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?

Why Rick Santorum SHOULD Be Upset

Recently, I updated my Facebook status to read:

  Rick Santorum says that the separation of church and state makes him wanna throw up. I say Rick Santorum makes me wanna throw up.

Now, to be fair to ol' Rick, that's not exactly what he said. He did say, however, that a speech JFK made in 1960 on the separation of church and state made him throw up. The speech was a way for JFK to let voters know that his Catholicism did not make him any less qualified to run this country. He said,

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. (read the whole speech here)

Somehow (and as Jon Stewart hilariously points out in this video), Rick Santorum took this speech on religious liberty and the idea that any person of any faith can still run this country to mean that no people of faith can run this country. Santorum completely twisted the intent of this speech, saying that Kennedy wanted to exclude "people of faith from the public square." This is the exact opposite of Kennedy's message.

But, as Santorum says himself, 

I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion.

So I see why he is upset. Because even though Kennedy was absolutely not saying that people of faith have no business in government, he was saying that people of faith who would put the interests of their faith ahead of the country's interests don't belong in government. Kennedy had to defend himself; he had to point out that he had the whole country's interests at heart, that he wasn't going to put a Catholic agenda first. Santorum, on the other hand, is defending his right (a nonexistent right in my opinion) to put his faith first, before the country as a whole. He is arguing for his right to use his religion to make decisions, make laws, for people who do not share the same religious or moral beliefs. 

Santorum is also misreading the First Amendment. It does not say free exercise of religion while making laws and governing the country. It simply says free exercise of religion. By putting his religious agenda first, by wanting to make laws based on his religion, Santorum is limiting the First Amendment rights of everyone in the country who is not Catholic (and really, who is not part of a small, extreme, fundamentalist Catholic group). Santorum doesn't believe in birth control; I do. Yet the laws he would like to pass banning birth control would be limiting my right to something I believe in. He is the one limiting the First Amendment. 

The separation of church and state exists for a reason. It exists because our country is full of differing religious beliefs and practices. It exists so that our country and our government will not persecute others simply for having a different view of the world. John F. Kennedy would have no problem with a government official having any religion, as long as that religion did not get in the way of his/her ability to govern all people of all religions effectively. I don't believe that Rick Santorum is capable of that.

So, you're right, Rick, in a way. Kennedy wouldn't (and didn't) mind people of faith holding positions in government, but he would have a problem with you prioritizing your religious agenda in making laws for the entire country.

And I have to agree with him.