Santorum’s speech simply repeats the standard positions I’ve heard for many years in conservative evangelical Christian circles. Frankly, when I read speeches like this, I’m more pleased than annoyed by Santorum.
That’s also true about his criticism of higher education which generated a similar article attacking him this week in the New York Times. The only thing I find surprising is that I’m not used to hearing Roman Catholics talk this way. Maybe I need to spend more time paying attention to politically active conservative Catholic intellectuals; Santorum didn’t come up with this on his own and he probably didn’t get this worldview exclusively or even primarily from the Protestant evangelical community.
Unlike the New York Times, I expect the Washington Times and its senior management and emeritus management to understand conservative Christian views.
Pruden is a legitimate conservative leader. I find it difficult to believe he doesn’t know better, but perhaps he’s spent so much time in the secular conservative environment of Washington that “red meat” conservative Christians.
Typo deletion: “Pruden is a legitimate conservative leader. I find it difficult to believe he doesn’t know better, but perhaps he’s spent so much time in the secular conservative environment of Washington that “red meat” conservative Christians (ADD) are not what he’s used to hearing.”
I agree with every “controversial” thing santo has said. And I’ve longed for someone in the public sphere to dare say this stuff. But it seems he’s too in your face and sends the next one out before the liberal press has finished chewing on the first one, and each comment becomes a trite liberal soundbite against him, and it all only helps Romney.
A candidate’s conservatism has to be SOMEWHAT digestible. It has to be properly explained. If the average American understood it, he’d agree. But he is only hearing the extreme spin, the Saintorum, the late night comedy jokes.