As the Santorum campaign deals with the controversy over Rick Santorum’s 2008 comments about Satan, an adviser has a question: Why, if Santorum’s Catholic beliefs are fair game, aren’t Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs also? The Washington Examiner reports:
Santorum’s aides believe it is unfair that reporters are asking questions about aspects of Santorum’s faith and not asking similar questions about Mitt Romney’s. Of course, Santorum has spoken more publicly about the details of his religious beliefs than Romney has, and that is why some of the questions are popping up now. …
But specifically religious questioning of Romney is as rare as specific Romney statements about Mormon beliefs. Given the current grilling of Santorum, that is a source of growing frustration to Santorum’s advisers. “Why is Mormonism off limits?” asks one. “I’m not saying it’s a seminal issue in the campaign, but we’re having to spend days answering questions about Rick’s faith, which he has been open about. Romney will turn on a dime when you talk about religion. We’re getting asked about specific tenets of Rick’s faith, and when Romney says, ‘I want to focus on the economy,’ they say, OK, we’ll focus on the economy.”
There’s been extensive discussion over whether there is Mormon bias in the electorate or not. Just under 20 percent of Republican and independent voters would not vote for a Mormon for president, according to a June Gallup poll. In contrast, a higher percentage of Democrats — 27 percent — wouldn’t vote for a Mormon for president. As far as I’m aware, there’s been no similar polling — or even widespread discussion — about whether a Catholic candidate faces any similar electoral obstacles.
"Romney will turn on a dime when you talk about religion." Right you are. Now tell your guy Santorum to start doing the same thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd by the way, this is exactly the kind of crud that should not be coming out of the Santorum campaign under any circumstances. Not only should Santorum lock his jaw about religion and other social issues, his campaign managers should, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou proceed from a false assumption if you think a Republican will win as a no-morals secularist. We tried that in the first half of the twentieth century, and we regularly got our tails handed to us. When religious and moral issues became party planks again, wonder of wonders... we won 7 out of 11 POTUS contests. So peddle that post-Christian guff somewhere else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"So peddle that post-Christian guff somewhere else."
I'll peddle some sensible political advice instead. Santorum doesn't need to say one more word abut social issues. He's got the social conservative vote locked up. Now he needs to move onto other stuff - little things like the economy and foreign policy - to convince other voters that he's a realistic choice for President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you saying that Nixon ran on "religious and moral issues" in 1968 but not in 1960? That Goldwater avoided "moral issues"? That Hoover and Coolidge ran on secular progressive platforms?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You proceed from a false assumption if you think a Republican will win as a no-morals secularist. We tried that in the first half of the twentieth century, and we regularly got our tails handed to us."
Strange. I could have sworn that Republicans won 6 out of 8 presidential elections 1900-1928. Then that Great Depression thingie happened, and things did go bad for the GOP for awhile. But I don't think it had much to do with no-morals secularism. As Carville might say, it was the economy...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to agree with both Casey and Doug here. Casey is right that Santorum should focus on the politics and avoid theology lessons. Doug is right that it is a boon to conservatives to be strong on the social issues. It enthuses the base and it draws a clear line between us and the Dems. Plus, count me in the camp that says fiscal conservatism is useless without social conservatism. That said, while the media is being unfair, Santorum has also stepped in it. He is running to be President, not a pastor who needs to teach us all his personal theology of life. I'm glad he's willing to stand up for his beliefs but in order to win an election you need to build on broad principles that many people can get under, not keep parsing things down and excluding. The GOP is united on many social issues, focus on those and stay out of the nitty-gritty theology.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"When religious and moral issues became party planks again, wonder of wonders... we won 7 out of 11 POTUS contests."
This is REALLY BAD historical revisionism. The reason that the GOP basically held the White House from the Civil War through the Great Depression had virtually NOTHING to do with its religious platform. Indeed, the Baptist South and dense Catholic urban areas were the only areas of the country where Democrats flourished.
The rise of FDR, New Deal Politics, and Democratic dominance from 1932 to 1968 had virtually nothing to do with moral issues, and everything to do with the aftermath of the Great Depression, which large swaths of the country blamed on the GOP.
The return of the GOP under Nixon and then Reagan was the result of perceived massive overreach of the New Left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet off your high horse for just a minute, Doug.
Was there any doubt that Dubya was a firm Christian? Nope. Did he preach to us? Nope. Did he declare that Catholics weren't Christian? Nope. Did Karl Rove question Gore or Kerry's religion? Nope.
There's no "post-Christian guff" anywhere. But last I checked, this was election of a president, not a pope.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum wears his religion on his sleeve; Romney doesn't. There's the difference.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe answer is that, in the general, it wouldn't be. If Mittens gets the nomination, you'll hear plenty from the press about magic underwear, humans-to-gods, and polygamy. Just as John McCain was once the press' favorite Republican, as soon as he got the nomination, Bam!, he was a neo-nazi that wanted back-alley abortions and kids working in coal mines.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is dead on! The Republican who lives by the MSM will die the same way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly. It's called keeping their powder dry. Romney gets played up not because he's a better candidate, but because they think he's the easiest candidate to beat. Even Ron Paul won't seem nutty by comparison once the gloves come off.
20% won't vote for a mormon. Even if Republicans could spare those numbers, I'd expect it to double or triple by the end of a general campaign. Heck, they don't even have to go into the bizarre beliefs, just tell people that CoLDS are mormons before asking the poll question, many don't know that.
Most common reaction when I've explained that to someone: "Oh, you mean those other nuts that show up at your door like the jehovah's witnesses?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Romney gets played up not because he's a better candidate, but because they think he's the easiest candidate to beat."
what media have you been following? Romney is not being played up anywhere. The liberal media dumps on him everyday; Fox is openly supporting Santorum and Gingrich. Except for a select handful, blogs are the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Romney is a nominee we will know more about Mormons that any other religion including black liberation theology.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOr Obama's religion...whatever that is....liberation theology, secular humanism, etc. How about some of Obama's comments.
One would think that there would be several of those new political corporations set up to get past the media's filter and educate America on who Obama is and what he believes. I'm not talking about birther claims or muslim claims - as I expect Obama's supporters (Soros) to be the ones who put out the commercials for that sort of stuff (really outrageous, mean and tacky) - I'm talking about his actual beliefs. His statements on abortion - about America and Americans. Stuff that highlights how badly the media hoodwinked Americans. I'd donate to one of those for sure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClose scrutiny of the religious beliefs of any candidate is fair, considering the attention that was given in 2008 to the theological beliefs of President Obama's minister of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. Oh wait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo we really need any more evidence that Santorum is not ready from Prime Time. Why on Earth is his campaign going there after already calling mainline Protestants non-Christians? How would Catholics feel if a Protestant GOP nominee used the podium to blast the Vatican?
Can we please have an election that's focused on the economy and the size of government instead of who's a Christian and who's not?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat speech was given long before Santorum was running for President. And the comments about mainline Protestants was about a specific trend in the leadership of those denominations which is a major concern of many within those denominations as well as other Protestant denominations - many of which separated from the mainline denominations over the issues Santorum referenced. I expect a majority of American Protestants would agree with Santorum's statement. This Missouri Synod Lutheran certainly does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum said "mainline" Protestant churches are no longer Christian. Mainline means "mainstream" Protestant. So in Santorum's eyes Episcopalians, Methodists, (northern) Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians, etc. aren't Christian any longer. Good to know, I want an explanation as a Baptist.
It would be one thing if he said "some small fringe Protestant churches are unfortunately getting away from solid Biblical principles" but that's not what he said. He said "mainline" Protestant Churches have left Christianity.
Regardless of when the speech was given, Santorum was giving a political speech. Why else was a former Senator invited to give a speech on a topic like this?
We can argue back and forth all day about who's church is right, but the fact that a politician wants to get involved in public discussions about this is disqualifying to me, if for nothing else than just being politically stupid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse