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 3 4 5

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

Except that Obama wasn’t acting under the WPA. He violated it. So it doesn’t “follow” from anything unless your pretzel logic is crumbling under scrutiny…

/facepalm

gryphon202 on January 31, 2012 at 10:29 AM

publiuspen on January 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

jhffmn on January 31, 2012 at 9:09 AM

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

I agree. MM did criticize every candidate; to the point of being absolutely ridiculous, and causing some to wonder if she was a democrat shill. Hannity confronted her recently about her constant vitriol; maybe that’s why she finally came out with her support for Santorum.

MM blew it because she was into the savaging role way too much, and for way too long to do Rick any good.

Rick is more in line with my conservative beliefs than any other candidate. I wish he had surged continually after Iowa, but it is what it is. Reality is that he needs to drop out unless he wants Romney to win the nomination.

IndeCon on January 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I agree. MM did criticize every candidate; to the point of being absolutely ridiculous, and causing some to wonder if she was a democrat shill.

IndeCon on January 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Yes, because she totally didn’t write an entire book calling out the crimes of the Obama administration. Because she totally failed to criticize every one of the Democratic candidates for president. Because Republican candidates for president are not politicians vying for the highest office in the land and deserving of our close and intense scrutiny.

It’s the same old line. You Perry worshipers just happened to have a special kind of cult attitude about it. Numerous people on this and other sites over the years have lamented those who hold our representatives accountable, and do their best to ensure that those who value their vote know everything about the person they’re about to endorse to lead the entire nation, and make decisions that will affect all of our lives.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I’m waiting for someone to say in reference to Santorum, “Well nobody’s perfect,” as so many Newt, Mitt, and Perry supporters have told me in the past.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Except that Obama wasn’t acting under the WPA. He violated it. So it doesn’t “follow” from anything unless your pretzel logic is crumbling under scrutiny…

/facepalm

gryphon202 on January 31, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Exactly. Dante claimed that the WPA (unconstitutionally) empowers the president to declare war. Yet when Obama, BASED ON DANTE’S STANDARDS “declared war” on Libya, he did it in violation of the WPA.

The question I’m left with is, is Dante being deliberately obtuse, or is he really this stupid?

JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:51 PM

SilverDeth on January 31, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Calling me unhinged? Only one of us has resorted to name calling, personal attacks, and profanity – and continues to use them. Not exactly an indication of a stable, thoughtful, peaceful mind.

And you also overestimate your abilities.

Asking you questions or asking you to identify something – whether you consider them pointed or not – is not creating a straw man. In your initial post, you said you didn’t like his foreign policy and that you looked at Ron Paul, but his supporters turned you off. You didn’t name any positions of his that you disagreed with. Because you didn’t name any positions of his that you didn’t agree with, I simply asked you to identify any votes of his that were unconstitutional. That’s not creating a straw man.

It’s clear you’d rather engage in personal attacks and the like, but I’ll post this all the same. Feel free to continue to hurl insults and names.

* Non-interventionism is not isolationism. They are not synonyms. Neither is non-interventionism psuedo-isolationism. Paul’s stance is that of conservatism up until the mid-twentieth century and it is the same foreign policy that has dominated American history from the founding to Teddy Roosevelt. Just know that your argument for meddling puts you in league with the foreign policy of progressives. You talk about red herrings, but your nuclear argument is a red herring. The existence of nuclear arms in no way invites a cause to meddle in the affairs of other nations. In fact, I’d say it’s the opposite, and that’s a large reason why Iran is pursuing them.

* Bernanke and the Fed: I”m not sure you’re aware of this, but in regards to the Fed, Paul is just one man on one committee. One Congressman cannot change much. It takes more than one vote to do that. He does use his position to challenge the Fed and their disastrous policies and to make the public aware, and it’s working: he was laughed at in 2008 on his Fed position, but now it’s become more mainstream, and it was quite the achievement to get Bernanke to say publically that gold is not money.

* Pork: Why does Paul load down appropriations bills with pork? Well, for one, they’re appropriations bills. The dollar amount of spending has already been decided separately. Paul represents his constituents. His constituents have their wealth seized through taxation. His constituents ask for the federal government to return their seized wealth back to them. He states up front that though this is the job of a Congressman, and that he will insert their requests, he will vote against the bill when it comes up for a vote. He states this up front; that’s not disingenuous. If he doesn’t put in the requests, his constituents’ money will be go somewhere else. Too many people have succumbed to demagoguery over pork and earmarks without bothering to know what they are and what their purpose is. Every single cent should be earmarked. If no Congressman requested earmarks, then all of that money would go to the Executive branch to be spent by some faceless bureaucrat and we’d never know where it went. Just think if every penny of TARP and the stimulus had been earmarked, we would know where every cent went.

Perhaps if you educated yourself a little, then you wouldn’t have to use personal attacks and profanity as diversionary tools to make up for what you lack.

Dante on January 31, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Exactly. Dante claimed that the WPA (unconstitutionally) empowers the president to declare war. Yet when Obama, BASED ON DANTE’S STANDARDS “declared war” on Libya, he did it in violation of the WPA.

JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:51 PM

It was only in violation of the WPA once the time limit passed and he did not seek Congressional approval. It was in violation of the Constitution from the start.

Dante on January 31, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I agree. MM did criticize every candidate; to the point of being absolutely ridiculous, and causing some to wonder if she was a democrat shill.

IndeCon on January 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Yes, because she totally didn’t write an entire book calling out the crimes of the Obama administration. Because she totally failed to criticize every one of the Democratic candidates for president. Because Republican candidates for president are not politicians vying for the highest office in the land and deserving of our close and intense scrutiny.

It’s the same old line. You Perry worshipers just happened to have a special kind of cult attitude about it. Numerous people on this and other sites over the years have lamented those who hold our representatives accountable, and do their best to ensure that those who value their vote know everything about the person they’re about to endorse to lead the entire nation, and make decisions that will affect all of our lives.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:56 AM

1. Excuse me? I have read “Culture of Corruption” by Michelle Malkin from cover to cover. Good book.

2. Perry is/was not my candidate of choice.

3. Michelle M. and Michelle Bachmann both lost it and went over the edge with their bug-eyed rants on gardasil. They were proven wrong.

4. In a presidential primary race, each candidate deserves equal treatment from the republican establishment media. Riiiight, in a perfect world maybe.

IndeCon on January 31, 2012 at 5:33 PM


Michelle Malkin endorses Rick Santorum

Ah, well, then. It’s over.

But, excuse me, who exactly is Michelle Malkin? Should I have heard of her/him? If so, why?

JackieB on January 31, 2012 at 6:18 PM

It was only in violation of the WPA once the time limit passed and he did not seek Congressional approval. It was in violation of the Constitution from the start.

Dante on January 31, 2012 at 1:48 PM

The level of stupid here is just stunning. Don’t bother with a law degree, Dante. It won’t help.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2012 at 10:25 PM

3. Michelle M. and Michelle Bachmann both lost it and went over the edge with their bug-eyed rants on gardasil. They were proven wrong.

IndeCon on January 31, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Michelle Malkin asserted that the EO that Governor Gardasil signed damaged his conservative credibility. How she could be “proven wrong” on that salient point is beyond me, since it’s an opinion.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5