Rick Santorum and the pursuit of happiness
Rick Santorum addresses a overflow crowd of more than 2,300 during a rally at First Redeemer Church, Cumming on Sunday. Curtis Compton, compton@ajc.com
Cumming, Ga. — The rise of Rick Santorum and the return of social conservatism to the Republican presidential primary is an economic indicator that bodes well for most of the country, though perhaps not for Mitt Romney.
We’ll get to that in a minute. But first a few details from First Redeemer Church, where on Sunday night, Santorum addressed, for 70 minutes, an overflow crowd of 3,300 or so. If Santorum makes a big move in Georgia on Super Tuesday, people will point to this church meeting as the place where it started.
The crowd was littered with Republican activists – always a sign of whether a campaign is poised to take off.
Among those who were there: Tim Echols, chairman of the Public Service Commission, who acted as MC; Chuck Eaton, member of the PSC; Ralph Hudgens, state insurance commissioner; state Sens. David Shafer, R-Duluth, state chairman for the Santorum campaign and a native of the candidate’s hometown of Butler, Pa., Renee Unterman, R-Buford, and William Ligon, R-Brunswick; state Reps. Buzz Brockway, R-Lawrenceville, Terry Rogers, R-Clarksville, Sam Teasley, R-Marietta, Ed Setzler, R-Kennesaw, Mike Dudgeon, R-Suwanee; former state Senator Jeff Chapman of Brunswick, the new head of Peach Tea Patriots; former state lawmaker Mitch Kaye; and Niki Broun, the wife of U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Athens.
In an overflow room in another building, U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Lawrenceville, watched on TV. “I’d never heard him speak, except at the debates, and he was in my hometown,” Woodall said afterwards.
Another pair in the audience: Joe Dendy, the chairman of the Cobb County GOP, and Scott Johnson, the former chairman. In a measure of how far Santorum had come, Johnson said he last saw the former Pennsylvania senator last August at the Iowa State Fair. “I went up and talked to Rick Santorum because nobody else would,” Johnson said.
First Redeemer is pastored by the Rev. Richard Lee, who has appeared in some literature as a supporter of Newt Gingrich.
The Rev. Richard Lee, right, prays with Rick Santorum, his wife Karen, and three of their children, from left, John, Sarah Maria and Daniel, at the conclusion of Santorum's address during a rally at First Redeemer Church in Cumming, Ga. on Sunday, Curtis Compton, ccompton@ajc.com
Before the event, Lee explained that Santorum’s appearance, one day after Gingrich completed a two-day stint in the state, didn’t constitute an endorsement:
“I had breakfast with Newt yesterday. Every time there is an election, we’ll have one or two candidates come through here. It’s never to be misinterpreted. I will invite [President Barack] Obama. Whether he comes, I don’t know. But I invite every candidate to come speak to our people, because [Forsyth] is the second most conservative county in America.”
In addressing the pews, Lee emphasized that the evening was a campaign event. “This is not church tonight,” he said. Even so, and despite his protestations of neutrality, his introduction was more fulsome than many endorsements we’ve heard. Lee emphasized Santorum’s record on pro-life issues – his mention of the ban on partial-birth abortions drew the evening’s first big cheer.
Lee quoted John Adams, the second U.S. president: “’In politics, the middle way is no way at all,’” the pastor quoted the Founding Father, adding this: “Rick Santorum knows only one way, and that’s the right way.”
Santorum focused exclusively on Obama. Only a few allusions were aimed at his GOP rivals – and they received no mentions by name. The economy received some mention, but not much. Santorum’s emphasis was on the overreach of federal government, and on social issues. ”Those who believe they know best are gaining more and more authority to tell us how to live our lives,” he said.
The contraception debate, as a measure of religious freedom, received a good deal of attention. Santorum upped the ante with this line:
“Now we have an administration that’s trying to wipe the decks. Yes, remember the president proposed eliminating charitable deductions for higher-income taxpayers, to cripple further these [churches] and non-profits.”
Let the record show that the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles federal deficit commission recommended the same thing.
That said, you have to note that Santorum’s rise has been concurrent with three weeks of news indicating an economic upturn. And his language indicates that the former Pennsylvania senator recognizes that the economy isn’t the Sword in the Stone that Romney thinks it is.
The core of Santorum’s lengthy talk was the link between the unalienable rights cited by the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Santorum discussed the use of the word “happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, rather than the right to pursue “life, liberty and property.” Said Santorum:
”Property is just stuff. And America isn’t just about pursuing stuff. That’s one of the problems I have sometimes with our fellow conservatives, is that all we talk about — ‘Oh, Rick, presidential candidates just focus on stuff. Focus on taxing and spending, the economy. Don’t talk about anything else. Just focus on stuff. That’s what Americans really care about.’
“Do they? [The crowd murmured in the negative.] No, America and our founders understood that if we were just a bunch of folks that cared about stuff, we have a very, very narrow view of freedom. We have a very, very narrow view of what God’s call is in our lives. Because that’s why He gave us these rights. To pursue happiness.
“…..’Happiness’ actually had a different definition, ‘way back at the time of our founders. Like many words in our lexicon, they evolve and change over time. ‘Happiness’ was one of them. Go back and look it up. You’ll see one of the principle definitions of happiness is ‘to do the morally right thing.’ God gave us rights to life and to freedom to pursue His will. That’s what the moral foundation of our country is.”
Dismissing “stuff” and economic materialism is not necessarily a line that appeals to voters uncertain of where their next paycheck, or meal, will come from. Consider that, in its own way, Santorum’s emphasis is a sign that things are getting better – at least, economically.
Santorum’s closing argument came as part of a brief question-and-answer session. And this was addressed to supporters of both Romney and Gingrich. “This election is about big things. Yeah, it’s about the economy, it’s about jobs,” Santorum said. But he added this:
”If you don’t have a candidate who can reach out and touch something deep inside every American — and that touching may engender passion and support, it may raise someone’s consciousness, it may infuriate.
“But this is an election where we need to move people, remind people, what’s at stake. And there are those who are going to be passionate on both sides. If we do it wrong, they will have all the passion. And if they have all the passion, we will lose.”
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
159 comments Add your comment
jconservative
February 20th, 2012
8:42 am
It is an election year and the party faithful are getting testy.
As always in a national election the big question is who will get the votes of that 8% of voters, the Independents? The last election they went for the liberal Obama. In 2004 they went for the liberal (moderate, if you prefer) George W Bush.
What will they do in 2012?
Becky
February 20th, 2012
8:45 am
So explain this to me, if all these repub candidates are rejected at their convention and a new candidate is brought in-what happens to the delegates already collected? Are they allowed to be transferred? Is there a drop dead date to have a candidate’s name on the ballot in November instead of a write in?
Butch Cassidy
February 20th, 2012
8:45 am
Bro – “When Conservative politicians don’t have confidence in a candidate, that should be a sign of possible trouble on the horizon.”
It should be, but unfortunately they’ll continue to lie to themselves in an attempt to make them feel better that the current batch of nominees will not be able to unseat Obama. And I say that as someone who neither voted for or is a big fan of thie current adminstration.
Local observer
February 20th, 2012
8:46 am
I was in attendance last night. Mr. Galloway’s emphasis is not what I came away with. He did speak about cultural issues, but only in passing. His emphasis was on the insidious nature of an ever-growing government and the creep of control when that happens.
I appreciate Sen. Santorum’s characterization of the Constitution being the “how” of America and the Declaration being the “why” of America – great way to say that.
Butch Cassidy
February 20th, 2012
8:47 am
Local observer – “His emphasis was on the insidious nature of an ever-growing government and the creep of control when that happens.”
I agree, which is why it’s so confusing that he promotes less government except for when a woman want birth control or the choice to have an abortion.
Get a Room
February 20th, 2012
8:48 am
Anyone notice there are only about a dozen names that ever write on this thing and some of those are likely duplicates having conversations with themselves.
Cutty
February 20th, 2012
8:49 am
Republicans were too busy under the Shrub passing tax cuts, NCLB, Medicare Part D and starting two wars. Why the party faithful really believes that a republican President cares about abortion, values, etc is beyond me. Nothing more than the Pavlov’s dog theory to get them riled up.
Butch Cassidy
February 20th, 2012
8:51 am
Get a Room – “Anyone notice there are only about a dozen names that ever write on this thing and some of those are likely duplicates having conversations with themselves.”
Anyone notice how many people post on here not knowing the audience that they are dealing with.
Aquagirl
February 20th, 2012
8:54 am
By Jennifer Rubin
It usually takes a woman to point out the obvious DOA status of a Santorum. I think guys talk politics in groups and many are completely oblivious that telling women to hold an aspirin between their knees is not taken as a passing comment. The world is not a giant locker room.
Get a Room
February 20th, 2012
8:54 am
It just appears to be a very small audience. Get a room.
Becky
February 20th, 2012
8:54 am
Local observer-was a love offering plate passed at the Santorum event?
John
February 20th, 2012
8:57 am
It is wrong for a church–any church–to turn a Sunday evening worship service into a campaign rally for a candidate for public office. A Sunday service in a church by any other name is a church event. This is MORALLY AND SPIRITUALY REPREHENSIBLE.
Centrist
February 20th, 2012
8:57 am
Read the blog and posts – have nothing to add, other than Santorum has NO CHANCE of being the Republican nominee. Neither does Gingrich or Paul. If those 3 are simply in it to block Romney to get a brokered convention, all they will accomplish is re-electing Obama by a huge landslide. Do they want Palin to step in?
Romney is still on track to get the necessary delegates. The northeast states, west coast states and probably Texas where he is strong would be about all he needs. Many primaries (like Georgia) are proportional in awarding delegates, so even where he does not win outright he gains delegates.
Mike
February 20th, 2012
9:00 am
Please, just not Mitt Romney. He’s a political sleaze,
DannyX
February 20th, 2012
9:02 am
“His emphasis was on the insidious nature of an ever-growing government and the creep of control when that happens.”
Did Santorum mention his part in all of that?
His YES vote for unfunded Medicare Part D?
His YES vote for unfunded No Child Left Behind?
His YES vote for the unfunded Iraq War?
His YES vote for the Bridge to Nowhere?
His YES vote for the Bush tax cuts?
His YES votes for his many earmarks?
Butch Cassidy
February 20th, 2012
9:03 am
Centrist – “Do they want Palin to step in?”
If they did that, they may as well pack up and try again in 2016. I’ve never understood how Sara Palin became the voice of reason for the GOP. Really? You basically cost your running mate the election, but then afterward your held up as one of the possible saviors of the party. If she couldn’t get elected as the co-pilot, what makes anyone think she could get the job of flying the plane?
DavidEm
February 20th, 2012
9:04 am
Now if we could just get the town to ban dancing…
George Hills
February 20th, 2012
9:24 am
Mr. Gingrich faces tough sledding here where his record of compromise & deceit was well-known when he was in Congress. Many gun owners won’t forgive him stabbing them in the back helping pass the 1996 misdemeanor gun ban. Gun control don’t hunt in Georgia.
Centrist
February 20th, 2012
9:27 am
It was McCain, not Palin who lost the last presidential election.
Monica
February 20th, 2012
9:30 am
pysh, he talks about social issues because he has no argument on fiscal issues – he’s been a fiscal moderate – at best, since he’s been in office.Middle way is no way indeed. Fiscally moderate view is not popular right now, not among Dems or Reps, so Santorum has no choice but to talk about this fluff. It won’t last, people are for now impressed that he dares to talk about issues no one has ever talked about in an election, but as the gas prices start skyrocketing, the prices of goods/food go up, some companies that rely on driving merchandise across the country will be forced to lay workers off, people will have less and less money, the economy will become stagnant again, and we’re back to talking about serious issues not contraceptives. Let’s be honest, it’s gonna have to be Gingrich unless we’ll finally have brokered convention.
BRW
February 20th, 2012
9:31 am
Ever notice how people like Get a Room post meaningless drivel on here just to see their “special handle” on the internet?
Aquagirl
February 20th, 2012
9:32 am
If you’re complaining in a blog on Rick Santorum’s Sunday follies about a Gingrich vote 15 years ago, you might want to put the guns away and seek psychiatric help.
Monica
February 20th, 2012
9:34 am
“Please, just not Mitt Romney. He’s a political sleaze,” – he is, he represents everything that is wrong with politicians. The only reason why he has more than 4% support is money, which just tells you how easily brain-washed some voters are. Wise up people, seriously.
UGA 1999
February 20th, 2012
9:37 am
Very nice!
TooTheMisinformed
February 20th, 2012
9:38 am
@Becky
There was no offering plate passed….
@John
Redeemer does not have Sunday night services so this did not take the place of a scheduled Church Service. It took the place of what would usually be an empty building.
UGA 1999
February 20th, 2012
9:40 am
Monica….Please explain your post in greater detail. Is it because he is rich (1%) that causes you not to like him?
yellowdog.
February 20th, 2012
9:40 am
ughhhhhhhhhhh; as i say about santorum women beware of the caveman………meantime all of these bozos need a hot bath!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Know It Alls
February 20th, 2012
9:45 am
I really get a kck out of reading the comments on this blog from those on both sides who are absolutely certain they…and only they…have all the answers. I guess it takes all kinds to make a world. As to who will be our next President only time and circumstances will tell…not the know it alls! Never count any one in or out this far from an election or you may have to eat your words. Heard they taste a little like crow!
Lars
February 20th, 2012
9:51 am
uga 1999,
I don’t like him cause he’s a prick like you.
Get a Room
February 20th, 2012
9:53 am
And on Nov 7, 2012, one huge group of know-it-alls will proclaim their super-knowledge and the pundit class will herald a mandate.
DannyX
February 20th, 2012
9:53 am
“There was no offering plate passed….”
If there was Santorum would have been good for a dollar.
td
February 20th, 2012
9:56 am
Lars
February 20th, 2012
9:51 am
uga 1999,
I don’t like him cause he’s a prick like you.
You do not like anyone besides your messiah and chief.
UGA 1999
February 20th, 2012
9:57 am
Lars….Once again, someone from the left firing insults and having no facts to back up their claims. Great job!
DavidEm
February 20th, 2012
9:58 am
What sweater would Jesus wear?
DannyX
February 20th, 2012
10:03 am
“What sweater would Jesus wear?”
One with “Shock and Awe” bedazzled on the back.
yuzeyurbrane
February 20th, 2012
10:16 am
Actually, I am impressed by Santorum’s exhibition of historical knowledge. An earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence did say “life, liberty and property.” This stirred up quite a ruckus but not for the reasons Santorum states. It was merely because many of the founding fathers were among the wealthiest people in the colonies. Most of them wanted “property” to be mentioned. The “radicals” just wanted it eliminated. In a typical compromise, the Continental Congress came up with “pursuit of happiness” because it was an empty vessel to be filled by each perceiver’s imagination. Anyway, the deletion of the word “property” has often been used in legal arguments to justify social programs that are paid for by those more economically fortunate. It certainly had nothing to do with religion.
BMChristianConservative
February 20th, 2012
10:20 am
@worldprosperity
The answer to your first question (about why a church needs an auditorium) is so they can comfortably accomedate their 1000 (maybe 2000) plus members for Sunday services and the 3000 that can come out for other functions they sponsor (like Santorum’s speech). NOTHING WRONG W/ THAT! And is there anything wrong w/ a church or pastors having several millions dollars LESS than a typical Hollywood movie studio or a big name Hollywood actor? I say NOT AT ALL! I’ll never criticize a Hollywood studio’s $100 million budget to make a movie that mocks God so you shouldn’t criticize a church’s $10 million budget which in most cases feeds the hunger and helps the poor and down-trodden far better than any agency, charity or governing body! BTW $10 million is a very high church budget; most churches come nowhere close to that figure.
DannyX
February 20th, 2012
10:27 am
BM, what was the budget of Ted Haggard’s 20,000,000 strong church? How much of their budget was going to meth and male “massage” “therapists”?
Ashley Dawson
February 20th, 2012
10:29 am
Mr. V-neck is a throwback to the Ozzie and Harriet/Leave it to Beaver generation….not many fifty -three old men and women aspire to live like our parents and grandparents. He’ll have a hard time finding Donna Reed ’s pearls, high-heels and apron get up for todays (2st century) woman. The sooner he realizes most women are happy working outside the home and controlling their own body, the better off Mr. V-neck will be. Its about the economy and keeping us safe thats what I want from a president, not some preacher -boy views on his fellow Americans and what they do in the bedroom.
sheepdawg
February 20th, 2012
10:31 am
he’s in his element with a building full of right wing hate mongers, he should stick to the pulpit and give up on politics – which should not be mixed at all to begin with
UGA 1999
February 20th, 2012
10:35 am
DannyX….Are you referring to Eddie Long?
UGA 1999
February 20th, 2012
10:36 am
Sheepdawg….You need to read the constitution and research the men that wrote it. Then you really should look at who the party of hate is.
sheepdawg
February 20th, 2012
10:43 am
uga 1999
DannyX
February 20th, 2012
10:43 am
“DannyX….Are you referring to Eddie Long?”
Yes, him too. Of course.
Eddie Long organized a march against gay marriage a few years back. The march was held after the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage had already passed in Georgia. Eddie Long’s march was about securing funds from the Bush administration who was passing out money at the time to “faith based” institutions.
Long was kissing up to Bush. Long of course is another religious hypocrite.
Catholic priests too. How many collection plate dollars have been spent settling claims against Catholic priests? Millions.
Centrist
February 20th, 2012
10:44 am
Romney has been gaining in Michigan ever since Santorum got a media bump from those insignificant caucus wins. A poll out today has him even, and the trend points toward a Romney win a week from tomorrow:
February 20, 2012
Poll Watch: We Ask America Michigan Primary Survey
Romney – 29%
Santorum – 29%
Paul – 12%
Gingrich – 10%
Undecided – 20%
Survey of 1,025 likely primary voters was conducted Feb 19 and has a margin of error of +/-3.06%.
Among men, Santorum leads 32-27; among women Romney leads by the same 32-27 margin. However, 23% of women are undecided while only 13% of men are.
A Liberal in ATL
February 20th, 2012
10:47 am
Rectorum-Leader of The American Taliban
Papist Liberal
February 20th, 2012
10:47 am
But, but, but Ricks Catholic he can’t be mistaken in his views
UGA 1999
February 20th, 2012
10:51 am
DannyX….See that is where the freedom of choice comes to play. You DO NOT have to give to a collection plate. You can choose not to. Or you can choose not to go to that church or not to go to church at all. This is what makes America great.
MADCOW
February 20th, 2012
10:52 am
Too bad we can’t get someone in the presidential office who has experience in management, understanding process flows in order to combine parts of the government that are wasting dollars, and has a history of success at getting things done by working with both sides of the aisle.
Oh wait…. We do have someone who is applying for the job: Mitt Romney.
The republican party is like a pack of Goldie Locks; this candidate is to hot, this candidate is too cold. Why can’t anyone see the future and just know that we need a fixit guy. We don’t need another visionary without any experience of executing a vission.
Mitt Romney 2012
Read His book, amigos. Read his book, “No Appologies”. Then, take your swings at the guy.
My 2 pesos worth
lefty_316
February 20th, 2012
10:53 am
It’s interesting that Santorum chose to bring up the Constitution in his speech. During his time in Congress he repeatedly showed he does not believe the 1st Amendment (Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion) applies to him. For example in 2001 he attached an amendment to the No Child Left Behind legislation that would have given schools the right to teach creationism (intelligent design) instead of real science. That amendment initially passed but was later scuttled by more sane and rational human beings. Nor does Santorum today believe in the Constitution; his comments about Obama’s theology are a direct assault on Article VI, Section 3 – no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States.
As a former (22 year) republican I long for the day when the social conservative agenda is thrown under the bus and the party gets back to the principles that made it a legitimate entity – small government, fiscal restraint and individual liberty. But as long as the social conservatives hold sway the party will continue to be irrelevant and keep marching on its merry way toward obsolescence.