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 Holdren, Al 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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Like I said, I wish I had seen that other post from you before I had responded to any of your other posts. Name calling. How juvenile. And you say you don’t have your mind closed down.
Dante on January 30, 2012 at 8:45 PM
No, I said I don’t believe I am utterly beyond convincing. But if you can’t explain it to me past “Read the article I linked,” this conversation is as good as at a dead end anyway.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Doesn’t matter. Absent a brokered convention, she won’t be getting the nomination. And assuming that she does, there’s absolutely nothing to say she has to accept it.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 8:52 PM
The Boss has her principals and sticks to them. I might prefer Paul, but Malkin gets my respect for not joining the bland side.
abobo on January 30, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Hear hear!
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 8:56 PM
Standard operating procedure. No surprise to see Jesse’s wife choose the most enthusiastic warmonger of all the candidates. Mr Santorum speaks very similar to a ‘crusader’ in reference to war, which has left a shameful trail of blood that time will not erase. He spoke with near certainty about his intenetion to launch a preemptive strike against Iran. Despite the debatable facts, the constitution for,bids the use of deadly force in this way, unless there is absolute certainty of an imminent attack. These facts don’t exist, except by those who can’t see any other perspective, than the one that leads to perpetual war. Jesse’s wife seems to ‘revel’ in war, which is shameful to say the least. A neocon big gov person supporting a neocon big gov candidate; no surprises here.
Jude4 on January 30, 2012 at 8:59 PM
The constitution forbids wha…? Eh? And WTbloodybluef**k does Jesse Malkin have to do with this, you assdouche? Is this the best you can do?
/GOBSMACKED
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 9:09 PM
3 voters in my house are voting for Santorum tomorrow-
the last debate sealed it for us.
djn on January 30, 2012 at 9:12 PM
I endorse him too, but we all know he won’t make it. It’s a pity, but it’s true.
patricius on January 30, 2012 at 9:15 PM
You going to vote for him? He’ll make it if enough people vote for him. Think principle, patricius.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Good for Michelle. I have my reservations about Santorum, but I’d be happier if it were he who was in second place. I’m glad he did well in the last debate; maybe a good showing in Florida will keep him in the race through Super Tuesday.
All that said, I think we have no idea what’s going to happen this year. I’m not sure a lot of it will be “about” the US election.
J.E. Dyer on January 30, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Statements like this make me believe people don’t understand how presidential elections work. Palin gets the approval of about 70% of the tea party but around 35% of the general populace. Like Newt, she does absolutely awful with independents and has a very polarizing like vs. dislike rating (similar to Bush and Obama). She’s a weak candidate in both appearances and experience. Why would she be a good candidate? Because she ran Alaska for 20 months and espouses conservative principles with a mid western accent? The 2008 election destroyed any chances she ever had of considering the presidency. The book tour, bus tour, and reality tv show didn’t help much either.
Kriggly on January 30, 2012 at 9:22 PM
‘
I’ll vote for Santorum.
He may not be as flamboyant as Romney or Gingrich, but he is more than qualified.
And he isn’t a whining little beotch like the other two.
.
cntrlfrk on January 30, 2012 at 9:23 PM
So how does a “crusader” speak? I’d really like to hear this one.
Sultanofsham on January 30, 2012 at 9:24 PM
Jude4 on January 30, 2012 at 8:59 PM
We get that you’re suggesting that MM is endorsing whomever her husband(who just happens to be a Jooooo) is telling her to endorse.
i’m not a huge MM fan(though I support Santorum) but she can endorse whomever she damn well pleases.
Nazi asshole-leave MM’s family OUT OF IT!!!!
annoyinglittletwerp on January 30, 2012 at 9:25 PM
Absolutely. He’s in my prayers as well.
patricius on January 30, 2012 at 9:26 PM
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 9:09 PM
It’s(the Ronulan) implying that MM is only doing the bidding of her Joooo husband.
Get it?
annoyinglittletwerp on January 30, 2012 at 9:27 PM
There’s still an ‘ambiguity’ in what you said.
What constitutes an “absolute certainty of an imminent attack” to one person, DOESN’T to another, or vice-verse.
So we still wind up arguing ‘here, there, and everywhere’ about the “signs of imminence”, or ‘lack thereof’.
listens2glenn on January 30, 2012 at 9:30 PM
I’ll be the first to admit that Santorum’s chances look thin. But it’s time for those who have spent the last two years saying “I’m not settling for the lesser of two evils” to put their money where their mouths are.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 9:30 PM
No I don’t get it. I am incapable of understanding that sort of verbal vomit.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Dante, the War Powers Act does NOT give the President the authority to declare war. Your mere characterization of it as such calls into question whether you have read it or understand it at all.
HTL on January 30, 2012 at 9:32 PM
I guess that’s as good a reason as any.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 9:32 PM
“Declaration of war” is a state of diplomatic posture. We have been in a state of war in the past with countries that our military hasn’t set foot in at all.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Translation: To the professional bloggers, long, drawn-out primary fights and the remote possibility of a “brokered convention” are good for business.
cicerone on January 30, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Dude, it’s January. Do you really believe it’s healthy for us to settle the question of who to nominate now?
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 9:39 PM
Exactly. The Constitution says only Congress can declare war, but it doesn’t say that military forces can only be introduced into hostile situations when preceded by a declaration of war. Now, admittedly, this problem is only really a modern one, but in fact no state has declared war on another since 1941, yet there have been plenty of wars (er, police actions, or global unpleasantnesses) anyway.
The War Powers Act was just an attempt to catch up with reality. Congress finally recognized that a President, acting as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (which they are at all times, and not merely when a war has been declared), can do all sorts of stuff without ever asking permission. They were actually attempting to restrict this ability, not expand it.
So people who argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional are actually pushing for the opposite of what they think they are. Which doesn’t say much for their perspicacity or mad Constitutional Skillz, in my book.
HTL on January 30, 2012 at 9:52 PM
Santorum is a good man. I don’t think he’ll get the nom, but sometimes miracles happen. Good luck to you, Rick.
Conservchik on January 30, 2012 at 9:56 PM
By the way, Michelle Malkin rocks the house!
Conservchik on January 30, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Who would have thought Santorum would even be this close three months ago? Maybe it’s good he keeps his distance and lets Gingrich and Romney damage each other.
As for the chuckleheads thinking that MM is a Romney person or has some sort of ulterior motive obviously you haven’t been paying attention. MM is a bombthrower who means exactly what she says and says it fearlessly. If she’s in for Santorum it’s exactly that.
kim roy on January 30, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Like a number of us here, I read hotair for about two years before joining. She left just before I joined, but I well remember what it was like here before she left.
GOD, I miss her.
listens2glenn on January 30, 2012 at 10:07 PM
“Mrs. Petunia Romney… Mr. and Mrs. Willard Mitt Romney… President Mitt Romney and First Lady Petunia Romney…”
Honestly. It’s like listening to Ed Gein reading aloud selected passages from Tiger Beat.
Kent18 on January 30, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Hey Tina, AllahP, and Ed can we kick gryphon202 out?
I’m sure I’m not the only one who is offended by his language and hostile attitude.
TheOarsman on January 30, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Good luck with that, douchebag. You’re not the first to try. I’ve literally been here since the beginning, and I really don’t think I’m going anywhere.
/Pbbbbbt
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Any of you Paulbots, fair-weather constitutionalists, or other assorted idjits who don’t like having your own oxen gored can Email your complaints about my behavior to tips@hotair.com
Thank you. Please pull ahead.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Other disagreements not-withstanding, that ‘raspberry’ response was FUNNY. : )
listens2glenn on January 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Thank you. You took it in the spirit in which I intended it.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 10:28 PM
I read Michelle’s take on Santorum.
Very compelling. She may be changing my mind.
balkanmom on January 30, 2012 at 10:32 PM
It was enough to give me hope and make me realize I may not have to hold my nose quite as tightly as I thought I might.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Kriggly on January 30, 2012 at 9:22 PM
Hogwash! Palin is the only shot the GOP would have against Obama. She helps bring Obama down in the polls. She would be Obama’s toughest opponent by far.
CoolChange80 on January 30, 2012 at 10:45 PM
uch calls into question whether you have read it or understand it at all.
HTL on January 30, 2012 at 9:32 PM
The president ordering the military to use force against another nation is declaring war. He doesn’t have to stand up in front of the country and say, “I declare war…” to make it so. The Constitution expressly forbids the president to do this. Only Congress can declare war.
I’m sorry, but you are completely incorrect. That there are many examples of unconstitutional acts does not in any way legitimize future unconstitutional acts.
The president certainly holds the title Commander in Chief at all times, but it is only during war in which he exercises this. It simply means that he is in charge of directing the war effort after Congress has declared war. And no, the president cannot “do all sorts of stuff without ever asking permission.” This is a ludicrous claim.
I’ll take the Constitution over whatever book your using.
Dante on January 30, 2012 at 10:45 PM
yawn….maybe for VP as conservative cred that Romney will need to secure the nomination. Santorum is not getting the nomination.
I’m not super excited about Romney, but if he takes Florida as he seems poised to do, Romney will be the odds on favorite, but weak candidate for the GOP nod. If Santorum would make the holy rollers in this party happy, then I can hold my nose and vote GOP with him on the ticket. Whatever we need to do to win against Obama.
BryanS on January 30, 2012 at 10:49 PM
A fair warning to the GOP and its supporters. You will not win the presidential election without Ron Paul. Ron Paul supporters will not vote for any of the remaining GOP candidates; no matter who it is. We will write in Ron Paul if he is not the GOP candidate. If you think we are throwing the election away, then I will turn it on you and say it is YOU who are throwing the election away by not voting for Ron Paul. We will not vote for a candidate we cannot trust. The only candidate we trust is Ron Paul. He is the only constitutional candidate with a passion for liberty. We will not compromise our principals by electing the other side of the same coin; the establishment candidate. This is a reality and you better come to grips with it. If you want Obama for another four years, then vote for the establishment GOP candidate. A vote for Santorum, Gingrich or Romney is a vote for Obama. Sorry if this message comes off strong because I don’t mean to be rude, it’s just reality.
No other candidate has such passionate supporters…there is a reason for this. I believe everyone here is for liberty, freedom and the constitution. I know we are, so let’s support the champion of Liberty…Ron Paul!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IeePEC2CZY
dom89031 on January 30, 2012 at 10:52 PM
First you have to understand what the constitution is and what it means, which you clearly do not.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 10:53 PM
And that’s exactly what Thomas Jefferson did in his prosecution of the Barbary War!
/facepalm
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM
No, it wasn’t. Again, if you had followed the link I posted, you would know this.
Dante on January 30, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Dante on January 30, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Nope. Military action, as an act of defense is not “declaring war.” Obama clearly violated the War Powers Act when he persisted with military action in Libya without the consent of Congress.
The War Powers Act was put into place to PREVENT such abuse of Presidential authority, not to allow it.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
You can argue whether it’s constitutional, but you’re mischaracterizing it. You also seem very confused about what the President’s war powers are. Reading too much Lew Rockwell, perhaps?
JannyMae on January 30, 2012 at 10:59 PM
And yes Paulbots, I know the Barbary Pirates were not a sovereign nation. In international law, that is a distinction without a difference. A declaration of war means absolutely nothing to a country with which we already have no diplomatic ties.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 11:00 PM
You can add my wife and I as well and several others.
I always laugh when people look at the polls and say,”Santorum cannot be elected.” Tell that to McCain. You vote for the person you believe would be the best job UNTIL they leave the race or get the nomination. If people based their votes on polls, the 17 (or more) slip by Newt in Florida would have had you going from one candidate to another.
I don’t care if Santorum is getting 1% of the vote (which he will not- we will get double digits)- I will vote for him!
MikeM on January 30, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Yes, I said this very thing earlier in the thread.
Dante on January 30, 2012 at 11:03 PM
This is laughable. The War Powers Act is unnecessary in this regard because the Constitution already prevents such abuse of Presidential authority. You couldn’t have typed this with a straight face.
Dante on January 30, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Where? The constitution specifies that the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and that congress declares war. How does that in any way shape or form limit the president’s powers?
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Palin is not as supportive of Santorum because Santorum is rabidly anti-gay.
CoolChange80 on January 30, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Then who gets to decide whether a military action is an act of defense or not? THIS is where my accusations of pretzel logic stem from. I’m a plain language kind of guy. And if you’re going to tell me that the constitution confers or limits power in any way, you’d better be able to tell me EXACTLY what words you are citing in defense of your position.
gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Typically, manifestos written in overheated, hyper-petulant tones such as this are read aloud by men with their faces concealed by ski masks, on videotape.
Honestly, I find stupidity such as this endlessly diverting. Paultards bombastically announce that any vote cast for Santorum, Gingrich or Mittens is, in actuality, “a vote for Obama.” MittBots, in turn, stoutly declare that, no, any vote for Paul, Santorum or Gingich is, really and truly, a vote for Obama. Gingrich supporters insist that a vote for Santorum instantly alchemizes, upon contact with air, into a vote for Mittens… which, as we’ve already established, above, also serves double duty as a vote for Obama.
Evidently, the only sure way not to cast one’s ballot for Obama is to vote for Obama.
No, no; just depressingly feeble, is all.
Kent18 on January 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM
That gave me a much needed chuckle.
And it was very well stated.
listens2glenn on January 30, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Many thanks. That one, I’ll confess, has been simmering inside me for quite some time, now. ;)
Kent18 on January 30, 2012 at 11:30 PM
I’ve made up my mind.
I am voting Rick Santorum in my Primary…
and then I am voting Not Obama in the general election.
Jones Zemkophill on January 30, 2012 at 11:32 PM
Since I’m very good at Sarcastic humor, I can generally identify it even when others can’t. Most times.
But THIS post has me stumped. I honestly can’t tell if this is ‘genuine’ or ‘sarcasm’.
Anyone else like to weigh in?
listens2glenn on January 30, 2012 at 11:34 PM
I’ll give you an answer: no, lighten the f**k up.
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Explain why you’re referring to her as “Jesse’s wife”, because from my view, you’re nothing but a petty, vindictive little misogynist.
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Finally, some common sense, conservatism and integrity is restored to Hot Air–and comes from none other than MM herself. Thank you!
Deep Timber on January 30, 2012 at 11:43 PM
An Oxymoron at best :-)
PuritanD71 on January 30, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Thats nice but I dont trust Ron Paul. Iran isnt going to go away if you ignore it no matter how hard you try. Clinton and Carter talked to North Korea and yet they still got the bomb. Yet Ron thinks i’ll work with Iran. Hes a fool at best on that point and is even worse with the “sustainable defense taskforce” report he supported. Cutting the military that way is foolish at the least.
His budget has a lot of nice little tricks in it so he can go around claiming it’ll cut a trillion but when you start looking at it you find the numbers are pretty subjective. It’ll work if he could wave a magic wand, alas this he doesnt have.
Ron Paul is the one person I cannot vote for.
Sultanofsham on January 30, 2012 at 11:47 PM
Well, the conservative movement (and the U.S. at large) sure needs a miracle… I’ll go for it.
If Rick can somehow outlast both Newt AND Mitt in the primaries, we will be all better off in the long run.
Myron Falwell on January 30, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Yes! Yes! Yes!
I’ve been saying this for weeks. There are still 46 states left to vote in the primary.
TN Mom on January 30, 2012 at 11:54 PM
I cannot believe the lovefest for Romney in this comment thread. Romney will do and say anything to be elected, hence the nickname “flip-flop”
You rather vote for a man who stands for nothing than a man who continues to stand on his convictions. Talk about a man that does not excite the base, Romney is as boring as stale plain popcorn. Great he has money, but as Santorum points it out in the last debate, with Romney as candidate, there is no attack of Obamacare.
For all of Romney’s “conservative creed” he sure did grow the government of Mass. Do you really think he will do something different as Pres of the country?
PuritanD71 on January 30, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Why not Bachmann?
Ronnie on January 30, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Piss’n in the wind……sad.
dmann on January 30, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Sorry, but you’re wrong. The President is Commander-in-Chief at all times, even when there are no hostilities. The equivalence between “declaration of war” and “forces engaged in active hostilities” exists only in your mind and the minds of other quirky self-appointed constitutional “experts”. It is not, however in the actual Constitution. Go ahead, re-read it and prove me wrong with a direct citation.
HTL on January 31, 2012 at 12:03 AM
I do find it amazing that supposedly there are more self-proclaimed conservatives than libs or moderates and yet are we too scared to actually nominate the best conservative candidate. It is about time Conservatives put our words into action and get behind the one who is Conservative not the one the MSM and Obama desire or for the one with the “debate chops”.
Let us do as Michelle has done and endorse Rick Santorum
PuritanD71 on January 31, 2012 at 12:12 AM
I guess you believe voting against right to work is conservative?
dom89031 on January 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/user/EndorseLiberty?v=AwbBWEljyYE
dom89031 on January 31, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Ron Paul is the one person I cannot vote for.
Sultanofsham on January 30, 2012 at 11:47 PM
Ditto!
annoyinglittletwerp on January 31, 2012 at 12:26 AM
Notice how you disregarded my point about Obama violating the War Powers Act, in order to try and ridicule my point about what the War Powers Act was actually designed to do.
I’m done with you and your dishonest habit of truncating quotes to maneuver arguments to your advantage. Keep harping on your Paultard Propaganda. You won’t convince anyone.
JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Don’t trust any of these guys.
I happen to like Santorum out of this final four, but if he gets in office we need to be prepared to remind him about cutting back the size of government. They’re all human and all susceptible to media pressure, which will surely come.
I admit I would be more likely to trust Paul if he had a record of cutting government or spending. His talk is okay, but after decades in office he’s done nothing to achieve his claimed goals. He seems not to have accomplished anything of any kind. Though Santorum’s record is mixed, he did get his welfare reform through.
shinty on January 31, 2012 at 12:37 AM
You contradicted yourself, Dante. This is what I said:
The president ordering military action is a declaration of war, unless it’s an act of defense, in which case it’s not? Do you even have a clue what you’re trying to say?
I’m done with you. You are a waste of time.
JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:39 AM
Malkin may be onto something good.
I think Santorum deserves a second look and I’m giving him one.
Thanks TK via MM!
Sherman1864 on January 31, 2012 at 12:57 AM
I heart Michelle Malkin!
Sticking to her guns!
rightConcept on January 31, 2012 at 1:50 AM
Our motives may vary, but I think we ALL ‘heart’ Michelle Malkin. : )
listens2glenn on January 31, 2012 at 2:03 AM
Well thats 17 minutes I wont be getting back.
Look, it would be nice if we could just leave the Mideast to itself but we cant. You cannot let a nation such as Iran get a nuclear weapon. It doesnt matter what Paul wants to blame the US for. It doesnt matter what was done in the past.
Once they have a bomb they can do anything under the sun. We’ve already seen what happened with North Korea. Torpedo someone else’s warship? Shell another countries town? And what can be done about it? Not much because we don’t want have to use nukes and we know they might.
Now you want us to vote for a fool who would let Iran have nukes? A nation that has supported terrorism since 1979? A nation that in the past has attacked oil tankers in the strait of hormuz? A nation that has send weapons, aid, and trainers to the insurgents that have killed and still are killing our troops? A nation that has been undermining the stability of the nations around it? You want to vote for a fool that will give them a card like North Korea has?
Are you people that foolish to think that Iran will not try for empire? Do you think that it wont effect us? Our economy? Do you really think we wouldn’t have to get into the fight and instead of just using pinpoint airstrikes to stop them we have to smash everything to be sure they can’t use a nuke.
And let’s be honest, what would really stop them from trying to get one or two over here via proxy? It would be fine if you guys were the ones to end up paying the butchers bill for a mistake but unfortunately you guys get allot of other people killed.
They don’t have the weapon now so you keep them from getting it because the cost in life and money is small. You let a problem get out of hand by ignoring it you’ll just ending up killing more people and spending more money when you do have to deal with it.
Also I know you guys like to go around saying Paul is strong on defense. BS. He supports the sustainable defense taskforce report and that is in no way strong unless you think Carter was also strong on defense.
Ron Paul is a joke. He talks a big game but when you start to look at what he’s really for, even his economic plan, you find it doesnt add up or is pure lunacy.
Sultanofsham on January 31, 2012 at 2:15 AM
Learn2Read – you won’t look so stupid in future entanglements with me.
Quote Me: “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.”
Posted now thrice – for your benefit:
Quote Me: “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.”
Additionally, I said THIS to clarify my position, but apparently, you are suffering from a complete inability to read clearly written English words:
Quote: I do not believe our national interests are best served by an pseudo-isolationist foreign policy. In fact, I think it’s suicide. That mindset might have worked in the days of old, but in a world of nuclear weapons, where one screw-up results an an entire city o dead people, sometimes, we have to meddle.We cannot blindly close our eyes and pretend people will stop hating us if we pull back into our borders. They will hate us for our weakness as much as they hate us for our strength
Then I said THIS:
Quote: If you want to get into his failings, I would however direct you to his many empty promises on “sticking” it to Bernanke. He’s got the position he’s coveted for years. Why has Paul been so quiet? Why has he been silent? Should he not be unceasingly assaulting the federal reserve – as he promised so many times in his newsletters over the decades?
Quote: Also… why did Paul load bills down with his own pork – levels that would make most democrats blush with shame – and then try to defend himself by “show voting” against them? (Even though he new damn well they would pass?)
Quote: “Now, care to answer my challenge? I’ll repeat it: 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.”
Why do I have to answer “pointed questions” over a position I never took you ignorant and vapid malcontent? You are so unhinged and untethered from reality that you are fabricating a position that I didn’t take – I never said Rue Paul did anything “UN-constitutional.”
You are fabricating a fake person to argue with.
Argue with ME. You can wrap tin-foil around your head, and blubber and blabber with your straw-man all by yourself alone if you like – but if you want a conversation with ME then I will force your feet to the fire, and you will be made to deal with the facts and the positions I am actually TAKING. I never ONCE said Rue Paul voted in any “un-constitutional way.” NOT ONCE.
I did say THIS in post two, but you were too buys seeing red like a whipped up bull charging a matador to notice:
Quote: “I quite clearly told you I looked at his positions, agreed with many of them, but I found his stance on foreign affairs to be intolerable.”
Let me make a bullet list, maybe this will HELP you:
- Ron Paul is an isolationist. This bothers me.
- Ron Paul did ALOT of disingenuous things with pork spending and then hid behind his votes.
- Ron Paul blustered and bloviated about how he’d fearlessly charge the fed like Custer into the little Big Horn Vally. He’s one nothing of the sort. He’s been the chair of the financial services committee for HOW LONG NOW? AND WHAT HAS HE DONE WITH IT? Let’s just say his BB Gun Ass has not matched his BuckShot mouth.
- Ron Paul is surrounded by legions of Anti-Semites and Truthers ranting about “Zionists” and “Jew-cabals.” I cannot fall in with that crowd. I am not blind to who people associate with, why the hell do you think I am so angry with the Republican establishment?
Do you get it now? Or do I need to put it in a GodD*&^ed Ordered List for you?
If you want a libertarian that REALLY has the courage of his convictions, Check out Bill Still. I’d happily vote for him if he had any chance in HELL of even getting on the ballot in my state.
Rue Paul has proven to me, by many of his loon supporters, what he he’s NOT done with as chair of the financial services committee, by his geo-political stances, and by the deceptive way he has covered up his pork-barrel spending the he absolutely is unfit to hold the office of president.
Paul had his chance, and he BLEW IT. I don’t believe him.
SilverDeth on January 31, 2012 at 2:25 AM
I remember trying to push McCain/Palin over the finish line and coming home to read the toxic bile that malkin was continually pouring on the only chance left to stop an Obama presidency in an infantile tantrum that helped guarantee defeat.
I don’t care what she has to say after that.
V7_Sport on January 31, 2012 at 4:48 AM
Michelle Malkin is not really that great a conservative stalwart if she let hotair become an establishment RINOsite that trashes conservatives. Allahpundit, Jazz Shaw, and Tina Korbe are NOT CONSERVATIVES. Patrick and Ed are ok much of the time. What conservative stalwart would voluntarily employ Allahpundit?
CoolChange80 on January 31, 2012 at 5:18 AM
After Mitt Romney gets crushed in a landslide, all the morons that advocated his electability should self deport or better yet never show their face in politics ever again.
CoolChange80 on January 31, 2012 at 5:24 AM
Yes, Rick Santorum the conservative who supported . . .
No Child Left Behind
Medicare Prescription Part D
The S-Chips Program
Programs that are pillars to conservatism and small government.
ReformedDeceptiCon on January 31, 2012 at 6:18 AM
So much for taking Michelle Malkin seriously….
CatoRenasci on January 31, 2012 at 7:07 AM
Yep, me too. It was way over the top. Not a MM fan, don’t care any more what she has to say.
kg598301 on January 31, 2012 at 7:27 AM
Santorum is a good guy, but he has no chance. The E-GOP will do whatever it takes to advance Willard, and Obama will trounce him, get used to the idea. When someone (the GOP in this case) is committing suicide, the best thing you can do is step aside.
insidiator on January 31, 2012 at 7:40 AM
Every time I read the pouty-faced declaration of some online nonentity or nebbish — whose sole discernible contribution to the cause of principled conservatism is, well, not so readily discernible, actually — that Michelle Malkin “is no true conservative, so there, nyaaahhh!“: I know that some short bus, somewhere, is missing one of its riders that morning. ;)
Kent18 on January 31, 2012 at 7:47 AM
Uh, yeah. What part of my argument about the WPA being unconstitutional do you not get? It would follow that Obama’s actions are unconstitutional. This is twice now you’ve repeated the same point I’ve already made.
Dante on January 31, 2012 at 7:50 AM
You can leave me off that list.
kg598301 on January 31, 2012 at 8:33 AM
He’s not even a contender. Laughing Out Loud.
DanaSmiles on January 31, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Santorum/Malkin 2012
Norky on January 31, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Yeah let’s nominate the guy who will make gay marriage the central issue of 2012.
jhffmn on January 31, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Same here.
jhffmn on January 31, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Exactly. I used to like MM a lot, but she went overboard on Perry and the gardasil issue, as did Michelle Bachmann. They both got those ‘wild-eyed’ rants going. That was the beginning of the end for Bachmann, and Malkin lost many fans also.
I like Santorum but it’s too late for him now. A vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Malkin is doing this not so much to help Romney, but to hurt Newt; she’s a rampant Newt hater.
IndeCon on January 31, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Awww. She criticized your pet failed candidate. Like she did with every single candidate this election…and every single candidate last election…and every single candidate from the election before…
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 9:45 AM
All these gargantuan, vastly important and influential movers-and-shakers in the conservative intellectual movement, lining up against poor, lonely, out-gunned Michelle.
*giggle* ;)
Kent18 on January 31, 2012 at 9:59 AM
Before Iowa the endorsement might have had some effect on the race. Now, on the eve of Romney’s FL win putting the race out of reach, it is difficult to see in what way Tina thinks this endorsement is “right on time”.
OptionsTrader on January 31, 2012 at 10:25 AM
It’s difficult for me to see how so many people here and elsewhere think they can predict the future.
gryphon202 on January 31, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »