Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
The Devil and Rick Santorum

By The Editors


Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send

Rick Santorum at Ave Maria University in 2008


Text  
Comments
223

Critics of Senator Santorum’s moral and religious views, especially in the media, have not been wholly scrupulous about identifying what they are before attacking them. He has been described, falsely, as an advocate of banning contraception. A dated joke about birth control made by one of his major supporters has been treated as a campaign scandal. A remark about Obama’s misguided environmental “theology” has been turned into an insinuation that the president is not a Christian.

But the press has not had to invent controversial remarks by Santorum, who has supplied them himself. He has said that Satan is undermining America, in part by corrupting mainline Protestantism; that liberal versions of Christianity are distortions of the creed; that as president he would speak out against birth control, and that states should be free to prohibit it; and that John McCain “doesn’t have any” religious views.

Some of his comments are indefensible, and even some of Santorum’s defensible assertions would have been better left to someone else — someone not seeking the presidency — to say. Santorum’s remarks about Senator McCain were unwise and uncharitable. Nor do we need political leaders to share their theological judgments about the various denominations that call themselves Christian. There is no good reason for a prospective president to pledge to lecture Americans about contraception.

Social conservatives have an understandable and mostly laudable impulse to defend Santorum. He is one of us, he has fought for our causes, and he has the political scars to prove it. Santorum is not one of those Republicans about whom Richard Brookhiser once remarked, “In their hearts they know they’re wrong.” He seems serenely confident that with enough time he can change anyone’s mind on the issues. But he has not always shown that he knows how to pick his battles wisely, or that he understands that voters want a president with a suitably modest conception of a president’s proper role in national life. At an intellectual level Santorum must understand these points: He has not repeated his comment about using the presidency to turn the culture away from contraception. The challenge before him is to marry his self-confidence to a more consistent exercise of discrimination and tact.

If he does not heed this lesson, he risks doing damage to the causes he rightly holds dear. Already his inopportune remarks about contraception have lent an undeserved credibility to liberaldom’s claim that a Republican “war on contraception” rather than a Democratic attack on freedom is what underlies the debate over the Obama administration’s new regulations. 

We have defended Santorum many times in the past and will happily continue to do so. We do wish he would leave himself exposed a bit less often. 

Text  

You Might Also Like...

McCarthy: Christie Is Not One of Us

Trinko: Cruz Reaches for a Runoff

Costa: How Hatch Wooed Palin, and the Right

Costa: Red-Hued New Jersey?

Trinko: For Mitt Romney, It’s 1994

Goldberg: Obama, Romney, and the ‘Social Market’



COMMENTS   223

EXPAND  

Jodie Pessolano
   02/24/12 05:17

Keep in mind that these comments were not made as a Presidential candidate. They were theological comments by a private citizen 3 years ago. Are you suggesting that anyone who has expressed theological opinions is unqualified to be President?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 11:02

Only if those opinions offend moderates and liberals.

Then again, everything offends moderates and liberals.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
David M
   02/24/12 19:14

ONly if those opinions offend moderates or National Review. But I repeat myself.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
reupert
   02/26/12 13:07

You cannot offend the majority of the electorate, and expect to be elected

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
JacobiteIamtheregistereduserJacobite
   02/27/12 23:00

Fine, so you tell the truth and you lose. But electing Romney will accomplish nothing, as he will never repeal ObamaCare. If you think he will go after O'bwana anywhere nearly as hard as he has against Newt or Santorum, you are a big enough fool to think we can save America by lowering marginal tax rates.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 11:18

Last October, Santorum made known his intention to speak out about the alleged evils of contraception.

External Link 

This stuff is all over YouTube and the Internet.
You can no longer play denial games.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 12:22

Of course, he's entitled to his opinions, theological and otherwise. But those opinions don't suddenly become off-limits because he has decided he sees a president every time he looks in the mirror.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 17:15

No, Jodie. Expressing a theological opinion does not make someone "unqualified" to be president. However, primaries are meant to help us determine who is MOST qualified to be the standard-bearer of the party. Thus, expressing views that most women reject would seem to make him less qualified than he would have been otherwise, not to mention a less attractive candidate to represent the Republican party.

Then again, given the current field of candidates, being the least unqualified and least unattractive candidate might just be good enough to seal the candidacy.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Rick Acosta
   02/24/12 23:08

So expressing views not popular to a certain group, in this case women, makes you unqualified?! Great! Then I disqualify all of the Republican Candidates. I want a candidate who will address my groups concerns - you know I am a Mexican-American. And these immigration policies that these Republicans espouse are so racist and hurt my "gente's" chances to survive in this country. You know because most of us Mexicans do not like those "views". C'mon!

I for one do not want a nominee (or a President) pandering to this group or that group in order to gain votes. I want a nominee to be talking to each American (individual) by explaining how he/she will be protecting our liberty, unleashing our economy, protecting freedom of speech, religion and philosophy. I want a nominee to show and prove to us that they will govern through the Constitution and fight the Goliath we know as the Federal Government. (I do not expect a perfect candidate).

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
History Buff
   02/24/12 06:28

"But the press has not had to invent controversial remarks by Santorum, who has supplied them himself.."

Hmm...that's the exact opposite of what his defenders have been saying on the blogs.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Coach Sal
   02/24/12 06:39

Could it be, perhaps, that Santorum's "paper trail" is due to the fact that he has not been actively campaigning for the presidency since puberty? Believe me, I get the criticism. And I voted for Romney in the SC primary. But what does it say about us as social conservatives if we begin with the default position that saying what we believe is a losing proposition? I thought that kind of disingenuousness was part of the other guys' platform. The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether there are not more votes to be picked up on the margins of the "silent majority" than among self-described moderates... it seems like the latter always love the most-moderate Republican, right up until they finally get the opportunity to vote for the Democrat.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Mike C.
   02/24/12 21:39

Coach Sal:

Right on.

I am one of the 'silent majority' you refer to.

I was encouraged by Santorum's stand to tie the decline of the family to overall economic and social decay.

I think there are more like me than the media and Leftists dare to dream of.

We are called Christians. There are a few of us left. And we are now being persecuted. Santorum is standing up to that.

I am a small business owner/operator. I am a contractor. I am a 'stick to the economy ' conservative in many respects. I have very strong libertarian (more like Constitutionalist) streak. But I still recognize the leftist attack on traditional values and the family. If the American social fabric unravels due to a loss of virtue and basic decency, the civil, political, and economic fabric will unravel. It is hard to find people my age who want to work hard to earn a living. Any true businessman worth their salt knows the importance that work ethic, integrity, honesty, and values plays in a free enterprise system. Without these values we will continue to see an erosian of the 'productive class' and a growing reliance on Government.

We can win this Presidency (and win a battle) but if we aren't going to stand up for what is right..we will loose the war. Given where we really are we need to be brave, bold, honest, and ready to take a stand.

We will need faith and the courage to defend someone who is being torn down and degraded simply for saying what we believe in our hearts is right. Who are we not to get in his corner and remind the media elite what are real power is?

We need to stop being afraid and stand-up...with Santorum.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 06:49

Rick would do better to point out that the Father of Lies tries to undermine each and every one of us as well as our institutions. It would be just as true as his more controversial statements on the subject while being politically unassailable.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 06:53

Why would anybody not allow
a candidate speak his mind.
I want a president without a modest conception of his role as president.
Romney and Gingrich are not the answers.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 07:13

I am sorry, but National Review Online has been all over the spectrum in it's support of political candidates to the point of losing its credibility. This quick note piece about Santorum's questionable past comments is laughable, and it should really go more in depth of how his comments are going to play to the general population.

I have tried to explain to my political junkie friends that for us that follow the primaries, there is a huge divide between us and "them" being most of the United States who could care less of the GOP's primary race. However, the importance about "Them" is that their vote counts just the same as ours, but their votes actually count more due to the fact that there is a helleva a lot more of "Them".

"Them" watch Jersey Shore, the Voice, American Idol, Lifetime, etc..., if they do read about political issues, then they read from their local newspaper where 85% of the articles come from the New York Times, Washington Post, and the AP. "Them" may not even realize that their political intakes are distorted to the Left.

While some of "Us" group complains about how unfair Drudge was to put the 2008 video of Santorum's comments of Satan on his blog, the reality is that if it wasn't Drudge, it would be NBC and the Obama camp in the general election playing it in October 2012 repeatedly scaring the hell out of "Them." How many of "All" likes it when some one questions our religious practices and that of others? This is not a general election topic winner.

Santorum is not an acceptable GOP candidate, nor is Newt Gingrich. I am afraid that I am tainted by the "Them" mentality. Why there is a political world I want to believe in, I really think now that when it comes to the general election, our only chance is nominating some one who is nice looking, accomplished, and who hasn't been in Washington for over 20 years and has been on the record of saying outlandish remarks that can be played repeatedly via You Tube and throughout the MSM. Going by the national ethos today, when was the last time the nation elected an unattractive President? Sorry to be so jaded here, but to support my conclusion I would throw into evidence the Kennedy/Nixon debate.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 11:20

You think Obama is better looking than Santorum? I don't. I think reasonable people can differ here. We don't have the Nixon-Kennedy or Reagan-Carter contrast.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
hman
   02/24/12 15:40

Hello, my name is Them, and while I don't watch any of those TV shows, I do read those newspapers as well as NRO.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 07:19

Thank you, finally an intelligent comment on Santorum. The man certainly has a right to his beliefs, many which I share, but a political race is not the area to make such a priority. Blaming the Liberal press is not fair either as he has been the one to emphaize it and make the statements. At least Santorum has the conservative press on his side, Romney has both Liberals and Conservative writers and talkers against him as well as Obama, does that make all of you correct. NO. It is becoming apparent that the Right merely wants to denigrate the field in order to get some control at the convention. Sorry, you do not get to pick. Romney 2012

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 11:47

He made these comments 4 years ago.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 12:32

Pretty much everything Romney ever did or said that he takes heat for happened more than 4 years ago.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact