Audio: Rick Santorum and Laura Ingraham endorse Mitt Romney

posted at 11:00 am on February 1, 2008 by Bryan

This is one of the meatiest segments on the McCain-conservative divide I’ve ever heard. Former Senator Rick Santorum makes point after point after point against the candidacy of John McCain, but also makes several solid points in favor of the Mitt Romney candidacy. Be sure to at least stick around for the middle, when Santorum talks about an encounter with a McCain staffer after losing his Senate seat.

At the end of the segment, Laura Ingraham joins Santorum in endorsing Mitt Romney for president.

With yesterday’s endorsement by Sean Hannity, is major talk radio lining up on Romney’s side for Tuesday’s battle? Maybe we’ll learn more this afternoon when Rush hits the air.

Update: Evidently Rush is off today. Santorum’s official endorsement is up on Romney’s site.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I love Laura, but too little, too late. She’s been shredding McCain, the Huck, and Giuliani for months (and Romney to a lesser extent). The fact that she has favored Romney for a while has been obvious, but she waits until now? Now it doesn’t matter.

And with all due respect for the McCain opponents on this site, I still gotta pull the lever for him in November. It’s either a moderate or an avowed leftist, and in my mind, the moderate is the lesser evil. It won’t be pleasant, and may the Lord strike me dead, but I have to do it.

Pope Linus on February 1, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Good points. Ann, Rush, Hannity, Laura and others seem like they are behind the curve on this. At this point McCain seems a certainty. Their vigorous opposition to him now risks them appearing less relevant if they aren’t able to rally opposition on Super Tuesday. The time to have been hardcore against McCain was before New Hampshire or South Carolina. They seem almost like Rudy thinking they could jump in after a few primaries.

With McCain the nominee they’ll loose twice: first they’ll seem ineffective within the Republican party; second, spending February to November telling their audience how they are going to help Hillary get elected won’t help their careers.

dedalus on February 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Except that Mitt has acknowledged his political sins,…

so did kerry if you want to cut flip-floppers that much slack. he said quite directly, “i was for it before i was against it.” how is that different from romney?

Also, most crappy legislation and political moves of the last couple of years McCain was involved. You don’t see McCain-Lott or McCain-Bennett legislation.

well, uhh…

linky

527 Reform Act of 2005, introduced by McCain, Feingold, Lott and Schumer

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Good points. Ann, Rush, Hannity, Laura and others seem like they are behind the curve on this. At this point McCain seems a certainty. Their vigorous opposition to him now risks them appearing less relevant if they aren’t able to rally opposition on Super Tuesday.

dedalus on February 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM

It’s not about appearances. It’s about telling the truth and doing what’s right. Keep it up Rush!

edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 6:39 PM

I always thought Laura Ingraham was pro-life, guess I was wrong.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 6:55 PM

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 6:55 PM

Don’t be ridiculous. She has not changed her position. Will Rommney would appoint a liberal to the Supreme Court? The obvious answer is “no.”

Will John McCain will thumb his nose at Republicans several more times in his political career? The obvious answer is “Yes.”

You’re dismissed. Go by a lollipop.

The Race Card on February 1, 2008 at 7:00 PM

It’s not about appearances. It’s about telling the truth and doing what’s right. Keep it up Rush!

They are in the media business and they are not naive. A lot of people tell the truth, but they get compensated to do it in an entertaining manner and sell advertising around it.

My point isn’t that they shouldn’t tell the truth, but that they are making their push a few weeks too late. Why endorse after Florida when you could have endorsed before New Hampshire when Mitt really needed it?

dedalus on February 1, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Ooh, Santorum and Ingraham!!!! Well let me just run out and tell the world the good news. Please…

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 1, 2008 at 7:22 PM

If the primary is this hard . . .

- The Cat

MirCat on February 1, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Where were all you “conservatives” when there WERE TRUE CONSERVATIVES in the race (you know, Tancredo and Hunter)?

All these self-righteous complaints against McCain by folks supporting ….. ROMNEY(??!!!) are laughable. Romney’s “conservative” credentials have more holes in them than a slice of Swiss cheese.

Please spare me the purity arguments: We conservatives are a bunch of rats fighting over the left over scraps at the bottom of a barrel.

I am supporting McCain, but if Romney wins the nod, I sure as hell am not going to take my ball and go home in a snit.

Neither will I vote for the Democratic nominee.

sanantonian on February 1, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Today both Dr. Rusty Shackleford of JawaReport and Dr. Michael Savage of talk radio fame warned against trashing McCain, even if you do prefer Romney (even as both Shackleford and Savage do).

I for one am calling out Hugh Spewitt for waging a vicious, unworthy campaign of slander against McCain for reasons known only to him.

sanantonian on February 1, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Don’t be ridiculous. She has not changed her position. Will Rommney would appoint a liberal to the Supreme Court? The obvious answer is “no.”

Will John McCain will thumb his nose at Republicans several more times in his political career? The obvious answer is “Yes.”

You’re dismissed. Go by a lollipop

Not so fast: Romney HAS changed his position on abortion. Based on some of Romney’s past appointments to the court in Massachusetts, it is HARDLY a slam-dunk that he would appoint only conservatives to the Supreme Court (although I seriously hope he does if he wins).

Say what you want about McCain, but he has voted to confirm more conservative Supreme Court justices than Romney has. McCain has a more pro-gun track record than Romney has. McCain has a better grasp of what the military is about than Romney does. McCain served in the miliary and fought in the VietNam War, AND McCain’s son joined the military and has fought in the current war. Neither Romney nor ANY of his five (5!)(healthy, military-aged) sons has served a SINGLE DAY in the military, let alone in a war zone.

You did not dismiss the other poster: You just showed that you are arrogant (like McCain, get it?).

I support McCain proudly, but if Romney wins the nomination, I will vote for him.

sanantonian on February 1, 2008 at 7:51 PM

I was just listening to Mark Levin. A lady called in and told him that Fred Barnes said the Santorum and Levin had “come around” and was backing McCain. Levin was Livid. Now McCain has RINO news people lying for him. I heard the audio myself, so this is not a rumor.

orlandocajun on February 1, 2008 at 8:24 PM

The Race Card on February 1, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Good Riddance chump, my party will be much better off with you gone.

Go “by” a clue a-hole.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Mega Question 1: If Fred Thompson was such a valiant spokesman for the CONSERVATIVE voice of the Republican party, where has he been the last week and a half while the RINO wing of the party has taken control?

he has been waiting in the weeds to endorse his good friend and fellow senator John McCain, that’s where.

A ton of people kept sneering that as Thompson campaigned, but no one ever showed any evidence for it. Leading up to South Carolina and immediately afterward, the same people sneered at how gullible people were to not realize that Fred was really after the vice presidency, and would shortly drop out and endorse John McCain.

Didn’t happen. McCain’s had a long string of endorsements now. Still no Fred.

So maybe it’s not the Fredheads who were gullible.

And maybe the people who keep repeating this are just learning-impaired.

But the fact that this is being brought up so long after it should have died implies not learning impairment, but obsession.

Either way, it’s not exactly warming me to the McCain nomination.

tom on February 1, 2008 at 9:43 PM

I think the issue that most bothers the far right is that if McCain is nominated, he’ll likely win the Presidency without their support. And then what?

So much talk about McCain’s disloyalty. No one seems to speak of the vicious smear campaign waged by far right types in South Carolina in 2000 in order to save the nomination for the numbskull who would do your bidding. McCain’s family, sexual orientation, and wife’s drug battles were discussed in push-polls and leaflets, and you rail against him for not falling in line with the establishment?

The far right is beginning to behave a whole lot like the far left. It’s embarrassing.

Potfry on February 1, 2008 at 9:53 PM

So much talk about McCain’s disloyalty. No one seems to speak of the vicious smear campaign waged by far right types in South Carolina in 2000 in order to save the nomination for the numbskull who would do your bidding.
….
Potfry on February 1, 2008 at 9:53 PM

“No one seems to speak” of it because McCain spent so much time speaking of it in such bitter terms, and most people long ago figured that was politics for you. A fact confirmed by McCain using those same tactics against Romney. Anyone really believe he only used those tactics against Romney? Far more likely that he used the same tactics against Fred, and quite possibly Huckabee.

But without proof, it’s just speculation. Except in McCain’s mind, where no proof was ever needed.

I can promise you that I and millions of other conservatives spent no time making push poll calls or smearing McCain. So explain what relevance this has with loyalty. He’s been getting back at George Bush for the past 8 years. Let it die.

tom on February 1, 2008 at 10:08 PM

I can promise you that I and millions of other conservatives spent no time making push poll calls or smearing McCain.

I had no idea we had someone who speaks for millions of conservatives. I stand corrected.

Potfry on February 1, 2008 at 10:20 PM

My point isn’t that they shouldn’t tell the truth, but that they are making their push a few weeks too late. Why endorse after Florida when you could have endorsed before New Hampshire when Mitt really needed it?

dedalus on February 1, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Whether they “endorsed” them or not, they have been hammering McCain on his record. Any listener or reader would have gotten the message.

edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 11:32 PM

Whether they “endorsed” them or not, they have been hammering McCain on his record. Any listener or reader would have gotten the message.

edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 11:32 PM

Sure. But why endorse now instead of then? Why come out so forcefully only after McCain has it almost assured?

dedalus on February 2, 2008 at 1:04 AM

I think the last open registration at HA let in some trolls.

Asher on February 2, 2008 at 1:10 AM

I think the last open registration at HA let in some trolls.

Asher on February 2, 2008 at 1:10 AM

Trolls tire.

TexasBella on February 2, 2008 at 2:37 AM

I think the last open registration at HA let in some trolls.

Asher on February 2, 2008 at 1:10 AM

Would this comment not qualitfy as trollish? I’m just askin.

myamphibian on February 2, 2008 at 8:28 AM

I think the last open registration at HA let in some trolls.

So, Asher, is anyone who supports McCain a troll?

Potfry on February 2, 2008 at 9:18 AM

Wish you wouldn’t post stuff requiring QuickTime: it is not available for my OS (a sign of poor implementation).

landlines on February 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM

I wish they would have spoken out earlier and perhaps we wouldn’t be facing the possibility of having the “Manchurian Candidate” for president but better late than never.

I hope BRYAN, Santorum, Laura, Rush, Ann, Michelle, etc. share the truth about John McCain and not let up. We must defeat McCain! For some reason I am feeling that true conservatives have been hoodwinked!

I do think that Rick Santorum would make an excellent VP for Mitt Romney.

sinsing on February 2, 2008 at 11:00 AM

I do think that Rick Santorum would make an excellent VP for Mitt Romney.

Santorum on the ticket would ensure a landslide loss. He got about 41% in his last PA race and wouldn’t bring any states that aren’t already Republican.

dedalus on February 2, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Santorum on the ticket would ensure a landslide loss. He got about 41% in his last PA race and wouldn’t bring any states that aren’t already Republican.

Who would you suggest?

sinsing on February 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM

This is getting stupider by the minute.

1. I love how so many claim someone can’t be pro-life when they endorse a pro-choice candidate. Hey, there are other issues! Think! If you want to pursue a political agenda, you need to think strategically in your voting. Ask which candidate will assist your whole agenda more, even if it means voting for someone you have disagreements with on specific issues. Your supposed purity in politics will cause a lot of evil. And God will hold you accountable–”You could have supported this candidate here, who would have governed in a way that did good things and helped to get more good things into place. But instead, because that candidate didn’t agree with you on specific issues, you refused to back him, and thus someone even worse got into office, leading to far greater evil. I am not well pleased.”

2. To McCain supporters: He has too much baggage, which the liberal media (redundant, I know) is holding back to use in the general election. He has an attitude about him which will come out by November, which will be played as sexist/racist, and simply used to make him look bad compared to his opponent. (BTW, John Murtha is a veteran, too.)

2. To extreme Romney supporters: You’re almost as bad as those self-righteous “must-be-pro-life” voters. Domestically, McCain is indeed bad (worse than Romney for all the reasons stated), and potentially comparable to Dems. On foreign affairs and defense, though, he will kill the people who need to be killed. (No, I’m not a Christian, so don’t throw Jesus crap at me.)

And if you Conservatives were not so uniformly selfish (focused on your own wallet and your own concerns instead of the good of the country and community), you would see the damage the Dems could do in that area. Ironically, your attempt to promote your own interests (kinda like the “Me Generation” crap) will be the means by which the other side weakens their opposition and imposes policies that hurt those very interests.

While the argument for letting the Dems take the blame for problems sounds good, remember they will cause far MORE damage, and the media will not cooperate in your efforts to blame them. They will blame “Republican/conservative failure to cooperate.”

So,

1. Stop the “principle voting,” and replace it with “principle politics.” Do what promotes your agenda.

2. McCain supporters must open their eyes and see what he is. (Remember Juan Hernandez)

3. Extreme Romney supporters must not make the “self-righteousness” mistake. Look at things realistically, and look beyond yourselves.

Tommygun on February 3, 2008 at 3:29 AM

Tommygun,

You aren’t describing conservatives that I know.

While it may be “selfish” to want to keep more of our earned money away from government, this leads to more prosperity for all.

There are some Republicans who want unfair government intervention to help their wallets (at the expense of others), but they are not conservatives, IMO.

As Rush says, Conservatism is the bravest ideology. You put yourself at the whims of fortune, with very little government backstop.

mockmook on February 3, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3