Santorum's Campaign Has Finally Reached the End of the Road

What a surprise! hahahaha


"It seems as though the evangelical candidate..." He's a Catholic; he's no evangelical.

Your right Sue. First he was being called a Fundamentalist now an Evangelical.

Theophobes remind me a lot of white bigots who think all Blacks look alike. All kinds of Christians look alike to them too.

It might be because of his daughter going into the hospital this last weekend. Perhaps she is not doing well and his family needs him at home.

Ron Paul can't beat Obama; Gingrich is a big gov't progressive and probably wouldn't beat Obama either.

Obama gets re-elected...Bye Bye America!

And do we really want to start acting like the left and bash candidates because of their religion? I imagine Romney's religion is going to take a beating. Obama wins and gets his way, freedom of religion will be gone anyway for most of us.

His daughter's prognosis was better as of yesterday. It was only a matter of time before this would have happened anyway.

No one is doing any such thing, bashing candidates because of their religion. I don't know from where you got that notion. I'm merely making a distinction that theophobes don't seem to get. All Christians are not evangelicals, and Santorum is no evangelical. Does that make his religion bad? No, it doesn't; it makes it not evangelical.

Granted, Santorum is a Catholic, not an Evangelical. He is however farther to the right of the political spectrum than 70% of American Catholics. Most American Catholics are quite willing, for example, to use contraceptives no matter what the Pope says on the topic.

Yeah, a lot of Catholics are Democrats too. The Catholics are generally considered a part of the religious right, but they're a mixed bag really.

Given Santorum's success in the bible belt I would say he was very popular among Evangelical voters.

"Catholics are generally considered a part of the religious right"

Don't know where you got that idea~nearly 2/3 affiliate as Democrats.

And do we really want to start acting like the left and bash candidates because of their religion?

Did you mean "acting like the right"? The left doesn't do the religion bashing. In fact, the right does more than just bash religion, they actually swing at pinatas with the faces of Democrats. Symbolic of their wish to bash anyone not white over the head as well as opposing lawmakers. Way to go, "evangelical right-wingers".
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/17/82412/cpac-pelosi-pinata/

I just said, they're generally considered part of the religious right, though I don't know why they are because there a lot of Democrats who are Catholics and they are mixed bag. It's certainly not my determination of the religious right but, unfortunately, I don't call all the shots.

"In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition of numerous groups, chiefly evangelicals and Catholics."

I think she was talking to me there, Lora. She put it under my comment. I answered her. Did you see that?

Scott, if you want to call it popularity, you can, but I think it was more of process of elimination. They've had the choice of a womanizer, a Mormon (a religion they're not too jazzed about) and Ron Paul, but I know that a lot of people still don't know enough about him and even if most of the RR did, he would not be their choice. He's for religious freedom, but I don't think he appeals especially to any major, specific group except people who are liberty oriented from various factions, one of the problems he faces or faced.

Yeah, I see that Sue. Did you see me point out the error in the statement? You're not acting like the left. You're acting within the Republican Party lines when you bash religion.
Do you need me to repeat it? Do you need further examples?

Lot's of Evangelicals are Democrats as well. More than third. According to the Pew Forum survey 34% are democrats, 50% are republicans, 9% are independents are 7% unsure.

For Catholics 48% are Democrats, 33% Republicans, 10% Independents and 9% unsure.

It's true a higher percentage of Evangelicals are Republicans than for Catholics but neither faith is monolithic in their members' political affiliation.

Mormons have a higher percentage of Republicans than the other two. 65% Republicans, 22% Democrats, 8% Independents, and 5% unsure

"Yeah, I see that Sue. Did you see me point out the error in the statement?"

There was no error in her statement, Lora, because she was addressing me when she said "acting like the left." You twisted her statement and answered it the way you did, but that's just typical of what lefties do with others' meanings so I have reams of those examples, but thanks anyway.

No, of course, neither Evangelicals nor Catholics are monolithic in their political affiliations, Scott, but there is a significantly higher percentage of Democrats from the Catholic faith and significantly higher percentage of Republicans from evangelicals. What the Pew Study, according to those stats, doesn't tell you are the numbers of likely voters from those groups that are Republicans and Democrats. I don't know, of course, but I would venture a guess that many of the Democrats in the evangelical group are probably less likely voters than most of the Democrats in the Catholic group. When they talk about the influence of the RR, it is the likely voters they speak of that form the solid block of voters that make the difference in an election when they have a candidate they are behind. The Catholic vote, if this were a Mike Huckabee, for instance, would not be in line with the Democrat Catholics so it's the larger percentage of likely voting evangelical Republicans along with that high percentage of Mormon Republicans who would cancel out that Catholic Democrat vote.

People thought that Santorim was doing so well because when it comes to a choice between a Mormon and a Catholic, the evangelicals nationwide are tossed like a ship in a squall. That's why when you said Santorum was popular in the bible belt, I said that the popularity of Santorum with that faction was process of elimination because for the most and I mean most part, if the evangelicals in the bible belt absolutely must make a choice between a Catholic and a Mormon, they'll choose a Catholic. Now that they only have Romney, I don't know what they're going to do. I'm sure there will be a good deal of them who won't vote at all in November.

Personally, I think it was the best thing that could have happened for Santorum and his family.......

"so it's the larger percentage of likely voting evangelical Republicans along with that high percentage of Mormon Republicans who would cancel out that Catholic Democrat vote."

And I should have added here that this would only be the case if there were no Mormon runnning in this race. This is why I was so angered when people would say that Ron Paul was a spoiler. The spoiler (and this no slight against the Mormon religion, but just because of the way the RR votes) has been Romney and he will lose this election.

Another thing the Pew study shows is the Evangelicals and Mormons have significantly higher percent of white members. Close to 30% of the Catholics in the survey where Hispanic and about 65% white. Where the Evangelicals where over 90% white. Although the survey really didn't say anything about the political alignment of Hispanic Catholics.

I'm not really sure about whether Evangelical Democrats are not likely voters.

Scott, as I said, I am speculating on the likelihood, but what you said I said, and what I said are two entirely different things. I never said that Evangelical Democrats are not likely voters. I said, "I would venture a guess that many of the Democrats in the evangelical group are probably less likely voters than most of the Democrats in the Catholic group." That is a statement only of relativity; it is not saying that they're NOT likely voters at all. I'm looking for something that helps cancel out that block of Democrat Catholics only because they consider Catholics part of the RR and to do that, a number of factors must cancel at least enough of the D-Catholics out for the RR to be as strong a voting block as it is when there is a candidate the Evangelicals are solidly behind.

I'm very skeptical when I see stats that include Hispanics. As was pointed out in this Zimmermann case, he describes himself as a white Hispanic. This is not something new at all. On forms that ask for how a person defines his race, they don't include Hispanic as a race because it's really not considered a race. The choices are usually White, Black, Asian or Other. Although there will be many Hispanics who will choose OTHER and then fill out what OTHER means to them in a question posed after they indicate that where they'll write in Hispanic, it is an unknown how many Hispanics who consider themselves White just check White as their race instead. Data can be very misleading and this is one example of how it can. Some people think that the phrase coined by Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics," is just a way to dismiss the data, but unless you know how the data are derived, I say that data can be a very sloppy way to make a point and draw erroneous conclusions. I'm not also saying you're doing that, but just pointing out a specific anomaly here that needs consideration. It may be why they didn't offer any political alignment stats for "Hispanic" Catholics.

I believe that both Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann are both evangelicals. Im not totally sure though. Santorum wad able to get endorsements from evangelical ministers/leaders in Texas. Maybe they just didn't like the other two. I think Santorums popularity probably depends more on shared values with many bible belt voters more than theological differences in beliefs.

Rick Perry was from the get-go, at least to me, very obviously not a proponent of family values. He had already lost support of much of his TX constitutency by the time he opened his campaign with a pretentious prayer rally. He had mandated the Gardasil vaccine in his state, and when the RR made a fuss enough for him to realize his big boo-boo, he modified it to including an opt-out. Evangelicals are not all as stupid as they're portrayed.

Michelle Bachmann is another story. I remember when she was at a rally in support of Palin in 2007, and she had given a rather impressive speech before they hugged at the end. It was then that I saw some personal aspirations beyond this support of Palin as the VP running-mate, and started to speculate on whether there might have been the faintest jealousy on Palin's part at the time, knowing that she might in the future steal her spotlight. I think that when Michelle did emerge as a candidate, the focus was largely by that time on just getting rid of Obama, and she didn't do such a good job of proving she could do that so I think they were splintered early on in their assessment of her abilities.

I think you're right that the "shared values" is the major factor that allowed them to swallow the Catholic candidacy in Santorum's case, though, along with what I said in the first place. There just wasn't anyone else by the time the others faded into the abyss.

The 'Shared Values' thing may have helped Santorum with Evangelicals but could have hurt him with other Catholics. I'm not sure about 70% as Chris stated above but certainly a fair number.

Probably if a viable Evangelical candidate would have been running Santorum wouldn't have been as successful in the bible belt states.

"Probably if a viable Evangelical candidate would have been running Santorum wouldn't have been as successful in the bible belt states."

Not just probably

Personally, I will miss Santorum. After Gingrich drops out, who will speak for the Tea Party?

:)

Sarah Palin is still shooting off her mouth on the airwaves. She's got the Tea Party's back.

Perhaps now, Democrats can focus on defeating Teapublicans in the Senate and House races. For example, Teapublican Mike Coffman from Colorado should not be going back to Washington.

Lora, just like the 2010 elections, it will be the republicans who will defeat the commiecrats in the Senate and get the marxist out of the White House.

"Obama wins and gets his way, freedom of religion will be gone anyway for most of us."

Obama has served 3 years, Roryann. Please supply a list of the Christians that Obama has beaten, deprived of their voting rights, jailed, or executed.

I'm not the one who said that so it's not for me to answer, but your jumps are just blatantly leading to your own conclusions. At least try to be a little more subtle with your fallacious arguments.

She said freedom of religion would be gone and you equate lack of freedom of religion only to voting rights, jailing or execution. Well, on the other hand, that sounds about right. As long as they don't take away your voting privileges, keep you out of the slammer and don't slaughter you, you've got no right to complain. What a joke! Thanks for defining and confirming your definition of freedom of religion.

okay, how about churches that he has closed? How do you define "freedom of religion?"

the only actual religious issue having to do with Obama that I can think of is the contraception bit in the health care plan. At first he wanted Catholic colleges and hospitals to pay for contraception, then he reconsidered and backed off that idea figuring that the health insurers can be asked to do it themselves. Anything else?

Chris, google Catholic mandate, for one.

That's a name given by the right. It's not a mandate on Catholics.
The Catholic Church is not above the law and the right now, the law of the land is that contraception should be provided to women.
The Catholics have taken an archaic, sexist stance on this issue and it's absurd that any American is willing to stand behind them on it.
It's an assault on women by the right. Nothing less, nothing more.

AND, it doesn't prohibit anybody from practicing their Catholic faith of not using birth control. What it DOES do is provide a MEDICATION to women. Women whom the Catholic Church deem as "less than".

Chris-"okay,how about churches that he has closed?"
Oh, yeah, that really helps your definition. Mighty "liberal" of you.

It reminds of an email I got today from a conservative friend.
Someone else had made a proposal to change the parameters for approval for a mortgage and Chris Dodd, Democrat, said, "We can't do that because that will eliminate people who can't afford them from buying houses." My friend ended the email with, "I can't say anything to this except what it says for itself."

Who said lefties are lazy? You people dig your own graves and bury yourselves alive.

"AND, it doesn't prohibit anybody from practicing their Catholic faith of not using birth control." --

Liar, or dolt. Don't make me say it. Which do you choose?

It forces the Faithful and the opposed to PAY for it.

I pay for a lot of things I don't agree with.
But I'm not a screaming baby crying about it and telling everyone I know to ignore the law just because I don't want to pay for one thing...such is the Catholic Church. Wah-wah!

yes ......... how horrendous that anyone would stick to a belief or principal - we should all simply shut up and do what we are told like good little subjects.

This is really a moot point and Democrats know it. It's the other side that just won't let it go.
"Birth control" is used to treat medical conditions. Why it's not classified as a "medicine" is simply an error that needs corrected.
Fix that and the Catholics have no argument.
Nor do you, Del or Mark-John. You both are simply repeating propaganda from the right.

So what are Barack Obama's religious beliefs? At one time didn't he attended a church in Chicago? I realize he's not a Muslim but what are his beliefs?

He said Jeremiah Wright taught him about Christianity. He attended a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years; very anti-American, anti-US military, anti-colonialist, so we're seeing all of that in what Obama's done in the last 3 years.

Bull! Here's a list of people who were also members of the United Church of Christ:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_cong.html

he's a Christian not that it matters. Yeah you're right- Obama aint no muslim.

He's one of Satan's children.

His little girl was in the hospital again. It was probably best for his family.

Johnny, did someone put that sticker on your back along with the one that said "KICK ME"

I'm just not a hater is all.