Report: Iowa evangelical leader asked Bachmann to drop out and endorse Santorum

posted at 10:00 pm on December 20, 2011 by Allahpundit

I’m confused. Why should the Ames straw poll winner, who’s played a key role at some of the debates and who’s always polled higher than Santorum, give up on her home state and throw her support to him instead of vice versa?

Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats called Michele Bachmann and urged her to drop out of the race and endorse Rick Santorum, a source with knowledge of the conversation told POLITICO Tuesday…

Bachmann declined, the source said, noting to Vander Plaats that she has consistently polled ahead of Santorum in the race and still does…

“I refuse to take a swing at somebody and diminish what they think is their God-ordained role. I refuse to do that,” [Chuck Hurley, the president of the Iowa Family Policy Center] said. “What I would say instead of quote, drop-out, unquote, is why can’t the top three or so pro-family candidates come together and figure out who has the talent for president, who has the talent for other roles in the federal government, whether it’s attorney general, secretary of state, vice president, Health and Human Services secretary, and those people could quickly, with the 10-10-10 situation [in the polls], could quickly vaunt into first place, win the Iowa caucus and win the nomination.”

Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said Perry spoke with Vander Plaats on Friday, but dropping out and backing Santorum “absolutely did not come up.”

Their logic is understandable, I’m just not sure why Santorum gets to benefit from it. You could make a case that among him, Perry, and Bachmann, he’s actually the least electable of the three. (I don’t think that’s true — he’s more electable than Bachmann — but you could argue the point.) Granted, he has two terms in the Senate and home-field advantage in Pennsylvania, but he’s so famous for his stances on abortion and gays that I think he’s forever relegated to “niche” status in most voters’ minds. S.E. Cupp was moved to ask last week on Twitter for theories on why everyone else in the field save Huntsman had enjoyed a poll surge except Santorum; it’s a good question considering that he’s had no major gaffes at any of the debates, has served up plenty of red meat on foreign policy, and yet has floundered between three and six percent since August. The only explanation I have is that he inhabits that niche that matters a lot to social cons and very little to the rest of the electorate that’s consumed with the economy and the national debt. If you’re looking for a Not Romney, why look to a guy who’d spend the general election fielding endless questions on whether being gay is genetic or a choice?

All of which raises another question. How come Vander Plaats didn’t ask Bachmann to drop out and endorse Perry instead? Like I say, it makes perfect sense for social conservatives to want to unite behind a champion; what doesn’t make sense is uniting behind Santorum instead of a guy with loads of executive experience and a dynamite jobs record to throw in Obama’s face. Perry’s also much likelier to parlay an Iowa upset into a sustained campaign against Romney than Santorum is, I think. He had that huge fundraising surge at the beginning when people were excited about him so we know there’s money out there for him, and he still has some grassroots support per the blogosphere endorsements for him this week. He’s even held his own prayer events. What more do you want?

Exit question: The founder of the American Family Association endorsed … Gingrich? Really?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

I’m a religious conservative too…but just because someone is born with a d*ck doesn’t make me their inferior.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM

This doesn’t seem appropriate.

Dr. Tesla on December 21, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Believing God instituted different roles for men and women does not mean believing women are inferior.

It’s not the believing, it’s the doing. What other message should I get when I’m forbidden to join a church because my husband hasn’t joined?

Their actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what they’re saying.

mrsknightley on December 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Santorum may get the anti-rearender vote in Iowa, but he’s not up to the job.

In terms of anti-female bias, I don’t think Bachmann has to worry because she has more testosterone flowing than some of the men in the field. Newt is as beta male as they come. He may talk big, but look at how his flabby jowls have become all frown faced after Romney and Paul took him to the woodshed. And don’t even get me started on Chun Li Huntsman.

Spirit Crusher on December 21, 2011 at 2:36 PM

It’s not the believing, it’s the doing. What other message should I get when I’m forbidden to join a church because my husband hasn’t joined?

Their actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what they’re saying.

mrsknightley on December 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Anecdote =/= data.

(What I’m saying is, while your experience is sad, it doesn’t reflect on all churches or Christians.)

makattak on December 21, 2011 at 2:37 PM

it doesn’t reflect on all churches or Christians

That’s not what I said, but I’ll stipulate.

I guess my larger points were that:

1. I wasn’t surprised a male pastor would make that request of Bachmann (whether it was to drop out or “join forces” with someone else or whatever); and

2. the practical outworkings of that doctrine can be harmful in ways people don’t anticipate.

mrsknightley on December 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM

[Bachmann] who’s always polled higher than Santorum

That’s no longer true.

Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, both at 10%, are the only other candidates in double-digits. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann earns six percent (6%)

That 26%, if combined, beats Romney’s 25%, Paul’s 20% and Gingrich’s 17%.

The point Vander Plaats is making is that if those three form 1 team, they all win, but if they split that 26% three ways, they all lose and we end up with Romney.

Why did Vander Plaats favor Santorum over Bachmann? I think it’s because Santorum walked the walk and actually went to Iowa to help Iowa conservatives replace 3 activist judges. He walked the walk in getting the partial birth abortion ban passed. There’s nothing wrong with Bachmann, but she has not walked that same walk.

I’d be happy with a ticket composed of two out of these three: Santorum, Perry, Bachmann.

I also think it could be very interesting to see Bachmann serve as either Speaker of the House or as Attorney General.

ITguy on December 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I’d be happy with a ticket composed of two out of these three: Santorum, Perry, Bachmann.

Maybe I’m missing something on the numbers side, but which two do you choose to get to 26%? Or do you assume that the appointment of the unnamed third to a high post as part of the package deal will cover the deficit?

mrsknightley on December 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Believing God instituted different roles for men and women does not mean believing women are inferior.

(And please note I say this as someone who would gladly vote for, donated to, and campaigned for Sarah Palin.)

makattak on December 21, 2011 at 2:23 PM

God isn’t the problem – it’s the people who believe so fiercely they know God’s will – most usually representatives of congregations.

DHChron on December 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Santorum may get the anti-rearender vote in Iowa, but he’s not up to the job.

Spirit Crusher on December 21, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I see what you did there.

DHChron on December 21, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Report: Iowa evangelical leader asked Bachmann to drop out and endorse Santorum

So, I take it Santorum’s the new Huck?

Looking forward to that big Rick Warren-mediated pow-wow between Dear Leader and RINO candidate X at Saddlebrook.

With the Social Conservatives, anarchoconservatives, those that think 5 year olds should get a job instead of wasting their time in Kindergarten (Newspeak for “Communist government indoctrination” of course) and assorted holy rollers on our side, what could go wrong?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 21, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Maybe I’m missing something on the numbers side, but which two do you choose to get to 26%? Or do you assume that the appointment of the unnamed third to a high post as part of the package deal will cover the deficit?

mrsknightley on December 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Yes, the 26% is the combination of all three. That’s the premise of the comment in the post above.

why can’t the top three or so pro-family candidates come together and figure out who has the talent for president, who has the talent for other roles in the federal government, whether it’s attorney general, secretary of state, vice president, Health and Human Services secretary, and those people could quickly, with the 10-10-10 situation [in the polls], could quickly vaunt into first place, win the Iowa caucus and win the nomination.

ITguy on December 21, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Santorum seems like a good guy. If I were him I would be staying at home with my terminally ill daughter and running again in 2020.

Isnt he all about the family.

poljunkie51 on December 22, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5