Santorum: Obama motivated by a “different theology”

posted at 10:30 am on February 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Normally, I would advise presidential candidates to avoid getting caught in arguments over the relative merits of the faith of their opponents.  Americans typically don’t respond well to politicians claiming that they have a superior theology, especially when it comes to translating that into public policy.  In this case, though, Rick Santorum didn’t start that fight yesterday in Ohio:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum challenged President Barack Obama’s Christian beliefs on Saturday, saying White House policies were motivated by a “different theology.”

A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using “political science” in the debate about climate change.

Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.

Santorum’s attack didn’t just come out of the blue.  And it wasn’t Santorum who proclaimed his theology in support of his own policy choices, either.  That honor goes to Barack Obama — twice.  Let’s not forget this moment from earlier this month at a prayer-breakfast event, when Obama told the nation that Christian theology calls for him to confiscate more from higher-income earners:

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone.  And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”  It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

On top of that, we have the new spectacle of Obama telling churches through the new HHS mandate that his interpretation of religious theology is that faith only takes place in “houses of worship,” and that works are mere businesses under federal jurisdiction for the purpose of forcing churches to pay for contraception and abortifacients that violate their religious doctrine.  That is the “different theology” to which Santorum refers, and his remarks are clearly in response to Obama’s own efforts to justify his policy decisions under the cloak of a strange and self-serving interpretation of Christian teachings.

Is this wise politics?  Perhaps not; most people don’t care to get religion mixed up in their politics, and Obama took some heat for his tax-hike rationalizations on the basis of Christianity for that reason.  Santorum’s well-known affiliation with religious conservatives risks him being pigeonholed even further in a debate like this.  But Obama started this argument twice in the past three weeks, and to blame Santorum for pushing back seems a little odd.

Update: Commenter Reliapundit notes that there are some arguments, though true, that should be made through surrogates and not by the candidates themselves — and that this is one of those.  It’s not a bad point, perhaps especially for Santorum.  Also, some argue that this is a distraction from the main economic issues of the campaign, but as it applies to Obama’s “theology” on taxes and ObamaCare mandates, that’s not entirely true.  And if the economy heats up a little bit between now and the election, we will need the Republican nominee to be arguing on both how both represent an unconscionable power grab, and not merely how they both damage the economy.


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 5 6 7 8

Sorry, I’m not playing your stupid tiresome game any longer. I didn’t take anything out of context.

Syzygy on February 19, 2012 at 3:38 PM

You didn’t take anything out of context? Are you sure you want to stand on that quicksand? You provided where Bell Curve Tentherism isn’t actual Tentherism? You provided where support for a Bell Curve Tenther position does not necessarily make that person a Bell Curve Tenther, much less a true Tenther?

Or, did you rather quote two small snippets where you claim they contradict one another, without providing the context around them, which would show they don’t actually contradict at all?

Yeah, you aren’t going to debate me any further because you know for a fact you are on the losing end of a logic debate, due specifically to your context-free argumentation and your intentional misrepresentation of the facts on the ground. You cannot win if Truth is the parameter, because all you have to support yourself is Dishonor.

QED.

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Not just no, but he11 no. Romney has committed entirely to repealing ObamaCare. There is no way under the sun that he can not follow through on that promise. End of story. Nothing else to discuss.

Read my lips, no new taxes. — From another, though more conservative, moderate Republican.

Romney has committed to repealing Obamacare, and committed to not repealing Obamacare.

I do not take his rhetoric as particularly persuasive.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

and committed to not repealing Obamacare.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

When?

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Well, Obama’s just as qualified to be Pope as he is to be President, isn’t he? However, instead of running for the Papal office, why not just declare himself Pope. Why should “The One” be bothered with insignificant details such as procedures, rules, laws or elections? (Or waiting for the passing of the current Pope.)

But, really, would the Papal position be enough? You know, the Pope doesn’t get to play golf much (if at all) and he actually lives a very frugal life in spite of being surrounded by the vast wealth of the Church. No Kobe beef banquets. Limited drinking. No lavish parties. No vacations. Very limited wardrobe. (Yes, it’s quite fancy, but really!!) Then there’s the constant study, prayer and humility thing. And don’t forget the chastity thing and the respect for life thing. Then we have to compare Air Force One, Marine One, and the Presidential limo vs the Pope-mobile. Or, the Secret Service vs the Swiss Guard (Okay, maybe the Swiss Guard gets this one. But, remember, they aren’t trained in covering for a fraud or usurper or in betraying their Church.)

Why not jump straight to “Supreme Emperor of the World”? From this position Obama could command all of the States and Churches of the world and still get in some golf. Then, if he were to become God……

RasThavas on February 19, 2012 at 5:19 PM

My first thought when I saw that comment from Syzygy was, “I thought Syzygy was against Santorum.:

The Romney/Santorum arguments on HA are…odd.

Most of the attacks are from the Left. He opposes gay rights. He’s a committed Christian. And so on.

I don’t care if President Santorum is going to give speeches about abstinence while president, but this seems to scare some people to the extent that they would rather support the architect of Obamacare v1.0.

And this might be the issue actually. For the more vocal Romney supporters, getting rid of Obama’s policies isn’t actually that important. Romney would likely run the country better while supporting them, and for these “conservatives” that is enough.

Of course Santorum can be hit from the right – his record is far from perfect – but objectively far better then Romney’s. So I guess this is what Romney supporters have left.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:20 PM

It’s going to be absolutely great to have the fiscally responsible Mitt Romney as POTUS who won’t be beholden to the radicals. A man who won’t jump to and ask, “which position”

A man who won’t jump to and ask, “which position?” Are you kidding me? Mitt “three positions on every subject” Romney has .. three positions on every subject. It all depends on his audience and what he perceives as the winning position which of the three he chooses. As has been shown by histo-fact.

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 5:20 PM

and committed to not repealing Obamacare.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Quoth the Congress critter, “You lie!”

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:21 PM

You must be so proud of PBHO’s finding religion then. How gratifying for you that he has wrapped his “social justice” agenda in the mantle of Judeo-Christian stuff.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:09 PM

And I have known for years that you either have a reading-for-comprehension problem tied to your post-modern context-free vacuity, or an integrity problem. You pick which it is. I already know which it is (and that would be a maximum quantity of both).

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM

You probably believe opposing same-sex marriage is a political loser, when it’s a clear winner.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I think opposing condoms is a clear loser.

Kaffa on February 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Opposing what? The existence of condoms? The manufacture and sale of condoms?

Those would be clear losers, as seen by the fact that even the staunchest Catholic politicians wouldn’t even try.

On the other hand, being opposed to handing out condoms to young teens at high schools would be a more controversial topic. It as much as tells them, “We know you’re going to do it anyway, no matter what parents or religious leaders say, have a few condoms.”

There’s certainly a case to be made here that handing out condoms to teenagers encourages them to feel less constrained about having sex. Lots of people who have no problems with condom usage otherwise would still have a problem with that sort of thing.

I’m not Catholic, and find the whole Catholic emphasis on birth control to be misplaced and confused. Regardless, some forms of birth control are abortifacients, and some muck around with the hormones of young teens and young women. These almost require a doctor’s supervision, and even though I don’t consider birth control pills inherently immoral, a Catholic institution should not be required to pay for them or cover them under their insurance, because it violates what they believe.

Now, if Rick Santorum tried to actually push restrictions on birth control on the whole country just because it violates Catholic doctrine, then I would have the opposite problem. But that’s just scare-mongering by the same old crowd that always pretends we’re about to become a theocracy. No such thing is going to happen.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:24 PM

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM

You must be so proud of PBHO’s finding religion then. How gratifying for you that he has wrapped his “social justice” agenda in the mantle of Judeo-Christian stuff.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:09 PM

And you must be gratified that Santorum called him out on his pretensions.

One would think.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:25 PM

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Way to evade the argument, just go personal. Sanctity is an easy game, even for novices to learn how to play. The donkeys have learned how to be pious, just like you. PBHO is acting on “Judeo-Christian” values. So I say you must be loving it.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:25 PM

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Pretensions? What makes his notion of Judeo-Christian morality any less valid than yours or Santo’s?

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:26 PM

When?

“I hope we’re ultimately able to eliminate some of the differences, and repeal the bad and keep the good.” –Mitt Romney on Obamacare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CFtUO-z-r48

In the speech he denotes the healthcare mandate as one of the things he supports, which again matches his past statements that he supports healthcare mandates.

He does argue in the speech that he opposes some parts of Obamacare on federalist grounds, but note that he does NOT argue that Obamacare in toto should then be repealed – exactly the opposite in fact.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:27 PM

There is a reason Barack Obama hides behind his counterfeit Christianity:

The United States of America is a Christian nation, built as a Christian nation, on Christian principles. And the US Constitution is wholly unfit for any other kind of nation. As one of the Founders/Framers very succinctly stated 200 years ago.

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:24 PM

So when he calls extra-marital sex to be dangerous and an important public policy issue, what do you suppose he means? Do you think he would just declare it such and then not do anything about it? Wouldn’t you want your POTUS to do something about important public policy issues?

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Quoth the Congress critter, “You lie!”

Well, Romney is indeed lying, true.

The question is whether he is lying when he says he would repeal Obamacare or whether he is lying when he says he would not.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:29 PM

So when he calls extra-marital sex to be dangerous and an important public policy issue, what do you suppose he means?

My analysis is that he will attempt to use the bully pulpit of the White House to make the moral case that casual sex is wrong.

He is also likely to be unfriendly on policy to Planned Parenthood and Hollywood. Both of which I agree with him on for other reasons.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:31 PM

It’s going to be absolutely great to have the fiscally responsible Mitt Romney as POTUS who won’t be beholden to the radicals. A man who won’t jump to and ask, “which position” every time some holy roller yells, “!@#$!”

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM

You are absolutely classless.

Joana, those 3 Conservativ talk show hosts you cited, called Romney a Conservative in 2008, because compared to McCain, he was George Wallace.

However, as Rush said October 11, 2011

Romney is not a conservative. He’s not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn’t. What he has going for him is that he’s not Obama and that he is doing incredibly well in the debates because he’s done it a long time. He’s very seasoned. He never makes a mistake, and he’s going to keep winning these things if he never makes a mistake. It’s that simple. But I’m not personally ready to settle on anybody yet — and I know that neither are most of you, and I also know that most of you do not want this over now, before we’ve even had a single primary! All we’ve had are straw votes. You know that the Republican establishment’s trying to nail this down and end it. You know that that’s happening, and I know that you don’t want that to happen, and neither do I.

Now, as for Romney — and you should know, by the way, that I’ve met Romney. I’ve not played golf with him but I’ve met him, and I like all of these people. This isn’t personal, not with what country faces and so forth. I like him very much. I’ve spent some social time with him. He’s a fine guy. He’s very nice gentleman. He is a gentleman. But he’s not a conservative.

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM

So in 2010, he never says he would keep ObamaCare. When he said repeal the bad, keep the good, in passing at the end. The remarks were made about a month after passage before so much more was even known about it. You know, the pass it before you know what’s in it thing.

The differences, our plan is a state plan. I believe in Federalism.

He soon came around to recognizing that there was nothing in ObamaCare worth salvaging. So to doubt his sincerity and commitment to ending from that little sound byte is just perverse game-playing.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Santorum gets himself in trouble way too much. He’s already playing defense. Again.

He should have a radio talk-show or something. He’s reminiscent of blowhards like Levin and Rush. He’d do well in that role.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 4:49 PM

You think Rush and Levin are blowhards, and you think Romney is a conservative.

Okay.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 4:55 PM

You must be really confused.

Do you know who called Romney a conservative? Rush, Levin and Santorum.

I have higher standards than those blowhards.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 5:12 PM

In 2008, when Romney was positioning himself as a conservative, and claiming that he had changed from when he was governor of Massachusetts. Yes, at that time they believed Romney.

And now they don’t. Because he dropped the mask when it didn’t get him elected.

You foolishly think it helps Romney to say that Rush, Levin, and Santorum supported him in 2008. It’s actually some of the most damning evidence that he’s not conservative after all. People who used to support him now reject him. That’s devastating, because it raises the question of why they changed their minds. I can include myself in this group, even though I don’t have a major media platform like they do, because I was ready to vote for him in 2008 as well.

By repositioning himself as a moderate, Romney let the mask slip, and now it’s clear that he was never a conservative at all.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Look Brutus, joana, the fool who thinks he’s a religious MOBY but can’t even rise to that level because he’s such a fool, if you cannot get your facts and histo-facts right in your premise, the rest of your argument fails the logic test — resoundingly. Because everything following a flawed premise is, by definition, unsound.

But you were never attempting a logical argument, as you have continued to eschew all logic in your fallacious argumentation from Day One.

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 5:39 PM

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Which part of

I’m not playing your stupid tiresome game any longer.

did you not understand?

With all due respect, take your ridiculous made-up “Bell Curve Tenther” construct that only makes sense in your own mind and leave me the f*ck alone. I’m sorry I ever clicked on your blog in the first place.

Syzygy on February 19, 2012 at 5:40 PM

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 5:39 PM

It’s not just a river in Egypt.

Come back when you have something to say.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:41 PM

it’s clear that he was never a conservative at all.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Oh dear. But he knows the secret handshake and everything! Has the club changed the locks on the tree house at least?

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Romney is still bragging on Romneycare. Why does anyone think that he will be that gung ho to appeal Obamacare, when he said in 2010, that he wanted to keep “the best parts” of it?

I read legal studies of the monstrousity. There are no “best parts”.

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 5:43 PM

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I gotta split, but I have to say before going that your attempt to introduce FUD over some vague remarks in 2010 about how there may be something salvageable about O’Care stacked up against the intervening years of solid commitments to ending it entirely is truly desperate and grasping.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:46 PM

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Pretensions? What makes his notion of Judeo-Christian morality any less valid than yours or Santo’s?

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Pretensions is correct. To an outsider, they might appear equivalent. If you know anything about the Bible and the Christian faith, it’s easy to recognize that they’re taking progressive political positions and trying to find some fig-leaf phrase from the Bible to justify it.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” has nothing to do with Christian faith. It was just a smart-aleck response by a murderer to say, “How should I know?”

And while giving to the poor is unquestionably part of the Christian faith, as well as part of the Judaistic tradition, it is always voluntary, not tax-supported.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Sure. And step number one in reforming entitlements is TRIPLING the tax code entitlement for having children. Sure, who wouldn’t trust Mr. Medicare Part D to reform entitlements?

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Nice try, but that’s not an entitlement. Increasing the withholding for having children by any amount, including tripling it is just GREAT! Anything that puts more money into a family’s pockets and out of governement coffers is a wonderful thing.

As to calling Santorum Mister Medicare Part D is simply ridiculous. He voted, along with the othe R senators at the time, in favor of the bill. Hr did not propose or submit it.

But that’s surely less conservative then a mandated health insurance law, reducing fireamrs rights or supporting abortion until the finger in the wind got dry on the other side, eh?

I will still vote for whichever R gets the nomination, but I am tired of this foolish assault being made on every one of the candidates, oddly enough, EXCEPT BarryO.

It’s not only you, but you have been the most egregious in this thread.

Siddhartha Vicious on February 19, 2012 at 5:50 PM

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:24 PM

So when he calls extra-marital sex to be dangerous and an important public policy issue, what do you suppose he means? Do you think he would just declare it such and then not do anything about it? Wouldn’t you want your POTUS to do something about important public policy issues?

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM

What it does not mean is that he’s going to try to implement new federal government policies to eliminate it.

Most likely, he means it’s an important topic that touches on public policy, and that it should be discussed rather than ignored.

Any government regulations would come at the state level, if at all. And probably not at all.

I think you’re having trouble with this concept, but not all desirable public policy should be mandated by the government. Many non-governmental institutions — including churches — can weigh in and shape public policy.

Take Michelle Obama’s childhood obesity push, for example. It’s possible to sponsor public-service announcements encouraging children to eat better without passing a single regulation.

Or the multiple PSAs encouraging children to stay in school, or to avoid drugs, or promoting abstinence.

Not everything requires government action.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:54 PM

So in 2010, he never says he would keep ObamaCare.

He specifically refused to repeal the law in toto. And then discussed what he liked about the law.

Later, under pressure, he continued to argue for the “good parts” but then started to claim he would repeal it.

This convinces you he would repeal it? Seriously?

If Romney had said, from the get go of his current campaign, that he changed his mind on Romneycare and wanted to repeal Obama’s version of his law, he would have already wrapped up the nomination.

So why then did he continue to argue against repealing it until the political pressure became untenable…unless he has no intentions of repealing it?

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:54 PM

There’s no such best, so technically, you’re quite correct that it’s not possible.

Hint: “Sharia law” is Muslim, “fundamentalist Christian” is not a term that applies to Catholics (historically, it was a Protestant movement.) Santorum is a Catholic.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Looks like the point went over your head as well.

Dante on February 19, 2012 at 5:54 PM

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I gotta split, but I have to say before going that your attempt to introduce FUD over some vague remarks in 2010 about how there may be something salvageable about O’Care stacked up against the intervening years of solid commitments to ending it entirely is truly desperate and grasping.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 5:46 PM

OMG! ARe you still talking about issues from 2010?!?! That was over a year ago!!

Let’s get back to the discussions of what’s wrong with Santorum’s positions during the Bush administration. Much more relevant!

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:58 PM

As to calling Santorum Mister Medicare Part D is simply ridiculous. He voted, along with the othe R senators at the time, in favor of the bill. Hr did not propose or submit it

I find it fascinating, that when you argue Santorum did the same thing as all the other conservative Senators to Romney fans, they ignore you. Medicare Part D was a mistake, but Santorum voted the same way as the rest of the conservatives did and specifically because it was sold as a way to stop worse leftist efforts in regards to health care.

Like say Romneycare.

Which, unlike Medicare Part D, got *0* conservative votes in the Senate.

Again, Santorum may not be conservative enough. He is certainly not more conservative then say Crapo or Inhofe, but he is objectively much more so then Romney.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:58 PM

You must be really confused.

Do you know who called Romney a conservative? Rush, Levin and Santorum.

I have higher standards than those blowhards.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 5:12 PM

In 2008, when Romney was positioning himself as a conservative, and claiming that he had changed from when he was governor of Massachusetts. Yes, at that time they believed Romney.

And now they don’t. Because he dropped the mask when it didn’t get him elected.

You foolishly think it helps Romney to say that Rush, Levin, and Santorum supported him in 2008. It’s actually some of the most damning evidence that he’s not conservative after all. People who used to support him now reject him. That’s devastating, because it raises the question of why they changed their minds. I can include myself in this group, even though I don’t have a major media platform like they do, because I was ready to vote for him in 2008 as well.

By repositioning himself as a moderate, Romney let the mask slip, and now it’s clear that he was never a conservative at all.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Huh, what mask? What exactly has Romney done in these 4 years that would make him less conservative? Nothing at all. What exactly changed in his platform? Zero. If anything, it became more conservative. You’re just rationalizing.

Anyone with half a brain could tell that Romney was a moderate center-right technocrat 4 years ago.

Those guys changed their minds because they’re flip-flopping hacks with no principles. Those same morons who were calling Bush Jr. a conservative when he was ruining the country for generations with his out of control spending.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Moderate Center-Left, precious.

That’s why he’s tanking in the polls.

Romneycare is not the “fruit” of a Conservative.

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 6:02 PM

There’s no such best, so technically, you’re quite correct that it’s not possible.

Hint: “Sharia law” is Muslim, “fundamentalist Christian” is not a term that applies to Catholics (historically, it was a Protestant movement.) Santorum is a Catholic.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Looks like the point went over your head as well.

Dante on February 19, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Slowly, since you don’t seem to get it. You can’t just string along a bunch of pejoratives unrelated to each other and have a coherent point.

Sharia Law is bad, so we’ll call Santorum a Sharia law candidate, even though he’s not a Muslim, and is a lawyer trained in our Common Law tradition.

People done like “fundamentalist,” so we’ll call Santorum a fundamentalist, even though that’s a description historically applied to Protestants, and Santorum is Catholic.

Then we’ll stick both terms in front of social conservative to make him look like an EXTREMIST!!!!!!!

Simple-minded and nonsensical insults. If you’re going to try to manipulate people with language, at least try not to suck at it.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Looks like the point went over your head as well.

Dante on February 19, 2012 at 5:54 PM

No, Dante. It is that you and your kin were such bad aims that they missed their targets entirely. It is that your logic is so “mene, mene, tekel, upharsin” as to be rejected out of hand. It is that actual logic is so far over your head that you couldn’t reach it with a 40-foot extension ladder.

It is that.

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 6:04 PM

What do you guys expect? Dante arrived during the Open Registrations, insisting that Dr. Paul was going to be our next president.

He’s just a wee bit upset.

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Santorum: Obama motivated by a “different theology”

And Santorum is correct about that.

With the confessions of his own mouth, Obama has:

1) Espoused a belief in “collective salvation” that is NOT based on the teachings of the Bible.

2) Recited the Islamic confession of faith in Arabic.

A true Christian would not have done either of those things.

A true Christian would have no problem confessing, in agreement with Romans 10:9-10:

“Jesus Christ is Lord and I believe in my heart that God has raised Him from the dead.”

Obama’s never done that.

The confessions of Obama’s own mouth reveal that he is not a true Christian. He’ll espouse an athiest socialist belief (“collective salvation”), and he’ll espouse a Muslim belief (confessing the Shahada in Arabic), but he has yet to espouse a Christian belief in God the Father raising Jesus Christ from the dead.

Obama can say that he’s a Christian all he wants, but merely saying, “I am a Christian” does not make him one.

For 20+ years, Obama attended a “church” led by the racist, pro-Palestinian, pro-Louis Farrakhan, Bible-distorting Jeremiah Wright.

ITguy on February 19, 2012 at 6:05 PM

And to that clown who has to religiously avoid the context surrounding statements in order to cherry-pick statements who declared s/he would not respond to me and subsequently posted a reminder to me that s/he wouldn’t respond to me…

ROFL
Muhahaha
ROFL
(that’s for you MUDders out there (like me))

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Huh, what mask? What exactly has Romney done in these 4 years that would make him less conservative? Nothing at all. What exactly changed in his platform? Zero. If anything, it became more conservative. You’re just rationalizing.

Anyone with half a brain could tell that Romney was a moderate center-right technocrat 4 years ago.

Those guys changed their minds because they’re flip-flopping hacks with no principles. Those same morons who were calling Bush Jr. a conservative when he was ruining the country for generations with his out of control spending.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM

All Romney has done in the last 4 years was run for office, so you ask an impossible question. But what he stopped doing was, he stopped pretending to be a conservative.

He was playing a role, and now he’s not playing it, and now people see him for who he is. And no one wants him.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM

ITguy on February 19, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Yep.

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Joana, those 3 Conservativ talk show hosts you cited, called Romney a Conservative in 2008, because compared to McCain, he was George Wallace.

However, as Rush said October 11, 2011

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Two of those blowhards are talk-shot hosts. Santorum is a politician/lobbyist.

I don’t remember them saying “Romney is not really a conservative, but he looks like one when compared to John McCain” (and I’d disagree with this, btw, it certainly overrates Romney’s conservatism).

Santorum flat out called him “a great conservative” and Rush said this:

““I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney. The three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives.”

Do you know why is Romney “less conservative” now? Because he has the demeanor of a calm, reserved, under control person and this time around those blowhards feel angry and bitter and want someone who will shout and call names at Obama. It’s about tone and attitude.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Your Mamma loves me on February 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Well, yes, my Mother would love you in a Christian way, and pity you for the hollowness of your soul and shallowness of your thoughts, and pray for you to find something to comfort you other than a sad (and patently incorrect) belief in your own intelligence.

From your speech patterns you show yourself to be well below the IQ cut-off point that you so foolishly ascribe to Christian believers.

Siddhartha Vicious on February 19, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Huh, what mask? What exactly has Romney done in these 4 years that would make him less conservative? Nothing at all. What exactly changed in his platform? Zero. If anything, it became more conservative. You’re just rationalizing.

Anyone with half a brain could tell that Romney was a moderate center-right technocrat 4 years ago.

Those guys changed their minds because they’re flip-flopping hacks with no principles. Those same morons who were calling Bush Jr. a conservative when he was ruining the country for generations with his out of control spending.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM

All Romney has done in the last 4 years was run for office, so you ask an impossible question. But what he stopped doing was, he stopped pretending to be a conservative.

He was playing a role, and now he’s not playing it, and now people see him for who he is. And no one wants him.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM

What exactly was he doing 4 years ago in terms of pretending to be a conservative than he isn’t doing now? Nothing. You won’t be able to answer this question so you’ll keep trying to beg it and move goalposts because you have nothing.

Those mindless hacks just flip-flopped.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:10 PM

It’s about tone and attitude.
joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM

You’re exactly right, precious. Northeastern Liberal Snottiness does not play well in the Heartland.

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 6:10 PM

When is a “moderate center-right technocrat” the Conservative of choice? When a Left-of Center John McCain is the only other choice.

Boy, it’s like joana just handed me the “Easy Button” or something. It’s never been so easy to logically destroy an illogical argument as that one.

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Romneycare is not the “fruit” of a Conservative.

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Well, unlike Rush, Levin and Santorum, I disliked Romneycare since it was announced – amidst the applause of many so-called “conservatives” that had no problem with it just 3 years ago.

I didn’t have to wait till Obama to start dislike that sort of solution.

Some of us still have principles.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

You may have disliked it, precious, but your candidate is still bragging on it.

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I just read the following, and Santorum just some of my respect for him.

Rick Santorum said Sunday that he “wasn’t suggesting the president was not a Christian” when he said on the campaign trail that President Obama’s agenda was based on “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.” Rather, Santorum said, he believed that the president held the view of “radical environmentalists” who wanted to shape policy around “things that frankly are just not scientifically proven” – like global warming.

If you have a theologythat’s not based on the Bible, then you aren’t a Christian. Period.

ITguy on February 19, 2012 at 6:16 PM

For the record, when I was an Ohio resident in 2008, I voted for Senator Thompson in the Primaries despite the fact McShame had the nomination sewn up by then. As a Texas resident now (and my heritage goes back to this region prior to the Republic of Texas), …

I’m voting Ted Cruz for Senate.

Romney was not a Conservative in 2008, but he was the most viable candidate to stop the deadly McShame train during the Primaries. He was the alternative to “even worse”. Nothing more. If you have 2 candidates for ruler of the country and one says “I’ll murder 10k subjects a day as ruler” and the other says “I’ll only murder 100 subjects a week as ruler”, which is the safer alternative? Neither is safe. But which is safer? DUH.

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 6:19 PM

What exactly has Romney done in these 4 years that would make him less conservative?

In 2008 Obromneycare was not the law of the land.

In 2012 it is, and any candidate that will not get rid of it is unacceptable. Hence Santorum’s rise in the polls.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Moby on thread.

Bmore on February 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM

What exactly has Romney done in these 4 years that would make him less conservative?

The answer only matters when the right question is asked (I rather enjoyed that movie). In this case the question is wrong. It presupposes Romney was Conservative to begin with. As my previous word-picture shows, Romney was more Conservative than the alternative. But a flat-out Liberal is more Conservative than a Socialist, despite the fact the flat-out Liberal is not Conservative in the least.

Romney was the most viable not-McShame. Nothing more. Romney was not Conservative then, is not Conservative now. But he was more Conservative than McShame, while he’s less Conservative than either Newt or Santorum.

And that is the difference.

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 6:41 PM

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 6:19 PM
John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Yawn.

As it was explained multiple times, those mindless blowhards didn’t say “pick Romney because McCain is even worse” – in that case you’d have a point. But they praised him as a conservative – as a “great conservative” even.

They were obviously wrong then; and they’re even more wrong now when they call Santorum a conservative.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Rick “Unforced Error” Santorum.

11:35.

profitsbeard on February 19, 2012 at 7:12 PM

What exactly was he doing 4 years ago in terms of pretending to be a conservative than he isn’t doing now? Nothing. You won’t be able to answer this question so you’ll keep trying to beg it and move goalposts because you have nothing.

Those mindless hacks just flip-flopped.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Romney ran as a conservative in 2008, reaching out to conservative opinion makers and selling himself as a conservative. Now, he runs against conservatives and sells his ability to get moderates and independents to vote for him, while ignoring the concerns of the base.

Romney’s entire campaign is built around him being someone who appeals to moderates rather than conservatives. In 2008, that was not the case.

Why would I change the question when this one can be simply answered?

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM

If you have a theologythat’s not based on the Bible, then you aren’t a Christian. Period.

ITguy on February 19, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Nor a Jew, either. For the record ;)

Herald of Woe on February 19, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Pretensions is correct. To an outsider, they might appear equivalent. If you know anything about the Bible and the Christian faith, it’s easy to recognize that they’re taking progressive political positions and trying to find some fig-leaf phrase from the Bible to justify it.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” has nothing to do with Christian faith. It was just a smart-aleck response by a murderer to say, “How should I know?”

And while giving to the poor is unquestionably part of the Christian faith, as well as part of the Judaistic tradition, it is always voluntary, not tax-supported.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:46 PM

So you say. An awful lot of Judeo-Christians disagree with you. Their bibles say the Jesus wants social justice. And looking back at the history of Judeo-Christians, voluntary ain’t got nothing to do with it. Our founders were wise enough to break with those traditions and put people ahead of gawds and we owe our liberty to their wisdom.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 7:38 PM

I will still vote for whichever R gets the nomination,

Siddhartha Vicious on February 19, 2012 at 5:50 PM

As will I. However, I would like my vote to be for a candidate who will win and who will be a great POTUS. The good news is that despite all the sound and fury, this primary fight truly is a tale told by an idiot. The outcome is not and never has been in doubt. In less than a year, Mitt will hear, “Hail to the Chief” in his honor when he enters a room.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Slowly, since you don’t seem to get it. You can’t just string along a bunch of pejoratives unrelated to each other and have a coherent point.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM

You continue to miss the point, and that’s because you’re only focusing on the second half of the post (not to mention that you’re trying to take it literally).

Dante on February 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Santorum is right, but, yeah, bad strategy. And he already knows it and is backing up.

WannabeAnglican on February 19, 2012 at 7:54 PM

“Their bibles say the Jesus wants social justice …”

Show me one passage — just one — where Christ supports the concept of the government robbing from the producers to give it to some lazy bum using the social safety net as a hammock.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

pdigaudio on February 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Oh, and to borrow a line from Billy Martin, if Obama is a Christian, then I am a Chinese aviator.

pdigaudio on February 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Show me one passage — just one — where Christ supports the concept of the government robbing from the producers to give it to some lazy bum using the social safety net as a hammock.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

pdigaudio on February 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Sure. Right after you show me one that says the government can’t recognize Joe and Ernie’s wedding vows.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 8:00 PM

posting this because the post count is 666 and that is just wrong

unseen on February 19, 2012 at 8:06 PM

unseen on February 19, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Sorry dude, she still ain’t gonna be POTUS.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 8:07 PM

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 8:07 PM

It’d in God’s hands now.

unseen on February 19, 2012 at 8:11 PM

unseen on February 19, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Like I said.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 8:13 PM

My analysis is that he will attempt to use the bully pulpit of the White House to make the moral case that casual sex is wrong.

18-1 on February 19, 2012 at 5:31 PM

yeah, like a bigot imbecile like Santorum can make the moral case for anything…and how on earth is this supposed to be small govt? oh, I see, you want small govt when it comes to keeping your money, but not when it comes to a half-wit imposing their idiotic views on people and making them matter of ‘policy’ (his words)…how jolly and convenient…oh, and btw, I am pretty sure that preaching is not in the job description of POTUS…he should have applied for pope or bishop…or alternatively, the talibans are due back in power in Afgh soon, maybe he can try there…

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Also, some argue that this is a distraction from the main economic issues of the campaign,

— Ed Morrisey, making excuses for Rick Santorum

Hey, Ed Morrissey, Rick Santorum is the absolute worst person to be talking about Obamacare birth control mandates in a general election campaign. Any birth control discussion involving the anti-birth control Rick Santorum will inevitably revolve around Rick Santorum’s opposition to birth control and will take the focus OFF of Obamacare. The focus on Rick Santorum’s freakish extremism would more than cancel out any political harm done to Obama on the issue.

Ed Morrissey, when you see Rick Santorum’s poll numbers start to sink in a week or so (as we all know they will), once people learn more about the extremist bigot Rick Santorum, I hope you don’t try to once again make cheap, pathetic excuses like you did in the post above.

For readers’ convenience, I’ve included a small collection of just a few revealing Rick Santorum quotes:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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.”

-Rick Santorum defending government bans on non-procreative (e.g., oral, anal) private, consensual sex between adults.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

-Rick Santorum

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.”

-Anti-birth control Rick Santorum, happily asserting that states can ban birth control

“The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.”

-Rick Santorum

Santorum Quote:

“This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do,” Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, “that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues … that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

bluegill on February 19, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Rick “Unforced Error” Santorum.

11:35.

profitsbeard on February 19, 2012 at 7:12 PM

priceless :-)

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 8:29 PM

bluegill on February 19, 2012 at 8:28 PM

but you missed the latest Santorum ‘pearls’, here, courtesy of politico:

“A lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions,” he said. “We know that 90 percent of Down syndrome children in America are aborted, so to suggest, where does that come from?”

His remarks on CBS’s “Face the Nation” followed his comments over the weekend, when he first raised the issue.

“Prenatal testing … does in fact result more often than not in this country in abortion,” said the former Pennsylvania senator and Republican presidential candidate, standing his ground.

He stopped short of saying he wanted it banned but said the government should not force doctors to provide that type of specific testing free.

“There are all sorts of prenatal testing which should be provided free … but not all prenatal testing,” he said.

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Slightly OT: Thought the Catholics and Evangelicals at Hot Air might be interested in this website by James Robison (Evangelical) and Jay Richards (Catholic). Faith, Family and Freedom are the main issues, and they are looking to inform people of faith — 50% of whom do not vote.

Christian Conservative on February 19, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Sanctorum’s religious zealotry will work for some, but the country will reject him. We will see how he stands up against the Romney super PAC after about a week of exposing him as the big government, religious zealot that he is.

csdeven on February 19, 2012 at 9:17 PM

bluegill on February 19, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I saw a video of Sanctorum insisting that doctors who do abortions should be prosecuted. But the mother will not be. What is the difference? The child is still dead.

Lordy, I cannot stand religious hypocrites!

csdeven on February 19, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Romney ran as a conservative in 2008, reaching out to conservative opinion makers and selling himself as a conservative. Now, he runs against conservatives and sells his ability to get moderates and independents to vote for him, while ignoring the concerns of the base.

Romney’s entire campaign is built around him being someone who appeals to moderates rather than conservatives. In 2008, that was not the case.

Why would I change the question when this one can be simply answered?

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM

So, it’s all a hissy fit those guys had because this time around Romney isn’t paying them so much attention? Terrific.

Let me get this right for all of us: you’re saying that Rush and Levin will call a politician a conservative as long as he caters to them and gives them attention. That same politician, with the exact same record, an even more conservative platform and the exact same attitude will become a liberal if he doesn’t pay them attention.

I fully agree: they are mindless, unprincipled, blowhard hacks.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 9:28 PM

bluegill on February 19, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Keep posting. You are performing a valuable public service. Santorum is starting to implode with one or two idiotic statements a day. He’s a big government, socially conservative extremist with no executive experience. Even if he were electable, which he’s not, I don’t get what people like Ed Morrissey things he’s going to do for conservatives. It’s not like he can’t overturn Roe v Wade with an executive order. What will he do for social conservatives that Gingrich and Mitt won’t do?

It’s not like he’s a brilliant turn around expert (like someone else in the race). I don’t like Newt because of his promotion of Freddie Mac – and then lying about it – and his unpredictability and unreliability, for starters, but he’s infinitely better than the control freak Santorum.

Basilsbest on February 19, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Show me one passage — just one — where Christ supports the concept of the government robbing from the producers to give it to some lazy bum using the social safety net as a hammock.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

pdigaudio on February 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Sure. Right after you show me one that says the government can’t recognize Joe and Ernie’s wedding vows.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:26,27 (NIV 1984)
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinthians 6:9,10 (NIV 1984)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:13 (NIV 1984)
“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 (NIV 1984)
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

You see, Brutus, you offered a challenge that cannot be met. I suspect it was intentional on your part, because you cannot offer a challenge to show you where in the Bible it has been declared homosexuality is an abomination, a sin, an immoral act, an unnatural act, a choice, something that will prevent a person from reaching Heaven. Because I provided multiple sources to prove just that.

No, the Bible does not talk about what government can and cannot do. Because the Bible is not concerned with “government.” The Bible is concerned with YOU. And that makes all the difference (and kills Obama’s governmental claim to a Marxist Christianity).

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 9:43 PM

And I still respect JetBoy’s, aphrael’s, Tammy Bruce’s political and societal opinions.

I want that to be crystal clear. I am not mindlessly clanging cymbals to make a lot of noise.

There are a great many sins someone can be guilty of (such as addiction to cigarettes which kill the body (ME)), but that does not prevent respect in other aspects of a person’s life, attitude, beliefs.

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Pretensions is correct. To an outsider, they might appear equivalent. If you know anything about the Bible and the Christian faith, it’s easy to recognize that they’re taking progressive political positions and trying to find some fig-leaf phrase from the Bible to justify it.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” has nothing to do with Christian faith. It was just a smart-aleck response by a murderer to say, “How should I know?”

And while giving to the poor is unquestionably part of the Christian faith, as well as part of the Judaistic tradition, it is always voluntary, not tax-supported.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 5:46 PM

So you say. An awful lot of Judeo-Christians disagree with you. Their bibles say the Jesus wants social justice. And looking back at the history of Judeo-Christians, voluntary ain’t got nothing to do with it. Our founders were wise enough to break with those traditions and put people ahead of gawds and we owe our liberty to their wisdom.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Their Bibles don’t say anything about social justice. That’s exactly the point.

And giving to the poor is giving, not confiscating and redistributing.

There are certainly areas of hard disagreements on Bible doctrine, but this is not one of them.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 20, 2012 at 12:06 AM

The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.”

-Anti-birth control Rick Santorum, happily asserting that states can ban birth control

bluegill on February 19, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I can understand the problem you have with the rest of what you quoted, but not this one.

Where in the Constitution does it say that all states must allow the usage of contraceptives? If every state must allow for the use of contraceptives, what other items do you believe the US Federal government has the Constitutional right to mandate/regulate, and which ones it hasn’t?

Do you believe individual states are Constitutionally allowed to ban certain, or all even, kinds of alcohol if they so choose, or must they tolerate whatever type of alcohol the USFG tells them to tolerate? Do you believe the movement to criminalize alcohol usage was done properly and Constitutionally by passing the 18th Amendment in at least 3/4 of the states, or do you believe there was no need for that time to have been wasted that way, as the USFG actually had the Constitutional power/authority the whole time to dictate that alcohol would be illegal throughout the country, like it’s since done with Schedule 1 substances, no matter what any state might have said in protest? Did you know that 4 colonies had official churches when they approved the Constitution, and that MA had an official state church until 1833? Do you believe MA had been acting unconstitionally by doing so, and thus could have been legally told by the USFG to dismantle its official church?

Where do you believe the USFG’s power stops? Unfortunately, it keeps infringing more and more into 10th Amendment territory, and Griswold vs. CT has been a significant contributor to that progression…

Bizarro No. 1 on February 20, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Romney ran as a conservative in 2008, reaching out to conservative opinion makers and selling himself as a conservative. Now, he runs against conservatives and sells his ability to get moderates and independents to vote for him, while ignoring the concerns of the base.

Romney’s entire campaign is built around him being someone who appeals to moderates rather than conservatives. In 2008, that was not the case.

Why would I change the question when this one can be simply answered?

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM

So, it’s all a hissy fit those guys had because this time around Romney isn’t paying them so much attention? Terrific.

Let me get this right for all of us: you’re saying that Rush and Levin will call a politician a conservative as long as he caters to them and gives them attention. That same politician, with the exact same record, an even more conservative platform and the exact same attitude will become a liberal if he doesn’t pay them attention.

I fully agree: they are mindless, unprincipled, blowhard hacks.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 9:28 PM

So when you can’t argue what I say, claim I said something else entirely and then argue that. Pretty much the definition of a straw man.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 20, 2012 at 12:11 AM

But on a positive note, in 2012 we are having a discussion about THEOLOGY! I find that refreshing.

Metanis on February 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM

To understand what Santorum meant by “different theology”, just google global warming and religion.

Jasper61 on February 20, 2012 at 12:29 AM

yeah, like a bigot imbecile

That basically describes the rest of your post to a T.

18-1 on February 20, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Please, anyone, what is that photo from?

Akzed on February 20, 2012 at 1:46 AM

We should hold hearings to find out just what Jesus would do.
MJBrutus

It should be apparent from Scripture what Jesus would do. Not only His words, but the old law, which He came not to destroy, but to fulfill. There shouldn’t be much question that He said He was God, and charged His disciples with converting all men. You can judge a “Christian” church by how closely they follow the Scripture. Maybe I haven’t heard enough of the opposing arguments, but it’s hard for me to understand why there is ambiguity about what Christ would say about abortion, redistributing wealth, an objective moral standard, etc.

marlin77 on February 20, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Sad bit of apologetics from Ed. “Obama did it first” is the best you have?

Sgt_H on February 20, 2012 at 2:11 AM

MJBrutus on February 19, 2012 at 7:38 PM

This reprobate has no idea what he is talking about.

The internet…where third stage syphillacs can spout their inanities!

tom daschle concerned on February 20, 2012 at 3:38 AM

No, the Bible does not talk about what government can and cannot do. Because the Bible is not concerned with “government.” The Bible is concerned with YOU. And that makes all the difference (and kills Obama’s governmental claim to a Marxist Christianity).

John Hitchcock on February 19, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Ding, ding, ding!

It kills Obama’s claims and it kills Santo’s claims. Keep your bibles out of my government!

MJBrutus on February 20, 2012 at 5:08 AM

This reprobate has no idea what he is talking about.

The internet…where third stage syphillacs can spout their inanities!

tom daschle concerned on February 20, 2012 at 3:38 AM

Wow, that is the first post I’ve seen from you where you did NOT include some childish, bigoted, anti-Mormon bile. I would be impressed and hopeful for you, if it weren’t for you now doing your silly name-calling with someone else. Oh, well… one step forward, one step back, I suppose.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 20, 2012 at 12:10 AM

You make many good points, and they are appreciated. I just look at it in another way.

A prominent political candidate arguing in favor of states being able to ban contraception is similar to Rand Paul commenting that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, or to Ron Paul saying the Civil War was illegal or unnecessary. It’s politically stupid, since the ship has long since sailed on those issues.

Now, I know that the Ron Paul and, to a lesser extent, Rand Paul, are very principled constitutionalist libertarians, and that’s just fine. That makes it easier to accept and understand their principled positions, without thinking they are either pro-slavery or pro-racial discrimination.

So, that’s the first reason why Santorum’s “states can birth control” answer is troubling to me. It’s just plain politically stupid because there is no point to relitigating that issue. There are only political drawbacks and next-to-no benefits. The smart answer would have been what Mitt Romney said when asked whether states can ban birth control: “No one wants to ban birth control. We’re not banning birth control. It’s a silly question. Let’s get on to issues that really matter.” (paraphrasing Romney’s answer)

The second reason why Santorum’s answer bothers me is that I don’t think Santorum is 100% opposed to the idea of banning birth control. His lack of categorical rejection of any kind of ban is likely more the result of his desire to impose his values on others than it is based on some principled constitutionalist position. Why do I doubt that he cares about strict constitutionalism? Well, have you seen his voting record? Have you heard his rants from last year against the Tea Party and against libertarians? The man Rick Santorum is a big government, anti-Tea Party, paternalistic statist who will happily use constitutionalist arguments when it suits his agenda.

Whether it’s defending hypothetical bans on contraception, defending actual bans on non-procreative, private, consensual sex between adults, or attempting to force public school science classes across the country to teach intelligent design, Santorum seems TOO WILLING to impose his own religious views on others. This is a big problem, and it’s only one of the many reasons why this man Rick Santorum would lose in a landslide to Obama if he were the nominee. Having said that, I don’t believe for a second that Santorum will be the nominee. I am confident that Republican voters will have the good sense not to nominate this bigoted and utterly unelectable clown Rick Santorum.

bluegill on February 20, 2012 at 6:47 AM

Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.

Why go there? Is Santorum stupid? Theology??? Really??? This line of discussion feeds into every negative caricature about Santorum. This is exactly what most worries me about Santorum as our nominee. If this election is about anything other than the economy and Obama’s failed policies on the economy, we will lose.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Environmental Theology

Connie on February 20, 2012 at 9:50 AM

The church of global warming.

freedomplow on February 20, 2012 at 9:54 AM

So, it’s all a hissy fit those guys had because this time around Romney isn’t paying them so much attention? Terrific.

Let me get this right for all of us: you’re saying that Rush and Levin will call a politician a conservative as long as he caters to them and gives them attention. That same politician, with the exact same record, an even more conservative platform and the exact same attitude will become a liberal if he doesn’t pay them attention.

I fully agree: they are mindless, unprincipled, blowhard hacks.

joana on February 19, 2012 at 9:28 PM

So when you can’t argue what I say, claim I said something else entirely and then argue that. Pretty much the definition of a straw man.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 20, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Really?

Here’s what you said:

Romney ran as a conservative in 2008, reaching out to conservative opinion makers and selling himself as a conservative. Now, he runs against conservatives and sells his ability to get moderates and independents to vote for him, while ignoring the concerns of the base.

Romney’s entire campaign is built around him being someone who appeals to moderates rather than conservatives. In 2008, that was not the case.

Why is he running “against conservatives” now while “selling himself as a conservative” then? Is he doing anything different? Nothing at all.

It’s all a rationalization the fire-bagging know-nothings in the talk-radio business create to justify their mindless flip-flopping.

Can you show a concrete, real example, of Romney running as less than a conservative now than 4 years ago? There’s none. It’s just a circular logic those blowhards are trying to sell – maybe motivated by what John Ziegler flat out and courageously denounced as “a cynical economic desire to keep the primaries going and to have Obama re-elected”.

joana on February 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

It’s all a rationalization the fire-bagging know-nothings in the talk-radio business create to justify their mindless flip-flopping.

Can you show a concrete, real example, of Romney running as less than a conservative now than 4 years ago? There’s none. It’s just a circular logic those blowhards are trying to sell – maybe motivated by what John Ziegler flat out and courageously denounced as “a cynical economic desire to keep the primaries going and to have Obama re-elected”.

joana on February 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Romney has changed his sales pitch this time around, and he is not explicitly trying to sell himself as a conservative. Mind you, I don’t think that his actual positions are any less conservative, but the emphasis has changed.

As for the talk radio hosts, I think that yoou’re being a little unfair. Romney was the most (and last) conservative candidate to oppose McCain, and they were trying to get the most conservative candidate they could. And it appears that they are trying to do the same now. They have been pretty consistent on this score. There is no need for any ad hominems.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM

It should be apparent from Scripture what Jesus would do. Not only His words, but the old law, which He came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

marlin77 on February 20, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Some may think it an ironic comparison, but Jesus, in this statement about coming “not to destroy the Old Law but to fulfill it” has a lot in common with the ironic paradox of Ronald Reagan’s famous remark “Trust, but verify“.

If you trust, you would not need to verify. But Reagan was being droll and ultimately meant, he didn’t trust, and would insist on verification, but he couched it in a coy phrase that sounded more reasonable and palatable -to the inattentive – than merely saying “I don’t care if they say they can be trusted, I intend to verify their claims.”

In effect, screw you, I’m doing the reasonable thing… coated with rhetorical sugar.

Jesus’ actions and sayings DO overturn the Old Law -CONSTANTLY. By his words and actions he meant that he was “fulfilling” it. The prime example would be: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” ended the killing of social and religious troublemakers by holy mobs, even though the Old Law calls for stonings and killings. To over-rule the Biblical death penalty for such sinners was a radical break with the past. An heretical move.

Another is the elimination of dietary regulations with the saying “It is not what goes into a man’s mouth, but what comes out of it, which makes him ‘unclean‘.” The Old Law is thrown aside for a more spiritual understanding of the basis of human corruption (not cultural rites, but our right behavior and belief.)

This also overturns the Old Law, but calls it “fulfillment”. A clever device of a supremely witty person.

Jesus overthrew the Old Law wherever he saw it as an ossified tradition based on a superficial vision about spirit and meaning and Love.

But posed it as “fulfilling”, not overthrowing.

Otherwise he would have been stoned to death years earlier as an heretic.

His wit and wits kept him alive for his ministry, using theological judo on his opponents whenever they tried to trap him into a religious bind, as with the “Render unto Caesar” remark, among many others.

For his daring, he died.

profitsbeard on February 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8