Santorum’s Next Target: Apple Pie
Ron Paul called social conservatism “a losing position” over the weekend. This might have something to do with that:
“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?”
“He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.”
Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.
The White House contender described how Satan is even taking hold of some religions.
“We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”
“Provocative?” Santorum just attacked half the Protestant churches in this country. Way to win the middle, Rick, now that you’ve dissed Reagan and alienated the libertarians.
Candidate See ‘n’ Say does not have the judgement to be President.
After seeing Santorum’s pathetically confused interview on Face The Nation last Sunday, I think it’s painfully clear that this guy is not ready for prime time. His thoughts ran together like cooked spaghetti.
Drudge is a Romney tool.
He pulled the same crap against Newt in Florida.
His credibility as an impartial “aggregator” is GONE.
The “Mitt vs. Not Mitt” election is over. Mitt lost.
Here’s an idea: Instead of attacking Drudge, explain to me how Santorum’s Priest-in-Cheif act wins him just one vote in November.
Santorum will make Goldwater ’64 look like Reagan ’84.
Are you saying that you won’t vote for him?
I can’t say for sure whether or not he can “win” any votes in November.
I DO think that he has a clear and strong leadership style that people COULD conceivably gravitate to as an Obama alternative. It’s a characteristic that I don’t see at all in Mitt Romney.
I don’t agree with Santorum’s up front religious views, but I DO respect the fact that both he and Newt Gingrich say what’s on their mind, rather than issuing sweeping, nice sounding diatribes a la Mitt.
In short, I don’t see Mitt winning any more votes than Santorum by virtue of his very squishy, pragmatic style. I can’t see him drawing a contrast in the minds of voters who still might vote for Obama (wtf?).
And I still think that what Drudge is doing for the Romney camp without at the very least issuing some sort of public endorsement on his part is reprehensible for a news site. All he’d have to do is come out and say that he’s backing Romney, but instead he chooses to stealthily direct people to oppo research on other candidates. I say “foul,” with all due respect for the great work he’s done.
FWIW, I will absolutely not for Santorum — same as McCain 4 years ago, he’s just unacceptable. My nose can be pinched, but it cannot be welded shut.
It is not “leadership” to chase libertarians and Protestants away from the party. That is, in fact, the exact opposite of leadership.
I can’t believe he brought the Devil into the election. I just can’t believe he did that. And about the Protestants!!! There were times when I thought what he had to say about the issues facing us sounded smart. I even liked him for a little while, was willing overlook his extremism, and etc., if he didn’t talk about it too much during the election process … But, bringing in the Devil is … oh, I can’t even talk about it.
If he wins the nomination — I’m wondering if it would be better not to vote — because he’s going to lose so badly anyway — and maybe those who put him up for election will learn the lesson not to just vote for who they want, but who can win — for next time — if there is a country left next time.
(Which candidate would Obama most like to run against? Mr. Extreme Social Conservative — that’s why the Dems pushed the conversation to social issues — they knew, especially Santorum would pick up on it — (…It would be okay with him if states outlawed contraception?!!!!) — stir social conservatives to concentrate on that — talk about it way too much — push him through the nomination — and get everyone else who voted for Obama last year to vote for him again — and (many) more!!! It’s their dream come true!!!)
Romney at least has some slight chance at winning if Independents and even some Democrats are disgruntled with Obama enough — maybe even possibly Newt, even with his talk of colonies on the moon … some chance ….
I mean, at a time like this — facing the worst threat ever to maintaining a semblance of a free republic — if they nominate a guy who brings talk of the Devil into it — no matter what he believes or doesn’t! ……. Oh, what’s the use?
““We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”
>But those voting to leave argued they’re not being extreme, just faithful to Biblical teachings.
“The church became as gray as the culture,” said Alison McFarland, who voted for the split. “Undefined Christianity became the problem, and now the church is indistinguishable from the world.”
Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman, the Rev. Peter Frank, said the breakaway diocese is led by a standing committee which is formally expected to elect Duncan as its bishop in November.
The breakaway diocese will align with the like-minded Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America, which already recognizes Duncan as a bishop and has welcomed the San Joaquin diocese into its fold.<
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27022062/ns/us_news-faith/t/episcopal-diocese-oks-split-over-bible-gays/#.T0PXJPXmjzE
[Big, heavy, shoulder-slumping sigh with my head buried in my hands]
In the biggest, most consequential election in a century, where voters have CLEARLY stated their mandate of a smaller Federal Government, the Republicans manage to cobble together a bevy of nanny-staters who have the political instincts of a half-eaten Tastycake. Good grief. The Republic is done.
I might be able to hold my nose, wade through the cesspool and vote Mitt, but I grew up in PA and I just can’t stomach the thought of Santorum as President. I know it is all about getting Obama out, but Santorum might set the Republican Party back to the stoneage if, by a miracle that would even impress Hickory High School, he gets in.
Why are all the good R’s standing on the sideline? Is there ANY hope that someone could slide in at the Convention at this late hour? I don’t think there is precedence of candidates this bad.
Congratulations, y’all just voted for another four years of Obama, who is obviously far superior to Santorum.
I am forced to quote (again) Newt Gingrich from one of last fall’s debates: anyone on that stage would do a better job than Obama. Anyone.
Do you people think the President is God, or some King-Emperor? Do you think he waves a magic wand, and his policies are magically enacted? Has everyone here forgotten there’s this thing called “Congress,” which is not packed full of people who agree with the above-cited quotes?
Is Santorum at the top of my list? No. Would I vote for him in November? Hell, yes. I would -and I never thought I would say this- vote for Ron Paul this fall if I had to. Michelle Bachmann, for that matter, who is just as much a social conservative as Santorum.
Well said. Only thing worse than the Stupid Party are Stupid Voters.
God forbid we vet the candidate that will ultimately run against Obama. Stephen is asking some very pointed questions concerning Santorum’s ability to attract enough votes to win a general election as well as if he has the leadership qualities to run the country if he’s elected.
Tiptoeing around these guys is what brought us such a sack of hammers for candidates to begin with.
So you’re whipping the “electability” argument, eh? Why don’t you just toddle on back to ole “Mister Electability” himself, Mittens? Michelle is stupid, Perry is a redneck, Cain is a serial molester, and Newt a pathological crazy-man. So goes the “electability” argument.
One problem: all we need to do is tell the truth about Obama’s record, and we win. It’s 1992 redux; it’s the economy, stupid!. How hard is that?
“Aqua
I can’t believe he brought the Devil into the election. I just can’t believe he did that. And about the Protestants!!! There were times when I thought what he had to say about the issues facing us sounded smart. I even liked him for a little while, was willing overlook his extremism, and etc., if he didn’t talk about it too much during the election process … But, bringing in the Devil is … oh, I can’t even talk about it. ”
DUDE. The speech was from three years ago.
THIS is why Drudge is so irresponsible in doing this on behalf of Romney. Some people fail to notice when the speech was given and assume that he just said this, which I’m sure is the intended effect.
I’d be just as vocal if it were Mittens that he was doing this too, even though I can’t stand him.
What, do you think that if Drudge hadn’t brought it up now, that the Obama campaign would just let it lie? Please. That doesn’t even rise to the level of naive.
Drudge is completely right to bring it up. Yes, putting it in context would certainly have helped. But again, what is he doing that is in any way different from what the assholes on the Left would do?
This might actually be Santorum’s only chance. If he can defend himself vigorously enough now, then it becomes a non-issue in November. I certainly don’t give Drudge credit for being that strategic. But Santorum has a chance to put it to bed.
I still loath the guy. But don’t act like Drudge completely knifed him in the back.
Thanks, DUDE.
Yes, I’d just read at Tatler, B.Preston, that it was 4 yrs ago & not only that, but it was a speech at Catholic University.
So, that’s not fair. (Is there anything fair in elections?)
So I’m not as rattled. But he still can’t win. He just talks too much about religion — He overdoes it for a presidential candidate. He has to be president of the whole country — too much talk about his religion excludes too many, and terrifies the others.
And it shows his strategical judgment is way off — way, way off.
You do realize that if you add up Evangelical Protestants and Catholics, you get 50.2%, to say nothing of Americans self-identifying as religious as a whole more than 5-to-1, right? It might not be that way inside the Beltway, or in the media, but out in flyover country, being religious isn’t exactly a negative thing.
It’s nice that he’s religious — people like that. But, it doesn’t mean they would vote for a president who overdoes and overemphasizes his religion — he’s running for president, not priest. The MSM will — Palinize him (I guess if they do, it’s possible he’d get a sympathy vote! — but that’s doubtful.)
Eh, the media will “Palinize” any candidate with an (R) after their name.
Point is, being religious isn’t exactly an albatross around his neck for the vast majority of the electorate. Heck, even Barack Obama has to say he’s a Christian (as opposed to effectively being agnostic, not the other thing) to be taken seriously. Which presents a rather nice reply to any criticism of Santorum, i.e. “I was talking about the Devil giving a speech at a Catholic university. You’re a Christian, too, right? Then why is this an issue? We can talk about shredding the Constitution by promoting a religious test for office if you want, but I’d rather talk about you shredding the Constitution with your individual mandate.”
Seeing the actions of the Presbyterian church lately, Rick might be right. It is sad to think that the Presbyterian church was key in starting the American Revolution, but are not so easily pushed by the will of people who don’t believe in free will.
Times like these i just have to console myself that, living here on the west side of LA, that my vote won’t count for diddly over squat.
Rick, WTF? I mean really, WTFF!?
Bryan Preston did a great job exposing the Leftist smear of Santorum’s comments in the Tatler, today. You folks who buy into this are all being played… again! When are you ever going to learn? Quit buying into the lies.
The comments about Satan were to a religious gathering years ago, not while he was running for President. They were perfectly appropriate comments for the time and venue. He was speaking to religious people about America and religion.
I’m guessing you are not a Protestant, Mr. Green? (Yeah, I know you are an Atheist.) You think this alienates Protestants? I am one, and it does not. There is a real schism between the Mainline and Evangelical Protestant churches. We all know it. You pontificate on that which you know naught of.
Folks, Santorum is dead-on accurate in his comments. They are just being taken out of context. 10fingers, you grew up in PA, and can’t stomach antorum? Really? I bet everything you know about him came from the Leftist Media.
My main problems with him are that he lacks executive experience (although he is a serious policy wonk, so he knows the ins and outs), and that he tended to support the Republican Party like a good little trooper, even when it went against Conservative principles. Other than those things, there’s not much to dislike about him. He is a truly decent person; From all accounts, eminently likable. He does not misrepresent who he is or what he believes. He seems to be an honest man.
For all you folks who think that religion is a loser in the election, well, you are buying the Leftist lies again. The overwhelming majority of Americans are religious… mostly Christians. We really do not find such talk objectionable at all. Used to be, you could not get elected without wearing your beliefs on your sleeve.
Honestly, it should be that way again. We should know what you believe, because that is who you are. If folks had understood that about Obama, he would never have been elected. Never!
And you think Santorum should NOT talk about it? It is a winner when he does!
“Folks, we tried to warn you about Obama’s radical associations in 2008. We told you about his vile pastors, Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. You should have listened. This is who he is. His policies and personnel choices reflect his beliefs. We have this mess, because you thought these things didn’t matter. They do! They do matter!
My Priest does not EVER curse America in God’s Name! That is not what he or I believe in. My policies and personnel choices will reflect our beliefs. We will choose people with whom you can feel comfortable. We will not choose avowed Communists like Van Jones, or Mao-lovers like Anita Dunn. We will not have Education Secretaries who are advocates for the North American Man-Boy Love Association! Pedophile advocates!
My God! What the heck did you think you were voting for? We warned you! Now we have this mess, because you voted for this radical with all his radical friends! These things matter! We will not have this mess when I am President, because my beliefs are different. We told you so!, dammit!”
It’s a winner. Do not believe the narrative fed you by the Left. They do NOT want us talking about these things, because they will lose, and they know it. We have the moral high ground, and we should endeavor to fight there. We gotta quit letting them choose the battlefield.
Unknot your panties. I’ll vote for Santorum in the fall if need be — even though I really hate to lose.
I’m sure you know who I am by now, Stephen. I post here often enough. For two guys who see so many things the same way, we sure do snarl at each other a lot, don’t we?
Yeah, I know you’ll vote for him. You won’t lose, though. Chin up.
Also, the Republican establishment is seriously considering the possibility of a brokered convention. They have been doing the math, and it is looking to be more than a remote possibility. There is some real nervousness behind the scenes. Seriously, someone might just get drafted. I’m praying it is so. I’m not alone in my praying.
Santorum is the best of the remaining lot, but I would still prefer someone else. Paul Ryan? Bobby Jindal? Sarah Palin? Eric Cantor? Jim DeMint? We are talking serious must-see TV. I will have to get cable service again, if there is a brokered convention!
I’ve been praying (heh) for a brokered convention since pretty much Iowa. It’s our only hope.
I still can’t believe that people honestly think that Mittens Romneycare has any chance of beating Obama. It’s like the GOP is saying “Hey, Barry, we know that Americans hate Obamacare nearly 2-to-1, so we’re going to run a candidate against you who will be absolutely no threat on that front.”
Yes Marc. I’m just another one of the “sheep” who listen to the leftist media. I never looked into Santorum’s voting record which puts him the class of just another nanny-state bureaucrat that happens to have an R after his name.
Other than being another Nanny-Stater, I’m sure there is plenty to like about him.
I apologize, 10fingers. Yes, he does support some Nanny State stuff from the Right. He has also pushed for some very good legislation as well. To me he is a strong SoCon, but a little soft on the other parts of being a full Conservative.
Still, to me, he is Conservative enough for now. I just want someone to be a placeholder for the new crop of candidates who will be ready in 4-8 years. “First, do no harm.” That’s all I want from the next guy. Well, that, and repeal ObamaCare. Heck, I do not even hope for a reduced budget, at this point. If they can just arrest it where it is for the next 8 years with absolutely no increase, it’ll be miraculous.
Just give me a placeholder who will not make it worse or permanent. I just want the train to stop. We can figure out later which way away from the cliff the train should go.
ANYBODY is “conservative” enough compared to The Messiah. However, what the country needs isn’t a choice in this upcoming election. We need someone who can not just hold things even, but someone who will rip the guts out of the Federal Leviathan.
Of course, my libertarianism is showing here, but the math is straight forward. If you’ve seen Band of Brothers, General McAuliffe said to Winters after hearing they had no ammo, not enough men or even enough medical supplies, he said, “Hold the line. Better dig in. There’s a whole lot of s–t coming your way.” We can’t sustain this and, unlike Greece, we don’t have a big brother to come in a bail us out. There’s a whole lotta s–t coming our way–if we don’t have anyone that’ll do anything about it.
I just can’t believe after the rise of the Tea Party, the historical 2010 mid-terms and the danger sirens blazing everywhere that this is the crop of candidates who have risen to face our country’s most critical hour.
–Insert huge bummed out sigh right here–
Don’t be stupid. The Tea Parties are only a couple of years old. It will take at least two or three election cycles (minimum) for those candidates to appear.
Yes, your “Libertarian tendencies” are showing. Only a fool insists upon a 100% pure candidate every election, every time. That’s “Death Star” thinking. That is, all we have to do is elect the right candidate, “and we’ll BLOW UP THE DEATH STAR and win the war!!!” End of conflict, fade to happy ending. {rolls eyes}
The real world, alas, doesn’t work that way. We will see false starts, mistakes, dead ends, and all sorts of other disappointments.
Casey,
“Don’t be stupid” and “Only a fool….” would retort to your obviously juvenile attempts at creating an actual argument.
Thanks for the life lessons, but save ‘em for your kid when they ask you about the birds and the bees. I am concerned with electing a candidate that has a real interest in shrinking the size of the Federal Gov’t before it all implodes. Great, Obama gets defeated and we have a couple of limp wristed Republicans manning the ship and just shifting their focus towards THEIR Big Gov’t flavor of the day. Been there and done that and the ship is still headed over the waterfall.
I wish guys like you would stop putting arguments into my mouth that I’m not saying. I don’t know what part of my argument led you to believe that I’m looking for ideological purity (as if that exists on any planet). But it is a pretty simple platform to stand-up and say that you’re for shrinking the current size of the government through reforming entitlements. Quite simple and very practical.
The fat man and walker are doing it as we speak.
Very, well said Marc!
Ah, yes. It seems like just yesterday (okay, last week) that I was expressing real concern about Santorum’s SoCon leanings.
Wait. Did I say “leanings”?
That’s like saying Ron Paul is a “little bit” libertarian. Sweater-vest is so far to the right he makes Jerry Falwell look like a flower child of the 60s.
RS would get slaughtered in November, if he were the nominee. Forget him. He’ll be the death of this country.
Great, Nukem. So why don’t you just cut your throat now, and save the opposition the trouble in November?
You people still don’t get it. There’s no more room for idiot posturings. Santorum has just as much chance as anyone else of beating Teh Won in November. It depends on the ground game. You gonna join, or just whinge on the sidelines?
Thing is, Steve, Santorum didn’t say anything about the mainline that those of us who grew up in it didn’t learn 25 years ago. Anyway, Santorum was speaking to a deeply-religious school, what else is he going to talk about?
Also, way to bring the Steak n Shake heat at PJ. There’s one about three blocks south of where I live, on Elm Avenue in Webster Groves(the Paris of St. Louis County).
As far as “mainline Protestantism” is concerned, I doubt there would be many evangelicals (including Southern Baptists, PCA, LCMS, conservative Anglicans) who would DISAGREE with Santorum on his assessment.
If the words “$5 gas”, “$15.1 trillion deficit” and “Keystone pipeline” are not the first 3 sentences of every GOP paragraph from now until 11/4, they are idiots.
I want a government that is as unwelcome in my home as in my wallet. That was the idea. “Don’t tread on me” was 18th century way of saying leave us alone. When did the GOP lose that?
Further Santorum apparently believes we should be at war 24/7 with everyone. You cannot begin to talk about the budget seriously until you take a long, ahrd knife-cutting look at defense committments.
If you had to pick the most awful of GOP candidates, this guy babbling about birth control in such times take the cake.