Culture Darwinism News

Santorum: ID-friendly US prez hopeful as kingmaker?

Spread the love

We’ve been following the fortunes of Rick “Santorum Amendment” Santorum in the race for the Republican nomination for 2012. The South Carolina rankings from yesterday’s party vote were: Gingrich, 40%; Romney, 28%, Santorum, 17%, Paul, 13%.

Gingrich wasn’t expected to do as well (nor was Santorum), but more on that in a moment. If Santorum conceded and threw his support behind one of the front runners, he could turn up the kingmaker. At this point, he has no special reason to concede, of course. Just sayin’ is all.

Why Gingrich is doing well: UD news staff think it is due to his blistering, and well-deserved attack on legacy mainstream media in the US, which he wisely followed up after last night’s victory. The “standing applause” wasn’t support for Newt’s side vs. his ex-wife’s side in ABC’s threatened interview with the latter but protest against the cheap shot itself. (Note: The fact that the ex’s side had already been aired years ago didn’t help.)

Millions of Americans are out of work; do they really care about this daytime TV stuff? It came across as an effort to sidetrack discussion from key issues like how various candidates would get people real jobs again. It focused attention on the “mainstream” media’s growing irrelevance to what most people must care about. Whether newt is the best candidate is a separate question: He tapped into a problem most candidates have been tiptoeing around, and he deserves his gains.

As for Santorum, whom we have been following, his attraction is that he is a genuine social conservative, like about 100 million Americans or so. The “mainstream” media kept predicting his demise because its operatives do not personally know anyone who, for example, thinks that personal choices and decisions influence how one’s life turns out. In their world, vast forces rule unchallenged, whether those forces are “your inner ape,” computer simulations, or the government. They want to be on the right side of as many of them as they can. In the present day, the social conservative hopes to be on the wrong side and to swat the forces a good one at every opportunity.

Well, the ball is still rolling, and we’re still watching …

See also: ID-friendly US prez hopeful Rick Santorum did win Iowa

Follow UD News at Twitter!

13 Replies to “Santorum: ID-friendly US prez hopeful as kingmaker?

  1. 1

    Why Gingrich is doing well: UD news staff think it is due to his blistering, and well-deserved attack on legacy mainstream media in the US, which he wisely followed up after last night’s victory.

    You may be right (although I’d add Romney’s flailing re disclosing his tax returns).

    But while it may have been “blistering” (and even fair) was it not also mind-blowingly hypocritical? If he thinks it is unreasonable to bring up personal peccadilloes near an election, what on earth was he doing re Clinton and Lewinsky?

    It seems to me that he who lives by scandal-mongering has scarely a leg to stand on when skewered in turn by said mongering.

  2. 2
    Starbuck says:

    I think this is going to be another Clinton vs. Dole in the general election. A rather uneventful easy win for the incumbent Democrat.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    “If I was running for President, I think I’d legally change my name to “Not Obama”. – Dennis Miller

  4. 4
    News says:

    Elizabeth Liddle: No brief here for Newt’s personal behaviour, but some of us think the standing o was for sending a message: The public wants to hear about key issues like jobs, Iran nuclear buildup, jobs, immigration, jobs, increases in regulation, jobs … not daytime TV.

    If it carried over into a Newt win in the Saw Palmetto state, and some think that a bad thing, they could do worse than to encourage their preferred candidates to start speaking out too – against the deliberate sabotage of serious issues by media not serious enough to deserve any more to be considered mainstream. Any candidate can do it. You don’t need a checkered personal life, or a squeaky clean one. Just say to reporters, real people want to hear about real issues, not your gossip.

  5. 5

    Yes, indeed, but I’m not sure it’s true. Real people seem to want to hear about gossip. Why else would the media report it?

  6. 6
    News says:

    MSM report it because it’s easy, fun, and cheap when nothing really serious is at stake. Things change when something serious is at stake, and this wouldn’t be the first time MSM were behind the curve. Well, we’ll see.

  7. 7
    Timbo says:

    I agree. Gingrich is Obama’s dream come true.

  8. 8
    bevets says:

    It is pretty annoying to lose a post to captcha.

    I agree. Conservatives thought these things were important with Clinton. While Clinton had the added twist of perjury, there was a cloud of political gaming. I like Newt, but I think he was throwing red meat to the crowd to distract from the allegations. sauce. goose. gander.

    Newt also accepts global warming which leads me to suspect he may not have sympathy for ID.

  9. 9
  10. 10
    woodford says:

    It’s interesting to note that on this page there is a Google Ad with the text “Ask Rick Santorum to stop bullying committed families. Learn More.”

    Kind of says it all doesn’t it?

  11. 11

    Use the back button, then scroll down to the bottom of the page. Your post should still be there. At least it is in Firefox.

  12. 12

    And what’s the connection between “social conservatism” and ID anyway?

    What’s wrong with gay marriage? Is homosexuality not intelligently designed?

  13. 13
    woodford says:

    Elizabeth:

    And what’s the connection between “social conservatism” and ID anyway?

    What’s wrong with gay marriage? Is homosexuality not intelligently designed?
    </blockquote?

    I guess we'll never know. The UD Newsroom has so much breaking news to deal with that it's moved on to more important matters. With so much happening in the world of ID it's a wonder that the Newsroom hasn't employed more staff (i.e., more than one…)

Leave a Reply