A pro-Santorum Response to Steve Deace's Morning Briefing on the Iowa Caucuses

For Deace's original article: http://stevedeace.com/forum/showthread.php?303-Morning-Briefing-Final-Thoughts-for-2011&p=1876#post1876

Steve, You were seriously considering Ron Paul? You really think that Paul is the person who can get things turned around in Washington? In 20 years in Congress, he has passed but a single bill--to sell an old building. He has forged no alliances in Congress. He has persuaded none of his peers of his ideas. His base is a hodgepodge of fringe elements. Leadership is not his strength. For these and many other reasons, Paul will not be elected, but if he were elected, what is the basis for thinking that he can change Washington? Wouldn't you rather support someone with a proven record of forging consensus to get things done?

Your sole expressed reservation about Santorum is a putative tendency to "take the best deal he can get from the Republicrats when I think we need to draw a line on the sand." This is not the Santorum that I know. The Santorum I know stormed the House Bank as a freshman legislator with a very small but effective group of six others to throw the committee chairman in jail and to force others into disgraceful retirement (Newt kited 22 checks himself, but got on board under Ricks influence). The Santorum I know stood alone against accepting a "voice vote" when Congress tried to sneak in a pay raise. The Santorum I know insisted that the RINO who cost the nation a balanced budget amendment be stripped of his chairmanship, and did so in opposition to stalwart members such as Sen. Jesse Helms. The Santorum I know stood for hours debating Barbara Boxer and cornered her into arguing that the baby is not human so long as its big toe is still in the birth canal. The Santorum I know made a deal with Specter that had the biggest pro-choice RINO in the Senate chomping his tongue bloody saying good things about Bush Supreme Court nominees Roberts and Alito who will serve two or three decades, even if Pat Toomey confirms another liberal justice like Sotomayor. The Santorum I know went down fighting for his principles to the bitter end, backing the surge in Iraq and the partial privitization of Social Security, and opposing Islamic extremism as he lost his re-election bid in the 2006 Republican bloodbath. To say that Santorum cops out on the best deal when he should stand and fight does not ring true to me. It sounds like a manufactured excuse for dismissing him.

Your enthusiasm for Gingrich's articulation of how government should work is probably well placed. We should note, however, that Gingrich is better at articulating how government should work than he is at running government. He lost the confidence of his fellow Republicans not because of his strong stances, but because he would articulate a strong stance and then blink, leaving the Party with the stigma of taking an unpopular stance without any benefits that would accrue from winning the fight.

You raise two specific questions pertaining to the Santorum campaign:

First, it is not relevant to the campaign if some Santorum backers rail against Bachmann for whatever reason. For my part, my only reservation about Bachmann is her lack of experience, and that even if she were to win Iowa, she would merely play the role of spoiler for Romney since she has little campaign organization or strategy beyond Iowa.

Second, if some Santorum supporters who are Christians have absolute disdain for Bachmann, it is irrelevant to the campaign. I suspect that such disdain for her by Christians who support Santorum is rather anomalous. I read the Santorum Facebook groups all the time and never see "absolute disdain" and "total and complete loathing" for Bachmann. Quite the contrary. Most comments about Bachmann in the Santorum Facebook groups have the deepest respect for her opinions, even if her sole legislative achievement is a lightbulb bill. There has been nothing but compassion expressed for the Bachmann campaign in today's news about the defection of her campaign manager.

In Defense of Iowa Being First

Out here beyond Iowa's borders, some Americans betray an impatience with Iowa being first in the nation. They ask, Why can't we have our primaries all on the same day? and, Why should the candidates spend so much time vying for the votes of a state with such a small population?

The quick and honest answer is that a same day primary for all 50 states would ensure that the candidate with the most money and best campaign ads would win. It would also prevent very capable candidates from running against the richer candidates. Establishment candidates would forever be granted an insuperable advantage over reformers and outsiders.

What Iowa affords to the rest of the country is the challenge to each candidate to spend time meeting extensively with the people--not in 10 minute bus tour stops, but in extensive townhall meetings, in personal discussions in intimate diners, and at potluck dinners after church services. The old story is true: one Iowan asks another, "Are you going to vote for Candidate Bob?" to which the reply is given, "I don't know yet. I've only met him twice." This kind of vetting goes so much further than the Madison Avenue imaging that the dollar can buy.

Stumping in Iowa town by town and county by county, candidates cannot hide behind slick marketing. They appear face to face with the voters, warts and all, as friends and neighbors come together to meet them, toting their children along in this great American process. There are no teleprompters to stand between candidates and the people, no handlers, no makeup artists, no canned mood-setting music; there are no re-takes of the camera. Here is the best way to find out who the candidates really are.

One of the great advantages of this kind of old fashioned campaigning is that there is genuine dialog between the candidates and the people. To be sure, candidates give their stump speeches, but there is always the inevitable question and answer period afterward. Politicians who rely on slick television advertizing never hear a word that the voters say. They come across as arrogant--as if they have all the answers, as if they don't need to hear anything else except their own voices, as if they don't care about the concern of Iowans. In contrast, candidates who wear out their shoes in Iowa are so much better informed about the real needs of real people. They know the name of the manufacturing plant that closed last month in the next county over, and how many laborers lost their jobs, and why.

Another significant good that comes out of traditional campaigning in person is that presidential candidates get to know elected officials at every level of government. In this particular election year, down-ticket Republican candidates benefit from appearing with national candidates; Republicans will capitalize on these promotional events at the general election. Madison Avenue campaigning not only denies down-ticket candidates this benefit, but also short-circuits the relationships that are forged between national candidates and local candidates.

Perhaps the biggest problem with politicians who rely on mass market advertizing is that they resort to such negative campaigning. In ad after ad, we hear menacing music as it introduces the hit piece, and see the scene merge from a delapidated school yard, into an unseemly picture of the opposing candidate who is portrayed as eating baby kittens, or some such. Real candidates talking face to face with the voters can't get away with such bafoonery. There's something de-humanizing about attack ads that does not translate when the candidate comes face to face with the community. Consequently, candidates who do the hard work of holding town meetings and shaking hands are able to carry on a civil discourse about their respective differences, knowing that decent citizens depict their opponents fairly.

Let us be thankful that Iowa is first. It brings out American idealism of community, honesty, and hard work. Candidates who do the hard work in Iowa are the type of people who keep elections from being bought by the almighty dollar.

Know the Candidates' Weaknesses before You Choose

Voters should be fully informed about their candidates before voting. This includes knowing their weaknesses. While most of the candidates have considerable strengths, let me remind you of some weaknesses.

MITT ROMNEY: I think Romney would make a reasonably good president, and I would support him if he were the nominee. He has a great reputation for knowing how the economy works. However, he is a conservative of convenience. He only affiliated with the Republican party in 1994 when he decided to run against Ted Kennedy; his strategy was to out-liberal him on issues. As a governor, Romney had a history of appointing liberal judges. His change from pro-choice to pro-life happened about the same time as he was considering entry into national politics--just in 2005. His primary legislative accomplishment was Romney-care, but it indicates that his approach to solving problems is to look to government as a first solution, rather than to look first toward the free market. He does not seem to be a conservative of conviction. He changed his position on gay marriage several times as governor. In 2008, he was running as a moderate Republican when the finger-in-the-wind wisdom was that Reagan conservatism was dead. At a time when our country desperately needs to return to core conservative values, we fear that Romney will be quick to compromise too quickly and unnecessarily, as was his practice as governor.

NEWT GINGRICH: I think Gingrich has the potential to be a reasonably good president, but his past performance in leadership roles suggests an equal potential for a mess. We should note that Gingrich's own financial miscues led to his check-kiting (22 in all) in the house banking scandal that Santorum and the other freshmen congressmen of the Gang of Seven exposed. One of the frustrating things about Gingrich was that he would stake out hard-lined stances, but in the stare-down, Gingrich was the first to blink. This happened with the 1995-1996 government shutdown when ultimately the Republicans accepted $300 billion more in spending through 2002, and it happened again when Newt blinked during the House Managers' prosecution of the Clinton impeachment trial (while Newt was himself having an extramarital affair--did the Clinton machine use this information to force him to back down?). Ethics charges and a $300,000 fine against Newt combined with the loss of the House of Representatives to force Newt's resignation--he lost the confidence of his own caucus mostly because of leadership issues. These failures makes us wonder how Newt could ever possibly recover and win a presidential election. More recently, Gingrich has proposed a plan to reward illegals with some sort of amnesty. Although he is brilliant, Gingrich has earned our skepticism, and his excess baggage fees alone could pay off the national debt. He is unlikely to survive a full frontal assault from the Obama attack machine simply because he has so many vulnerable points.

RICK PERRY: Perry appears to have a good record as governor of Texas and would probably be a reasonably good president--if he managed to get through the debates with Obama without embarrassing us all. Much of Perry's strong points are offset by the fact that he spent so much time in office as a Democrat. He was elected as a Democrat to theTexas legislature in 1984. He also ran Al Gore's campaign in 1988. With Texas becoming more and more solidly a conservative state, it is easy to see Perry's switch to the Republican party as an act of convenience rather than of conviction. Perry has vigorously defended his immigration policy, even though it clearly provides a magnate for illegals. Perry's requirement of young teenage girls to get the Gardisil vaccine shows how Perry is willing to impose the government into family matters.

MICHELE BACHMANN: Bachmann has withdrawn with class and dignity. Running a presidential campaign is difficult, and I have nothing but admiration for her, and pray earnestly that God would encourage her and continue to guide her. I have no doubt that she will continue to contribute positively to our American life.

JOHN HUNTSMAN: He should withdraw from the Republican primary and run as a Democrat. One exit poll showed that 51% of those voting for Huntsman in New Hampshire were moderately satisfied with Obama as president. Huntsman will not win the election simply because there are too many states that have a closed primary which disallows independents and Democrats.

RON PAUL: 75% of Republicans repudiate Ron Paul as utterly unacceptable as a Republican. Rush Limbaugh, who knows politics as well as anyone else in America, says that he should drop out of the race as run as a Democrat. Many Republicans figure that Paul would be no better than Obama. On foreign policy, he holds the same position as Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He'd do nothing to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He'd do nothing to assist our allies or protect our international interests. He's a poor leader, serving as the editor of a newsletter containing numerous racist articles written in his name. He attracts the most fringe elements of American politics, including neo-Confederates and and the Klan; his supporters invasively protest other Republican campaign events. As a doctor who has delivered many babies, it is inexcusable for him to promote the use of the morning after pill as a CONTRACEPTIVE! Paul will not be the nominee (there are too many closed primary states), and when the Republican party repudiates him, many of us presume that Paul's messiah complex will kick in so that he will run as an independent. The Republican tent is not big enough for this RINO.

RICK SANTORUM: The more I study Santorum, the fewer flaws I find. The biggest concern has been whether or not he is electable. His victory in Iowa has given him a boost, tripling his support in New Hampshire where he was the conservative with the most votes, beating Gingrich by 138 votes . He expects to win in South Carolina, or, at least get more votes than the other conservative candidates (Gingrich and Perry). In the general election, Santorum's Made-in-America plan will appeal to Midwest manufacturing states so that Santorum will have an excellent chance of carrying not only Ohio, but also takikng Pennsylvania, and perhaps one of two of the other rust-belt states (Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota). If a Republican takes Ohio and Pennsylvania, he will win the election so long as he keeps Florida and the other red states (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/beating-obama-which-republican-can.html). The second concern about Santorum is his support of RINO Arlen Specter, but this turned out good for the sake of Conservatism as I have argued here (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/skeletons-in-candidates-closets-is.html), especially in light of the fact that Pat Toomey voted for Obama Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. The third concern was that Santorum supported Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, but no conservative Republican in the Senate opposed it, and it advanced the Republican urgencies of accountability of teachers and schools, and closed dead end schools (Santorum has since argued that No Child Left Behind was a mistake). The fourth concern is that he lost his last election; however, he did so on principle, and this was much less problematic than Newt's resignation. On the other hand, Santorum is the experienced leader who gets legislation passed which reflects the three legs of Reagan's three legged stool of conservatism. See here (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorum-and-reagans-3-legged-stool.html).

Santorum and States' Rights

One of the inexplicable objections that some people have about Santorum is that he is insufficiently committed to states' rights. States' rights is the flip side of the coin of a small federal government, and so this objection implies that Santorum looks to increase the size and impact of the federal government. The objection could not be more fallacious.

The basis for this objection is Santorum's proposal of two constitutional amendments, one to define marriage, and the other one to define personhood (a pro-life amendment). Presently, different states have different laws pertaining to these issues. For example, as Rick Perry indicated earlier in the campaign, he has no problem with New York allowing gay marriage, so long as Texas can make up its own mind.

Perry's stance would end in pandemonium. If a gay couple duly married in Massachusetts were to move to Texas, would Texas recognize the marriage? Or if a gay "married" couple were merely to visit Texas, would their marriage not be recognized by Texas during their visit? Would a Vermont gay couple filing jointly for federal income tax have to pro-rate their tax by deducting days in Texas that they weren't recognized as being married?

In some ways, our present situation is reminiscent of the competing slave laws from state to state in 19th century America. Slave owners from the south taking their personal body servants with them on visits to the north risked having their slaves granted freedom by the states they might visit. Similarly, runaway slaves were considered free once they crossed into northern states. To solve these issues, southern states were altogether eager to use the heavy hand of the federal government to infringe upon the rights of northern states through fugitive slave laws and through the intrusive arm of the Supreme Court (e.g., the Dred Scot decision) which trumped state laws.

All this changed with the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery throughout the United States. Santorum's two amendments would likewise establish a common policy on marriage and on the definition of life. However, there is a considerable difference between the way pro-slavery federal legislation was imposed in the pre-Civil War era and the way that Santorum's proposed amendments would be enacted. The pro-slavery federal legislation reflected the heavy hand of an intrusive federal government that was expanding its role. Santorum's proposed constitutional amendments, however, give due consideration to states' rights. Here's how.

The most important factor in amending the constitution is that it involves a vote of the states' legislative bodies. The issue is not sent to the states until the proposed amendment passes by a 2/3rds majority of both the U.S. House and the Senate. Only then is the amendment sent to the states which utterly control the fate of the proposed amendment. Each state legislative body votes on the issue. Only when 2/3rds of the states pass the amendment does it become a part of the constitution.

Thus, this process is heavily weighted in favor of the states, giving due consideration to states' rights. The only role the federal government has would be in initiating the amendment process. This contrasts remarkably with the fugitive slave laws of the 19th century which infringed upon the rights of the northern states by a simple majority of the U.S. House and Senate, and the president's signature.

Santorum's amendments are necessary in order to avoid a free-for-all situation where some of the states infringe upon the civil rights of some humans simply because they have not yet been born, and where states define marriage differently. Failure to have a common position on these key issues will have grave consequences on our country. But Santorum respects states' rights by addressing these issues through a constitutional amendment process which puts the states in control of the process, a process determined by our Founding Fathers.

This overthrows the criticism that Santorum is against states' rights. Quite the contrary, his goal is to fix a problem within the United States by sending the issue to the states.

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Here are my talking points for those who will be speaking in favor of Sen. Santorum during the caucuses. It is important to note that these have not been approved by the campaign, and that they reflect only my own personal suggestions. Any suggestions from the campaign should take priority over mine. I should also note that I have never been to an Iowa caucus, and that I've only been to Iowa twice; thus, your own gut instinct should take precedent over any of my ideas.

PUBLIC SPEAKING BASICS

Consider a personal narrative: "this is my story of how I came to support Sen. Santorum" might work better than "these are the reasons why you should vote for Sen. Santorum." For an example, see my narrative on my blog theo-politico.blogspot.com (although it is too long for the caucus speeches): http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-justification-for-endorsing-rick.html.

Speeches usually have an introduction, an attention-getter. Some Santorum supporters have already made the good suggestion of starting with the Rush Limbaugh quote where he says he'd never have to wonder if Santorum would do the right thing as president (or some such). (You don't need to waste words by indicating that Rush is a talk show host, since every one knows this already.)

Reduce your speech down to the time limit not by eliminating content, but by saying things more concisely. Ultimately, you may have to cut out content, but look for ways of restructuring syntax to eliminate unecessary words, etc.

Don't rush your speech. Vary your tempo with fast and slow moments. Vary your dynamics: saying something almost in a whisper can be as effective as shouting it. Practice your speech, timing it, over and over again. If you must read it, do so while maintaining eye contact with your audience. Be passionate.

Consider producing a handout. Make sure it is pleasant to the eyes. Proof it carefully and have someone else proof it too: typos and bad English can produce a negative reaction in some people. Pass them out quickly and efficiently so that you don't waste speech time.

Conclude with an appeal. "Because of all of these urgencies (etc.), I'm asking you, would you please vote for Sen. Santorum" (or some other similarly worded appeal).


TALKING POINTS

Spell out Reagan's three legged stool of conservatism: free markets (less intrusive government), national security, and social issues. Invoking Reagan's name is always good, especially if you show how Santorum leads on these three issues and scores the highest points on all three:

free markets (less intrusive government): Rick has led on balanced budget amendment and line item veto, fought against TARP and the second stimulus, etc. He authored and managed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which was the first time ever a federal entitlement has been eliminated. Etc.

national security: Rick is the acknowledged expert on the MIddle East; he served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and is the author of 217 articles dealing with Islamic extremism in the series The Gathering Storm.

social issues: Sen. Santorum has authored every pro-life legislation that has passed the Senate in the last 20 years (you could list all his pro-life legislation specifically).


Explain why Santorum can win:

Primary strategy: 1) score big in Iowa and establish himself as a top tier candidate; 2) do respectably well in New Hampshire (where he has a strong organization and key endorsements); and 3) win in South Carolina (where he has a strong organization, key endorsements, and won the most important SC caucus of the year).

General Election strategy: any Republican who can keep the red states (including Florida) and swing both Ohio and Pennsylvania will win the election. Santorum's Made in America plan to revitalize manufacturing will appeal to the rustbelt states of the Midwest better than any of the other candidates' economic plan. Santorum is more likely to pick up Ohio and Pennsylvania moreso than any other candidate, and will be viable in the blue states of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Since she has never ran in a state-wide election, Bachmann may not win her own state, let alone Ohio and Pennsylvania. Romney won't deliver Massachusetts. And although Perry and Gingrich could carry Texas and Georgia, any Republican could do so.


ONE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE:
Emphasize that conservatives must get behind one single conservative candidate, otherwise the conservative of convenience, Mitt Romney, will be the de facto winner. You might want to cite Bob Vander Plaats as having made this argument.

Before criticizing any of the other candidates, emphasize that the goal is to defeat Obama and that you will support the nominee whoever it is. Also, emphasize that each of the candidates has his or her own strengths, and that they would all make reasonably good presidents (I have my own reservations about Paul). For an analysis of each candidate's weaknesses, see my forthcoming blog artice (it will probably be posted tomorrow, Tuesday). It might be a good strategy to mention a candidate's weakness in passing while discussing Rick's strengths, rather than giving a list of negatives for each candidate.

MADE IN AMERICA
Be sure to point out Rick's unique emphasis on the revitalization of manufacturing in the US. Repeatedly use the phrase "Made in America plan." Talk about how this will impact specific towns near your precinct--towns which have closed down due to the loss of manufacturing. Be passionate about bringing back manufacturing jobs for the sake of small Iowa towns such as (???).

Please leave any further suggestions in the comment section.

Doing Government While Awaiting the Coming Kingdom

It is all about the coming Kingdom, as the prophecy indicates:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this (Isaiah 9:6-7).

Likewise, Jesus tells us to seek first God's kingdom and his righteousness (Matthew 6:33). For this reason, Christians must not put their trust in earthly kingdoms and human governments. Indeed, because of our pervasive depravity, our idealized governments will always fall short and will never, ever offer redemption or societal salvation.

Nonetheless, governments are ordained by God to accomplish certain purposes while we await the passing away of this present evil age. For example, St. Paul indicates that governments are ordained by God to execute justice (Romans 13:1-7). On a more positive note, Paul indicates elsewhere that we should pray for government leaders so that we may live quiet and peaceful lives (1 Timothy 2:1-7). Underlying this discussion is the Christian's mission to propagate the Gospel: we should pray for good governance so that our Christian mission might not be impeded.

Christians, however, are not commanded to be passive in terms of involvement in government. A primary example of someone called into government is the Old Testament prophet Daniel and his three friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who were given high positions of authority in the Babylonian government. In their respective capacities, they were to use their authority for the greater social good, even though they were looking forward to an everlasting kingdom (Daniel 4:34-35).

A more comprehensive understanding of these and other passages inform us that in our American democracy, so long as we can participate in the democratic process, we should work to make government better and more conducive to the ideals of the coming Kingdom. Our Founding Fathers understood this and encapsulated it in our founding documents when they wrote,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Meanwhile, while we strive for better government, we look for that city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God (Hebrews 11:10).

Skeletons in the Candidates' Closets: Is Specter in Santorum's Closet?

Most candidates have skeletons in their closets. Romney ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy for his Senate seat, flipped on abortion, and created Romney-care. Perry ran Al Gore's presidential campaign. Ron Paul has his racist newsletters, his promotion of the morning after pill as a contraceptive, and his neo-confederate supporters. Newt has so many skeletons that his closet can't contain them. Bachmann has no skeletons that I know of, but she's only been in Congress for five years.

Santorum's skeleton is Arlen Specter, his fellow Pennsylvania senator who was a RINO extraordinaire. Santorum and Specter had huge disagreements on policy, but managed to work together for the good of Pennsylvanians. But by 2004, conservative Republican Pat Toomey arose to offer Specter a primary challenge. Santorum supported Snarlin' Arlin, prompting some conservatives to peg Santorum as a traitor.

This week, Michele Bachmann, when confronted with the notion of backing out so that conservatives could all get behind one conservative candidate, recalled this bit of Santorum's history, hoping to keep undecideds out of Santorum's camp. The badge of shame that Bachmann would pin on Santorum, however, is actually a badge of courage and political insight if one knows the rest of the story.

First of all, Santorum knew the political landscape in Pennsylvania well enough to realize the difficulty Toomey would have in defeating Specter. Indeed, when Toomey ran for the open Senate seat in 2010, he narrowly defeated the Democrat by a mere 2%, even though it was a landslide year for Republicans. Santorum saw that a wasted endorsement on Toomey in 2004 would burn up any goodwill between him and Specter, to the detriment of Pennsylvania.

More importantly, however, Santorum saw a credible opportunity to promote a pro-life, strict constitutionalist agenda. While Washington insiders pondered whether Santorum would endorse Toomey, Santorum had a meeting with Specter to broker a deal. Santorum would endorse Specter if Specter would use his position as the chair of the Senate Judiciary to get Bush's Supreme Court nominees confirmed.

Specter, more than any other senator, really was the man who could open and close the door on Supreme Court nominees. He shut the door on Robert Bork. In 2004, he shot off a warning to Pres. Bush not to nominate pro-life judges (). He was poised for a great self-aggrandizement, courtesy of the mainstream media just as soon as he might be given the chance to sink a conservative nominee. As a Republican, he could easily do so by saying that his party's president had nominated someone too extreme for America.

As it turned out, Specter accepted the deal. In fact, when Bush nominated Alito and Roberts, Specter gave considerable support to them, so much so that Democrats had no credibility in opposing their nomination. Instead of stepping into the limelight for another few minutes of stardom, Specter was uncharacteristically quiet throughout the confirmation process.

When Specter became a Democrat, Santorum was asked about his endorsement of Specter, whether he had regrets. Of course, any involvement with Specter would encompass some regrets, but Santorum argued that the deal with the devil was worth it. Nothing would have come out of an endorsement of Toomey, but his endorsement of Specter brought two outstanding conservative justices to the Supreme Court where they will serve perhaps for as many as two or three decades. Santorum's deal was not only the right one, but one that reveals profound long-term insight.

Bachmann and perhaps others will refuse to understand Santorum's strategy--not because it is difficult to understand, but because they want to use it as a campaign issue. Their argument, however, is utterly decimated by the fact that Toomey himself has turned out to be an uncommitted conservative. While Specter confirmed great conservatives like Alito and Roberts, Pat Toomey--whose interest Bachmann feigns so much concern--confirms pro-choice Obama appointees like this one:



As it turns out, if Specter is the worst skeleton in Santorum's closet, if this is the worst thing that Bachmann can say about him, then Santorum is squeaky clean. Considering his vast experience in the House and Senate, Santorum is THE consistent conservative.

Should Christians Only Vote for Christian Candidates?

I supposed I'd rather have an atheist who is a competent cardiologist performing heart surgery on me than a God-fearing doctor who is incompetent. But since ideology so profoundly influences government leaders, this adage needs some serious qualification when it comes to politics.

Preliminarily, Christians should have a healthy skepticism on any candidate's claim to be a Christian. Few of us actually know any candidate personally, let alone be so close to them that our spirit can confirm the candidates' claims about being a Christian. It is possible that a candidate merely claims to be a Christian without ever experiencing God's saving grace.

Since generally we cannot testify to a candidate's salvation, there are but two things we can say about a candidate's Christianity. First, we can say that a candidate professes to love the Lord, and claims to be committed to living a holy life. Secondly, we can say that a candidate has a Judeo-Christian worldview that guides his policies.

This second point is extremely important. I think I would prefer a competent non-believer who had a strong commitment to a Judeo-Christian worldview governing me than an Evangelical politician who was a poor leader and basically incompetent in doing his duty.

If this is the case, the principle may be applied to denominational differences. To be sure, I would prefer a candidate who is a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, Arminian Baptist who upholds inerrancy, practices feetwashing, and leans toward low-Church worship. To be sure, I have major disagreements on doctrine with some of the candidates and the doctrine taught by their respective churches. Specific doctrinal issues, however, rarely impacts political decisions. Affirmation or denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, probably will not influence a president's approach to foreign policy or environmental issues.

On the other hand, a commitment to Judeo-Christian values will profoundly influence all kinds of policy. So, Christians should choose their candidates according to two broad criteria: 1) competence; and 2) commitment to a Christian worldview.

Beating Obama--Which Republican Can Deliver the Electoral Votes?

Republicans want to nominate a candidate who can beat Barak Obama. Few pundits, however, have considered the electoral college map. On this issue, the clear advantage goes to Sen. Rick Santorum. Here's why.

First, we should note that some swing states can be won by any of the Republican candidates. These include Florida, and some pinkish states that have been Republican strongholds in the past but where Obama did well in 2008, such as North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. None of the Republican candidates will have an advantage over the others in winning these states. I suppose Romney could claim an advantage in appealing to moderate voters in these states, but such a claim would also undermine his assertion that he is the most consistent conservative. But in the end, I doubt that any one of the candidates (now--only Gingrich, Romney, Santorum) has a special appeal to any of these states.

In the past, candidates pushed their case by claiming they can deliver their home state. But for 2012, any Republican can deliver Newt's Georgia, but not Romney probably cannot deliver Massachusetts. But what about Santorum's state of Pennsylvania?

Delivering Pennsylvania would be huge. Pennsylvania has not voted for a Republican president since 1988, but combining Pennsylvania with the traditional red-leaning states is a winning formula for Republicans.

The other swing states are in the midwest. These include Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. All the candidates have an economic plan, but only Santorum has one that appeals to the manufacturing sector. Santorum would likely deliver Ohio, but may very well steal two or three of the other manufacturing states from Obama. Because of his Made in America economic plan, Santorum will have a stronger appeal to Reagan Democrats than any of the other candidates http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorums-made-in-america-economic-plan.html

Santorum's appeal to Reagan Democrats and the manufacturing sector in Ohio and the blue states of PA, MI, IL, and WI is a scenario that Democrats most fear, as reflected in Obama's 10 minute emphasis on manufacturing in his State of the Union speech. Any other Republican would have to scramble hither and yon to eek out a victory in 2012. But for Santorum, the roadmap to the White House is very clear: OH and PA, with MI and WI also in play as a security net.

Santorum's Made-in-America Plan and Small Town USA

Santorum's Made in America economic plan reveals his profound insight into the intersection of economic dynamics and America's social fiber. It is a workable plan which not only will be effective in promoting the nation's economic health, but will also impact society where it needs it the most.

I am amazed at how easily politicians have given up on America's manufacturing base. The various economic proposals of other candidates do little to address manufacturing. Rather, they all emphasize service sector and high tech opportunities, and private enterprise. All these are good, but do nothing for manufacturing. In contrast, the centerpiece of Santorum's economic plan is his Made in America plan to revitalize manufacturing. It does so by eliminating the corporate income tax for manufacturers - from 35% to 0, and eliminating the tax on repatriated taxable corporate income - from 35% from 0% - when manufacturers invest in plant and equipment here in the U.S.

While manufacturing jobs are a major part of many larger cities, they are the absolute heartline for many of the smaller towns in middle America. When a manufacturing plant shuts down in smaller towns like Greensburg Indiana, Pottstown Pennsylvania, or Urbana Ohio, the effects can be crippling.

I watched the movie Madison this week, and it details the kinds of things which are at the core of Santorum's concern over the disproportionate impact that the loss of manufacturing has on small towns. Madison is a small town in Indiana on the Ohio River. When one plant after another shuts down, people move to the cities, home values drop, the town is no longer able to provide services, downtown stores and offices get boarded up, and the town dies. No one is left except those who are dependent upon Welfare.

The importance of manufacturing jobs is also seen in that the typical blue collar worker makes $20,000 more annually than an equally educated person in the service sector. A high school graduate can make a good wage working in a factory, while a high school graduate stuck in the service sector will hardly surpass minimum wage. Manufacturing jobs offer significant income opportunities for those who do not go to college. Without manufacturing jobs, only those who can get advanced degrees in technology or administration are likely to achieve a good income.

When manufacturing plants shut down in Small Town, America, another negative social effect is that people resort to moving to the big city. They leave behind safer neighborhoods where kids have big yards to play in and everyone knows everyone else, and end up living in neighborhoods full of crime, where gangs are rampant, schools are violent, and community hardly exists. The move from Small Town, America also entails going from a place where traditional values such as faith and family and hard work are cherished to a place where elitism, political correctness, and entitlementism abounds. The loss of manufacturing jobs affects much more than a person's income; it impacts the very social fiber of America.

This is why I assert that Santorum's Made in America plan is not only smart, but profound. By revitalizing manufacturing, Santorum will help revitalize America's social fabric.

Santorum's Made in America also has its political benefits. It attracts blue collar workers and Reagan Democrats to him. It makes him politically viable in the Midwest. Any Republican can win Texas or Florida or New Mexico. But a Romney or a Gingrich probably will not win Pennsylvania, a purplish state that hasn't voted for a Republican president since 1988. A Perry is not likely to win Ohio or Michigan. Michele Bachmann may not even deliver her own state of Minnesota. But Santorum's Made in America plan will probably deliver Pennsylvania to him, and the combination of Ohio and Pennsylvania is formulaic for a Republican win. To this combination, Santorum could also add Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and even Minnesota.

Santorum's Made in America plan is a recipe for success in every way.

Santorum and Reagan's 3-Legged Stool

There's no doubt that the social conservative of this primary season is Sen. Santorum. However, Reagan conservatism is a three-legged stool, and all three legs are necessary for a stool to make: social issues, fiscal restraint/small government, and national defense. Accordingly, I don't support candidates just because they are passionate about traditional moral values. While Santorum makes the headlines on the social issues, it is his stance on all three legs which makes me an ardent supporter.

If it were only a matter of fiscal restraint, (and if there weren't so much racism in his newsletters), I'd be very much tempted to support Ron Paul. If it were only a matter of jobs creation, I might be tempted to vote for Romney. If it were only a matter of good governance, I might be tempted to vote for Perry. But the stool where the three legs of the stool are equally secure and proven is Rick Santorum.

On social issues and traditional moral values, little more needs to be said other than that Santorum rightly asserts that not only has he been the effective leader, but one who has been in the forefront taking the bullets. But Santorum's stance is not merely informed by his Judeo-Christian worldview. Rather, his pragmatic side is evident in that he alone articulates why healthy families are key to a healthy economy. Citing that 40 some percent of families with only one parent are living in poverty, Santorum perceptively argues that you can't fix the economy without strengthening families.


On fiscal restraint and on reducing the size of government, Santorum's bedrock beliefs can be seen in a number of episodes in his tenure in government, but none so keenly than in two particular titanic struggles. The first was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. For the first time ever, a federal entitlement was ended. While Gingrich is quick to take credit for this, it was Santorum who co-authored the bill and did the heavy lifting as the floor manager. The second epic struggle was over the 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment which Santorum co-sponsored . This bill was passed by a 2/3rds majority in the House and sent to the Senate . The final vote was a nail-biter, coming down to the vote of a RINO, Mark Hatfield. He will forever be remembered as the Senator who prevented the Balanced Budget Amendment being sent to the States which almost certainly would have ratified it, so that we would not be in the mess we are in today.

When the Senate defeated the bill by a single vote, Santorum vociferously railed against RINO Hatfield, arguing that he should be stripped of his chairmanship and removed from Republican leadership. Although Republicans did not take this punitive step, it was clear that Hatfield would be challenged in the next primary, and he retired the next year.

On national security, Santorum is well known for his strong stance on defense. He still remembers how we swore our most sacred vows that there must never, ever be another 9/11. None of the candidates is more informed on the threat of radical Islam. Frankly, with the exception of Santorum, the Republican candidates are all rather weak on foreign policy. On the other hand, Santorum's strong suit is the Middle East and Latin America. While the economy is the central focus of this election, I fear that the next President is likely to face a significant foreign policy challenge that will once again occupy his attention. That all important 3 a.m. phone call must be answered by someone who has depth in national security.

Yes, I am an Evangelical and social conservative. But social issues do not drive my motivation to support Santorum. I'm in Santorum's camp because his is the best stool for conservatives in this primary season.

Why Bachmann Needs to Attack Santorum's Conservatism

There is a close and undeniable affinity between Santorum and Bachmann. They definitely appeal to the same broad constituencies. Of all the candidates, they are the two consistent conservatives, and neither one can gainsay the the other's conservatism. So, what distinguishes the two?

The most obvious difference is experience. Santorum was elected to Congress at 32 years of age. His first act as a freshman backbencher was to join with freshman to form the famous Gang of Seven to expose and overturn the corruption of the House Bank. As a result, a number of significant congressmen were humiliated and forced into retirement, and the House Bank Congressional Chairman Dan Rostenkowski was thrown in prison. At 43 years of age, Santorum had authored and nursed into law a dozen or more pieces of legislation, and arose to the third ranking member of the U.S. Senate. His resume goes on and on.

It was not until she was 50 that Bachmann was elected to her first term in Congress where she has served as a backbencher for the last five years. Her resume is thin. She serves on the House Intelligence Committee, not as chairperson. Otherwise, she was a tax lawyer prior to her election. She has not yet authored a piece of legislation that has become law.

Bachmann appears to continue slide from her high water mark. She has responded in two ways. First, she is attempting to drum up grassroots support by doing a whirlwind 99 county tour of Iowa. This may backfire. Iowa voters know that Santorum did the hard work of making substantial visits to every one of the state's counties with considerable face time with Iowans; this contrasts sharply with Bachmann's 10 minute campaign stops from county to county, which may come across as a feeble attempt to reproduce Santorum's significant feat. Besides, voters will not be impressed by a 10 minute campaign stop after having stood waiting in rain and snow for 90 minutes for her entourage to arrive, often late.

Bachmann's other attempt to stop her slide has been to question both Santorum's conservatism and principles. At issue was Santorum's endorsement of his fellow Pennsylvania Republican senator, Arlen Specter. Specter was a RINO, and he was facing conservative Republican Pat Toomey in a contested primary. On one hand, a Santorum endorsement of Toomey would do little to help Toomey defeat Specter, but on the other hand, if Santorum backed Toomey, Specter would likely retaliate by using his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary to block pro-life Bush nominees to the Supreme Court.

Faced with this conundrum, Santorum met privately with Specter, and offered his endorsement in exchange for Specter's support of any pro-life Bush nominees to the Supreme Court. The gambit worked, and Specter supported Bush appointees Roberts and Alito, both of whom were strongly commended by most of the Republican candidates in a recent debate. In the end, Specter deserted the GOP, and became a Democrat, but he kept his agreement with Santorum. Toomey did run against him in 2010 and won. However, Santorum's political sensibilities were justified in that first, Toomey just barely defeated Specter the Democrat in a landslide year for Republicans (how much less were his chances of defeating Specter in 2004!), and secondly, the court now has two more solid conservatives who will likely serve for two or three decades.

Most conservatives find Santorum's rationale sound, and label Bachmann's attack against Santorum as pure political maneouvering. But why is Bachmann only now making this political attack against Santorum? The attack may arise from recent calls for her to bow out of the race so that conservatives can coalesce behind one candidate.

The stakes are high; if conservatives do not get behind one candidate, they will hand this primary to either Romney or Gingrich. Since Bachmann lacks a substantial campaign in New Hampshire and South Carolina, a number of conservatives realize that even if she were to win Iowa, she will merely play the roll of spoiler in the end, either against Romney or Gingrich. Although conservatives love Bachmann, they realize that Santorum is the better candidate not only because of his experience in getting difficult legislation passed and signed into law, but also because if he scores big in Iowa, he has a substantial organization necessary to sustain his campaign into Super Tuesday. All in all, he is the only conservative alternative who can beat Romney and Gingrich.

My Journey to Becoming a Santorum Supporter

I was in Washington state when I first heard of Rick Santorum. It was in 1993, the year of the House Banking scandal, and Rush Limbaugh kept on saying the scandal was big, really big…big enough to really shake up the Democrat controlled House of Representatives. Some upstart freshmen Republicans were blowing the lid off the insider secret that one of the perks of being in Congress was a “you keep the change” policy whenever you bought stamps, etc. at the House Bank. Santorum was one of the Gang of Seven who took on this deep-seated corruption in Washington and won (finally, a campaign cliché that is true!). House Banking Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski went to prison, and a number of others were disgraced and did not run for re-election. These freshman Republicans were the political fruit of eight years of Ronald Reagan, and Rick Santorum was one of the shining stars.

After finishing my Master’s, we moved to the northern suburbs of Philly, and were privileged to have Rick Santorum as our senator. One of the big political debates of the day was welfare reform. We all knew welfare was being abused, and news reports of welfare recipients driving fine Cadillacs were featured in the news. Authoring the legislation and leading our cause was our own Rick Santorum. However, while Newt was being portrayed as the Gingrich who stole Christmas, Santorum’s motivation had a different tone to it, one characterized by true compassion. He was motivated not so much by a desire to end abuse of the system, but rather by a genuine concern to help people overcome government dependence so that their lives might be more meaningful. This compassion is written into the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and it was Rick Santorum who wrote it in.

With Newt’s derailing of the Republican Revolution and his subsequent resignation, it was a frustrating decade for Republicans, especially so for pro-life Republicans. The pro-life agenda was being high-jacked by activist justices, and our cause seemed at a stalemate. Everyone was saying that abortion was a matter for the states, undermining our whole pro-life election strategy. In this context, just as he broke the House Banking scandal, Rick Santorum also broke the scandal of the heinous procedure known as partial birth abortion. Few of us had heard of it before, but Santorum authored the bill to ban it, and in a short period of time, Americans nationwide not only knew what the term meant, but also grasped the absurdity of the pro-abortionists’ claim that the fetus was not human and could be killed so long as a small portion of the baby’s body was still in the womb. It was Rick Santorum who made Barbara Boxer of California famous by checkmating her into arguing that the baby was not human if its little toe was still in the womb. It was in this national debate when the pro-life movement finally started swaying hearts and minds, so that now most Americans think abortion is nothing less than killing a human baby. Santorum can stand up and honestly say that every major pro-life legislation that has passed in the Senate in the last 20 years was authored by him. While most Republicans profess pro-life positions, Santorum really, really believes in it, and every pro-lifer owes him a debt of gratitude for leading the battles.

By this time, Santorum had arisen to the third highest ranking Republican of the U.S. Senate. He achieved this high rank at the young age of 43, a significant point of contrast with Bachmann who was already 43 when she ran for her first political office. Santorum rose so quickly through the ranks largely in part due to his ability to get major Republican urgencies passed through Congress and signed by a Democrat president. His appeal to Reagan Democrats was seen especially in that he won his Senate seat in a state that had not voted for a Republican president since Reagan’s second term in 1988. When George W. Bush lost the state by 4.1% in 2000, Santorum won it by almost 7%, an 11% vote spread.

My ideas about national security were informed on one hand by the utter incompetence of the Carter administration, and on the other by Ronald Reagan’s success in crippling the evil empire through American strength. Apparently, this was true of most Americans, for when 9/11 happened, we all vowed the most solemn oath to ourselves that this would never, ever happen again (Ron Paul might have been the one of the few exceptions). The country was unified over the war on terror, with Democrats strongly supporting Pres. Bush’s foreign policy that you’re either for us, or against us. All of us were determined not only to destroy the terrorists, but also to pacify once and for all a belligerent and non-compliant Iraq that was funding terrorism throughout the Middle East.

During those days, Santorum became a leading voice against Islamic extremism. He made himself a student of the Middle East and of Islamic apocalyptic politics. He wrote the Syria Accountability Act of 2003 and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006. As Newt has indicated, Santorum is THE foreign policy expert.

While extremists in Iraq were strapping suicide bombs onto developmentally disabled women and killing their own daughters in schools built by American compassion, Santorum was speaking at events such as Islamo-fascism Awareness Week. In the midterm election of 2006, when Democrats had traded their patriotism for political expediency, Santorum was one of the few politicians still articulating a vision for winning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was on an outdoor stage in Uniontown, Pennsylvania that I first met Sen. Santorum. I was absolutely transfixed by his extemporaneous message and how clearly he conveyed the urgency to win the war against Islamic extremism. Santorum has more knowledge about the Middle East in the tip of his pinkie finger than Obama has in a roomful of advisers. I thought surely Santorum would be the candidate for president in 2008.

Unfortunately, in 2006, Pres. Bush not only failed to inspire people with a vision of victory in Iraq, but he hardly made any effort to do so. In many ways, once Bush was re-elected in 2004, he quit campaigning. People most outspoken, such as Sen. Santorum, were left on their own, and they became vulnerable to Democrat attacks. I had never been involved in politics before, but I saw how right Santorum was and how wrong the Democrat attacks were against Santorum, so I volunteered for the campaign.

In addition to unsubstantiated attacks, Democrats recruited the namesake son of a popular governor, Bob Casey, Jr. to run against Santorum. No doubt a large number of voters were fooled into voting for the man who died 6 years earlier. The combination of these tactics, and Santorum’s refusal to moderate his conservative views, as well as Bush’s lack of popularity led to Santorum’s inevitable defeat. The defeat of the U.S. Senate’s 3rd ranking Republican and 2008 presidential hopeful was the most significant loss of the midterm campaign, and ultimately led to the 2008 lackluster candidacies of Romney and McCain.

That was five years ago, the first year that presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann came to Washington as one of 435 Congressional delegates. During his time in Washington, Santorum authored and championed numerous pieces of legislation that were signed into law (I can list 7 off the top of my head), and served on numerous committees and subcommittees, including two chairmanships. No one will accuse him of lacking experience.

After 2006, Santorum kept fighting for his beliefs. He wrote regular newspaper editorials, served as a news analyst, and began writing a weekly internet article on the ongoing threat of Islamic extremism called The Gathering Storm (here’s the index for his 217 articles: http://www.eppc.org/publications/view.abstract,typeID.49/pubIndex.asp). I read these short but depthy articles every week. During these years, few were taking notice of the dangerous axis between Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Venezuela’s socialist dictator and belligerent Hugo Chavez, but Santorum did.

While doing my PhD in New Testament at Cambridge, Obama became president, and did everything possible to lurch this country toward the far left, with huge surges in spending and growth of the federal government. Santorum’s response was to begin campaigning for conservatives in the 2010 elections. Since Santorum is a heart-felt social conservative, he went to Iowa to campaign (successfully) against three liberal Supreme Court justices. By the time I returned to the U.S., I began noticing the numerous trips Santorum was making to Iowa, a tell-tale sign of a potential candidate testing the campaign waters.

When Santorum announced his candidacy on June 6, 2011, the anniversary of D-Day, I was ecstatic, because I already knew that Santorum was the right person for the presidency. However, such elation was tempered by what seemed to be the insurmountable difficulty of overcoming the stigma of his 2006 defeat. So, for the first several months, I have stayed on the sidelines, until I could see a clear course for victory. On the eve of the Florida election,Santorum is still in the mix, with one victory. His campaign is solvent, with adequate funding to sustain his candidacy. The campaign continues to grow with professional staff in the upcoming states.

Note, however, that winning the nomination is not the end goal for Sen. Santorum. He also has a plan to win in November, at the general election. Republicans simply cannot afford to write off Pennsylvania any more. This state has not voted for a Republican president since 1988, and no one is more likely to pick up Pennsylvania than Santorum.

But Santorum’s appeal will go beyond his home state. With his credible economic plan to revitalize manufacturing, he will appeal to Reagan Democrats throughout the Midwest. Romney and Gingrich simply cannot do this. Of all the candidates, Santorum has the best chance of beating Obama in the electoral college.

Yes, I really like Santorum, and think he is the right choice—not merely the best choice out of a number of flawed or deficient candidates, but the right choice. He is the consistent conservative on social, fiscal, and national security issues. He has the depth of experience and knowledge for the job. He is a man of character, a rock standing out in an ocean of doubt and compromise. After watching him for the last 21 years, he is the one who I trust to answer the 3 a.m. call.

Why Christians Should Be Politically Active

In America, most Christians vote. A few are political activists. Is political activism something in which Christians should participate? Yes, at least a few of them should, and probably more should than actually do.

Just as Christians should influence society by volunteering to coach Little League, or to help in a classroom, or to help in charitable organizations. We are called to engage in other people's lives, to develop good friendships with others so that we can share the gospel with them. This is part of being the salt of the earth.

We should realize that God does not change hearts through politics or political action. This is a given. On the other hand, government does have an influence on society, for good or for evil, and in a free society, Christians can work together to help assure that government has a positive influence on society. The powers and principalities which dominate government would like for Christians to keep silence, but what Jesus tells us in secret, we should shout from the rooftops (Matt 10:27).

For this reason, pastors and church leaders should find at least one person in the congregation to step forward and be politically active. Perhaps one church member should run for office. Perhaps one should volunteer for a campaign.

For myself, my primary calling is Christian ministry through biblical studies. But every once in a while, I feel obliged to do a thing or two to influence society through political action.

Marital Fidelity as a Criterion for Leadership

The question in Saturday’s debate, arising from Romney and Perry ads implying a contrast with Gingrich’s past sins, is whether character in general and marital fidelity in particular should weigh heavily in the process of vetting the Republican candidate. Perry argued that if a man cheats on his wife, he’s all the more likely to cheat on his business partner, implying an analogous relationship between someone holding elected office and those who elected him. Santorum affirmed that marital fidelity is an important consideration, but not necessarily one that might disqualify a candidate.

I think the most important aspect of this is that we want our president to be someone who can be upheld as a role model, and not an object of derision.

Interestingly, the Bible addresses a comparable situation pertaining to the choice of church leaders. Paul’s language of “a husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:?) has been taken to disqualify absolutely any divorced person, although in context, it is probably best understood as “not a womanizer,” rather than absolutely. This qualification arises from the principle that if people cannot manage their own household, how can they be trusted to manage the household of God (i.e., the local church)? One could say the same thing in regard to a president’s management of national affairs.

The principle is a principle, and not an absolute, and most Evangelicals understood this in regard to President Reagan, whom they did not impugn for his previous divorce, in part because they saw his long-time fidelity to Nancy.

Gingrich, however, is no Ronald Reagan, for Gingrich’s infidelity and three marriages have been rather public and rather recent. Divorce and infidelity are not unpardonable sins, and I think that people in such situations can regain their reputation. However, it does not happen over night. In the case of choosing church leaders, new converts are not to be placed in leadership, but must be proven first; so should it be with those whose reputation has been tarnished through marital infidelity and going from one spouse to another and to another.

Here’s why it matters.

It was Gingrich’s House that impeached Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors, and it was Gingrich’s House Managers who prosecuted the case before the Senate. It has been said that Clinton and Gingrich were in a stare-down, but that Gingrich was the first to blink. It was during this time that Gingrich’s infidelity was secretly in full gear. It has been suggested that Clinton operatives discovered the secret, and that Gingrich blinked in order to preserve his secret.

I do not know the historicity of this. Let us assume only that it is just a tale, but one that is instructive. The lesson to be learned is that character matters, for indiscretions whose secrecy is valued can be converted into capital that results in political manipulation. In extreme cases, scenarios can be envisioned of foreign governments spying on presidents of weak-character, and using personal indiscretions as blackmail to manipulate U.S. foreign policy.

While a politician’s failure to manage his own house may not be the decisive factor in one’s choice of candidates, it matters at least a little. In light of the importance of family to the fabric of American society, we should choose leaders who are beyond reproach in regard to managing their own family affairs.

Does the Bible Back Government Entitlements for the Poor?

Political activists on the left criticize Sen. Santorum for lacking compassion for the poor and for being a hypocrite who will stand condemned before Christ on Judgment Day. The basis for the left’s harsh judgmentalism is that Santorum would cut programs such as foodstamps, and that Christ makes feeding the poor the basis for eternal life. Both of these claims are false.

For starters, despite the leftist blogosphere’s hysteria over Santorum’s position on foodstamps, his actual stance is to block grant the states to administer such programs individually, so that government would be more efficient in feeding America’s poor.

Secondly, the left profoundly misunderstands the biblical passage which they cite to condemn Santorum. Of course, the left feels that it can pick and choose the passages they like, but passages about the sanctity of life and holy matrimony are otherwise ridiculed as ignorant. But specifically, in judging Santorum, they erroneously cite Jesus’ illustration of how people will be separated as sheep from goats on Judgment Day. To be sure, the “sheep” will be welcomed into the Kingdom, while the “goats” will be condemned to hell (Matthew 25:31-46), but this judgment is not based on how one treats poor and disadvantaged people. Rather, Jesus said that the judgment will hinge upon how a person treats “one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine.” The term “least of these” is a favorite in Matthew’s Gospel to refer to true Christian disciples. The left should be warned: if they ridicule, slander, mistreat, or revile Jesus’ disciples, it is the same as doing it to Jesus himself, and they will be sent to hell. In stumbling upon this verse and erroneously applying it to Santorum, the left condemns itself.

But more to the point…. The Bible certainly teaches that we should be generous with our money and to help those who are truly in need, but nowhere does the Bible justify the government imposing itself into people’s pocketbooks through huge government bureaucracies (i.e., “tax collectors”) staffed by its own constituencies, to redistribute private wealth to others, and to do so without discerning which person is lazy and which is really in need. Rather, the biblical model is that each person should freely help the needy, without compulsion.

I’m a Baptist. If you come to me hungry, I’ll take you to our church’s food pantry (regardless of your religion). If Santorum were you neighbor and you asked him for help, he’d take you to Catholic Charities. This is the way that biblical charity works, and it is more efficient than waiting for a government bureaucrat to give your foodstamps.

But the Christian call to generosity must also be heard with the biblical teaching that if a lazy person doesn’t work, neither should he eat, a teaching to which the left is deaf. Interestingly, the left discovered this past week the command that people should leave the corners of their fields unharvested so that the poor and landless might also have something to eat (Leviticus 23:22). Forthwith, activists on the left got the memo to cite this passage in condemnation of Santorum. But note that this passage assumes that the poor and the landless would at least get off their rumps and go harvest the food so generously left unharvested by the landowner. In our government run system, so many people abuse the system who are otherwise healthy and could harvest the corners of the fields for themselves. But we have created a dependent society where lazy couch potatoes have government paid workers harvest the grain for them. Santorum wants to effectively help people reach their potential so that they will have dignity, without having to depend upon government and other people’s money.