Rick Santorum (US Republican presidential candidate) trying to bring Jesus into the government

To me, this whole thing is exposing the republican party for what it has become. It's been taken over by the vocal minority, a far right, bible thumping group that wants to shape the law of the land to push their morals.

I believe that in the end, even if they get their candidate nominated, they have no chance at actually getting him/her/it elected. They turn off all of the voters who are on the left, undecided and a lot of the more liberal leaning conservatives. It will be a landslide and hopefully wake up the republicans so they can root out these crazies.

If its not, (insert your deity of choice) help us all.

 

For what it is worth RCP does an average of polls, Santorum's average support in the GOP is about 29%. Assuming he is getting the majority of the "bible thumping" support that would indicate that the "bible thumping" portion of the party is actually less than 29% because Santorum is getting a good portion of the "anybody but Romney" support. Also, remember McCain was the 2008 nominee, not a "bible thump-er" - looking back assuming Huckabee was getting the majority of the "bible thumping" support, he did not even come close to winning. Santorum has most likely peaked.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

 

Despite Ace's fuzzy math, in many states, it is a significant minority, in others, a majority.

Georgia - 64% of Republicans who voted in the primary were evangelicals. 47% in Ohio, 72% in Oklahoma, 73% in Tennessee, 44 % in Virginia.



In both Iowa and South Carolina, over 50% were evangelicals.

Yes, they have hijacked the Republican party.
--- merged: Mar 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM ---
From the Faith and Freedom Coalition:

Ace....you can manipulate the numbers to convince yourself that only a small minority of Republicans actively support or passively accept the extremism represented by Rev. Dennis Terry, but that wont change a thing.

It would require less religiously extreme conservatives like yourself to denounce this vitriolic rhetoric and everything it represents that goes against the core values of religious tolerance to begin to make a difference in today's evangelical Republican party.

 

No matter what the percentage, the question remains: Can an evangelical republican win a general election? I would answer absolutely not.

 

You may want to clarify what you are implying about evangelicals in your posts.

I suspect the percentages you cite have not changed much in the past 50 years - if anything the percentage of people who would consider themselves truly devoted evangelical has declined. They do not and have never controlled the Republican party. Santorum is not going to win the nomination. Huckabee did not win. You are drawing some conclusions that do not add up.
--- merged: Mar 20, 2012 at 4:22 PM ---
In Obama's words, on evangelism:

Is Barack Obama an Evangelical? - Ancient Hebrew Poetry

Q&A: Barack Obama | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Or, was/is Obama pandering?

OBAMA TO EVANGELICAL LEADERS: "I ENDORSE YOU."​

--- merged: Mar 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM ---

Obama may be closer to being evangelical than you apparently want to give him credit for, assuming you believe his words. How do you define the term anyway?

Wasn't Carter evangelical?

 

I'm not clear on your point, Ace. Is that, in your opinion, evangelicals aren't "bible-thumpers"?

 

My definition of evangelical (and I think this is how it has been portrayed) is a group of fundamentalist, morally conservative christians. I would group Obama into more of a progressive christian group. In any case, his faith was not the main thrust of his campaign as it appears Santorum's is.

But back to my question. Can an evangelical christian win a general election?

 

Some evangelicals are Democrats.
Some have extreme views on some issues, some don't.
Some agree with each other on specific issues, some don't.
Some speak in fiery rhetoric and their bark is worse than their bite.
Etc.
Etc.
As a group I doubt they are much different than any other group in terms of diversity within what they have in common. I am not clear on what some are suggesting about the group, but I think it is being exaggerated.
--- merged: Mar 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM ---

Yes. Fundamentalism, being morally conservative and Christian/other religious or nonreligious beliefs fits a hell (pun intended) of a lot of national political figures, historically and current.

Given your definition Bush was evangelical, he won two modern Presidential elections.

Bill Clinton was a Southern Baptist, some consider this group to be evangelical. Is the implication in your post, that he was not religious? And, who are you to judge?

Southern Baptist Church - Beliefs and Practices of the Southern Baptist Denomination

Again, I don't think I get or understand the implication of what you folks are posting.

 

That wasn't what I asked. But I get it. You're changing the subject.

The "evangelical" figures you responded to were in response to your post about "bible-thumpers" (something about 29% of republicans being "bible-thumpers"). I guess "bible-thumper" is an (at least) equally vague concept.

I withdraw my question.

 

Yes, all of the former presidents and candidates could be considered evangelical. Though I would argue that most presidents are Christians out of nessecity more than staunch beliefs. You can't get elected in this country if you don't go to church on Sundays and claim some sect of Christianity.

My point is no modern president has led with that.

 

Which, by my definition, makes most of the electorate "bible-thumpers".

 

I don't know, I think George W was pretty vocal about his evangelical views before and after he was elected (admitted to being born again and instituted morning prayer meetings in the White House).

I would consider him the most evangelical of the modern Presidents, with very staunch, fundamentalist beliefs.

 

Yes, He's scary and not to be "voted for".

I hate that he thinks he can control the Internet and remove Porn and anything "bad" on it. Most of his claims seem like BS.

Move on....

 

I did not know what a "bible thumper" was, I made an assumption based on context - I made the point that Evangelical Christian's are different than what was being classified as a "bible thumper". I think I did answer the question. Evangelical Christians are more than "bible thumpers".

Context is important.

Why?
--- merged: Mar 21, 2012 4:17 PM ---

I do not agree with your premise. I wonder how others feel about what you just posted.

Led with what? Religious freedom - that has been a core value of Evangelical Christians - and candidates certainly lead with that.
--- merged: Mar 21, 2012 4:28 PM ---

He also supported a Constitutional Amendment the marriage be between a man and a woman. Even Bill Clinton supported Federal legislation protecting the institution of marriage as only being between a man and a woman. Even Hillery Clinton found a way to be against gay marriage while saying she was for "equality" on the issue. So, what is the real separation between these people? What is Obama's view? If we go down the list of Evangelical issues some are fearful of and compare liberal and conservatives on a national stage, we won;t see much difference - perhaps other than some being more honest.

 

Some argue Thomas Jefferson was not Christian. And there have been other Presidents listed as "Unaffiliated" in terms of religion. Even Abraham Lincoln kept his religion very private and certainly did not run on the basis of emphasizing religion to get elected. If modern politicians have adopted a belief that a false emphasis on religion is the only way to get elected I am sad for them, not the country.

{added} the entire article is an interesting read, here is a portion, regarding Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Uncertainty - US News and World Report

 

Here is another interesting read, this time on Jefferson:

And here is a quote from Jefferson in a letter he wrote:

Thomas Jefferson quotes

In a time when people thought a Catholic could not get elected JFK, did, and stood with his convictions. The nation can handle it - when people demonstrate courage in the face of doing what is right, they are respected.

 

We argue that in hindsight because of what we know about the men now. They were elected in an era without the media that we have today. They were also elected in an era when a candidate being an atheist was unthinkable to the point never being questioned.

In our current environment, a candidate is judged by carefully edited sound bites, commercials and photos by the majority of voters. This makes small, largely unimportant facts more important than a candidate's voting record.

...and to just keep kicking a dead horse: What I mean by "No modern president has led with that" is that is Santorum's main talking point. His religion and how he wants it to effect lawmaking is what everyone knows about him. I am probably as tuned into the national news as your average voter, that is, I'm not focused on the race with any fervor. I hear a few things about each candidate online on tv and on the radio, but I'm not studying them. I know Romney is a liberal leaning conservative who is insanely rich and has no real connection with "the poor" or "wage earners". I know Newt is a conservative's conservative who is also super rich, but doesn't flaunt it, except for his wife's expense account at Tiffany's. The only thing I know about Santorum is he is super religious and he legislates in line with his beliefs to the extent of wanting to make every woman who wants an abortion to undergo a highly invasive ultrasound probe. I know he wants to censor the internet without knowing how the internet actually works. Everything I know about Santorum has to do in one way or another with his religion. I call that leading with religion.

Maybe I need to study the candidates more. I probably do. But the vast majority of the voting public isn't going to, no matter how much they need to.

 

Fro the record, I will state again, I disagree with your premise.

Santorum is not going to get the nomination. that was my point on this issue. He has peaked with 29%, in my opinion. the 29% includes some who just don't want Romney. Religion is not even close to being the most important factor in this race. For those to suggest the most vocal conservative right wing religious evangelicals control the Republican Party, they are simply building up their false boogey men. For some reason they need to gin up a mythical beast. One day it is Rush, or Palin, or the Tea Party, or Evangelicals...it is getting tiresome. That is the conclusion I have reached from this line of posts.