Monday, January 9, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer



Be certain to tune in to Fox & Friends tomorrow morning. I am scheduled to be on at 5:45 AM ET to discuss the 2012 presidential election and my endorsement of Senator Rick Santorum.


The past 24 hours have been a whirlwind of activity. As you know by now, I endorsed Senator Rick Santorum for president yesterday at an event in Greenville, South Carolina. Virtually every major media outlet picked up the news, and I have been overwhelmed by calls from reporters and journalists.

While the New Hampshire primary is tomorrow, the result is largely a forgone conclusion. Mitt Romney is expected to win. The only real question is by how much. But the next primary in, South Carolina, appears to be competitive. The most recent Rasmussen poll found Senator Santorum narrowly behind Governor Mitt Romney in the Palmetto State, 24% to 27%. Newt Gingrich had 18%, followed by Ron Paul (11%), Rick Perry (5%) and Jon Huntsman (2%).

The response to my endorsement has been overwhelmingly positive. Understandably, some folks were disappointed. Some have questions. I would like to reiterate that there is no perfect candidate in this race, and we will do everything we can to defeat Barack Obama and elect a conservative Senate majority in 302 days.

But Rick Santorum has a record that values voters can be proud of. And as we saw in New Hampshire last week when he was confronted by pro-gay marriage college students, he has the courage to unapologetically defend our traditional values. I am proud to stand with him!

Obama's Media Allies

There were two Republican debates in New Hampshire this weekend. All of the candidates did well, especially given the hostility of the so-called moderators. Everyone knows the mainstream media are in the tank for Obama. But just in case there was any confusion, former Clinton spin doctor George Stephanopoulos removed all doubt when he peppered the GOP candidates with questions about contraception in an attempt to portray them as extremists.

Really, George? We have sky-high unemployment, record debt and deficits, Iran building nuclear weapons and threatening our aircraft carriers, and contraception is at the top of your list?

As our friends at noted, Stephanopoulos needed only 100 words to question Nancy Pelosi about the hundreds of millions of stimulus dollars that were dedicated to making contraceptives more readily available, instead of providing jobs. But he was "more aggressive in pursuing the issue … when he questioned Republican presidential candidates in a debate Saturday night."

The Republican candidates have got to do a better job of standing up to the liberal media and redirecting these kinds of "gotcha" questions. I understand they are competing for the Republican nomination and want to draw contrasts between themselves and the other candidates. But they don't need to fall into the liberal media's trap of giving Obama more ammunition for the general election. And so far the biggest winner in the GOP primary contest appears to be Barack Obama. You can read more on that subject in my latest Human Events column.

Should A Candidate's Faith Matter?

Religion and politics are taboo subjects around many dinner tables. But what happens when the subject is religion in politics? Many in the news media report the "unsettling news" that polls show some voters are less likely to vote for candidates of certain religions. Nobody should be legally prohibited from running for office because of his religion.

But, as I ague in a column at USA Today, voters should consider a candidate's religious beliefs (or lack of them) because, whether secularists want to acknowledge it or not, those beliefs often help define the candidate's political values and public policy positions.

Senate GOP Demands Answers

Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Friday demanding to know the legal justification for the unprecedented recess appointments made by Barack Obama last week. Grassley's letter was signed by all eight Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Below are some key excerpts from the letter:

"On Wednesday, President Obama deviated from over 90 years of precedent established by the Department of Justice (Department), and the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), by recess appointing four individuals to posts in the Administration…  This action was allegedly based upon legal advice provided to the President by the Office of White House Counsel.  We write today seeking information about what role, if any, the Department or OLC played in developing, formulating, or advising the White House on the decision to make these recess appointments.  Further, we want to know whether the Department has formally revised or amended past opinions issued by the Department on this matter.  

"In 1921, Attorney General Daugherty issued an opinion to the President regarding recess appointments and the length of recess required for the President to make an appointment under Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  The Attorney General opined that 'no one, I venture to say, would for a moment contend that the Senate is not in session when an adjournment [of 2 days] is taken.  Nor do I think an adjournment for 5 or even 10 days can be said to constitute the recess intended by the Constitution.'   The reasoning of the 1921 opinion was given affirmative recognition in subsequent opinions issued by the Department, including opinions issued in 1960, 1992  and 2001. …   

"Taken together, these authorities by the Department clearly indicate the view that a congressional recess must be longer than three days -- and perhaps at least as long as ten -- in order for a recess appointment to be constitutional.  These various authorities have reached this conclusion for over 90 years and have become the stated position of the Executive Branch, including multiple representations before the Supreme Court, regarding the required length of time for a recess in order for the President to make a recess appointment."

Sen. Grassley asked Holder to respond to eight specific questions, including whether or not the Obama White House was repudiating a position taken by the administration's Deputy Solicitor General in 2010 during arguments before the Supreme Court that "'recess has to be longer than 3 days' for the President to use the recess appointment power." Grassley demanded a response by January 20th. Stay tuned!

Share this