I agree with your assessment, Nadine.
It's a terrible shame that the media, and much of the country, are setting their focus on Gingrich and Romney and, in that way, viewing Santorum as nothing more than an afterthought.
My husband and I have followed the career of Rick Santorum for nearly twenty years (having lived in Pennsylvania during those years) -- both his political and private sector careers. In all of that time, in both government service and the private sector, there were only four things that he did that disappointed us, and all four have been explained:
(1) His endorsement of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the senate race in 2004 (which he has since satisfactorily explained as a compromise with Specter, then chairman of the judiciary committee, to ensure the confirmation of two conservative Bush appointees to the Supreme Court).
(2) His vote for the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which he has since honestly admitted was a mistake.
(3) His vote against Right-to-Work legislation, which he has since satisfactorily explained as a vote that reflected the large majority of the people in his state, which is precisely what a senator is supposed to do in representing his state in a representative republic. He stated, at the time, that he himself was not inclined to vote that way (and he has stated since that, as president, he would push for national Right-to-Work legislation). A leader in a representative republic is charged to vote in the way those who put him into office would like him to vote. When he represented PA, he voted as his constituents wished. If he were president, he would vote for what is best for the nation.
(4) His vote for No Child Left Behind, which he has since honestly admitted was a mistake (for a myriad of reasons).
Over a nearly twenty year period, that is a pretty small record of 'mistakes' (actually, two). And I can't think of anyone else on the political scene today whose record is that sterling.
What is so very tragic about this entire primary process is the fact that Santorum campaigned vigorously for much longer (months, actually), and much harder, than anyone else in his bid for Iowa's electoral votes. He spent only a tiny fraction, in dollars, of what the others spent (a few thousand, as opposed to millions). He traveled around in a pick-up truck, talking directly to the people of Iowa at nearly 400 townhall meetings, and in various shopping centers, businesses, etc. He poured his heart into Iowa, and he did it all on a shoe-string. The result? He won the caucus, despite insurmountable odds.
But, since Iowa, there is no time to do the same genuinely 'grassroots' campaigning in the other states, simply because the primaries are so close together. The result? Those candidates who have the money to bathe people's televisions and radios in their campaign ads will win those state's electoral votes. Santorum is very low on money, so he doesn't stand a prayer.
That is the tragedy of modern politics. When he was allowed the time to literally reach out to people (in Iowa), his honesty, integrity, genuine conservatism, love of country, and patriot vision became known, and he was rewarded with a victory. Because he does not have the time to do that in the succeeding state primaries, those with the financial wherewithal will be able to drown out his message from now on. And not enough people watch these debates for his message to make a difference in that regard. (I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I know who regularly watch the debates.)
I adored Ronald Reagan. I honestly believe that Rick Santorum has at least the potential to become another Reagan, and I never ever thought I would say that about another politician. And the fact that a lack of financial support from the deep pockets, and political influences, that can now spell the difference between victory and defeat will prevent him from doing so is a tragedy beyond description. |
