Visual source: Newseum
Molly Worthen/NY Times:
One dismissive reviewer of Santorum’s 2005 book, “It Takes a Family,” wrote in The Philadelphia Inquirer that Santorum is “one of the finest minds of the thirteenth century.” (An opponent once said the same of that other provocative Catholic conservative, William F. Buckley, Jr.) This is no insult: it is the heart of Santorum’s appeal to conservative evangelicals....
The pundits are right about one thing: Santorum is the rock-ribbed anti-Romney candidate, the antidote to the bogeyman of “flip-flopping” and moderation. A half-century ago, evangelical voters worried that a Catholic president would take orders from the pope. Now they are worried instead about Romney reporting to a sinister Mormon cabal in Salt Lake City, while Santorum’s Catholicism has made him the candidate of universal “moral truth” and “divine reason:” the philosopher-king who can reclaim American liberty in the name of moral law, and package the Christian Right’s agenda in a respectable guise.
David Brooks:
If Rick Santorum weren’t running for president, he would still be saying the same things he is saying today. Very few people believe that about Mitt Romney. If he can’t fix that problem, he may win the Republican nomination, but it won’t be worth much.
Au contraire. It'll be priceless.
Cristina Page/Huffington Post:
It was during this conversation I discovered one good thing about Rick Santorum: he (unlike, say, Mitt Romney) has always been open about, and held steadfast to, his beliefs, no matter how extreme and unpopular. Romney of course is the chameleon candidate. As Governor of Massachussetts, Mitt Romney went to bat for access to emergency contraception (which he now inaccurately claims is an abortifacient) and pledged to increase state funding for contraception (though now he promises to end all federal funding.) It's a difficult dance and no doubt part of what makes him such an uncomfortable presence.
Rick, however, struck me as comfortable, relaxed, in part perhaps, because has always been true to his anti-family planning ambitions. He doesn't just want to make contraception hard to come by, he wants most contraceptive methods banned. The remarkable - and commendable - thing is that Santorum is honest about his plans to keep almost all contraception out of the hands of American women. Just ask him.
EJ Dionne:
It should be said that a compromise along the lines outlined today had been suggested months ago by Melissa Rogers, the former chairman of the White House Council on Faith-Based and neighborhood Partnerships. I will have more to say on this later today, and also in my column on Monday. The administration will have to think hard about how and why it mishandled the issue and courted a controversy it could have avoided. I would have preferred it if Obama had offered at least some acknowledgement of this.
Lisa Miller/WaPo:
By conflating abortion and contraception in their rhetoric, and putting both in their sights, the ideologues in this new war are rolling back decades of medical and social progress and reverting to an era when all gynecological and obstetrical matters were yucky and bad — what my grandfather used to call “female trouble.” In an editorial this week in the Washington Examiner, Republican hopeful Rick Santorum used the words “abortion,” “contraceptive” and “sterilization” in the same sentence, as if they were interchangeable...
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is arguing for a wider conscience exemption, saying women who want birth control can go out and get it on their own; the White House has indicated that it may be willing to deal.
But to hold the consciences of a few powerful men over the private needs of families, to push this problem back onto individuals in an economy where women are already carrying an enormous load, is not just unfair. It is unconscionable.
Reuters:
The compromise allows religious employers to opt out of providing birth control coverage to employees. But in making that concession, Obama promised those employees that they could get free contraception all the same, courtesy of their health insurance providers.
Obama's Catholic allies said that approach hit all the right notes. "Very practical, very respectful, very common sense," Roemer said.
Sister Campbell wasn't so restrained: "This," she said, "is a glorious day."
Jonathan Cohn/TNR:
This difference of opinion is not surprising. As a veteran health care operative once pointed out to me, health care is a reality for the nuns who run the hospitals. For the bishops, it's more of an abstraction. And so while the former think long and hard about how to improve access to care, for the sake of their institutions as well as their patients, the bishops tend to focus more on other imperatives, like the church's declaration that contraception is a sin.
Noam Scheiber/TNR
For voters contemplating whether he deserves a second term, the question is less and less one of policy or even worldview than of basic disposition. Throughout his political career, Obama has displayed an uncanny knack for responding to existential threats. He sharpened his message against Hillary Clinton in late November 2007, just in time to salvage the Iowa caucuses and block her coronation. He condemned his longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, just before Wright’s racialist comments could doom his presidential hopes. Once in office, Obama led two last-minute counteroffensives to save health care reform. But, in every case, the adjustments didn’t come until the crisis was already at hand. His initial approach was too passive and too accommodating, and he stuck with it far too long.
Given the booby traps that await the next president—Iranian nukes, global financial turmoil—this habit seems dangerously risky. Sooner or later, Obama may encounter a crisis that can’t be reversed at the eleventh hour. Is Obama’s newfound boldness on the economy yet another last-minute course-correction? Or has he finally learned a deeper lesson? More than just a presidency may hinge on the answer.