MH - Support Santorum?

K-Lo has a piece up today supporting Rick Santorum in his bid for reelection to the Senate next year, saying it "would have repercussions well beyond Pennsylvania." Now, I think K-Lo's right on when it comes to cultural issues; as far as politics goes, I generally agree with her to the extent that the political and cultural converge. In other words, she's much more of a Republican than I am.

I'm not automatically dismissing her support of Santorum (I won't absolutely rule out coming to that conclusion myself), but I do have to disagree, or at lesat challenge, a couple of things. First, the importance of a Santorum victory to continued Republican control of the Senate, to which I would respond with two words: So What? What good has a Republican majority done so far? I know all the logical arguments (I used to make them myself), but I can't go along with the idea that you have to keep the majority for the sake of having a majority. Until you can prove to me that you intend to do something with that majority, I remain skeptical.

Second, there's the question of Santorum himself. At this point I have to disclose that Rick Santorum's continuing presence as a columnist for Crisis magazine following his endorsement of Arlen Specter was a prime reason why I didn't continue my subscription to Crisis. I understand Lopez's point htat Santorum is not a lock-step Republican; in fact, to the extent that he drifts away from the Republican line, he's often taking a position informed by Catholic sensibility. But is not Santorum's judgment while in office a factor to be considered as well? His support of Specter not only came at the expense of a pro-life candidate (Pat Toomey), it's now led to all kinds of problems for conservatives, stretching form the judicial confirmation process to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Specter may not be a Democrat (vital to that all-important Republican "majority"), but he can be counted on as a pretty reliable opponent of most conservative (and Republican) initiatives. The spector of Specter continues to be a royal pain in the butt, and for that we have Rick Santorum (and George Bush) to thank.

Did Santorum foresee these consequences when he supported Specter? If so, it begs the question as to what other principles he might sell out in the name of "party unity." And if not, why not? Considering Specter's past, I'd think this would have been a fairly easy prediction, don't you?

I appreciate that Bob Casey, Jr. might not be the right man for the Senate. I acknowledge that Santorum has been on the right side in many important areas. I even understand that there's no such thing as a "perfect" candidate. But it seems that the doubts are being dismissed too easily, the reasons for support not compelling enough, the differences merely being papered over. I don't like my support, even if it's only moral support, taken for granted. Santorum's judgment has resulted in serious damage for the causes he claims are so important, and I think we have the right to ask why we should expect things to be different in the future.