- The Washington Times - Thursday, February 23, 2012

A presidential candidate’s campaign rhetoric can reveal a lot about what he truly believes, but some of Rick Santorum’s language has pushed that to the edge.

The former Pennsylvania senator has built much of his political career as the champion of the GOP’s social and religious conservatives, a powerful part of the Republican party’s base. Last weekend, he tested just how far he could go with his word choices in a speech in Ohio, a key state in the upcoming Super Tuesday primaries.

In that speech, Mr. Santorum criticized President Obama’s liberal environmental agenda by saying that his views on that issue reflected “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible,” but one built upon a radical belief that the Earth’s needs should be placed above the needs of human beings.

He was questioned about this remark on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, but strongly denied he was in any way questioning the president’s religious faith. His focus was solely on the president’s radical environmental views, he said.

“We’re not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective,” he told host Bob Schieffer.

There are people in the social conservative movement who question Mr. Obama’s religious beliefs (I’m not one of them), doubting that he is a Christian, despite his many assertions and statements to the contrary and his years of membership in a black Christian church in Chicago.

So Mr. Santorum’s rhetorical reference to Mr. Obama’s theology seemed to give his remarks a double meaning, reminding supporters about those who question the president’s true religious beliefs.

“I’ve repeatedly said I don’t question the president’s faith. I’ve repeatedly said that I believe the president’s Christian,” he told Mr. Schieffer.

But it didn’t help matters when his press secretary, Alice Stewart, told CNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Monday that he was speaking about the “radical Islamic policies the president has.”

She later retracted her remark, which Ms. Mitchell has on tape, saying that she “misspoke.”

“I was talking about radical environmental policies, and I misspoke. I regret it,” she told The Washington Post.

Still, the word theology is a strange choice, especially in the context of a discussion of the environment, though it is true that for some global warming extremists it’s become a virtual religion.

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary gives this definition of the word theology: “The study of God and his relation to the world, especially by analysis of the origins and teachings of an organized religious community (as in the Christian Church).”

But on Sunday, Santorum campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley stuck by the candidate’s use of the word, saying, “Theology’s a worldview. And Obama sees the world differently.”

Throughout his political career, even after he lost his 2006 re-election bid by 18 points, Mr. Santorum has not been one to mince words or to soften his rhetoric, especially on social issues.

As a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist after he lost his Senate seat, he went after mothers who worked outside the home. “For some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home,” he wrote.

That’s quite a stern indictment at a time when so many households were struggling to make ends meet and care for their kids, often on an income that requires a two-earner family just to barely get by.

Someone dug up a speech Mr. Santorum delivered at Ave Maria University in Florida on Aug. 29, 2008, in which he warned that the United States was under attack from Satan.

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that [have become] so deeply rooted in the American tradition,” according to audio excerpts of the speech.

He said Satan has subverted the nation’s colleges and universities, the Protestant Church, and our culture and politics. Excerpts were reported on the widely read Drudge Report on Wednesday.

Rush Limbaugh, one of Mr. Santorum’s supporters, played segments of the speech on his radio show Wednesday, saying “It’s just not the kind of stuff you hear a presidential candidate talk about. It’s not ordinary in that sense.”

Mr. Limbaugh said that “Santorum will have to deal with it. He’ll have to answer it.”

On Sunday, Mr. Santorum compared our present elections to the approach of World War II.

“Remember, the greatest generation for a year and a half sat on the sidelines while Europe was under darkness,” he said at a church in Georgia. “We’re a hopeful people. We think, ‘Well, you know, it’ll get better. Yeah, he’s a nice guy. I mean, it won’t be near as bad as what we think. This will be OK.’ I mean, yeah, maybe he’s not the best guy after a while, after a while you find out some things about this guy over in Europe who’s not so good of a guy after all.”

He had to defend these remarks Monday when he was asked if he was comparing Mr. Obama to Hitler. “No, of course not,” he told a National Journal-CBS News reporter. “The World War II metaphor is one I’ve used 100 times in my career.”

People can read all kinds of implications into a speech that the speaker never intended if his words, metaphors or sloppy comparisons leave room for an entirely different interpretation.

A presidential candidate who has to clarify and explain remarks that are peppered with innuendos raises troubling doubts about himself and maybe his agenda.

Donald Lambro is a syndicated columnist and former chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Copyright © 2022 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide