My honest reaction? I'm tired of your flagrant cheerleading for Santorum. It's annoying, & making me not want to read this site or support this magazine in the future. You post about him constantly, & there's never any analysis as to why he'd be a better candidate than the others currently (or perhaps yet to) enter. (Yes, I read your article you wrote about him ages ago.) There's needs to be some new analysis if you're going to keep posting dozens of times a day about him. No one else here does this kind of shallow posting for the other candidates, & NR has not endorsed a candidate, so I feel it's inappropriate for you to keep doing this. These kinds of posts are no more substantive than a bumper sticker on your car. Want to write an article or post showing evidence of an enthusiasm gap between Santorum & Romney? Go for it. Otherwise, please keep fluff posts like this one to your Twitter account.
Wow....what a baby you make yourself appear to be. Ever try not reading Corner posts that (in some strange way) apparently annoy you so much? It really is within your ability to do so, you know? Or do you need permission?
Hey Ryan, so, you don't like Santorum. We get it. But you don't pay anything for this material, right? Then pump the breaks! It's a blog...not the magazine.
Long time Corner readers know that brief insights, funny one liners are on here all the time.
Um, they're praying, is there something wrong with that? It's not like Santorum is hiding his faith under a bushel. Are you concerned they're trying to make him look like some kind of religious nut? If so, that picture doesn't really do it for me.
Just the Post doing their usual fear-mongering bit about the possibility that a "religious extremist" may be elected President. It should fly well with their dwindling readership....
I actually really liked that picture. Saw it somewhere on the internet yesterday - moved me.
Maybe they wanted to show him as a religious nut. But his unabashed embrace of religion is part of who he is. I thought it showed an interesting view into his campaign, the connections this Catholic candidate has made with folks like these Baptists. Reminds me what Fr. Groeschel said once -- our enemies are not other Christians, or even other religions. Our enemies are the secularists.
Well, he was in church, you see, and so they took a picture, and since he is religious, you see, they put the picture in the paper.
I can see your concern, though. What will they think of next? Maybe a picture of him drinking iced tea, or even worse, talking to his wife, or, shudder, boarding an airplane!
Well, then, I'm just glad it was't Barney Frank being featured on the front page of the Washington Post because I presume, using your logic, that picture would be, um, hairy, sweaty, and equally off-topic.
I must assume that you are being deliberately coy, Ostap. You know very well that there is a reason a photo was used of Santorum praying in a church rather than something pertaining to the story such as him celebrating at a victory party or giving a speech at a post-election rally. The latter is what we normally see accompanying such articles--but not when you have an opportunity to promote the "beware-of-Santorum-the-Catholic-theocrat" narrative.
I honestly am frequently astonished by the offense taken on this website in reaction to the most innocuous things. Rick Santorum is religious. He went to church, and invited the photographers along. They took a picture of him. They put it in the paper. And you people are offended.
But based on a couple of the comments here and elsewhere, it does seem to have generated some criticism of him as being TOO religious. How much is of that is real versus media spin I leave to each to decide. But the idea that promoting this image was at least in the back of the editor's mind in selecting the picture is not that far fetched. You need only remember the blatant image manipulations of past candidates by MSM to promote their preferred narrative.
"But the idea that promoting this image was at least in the back of the editor's mind in selecting the picture is not that far fetched."
Well, something went through the back of the editor's mind in choosing the picture. If the editor is worth their pay, then they chose this photograph among dozens that were likely presented as options. Having had to choose photos for publicity purposes, I'm not very good at it, and even I don't choose simply because one catches my fancy or makes me think, "Oh, isn't that nice!" There are reasons why I choose this pose over that one, this expression on the subject's face instead of another, and prefer one setting or context to another. It's because I am wanting to convey ideas to the viewer's mind. WaPo's front page editor is likely far more shrewd at this task than I.
My honest reaction? I'm tired of your flagrant cheerleading for Santorum. It's annoying, & making me not want to read this site or support this magazine in the future. You post about him constantly, & there's never any analysis as to why he'd be a better candidate than the others currently (or perhaps yet to) enter. (Yes, I read your article you wrote about him ages ago.) There's needs to be some new analysis if you're going to keep posting dozens of times a day about him. No one else here does this kind of shallow posting for the other candidates, & NR has not endorsed a candidate, so I feel it's inappropriate for you to keep doing this. These kinds of posts are no more substantive than a bumper sticker on your car. Want to write an article or post showing evidence of an enthusiasm gap between Santorum & Romney? Go for it. Otherwise, please keep fluff posts like this one to your Twitter account.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought K-Lo was ga-ga for Mitt.
It's tough to keep up with this stuff.
It's almost as if the writers prefer to write flattering articles about all sorts of people from the Right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseK-Lo and NRO are firm in their convictions "Against Gingrich".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow....what a baby you make yourself appear to be. Ever try not reading Corner posts that (in some strange way) apparently annoy you so much? It really is within your ability to do so, you know? Or do you need permission?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Ryan, so, you don't like Santorum. We get it. But you don't pay anything for this material, right? Then pump the breaks! It's a blog...not the magazine.
Long time Corner readers know that brief insights, funny one liners are on here all the time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood Morning, Kathryn Jean!
That is a funny picture to mount so prominently. Why do we continue to put with most of the media showing such contempt?
...ghright
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, they're praying, is there something wrong with that? It's not like Santorum is hiding his faith under a bushel. Are you concerned they're trying to make him look like some kind of religious nut? If so, that picture doesn't really do it for me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCaption: Only those with their eyes closed would vote for this man.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust the Post doing their usual fear-mongering bit about the possibility that a "religious extremist" may be elected President. It should fly well with their dwindling readership....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReligious extremist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI actually really liked that picture. Saw it somewhere on the internet yesterday - moved me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe they wanted to show him as a religious nut. But his unabashed embrace of religion is part of who he is. I thought it showed an interesting view into his campaign, the connections this Catholic candidate has made with folks like these Baptists. Reminds me what Fr. Groeschel said once -- our enemies are not other Christians, or even other religions. Our enemies are the secularists.
Looks to me like he and other people are praying in church.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does that relate to an article about Santorum winning three states?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, he was in church, you see, and so they took a picture, and since he is religious, you see, they put the picture in the paper.
I can see your concern, though. What will they think of next? Maybe a picture of him drinking iced tea, or even worse, talking to his wife, or, shudder, boarding an airplane!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, then, I'm just glad it was't Barney Frank being featured on the front page of the Washington Post because I presume, using your logic, that picture would be, um, hairy, sweaty, and equally off-topic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI must assume that you are being deliberately coy, Ostap. You know very well that there is a reason a photo was used of Santorum praying in a church rather than something pertaining to the story such as him celebrating at a victory party or giving a speech at a post-election rally. The latter is what we normally see accompanying such articles--but not when you have an opportunity to promote the "beware-of-Santorum-the-Catholic-theocrat" narrative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI honestly am frequently astonished by the offense taken on this website in reaction to the most innocuous things. Rick Santorum is religious. He went to church, and invited the photographers along. They took a picture of him. They put it in the paper. And you people are offended.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI also saw nothing wrong with the picture.
But based on a couple of the comments here and elsewhere, it does seem to have generated some criticism of him as being TOO religious. How much is of that is real versus media spin I leave to each to decide. But the idea that promoting this image was at least in the back of the editor's mind in selecting the picture is not that far fetched. You need only remember the blatant image manipulations of past candidates by MSM to promote their preferred narrative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But the idea that promoting this image was at least in the back of the editor's mind in selecting the picture is not that far fetched."
Well, something went through the back of the editor's mind in choosing the picture. If the editor is worth their pay, then they chose this photograph among dozens that were likely presented as options. Having had to choose photos for publicity purposes, I'm not very good at it, and even I don't choose simply because one catches my fancy or makes me think, "Oh, isn't that nice!" There are reasons why I choose this pose over that one, this expression on the subject's face instead of another, and prefer one setting or context to another. It's because I am wanting to convey ideas to the viewer's mind. WaPo's front page editor is likely far more shrewd at this task than I.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd re "such as him celebrating at a victory party or giving a speech at a post-election rally," see External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse