Tony Perkins announces evangelical support for Rick Santorum

posted at 2:30 pm on January 14, 2012 by Tina Korbe

At a major meeting in Texas this weekend, a group of 150 Christian leaders and conservative activists defied expectations and actually managed to coalesce around a single candidate.

Surrogates for Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (no one for Jon Huntsman) made their pitches; the evangelicals considered them. On Saturday morning, they voted, and the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins held a call to debrief the media. He saw white smoke.

“What I did not think was possible appears to be possible,” said Perkins. After three rounds of balloting, “there emerged a strong consensus around Rick Santorum as the preferred candidate of this room.” It was a “clear, clear majority.”

Without doubt, this will be a major morale boost for the Santorum campaign — and a blow to the Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry camps — but whether it can morph into something more remains to be seen. Before the meeting, experts doubted that the group of aging activists would be able to alter the race much at this point in the nominating process:

But does the group stand a chance of reshaping the race? There are reasons for doubt: many of the leaders convening in Texas are well past their primes, with declining influence, and the nominating contest is already pretty far along.

One candidate – Mitt Romney – has won the first two contests, in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the South Carolina primary comes just a week after the Texas meeting.

“Some of these evangelical leaders are not as active as they once were in politics and the evangelical movement has changed a little overtime,” says John Green, a political scientist from the University of Akron. “Where this group could have an effect is if they coalesced around one candidate and then helped to provide resources.”

Boots on the ground, phone lists, robocalls, and even the possibility of an evangelical super PAC could move the needle for a candidate, Green said. But the time for such resource-intensive mobilization is growing thin.

Now that the group has demonstrated its ability to do the improbable by coalescing around one guy, it seems possible that they could also do the practical and provide actual, tangible resources to Santorum’s campaign. Maybe they should all board the same plane for South Carolina, where Santorum is far behind in the polls. At the very least, they’ll begin to mobilize their own constituencies for Santorum.

The Christian leaders insist they didn’t meet to brainstorm a way to stop Mitt Romney. One said it was an “anti-Obama meeting,” while another said he’s more concerned to stop Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. It’s obvious they haven’t been overly enthusiastic about Romney’s likely nomination, but Perkins said they didn’t overly discuss the former Massachusetts governor — and that his Mormonism came up not once.

Still, it’s clear they didn’t choose Santorum on the basis of his conservative credentials alone. Perkins said they overlooked Rick Perry, for example, because, while they liked his record, they had concerns about his electability. Santorum’s strong showing in Iowa surely nudged the group in his direction.


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 5

Ace and Erick hardest hit.

rndmusrnm on January 14, 2012 at 2:32 PM

This is really going to hurt Gingrich in South Carolina.

SouthernGent on January 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM

You know who this helps?

/s

aquaviva on January 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

You know who this helps? Romney.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Tony Perkins announces evangelical his personal support for Rick Santorum

Fixed.

itsnotaboutme on January 14, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Without doubt, this will be a major morale boost for the Santorum campaign — and a blow to the Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry camps

Major? Eh, maybe.
Anything that keeps Newt & Perry from gaining momentum is a good thing.
We know Santorum won’t win.

You know who this helps? Romney.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yup!

itsnotaboutme on January 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Helps Romney but not the land. 4 more of Obama and his angry, er lovely, ‘wife’.

She is “fruschtrated“, “schtruggles” in the role of “the firscht black woman as the firscht lady”.

What language does she speak?

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Let’s face it, this year it’s not about social issues. It’s about economic issues. Which means this will do little to help Santorum, who was already the leading advocate of social issues this primary season.

luckedout26 on January 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Santorum backed the sphinter Specter.

Santorum is socially conservative and otherwise a proletarian.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM

No one cares. Frothy has been finished for a while.

Lord on January 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Santorum backed the sphincter Specter.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM

The establishment betters starts looking for a strategy to get conservatives who are not sold on Mitt once he becomes the nominee. Just saying “suck it up” ain’t gonna cut it.

Remember the huge enthusiasm gap between Dems and GOP in 2010, watch it evaporate if Mitt is the nominee.

celticdefender on January 14, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Thank you Iowa. You coronated a couple of losers.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 2:42 PM

but Perkins said they didn’t overly discuss the former Massachusetts governor — and that his Mormonism came up not once.

I’m not quite buying that.

Anyway, surprise, they backed the religious fascist statist still left in the race.

Vyce on January 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Uhhh, who’s Tony Perkins?

ombdz on January 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM

So this story gets moved to the blog while I’m commenting in the headlines? Cue the cut-and-paste!

I don’t doubt that Santorum is a good man, but he has made some out-of-the-mainstream remarks that play right into Democratic talking points about Republicans being socially-conservative loons.

If you think it will be easy for Obama to demonize Romney for crimes against the working man, just contemplate what a cakewalk it would be for him to characterize Santorum as a busybody religious extremist, someone who wants to control the most personal aspects of daily life.

At least his attacks on Romney will have to relate to the economy, which is Obama’s biggest vulnerability. Obama can eviscerate Santorum without having to acknowledge there even IS an economy.

Meredith on January 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Santorum is an idiot and a dolt. Don’t be fooled by this Glen Beck tool.

Vote Romney. He is the ONLY one who has a chance. You may not like him but you have no Chance to get what you want if you get obama again.

Big picture guys….don’t be a democrat and look beyond your own selfishness. you have to win or nothing else matters.

Get out there and vote for Romney…It isn’t hard.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM

This is there passive agressive way of really supporting Willard.

CoolChange80 on January 14, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Yeah, as long as they’re social conservatives, it doesn’t matter how much of a statist the candidate is.

rdbrewer on January 14, 2012 at 2:46 PM

ombdz on January 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM,
Norman Bates in Psycho.

CoolChange80 on January 14, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Considering Santorum’s sinking polls and Gingrich’s regional strength, this doesn’t seem to be a good move, if the goal is to nominate someone other than Romney.

Considering the weaknesses of every Non-Romney, at this point, I think the only viable strategy would be a new candidate, possibly with the delegates of candidates already on the ballot.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/05/department-of-ideas-could-conservatives-swap-jindal-for-perry/

Everyone else has essentially been vetoed.

Mister Mets on January 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Now, if only Newt would do the same. Then this would be a real three-man race. The Socon, the Rino, and the Libertarian. GOP Steel Cage match 2012!! Three men enter, only one leaves alive!!

abobo on January 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Glenn Beck and his morning sidekick are both totally in the azz of Romney. They just fool the audience to think that they are ‘objective’.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM

up not once.
Still, it’s clear they didn’t choose Santorum on the basis of his conservative credentials alone. Perkins said they overlooked Rick Perry, for example, because, while they liked his record, they had concerns about his electability. Santorum’s strong showing in Iowa surely nudged the group in his direction.

They liked Rick Perry?…but worried about his electability?
So, they are men of convictions?
I can see why candidates are clamouring for Tim Tebow’s endorsement!

KOOLAID2 on January 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Well Mormons are not Christians so this would make sense

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM,
Glenn Beck owes his whole career to the gullible Mormons.

CoolChange80 on January 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Perkins said they overlooked Rick Perry, for example, because, while they liked his record, they had concerns about his electability. Santorum’s strong showing in Iowa surely nudged the group in his direction.

Wow, seriously? They honestly believe that Rick Santorum has more electability than Rick Perry? Just because he came in second in Iowa-a bastion of social conservatism which is not representative of the rest of the country whatsoever? They think that Santorum would be the best candidate to lead the country out of this mess? The very same Rick Santorum that said this?:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

theoddmanout on January 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I will never understand why so-called family values conservatives (unless that family includes gay people) would back someone like Rick Santorum. The term social-conservative is an oxy-moron when you think about it. You can’t advocate for both a limited and powerful federal government. Also, I thought we hated Iran because they had a Mullocracy and yet I sometimes get the impression that’s exactly what people like Santorum or Perkins want. State forced religious dogma.

Oh well, obviously Santorum never had my vote lol

fatlibertarianinokc on January 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

You know who this helps? Romney.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yep. It’s looking more and more like that libtard in conservative’s clothing is gonna win the nomination.

Santorum backed the sphinter Specter.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM

LOL! Good, but I think it could use some lengthening…

MelonCollie on January 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

The only chance we have of getting Jindal is Romney…there is no other chance.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Tony Perkins backstabbed the GOP in Louisiana in Cao’s race for re-election. He is a poison pill. He just loves seeing that a disbarred Dem gets the win.

Kermit on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Glenn Beck owes his whole career to the gullible Mormons.

CoolChange80 on January 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Ftfy.

MelonCollie on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Glenn Beck owes his whole career to the gullible Mormons.

CoolChange80 on January 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You are 100% correct.

Mormons use money to entice people to their fraudulent religion. I have never seen a poor Mormon

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Shorter evangelicals: “Who cares if the deficit balloons up more because we have a big government conservative in office. At least he sufficiently hates the gays!”

Always with the pulse on what the REAL problem.

It's Vintage, Duh on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Well Mormons are not Christians so this would make sense

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Nooooooooooooooooo…nothing makes sense….to goofs!!!!!!

KOOLAID2 on January 14, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Sometimes I really hate politics.

gophergirl on January 14, 2012 at 2:56 PM

“Perkins said they overlooked Rick Perry, for example, because, while they liked his record, they had concerns about his electability.”

Spoken like a true believer…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on January 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM

No one cares. Frothy has been finished for a while.

Lord on January 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Class act. Tell me again why Conservatives need to support Republicans.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Tony Perkins announces Evangelical support for Santorum

As an Evangelical myself, Perkins does not speak for me.

ColtsFan on January 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Come on…think people.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Santorum is an idiot and a dolt. Don’t be fooled by this Glen Beck tool.

Vote Romney. He is the ONLY one who has a chance. You may not like him but you have no Chance to get what you want if you get obama again.

Big picture guys….don’t be a democrat and look beyond your own selfishness. you have to win or nothing else matters.

Get out there and vote for Romney…It isn’t hard.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Yeah, that’s how to win support. You can take Romney and shove him up your ballot box. You condescending Mittbots are more detestable than your guy.

cartooner on January 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM

good for Perkins and his merry band of misfits – way to stick it to the ‘establishment’ by grouping all of your own establishment behind someone else.

it’s the economy stupid… but if you want to make a play for further irrelevancy moving forward, please don’t let common sense get in your way.

gatorboy on January 14, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Wow, seriously? They honestly believe that Rick Santorum has more electability than Rick Perry? Just because he came in second in Iowa-a bastion of social conservatism which is not representative of the rest of the country whatsoever? They think that Santorum would be the best candidate to lead the country out of this mess? The very same Rick Santorum that said this?:

theoddmanout on January 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

In terms of which is more electable, it’s a tough call. Santorum has said some extreme things, but no one doubts his basic competence. Perry comes across as less extreme, but he has made some shocking mistakes during debates and speeches which call into question whether he could mentally handle the job of being President.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 2:59 PM

As an Evangelical myself, Perkins does not speak for me.

ColtsFan on January 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Ditto

gophergirl on January 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Class act. Tell me again why Conservatives need to support Republicans.
hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Santorum is a big-government statist, not a conservative. So…?

Lord on January 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM

The talibangelicals have played the RINO part long enough. If there are not enough free enterprising, science accepting, civil libertarians in the repugnican party to survive without being held hostage, there is nothing left that is worth paying the RNC.

borntoraisehogs on January 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I have never seen a poor Mormon

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

you need to get of your mom’s basement more often

gatorboy on January 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

It’s Vintage, Duh on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I could live happier poor, in a country that values the lives of it’s unborn easier than I could live rich in a country that has completely lost it’s soul.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Its the economy, stupid. Throwing your support behind a big government statist because you don’t like the other big government statist?

This primary sucks.

mythicknight on January 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Further proof that social conservatives aren’t the least bit interested in smaller government or fiscal conservatism.

TedInATL on January 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Glenn Beck and his morning sidekick are both totally in the azz of Romney. They just fool the audience to think that they are ‘objective’.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM

When did Beck ever pretend he was “objective”? If you thought he was supposed to be, then you have a lot to learn in the world of political punditry.

cartooner on January 14, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The only chance we have of getting Jindal a third party in 2016 is Romney…there is no other chance.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

FIFY

Sekhmet on January 14, 2012 at 3:02 PM

That is why conservatives lose more and more everyday cartooner.

They are too darn naive. If you lose you get nothing that you want.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Perkins said they didn’t overly discuss the former Massachusetts governor — and that his Mormonism came up not once.

Tina Korbe on Jan 14, 2012 2:30 PM

Huh. Why not? Many suffering in hell are the tragic result of this unbiblical gospel. The nation will be next if Romney is President and his Mormonism came up not once! This is supposed to be a group of 150 Christian leaders and conservative activists. Wow! Well, that’s modern evengelism for you!

apocalypse on January 14, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Evangelical support of Santorum does not reflect well on either of them.

CatoRenasci on January 14, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Santorum is a big-government statist, not a conservative. So…?

Lord on January 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I’m talking about that vulgar asinine name you all apply to him as if he were worse than our enemies. People of faith have no place in the Republican Party. We shouldn’t support the Republican party blindly anymore. This big tent joke is exactly that.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:04 PM

People of faith have no place in the Republican Party. We shouldn’t support the Republican party blindly anymore. This big tent joke is exactly that.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Excuse me? I am a person of deep faith and I have a place in the Republican Party.

Just because I don’t base everything in my life on social conservatism doesn’t make any less conservative or any less a person of faith than anybody else.

gophergirl on January 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM

The talibangelicals have played the RINO part long enough. If there are not enough free enterprising, science accepting, civil libertarians in the repugnican party to survive without being held hostage, there is nothing left that is worth paying the RNC.

borntoraisehogs on January 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Talibangelicals? Repugnican party?

Did this suddenly become the Democratic Underground?

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I could live happier poor, in a country that values the lives of it’s unborn easier than I could live rich in a country that has completely lost it’s soul.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

bon voyage.

RightOFLeft on January 14, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Further proof that social conservatives aren’t the least bit interested in smaller government or fiscal conservatism.

TedInATL on January 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Horsecrap. It means we’re tired of The Republican Party acting like if we keep voting for their progressive democrat-lite candidates, that someday we’ll get back to addressing at least some social concerns. If they had any balls they’d just say, “Hey suckers, we’re done with you. We’re not going to address any of that again, ever!”

This abstract meme that we can’t address both social and fiscal issues is utter hogwash and a dodge to keep Conservative voters strung along.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Not completely OT: Nice mention, Tina.

kunegetikos on January 14, 2012 at 3:09 PM

What a shocker…..

Ralph Reed, call your office.

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 3:09 PM

That is why conservatives lose more and more everyday cartooner.

They are too darn naive. If you lose you get nothing that you want.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 3:03 PM

cartooner on January 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM

bon voyage.

RightOFLeft on January 14, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Maybe we can just work on the issue here in this country. Obviously outside of the republican party.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I’m talking about that vulgar asinine name you all apply to him as if he were worse than our enemies. People of faith have no place in the Republican Party. We shouldn’t support the Republican party blindly anymore. This big tent joke is exactly that.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You have to at least give us a real fiscal conservative. I have supported and voted for some social cons if I thought they were truly fiscally conservative. When you give us a social statist who is also a big government, big spender, there’s nothing there for us small government types.

TedInATL on January 14, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I haven’t read everyone’s comments yet. I will go back and do that as soon as I blurt this out.

That is a throw away endorsement meaning a waste or air and time. Romney is not my first choice, probably my third, but if people think Obama will destroy Romney, just think of what the Obama campaign will do to Santorum.

Don’t blame Texas either. Perkins doesn’t represent Texas anymore than he represents Christians.

jazzuscounty on January 14, 2012 at 3:12 PM

borntoraisehogs on January 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Thanks for making my point.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:12 PM

It’d take about five minutes for the media to expose Santorum’s weak points in a general election.

BettyRuth on January 14, 2012 at 3:12 PM

This is a mixed blessing. Santorum has “Social Convective” tattooed on his forehead and that’s what the MSM will focus on. They will make him look like he only represents the Christian population.

NickDeringer on January 14, 2012 at 3:13 PM

TedInATL on January 14, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Really? Who’s your fiscal conservative in this race?

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Tony Perkins announces evangelical support for Rick Santorum
…that’s like the certifiable insane announcing support for moRon paul – both of these announcements are expected and understandable.

TeaPartyNation on January 14, 2012 at 3:13 PM

When did Beck ever pretend he was “objective”? If you thought he was supposed to be, then you have a lot to learn in the world of political punditry.

cartooner on January 14, 2012 at 3:02 PM

He claimed to be so on his morning shows. I only listen to him rarely, but he was pretty clear that he doesn’t back anyone, while he and his sidekick are totally pro Romney.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 3:14 PM

lol, at all of your media points. Like they can’t do it with any of the Republican field. Please!

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:14 PM

That is why conservatives lose more and more everyday cartooner.

They are too darn naive. If you lose you get nothing that you want.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 3:03 PM

First, I’m sure they appreciate your euphemism for ‘stupid’. We lose more and more by being “team players” for the GOP and the Bushes’, Doles and Romneys and always see conservative candidates labeled as extreme, stupi…er… naive or whatever.

cartooner on January 14, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Also, I thought we hated Iran because they had a Mullocracy and yet I sometimes get the impression that’s exactly what people like Santorum or Perkins want. State forced religious dogma.

Oh well, obviously Santorum never had my vote lol

fatlibertarianinokc on January 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Seriously? What do you base your impressions on?

(that might be a good place to start looking for fallacies..basing evaluations concerning people on “impressions” can be faulty at best)

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Excuse me? I am a person of deep faith and I have a place in the Republican Party.

Just because I don’t base everything in my life on social conservatism doesn’t make any less conservative or any less a person of faith than anybody else.

gophergirl on January 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM

You go girl! There is no reason on earth not to respect your position on this.

BettyRuth on January 14, 2012 at 3:15 PM

So we know Tony Perkins endorsed Santorum, but who are the 150 others? The linked article also mentions Gary Bauer and James Dobson, but that’s it. “Evangelicals” haven’t agreed to endorse Santorum; one group of 150 evangelicals (out of, oh, 40 million or so) decided to endorse him. Noticeably missing is the National Association of Evangelicals, which at least has some claim to be representative of a large and amorphous group of people

Honestly, it’s like reporting 150 “conservatives” have agreed to endorse Jon Huntsman. Give me actual polling numbers that show all evangelicals are united for Santorum– that’d say something.

halflight on January 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Romney has much better eloquence when it comes to presenting a position argument. Take gay marriage. Well intended and thoughtful is Santorum, but he comes of as a fringer, unlike Mitt… who has the same position.
The latest gallup national tracker has Romney REALLY running away with it: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

anotherJoe on January 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM

gotta love group think. nothing like putting off the big decisions in life and getting behind those convictions when it may have actually made any difference. oh well, this will be viewed as a nice gesture to Santorum, but IMO won’t affect the long term outcome of the primary

gatorboy on January 14, 2012 at 3:17 PM

bon voyage.

RightOFLeft on January 14, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Our land would lose a real good one.

hawkdriver, may you only go visit other countries. In spite of all, there are no better ones out there. It’s still worth fighting to fix this one, for a few more years. After that it might be too late, even for her.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Santorum? Well there you go, this is why it’s called the stupid party.

Dr Evil on January 14, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I have never seen a poor Mormon

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Is that bigoted?
Just wondering. Seem like it kinda might be. How about Jews?..ever seen any poor Jews?

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I’m not talking about leaving anywhere. I’m talking about changing my country back.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Really? Who’s your fiscal conservative in this race?

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Well it sure as hell isn’t Rick Santorum. If I have to vote for a fiscal squish, it won’t be somebody who doesn’t believe in the autonomy of the individual.

TedInATL on January 14, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Headline: Tony Perkins announces evangelical support for Rick Santorum

Translation: Evangelicals hand SC to Romney.

Political pastors, useless…….

tonotisto on January 14, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I think social conservatism will only rear its ugly head again after the economy recovers. Once everybody has their mind off trifling problems like whether they or the people they love can find work to pay their bills, we can all get back to the culture wars.

RightOFLeft on January 14, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Romney has much better eloquence when it comes to presenting a position argument. Take gay marriage. Well intended and thoughtful is Santorum, but he comes of as a fringer, unlike Mitt… who has the same position.
The latest gallup national tracker has Romney REALLY running away with it: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

anotherJoe on January 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM

LOL! That’s because everybody knows Mitt will flip-flop on any position when it becomes necessary.

cartooner on January 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Congrats Frothy Mixture! You convinced some other insane closet case religious maniacs to endorse you, what did you “trade” for that?

Your Mamma loves me on January 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM

oh well, this will be viewed as a nice gesture to Santorum, but IMO won’t affect the long term outcome of the primary

gatorboy on January 14, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I think Honest gesture is a more accurate than Nice gesture, but I agree, it most likely won’t affect much.
I think he’s a good man in an ugly battle.

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Maybe we can just work on the issue here in this country. Obviously outside of the republican party.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 3:11 PM

In all honesty, I don’t see this working out well for you social conservatives. Of course, it also doesn’t work out for those of us who are fiscal conservatives/social moderates.

The Republican Party is a mess these days, but what we’d get from a split into two more or parties is many years of hardcore leftism. The Democrats are not about to crumble unfortunately.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Joesph Smith was a false prophet and an agent of the devil himself. Mormonism is not Christianity

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Well Mormons are not Christians so this would make sense

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Liberals aren’t human, so this comment makes sense.

cartooner on January 14, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I have never seen a poor Mormon

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Well that settles it. If YOU haven’t seen any, they must not exist. COme to think of it, I’ve never yet met an Inuit, so I guess their existence is a pack of lies too.

OF course mormons tend to take care of their own poor (with an internal system that is wholly “help-up”, not “hand-out”, and widely respected for its efficiency and success), so you must not bump into them at the local food bank. Doesn’t mean there aren’t any. But hey, feel free to continue living your logic-free existence, as demonstrated by your posts here.

AttilaTheHun on January 14, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I have never seen a poor Mormon

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Utah happens to be the State with the lowest amount of income inequality and the most conservative. I’d like Obama to try and attack that.

rushlimbang on January 14, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I completely disagree that Obama would destroy Santorum.

Obama can’t attack Santorum on gay marriage because he’s supposedly against it himself, and he would risk alienating Blacks (who tend to oppose it) and Latinos (who tend to be socially conservative). (Ever wonder why he won’t admit that he supports gay marriage? Because neither do the majority of voters.)

Romney, on the other hand, is the perfect target for a class warfare argument from the Socialist-in-Chief. That sells. Blame the rich ‘vulture capitalist’ for your problems. Gingrich has already started the attacks for the DNC. Santorum doesn’t have this liability.

The enlightened types who care so deeply about gay marriage being recognized by the government would never vote for anyone but Obama in any case.

jazz_piano on January 14, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Congrats Frothy Mixture! You convinced some other insane closet case religious maniacs to endorse you, what did you “trade” for that?

Your Mamma loves me on January 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM

This is vile. Just thought you should know.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 3:27 PM

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Would someone mind shooting an email to AP asking to ban this obvious troll? I’d do it, but I think it would lack credibility.

RightOFLeft on January 14, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Joesph Smith was a false prophet and an agent of the devil himself. Mormonism is not Christianity

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I think you got Smith mixed up with your prophet, Joseph Stalin.

cartooner on January 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM

you, what did you “trade” for that?

Your Mamma loves me on January 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Thats odd. What do you mean??

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Who is Perkins to speak for all “evangelicals” ? And that endorsement probably pretty much dooms Santorum’s possibility of winning election. I expect his ratings to drop now as a result of this “endorsement”.

crosspatch on January 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5