Romney's 'Electability' vs. Santorum's Authenticity in an Unconventional Year

By David Jones
1/17/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

It's not a conventional or normal year. The old logic doesn't work this year.

Santorum is the tortoise in the race, surging at just the right time in Iowa. He is a true Pro-Life and Pro-Family candidate with a strong foreign policy background and a populist economic message about rebuilding the manufacturing base in this country. Santorum is a practicing Catholic with a large family and an amazing personal family story. What is most striking about him though is his authenticity.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

GREENVILLE, SC (Catholic Online) - Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination for President. At least, that is conventional logic. It is his turn, after losing the last election cycle to John McCain. McCain has now endorsed Romney this election cycle. Romney has garnered major endorsements from governors and congressmen and women from all around the country.

Jon Huntsman dropping out of the race now and endorsing Romney will only help Romney consolidate more votes. Huntsman was the highly successful Governor of Utah and 3-time ambassador. His support will only strengthen Romney. The Republican Party establishment seems to be in full support of Romney.

Romney has raised an enormous amount of money to run for President. He has a huge national organization. He has multiple Super PACs working on his behalf. Romney won a narrow victory in the Iowa Caucus and a substantial victory in the New Hampshire Primary. No non-incumbent Republican candidate had ever won both Iowa and New Hampshire. He is leading in national polls as well as leading in South Carolina where the next primary is to be held later this week on Saturday.

No Republican candidate in the modern period has won the Republican nomination without first winning South Carolina. If Romney wins there, almost everyone is convinced the Republican race is over for all the other candidates. The momentum of three straight victories is too much for anyone to overcome, especially considering Romney's national organization and campaign war chest of money which will only increase after a victory in South Carolina.

So, if it is a done deal, if it's inevitable that Romney will win and run against President Obama in the fall, why should we care about the Republican race? Why should we even vote?

The answer is a simple one, it's not a conventional or normal year. The old logic doesn't work this year.

The rules for this year's primary/caucus season are different. The Republican Party has changed how delegates are awarded. It is now proportional representation which means delegates are awarded by each state according the percentage of vote that they win, it is not winner-take-all. According to MSNBC's delegates count, Romney has 18 delegates. His closest competitor Santorum has 11 delegates. 1143 delegates are required to win the Republican nomination. This race is far from over.

I would remind voters that there is a recount of votes in progress right now in Iowa which could make Santorum the victor there. That would change the delegate count. Santorum has also recently pulled ahead of Gingrich in the official count of votes in the New Hampshire Primary. Santorum just earned the endorsement of 150 major Evangelical leaders in their recent meeting, on Friday 13th, in Texas. South Carolina is composed of a 60% Evangelical vote in the Republican Primary.

The key factor which Romney needed to occur in South Carolina was for conservatives to split their votes 4-5 ways so that he could garner the winning margin. Evangelicals do not vote in a monolithic block, nor do Catholics for that matter, but for those who are active and practicing church-goers, they do listen to their leaders. If Evangelicals actually coalesce around one candidate, that will have an impact that could very well tip the balance on who wins South Carolina. Whoever wins South Carolina will receive a huge fundraising boost and surge going into the Florida Primary at the end of January.

65% of those polled in the Republican Party do not support Romney for President though. Why is this? Romney seems to be very mechanical, robot-like. He seems overly programmed, like an East German spy of old. His talks are those written by speech writers telling voters what they want to hear. Romney seldom speaks from his heart. Few actually believe that Romney actually believes what he says, he is just saying what he thinks will get him elected.

The reason why so many doubt his sincerity is because of his own history and record. When running for Senate against Ted Kennedy, he ran as a liberal Republican and he lost that race badly. Romney would recover from that loss and later go on to be elected Governor of Massachusetts. As a one-term governor, Romney's own record was moderate at best. His state mandated health care, called Romneycare, and would later become a model for Obamacare. It is fair to judge one's record and few would have the audacity to call it conservative.

How can such a candidate excite the base of the Republican Party in 2012, especially one that depends upon vibrant Tea Party support that was so successful in the 2010 Congressional elections against the Democratic Party? If Romney excites few in his own party, how can he inspire independents and conservative Democrats to support him? He simply won't.

Both Bob Dole and John McCain ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 11 Comments

Roy Dew
1 year ago
It is odd that Catholic.org would resort to the very same tactics that John F. Kennedy faced from protestants during his bid for the Presidency.

The Kennedy estate was valued at more than 1 billion dollars at the time he ran for President of the United States.

What did John F. Kennedy feel about the Mormons?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV39W7GBktk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccyc9_azuxc&feature=related

If you would like the truth on the issues with regard to Mitt Romney see this short book:

http://www.amazon.com/Evangelicals-Should-Support-Romney-ebook/dp/B006WRFMPI/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326681817&sr=1-2

As a reminder, there is no religious test or requirement to become President of the United States.
Don Schenk
1 year ago
Apparently Rick Santorum lacks the support of millionaires that he needs to blanket states with TV ads because he voted for America's industrial workers against the one-sided "free trade" treaties in which foreign countries place large barriers against American-produced goods while we're "free."
David D.
1 year ago
In response to your question taad, I'm not certain Sen. Santorum actually said the killing of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was a good thing. In fact his quote on the topic reads ... “_If_ these are people who are developing a weapon to be used to either destroy the state of Israel or to spread terror — a reign of terror — around the world, we shouldn’t be sitting on the sidelines and letting it happen.” In that respect, I believe he remains very consistent with Church teaching on the matter. The qualifier is that there be certainty that a 'real and present danger' (I used to love reading Tom Clancy!) exists.

"2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility." ... there I go quoting that pesky Catechism again. I'm not entirely certain, but I believe that 'repel' can be translated to mean 'in real time' _or_ preemptively.

Of course the following items do set further qualifiers for military intervention ... "2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed." 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. ***The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.***" So yes, taad, I believe we can. Being "at war" does not _appear_ to be limited to the formal declaration of hostilities. And that works just fine for me. And J, as much as I am pro-life and pro-family, I have to agree with Sen. Santorum on the immigration issue. We use the term "illegal" imigrants for a reason. They have broken the law. There is the right way to enter and the wrong way to enter. And based on his comments, these individuals won't be imprisoned and would in fact have every opportunity to establish citizenship in the manner prescribed by law. Statements from the USCCB are not doctrinal in nature. Case in point ... excerpt from the note, “Toward Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority." Prepared by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace … “In making the case for a global authority, the document said the continued model of nationalistic self-interest seemed "anachronistic and surreal" in the age of globalization. (foolish me, I always thought that was what made America such a great country) "We should not be afraid to propose new ideas, even if they might destabilize pre-existing balances of power that prevail over the weakest," it said. (given that America is quickly becoming one of the world’s biggest debtor nations – ok, I’m exaggerating, we’re only 20th out of the top 75, but we’re working hard to catch up with Greece, does that mean we’re soon to be in the weakest category?) The "new world dynamics," it said, call for a "gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation's powers to a world authority and to regional authorities." (A ‘global authority’, oh, sure, what a great idea. We can build on such stellar successes as the IMF, NATO, the EU.) But I digress. Lastly, sadly Jennifer, I think most of the people, Catholics included, who voted for Obama knew exactly what he stood for. You are correct, as we make our choice it should be the result of prayerful discernment.
Bulbajer
1 year ago
If Romney gets the nomination, who should pro-lifers vote for? Both candidates would be pro-choice!
Jennifer
1 year ago
I'm with you, David, about Rick Santorum. He's the genuine article. I support him all the way. I can't, however, agree, that "Americans are a great judge of people." since so many Americans failed to see Barack Obama for who he really is. They were swayed by fancy suits and fancy speeches, and paid no attention to who the man really was and what he was really about. They were hypnotized by the image and idea of Obama, and did not judge him wisely or accurately. Shamefully, the majority of Catholics failed to judge Obama wisely. Let's pray that the voters are more savvy this time around, and that people will use their good judgment and indeed, be a better judge of people. SANTORUM 2012
J
1 year ago
If he was as pro-family as he claims to be her would not be supportive of breaking of families just because their parents are not legal citizens. He is also not on the same page with the bishops when it comes to immigration reform. And he supports bombing Iran and killing thousands of people in the process while he hides behind "just war theory" which by the way many people tried to use in the case of Iraq, but Blessed John Paul II and many in the church hierarchy were publicly against the war. I thought conservative these days meant to be in line with the bishops and the pope? Am I wrong on that?
taad
1 year ago
Why will no one give me a straight answer. Is Santorum following church teaching by saying the murder of nuclear scientist in Iran is a good thing? Is this just according to church teaching, or is he off base here? Can we morally kill someone in a country we are not at war with? Just honesly asking, I like Rick, but this makes me very uncomfortable.
Rob
1 year ago
I understand where the author is coming from. But I think the author presupposes a lot of things. For one, I think the author puts a lot of faith in a primary process and it's voters that often times does not resemble the general electorate. Both primary and caucus goes tend to be harder right or left. They rarely represent independents. And given that between right and left they are split almost 50/50 on a majority of the social issues, it almost eliminates them as a bone of contention, or at least that is the thought of all the pundits, both on the right and left. The other is that the populist message of rebuilding our manufacturing base. While I love the idea of this, it's virtually tied to tax policy as the only means to save it. Taxes are only one spoke in a wheel that has caused our manufacturing base to leave the country. The primary culprit is labor and I'm not sure what Santorum can do about that. I don't think we can build a strong manufacturing base in this country if we have to compete with the wage rates of the third world. I have heard very little from him on trade policy. I am still waiting for him to discuss financial reform. Given his direct role in repealing some of the controls that led directly to the real estate disaster we recently and are currently experiencing, I need to hear more about that from him. If it's business as ususal, I can't support him.
David D.
1 year ago
"Rick Santorum ... Pro-Life and Pro-Family ... a strong foreign policy background ... a populist economic message about rebuilding the manufacturing base ... a practicing Catholic with a large family ... an amazing personal family story ... his authenticity. He says what he believes and believes what he says."

Hmm ... no wonder he's been left hanging by the GOP establishment, so viciously attacked by the radical left, and would be the Dem's worst nightmare were he to be facing the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in November. To make that happen, we as Catholics and as Americans must first overcome our fears ... we are fearful of appearing politically incorrect, of offending, of being perceived as intolerant, of being called self-righteous, and of having a holier-than-thou attitude. We have become peacekeepers rather than peaceMAKERS. And of what true and lasting value is that? (As a side note, I believe, many of these fears have resulted in the rise of the cafeteria Catholic. Let's 'go along to get along' and after a time, once complacency sets in, the distorted views we develop about the Truth and the Word along with the inevitable creation of our own personal warm and fuzzy God become the basis for development of our very own doctrine of the Faith. Now what was it that we read in the Bible about the "lukewarm" and of distorting the Truth...?) We are on the verge of an awakening in this country. Not the one supported by the Occupy movement ... at best that's socialism, at worst, chaos. This Country was built on the efforts of individuals, who united first as families, and then as communities. Who understood individual liberties, rights, and responsibilities. They would have shook their heads in amazement at the entitlement mentality that has grown over the last decade. And they would have taken real offense at the notion that we as individuals are not capable of caring for ourselves in a responsible manner, as the current administration would have us believe, and therefore must be subject to government intervention and oversight in virtually every aspect of our lives. Many feel we have no real voice in what happens. But that simply is not true. In every election, each of us has a voice. It's called a vote. It counts the same regardless of race, religious beliefs, gender, or socio-economic background. And prior to entering the voting booth and pulling the lever we have the opportunity to share our opinions with those around us. In the pews, across the street, at work. But to do that we have to get over those fears I mentioned. Romney is neither the Conservative nor the Catholic choice and support of his campaign seems to be settling for second best. It is our compromising from a perceived position of weakness ... acting out of fear. As Catholics, we should feel compelled, driven, obligated to support a candidate whose words and actions mirror our own values. Whose moral character shines. If we do that with compassion and with a caring, loving spirit, we will be sending a message to the administration, to the very vocal minority groups (I am not speaking about ethnic groups here) that have done so much damage to the most basic of social units, the family, and to the world, that news of the demise of America has been greatly exaggerated.
vance
1 year ago
Santorum is everything a practicing Catholic and Protestant Christian would want for a President. Santorum is everything the Liberal Establishment hates. The Liberal Establishment hates Santorum because of what he represents and what he stands for. Santorum can beat Obama in a landslide election just as Reagan beat Carter in 1980. The "Polls" showed Carter and Reagan running neck-n-neck up to election day. The rest was history. It's up to all Catholics to put their vote where their mouth is and vote Santorum.

Prev12 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment