Rick Santorum Thread

[Dan_Daly]

Is there always a danger of war in a fallen world? Absolutely. But we don’t need to “wish away” the wars that we start. We just need to not start them. Going after Al Qaeda was just, and Ron Paul has said so. It should have been done in a Constitutional manner, but regardless of the problems with process, the cause itself was just.

Iraq didn’t attack us. They were alledged to:

-possess weapons of Mass destruction
-persecute minorities
-have a history of aggression against neighboring countries
-have met with terrorist organizations

Some of those charges are true, some may or may not be. Guess what though? They are all true of the United States.

-We posses weapons of Mass destruction
-We persecute minorities, including the slaughter of millions of unborn children
-We have waged aggressive wars against Mexico and Canada
-We have met and negotiated with terrorist organizations, from the PLO to the Taliban, and continue to do so.

So if some other country had the capability would they have just cause to invade, I mean liberate, us?

Pax Christi

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Can I get an explanation from any pro-Santorum folks here about this video, youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30

 

[pnewton]

I really don’t care about Santorum one way or the other.
I just am against this Ron Paul phenomenon. … See Ron Paul’s views…Because Ron Paul is stuck as an…This is why Ron Paul said …Ron Paul’s sophistry …But Ron Paul … Those are non Ron Paul-ers. …That is Ron Paul…Ron Paul …Ron Paul did it AGAIN last night…some utopian ideal that Ron Paul

Let me help you. THIS is the Ron Paul thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=629999

Your rant somehow ended up on the Rick Santorum thread.

FYI - Everyone is entitled to their own political opinions,.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Can I get an explanation from any pro-Santorum folks here about this video, youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30

I’m a Paul supporter and I don’t have a problem with what Santorum said in that video.

If you take “we can do whatever we want to do” and actually apply it, you have anarchy. If you “don’t get involved in the bedroom” does that mean I can murder my wife, as long as it happens in the bedroom?

In an orthodox Catholic view one of the functions of the state is to promote virtue. That doesn’t mean every vice is illegal or every virtue is mandated by law, but it does not prohibit “legislating morality” which is a very silly term because every law is based upon some morality.

In general, I don’t have too much of a problem with what Santorum says, at least on the campaign trail. My concerns are based upon the disconect between his rhetoric and his record.

Pax Christi

 

[kubark]

Can I get an explanation from any pro-Santorum folks here about this video, youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30

Explanations are hard to come by from the pro-Santorum crowd.

They seem to think he is pro-life just because he says so.

They don’t have any explanations for the fact that Rick Santorum ENDORSED the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey, over a “supreme court nominee deal” that Arlen Specter denies ever took place. And thanks to Santorum’s endorsement, Arlen Specter was around to cast the deciding vote for Obamacare.

They don’t have any explanations for the fact that Santorum indirectly helped fund Planned Parenthood by sponsoring controversial Title X legislation. Santorum seems to think it is okay to make deals with the Devil as long as you get some good out of the compromise.

You can see the the article “Santorum Voted to Subsidize Abortion, Planned Parenthood” by Alex Newman over at thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10549-santorum-voted-to-subsidize-abortion-planned-parenthood.

Another good article, “The Real Dirt on Slick Rick Santorum” by Jake Morphonios, can be found here: nolanchart.com/article9242-the-real-dirt-on-slick-rick-santorum.html

Santorum must truly be arrogant if he thinks that those of us who have been in the trenches of the pro-life movement are going to forget how he stabbed us in the back, in Pennsylvania.

 

[ishii]

Can I get an explanation from any pro-Santorum folks here about this video, youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30

I’ll do more than explain it - I’ll agree with it. What he says makes sense to me. It means that the government has an interest in promoting virture where it can effectively do so, and that it should discourage vice where it can effectively do so, without trampling on civil rights. If you want an example, I would say that the federal government turning into a nanny state and telling us what to eat, and what kind of lunch we can send our children to school with is the wrong kind of intervention. Congress declaring the unborn child to be a human being with the right to life is an example of intervention that I would support.

My concerns are based upon the disconect between his rhetoric and his record.
Pax Christi

You may be referring to his fiscal policies or government programs he supported, but since his pro-life credentials have been challenged in a shameless way by some posters on this thread, I would point out two things Santorum did while senator:

***As a member of the U.S. Senate from 1995 until 2007, Santorum was the prime author and champion of key pro-life bills, including the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a ban on partial-birth abortion, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a separate crime if an unborn child is harmed or killed during the commission of a stipulated list of federal crimes.***Read more: ncregister.com/site/article/presidential-hopefuls-rick-santorum1/#ixzz1jn9rmsOX

“***What I can tell you about Rick Santorum,” said Maria Vitale Gallagher of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, “is that he has been pro-life not only in the public sphere, but in his private life. His pro-life witness is phenomenal.”

“He’s very pro-life and a good man,” said David O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. “As a family, the Santorums have faced challenges, and they have risen to these challenges and are a great family and a great couple.”***

Were those people paid to say that? I’m pretty sure that they are speaking from the heart about Santorum’s sincere pro-life values. Santorum also received a 77% rating from the Club for Growth and a 76% rating from the National Taxpayer’s Union. The idea that Santorum is some kind of pro-choice liberal is nonsense. Any Ron Paul supporter who peddles such nonsense (including Paul himself) is engaging in shady tactics.

In the end, all the detractors have is the famous Santorum betrayal - his support for Arlen Spector - which helped seal the deal for the approval of Alito and Roberts.

Ishii

 

[Dan_Daly]

You can see the the article “Santorum Voted to Subsidize Abortion, Planned Parenthood” by Alex Newman over at thenewamerican.com/usnews/pol…ned-parenthood.

Thank you for the link Kubark. The argument that “well I had to vote for the bill, cause it’s a big spending bill that needs to pass” falls apart quickly.

If it is a gigantic “must pass” bill that most in Congress will support, then there is really no reason for Santorum to vote for it despite objectionable/immoral content…because it is going to pass anyway. The only reason not to vote against bills that will easily pass, as Paul often does, is to avoid appearing “odd” and not wanting to buck the party leadership.

That is what the Specter debacle boils down to for me. Santorum placed personal ambition and party loyalty ahead of principles and the lives of the unborn.

Pax

 

[kubark]

I’ll do more than explain it - I’ll agree with it. What he says makes sense to me. It means that the government has an interest in promoting virture where it can effectively do so, and that it should discourage vice where it can effectively do so, without trampling on civil rights. If you want an example, I would say that the federal government turning into a nanny state and telling us what to eat, and what kind of lunch we can send our children to school with is the wrong kind of intervention. Congress declaring the unborn child to be a human being with the right to life is an example of intervention that I would support.

Ishii

If we lived in a monarchy, perhaps King Santorum could make that argument.

Fortunately, we live in a constitutional repubulic.

Santorum is an interventionist, domestically and in foreign affairs.

Sadly, the same approach to government that Santorum advocates, has been used by pro-death Democrats to advance their own agenda.

The best bet is follow the Constitution and the rule of law.

“Congress declaring the unborn child to be a human being with the right to life is an example of intervention that I would support.” Good, ishii, then you would have supported the Sanctity of Life Act reintroduced in 2005, which Ron Paul authored.

If that act had been supported and had passed, there is a high probability that abortion would be illegal in some if not many of our 50 states.

As it stands now, and as it has stood since Roe v. Wade, under the “federal” approach adopted by “conservatives” like Santorum, abortion REMAINS LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES and as long as Santorum’s approach is followed, it will remain so for a very long time. It is sad but the truth.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The idea that Santorum is some kind of pro-choice liberal is nonsense. Any Ron Paul supporter who peddles such nonsense (including Paul himself) is engaging in shady tactics.

The problem is the term “liberal” has been redefined. As the media and most party politicians portray it:

A liberal (or progressive) wants to expand the Department of Education a lot.

A conservative wants to expand the Department of Education a little bit, or if he’s really “right wing” keep it about the same.

Both of those are in reality unconstitutional positions. If a conservative believes in the constitution his position should be to abolish the Department of Education, along with a great many other things the Federal government does.

As I’ve said before liberal and conservatives are both very poor terms to use, but people use them. So again, if we define conservatism as including a willingness to defend the constitution, then G.W. Bush wasn’t a conservative, and neither was Ronald Reagan.

If Santorum looks conservative simply by comparison to Obama, that isn’t a very strong argument for his conservativism.

Pax Christi

 

[ishii]

adership.

That is what the Specter debacle boils down to for me. Santorum placed personal ambition and party loyalty ahead of principles and the lives of the unborn.

Pax

And this is what it boils down to for me: Santorum made a political decision based on a calculation that having control of the Senate would help get Bush’s judicial nominations approved - such as Alito and Roberts. If the cost of getting two justices who would vote to overturn Roe V Wade was that poor old Pat Toomey had a wait a couple of years before getting into the senate then so be it. That seems a much more reasonable explanation for Santorum’s decision to back Spector. Of course that explanation isn’t convenient because its harder to bash him with it - and unfairly bashing Santorum seems to be what a lot of Ron Paul people want to do.

Good job, Santorum.

Ishii

 

[Dan_Daly]

There are those who criticize Paul for caring more about spreading his message than winning the election. I don’t think the two are seperate, rather they go hand in hand.

I think one of the great missed opportunities is Santorum failing to use his opportunity on this national stage to speak the truth, the whole Catholic truth.

I you want to defend marriage (which is a good thing to do), we better define what marriage is. It’s indissoluble. It’s exclusive. It’s fruitful.

If we are unwilling to articulate that whole truth, which includes explaining why our culture of divorce and contraception has to change, we will not defeat abortion or sodomy.

Is the American public ready to embrace that full message? Probably not, but they still need to hear it, and hearing it come forward from a Presidential candidate would help shift where the public conversation is.

The truth is that the United States has never been a Catholic nation. It started off as a Protestant one with a very strong Masonic influence, firmly rooted in the heretical ideas of the enlightenment. Over the past century it has transitioned from Protestantism to Paganism.

Slight course corrections that fail to address the underlying issues are not going to work. Paul gets a lot right and some wrong. He at least sees the need for fundamental change. He isn’t blessed with the truth of the Catholic faith. Santorum is blessed with that faith. He should use it to address the real issues in a truly consistent Catholic way. If he did, he would have my support. Unfortunately I just really don’t see much difference between him and G.W. Bush. Santorum’s Republicanism and Americanism often seem to come before his Catholicism when there is a conflict.

Pax Christi

 

[ishii]

The problem is the term “liberal” has been redefined. As the media and most party politicians portray it:

A liberal (or progressive) wants to expand the Department of Education a lot.

A conservative wants to expand the Department of Education a little bit, or if he’s really “right wing” keep it about the same.

Both of those are in reality unconstitutional positions. If a conservative believes in the constitution his position should be to abolish the Department of Education, along with a great many other things the Federal government does.

As I’ve said before liberal and conservatives are both very poor terms to use, but people use them. So again, if we define conservatism as including a willingness to defend the constitution, then G.W. Bush wasn’t a conservative, and neither was Ronald Reagan.

If Santorum looks conservative simply by comparison to Obama, that isn’t a very strong argument for his conservativism.

Pax Christi

You’re getting away from my point: is it fair or not to say Santorum is an authentic pro-lifer? Is he a fraud? Because either he is or he isn’t. Some posters on this thread have shamelessly stooped to the level of not only calling him pro-choice, but also calling him a “so-called catholic”. I would hope the more reasonable Paul supporters would distance themselves from such vitriol.

As for Ron Paul’s Sanctity of LIfe act, of course I would support it, but what does that have to do with the reality we face now? We have a Democrat, pro-abortion senate. Do you think the Sanctity of Life act would pass? I don’t either. Do we abandon the effort to nominate constructionist judges? Do we give up on overturning Roe V Wade? Do we want Obama give us the next two judges? The problem I have with some of the Paul supporters is its always either/or. The Paul way or the highway- anything short of the Ron Paul solution and you’re a fraudulent pro-lifer. Why not say, “let’s try to get the Sanctity of LIfe passed AND overturn Roe V Wade.” It seems with the Paul supporters, every issue is used to build up their guy who can seem to do no wrong, and tear down anyone else as a fraud.

Ishii

 

[Dan_Daly]

You’re getting away from my point: is it fair or not to say Santorum is an authentic pro-lifer? Is he a fraud? Because either he is or he isn’t. Some posters on this thread have shamelessly stooped to the level of not only calling him pro-choice, but also calling him a “so-called catholic”. I would hope the more reasonable Paul supporters would distance themselves from such vitriol.

As for Ron Paul’s Sanctity of LIfe act, of course I would support it, but what does that have to do with the reality we face now? We have a Democrat, pro-abortion senate. Do you think the Sanctity of Life act would pass? I don’t either. Do we abandon the effort to nominate constructionist judges? Do we give up on overturning Roe V Wade? Do we want Obama give us the next two judges? The problem I have with some of the Paul supporters is its always either/or. The Paul way or the highway- anything short of the Ron Paul solution and you’re a fraudulent pro-lifer. Why not say, “let’s try to get the Sanctity of LIfe passed AND overturn Roe V Wade.” It seems with the Paul supporters, every issue is used to build up their guy who can seem to do no wrong, and tear down anyone else as a fraud.

Ishii

I think the issue is many folks, including myself, have tried the “well lets support the GOP as the lesser of two evils” argument and found that it hasn’t accomplished much at all except make things worse. Bush paved the way for Obama.

If the problem now is a democrat, pro-abortion senate, what was the problem when we had a Republican President, Republican controlled House, and Republican controlled Senate not too long ago? Where was the bold action to save unborn children (which when one thinks about, saving innocent children from being murdered shouldn’t require much boldness)?

Bush’s prescription drug benefit (which santorum supported) helped prepare the country for Obamacare, and inserting the federal government ever more deeply and unconstitutionally into healthcare is giving the abortion industry exactly what they want.

Granting the Federal government ever greater and unconstitutional power over education, as with No Child Left Behind (which santorum supported) means more and more children indocrinated in the dogma of the culture of death: sodomy, abortion, contraception, statism, atheism.

Fighting the enemy with his own weapons will not work.

Pax

 

[ishii]

I think one of the great missed opportunities is Santorum failing to use his opportunity on this national stage to speak the truth, the whole Catholic truth.

I you want to defend marriage (which is a good thing to do), we better define what marriage is. It’s indissoluble. It’s exclusive. It’s fruitful.

If we are unwilling to articulate that whole truth, which includes explaining why our culture of divorce and contraception has to change, we will not defeat abortion or sodomy.

Is the American public ready to embrace that full message? Probably not, but they still need to hear it, and hearing it come forward from a Presidential candidate would help shift where the public conversation is.

The truth is that the United States has never been a Catholic nation. It started off as a Protestant one with a very strong Masonic influence, firmly rooted in the heretical ideas of the enlightenment. Over the past century it has transitioned from Protestantism to Paganism.

Slight course corrections that fail to address the underlying issues are not going to work. Paul gets a lot right and some wrong. He at least sees the need for fundamental change. He isn’t blessed with the truth of the Catholic faith. Santorum is blessed with that faith. He should use it to address the real issues in a truly consistent Catholic way. If he did, he would have my support. Unfortunately I just really don’t see much difference between him and G.W. Bush. Santorum’s Republicanism and Americanism often seem to come before his Catholicism when there is a conflict.

Pax Christi

On the contrary, realizing as you say, that America is not a Catholic nation, shouldn’t we try to find some common ground? Or are you someone who would refuse the support from a person who also wants to end abortion because they are not for making contraceptives illegal? Or are you one of those who says to a non-catholic " If you aren’t catholic you’ll go to hell." And thinks they’re actually evangelizing? It may make one feel good about themselves, but in the end, nothing effective happens. People tune you out. Its going to take a lot more than “talk” from a president to cure all the ills our society has fallen into. In fact, it will take actions. As St. Francis said, “preach the gospel at all times. When necessary use words.”

Ishii

 

[Dan_Daly]

On the contrary, realizing as you say, that America is not a Catholic nation, shouldn’t we try to find some common ground? Or are you someone who would refuse the support from a person who also wants to end abortion because they are not for making contraceptives illegal? Or are you one of those who says to a non-catholic " If you aren’t catholic you’ll go to hell." And thinks they’re actually evangelizing? It may make one feel good about themselves, but in the end, nothing effective happens. People tune you out. Its going to take a lot more than “talk” from a president to cure all the ills our society has fallen into. In fact, it will take actions. As St. Francis said, “preach the gospel at all times. When necessary use words.”

Ishii

I’m for working with anyone, who wants to end abortion, but I will not support contraception in the process.

Not to get too far afield, but if you aren’t Catholic when you die, you are going to hell.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. That may be a baptism of blood or desire which is not seen by the living, but it still happens. Everyone in heaven is Catholic. What is the best way to explain that can vary with the audience, but it is the truth.

Pax

 

[ishii]

I think the issue is many folks, including myself, have tried the “well lets support the GOP as the lesser of two evils” argument and found that it hasn’t accomplished much at all except make things worse. Bush paved the way for Obama.

If the problem now is a democrat, pro-abortion senate, what was the problem when we had a Republican President, Republican controlled House, and Republican controlled Senate not too long ago? Where was the bold action to save unborn children (which when one thinks about, saving innocent children from being murdered shouldn’t require much boldness)?

Bush’s prescription drug benefit (which santorum supported) helped prepare the country for Obamacare, and inserting the federal government ever more deeply and unconstitutionally into healthcare is giving the abortion industry exactly what they want.

Granting the Federal government ever greater and unconstitutional power over education, as with No Child Left Behind (which santorum supported) means more and more children indocrinated in the dogma of the culture of death: sodomy, abortion, contraception, statism, atheism.

Fighting the enemy with his own weapons will not work.

Pax

The problem is you’ll never have a perfect catholic candidate, and you’ll never have a perfect catholic country or society this side of Eden. In fact, last I checked, even the Catholic churches I go to are filled with people who don’t live up to the standard you seem to expect from the government.

I could go into the litany of reasons why it is unreasonable to expect a mere few years of GOP rule in the house, senate and presidency to result in the outlawing of abortion, but I think you really know how the supreme court works - you can’t just fire a justice and replace them with orthodox catholics. You have to wait for a vacancy, and even then you don’t know for sure how they’ll vote. The old, “the GOP has had 30 years to outlaw abortion and they’ve failed” argument is false, and doesn’t take into consideration political reality. But, we have a chance. I believe we could be looking at a challenge soon if we can get one more good justice in there. Wouldn’t you want to be able to organize and pressure your state legislators to vote like catholics as we attempt to take on states that keep abortion legal? That can’t happen unless we overturn Roe V wade.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I’m for working with anyone, who wants to end abortion, but I will not support contraception in the process.

How is accepting support from, say, an otherwise liberal protestant to outlaw abortion, supporting contraception? If you accepted the support of an orthodox Jew to outlaw abortion does that mean that you’re supporting Judaism?

Not to get too far afield, but if you aren’t Catholic when you die, you are going to hell.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. That may be a baptism of blood or desire which is not seen by the living, but it still happens. Everyone in heaven is Catholic. What is the best way to explain that can vary with the audience, but it is the truth.

Pax

You’re right, but If you took that approach to evangelization, you’d find yourself with very few converts. On the other hand, if you start out with the basics, and go from there, I think you’d have a better time of it. Wouldn’t you think that if a hardened abortion supporter like say, Kate Michelman or Faye Wattleton came to you door and said, " I am not sure that I agree with you on outlawing abortion when the life of the mother is in danger, but I now see that having abortion clinics on every block is evil, and I want to work to overturn Roe V Wade and then work with the states." That it would be a huge breakthrough? What would you say, " Sorry, not good enough. You don’t conform to the catholic position so go back to Planned Parenthood." ???

Ishii

 

[Veridical16]

The problem is you’ll never have a perfect catholic candidate, and you’ll never have a perfect catholic country or society this side of Eden. In fact, last I checked, even the Catholic churches I go to are filled with people who don’t live up to the standard you seem to expect from the government.

I could go into the litany of reasons why it is unreasonable to expect a mere few years of GOP rule in the house, senate and presidency to result in the outlawing of abortion, but I think you really know how the supreme court works - you can’t just fire a justice and replace them with orthodox catholics. You have to wait for a vacancy, and even then you don’t know for sure how they’ll vote. The old, “the GOP has had 30 years to outlaw abortion and they’ve failed” argument is false, and doesn’t take into consideration political reality. But, we have a chance. I believe we could be looking at a challenge soon if we can get one more good justice in there. Wouldn’t you want to be able to organize and pressure your state legislators to vote like catholics as we attempt to take on states that keep abortion legal? That can’t happen unless we overturn Roe V wade.

Ishii

You are right, Ishii, because politics makes it impossible to have a Pure. When I’ve watched Santorum, I know some of what he said to those New Hampshire kids was softening up a simpler explanation of why Gay marriage is wrong.

The only time we have had great Catholic leaders, has been with St. Louis IX etc.

But there is nothing wrong with believing that Catholic candidates if , can have the Lord do great things for them with grace.

That can’t happen unless we overturn Roe V wade.

If Obama is re-elected. We can kiss our Justices favoring overturning it, a longer farewell… along with a whole slew of other bad consequences…

 

[Veridical16]

Let me help you. THIS is the Ron Paul thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=629999

Your rant somehow ended up on the Rick Santorum thread.

Thanks
My Mistake. But sometimes Santorum and Ron Paul are related topic wise (as they are at odds with each other when it comes to foreign policy. )

Since Ron Paul seems to keep being compared to Santorum and Ron Paul keeps attacking Santorum in his ads as well as Ron Paul people keep saying Santorum, Gingrich, et al, are not as pro-life as Ron Paul.

FYI - Everyone is entitled to their own political opinions

Yes, and every one is entitled to debate and shoot down false notions, and hopefully open their minds that they may have taken up a poor political opinion.

Somebody has to be more right than others?

Otherwise , we would be relativists…

 

[pnewton]

Somebody has to be more right than others?

Otherwise , we would be relativists…

Relativism is fine in many areas. It is not the same thing as moral relativism. I do not think you will have much luck convincing anyone with rhetoric that insults, like, “Even swaying Catholics who should be able to discern this guy.” C’mon, man. That sort of rhetoric does nothing but tune people out.