On January 14, Rick Santorum announced that he had become the consensus social conservative candidate by virtue of a vote at a meeting of 150 social conservatives in Texas.
On that date, he was polling at 14.7% in South Carolina, according to Real Clear Politics. Today, one day before the South Carolina primary, Santorum has declined to 11.2% while Newt Gingrich, the other contender for the social conservative vote, has surged into the lead, now at 32.4%.
Gingrich is surging despite losing out in the Texas sweepstakes and the accusation from his ex-wife that he sought an open marriage prior to their divorce.
Santorum had started to sink on January 10 so perhaps his decline is related to something other than the evangelical endorsements. In any case, the endorsements, for all of the fanfare from the evangelical leaders, have not had the desired effect. Apparently, they do not have the clout they imagined.
For a different slant, see the results of this Lifeway survey: Talking about personal faith may not have desired effect.
Hilarious. Santorum. About as electable as a roll of Bounty. If he was only as useful. Corrupt, ignorant, and deceitful. However, tonight he’s been trounced by the evangelicals’ new boyfriend, values candidate, serial adulterer, Gingrinch.
Can we please have an explanation?
How did honorable evangelical Christianity become corrupted into the current vote-getting, fag-bashing, money-making, Republican organization? Does anyone wonder why many of us look on appalled? How did this happen? And why do you who claim to be evangelical Christians put up with it? You must know the Bible. You’re not fools. What’s going on?
Also, I’m not sure that Santorum’s characterization (caricature) of ‘non-traditional conservatism’ is, in any case, correct. The idea that ‘there is such a thing as Society’ is in no way the sole property of ‘traditional conservatives’ as seemingly defined by Santorum.
What Santorum may be trying (and failing miserably) to say in the piece Zoe quoted above is that NEO-LIBERALISM is not the panacea that it was believed to be back in the 1980s. It have never really been part of the ‘Catholic mindset’ to embrace neo-liberalism; calls to protect the vulnerable go hand-in-hand with calls for social responsibility and discipline.
What we are perhaps seeing here is Santorum being the neo-liberal (on economic issues), and forty Church luminaries responding with some enlightened ‘traditional conservatism’!
I rather agree with David, and would add that even the Vatican can sometimes be surprisingly ‘nuanced’, given Benedict’s reputation.
I very much doubt that the USCCB will have that much of problem with this letter. In fact, I suspect that key USCCB members will have seen it in advance of publication and may even be behind it. (The Bishops themselves would probably not wish to make such a statement about any of the candidates, as it might look like ‘political interference’. Like many of us, they probably – and rightly – take the view that either endorsing or rubbishing any candidate(s) would be dangerous, damaging and counter-democratic.)
The Bishops of Stockton, CA (a leading member of the USCCB) and of Albany, NY posted this comment (I suspect in response to a Santorum/Gingrich supporter):
‘ If you believe only dissenters and apostates are speaking out against the stereotyping, it begs the question: where are the voices of Church leaders you recognize?
‘ After all, last spring, Catholic bishops cautioned both houses of Congress: “The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated. Their voices are too often missing in these debates, but they have the most compelling moral claim on our consciences and our common resources.” ‘
I also doubt that the Vatican will take issue with the general concerns the letter raises.
Whether the letter represents fairly Santorum’s and Gingrich’s ‘campaign behaviour’ is a matter for another discussion. I suspect it does – at least in part. Some people (e.g. Santorum/Gingrich supporters) will be pretty peeved about this, but I doubt there will be any meaningful ‘reprisals’ against any of the authors.
With the current makeup of the USCCB, those signatories will be in hot water – except those retired, and so immune from retaliation.
Those are “old guard” ideas, from when the Catholic Church espoused a more liberal position. Santorum represents the current view of the senior hierarchy, if nor of the laity. They are “traditional” conservatives now, not the old kind, who were described by Santorum as follows:
That’s now “radical individualism”. It’s also the view of many of the laity, and the electorate. It’s the hierarchy that’s increasingly out-of-touch.
More than 40 national Catholic leaders and prominent theologians at universities across the country released a strongly worded open letter today urging “our fellow Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail.”
I’m not a Catholic myself, but I’ve studied at both St. John’s University (MN) and Catholic University of America (DC). It seems to me there is no single Catholic position on most things. Despite the Vatican’s claim to speak for the Church, Catholics have views that range from the very conservative to the very liberal, theologically as well as politically. Mostly these coexist with one another rather peacefully. Many Catholic leaders are wise about when to speak and when to keep silent. I applaud these leaders for believing it to be the better part of wisdom to speak as they have.
@ Lynn David : Thank God for that!
An interesting aside: although Obama’s current ‘approval rating’ is negative, that of Congress is far more negative … far more!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
Obama is slightly behind the GOP generally, but level with, or ahead of, each of the current GOP candidates (Romney runs him closest, of course).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_president_obama_vs_republican_candidate-1745.html
and
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Given that we can reasonably expect a slick and stylish Obama campaign, the forthcoming general election is going to be a real ‘nail-biter’. I’m stocking up on the pop-corn already!
It appears the fix is in and Gingrich has won South Carolina. And there are plenty of folks who think his response to the first question in the most recent debate clinched it for him.
What are we seeing? The triumph of rhetoric over substance? The end of the religious right as a political force? Both?
It has seemed to me all through this election cycle that the religious right is no longer a force. Since I object to demeaning the Church of Jesus Christ by making it a political entity, I can only cheer the end of this particular brand of religious politics.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that Gingrich is accused of wanting an open marriage, attacks the messenger, and is roundly cheered for it by conservatives? And this from the party who claims to believe in defending marriage? (I guess his affair was straight, so does that make it OK?)
Mr. Gingrich oversaw the prosecution of Mr. Clinton after the Monica affair. He now says it was all about the President’s lying to a federal judge. No it wasn’t. That was what they could impeach Clinton for. But a large part of it was about the politics of saying the Republicans are for “family values” while the Democrats are filanderers.
I have no way of knowing the truth about Mr. Gingrich’s former marriage. But there are just too many ironies here. I could wish this would put an end to the nonsense, as I see it, about the Republicans defending marriage (against gay people). But I know that’s wishing for too much. But perhaps no one can say the Republicans are consistent with a straight face.
Perhaps we could start a rumor: Under Pres. Gingrich, DOMA will be reinterpretted to define marriage as between one man, one woman, and a mistress if the man wants one.
Perhaps we could start a rumor: Under Pres. Gingrich, DOMA will be reinterpretted to define marriage as between one man, one woman, and a mistress if the man wants one.
Correction: philanderers.
It appears the fix is in and Gingrich has won South Carolina. And there are plenty of folks who think his response to the first question in the most recent debate clinched it for him.
What are we seeing? The triumph of rhetoric over substance? The end of the religious right as a political force? Both?
It has seemed to me all through this election cycle that the religious right is no longer a force. Since I object to demeaning the Church of Jesus Christ by making it a political entity, I can only cheer the end of this particular brand of religious politics.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that Gingrich is accused of wanting an open marriage, attacks the messenger, and is roundly cheered for it by conservatives? And this from the party who claims to believe in defending marriage? (I guess his affair was straight, so does that make it OK?)
Mr. Gingrich oversaw the prosecution of Mr. Clinton after the Monica affair. He now says it was all about the President’s lying to a federal judge. No it wasn’t. That was what they could impeach Clinton for. But a large part of it was about the politics of saying the Republicans are for “family values” while the Democrats are filanderers.
I have no way of knowing the truth about Mr. Gingrich’s former marriage. But there are just too many ironies here. I could wish this would put an end to the nonsense, as I see it, about the Republicans defending marriage (against gay people). But I know that’s wishing for too much. But perhaps no one can say the Republicans are consistent with a straight face.
Hilarious. Santorum. About as electable as a roll of Bounty. If he was only as useful. Corrupt, ignorant, and deceitful. However, tonight he’s been trounced by the evangelicals’ new boyfriend, values candidate, serial adulterer, Gingrinch.
Can we please have an explanation?
How did honorable evangelical Christianity become corrupted into the current vote-getting, fag-bashing, money-making, Republican organization? Does anyone wonder why many of us look on appalled? How did this happen? And why do you who claim to be evangelical Christians put up with it? You must know the Bible. You’re not fools. What’s going on?
Correction: philanderers.
Not only does RCP think that Romney might yet win in SC, but there’s a picture of my apartment block in the bottom left corner of the page! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/19/why_romney_can_win_in_south_carolina.html
An interesting aside: although Obama’s current ‘approval rating’ is negative, that of Congress is far more negative … far more!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
Obama is slightly behind the GOP generally, but level with, or ahead of, each of the current GOP candidates (Romney runs him closest, of course).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_president_obama_vs_republican_candidate-1745.html
and
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Given that we can reasonably expect a slick and stylish Obama campaign, the forthcoming general election is going to be a real ‘nail-biter’. I’m stocking up on the pop-corn already!
Also, I’m not sure that Santorum’s characterization (caricature) of ‘non-traditional conservatism’ is, in any case, correct. The idea that ‘there is such a thing as Society’ is in no way the sole property of ‘traditional conservatives’ as seemingly defined by Santorum.
What Santorum may be trying (and failing miserably) to say in the piece Zoe quoted above is that NEO-LIBERALISM is not the panacea that it was believed to be back in the 1980s. It have never really been part of the ‘Catholic mindset’ to embrace neo-liberalism; calls to protect the vulnerable go hand-in-hand with calls for social responsibility and discipline.
What we are perhaps seeing here is Santorum being the neo-liberal (on economic issues), and forty Church luminaries responding with some enlightened ‘traditional conservatism’!
I very much doubt that the USCCB will have that much of problem with this letter. In fact, I suspect that key USCCB members will have seen it in advance of publication and may even be behind it. (The Bishops themselves would probably not wish to make such a statement about any of the candidates, as it might look like ‘political interference’. Like many of us, they probably – and rightly – take the view that either endorsing or rubbishing any candidate(s) would be dangerous, damaging and counter-democratic.)
The Bishops of Stockton, CA (a leading member of the USCCB) and of Albany, NY posted this comment (I suspect in response to a Santorum/Gingrich supporter):
‘ If you believe only dissenters and apostates are speaking out against the stereotyping, it begs the question: where are the voices of Church leaders you recognize?
‘ After all, last spring, Catholic bishops cautioned both houses of Congress: ”The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated. Their voices are too often missing in these debates, but they have the most compelling moral claim on our consciences and our common resources.” ‘
I also doubt that the Vatican will take issue with the general concerns the letter raises.
Whether the letter represents fairly Santorum’s and Gingrich’s ‘campaign behaviour’ is a matter for another discussion. I suspect it does – at least in part. Some people (e.g. Santorum/Gingrich supporters) will be pretty peeved about this, but I doubt there will be any meaningful ‘reprisals’ against any of the authors.
I rather agree with David, and would add that even the Vatican can sometimes be surprisingly ‘nuanced’, given Benedict’s reputation.
Not only does RCP think that Romney might yet win in SC, but there’s a picture of my apartment block in the bottom left corner of the page! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/19/why_romney_can_win_in_south_carolina.html
I’m not a Catholic myself, but I’ve studied at both St. John’s University (MN) and Catholic University of America (DC). It seems to me there is no single Catholic position on most things. Despite the Vatican’s claim to speak for the Church, Catholics have views that range from the very conservative to the very liberal, theologically as well as politically. Mostly these coexist with one another rather peacefully. Many Catholic leaders are wise about when to speak and when to keep silent. I applaud these leaders for believing it to be the better part of wisdom to speak as they have.
With the current makeup of the USCCB, those signatories will be in hot water – except those retired, and so immune from retaliation.
Those are “old guard” ideas, from when the Catholic Church espoused a more liberal position. Santorum represents the current view of the senior hierarchy, if nor of the laity. They are “traditional” conservatives now, not the old kind, who were described by Santorum as follows:
That’s now “radical individualism”. It’s also the view of many of the laity, and the electorate. It’s the hierarchy that’s increasingly out-of-touch.
@ Lynn David : Thank God for that!
More than 40 national Catholic leaders and prominent theologians at universities across the country released a strongly worded open letter today urging “our fellow Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail.”