Santorum: Better or Worse for Obama?

OK I'm just kind of thinking and writing at the same time.

I know that at the beginning of the Republican circus to find a candidate to run against Obama, Mitt Romney was the expected candidate. So the White House, I assume, has been planning their campaign strategy largely around defeating him. However, we all know the race has dragged on much longer than expected, and that with the recent wins in Mississippi and Alabama, Rick Santorum is still very much in the race.

I also know, thanks to Facebook, that many Democrats/liberal-leaning voters have been voting in Republican primaries to help Santorum win the nomination, the idea being that he's too extreme and will be easier to defeat than Romney. And I think this might be true.

But at the same time, is it good for Obama supporters to be helping Santorum into the race? I really am torn about this, so I would love some feedback. But Santorum has gotten more support than I would have expected (though maybe I'm still being naive, with the extremes that so many Republicans all over the country have been leaning toward). It's really terrifying to me that the man who has said publicly that he doesn't believe the separation of church and state should exist has gotten so much support. And as much as I like to encourage myself that liberal-leaners helped him to win in my home state, we all know that there were not enough of those voters to make much a difference. By and large, the Republicans in my home state have legitimately chosen Rick Santorum as their preferred candidate.

So if he is really doing this well among Republican voters, does he actually have a chance at defeating Obama? I hope not. I like to think that the Republican attack on women has gone too far, and will be a deciding factor for moderate and independent voters. As I heard some political analyst say on the news recently, "Abortion is a divisive issue. Contraception is not." This says to me (and I hope it's true) that the extremists of the Republican party are shooting themselves in the foot. I know plenty of young women who grew up in Republican homes who are on birth control (however, this doesn't necessarily mean that they voted Republican once they were of voting age; that I'm not sure about). I know of many young women who do currently identify as Republican who have spoken out against the personhood amendment and attacks on women. And I'm hoping that by having made contraception such a big issue, the Republican party is going to be motivating hordes of young people to head to the polls and vote for contraception, for women's rights, and, therefore, for Barack Obama.

But am I underestimating the amount of extreme conservatives in the Republican party? What do y'all think? Is Rick Santorum a better candidate in the long run for those of us who want Obama and his better-for-women plans to stay in office? Or is he proof that more of the country than I realized is extreme and not concerned with women's rights?

Xtreme Politics: Republicans and the War on Women

The campaigns to find the Republican presidential candidate (or, as I like to refer to them, the Big Freak Show) have me a bit baffled. I realize that many Republicans have been waging a war on women, attacking reproductive health rights, health care, and more, but I'm suddenly very aware of how extreme all of these candidates' ideas really are. Look at the first paragraph of this article from Salon:

Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Also according to Salon, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain all signed the Personhood Pledge, which would ban all abortions as well as potentially restricting or banning many forms of birth control and IVF. (Mitt Romney said he would support this, even though he clearly didn't understand how birth control could be affected by it.) Yet, according to statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, "Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15-44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method," and "Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15-44 are currently using a method." 

So even though a majority of women are using birth control, the majority of Republican candidates are in favor of restricting access to it, or banning it all together. Bachmann, Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney all also supported stripping all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, most of which goes to family planning and providing contraception, not abortion. And I realize that for many people abortion is the argument, but come on! We know, and the candidates know, that their actions and the bills they support are much more far-reaching than that. 

It breaks my heart that people get so caught up on something like abortion that they refuse to see the bigger picture. Think about my home state, Mississippi. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate; banning abortions will only increase this. Banning contraception will absolutely increase this. And, I have to go back to the slogan from the Personhood fight: "Republicans only care about you if you're a fetus." This may not apply to all Republicans, but it certainly seems to apply to all of the major candidates this year. Increasing health care for women and children? Of course not! They don't plan to take care of these children once they are living in independent bodies! They just want to keep women from having complete control over when, how, and if they have children. 

The personhood fight is not over. The war on women is not over. We have to stand up against these extreme candidates. It's interesting (read: sad) to me that Phil Bryant, a man who can compare over half of his state's voters to Nazis and Satan, a man who was in fact the co-chair of the Yes on 26 Campaign, can be elected governor in the same moments that personhood is soundly defeated. Now, I don't think that elections should be determined by one issue, or candidate's should be supported or opposed based on one issue. However, I do think that the war on women is an exception of sorts. For one thing, the war on women encompasses more than just a stance on personhood; it's a stance on healthcare, reproductive rights, insurance plans, life-saving treatments for pregnant women, and much more. 

But also, even if we lump all of this into one category, one "issue," it could (and will) decide my votes. These issues are too important and too far-reaching to ignore. We can not elect officials who refuse to stand up for women and allow them equal rights and equal control over their lives. We should not be voting down personhood while electing its most vocal supporter. 

Republicans like Phil Bryant and those running around in the Big Freak Show have taken a strong stance against women. 

Now, we need to take a strong stance against their extreme views that serve no one's best interests but their own.