Skip to comments.Why Liberals Should be Nervous about Santorumís Super Tuesday
Posted on 03/07/2012 3:44:17 PM PST by NYer
When I heard yesterday that Sarah Palin was already talking about a potential presidential bid in 2016, I saw the writing on the wall: The Republican establishment isnt even pretending to care about 2012 anymore. That an Obama win seems certain despite Obamas middling approval ratings is an embarrassment to the Republican Party, to be sure. The people in the trenches care, certainly, but the Party bigwigs? Not so much.
Even so, those who are sounding alarms about the end of the Party as we know it need to calm down and remember 2004. By the end of George W. Bushs first term, his approval ratings were also middling. Its true that John Kerrys frontrunner status was clearer by this point in 2004, but its also true that he was a terrible candidate who was never going to become president of the United States. People felt he was stiff, elitist and out of touch with so-called ordinary Americans. He couldnt do either of the two things Americans liked to see in an incumbent: (1) deliver a charismatic stump speech or (2) establish a folksy, we-could-drink-beer-together affect. Sound familiar?
I am convinced that Mitt Romney is filling the same role in 2012 that John Kerry did then: mediocre and bland filler candidate who will not win, but who can minimize embarrassment to the Party, which will double down and groom one or two more serious candidates next time around. And while establishment Republicans and urban Americans may be more comfortable with a business shill (Romney) than a Christian fundamentalist (Santorum), its post-neocon Christian fundamentalists that is, Tea Partiers who have energized the Republican Party since 2008. And in 2012, if you cant even manage to excite the Partys influential evangelical base, youre not going to win.
Thats why those of us who value foundational ideals like the separation of church and state should welcome Romneys inevitable nomination. If it isnt Romney, its going to be the Christian fundamentalist, Rick Santorum. And Rick Santorum might actually win. Unlike Romney, he has growing momentum in his favor. He is comparatively likeable, maybe even charismatic. Plus, the Christian Right is no longer the fringe movement it was in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan teamed up with Jerry Falwell to politicize conservative Christians. It is now one of the most energetic contingents within the Party.
Because of this, I was particularly disgusted when I learned that Michigan liberals prompted by the Daily Kos were turning out the vote for Santorum. And it was all in fun, meant to be hilarious and clever. And it was harmless, right? Because an extremist like Santorum could never assume the Presidency of the United States? Right?
Well, Im sure all the hilarity had Santorum laughing all the way to Super Tuesday. Today, it is impossible to guess how much of an impact so-called Operation Hilarity had on last nights results. All we know is that Santorum continues in the race. And that Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich may drop out of the race any day now, ensuring the possibility of an even more meteoric rise for the one-time joke candidate best known for provoking the ire of Dan Savage. If nothing else, last night made it clear that, even if Romney remains the frontrunner, we will need to start thinking about the possibility that Santorum could secure the nomination.
Rather than continuing to treat Santorum as a joke, we need to consider the real possibility that he could actually become President of the United States. Make no mistake: I still believe that Obama is likely to win the election, even though much can change over the next eight months. But the fact that Santorum could get close should make us all very nervous. Again, because he might win, and in fact, I think he is more likely to win than the current frontrunner, who is universally disliked and energizes no one. Let it roll around in your mind for a moment: Rick Santorum could ascend to our nations Presidency.
Operation Hilarity confirmed what I have intuitively believed for some time: Most liberal Americans do not understand the Christian Right at all. Honestly, I am not even convinced that most conservatives do. Indeed, I find it very hard to believe that the people showing up in droves to support Santorum fully understand his brand of extremism.
Consider that Santorum, more than any other candidate, has pushed to make contraception a matter of national debate in 2012. Contraception. I was rather alarmed when I saw Vyckie Garrison of the popular ex-fundamentalist blog, No Longer Quivering, write, Quiverfull goes mainstream in response to the debate. Quiverfull is a particularly rigid movement within conservative Christianity that pressures families to forego any form of family planning in favor of trusting God to bless you with as many children as he sees fit. And Santorum has made it very clear that he shares Quiverfull ideals about contraception.
But this isnt the quaint conviction of a small fringe group. No, its a worldview steeped in the Dominionist project to take Dominion of the earth for Christ through legal and electoral channels and, when necessary, through force. The American pastors who flirt with the idea of criminalizing LGBT people and who promote it as policy in Africa? Quiverfull. The people who insist that the founding fathers were all evangelical Christians who never intended the separation of church and state? Quiverfull. The people for whom it is controversial for women to go to college and/or work outside the home? Quiverfull. The people who fear that public schools are evil, humanist cesspools that will turn their children against God? Quiverfull Quiverfull Quiverfull.
And as the object of Operation Hilarity, Santorum flirts with Quiverfull ideology all the time. His children are homeschooled. He opposes contraception. He endorses traditional gender roles. He insists that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. And most mainstream Americans write him off as the product of what they think they know about conservative Christianity. They see a man influenced by James Dobson and who cant possibly be all that dangerous.
But Focus on the Family is not what we are talking about when we consider Santorums politics. We should be looking more closely at R.J. Rushdoony, a man little known outside the Christian Right who is nevertheless considered the father of Christian Dominionism, and his writings make Dobson look like a liberal. Its true, as a fundamentalist Calvinist, he would never have trusted Santorums Catholicism. But the base that once supported Michelle Bachmann, who cites Rushdoony as one of her biggest influences, has become galvanized behind Rick Santorum. Rushdoony called for death by hanging for homosexuals and unchaste women in his Institutes of Biblical Law, published in the 1970s. Think about that for a minute. Then, you arrogant Democrat hacks, we can have a chat about how hilarious it would be for Rick Santorum to win the nomination.
9 of the original states had established religions.
The last was disestablished in 1833.
Surely you do not suggest that should be an issue today?
I know there are some Catholics who think that Monarchy is still an acceptable form of government. (An opinion I do not share)
But an establish “faith” in an existing state would seem impossible without absolute subjection. That of course is what the left proposes. Establishment of Atheism as a state religion and Communism as the form of government.
What do you think would happen should any power try to pull that off in Texas?? hee hee hee
-——Im not sure why the author is using the term Christian Fundamentalist-——
Code word for liberals that mean white racist hateful gun loving bible believing patriotic males who want to impose their religion on America
These people don’t actually exist but in tiny numbers, but in the warped mentally diseased minds of liberals they are legion and number in the millions .... Just waiting to take over America ....
It's a complex process. It doesn't favor amatures, even talented ones, but mere competence and good advisers isn't enough either. (Pawlenty, had both but failed. Cain had neither but did pretty well.)
It doesn't matter what the supposed "big wigs" think: there are four peopole who want to be POTUS who are running. Two of them have a chance: Santorum and Romney, though Santorum's chance is small.
Romney really wants to win. He's not there as a place holder for anyone. He took a shot in 2008 and came up short, but finished decently in 2nd or 3rd depending on how you view him compared to Huck. He obviously learned a lot, some breaks came his way (the other moderates were pretty lack luster, there were a lot of conservatives splitting the conservative vote, etc.)
It's way to early to say that Romney isn't going to win. Obama is hated in much of America. I had a 21 year old black girl sneer at me "you're not going to vote for HIM again are you?" at the mere mention of his name.
In general whoever gets the nomination has a 50/50 chance of being President. Bush's elections were both very close. Barry did a bit better, but when you look at the State by State vote, it's obviously going to be a hard sell for him in the electoral college in 2012.
Until the 14th amendment which states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
As a citizen of the United States (national citizen), I have the right (privilege and immunity) to be free from government intrusion in my religion. This national right is also made a state right by the 14th Amendment.
However, I do agree the separation is one-way. The state cannot dictate religion, but religion as a cooperate body and individuals based on religious conviction can and should be allowed the same political rights as secular institutions. Therefore, Planned Parenthood can have a public political voice but so can the Catholic Church.
That's true. Sometimes lately I wish there were such an apparatus. If there were, they might have picked better candidates and groomed them better.
And Santorum a fundamentalist -- a "Christian fundamentalist" no less? I thought he was a Catholic.
"We should be looking more closely at R.J. Rushdoony" even though he and Santorum have nothing in common with each other?
We should be "looking at him" simply because it's a convenient smear to throw at Santorum?
It's not often you see that smear mechanism operating so openly.
IMHO the likelihood of hussein getting a second term drops proportionally to the difference between him and the GOP candidate. There's a huge difference between Rick and hussein. An even greater difference between Newt and hussein, and so little with mit it's not worth mentioning.
What you say is true. However, this line from the first amendment also clearly says that Congress/the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Why is it that so many people don't understand that the government IS prohibiting the free exercise of religion when it (he/they) dictates what citizens can and cannot do and think as part of their religious faith and practice?!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution?
The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution. But it explicitly states there will be no "established" State Religion.
The socialist project has been to cry establishment of religion!!! when they are actually engaged in the censorship of free exercise of religion. The same people who ratified the First Amendment hired chaplains. What the framers, and the public who ratified and reelected the framers, understood by an establishment of a religion is a far cry from what exercises liberals today. An establishment of religion would be a tax supporting a particular Christian denomination at the expense of others. Obama feels no compunction about requiring the largest Christian denominations in the country to pay for people to do things in violation of longstanding religious tenants. It is painfully obvious that he actually intends to make Christians feel aggrieved about what he presumes to force us to do.What is hiding in plain sight all the while is the fact that wire service journalism behaves precisely as a cult. Its reporters are priests, and the newswire is their deity. How else explain their quasi-religious belief in their own objectivity? Subjectivity is best defined, IMHO, precisely as a belief in ones own objectivity - so it would be a miracle indeed if journalists who claimed objectivity actually delivered on the claim. Which patently they do not. If they were objective, the Duke Lacrosse rape case would have dropped out of the headlines within a week, which was ample time for anyone not biased against the privileged, rich, white males to discern that the only thing sustaining the story was precisely self-interested prejudice. But self-interested prejudice sustained that story for months on end, until an adult named Cooper finally showed up and pricked the balloon.
And after the story was punctured, the journalists simply dropped the subject, with no thought to any apology owed to young men who had been placed in serious jeopardy of punishment by journalistic fecklessness. Just like the story after election night 2000 was not the erroneous premature call of FL for Gore while some of the polls were still open in FL. No, the reporters only wanted to talk about the premature correct call of FL for Bush by Fox in the wee hours of the morning, long after the polls had closed and no votes were being influenced. The wire services unify all journalists around the cult of journalistic "objectivity.
And make no mistake about the tendency of the government to make the cult of journalistic objectivity the Establishment in America. You need look no further than Campaign Finance Reform legislation in general and McCain-Feingold in particular to see that wire service journalists are more equal in law than the rest of us. The money spent propagating journalists opinions and reports is pure as the driven snow, you see, while the money you spend promoting the candidacy of your preferred candidate is presumably a corrupt influence dont you know.
Correct. And excellent news for America. I hope very much Santorum wins the nomination and then wins the presidency, but he already accomplished what no conservative candidate could before: He showed that a consistent Christian conservatism, -- the kind that homeschools, the kind that opposes contraception on moral grounds, the kind that intends to bring the Christian worldview into politics where it belongs, -- can credibly contend for the Republican nomination and one day, it shall win.
Completely a piece of trash. Nothing even remotely true in the article. Even the “Operation Chaos” FAILED in Michigan as Romney won. So whatever games they are trying to do these liberals can’t even do that right. Santorum has principles which considering most Americans don’t would scare people to death. Now more than even I hope he wins the Presidency. Man it will be fun to piss off the liberals!!!!!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is it, then, your opinion that the states can make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?
“And as the object of ‘Operation Hilarity,’ Santorum flirts with Quiverfull ideology all the time. His children are homeschooled. He opposes contraception. He endorses traditional gender roles. He insists that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. And most mainstream Americans write him off as the product of what they think they know about conservative Christianity. They see a man influenced by James Dobson”
Wow. I have realized for some time now that I am a tea party person without having ever joined anything. Now I learn I am a part of another movement I’ve never heard of - the Quiverfullers. Cool. Feels nice to belong.
No argument, you are correct.
Obozo has declared war against all Christians, Jews and some other faiths. He has assaulted the Freedom of Religious belief granted by God (not government) and written in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And the founders had foresight enough to require an oath of office for officials that stated they would “protect and defend the Contitution”.
Obozo is a Traitorous Liar, Fraud, Commie, Bastard.
Atheism is the religion of Leftist Statists.
Communism is their preferred form of Subjection.
It is time their little play houses are destroyed.
This time the Christians, Jews and some others must pull together and destroy the enemy who assaults our freedom, economy and our military. IT IS TIME!
Unfortunately many do not perceive the danger we face.
“Is it, then, your opinion that the states can make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?”
Unless the State law prohibits such activities, emphatically yes. The Bill of Rights did not limit the States. The States retained all powers not granted to the feds. That’s why the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law...” That’s pretty unambiguous.
In fact, before WWII, that’s pretty much where things stood according to the Supreme Court also. After that, the Court dreamed up the fiction that the bill of rights was incorporated into the 14th amendment and that the bill of rights therefore, applied as against the states (gross oversimplification alert—but essentially true). “Incorporation” of the Bill of Rights as against the States is a pretty recent notion, consitutionally speaking, with little support in the text or legislative history of the 14th amendment and none at all in the text or history of the original Consitution.
“Surely you do not suggest that [a state establishing religion] should be an issue today?”
Nope. That states had established religions at the time of the Consitution tells you what the founders meant by the Establishment Clause. It meant the feds couldn’t disestablish the states’ religions. It meant the feds couldn’t create their own established religion. It meant the feds were out of the establishment of religion business altogether.
I would not want to try to establish a religion in Texas either. But if you think about it, the Feds are trying to establish the religion of secular humanism in Texas when they force secular humanist notions on other religions. The Catholic church must now obey secular humanist notions about contraception and day after abortion pills. And, make no mistake, secular humanism is a religious belief in the non-existence or unimportance of God and the wonderfulness of Man.
Your reading of the 14th amendment is, of course, consistent with the Warren Court incorporation rulings. I’m not so comfortable with that thinking—it would have been so easy to say “The Bill of Rights applies against the states” as part of the 14th amendment. Yet Congress did not. But in the context of the post-civil-war era, it’s very hard to figure out what Congress meant. It clearly meant to end slavery. But it also clearly didn’t mean that anything a modern progressive could dream up is in the 14th amendment. 14th amendment law is a mess because of the lack of specificity.
Anyone who thinks Palin hinting at a 2016 bid is a sign of anything is deluded or over-interpreting. I’d had the clear sense she was running for the nomination in 2016 (or 2020) from before she took herself out of contention for this round.
>> Consider that Santorum, more than any other candidate, has pushed to make contraception a matter of national debate in 2012.
An involuntary reflex.
It’s great this non-issue has become THE issue.
Santorum is an establishment bit player, and the inability to escape this sideshow is a testament to his lack of competency as it concerns leadership.
I like Rick Santorum. He’s inspiring, a great family man, but not the man that will orchestrate the retaking of the Fundamental Liberty that’s been stolen from the Citizens of the United States.
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.