If Santorum gets the big Mo out of Iowa, and that’s a big if, it will guarantee Romney’s victory...
It may not matter, if Romney comes in first in Iowa, all the buzz will be about that and he’ll become extremely difficult to stop.
Evangelicals are going to screw us.
“Evangelicals are going to screw us.”
That is entirely uncalled for and you need to retract it.
Evangelicals are going to screw us.
Santorum is a Roman Catholic, but thanks for insulting me and 26% or so of the U.S. population. Thanks a whole lot.
So you have a problem with "Evangelicals," i.e. the Faithful?
Kiss my pasty rump. Santorum and Romney will rise and fall on their own merits.
Santorum is a Catholic.
“Evangelicals are going to screw us.”
How so? They have a strategy of spreading their votes around. Give everybody some support.
I hear you and get what you’re saying, but isn’t it also fair to blame the candidates themselves?
All of theem have had ample opportunity to make their case. All of them have had big leads at one time. And none of them have been able to hold it.
I mean, you can’t blame Santorum’s recent surge for the fact that Perry once led by like 20 pts in IA and is now on the verge of being a non-factor. You can’t blame Santorum or the evangelicals for the fact that Newt only recently had a big lead and saw it frittered all away.
The fact is none of them have been able to close the deal.
I also blame some of the evangelical leaders and other elected officials. If someone like Vander Plaats and the others had endorsed Newt a few weeks ago maybe he’s still on top and doing much better. If Steve King endorsed someone, or Branstad, maybe that helps. Same with Huckabee. Or Demint. Maybe if Rush had endorsed someone. But none of them did. They all hung back and let Romney run right through. but at the end of the day, isn’t up to one of the candidates to just make their case and close the deal? Always be closing.
It’s disappointing that none of the field was able to grab the brass ring.
Who knows, maybe it’s not too late for someone else.
Gotta love that logic [sic]. Evangelicals are going to screw us by voting for someone other than Mitt Romney. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Why are you so intent on attacking and undercutting the conservative candidates?
>> “Evangelicals are going to screw us.” <<
.
You’re insane.
No, TBBT, attitudes like that by secular conservatives risk provoking us into taking our eyes off the real enemy, thus creating a circular firing squad in which different types of conservatives fight each other instead of fighting liberals.
As Sola Veritas posted in #10 on Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:37:37 PM: “That is entirely uncalled for and you need to retract it.”
RecoveringPaulisto, Timber Rattler, and txhurl also challenged you on your bigoted anti-Christian comment. You refused to do so at Post #15. I expect that sort of thing from leftists. It should not be happening on a conservative site.
Unfortunately, it does happen, and happens far too often. I'm going to call you out and hope you think really hard about how your attitudes damage the broader conservative movement by causing unnecessary fights.
TXHurl correctly pointed out that fiscal conservatives, military conservatives and social conservatives are the three-legged stool of the modern American conservative movement. Apparently TBBT wants to kick out the social conservatives. That warrants a response. I wrote much of this on another thread but I'm going to repeat it here.
You and some others on this thread may wish that evangelical Republicans weren't a factor in our party, but we are. Get used to it. Reagan wouldn't have won without us and without conservative blue-collar Catholics, and both of these conservative Christian groups are a major part of the modern Republican coalition whether you like it or not.
I was a Republican and a conservative before I was converted, I know the vicious animosity that sometimes exists in secular conservative circles toward evangelicals, and I'm going to tell you, point blank: attitudes like that lose elections.
I have to put up with secular Republican conservatives and others whose views I don't like because the goal is to win in November, and in American politics with a winner-take-all system, we can't win as evangelicals or conservative Catholics without the help of other conservatives who don't share our emphasis on moral values. You and others who don't like us need to pay attention to the fact that you need us to win against President Obama just as much as we need you for that same goal.
You may not like that. Fine. Go figure out how to win an election without most of the South, and without the ethnic Roman Catholic voters in key swing states. Figure out how to win Florida without Cuban voters, who are mostly Roman Catholic.
As evangelicals, apart from the Bible Belt and certain parts of the rural North, we can't win elections without you secular conservatives. Most of us know that. Likewise, conservative Roman Catholics can't win without evangelical and secular conservative support outside of Florida, some parts of Texas, and some other parts of the Southwest.
Put bluntly, TBBT, if we conservative evangelicals and conservative Catholics can learn how to get along in the right-to-life movement for the purpose of saving babies, despite hundreds of years of fighting since the Reformation, what's your excuse?
Modern anti-religious conservatism is a Johnny-Come-Lately with seeds in followup response to the French Revolution. It grew into some very bad forms of robber-baron capitalism which eschewed the Christian imperative for employers to treat their workers as they would want to be treated, and the loss of Christian values among economic conservatives in the 1800s was a major factor in the rise of Communism.
I happen to have major problems with anti-religious immoral conservatives whose sole goal is making money, but you won't hear me making broad-brush accusations like that on Free Republic or anywhere else against economic conservatives as a group. I won't be making those accusations against individuals, either, unless I'm absolutely certain the accusation fits the specific person.
My religion says I need to treat you fairly. Be glad. In my pre-conversion days, the language out of my mouth would have been filthy and I would have accused you of things that probably aren't true merely to discredit your person as well as your views.
As a Christian I know you are entitled to fair treatment and to have your views rebutted with logic and not personal attacks. Remember, the goal is to defeat President Obama, not to attack each other.