Romney PLEASE! and NOT Santorum!

[bae]

http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/20...e/#more-433548

Matt Drudge has a new report out about a Rick Santorum speech from 2008 at Ave Maria University.

Here’s what the Republican frontrunner said:

Satan has his sights on the United States of America! … Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition …. 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.

File this one under WTF. Santorum’s attack on Satan is an ill-advised, horribly misguided attempt to play on his religiosity yet again – and yet again, he has painted himself into the “religious nut” corner. The vast majority of Americans are religious and believe in the evil of Satan, but they also find such talk alienating when its speaker is now a candidate a mainstream political campaign. Santorum may win the anti-Beelzebub vote, but he isn’t likely to influence Americans who are more concerned about the economy and foreign policy.



Santorum’s peculiar language is also a major problem for him. Conservatives largely agree with him that American culture is oversexed. But his rhetorical flourish here, in which he suggests that Satan is using “sensuality” to attack America, comes off as fringe and, as Mitt Romney might put it, zany.

Conservatives can win on social issues. The polls prove it. But they cannot win if they paint social issues as a battle between the forces of Satan and the forces of God, rather than as an attempt to create a better life for all Americans by following the lessons of traditional morality learned over the course of thousands of years of world history. Santorum is actually giving social conservatism a bad name with nonsense like this.

[Gregg]

Santorum may win the anti-Beelzebub vote, but he isn’t likely to influence Americans who are more concerned about the economy and foreign policy.

I think that pretty much sums it up. I am not a Santorum supporter for many reasons, but will give him the benefit of the doubt when trying to determine if he was speaking metaphorically or literally regarding Satan. I don't think the notion that there are forces in the world who's goals are to cause harm to America is off base. To claim that the "Father of Lies" is literally behind it would be out there, but an anti-American movement certainly does exist. After watching some of this seasons new sitcoms with my teenage DD I have to agree that our society is oversexed. It seems the laugh track can't be qued-up without at least some heavy sexual innuendo. And sitcoms are one of the milder creative products coming out of the US. Regarding Mr. Santorum's actual campaign? It's the economy, stupid.

[LDAHL]

I think that pretty much sums it up. I am not a Santorum supporter for many reasons, but will give him the benefit of the doubt when trying to determine if he was speaking metaphorically or literally regarding Satan. I don't think the notion that there are forces in the world who's goals are to cause harm to America is off base. To claim that the "Father of Lies" is literally behind it would be out there, but an anti-American movement certainly does exist. After watching some of this seasons new sitcoms with my teenage DD I have to agree that our society is oversexed. It seems the laugh track can't be qued-up without at least some heavy sexual innuendo. And sitcoms are one of the milder creative products coming out of the US. Regarding Mr. Santorum's actual campaign? It's the economy, stupid.

I think you're right there. Few minds are going to be changed by positions on social issues at this point. Santorum can say he believes, for instance, that marraige should be between a man and a woman. Few people that disagree with that are likely to have voted for him otherwise. Obama can say the same thing. Few of his supporters will desert him over that position because they don't believe he will act on his convictions.

From a partisan point of view, I'd prefer a focus on the economy and foreign policy, where I think the Obama people are more vulnerable. I think they realize that better than the Republican campaigns apparently do, which is why they chose to pick that fight over health insurance with the Catholic institutions. The more time wasted on culture war kerfuffles, the less time they'll need to spend defending their record.

[JaneV2.0]

Speaking of Catholic, it seems the Church is increasingly becoming a major player in how we run our government, what with the Supreme Court, Rick Santorum, distribution of federal monies, et al. So how does the Pope's recent pronouncement that health care is an inalienable human right fit in? (Repeating myself: not to mention the Church's stand on war, poverty, etc.)

[loosechickens]

not to mention the Pope and the U.N. on climate change.......one has to wonder about folks like Rick Santorum who are so quick to jump onto his Church's stand regarding contraceptives and/or gay marriage, (all the sex stuff), while cheerfully ignoring all the stuff on health care, the environment, care for the poor, climate change, etc.....you know, all that stuff that Jesus might have been concerned about.....

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/1104646.htm

[Zoebird]

Jesus did not care about any of that stuff. He only cared about getting souls into heaven by way of tithing and looked forward to the development of gospel music. DUH.

That said, i think the reason my family likes santorum is because he is catholic, nto because he's got great ideas about governance.

[LDAHL]

Speaking of Catholic, it seems the Church is increasingly becoming a major player in how we run our government

The Know Nothings were saying the same thing in the 19th century, and we still don't have inquisitors on our doorsteps. I don't see anything particularly sinister about Churches trying to influence policy; any more than I do about Planned Parenthood, the Heritage Foundation or the Sierra Club trying to do the same thing.

[Gregg]

If you look at a Church as a group of people brought together by similar values and beliefs it makes perfect sense that they would try to influence policy at whatever level correlates to their group's scope. The Catholic Church, being the largest organizations in the world (if not THE largest) is naturally going to try to exert influence at all levels. They've been a major player in western civilization for centuries. No reason that would change now.

[JaneV2.0]

That pesky separation of church and state is just a fleeting annoyance to most, apparently.

But the question remains: why is it that Catholic/Christian candidates and lobby groups are all aflame about issues Jesus never mentioned, like homosexuality and abortion, yet staunchly opposed to most of his teachings on materialism, taking care of the "least among us," the money-changers, etc. and why do Catholic candidates and lobbyists pointedly ignore the Pope's pronouncements along the same lines? (Notice my beef here is with hypocrisy, not lobbying per se.)

[Gregg]

I think the notion of keeping church and state separate is designed mostly to keep the state out of the church, not necessarily the other way around. Any large group can influence policy simply because they have a lot of votes. In the case of the Catholic Church they have a LOT of votes.

As for hypocrisy, human nature might be the simplest and best explanation. The Pope is essentially a political appointee. The participants in a Papal Conclave wouldn't just draw a name out of a hat, the candidates need to have long and distinguished careers moving up the ladder. I can't imagine the process is entirely different than advancing to very high ranks in the US military. Anyway, the leaders of the Catholic Church are immensely powerful men. It makes sense that they would have similar characteristics to people drawn to very powerful positions in government or finance or other captains of industry.