Writing about the 2012 Republican presidential race, and its culmination in Romney as the clear winner, Noonan reflects:

So what have we learned? The GOP presidential contest of 2012 is over. Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. What do we know now that we didn’t know in 2011, when the campaign began? Or what do we know that we already knew, but now we’ve been reminded?

We learned that primogeniture is still a force in the GOP. The next king is the firstborn son of the current king. In political terms, the guy who came in second in the last presidential cycle stands most likely to be crowned and anointed in the current one. Republicans, for all their drama, still tend toward the orderly and still credit experience.

Sure, this makes sense—oftentimes. When I first read Noonan’s claim, my mind worked backward, to previous GOP presidential races. It made sense for Romney this time, as it did for John McCain the last time, for Bob Dole before him, for George H. W. Bush prior to Dole, for Reagan—who nearly unseated the incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976—and so on.

But then my mind started moving forward, which brings me to this thought: If the pattern holds, isn’t Rick Santorum the front-runner for the next Republican presidential race, whether in four years or eight years? He finished second, after all. Besides, Santorum is young. By no stretch should we expect him to be finished. And he is a fighter, tenacious, principled. You can never count out Rick Santorum. The man lost his Pennsylvania Senate race by 18 percent six years ago, and yet somehow rebounded to the point where he just finished second in the GOP presidential pursuit. That’s pretty darn remarkable.

Is he the next GOP front-runner? Alas, inspiring as the thought may be to Santorum supporters, I wouldn’t take much stock in the likelihood of Rick being the nominee next time. Consider:

The Republican field in 2012 was weak. I believe that Santorum went as far as he did because he was the most appealing Anyone-But-Romney candidate remaining after the exit of Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and the others. He was the most viable conservative alternative, preferable to Newt Gingrich, who is forever saddled by the personal baggage. That’s not to take anything away from Santorum, who was terrific, and earned everything he got—but I think it’s largely accurate.

To the contrary, the next Republican line-up for the next election cycle should be one of the strongest in decades: Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Michelle Bachmann, maybe even Sarah Palin, just to name a few. The current election cycle was depressingly poor for the Republican field. In 2016, or 2020, it should be much stronger. That strength will work against Santorum as the likely nominee. Yes, he was the second-place finisher in 2012, but I can’t imagine him as a lock for the front-runner position in 2016 or 2020. He would need to do something notably distinctive in the interim, perhaps like Nixon in his “Wilderness Years” (1962-68), writing books, travelling, speaking, adding weight and credibility to his name and his cause.

Of course, if there’s one thing I’ve learned about Rick Santorum over the years—and I first met him over 20 years ago—he never ceases to impress and defy all expectations. If anyone can surprise us yet again, it’s Santorum.

Good luck, Rick. And good job. It was quite a run.

At the South Boston annual St. Patrick’s Day breakfast Brown quipped that Santorum’s Secret Service detail was “the first time he’s actually ever used protection.”

HA! SO FUNNY! Get it? Because he’s got lots of kids? They multiply like feral cats, or something, which is REALLY FUNNY!!11!!!1!1!!!!!1

*ahem.*

The Family Santorum

Which leads to the question, which of the Santorums’ children does Scott Brown think ought not to be alive? Which should have been denied conception? Because “protection” does that: it directly and intentionally denies the possibility that this person-creating act could create a new person. It is utter and complete selfishness in the most sacred action God created man and woman to perform. It is a contra-life action. It is an abuse of the gift of sexuality. It is a denial of the meaning of marriage.

And as such, it is a punch line to those who have bought the lie.

My dad is the third of eleven kids and I am the second of six. I cannot tell you what a blessing a large family has been.

I work at Franciscan University of Steubenville. Four kids is “a good start” around here, with a number of families in the double-digits. And the kids of the large families are some of the most well-behaved, capable, happy, and interesting people we’ve got.

I wonder how many of them (us ?) should not live due to such “protection.” Seems all you’re protecting in so doing is your own cowardice.

Life is a bold endeavor; love includes risk. Don’t think so? Don’t think it should? Ask this guy…

"For God So Loved the World."

I sure wish Perry hadn’t dropped out.

As it is, since he did drop out and Santorum isn’t on the ballot here in Steubenville (didn’t get enough signatures), my choice is made easier: Gingrich. I’m starting to warm up to the idea of a Romney nomination, but I’m still not all the way there.

I will be at the Santorum rally tonight, which he is having here in Steubenville, as the returns roll in. If I get a chance to ask him any questions, does anyone have any they’d like to include?

This is a new low, even for The Huffington Post.

In some sense there isn’t anything shocking about what Doyle writes. It’s the same old, tired lies we hear about the Church all the time from vicious anti-catholics. What’s different is the double-standard the Huffington Post applies: a standard which allows their writers to publish literally anything offensive about catholics, however untrue or mean-spirited, while other “protected” groups are never portrayed negatively (just compare the HuffPo Religion section and the HuffPo LGBT section to see what I mean).

It’s always open season on us. And, in going after Rick Santorum’s Catholic faith, this is a preview of what HuffPo and other far-left media outlets intend to do to him if he wins the GOP nomination.

Some examples from Doyle:

“Many of you will be shocked to learn what our possible future president believes, who he answers to, the bloody jihads his so-called church has carried on for centuries, and its current role as the tactical arm of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.”

Unlike Christians, Santorum and his fellow Roman Catholics participate in a barbaric ritual dating back two millennia, a “mass” in which a black-robed cleric casts a spell over some bread and wine, transfiguring it into the actual living flesh and blood of their Christ. Followers then line up to eat the Jesus meat and drink his holy blood in a cannibalistic reverie not often seen outside Cinemax.

Get the drift? Oh, and for good measure, Doyle suggests Pope Benedict is a “former” Nazi (“former” in quotation marks to imply he still is a Nazi). Doyle asks if Santorum becomes President “will child killers and terrorists go unexecuted on the Pope’s say-so?” –this is supposed to be clever and provocative?!

There’s one line that is simply too offensive even to excerpt here.

And just because Doyle is evidently creatively challenged, he goes back to the “Catholic Church = NAMBLA” meme one more time, just in case we missed it the first time.

And, to avoid the possibility of failing to offend as many people as possible, Doyle ends with this:

Need I remind you that only once in our great history has a Roman Catholic been elected president, and how tragically it ended?

… honestly? Joking about the assassination of JFK? That’s supposed to be funny?

To cap it off, this is the image Doyle attaches to his article:

Have mercy on us, indeed.

Fellow Catholics, this is pretty simple: The Huffington Post should take down this article and issue an apology for how deeply offensive it is to Catholics. I don’t know about you, but I’m just sick of watching HuffPo allow its authors to sling filth at my beloved faith.

Update: Read the letter to Ms. Huffington that CV President Brian Burch signed.

Electable? When the playing field is fair, that's Rick.

Part of the Conventional Wisdom of GOP primary season 2012 has been that Romney is the “most electable” of the GOP contenders.

Somehow that’s supposed to make us forget his absolute unreliability on pretty much everything that matters to conservatives. “Anyone but Obama” doesn’t mean we want someone who will slow down and manage better the decline of U.S., Inc.

Romney has won four primaries. But his victories have come in his own back yard (New Hampshire), including a state that sends Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to the Senate (Maine); a state with a heavy Mormon population (Nevada); and a state where he simply drowned the opposition in cash (Florida). So given a really fair fight he hasn’t won.

Contrast that with Santorum taking Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, four fairly different states, none near his home state, with different political tendencies, and all battleground states in the general election, despite a much smaller organization and far less money.

And Public Policy Polling has Santorum slightly ahead (but within the MoE) this primary election day morning in MICHIGAN. Remember: Michigan is Mitt Romney’s real home state and the state where his dad was a popular governor and his family is still active. For Romney, Michigan is pretty much a must-win. But since Michigan awards her delegates proportionally, even if Romney technically wins by a few percentage points—after spending scads of money in a state he should win handily—Santorum’s strong showing is still quite significant.

I’ve not been the most ardent Santorum supporter, torn among Perry, Gingrich, and him, but a podcast up today with the Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto (hat tip to Ben Domenech) has me a little more comfortable in a Santorum nomination.

In short, while Santorum has been presented as too extreme to take on Obama and win, the polling and electoral trends have been in his favor, even as people *have* come to know him more and digest the media and Romney attacks/distortions they’ve been fed.

I still think I would prefer a Gingrich presidency, but since his negatives have been hovering north of Obama’s, making his chances of getting elected even lower, I could go for a Santorum candidacy.

The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill.

But Rick Santorum is supposedly radically on the margins of society for ever expressing his view that it has done harm to women and men and the family?

We are told that the Right has forced a debate on contraception, when it is the media-aided White House and Democratic party (thank you for Democrats like Dan Lipinski in the House and Ben Nelson in the Senate who are fighting against it) that has forced this issue by telling the Catholic Church its teachings on sexual morality are not welcome in America. The government knows best, and you will submit or be penalized.

The irony, of course, is that President Rick Santorum would not approach the government that way. What is the outrageous view he expressed, according to his critics? As president, he would talk about the downsides of contraception. TALK. Not legislate. Not mandate. Simply use his soapbox to try to persuade a time or again, perhaps. How radical. He would continue to share his views when appropriate.

As the Obama administration tells us we can’t actually believe what we say we do, not operationally, not outside of the fall walls of a church on Sundays. Who exactly is the radical here?

BRZEZINSKI: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with believing that, I really don’t. I don’t think that means he’s going to ban birth control across the board.  Those are his personal beliefs. And I think that as a father, and a man who’s held public office, he’s lived up to them, it appears. Which makes it interesting for the conversation, and it’s a conversation probably every family should have, about birth control and its role in society with their own kids.  He’s got his own, and he stands by them, and I think he’s an interesting part of the national conversation in terms of where our society is going. And there is a lot of risky behavior out there that happens to be connected to birth control. So there’s a whole other side to this conversation.  And not once did I say should it be banned, or should it not be covered by health insurance. ButI think it’s OK to have those beliefs or those concerns.

I mentioned this on Laura Ingraham’s show this morning and guest host Raymond Arroyo ended the segment, Kathryn Lopez stands with Mika Brzezinski – I sure do here. And thank her. That is a brave thing, to be that honest. We know from the recent Komen incident how kindly the liberal feminist sisterhood receives common sense, and their tolerance for those who stray from their women’s health talking points.

UPDATE: Thank Brzezinski here.

First of all, I want to PRAISE and THANK all of you who responded to my post yesterday calling on Catholics to support Rick Santorum in these states.

One provocative take on what fueled this Santorum surge is Larry Kudlow’s (who most people will know from his financial show on CNBC):

“A vote for Rick Santorum tonight was the easiest and most immediate voter path to protest Obamacare and Obama’s pro-abortion view.”

Kathyrn Lopez says Kudlow told her: It’s a referendum on Obamacare and the Department of Health and Human Services mandate.

Now there’s a fascinating idea. After all, polls show that a large portion of GOP primary voters are making their final choice for who to support the week before and day of the primary. As my list shows, Catholic bishops across Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado instructed their priests to join them in denouncing the mandate from the pulpit these past two Sundays, and a Rasmussen poll today finds that a majority of voters oppose the mandate. And Rick Santorum has been mentioning his strong opposition to the mandate on the campaign trail leading up to yesterday’s elections.

People are angry about this mandate. And they are looking for the candidate who most strongly can articulate what is wrong with the mandate and what he would do as President to reverse course on this and a host of other threats to religious freedom.

Whatever the reasons, Rick Santorum now has his best shot to win the Republican nomination. Maine is currently holding its caucuses. Arizona and Michigan hold their primaries on February 28th (save the date!) and Washington state holds its caucuses on March 3rd. If you live in these states or have friends and family who do, please do what you can to continue building the Santorum momentum!

As I tweeted last night, “I love that politics still surprises me. I predicted a big night [for Rick Santorum]. This was a huge night.”

I woke up this morning realizing the possibility of a Rick Santorum presidency is far less remote than it was yesterday. What a pleasant and, indeed, exciting surprise. Game on!

That is why the Santorum campaign’s line of attack against Mitt Romney related to the mandate issue is unfortunate. Mitt Romney was not hostile to religion when he vetoed the much talked about law that required the dispensing of emergency contraception. (Read his oped at the time here.)

Mitt Romney was not hostile to religion or religious freedom when he said, upon receiving the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty’s Canterbury Medal:

It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were the gift of God, not of kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,” Jefferson once asked, “when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”

John Adams offers a further perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man’s nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion” he said “ . . . would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

This great experiment in liberty will endure and flourish only so long as we maintain the humility, faith, and character to govern ourselves.

Nor can we overlook that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.

“We and God have business with each other,” even the father of pragmatism William James once observed. “In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled.” When a people’s “deepest destiny” can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!

We have recently been visited by Pope Benedict XVI. It was interesting to me that both he and Pope John Paul II, testified of the connection between freedom and truth. Pope Benedict quoted his predecessor: “In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.” Calling those words “prophetic,” he said they echo in some sense the conviction of George Washington’s Farewell Address, that “religion and morality represent ‘indispensable supports’ of political prosperity.” And then he added his own conviction: “Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.”

I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: “Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”

I don’t mean to suggest that truth can only be found in religion or that morality exists only among believers. But I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that “national morality” as Hamilton put it, “require[s] the aid of . . . divinely authoritative religion.” I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against moral relativism — which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable that it can label “evil good, and good evil;” as it says in Isaiah and “put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”

I also believe that religion and the general precepts of morality defended by religion make us better men and women. And on the whole, I believe we are a stronger people and a stronger nation because of faith. Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy. That last teaching alone may help us escape the demographic nightmare that is haunting Europe.

The Obama administration is counting on confusion about this HHS mandate keeping the regulation in place. Those of us on the same side of the issue — opposed to it and its overreach –ought not to add to the confusion.