If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave.” Fulton J. Sheen

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Why Aren't Catholics Supporting Santorum?

Paul Zummo writes a great piece at American Catholic about Rick Santorum and his puzzlement as to why Catholic conservatives aren't supporting Senator Santorum. Why?

The guy's a conservative. He's Catholic. Really Catholic.

I think at some level this kind of stuff becomes self fulfilling. With Rick scoring so low in the polls, when people are asked who they want for President they kinda' think saying Santorum is tossing their choice away so they pick from between the current batch of big names like Romney, Gingrich, and Cain (still?).

Paul Zummo lists a number of other valid reasons including Santorum's endorsement of Specter over Toomey. I can tell you I lived in Pennsylvania and I spoke to many pro-lifers who felt betrayed by Santorum over his endorsement and they thought they couldn't do worse on that issue with Bob Casey, the son of a famous pro-life Democrat. (How'd that work out for ya'?)

There's a part of me that doesn't want to go for Rick because I think he's easily demonized. It was the same reason I was skittish about Sarah Palin. The media has done so much damage to Santorum and Palin that trying to get them elected would be difficult.

But I think for the time being when asked by anyone and everyone I'll say I'm throwing my weight behind Rick Santorum. Honestly, if I had my druthers of which one to pick, I'd pick Rick. I trust him the most. It ain't even close actually. Well, wait I also trust Ron Paul to never lie to me but I just don't like what he says some of the time.

But check out Zummo's piece. It's definitely worth a read. I think he's right on.

Your Ad Here

70 comments:

Teresa said...

Rick Santorum is my first choice and Newt Gingrich my second choice. I think Rick's lack of charisma hurts him. Conservatives in Pa (I had just moved to Pa at the time of this vote) don't understand that the reason Santorum endorsed Specter is because Arlen had promised to vote Yea on the supreme court nominees if Rick supported him. Specter only cared about political expediency and he was an opportunist. And, Pa being a blue state at that time still supported Specter. Dems sure do like the crooked politicians. Rick is an honest politician who is a faithful Catholic.

Eric Williams said...

I have no desire to vote for Santorum and never have. He's a neocon who only pretends to respect the Constitution. It's Ron Paul or bust for me.

Pedro Erik said...

Santorum is the best, clearly.

geronimo said...

Three reasons to start with.

1. He placed party over principle - a typical politician.

2. He is a warmonger who supports unjust wars.

3. He's cranky.

And before all you camo-wearing, American-exceptionalists on this blog start calling me a Communist, a coward, etc., read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Paul Zummo said...

Thanks for the link, Matt. My post wound up meandering beyond my initial question. It is odd that he's polling as low as he is considering the fact that he does have a natural constituency, but his negatives are difficult to ignore. As I said, I can live with either of the Ricks. Newt is a distant third, and the rest of the field is just abysmal.

geronimo said...

Gardasil Rick? You've got to be kidding, Zummo.

Catholic19d said...

He's a warmonger. And that really bothers me.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but Santorum needs to brush up on his Bellum Iustum in order to justify your "really Catholic" description of him. In the past, he was magnificent in arguing against same-sex "marriage" but for the love of God, do we REALLY need to go to war with Iran?
Yes, he is yet another neocon coat-holder for Israel who wants another Middle Eastern war too much to suit me. Let's face it folks, the GOP field of candidates is weak for 2012 so the best we can pray for is that they take both houses of Congress so they will be able to stifle any and all of Obama's future America-destoying plans.

Paul Zummo said...

Just gotta say that if you measure a man by the quality (or lack thereof) of his enemies, Rick Santorum is looking even better.

Teresa said...

Why does advocating the defense of nation equal being a "warmonger"?

What other nation in the Middle East is a staunch, unwavering supporter of the U.S. besides Israel?

What is rooted in all this jealousy or hate of Israel?

Should Iran have a nuclear weapon? No. Santorum wants to ensure that they never attain a nuclear weapon because that would be a nightmare scenario.

Anonymous said...

@Teresa

Defense of what nation? Is Iran an existential threat to us? No, it is not. Can Israel fight its own battles if necessary? Yes, it can. It has nothing to do with jealousy or hate. End of story.

Teresa said...

How is Iran not an existential threat if it has nuclear weapons? Are we just supposed to sit back and watch while Iran obtains nuclear capabilities and threatens Israel? If so, some friend the US and citizens like you are to Israel. With friends like that who needs enemies?

Sophia's Favorite said...

Hey, isolationist halfwit (the one using the name of a certain Chiricahua Apache—whose people considered torture-unto-death a wholesome family entertainment), I'm curious: if the only thing you want to do with other countries is trade, what'll you do if they all go communist or Islamist?

You seem to think the world would be a perfectly peaceful place of generosity, goodwill, and wholesome, intact families if not for American "Imperialism". Let's ask Poland about that, huh?

You are not a communist or an Islamist. You are just a weakling who refuses to fight them, and therefore is complicit in their misdeeds.

So you're a Vichy. I'm glad we cleared up this nomenclatural dispute.

PS. Personally, I think "Hashkehagola" is a better username for you, little boy—"picker-of-fights" in Apache—but you might as well just use the English equivalent.

Troll.

geronimo said...

So, Teresa, some nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons and others are not? Who decides that?

Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, how would they deliver it to the U.S. on the other side of the world? And the U.S. has thousands of nuclear weapons to retaliate. Try to think these things through, instead of accepting the usual warmongering of the American politicians and media.

Iran has never attacked another nation. The U.S., on the other hand, overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953, and installed the American puppet Shah as dictator. And in the 1980s the U.S.-backed Iraq, (led by none other than Saddam Hussein) attacked Iran. Based on history, perhaps Iran wants a nuclear weapon to keep from being attacked by the U.S. again.

Last time I checked, Israel was not one of the fifty states. Defending your country does not mean going around the world picking fights with every two-bit dictator who runs his mouth.

Santorum would be a disaster - he'd probably start World War III.

Donald R. McClarey said...

Sophia's Favorite that is a comment for the ages! Well done!

geronimo said...

Sophia's Favorite - why can't you carry on a discussion without calling people names?

Are you aware that the number one U.S. trading partner is a ruthless, thug, Communist regime? So your argument about trade is absurd.

Why do you call people who disagree with you a troll? Why have this blog at all if only people who repeat the same things are welcome? Just talk to yourself.

Paul Zummo said...

Sophia's Favorite - why can't you carry on a discussion without calling people names

And the winner of the award for unintentional irony goes to geronimo. Just hand in your ticket before you leave and you'll receive your gift basket.

Stu said...

He doesn't pass muster with the Catholic Purity Party.

Anonymous said...

1. A lot of pro-lifers still feel betrayed by his support of Specter over Toomey when Specter was pro-life public enemy number one for the 20+ years the man was in office. Santorum was once viewed as a pro-life untouchable. His move to support Specter showed that he could be bought for cheap.

2. A lot of people are turned off because he's out campaigning with a deathly ill child at home--a child he actually tried to take on the campaign trail (presumably to be close to her) but actually jeopardized her health further.

3. He is, as another poster noted, squishy on his jus ad bello creds.

4. He's also soft on torture.

5. The public HATES him and he is unelectable.

In his favor, he's still definitely the most pro-life and pro-traditional family candidate out there (which is, frankly, a depressing fact of the Republican slate), but taken with the other factors, he's hardly anyone for a Catholic voter to be unequivocally excited about.

geronimo said...

Zummo- your comment makes no sense. I am willing to discuss things civilly. Sophia's Favorite resorted to name-calling instead. And you apparently do not want to discuss the issues either, but would prefer to make sarcastic comments about me. We were talking about Santorum as a Catholic presidential candidate, but you two just ridicule anyone who disagrees with you. Your ad hominem attacks on me are really not very witty. No wonder so many people around the world are sick and tired of arrogant Americans.

Paul Zummo said...

geronimo:

To be perfectly blunt you're simply a one note Charlie who mouths the same talking points about Ron Paul and people not named Ron Paul endlessly. You bring no new facts to the debate, offer no fresh perspective, and are simply a bore. To feign offense about supposed name calling when you call people warmongers and other things just indicates that you're a hypocrite to boot. Frankly, it would be as useful arguing with a brick wall as it would to attempt to engage in conversation with someone like you.

So have a nice life.

geronimo said...

Zummo - you've just proven my point. And you are a warmonger - that's not name-calling, it describes you. So get out of your chair and go enlist and kill some people who are not you.

scotju said...

Santorum betrayed the pro-life cause once. Judas betrayed Christ once. Peter betrayed Christ once. Only Peter received forgiveness, becase he repented. Judas and Santorum committed suicide. One lost his life, the other his crediability with sincere pro-life Catholics.
Also, Ricky is a neo-con. We need to listen to our founding fathers and get out of intangling alliances with other nations. Bring our troops home to protect our own borders. Israel can take care of itself, like every other nation on the globe can.

Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew M. said...

I suspect the Paulistas have a special loathing for both Rick and Newt because they've repeatedly schooled Ron Paul in the debates over foreign policy.

Normally, when Rick S gets his snarl going (and that's one of his problems) in a debate, I just wish he'd stop - but when he got it on at Ron Paul as he explained that Iran *didn't* have some right to nuclear weapons... it was, for once, easy to sympathize with the snarl.

Rick Santorum hasn't caught on, despite his many merits, for two reasons: first, his manner is too much the scold. Nobody likes a scold. Second, he is a loser - quite literally - he lost his Senate seat by an enormous margin to an empty suit with a good name. Scold + loser is tough to overcome on a Presidential resume.

Teresa said...

Unfortunately Bob Casey Jr. purported to be pro-life like his father. He lied and people bought it hook, line, and sinker. Casey lied. The people of Pa gave him the benefit of the doubt because of his father. That ain't gonna happen again. I actually think Santorum could beat the pants of Casey Jr. if he ran for the senate seat again.

geronimo said...

Teresa - take a grammar and spelling course.

Also, take a deep breath.

To all the warmongers here - keep up the good work - keep spreading abortion, contraception and homo-marriage throughout the world - that is what you are doing when you support the unjust U.S. wars against other nations.

By the way, did you know that camo-wearing homos can even get married in a base chapel now? That's what you're fighting for - keep up the good work, ladies.

Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
geronimo said...

Sorry, that's what you are fighting for because that's what the U.S. is. Stop kidding yourself. You might think you're fighting for some idealized notion of "America", but you are fighting for the reality of the U.S., which is an aborting, contracepting, homo-marrying, arrogant, obnoxious, atheistic behemoth.

And the word is Nazi, not Natzi, short for National Socialist. National Socialist - that's another good description of American culture.

Thanks. It's been fun.

Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Zummo said...

I suspect the Paulistas have a special loathing for both Rick and Newt because they've repeatedly schooled Ron Paul in the debates over foreign policy.

He's looked good in the debates, but this is the one issue where I think Santorum is a bit weak. I'm obviously no Paulista, but we can go too far in the opposite direction, and I think Santorum is a bit too naive when it comes to spreading democracy in the Middle East. He's no neocon, but I was disappointed in his cheerleading for intervention in Libya.

Then again, the theme of this entire primary season has been swinging from one extreme to the other.

Teresa said...

I was disappointed with Santorum in his supporting intervention in Libya and when he said that Pakistan must be a friend. We cannot force countries to be our allies. I agree that we can't let the nukes in Pakistan get into the wrong hands but to say that Pakistan must be our friend is a bit naive with what the U.S. has learned about Pakistan in the past few years.

Anonymous said...

Whoa! What is with all the foul words Teresa? Please watch your language- you are posting on a Catholic blog!

As for Rick- I do like him a lot as a candidate- but agree with the above poster who called him a "scold." When he is being interviewed or giving speeches he comes across great, but during the debates, I cringed- he does come across as scolding and at times almost petulant. Sadly, he just does not seem to have that charisma that really gets people interested and rooting for him. It shouldn't matter that much, but in reality, it just does.

KM

Anonymous said...

Santorum lied about his residency to cheat the taxpayers out of paying for his kids school, supported ARLEN SPECTOR, is economically illiterate and is a warmonger. I realize that warmongering is much beloved of many "religious people but that's why I'm nnot supporting him. I am supporting the man who gets the most miliatry donations, the most donations from government workers, the most donations from small contributors, the man who has explained and predicted all of the economic problems we've had...and been right, and the man who understands that what is best for the US may not be what is best for Israel and vice versa. NONINTERVENTIONIST (and no, Sophias fav, that is not the same things ISOLATIONIST), Ron Paul. Santorum?? Judge the fruit.

Donald R. McClarey said...

Any thread where the Paulbots come out to play reinforces my belief that I would sooner eat ground glass than ever cast a vote for Ron Paul (R. Pluto).

As for Santorum, he has a grasp of foreign policy that stands in stark contrast to the libertarian fantasy world inhabited by Paul and his acolytes. Santorum predicted the on-going disaster in Egypt back in June in the well-written, and prescient, piece linked to below:

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4479/pub_detail.asp

He has a series of these types of analyses of foreign policy issues:

http://www.eppc.org/scholars/scholarID.88,type.1/pub_list.asp

Michelle said...

It's a little ridiculous to say that the senator representing Pennsylvania lied about being a resident of Pennsylvania. Physically, he resided out of state, but seriously? We're a military family, residents of Florida, but we physically reside in Georgia. I have a Florida driver's license, Florida tags, and I vote in Florida elections. Is that lying?

BTW, I know lots of military folks, and I know nobody who supports Ron Paul.

Santorum's problem is that he refuses to concede that the single issue that matters this year is the economy. He actually has opinions (strong and well-formed) about a wide range of topics, while most of the candidates are grossly ignorant of or completely apathetic to anything other than the unemployment rate and the housing market. And he's a goody-two shoes. Gingrich is also a candidate with broad opinions, but he has a colorful past which makes him, apparently, more likeable. Santorum has my vote; the rest make me want to vomit.

Teresa said...

KM,

Your right. I get fired up when people push me to my limit, are ignorant and tick me off, though. I deleted all of my postings with unseemly language. But even Jesus got angry in the Temple once....

Teresa said...

Is home schooling your kids via PA and having your family live with you while you are serving as senator really not residing in Pa? Wouldn't this serve as a good Catholic example for families?

Lurker said...

They're not supporting Rick Santorum because they're too busy trying to rationalize supporting Ron Paul's and his idolatry of the 10th amendment overriding the combat against moral evils.

Dirtdartwife said...

Off topic, but for clarification, the Archbishop of Military Services has made it quite clear that NO Catholic chaplain in the military can perform homosexual marriages on or off military installations and can not use anything Catholic for these unions. Get your facts straight before shooting off at the hip, geronimo.

Paul Zummo said...

Santorum's problem is that he refuses to concede that the single issue that matters this year is the economy

Yeah, this. He's the only one that understands that culture impacts economics, and he's been lampooned for daring to discuss things beyond simple financing. His website is also impressive as his is the only one that I've seen that discusses cultural and social issues in a meaningful way.

Andrew said...

Why not Santorum? Come on, that's too easy. He's too close to the neo-con ideology, and we've already been through THAT mess. He doesn't have enough experience. And the experience he does have couldn't get him re-elected to his senate seat. Lastly, he's completely un-electable, especially against Obama. I'm sure he's a great guy, but if we want to win we need to get this field narrowed down to two or three serious contenders ASAP.

Michelle said...

Dirtdartwife, actually, not that I want to defend the guy, but geronimo didn't say anything about Catholic chaplains. The new face of our finest fighting forces includes, unfortunately, same-sex weddings on military facilities by military chaplains (just not the Catholic ones).

lglebb said...

I'm not a Paulista or whatever, but I'm also not a neocon. Rick Santorum wants to go to war with a third of the globe, and that would rule him out for me. But Catholics don't like him primarily though for the same reason as everyone else. He's just not likable. He's grumpy, bitter, and a scold--as others have said. His temperament is just not the kind that can win over hearts. He lost his reelection bid in Pennsylvania by double digits. He would lose in the general by even more.

Paul Zummo said...

People keep using the term neocon. I do not think it means what they think it means.

scotju said...

Santorum is nothing but a neo-con. His so-called "grasp of foreign policy" is the same diasterous interventionist idiocy that got us dragged into the morasses called WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the ongoing farce in the Mid-East. We need a president who will mind America's business instead of making enemies by meddling in the politics of other countries.

Donald R. McClarey said...

Yep, if you think that it was a mistake for the US to defeat the Third Reich and Imperial Japan in World War II, Ron Paul (R.Pluto) is your boy.

Dirtdartwife said...

Michelle, this is what geronimo said "By the way, did you know that camo-wearing homos can even get married in a base chapel now? That's what you're fighting for - keep up the good work, ladies." I was just clarifying it for the Catholic chaplains lest that ambiguous, broad-stroked comment makes someone start to think Catholic chaplains are being forced to perform same sex unions in military chapels when Archbishop Broglio has come out in full force making a very clear statement that they're not allowed. Yes, I am aware that the Protestant chaplains can do what they wish, but our Catholic ones can not. So at least there is SOME level of dissent in our military, kwim?

Michelle said...

And actually, I feel bad for the Protestant chaplains who don't belong to a hierarchy like the Catholic Church and don't have a higher authority to protect them from being coerced into doing things against their conscience, which is what will happen. There are many Protestant chaplains who are unhappy about the turn of events. Yes, I suppose the new atheist chaplains will rejoice in the changes, but many others are going to think a little church in a small town is a better way to serve God.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the more I read on this forum of bloodlust and killing for Israel (Israel-tards? Israel-bots? Catholics for Israel Firsters???)the more I want to donate to Ron Paul! You can't refute his arguments, you can't deny his integrity, you can't stand the Constitution or rule of law and you are scared to death of Middle Easterners doing back to the US what the US has been doing to them. And voting for any of these Neocon RINOs guarantees that that is what you are going to get. Every one of them with the exception of Paul is a CFR stooge, a bankster puppet, warmongering (and how many have ever served in the military??) and NWO elitists. I do realize that these forums are planted with CIA and Zionist trolls, the heavy use of name calling and refusal to address substantive points, smug assertions and smears are dead giveaways. And this forum is full of all of those things.

scotju said...

WWII was made possible, partly by Wilson's desire to make the world safe for so-called democracy. The US enterance into the 1st World War was none of our business. It was strickly a European affair. Our meddling lead to the fall of the major empires in Europe, and was a great contributing factor in the rise of communism, nazism, and fascism. and now, our meddling in the Mid-East is aiding and abbedding the rise of Islamic dictatorships. Can you say, "Allah Akbar"? Sound a heck of a lot like Il Duce, Heil Hitler, and Hail Comrade doesn't it?

Donald R. McClarey said...

"I do realize that these forums are planted with CIA and Zionist trolls, the heavy use of name calling and refusal to address substantive points, smug assertions and smears are dead giveaways. And this forum is full of all of those things."

Blogging while the tin foil hat is cutting off the blood supply to your brain is always a mistake.

"Can you say, "Allah Akbar"? Sound a heck of a lot like Il Duce, Heil Hitler, and Hail Comrade doesn't it?"

One of the hysterically funny aspect of the Paulbots is the alternate history realm they resolutely refuse to leave. In their world all that goes wrong in the world is a result of US foreign involvement. Ergo, if the US simply retreats to Fortress America the Earth will be a paradise. A typical example is the blithe indifference that Paul has to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. If Israel and Iran go to war as a result of such a development, that is no concern of the US, as if the US and the world would not sustain devastating consequences from a nuclear war in the Middle East. Their ideological forebears in the America First movement similiarly believed we could simply sit World War II out on the sidelines. The consequences of such an isolationist foreign policy were brought home to this country dramatically 70 years ago. If the Paulbots ever got an attempt to actually implement their unicorns and fairie dust foreign policy I suspect that we would again have another Pearl Harbor style attack with nuclear weapons.

Anonymous said...

I am...

scotju said...

The charge that I made that American meddling in foreign affairs has only made situlations in the world worse is true. I never said that "all that goes wrong in the world is a reslt of US foreign invovlement". The events we got messed up in where already bad. I never said that retreating to Fortress America the Earth will be a paradise. We will always have trouble on this earth, we Americans just don't have to make it worst by our meddling. One only has to read the books of William Lederer (The Ugly American and A Nation of Sheep) to realize our government, irregardless of what party is in charge, has constantely made a bad situlation worse.
The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't the result of an isolationist foreign policy. It was the result of FDR's bungling and outright treason in foreign affairs. One only has to read Stinnet's "Day Of Deceit" and Toland's "Infamy" to realize the government knew years in advance that Pearl would be the most possible target of attack by the Japs. Both books also show that information that could have prevented the attack on Pearl was surpressed by the government. Heck, do an internet search on Pearl Harbor treason, (but watch out for sites that are extreme politically) and you will soon discover that the evidence for this is overwhelming.
Finally, we won't have another Pearl Harbor if we follow these simple rules: 1. Impeach or don't elect anyone who promises to make the world a better place by promoting changes of government overseas or uses such slogans as "making the world safe for democracy" or "New World Order". 2. Pay attention to our intelligence gathering services and act on the information we receive to prevent new Pearl Harbors and 9/11's. 3. Withdraw for all overseas military commitments and stop all government foreign aid cold turkey. 4. Tell all foreign governments that, we wish to be nobody's enemy, that we will form no entangling alliances, but if you wish to wage unprovoked war with us, we will fight you, defeat you, and you will get no Marshall Plan aid afterward from the US Government. 5. Finally, a museum called "The National Museum of Unicorns and Fairy Dust" will be built so all Americans can see the folly of our past government policies. It will be more fun to visit than Disneyland!

Donald R. McClarey said...

“America’s security can be assured only within a world community of strong, stable, independent nations, in which the concepts of freedom, justice and human dignity can flourish.

There can be no such thing as Fortress America. If ever we were reduced to the isolation implied by that term, we would occupy a prison, not a fortress. The question whether we can afford to help other nations that want to defend their freedom but cannot fully do so from their own means, has only one answer: we can and we must, we have been doing so since 1947.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower, State of the Union Address 1959

The idea that the US can huddle in security behind the Atlantic and the Pacific in a day where the entire US could be devastated by a nuclear strike in hours is fanciful. US retreat in the world will simply embolden the worst elements in the world, as US isolationism post World War I did. The type of foreign policy dreamed up by Ron Paul will simply ensure a very large war at the end of it, with the United States ill-prepared to wage it.

As for the actual historical facts about the attack on Pearl Harbor, the best study, that shatters the "FDR Knew!" paranoia is Gordon Prange's The Verdict of History.


http://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-Gordon-W-Prange/product-reviews/0140159096/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R1SURCPYINEQ67

Much ineptitude yes, treason, rubbish.

In regard to US meddling making the US worse. Due to US meddling the Third Reich, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union are one with Nineveh and Tyre. I believe this US "meddling" manifestly made the world better, and without US intervention the world would be a very darker place indeed today.

scotju said...

Gordon Prange was a court historian. He did what he was told. Toland accepted the conventional history of Pearl until further research forced him to change his mind. Stinnet had ascess to documents that were unavailable to past historians, and came to the same conclusions Toland did. And for the benefit of truely intellegent, openminded people, the meddling that Wilson did in WWI helped cause the fall of the German, Hapsberg, and Russian Empire's and what took their places? The USSR, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy. After WWII, our meddling gave Eastern Europe to the USSR and a Cold War that lasted 50 years. Without US intervention, the chances of this happening the way it did would have been reduced. And because of our meddling, the world did become a very dark place for millions of Chinese and Europeans trapped behind the Iron Curtain. Listen to George Washington folks, and stay out of other countries problems and business!

Teresa said...

Spot on Donald! Keep up the great work.

Paulbots are isolationists and naive as far as foreign policy goes.

Anonymous said...

Wow this has got to be the most paranoid, conspiracy theories, fault finding, blame America for all the problems of the world, etc, that I have ever come across on this blog!
If I had a nickle for every time the word neocon or warmonger showed up in these comments, well I'd be rich.
All I can say is if we all keep this up, that Occupier in Chief is going to weasel his way into a second term; then we all really be up the creek.

Lisa

BTW one thing Santorum nailed was the break down of the family!

Anthony S. Layne said...

Frankly, there's not a single candidate I can get excited about ... Newt, Herman, Rick, Ron, Roy, Roquefort, Rutabaga — whoever and whatever. And the snarky ad hominem attacks made by their backers on this blog make none of them any more attractive. In fact, if I didn't think a vote on a third-party candidate would be a vote for BHO, I'd join The Blogger Who Must Not Be Named in the "plague o' both your houses" corner.

I really, really wish the GOP could go back to the storied "smoke-filled room", hash out what they wanted from a candidate, draft the poor sap who best fit the description and then tried to rally the party around him/her. But since we're stuck with this expensive exercise in silliness called the primary system and I went independent some time ago, I'll just have to wait until things sort themselves out.

Feh!

Dan said...

I must say I am disappointed in Mr McCarey's comments. I had thought better of him and assumed he was looking at the world straightforwardly. But with all due respect he, like so many others sadly, are blinded by this very unCatholic view of the state of Israel and the propaganda emanating therefom (and Washington).

I have no particular admiration for Ron Paul. Being a libertarian he is not the answer to the problems of this country. No libertarian could be. But certainly the Repubs and Dems are equally misguided. Perhaps more so. To those posters who are so mortally offended by those who find Mr Santorum so shallow and so slavish towards Israel I respectfully recommend that you use the gift of the internet to seek out other opinions. And if you are Catholics you must get yourself better informed. Don't fall for the false choise of the two parties, the Democrats, the Party of Abortion and Sodomy, or the Republicans, the Party of War and Usury. In other words, if you're Catholics then BE Catholics...completely and fully. Don't waste your efforts promoting this politician or that, thinking that any of them will get us out of this awful mess we are in. And as far as the state of Israel goes, it is long past time you folks face the reality of what goes on there. You have no excuse not to know. It's all there for you to read and to see, if you open your eyes and your hearts.

In his day the great Hilaire Belloc ridiculed what he called "the semi-annual puppet shows" which were the elections of his time. Imagine what this noble and brilliant Catholic historian would have to say about our current state of affairs.

Anonymous said...

How sad that Americans no longer support the LIBERTARIAN ideas upon which this country was founded: "Ron Paul, being a libertarian blah, blah". Have you never read Jefferson? Patrick Henry? Even Washington?? What do you think the Constitution is? Use some logic, learn some history people. Israel-bots, why should Israel have as many nukes as they want but the countries surrounding htem (with oil) not be allowed any? And who is the US, the only country to ever nuke civilians-women and children, including the largest Catholic community in Japan, to decree who should have them and who not? When did "regime change" of the governments of other counties become allowable under US law? When did imperialism and murder become "Catholic" and "American"? Do you even see what happened to Gaddafi when he complied with the disarmament? And, yes, you can dismiss with "tin hat" comments but it is old news that Israel trains people to visit websites and wikipedia and spin for them, and it is also true that they follow a very predictable pattern in their postings. Michelle, obviously we travel in radically different military circles. The military folks I know want to defend this country, not murder and be killed for Big Business, ruling elites and Israel.

Donald R. McClarey said...

"Gordon Prange was a court historian. He did what he was told."

That is simply delusional. You would realize, if you had ever bothered reading any of his books, that he despised FDR and was highly critical of his administration for not maintaining tight enough security at Pearl Harbor to forestall a sneak attack.

"And for the benefit of truely intellegent, openminded people, the meddling that Wilson did in WWI helped cause the fall of the German, Hapsberg, and Russian Empire's and what took their places?"

The Russian Empire fell prior to American intervention, and America played no role in the fall of the Tsar. In regard to the Austrian Empire the Germans used to say during the Great War in reference to the Austro-Hungarian Empire that Germany was shackled to a corpse. There was no way the polyglot empire was going to survive the War. As for the German Second Reich, they were going to be defeated in 1918 with or without American intervention. America played a role in the victory of 1918, but it was small in comparison to that of the French and the Brits. Ludendorf and Hindenburg shot their bolt with their spring offensive and they lacked the manpower and resources to stem the Allied counteroffensive, which was overwhelmingly British and French. American intervention probably led to a much less severe peace being imposed on Germany than would have been the case if the French and British government had been free to impose a Cathaginian peace.

"Listen to George Washington folks, and stay out of other countries problems and business!"

Indeed, I recommend listening to this passage from his 1793 address to Congress:

“The United States ought not to indulge a persuasion that, contrary to the order of human events, they will forever keep at a distance those painful appeals to arms with which the history of every other nation abounds. There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”

Donald R. McClarey said...

"Israel-bots, why should Israel have as many nukes as they want but the countries surrounding htem (with oil) not be allowed any?"

Because Israel has had nukes for four decades and not used them, while most other nations in that area are led by lunatics who have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and would not hesitate to use nukes if they possessed them?

In regard to Ahmadinejad of Iran, a state that Ron Paul could care less if it has nukes, he had this little comment in 2005:

"One of our group told me that, when I started to say 'In the name of God, the almighty, the merciful', he saw a light around me and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change and, for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink."

Some of the commenters in this thread are so blinded by hatred of Israel that they are willing to overlook the fact that in the Middle East we are often dealing with leaders in Islamic countries are very, very loosely wired and quite dangerous to their own peoples and the world.

Michelle said...

Anon, all the military folks I know want to defend this country by keeping the enemy somewhere else, not burying our heads in the sand and pretending that if we just ignore the world, the world will ignore us. My husband would not be in the military if he felt he was in the employ of big business, ruling elites and Israel. But then again, my husband is just a big, stupid field grade officer with a Master's in International Affairs. Perhaps he's just naive.

Athelstane said...

Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories have as much credibility as 9/11 theories: that is to say, none at all. Stinnett's and Toland's theories that FDR knew about the Japanese attack plan have no acceptance whatsoever in the scholarly community. None. Stinnett uncovered absolutely no direct evidence that Roosevelt knew what he claims he knew about the attack.

I think a lot of us question American involvement in World War I, but to claim that our entry caused the collapse of the European empires is ridiculous, as Mr. McClarey has already pointed out. The Czar was already history. Austria-Hungary was on life support, and Turkey was doomed. It wasn't the war, so much as Wilson's mismanagement of the peace that resulted in an unstable postwar settlement.

However it happened, at any rate, it's just not tenable to say that we could or should have stayed out of World War II.

Anonymous said...

Santorum supported Specter -- I haven't forgotton. He is a warmongering neocon who is ignorant of Church teaching on just wars and an obvious "Israel firster". Let the Zionists fight their own wars, after all they have nuclear weapons...just in case anyone didn't know. The "regime change" show is getting to be a bore. We need to drop the "empire" schtick.

Dennis O'Donovan said...

Matt, you and your brother Pat are invited to be on the show tonight (Monday), or either one of you. We will discuss religion and politics. Please call me or email your response to rpconradio@yahoo.com. Thanks. www.rpconradio.com.

Trubador said...

Wow. This post got comment crazy (in more ways than one).

First, as a former, long-time PA resident, I personally think that all those PA-ians who still hold such a deep grudge against Santorum for his backing of Spector to be nothing by full of spite and hypocrisy.

As for myself, of all the (relatively weak) candidates that have thrown their hats in the ring, my first choice has been pretty steady: Rick Perry.

Why? Because of his long-standing record as a executive and of federalism/constitutionalism. He's not perfect (no one is), but he's better than the rest of the lot.

Executive experience is VERY important for the position of President. Very, very few past presidents were elected without having this experience (either as governor, general or vice president).

Santorum is my back-up protest vote if Perry is no longer in the running by the time CA's primary rolls around.

Anonymous said...

Santorum has excellent pro-life credentials. He unfortunately is wasting his time rinning fro President.

1.) He could not even get re-elected to the Senate from PA. He lost badly in a key elctoral state.

2.) He needs a charisma transplant.

Best hope for him is that if the GOP wins the Presidency he gets a cabinet position or a judgeship.

Post a Comment