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

Rudy – he showed me he would support conservatives even though he isn’t one.

He did’nt ENDORSE a conservative.

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:07 PM

kc8ukw on February 1, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Sorry, it’s just that I have been pointing out how fabulous Mitt is all along and it’s a shame that more people didn’t see it earlier.

Indeed, it would have been nice if Santorum had come through with an endorsement earlier, particularly since he worked closely with Mitt and saw his capabilities and his grasp of the Jihadist threat.

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 12:07 PM

ChrisM on February 1, 2008 at 12:06 PM

i’ve been posting here longer than you.

sit down please.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Possibly Santorum came to his decision along the same time line as a lot of us…

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Wow, the endorsement of a washed up rebuked former senator and a talk show host. That is sure to turn things around.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 1, 2008 at 12:10 PM

I still haven’t forgiven my state for kicking him out of office. Everyone bought the Casey as a “moderate” junk and the garbage that since his father was a pretty good governor, maybe his son will make a good senator. Since being in office Casey has done nothing but vote in lock-step with the party.

Against John Doe bill
For Amnesty
Voted against Coburn amend. to enforce existing immigration laws
Jumped on the banwagon to condemn Rush
For S-Chip expansion
For housing bail-out
etc, etc, etc

matthewbit07 on February 1, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Pssst….

Boston, MA – Today, Kris Kobach, noted immigration policy expert and head of the Kansas Republican Party, announced his endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney. Kobach will serve as an adviser to Governor Romney on border security and immigration reform issues….

……Joining Romney for President, Kobach said, “Of all the Republican presidential candidates, Governor Romney has outlined the clearest vision for how we are going to end illegal immigration in this country. More importantly, he has the record to back up his words.

….more…

Mcguyver on February 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Malkin’s treachery against conservative GOP voters by promoting anti-Thompson rhetoric is her own self inflicted wound. Those abused conservatives refuse to trust her selfish obstinacy. Malkin as saboteur disables objective analysis.

Laura Ingraham joined with Hannity and others who have loyal followings to endorse Mitt. But the likes of Michael Savage mouthing Malkin’s uglies against Fred Thompson even AFTER Thompson withdrew from the race negated any affinity with proxy Mitt’ns.

Drudge, by redrudging McCain as McCain, EFFECTIVELY put the fire in the conservative voters’ belly to vote AGAINST McCain, even if that requires voting for Mitt.

But Mitt needs to prove his own conservative case, as on record he remains a RINO. One thing differentiating Mitt from McCain, Mitt will not actually disavow his core: family and religion. And that makes all the difference determining a “good” Mitt RINO vs. the “bad” McCain RINO. None the less, Mitt is a RINO. If Mitt wants the strength of the core conservative platform, he must rebuild what he destroyed. He has three days to rebuild that temple.

maverick muse on February 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Former Senator Santorum lost his re-election bid by a huge margin, in a state where Republicans are generally competitive. He is a darling of the self-proclaimed “true conservatives”, which may be an indication of where we will end up electorally if we indulge their wishes.

But what I find most annoying about all this is that, during his losing re-election battle, who did he have come in and campaign for him? John McCain. Apparently he didn’t think all that badly of McCain back then. Thus his current talk-show jeremiad against the sitting senior Senator from Arizona smacks at the very least of ingratitude, if not of outright hypocrisy.

HTL on February 1, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Pssst……

Mcguyver on February 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM

who?

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Possibly Santorum came to his decision along the same time line as a lot of us…

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:10 PM

I don’t know that all of you had a chance to work with Mitt like Santorum did. I don’t know why he didn’t make a move to endorse him before Florida since it was clearly a race between him and his nemesis McCain.

By the way, I thought that Santorum’s account of how the McCain team member told him “we beat you” was very telling and really gets to the heart of the matter of how obvious it is that McCain is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact actively works to oppose conservatives and the Republican Party in general.

Lieberman has been a hawk on the war too, but we certainly wouldn’t call him “conservative”.

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM

I guess to jummy, “noted immigration policy expert” doesn’t have quite the chops of “Juan Hernandez”.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Lieberman has been a hawk on the war too, but we certainly wouldn’t call him “conservative”.

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Excellent point.

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:18 PM

If McCain becomes President does that make Lindsey Graham “First Girlfriend”?

Hilts on February 1, 2008 at 12:18 PM

If McCain becomes President does that make Lindsey Graham “First Girlfriend”?

Hilts on February 1, 2008 at 12:18 PM

More like VP..(shudder)

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Have you ever done the math?

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:06 PM

For a living.

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 12:19 PM

who?

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:14 PM

That explains a lot.

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Wow, the endorsement of a washed up rebuked former senator and a talk show host. That is sure to turn things around.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 1, 2008 at 12:10 PM

May I suggest reading this analysis, which nails it:

profitsbeard on February 1, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 11:58 AM

I think you are painting with a broad brush then. I consider myself conservative and I have different positions in the sprectrum of all three of those issues.

I don’t disagree that there probably are people who consider themselves conservative that take the most “radical” position on those issues, but my feeling is that most conservatives will also fall within various spots on the spectrum for those issues.

For instance, I might be considered “radical” on a few of those positions by you.

Immigration… My feeling is you rolled the dice to come here illegally. You get caught, well, tough cookies. You are going back where you came from and put in the back of the line to get here legally.

“Torture” or interrogation. This is a tough call, but if any method doesn’t cause physical harm, it’s effective and it’s used when/where appropriate, I have no problem with it.

Global warming – I have no doubt that mankind is contributing to global warming in some manner. I’m just not sure to what degree and whether it meets the level of materiality.

Eh…Maybe I’m a “radical” conservative but I try to use some commen sense when it comes to issues.

Nineball on February 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Also will Trent Lott get a cabinet position?

Hilts on February 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:16 PM

i didn’t know who juan hernandez was either before you guys started screeching that he is satan.

i’ve heard of rudy giuliani.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 12:19 PM

interesting…

I’m close to people who have also, and have reached the EXACT opposite conclusion…

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM

i’ve been posting here longer than you.
sit down please.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM

As someone who has been posting here longer than you, jummy, I agree with Bryan:

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 11:03 AM
…Don’t be a jerk or you’ll earn a ticket to oblivion.

Bryan on February 1, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Lawrence on February 1, 2008 at 12:24 PM

McCain can’t win without the base.

He can if he appeals to moderates.

SouthernDem on February 1, 2008 at 12:05 PM

If moderates would flock to our side, they wouldn’t BE moderates, they’d be republicans. Besides, there aren’t enough moderates anymore to make a difference. Prior to 2000 there was a large middle to go after. Since then, it’s been a 50/50 split polarized electorate.

McCain can’t get enough moderates to compensate for losing the base. He won’t reconcile with the base, and even if he did, no one would believe him.

His only chance is that Hillary so damages her brand with her base and blacks, that McCain wins it in a squeaker.

Other than that, he loses.

Now, Mitt has a hard row to hoe too, but again, at least we don’t sell our soul.

I would hate to sell my soul AND lose with McCain, which is exactly what will happen.

tlclark on February 1, 2008 at 12:26 PM

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM

No, not Satan. Just a former Vincente Fox cabinet member who holds dual Mexican-US citizenship. Someone I consider inappropriate on a Republican candidate’s committee. I try and consider who someone surrounds themself with as a factor in judging their character.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Where were all these endorsements before Florida?

SouthernGent on February 1, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Also will Trent Lott get a cabinet position?

Hilts on February 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM

I doubt it, too conservative….

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM

About global warming… it sure was clever of humanity to cause it thousands of years ago, before any “industry” greater than the campfire existed, and end the last Ice Age.

Or how humanity causaed Greenland to warm up a millennia ago.

Or all of the other global climate fluctuations in recorded history, and pre-history.

The science of meteorology can’t predict the weather three days ahead, and we are now going to undermine our civilization and the world’s economy for one more panick-theory about “how we cause all of the world’s ills”?

That’s not science, that’s self-loathing and self-inflation meeting in the realm of the ridiculous.

Or would the global warmers prefer ice sheets two miles thick over the northern hemisphere instead of losing a little coastline …if the worst of their “predictions” comes “true”?

profitsbeard on February 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM

i didn’t know who juan hernandez was either before you guys started screeching that he is satan.

That’s a surprise. He was all over the place last year. An extremely visible advocate for Mexico’s economic interests.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM

That explains a lot.

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:20 PM

lol! this is like the conversation you have with the clerk at the android’s dungeon:

“my son likes ‘atomic guy’ or something?”

“you mean atomic man, and i’m afraid you can’t have what you’re looking for. the first ten issues are owned by none other than the famed afficionado, mr. jonny wolzniak”

“who?”

“heh. that explains a lot. heh heh.”

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:28 PM

That’s a surprise. He was all over the place last year. An extremely visible advocate for Mexico’s economic interests.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Thats right. Funny how quiet (behind the scenes) he is right now huh?

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:29 PM

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:29 PM

He’s hoping we don’t notice the man behind the curtain, my friend.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Eh…Maybe I’m a “radical” conservative but I try to use some commen sense when it comes to issues.

Nineball on February 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM

I don’t think you’re a radical conservative, based on those responses. You seem to have a well thought-out position on each of these. However, there are plenty of radical conservatives, and they seem to be making the most noise. There seems to be an effort in some quarters to excommunicate politicians and voters who do not heed the radical conservative agenda from the Republican party. A line has been drawn, and that those who did so only realized that they were on the minority side of the line after it had been drawn, and are now freaking out.

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Thats right. Funny how quiet (behind the scenes) he is right now huh?

I’m sure he considers his current effort the most effective use of his time toward his goals. It is notable that he attached to McCain and not, for example, the Hillary campaign.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 12:31 PM

He’s hoping we don’t notice the man behind the curtain, my friend.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:30 PM

You forgot to wink, wink. : )

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Who do you think drew that line?

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Lawrence on February 1, 2008 at 12:24 PM

you know, bryan’s the mod. he gave me the warning. i don’t know why you think i’ll somehow care more or take it more seriously coming from you.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:32 PM

opps! And I even previewed that one!

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM

lol! this is like the conversation you have with the clerk at the android’s dungeon:

“my son likes ‘atomic guy’ or something?”

“you mean atomic man, and i’m afraid you can’t have what you’re looking for. the first ten issues are owned by none other than the famed afficionado, mr. jonny wolzniak”

“who?”

“heh. that explains a lot. heh heh.”

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:28 PM

THAT REALLY explains a lot!

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Malkin’s treachery against conservative GOP voters by promoting anti-Thompson rhetoric is her own self inflicted wound. Those abused conservatives refuse to trust her selfish obstinacy. Malkin as saboteur disables objective analysis.

Baloney no one here was anti anyone (until now there is stong anti McCain currents). Fred was exposed to critical posts as were all of them even Mitt. And Hotair while a greatblog doesnt have the reach to change millions of people votes else we wouldnt have McCain where he is now.

This party has taken a lurch towards the center. The iraq war and Katrina have more to do with that than Hotair.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM

i didn’t know who juan hernandez was either before you guys started screeching that he is satan.

Spirit, you might know his name but I’ll bet you’ve seen him on t.v. fighting with Michelle malkin and others over the illegal alien issue. He’s a Mexican government official – complete open borders – on McCain’s advisory team. I really think he swayed the Florida vote by signing up the hispanics in s. florida for McDole.

stenwin77 on February 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM

you know, bryan’s the mod. he gave me the warning. i don’t know why you think i’ll somehow care more or take it more seriously coming from you.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM

So you’re saying… you don’t take Bryan’s warning seriously?

edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM

re: “…many “conservatives” deny that mankind can have any effect on global climate, and call it a hoax. I’m sorry, but that’s a stupid position…
——-
is this gonna be like that whatchamacallit monkey trial all over again?
——-
the great global warming swindle” (film warning: not for globalists, libs, neo-cons, big d’s, big r’s, deficit spenders, keepers of the new-old guard, lovers of bill, lovers of the hill (d.c.), old media, new media, lovers of the view, grandpoobahs, and soccer moms)

- if you want to go green, fine, but why use man vs. mother nature to promote the ruse? oh, more taxes… kinda like the ol’ feed the children act of 2009 – stay tuned…

number9 on February 1, 2008 at 12:36 PM

i’ve been posting here longer than you.

sit down please.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM

I had to go back to my old computer to find it, but it appears that my login email is dated May 15,2006.

Just so you know.

ChrisM on February 1, 2008 at 12:37 PM

interesting…

I’m close to people who have also, and have reached the EXACT opposite conclusion…

dish on February 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM

That should not be a surprise. I’m a little outside the climate modeling field (I’m a physical chemist/thermodynamicist), but I can tell you three things:

1.) The current climate models do not have enough information to predict how climate is going to change based on the various input parameters (e.g. irradiation, atmospheric gas distributions, albedo, etc.) that are used.

2.) The effects of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, methane, and water vapor, are well-documented and real in test systems. There’s a lot of math behind how strong an effect each one of these has, and in what region of the electromagnetic spectrum that effect occurs, but it’s fundamental stuff that is not the subject of any argument in the scientific community.

3.) Humans make a lot of CO2 and methane. At this point, any changes in climate that appear to be a result of these could also be the result of a lot of other things. That doesn’t mean that the science is a hoax, or that we shouldn’t watch what we’re doing as far as gas emissions goes. In the end, we’re still working out the math on climate change.

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Besides, there aren’t enough moderates anymore to make a difference.

There are a lot more centrists than there are of the Republican base. How else do you explain McCain’s momentum?
The far left and the far right are the vocal minority. I’m not downplaying their importance in the Primaries, but you wait and see how quickly the noms move to the center during the general.

SouthernDem on February 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM

re:…we’re still working out the math…
——-
the debate is over. -al & arnold, scientist emeriti

number9 on February 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Indeed. Quit blaming the pundits for the shift of the voters.

SouthernDem on February 1, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Is it me, or is Laura Ingraham getting better looking? Damn! I’ve been seeing her on TV a lot lately and she’s looking good. Malkin has competition.

RWLA on February 1, 2008 at 12:51 PM

Drudge, by redrudging McCain as McCain, EFFECTIVELY put the fire in the conservative voters’ belly to vote AGAINST McCain, even if that requires voting for Mitt. …

But Mitt needs to prove his own conservative case, as on record he remains a RINO. If Mitt wants the strength of the core conservative platform, he must rebuild what he destroyed. He has three days to rebuild that temple.

maverick muse on February 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Pretty good analysis, imo. But consider at least the possibility that most of us don’t look to Drudge for our political philosophy. McCain earned his enmity through years of hard work, positioning himself essentially as an opponent to conservatives.

Jaibones on February 1, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Let’s talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.

Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming president of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services.
Thomas Sowell

Brilliant.

edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 12:53 PM

edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM

i was quite clear. i said i don’t care what non-bryan posters think about my registration status.

if bryan chooses to ban me, he will have done so in spite of posters like cabe actually issuing bomb threats from this site’s comment section. it will be because i won’t drink the koolade and he’s uncomfortable with that.

so far he has not banned me because he is none of those things. he appreciates contentious dialogue and is proud to share in the fate of a party which is pluralistic and not controlled by rigid notions of political correctness, as are competing progressive blogs.

i wish some of you could learn a little from him.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM

HotAir featured all of the propaganda rhetoric against the candidate. Following her unending onslaught against his appearance, Malkin featured the whole cloth story as fact, fabricated by her buddy Martin who to date has yet to reveal his “inside source”, proving that he was his own source. Finally, when the candidate withdrew, Malkin featured Carl Cameron’s absolute LIE that Thompson never was a POTUS candidate and his campaign was all a fraud because all Thompson ever wanted was a VP slot, that everyone knew it and was sworn to secrecy. The fact remains that when Fred Thompson first investigated whether to campaign for POTUS, I received from fredthompson.com a lovely brochure from Senator Thompson making his case that America needed a conservative to project the heart and soul of the GOP and that should America choose him, he would be willing to serve his nation’s best interests as either POTUS or VP as a patriotic duty. Now, as voters failed to make him the majority’s choice, Fred has honorably withdrawn his candidacy.

There are many who owe Fred Thompson their sincere apologies for publically destroying his honorable record and character. These same detractors also destroyed the coalition to unite the GOP. Michelle Malkin is in that number.

maverick muse on February 1, 2008 at 12:57 PM

I wish to revise and extend my earlier remarks. It is a documented fact that McCain campaigned for Santorum in 2006, and in fact was the one who initiated the offer.

How does that translated to this “we beat you” remark? Which, I am guessing, is undocumented and solely an unsupported assertion by Santorum.

You don’t offer to campaign for someone, and then follow through on your offer, if you are trying to “beat them”.

My conclusion is that Santorum is not just ungrateful (for the help he received), and a hypocrite (for accepting the offer back then and turning on his benefactor now), but also a liar.

HTL on February 1, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Fred was exposed to critical posts as were all of them even Mitt.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM

I think that’s a bit of an understatement, but you’re right about your general point as to Hot Air’s objectivity.

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Bryan, I believe you made a mistake when you said this above:

…when Santorum talks about an encounter with a McCain staffer after losing his Senate seat.

The staffer’s remarks did not occur after Santorum lost his Senate seat. It’s much worse: the remarks came the day after the Florida primary. In that context, the staffer clearly was expressing that the McCain campaign considers conservatives to be the opposition.

ultraloser on February 1, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Why dont other get made at Rush ? He hasnt endorsed Mitt either just attacked McCain ?

Look the right sat out until McCain has become the front runner with little chance to stop him. I wish they had step up sooner but now is too late.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM

jummy is worried about someone jokingly “threatening” to send a fictional character (Sherlock Holmes) a non-existent “bomb” to an address that is only a doorplate on an otherwise non-descript building in London, screwed on to mollify fans of A. Conan Doyle?

Sounds terrifying!

Sense of humor/proportion/reality alert.

SECOND LOOK AT B.S. ARTIST.

profitsbeard on February 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM

By my tally, nearly everyone I respect (love) has endorsed Romney or leans heavily to him. Forget the politicians.

Authors and Radio personalities, you say? Better than politicians who abandon any and all principal at every opportunity. These folks stick to their guns (though some might say it is easy). More than that they teach us conservatism (like a religion).

WHERE IS FRED’S VOICE?!!!

Endorsers:
Mark Levin
Sean Hanity
Laura Ingram
Ann Coulter

Leaners:
Michele Malkin
Mark Steyn
Rush Limbaugh
Neal Cavuto

Have lost my respect:
Charles Krauthiemer (shame)
Fred Barnes (a shame)
Mort Kondrake
Bill Krystal
Charlie Gibson

Agrippa2k on February 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Don’t be ridiculous.

Jaibones on February 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM

There are many who owe Fred Thompson their sincere apologies for publically destroying his honorable record and character. These same detractors also destroyed the coalition to unite the GOP. Michelle Malkin is in that number.

maverick muse on February 1, 2008 at 12:57 PM

Why don’t we wait and see who Fred endorses? That should clarify things a lot.

a capella on February 1, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 12:41 PM
The temperature data used to “prove” global warming falls within the normal range of the data over the long term. Kneejerking the US into oblivion over an observed upward tick within that normal range is the problem.

Also, the unwillingness of the Goracle followers to even consider data or analysis challenging their views or even admit such data or analysis exsists is why there can be no rational discussion about this issue.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM

ChrisM on February 1, 2008 at 12:06 PM

I think this might be caused by political bitemporal hemianopsia..lol

jerrytbg on February 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Indeed. Quit blaming the pundits for the shift of the voters.–SouthernDem on February 1, 2008 at 12:47 PM

It has evolved well beyond any blame game into the matter or TRUST. TRUST is the issue prior to submitting a vote.

McCain earned his enmity through years of hard work, positioning himself essentially as an opponent to conservatives.–Jaibones on February 1, 2008 at 12:52 PM

I vary not from that consistent point. Drudge has his own agenda, which is fine with his readers. Like you and most of his visitors, my own judgments do not rest on Drudge, Rush, Laura, Hannity, or Savage et.al. We each have independent agendas though sometimes those collide as they do now against McCain. Best to make a cohesive force than to dispurse chaos at that.

maverick muse on February 1, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Agrippa2k on February 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Charlie Gibson?

edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 1:11 PM

a capella on February 1, 2008 at 1:04 PM

He has no reason to speak further as is. That is why if someone wants a word from him, someone must overtly elicit that word.

maverick muse on February 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Why don’t we wait and see who Fred endorses? That should clarify things a lot.

a capella on February 1, 2008 at 1:04 PM

He may not endorse anyone. It will be interesting to see if does and who.

jerrytbg on February 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Although I do not know Bryan personally, his writings would indicate that he does not, in fact, “appreciate contentious dialogue” (you may wish to look up contentious, which includes wearisome as part of its definition). I believe Bryan appreciates interesting discussion by ladies and gentlemen. I’m afraid that your contributions do not appear to qualify.

DrMagnolias on February 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM

I could never understand why Michelle seemed so anti-Thompson….he was obviously a conservative, but I thought that she implied that he was either 1) a fraud or 2)a stalking horse for McCain – neither of which made any sense to me.

Oh well.

Priscilla on February 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM

profitsbeard on February 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM

profitsbeard, you are lying. here’s what happened:

cabe provacatively and with dead seriousness asked chakra for her real name and address.

chakra refused jokingly, asking if he intended to send her flowers.

cabe, stone-faced, repeated his threatening request for her real name and home address.

chakra, again jokingly, gave cabe the address of sherlock holmes.

cabe didn’t get it, he asks, with a straight face, what city baker street is in, ominously asking, “Do you want those flowers or not!?”

chakra has to explain the joke to him. to which cabe finally relents, “Well tell Sherlock not to open the next package.”

it’s all right here in black and white.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/29/quote-of-the-day-195/comment-page-2/#comment-917047

you are a liar proffitsbeard.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 1:37 PM

ladies and gentlemen

right. got it.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Santorum lost because the anti-war hysteria was at its peak in the Fall of ‘06

He lost by one of the bigger margins an incumbent Senator not under indictment has lost by. In addition to the war, which all Republican congressmen had to deal with, Santorum was also adversely affected by the Dover school board case.

Being free of the Senate, Santorum certainly could have pursued the GOP nomination. He chose not to and it’s unlikely that he would have be a force in fundraising or delegates.

McCain is a flawed nominee but Rick Santorum as a nominee would probably carry about 35% of the vote nationally.

dedalus on February 1, 2008 at 1:48 PM

The staffer’s remarks did not occur after Santorum lost his Senate seat. It’s much worse: the remarks came the day after the Florida primary. In that context, the staffer clearly was expressing that the McCain campaign considers conservatives to be the opposition.

ultraloser on February 1, 2008 at 1:01 PM

You’re right!

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 1:37 PM

with dead seriousness

Yeah like I was serious…

o you want to send me some flowers?

Chakra Hammer on January 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM

To which I replied…

Um. Suuure!

If I was serious I would have said “Yes I do.”

Then when she said it was the address of a fictional character I jokingly said: “Well tell Sherlock not to open the next package.”

Amusing to me, shocking to idiots.

Yeah I’m gonna waste a lot of money sending a package to a FAKE address in England. It wasn’t a threat it was a joke.

Go waste your crocodile tears on the failed candidacy of Ron Paul. I’m sure he would love to have you.

CABE on February 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Good greif there was no anti fred Bias on this site and I say that as a fredhead. People took critical posts of Fred as attacks when they were simply stuff put out thre by other campaigns (mitt’s included) to point out Fred’s weaknesses.

Three is a real disconnect here between what is criticisms of a canidates stance on issues to full blown attacks to discredit a candidate. I do feel that is going on now with McCain but even that is fair play due to McCain’s stances. Even Allah today posted Mitt saying “I would have Back McCain’s amnesty plan.” That isnt bias that is reporting the truth.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM

cabe, so this is the second time you’ve suggested that i’m a ronpaul supporter.

i will paypall you $1,500 the moment following the moment you reproduce here a post from anywhere on the internet in which i announce my support for the candidacy of ron paul for president of the united states.

you have 48 hours.

when you fail at this task, you’re penalty is that you never post at this site again.

shake?

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM

The REAL reason most of us are distressed about a “conservative” who endorses AlGore’s pet cause goes way beyond whether “global warming” exists.
It is the prescription for “fixing” it that should make all of us tremble. “Global warming” or “climate change” as it’s now called, is simply the justification for the biggest expansion of government, regulation, and taxes that the WORLD has ever seen. It is nothing more than a money play.
More than a decade ago the marxists of the world began shifting towards “environmental” causes to inhibit, stifle and oppose capitalism. It’s been much more effective that their previous efforts.
IF man-made “climate change” exists (and it doesn’t based upon the evidence), then it would be far easier and less expensive to simply adapt to the miniscule changes that we experience.
As far as I’m concerned, ANY polititian, Republican or Democrat who endorses such a dangerous concept is unfit for any high political office.

edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM

jerrytbg on February 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM

Given all, as is, one can expect no further word from Fred Thompson. He made his completely honorable sacrifice for our nation’s best interest already.

Even Jesus only suffered himself to be crucified once.

There’s a Native American logic, the inverse of Eurasian, that if you save a life, you are responsible for all the eventual results from that life extended.

It’s not a matter of pride or anything shallow. It may be a matter of honor and record. There is no reason to remove any future conservative effectivity by casting one’s remaining effectivity into the liberal cauldron.

maverick muse on February 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM

edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM

yep.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Malkin’s treachery against conservative GOP voters by promoting anti-Thompson rhetoric is her own self inflicted wound. Those abused conservatives refuse to trust her selfish obstinacy. Malkin as saboteur disables objective analysis.

maverick museFredus Headus

Fred is dead. He committed campaign suicide under the weight of his own stupidity. Get over it.

BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Fred is dead. He committed campaign suicide under the weight of his own stupidity. Get over it.

BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM

The same can almost be said of Mitt now.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Great endorsements! Might be a little to late though. No one will have the delegates after Tuesday so these endorsements and Romney’s money could carry him though the later states.

azcop on February 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Santorum for V.P.???? Would be a solid conservative choice and someone to groom for the White House later!

azcop on February 1, 2008 at 2:23 PM

BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Thank you, BKennedy, exposing yourself as an extension of Mitt for public current reference. BKennedy’s impetuosity is his own undoing. Snipes from the Tupperware Business College graduate show BKennedy’s persistently ignorant and self aggrandizing comments. Take your own advice before dishing out stupidity. Visit Instapundit for remedial current references on Thompson’s campaign.

Fred Thompson withdrew his POTUS campaign. In no sense of the word, however, is Fred Thompson dead. Nor are those who supported Senator Thompson’s platform dead. Today becomes tomorrow becomes next year.

Fred Thompson never threw a lie or any distortion at Mitt Romney, having strictly campaigned with the facts on record. On that official count, Romney fails to reciprocate Fred’s integrity.

It is to his credit that Fred chose to offer the conservative movement his services. As stated, his sacrifices do not necessitate any further involvement in order to be justifiably appreciated. Those who would refuse to acknowledge Fred’s positive contribution have no authoritative premise from which to speak.

Consistently, Romney remains based upon convoluted logic and cloak and dagger maneuvers in political covenants and implementation. As such, Mitt overextends his liberalism into the fascist realm. A conservative does not vote to further empower such fascism within the ranks of the GOP. Romney has yet to efface his liberalism. Where Mitt’ns screamed that Fred did not “earn” their vote because Fred would not conduct the prostituting campaign that devolves traditional American values, as a Thompson supporter, I submit that Romney has not “earned” my conservative vote with his record or pimp campaign.

maverick muse on February 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Fred is dead. He committed campaign suicide under the weight of his own stupidity. Get over it.

BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM

====================================
Romney is dead. He committed campaign suicide under the weight of his own stupidity. Get over it.

georgealbert on February 1, 2008 at 3:00 PM

“Mass deportations? People don’t want that.”

Says who? Time for Operation Wetback II

doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM

just a blast from the past for the “ladies and gentlemen”.

jummy on February 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM

re:…exposing yourself as an extension of Mitt…
——-
all this time; playing the wrong game… who knew?
i get it now, keep ‘em guessing, right?
——-
• how ’bout that racist…
• they attack us for our freedom…
• those supporters, bunch o’ maroons…
• give me troofers or give me gold
• that ain’t auntie mabel posing for a picture, that’s comandante hilda messerschmitt… and he claims he didn’t know, pfffttt… thanks stormfront for the heads up
• blimp my eye, that there is a zeppelin
• is he still running? good on ya gibson, ban the peacenik!
——-
how’m i doin’ joseph?™ covering my tracks am i?
——-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vthdr96EDnE

number9 on February 1, 2008 at 3:21 PM

This interview helps me a lot. I really admire my former senator.

He also filled in an important gap, as to how sincere Romney is as a conservative, e.g., on the issue of same-sex marriage.

When I combine this with hearing that McCain admires Baker and Scowcroft (anathema for an Israel supporter), I’m going in for Romney. Woohoo! Good luck to us!

P.S. I’d love to know who’s advising Romney on foreign affairs. Anyone?

Surak on February 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Consistently, Romney remains based upon convoluted logic and cloak and dagger maneuvers in political covenants and implementation.

May I be the first to say, WTF?

Onager on February 1, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Romney/Santorum
More likely than you realize!

paulsur on February 1, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Indeed, it would have been nice if Santorum had come through with an endorsement earlier, particularly since he worked closely with Mitt and saw his capabilities and his grasp of the Jihadist threat.

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Agreed. It seems all these endorsements are coming way too late to have any real effect.

:sigh:

John McCain should not be President of the United States. It makes me ill that he has a chance to be.

SimplyKimberly on February 1, 2008 at 4:29 PM

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

Wow what a rant. Take a damn breath Senator

Dash on February 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM

But Mitt needs to prove his own conservative case, as on record he remains a RINO. One thing differentiating Mitt from McCain, Mitt will not actually disavow his core: family and religion. And that makes all the difference determining a “good” Mitt RINO vs. the “bad” McCain RINO. None the less, Mitt is a RINO. If Mitt wants the strength of the core conservative platform, he must rebuild what he destroyed. He has three days to rebuild that temple.

maverick muse on February 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Except that Mitt has acknowledged his political sins, McCain has not. 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.

You didn’t see Mitt stopping judges from being confirmed.

Tim Burton on February 1, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3