What We're in For
Troy Senik, Ed. ·
February 9, 2012 at 6:08pm
If Rick Santorum continues to surge to national prominence and perhaps -- just perhaps -- to a serious shot at the nomination, expect to see the media prominently displaying more photos like this one, taken by the Associated Press on Wednesday and now making the rounds in the MSM (it's even on the front page of the Washington Post today)
The media, I think, will be keen to run with this angle, knowing that Americans will divide into those who find this picture moving and inspiring and those who find it creepy and unbecoming. And you know what? Maybe it's time we had that fight.
- Comment (138)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: What We're in For
Amen brother.
May '10
Re: What We're in For
Bring it on.
Jul '11
Re: What We're in For
By all means, let's have this fight. We have what I consider a pretend religious man in the oval office making war on religion. First they came for the Christians...
Dec '10
Re: What We're in For
It's past time we had that fight. Pew still finds nearly 85% of the nation to have some religious affiliation, so a presidential candidate having faith should not be treated like a rare zoo exhibit.
May '10
Re: What We're in For
Because we all know those who pray are nutters. Those who pray in big groups of people are 5150. Those who pray while touching another person are about liable to kill someone.
Mar '11
Re: What We're in For
Absolutely it's time we had this out, against this attack on faith by the anti-religious, with their creeping tactic of trying to convince the public, little by little, that religion faith are bad. It's time to hit them squarely and fight back, hard.
Oct '10
Re: What We're in For
Are there any folks who will find it creepy and unbecoming who would vote GOP under any conceivable circumstances? Perhaps a handful of militantly atheist Paulistas. I can imagine plenty who would vote Dem finding it moving and inspiring - 'ethnic' communities included.
Mar '11
Re: What We're in For
It seems to this Lutheran boy that the only people the MSM finds more threatening than Evangelicals are Catholics Who Really Mean It.
Dec '10
Re: What We're in For
...and we will lose this one. Big time.
Dec '10
Re: What We're in For
Are we doomed to lose no matter what, or do you feel that if our candidate verbalizes his hostility to religion enough we can defeat Obama?
Apparently timidity is the order of the day: we need to nominate a candidate who doesn't ever advocate a position that isn't poll-tested to appeal to the mushy masses in the middle. I say we draft the Quaker Oats man -- a little makeover to make him look less like a religious nut, and he should be bland and inoffensive enough to ooze to victory.
Nov '11
Re: What We're in For
Before we get excited about having this fight, righteous though it may be, one might want to consider the argument in Roger L. Simon's piece on Santorum.
As frustrating as Romney is and as sympathetic as I am toward Santorum, a fight of this kind isn't always helpful to the republic.
Jun '10
Re: What We're in For
Santorum is not only getting support from the pious. He's getting support from those who genuinely admire their pious mother or grandmother, and maybe even aspire to piety themselves, but for one reason or another don't live it. Add all those people up, and you've got lots of potential support. The religion-friendly still vastly outnumber the religion-hostile.
Nov '10
Re: What We're in For
Right. Whereas in contrast, Mormonism would obviously appear mainstream to everyone and offer no opportunities like this one to the Left. (sarcasm)
Dec '10
Re: What We're in For
all it takes is quick reads of the Comments sections of the NYT and WashPo re: the HHS vs. Catholic Church controversy to see the strong strain of anti-religion running through this country. Very disturbing. Very real. And these people will VOTE.
Dec '10
Re: What We're in For
Lucy, I don't really understand the need for sarcasm. But I do understand the concern about Mormonism. I think both situations present problems.
Jul '11
Re: What We're in For
Then I'll go down swinging with conviction. I've been ready to go Galt for years.
Jul '11
Re: What We're in For
Your point has validity,I'm just pot committed.
Jun '10
Re: What We're in For
They're loud, often obnoxious, but they're not the majority.
Dec '10
Re: What We're in For
who is the "majority"?
Dec '10
Re: What We're in For
Seems like the "secularists" are the majority.