Michelle Malkin endorses Rick Santorum

posted at 4:15 pm on January 30, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In a blog post that is not to be missed, Hot Air founder and longtime conservative stalwart Michelle Malkin this morning threw the weight of her opinion behind former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum — and, perhaps even more importantly, explained why she chose not to endorse the other three candidates. She has had — and continues to have — reservations about all the GOP contenders, including Santorum himself, but she was especially adamant about her opposition to Newt Gingrich. At Townhall.com, Guy Benson thoroughly dissects her piece, illuminating how conspicuous was her criticism of the former Speaker of the House. For now, I offer this excerpt that focuses on the positive side of Rick Santorum:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John HoldrenAl Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.” …

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savagedand ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

She also praises his strong views on border security and national defense — and even has a good word or two for his campaign management. She forestalls knee-jerk criticisms of the former senator by addressing head-on his 2006 reelection loss, his endorsement of Arlen Specter and a few of his more pronounced big-government tendencies.

Predictably, readers still found objections to her endorsement: One complained that the endorsement, though ideologically pure, was politically stupid. The reader wondered: Why didn’t Malkin endorse Santorum after Iowa when it might actually have helped? He suggested that, at this point, support for Santorum just draws support away from Newt Gingrich and makes it that much easier for Mitt Romney to secure the nomination.

But supporting Santorum helps Romney only if voters buy the premature spin that this is already a two-man race. It’s not. The race has barely begun — and Santorum speaks to the concerns of the quietly conservative heartland – and to the concerns of working-class, swing-state voters like the voters who elected him in Pennsylvania in the first place – in a way the other candidates don’t. He is just as much an alternative to Romney as he is an alternative to Gingrich and could draw support from both camps if concerned conservatives would come to understand that he still has a chance to win.

As Malkin points out, Santorum is in this campaign for the long haul. He is headed to Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada. Her endorsement comes as many conservatives, despite their best efforts to fall in line with either of the establishment candidates, still find themselves disenchanted with the frontrunners. It comes as Santorum begins to distinguish himself as the lone traditional conservative candidate who was also strong on two of the most definitive issues of this election cycle — the bailouts and Obamacare. It comes, in other words, right on time.


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 5

Awesome! It’s about time someone in the Conservative Media give this man his due! THANK YOU, MM!

LiquidH2O on January 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I call BS on this. MM is all in for Romney and this is her way of attempting to persuade readers she’s not.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:18 PM

/
forget something?

ted c on January 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I mean…come on! Why endorse now when it means absolutely nothing except bleeding votes from Gingrich so Romney prevails. She’s thin-skinned and her support for Romney is thinly veiled.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Tilting at windmills.

HuskerNate on January 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I call BS on this. MM is all in for Romney and this is her way of attempting to persuade readers she’s not.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Nah, MM is the real deal.

I had the pleasure to see her speak at a tea party. No teleprompters were involved (shock!) and she comes across in print, tv, and live as the same person.

Now Ann Coulter, well…not so much.

CorporatePiggy on January 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

He suggested that, at this point, support for Santorum just draws support away from Newt Gingrich and makes it that much easier for Mitt Romney to secure the nomination.

And it’s clearly not true. At least in my opinion. I was hesitantly supporting Romney as the best of a bad bunch.

But… I think I now tepidly support Santorum. Newt never had my vote.

So it’s not necessarily always Mitt versus Gingrich/Santorum.

Abby Adams on January 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM

CorporatePiggy on January 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

You’ve not read her much then. She was all-in for Romney in ’08 and is still so in’12.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:23 PM

She lost me here. Not a fan of the Sanatorium extremism. He would like to string up the gheys.

ObamatheMessiah on January 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

But supporting Santorum helps Romney only if voters buy the premature spin that this is already a two-man race. It’s not. The race has barely begun —

It would seem like the Obama-media would prefer it to be a two-man race..

Chip on January 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

LiquidH2O on January 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

+1

If more would, maybe he could actually get some traction. My husband and I were both listening to him on Glenn Beck this morning, while in separate vehicles. When husband got home, I told him I’d been listening and he said, “Me too. The guy is good. We should send him some more money.”

Unlike all the others, the more I hear and learn about him, the more I like him.

Santorum 2012!!!

pannw on January 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I mean…come on! Why endorse now when it means absolutely nothing except bleeding votes from Gingrich so Romney prevails. She’s thin-skinned and her support for Romney is thinly veiled.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Now I know why the supermarket was out of tinfoil today.

JPeterman on January 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Too little. Too late. I lost respect for MM with her railing against Perry.

publiuspen on January 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

So what.

Christien on January 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I like Michelle,but her endorsement has the same effect on my personal voting decisions as anyone else’s… none at all. People should evaluate candidates on their own, not let someone else(however respected)essentially make their vote for them.

fabrexe on January 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Good endorsement pick up by Santorum.

If only he could win.

portlandon on January 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I continue to be baffled at how MM can support a man who says something like this:

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

- Rick Santorum, January 2012

MM admits as much here:

He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era.

She’s railed against exactly his type for years. Now she capitulates. It’s a shame.

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Al-Ozarka you are kidding right? MM is nothing but straight forward.

EnochCain on January 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

You’ve not read her much then. She was all-in for Romney in ’08 and is still so in’12.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:23 PM

If she was all-in, why did her(at the time) website Hot Air spend so much of the previous election cycle giving him his due hell?

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Lets see.
Ingraham, Dole, McCain, Malkin, just saying.

KBird on January 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM

So what.

Christien on January 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

My reaction, exactly.

Harbingeing on January 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Santorum for Sec. of State, or, maybe Attorney General, or maybe a Supreme Court appointee.

SouthernGent on January 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Do you support Paul?

pannw on January 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

She’s not capitulating…she’s diverting attention from her obvious support for the liberal from Mass.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Another Glenn-Beck-like, for Santorum while for Romney.

If she’d have been for Santorum she’d have been for Santorum a while ago.

Fox life is pretty good.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM

He suggested that, at this point, support for Santorum just draws support away from Newt Gingrich and makes it that much easier for Mitt Romney to secure the nomination.

A conspiracy theory?

Anyway, it isn’t complete unless it starts with “You know who this helps?” and ends with “Sarah Palin.”

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Having read Malkin’s screeds for years, I have no doubt she’ll fly into a foot-stamping bout of outraged outrage if Santorum doesn’t follow her line exactly from now on.

For me, she has had little credibility from the days when she was busy slagging our less-than-perfect alternative to Osama Obama, and lost what remained when she started screeching about Rick Perry and Gardasil.

The “Boss Emeritus” may be well-loved around here, but I rate her on a par with the loony “pundits” of the left.

MrScribbler on January 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I think I will agree with Al-Ozarka on this one. Besides, Santorum has not been vetted. I know he supported Arlen Specter. That is not a conservative position. I do not think Santorum is a bad candidate but he lost his last election by a wide margine because of his politics. I just do not see Santorums path to the White House. The only reason Santorum won in Iowa is because Romney did his best to destroy Gingrich.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM

So she is endorsing Santorum so people will vote for Romney…makes sense……

EnochCain on January 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Agree with MM.
It’d be best if the Not Romney folks would switch horses and back Santorum. Gingrich is a bad candidate.

BoxHead1 on January 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

If she was all-in, why did her(at the time) website Hot Air spend so much of the previous election cycle giving him his due hell? MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

She didn’t. Last cycle I went through her archives and found virtually no negative posts against Romney as she absolutely tore every other candidate to shreds. I posted the numbers here at the time.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

But supporting Santorum helps Romney only if voters buy the premature spin that this is already a two-man race. It’s not.

It is.

Sorry if you do not like that, but it’s a two-man race at this point, even if Santorum and Paul stick around a while.

Vyce on January 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Do you support Paul?

pannw on January 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I don’t support any of the remaining candidates. I’ll concentrate on seeing Herb Kohl’s seat filled with a Republican, vote write-in for the White House, and look ahead to 2016.

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

She’s railed against exactly his type for years. Now she capitulates. It’s a shame.

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Her remarks on Gingrich and Romney might open the window a bit.

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

If more would, maybe he could actually get some traction..
pannw on January 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Exactly. The Conservative Media is going all out to “rage against the machine” and prop up a man who’s entire career was spent building UP that machine; meanwhile, conservatives like Santorum get left out in the cold. That’s ridiculous. For all intents and purposes, neither Gingrich nor Romney are “True Conservatives“. So, if that’s what these Conservative media personality are truly looking for, they should actually SUPPORT the Conservative and stop playing the lesser of two evils game.

LiquidH2O on January 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Heh, good one, the longer Santorum is in, the more it helps…Romney.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Try reading my post again. MM owned HA the last election cycle, and HA constantly gave Romney hell.

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I decided since there is such embargo on Romney’s record, so that the lies they have told won’t be discovered…

So to get some truth out there I’ll post some truth, from http://www.whyromney.com

-Many false charges are circulating against Mitt Romney on the abortion issue. The following is one example. Read our special feature, Prolife Principles, for thorough information explaining why critcs are wrong.

A common charge is that Mitt Romney allowed for inexpensive abortion co-pays in his healthcare plan. In truth, the co-pays were forced not by the bill but by court decisions which Romney disagrees with(1). The bill itself calls for privatized insurance(2). The court rulings require state programs to cover abortion.

Some have claimed that the court decisions were not legally binding on Romney, since the decisions were not codified into law. However, this attempted criticism could be applied as easily to Roe v Wade itself, as many states have not codified it into law, yet adhere to it, understanding that even though it could be called a “declaratory opinion” it sets precedent under Stare Decisis. In other words, the actual “judgment” of Roe v Wade was technically only about one plaintiff and one defendant, but the “opinion” is understood to have sweeping ramifications in all similar cases. The argument against Romney, therefore, is mistaken.

Another claim often made is that the term “medically necessary abortions” used in the court decisions only applies to abortions where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Again, this is incorrect. “Medically necessary” is widely interpreted to mean treatment provided for any non-cosmetic, non-recreational reason. It applies to pain, and therefore applies to any pregnant woman seeking an abortion, since women are naturally pained or expected to become pained physically or psychologically as a result of a pregnancy.

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Too little. Too late. I lost respect for MM with her railing against Perry.

publiuspen on January 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I’m confused about why Santorum’s sins, namely of being a big government squish under Bush, are less than Perry’s whose record on immigration and Gardisil was something she couldn’t tolerate. I understand that everyone’s top issues are going to differ, but by her own reasoning Perry still comes off as more conservative than Perry if you compare the actions (not the words, which really don’t mean crap anymore).

Her vehement criticism of Perry even before the debates seemed, at the time, overblown, and still seem that way even now. It’s one of those things that I can’t quite put my finger on, but she just seemed to really dislike Perry from the start.

*shrugs* I don’t think Santorum stands much of a chance, but Newt is drowning so I guess he has a shot at having a second wind as the Not Romney du jour.

tdpwells on January 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM

No, the idea here is to listen to EVERYONE, weigh the bad and the good and make your own choice! I value MM’s decision to support Santorum just as much as I value Reagan’s or Cain’s decision to support Gingrich!

Thank you Mrs. Malkin for telling us not only who but why!!!

Vntnrse on January 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Yes, once again so-called conservatives expose themselves. Instead of supporting the only limited government, Constitutional candidate, MM has backed a big-government lover, proving that she has only been paying lip service to the Constitution and conservatism.

Dante on January 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Her arguments are rock solid, folks. It IS time to consider the third alternative.

michaelo on January 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I call BS on this. MM is all in for Romney and this is her way of attempting to persuade readers she’s not.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I don’t think we are talking about the same MM… she’s a staunch conservative, and called Newt on his crap when it was warranted.

Let’s be blunt.

Newt stepped in it repeatedly. And that’s a damn shame, because Mitt Freaking Romney is a conservative’s worst nightmare, and it pissed ME OFF having to defend that pretty-boy Statist over the stupid s*&t Newt was digging up – s*&t that sounded like it was torn from the covers of Mother Jones.

Don’t mistake MM staying consistent with Rombot cheerleading.

It boggles my mind why Newt even went there. When your opponent is Mitt Romney – a big government loving, huge spending, gun grabbing, liberal judge appointing, climate change alarmist who enacted socialized health care… why do you need to resort to Koss-Kiddie class warfare?

Mindbending.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Continued from http://www.whyromney.com

Also on abortion, they claim Romney forced private hospitals to provide rape victims “morning after” pills. The truth is, Romney vetoed the legislation(3). The legislature overrode Romney’s veto(3), after which Romney tried to make an exemption for private hospitals by citing a conscience clause in state law which protects private hospitals.(4)

There was one clear obstacle to Romney’s preferred exemption: the legislature has authority to supersede previous laws with new laws, and the clear intent of the legislature was for this bill to supersede any contradictory statutes or provisions rather than to work in harmony with the older statute. Thus, if Romney were to challenge the intended effect of the law, he would have had to argue disingenuously in court that the older provision and the new provision could be reconciled when that was likely not true. It is perhaps not surprising that Romney felt bound by the new law and it was in this context that Romney told the Department of Public Health they had to enforce the intent of the law even though he disagreed with it.

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Read this, if you have even a dot of TEA party in you.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

For the footnotes go to http://www.whyromney.com

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Yeah, if she felt so strongly she should’ve endorsed Rick back in Iowa. Now she’s just trying to say “Don’t blame for Romney”
The cowardice on display by our so called “pundits” & “elites” is pathetic.

Iblis on January 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Well, I ALWAYS listen to Michelle Malkin, and this is no exception, but I just disagree with her arguments. It was EASY for Santorum to vote against TARP since he knew it would pass in the Democratic Senate. That is flaw #1 in her argument. Flaw #2 is that she admits that she doesn’t believe Santorum is conservative enough on fiscal issues.

Well, damn, Michelle. Domestic fiscal issues are the most important issue of all in this election; that is why MITT ROMNEY WILL BE THE GOP NOMINEE.

mountainaires on January 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

This Floridian is voting for GINGRICH.

To avoid the word ideological or the phrase “purity test,” let me say I prefer to keep my choices in politicians to those imperfect souls
(The Perfect is the enemy of The Good)
who are the most conservative electable.

Sure, he did a job on Romney, vis a vis ORomneyCare the other day. Kudos.

Yet, while Santorum is nice on paper, in the abstract, or even in fact as a stand-alone politician…

…Against Obama? NO CHANCE.

If Santorum is the eventual nominee, then I will gladly vote for him.
Until then, I wish Gingrich success against Romney and Obama.

Czar of Defenestration on January 30, 2012 at 4:37 PM

And here’s what MM says about Newt today:

Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere.

Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race. Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent.

That’s gonna leave a mark………

BacaDog on January 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Well, damn, Michelle. Domestic fiscal issues are the most important issue of all in this election; that is why MITT ROMNEY WILL BE THE GOP NOMINEE YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR RON PAUL.

mountainaires on January 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Fixed it for you

Aquateen Hungerforce on January 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM

From http://www.whyromney.com

Waiting Period for Guns

-They accuse Romney of changing his position on waiting periods for guns. The fact is, it was a change in technology not position. Romney supports background checks to ensure we aren’t selling guns to criminals, a position which stems from conservative “tough on crime” principles. Technology has changed so waiting periods are no longer required for conducting background checks. As Romney told George Stephanopoulos in a 2007 interview, “Today we don’t have the Brady bill because we have instantaneous background checks. That’s no longer a operative or needed measure.”(6)

Many additional misconceptions exist regarding Mitt Romney and guns. We highly suggest this page. There you will find a great deal of sourced information debunking myths, as well as extensive praise for Mitt Romney from the NRA and other pro-gun groups, including praise for his so-called “assault weapons ban” which was actually a conservative downgrade to the previous Massachusetts law.

To click the this page link go to http://www.whyromney.com

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Santorum is easily the most conservative of the remaining candidates – even on the fin con front he only runs second to Paul. As long as he is remotely viable he should be the candidate conservatives are supporting.

A win with Romney is a loss.

A win with Newt is a gamble at best.

A win with Paul isn’t going to happen.

So why not vote the best man remaining for the position?

18-1 on January 30, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Yes, once again so-called conservatives expose themselves. Instead of supporting the only limited government, Constitutional candidate, MM has backed a big-government lover, proving that she has only been paying lip service to the Constitution and conservatism.

Who are you talking about? It’s certainly not Rombot or Salamander.

Are you talking about Rue Paul?

I could support him, if not for his McGovern-like foreign policy, and the legions of anti-Semites and truthers that cling to his neck like 3 day old rotting meat. I gave Rue an honest look, but looking at his supporters, ranting about “jew-media” and “zionist-cabals” I just could not live with myself voting for a guy that caters to such a following.

Seriously, go READ the crap that gets spewed over on his forums and related websites.

Stinks the place up.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Try reading my post again. MM owned HA the last election cycle, and HA constantly gave Romney hell.

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Hot-Air didn’t rip Romney as much as it ripped the others. In fact, MM had to go out and hire Ed Morrissey in order to bring a sense of fairmindedness to the blog. Besides, at that time, Michelle barely wrote at this blog. Her blog of record has always been michellemalkin.com.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

So why not vote the best man remaining for the position?

18-1 on January 30, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Cause he can’t win?

BacaDog on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I don’t think we are talking about the same MM… she’s a staunch conservative, and called Newt on his crap when it was warranted.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM

A staunch conservative? What makes the author of a book defending internment of citizens without trial a staunch conservative?

Dante on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

The Long Walk, excellent read.

What Freedom really means.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I call BS on this. MM is all in for Romney and this is her way of attempting to persuade readers she’s not.

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I think I agree with you. What’s the point to go with Santorum, who by the way is not as conservative as people think if you check his record – kind of big goverment guy, since we know he cannot win.

American Dream 246 on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

So it’s not necessarily always Mitt versus Gingrich/Santorum.

Abby Adams on January 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Correct. I prefer Romney on electablity grounds, but Santorum would be my second choice. I don’t agree with either of them on everything, but I think either would do a competent job, and wouldn’t be prone to outbursts of temper. It would pain me to have to vote for Newt in November — I would, but it would pain me.

acasilaco on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I for one love big government inside my life. Go Santorum!

mythicknight on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

http://www.aboutmittromney.com/gun_rights.htm

Actually you can find the truth about Romney’s record on this link, it is the same as the one you would find at http://www.whyromney.com

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

“Romney is 100% truthfull” –by Petunia

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Now I know why the supermarket was out of tinfoil today.

JPeterman on January 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

a ron paul event in town today?

t8stlikchkn on January 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Considering that Malkin sold out to the evangelicals at Saleem Communication, who bought hotair – literally sold out – this comes as no surprise.

keep the change on January 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM

I’m confused about why Santorum’s sins, namely of being a big government squish under Bush

Santorum joined every other Republican senator on NCLB and Medicare D. I’d like it if he had been as firm as he was against AGW, Shamnesty, and the rest, but frankly, he was one of the most conservative Senators on the votes that mattered.

While not perfect, he is *easily* the best of a weak field.

18-1 on January 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Go Rick!

darwin on January 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

‘Radical’ individualists will make up their own minds who to vote for.

lexhamfox on January 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Al-Ozarka on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

When Hot Air was bought out by the Christian Broadcasting company Salem Communication… it went all out to spread lies about Romney’s record.

Michelle pick Santorum because Santorum isn’t a hypocrite and he is still not a Mormon. That it.

You can’t be conservative if you are a Mormon. I learned that in this Primary… the record be damned.

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

She lost me here. Not a fan of the Sanatorium extremism. He would like to string up the gheys.

ObamatheMessiah on January 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I think you may have confused him for Ahmadinejad. Nice try though.

You-Eh-Vee on January 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Cause he can’t win?

I remember when we said the same thing about Obama.

18-1 on January 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Ann Coulter endorses Romney!

And by a remarkable coincidence polls repeatedly show he’s the one candidate who’s ahead of The Pretender President in the polls.

Now what is the chance that a well known conservative expert would be willing to endorse the candidate most likely to remove The Great Pretender? How refreshing that someone would be willing to do that! What a wonderful display of good basic common sense that is.

Allendundit on January 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Santorum is a social-conservative proletarian. Yes, yes, it was only that he represented a state…same as Romney…same as…oh, wait…Ronald Reagan in CA…right! Good old Ronald Reagan, he had convictions. Yes, yes, he wasn’t perfect either, especially not in his youth, and in the 2nd term, but 96% he was.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Yah lets see if he gets closer to Mitt or becomes the front runner and the attacks turn on him how will he stay above the fray.

evergreenland on January 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Considering the pond scum that is left? I agree with MM at this point.

NotCoach on January 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Are you talking about Rue Paul?

I could support him, if not for his McGovern-like foreign policy, and the legions of anti-Semites and truthers that cling to his neck like 3 day old rotting meat. I gave Rue an honest look, but looking at his supporters, ranting about “jew-media” and “zionist-cabals” I just could not live with myself voting for a guy that caters to such a following.

Seriously, go READ the crap that gets spewed over on his forums and related websites.

Stinks the place up.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I am talking about Ron Paul. His foreign policy is that of conservatives before the neoconservatives came along. Non-interventionism was the foreign policy of conservatism. In fact, it was largely the dominant foreign policy of this nation until Teddy Roosevelt.

So instead of looking at the man’s positions, his voting record, etc., you’d rather focus on what people who aren’t running for president may be saying and hold that against him? And that’s rational? I seriously doubt you gave him any sort of look at all, which is evidenced by your childish name calling.

Name a single vote of his that was unconstitutional. Name a single vote in which he supported taxes being raised. Name a single position of his that is unconstitutional..

Dante on January 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM

She lost me here. Not a fan of the Sanatorium extremism. He would like to string up the gheys.

ObamatheMessiah on January 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM


This is not only a lie, but it’s a damn lie. Damn you sir.

What Santorum was trying to do is PROTECT states that didn’t want to enable gay marriage from those states that choose to support it.

This was about freedom of choice alright – it was about protecting the freedom of states from the courts. Each state should have the right to choose their laws – what is good for Montana is not good for New York.

__________________________________________________

And as to MM supporting Mitt – she was supporting him AGAINST McWeenie. Not out of love for Mitt-Doll. Apparently you don’t read her as well as you think you do.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Cause he can’t win?

I remember when we said the same thing about Obama.

18-1 on January 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Weird. Now I do too. Obama was a silly aside.

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM

“Romney is 100% truthfull” –by Petunia

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Absolutely, as close to 100% as a human can get. No one is perfect, not Romney, not me.

What are the “lies” Gingrich keeps sheriking about?

I decided I needed to post some stuff because I saw a devastageing expose on Gingrich that dared him to tell us exactly what Mitt lied about in the debates… because Mitt told the truth. And Gingrich confronted with his record screams it is a lie.

I keep saying Morrisey and Hot Air are lying about Mitt’s record… so I am backing that up. With the true record.

Gingrich also said that if all that stuff was true about him he wouldn’t vote for himself… so it is true. So he should stop right now and go home.

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM

While not perfect, he is *easily* the best of a weak field.

18-1 on January 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Those were her words, though. My point is that I don’t understand why she would endorse Santorum when stacking his sins against Perry’s, the candidate she seemed to rail against the hardest(imo). Her reasoning doesn’t add up to me – her ability to brush Santorum’s sins aside when they’re just as bad as Perry’s (or worse – YMMV).

tdpwells on January 30, 2012 at 4:48 PM

psst…petunia…this is a post about Santorum…

cptacek on January 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

“La-la-la…la-la” — Petunia

…same as sheryl and a few others…

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I like Rick,but I think Obama will demonize him. I think Mitt has the best chance

gerrym51 on January 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Her vehement criticism of Perry even before the debates seemed, at the time, overblown, and still seem that way even now. It’s one of those things that I can’t quite put my finger on, but she just seemed to really dislike Perry from the start.

*shrugs* I don’t think Santorum stands much of a chance, but Newt is drowning so I guess he has a shot at having a second wind as the Not Romney du jour.

tdpwells on January 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Yeah, I agree. I have great respect for her in general, but she seemed to have it in for him right from the get go. This angered me, considering Perry blew all the other candidates away on jobs and fiscal issues, which are THE issues this year. It didn’t make any sense to put more emphasis on vaccines and tuition in the middle of the Great Recession. Her priorities were way out of whack. I grant that Perry made a mess of his first few debates, but MM had it in for him before that.

BTW, despite Santorum’s good qualities, I think he’s a demagogue on those two issues MM hated Perry for. In an interview, Santorum said that Gardasil turns little girls into sluts, which I took personally, since my nieces are getting the shots. He also said a complete fence on the border is doable, which is a lie. So I don’t have much use for him.

juliesa on January 30, 2012 at 4:50 PM

I remember when we said the same thing about Obama.

18-1 on January 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM

True dat.

And a relative unknown from Arkansas…..Clinton.

BacaDog on January 30, 2012 at 4:50 PM

I for one love big government inside my life. Go Santorum!

mythicknight on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Me too! Woot!!!

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012.

Predicted Reaction of Mittens’ Bobbysoxers: “Well? So? Who’s this ‘Michelle Malkin’ person, anyway, and what’s she ever done for conservatism, huh…?!?”

Kent18 on January 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

psst…petunia…this is a post about Santorum…

cptacek on January 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

“La-la-la…la-la” — Petunia

…same as sheryl and a few others…

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

And I was going to get some work done. What a treat, a petunia meltdown. I’ve heard about them, but have never seen one up close.
Pops popcorn.
Romney Romney Romney democrat in Brooks Brothers clothing. Petunia petunia petunia.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on January 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I love it…no one is putting on Rick’s feet to the fire, and mr. high and mighty gets to be above it all. Hey, did he play it that way in his last campaign, where he lost by 20? I totally doubt it.

rubberneck on January 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Rick Santorum has always been the best choice – he outshines all other candidate, and he is exactly what America needs today.

Pork-Chop on January 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

When Hot Air was bought out by the Christian Broadcasting company Salem Communication… it went all out to spread lies about Romney’s record.

Michelle pick Santorum because Santorum isn’t a hypocrite and he is still not a Mormon. That it.

You can’t be conservative if you are a Mormon. I learned that in this Primary… the record be damned.

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Petunia, do you like being called a racist for opposing Obama, then don’t pull your BS version of the same thing.

MontanaMmmm on January 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Santorum seems like the least bad of the remaining 4. In the general election, I’ll hold my nose and vote for whichever republican comes out of the grinder.

The “electability” argument is irrelevant. Obama’s going to survive or get kicked to the curb based on how the economy is looking. The actual republican candidate is doesn’t matter.

Deafdog on January 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM

She’s railed against exactly his type for years. Now she capitulates. It’s a shame.

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

There are no good candidates currently in the race. This isn’t about selecting the best, but rather the “least worst.” Santorum is far less flawed than Gingrich or Romney (two “big government Republicans”) and Ron Paul, who is nuts.

bw222 on January 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I live in Virginia, so all I have to choose from is Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.

disa on January 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

And Michelle Malkin’s aerial traversing of the shark pen is now complete…

At this point, endorsing Santorum is just another way of saying “I don’t wanna make a choice”.

Hollowpoint on January 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

To: Petunia

You need an intervention . .. . Romney is a Democrat trying to buy the Republican nomination . . .are you a Democrat too?

Pragmatic on January 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM

“The race has barely begun — …”

But I thought I was told it was over and who to vote for before it began…?

… Now I’m confused.

/

Seven Percent Solution on January 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Silly goose, Mormonism is one of Romney’s assets.

Bigotry is not welcome here, from all sides.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5