More McCain

I see McCain denials on the Alito comment have been made. Given that Fund actually wrote that he "might draw the line" on another Alito (the operative word being might) I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, former Senator Rick Santorum has recently been critical of Senator McCain:

Although McCain has a largely pro-life voting record, Santorum — who led on pro-life and marriage issues in the Senate — cautioned against misunderstanding McCain’s public stance: “Not only was he wrong on embryonic-stem-cell research, but on a whole host of conservative issues, where he may have voted with us.” Santorum took radio listeners into the back-room workings of the Senate, emphasizing how the first step toward legislative success is finding time on the floor to discuss and vote on the issues: “That discussion is held in private, where you’re jostling and jockeying to get your legislation into the queue so that you can have your time on the floor to get something done. And I can tell you, when social-conservative issues were ever raised — whether it was marriage or abortion or a whole host of other issues — there were always the moderates who said ‘no, no, no, we can’t: they’re divisive, divisive, divisive.’ And more often than not, John McCain was . . . with them,” agreeing that these were divisive issues that the Senate should not bring to a vote.

“That’s wrong,” Santorum added, “and that gives me an insight into what he would really be like [on these issues] if he were president of the United States.”

More.

I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.

And more.

I talked to Rick Santorum briefly tonight. He told me that he “can’t in good conscience give details about what happened in senator-only meetings.” But in response to Ramesh’s question on abortion-related legislation, the former Pennsylvania senator offers to NRO: “the one that comes quickly to mind was a ban on cloning. While the House passed a cloning ban at least on one occasion, we never voted on the issue despite pleas from social conservatives as to its importance. Many senators including Senator McCain wanted to avoid casting votes.”

John McCain's service to our nation is more then commendable, it is more then we should ever ask of our sons or daughters. For many issues important to Catholics he has been there fighting the good fight.

What Senator Santorum claims though is disturbing. If the above is indeed true, what can we expect from a President McCain if the Congress attempts to repel DOMA or the PBA ban? Would he want to avoid having to veto such legislation? And is he really willing to put up SCOTUS nominees like Alito, Roberts, and Scalia in the face of Democratic opposition in the Senate?

These are serious questions for Catholic Republican voters to consider.

Crisis' Tribute to Rick Santorum

Lightning Rod: The Return of Rick Santorum, by Joan Frawley Desmond. Crisis June 2007:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) knew he had lost his re-election fight at 5 p.m. on Election Day. After receiving the news, he joined his wife, Karen, and their six children at their hotel suite. The Santorums always planned to “finish well.” Now, that meant taking their children with them when they voted at the Penn Hills polling station. The Santorums capped the evening with the celebration of Mass. They included Rick’s winning opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey, in their prayers, as they had every day during that long campaign. One attendee remembers “a beautiful Mass, filled with grace.”

At 8 p.m., Rick Santorum officially lost the election and congratulated Casey on his victory. Soon after, television personality Sean Hannity called to express his regrets. Santorum responded, “Why?” He felt at peace. . . .

What an inspiring way to end a political race. Would that all of our candidates had that kind of class! -- This from good article from Crisis (yes, I'm catching up on old issues) on the post-election doings of former Senator Rick Santorum. He is now working for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, heading their Program to Protect America's Freedom "to identify, study, and heighten awareness of the threats to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces and states that increasingly cast a shadow over our future and that violate religious liberty around the world."

The article addresses' Santorum's controversial decision to back Sen. Arlen Specter during the 2004 presidential race:

Santorum’s willingness to make choices that run counter to his own self-interest has even hurt him with his natural allies—the GOP’s conservative base. Back in 2004, his decision to endorse Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), a pro-abortion stalwart poised to command the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rather than Rep. Pat Toomey, his pro-life challenger, angered many conservatives. But those close to him say he believed he had no choice. At the time, he was certain that Bush would have a chance to nominate a justice for the nation’s highest court, but the party lacked the Senate majority it needed to confirm a nominee. The conservative base mistrusted Specter, but he could win in a general election. Toomey could not. When Specter’s victory at the polls was confirmed, recalls one friend, “Rick felt nothing. He turned off the television and went to bed. As a Senate leader, he needed Specter’s vote; he needed to get this done.”

The internecine party fight embittered pro-life Republicans, though most concede that Specter performed well during the recent Supreme Court confirmation battles. The deeper problem is that conservative activists believe that the GOP leadership exploits its political networks during election time but doesn’t work hard enough to secure vital anti-abortion and pro-marriage legislation. The irony, of course, is that no one accomplished more for the pro-life movement during his Senate career than Rick Santorum. He played a critical role in the passage of several key bills: the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Sponsorship of these bills reflected an incremental pro-life strategy to ban abortion by reclaiming the moral high ground—exposing the brutality of abortion procedures and affirming the fundamental dignity of unborn human life. On the Senate floor, Santorum was the undaunted general of the campaign.

The article goes on to cite Santorum's 1999 exchange with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, which encapsulates the perverse irrationality of the Democratic Party's position on abortion:

Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born—

Boxer: “The process of being born.” This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn’t obvious.

Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby’s foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.

Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way!

Santorum: I am asking.

Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.

Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?

Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother’s body. The baby is born.

Santorum: . . . But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby’s toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.

Boxer: Absolutely not.

Santorum: OK. So if the baby’s toe is in, you can’t kill the baby. How about if the baby’s foot is in?

Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.

Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.

Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.

Is Rick Santorum Backing Giuliani?

Both Pro Ecclesia and Res Publica et Cetera (here and here) link to stories indicating that former Sen. Rick Santorum may be preparing to support Rudy Giuliani's bid for the White House.

It wouldn't be the first time Santorum has placed party and political expediency above principle.

Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr.'s lead over Sen. Rick Santorum has grown even larger in their U.S. Senate race, according to a poll released Thursday.

The Quinnipiac University poll of 1,530 Pennsylvania voters showed Casey leading the two-term Republican incumbent by 18 points, 52 percent to 34 percent, in the 2006 race. That compares to a 50-to-39 percent lead in a July poll by Quinnipiac. Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, spent part of the summer promoting his new book, "It Takes a Family," on television talk shows. The book compares abortion to slavery and accuses feminists of undermining motherhood.

Casey, a Democrat and the son of a popular late governor, has maintained a low profile and done a limited number of media interviews.

The telephone survey, conducted from Sept. 27 to Monday, had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Source: Democrats Urged to Abandon Election Myths Associated Press. Oct. 6, 2005

Carl Olson reports from Ignatius Insight: "Both Casey and Santorum are Catholic, but they have differing views on a number of key topics. IgnatiusInsight.com interviewed both men this past summer. Read Casey's interview here (July 2005) and Santorum's interview here (June 2005)."

Does a politician's adherence to Catholic values conflict with the common good?

It seems FindLaw columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton believs it does. She argues in an article titled, "How Senator Rick Santorum, In Acting for His Church, Persistently Fails to Consider the Larger Public Good", that Sen Santorum represents the interests of the Catholic Church at the expense of the greater public good. She sees Sen Santorum's actions, at the order of "religious lobbyists" as harmful. How so? His Catholicism:

...prevented him from being "part of the solution" in the priest abuse crisis. He could have proposed federal legislation to help solve the crisis. Instead because of his Catholicism and position as a US Senator he was able to provide "cover for the Church".

...made him provide a "financial windfall to the Catholic University of America at the expense of veteran's health.

...made him promote "creationism" at the expense of science in schools.

...made him promote abstinence-only education, which is "education in religious values" and "utterly divorced from social reality".

...made him co-sponsor legislation giving "workers the right, in their jobs, to refuse to sell products regarding which they have moral objections".

...made him vote for legislation banning "abortion on all military bases".

Professor Hamilton is wrong. How so?

Besides Sen Santorum, there are 23 other self proclaimed Catholics in the Senate. Though she mentions Sen Kennedy she does not point out if other Catholic senators are harmful. Besides Sen Kennedy there have been other Catholic senators who have acted similarly, but there have been other non-Catholic senators who have also. Does Prof Hamilton see their actions as sacrificing the public good? She does not say. By looking at Sen Santorum's "harmful" actions we will see that though his faith leads him it does not require him to sacrifice the public good.

A federal solution to the crisis?

Prof Hamilton believes Sen Santorum could have been "part of the solution" to the priest abuse crisis, yet she offers no solutions as to what the federal government could have done. (To be fair, she has proposed "federal" solutions in other articles.) I do find it surprising that a Constitutional law professor who believes very much in the "separation of Church and State" would want the federal government involved in the policing of the Catholic Church. The crisis is being handled at the local and state level and the Church for the most part is cooperating through payments to victims and providing information to prosecutors on abusive priests. In addition, the bishops themselves have established a task force to develop policy to better protect children. There were no calls from others in the Congress or the president for action on this matter. No one suggests their religious faith made them do nothing. It is absurd to think so. And though the abuse of children by priests was a horror for not only Catholics, but for many Americans, it is difficult to see that it was necessary for the federal government to act. As for Sen Santorum's 2002 remarks, why is it now with just over a year until Pennsylvania voters decide whether or not to send Sen Santorum back to the Senate for another term, everyone is in an uproar over these remarks? Agree or disagree with them, the timing is very telling of what those critical of the senator really think. Why did they not speak up back in 2002?

"Sweetheart deal"

Sen Santorum offered an amendment requiring the Old Soldiers' and Airmen's Home to sell excess property to build up its trust fund. The amendment restricted the sale of the property solely to the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington for the Catholic University of America (CUA). Prof Hamilton is correct in pointing out the obvious lack of free-market bidding on the property, but she is way of the mark in suggesting that such a sale would be unconstitutional (under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment). I would think that such a sale to a non-religious institute would be looked at the same way because it was unfair, not unconstitutional. And does the professor have a problem with federal grants to the CUA and other religious educational institutions? She is again wrong in suggesting that the senator made such a proposal because he is Catholic and it was for a Catholic institution. The appropriations bill with the provision passed the Senate and the House with support from non-Catholics who saw this initially as a proper action. Prof Hamilton also suggests that Sen Santorum did this at the expense of veterans and that if it came to choosing between helping his Church or helping veterans he would choose his Church. Nonsense. (It should be noted that Sen Santorum has sponsored an amendment increasing funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Increasing spending is not a popular idea among conservatives and the increased spending here has been opposed by the Bush Administration.)

Intelligent Design in Science Class

Sen Santorum proposed an amendment to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 which reads as follows:

It is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

The professor's problem is that the amendment, which passed the Senate 91-8, would supposedly have required a discussion of "intelligent design" (ID) in the science classroom. Though the amendment was stripped from the Conference Report, similar wording was left in recognizing that science curriculum should include this discussion. (As an aside, Prof Hamilton incorrectly stated Cardinal Schonborn recently said "that evolution is inconsistent with Catholic theology." Actually the cardinal merely reminded us that "an unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist." Thus evolution which accepts divine guidance in even a "casual role" is consistent with Catholic theology.) Prof Hamilton also failed to point out that Sen Santorum has rethought his position on this issue, recently splitting with President Bush who has stated that he would like to see ID taught in the science classroom. One would think that the professor would point out this change to her readers, esp. since she saw it as such a harmful act. But then that would weaken her argument would it not?

Abstinence-only Education: "Education in Religious Values"?

Prof Hamilton next takes issue with Sen Santorum's support for abstinence-only education. She states that this is "nothing but education in religious values, utterly divorced from social reality". Actually many if not most of abstinence-only education is secular based. And the reality is that "sexual activity at an early age has multiple harmful consequences; most sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before having sex; sexually active teens are more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide; abstinence education programs are effective in reducing teen sexual activity; abstinence programs dramatically reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing; and parents overwhelmingly support the values and messages of true abstinence education." Where are the religious values here? Given this reality, abstinence-only education is truly looking at benefiting the public good Prof Hamilton is so worried is being neglected.

Faith in the Workplace not in the Public's Interest

The professor next calls out Sen Santorum for co-sponsoring the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act" (S. 667) because it could give "workers the right, in their jobs, to refuse to sell products regarding which they have moral objections". This is the conscientious pharmacist issue. In other articles about this subject Prof Hamilton points out that Sen John Kerry, not known as the same kind of Catholic Sen Santorum is, also is co-sponsoring this legislation. In addition, Sens Clinton, Schumer, and Corzine are also co-sponsors! And on top of that, the legislation has the support of various religious groups including, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh Resource Taskforce, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the American Jewish Committee, and Agudath Israel of America. The legislation would require employers to accommodate the religious observances of their employees as long as providing such accommodations will not impose an "undue hardship" upon the employer. Thus, employers would be encouraged to afford employees flexible work shifts so that they may observe religious holy days and permit employees to wear religiously required garb at work. I am not entirely sure the provision Prof Hamilton points out above is the focus of this bill. Given the co-sponsorship of Sens Clinton and Schumer I doubt that it is. But again, that truth would weaken her argument.

Oh, and Abortion

Last, the professor lambastes the senator for not allowing abortion in military medical facilities. This is disturbing to her because our military men and women may not have other "abortion" options. Unfortunately, they usually do, but that is not the issue. Besides the military men and women, the rest of the public must be a consideration here, for they may not want their taxes being spent on the murder of innocents still in the womb. Why is that not mentioned by the professor? Why is it that the "public good" in this situation is only allowing abortions in military medical facilities? By the way, the ban has support in both the Senate and the House.

Hit Piece

This supposedly scholarly article is more of a hit piece on Catholic politicians in general and Sen Santorum in particular. It seems clear Sen Santorum's is not a Catholic agenda. Noting support from various non-Catholic senators and organizations for the actions above how could it be? And though Senator Santorum's Catholic faith may drive how he votes on issues such as abortion, Catholic teachings do not require him to make "sweetheart" deals with or "provide cover" for Catholic institutions. His faith obviously affects how he sees the public best served in regards to how to educate our youth on the subjects of sex and science, but this is true for many if not most of our representatives in Congress. Many Americans use their religious values to determine what is the public or common good. And given that he has changed his views (on where to teach ID) over the last few years, how can it be said that the Catholic Church drives how he acts on these and other issues? Prof Hamilton would be well served if someone passed her a copy of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life. I would hope that if she reads it she will see that a Catholic politicians faith, which is tied to reason, does inform his or her judgement on core issues such as abortion. She wil also see that that there can be disagreement, even among Catholics on other issues, such as the minimum wage. Lastly, I would point her to the senator's own words dealing with the very issue she tackels in her article: He states:

I affirm that your creed and values shape what is best for the state. In fact, I believe politicians have an obligation to the state and its constituents, to do what is in their best interest. In reality, there should never be a conflict between your creed and your legislation because both should be oriented toward the good and what is best for society.

But again, this is a hit piece dressed up for FindLaw, so it is likely Prof Hamilton could care less about reconsidering her point of view.

(Crossposted at Catholics for Santorum)

Santorum compares abortion to slavery in new book

Another look at Senator Santorum's new book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, from CNN: Inside Politics.

In the book, Santorum makes the case that abortion puts the liberty rights of the mother before those of her child, just as the rights of slave owners were put before those of slaves.

"This was tried once before in America," Santorum writes. "But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave."

Senator Rick Santorum interviewed by Valerie Schmalz

---

For more on the Senator from Pennsylvania check out Catholics for Santorum

Santorum defends role

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania on bridging his Catholic faith and political decisions.

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum views his job through the lens of his Roman Catholic faith and isn't afraid of the consequences, he told a largely Catholic audience Tuesday night.

The "great gift of America," he said, is that "we are free to espouse that faith in the public square."

Santorum spoke on faith and political life at St. Paul Seminary in Crafton as part of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh's lecture series, "Faithful Citizenship."

"If we divorce public life from faith, freedom itself will fail," he said.

Santorum talked last night about his anger at what he sees as an unfair presumption of neutrality given to politicians who don't bring faith into the public forum.

"If decisions are influenced by faith, it's somehow illegitimate," he said.

Great to hear how the senator's faith plays a role in his decisions. To some though he does not go far enough and I am not talking about all those Toomey supporters.

Members of the Association of Pittsburgh Priests attended Santorum's speech. They distributed an open letter to the senator that calls for his pro-life stance to encompass more than the abortion issue.

The letter also admonishes the senator for his support of the war in Iraq and the death penalty.

"We shouldn't give someone a free pass because they're good on one or two issues," said the Rev. Jack O'Malley, an association member who is chaplain for the state's AFL-CIO.

I cannot help but wonder who Fr. O'Malley supported for President.

You Bet Your Life . . . Or, Rather, His

From the pages of Catholics in the Public Square . . . With the unanimous backing given anti-life Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) by his go-along to get-along GOP colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, it appears that Specter's chickens have now hatched. In any event, the roosters are strutting with the cock of the walk, outgoing Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), crowing, "It's a done deal, yes, a done deal."

You will recall, no doubt, the scene in The Passion of The Christ when the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate washes his hands of the blood of the Innocent One that he is about to sacrificing to appease the mob for the sake of political expediency. Deja vu, all over again.

"Anyone who has followed [Sen. Specter's] career should have bet on his survival," the Philadelphia Inquirer editorializes. I guess the chump bet would have been to place your money or your vote on the principles of the "pro-life" members of the old boys' club they call the Senate.

Consider, if you will, Senator Specter's enabler, Rick Santorum—an admittedly unpleasant task—but that's a subject for another commentary.

It is times like this that remind me why I am an independent.