Dear Fellow Conservatives,
Having examined in the last letter, Senator Santorum’s proposals, we turn to the issue of Santorum’s character and capacity to be President.
The Senator made a remarkable case for himself on Monday. Using an absurd question from moderator Brian Williams, Santorum reminded the audience of big picture issues that separate the candidates in the race. Both Gingrich and Romney had spoke up for Cap and Trade, and the Wall Street bail out. Gingrich spent twenty years advocating for an individual mandate and RomneyCare served as a template for Obamacare. Santorum has been right from the beginning on all three vital issues and reminded voters:
Again, huge, huge differences between my position and where President Obama is, but not so on two major issues. You go down and you look at the Wall Street bailouts, I said before, here’s one where you had folks who preach conservativism, private sector, and when push came to shove, they got pushed. They didn’t stand tall for the conservative principles that they argued that they were for. And as a result, we ended up with this bailout that has injected government into business like it had never been done before.
They rejected conservativism when it was hard to stand. It’s going to be hard to stand whoever this president is going to be elected. It’s going to be tough. There is going to be a mountain of problems. It’s going to be easy to be able to bail out and compromise your principles.
We have gentlemen here on the three issues that got the Tea Party started, that are the base of the conservative movement now in the Republican Party. And there is no difference between President Obama and these two gentlemen. And that’s why this election in Florida is so critical, that we have someone that actually can create a contrast between the president and the conservative point of view.
It’s worth remembering more just our angst against Obama, but what has caused the rise of the Tea Party movement, and that is the mass betrayal of conservative values, which set the stage for the massive growth of government we’ve seen in the past four years. We must have a President who will stand firm and not shrink in the face of adversity.
Santorum described himself in another debate, “I’m not the most flamboyant, and I don’t get the biggest applause lines here. But I’m steady. I’m solid.”
Steady, solid, and steadfast may not be the words that create great excitement, but they are exactly the character traits we need in a President in these times.
Santorum, once he commits to an effort is relentless in the fight, regardless of the personal cost to him. The typical political advice to a swing state Senator would be told to avoid going to bat on social issues, as if God wanted him to speak out on social issues he would have been elected in Texas.
Santorum didn’t come to Washington with the intent of leading the fight against partial birth abortion. When he delivered his first speech on the issue in 1995, it was his first time giving a major speech on abortion. He would spend the next eight years leading that floor fight, often standing alone in the wee hours of the night debating an emotionally difficult issue.
He stood firm for the rights of the unborn and for traditional values, and for it he and his family have been subjected to the vilest attacks from the far left on him and his family, but yet he stands firm. He has done the same thing on other issues including Social Security Reform where his advocacy of necessary changes has not made him popular with the AARP.
Santorum’s experience in standing firm is relevant because he was right because that’s what we need. Fundamentally, the solutions to our country’s problems are not hard to solve. But it’s hard to pursue these solutions in the case of a strong headwind. We need a President who can stand firm in the face of savage opposition to purse the changes that our necessary to preserve our country’s economic future.
Santorum is the only candidate in this race with a proven record of political courage.
He’s also a straight shooter, who doesn’t play political games in the truth. Quin Hilyer of National Review wrote, “It strikes me that Rick Santorum is about the most determinedly anti-political top-level politician I’ve ever witnessed. No matter what state he is debating in, he refuses to find some wiggle room on issues where his position is at odds with a deeply held local position.” Rick Santorum is the same person and the same candidate whether he’s speaking in Iowa or Florida.
Long time conservative activist Dennis Mansfield followed Santorum through his rise to power and to his defeat and happened upon him in a lobby of a hotel standing alone and unrecognized, an uncomfortable state for many ego-driven politicians. Mansfield observed, “It did not seem to bother him at all. He looked like a man at peace with himself – not caring if anyone recognized him at all.” You can be at a piece, even with a lost, when you have stood firm and fought for what you believed to be right,
Supporters of Speaker Newt Gingrich have championed the idea that the Speaker’s greatest strength is his ability as a debater. I will concede that Newt would win the debates on points, but political debate wins on points are not decisive, A.J. Nolte pointed out recently, Alan Keyes won all three of his debates with Barack Obama was swamped by more than forty points.
We’re not electing a debate club champion or America’s top talk show guest, we’re electing a President. Having a nominee that will smackdown and disrespect the sitting President of the United States on national television is viscerally appealing to conservatives, but it won’t help win the election or change the country. It doesn’t look presidential to those voters who will pick the president.
In the course of the primary debates, Santorum has been steady, knowledgeable, and principled with no major errors. He’s been steady and consistent. He can deliver firm and clear answers and offer Americans a clear choice in the general election.
Mr. Gingrich and many other candidates have played taken turns playing the role of the hare in the classic Aesop fable, while Mr. Santorum has been the tortoise, consistent and steady in the face of long odds. I can only hope that real life lives up to the fable.
Of course, no candidate is perfect and Senator Santorum is no exception. In our next number, we’ll examine some of Senator Santorum’s negatives.
January 26th, 2012 at 8:32 am
No, sorry man. Santorum is too sanctimonious and dull.
January 26th, 2012 at 8:43 am
Adam, I would gladly vote for Santorum over our current candidates, however at this point I believe there is a pretty good chance he want be around by the time Georgia gets to vote.
Santorum is not the greatest candidate and I definitely have some issues with him, but he is much better than our two front runners and I believe is much more electable than Gingrich or Romney.
January 26th, 2012 at 8:46 am
This election is about the economy, the debt, the budget and jobs. We select and honorable man as our nominee who has the business and government turnaround experience and then we use our own families, communities and our religions to work on the so con issues. Sorry Santorum while I agree with you on the so issues, it is not you this time.
January 26th, 2012 at 8:47 am
*an*
January 26th, 2012 at 8:59 am
Dont get all the talk of a new candidate entering the race when sen santorum is a viable option.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:07 am
Scott Rasmussen
@RasmussenPoll Scott Rasmussen
Florida #GOP Primary: #Romney 39%, #Gingrich 31%, #Santorum 12%, #Paul 9%… http://tinyurl.com/bsm8l8u
January 26th, 2012 at 9:10 am
Speaking as a socially progressive independent, Santorum would probably be eaten alive the moment he stepped into the primary election. He has very toxic issues with those of us that go far beyond his little “google problem”, especially his opposition to Griswold v Connecticut’s “right to privacy” decision on contraception which most people, the pro-life crowd included, can agree on. As much as his conviction might be admired, it would also be considered a dangerous threat to secular law to those who don’t prescribe to his personal religious views.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:21 am
Santorum WAS in favor of an individual mandate too. The stress is getting to him.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:23 am
#7 If the country hates god so much that they cant vote for santorum then we deserve Obama for a 2nd term to destroy this land.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Let’s concede for the moment that Santorum’s is the pure, unsullied voice of a political John the Baptist, crying repentance in the wilderness. However, this is a dirty, grubby, polyglot world comprising fiercely contending voices that do not share the same world view with one another–let alone with John the Baptist. The political reality is unsuited to the ideological leadership style of a John the Baptist. Carter was and is possessed of a similar leadership style, and his intransigence for the sake of ideological consistency made him one of the worst presidents in history.
That doesn’t mean that having good character and a functioning moral compass aren’t important. Our president should possess high character and a have good moral compass. But he should also have the flexibility to lead in an effective manner (as conservatively as circumstances will allow)–not in a “to hell with you all, ye children of the vile one–I know what’s right” ideologically pure manner. Reagan’s brilliance lay in his intuitive understanding of this.
To further the biblical allusion, our president should be as pure (i.e., harmless) as a dove at his personal core but as wise as a serpent in leading the nation. Santorum does not seem particularly wise in that way. Otherwise, I like Santorum a lot. Just my opinion.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:32 am
AJ at 9, you are confusing your love of a candidate with how others feel about God, and it’s a petty argument to make.
While Santorum is not my guy, I could happily vote for him in the general, despite the fact that I disagree with him on the extent the government should be involved in our bedrooms. Nevertheless, he has been a true warrior when it comes to the rights of the unborn and in the protection of traditional marriage. And he would certainly be better than President Obama.
Adam should be commended for this post.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:38 am
#11 my point was to #7 Santorum is far from my ideal camdidate but my point was to him that to all the people who hate the religious right so much that theyde rather vote obama knowing itll continue the financial ruin deserve what they get.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Santorum, while a good man in many respects, does not strike me as wise. He doesn’t have the balance, that charisma or persuasion to sway other power brokers and law makers. He is too full of himself. He says really stupid racial things. He’s good at being indignant, but that isn’t what we need right now.
That along with some of his busybody notions, I can’t say I’m all that impressed. Is he better than Obama…yes. Would I vote for him over Obama…yes. And I can’t say that for Gingrich.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:48 am
A person who manages to claim the position of “evangelical leader” in Iowa caucuses, if that person has required political and communication skills, and charisma to be a good presidential nominee, that candidate will totally crush the competition in Iowa, like Huckabee and GWB did. Santorum didn’t.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:48 am
If Newt were our nom in the general election, I would not vote for him. I would write Mitt’s name in. I would vote for almost any Pub I can think of over Obama, but not Newt.
He is not a sane man; he is not a good man. Completely unpredictable and untrustworthy. He’s vindictive and mendacious. He should be nowhere near any government power.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:50 am
Dick Morris claims Santorum has a future in GOP politics. I think not. SixMom and Teemu pretty much sum up the reasons why.
January 26th, 2012 at 10:00 am
@aj rabin: I think you may be confusing what secularism means. It’s not a rejection of the christian god, but a recognition that not everyone believes in the christian god, and should therefore not be forced into following that god’s religious tenets without a clear, evidence based state interest.
For those of you concerned about the world ending if Obama wins the 2012 election, don’t worry. The left in this country survived two terms of Bush, despite their “end of the world” viewpoint, so chances are, you’ll survive two terms of Obama.
January 26th, 2012 at 10:24 am
#17 Im not a christian but this country was founded on judeo-christian values which the left seems to forget.
January 26th, 2012 at 10:45 am
@aj rabin: This country was founded on judeo-christian values? I’m not sure what that means. The people who founded this country, while predominantly christian, did not codify the bible into law. Nor did they declare the US to be a judeo-christian theocracy. Are you trying to suggest that we should give special consideration to a certain opinion, simply because it was widely held among the people who founded this country? Wasn’t this country also founded by slavers? Why isn’t that fact taken into consideration?
January 26th, 2012 at 10:54 am
The bailouts were necessary and, unfortunately, horribly mishandled. Obama knew he would be able to take the reigns of this program so he encouraged it. Bush naively went along and promoted it. I have to trust Romney, a Harvard educated business and law graduate, that the bailouts were necessary to save the economy and the weakened dollar.
“And as a result, we ended up with this bailout that has injected government into business like it had never been done before.”
I disagree with the above statement. If you take a look at what President Andrew Jackson was up to, you would find that because of his interference in the financial system his laws directly caused the Panic of 1837 and led to a deep depression (of which scholars of Mormon history are aware of its influences.)
It is interesting that the US was completely debt free under Andrew Jackson, but because of the depression he caused the US went into massive debt again. The government has had a heavy hand in the private sector many, many times during its 136 year history. It’s just that this one was necessary to save a financial collapse (which it did, but as inefficiently as possible.)
January 26th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Ellie: I think you’re confusing Santorum with his supporters. His arguments against the things you don’t like aren’t arguments from biblical truth, but secular reasoning. That reasoning is informed by his Roman Catholicism of course, but that doesn’t mean he wants to impose it, any more than Romney wants to impose Mormonism or Obama wants to impose the African-American branch of the United Church of Christ. But candidates with religious views–which is all of them because there’s no such thing as a “religiously neutral candidate”–are going to be shaped by that context. If you don’t like his views, don’t vote for him, but don’t act like he somehow violates the tenets of secularism just because he holds them.
January 26th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Move on already Ads!
Even Santy has (literally!).
January 26th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@AJNolte: Santorum was on CNN recently, saying that he would ban gay marriage in all states. If he released a secular reason for why he’d do that, I haven’t seen it. Instead, what he gave us was a religious justification, stating his belief that his god created marriage for one man and one woman only.