Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

You mean the headlines lie about evangelical leaders endorsing Santorum?

You mean the headlines lie about evangelical leaders endorsing Santorum?

Yes.

Headline and story line: Conservative Christian leaders endorse Rick Santorum after Texas meeting

A group of about 150 conservative Christian leaders and political activists emerged today from a two-day meeting at a Texas ranch and endorsed former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum for president – a surprising turn for a critical demographic that has been notoriously divided this election cycle.

“What I did not think was possible appears to be possible,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, during a conference call with reporters this afternoon about the emergency confab. “There was not a lot of hope we could come to a consensus but that was achieved.”

Reality: A split of opinion with Santorum receiving the vote, after three rounds of voting, of 85 leaders versus 29 for Newt.  That does indicate support, but not a consensus endorsement:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Karen Sacandy | January 15, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Hmmm. Sounds like splitting hairs to me.

Meanwhile, saying the ex-Mass. guv won the Iowa caucuses when the numbers were 30,015 v. 30,007 seems like the REAL inaccuracy. Eight of 30,000 is a counting error.

If this group of “leaders” hasn’t endorsed someone, it really points to an inability to lead. The most important election of the last 30 years, and this is the best they can do? Give folks an excuse to claim they won’t pick someone?

This is not a “lie.” I have to give you a pinocchio for that headline, Mr. Jacobson. The whole point was to vote to endorse one candidate, which doesn’t require a unanimous vote, just a winner.

I’m curious if this is going to mean much or not. Truthfully, the “evangelical” label isn’t a very useful label, because who is and isn’t an evangelical varies a lot depending on one’s definition.

    JEBurke in reply to Astroman. | January 15, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    If you think you could just add Santorum’s or Perry’s votes to Gingrich’s if one or both of the two Ricks dropped out, you would almost certainly be wrong. Some folks thought the same about Iowa but polls there showed that Romney got more “second choices” than any other candidate. I have not seen a SC poll of second choices, but there is no reason to believe that it would be significantly different. Your “logic” is not the same as everyone elses.

Karen Sacandy | January 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm

I also wonder… just hypothetically… if the numbers had been 85 for Gringrich and 29 for Rick Santorum, if the good Professor’s headline would have been different…

Just wondering… :^)))
LOL

Sorry, commenters, but the Professor wins on this one. From Merriam-Webster:

Consensus — a : general agreement : unanimity

That said, I don’t think Perkins meant to mislead. He probably doesn’t know what consensus means either.

    Mary Sue in reply to JEBurke. | January 15, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    Here’s another “C” word Perkins should look up: complicit. If nominating Mitt was an establishment conspiracy, he is certainly complicit. I would bet Romney’s camp did the happy dance seeing that headline. I have come to the conclusion conservatives need a seminar in election strategy.

    Astroman in reply to JEBurke. | January 15, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    According to dictionary.com:

    con·sen·sus
    1. majority of opinion
    2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

    I stand vindicated. Mr. Jacobson has long since lost any objectivity regarding Newt.

so the evangelical leaders were not
in general ageement? Hmm, being a self identifying evangelical I am in general agreement with my co-religionist.

Midwest Rhino | January 15, 2012 at 6:28 pm

There was consensus that Romney would not be chosen, so they split between Gingrich and Santorum, which helps assure we get Romney. Brilliant.

Romney seems to have three stalking horses. Perry decided to stay in when it was rumored even his staff thought he would quit. Paul stays in but only goes after not Romneys. Santorum has little money or organization, and is trailing Gingrich by 7 points in SC.

Logic might drive voters to vote differently than they poll. If they see Gingrich as the only chance to beat Romney, would they waste their vote on Santorum or Perry? If half become convinced for one reason or another, that adds twelve to Gingrich, and he beats Romney 34-27 in SC.

    Astroman in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 15, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    Are you seriously suggesting Perry is a stalking horse for Romney?

    You do realize (at least prior to Newt going gonzo after the Romney attack-avalanche in Iowa) that there was no greater animosity than between Perry and Mitt? Remember how Perry kept getting under Romney’s skin, making Mitt turn bright red, making Mitt raise his voice, put his hands on Perry, place lame bets, etc.? There was a good reason why Romney continued to target and attack Perry, long after Perry had dropped to the single digits, and it wasn’t because Perry was Romney’s stalking horse.

The real story, that of course went unreported, was that this group also reached a consensus in which they backed the Broncos.

BannedbytheGuardian | January 15, 2012 at 8:12 pm

There was a time when Evangel meant – Good news . The word was adopted in the late 1500s & popularized in the 1600s as to bringing The Gospel.

Now thanks to the “Evangelicals” of the 1990s the word is tainted by doctrinaire hypocritical philanderers with 4 am $$$$ begging cults shows.

Worse they have destroyed a perfectly beautiful girls name ‘Evangeline” which means bringer of good tidings ‘. Although the “Lost ” actress has managed to put some nice abs & deltoids in to muscle up the name.

Besides we all know that we must unite to wipe out Islam.

More accurately, 85 of 150 Christian leaders came to a consensus based on eliminating candidates until only two were standing. The other 65 did not. Almost 1/4th refused even to vote. Not even in the sense that usually happens a political conventions when everyone at the end changes their vote to support the winning candidate. Quite a “consensus”.

Some of the people who attended this year may not have the same confidence in future meetings led by Perkins. J. C. Watts and Gingrich and Perry supporters in particular.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend