Betrayal-A Common Theme in Santorum’s Political Life?

[This is comment came in response to the Facebook post that contained my WND article for April 13, 2012 re Santorum's withdrawal from the GOP primary race (Santorum’s Supporters Played for Fools.)

Hi Alan,

David commented on your post.

David wrote: “Betrayal – a common theme in the political life of Rick Santorum. Dr. Keyes states where he betrayed his supporters this year, and where he betrayed Pennsylvanians by endorsing Arlen Specter several years ago. This should have been no surprise. Early in his book “Sellout”, David Schippers, Henry Hyde’s lead counsel in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, writes of the first meeting between the House managers and himself, and two senators – majority leader Trent Lott…and Rick Santorum. This is the meeting where Lott (and Santorum, by his silent acquiescence) explained to the House managers that the Senate had already determined that Clinton would pay no penalty for his felony purgeries The exact quote from Lott – “Henry, you’re not going to dump this garbage on us.” – made it clear, as did all the unanimous senate votes on trial procedures, that Santorum, as well as the rest of those worthless oxygen-users, were betraying their country and the oath they all took to protect the Constitution. Why Santorum was able to garner any support at all during this campaign is beyond me, unless all the left’s claims that Republican pols and voters are stupid (almost as stupid as the opposition) are true. Well, I, for one, am washing my hands of the entire worthless GOP; maybe the Democrats will drag the GOP so far left that the only way for the Democrats to distinguish themselves will be to double back and become constitutionalists (I’m not holding my breath).”

See the comment thread

Reply to this email to comment on this post.

Plaxo PulseStumbleUponLinkedInFacebookDeliciousShare
  • http://profile.yahoo.com/5U3BIYHWSWRDTLPVZJL4HFSVYY Jason M

    The problem with your reasoning Alan is family comes first.  I think Santorum properly understood that his daughter’s 2nd bout with pneumonia, and ongoing medical problems, required his family’s time and devotion.

    Santorum never stated he was the perfect candidate.  Unlike Romney who lies outright, Santorum admitted his faults in voting for NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug benefit with no funding mechanism.  

    But, even you, under the flimsy guise of supporting the family farm as a national security matter, backed agricultural subsidies in Iowa; hardly a position the Tea Party would back today.  You also didn’t back Texas’ sodomy law in a campaign appearance back in 2000 that I personally attended.  The Supreme Court’s action in Lawrence v Texas led to the onslaught against the family we see today with respect to marriage laws.  Should I put that down in your column of flaws as well?

    My point is we all have flaws, especially candidates running for office.  Some are more pernicious than others.  I’ve noticed in all your columns you attack one candidate after another: Cain, Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, Romney.

    And to address another point, you and I know that the Democrats voting in lock-step in the Senate, as they did, always prevented the chance of a conviction; no matter the veracity of the claim made against Santorum by David Schippers.

    If the candidates out there are not to your liking, well, why don’t you run?  If there are no credible candidates to support, maybe you should stop complaining and start running.

    Let us not forget that in the grand scheme of things that our priorities should be God, family, country…not political office, power and politics.

    If this country is let down by Santorum’s exit, and, perhaps, forthcoming endorsement of Romney, then we the people deserve what we get for placing our hopes in one man and not the power and discernment of the people our founders intended.

    • http://loyaltoliberty.com/WordPress loyaltoliberty

      Jason,
      As far as I know former Senator Santorum did not plead family responsibility as the excuse for his withdrawal. That’s probably because he knows that, under the circumstances, the plea makes no sense. He was running for President. If elected he would have to perform his duties even when his family situation makes that emotionally difficult. If he isn’t willing to do that, then he is not in fact willing to perform the duties of the office. Did he not count the cost before he asked others to commit their hearts, labor and money to his effort?
      Also, in times of great public crisis (war for example) even ordinary citizens must make extraordinary sacrifices. Santorum professes to understand that this is an election vital to the survival of everything we hold dear. Though it takes place under the guise of politics, the wrong results will be as or more devastating than any war the nation has ever engaged in. What is true of ordinary citizens is even more emphatically true of people who take an the oath of office to be the commander-in-chief in the battle for the nation’s survival.
      For the record, I have never backed laws that, absent the violation of unalienable right, or a manifestly compelling public health or safety interest, purport to regulate the private conduct of individuals in their homes. I have questioned (and still do question)the prudence of enacting laws that cannot be enforced without establishing police state totalitarian surveillance of otherwise properly private activities, and which therefore are usually erratically enforced, if and when they are enforced at all.
      Unlike the Lawrence decision, however, I do not question the duty (and attendant right) of the people, through their properly constituted instrument of government, to regulate otherwise private activity when the activity manifestly violates the fundamental principles of God endowed public liberty. For instance, if you murder one of your children you cannot pretend that the people (through their constitutionally established government) do not have the duty to prosecute your crime (as a violation of the unalienable right to life) just because it took place in your bedroom. By the same token where sexual activity has consequences that, in principle or effect, damage the common good, they are properly subject to regulation, up to and including prohibition (as re sexual activity with children.) I took that position in 2000 and I take it now.
      I do not argue that the government must regulate homosexual activity just because it is sinful. Given my faith, government regulation of all sinful activity would require thought control, because Christ sees even the contemplation of sin (adultery was the example he gave)as sinful. Thus the government’s power to regulate sin would entail the utter destruction of all liberty, beginning with individual conscience itself.
      All my arguments against homosexual marriage have to do with its devastatingly destructive implications for the natural rights of family which are the paradigm for property rights as well as government by consent. This is a matter that involves a profoundly important public principle.
      Though the government cannot prudently be entrusted with the power to regulate all wrongs, it must however be trusted with the authority required to secure God endowed unalienable rights, the purpose for which it is instituted in the first place.
      Re homosexuality the elitist courts are simply abandoning the proper aim of government. Instead of securing rights (which must be grounded in a claim of right action) they are seeking to establish wrongs as “rights”, which perverts the very idea of right. This I have and will always adamantly oppose.
      Contrary to your careless words, I attack no candidate. I simply point out the fatal flaws (i.e., a flaw that by itself destroys the security and or liberty of the nation) in the stances they take. Even one such flaw makes them unfit to preserve the nation. I do not demand perfection, but it’s irrational to demand that the people of this country settle for something less than survival.

    • alkeyes

      As far as I know former Senator Santorum did not plead family obligation as an excuse for his withdrawal, probably because he knows that it would not make sense. He was running for the Office of President. If he succeeded in the effort, he would be obliged to fulfill the duties of his office, whatever his family situation. Or are you saying he did not count the cost before asking people to commit their hearts, labor and money to his campaign?
      Moreover, Mr. Santorum professes to believe that the future of the country is being decided in this election cycle, especially with respect to issues (like abortion and the defense of the natural rights of family) that are life and death for the liberty of the nation, its moral and spiritual life, and therefore its physical survival in the face of threats like those of the terror minded Islamists. Though the contest takes place in the political context the wrong result will be as devastating for the nation as the result of any war in which we have ever engaged, and perhaps more decisive for the future of its free institutions. In time of war even ordinary citizens must make extraordinary sacrifices, as when soldiers are called to duty and unable to remain at home to share the joys and sorrows of their children’s lives. This is even more true of those who take the oath of office as commander-in-chief during the crisis. Do you think Mr. Santorum failed to take this into account before deciding to be a candidate?
      I do not now and did not in the past support the Lawrence decision. I think you know this, since you carefully assert that I did not support the sodomy law, not that I supported the Court’s decision. The elitist courts are seeking to define wrongs as rights, in a way that violates the unalienable rights of the natural family. This directly contravenes the proper aim of all government, which is to secure unalienable rights.
      I have questioned (and still do question) the prudence of passing laws that either (a) cannot be enforced without an apparatus of police state totalitarian surveillance or b) will be enforced erratically or not at all on account of the absence of such surveillance. If you accurately recall the speech you heard in Texas, this is what I argued then as I do now. However, I have never questioned the duty of the people, by means of a properly constituted instrument of government, to make and enforce laws needed to secure unalienable rights, including the security of public health and safety. A parent cannot claim the right to commit murder (violating the unalienable right to life of their child) simply because the act took place in the privacy of their home. So where sexual activity affects its fundamental duty to the public good, government regulation may be necessary and appropriate.
      It makes no sense, however, to demand that government repress all sinful activities. This would pose a threat to all liberty, beginning with conscience itself. According to my Christian faith, for example, this would justify government regulation of sinful thoughts, since Christ said that someone sinning in thought has already sinned indeed.
      In opposing homosexual marriage I have consistently relied on arguments that involve the obligation of the people, through their properly constituted instrument of government, to secure the unalienable rights of natural family, which are the paradigm of property right and of government by consent. This issue therefore involves matters of profoundly important public principle, which are necessarily subject to public law and political decision.
      Contrary to your characterization, I have not attacked any candidate. Using fact and reason as best I can, I point to the fatal flaws (i.e., a flaw that in and of itself is fatal to the liberty or safety of the nation) in their public policy actions or stated views. I do not demand perfection. I do consider it irrational, however, to demand that the American people settle for something less than the survival of their nation and its Constitutional liberty, which every officeholder in the country is sworn to uphold, protect and defend.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/5U3BIYHWSWRDTLPVZJL4HFSVYY Jason M

        I think Senator Santorum reconsidered his position in the campaign after both illnesses of his daughter(which I believe to be unexpected), the lack of money(reportedly, his campaign is now 1 million in debt), the million dollar barrage in PA by the Romney SuperPAC, Texas not making their primary winner-take-all and the delegate math.  It seems to have been a coalescing of these factors.

        I also think his withdrawal is saddening for those of us who felt they had a man in the race who lived the values he espoused.  Whilst not perfect, he was the best choice left standing that had a serious shot at the White House this year.

        Honestly, I felt if the remaining 3 candidates denied Romney the 1,144 delegates, that another candidate would have arisen at the convention.  Whether that person be an Establishment stooge, or an authentic conservative such as a Jim DeMint, we can only speculate.

        I do think he took all factors you mention into account.  But in your own language, “the republic is dead”.  The nation that was founded on the Judeo-Christian concept passed away long ago when decent Americans allowed: the destruction of innocent lives in the womb, the readily available family-destroying pornography(some polls show 1/2 of all Christians now admit to viewing it), and the usurpation of our educational and media institutions by secular Leftists.

        Just as the army of constitutional conservatives thought you were the best choice in 1996, 2000 and 2008, we are again faced with another nominee who will probably lead us down the path of Big Government conservatism; otherwise known as neo-conservatism.

        The neo-conservative usually masquerades as a paleoconservative, giving lip-service to family values, but they also enjoy creating more government control in our lives.  Expanding foreign power and influence is also a key objective of the neo-con, even if such forays leave us bankrupt and are devoid of a national security threat.

        I have come to the conclusion Romney is a neo-conservative.  During the debates, he was asked a question regarding the power of the executive branch.  He was asked if he disagreed with a Supreme Court decision, would he defy it.  He said he would not.  That kind of fealty to the judicial branch bankrupts the clear understanding of our constitutional republic and the values it was founded on.  Indeed, it places the power of the republic in the hands of an unelected oligarchy.

        I do view this first presidential run by Santorum as a learning experience, just as 1996 was an eye-opener for you;    especially when they slapped the handcuffs on you in Atlanta.  

        I do believe the Texas sodomy law had a valid justification in the public health realm.  Contracting HIV was a death sentence until the mid-1990s, as you well know with the death of Allan Bloom.  Indeed, the loss of a family friend in 1988 underscored this for me as well.  So, the sodomy law had a proper basis in the protection and health of its citizens.  The argument can still be made such laws serve an important function, as HIV medications usually run 10-20K a year in cost.  That burden often falls to the state when an uninsured, or underinsured, person contracts the disease.

        Perhaps I should re-frame the choice of words from an attack to a critique.  I did not want to imply a frontal assault from you toward them, rather a sharp critique of their past positions, logic, etc.

        Again, with such a flawed field this time around, I did not support a candidate until several weeks ago.  And only then, as a means to force a contested convention where a better nominee came forward.