Posted on 02/18/2012 11:09:26 AM PST by Steelfish
You are right on. The reason Santorum lost by so much in 2006 were people were turned off by his overzealous, sanctimonious views on religion. Period. His book ‘It Takes a Family’ had just come out.
Would he have won in a bad year for Repubs? Probably not. But sitting Senators do not lose by 19 points (to weak opponents) in a state that is more purple than blue.
During this same election, Snowe won in (blue) Maine with 74%, Ensign in (swing) Nevada with 55%.
The idea that he can win in swing states (after losing by 19 most recently) does not pass the smell test.
Not a good time to tell the truth? Seems Rick is the only politician not afraid of Obama. Obama is a muslim out to destroy our economy. Why aren’t you all saying it - every day?
What exactly did Santorum manage in his life, other than his Congressman’s office in Washington?
He has a fuzzy idea, just like Obama, about a president’s work. WHO needs another dilettante in the White House? It would be catastrophic.
You do understand that the headline is inaccurate, and his statement was not about Obama’s personal faith, but about his policies, right?
It’s just the media which will twist anything conservatives say to fit their narrative, and when they can’t misquote, they just make up headlines and hope people don’t read the articles.
Not that I’m saying YOU didn’t read the article, I watched you go off on another freeper and I don’t want you to attack me for not bowing to your tremendous intellect and all.. :-)
You wrote: “Heck, all he has to do is put Eric Metaxas’ remarks during the NPB. Just make that theme his own.”
bttt - EXACTLY:
A powerful indictment against the Marxist “Scripture quoters”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2845720/posts?page=55#55
Brother Loves Traveling Salvation Show is playing right into Obama’s hands. Conservatives better start paying attention. This is not an election for POTUS, Preacher of the United States. Social issues are not the problems right now, getting a Marxist out of office is.
I agree that we are not electing a pastor or spouse.
We are electing, hopefully, someone capable of beating back an internal communist take over of the USA.
None of our candidates will speak directly to this though, which is a bit hard to understand.
I can vote for Rick, though I’m not sure he can win. I have already voted for Newt here in FL. but my state is totally unpredictable and stupid.
I thought I could vote for Romney in the event that he does get the nomination, but you know, I don’t think I can, the man disgusts me, and he is a true dunder f**k head of a politician who routinely shoots himself in the foot then eats his own foot then shoots his other foot.
Furthermore, his campaign slogan which seems to be “Barack Obama doesn’t know how to fix America, I do”, is utterly meaningless. Obama’s job is not to fix America, it is to destory it from within, and by God, he is succeeding.
“What exactly did Santorum manage in his life, other than his Congressman’s office in Washington?
He has a fuzzy idea, just like Obama, about a president’s work. WHO needs another dilettante in the White House? It would be catastrophic.”
As I am sure you surmised, like you, I am not a Santorum supporter. I can’t entirely disagree with you except to say that:
1) Santorum would be better, relatively speaking, than the current occupant of the White House.
2) The only Republican candidate with any real executive experience is Romney and THAT would be catastrophic because we have seen how he governs.
Neither of those options leaves me very enthusiastic or optimistic.
Besides, there’s never been a president named ‘Rick’ or a Saint Rick. Oh, wait, I take that back, there was a Rick Nixon!
“Seems Rick is the only politician not afraid of Obama.”
No , really?
In October 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzkXkY5wNmg&feature=related
March, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tllabQjCB7s
In April 2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPfPau4M9Rk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESG9IrOjX7c&feature=related
I can go on and on and on ....
You wrote: “...Based purely on obama’s sentor/presidential record, Santorum is 100% right. Adding in the Rev. Wright crapola and obama’s own words from that interview just adds more evidence to that theory. obama’s agenda is not based on Biblical principles. Now whether it sells to voters....I don’t know.”
Of course, “whether it sells to voters....I don’t know” is the BIG question.
“This article [”United We Sit on the Couch”] summarizes a few of the areas of truly irreconcilable conflict, irreconcilable because their differing first principles can under no circumstances be brought into harmony — any more than one could harmonize, say, the logical principle of non-contradiction with its converse (although [we] understand that the two modes of logic actually exist harmoniously in vertical consciousness, where symmetrical logic rules the night.” ~ Robert W. Godwin, Ph.D Forensic Clinical Psychologist http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2012/02/eradicating-cosmic-law-at-moral-root.html
The Article discussed at the link above:
United We Sit on the Couch
by Guy Somerset — February 10, 2012
http://takimag.com/article/united_we_sit_on_the_couch/print#axzz1lwtQMqan
<>//<>
My note:
The above article is also an indictment of those (in denial) who think that merely sitting in one’s PJ’s on the couch being “keyboard cowboys” and “voting the right way”, gets anything OF CONSEQUENCE done. The only time politicians ever listen to “conservatives”, is when we demand they do. Currently, we are still outnumbered in Congress, etc., because of these types of mentalities.
Because of that fact, they laugh in our faces and do as they damn well please (on both sides of the aisle), because they know at least 1/2 of the country has been co-opted into being government dependents and have no choice but to vote for Left-wing DemocRATS and RINOS -(that they like to pretend are “moderates -just like them”)— if they want to continue to ride the gravy-train, living at the expense of the other 1/2 (at least until they kill that “golden goose”, like they’ve killed all the others).
Obama and the DemocRATS (like all Communists) have made it their business to appear as “a Santa Claus to the ‘workin’ man’”. “Santa Claus” will always win the vote of those described by the author of “The Bell Curve”, Charles Murray.
His new book, “Coming Apart” explains them in detail with invincible facts and statistics. “Over the past 50 years, the working class have lost their industriousness, honesty, religion, and respect for marriage, and he presents a bunch of data to bolster this argument (eg, less than 5% of college educated white women have children out of wedlock, but 40% of white women without college do ...” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2843097/posts?page=21#21
Today, women have no need for the father of their children to be a proper husband and a father. Why should they? As long as they stay unmarried, they get “victim-status Santa Claus checks” every month from the “golden-goose” tax-payers who are FORCED by government coercion to provide for them. And the new castrati-in-denial, who laughingly still dare to think of themselves as “men”, merely move in with these air-heads, and ride that gravy train right along with them. After all, “Why buy the cow when you get the milk for nothin’”, and get to share in the air-head’s Santa Claus checks to boot? bttt
“Brother Loves Traveling Salvation Show is playing right into Obama’s hands. Conservatives better start paying attention. This is not an election for POTUS, Preacher of the United States. Social issues are not the problems right now, getting a Marxist out of office is.”
I couldn’t agree more.
That’s just ... GREAT.
You should post it on ALL the election threads.
You wrote: “Brother Loves Traveling Salvation Show is playing right into Obama’s hands. Conservatives better start paying attention. This is not an election for POTUS, Preacher of the United States. Social issues are not the problems right now, getting a Marxist out of office is.”
“Marxism” is a POLITICAL RELIGION ie: “Social Issues”.
WSJ
WONDER LAND
FEBRUARY 9, 2012, 9:51 A.M. ET By DANIEL HENNINGER
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577211280758375336.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Transformers
The Catholic church learns the true meaning of Obama’s ‘transformative’ presidency.
Pope John Paul II, surveying from his seat in the eternal hereafter the battle between the American Catholic Church and the Obama administration over mandated contraception services, must be permitting himself a sad smile. The pope knew more than most about the innate tensions between the state and its citizens.
The Obamaites will object that it is unfair to liken their government to the Communist Party of Poland.
That is not the point.
What the former Karol Wojtyla knew is that any state will claim benevolence on behalf of doing whatever it thinks it needs to do in pursuit of its goals.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney invoked the good in defense of the Obama law’s universal reach: “The administration decidedthe president agrees with this decisionthat we need to provide these services that have enormous health benefits for American women and that the exemption that we carved out is appropriate.”
The American Catholic Church, from left to right, is now being handed a lesson in the hierarchy of raw political authority.
One hopes they and their supporters will recognize that they have not been singled out.
The federal government’s forcings routinely touch other groups in this countryschools, doctors, farmers, businesses.
The church’s fight is not the whole or the end of it.
Since he appeared, no other word has been invoked more often to describe Barack Obama’s purposes than “transformative.”
Last year, Mr. Obama began to be criticized by some of his supporters for being insufficiently transformative while holding the powers of the presidency—this despite passing the biggest social entitlement since 1965, an $800 billion stimulus bill, raising federal spending to 24% of GDP and passing the Dodd-Frank restructuring of the U.S. financial industry.
Naturally an interviewer this week asked Mr. Obama why he hadn’t been more “transformative.” The president replied that he deserved a second term, because “we’re not done.”
In term two, it will be Uncle Sam, Transformer.
For many years, Catholic Charities U.S.A. has taken federal money to enlarge its budget. The people who run the Catholic Church, though not everyone in the pews, thought this was a good bargain.
Here is the head of Catholic Charities, in 1997, describing the relationship: “We have been partners with government to help government do what it wants to do and what we believe it should do.”
This 1997 statement was in response to criticism leveled at Catholic Charities back then by freshman U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania , who attacked the organization for its opposition to welfare-reform legislation. Mr. Santorum said welfare hurt rather than helped poor families.
Over decades, this deal with the federal government didn’t change, even as Catholic bishops closed churches and parochial schools across the country for lack of funds.
Here is Sr. Carol Keehan’s statement when the House in 2009 passed the Obama health-care bill with only one Republican aye vote:
“The Catholic Health Association applauds the U.S. House of Representatives and President Obama for enacting health care legislation that will bring security and health to millions of American families.”
Let the record show that the Catholic bishops opposed the legislation, fearing a conflict with the church’s beliefs.
So here we are, with the government demanding that the church hold up its end of a Faustian bargain that was supposed to permit it to perform limitless acts of virtue.
Instead, what the government believes the deal is about, more than anything else, is compliance.
Politically bloodless liberals would respond that, net-net, government forcings do much social good despite breaking a few eggs, such as the Catholic Church’s First Amendment sensibilities.
That is one view.
But the depth of anger among Catholics over this suggests they recognize more is at stake here than political results.
They are right.
The question raised by the Catholic Church’s battle with ObamaCare is whether anyone can remain free of a U.S. government determined to do what it wants to do, at whatever cost.
Older Americans have sought for years to drop out of Medicare and contract for their own health insurance. They cannot without forfeiting their Social Security payments.
They effectively are locked in.
Nor can the poor escape Medicaid, even as the care it gives them degrades.
Farmers, ranchers and loggers struggled for years to protect their livelihoods beneath uncompromising interpretations of federal environmental laws. They, too, had to comply.
University athletic programs were ground up by the U.S. Education Department’s rote, forced gender balancing of every sport offered.
With the transformers, it never stops.
In September, the Obama Labor Department proposed rules to govern what work children can do on farms.
After an outcry from rural communities over the realities of farm traditions, the department is now reconsidering a “parental exemption.” Good luck to the farmers.
The Catholic Church has stumbled into the central battle of the 2012 presidential campaign: What are the limits to Barack Obama’s transformative presidency?
The Catholic left has just learned one answer: When Mr. Obama says, “Everyone plays by the same set of rules,” it means they conform to his rules.
What else could it mean?
Anyone who signs up for more of this deal by assuming that it will never force them to fall into line is getting what they deserve.
You wrote: “Obama HAS a faith. It is called “Liberation theology.” It serves as a guide for political action. Just as Santorum’s faith serves him, and Romney’s serves him, as a basis of political action, so, too Obama’s. Call it an ideology, in Obama’s case, if that makes you happy, but it is where Obama is coming from. It behooves us all to know about a candidate’s background. It enables us to predict his actions, at least to a certain degree. Each person’s faith is a private matter only to the extent that it does not affect public matters....”
Exactly. bttt
Most every destructive [ECONOMIC] policy put into place by the left can be traced to some Christian virtue gone mad i.e., feed the hungry, so steal from “the rich” and call it “giving,” or defending abortion on the basis of the sanctity of “liberty,” or encouraging every manner of deviancy under the guise of “tolerance.” [snip] - Here: Life Amidst the Postmodern Ruins http://tinyurl.com/9zqgwb
<>
Excerpts From Pacem In Terris: Peace on Earth Encyclical of Pope John XXIII,
On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
“Man’s personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man’s progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom.”
“Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings.”
“Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since ‘it is right to obey God rather than men.’”
<>
Here’s Barack Obama [Youtube link below] musing about how best to redistribute wealth in America in a Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001.
Not whether, but how: Through the courts or through legislation?
A caller asks him to explain how he would do “reparative economic work.” Obama gives the legislative route two thumbs up as his preferred method of “breaking free of the constraints” placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and then burbles about cobbling together the “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”
STACLU has transcribed the choice parts of the interview:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
The bottom line from Jeff Goldstein: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/
<>
Thomas Jefferson: A Wise and Frugal Government
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/EM724.cfm
“To compel a man to furnish moneys for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is tyranny and a great sin.
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. First Inaugural Address.
We have enough issues to clubber Obama with, than to blather about his faith.
A few examples:
+ $6 trillion deficit in one term (more than Bush in 8 years, $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush)
Real unemployment rate - 16.8% (versus 5.7% in 2008)
Obamacare, which will increase spending by more than $2 trillion from 2014 to 2023.
Medicare will be bankrupt and collapse in 2014
No budget in FOUR years. Last year he presented to the Senate such a ridiculous one, that it failed with 97 votes to 0.
Would you like me to continue?
Meanwhile what is Santorum doing? Discussing “the angels’ gender” ... Pathetic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.