So the conservative conclave in Texas has sent up some white smoke.
They have anointed Santorum as the standard bearer for the conservative cause.
I think this might bode well for Obama.
Until someone else actually beats Romney in a primary, I’m just not going to believe it matters.
If they had done this before Iowa, do you think there is any chance that Romney would have won Iowa?
But yeah, it might be too late. If Romney wins in South Carolina then he can basically tell the conservative element of the party to eat shit.
They need him more than he needs them.
Evangelicals, not conservatives.
Eh, there was probably a time where this could’ve made a difference. Having religious conservative groups line up behind a single candidate could’ve convinced other anti-Romney voters to do the same.
But its too little too late. Romney already has momentum on his side, Santorum doesn’t have enough time to raise money or organize before the next two primaries, and Romney will win the nomination.
Michelle Bachman is crying her eyes out right now.
But if a bunch of evangelicals in Texas picked a Catholic from PA over a born again Christian from Texas, I have to wonder what that even means. And it took them 3 votes to get there, too, so I think this is a whole lotta nuthin’.
Tomato, to-mah-to
There has been so much cross pollination that evangelical=conservative.
We will see.
No, it doesn’t. That’s the political equivalent of “they all look alike”.
Not really. Buckley was Catholic, so was Russell Kirk while George Will is agnostic. Most of the neocon thinkers were Jewish (and former Trotskyists ironically). Of the major talk radio hosts only Limbaugh is a Protestant of some sort (not sure if he’s Evangelical) and of the Tea Party-ultraconservative lineup Santorum, Brownback, Tancredo, most conservatives outside of the South are Catholic. Meanwhile lots of Evangelicals are increasingly politically liberal (such as Tony Campolo)
It means that values are more important than denomination.
Not really. There may still be some slim portion of the Republican party that fits your definition of a conservative but the overwhelming majority of the self described conservatives are both socially (pro-life, anti-gay, slightly racist) and fiscally (cut spending, cut taxes, small government) and constitutionally (forget two hundred years of jurisprudence the centerpiece of he constitution is the tenth amendment).
The socially agnostic portion of the republican party hasn’t won an election since before Reagan.
And while both Reagan and Bushes the Greater and Lessers were often able to push their economic and foreign policy agenda virtually none of the social conservative agenda has come to pass.
I did not say conservative=evangelical but frankly wtf is the difference between a pro life catholic that hates the ghey and a pro life Jew that hates the ghey
Massive differences in theology especially with regards to soteriology and the divnity of Christ.
Can we have a cite that the overwhelming majority of self described conservatives are racists? And I’m going to disallow the weasel word “slightly”. You’re either a racist or not.
I’ll ask for cite about the other stuff after you supply this one.
Evangelicals supporting a Roman Catholic? This does not compute.
Once upon a time all I needed to deter the “Have you been saved?” crowd was to say, “Sorry, I’m Catholic.” It was as if I’d sprinkled them with Holy Water. “Mormon” would’ve sent them to the hills.
So, who’s Jack Chick endorsing?
Especially since there is a perfectly “good” evangelical in the mix-- Perry, as in, “I’m not ashamed to say I’m a Christian”, Perry.
Maybe if Tim Tebow endorsed Santorum, that might get things moving!