Silence on Santorum is Deafening

Catholic Online – Republican Establishment Sends Signals by Deacon Keith Fournier

The Silence on Santorum is DEAFENING – in the media and among these establishment Republicans. Have you seen a photo of Rick Santorum in news reports when the remaining field of Republican candidates is discussed? Or, consider when the Pundit class assembles on the screen to banter about the emerging field of Republican challengers to the President – be it on MSNBC to mock them or on FOX to pontificate about them – have you even heard the name of Senator Rick Santorum mentioned?

34 Responses to Silence on Santorum is Deafening

  • Paul Zummo says:

    I’d feel a whole lot worse for him if he hadn’t gotten Spector re-elected in 2004.

    Yes, Santorum endorsed Specter. Yes, it was a mistake. Whether or not the endorsement was what put Specter over the top is debatable. But to harp on this one decision when Santorum was the most vocal and active champion of the pro-life movement in the Senate is a bit ridiculous.

  • c matt says:

    Where does he stand on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”? I think I saw a picture recently on the internet with a bunch of GOP hopefuls at a debate with hands raised to indicate if they would approve of waterboarding. Can’t recall if Santorum was among the ones raising their hands or not, but I thought he was (Ron Paul, of course, did not raise his hand).

  • Jay Anderson says:

    It could just be that he sucks as a candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I like and admire Santorum. But he’s just not very presidential on the stump or in interviews and, quite honestly, has very limited appeal outside his pro-life Catholic base (and apparently even within that pro-life Catholic base).

    I was a Brownback supporter in 2008. Brownback consistently polled around 2-3% of the GOP field. It’s possible that Santorum has even less going for him than Brownback did.

  • Jay Anderson says:

    Yeah, what could John McCain possibly know about how enhanced interrogation works? What a maroon! It’s unforced errors like that that I’m talking about.

    Santorum spends way too much of his time trying to pull his foot out of his mouth and explain away previous bone-headed comments like “John McCain knows absolutely nothing about the subject of torture” to appear presidential in any way. When you listen to him speak, you feel dumber for having done so.

    And never mind that Santorum made this particular bone-headed comment in an effort to defend something that is intrinsically evil against the charges of someone who, despite his many faults, DOES know a thing or two about the subject..

  • D.L. Jones says:

    I would like to support Santorum, but I have my doubts. Reading the above Politico article I thought to myself that Sen. Santorum should read some writings and thought of William T. Cavanaugh.

    http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2005/10/william-t-cavanaugh.html

    On this specific topic one could ask if he holds either a Catholic or Neocon position? To be sure it is the latter. For someone who is a well-formed Catholic he should know better. I guess I was hoping (or expecting) for more from him.

    On a pratical political level though I also think it’s stupid. Why pick a fight with a former Republican Presidential nominee? It not only violates the Republican 11th Commandment but insults a former POW/Veteran and personally offends me as well.

    http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1105/meghan_mccain_comes_to_dads_defense.html

    On a related topic – Newt keeps sticking his foot in his month as well. Why make enemies of folks you don’t need to? It simply doesn’t make any sense. Run a positive campaign and cease from the mud throwing, cease with the extreme rhetoric. Just last night on FoxNews when he was giving his public apology to Rep. Ryan, Newt compared Iowa to North Korea. Wow. He is amazing and not in a good way. The guy simply can’t stop from opening mouth and inserting shoe.

    Things will begin to get interesting if Bachman, Huntsman & Daniels enter the race. I seriously doubt if I can support the later two, but Bachman possibly. She’s a fire-cracker and holds the right position regarding abortion, marriage & family, etc. Gov. Pawlenty seems to have a similiar temperment of Gov. Huckabee which is encouraging as well. Like so many others I cannot support Romney. I would be curious to hear folks views on them.

  • Pinky says:

    Santorum lost his Senate seat in 2006, which was a bloodbath year for the Republicans. If the social conservative vote would coalesce around him, he’d have a good starting base for the primaries. But a good chunk of the Republican Party has a belief that extremist candidates can’t win, and Santorum is viewed as an extremist *and* a loser. If he were a sitting Senator, with recorded “nay’s” on the stimulus and health care bills, he’d be in a very different position.

  • Jay Anderson says:

    I’m a maybe on all the above except Romney. Won’t support or vote for him under any circumstances.

    Huntsman is the most intriguing to me of the bunch, but I’m troubled about his positions on same-sex unions and global alarming.

    I like Bachman, but she seems to be Palin on steroids. I’d prefer Palin.

    Shallow as such thinking may be, Daniels will not fare well sharing the stage with Obama. Think Nixon-Kennedy debates. As for more substantive issues, I don’t like that his “truce” on social issues, which actually amounts to unilateral disarmament because we know full well the left won’t abide by any such “truce”. I don’t like that he appeared to be dragged kicking an screaming into signing the Indiana law that defunds Planned Parenthood. And I don’t like his saying that he would name the pro-”choice” Condi Rice as his running mate, not the least reason being that two Bush cronies at the top of a GOP ticket just spells trouble.

    I’m sorta holding out hope that someone like Virginia Gov. Bob McDonell will say “What the heck, I’ll jump in. I oughta to be able to beat this bunch of stiffs without even breaking a sweat.”

  • D.L. Jones says:

    Jonah Goldberg wrote an interesting article on this topic – A Sharper GOP Field
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/18/a_sharper_gop_field_109906.html

    I think we should give Gov. Pawlenty a hard look. He seems to have the right temperment, but also has the correct positions regarding life, marriage & family, stem-cell research, etc. He was also a successful governor. In the first debate his answers seemed reasonable and right on mark to me. What concerns me most about him is his leaving the Catholic Church for evangelicalism due to his wife’s influence, specifically to a Baptist church. That saddens me, someday he may return to the Holy Mother Church, but it’s not a deal-breaker for me.

  • Pinky says:

    I think that all of the major GOP candidates are generally pro-life; they’d all nominate strict constructionist judges. I just don’t think that this election is going to revolve around the abortion issue.

    This is the part of the election where the pro wrestlers are putting on their makeup. One guy is going to be a biker dude, another’s dressing up as an Indian chief. The personas have nothing to do with how they’ve stood on the issues, or what they would govern like. I think that Paul, Daniels, and Pawlenty have pro-life track records, that Romney knows that a double-switch means political oblivion, and that no one else is polling over 2%.

  • Pinky says:

    DL – Interesting article. I guess you could say that Pawlenty comes off best in the article, because he was only mentioned for half a sentence and wasn’t mocked. But there’s no campaign office that’s going to be hanging that article on their press clippings wall.

  • Alma Peregrina says:

    Hello, D.L. Jones:

    As a portuguese guy, I don’t know many of your politicians, so I can’t judge if Santorum would be a good President or not.

    All I can say about this topic is that the media’s silence is not exclusive to the USA. When 10 homosexual guys gather to protest some kind of “prejudice” or “repression”, all the journalists follow them like vultures around a carcasse. But let thousands (no kidding!) pro-marriage protest on the street’s capital and… silence. The only reference on the news was about 10 anti-communist nazis that decided to join the pro-marriage rally.

    Likewise with politicians. We have 5 political parties in the Assembleia da República (our Congress). Three are actively prochoice and the other 2 are prolife or, what I really mean, “I-really-don’t-care-all-that-matters-is-the- economy-so-give-me-your-votes-already!”.

    Sigh… it is impossible to elect (real!) pro-life politicians like this.

    On a sidenote, I would like to tell you, my friend, that I have completed my video about Theology of the Body. If you have the time, please check it out

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qc4x98gH0E

    Pax Christi, my friend.

  • Dale Price says:

    Santorum is a decent guy, but he lacks that extra something necessary to be chief executive.

    I’m inclined to think Pawlenty would be fine, but I’ll admit that part about jettisoning Catholicism is news to me, and troubling.

    Bachmann….yeesh. No sale. The problems I have with Palin, multiplied by two orders of magnitude, and without Palin’s charm. Yeah, you’d get to 35%, but no more.

    Romney–he actually impressed me last week by not flip-flopping on RomneyCare. But there are a whole lotta flip-flops still on the record. Hmmmm…now that I think about it, that might explain the strange political about face of the former Ambassador to Malta.

    Daniels…I can’t get a bead on him, but I’m inclined to think he’s crazy like a fox. Feint to the center rhetorically, then govern to the right. He’s certainly not giving any red meat rhetoric that the left can use to frighten low-information independents. I think Jay’s point about Kennedy-Nixon is one to keep in mind, but all the charisma in the world isn’t going to help Obama if unemployment stays mired between 8.5 and 9% and inflation grinds along at 3%. Plus, he won’t be the fresh-faced newcomer, and he’s more than a little overexposed in the speechifying department. The electorate may be more primed for the mild-mannered technocratic type by then.

    The latest rumblings from Jay’s former front porch are interesting–a Rick Perry buzz is starting to become audible. I don’t know enough about his record to be inclined to like that development.

  • Joe Green says:

    We need neither a moron nor a mormon in the White House. Alas, looking over the pathetic GOP choices — Mitch Daniels?! (sounds like a heavyweight boxer) — it appears a good bet Obama will win a second term.

    The demographics alone favor him. Forget the issues. Bam’s got the black vote, the Latin vote, the gay vote, the union vote and, depending who the Repubs nominates, probably a chunk of independents and the rest of the lefties. Huckabee/Trump/Barbour all realized they didn’t have a chance of being elected. Romney may have lots of money, but he lacks charisma, a message and will be playing defense the whole campaign, trying to explain RomneyCare.

    Sorry to say, but unless someone pops out out of nowhere, Obama will be a two-term president.

  • T. Shaw says:

    Joe,

    Have you noticed that every piece of economic bad news is “unexpected”?

    The GOP nominee likely does not mean a thing.

    Obama, Geithner, Frank, Dodd, and the Bernank have inflicted irreparable damage on the private (not big dem donors Goldman Sachs, hedge funds, Soros, etc.) sector.

    There are 4.3 persons applying for each job opening. Add the real inflation rate to the real unemployment rate and you get a 25 Misery Index. That bests Carter’s record of 22.

    Since President Obama took control, Federal spending soared 30 percent zooming from $2.9 Trillion to $3.8 Trillion in 2011.

    In 30 years, the national debt has risen from $1 trillion to $14.3 trillion, and is projected to reach $21 trillion by 2016. Obama increased the national debt by more than $3 trillion in 2 years.

    Stick a fork in the dollar.

    So, you may as well vote for him again.

  • Joe Green says:

    Shaw, can’t argue with much of what you said except the last sentence. Obama didn’t get vote the first time around and won’t the next.

  • Art Deco says:

    Santorum is a decent guy, but he lacks that extra something necessary to be chief executive

    Bingo. The extra something is ever having been any kind of executive. His career ‘ere entering politics was truncated as well, and he has had no military service either. Appealing fellow in many respects, though.

    The precarious relations several occidental countries have with the bond market and the chicken games our legislators are playing with each other over the debt ceiling and the budget make the next 18 months especially unpredictable in the economic realm and consequently the political realm. In times of normal politics, our chief executives appear to be sorted into those who suffer a progressive loss of public esteem (Truman, Johnson, Carter, Bush I, Bush II) and those who have alternating periods of advance and retreat (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton). If Obama is type I, one might wager that just about any presentable opponent would prevail (given his diminished stature already).

  • Joe Green says:

    Art…well said, but who might be a “presentable opponent” at this point? And I would concede that much can happen in 18 months, but right now, the GOP appears to be rather thin in the top ranks.

  • Joe Green says:

    Posted without comment. Speaks for itself:

    FRONT ROYAL, Va., May 18, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Rob Clayton, Executive Director of the American Redneck Society, announced today the formation of the Redneck Political Alliance.

    As 2010 drew to a close, the nation witnessed the birth of the American Redneck Society, established to bring benefits to millions of rednecks throughout the country. As the nation draws closer to a new presidential election year, the American Redneck Society wants to add another benefit to its menu . . . an opportunity to let elected representatives know what issues concern American rednecks.

    Clayton commented, “The Redneck Political Alliance will not endorse any candidate or political party but rather will give American rednecks a chance to let elected officials know if they’re LEJIT. Like its sister organization, the American Political Alliance has a sense of country and a sense of humor, even if it doesn’t have a sense of spelling.”

    The Redneck Political Alliance rating system focuses on the core values that LEJIT spells out:

    * Limited Government: Are American politicians growing government or keeping it in check? Are they operating within the constitution or outside of it? Are American politicians using our military to defend our nation or the United Nations?
    * Erasing the deficit: Rednecks know that a government which spends beyond its means is a government that is stealing from their youngins . . . spending more than taxpayers can afford today and expecting future generations to pay off staggering debts.
    * Job creation: Hard-working and fun-loving rednecks need and want jobs. Are elected officials creating an environment in the USA for job creation or an environment which encourages companies to ship jobs overseas?
    * Immigration reform: All Americans are descendants of immigrants. Likewise, rednecks are proud of their ancestors, but are sick and tired of illegal immigrants taking jobs and receiving benefits that should be reserved for U.S. citizens and legal residents.
    * Tax Reduction: Rednecks pay enough in taxes. Is the “government of the people” increasing or decreasing taxes?

    Clayton concluded, “Initially, we’ll be asking folks to grade politicians according to these 5 criteria. Soon, we’ll be grading candidates for president and letting folks know whether they’re LEJIT.”

    To complete the Redneck Political Alliance’s first survey, visit: http://www.americanrednecksociety.com/redneck-survey.

    SOURCE American Redneck Society

  • Art Deco says:

    ‘Presentable’ would be a candidate who…

    1. Was not a Republican equivalent of George McGovern, and…

    2. Was not possessed of manifest character and personality defects (of a sort which were seldom obtrusive to the public prior to around about 1987).

    Ron Paul and (perhaps) Michele Bachman might fall under the first category and Dr. Gingrich and (perhaps) Gov. Roemer or John Bolton under the second.

  • Joe Green says:

    Art, would hate to see “presentable” defined negatively. Your criteria are what they would “not” be, rather than on what they are. Gingrich has too much baggage, already shot himself in the foot badly, Paul is fringy and Bachman lacks gravitas. How about Giuliani?

  • T. Shaw says:

    Joe,

    Does the Redneck Political Alliance have any good road kill recipes?

    Does anyone think he has a shot at the GOP nomination? The one and only potential candidate that would make me vote for Obama is Elliot Spitzer.

  • D.L. Jones says:

    Bruce & others,

    Like so many others the first Republican debate was the first time I ever heard the guy and I was impressed. The unofficial test pool on FoxNews were nearly unanimous that he won the debate. I was intrigued and went to his website and checked out his on-line booklets as well. The moral issues (abortion, family & marriage, stem-cell research, etc.) were no where to be found. The Wikipedia article is helpful and he seems to be right on those issues, but his lack of visibility on them tells me he is running a secular campaign which will fit well with so many establishment Republicans who support Daniels, etc. He seems to me to just be a toned-down and PC version of Trump. Not to mention, being a former Fed. Reserve Director (KC), and his lack of concern about our current monetary policies (i.e. auditing the Fed) tells me he has no real intentions in making a real difference where it will really count. Most importantly, he has never been elected to any office at any level. He will not survive a national campaign in the GOP nor is he capable of defeating a Democrat machinery in a general election.

    The best shot we have is to nominate a former governor who is right on the moral issues and has a good temperament. In the end I don’t know if it will matter anyway. Obama is going to push Biden aside and put Clinton on his ticket as VP. I don’t think a Republican has a chance in this election cycle unless the economy continues to tank downward. Our best hope is Jeb Bush in 2016. Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. If anybody else finds that humorous let me know.

    All joking aside, if Bachman enters the race I think she could win the Republican nomination. Her conservatives credentials are solid, her Tea Party affliation, mothering and visible support by Momma Grizzy, her ability to fundraise, her ability to mobilize social conservatives, her gender (a modern Margaret Thatcher?)… All these factors would make her as a credibile candidate against Gov. Romney and Pres. Obama. Will the GOP establishment support her though? I doubt it. Romney (for now) or Daniels (if he enters) seems to be their “man” and they will co-opt her to be his VP nominee.

    What say you?

  • D.L. Jones says:

    Returning to the subject of the main post/article – I state as a matter of fact that very solid, well-formed Catholics are advising Sen. Santorum. Both he and his fam. are serious and practicing Catholics. Pray for him and his fam. Many demands, pressures and advice are being given to him, but I have great hope that he will follow the Truth. Sen. Santorum is a good man, a good Catholic and a great American. Pray my friends for him and his fam.

  • Art Deco says:

    All joking aside, if Bachman enters the race I think she could win the Republican nomination.

    There have been four or five occasions where one or another major party nominated someone whose most prominent and consequential public position was a seat in the U.S. House (or less). Three of them were prominent in fields outside of electoral politics and a fourth was a veteran representative who had chaired the appropriations committee. I would tend to doubt Mrs. Bachmann’s campaign will defy precedent so thoroughly.

    Not to mention, being a former Fed. Reserve Director (KC), and his lack of concern about our current monetary policies (i.e. auditing the Fed)

    Why don’t you trade that for an audit of some other agency with an equally modest operating budget (e.g. the Securities and Exchange Commission)?

  • D. Bonk says:

    “Yeah, what could John McCain possibly know about how enhanced interrogation works? What a maroon! It’s unforced errors like that that I’m talking about.”

    Yeah, the media loves a fight among Republicans and Santorum should have been more careful in the way he said it…but at its core he is correct. First, beyond say the first couple of weeks there was very little John McCain could have provided to the North Vietnamese in the way of useful intelligence and there was nothing subtle in the way the North Vietnamese tried to extract information.

    John McCain was not exposed to enhanced interrogation techniques he was subjected to cruel forms of torture for the sake of punishing him for various infractions. He refused to participate in the Communist propoganda program and for that he was tortured. He refused to accept being released earlier than his fellow prisioners and for that he was abused. I have great respect for McCain and the spirit he showed as a captive but I don’t agree with his opinion on enhanced interrogation and I think Santorum was correct to try and point that out, just wrong in the way he did it.

  • Jane Yavis says:

    Perhaps now you are able to understand the heartache Pro life Catholics endured during the deafening silence of the Church and media during the 2004 Senatoral Primary in Pennsylvania. When Rick Santorum was told by his pro-life Boss President Bush, to come with him to Philadelphia on the last week-end of the Republican Primary to endorse and fund raise for loosing in the Polls Specter (CHOICE) over winning in the polls Toomey (LIFE). That same Church and Media has been doing nothing but Stalking the Casey, Kerry and Biden family on their Communion habits.

    We got Specter and anyone that called the office to ask why was told, “He really didn’t want to,,,,,but when the President tells you to do something…”

    Santorum put Life back 10 years by his actions,,,,and the church said NOTHING.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .