Why Liberals Should be Nervous about Santorum’s Super Tuesday

Global Comment ^ | March 8, 2012 | Kristin Rawls

[NYer]

Consider that Santorum, more than any other candidate, has pushed to make contraception a matter of national debate in 2012.

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[ClearCase_guy]

Santorum, more than any other candidate, has pushed to make contraception a matter of national debate in 2012.

Obama is a candidate also.

Stephanopoulos brought the topic up at the debate in January. Obviously, he was told to do so by the White House. Then Obama jumped in with governmental action that shoved contraception down people's throats.

But -- sure! -- let's just say that Santorum made this an issue.

[johnd201]

Just one problem with this article: Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution? (hint... it doesn’t say it anywhere.) Otherwise a nice article.

[gogogodzilla]

He’s got a point... Specially for the Democrats voting in our primaries.

[johnd201]

Just one problem with this article: Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution? (hint... it doesn’t say it anywhere.) Otherwise a nice article.

[skeeter]

Lessee if FR’s Rick haters can resist the temptation to jump on this thread and join Kristin in denouncing ‘Santorum’s brand of extremism’.

[cripplecreek]

Yeow, where to begin.

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.

I'm not a Catholic or even a particularly good Christian and I agree with pretty much everything there but the contraception thing but I am smart enough to know that he isn't intending to outlaw my choice on the matter. I'd Love to hear the writer's description of what "mainstream Americans" are.

[ClearCase_guy]

In my experience, when the media talks about "mainstream Americans" they are referring to people who expect abortion on demand, confiscatory taxes for anyone except themselves, no death penalty, all guns outlawed, ban on Christian sentiment expressed in public, and prohibition of all fossil fuels ...

... You know: the stuff that everyone agrees on -- mainstream, middle-of-the-road, Motherhood and apple pie stuff.

[Texas Fossil]

Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution. But it explicitly states there will be no "established" State Religion.

[Williams]

I am sick of stupid commentators saying Obama is likely to win. He is not. Many Americans are desperate to vote him out. I stop reading when I see that crap. No one can prognosticate that in March the election is 250 days away!

[Zhang Fei]

She’s clueless. Kerry’s persona was that of the gold-digger and creepy lothario, whereas Romney’s image is that of the self-made business tycoon and devoted family man. While Santorum is my guy, my sense is that his gloomy gus persona is even less charismatic than Romney’s. In both cases we’re relying on candidates with clean personal backgrounds to carry the day. My hope is that Santorum will galvanize the Catholic and Italian American vote on the basis of pure identity politics - the second Catholic and first Italian American to have a shot at the White House.

[elcid1970]

“Quiverfull”

Never heard of ‘em. But if the liberal blogger who wrote this is fearful of them, I’m going to learn more.

AOBTW, the GBLTs (pronounced `giblets’) are powerful, well organized, and not afraid to demand noncriticism and acceptance for their group identity defined by the manner of their perverted body plumbing practices.

Rick Santorum campaign ad:

“NOBODY expects the Pennsylvania Inquisition!”

If lefties are scared he might win, that’s good. That’s very good.

[ModelBreaker]

“”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The phrase “Separation of Church and State” is not in the constitution. But it explicitly states there will be no “established” State Religion.”

But the language says “Congress.” Several states had “established” religions at the time and continued to have them after the passage of the bill of rights. Other states did not. The establishment clause means just what it says: “Congress [the Feds]” can’t do anything in the area of establishment of religion. OTOH, the state governments, are free to establish or disestablish a religion (see the 10th amendment).

This is completely consistent with the context of “establishment of religion” language—the English Civil War (the word “antidisestablishmentarianism” comes out of that conflict and refers to folks who were against dis-establishing the Church of England).

So it’s fair to say that the 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion. But the states were allowed to and did. And the feds weren’t allowed to interfere.

Numerous quotes from the authors of the Bill of Rights may be found to support this rather clear interpretation of the 1st amendment.

[Kandy Atz]

I’m not sure why the author is using the term Christian Fundamentalist. Is that supposed to be the new boogeyman? Is a Christian Fundamentalist any more frightening than a Mormon, Atheist, Marxist, or even a follower of Black Liberation theology?

I am very active in Christian circles, write for several sites and support a multitude of ministries. I have never read an article or heard a sermon about the Church instituting a theocracy in the US, or even hinting at a desire to do so. But I have heard many Pastors who support a limited government. When the government is forcing individuals, organizations and even churches to make immoral decisions, they have become a state religion.

Since the country owes the very freedoms we had to a largely Christian group of Founders and political leaders, the Church is no threat to freedom.

In fact, I have no fear of people who love God. However, I have great concern about those in government that think they are god.

[hosepipe]

[ I am sick of stupid commentators saying Obama is likely to win. He is not. Many Americans are desperate to vote him out. I stop reading when I see that crap. No one can prognosticate that in March the election is 250 days away! ]

True... Obama hasnt even started spending the BILLION in his campaign coffers YET..
The brain wash hasnt even started yet..
Not to speak of the massive FREE sound bites and photo ops he will get.. on TV Mags Radio and the internet..

Could be you are ignorant of the duplicity corruption and self centered american public..
They elected Zero with gusto and refuse to see “the Truth”..

American women are generally dumb politically as posts..
The democrats have and will continue to “MINE” this stupidity.. both with men and women..

To AMerica it will be the proverbially rich guy(Romney)[capitalist] greed monger ..versus.. the po old darky, put upon nappy headed socialist with good intentions..

If you think 60% of AMerica are NOT eye rolling droolers politically you are a PollyAnna.. American colleges have been graduating stone Socialists for decades.. And republicans whom sent their kids to such schools could care less..

The chickens have home to roost and I’m not sure they are chickens anymore..
They have evolved into drug addled self centered parasites bent on getting what others produced..
Like Vampires, Tape-Worms or Ticks/fleas even Intestinal worms..

You want to play the Glad game?... i.e. PollyAnna

[cripplecreek]

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?

That's not quite the whole story. Romney was counting on those votes for himself and had people going door to door asking for them. My liberal sister in Livonia said that the Romney people told her that they didn't care if she was a democrat as long as she was willing to help stop Santorum's "extreme agenda". My union aunt was complaining of all the Romney calls she was getting too.

Its also important to note that it was primarily Romney supporters in Michigan who fought to keep the primary open. Our governor, Rick Snyder was interviewed on election night and complained about Santorum's "dirty tricks". What he didn't say was that he himself is only in office due to democrat crossovers voting for him. At the end of the interview he said that he wants the primary to be kept open. Now why would he want the primary to remain open in the face of dirty tricks? At the end of the day, Romney won the most liberal areas of the state and Santorum won the conservative areas.

Also of importance is the fact that the Michigan GOP is largely owned by the SEIU and were angry that they were outplayed at their own game.

See post #9 for clear evidence of GOP SEIU connections

Its also important for republicans to remember that Michigan is a forced union state. That means that plenty of conservatives are forced into unions but that doesn't make us liberal. I myself did several years in the AFL-CIO but have never been anything but a rock solid conservative. I live in a rural area and have plenty of UAW neighbors who are just as conservative as I am. Ronald Regan specifically targeted union democrats here in Michigan and they became the core of the Reagan democrats. In 08, Duncan Hunter tried to speak to the UAW but was shut out by union leadership. Hunter is as rock solid conservative as they come.

Its important to note that there is a conservative movement growing within the private sector UAW and they actually walk the walk. The head of the conservative UAW group (Terry Bowman) actually testified against union political fundraising on capitol hill last month. If the GOP doesn't capitalize on union conservatives they are stupid. Personally I'd rather see them talking to private sector unionists than pandering to the public sector unions and illegal aliens.

UAW Member: Union Workers 'Need to Embrace' Right-to-Work Laws

[cripplecreek]

Another FReeper proposes that we get into the habit of using the term “Protection of church from state”.

Its accurate.

[cynwoody]

Just one problem with this article: Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution?

I don't think that's the point she's trying to make.

She's trying to warn fellow libtards that Rick is gaining and might actually win the nomination if Gingrich and Paul drop out. She figures the 'tards are safe if Mittens is the nominee. But she's not so sure if Rick is. She's afraid he might catch on with the sheeple.

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 nation’s Presidency.

[Retired Greyhound]

Same as when the media talks about “Independents”, they are usually referring to white, middle-class suburbanites who tend to be on the socially liberal side. Romney will do better with these voters than Santorum.

However, there is another, larger group of blue-collar Independents, once known as Reagan Democrats. These are the people that Santorum appeals to in Appalachia and the Midwest.