Posted on 02/18/2012 4:23:55 PM PST by Mariner
(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum challenged President Barack Obama's Christian beliefs on Saturday, saying White House policies were motivated by a "different theology."
A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using "political science" in the debate about climate change.
Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology," Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.
When asked about the statement at a news conference later, Santorum said, "If the president says he's a Christian, he's a Christian."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Or maybe it’s cause his Romneycare is the template for Obamacare?
Or, like Kerry, he’ll say anything... flip-flopping left and right?
Those don’t matter to you?
Do you not think that Santorum knows that the country is having troubles financially? This is a Republican primary where social issues are extremely important. He will be ready when Obama is his opponent. Not to worry. Santorum has been doing what he needs to get the nomination and then the economy will be discussed. This guy has the nomination as long as he continues doing EXACTLY what he is doing right now. Obviously what he is doing is working as more and more folks are added to his support numbers.
Why, that's funny...here you mention how values based on...say the Bible has no place when...how did you put it? (Oh yeah..."applauded as the major reason why you should be President, instead of an idea about the actual system of government.")
Why is that "funny?"
Because I seemed to have thought that one of things most despicable to a majority of voters is a certain candidate whose "idea about the actual system of government" was based upon ideas exactly opposite -- and foreign -- to the Bible: Socialism!
So apparently, if a candidate focuses on socialistic atheistic values antithetical to the Bible...now that's a candidate to embrace...but if the opposing candidate zeroes in a few minutes of actual time over the length of a campaign on actually mentioning God and Biblical values...run! Duck! Hide!
You guys are trying to act as if Santorum doesn’t campaign on religious and social issues. He does.
#1...Issues like porn and pro-life matters doesn't have to have a religious base. (You don't have to be "religious" or embrace the 10 Commandments, for example, to be against murder...These days, ya just need to have access to an ultrasound machine).
If a candidate integrates Biblical values into his social issues, so what? What why would "social issues" automatically HAVE to be theologically based?
It doesn't. So what's your point in consistently injecting "social issues" in this discussion of theology?
Your seeming point is that I called you on how you've claimed in post #10 that Santorum campaign seems to (only) have a religious/social foundation.
We've never denied on this thread that Santorum doesn't integrate his faith into his campaign. That's different than saying an entire CAMPAIGN is based ONLY upon religion and social issues.
YOU are the one who has to prove your straw man from post #10, and you haven't done that! The 18 points on Santorum issues' page alone denies your claim!
So prove your statement in post #10 or give it a recall or revision.
Santorum will have to pry my PR0N from my cold, dead hands.
:-P
I remember that well, and thought at the time it was most childish.
So was I.
My point was...going all the way back thru all GOP popular-vote elections...in fact, going all the way back to 1844...15 of the 40 POTUS elections were won by men who didn't win the "majority" of voters.
Clinton in '92 and Nixon in '68 won with 43%.
Abraham Lincoln won in 1860 with less than 40%.
George Bush won in 2000 with less than 48%.
(IOW, you don't necessarily need a "majority" of actual voters from a given election)
This election, the "anti" #s are high enough on ALL of the 5 candidates -- including Obama -- that any ONE of them will have trouble securing 45% of the actual voters who vote.
(That's what I meant by you setting the bar higher than what might be required to win...And, don't forget that a POTUS candidate could actually lose the popular vote and win on electoral votes...making even a popular-vote win unnecessary)
You were right.
This is not what I want to fight about. A quick skim of the comments to the article indicate this was not a smart comment by Santorum.
The rumblings I hear of a third centers around Ron Paul which I think MAY split evenly across democrat and republican voters.
RICK: "as long as they learn English" "If that means more immigrants from Mexico, fine."
Guess who pays to teach them. I'm sorry but if Mexico is to fix its broken society problem, it is they who need their educated not us.
Isn't it curious how each candidate "loses steam" one after another? And each time, the conservative "base" dumps the one and chases the other. Seems to me that the GOP-E and the MSM have played the conservative base like a fiddle. It's too bad those in the "conservative base" are so damned gullible.
I'm hoping for a brokered convention. I can't support Romney or Santorum and I'm not willing to be led around like sheep to a slaughter.
No but that's what the media is going to make it about. Once again we are letting them define and therefore select our candidate. They're hanging out at every event to grab every word and turn it to their advantage.
Though I'm sad to see so many here fall into their trap, I'm sure the majority of voters will also buy into the "news".
“Why, that’s funny...here you mention how values based on...say the Bible has no place when...how did you put it? (Oh yeah...”applauded as the major reason why you should be President, instead of an idea about the actual system of government.”)”
Wow, way to go to utterly distort what I was saying just so you can accuse me of being an anti-Christian. Like I said, this is all about religion, feeling good, looking good, having family photos taken. Platform is secondary. And if we don’t like it, off to hell for us.
“Because I seemed to have thought that one of things most despicable to a majority of voters is a certain candidate whose “idea about the actual system of government” was based upon ideas exactly opposite — and foreign — to the Bible: Socialism!”
The difference is when you make your religion the reason why you claim to deserve the Presidency.
It needs to be about ideas. We are not electing the Pope, or a daddy, or a Priest. He needs to run on actual bold ideas. He doesn’t. He’s too busy pandering to us using social and religious talking points.
Last I checked, Newt is a Catholic too.
So are we going to argue that Saint Rick is a better Catholic, and so he deserves the Presidency more? Who the heck is he preaching to? The choir. Why? Because he doesn’t have the ideas to go head to head with Newt’s platform.
“If a candidate integrates Biblical values into his social issues, so what? What why would “social issues” automatically HAVE to be theologically based?”
We’re dealing with massive debt, a system of government that is unsustainable, and pornography leads his Issues page.
It’s a matter of priority.
“YOU are the one who has to prove your straw man from post #10, and you haven’t done that! The 18 points on Santorum issues’ page alone denies your claim!”
The style and feel of his campaign is so obvious, that it takes someone who is far too eager to accuse people of being anti-Christian in order to justify it.
Nice reductionism.
Prove that his campaign is those four components -- and those four alone.
(You can't)
You & Mariner are running neck & neck for the "FREEPER Strawmen of the Year award"
You create straw man caricatures & then go after that.
I don’t want ANY President’s agenda based on the bible. I want it based on the Constitution and the powers granted to it by Section 1.
There are unfit Catholics, and unfit Protestants, those claiming their beliefs only in name. We are not provided from heaven for 100% Christian genuine stamps to be stamped on our head, and have no way to verify each individual. There are always corruption and abuse of ideology in any society. There are Catholics in Free Republic that are with the conservatives, as well as the Protestants. We should not rely too much on generalization that defines the entire entity, branch of Church because of small groups of corrupted apostates within.
While there may be various definitions of the Right Wing and Patriotism, religious beliefs are bonded with the ideology of American conservatism. Both terms are synonyms, but not the same. There are consevatives who decide on familiy and religious values, and that is why Romney continues to be unfavorable. Pro-business Capitalists fall towards the Right, whatever belief, but there are conservative voters who have religious values as priority ahead of economy, and could not be ignored for the ratio it is responsible for votes going to a Republican candidate. If you do not act cautious of your replies, you will end up being classified as stealth Romney supporter, atheist, and will be zotted from above.
While there may be various definitions of the Right Wing and Patriotism, religious beliefs are bonded with the ideology of American conservatism. Both terms are synonyms, but not the same. There are consevatives who decide on familiy and religious values, and that is why Romney continues to be unfavorable. Pro-business Capitalists fall towards the Right, whatever belief, but there are conservative voters who have religious values as priority ahead of economy, and could not be ignored for the ratio it is responsible for votes going to a Republican candidate. If you do not act cautious of your replies, you will end up being classified as stealth Romney supporter, atheist, and will be zotted from above.
I doubt I’ll be zotted for pointing out that Santorum’s campaign is more huff and puff with Family Image pandering. A few people around here can’t see the difference between pointing that out and being an atheist, but I can live with that.
This isn’t about social issues not being important. It’s about huff and puff family image replacing a real debate on ideas.
My only conclusion is that this type of a candidacy is dangerous, since it isn’t terribly deep and is unlikely to manage through the general where people are going to need to be united under economic issues as opposed to worrying about pornography, or moral questions like whether or not sex outside of marriage is okay and whether or not we care if the President is preaching about it.
Last I checked, we already have pastors and priests, most of us, who can preach to us if we like. I don’t think a Daddy President is going to sell.
That’s my essential point, but people insist it’s something that it isn’t.
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.