WaPo reports:
Speaking in deeply spiritual terms, Karen Santorum said she had been reluctant to throw her support behind the idea because her husband’s failed 2006 Senate re-election campaign had been so brutal. Also, she said, her husband had become more involved with the family after leaving the Senate, and was even coaching Little League...
Karen Santorum has been largely behind the scenes during the campaign, busy in part taking care of the couple’s youngest child, Bella, who suffers from a terminal disorder.
But God must want the children's father out on the road, pouring his life's energy into a quest for power. Just when he was getting more involved with the family, coaching Little League, faced with the terribly ill baby, he got called away. But through prayer, you can ground yourself in faith that these things all happen for a reason. There are other men offering their services to the country, men with grown children, but God wants Rick out there too, vying for the top spot.
Posts
224 comments:
1 – 200 of 224 Newer› Newest»We get it. You're really smart and you don't like Santorum.
Perhaps you and Meade should adopt--a doG.
What's up with the "terminally ill" baby? When is she set to die? If Santorum is elected, does that mean the nation will have to prepare to grieve for the death of the president's baby daughter? Crazy!
Something I've always wanted to day - I'm with Tarzan.
Pull the plug on the horse.
About 60% (maybe more) of the American public will not understand what she is saying.
I am in the 40% or less category.
Frankly I don't understand why some of these men (and their wives) want to run for this position. They look no way near capable and instead of being honest about their deficiencies, they bring in God -- yeah, God wants them to do it. It is rather cheap, cheapening of the concept of God if there ever was one.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
What's up with the "terminally ill" baby? When is she set to die?
We all have death sentences, Zach--even you.
Does she hear voices?
This is going to contribute to her becoming a first lady?
I've heard, as a matter of fact, that on a daily basis, "requests go upstairs." But I thought you needed thunder and lighting to know your message "got captured."
Maybe, next time? It would be nice if Karen Santorum recorded these voice communications.
Meanwhile, I think the Santorum's are just adding to the GOP's woes.
God works in mysterious ways. I think God wants me to vote for Romney.
Can't begin to imagine what having a terminally ill child is like. How sad.
And now we hear from Mrs. Saintorum.
I just noticed this -- on the Republican side, the incompetents blame it on God -- God made me run; on the Democrats side, the incompetents (who may also be crooks) have other crooks making them run and some may even win.
achary Paul Sire said...
What's up with the "terminally ill" baby?
What's up with your creepy photo and you putting terminally ill in quotation marks?
"Can't begin to imagine what having a terminally ill child is like."
Imagine what it's like to have a terminally ill child and a husband who rejects your pleading to stay with you, then goes on the road for months, years... presenting himself as the embodiment of morality.
I guess it was either accepting it was God's Will or accepting the fact that her husband is either a masochist or a man with an immense ego (or both) for wanting to run.
Having to wait for a child to pass, though, surely must be a special kind of torture. It was bad enough with a parent.
Ann Althouse said...
----------
Exactly. Remember all the flak Palin got for not choosing to stay with her baby and her umpteen children inspite of her hunk of a husband being the feminist's dream.
The easiest way in the world to justify anything is to claim it is "God's will".
I don't like Santorum, nor any social conservative capable of losing their way in Washington. (How come they only lose their way on fiscal discipline and federalism and never on their social stands?) But let me take this opportunity to say that I'm very glad that we're talking about Karen Santorum and not Callista Gingrich.
It's best to keep those goofy religious guys who talk to their imaginary friends out of high office. Unless they're lying about it. Or something.
“Michelle and I have not only benefited from our prayer life, but I think the girls have too,” the president told Walters. “We say grace before we eat dinner every night. We take turns.”
When asked if he prays himself, the president said: “I do. Every night.”
Imagine what it's like to have a terminally ill child and a husband who rejects your pleading to stay with you, then goes on the road for months, years... presenting himself as the embodiment of morality.
Isn't that the same logic some on the left used on Palin? That it was wrong to abandon Trig for public responsibilities? That's when they got really desperate
Imagine what it's like to have a terminally ill child and a husband who rejects your pleading to stay with you, then goes on the road for months, years...
Do you know that of Karen, Ann? She's sounds pretty well grounded, I'm betting to have weighed in on this topic. Not a puppet.
Exactly. Remember all the flak Palin got for not choosing to stay with her baby and her umpteen children inspite of her hunk of a husband being the feminist's dream.
They especially loathe that "umpteenth children" thing. Cf. Scalia scorn.
Blogger chickenlittle said...
--------------
Notice though that the left is not saying that about Santorum.. Sexist pigs, those lefties.
Everyone likes to make fun of Christians and their interpreting God's will, as if they hear voices. It's not how it works. Karen Santorum probably prayed (a lot) asking for guidance. Then, one day, it just seems ok to her that her husband is running for president. She interprets that newfound calmness and/or acceptance as God touching her heart - offering her the guidance she asked for. You can make fun of it all you want, but that is how I'm willing to bet she sees it.
Palin agreed to accept the VP spot when it was offered to her. There followed a few months of campaigning.
Running for President is something you choose to do and can put off until later. You have to spend years traveling around.
So I wouldn't equate these two things.
Also, I never heard it said that Todd begged her to say no, that he didn't want to be left to handle the family without her.
I certainly don't have a clue what God may or may not want, but the idea of people with minor children running for or serving as president always bothered me. The Bush girls were probably old enough, but for the Clintons, the Palins, the Obamas, that's just too much pressure and media attention for a young person growing up, and too much time with a parent taken away. I don't always vote based on it, but I really don't like it. Also, if Bella's truely terminal, doesn't that mean that she's likely to pass during the next term? How awful would that be, both for the family and for the country to have that distraction.
I also get upset when the American Idol competitors are single parents going on about how they're doing this for their kid.
@Harsh Pencil I believe that's what my post says (along with a few other things).
She's stuck in a predicament and she prays for help dealing with it. She gets what she prays for.
Too bad God chose Santorum to be the politician with young child(ren) running for POTUS instead of Paul Ryan (who IIRC declined to enter the race because of his children's age).
I'm still disappointed Ryan didn't run, so I guess it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Santorum for doing so.
Imagine what it's like to have a terminally ill child and a husband who rejects your pleading to stay with you, then goes on the road for months, years... presenting himself as the embodiment of morality.
I seem to recall somebody just the other day bitching about how she didn't want to be defined as a mom.
But now you're calling Rick Santorum evil dad?
Because you think he should stay at home?
I think this is a moving story, myself.
Also, I never heard it said that Todd begged her to say no, that he didn't want to be left to handle the family without her.
That is sort of my point, convoluted as it may be. That Palin had a very supportive husband but still got all the flak for being a mother of many many children and daring to accept the VP position. I don't see Santorum getting that flak from either the left or the right.
Also, I never heard it said that Todd begged her to say no, that he didn't want to be left to handle the family without her.
Also, no to belittle Down's syndrome, but Trig's not dying, and I don't think that Down's babies/toddlers are especially difficult compared to non-disabled babies/toddlers.
(For the Palins, I'd be more concerned about her teenagers, really. Trig's just gonna be Trig, pretty much regardless.)
"Everyone likes to make fun of Christians ..."
I not a believer, yet I'm beginning to cringe at all the scorn.
Re: pm317, I was in law school in 2008, and I was really amazed at the women, future lawyers, spouting out this garbage about Gov. Palin's motherly duties. Absolute bullshit, and breathtaking that supposedly smart women would buy into it.
It still blows my mind to think of it.
And thanks for reminding us of how much of a hunk Todd Palin is. Damn, he's hot (and reminds me a bit of my own, also super-supportive and fabulously hot hubby). Made my afternoon :)
Newt Gingrich dragged his wife into a campaign where she was likely to be one of the issues. And, that's only for his ego. The Santorums at least have a cause or two they are sacrificing for (his not-so-hidden agenda). Unsuccessfully I hope.
Yashu: I'm still disappointed Ryan didn't run, so I guess it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Santorum for doing so.
Ryan may run one day. Have patience.
Blogger Lyssa said...
----------
I was ecstatic when she came on the scene -- how wonderful it would be that a young mother of 5 could pull this off. However that quickly deflated, not when they lost but after. Nowadays I dislike listening to her -- she is like a windup doll mouthing the same catch phrases/ideas. She didn't grow at all but made lots of money which is good for her family and children.
Robert Cook said...
The easiest way in the world to justify anything is to claim it is "God's will".
--------------------------------
Not since the 12th century. Nowadays it's 'history demands it..' or 'logic and reason dictate that...'
Not since the 12th century. Nowadays it's 'history demands it..' or 'logic and reason dictate that...'
Don't forget the "being on the wrong side of history" threat.
Have to agree with Tarz and Elle. A little nasty there, Ann.
And I suggest going easy on the ill child comments.
The Blonde had a 3 months preemie baby, but went back to work as a nurse. The boy died at 6 months while she was coming home from work.
I'm no fan of Santorum, but I can understand someone who sees this country going to Hell and wanting to do something about it badly enough that he can't refuse the call even though there are pressing issues at home.
We have plenty of people like that.
They're in the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Robert Cook said...
The easiest way in the world to justify anything is to claim it is "God's will".
I thought it was, "It is the people's will".
Many people have felt they were called of God to be president. Among them George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Many founders of our country felt they were called of God to do the things they did.
It's not our place to question the honest prayers and inspiration of other people. I take them at their word. They may be self delusional or they may actually be called.
Choose who you want to vote for based on what ever criteria you set up, but scoffing at the choices and religion of others just makes you look intolerant.
I prefer someone who believes they have a calling from God to a person who feels a calling from their ego. At least it indicates a certain humility and desire to serve. Things that are sadly lacking in politics these days. Wouldn't it be a nice change if our president actually was a public servant instead of an egomaniac?
chickenlittle, I do have hope. Disappointing though our roster of candidates might be this year, there are a number of very impressive and promising young'uns, such as Ryan and Rubio, on the GOP bench.
They'll be formidable in the decades to come.
...a husband who rejects your pleading to stay with you...
Also, I never heard it said that Todd begged her to say no, that he didn't want to be left to handle the family without her.
Wow.
I guess I need to say again I'm not a Santorum fan. That said, the article doesn't say he rejected her pleaded with him not to run. Nor does it say she begged him.
It says she was reluctant to support him running and that she changed her mind after praying.
Sheesh.
"I'm no fan of Santorum, but I can understand someone who sees this country going to Hell and wanting to do something about it badly enough that he can't refuse the call even though there are pressing issues at home.
We have plenty of people like that.
They're in the Army, Navy, and Air Force."
Yep. Some would say that putting the welfare of your country, which one can reasonably perceive of as in peril right now, over your own needs is admirable. If you're religious, you put a layer of "God's will" on top of that. Doesn't make you a nut. I wish I had that kind of selflessness.
"Choose who you want to vote for based on what ever criteria you set up, but scoffing at the choices and religion of others just makes you look intolerant."
I think you have to entertain the possibility that you are intolerant.
Dripping with scorn for people of faith, there, Professor. It's not becoming.
I had thought better of you.
Original Mike
I'm sick of being called intolerant by people who can't tolerate the idea of God.
It cuts both ways. From the liberal comments made here and other places I can detect intolerance at least as noxious as the conservative variety, and much worse, in fact, because of the self-righteous tone of liberalism.
edutcher wrote: I thought it was, 'It is the people's will'.
But "People Swill" sounds too pedestrian.
wyo sis: I think you misunderstand. I was agreeing with you.
I think you're being unfair to the Santorums. Children with Bella's condition, trisomy 18, rarely (<10%) make it past their first birthday and can never lead normal lives. I'm not a Christian, but I wonder if the Santorums, aware that she most likely will not have a long life, look at every day with her as a special blessing.
I'm not a big Santorum fan, but what are they supposed to do? Sit around and wait for Bella to die, putting aside their lives and what they see as their responsibility to the country?
Was anyone as critical of the Kennedys, Obamas, Clintons, and Carters for putting their young children through the rigors and scrutiny of presidential campaigns? Those children had full mental capacities for their ages and could understand a lot of what was happening.
Sadly, little Bella cannot and will never have such capacity. So in some ways it's easier for her to have parents on the campaign trail. She's with one or both parents and knows she is loved by them. The campaign trail B.S. is irrelevant to her.
And where in the article does it say that Santorum rejected his wife's pleas to stay with her, and left her and Bella behind while he went on the campaign trail?
It just seems like too short a leap from "God told me to run" to "God told me to nuke Iran."
"Tolerance is the virtue of men who have no standards." Attributed, probably incorrectly, to GK Chesterton.
How do they know it's God telling him to run? Maybe it's a trick by another entity...
In this election it seems many are called by God, but only one will serve-- I do hope those that don't become president will realize it is nothing personal on God's part.
I certainly don't have a clue what God may or may not want
Sure you do. He has told us. He was quite up front and direct about it. And even if you never read the words on the page yourself, you can read the words written on your heart.
Love one another in truth. Do good and avoid evil.
That's it. Pretty simple.
All else flows from that.
Zach... Is That You????
OMG man! Haven't seen you around in a while! How've you been my friend?
"Imagine what it's like to have a terminally ill child and a husband who rejects your pleading to stay with you, then goes on the road for months, years... presenting himself as the embodiment of morality.
"
Yep. I seem to recall more than a few Conservatives deriding the scumbag John Edwards for running while his wife was battling cancer. This is before we also found out the scumbag was at the same time cheating on the cancerous wife.
I'm not particularly a fan of Santorum, but "quest for power?" Sounds a little cynical, Ann. Did you vote for Obama because you supported his QUEST FOR POWER? Perhaps, like most candidates, Santorum believes he can do some good for the country.
Original Mike
I did misunderstand your comment. Sorry if I was rude.
Palladian "by their works ye shall know them" works for me.
Santorum's daughter, like Palin's son, can teach us something. How we react to their celebrated parents' behavior is the teaching tool. Andrew Sullivan, for example, deployed the Trig story as a conspiracy weapon. The Professor appears to be deploying Bella as a morality weapon. Both failed to learn.
Maybe it's a trick by another entity...
A priest I know once said in a homily something pretty close to "and then the spirit came over me...I hope it was the right one..."
John Edwards for running while his wife was battling cancer.
His running for office then seemed to me like running from problems.
phx
Except in the case of presidential overreach it's not possible for a president to nuke anyone without the consent of congress. It was wisely planned that way. Only recently have we seen presidents choosing to bypass the process and getting away with it.
Again, just as with the self-induced rabid frenzy over Satan, this too is standard stuff for anyone who has ever prayed the Our Father (Lord's Prayer). In it, you specifically pray "Thy will be done," thereby seeking guidance thereon. And if one were to believe that a given action was NOT God's will, then of course he would have an obligation not to do it. But if after prayerful consideration someone does an act, you can presume that he believed that it was consistent with God's will.
Trying to discern God's will, especially in the context of discerning a vocation (from the Latin for "calling") is NOT an unusual or freakish or extremist kind of activity. It is done everyday.
For example, with respect to someone who becomes a professor and spends most if not all of her adult life in that profession -- is that a purely arbitrary and calculated decision? Or does one feel a calling to teach?
wyo sis: No problem.
What's up with the "terminally ill" baby? When is she set to die?
She has a chromosomal disorder with a ten-year survival rate of 1%. "Terminally ill" is a shorthand way of saying her disease is almost certain to kill her in childhood.
rick wrote: About 60% (maybe more) of the American public will not understand what she is saying. I am in the 40% or less category.
phx wrote: It just seems like too short a leap from "God told me to run" to "God told me to nuke Iran."
There is a difference between acknowledging a belief that something may be "God's will," and believing that your will is God's will.
Christians reflect the former. Secular progressives believe the latter because they believe they are God.
phx is just projecting.
Wow! So, if one doesn't believe in God, how appropriate is it then for one to sort of *become* God-like and decide what is right and wrong for this family?
As for me, personally, I do ask that God bless the people willing to serve this country. And whether I end up happy about the way they serve or not, they are out there actually doing it. Which is more than I am doing.
So yeah. God bless them.
As others have said, I too, am no fan of Santorum, but Mrs. Santorum seems comforted with the decision she came to after taking this to prayer. I'm fine with that, as I've done the same. Part of turning it over is trusting that I'll be taken care of regardless if my expectations are met or not. That's how faith works.
Man oh man...no shortage of shark jumping in AA post and responses. Talk about projecting...Karen S said nothing like the demented translation in the AA post. And here's a news flash from someone that deals with death in your face everyday...child or any other...it does no one any good to stop everything to wait for it to come. It comes...and it might just come to AA while Rick puts his life on hold waiting for it to come to Bella. Perhaps one of the most staggeringly ignorant remarks I think I've ever read from a supposedly "rational" thinker. Children like Bella and Trig are all about being in the moment...they have no concept of time gone by. That's why they are always happy and delighted to see you..."in the moment".
Some of the AA's comments and the same type of sarcastic snarky posts of others here are pretty shallow with regards to "voices" and "God's will". You are projecting your own disbelief and exaggerated nonsensical phony "what ifs" instead of really trying to listen to what both of the Sartoums are saying about themselves, the way they make decisions and how they demonstrate their beliefs and values for their children.
As one other poster pointed out, there are many people actively sacrificing now for the future of this country later because they feel called to something bigger than their immediate comfort.
...and to the poster that thinks the death of a child would be such a "distraction" for the country...it happens every day...every day. The people in the WH are not more than the nature of the beings that have elected them. Death comes when it comes.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: For thou art with me;
I think we should get a thread by Ann mocking those black preachers who recite this Psalm every Sunday.
I guess we're just expected to think they really don't believe it!
.Karen S said nothing like the demented translation in the AA post.
Of course not.
It is interesting to observe how one who has been steeped in modern progressivism their entire adult life views the world.
These posts on Santorum say it all...
@Kit
Yep. Apparently, for some it is very difficult not only to understand faith but to show any respect for it at all. In fact, it is their business to opine on it.
Karen S said nothing like the demented translation in the AA post
And you know this....how?
The only loaded word I see in althouse's posts is plead. We don't know if she pleaded with her husband -- but we do know she was against his running. Pleading seems plausible to me, but not to you, apparently. How would you describe Karen S.'s communication to her husband about her wishes? Your most likely verb is...
My problem is emphatically NOT with the religion. It is with the man choosing to leave his family behind when she did not want it. I can see in her words that she did not. I hold that against him. That she found comfort in religion or philosophy or art or music or love of children is all the same to me.
What would have happened if Karen Santorum said that she prayed about her husband running for president and God said that it wasn't his will?
Or if God say, "No, no, no, I meant run for PTA President."
There is a difference between acknowledging a belief that something may be "God's will," and believing that your will is God's will.
There is, however, no significant difference between believing something is "God's will" and believing your will should be the same. You never hear someone saying "I decided it was God's will, but I said no anyway".
The piece says she was "against" the idea, and Ann characterizes that as "pleading" that was "reject(ed)."
In matters of sick children and personal faith, why exaggerate?
"and here's a news flash from someone that deals with death in your face everyday...child or any other...it does no one any good to stop everything to wait for it to come. It comes..."
Of course not, but running for the office of President is more than just having a full time job. much more. Joanne, my female lead vocalist in my band, had a son who had CP. She was starting to make serious waves as a vocalist and could have had a real career doing that. But, as the demands for her voice became more and more time consuming....
She quit. Because she wanted to spend time with her child, and having a singing career would have prevented that.
Notice I didn't say "spend quality time", because you can't tell your kid, when he or she laments that you don't spend much time together that "Oh, but the little time we spend together was quality time". It's a BS term made up to justify not honoring family values and actually being there for your family. It's one thing if the Santorums were poor and the only way to pay their daughters medical bills was to work 14 hour days to make ends meet. No. They have plenty of money. He's is doing this for his own selfish need for more power, and sacrificing the time he could be spending with his terminally ill daughter to try and gain more of it.
Back to Joanne. Her son passed away about nine years ago. Does she regret not perusing the music career. You bet! With her voice and talent, she could have been big! But she also knows she would absolutely hate herself if she would have chosen her career, and she has a joy in her eye when she talks about some of the things she did with her son, things that never would have happened had she chosen the career over being a Mom to her son.
Holy Crap! I'm starting to sound like Dr Laura!
I hope this isn't going to turn into a ridiculous Godphobic freakout. Sigh. Barack Obama said God instructed him to raise our taxes because he needs to spend our money.
Ann, I know a lot about Mrs. Santorum - you are wrong about her being some kind of victim here! She's always pushed Rick ahead, although she does keep him on a short leash. But she manages JUST FINE. She has always had domestic help of some kind, and she homeschools. She also likes to be a little dramatic. Rick does her bidding, and he bends over backwards for his family.
Of course it's gut-wrenching to watch your husband run for President. We've had many, many presidents with family obligations. We send men and women off to Afghanistan to die, and they have family obligations. What's the ^#%} difference? My friends have three young boys and a daughter -- Dad's in Afghanistan. Is service to one's country limited to the leisure class?
Calvin Coolidge lost his precocious, cheerful son to a stupid tennis blister infection while in office. Franklin Pierce's son was decapitated in front of him in a train accident shortly after election day. Our leaders used to deal with death and loss all the time. I don't think it's disqualifying.
Sonic Frog said: He's is doing this for his own selfish need for more power, and sacrificing the time he could be spending with his terminally ill daughter to try and gain more of it.
This is the point where you wend from fact to non fact. Stick hard facts and you'll do much better.
@Sonic Frog: It's interesting that if one removes the passage I highlighted from your story--the whole text and message changes.
Did you know Jackie Kennedy reminisced that she used to watch her husband (JFK), kneed down at night to say his prayers, just has he had learned to do as a child.
What a surprise! Sure, I've seen the Norman Rockwell painting of a kid kneeling beside his bed, with his happy parents looking on ... But I thought grown people would have outgrown it.
As to "what will God do," ahead ... Or "how will Jesus vote?" ... I'm gonna put my money on "DOESN'T EVEN CARE!"
As for a "winning strategy" which millions of dollars is now being spent on by the "contestants." I just can't believe how much money they are throwing away.
You might as well just send all this money out the window.
Calvin Coolidge lost his precocious, cheerful son to a stupid tennis blister infection while in office. Franklin Pierce's son was decapitated in front of him in a train accident shortly after election day. Our leaders used to deal with death and loss all the time. I don't think it's disqualifying.
Note that both those examples were of tragic accidents. Comparing that to the Santorum situation is apples to oranges.... or tomatoes.
Plus, the death of Pierce's son almost certainly had an effect on his performance as President. By all accounts, he drank and got plastered far more while in the Oval Office than he did before his child's horrific death. That event may very well have paralyzed his ability to be an effective leader in the crucial years just before the Civil War.
As to the Santorum child, Bella. Born about 3 years ago. Karen Santorum was diagnosed in pregnancy as carrying a Trysomy-18 baby. She chose not to abort.
But Trysomy-18 is a very severe form of retardation, where one of the DNA genes is missing. And, the child practically lives at the hospital, because of lung infections.
Also, obstetricians tell women that IF the baby survives childbirth, the chance of its living to age 5 are slim, indeed.
There are so many good reasons to think Santorum is a sanctimonious jackass that it seems silly to devote so much effort to a weak reason like this one.
Oh, and while we at this thing where moms get complimented for "doing what comes naturally" in nature. Why not give a big hand to Octomom?
Some of the AA's comments and the same type of sarcastic snarky posts of others here are pretty shallow with regards to "voices" and "God's will". You are projecting your own disbelief and exaggerated nonsensical phony "what ifs"
Let's play that "what if" game --
What if someone had a problem or decision to make. Doesn't matter what the problem is or the decision to be made.
And she says, "What should I do?"
And her husband replies, "Listen to your heart. What does your heart tell you?"
And she responds, "What are you? Some extremist nut job from fantasy land? Yeah, listen to my heart. Freak."
And so, she gets nothing but anger and hate and disgust.
She's stuck in a predicament and since there is nothing but bile in her heart to help her deal with it, she gets what she listens to.
I hope this isn't going to turn into a ridiculous Godphobic freakout. Sigh. Barack Obama said God instructed him to raise our taxes because he needs to spend our money.
Is saying that really discouraging people from "godphobic freakouts"?
It amounts to "sure, [candidate] claims God supports him, but so does the worst President since Lyndon Johnson". Who here really accepts "Democrats do it, so we shouldn't worry when Republicans do it" (or the reverse) as legitimate arguments?
Let's review the kind of discourse and reasoning worthy of a place like the Daily Kos --
She's stuck in a predicament and she prays for help dealing with it. She gets what she prays for.
My problem is emphatically NOT with the religion. It is with the man choosing to leave his family behind when she did not want it. I can see in her words that she did not.
She did not want it. She gets what she prays for. My problem is emphatically NOT with the religion.
________________
If a politician addressed me as a mother — and especially as a soccer mom — as if my political thinking revolved around conventional housewifely activities, I would regard him or her as sexist. Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.
My problem is with the man choosing to leave his family behind when she did not want it. I hold that against him.
"He's is doing this for his own selfish need for more power, and sacrificing the time he could be spending with his terminally ill daughter to try and gain more of it."
Your asserions are laughable. You have no fucking idea why they're doing it.
Typical right-wing Christians, have the damaged baby that will not live to 5 just to burnish their "anti-abortion" credentials with the James Dobson right.
Honestly I don't care if he's the biggest bastard ever, as long as he legalizes pot, cuts the taxes and bombs Iran.
You people are such losers.
I said she got what she prayed for after saying she prayed for help dealing with the predicament her husband put her in: leaving her home with the children. The help was the feeling that it was God's will -- the comfort of religion.
I think there are some people who are willfully or emotionally misreading what I said. I think these are readers who like Santorum and can't take the cruel neutrality, which is what I serve at the Althouse blog.
I'm just glad we no longer celebrate the birthday of that wacko Abraham Lincoln. Not only did he have young children at home, but a crazy wife to boot, and the selfish and vain SOB still thought he ought to be president when there were vastly more qualified candidates available.
And there's little doubt that Lincoln was a voices-in-his-head nutjob. He actually believed it was possible that "God" willed the death of hundreds of thousands in warfare:
The will of God prevails.... I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet.
Ann, I know a lot about Mrs. Santorum - you are wrong about her being some kind of victim here!
Oh, its worse than that. See, to the feminist mind, Mrs. Santorum should have killed the fetus once it was diagonosed with Trysomy-18.
Else, the Santorums would be put in the "predicament" (Ann's words) of having their quality of life ruined by a special needs child.
I mean, c'mon, its what any "sensible" liberal would do.
So, from the mindset of the Left, its just "not fair" that the Santorums chose Life AND chose to have a life of their own. It goes against the basic pro-choice tenant that women need the authority to kill their babies so they can get on with their lives.
And if you choose to not do that, you are threatening the philosophy that supports abortion.
So you must be punished. "Planning a vacation? How horrible! Want to take up golf? Monstrous. Pursue a political career? You selfish bastard!"
"How dare you be a counter-example to our own! No, no, no. You need to be chained down to the child you chose not to kill. So that the rest of us who chose to abort (or support abortion) can face ourselves in the mirror"
passive-aggressive
Who ARE we to judge their family morality?
Everyone likes to make fun of Christians and their interpreting God's will, as if they hear voices.
In God We Trust.
Gee, where have I seen that before?
It is there choice.
I couldn't leave my rare clumber for a day if he was sick.
I couldn't imagine having a terminally ill child.
their
Harsh Pencil said...
"Everyone likes to make fun of Christians and their interpreting God's will, as if they hear voices. It's not how it works. Karen Santorum probably prayed (a lot) asking for guidance. Then, one day, it just seems ok to her that her husband is running for president. She interprets that newfound calmness and/or acceptance as God touching her heart - offering her the guidance she asked for. You can make fun of it all you want, but that is how I'm willing to bet she sees it."
This is an important point that needs to be seconded.
But there is another point which no-one here has yet made: just because God calls someone to run, doesn't mean he calls them to win. God has His own reasons for doing things, and politics is low on His priority list.
Its vital that the abortion crowd frame the choice between Life (for the child) and quality of Life (for the mother) as an "either/or" dilemma.
Anyone who says "both" must be driven out.
God called on me to make this comment. Alas, He didn't tell me what to say.
Onion headline:
"Atheists Pray Santorum Not Selected"
How deep is Karen's religion? She lived with a 60-year old doctor (who delivered her at birth) before she and Rick moved in together. It all sounds so Christian.
Assume a god does exist, why would this super-entity care about the Earth in this huge vast universe?
Its also ironic when those claiming to be pro-choice make judgements about Mrs. Santorum's quality of life, as if they know whats really best for her.
Assume a god does exist, why would this super-entity care about the Earth in this huge vast universe?
Try to imagine a new color.
ie. you limited your answer by the way you framed your question. Are you imagining some Zeus-like creature? I don't think humans are mentally capable of understand what a God actually is.
Its vital that the abortion crowd frame the choice between Life (for the child) and quality of Life (for the mother) as an "either/or" dilemma.
You're the only person on this thread that brought up abortion.
Fen - Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus have no problem conceptualizing their own gods. My point is that there might be a super-entity out there that created this universe, but it would hardly care about this little corner of it. We might be like lab rats to this being.
I had never heard about Franklin Pierce's oldest and last son. How awful!
One can't believe in something when all he knows -- and all he cares to know -- is a caricature.
Nevertheless, the One who Is does care, He cares because that is who and what He is, that is His very nature -- Love.
Even you.
And even, thankfully, me.
@garage: Actually, Alex injected it first at 4:09.
I forgot the mention the really good dirt. Karen's doctor friend, Tom Allen, was an abortion clinic doctor. When Karen left to live with Rick, she told Dr. Allen: "You'd really like Rick. He's a lot like you. He's politically active and he's pro-choice."
Bender - how do you know what superbeing is out there, much less that "he" loves us? I realize the world is a big, scary place and believing in the "wise old man" God soothes you, but at least admit it.
@garage: I take that back. Carol brought it up first.
One can't believe in something when all he knows -- and all he cares to know -- is a caricature.
I'll let you all in on a little secret though -- Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't believe in such as farcical "god" either.
Charlie Brown: I've made an interesting theological discovery.
If you hold your hands upside-down when you pray, you get the opposite of what you ask for.
- old peanuts cartoon
Bender - except religious people do believe in the caricature. When challenged, they fall back on "I Believe and you're going to hell". Is it any wonder there can be no accommodation between religious and non-religious people? This is the new cold war.
You'd think God would choose an economist.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
@rhardin: God gave us thermodynamics--the rest is up to us to figure out.
Alex: What's so new about it?
I'm sick and tired of being preached to and told that my soul is going to hell if I don't believe in the gardener.
In this version of the story, Eve didn't want to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but Adam pushed her aside to take a bite anyhow.
Ah, that ego of man, so easily confused with the whispers and will of God. Human insistence on asserting their own identity upon the world, so insistent one makes one's own will the will of God for their own family.
No doubt, Santorum had others around him whispering to him of his greatness, and not to be held back by the pleadings of his mere wife.
The serpent is still the craftiest of all the animals. Though, nowadays the serpent is mostly in the form of sycophants and gurus.
Brings to mind what Crack MC has said about religion, and his own experiences with it swallowing up his wife.
Hell is the absence of God.
So one who does not have Him, and does not want to have Him, who refuses to have Him, is necessarily already in a state of Hell.
But that is entirely a matter of free choice of the will.
One need not choose that. One can choose Life instead. But you have to at least take that first movement toward a first step, however small it may be. You have to at least want life, you must at least want love, you must at least want truth.
If you have at least an authentic thirst for love and hunger for truth, then there is yet a spark there, and there is still hope.
@rhhardin, I thought that was Linus' line.
Better watch it with that talk about the serpent, Paddy. You'll have the Church Professor all over you in her best Dana Carvey voice saying, "Satan?"
@Alex: What does Meade have to do with this?
Ann, I think you are the one who is willfully or emotionally misreading what Mrs. Santorum said. There's no "neutrality" in your interpretation of her words, when the tone of the initial post is judgemental and you use words like "pleading", "rejected", "stuck in a predicament", "leave his family behind", and "I can see in her words that she did not (want him to run)" in your comments...when neither her quotations nor the WaPo article say anything like that.
What Mrs. Santorum actually said was that she didn't want him to run initially, but changed her mind after Obamacare passed and she did a lot of praying on whether he should run. She has the right to change her mind.
And I'm NOT a Santorum fan, and for the record I don't believe in God. But I AM able to read the article objectively and take Mrs. Santorum at her word on this issue.
"Karen Santorum says she was against her husband's running for President, but finally deciding it was God's will."
We are not to take this woman at her word, then?
Why not?
Darcy - because a solid plurality of Americans think that citing "God's will" is a fucking copout. Take fucking responsibility for fucks sake.
@fen I never said the child was the predicament. I said the predicament was being left to care for the family alone, to be without the father's presence.
Hell is your ex-wife.
You'll have the Church Professor all over you in her best Dana Carvey voice saying, "Satan?"
Ha! I was trying to stick with the Santorum theme. :-)
Alex said...
Darcy - because a solid plurality of Americans think that citing "God's will" is a fucking copout. Take fucking responsibility for fucks sake.
Huh?
Cruel neutrality? Hardly. This, along with the previous Santorum hate post, is openly hostile.
You've taken Mrs. Santorum's reluctance and turned it into "begging" and "pleading" in your comments. Your OP has Santorum abandoning his "terribly ill baby" in a "quest for power" justified by prayer when there are "men with grown children" (unlike our current president natch, but I've never heard you criticize him similarly) that can serve "but God wants Rick out there too".
There's a big difference between Mrs. Santorum's reluctance, which is all that is described in the article, and anyone's purely invented begging and pleading. The begging and pleading only exists in the minds of Santorum's haters at least as far as this report is concerned.
And it's pretty common to read stories about candidates having deep misgivings about getting involved in presidential campaigns due to the strain on their families, and part of that is concern about people going after their children and their wives over who they are, the way they dress, their religion or their past. You know, like distorting their statements into something they never said and wadding that up and shoving it in their mouths, mocking their religion and questioning their motives. Didn't Mitch Daniels decide not to run this time at least in part because of this very sort of sliming?
Cruelly neutral? Nope.
Malia was 10 and Sasha 7 during the 2008 campaign. Their mom was pursuing a rewarding career at the time, which she gave up in deference to her husband's pursuit of power.
What was the cruelly neutral take on that? Was it unremarkable b/c she didn't invoke God?
Flippant dismissal of something you are ignorant of is not an attractive quality.
But God must want the children's father out on the road, pouring his life's energy into a quest for power.
Good grief, he's appealing to all the hatred and vileness that has been building up in America under the guise of Evangelical Christianity. These Christians have forsaken "love thy neighbor" and any concept of forgiveness for the sake of violence. Violence pervades their entire worldview; indeed, violence provides its foundation.
I generally avoid dealing with fundamental Christians who tout how good Christians they are. Last time was when I had a conversation with a man who was handing out "you are going to hell" pamphlets at the base of the Oceanside Pier. It wasn't two minutes into the conversation when he told me that he belted his children until they were welted and screaming-- not only as punishment, but because God and his Pastor both told him that it is the proper thing for a father to do. In fact, he explained, his children were naturally fallen and therefore deserved to be punished by beating simply because they existed. Beating them regularly would make them good Christians.
America is full of people like this. They. Are. America.
And they are naturally attracted to someone like Santorum, who oozes a lust for Christian power and, more importantly, a propensity for physical violence. These people share Santorum's values. The way, for instance, that Santorum tried to physically intimidate the frail old Ron Paul with that violent handshake at the end of the last debate is no one-off; it's the essence of who he is.
Maybe it is God's will that he run, just so Americans with even the slightest bit of awareness can see what a walking, talking example of taking the Lord's name in vain looks like. Maybe God wants us to see clearly the evil that is there... both in the candidate and in us as a society...
get that speck out of your eye Santorum
Agree with Revenant that focusing on the "god's will" or "Satan in academia" stuff is a something of a distraction from the really troubling Santorum quotes.
[NB I take Althouse's point that she's not questioning the religious notion or conviction but the specific circumstances in which Santorum made and justified his decision. But my concerns lie elsewhere. And in intimate matters of conscience like this, or the complex private relationship between a husband and wife, I don't feel I can judge.]
I don't like to hear a candidate talk about "Satan", but it's in the realm of mainstream religious tropes (maybe not for a politician, but it's not out of place in the context of a speech to a religious audience). NB It's not that I'm squeamish to talk about evil. On the contrary: IMO talk about Satan-- supernatural evil-- distracts from the actuality, reality, banality of evil, for which human beings (and human beings alone) are responsible. If you're going to discuss evil-- e.g. the evils of academia, of which there are plenty (and I'm in the belly of the beast, so I should know)-- I'd rather you use words and concepts like, you know, "evil".
That's just my discursive preference, speaking only for myself, as someone not religious (so the "Satan" concept or metaphor doesn't have any resonance at all for me).
But let's put something straight. It's specious to say that those of us who strongly oppose Santorum are anti-Catholic or anti-religious bigots. Or that it's his religion which we oppose. That's ridiculous. Of course, there are anti-Catholic and anti-religious bigots who oppose Santorum-- just like there are racists who oppose Obama. But it's in bad faith and disingenuous to dismiss legitimate concerns from conservatives (like me) in those terms, and I'm sick of hearing it.
Here's an excerpt from a piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz in the WSJ today (and let's just say, DR is not an anti-religious liberal, but a woman with serious conservative cred):
Among the candidate's noteworthy declarations, we can count his address to a New Hampshire audience last October, in which he described his upset after reading the text of John F. Kennedy's landmark 1960 speech dedicated to the separation of church and state. "I almost threw up," he told his listeners. Kennedy, he announced, "threw his faith under the bus in that speech."
That an American candidate's commitment to the separation of church and state made Mr. Santorum want to vomit—and that this fact was something in which he took pride, and wanted to share with an audience—is telling. What it tells isn't something the citizenry tends to find endearing.
Also noteworthy, and rapidly getting around, is his promise last October to "talk about things no president has talked about," like contraception. "It's not okay," Mr. Santorum declared, because "it's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is contrary to how things are supposed to be." Earlier, in his 2005 book, "It Takes a Family," he opined that contraception is "harmful to women."
Mr. Santorum's views of license in the sexual realm can be interestingly detailed. In 2002, he blamed Boston and its culture for the sex-abuse scandal involving Catholic priests. It is, he wrote in a piece for Catholic Online, "no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm." He would also tell the Associated Press a year later, "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." A remark that will require some translation in a campaign year. Good luck with that.
Read the whole thing here.
And there's little doubt that Lincoln was a voices-in-his-head nutjob.
There's actually quite a bit of doubt that Lincoln was religious at all, let alone that he thought he talked to God.
Certainly he used Biblical references in speech, but so do I and I'm about as atheistic as a man can be.
It appears that we are supposed to believe that "cruel neutrality" means something like brutal honesty, and not what it has shown itself to be in reality -- passive-aggressiveness.
But one really can't continue to play the charade when she puts on the hood herself and supplies the gasoline and matches for others to come and fire up the cross.
Dead Julius wrote: Last time was when I had a conversation with a man who was handing out 'you are going to hell' pamphlets at the base of the Oceanside Pier.
It's probably the guy that drives that crazy bus around all painted up.
I had no idea that you actually lived here. You have alluded to it in the past and even once took a passing interest in my occupation.
We should meet over beers. OOTH, maybe not.
None of them, including Obama, is worthy of the office. If we must elect a president who still has parenting left to do, I would prefer to have Paul Ryan. But Paul Ryan is not running. Good. He still has young children to raise and that should be his priority.
Rick Santorum should rethink what he's doing. The presidency and the country can wait for Rick Santorum. There is no hurry.
Romney will be fine.
revenant There's actually quite a bit of doubt that Lincoln was religious at all, let alone that he thought he talked to God.
Plus I heard that Lincoln was gay so he probably would have automatically hated Santorum.
Are you imagining some Zeus-like creature? I don't think humans are mentally capable of understand what a God actually is.
He asked "why would [God] care about the Earth in this huge vast universe?"
Your reply translates to "I have no idea".
Which is sort of his point. If "God" is incomprehensible, what rational basis can there be for believing he cares about you? The answer is that there can't be any such rational basis -- given the axiom that you can't understand his thoughts, anything that *looks* like interest or benevolence could just as well be something else entirely.
In my experience, people invoke God's will to explain the parts of life they want or like, and invoke God's inscrutability to explain the parts they don't want or like.
@Bender -
I think you represent the minority opinion. In fact, I think most readers admire Althouse for being vigorously neutral in her critique of Santorum. Not cruelly neutral, although she advertises herself so. Why you do not appreciate this, and why you recoil in the face of it... these things I do not fathom.
You seem all too eager to bow before the Prince and swear upon his sword. But do that without careful, conservative hesitation and you just might find that you've given an oath to the Prince of Darkness!
In my experience, people invoke God's will to explain the parts of life they want or like, and invoke God's inscrutability to explain the parts they don't want or like.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Religion is the opiate of the masses. Whether it be Jesus or Marx.
If we must elect a president who still has parenting left to do, I would prefer to have Paul Ryan. But Paul Ryan is not running. Good.
Not good. IMO, monumentally not good.
I'm baffled by this idea that presidents shouldn't be parents of young children. Theodore Roosevelt had six kids when he became President, ranging in age from 17 all the way down to 4. JFK had a 3-year-old daughter and a pregnant wife in 1960.
I'd be delighted to see the Ryan kids in the White House.
That's deep Alex. Who said that again?
Hombre said, " Secular progressives believe the latter because they believe they are God."
So, we really don't. As you may have heard, some of us don't believe there is a god, and actually don't presume to take on that mantle ourselves.
And what is it you suppose secular conservatives and libertarians (oh yes, they do exist!) believe?
I think most readers admire Althouse for being vigorously neutral in her critique of Santorum.
I must not be checking in here frequently enough, because I haven't seen her detailed analyses of Santorum's positions on taxes, health care, and entitlements. All I've noticed are some snarky posts about his and his wife's expressions of faith.
Re Santorum's promise to "talk about things no president has talked about" like contraception, because "it's not okay […] it's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is contrary to how things are supposed to be."
OK, so Santorum promises to talk to the American people as POTUS about things like contraception and what is and isn't right to do "in a sexual realm". And when a President, in his office as President, talks to the American people, he's talking to *all* the American people.
And all of the American people includes: our children. (Unless Santorum's presidential addresses come with PG-13 or NC-17 ratings.)
So let's think about this. Anyone who's ever been bothered by the thought of public school teachers talking to and teaching their children about sexual matters-- e.g. contraception or homosexuality or sexual morality or whatever-- thereby usurping the parents' role and prerogative to instill in their children the values they see fit (or to shield their children from sexual topics if they so wish)… are supposed to feel *what* about a *POTUS*-- not a measly teacher, but a figure with the authority of the Presidency-- doing the talking and teaching about sexuality instead?
I don't have kids, but I think that's outrageous. A man with such ideas about his proper role as President is not fit to be President.
Chip said: I'm baffled by this idea that presidents shouldn't be parents of young children.
It part of the same philosophy which says that spouses shouldn't differentiate. Also, in keeping with the trends towards childless becoming the new norm, it's an inroad against the old norm.
I'm surprised that Meade said that.
We get it. You're really smart and you don't like Santorum.
I get that she doesn't like Santorum.
Plus I heard that Lincoln was gay so he probably would have automatically hated Santorum.
If he had disliked Santorum (and he probably would have; most people do), the major cause would probably have been that Lincoln viewed religion as an intensely private matter and Santorum is a standard-issue Bible-thumping politician who sees religion as a weapon with which to attack his political enemies.
Lincoln ran against a few of that sort in his day. The interesting thing is that when political opponents accused him of not being Christian (he belonged to no church), he responded not by saying he was a Christian, but by saying that he had never spoken against Christianity and didn't like people who did.
This, along with critical remarks made it close friends and acquaintances, have led many to suspect he was privately non-religious. There is some evidence he because religious later in life, however.
Oh, sweet irony. I wonder what God will tell the mullahs to do with their nuke.
Romney is not childless. Gingrich and Paul are not childless. But their parenting responsibilities have been met.
And I'm going to repeat this because it's worth repeating, and y'all might have missed it in my tldr comment above:
Among the candidate's noteworthy declarations, we can count his address to a New Hampshire audience last October, in which he described his upset after reading the text of John F. Kennedy's landmark 1960 speech dedicated to the separation of church and state. "I almost threw up," he told his listeners. Kennedy, he announced, "threw his faith under the bus in that speech."
That an American candidate's commitment to the separation of church and state made Mr. Santorum want to vomit—and that this fact was something in which he took pride, and wanted to share with an audience—is telling. What it tells isn't something the citizenry tends to find endearing.
I haven't seen her detailed analyses of Santorum's positions on taxes, health care, and entitlements
Santorum hasn't made those issues a central part of his candidacy. Hence discussing them in detail would be a distraction from what he has based his candidacy upon, namely his expression of faith.
Imagine some nincompoop, during discussion of the conspirators on the eve of the Ides of March, suggesting that maybe they ought not to kill Caesar because he had a really good plan for rebuilding the port at Ostia.
Some things are just a huge political issue because of their nature. Using the name of God and a self-affixed halo to gain political power is one of them. All other concerns are secondary. Constant vigilance is required of us as citizens of this great American Republic.
@Meade, chickenlittle's comment about childlessness was making a more general point than you're implying. Don't turn it into a strawman.
Are you imagining some Zeus-like creature? I don't think humans are mentally capable of understand what a God actually is.
Rev:He asked "why would [God] care about the Earth in this huge vast universe?"
Your reply translates to "I have no idea".
No, my reply was that human are not capable of understanding what God actually is, much less why he would care.
If "God" is incomprehensible, what rational basis can there be for believing he cares about you?
What rational basis can there be that God doesn't? If we can't even understand what God is, how can even begin to speculate on whether God cares or not?
Meade said...
Romney is not childless. Gingrich and Paul are not childless. But their parenting responsibilities have been met.
You're putting people at an awful disadvantage given that many couples wait until after age 35 to even begin having familes.
Plus I can't really believe you'd expect Freeman Hunt to wait until her last child turns 18 to run. We may need her sooner than that.
Define "parenting responsibilities."
Santorum hasn't made those issues a central part of his candidacy.
Well, I just checked his official website and saw a lot of stuff about those issues and nothing whatsoever about religion.
But no doubt I'm a nincompoop for not worrying too much about a president's ability to declare theocratic rule unilaterally. You're right--Julius Caesar is exactly the right analogy here.
Yashu: That an American candidate's commitment to the separation of church and state made Mr. Santorum want to vomit—and that this fact was something in which he took pride, and wanted to share with an audience—is telling.
Yes, it tells us that, unlike most Americans, Santorum understands that "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
Its was in a letter.
Next you'll be telling us its Constitutional that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Don't feel bad. The amount of ignorance re Religion on this thread will mask any mistakes you made about the 1st Ammendment.
If the Commander in Chief has a military role, then the family must adapt to it for 4 or 8 years.
But playing golf everyday may be taking that excuse to an extreme.
Fen, lay the charge of ignorance on Dorothy Rabinowitz, whom I was quoting there.
But I don't see where she claims those words appear in the Constitution. So I don't see what she's ignorant about in the passage I quoted or the article it's taken from.
Your reply translates to "I have no idea".
No, my reply was that human are not capable of understanding what God actually is, much less why he would care.
There's obviously a subtle difference between "I have no idea why he would care" and "humans are not capable of understanding why he would care", but I'm not spotting it. Are you saying you're not human? Or are you just saying that you're not alone in not knowing why he would care?
What rational basis can there be that God doesn't?
Not to get all third grade on you, but we asked you first. Besides, I'm not making the claim that he doesn't care (or that he exists at all, for that matter). I'm just asking what the rational basis is for thinking he cares.
The answer is that there isn't one; that's why it is an article of faith, like the materialist belief that the physical universe exists.
Maybe God said, "yeah, he should go ahead and run" fully knowing that Rick was never going to win so this one little fling would be the end of it and all would end well.
Or perhaps we don't really know what God thinks, if indeed God thinks in any way comprehensible to us.
Indeed, we don't really even know what Karen Santorum thinks or how she felt or feels beyond extrapolating from a statement of a woman who likely is a lot more complex than we assume.
Please, enough with the stuff about "God's calling" and "what about the children! The children!"
Before running for President, Santorum was hauling down a million a year to keep Mrs Samtorum and his various Santorii living well..long hours..not hovering around the doomed Trisomy one. Full time, on the move lobbyist pitching his ability to get the influence to get the right laws and earmarks, given his access to the Senate well as a former Whip and his long history of scratching backs on both sides as a Team Player.
Like Newt, Hermain Cain the only reason the Santorums and the missus were on their knees was to see if God was calling to double, quintuple their income if they were successful in pitching them as a candidate and as a credible future lobbyist or talk show guest if they failed to win the big prize but got to pluck all the runner-up money sure to come.
One nice thing about Romney and Ron Paul...neither imagines themselves doing influence peddling after this election..win or lose.
The reason man created God in the first place was to explain a scary world he didn't understand. Now that we understand the weather, hell we even are contemplating dark energy what use for a God do we have? Man is god and God is man.
Yes, it tells us that, unlike most Americans, Santorum understands that "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
Oh, please.
Go read Kennedy's speech, then come back and explain which parts should make a reasonable person want to vomit.
traditionalguy said...
"But playing golf everyday may be taking that excuse to an extreme."
When he'd play, our dad always took with him any of his five children who also wanted to shoot a round of golf. Maybe Obama does the same with his kids.
Dad would have made a pretty good Commander in Chief except he had his hands full raising five kids. So he left the commander job up to LBJ whose daughters were grown and out of the house. Of course, LBJ managed to botch up the job anyway.
"Go read Kennedy's speech, then come back and explain which parts should make a reasonable person want to vomit."
I believe Rick Santorum got nauseated over the word "absolute".
Maybe Obama does the same with his kids.
No doubt. It's only b/c he guards their privacy so zealously that we haven't seen the pix.
I believe Rick Santorum got nauseated over the word "absolute"
I asked what a reasonable person would be nauseated by, not what Santorum was nauseated by. :)
Sure, Kennedy expressed support for "absolute separation of church and state", but if you actually read the speech (as Santorum said he did) you can see what he meant by that. What, about the concept as defined by Kennedy, is at all objectionable -- let alone physically repulsive?
My guess? The line where Kennedy says the President should neither be denied to people of a faith nor used as a platform to impose their faith on others. Santorum's career has always been about imposing his beliefs on others; that's why he keeps describing himself as fighting against libertarian influences in the Republican party. Santorum doesn't see a distinction between "X is right" and "the government should do X", or between "X is wrong" and "the government should ban X".
My understanding of the first amendment is that congress is prohibited from setting up a national religion and citizens are free to worship their own respective religions without government coercion or interference.
"Absolute" separation of church and state can sound to some as if the president is suppose to put his religious faith in a lock box. I think the idea of that is what made Rick Santorum sick.
Yeah, we got the thing about JFK. Those of us paying attention got the thing about JFK a couple of decades ago.
And, yes, JFK did effectively give credence to the anti-Catholic bigotry that had once again reared up, accepting their premises about Catholics in public life, and he did effectively disown his Catholic faith, falsely implying that Catholicism was incompatible with American values and that to be a good and faithful Catholic was anti-American. Now, to be sure, it was not out and out apostasy, but it was at best a statement of colossal ignorance and, at worst, a repudiation of the faith for crass political purposes.
In that speech, as Archbishop Charles Chaput has noted, Kennedy "was wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life. And he wasn’t merely “wrong.” His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage. . . . Fifty years after Kennedy’s Houston speech, we have more Catholics in national public office than ever before. But I wonder if we’ve ever had fewer of them who can coherently explain how their faith informs their work, or who even feel obligated to try. The life of our country is no more “Catholic” or “Christian” than it was 100 years ago. In fact it's arguably less so. And at least one of the reasons for it is this: Too many Catholics confuse their personal opinions with a real Christian conscience. Too many live their faith as if it were a private idiosyncrasy – the kind that they’ll never allow to become a public nuisance. And too many just don't really believe."
Plus, it gave Santorum something to demagogue.
Why can't religious folks just keep it in the closet? Don't get me wrong, I feel its a private matter, a crazy one, but still...
I asked what a reasonable person would be nauseated by, not what Santorum was nauseated by. :)
Speaking of nauseating, I just watched a clip of Santorum and Glenn Beck discussing the evils of higher education. Some bogus survey of college kids losing their faith as they pass though college, and they both were tripping over each other discussing how this is all a Master Plan by Obama to control people. It was the most amazing display of projection I've ever witnessed. Or agoraphobia? Just weird people.
Wow, I actually agree, for a change.
http://thoughtsandrantings.com/2012/02/24/this-is-another-reason-why-i-do-not-support-santorum/
"Too many live their faith as if it were a private idiosyncrasy – the kind that they’ll never allow to become a public nuisance."
Yes please, give me a POTUS who *wants* and *intends* his faith to become a public nuisance. That's what Santorum is explicitly promising us, isn't it?
wyo sis said, Palladian "by their works ye shall know them" works for me.
yeahbutwudabout if their works turn out to be all really good suggestions, to get you hooked on accepting their works, and and their work continues after you decided that you know them enough to trust them and their evil plan blossoms because you trusted their works up to that point and they spring their evil plan and make a disastrous suggestion that ruins your life? Huh? Wudabout then?
Even saying the word "God" or "prayer" is nuisance enough for some to trigger spasms of disgust and hate.
garage said: It was the most amazing display of projection I've ever witnessed. Or agoraphobia? Just weird people.
I first read that and thought it was a weird dig at Santurum because he was afraid to wear angora sweater vests. But then, seeing that the word "agora" actually means marketplace in Greek, I thought it would be nice to turn that word loose on certain members of the Wisconsin Local 1848: agoraphobia--fear of the marketplace?
Even saying the word "God" or "prayer" is nuisance enough for some to trigger spasms of disgust and hate.
That may be so. Among people who would no more vote for Romney or Newt than for Santorum.
But that doesn't apply to any of the serious conservatives and Republicans (and many of the independents) who have serious problems with Santorum.
Running for president is different from *being* president. Saying that she prayed and then felt that it was God's will that he run, isn't saying that she believes, even for a moment, that God intends him to be President.
In a meta-sense, God intends, right now, for Obama to be President. To believe otherwise is to believe that God is not sovereign. OTOH, it also means that claims to God's will are entirely different from claims of God's favor.
It seems to me that most people make that mistake. Probably not Santorum's wife, but nothing about it has to do with God's *favor* and that's what people seem to hear.
As I noted in the Palin thread, certain among her most vociferous detractors are the same who now snipe and snark the loudest regarding Santorum. This tells me (a believer not interested in a theocracy) that it's not a matter of degree of religiousity (Santorum >> Palin) but rather that their mutual detractors perceive they both have something in common. Yet it cannot be as simple as faith because many of the same who detested Palin and detest Santorum are willing to accept Romney. Not all but some. Then there are those who detest Romney too. You know who you are.
"So let's think about this. Anyone who's ever been bothered by the thought of public school teachers talking to and teaching their children about sexual matters-- e.g. contraception or homosexuality or sexual morality or whatever-- thereby usurping the parents' role and prerogative to instill in their children the values they see fit (or to shield their children from sexual topics if they so wish)… are supposed to feel *what* about a *POTUS*-- not a measly teacher, but a figure with the authority of the Presidency-- doing the talking and teaching about sexuality instead?"
The POTUS does already, as represented by those teachers, as a symbol of the government.
I'm curious though. Supposing that Santorum became President, when would he be having sex-ed classes with other people's children?
I'm not certain that fuss over how parental authority is transgressed actually translates to fuss over adults being exposed to an opinion they don't share.
Synova demonstrates a solid understanding of the 'God's Will' concept.
Stuff like this which seems to come fairly easily for most believers is pretty difficult to explain to people that don't want to understand the concepts.
Properly understood God wants Santorum to run. The evidence of that is the simple fact that Santorum is running. And as Synova points out God also wants Obama to be president, since he is in fact president.
We don't know why. As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways, and God's Will is not our will.
"I never said the child was the predicament. I said the predicament was being left to care for the family alone, to be without the father's presence."
You don't know their situation. I thought you were a feminist.
I'm curious though. Supposing that Santorum became President, when would he be having sex-ed classes with other people's children?
I understand what you're saying. He'd have no time to teach. Presumably Santorum would learn fairly quickly that there are more pressing needs circling the US than the social conservative ones he's talking about right now.
Properly understood God wants Santorum to run. The evidence of that is the simple fact that Santorum is running. And as Synova points out God also wants Obama to be president, since he is in fact president.
A reasonable alternate view is that God doesn't care who is President, or who is running. That is, that God is not a micromanager.
Let me amend that. You ARE a feminist. Why are you passing judgement about what they've decided? Do have evidence that Karen Santorum is not on board?
Well chickenlittle, you can't be talking about me, because I'm on the record extolling Palin-- a long time ago in an election far away, but still. And said very nice things about her long after that. Even now I still make an effort to temper my criticism with some praise.
Even at my most critical, I don't think it's fair to characterize anything I've ever written about Palin as "detestation" from a "vociferous detractor".
I hate my own writing, so I'm not inclined to revisit any of it; but if you don't want to take my word for it, I'm sure it's all somewhere in the bowels of the Althouse archive.
So your anti-Santorum = anti-Palin hypothesis has at least one exception: me.
"I've never been proud of America"
- Michelle Obama
Post a Comment