Let’s start with a summary of what happened in the Super Tuesday contests, then move on to some specifics. Romney won six states, Santorum three, and Gingrich one. The only one that was close was Ohio, which took until the wee hours to be called for Romney. Santorum had been leading there most of the evening. The [almost] final tally is 38%-37%.

Key thoughts: except for Ohio, Romney’s wins were easy. One was his real home state of Massachusetts, as opposed to his other quasi-home states of New Hampshire and Michigan. I’ve never seen a candidate with so many home states. Another of those wins was Virginia, where only he and Paul were on the ballot. That was a simple task for him, not having to face Santorum in a state where Santorum could have done well if not for having the toughest rules for getting on the ballot. Virginia may be changing those rules after this experience where its voters didn’t have a real choice.

Santorum’s win in Oklahoma was expected. In Tennessee, the polls seemed to indicate Romney was coming on strong. They were wrong. No one knew what to expect from the North Dakota caucuses; Santorum’s easy win there was somewhat surprising to the pundits. If he had captured Ohio, the story might be different this morning.

That leads me to the most important insight from the night: Newt Gingrich is the ultimate spoiler; he’s the Ross Perot of the Republican campaign. He won his home state of Georgia and claimed that was significant enough to carry on his quest. Never mind that he didn’t come in second anywhere else. Sometimes, he was woefully behind Paul as an unimpressive fourth-place finisher. The only thing keeping him going, I suspect, is ego.

As I’ve noted before, polls show that when Gingrich supporters are asked for their second choice in the race, most pick Santorum. Without Gingrich, Santorum probably would have won Ohio comfortably. The problem is, he never gets to take on Romney one-on-one. Gingrich keeps muddying the waters. It’s past time for him to go, but he doesn’t get the message.

Commentators, even after last night, continue to speak of Romney as one of the weakest frontrunners imaginable. If Gingrich were to face the inevitable, Romney wouldn’t be inevitable. If indeed Romney captures this nomination, he enters the race against Obama as a weak candidate. The mantra is that this drawn-out campaign is what is weakening him. I disagree. His weakness comes from within. His baggage will go with him.

It all began with George Stephanopoulos—of Clinton White House infamy—asking a question at one of the Republican debates. He wanted to know if states had the authority to ban contraception. The question baffled the candidates, particularly since no one had ever brought up the issue. Perhaps it was intended to stem the rising candidacy of Rick Santorum, who was becoming more prominent at that time. Yet Santorum, despite his personal views on the subject, had never indicated any interest in banning contraception; in fact, he had stated the exact opposite.

Why did Stephanopoulos broach this non-issue? No one could quite figure it out, except as a way of stopping Santorum.

Then, not long after, the Obama administration came up with its mandate that religious organizations had to offer contraceptives and abortifacients in their hospitals and healthcare plans. Was Stephanopoulos’s question the preliminary to the mandate, getting the public used to it ahead of time? Was he in collusion with the White House? Those queries remain unanswered, but the timing was unusually fortuitous for the administration.

Those plans went awry when the religious community cried foul and cited First Amendment protections for religious liberty. That seemed to throw the Obama team off-balance for a while, but then they attempted a new tactic—change the issue from religious liberty to the right of women to have contraceptives. Convince the public that conservatives are anti-women and are bent on setting up a theocracy. In other words, scare the public by constructing a straw man, a technique used by progressives ad nauseum.

When Darrell Issa, the congressman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held hearings on the religious liberty issue and its violation in the HHS mandate, the Democrats were able to offer their own witnesses at the hearing. At the last minute, they wanted to change one of their witnesses so that Georgetown student Sandra Fluke could testify. Fluke, a feminist birth control advocate whose goal is to change the Catholic university’s policy on not providing contraceptives, was not an expert on the First Amendment or religious liberty, and was denied a spot at the hearing for that reason, as well as for the late notice.

So what did the Democrats do? They arranged their own “hearing,” which was not official but primarily a publicity stunt, so that Fluke could “testify” to the hardships students face by not having contraceptives provided for them via the taxpayers. She made it sound like contraceptives were somehow scarce and extremely expensive; they are neither. In effect, she wanted a subsidy for herself and other students.

We have become a society so seared in our consciences when it comes to sex that dissent over a policy that promotes promiscuity is liable to get one in trouble.

That’s where Rush Limbaugh came in. He saw how ludicrous the entire proceeding had been, and commented on the blatant hypocrisy of the progressives, turning a religious liberty concern into a “threat” to women’s “rights” for political purposes. As he ridiculed the idea that taxpayers should pay for a woman’s sexual activities, he used a couple of words to describe Fluke that got the media in an uproar. First of all, never mind that the Left says far worse things daily—one need only replay the constant derogatory and disgusting comments about the Palin family. Yet the progressive Left demanded that advertisers drop Limbaugh’s program.

Over the weekend, Limbaugh issued an apology for the use of words he regretted uttering. I listened to his explanation yesterday. He said his apology was heartfelt; he had lowered himself to the level of his accusers and had played into their hands. Some say he apologized only because he was losing sponsors, but I believe he meant what he said. The apology was appropriate; we should never mirror the traits of those who dishonor themselves by their despicable words and actions. By the way, I expect him to weather the storm; the attempt to shut him down won’t succeed.

But what has happened? The real issue—religious liberty—has been overwhelmed by a non-issue—contraception—and the Left has successfully framed the debate. This is what they always attempt to do. We have to stand against such tactics and respond in ways that show we have a different character.

The debate needs to be reframed in a proper way. There is much at stake as Obama tries to run roughshod over the Constitution and religious liberty. He must not be allowed to win this debate. We must walk in wisdom. May God grant us His mind and heart as we proceed.

I thought it might be time for a full-blown explanation for why I back Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney, realizing even as I write this that Romney has the inside track for the nomination. If anything I say can make someone reconsider his/her support for Romney or help someone understand better why Santorum should be considered seriously as the Republican nominee, I will have accomplished my purpose. If no one is convinced by what I say, at least I was faithful to write what is on my heart.

Some of what I say will not be politically correct, even in Republican circles, but I urge you to read all the way through before coming to a conclusion.

Why I Support Santorum

I didn’t start out as a Santorum backer. At first, I thought he was an afterthought as a candidate. Neither could I understand why anyone who lost his last Senate campaign believed he had a shot at the presidential nomination. I wrote him off.

Shortly before the Iowa caucus decision, however, I began paying attention to his approach: he was dedicated to meeting people one-on-one; he traveled to every county in Iowa, willing to speak to whatever size group; he ran the campaign on a shoestring, yet was making an impression. As I listened more to him, I realized I agreed with much of what he was saying. When he stunned the political world by winning Iowa [however belated the result], I decided to purchase his book It Takes a Family. Reading it solidified my support.

I don’t know how many who are currently reading this post have taken the time to read Santorum’s book, but I presume it is a minority, to say the least. I’ve reported on the contents of that book in this blog from time to time, offering excerpts and commentary. Here’s what I learned about Santorum by reading it:

• He is a genuine Christian who grounds his politics in his Biblical worldview.
• His worldview, as expressed in the book and in other speeches I’ve heard him give, is, on most points, similar to mine: religious/theological beliefs are the cornerstone of society; government has no right to excise religious faith from the public square; family is the bedrock of society, and policies must be family-friendly; government should only do those things that family, church, and other private organizations cannot do.
• When he discusses history, such as when he contrasts the American and French revolutions, he and I are on the same page.
• While he sometimes allows federal government aid when I would have constitutional scruples against doing so, his aim is never to grow the government but to strengthen the family and those private agencies that form the backbone of a prosperous nation.
• He does not believe government is the solution to our problems, despite what his critics may say.
• Even when I disagree with the specifics of a particular policy he has advocated, I understand the motives behind his advocacy, and they are always honest and focused on trying to do the right thing.
• He has lived out his faith admirably through his devotion to family and principle.
• He and his wife have homeschooled their children because they believe they can provide the type of Christian education the children will need to stand firm in a culture that is slipping away from its Biblical moorings.

For these reasons, I pray for Santorum’s success as a candidate.

What are his deficiencies? For one, he does have a tendency to speak off the cuff and get into trouble for using certain terms and phrases. Yet when I investigate the substance of his critiques—calling Obama a snob and feeling like “throwing up” when he listens to JFK’s speech—I find that I agree with the critiques he offers, wishing only that he had used more wisdom in expressing them.

I always prefer someone who speaks the truth, even inelegantly at times, to someone who is measured in speaking yet has nothing significant to say.

I don’t expect perfection from a candidate; if I did, I would never vote. Santorum’s worldview and heart, coupled with a good number of policies with which I agree, are sufficient for me.

Why I Don’t Support Romney

Since I started with worldview when speaking about Santorum, let me do the same with Romney. Here’s where I’m going to depart from Republican political correctness and may earn the disfavor of many because I’m going to introduce a theological concern. As an evangelical Christian, I want to know what a candidate believes about ultimate reality. For me, Mormonism is a skewed version of reality. Being theologically literate, I cannot simply look away from Romney’s Mormonism and say it doesn’t factor into my analysis of him. From my viewpoint, Mormonism is a cult that tries to disguise itself as Christian. Its basic tenets on the nature of Christ and salvation are not orthodox Christian. In fact, many of its beliefs border on bizarre. So I ask myself whether I can trust someone who has willingly accepted those beliefs.

I do realize, though, that political parties are not churches, and there must be coalitions to achieve goals. Most Mormons—Harry Reid is a notable exception—maintain an outward morality that is similar to Christian morality. In addition, most Mormons are conservative politically, and they believe in limited government and the free enterprise system. Therefore, I don’t automatically conclude that I won’t vote for a Mormon. However, given the option between someone who mirrors my worldview and someone who does not, I lean toward the one with whom I expect to be spending eternity, a Christian brother or sister.

Now we come to political philosophy and policy. Even if Romney were an evangelical Christian, I would still choose Santorum over him. Why? Let me count the ways. Just what is his overarching political philosophy? Is it the current conservatism he says he espouses, or is it instead the way he ran campaigns and governed Massachusetts? They are markedly different.

As I’ve noted before, and as Santorum has articulated in the debates, Romney has no ground whatsoever to attack Obamacare. Romneycare definitely was its forerunner and inspiration. An op-ed Romney wrote for USA Today back in 2009 has resurfaced this week in which he urged Obama to adopt the individual mandate that he [Romney] created in Massachusetts. Apparently, the president took his advice. This revelation also gives the lie to Romney’s defense that he saw his healthcare solution as only for the state, not for the nation. He can’t credibly say that anymore, not when he was pushing for Obama to copy what he did.

On pro-life and the homosexual agenda, his record is spotty. He’s even supported Planned Parenthood. When he first ran for office in Massachusetts, he concluded he had to set aside his pro-life position and run as a pro-choicer to win. That’s reprehensible. Now, all of a sudden, he’s a confirmed pro-lifer again. Why? Is it because he knows he can’t get the Republican nomination running on pro-choice? That was his calculation in the past; why should we believe he has changed now?

Will a President Romney really appoint federal judges who go by the original intent/wording of the Constitution? A survey of those he appointed in Massachusetts would indicate otherwise. Frankly, I don’t trust him, and that’s the bottom line for why he does not have my support.

What If Romney Wins the Nomination?

If Romney becomes the Republican nominee, I will vote for him. Not enthusiastically, but strategically. He may turn out to be a major disappointment as a president, and at that point I don’t promise not to tell my fellow evangelicals who promoted his candidacy “I told you so.” But if forced to vote between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, four more years of the latter would be inconceivable. The Obama worldview is even further from the truth than Romney’s. It is radical and dangerous. If Obama has to work with a Republican Congress, he will just do what he is starting to do now—rule by executive fiat and ignore the role of Congress. He will attempt to set up an imperial presidency. That must be avoided at all costs.

As I noted at the beginning of this unusually long post [I normally don't tax you with this much verbiage], the odds are against Santorum. The states where he is strong divide delegates proportionally; the states where Romney is expected to win, such as California and New York, have more delegates and their primaries are winner-take-all. This is clearly an uphill fight for Rick Santorum, but it’s a fight worth making. He is the better candidate when it comes to worldview and principles. And those should be our guide.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Do not cast me away from Your presence and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

Restore to me the joy of Your salvation and sustain me with a willing spirit.

Then I will teach transgressors Your ways, and sinners will be converted to You.

News from Afghanistan and the War on Terror doesn’t look good:

President Obama’s performance hasn’t inspired much confidence either:

And just when we need to be vigilant, here’s his new approach, along with his party in Congress:

Well, you know, they have different priorities:

The Senate of the United States is supposed to be one of the most august legislative bodies in the world. This is where political maturity should be exemplified. The Founders envisioned a a select group of men [and now women] who would calmly and rationally make the best decisions for the nation as a whole, and not be swayed by pettiness.

This is the same body that has long since passed the deadline for enacting a budget—getting close to three years now without one.

Yesterday, the Senate added to its shame by tabling an amendment that would have done nothing more than confirm the right to religious liberty that already should be guaranteed by the First Amendment. The amendment to a bill simply said that the HHS mandates the Obama administration is attempting to cram down the throats of religious organizations had to contain a clear exemption for those whose religious beliefs opposed the measure. Only three Democrats found the moral courage to vote in favor of that amendment.

For those in my current state of Florida, be it noted that Sen. Bill Nelson was not one of those who found courage. This November, you have an opportunity to let him know what you think about that.

Of course, this is hardly the first time in American history that the Congress has disgraced itself, but it always hurts to witness a travesty.

Travesty number two: the Republican party in Michigan decided to go against its own rules; instead of splitting the delegates evenly in the recent primary, which should have happened since Romney and Santorum both won the same number of districts, the committee in charge of awarding the delegates moved one delegate from Santorum to Romney, thereby changing the delegate count from 15-15 to 16-14. It was noted by those familiar with the process that the committee had a number of avowed Romney supporters and none for Santorum. This was a political ploy that has been condemned not only by Santorum’s team but by other fair commentators who haven’t necessarily supported Santorum.

Both of these examples showcase the dire need for Christian morality to come to the forefront in our politics. Moral courage seems to be in short supply.

Listening to the panic within the GOP establishment about the possibility of Rick Santorum being the Republican presidential nominee reminds me of 1976 and 1980. The criticisms I hear today of Santorum by GOP insiders are similar to the ones leveled against the “outsider” back in those earlier presidential campaigns. The outsider at that time was a guy named Ronald Reagan.

I remember clearly how adamant his Republican critics were that it would be an embarrassment to have Reagan at the head of the ticket: he was a grade-B movie actor, we were told; he had a tendency to say foolish things; he was too focused on the problems and didn’t have a “sunny” enough disposition. Can you believe that last one, now that everyone points to Reagan’s optimism? But back in the day, he was the one who came across to some as too hardline—he would turn off the moderate voters.

As today, we were gravely informed that disaster would befall the GOP if Reagan were the candidate. So, in 1976, the GOP establishment lined up behind Gerald Ford. Of course, he was the sitting president, so much of that was to be expected. But the venom directed at Reagan was unceasing. In particular, we were assured that a prolonged primary season, one that lasted right up to the convention itself, would destroy any chance Ford would have against Carter. It did go to the convention, and Reagan only barely lost the nomination. While it’s true that Ford lost to Carter, blaming Reagan for that would be to omit how badly Ford performed as the candidate. It also would dismiss the effects of Watergate and Ford’s pardon of Nixon. No, Reagan’s challenge was not the reason Ford lost; he accomplished that all by himself.

Again, in 1980, the Nervous Nellies of the squishy middle wanted someone else besides Reagan, whether it was Bob Dole, Howard Baker, or George H. W. Bush. We were gravely informed once again that a Reagan candidacy would be a disaster because he couldn’t draw in the independent voters. The economy at the time was eerily similar to what it is today. There was a weak incumbent—Carter—just like there is today with Obama. Yet the polls still predicted a Carter victory right up to the week before the election. Imagine all the “I told you so’s” being whispered among the Republican moderates. Well, that election was a blowout for Reagan. The rest is history.

That’s why I’m not swayed by our current crop of Nervous Nellies. They’ve been wrong before; they can be wrong again. What we need is someone who stands for genuine Biblical principles in government—no, that’s not a theocracy—and who’s willing to take on the incumbent philosophically as well as on specific policy issues. We need someone who can explain “why” we need to change our perception of government, not merely tell us “what” he’s going to do. Reagan was good at the “why” as well as the “what.” Santorum deals with foundational thinking, whereas Romney doesn’t seem to have a foundation.

By the way, do you recall that Romney won Michigan this week? Well, you recalled incorrectly. It turns out that the delegates are split 50/50 between Romney and Santorum. In most worlds, that’s called a tie. This isn’t over yet.