Rick Santorum: Bad for Republicans, Bad for America

Christian? Yes. President? Please, God--NO.

Calling all Republicans and Independents.

Rick Santorum drove a nail into the coffin of his candidacy in his recent remarks on a speech John F Kennedy gave over 50 years ago. That is, his candidacy ought to be dead if his remarks are covered beyond the so-called lame-stream media.  I doubt we’ll see this on Fox, and that’s a shame, because the GOP is imploding before our very eyes–and I blame Fox. (As of right now–I can’t find this anywhere on their website.)  But let’s get to the substance, first.

“What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Rick Santorum asked George Stephanopoulos on ABC yesterday, referring to the aforementioned Kennedy speech. “That makes me throw up and it should make every American who has seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you.”

Santorum is mad at Barrack Obama.  And that’s fine.  We still live in a Democracy, and the portion of the country disenchanted with Obummer’s (that’s one of the things they call him) policies need a good man or woman to vote for.  But please, God, not Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum is either deliberately lying, never read Kennedy’s speech, or, he’s not intelligent enough to understand what Kennedy was saying.  None of these things are good for Republicans–or America–in the event that he captures the GOP nomination.

Read Kennedy’s speech and see for yourself what Rick Santorum has done.  He’s upset at Obama over “attacking the religious beliefs of others” and, for some unfathomable reason, invokes JFK’s speech to support his point.  Only problem?

JFK never once said that “only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case.”

In fact, Kennedy said the opposite.  He said that the President is obligated to people of ALL faiths, since America isn’t only Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Quaker.

“I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none,” and, “in fact this is the kind of America

Put your feelings about this man aside. Read his words, and decide if Santorum has a clue about what Kennedy's saying.

for which our forefathers died–when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches–when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom–and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey–but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.”

In fact, Kennedy’s speech was a response to religious persecution–a cause one would expect Santorum, had he been more intelligent, could have used the same speech in favor of Santorum’s own platform.

“For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew–or a Quaker–or a Unitarian–or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim–but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”

And aren’t we at just such a time?  Our economy is in the tanks, we’ve been at war since 2003, and there is nary a civil word across party lines, with both sides locked in a perpetual blame game.  Divided we shall fall.

Rick Santorum is Christian and he’s Republican.  And he’s a true conservative.  But he’s the worst example of all these things.  And here I am blogging about the sideshow–because he’s made the sideshow.

He’s irresponsible with facts, he’s backwards-looking to a fault–and I’m praying that these things also matter to people of faith.  I’m praying that facts matter to conservatives.  I’m praying that facts matter to Republicans.  I pray for these things, because I live here too.

I took a jab at Fox News earlier, so I need to follow up on that before I’m done with this blog.  I think Fox has its place in our media.  A portion of our country seems to value its perspective.  (And let the arguing begin over whether or not it is the greater, lesser, or extreme fringe portion of our country–but that’s not really relevant.)

I’m no fan of shock politics, and there seems to be more of that on Fox than anywhere else, but that also isn’t really the point.

No, the point is that the media isn’t supposed to have any bias.  Fox News isn’t undoing the “harm” inflicted by the “lame-stream media” by going super far to the right of the political spectrum.  It isn’t undoing the harm by providing an opposite pole for reporting.

Fox News seems to feel obligated to pass over stories such as these, ostensibly because they are promoted by a “leftist” agenda.  After all, the remarks came from interviews given to ABC and NBC–the blackened core of the elitist liberal heart.  Fox seeks to contrast itself–but that selectivity is, by definition, biased, and not “fair and balanced.”  And this is the problem–particularly for conservatives.

Someone like myself isn’t concerned about Rick Santorum because I’m a “leftist.”  (I’m rubber you’re glue–anything you call me bounces off of me and sticks to you.)

No, I’m concerned when a candidate for President of the United States seeks your vote by lying to you.  And I’m just as concerned when I catch Barrack doing it.

I’m concerned that the media can no longer call something a “lie,” supposedly out of respect for some of the most disrespectful people I’ve seen in my life.  The behavior of all of our politicians is childish, rude, untrustworthy and despicable.  (I say, call them liars when they’re liars, but that’s a whole other blog post.  See my diatribe on Michele Bachmann.)

Point is, we need you Fox News.  We need you to do your damn job.  We need you to report on things that are unpopular, even within your own constituency.

Sure, they do a little of this–but, you know what?  So does ABC, NBC and all the rest.  A little.  Yet, if our news was truly unbiased, then we wouldn’t be in this problem.  But they aren’t, and we are.  So–I want Fox to do more unpopular reporting of the Republican candidates.  I want them to do more, because, if they did, I think the Republicans would see an entirely different line up of candidates than the likes of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cane or Rick Santorum.  I think we’d see the type of candidates that more Americans–even some non-Republican Americans, (SHOCKER–SAY IT AIN’T SO!) might want to vote for.

It’s obvious the party is splintered over the idea of Romney–but Romney is the guy they’ll get if they’re lucky.  And, the fact of the matter is, as all the other GOP Presidential hopefuls will tell you, Romney just isn’t all that different from Obama.  Looking for someone to blame?  Start with Fox News.  Why Fox?  Because they’re the ones reporting from an opposite pole from “all the rest” of the nation’s news outlets.  And, since the advent of Fox, we’re more polarized than ever.

It’s too late for this election cycle.  I don’t believe in the idea of a miracle candidate sailing in from the rafters of the GOP caucus in the eleventh hour.  And I know, and respect, that there are those who genuinely think Romney is a real contrast to Obama.  But, for me, the question right now is: Which candidate isn’t Rick Santorum.