In the primary my guess that this Satan stuff harms him more than it helps. Getting into the pointing of fingers and say that there is evil to be found and it is in the Protestant Churches and criticizing the Protestants isn't a good idea for a Catholic politician running for President of the United States. My guess is the Republican party has more Protestants than Catholics in it, and many of them look at the child abuse that has been going on in the Catholic Church wonder why Santorum thinks that it is the Protestant Churches that have been tainted by Satan and needs to be called out (I'm sure bad things have happened in Protestant Churches, Jewish Synagogues, and even Hindu Temples as well, but it hasn't been on the front pages of the newspapers over the last decade).
In the general election Santorum would likely face a revolt from the more libertarian leaning wing of the Republican party, which makes up are significant number of voters in swing states, with his open hostility toward them (unlike Reagan who said Libertarianism was a core part of Conservatism), he doesn't need to irk the Protestants. That said, he isn't really any threat to Obama anyway so this Satan stuff doesn't matter if he gets the nomination, he was always going to lose anyway.
Richard>>Getting into the pointing of fingers and say that there is evil to be found and it is in the Protestant Churches and criticizing the Protestants isn't a good idea for a Catholic politician running for President of the United States. My guess is the Republican party has more Protestants than Catholics in it, and many of them look at the child abuse that has been going on in the Catholic Church wonder why Santorum thinks that it is the Protestant Churches that have been tainted by Satan and needs to be called out
***
Completely agree, Richard.
I think that Santorum's amazing, anti-Protestant remarks are the lost lede in all this kerfuffle. In fact, I think his words in this regard put Santorum out of the race, although reaction is lagging well behind the facts of what he said.
Santorum is simply not electable in a general election. It would be a landslide for the President and probably lose the House as well. The damage to the Republican brand would be huge. Are Republicans actually going to drive over the cliff?
Expressing a worldview that affirms the existence of good and evil is going to win Santorum a lot more votes than he loses, especially in a GOP primary. Voters like moral clarity, which, as Santorum correctly noted, was a cornerstone of Reaganite rhetoric.
Any comparison between Santorum and Reagan is completely misplaced. I do not recall Reagan ever discussing morality with reference to personal sexual practices. Nor did Reagan ever come accross as a preachy prude as Santorum does when he talks about theology, Satan, contraceptives, or prenatal diagnostic testing. I write as a Catholic woman who declined amnio testing during my pregnancies. It was my personal decision and not in any way, shape or form the business of government or a politician.
The Taliban have moral clarity. OBL had moral clarity. The problem comes in when a candidate has a moral clarity with which the vast majority of Americans disagree with (i.e. contraceptives are bad, homosexuality is a sin, women should stay at home and not work). When that happens the "moral clarity" of a candidate becomes quite scary for most people that don't share those fringe viewpoints.
Is Santorum running for President of the United States or for Pope? I think you are mixing up the two.
The pop culture has an orthodoxy that it is not ashamed to enforce. And that orthodoxy gives us moral zealots like Pelosi and Obama. At least Santorum espouses a morality that makes sense -- not one the sees all political opponents as racists, misogynists, or orphan-kicking plutocrats.
You're on the losing side of a crusade, but you're confused as to who is waging it.
Seriously JoeA... if you really believe the things you're writing, then why are you here? Are you just trolling? Because Conservatives are overwhelmingly religious as well as fiscal hawks. If you hate religious faith that badly, go hitch yourself to the Libertarians. We're tired of a minority... and make no mistake, that's what you are... telling us that we're weird for faith in God and actually believing in his word. Get thee to the Libertarians.
"Because Conservatives are overwhelmingly religious as well as fiscal hawks."
If you're going to exclude people from the conservative fold because they are not "overwhelmingly religious," when are you going to exclude Rick Santorum for not being a fiscal hawk?
The fact is: People want to hear about a candidate's solution for the economy, not his views on, say, Satan or contraception or the like.
Now, this is the doublebind the media puts a candidate in: The *constantly broach these tangential things themselves*.
A candidate then has two choices. 1. Dodge the question as a way of "staying on message". 2. Answer the question in a reasonable way and then move on to the issues he himself wishes to discuss.
What happens is this: If a candidate chooses option 1, he starts to look weasely, like a politician. And then the media -- and the populace at large -- whines for a "straight talker", someone who just answers the questions directly.
The hunger for this is real: It's why McCain (laughably) called his bus the "Straight Talk Express". I think it also helps account for the appeal, however temporary or compromised, of Cain, Christie, or, God help us, Trump. But following option 1 leads to looking disingenuous, and the media can use the non-answers to portray you as evasive, with something to hide.
Option 2 works well in the candidate's own world. After all, HE knows that he spent 1 minute of a 24 hour day addressing (in a reasonable way) a past quote. But therein lies the trap, because the media can (and will) take that quote and run it first, foremost, and indeed exclusively.
So here's Santorum's opportunity: He needs to call the media out of this particular mode of operating. The media gets to say that people what to hear about the issues, about real solutions. Then THEY are the ones to amplify all the white noise surrounding a candidate they dislike.
That's the problem Santorum should address. If these headlines dominate the media, it's not the fault of a candidate who's being accessible and who's answering EVERY question directly. It's in the corrupt media complex that is functioning as an arm of the political Left.
"What happens is this: If a candidate chooses option 1, he starts to look weasely, like a politician."
I would point you towards Bob McDonnell's VA gubernatorial candidacy in 2009. The Washington Post tried tirelessly to make that campaign entirely about social issues. To do it, they had to (literally) go back decades to find thesis papers authored by McDonnell, some of which were on seemingly controversial topics - like women working. Almost every day WaPo wrote something that tried to paint McDonnell as a mouth-breathing Catholic purist.
McDonnell never took the bait, no matter how hard WaPo tried. He stayed on message with the discipline of a Shaolin priest. It worked. In a state that had voted for Obama by almost 10-points just 12-months earlier, McDonnell won by almost 20-points against a man that Obama even campaigned for. He did it by talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. And when he tired of that, he talked about jobs some more.
Santorum's problem - and this goes directly towards your "Option #2" - is that he offers lush orchards of sanctimony from which the media will pluck - for now - the lowest hanging and ripest fruit; Santorum for the last 25-years has provided countless speeches and media appearances where he has said some of the strangest, and arguably some of the most divisive things possible. It's just not extemporaneous, throw-away lines or gaffes that plague Santorum now and in the future. It's his own words, delivered at length and from a script.
Obama dodged the Rev. Wright problem largely because it was Wright doing the talking with Obama doing the listening. Santorum's problem is that he was the guy doing the preaching the last two decades. The media won't have to dig up a 25-year old thesis paper (although, I'm sure they will) to beat Santorum up with it. Instead, they can just roll the tapes of his MSNBC appearances from the last five or six years.
John Adams (even John Adams) wrote that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And by religious, Adams didn't mean any old religion, but rather he was speaking about the populous which was and still is overwhelmingly Christian.
Robert Costa writes in his article on the homepage: "With his preachy speeches, his strident morality, and his caustic media persona, Santorum did more than sour middle-class moderates — he alienated them." There was A LOT more to that race than this, but okay.
In Matthew 10:34 Christ declares that his mission will be utterly divisive. The great irony is the truth shared between the bare necessity of what John Adams recognized, the divisive nature of Christ's mission, and the difficulty for a politician loyal to both.
I think these comments may hurt Santorum, but are generally beneficial for the political process. The people are getting sick and tired of careful, focus-group-vetted, public-relations-approved messages that are pure emptiness. The people are likewise tired of the tip-toe-ing through the political correctness minefield, and just want someone who calls it like it is. That's one reason that Christ Christie has been such a huge hit - he is absolutely fearless and just says it like he sees it. Likewise with Ron Paul. Voters will give a certain amount of leeway to leaders who are trying to be honest, even if they do not agree with them.
Again, I think it will hurt Santorum - a lot of his comments will not resonate with voters. But ironically, it may hurt Romney even worse. The more Santorum speaks directly to the people, the more clear it becomes just how artificial Romney's message is. It's not a great choice - it's like choosing between an honest but not very competent auto mechanic, and one who may know what he's doing but overbills you every time - but ultimately, I think honesty will win out.
The more difficult challenge for Santorum will come when he runs against Obama. Romney may be transparently artificial, but Obama still has a great many people fooled.
He also needs to wake up and realize that reporters are desperately trying to destroy him. He has no friends in the media. The vast majority are for Obama, and those on the right are for Romney. There's literally nothing they won't do to destroy him.
I am hearing that he has recycled some of Ronald Reagan's greatest hits in his speechifying.
Soon he will have an opportunity to borrow from Richard Nixon. He will be able to make a concession speech saying, "I gave them the sword, and they ran me through."
Oh please, Sanotrum's speech isn't controversial just because he talks about Satan, that is pure spin from the campaign. Something approaching 80% of Americans believes in some form of the Devil.
As a pragmatic point, if you plan on running for public office, tone it down on this kind of apocalyptic language, or go into the Ministry if that is your calling. This type of over the top rhetoric sounds crazy, and I'm a Baptist. I can't imagine how a more secular voter regards it.
The comments though insulting mainline Protestants as not being real Christians is what he's really going to have to answer for to voters.
>>The comments though insulting mainline Protestants as not being real Christians is what he's really going to have to answer for to voters.
***
They are completely disqualifying. Santorum is finished, or will be as soon as all the zaniness about Satan settles down and people get round to the really serious and troubling thing that he said.
Most of these incidents are out-of-context tempests-in-teapots...the media on a constant hunt for the gotcha quote, even if they have to rip something out of context.
But Santorum's anti-Protestant comments seem to be exactly what they are...incredibly stupid (politically) bashing of the Protestant faith. And they show how insanely over-the-top is his Catholic zeal.
(I am not an offended Protestant. I proclaim no faith. I am offended by religious bigotry and am frightened by people whose judgment is seriously warped by convictions that live on the extreme fringe of American Catholicism or any other creed. I am really frightened when such people make a serious play to gain the most powerful political office in America and in the world.)
And that Satan is found in the mainline Protestant churches (but not the Catholic!).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse...so was McCain. That worked out great.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the primary my guess that this Satan stuff harms him more than it helps. Getting into the pointing of fingers and say that there is evil to be found and it is in the Protestant Churches and criticizing the Protestants isn't a good idea for a Catholic politician running for President of the United States. My guess is the Republican party has more Protestants than Catholics in it, and many of them look at the child abuse that has been going on in the Catholic Church wonder why Santorum thinks that it is the Protestant Churches that have been tainted by Satan and needs to be called out (I'm sure bad things have happened in Protestant Churches, Jewish Synagogues, and even Hindu Temples as well, but it hasn't been on the front pages of the newspapers over the last decade).
In the general election Santorum would likely face a revolt from the more libertarian leaning wing of the Republican party, which makes up are significant number of voters in swing states, with his open hostility toward them (unlike Reagan who said Libertarianism was a core part of Conservatism), he doesn't need to irk the Protestants. That said, he isn't really any threat to Obama anyway so this Satan stuff doesn't matter if he gets the nomination, he was always going to lose anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRichard>>Getting into the pointing of fingers and say that there is evil to be found and it is in the Protestant Churches and criticizing the Protestants isn't a good idea for a Catholic politician running for President of the United States. My guess is the Republican party has more Protestants than Catholics in it, and many of them look at the child abuse that has been going on in the Catholic Church wonder why Santorum thinks that it is the Protestant Churches that have been tainted by Satan and needs to be called out
***
Completely agree, Richard.
I think that Santorum's amazing, anti-Protestant remarks are the lost lede in all this kerfuffle. In fact, I think his words in this regard put Santorum out of the race, although reaction is lagging well behind the facts of what he said.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I thought was over the top was the part where he said Jesus explicitly endorses his tax policy.
Or was that the other guy who said that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum is simply not electable in a general election. It would be a landslide for the President and probably lose the House as well. The damage to the Republican brand would be huge. Are Republicans actually going to drive over the cliff?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExpressing a worldview that affirms the existence of good and evil is going to win Santorum a lot more votes than he loses, especially in a GOP primary. Voters like moral clarity, which, as Santorum correctly noted, was a cornerstone of Reaganite rhetoric.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAny comparison between Santorum and Reagan is completely misplaced. I do not recall Reagan ever discussing morality with reference to personal sexual practices. Nor did Reagan ever come accross as a preachy prude as Santorum does when he talks about theology, Satan, contraceptives, or prenatal diagnostic testing. I write as a Catholic woman who declined amnio testing during my pregnancies. It was my personal decision and not in any way, shape or form the business of government or a politician.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Taliban have moral clarity. OBL had moral clarity. The problem comes in when a candidate has a moral clarity with which the vast majority of Americans disagree with (i.e. contraceptives are bad, homosexuality is a sin, women should stay at home and not work). When that happens the "moral clarity" of a candidate becomes quite scary for most people that don't share those fringe viewpoints.
Is Santorum running for President of the United States or for Pope? I think you are mixing up the two.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe pop culture has an orthodoxy that it is not ashamed to enforce. And that orthodoxy gives us moral zealots like Pelosi and Obama. At least Santorum espouses a morality that makes sense -- not one the sees all political opponents as racists, misogynists, or orphan-kicking plutocrats.
You're on the losing side of a crusade, but you're confused as to who is waging it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously JoeA... if you really believe the things you're writing, then why are you here? Are you just trolling? Because Conservatives are overwhelmingly religious as well as fiscal hawks. If you hate religious faith that badly, go hitch yourself to the Libertarians. We're tired of a minority... and make no mistake, that's what you are... telling us that we're weird for faith in God and actually believing in his word. Get thee to the Libertarians.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Because Conservatives are overwhelmingly religious as well as fiscal hawks."
If you're going to exclude people from the conservative fold because they are not "overwhelmingly religious," when are you going to exclude Rick Santorum for not being a fiscal hawk?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum has an opportunity here.
The fact is: People want to hear about a candidate's solution for the economy, not his views on, say, Satan or contraception or the like.
Now, this is the doublebind the media puts a candidate in: The *constantly broach these tangential things themselves*.
A candidate then has two choices. 1. Dodge the question as a way of "staying on message". 2. Answer the question in a reasonable way and then move on to the issues he himself wishes to discuss.
What happens is this: If a candidate chooses option 1, he starts to look weasely, like a politician. And then the media -- and the populace at large -- whines for a "straight talker", someone who just answers the questions directly.
The hunger for this is real: It's why McCain (laughably) called his bus the "Straight Talk Express". I think it also helps account for the appeal, however temporary or compromised, of Cain, Christie, or, God help us, Trump. But following option 1 leads to looking disingenuous, and the media can use the non-answers to portray you as evasive, with something to hide.
Option 2 works well in the candidate's own world. After all, HE knows that he spent 1 minute of a 24 hour day addressing (in a reasonable way) a past quote. But therein lies the trap, because the media can (and will) take that quote and run it first, foremost, and indeed exclusively.
So here's Santorum's opportunity: He needs to call the media out of this particular mode of operating. The media gets to say that people what to hear about the issues, about real solutions. Then THEY are the ones to amplify all the white noise surrounding a candidate they dislike.
That's the problem Santorum should address. If these headlines dominate the media, it's not the fault of a candidate who's being accessible and who's answering EVERY question directly. It's in the corrupt media complex that is functioning as an arm of the political Left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What happens is this: If a candidate chooses option 1, he starts to look weasely, like a politician."
I would point you towards Bob McDonnell's VA gubernatorial candidacy in 2009. The Washington Post tried tirelessly to make that campaign entirely about social issues. To do it, they had to (literally) go back decades to find thesis papers authored by McDonnell, some of which were on seemingly controversial topics - like women working. Almost every day WaPo wrote something that tried to paint McDonnell as a mouth-breathing Catholic purist.
McDonnell never took the bait, no matter how hard WaPo tried. He stayed on message with the discipline of a Shaolin priest. It worked. In a state that had voted for Obama by almost 10-points just 12-months earlier, McDonnell won by almost 20-points against a man that Obama even campaigned for. He did it by talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. And when he tired of that, he talked about jobs some more.
Santorum's problem - and this goes directly towards your "Option #2" - is that he offers lush orchards of sanctimony from which the media will pluck - for now - the lowest hanging and ripest fruit; Santorum for the last 25-years has provided countless speeches and media appearances where he has said some of the strangest, and arguably some of the most divisive things possible. It's just not extemporaneous, throw-away lines or gaffes that plague Santorum now and in the future. It's his own words, delivered at length and from a script.
Obama dodged the Rev. Wright problem largely because it was Wright doing the talking with Obama doing the listening. Santorum's problem is that he was the guy doing the preaching the last two decades. The media won't have to dig up a 25-year old thesis paper (although, I'm sure they will) to beat Santorum up with it. Instead, they can just roll the tapes of his MSNBC appearances from the last five or six years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn Adams (even John Adams) wrote that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And by religious, Adams didn't mean any old religion, but rather he was speaking about the populous which was and still is overwhelmingly Christian.
Robert Costa writes in his article on the homepage: "With his preachy speeches, his strident morality, and his caustic media persona, Santorum did more than sour middle-class moderates — he alienated them." There was A LOT more to that race than this, but okay.
In Matthew 10:34 Christ declares that his mission will be utterly divisive. The great irony is the truth shared between the bare necessity of what John Adams recognized, the divisive nature of Christ's mission, and the difficulty for a politician loyal to both.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think these comments may hurt Santorum, but are generally beneficial for the political process. The people are getting sick and tired of careful, focus-group-vetted, public-relations-approved messages that are pure emptiness. The people are likewise tired of the tip-toe-ing through the political correctness minefield, and just want someone who calls it like it is. That's one reason that Christ Christie has been such a huge hit - he is absolutely fearless and just says it like he sees it. Likewise with Ron Paul. Voters will give a certain amount of leeway to leaders who are trying to be honest, even if they do not agree with them.
Again, I think it will hurt Santorum - a lot of his comments will not resonate with voters. But ironically, it may hurt Romney even worse. The more Santorum speaks directly to the people, the more clear it becomes just how artificial Romney's message is. It's not a great choice - it's like choosing between an honest but not very competent auto mechanic, and one who may know what he's doing but overbills you every time - but ultimately, I think honesty will win out.
The more difficult challenge for Santorum will come when he runs against Obama. Romney may be transparently artificial, but Obama still has a great many people fooled.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe needs to get more disciplined, and fast.
He also needs to wake up and realize that reporters are desperately trying to destroy him. He has no friends in the media. The vast majority are for Obama, and those on the right are for Romney. There's literally nothing they won't do to destroy him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am hearing that he has recycled some of Ronald Reagan's greatest hits in his speechifying.
Soon he will have an opportunity to borrow from Richard Nixon. He will be able to make a concession speech saying, "I gave them the sword, and they ran me through."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh please, Sanotrum's speech isn't controversial just because he talks about Satan, that is pure spin from the campaign. Something approaching 80% of Americans believes in some form of the Devil.
As a pragmatic point, if you plan on running for public office, tone it down on this kind of apocalyptic language, or go into the Ministry if that is your calling. This type of over the top rhetoric sounds crazy, and I'm a Baptist. I can't imagine how a more secular voter regards it.
The comments though insulting mainline Protestants as not being real Christians is what he's really going to have to answer for to voters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>The comments though insulting mainline Protestants as not being real Christians is what he's really going to have to answer for to voters.
***
They are completely disqualifying. Santorum is finished, or will be as soon as all the zaniness about Satan settles down and people get round to the really serious and troubling thing that he said.
Most of these incidents are out-of-context tempests-in-teapots...the media on a constant hunt for the gotcha quote, even if they have to rip something out of context.
But Santorum's anti-Protestant comments seem to be exactly what they are...incredibly stupid (politically) bashing of the Protestant faith. And they show how insanely over-the-top is his Catholic zeal.
(I am not an offended Protestant. I proclaim no faith. I am offended by religious bigotry and am frightened by people whose judgment is seriously warped by convictions that live on the extreme fringe of American Catholicism or any other creed. I am really frightened when such people make a serious play to gain the most powerful political office in America and in the world.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse