Santorum's Conservative Credentials Not Spotless

Rick Santorum is a faithful husband and devoted father.
Mitt Romney is a faithful husband and devoted father.

Rick Santorum supported a massive expansion of NATIONAL Goverment healthcare - Medicare Part D.
Mitt Romney supported a massive expansion of STATE Government healthcare - "Romneycare."

Rick Santorum opposes abortion and worked on the partial birth abortion bill in the US Senate.
Mitt Romney opposes abortion and as governor refused to sign a Massachusetts bill that would have allowed embryos to be created solely to be destroyed for medical research.

Rick Santorum openly campaigned against a true conservative in PA, for a liberal (Specter) whose victory and defection to the Democrats resulted in Democrat control of the Senate.
Mitt Romney campaigned as a moderate in order to bring some conservatism to a staunchly liberal state, MA, but as governor campaigned fiercely for conservative governors nationwide.

Rick Santorum supported voting rights for felons.
Mitt Romney supported permanent stripping of voting rights for felons.

Rick Santorum worked as a DC lobbyist for a giant health insurance company immediately after losing his reelection bid in PA.
Mitt Romney has never been a DC lobbyist.

Santorum is a good man and has worked for many conservative causes.  However, as the list above illustrates, GOP conservatives rallying to him are glossing over his liberal dalliances, much as they initially downplayed Newt Gingrich's open marriage proposals and philandering.  Why?  Because he is not Romney.

Perhaps conservatives should dig a bit deeper into Santorum's conservative credentials, and compare them with Romney's.  The contrast is not nearly as stark as the "he's not Romney" mob attempts to portray.

US Replaced As Family Values Champion

Many potential conservative voters are less than inspired by the current field of presidential candidates claiming to represent their values. Many are mysteriously enamored of Fred Thompson’s possible candidacy, although a careful examination of his abortion views should make him no more appealing than avowed pro-choice candidate Rudy Giuliani. However, through its recent reports from the World Congress of Families conference held in Warsaw, Poland, World Net Daily inadvertently identified a leader who sets a high standard in defending traditional families, marriage, and national morality. Unfortunately, that leader is not eligible to hold office in America due to a slight technicality: he is Roman Giertych, Deputy Prime Minister of Poland. By all accounts he is busy doing a much better job of preserving family values in his country than any American politician can claim to be doing here.

The disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the release of Communism’s grip over Eastern Europe produced amazing results. The embrace of democracy in the Czech Republic and Poland in particular, has shifted power and alliances away from Russia into the welcoming arms of Western Europe and America. Russia now fears having two staunch American allies on its borders and continues to threaten the Czechs and Poles if either installs American anti-ballistic missile defense systems over Russia’s objection. To their credit, the Czech Republic and Poland have stood firm in the face of Russia’s threats. Neither country is intimidated by a loud powerful bully, or willing to blink in the stare down with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

One of the unexpected consequences of freedom and democracy in Poland is that these forces appear to have led to a new international ally for American and European conservatives in the fight for preservation of the family and traditional marriage, two pillars of human society currently under relentless assault from gay rights groups and their willing liberal accomplices. Just as the Poles stand firm against the Russians on ballistic missile defense, they are similarly holding the line as Europe’s primary bulwark against immorality in its various forms, particularly the growing acceptance of the “homosexual agenda” and pervasive pornography.

Tthe World Congress of Families recently held its conference in Warsaw, and as Europe and America increasingly quiver before the loud (but tiny) minority who clamor for gay marriage and liberal moral policies, WND reported that the Polish government is moving to ban what it perceives as homosexual propaganda from its schools, restrict circulation of pornography, and promote traditional family structures (a husband, wife and children) as “the hope for the entire world.” The Polish family values platform resembles in spirit and theory many GOP campaign slogans and stump speeches to conservative Christian audiences, with one notable exception: Polish government officials are actually legislating the rhetoric into reality, while America’s government and presidential candidates continue to “cut and run” whenever faced with the prospect of offending the gay rights lobby.

The following are a few choice statements on morality offered by Polish Deputy Prime Minister Roman Giertych, who also serves as Minister of Education. Imagine (if you can) any American politician courageously expressing these views:

"Pornography is evil; it is an evil that touches the family and threatens the development of young people," the deputy prime minister said. "Its circulation should be treated as a crime, because it ruins what is most virtuous in a human being."

Giertych, whose father and grandfather were prominent Polish politicians, says Poland is threatened by "various ideologies … that have nothing to do with the well-being of children, that promote attitudes which are not true to life."

"This world of permissiveness, of certain attitudes which promote homosexuality, which promote pornography, this world is coming to an end, because our civilization is built on virtues, on Roman law … on the Decalogue," said Giertych, according to an English interpretation. "This civilization has great strength for rebirth. The rebirth will take place in the family, not only in Europe, but in the entire world."

"Please don't let people shut you down," he said. "Please don't be convinced that others who are promoting lies are telling the truth. The truth is on our side."

"Let's never accept mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy," he said. "There is only one truth."

The Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks on abortion were equally compelling and forthright:

The world will never be free from dangers threatening the family, he said, if there are no rights in place protecting life from the very beginning until natural death.

"Today we need a great charter for the rights of the family and nations that defines the right to life, that would define abortion as murder," Giertych told the World Congress delegates. "Whether three months old or three months before birth, whether 60 or 90 years old, murder is always murder. It is always a crime."

Perhaps the best indication that the Polish government is bravely holding to traditional family values while the rest of Europe discards them comes from the angry reactions of gay rights groups. Robert Biedron, president of the Polish gay rights group Campaign Against Homophobia, lamented, “Poland is like an island drifting away from the rest of Europe.” Giertych is depicted on homosexual web sites as another Hitler, including nasty cartoons, superimposed photos, and headlines decrying him as a fascist, the same tactics employed against family values advocates in America. While Poland’s government often stands alone, mocked as homophobic or extremist by the rest of Europe, that will not prevent its leaders from continuing to legislate for and speak on behalf of what in America would be called “mainstream family values.”

Unlike America’s politicians, the Poles are not intimidated by organized bullying or labeling from small internal lobbyists or interest groups or the behemoth European Union government. After all, throughout Poland’s history, it has fought against impossible odds and bested its enemies, even when it took decades to achieve victory. WND interviewed Robert Knight of the Media Research Center, an organization dedicated to defending the family as an institution, who attended the World Congress of Families meetings in Warsaw. Knight made it clear that his group and all family-friendly organizations are and should be inspired by Poland’s willingness to stand alone while the European Union promotes abortion, homosexuality, and pornography. According to Knight:

"We have taken our courage in what the Poles are doing," he said. "This is a nation that has suffered enormously over many decades. First from Nazism and then communism. They're a tough bunch of people who appear to have the strength to resist especially the homosexual agenda.

"If you've been victim of communists and Nazis, you're not going to run in fright from the forces from San Francisco."

In Poland “political correctness” is trumped by moral correctness and its people vote accordingly. They have not yet accepted the destructive and fallacious belief that simply because a practice exists in society, concessions should be offered to placate those who engage in it, such as abortion or homosexuality. They have not yet given up their religious conviction that right and wrong do exist and can be readily identified and labeled appropriately. It was not foreseen that Poland, hidden behind the iron curtain for so long, would emerge as the world’s most outspoken and active advocate of the traditional family, marriage, the pro-life movement, and moral clarity on the evils of pornography. It is to America’s condemnation that international moral leadership on such issues does not come from America.

It speaks volumes that none of the current candidates for the 2008 presidential election have a resume on family values issues that would be acceptable to Polish voters. That their resumes are acceptable to American voters demonstrates that America has drifted along with Europe into the sea of secularism and it is steadily allowing itself to be influenced by cultural currents determined to pull it further away from Poland, the island stronghold of moral sanity.

Thompson Juggled Abortion Hot Potato

In the 1994 National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), then-candidate for Senate Fred Thompson completed a survey detailing the policies or programs he would support if elected. As reported by the New York Sun’s political blog yesterday, NPAT has released Thompson’s survey responses for comparison with those already in the race for the 2008 GOP nomination. It should be remembered that policy positions change over time, such as the evolution of Mitt Romney’s views on abortion. These survey responses from Thompson were offered in 1994, the same year Mitt Romney bravely ran against Senator Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. Just as Romney’s experiences as Governor of Massachusetts changed his views on the government’s role in abortion and preserving traditional marriage, Thompson’s experiences in the Senate and subsequent private life may have evolved since both were GOP candidates for the Senate in 1994.

Having allowed for the possibility that Thompson has changed his views on some issues since 1994, I call attention to his NPAT survey results on certain issues, particularly abortion. The NPAT web site listed the survey question on abortion and Thompson’s responses. According to the web site, candidates were asked only to identify which items they would support, not what they would oppose. Thompson’s responses on abortion were as follows:

9. If elected to Congress, which of the following general principles or specific proposals will you support concerning abortion?

X Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.

X A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.

0 A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.

X States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.

X Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.

X Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.

X Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

0 Other

The most glaring omission in the NPAT survey was the failure to ask the candidates whether they support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The most noticeable item Thompson indicated support for was “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” These is a sweeping statement, that will not be easy for him to explain away, particularly when critics examine the items he did not express support for above.

Thompson clearly supported every item that guaranteed a woman’s right to choose abortion rather than carry a baby to term. A closer look at the items Thompson did not express support for reveals a rather radical pro-abortion position for someone who is being touted as a potential heir to Ronald Reagan conservatism:

1. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer indicated that Thompson felt women should have the choice to abort for convenience rather than as an emergency procedure used as a last resort.

2. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer was a further affirmation of a woman’s right to choose abortion for any reason, whether for mere birth control convenience or for coping with the results of horrible crimes. By not supporting this item, Thompson revealed that in his mind abortion was no last resort measure but rather a fundamental female right.

3. He did not support the item “A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.” This response was truly remarkable for someone who is now hyped as a staunch conservative. The idea that two people join in a procreative act that results in the conception of a child, but that only one, the woman, has the right to determine whether that life will be terminated because she will bear the brunt of inconvenience is the epitome of selfish liberalism. The woman chose to participate in the act and the baby’s DNA is an equal contribution of man and woman. Wherein lays the supremacy of the female right to that of her husband or partner except in the liberal feminist mind? Thompson came down solely for the inviolable rights of the woman, but ignored the man and most importantly, ignored the baby’s right to life. Thompson approved of terminating a baby without telling the baby’s father. Marginalizing men is a curious position for a candidate revered for his “tough talk” and manly demeanor.

Now we move to the political hot potato juggling act performed by nearly all candidates for national office in all campaigns, the survey item: “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.” Thompson supported this item, and in doing so joined the ranks of thousands of other candidates over the years who claim that this position restores such social policy decisions to the states where they allegedly belong under the constitution. The pro-life movement will be pleased with Thompson's desire to end all federal funding of abortion and leave abortion for states to tackle. This is a very popular response, but it is the ultimate pass the buck cop out position when candidates simply do not want to deal with the topic of abortion or offend any potential voters.

What does it really mean when a candidate states that this issue of abortion should be left up to the states? Do they mean that states, with their differing ethnic and cultural traditions, should have the right to determine, on a local level, whether abortion is consistent with their values and thus legal or illegal? The chaos resulting from that situation would be inevitable. Yet it also skirts the real issue: The federal government, not state governments, is empowered to preserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with life listed as the first sacred, inviolable right the national government should protect. States are not encumbered by this requirement, and are thus wholly inadequate for the task of uniformly preserving life for all Americans, whether they live in liberal California or conservative Utah.

This nation witnessed the result of leaving slavery in the hands of individual states. It took a civil war and a victory by the federal government’s position to free the slaves. The civil rights struggles in the 1950s and 1960s were further evidence that leaving civil rights legislation to individual states would never achieve equality, but would rather allow permanent discrimination according to local traditions. Only when the federal government intervened by enacting civil rights legislation to overrule state governments were civil rights established and protected. Abortions will not disappear if left to individual states any more than segregated lunch counters or drinking fountains did. If the right to life is to be championed, the federal government must lead that fight. The disingenuous “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states” answer to questions of life and civil liberties is used by candidates and incumbents alike merely to dodge a controversial topic while sounding statesmanlike.

For the GOP and conservative Independents who oppose abortion, Thompson’s stated position on abortion in 1994 presents a significant obstacle to embracing him with open arms as so many appear wont to do. Romney had the opportunity to demonstrate his convictions through his veto pen as governor, leaving a clear record of pro-life activism that gives credibility to the evolution of his stance on government intervention on behalf of life. Thompson will have no such executive veto record to prove the credibility of whatever position he eventually attempts to claim once he announces his candidacy. All we know for sure is what his views were as a Senate candidate in 1994. As an effective politician, however, he will surely continue to juggle the abortion hot potato until it begins to burn and then attempt to toss it to the states.