Will the next boomlet candidate be …

posted at 12:05 pm on December 20, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Michael Tomasky thinks there may be room for one more in the Iowa caucus race — a candidate who can connect with Iowa conservatives on policy and record while having the credibility to compete against Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.  And who might that be?  The man who has spent almost all of his time among those conservatives in this race:

From the “predict something long enough, and it’ll happen eventually” department, I was delighted to see in this new PPP poll not only that Newt Gingrich tanking but also that my man Rick Santorum has made it to the promised land of double digits for the first time, at exactly 10 percent. A modest start, but then again, every big thing starts small; Christianity was illegal for 300 years. So I still submit, as I’ve argued before, that Santorum has the ability to shake up the race. …

There is still time for one more non-Mitt to get his shakedown cruise, even before Iowa. Santorum has several points going for him. As I’ve noted previously, he’s kosher with all three wings of the party, neocons, theocons, and pluto-cons. He’s the only candidate who has campaigned feverishly across the state. It’s become conventional wisdom that that doesn’t matter anymore. But how did that become conventional wisdom? In part it became conventional wisdom on December 7, when Dick Morris said on the set of Fox & Friends that Iowa is won “on this couch.” I haven’t put much stock in Dick’s predictive powers since 1999, when he kept insisting in his New York Post columns that Hillary Clinton would never actually run for U.S. Senate in New York, and I challenged him during a ride on the #1 train to put some money on the proposition, and he wouldn’t. It’s possible that Morris is a pious man like Rick Perry and therefore averse to betting, but I doubt it. So it could be that the new CW is wrong, and Iowa can still be won . . . in Iowa.

Tomasky gives what he sees as Santorum’s only downside:

Santorum has one big down side. He lost his last election by a whopping 18 points. That’s bad. There just isn’t much history of people coming off losing races and then doing well in pursuit of the presidency. In fact there is probably no history of it. On the other hand, he did serve two terms as senator in a blue state, beating an incumbent Democrat (Harris Wofford) to get there in the first place. He might not win Pennsylvania in a general election, but it’s not out of the question, and at the very least he’d sure make the Obama campaign spend time and money there that it would rather put into Ohio. I think that if I were a Republican insider pondering what the map might look like next November 7, I’d rate the matter of his provenance a plus, maybe a big one. He’s sure more likely to contest Pennsylvania than Romney is Massachusetts—or even Michigan, a state from which he’s many years removed.

Had Santorum retired in 2006 rather than lose re-election, the comparison to Romney would be more apt.  However, I think Tomasky’s right that Santorum would do better in Pennsylvania in 2012 than Romney would in Massachusetts, although the better question would be whether Santorum would do better than Romney in Pennsylvania.  Democrats cannot afford to lose Pennsylvania in a presidential election, and a native son might be better equipped to carry the state than Romney, although it’s possible both would beat Obama there in any case.  If that happens, the entire Rust Belt would probably go Republican, and Obama would go back to Chicago.

Santorum has another problem as a potential boomlet candidate — resources.  Rick Perry is making a big play in Iowa with media buys, trying to accomplish exactly what Tomasky predicts will happen for Santorum, and Romney is also flooding the airwaves.  Santorum can’t compete with that directly, but he’s hoping that his ground work will trump the ad wars.  He might get a side benefit from Perry’s attack on the two frontrunners, though.  If Perry undermines support for Gingrich and Romney but doesn’t make the sale that he’s a reliable, competent alternative, voters who have seen a lot of Santorum might give the real underdog some extra consideration.

These are long-shot predictions, but they’re not out of the realm of possibility.  Santorum is one of only two check-box conservatives still left in the race, and Michele Bachmann created a credibility crisis for herself this fall.  Santorum improved his debate performances in December, looking presidential and scoring points on foreign policy (as did Bachmann).  Is that enough without a big campaign warchest?  We’ll soon see.

I’ll be speaking with Senator Santorum on today’s Ed Morrissey Show, which starts at 3 pm ET.  Don’t miss it.

Update: Santorum scored a big endorsement a few minutes ago:

Two weeks before the Republican nominating contest opens at the Iowa caucuses, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has won a highly-coveted endorsement from one of the state’s social conservative leaders.

Bob Vander Plaats, who has sought to put his imprint on the Republican presidential race for months, announced Tuesday that he would support Mr. Santorum. He and other evangelical Christians have talked openly about theirstruggle to unite behind one candidate, but he urged others to follow his lead.

According to this report, this is a personal endorsement from Vander Plaats, not an organizational endorsement from The Family Leader, the group founded last year by Vander Plaats.  Still, it will draw some needed attention and earned-media coverage for Santorum, and might be a spark among conservatives to give him a chance.


Related Posts:

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 2 3

And for the record, just thinking outside the box here, but “laws on the books against sodomy and “that sort of thing.”, has not exactly hurt this nation in the years they have been on “the books”. Thinking these laws over the years also did not restrict anyone’s choices because we still have gays in the military. Probably why they had to take sodomy off the books.

Wow, what an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant statement. Good luck trying to a majority of people in the U.S. to vote for a candidate who believes that Lawrence V. Texas should be overturned and that sodomy laws should be put back in place. Have fun with that. I’m sure you’ll have the youth vote in the bag.

theoddmanout on December 20, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Camp 1: Santorum is the anti-Mitt conservative to rally behind.

Camp 2: Santorum is unelectable due to his senate election loss and/or likeability factors.

Camp 3: Santorum is a social conservative but we only want a fiscal conservative in the white house.

-

I believe that likeability is something he can and has changed to his favor. I used to listen to him on Bill Bennett’s radio show and he is starting to sound more like that on national camera.

I also do not believe that his stance on marriage and other social issues will trump his dedication to rolling back Obama’s agenda and restoring America’s economic success. It would take a willing congress to push any new social laws and I do not see him focusing on that. The worst he can do is ensure that the current social laws do not get overturned.

I do believe that his moral character will influence the White House for the better in ways that do not seem possible for Mitt and Newt.

This puts me in Camp 1.

I do not live in any of the early states, so… dang it, this stinks.

Vintage on December 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM

There’s no more debates, so how are the masses going to notice Santorum?!?

The Nerve on December 20, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Rick has one potential achilles heel that he needs to reassure Iowa Caucus voters and for other states.

He has what I would call a poor record on 2nd Amendment.

He needs to shore his platform/views on the issues. If he can convince GOP voters that he will protect our rights to arm and defend ourselves, and focus more on reducing sharply federal spending and taxes and regulations, he could pull off an upset.

I’m in Iowa and Gingrich is coming back down to Earth.

KirknBurker on December 20, 2011 at 7:43 PM

From googling the candidate I think Santorum would leave a bad taste in the mouths of Republican Primary voters.

LevStrauss on December 20, 2011 at 7:45 PM

There’s no more debates, so how are the masses going to notice Santorum?!?

The Nerve on December 20, 2011 at 7:40 PM

At Mass.

Santorum has attended Mass and many Catholic parishes in Iowa over the last year.

I even heard a story from a person who bumped into him at Mass.

He is a rock-solid Catholic and should do well in the Midwest with the Catholic voters.

KirknBurker on December 20, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Those referring in their posts above to incest, bigamy, bestiality etc miss the point. The relevant fact is that Rick Santorum has stated opposition to the overturning of *sodomy* laws in Lawrence v. Texas. That is to say, Rick Santorum apparently desires to have sodomy laws reinstated.

First, there isn’t a whelk’s chance in a supernova of this happening. The only two avenues by which it could occur are the Supreme Court reversing its own 6-3 judgement, which becomes even less likely as time passes, or a constitutional amendment forbidding sodomy. Good luck with either.

Second, think about the appalling circumstances of the case. A harassing neighbor filed a false complaint about a gun-weilding madman next door (the neighbor later spend 15 days in jail for the false complaint), and a sheriff’s deputy entered the gay couple’s apartment with gun drawn, found them in the act, arrested them, and they were sent to trial. This is for a consensual act between adults in their own bedroom. Remember, this is Texas and a sheriff’s deputy, not East Germany and the Stasi.

This could have happened to you and your wife in other parts of the country. Although not the case in Texas, sodomy laws in various jurisdictions (such as FL, PA, and even MA) also applied to heterosexuals ( http://goo.gl/RbIcI ).

Finally, it is reported as of 2007, ( http://goo.gl/APfBC ) that “34% men and 30% women reported ever participating in heterosexual anal sex [and the percentage] was significantly higher among 20- to 24-year-olds and peaked among 30- to 34-year-olds”. Also ( http://goo.gl/9Zzby ) “in 1992, the highest percentage of women in any age group who admitted to anal sex was 33. In 2002, it was 35. Now it’s 46.”

Rick Santorum apparently would like to criminalize a private consensual behavior common amongst the population. He’s apparently a-ok with law enforcement arresting consenting adults in their beds on account of where they stick their appendages. And Rick Santorum has given no indication that he’s changed his mind on wanting to overturn Lawrence, even though it is just about politically impossible for this ever to occur.

Rick Santorum is not a conservative. He is a fantasist, a creep, and a totalitarian.

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM

I’d be more than willing to support a Santorum candidacy, but he’ll be long gone before the primary reaches where I live. He’s desperate for a result in Iowa, which unfortunately for him has become clown central of the primary season. He’s between a rock and a harder rock.

Spirit Crusher on December 20, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Also, note that Lawrence v. Texas also legalized oral sex in many jurisdictions ( http://goo.gl/RbIcI ).

Can you imagine how pathetically easy this would be for Obama? One ad, played just every now and again:

“In these hard economic times, Rick Santorum wants to ban your birthday B J. Google it for yourself. Obama/Biden 2012″.

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Those referring in their posts above to incest, bigamy, bestiality etc miss the point. The relevant fact is that Rick Santorum has stated opposition to the overturning of *sodomy* laws in Lawrence v. Texas. That is to say, Rick Santorum apparently desires to have sodomy laws reinstated.

First, there isn’t a whelk’s chance in a supernova of this happening. The only two avenues by which it could occur are the Supreme Court reversing its own 6-3 judgement, which becomes even less likely as time passes, or a constitutional amendment forbidding sodomy. Good luck with either.

Second, think about the appalling circumstances of the case. A harassing neighbor filed a false complaint about a gun-weilding madman next door (the neighbor later spend 15 days in jail for the false complaint), and a sheriff’s deputy entered the gay couple’s apartment with gun drawn, found them in the act, arrested them, and they were sent to trial. This is for a consensual act between adults in their own bedroom. Remember, this is Texas and a sheriff’s deputy, not East Germany and the Stasi.

This could have happened to you and your wife in other parts of the country. Although not the case in Texas, sodomy laws in various jurisdictions (such as FL, PA, and even MA) also applied to heterosexuals ( http://goo.gl/RbIcI ).

Finally, it is reported as of 2007, ( http://goo.gl/APfBC ) that “34% men and 30% women reported ever participating in heterosexual anal sex [and the percentage] was significantly higher among 20- to 24-year-olds and peaked among 30- to 34-year-olds”. Also ( http://goo.gl/9Zzby ) “in 1992, the highest percentage of women in any age group who admitted to anal sex was 33. In 2002, it was 35. Now it’s 46.”

Rick Santorum apparently would like to criminalize a private consensual behavior common amongst the population. He’s apparently a-ok with law enforcement arresting consenting adults in their beds on account of where they stick their appendages. And Rick Santorum has given no indication that he’s changed his mind on wanting to overturn Lawrence, even though it is just about politically impossible for this ever to occur.

Rick Santorum is not a conservative. He is a fantasist, a creep, and a totalitarian.

This is one of the single greatest comments I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

theoddmanout on December 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM

If we get a Santorum boom, I look forward to hearing a week of Fresh Air mud slinging against him. As they did to Newt. As they did to Palin. As I expect them to do to Romney during October 2012. NPR is so predictable.

This is not a defense of Santorum. Agree with theoddmanout, zarathustra’s comment is excellent. A man who cares about the consensual private sexual behavior of the public should be writing Jack Chick pamphlets, not running the nation.

It’s sad. I voted for Santorum twice, back when he was a perfectly good, constructive conservative. Then he went crazy.

Bartrams Garden on December 20, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Rick Santorum is not a conservative. He is a fantasist, a creep, and a totalitarian.
zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM

This is one of the single greatest comments I have ever had the pleasure of reading.
theoddmanout on December 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM

It’s sad. I voted for Santorum twice, back when he was a perfectly good, constructive conservative. Then he went crazy.
Bartrams Garden on December 20, 2011 at 8:28 PM

I don’t know that you meant to sound this way, but I’d swear you were echoing the Howard Stern radio show.
Just on what do you believe Rick would place his priorities, IF he actually made it into the Oval Office?

listens2glenn on December 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM

You don’t find it ‘creepy’ that a big-government moralizer wants to prevent you from doing things in your bedroom with a consenting adult that he doesn’t approve of?
Good Lt on December 20, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Nope.

listens2glenn on December 20, 2011 at 9:05 PM

Well, since we like what we see on each of our flavors of the month, why not dissect them and turn them into a Mr. Potato Head? Some lady in IA said this as an opinion of the frustration of these primaries.

I am gonna jump on the Mr. Potato bandwagon, until She Who Must Not Be Named steps in.

ProudPalinFan on December 20, 2011 at 9:13 PM

I love all these people who think Santorum wants to watch what goes on in their bedroom.

Define paranoia with a shot of arrogance. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 9:15 PM

“In these hard economic times, Rick Santorum wants to ban your birthday B J. Google it for yourself. Obama/Biden 2012″.

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM

They better not go there…O has a reputation to hide, iykwim.

ProudPalinFan on December 20, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Well, since we like what we see on each of our flavors of the month, why not dissect them and turn them into a Mr. Potato Head? Some lady in IA said this as an opinion of the frustration of these primaries.

I am gonna jump on the Mr. Potato bandwagon, until She Who Must Not Be Named steps in.

ProudPalinFan on December 20, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Not a bad idea.

JellyToast on December 20, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Based on the comments I’ve seen here, it’s mostly people who have anal sex who are opposed to Santorum. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 9:22 PM

I don’t know that you meant to sound this way, but I’d swear you were echoing the Howard Stern radio show.

Then you’d be swearing in vain. I don’t listen to Howard Stern. That was my own analysis, and the data used to arrive at said analysis was easily gathered via Google. Watch out for the first Santorum link.

Just on what do you believe Rick would place his priorities, IF he actually made it into the Oval Office?

Social issues such as Lawrence are what Santorum is best known for, unfairly or not. I’m going to take him at face value that social issues are indeed a priority for him (unless you can show me a link where he states that they are no longer a priority). If he wants to be thought of otherwise, he might start by repudiating his Lawrence stance. But your question is completely hypothetical until that merry day, for he would be utterly destroyed in the general election on Lawrence alone. See my second comment, on Santorum’s confiscation of your birthday treat.

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Based on the comments I’ve seen here, it’s mostly people who have anal sex who are opposed to Santorum. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Being that this demographic is apparently 46% of women of a certain desirable age (see links above), I have no problem whatsoever with this segment of the anti-Santorum crowd. YMMV.

And, as noted above, Lawrence also legalized oral sex in several jurisdictions. I have a feeling that right there lies a mighty demographic which no candidate should want aroused against him (or her).

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Based on the comments I’ve seen here, it’s mostly people who have anal sex who are opposed to Santorum. :)

On second reading, face-palm for utter and total humor failure. Well played sir, well played.

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Anal sex seems kind of gross to me. Seems like a one way street.

Hey, I’m not judging you but I’m not sure a large % of women having anal sex.

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 9:47 PM

I, for one, thought my joke was quite funny. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Hey, I’m not judging you but I’m not sure a large % of women [ARE/LOVE/HATE???] having anal sex.

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 9:47 PM

I, for one, thought my joke was quite funny. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Insert verb to complete funny ;-)

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Are.

As long as Santorum is only spyin on and jailing people having anal sex, I’m cool with it. No worries here.

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Anal sex is one of the high risk behavoirs for AIDS. That’s why it’s more prevalent in gays than straight people.

Santorum can argue he’s saving lives if he plays this right.

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Are.

The data I referred to above ( http://goo.gl/APfBC ) suggests that a large segment of young heterosexual women and men are indeed having anal sex on a regular basis. I haven’t seen this data seriously questioned, but I might have missed that.

As long as Santorum is only spyin on and jailing people having anal sex, I’m cool with it. No worries here.

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Lawrence v. Texas also legalized oral sex in several jurisdictions. No worries there too?

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Camp 1: Santorum is the anti-Mitt conservative to rally behind.

Camp 2: Santorum is unelectable due to his senate election loss and/or likeability factors.

Camp 3: Santorum is a social conservative but we only want a fiscal conservative in the white house.

I’m in camps 3 and 2 – I think Santorum is unelectable because he couldn’t even keep his Senate seat in Pennsylvania and he’s far more a social conservative than a fiscal conservative — exactly the wrong candidate for 2012.

CatoRenasci on December 20, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Anal sex is one of the high risk behavoirs for AIDS. That’s why it’s more prevalent in gays than straight people.

Santorum can argue he’s saving lives if he plays this right.

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Yeah, having 4% at most population gays having 63% of the cases of aids.

astonerii on December 20, 2011 at 10:19 PM

No way in hell I’ll vote for a guy who introduced his children to the corpse of their dead baby brother, and neither will the rest of America:

Upon their son’s death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen’s parents’ home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

“We wanted them to see that he was real,” not an abstraction, he says. Not a “fetus,” either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described — “a 20-week-old fetus” — on a hospital form.

Santorum chose to tell this story to the Washington Post. He chose to spin a private matter to his political advantage, and thus it is fair game for public criticism.

Lawdawg86 on December 20, 2011 at 12:35 PM

I saw you wrote about this on another thread. I responded, but it was late, so I doubt you read it.

I think it is beautiful for him and his wife and children to mourn their baby that way. I miscarried at 14 weeks. I didn’t have a chance to say goodbye to my son. My husband and I rushed to the hospital in vain, and I didn’t get to see him at all. I wish that I had had time to hold him, no matter how small.

You must not have miscarried a child, to think this is creepy.

cptacek on December 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM

There’s no more debates, so how are the masses going to notice Santorum?!?

The Nerve on December 20, 2011 at 7:40 PM

No more debates? Halleluiah!

cptacek on December 20, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Perry
Gingrich- only non Governor candidate with a shot IMO
Huntsman

Dr Evil on December 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Hey, how you doing? I am pleased you support Rick Perry. I could support Rick Perry as the Republican nominee. He’s better than Romney and Gingrich, that’s for sure. It just bothered me when he backed off Pastor Robert Jeffress comments about Mormonism in one of the Republican debates. I didn’t like that. Jeffries said that Mormonism has nothing to do with historical Christianity, which is true. There was no bigotry, no hate, or intolerance. Of course, the anti-Christian media got involved and Perry disowned the Pastor, so I lost some respect for him for that. Btw, Jeffries does a great job of defending his comments in this interview. Skip to the 3:05 min. mark if you watch it. But I could support him. He has said my faith requires me to defend Israel, that’s what Rick Perry said. Rick Perry said I believe that this land was given to the people of Israel. He supports Israel and that’s extremely important. Thank you.

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Just ’cause you listed Romney’s Mormonism… you do know that Huntsman is also a Mormon, no?

mankai on December 20, 2011 at 3:43 PM

I didn’t know that. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Appreciate it.

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Update: My rank of candidates in order of preference (1,2,3 etc.).

1. Michele Bachmann
2. Rick Santorum
3. Rick Perry
4. Nancy Gingrich

Could not vote for:

Wizard Romney (Mormon)
Jon Huntsman (Mormon)
Ron Paul (anti-American, anti-semitic, anti-Israel)

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 10:48 PM

I miscarried at 14 weeks. I didn’t have a chance to say goodbye to my son.

cptacek on December 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM

My deep condolences for your loss. It is a terrible thing.

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Those referring in their posts above to incest, bigamy, bestiality etc miss the point. The relevant fact is that Rick Santorum has stated opposition to the overturning of *sodomy* laws in Lawrence v. Texas. That is to say, Rick Santorum apparently desires to have sodomy laws reinstated.

First, there isn’t a whelk’s chance in a supernova of this happening. The only two avenues by which it could occur are the Supreme Court reversing its own 6-3 judgement, which becomes even less likely as time passes, or a constitutional amendment forbidding sodomy. Good luck with either.

zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM

I understand your post completely, and you may be right that Obama will use Santorum’s beliefs to attack him. However, I think your second paragraph here is the key issue and that is President Santorum would have no executive power to enforce his beliefs on America.

I for one, do not think a politician should divorce his beliefs when he runs for office. Voters may have a problem with his beliefs, but I argue that strong moral convictions make him a stronger person for the job. I am not a fan of social conservatism, but I am a fan of candidates with moral conviction.

Vintage on December 20, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Wow, that’s some pretty ugly bias you’re showing there.

WolvenOne on December 20, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Ugly bias?

Granted, Romney isn’t a perfect candidate, he could be a bit more solidly conservative, but that has nothing to do with his religion.

WMR cannot be trusted. End of story.

So tell me, what makes Mormons, “wizards,”

“Wizard” is a spin I use on his first name, Willard. He has seduced people into believing him even after all his lies. Btw, being a wizard and a Mormon are both practices that God forbids.

and more importantly, why should they be disqualified from holding the highest office in the land?

Romney has the legal right to be President. That’s not an issue. What disqualifies him to be President (in my view) besides having some strange doctrines about Jesus being Lucifer’s brother, and how they have stacks of wives and we’re all gods, etc., is that the JESUS that the Bible is talking about and the jesus Mormons are talking about are two completely different people. And, so, if Mitt Romney becomes President of the United States you will have a President crying out “God bless America” and the nation won’t even know which god they’re praying too. It’s some strange stuff there. Uh, God won’t bless a nation that doesn’t know Him.

Come now, inquiring minds must know!

We only scratched the surface. Thx.

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 11:35 PM

I miscarried at 14 weeks. I didn’t have a chance to say goodbye to my son.

cptacek on December 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM

According to the Bible, babies, young children, and the mentally handicapped go to heaven when they die (2 Samuel 12:21-23). That means your son is waiting for you in heaven. If you are a born again Christian you will be reunited with your son when you go to heaven. Do a Google search for “What age is the age of accountability?” Here’s a good article to start. Hope that helps.

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 11:55 PM

He would make a great vise pres

conservativeBC on December 21, 2011 at 12:21 AM

My deep condolences for your loss. It is a terrible thing.
zarathustra on December 20, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Thank you.

According to the Bible, babies, young children, and the mentally handicapped go to heaven when they die (2 Samuel 12:21-23). That means your son is waiting for you in heaven. If you are a born again Christian you will be reunited with your son when you go to heaven. Do a Google search for “What age is the age of accountability?” Here’s a good article to start. Hope that helps.
apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 11:55 PM

It was 2 1/2 years ago. It took me quite a while to come to terms with it, and still get teary eyed every now and then. I believe that I will meet him in heaven, if I can keep my end of the bargain. I like to think of my Grandpa holding him, guiding him and watching over us until I can meet him. My second son is now 6 months old, and we include his brother in our nightly prayers.

cptacek on December 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM

I live in Pennsylvania, I did when Santorum was Senator. Like all native sons of Pennsylvania (I was born in New Jersey, but that’s besides the point) I usually have a very strong urge to punch him in the face for forcing us to have Bob Casey 2.0, the most liberal congressman from Pennsylvania, which includes Bill Brady, Chakkah Fattah, and Allison Schwartz.

Professor de la Paz on December 21, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Also, Pat Toomey reminds me of Rick Santorum, but less unhinged. Santorum’s a bit crazy, folks. Terri Schiavo. Need I say more about political suicide?

Professor de la Paz on December 21, 2011 at 12:32 AM

I am not a fan of social conservatism, but I am a fan of candidates with moral conviction.

Vintage on December 20, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Vintage, thank you for your considered response. But, may I ask, can you still be a fan of a candidate for having “moral conviction” even when you think the moral conviction is horribly, horribly misguided? (I personally consider Santorum’s view totalitarian).

I’ve laid out a case earlier that his views on Laurence v. Texas (a) have no hope of being enacted; (b) are morally repugnant (arresting consenting adults in bed); and (c) have the effect of criminalizing a significant portion of the population. Surely having this particular moral conviction disqualifies a candidate from gaining any limited-government conservative’s support?

zarathustra on December 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM

zarathustra on December 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Thus spake.

John the Libertarian on December 21, 2011 at 2:33 AM

…And yet George W. Bush won the presidency. Twice — and one of those times was against the handpicked successor to a popular incumbent during good economic times. Golly, that social conservatism sure is a killer, ain’t it?

Give me a break.

Stoic Patriot on December 20, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Only in lefty circles does anyone consider Dubya to be a solid social conservative.

He’s someone who does have a strong, personal Christian faith, but he certainly didn’t govern as hardcore social conservative.

Vyce on December 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM

So let me get this straight: the guy who appointed Alito and Roberts to the court as well as got the partial-birth abortion ban act signed into law, and campaigned on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage isn’t a hardcore social conservative?

As someone who’s always considered himself to be a social conservative, if that’s someone who’s not a social conservative, what can I expect to get from someone who is? Because aside from finding a Federally protected right to life in the 5th and 14th amendments, as well as getting rid of affirmative action, and enforcing existing law on drugs and immigration, I can’t think of all that many more objectives I would have.

Stoic Patriot on December 21, 2011 at 7:36 AM

Only in lefty circles does anyone consider Dubya to be a solid social conservative.

george w.bush was a moderate but more conservative than his father

gerrym51 on December 21, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Y’all can tweet @wolfblitzercnn any questions you’d like him to ask Santorum this evening in the Situation Room.

Carolina21 on December 21, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Vintage, thank you for your considered response. But, may I ask, can you still be a fan of a candidate for having “moral conviction” even when you think the moral conviction is horribly, horribly misguided? (I personally consider Santorum’s view totalitarian).

I’ve laid out a case earlier that his views on Laurence v. Texas (a) have no hope of being enacted; (b) are morally repugnant (arresting consenting adults in bed); and (c) have the effect of criminalizing a significant portion of the population. Surely having this particular moral conviction disqualifies a candidate from gaining any limited-government conservative’s support?

zarathustra on December 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Zarathustra, I agree that you cannot support “moral conviction” at face value, because I do not support abortion, yet it is the moral conviction of many politicians that abortion is okay.

I happen to share most of Santorum’s positions on marriage but also feel that it is not the government’s place to define and control it. That does not prevent me from wanting to place him in the highest office in this nation because I feel there are better arenas to prevent such legislation than the executive branch.

During the debates, I heard the best answers coming from Newt, Michelle, and Rick. I do not like the unpredictable nature of Michelle and I do not trust Newt’s eloquence over his personality and past mistakes.

I am left supporting a candidate who might not win on the basis of morality. However, morality is something I wish our nation had more of.

Vintage on December 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM

We’ve gone thru Trump,Bachman,Perry,Cain,Gingrich(Ron Paul is Ron Paul). why should’t Santorum get a shot.

gerrym51 on December 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM

According to the Bible, babies, young children, and the mentally handicapped go to heaven when they die (2 Samuel 12:21-23). That means your son is waiting for you in heaven. If you are a born again Christian you will be reunited with your son when you go to heaven. Do a Google search for “What age is the age of accountability?” Here’s a good article to start. Hope that helps.

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 11:55 PM

It was 2 1/2 years ago. It took me quite a while to come to terms with it, and still get teary eyed every now and then.

cptacek on December 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM

I understand the heartache, but he is in a much better place right now. You’ve gotta let go of the grief. Your son has more pleasure, more satisfaction, more joy, more meaning in just one second in the heaven than he did in his whole lifetime on this earth. There’s no reason to be this sad. It’s the opposite. Rejoice!

I believe that I will meet him in heaven, if I can keep my end of the bargain. My second son is now 6 months old, and we include his brother in our nightly prayers.

Praying for your dead son and thinking you’ll go to heaven if you keep your end of the bargain sounds like Catholic or Mormon talk. I’m thinking you’re Catholic. Please let me help you. See below.

we include (our son who died) in our nightly prayers

As a Bible-believing Christian who studies Scripture, this is not taught in the Bible. It may be Catholic tradition, but praying for your son will not do him any good now because his eternal destination is already determined. The story of the rich man who woke up in hell provides us with a good example of this truth (Luke 16:19-31). After death you are either in heaven or hell when you stand before God, when you stand before the Judge, and Jesus used this story to teach that our condition cannot be remedied. The Bible says, “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this THE JUDGMENT” (Hebrews 9:27). After death, that’s it, your fate is sealed based on your actions and faith in life. Nothing you can do or say for a person (no prayer or lighting of candles) will change things for them on the day of Judgment. So cptacek, please stop worrying over your son and praying for the dead and use what little time you have to pray for the living who are unsaved and in great danger of hell. The living need your prayers. Your son is safe and in God’s loving arms.

I believe that I will meet him in heaven, if I can keep my end of the bargain.

This is another stress you do not need. Worrying whether or not you’re going to heaven. It is called eternal security. People say to me, “You think you’re going to heaven no matter what you do?” I say, “Oh, yeah (shaking head). It would be impossible for me to go to hell because God promised if… He said, “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13). If you have the Son you HAVE eternal life. It doesn’t say you will GET eternal life. He says you HAVE eternal life. If you don’t believe His promises, then you are calling God a liar and that is one of the greatest insults – not to believe God’s promises. Please see this video. It will show you how to be become a born again Christian and never lose your salvation (John 3:3). You are worrying about things you don’t need to worry about cptacek. Trust God. I hope that helps.

apocalypse on December 21, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Boomlet? Really?

I’ve had enough of the Boomer generation and especially the naming of other generations after themselves.

Not that 1958 is particularly Gen X, but I am right smack in the middle of Gen X and we have nothing to do with you Boomers. I had Boomer teachers and older Boomer classmates and frankly, while you guys think you rule the world, there are others of us here and we are not defined by who you are!

And Santorum? Really? Forget it!

The guy in office would be like a deer in the headlights. He can’t even hold his own in a debate against more liberal Republicans, he would be made mincemeat of in a general election.

And I have had enough of social conservatives. The tyranny of the social liberals is oppressive enough.

The government is there to take care of ensuring our liberty, not telling us how we can use the liberty that is inalienably ours.

Kay_L on December 21, 2011 at 12:23 PM

apocalypse on December 21, 2011 at 12:11 PM

You pegged me. I am Catholic. I absolutely believe that my son is in Heaven. He IS in a better place. I just wish I had been able to be his Mom.

I also think it a bit arrogant of me to say that I am guaranteed to go to Heaven. That is my belief. You have a different one, and I respect that.

Thank you for your sincere and comforting words.

cptacek on December 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM

He has nice teeth. You can tell a lot about a person from their teeth. If I voted based on teeth, I’d vote for this guy.

FieldTripper on December 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM

I’m voting for him because he understands why abortion has help to put us in this cultural decline.

Gatekeeper on December 20, 2011 at 12:16 PM

It’s not contraceptives, single moms, divorces, broken families, decaying manufacturing, lowest common denominator mainstreaming of ghetto culture? It’s just abortion that has put us in cultural decline?

Give me a break. This is exactly why Santorum can’t win.

haner on December 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM

I also think it a bit arrogant of me to say that I am guaranteed to go to Heaven. That is my belief. You have a different one, and I respect that.
cptacek on December 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM

I thank you for your respect, as does apocalypse, I’m sure.

But, would I be violating your privacy to ask how you arrived at that conclusion?
You will NOT offend me if you’d rather not discuss this any further.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM

You pegged me. I am Catholic.

cptacek on December 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM

I thought so. There is a difference between Catholicism and Christianity.

I absolutely believe that my son is in Heaven. He IS in a better place. I just wish I had been able to be his Mom.

Nothing wrong with that. Just remember praying for him now won’t do any good. He’s in heaven and there is no better place to be. :-)

I also think it a bit arrogant of me to say that I am guaranteed to go to Heaven.

The poster “listens2glenn” said it best. We appreciate your respect, but how did you arrived at that conclusion?

That is my belief.

Well cptacek, it doesn’t matter what we believe. If I said “I don’t believe in trucks,” and I stood out on the highway I’m gonna get crushed. What you believe doesn’t matter. Only God’s Word matters.

Thank you for your sincere and comforting words.

You’re welcome and thanks. You are very polite and I only wish you the best. The Bible makes it very clear you cannot lose your salvation once you are saved and I would like you to start trusting God when He makes you a promise. Nothing can separate us from God (Romans 8:38-39). Anyways, I’d like to let “listens2glenn” take over from here. He asked you a very important question why you think it’s arrogant to say that you are guaranteed to go to Heaven. How you came to your conclusion? Thanks, cptacek.

apocalypse on December 21, 2011 at 9:19 PM

I also think it a bit arrogant of me to say that I am guaranteed to go to Heaven. That is my belief.

cptacek on December 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM

I thank you for your respect, as does apocalypse, I’m sure. But, would I be violating your privacy to ask how you arrived at that conclusion? You will NOT offend me if you’d rather not discuss this any further.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Thanks for asking this question, Glenn.

apocalypse on December 21, 2011 at 9:21 PM

I believe that God can do anything. Anything at all that he wants. What if he for some reason decides that he doesn’t want me in heaven? He could do that.

So I can hope and pray and believe that he will accept me into heaven, but it is not guaranteed.

Also, (and as a Catholic, you know I don’t know the Bible verse to verse :) ), isn’t there one sin that is unforgivable? Blaspheming the Holy Spirit? So if someone is saved, then blasphemes the Holy Spirit, isn’t that unforgivable?

cptacek on December 22, 2011 at 12:56 AM

apocalypse on December 21, 2011 at 9:21 PM

I believe that God can do anything. Anything at all that he wants. What if he for some reason decides that he doesn’t want me in heaven? He could do that.
cptacek on December 22, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Thank you for your sincerity.

How well do you know Him?

listens2glenn on December 22, 2011 at 11:18 AM

I have felt God, or an angel, warn me to do something, or not do something. A few times I didn’t listen.

Once I wrecked my car after doing the opposite.

One time when I was about 10 I had an overwhelming urge to sleep in my brother’s bedroom when he was 2 and he was still sleeping in a crib in my mom and dad’s room. I had never done that before, and that night the electric blanket caught fire, and if I had not been sleeping in there and woke up to smoke, all 7 of us in the house could have died.

I had an external version scheduled for my son to turn him at 38 weeks pregnant because he was breech. I was insistent that we would go forward with it, but something inside of me was screaming not to (lol, no, it wasn’t my son screaming). I fought the feeling for 2 days before calling the hospital and cancelling. The feeling of dread immediately went away. It turned out my son had his umbilical cord wrapped around his arm and wouldn’t have turned anyway and possibly could have hurt or killed him.

This has happened more times than I can count. I believe God is watching out for me.

However, I have drifted away and back and away and back again. My miscarriage hurt me immensely, and I didn’t want to believe that God could put me through that. I am fighting back, though, to a healthy relationship :)

cptacek on December 22, 2011 at 6:29 PM

cptacek on December 22, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Thanks for the comeback.
Wish you hadn’t experienced the miscarriage. I have yet to run across a woman who has experienced one, but wasn’t unduly upset by it. Makes me wonder how some women can so matter-of-factly choose to have an induced miscarriage. They call it by a different name, though.
What I believe apocalypse was trying to get across is that any person who believes they have started a relationship with God, shouldn’t be going through their daily walk of life wondering whether the “relationship” is still there, or is it strong enough, or did I do something inadvertently yesterday to upset God, or is a particularly bad experience I just had (or am having) God’s punishment for bad behavior on my part, etc.
None of us could have an enjoyable relationship with another person, if they behaved towards us like that.
That kind of “relationship” would be torment, and I don’t believe the Heavenly Father is ordering that for any of us who have a relationship with him.

listens2glenn on December 22, 2011 at 7:50 PM

I know that it is dysfunctional, l2g, and I am slowly working my way out of it.

Thank you, and you too, apocalypse.

cptacek on December 23, 2011 at 12:32 AM

I know that it is dysfunctional, l2g, and I am slowly working my way out of it. Thank you, and you too, apocalypse.

cptacek on December 23, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Thanks cptacek.

Also, (and as a Catholic, you know I don’t know the Bible verse to verse :) ), isn’t there one sin that is unforgivable? Blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit means to reject Christ with such finality that no further repentance is possible. The only unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18, 36).

So if someone is saved, then blasphemes the Holy Spirit, isn’t that unforgivable?

You can’t be saved, then unsaved. Someone who rejects God was never saved to begin with. They’re false converts that sit among the body of Christ; something Scripture refers to as “goats among the sheep”, “the foolish virgins among the wise”, the “bad fish among the good” (Matthew 13 and 25) and this is such an important issue and it just comes back to people not hearing the Biblical Gospel. They don’t know God. They just know about Him.

So I can hope and pray and believe that he will accept me into heaven, but it is not guaranteed.

Glenn made an important point that God will never abandon you once you are born again (John 3:3). When you repent and put your faith or trust alone in the Jesus Christ, you enter into a relationship with God that guarantees your eternal security. The most famous verse in the Bible verifies it telling us, “whosoever believeth in him (Jesus) should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:15-16). You just read it yourself. It doesn’t say you’ll get eternal life. It says you HAVE eternal life. So, cptacek, if you could lose it, you have “temporary” life. You don’t HAVE eternal life. THINK: how you could possibly lose something if you never had it? If you have eternal life, and you lost it, then it wasn’t eternal. So you didn’t have it. The Lord Jesus said, “I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:28-29). If you are born again you HAVE eternal life and Jesus assures us that no one could ever take it away. And, so, I think the real question here cptacek is are you born again? I’m not trying to embarrass you. I’m just asking the question because the Bible says it doesn’t matter if you’re Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic or “whatever,” if you’re not born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God. Jesus said ” Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). He said it again in John 3:7, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye MUST be born again.” You see it, you read it. Jesus Christ said no one can even see that Kingdom without being born again. So you Catholic? Or a born again Christian? Which one is it cptacek? Have you been born again and regenerated and can you say, “I know the Lord?” Scripture says, “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). OK, that’s square one. It’s called conversion. Maybe that’s what you’re lacking cptacek and it’s because you’ve never been born again. You’ve never been regenerated by the Holy Spirit so you can say “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Timothy 1:12). Look, here’s the honest truth. I’m gonna ask you a question now. Think before you respond. You ready? Are you born again like Jesus said that you must be in John 3? This is more serious than a heart attack. If you’re not sure, please watch this video. This will explain how to be saved and have eternal security so you don’t have to worry about it anymore. Thank you and I pray this is your best Christmas ever, cptacek.

apocalypse on December 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3