Santorum’s Hour

The Hero of the day: Rick Santorum

I am sitting at home, trying to digest the Iowa results.

What has happened is, to put it bluntly, huge. Those non-Americans among us who have followed Santorum since last summer knew (erm, thought to know) that his was a pure flag candidature, very useful to give more relevance to pro-life issues but without any chance at all to make it to the nomination in real life.

I would be very naive if I would tell you that I have changed my mind now. If the past is any guidance, Santorum will be drowned in the next couple of weeks by the Romney war machine – no doubt, covertly attacking him as they did with Gingrich; it is very interesting how the PACs can be used to outsource nastiness; I think Gingrich will learn the lesson too … – and by the growing awareness that he is, however you try to twist and turn it,  not a mainstream candidate. More likely than not, he will be the Huckabee of Iowa 2012. Still huge of course, but not a nomination.

Still, what happened in Iowa shows in my eyes the great force of social conservatism in America, a force we in Europe can only dream about. All those Evangelicals endorsing, of all men, an extremely orthodox Catholic show the ability to coagulate around a man – not this time, most certainly; but probably in future – able to openly defend pro-life and social conservative values and to lead his agenda to Republican nomination and eventual electoral victory.

Perhaps yesterday’s caucus, and the events that will follow until Santorum abandons, will be remembered in the years to come as the equivalent of Ronald Reagan’s “time for choosing” speech(es): as the phase in which he puts himself in front of a national audience as a valid candidate to incarnate serious, solid conservative values for an entire country, not for a minority of hardliners.

I still can’t imagine this will be Santorum’s nomination year. It’s not that I wouldn’t dream of it or that I enjoy defeatism, merely that I do not want my excitement to eclipse common sense. It’s still a very long shot, though the shot has just become a damn good sight shorter. What seems more probable to me is that Santorum has put himself in an excellent position to be a serious candidate in four or eight – or twelve – years’ time, when the pro-life and anti-perversion issued will have had some years to better penetrate the collective consciousness of the American electorate, and a couple of million pot-smokers and Sixty-Eighters will have gone to meet – or not, as the case may be – their Maker.

Yesterday, Santorum and his troop of fighters have made that moment a good sight nearer to us.



Posted on January 4, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. I wish I could be as cheery about Santorum as you are. However, he betrayed the pro-life movement a few years ago by endorsing the senate run of Arlen Spector, a notorious pro-abort against a perfectly good pro-life Catholic candidate because that candidate couldn’t ‘win’. The pro-lifers in Pennsylvania never forgot that betrayal, and a couple of years later, Ricky was out on his ass.

    • Stephen,
      Santorum was very open about this and of course he has, as everyone of us, made mistakes in the past and will make new ones in future.

      I cannot think of any candidate of whom the same cannot be said.


  2. Dear M., I am quietly pleased and have whispered a prayer of thanksgiving to Our Lady. Over the next 24 hours a rosary will be said for the intention of Mr. Santorum. In addition, prayers to St. Michael are in order that Mr. Santorum is blessed in battle.

    There is a rag of a website called “Urban Dictionary” which must be run by Satan’s stormtroopers. Today’s definition is straight from hell. Look at it if you dare, to appreciate what must be faught and won.

    • Redvelvevette,

      Happy new year!

      As to mr S, his beginning to be savagely attacked is a sure sign that his message is spreading.

      The “urban dictionary” is very funny at times, but more and more used from perverts and leftists to promote their agenda ageda. I think the owner of the site should keep it to what it originally was: an urban dictionary.


  3. How did Santorum justify his support of Specter? Of course you are right about our making “mistakes”. We are all sinners, and I’m sure Santorum is sorry for what he did there.

    He does seem rather keen on war with Iran, though. I’m not so sure how his stance re Iran squares with what the Catechism has to say about war.

    Do you have any thoughts on Ron Paul?

    • I do not like Ron Paul as President, though I wouldn’t mind having him as a neighbour or buying a used car from him.

      My understanding on the Specter affair is Santorum thought he would oppose abortion and support Bush’s choice for the Supreme court. It is a strange matter because Specter in the meantime having even changed party and having clearly moved to the left probably lets the mistake – because such it probably was – appear worse in light of Specter’s subsequent behaviour. That Specter now denies having promised Santorum to be a stauch defender of the unborn is, I think, rather obvious. Still, probably a mistake anyway as one should think twice before one endorses “moderates” no matter what they say. “Moderate” to me is another way of saying “flip-flopping”.

      As for myself, not only I do allow for mistakes in people I think fundamentally good, but I can’t imagine Santorum decided to just thrown overboard all his conviction on this occasion for some difficult to see future personal advantage. There can be no doubt that he is not a flip-flopper, my concern about him is rather that he would never be the mainstream candidate able to defeat Obama. Gingrich and – I think even more – Perry have rather the better cards beside the money and the organisation.

      We’ll see how it goes in New Hampshire (Romeny avalanche I am sure, but I mean after him) and South Carolina, where I hope we will have some pleasant surprise.

      If you ask me, I think Perry and Gingrich are the best blend of conservatism and possibility of beating Obama. Romney is in my eyes not conservative enough (but I think he would massacre Obama at the ballot) and Santorum is probably too conservative to be a deadly menace to Obama.


    • As to Iran, I think Santorum is perfectly in line with Catholic doctrine, though I am less sure the JP II Catechism is a faithful representation of it with its usual pandering to fashionable slogans and popular peace mantras.

      Santorum is certainly not the chap to sink in post V II assisi thinking, which makes him so likeable to people like me.

      Feel free to disagree of course.


  4. Apropos Ron Paul: Seems when it comes to the “gay marriage” agenda, he is one of the ‘personally opposed’ types; and he apparently favours the legalisation of all kinds of drugs as well.

    This would rule him out of consideration for me if I were an American voter.

    • Yes trof4st,

      it is a strange thing to me a libertarian would be considered a conservative type. He just isn’t. One understands his claim the government intrusion goes too far, but if to him even DOMA is intrusion and he is for the freedom of taking drugs I can’t follow him anymore.

      I think Paul is the kind of chap who coagulates protest votes because of his personal integrity. I doubt all those who vote for him share his ideas, much less would have him as President.

  5. On urban dictionary: Anyone can post defintions of a word or phrase there, and since the Internet tends to have a solid amount of liberals (at least in certain circles), one would expect that liberal (or progressive or what have you) biases would show up.

    Also, I think I know what definition they have for Santorum, and if I’m correct, that was Dan Savage’s (funny, then, that you said a “savage attack) concoction after Santorum made his “man on dog” comment. Ironically enough, Dan Savage fancies himself an anti-bullying advocate.

    • I agree Thomas,

      it is also to be said that sodomites are extremely active in these kind of public fora (as they always need to be at the centre of the attention) and even when they do not explicitly say they are sodomites, you understand they are fighting against traditional values.

      I haven’t seen what they mean for the word and will not see it. Therefore I cannot even understand your reference. I am glad to remain in blessed ignorance about what these idiots say.


  6. Mr Santorum’s reason for supporting Specter – that he would get support from Specter for a conservative Supreme Court nominee – is not convincing. Specter’s opponent, Mr Toomey was a conservative Catholic who would undoubtedly have supported a decent Supreme Court appointment, so Mr Santorum’s defense is no defense at all.

    The issue was with the hierarchy of the Republican Party, which is solely owned by the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, as is, sadly, Mr Santorum. The Party wanted a solid pro-Israel Specter rather than the Catholic Toomey, who they couldn’t trust to support the wars in the Middle East. The whole sordid tale is told well in the staunchly Catholic website “Culture Wars” edited by E Michael Jones.

    And I’m afraid I must most strongly agree with the commented who stated that Santorum’s war views do not coalesce with Catholic doctrine. Invading a country that has done us no harm and bombing innocents is not Catholic.

%d bloggers like this: