Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
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 isn’t even pretending to care about 2012 anymore. That an Obama win seems certain despite Obama’s 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. Bush’s first term, his approval ratings were also middling. It’s true that John Kerry’s frontrunner status was clearer by this point in 2004, but it’s 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 couldn’t 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), it’s post-neocon Christian fundamentalists – that is, Tea Partiers – who have energized the Republican Party since 2008. And in 2012, if you can’t even manage to excite the Party’s influential evangelical base, you’re not going to win.
That’s why those of us who value foundational ideals like the separation of church and state should welcome Romney’s inevitable nomination. If it isn’t Romney, it’s 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 1980’s, 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, I’m 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 night’s 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 nation’s 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 isn’t the quaint conviction of a small fringe group. No, it’s 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 can’t possibly be all that dangerous.
But Focus on the Family is not what we are talking about when we consider Santorum’s 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. It’s true, as a fundamentalist Calvinist, he would never have trusted Santorum’s 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 1970’s. 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.
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
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.
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.
He’s got a point... Specially for the Democrats voting in our primaries.
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.
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’.
... You know: the stuff that everyone agrees on -- mainstream, middle-of-the-road, Motherhood and apple pie stuff.
"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.
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!
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.
“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.
“”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.
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.
[ 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
Another FReeper proposes that we get into the habit of using the term “Protection of church from state”.
Its accurate.
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.
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.
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.