many tea party types advocate.

This self-described “blue-collar Republican” insists, “We are not the anti-government party.” Government has a role in the creation of jobs for the many “who are not going to college.”

While Santorum's conservative credentials are intact from having been the final conservative choice vs. more moderate Mitt Romney's candidacy ... this last quote shows Santorum carving out a new way to build the bigger tent ... SMALLER Government but not ANTI-Government.

Blue Collar as well as White. Re-addressing the "Reagan Democrats" who crossed over to the GOP because Reagan was a Union leader, closer to their views on social matters, and shifted the government do-gooding from a mysterious Washington DC-based monolith of Central Government to a more responsive "local control" and power to the states (and counties and cities) model.

With this, Santorum is more "center" in his stated views than even Paul Ryan. He distances himself only from the fringe elements of the tea party. He positions himself as
less extreme on foreign policy than Rand Paul ... while still still committed to some changes. And pillories the Democrat-light types that seem to win primaries due to the multiplicity of conservatives dividing that vote ... while receiving favorable press from the
Democrat-friendly press during GOP primary season.

The more I think of it ... the more I think Santorum might easily be an early front runner in the polls once they really start ... if he officially decides to run.

After successive national disasters with "moderate" John Mc Cain and "moderate-light" Mitt Romney ... Santorum's brand of pro-life, moderate economics per Government/Unions, and less radical foreign policy changes than Paul proposes ... is an interesting mix.

In 2016 Barack Obama and his unknown (Biden called it "clean") background and charismatic personality will be gone. Santorum's 2012 warning that the GOP was
conceding its best issue (BIG, Mandatory Health Care) by nominating Romney (known for doing just that on a smaller, state level) looks wiser and wiser as the Obamacare Titanic sinks taking the current insurance plans of millions with it.

I do expect him to be hated on once again. But that doesn't always relegate public figures to obscurity. Sometimes leaders weather the storms and come through.


#9

Not going to feed the trolls today.


#10

[quote="CaptFun, post:8, topic:345659"]
Not to equate Rick Santorum with a prophet, but by simply defending faithfully the teachings of his Church (when asked, which he WAS all the time ... as if he were running for Bishop or something) -- he seemed to be publicly HATED. All out of proportion to what he'd really said, too, IMO.

The scripture seems to point toward a reward that is NOT of this world, but I still like to see people of character elected and I reject the "conventional wisdom" that one must forever compromise and back safe candidates who don't stand for much in the first place, and less when they are elected!

Santorum is not the only worthy candidate the GOP has of course -- but he is vetted (the worst attacks on him are behind him and he's come through), has established himself as a national candidate, AND ironically, has positioned himself AS the compromise candidate as well as just the conservative one! In some ways, he did a bit of that in the 2012 primary.

He was Newt ... but with one solid marriage and no angry ex-spouse. A more mainstream and moderate "Christian" candidate than either Romney or Perry. Had more national and big state experience than Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain. A more moderate and mainstream "big change" than Ron Paul. But he wasn't able to overcome the unlimited funding his main rival had (although his fundraising increased exponentially as he won many states and threatened to take the lead in the primary at one point).

washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-for-santorum-the-fight-goes-on/2013/10/25/a8d23356-3d92-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?hpid=z3

While Santorum's conservative credentials are intact from having been the final conservative choice vs. more moderate Mitt Romney's candidacy ... this last quote shows Santorum carving out a new way to build the bigger tent ... SMALLER Government but not ANTI-Government.

Blue Collar as well as White. Re-addressing the "Reagan Democrats" who crossed over to the GOP because Reagan was a Union leader, closer to their views on social matters, and shifted the government do-gooding from a mysterious Washington DC-based monolith of Central Government to a more responsive "local control" and power to the states (and counties and cities) model.

With this, Santorum is more "center" in his stated views than even Paul Ryan. He distances himself only from the fringe elements of the tea party. He positions himself as
less extreme on foreign policy than Rand Paul ... while still still committed to some changes. And pillories the Democrat-light types that seem to win primaries due to the multiplicity of conservatives dividing that vote ... while receiving favorable press from the
Democrat-friendly press during GOP primary season.

The more I think of it ... the more I think Santorum might easily be an early front runner in the polls once they really start ... if he officially decides to run.

After successive national disasters with "moderate" John Mc Cain and "moderate-light" Mitt Romney ... Santorum's brand of pro-life, moderate economics per Government/Unions, and less radical foreign policy changes than Paul proposes ... is an interesting mix.

In 2016 Barack Obama and his unknown (Biden called it "clean") background and charismatic personality will be gone. Santorum's 2012 warning that the GOP was
conceding its best issue (BIG, Mandatory Health Care) by nominating Romney (known for doing just that on a smaller, state level) looks wiser and wiser as the Obamacare Titanic sinks taking the current insurance plans of millions with it.

I do expect him to be hated on once again. But that doesn't always relegate public figures to obscurity. Sometimes leaders weather the storms and come through.

[/quote]

Santorum carried MO! :thumbsup:


#11

He’s authentically Catholic which is good, but he often rubs people the wrong way. He needs to do a better job of reaching across the asile on matters which are not matters of faith.


#12

[quote="phil19034, post:11, topic:345659"]
He's authentically Catholic which is good, but he often rubs people the wrong way. He needs to do a better job of reaching across the asile on matters which are not matters of faith.

[/quote]

Such as???


#13

:thumbsup:


#14

[quote="CaptFun, post:8, topic:345659"]

He was Newt ... but with one solid marriage and no angry ex-spouse. A more mainstream and moderate "Christian" candidate than either Romney or Perry. Had more national and big state experience than Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain. A more moderate and mainstream "big change" than Ron Paul. But he wasn't able to overcome the unlimited funding his main rival had (although his fundraising increased exponentially as he won many states and threatened to take the lead in the primary at one point).

[/quote]

He wasn't Newt without the baggage. Newt was/is a much better debater and I think a keener intellect - perfectly comfortable with speaking on economic, fiscal, social, or foreign policy issues. I can't say that about Santorum.

[quote="CaptFun, post:8, topic:345659"]
While Santorum's conservative credentials are intact from having been the final conservative choice vs. more moderate Mitt Romney's candidacy ... this last quote shows Santorum carving out a new way to build the bigger tent ... SMALLER Government but not ANTI-Government.

[/quote]

The whole "smaller govt. but not anti-govt." seems like an unfair ad hominem attack on those who believe that spending is out of control. I don't think the Tea Party is anti-government, rather, they are anti-out of control debt/spending/taxation. We had the compassionate conservative under Bush - what it got was a lot of new spending. I think we need a candidate who understands the fiscal issues and threat to future generations that the out of control spending represents.

[quote="CaptFun, post:8, topic:345659"]
Blue Collar as well as White. Re-addressing the "Reagan Democrats" who crossed over to the GOP because Reagan was a Union leader, closer to their views on social matters, and shifted the government do-gooding from a mysterious Washington DC-based monolith of Central Government to a more responsive "local control" and power to the states (and counties and cities) model.

[/quote]

Don't think those blue collar voters helped Santorum much in his failed re-election bid in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, there aren't really any Reagan Democrats. They either are now Republicans or have died off. Any social conservatives who truly believe strongly in the pro-life/marriage issues do not vote Democrat anymore. The only ones who vote Democrat really do not care about those issues.

[quote="CaptFun, post:8, topic:345659"]
With this, Santorum is more "center" in his stated views than even Paul Ryan. He distances himself only from the fringe elements of the tea party. He positions himself as
less extreme on foreign policy than Rand Paul ... while still still committed to some changes. And pillories the Democrat-light types that seem to win primaries due to the multiplicity of conservatives dividing that vote ... while receiving favorable press from the
Democrat-friendly press during GOP primary season.

[/quote]

I'm not sure that Rand Paul's foreign policy is extreme. Again, those kinds of characterizations "extreme tea party" & "extreme foreign policy" seem intended to unfairly attack.

[quote="CaptFun, post:8, topic:345659"]
The more I think of it ... the more I think Santorum might easily be an early front runner in the polls once they really start ... if he officially decides to run.

After successive national disasters with "moderate" John Mc Cain and "moderate-light" Mitt Romney ... Santorum's brand of pro-life, moderate economics per Government/Unions, and less radical foreign policy changes than Paul proposes ... is an interesting mix.

In 2016 Barack Obama and his unknown (Biden called it "clean") background and charismatic personality will be gone. Santorum's 2012 warning that the GOP was
conceding its best issue (BIG, Mandatory Health Care) by nominating Romney (known for doing just that on a smaller, state level) looks wiser and wiser as the Obamacare Titanic sinks taking the current insurance plans of millions with it.

Agree with you there. Romney was not able to challenge Obama on the healthcare issue, but this was before the current fiasco. And rest assured, any attacks on Obama would have been deflected by the pro-Obama press - just like the Benghazi issue.

I do expect him to be hated on once again. But that doesn't always relegate public figures to obscurity. Sometimes leaders weather the storms and come through.

[/quote]

I am trying to put my finger on what bothers me about a Santorum candidacy. Much is said about Santorum's "center" policies or "moderation" compared to the extreme candidates. Do you know that a Santorum candidacy would be focused on constantly defending against "war on women" "war on gays" "ultra-right-wing Catholic" attacks that those other issues would not matter? Furthermore, I wasn't really impressed with his debate performances, nor his ability on the stump. His confrontation of Barbara Boxer on the abortion issue - exposing her for the infanticide supporter that she is, is the stuff of legend. Also, if he does run, he will bring the social issues to the debate and that is a good thing. That said, I don't think he is the most compelling candidate around. He's basically a former senator/ DC insider, who lost his re-election bid.

What are his views on Obamacare? Benghazi? Immigration? Reagan lost his bid for the nomination in 1976 against the moderate Ford. In the 4 years leading up to his 1980 run he was all over the place, debating the heavyweights on foreign policy, speaking out on the economic issues and being in the forefront of the issues. I don't see Santorum doing that, yet.

Ishii


#15

I would vote for Sen. Santorum in heartbeat. I voted for him when I lived in PA for Sen. I met him and his wife at a church conference - really nice folks.

Sen. Santorum is one of my pro-life heroes. I don't think I agree with all his positions on everything, but he is a thoughtful politician and practices I believe everyday holiness in a profession that all but makes it impossible to do so. He's certainly at least as sharp as Gov. Romney (did anyone think Romney was really "sharp"?)

He is not a conservative in the common use of the word - he holds some views that would be considered liberal or moderate. Look at his legislative record. But these should not be a problem for most conservatives. Actually, his record should be a drawing point for "moderates."

In MO, we had caucuses instead of primary elections, so I didn't get to vote for him. But my wife went to our local one, and she said that in our local caucus, Romney's people made a deal with Ron Paul's campaign so that Paul would win the caucus so that Santorum would not. That way, Romney would have a better chance in MO. It was all sneaky back-room deals. Romney did something similar in MI - making sure that all the delegates went to him, even though the MI party rules state that the delegates were to be apportioned among the vote getters.

I doubt that Santorum will ever play ball like that - which means it's possible he can't win. Nonetheless....

Santorum for President!


#16

Well stated - I think Santorum is a good man, and even though I have my reservations about him being the standard bearer in 2016, I would support him for president in a heartbeat.

Ishii


#17

[quote="TheLastWord, post:4, topic:345659"]
One of the most uninformed people i ever listened to. His arrogance alone disqualifies him for public service in my view. Also a very unkind person in my view. Not a nice person.

[/quote]

Liberal princess is that you?


#18

Thanks for your insightful response to my post. :thumbsup:


#19

Likewise, Captfun. :thumbsup:


#20

I have to give him credit for even considering running again considering all the abuse he has suffered from the left. I would have voted for him last time without question. I supported him above all the other candidates we had. I don’t agree with him on everything but I do think he is sincere and a faithful Catholic.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.