Skip to footer

Rick Santorum: top 5 unorthodox views

Rick Santorum faces a mighty steep climb toward the Republican presidential nomination. At this point, the best he (and Newt Gingrich) can do is prevent Mitt Romney from securing a majority of delegates before the Republican convention in August, and then have a contested convention. His positions and pronouncements mirror Mr. Romney’s in many ways, but there are times when the two diverge. Here are five of Mr. Santorum’s most unorthodox views:   

1. English-only in Puerto Rico

Ricardo Arduengo/AP
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum walks through Old San Juan, Puerto Rico, Thursday.

  • By Linda Feldmann Staff writer

When Santorum campaigned in Puerto Rico before the March 18 primary, he stated that a condition for statehood should be adoption of English as the island’s only official language. Needless to say, that didn’t go over well in Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico. Santorum lost the primary by 75 percentage points.

Maybe that was all by design. After the primary, in a “congratulatory” message to Romney, the Santorum campaign bashed the former Massachusetts governor for putting “political expedience and political deception ahead of previously held policy positions,” which “further erodes their candidate’s credibility and trust.”

Indeed, Romney has said in the past that English should be the official language of the US. But while campaigning in Puerto Rico, he said there should be no prerequisites for statehood.

But maybe there’s more to Santorum’s stance. “English-only” is popular among Republicans, and it may be that Santorum was looking ahead to future GOP primaries when he took the hard-line position. Still, those two days in Puerto Rico could have been spent in Illinois, where the race with Romney was much closer. So the savviest move of all might have been to call for English-only in Puerto Rico – from a campaign stop in the Land of Lincoln.

To the Santorum campaign, though, it’s all about being principled. “Our nation needs a leader like Rick Santorum, who will make the tough choices and level with the American people even when it is not easy," Communications Director Hogan Gidley said in a statement post-Puerto Rico.

1 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.