The Santorum Surprise

PJ Media ^ | Roger L. Simon

[throwback]

I hope you're right. I know people just cringe at the word “sin”. I was reading a Bible on a plane once, and the guy next to me started asking me about it. We talked a bit and eventually I handed it to him and encouraged him to read Ecclesiastes thinking that might intrigue him. He was amazed, but then he handed it back to me and said that it was all well and good but he didn't agree with the idea of sin. Too condemning. I explained to him that sin means “missing the target”. That seemed to make it more acceptable. Don't know whatever happened to him. Santorum might succeed, but it will probably be like the guy on the plane.

[JediJones]

Good summation, except Specter didn’t win anything after endorsing Santorum in 2006. Specter won reelection in 2004 then went down in flames in 2010 in the primary after his party-switching scheme. In that case it was the Democrats who erred on the side of purity with their primary vote. Specter definitely would have had a better chance to win against Toomey than Sestak did.

[mamelukesabre]

Lately I’ve been wondering if the two of them have secretly teamed up to beat mitt....with newt playing the part of john wayne and rick the part of jimmy stewart in “the man who shot liberty valance”.

Or something like that.

[JediJones]

I think saying Newt “can’t stick to any one thing” is a stretch too far. He certainly did in 1994. He just has a wealth of ideas now. And he’s done a good job tailoring his message to each state or community he visits. In campaign messaging though, less might be more. So he might need to actually be less ambitious with his ideas and be more repetitive with a smaller number of themes. Each new idea gets excitement but there need to be some specific winning issues that get repeated over and over again. Otherwise people are going to be constantly looking for the next “new” thing which leaves an opening to other candidates to steal the spotlight.

[JediJones]

Or maybe Newt is Obi-Wan Kenobi and Rick is Luke Skywalker. Or Newt is Mr. Miyagi and Rick is the Karate Kid. If there’s one message they’re both sticking to it’s that Mitt isn’t conservative enough. Problem is that’s not going to work in the more liberal/moderate states. They need to focus on something else to stop it from going to a brokered convention. I think they need to start to say he’s a “cold, heartless, unemotional, out-of-touch, insensitive” guy. You can get there with his business record and the gaffes he’s made.

[Houghton M.]

Please. Santorum and other Catholics say that the acts are sinful but the unchosen orientation is not sinful.

When you lump both together under “homosexuality” you make the conservative defense harder. The best evidence (from NARTH) suggests that the causes of the orientation are largely developmental and not freely chosen. Acting upon the urge is freely chosen and therefore sinful.

Gays hate us even for saying that the orientation is disordered but not sinful, not to mention for saying the acts are sinful When you put words in Santorum’s mouth to the effect that the orientation itself is sinful, you unnecessarily undermine our cause.

[throwback]

I refer to homosexuality the same way I would refer to lust in my own case. Unless I submit to it in my own thought or deed, I'm not committing a sin. I take it as a given that if something isn't acted out or even thought of for that matter it can't be a sin committed by an individual because it doesn't exist. This argument that Christians hate the sin, but love the sinner never gets any traction in the pro-homosexual community because they start with the notion that they aren't conceived in sin, so any natural behavior is good. They don't buy a basic premise of Christianity, so you'll never win any friends with that argument, but good luck. I don't believe that I am putting any words in Santorum’s mouth, but you seem to be putting them in mine.