Monday, July 18, 2005

Dailey Thoughts On Santorum

A few weeks ago, I blogged about some of the problems that I have with supporting Rick Santorum in his bid for a third term in the US Senate. Basically, Santorum is not the same grass-roots conservative who was first elected to Congress in my district back in 1990.

More recently I have resisted commenting on the controversy surrounding the Senator's new book and an article he wrote for a Catholic publication three years ago because I have not yet decided exactly what I think about it. Part of me says that he is absolutely right, and part of me says that these are personal matters that a politician has no business getting involved in. Either way, he seems to be taking focus off of any issues that may be relevant to next year's political campaign.

As it happens, anything else that I might have to say about the current Santorum brouhaha is very neatly covered by the lovely and talented Ruth Ann Dailey in this morning's PG. Ms. Dailey -- a right-of-center leaning columnist for a mainstream leftist rag -- has produced a piece of work that's worth about a dozen blog posts. And here I thought the MSM was pointless. There's life in the old girl yet. (By "old girl" I mean the newspaper, not Ruth Ann Dailey. She's not old -- look at her picture on the electronic masthead.)

The key paragraph is this:

But there are conservatives who wish Santorum expressed himself with more grace. They get tired of explaining what they think he was trying to say. And seeing that his probable opponent, Robert Casey, is a conservative, Catholic, pro-life Democrat as likely, say, to support President Bush's Supreme Court nominees as Santorum is, they may view this election as a win-win, no matter what the outcome.
Some of us have a hard time even thinking about jumping ship and voting for a Democrat under any circumstances. I, for one, will be taking a serious look at whatever candidates the Constitution and Libertarian parties are going to run next year.

Read the whole thing, as they say. And be advised that when she uses the term "bloggers", she is referring to lefty blogs.

2 comments:

Honnistaibe said...

The first time I ever saw Rick Santorum speak at length about any subject he reminded me of every "spineless" politician (dem or republican)who served in office.
The story I've heard repeatedly (you are welcome to take this with "a grain of salt" and delete if you wish)is that he got his current "leadership' position in the Republican Senate by being the "messenger who brought the bad news" to the Republican House Managers during the Clinton Impeachment that there would be no "testimony by witnesses" during the trial and that the final vote would be manipulated so that the maximum number of GOP Senators could CYA's with their contituents without removing the sitting President.

Nicko McDave said...

The best that can be said about that story is that the almost complete lack of a Senate trial weakened Al Gore's 2000 campaign. Had Clinton been removed from office, Gore would have become President. (There was no "coup", as some have claimed, unless Gore was the leader, since he was the one who stood to gain the most.) An incumbent President is usually harder to beat (unless Ross Perot is running). The Senate leadership must have been aware of this and understood that it was politically in the best interests of the Republican Party to allow Bill Clinton to serve out his term as an impeached lame duck.

Knowing how Santorum feels about the Clintons, it must have eaten him up inside to have been partially responsible for saving the Clinton presidency.