Santorum vs. Romney: Preference or necessity?

Courtesy of Gage Skidmore

What do attempts to ban flag desecration, reduce federal spending and prevent minors fromgetting out-of-state abortions all have in common? They are all things that former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) has voted for. Santorum served from 1995 to 2007 in the U.S. Senate, thus gaining a good amount of political experience at the federal level. He is influenced by his faith and has remained true to his beliefs even if they were unpopular, promoting a  conservative vision for the U.S. that this country deserves.

Santorum has a better record than his rivals, former Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. Ron Paul, with respect to conservative issues. Paul voted against banning same-sex marriage and abortions at the federal level, essentially saying that if some states want to allow their residents to be immoral that is fine with him. As a proponent of states’ rights, Paul’s reasoning is not as bad as Romney’s, though. Romney has repeatedly said that he is pro-life, but that the government should not be able to prevent abortions. That’s like saying, “I don’t think rape is right, but I don’t believe the government should be able to throw rapists in jail.”

Paul would also like to abolish the FBI and the death sentence, while Santorum understands that capital punishment is just. Furthermore, Paul does not believe in spending money on puppet governments — even though accommodation is a useful tool in foreign relations — and would like to abolish the CIA as well. Santorum would make sure that America’s military might is respected and, when necessary, feared. He would also ensure that the CIA could interrogate detainees without reporting their actions and would not preserve habeas corpus for Guantànamo Bay detainees.

All these positions align Santorum as a staunch conservative, which is why he is my favorite candidate. He is the man that this country deserves, but he is not the man that the Republicans need to defeat President Barack Obama.

Instead, Romney is needed to defeat Obama, because he has more economic experience than his rivals and is more moderate. He also has an MBA from Harvard Business School to bolster his résumé. Besides founding the investment firm Bain Capital in 1984, Romney can also point to his 2002 Winter Olympics heroics when talking about successfully managing tough situations. His bipartisan stances on abortion and his state level healthcare program may help him appeal to moderates. And, although he has taken a tough stance on immigration, he used a landscaping company that employed illegal immigrants even after discovering that he was hiring illegal workers. However, Romney can still attract conservative voters, because he opposes cuts to defense spending — unlike Ron Paul — and supports the death penalty. Romney has not cheated on his wife, been accused of being a fascist or proposed abolishing half of all government departments, so he will most likely have the best chance at defeating Obama.

Lowering spending, extending tax cuts, voting to limit death penalty appeals and challenging judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who rule in order to further their liberal agendas, are all actions Santorum has taken to promote his conservative ideals and make this country better, and for that I am grateful. He won in the Iowa caucus, before dropping in New Hampshire and then overtaking Ron Paul in South Carolina.

But even if he manages to obtain the Republican presidential nomination, I do not believe he can defeat Obama. I will continue to support Santorum until he is defeated, but I fear that America will have to suffer another four years under a liberal if the more moderate candidate, Romney, is not nominated. I would like to see Santorum become president, but Romney would be preferable over Obama.

Ondo is a member of
the class of 2014.



You can contact Adam at aondo@u.rochester.edu.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks

2 Responses to “Santorum vs. Romney: Preference or necessity?”

  1. Juan Robaina says:

    Hey, Adam. While I appreciate the nature of an editorial opinion piece as being subjective (and this piece is certainly that), I’d like to point out the pitfalls of using polemic examples.

    I’m specifically looking at your example that juxtaposes rape and abortion. I understand that this was supposed to be an example of actions you consider to be “immoral” and the implications of not acting on said moral conscience. However, when you conflate two imposing issues that aren’t exactly related beyond your subjective sense of morality, you run the risk of coming across as extremely chauvinistic (and potentially misogynistic–which I know you’re not). Abortion is an issue often associated with women’s right to make a choice whereas rape is the utter elimination of any choice (quite literally).

    When you say that an individual is hypocritical for not wanting to infringe on the rights of women by refraining from imposing laws on a federal level and equate it with something that is morally reprehensible you’re constructing a pretty imposing straw man. While this might work with a slippery-slope-argument about morality (eg. “if abortion is okay, why isn’t rape?”), it’s obviously ludicrous to any sensible reader.

    Otherwise, it was a wholly entertaining read.

    • Adam says:

      First off, glad you found it entertaining. Secondly, I agree that rape may not have been the best example, but my argument assumes that abortion is comparable to murder, so if you disagree with that, then my argument looks a little extreme. Thank you for taking the time to point it out, though, for next time I shall choose a different example.

      -Adam


Comment...

Login / Register

Follow Us

Facebook Twitter RSS Email

Poll

Do you think the job market is too competitive?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Sponsored Links