The New York Times The Caucus blog on two major endorsements of Rick Santorum by prominent Iowa social conservative leaders:
Two weeks before the Republican nominating contest opens at the Iowa caucuses, former SenatorRick Santorum of Pennsylvania has won a highly coveted endorsement from one of the state’s social conservative leaders.
Bob Vander Plaats, who has sought to put his imprint on the Republican presidential race for months, announced Tuesday that he would support Mr. Santorum. Mr. Vander Plaats and other evangelical Christians have talked openly about their struggle to unite behind one candidate, but he urged others to follow his lead.
Mr. Santorum, campaigning Tuesday in Pella, Iowa, said the endorsement demonstrates how evangelicals in the state increasingly “see this as the campaign that is going to be the conservative alternative.”
... Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes same-sex marriage, also endorsed Mr. Santorum. “I urge every undecided Iowa caucusgoer to take a close look at Rick, to study the scriptures, to pray hard,” Mr. Hurley said. “For above all, we answer to God for our vote.
18 Comments
Who are these people whose endorsements he got? Never heard of 'em.
Come on Conservatives. Give Santorum your vote!!
Aren't they the people who thought that black families were better off under slavery?
Too bad Hurley and Plaats have only one vote each.
It would be extremely interesting should Rick Santorum outperform expectations in Iowa.
While Rick has his own problems (think Arlen Specter) and is a neocon through and through.......
He is also right on the money on social issues.
I could vote for him.
If the conservatives in Iowa get behind him in numbers, I just might get the chance.
A complete "social conservative" is unelectable.Allowing the fight against SSM to be identified with the far right,rather than isolating the advocacy of it as an insanity of the far left,loses the mainstream.
Most conservative is not most qualified.
I like Santorum. I just hope the GOP doesn't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with all the negative ads. Like many folks, I don't like it. The primary concern of everyone should be defeating NObama.
Our country needs to re-establish its moral footing before the lord will grant us economic prosperity. Santorum will restore Christian principles to our government, one Nation Under God. Exactly what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution.
@Delano: while I'm not a fan of Santorum or the GOP, I think you're right. I'm picking Santorum to huckabee the rest of the GOP field and win Iowa. I dont gamble, but if I did I'd bet on the guy from Pennsylvannia. The rest of the primaries are another story...
The framers of the Constitution had nothing to do with the 1950s campaign to insert the words "under God" into the also-post-Constitution Pledge of Allegiance (not a government creation).
"Unelectable"?
By November 2012, Mickey Mouse could beat Barack Obama in a landslide.
This is the year for social conservatives to revolt if the Republican Party attempts to foist another "electable" disaster upon us.
Since we cannot know the future, we can only speculate. But i would like to see Gingrich as President and Santorum as Vice President. I thought Cain would make a good Vice President, and pull the Black vote from Obama, but he couldn't take the embarrassment of unfair allegations against himself, from the past. He didn't have what it takes to be a politician. In Hawaii, lots of people vote for NObama, just because he is registered as having been born here. Yeah, with Hawaiian efficiency in vital statistics (like, first, the Governor couldn't find NObama's long birth certificate form, all they had was a computer record), 2 years after Hawaii became the 50th State NObama says he 'knows' he was born here. Any pictures? Nope. But, how can we question the President? God forbid. But that's the difference between a President and a King.
What's Maggie's opinion on the below article that shows Romney's pro-homosexuality positions?
http://www.massresistance.com/docs/gen/11d/romney_issues_1216/index.html
ResistSSA - The articles more or less points out that Romney is the only Republican candidate in tune with the majority of the country which does not go crazy due to the fact that gay people exist. As a politically moderate (fiscally conservative), gay Catholic, Romney is the only Republican candidate I could vote for in a general election. The others have based their campaigns on who can make the most outrageously homophobic statements.
Louis and Rick both make good points. I agree with Rick this is the year to run with a real social conservative, as long as they also have solid credentials. But Louis is right that it is a handicap with moderates, so we should highlight the insane left and make sure Obama is tied to it (ie, don't let him get away with saying he opposes SSM too).
One way to show how loony they are is Transgenderism, and same-sex procreation. They want to eliminate gender and let people reproduce with either sex, or as either sex, and that will be super expensive and unethical, but it is a key plank of the Democrats.
As Gingrich said, gay people should vote for Obama.
Romney doesn't just tolerate people being gay, he pushes the agenda and agrees with the basic premise. He is probably in favor of allowing same-sex couples to reproduce and teaching kids they can change sex, and might be the other sex.
JR-Please explain to us what is a Gay Catholic, what part of Catholic teachings that allow homosexuality...? Second, the Majority do not want our President promoting Gay/lesbian propaganda, this is why Obama the GLBT activist is hated by most, and why Republicans our not flocking in droves to side of Mitt.
The Bible does not prohibit 'homosexuality' because the word did not exist in the 1st century A.D. It prohibits the homosexual act (as we call it, today), and the New Testament prohibits the homosexual act between two men and between two women, so it is more than about -p e n e t r a t i o n-, it is about not getting influenced by philosophies which negate what is obvious, our very nature. Once you are into those philosophies, it is difficult to get out, and before the advent of penicillin it was easy to get a permanent and spreading disease even with opposite-sex fornication. Even with penicillin, we find human bodies become resistive to it, and viruses cannot be disabled with it.
Sin is not a way to get back at God. Sin is a sin because it has consequences to ourselves, not to God.
Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1:
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
God is not affected by our sin. We ourselves are the ones affected. There's always a consequence, and i know this based on experience. The Bible merely warns us, so we don't have to learn the hard way. It warns us not to even approve of other's sexual immorality, because it has social ramifications:
verse 32: Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
'deserve death' means, with few exceptions, we all die, and there's also spiritual death. And one dies much faster when one sins. Fortunately, there's a positive side to all this.