New Santorum ad hits Romney’s record … with Romney’s own words

posted at 12:45 pm on February 23, 2012 by Tina Korbe

This qualifies as an attack ad — but it’s difficult to critique it as unwarrantedly negative or particularly unfair, given that it consists entirely of quotes from other sources. No context is provided for the quotes, but it’s a 30-second ad, so that’s what you’d expect.

Depending upon the political persuasion of the audience, it might make a viewer or two think more favorably of Mitt Romney. The anybody-but-Mitt audience will watch it, nod their heads sagaciously and walk away from the TV reinforced in their unwavering faith that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper who should not be at the helm of the Republican Party. Whether it resonates with the undecided crowd will depend upon whether undecideds care about the particular issues highlighted in this ad.

The bigger issue is whether the brief, “I’m Rick Santorum and I approve this message” at the end will be enough to inform viewers whom the ad is for. Presumably, anyone following the primaries will know from the first frame that it must come from the Rick Santorum camp, but not everybody who randomly catches the ad will know that.

Romney’s campaign (and especially his Super PAC) has proved it’ll attack anyone who poses a threat to Romney and Romney himself proved that again last night. Conventional wisdom suggests Santorum is right to hit back. If that’s the case, this isn’t necessarily the best he could do. Santorum’s attacks are at their best when they focus narrowly on Romneycare and Romney’s support for the Wall Street bailouts, and this ad jumps around a bit from issue to issue. Nevertheless, I’m sure it makes Romney rue — yet again — the sentences he uttered thoughtlessly when his stated political aspirations reached no higher than the Massachusetts governor’s mansion.

Personally, though, I’d like to see an ad of a different nature come from the Santorum campaign. One of the biggest differences I see between Romney and Santorum — and it’s a difference that works in Santorum’s favor — is Santorum’s willingness to acknowledge and accept responsibility for his past mistakes. For example, last night, he said flat-out that he regretted his vote for No Child Left Behind. That takes an inordinate amount of humility that Romney has never demonstrated. Romney has been given ample opportunities to disavow Romneycare and he has never once done it.

Why not a Santorum ad with the theme, “The Courage to Say ‘I Was Wrong’”? If nothing else, it would resonate with girlfriends and wives across the country who particularly appreciate a man who can say, “I was wrong and I’m sorry.” And aren’t folks always saying Santorum needs to do something to appeal to the gals he supposedly keeps alienating with his anti-contraception, pro-stay-at-home-motherhood talk?


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

Heh, Drudge has Mitt up as Hercules.

What a destortion!

Schadenfreude on February 23, 2012 at 2:37 PM

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Thank you! I listen to the Great One every chance I get.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

It’s 85% popular in Massachusetts. Why would he disavow it? Just to make you happy?

rockmom on February 23, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I don’t know…maybe because it bankrupted the state? Seems like a good enough reason to me.

landowner on February 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Before I say this I have no dog in this hunt, all 5 of them leave a lot to be desired, Obastard and the 4 “republicans”. Therefore I’m coming around too I want Romney to win the nomination. Then that way when he gets smoked by Obastard in the general I can see what excuses are offered. You know how it is everyone else’s fault but his because he lost because god forbid that anything be poor Mitt’s fault.

I still find it hard to believe in a nation of over 300 million this crap is our choice come November.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I was kind of looking forward to showing up at the polls this fall and bashing a few Occupy Numbskulls out of the way and stomping their free Obama phones to smitherines, just to vote out the Lyin kING, but with the tactics and attitudes Establishment Mitt and the Mittbots display I may just sit on the couch and let them do their own dirty work.
I did it for Fight fight fight with me while Mr fighter surrrendered,

doing the same thinmg over again and expecting different results isn’t in my playbook

ConcealedKerry on February 23, 2012 at 2:43 PM

It’s 85% popular in Massachusetts. Why would he disavow it? Just to make you happy?

rockmom on February 23, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I don’t know…maybe because it bankrupted the state? Seems like a good enough reason to me.

landowner on February 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Or maybe because it “severely” puts to lie the idea that Romney was any kind of conservative, much less “severely” so.

gryphon202 on February 23, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Unless it’s the MA legislature, then he grabs his ankles.

Spliff Menendez on February 23, 2012 at 2:36 PM

.
Finally- an honest ABR who understands the impossible job governing the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.
.
A plethora of Conservative teachable moments, jeffe.

FlaMurph on February 23, 2012 at 2:49 PM

More from Daily Pundit:

I Watched the Debates Tonight, Oh Yeah….
by Bill Quick

http://www.dailypundit.com/2012/02/22/i-watched-the-debates-tonight-oh-yeah/

And I was reminded all over again why I cannot, and will not, vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances.

First, because he still defends socialized medicine.

Second, the reasons he gave for saying he would repeal Obamneycare.

It’s being paid for out of Medicare.

It will cost too much.

It’s too big and complicated – 2300 pages versus only 70 for his preferred version of socialized medicine.

Not one mention that the Constitution does not provide the power to the federal government to implement socialized medicine.

Because, you know, he can’t say that. Because he’s a statist, and a socialist (what else can you call somebody who creates, implements, and imposes socialized medicine on millions of people?), and he cannot bring himself to admit that he supports the concept of socialized medicine, just not Obama’s version.

Which reminds me of that famous Churchillian jape to a woman who agreed to sleep with him for a million dollars, but was shocked and insulted by his next offer of ten: “What do you think I am?” she gasped.

“We’ve already established what you are, madam. All we’re doing now is dickering over price.”

SilverDeth on February 23, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Unless it’s the MA legislature, then he grabs his ankles.

Spliff Menendez on February 23, 2012 at 2:36 PM

LOL, good one!

Is that why Mittens still walks with a limp??

Remember ROmneybots, Mittens appointed the most liberal judges in state history!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Thank you! I listen to the Great One every chance I get.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Best host on the radio! If you ever miss a show, you can go to marklevinshow.com and listen to any of his shows, anytime for free!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Why “inordinately” humble? In the words of Inigo Montoya, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

Mycroft Holmes on February 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Romney fans–and as always, I say this as someone who will vote for him in the general–is it really that unreasonable to expect the Republican nominee to be able to make the case that socialized medicine is always, in all places and at all times, a terrible and illegal idea?

The derision heaped on people here may or may not be deserved in individual cases (I know a lot of you guys have history with each other), but collectively it’s really a bit too cynical for my taste.

And frankly, Romney would have had me in his camp by now if he had simply said, “Yeah, I implemented it because I thought it was the best way to help the people of Massachusetts, but look at it! It’s terrible!”

Nom de Boom on February 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I still find it hard to believe in a nation of over 300 million this crap is our choice come November.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

“this crap” as you say at least has the nut to run. What’s your candidates excuse?

Buttercup on February 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Therefore I’m coming around too I want Romney to win the nomination. Then that way when he gets smoked by Obastard in the general I can see what excuses are offered. You know how it is everyone else’s fault but his because he lost because god forbid that anything be poor Mitt’s fault.

I still find it hard to believe in a nation of over 300 million this crap is our choice come November.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I could live with that … but the stakes are too high ….. but I like how you think

conservative tarheel on February 23, 2012 at 3:17 PM

hahaha….can you imagine it?

It would be like a pamphlet given out in a 50′s High School health class. A lot of code words for genitalia. Lot’s of “you know what” and “you know where” instructions. Hand over mouth snickering and warnings about moral decay and sexual deviancy.

And that is just on page one where the discussion of removing ones under garments is tackled!

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Mitt Romney doesn’t step on toes. He steps on necks.

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 1:12 PM

And this is the reason I find the possibility of Mitt Romney as the President of the United States so deeply distressing. No honor, no decency, no principles. Why would a bully step on someone’s toe when he can join Obama in stepping on necks?

Portia46 on February 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Romney fans–and as always, I say this as someone who will vote for him in the general–is it really that unreasonable to expect the Republican nominee to be able to make the case that socialized medicine is always, in all places and at all times, a terrible and illegal idea?

The derision heaped on people here may or may not be deserved in individual cases (I know a lot of you guys have history with each other), but collectively it’s really a bit too cynical for my taste.

And frankly, Romney would have had me in his camp by now if he had simply said, “Yeah, I implemented it because I thought it was the best way to help the people of Massachusetts, but look at it! It’s terrible!”

Nom de Boom on February 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM

That’s a good point you bring up in Mittens still refusing to admit that Romneycare was a terrible idea. Amazing that Santorum gets grief for admitting that about NCLB, while Mittens gets a pass from so many for implementing and STILL praising Romneycare!

And most Mittbots are dishonest and are NOT conservatives. So socialized medicine doesn’t really bother them.

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Last nite proved Mr. Sweatervest would be toast in the general election. Time to move on…. unless you want another four years of the zero.

aniptofar on February 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

we are already gonna get four more years of the Iwon …..

I don’t believe any of these clowns can win ….

that said I am in the ABO camp ….

ABR in the primary ….

conservative tarheel on February 23, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Then that way when he gets smoked by Obastard in the general I can see what excuses are offered.
bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Well that’s an easy one. It will be the same, lame falsehood dredged up after McNUmbNuts got his ass handed to him right after he surrendered!

The stupid conservative Tea Drinkin Goobers wouldn’t get behind the Establishments “Have No Romneys before Me” and thus the nearly identical to Obama big Government socialized medicine man lost in a landslide of all 57 states.

These inside DC clowns are boilin the frog everyday and the water is us and the frog is our freedoms.
Why should I have to strap on a seatbelt, pay for someone elses cell phone, abortion, condom, BC Pills, Medical Care, housing, food, childcare?
Because the pampered princes and princesses in DC get paid off by the lobbyists for big Insurance, big Medical, Big Unions, AARP, Solyndra, GM, Chrysler, GE, Goldman Sachs, at the expense of small businesses and freedom.
Crony Capitalism!

ConcealedKerry on February 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM

g2825m on February 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM

then why am I as a tax payer footing the bill for it …. I don’t live in MA …..

conservative tarheel on February 23, 2012 at 3:33 PM

And most Mittbots are dishonest and are NOT conservatives. So socialized medicine doesn’t really bother them.

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case out in the real world, although I can see where you’re coming from with a few commenters here. A lot of Romney’s support here seems to be linked to his Mormonism, hence the emotionalism of a few of the most vocal of his supporters.

While I really believe most of these folks are conservative, I have to admit that it has dismayed me to see how quickly some of the most fundamental tenets of conservatism have been jettisoned in the name of “winning.” After having read this site for 4 or 5 years, socialized medicine in particular is something I would never have expected people at Hot Air to defend. It’s really a little disconcerting. It’s as though all it took for some of us to abandon our principles is for a “strong horse” to advocate the polar opposite of those principles.

I guess the distinction I see between people like the above and principled Romney supporters depends on whether or not they can admit that he has advocated some liberal policies. I can respect someone who makes that admission, but simply believes he is the best out of a bad bunch, or the most capable of winning. That I can understand, and even sympathize with. This is not an easy, black-and-white decision to make if you are a truly philosophical conservative.

Nom de Boom on February 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM

I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case out in the real world, although I can see where you’re coming from with a few commenters here. A lot of Romney’s support here seems to be linked to his Mormonism, hence the emotionalism of a few of the most vocal of his supporters.

While I really believe most of these folks are conservative, I have to admit that it has dismayed me to see how quickly some of the most fundamental tenets of conservatism have been jettisoned in the name of “winning.” After having read this site for 4 or 5 years, socialized medicine in particular is something I would never have expected people at Hot Air to defend. It’s really a little disconcerting. It’s as though all it took for some of us to abandon our principles is for a “strong horse” to advocate the polar opposite of those principles.

I guess the distinction I see between people like the above and principled Romney supporters depends on whether or not they can admit that he has advocated some liberal policies. I can respect someone who makes that admission, but simply believes he is the best out of a bad bunch, or the most capable of winning. That I can understand, and even sympathize with. This is not an easy, black-and-white decision to make if you are a truly philosophical conservative.

Nom de Boom on February 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM

The sad truth is that Mittens has NEVER been a conservative. That’s why he’s not running on his record, because it sucks. All he can do is try to smear his competitors.

As for the electability argument, it holds no water. These wishy, washy moderate wimps do not win. Look at their track records. Ford, Dole, McLame!

Mittens got blown out while trying to run to the LEFT of Teddy Kenneday for MA senator. After his MA gov. term, he knew he’d get crushed by Maobama Jr, in Deval Patrick so he didn’t run again!

He’s been running for President for the last 6 years and still can’t consolidate support!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Mittens has NEVER been a conservative.
LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 3:47 PM

The irony being Levin endorsed Romney as the conservative’s choice in 2008.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Mittens has NEVER been a conservative.
LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 3:47 PM
The irony being Levin endorsed Romney as the conservative’s choice in 2008.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Except the choice was him and McCain. Blech on both counts. That was then and this is now.

mozalf on February 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I agree.

kingsjester on February 23, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Good article. Might want to fix your quotations though. Ann’s words are bleeding into citations from different sources, making it difficult to separate the two.

Pattosensei on February 23, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Mittens has NEVER been a conservative.
LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 3:47 PM

The irony being Levin endorsed Romney as the conservative’s choice in 2008.
whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Except the choice was him and McCain. Blech on both counts. That was then and this is now.
mozalf on February 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM

You’ll have to take it up with Levin:
“The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.”
Rally for Romney, by Mark R. Levin

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 4:05 PM

“this crap” as you say at least has the nut to run. What’s your candidates excuse?

Buttercup on February 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I have no candidate but as close as I could come to the kind of person I would want is Allen West and I even have a few misgivings about him, like his debt vote. This garbage that is running in the dimocrat lite, I mean republican party, just doesn’t do it for me. Don’t blame me or any other independent that despises Obastard we didn’t bring this field to the table in a year that should have been a gimme. So what is going on is either the repubs are throwing this on purpose or they really do suck that bad.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Oooopsies!

Is Gingrich back to his corrupt lying ways already?

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 4:13 PM

The irony being Levin endorsed Romney as the conservative’s choice in 2008.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I don’t know who’s more disingenuous:

You OR Mittens!!

Levin ONLY endorsed Mittens after it WAS BETWEEN Mittens and McLame.

I hate Mittens and I would STILL support him today over McLame.

Levin had originally endorsed Fred Thompson!

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such garbage. You sound like a Leftist troll!

Now thank me for your reply!!!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I could live with that … but the stakes are too high ….. but I like how you think

conservative tarheel on February 23, 2012 at 3:17 PM

If Romney is struggling to beat this sad field and didn’t have the balls to run against Patrick for a second term then what makes people think he is going to beat Obastard? I’m sorry I just don’t see it. He and his people spend more time trying to tear others down than to give anyone a reason to vote for him.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with Romney. To sit and defend the garbage that RomneyCare is just rubs me raw. He could have just disavowed it by saying that he tried to do something at the state level (a good case for federalism) that ultimtely failed to achieve the desired results. Instead, he just doubles/triples down on this monstrosity.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

You are 100% right. This hasn’t exactly been a rousing success in Massachusetts.

And with respect to how “popular” the law is, there are some data points that are worth considering:

Yes, most residents support the law (63%). But support for the individual mandate has fallen from 58% in 2009 to 51% in 2011, and opposition has increased from 35% in 2009 to 44% in 2011.

Moreover, when asked about whether the law has helped, hurt, or had little effect on health care across several different domains, the percentage who say the law has either hurt or has had minimal impact are as follows:

- Cost of care: 63% (30% say it’s made the problem worse, compared to 23% who say it’s helping)
- Quality of Care: 66%
- Ability to pay medical bills if sick: 60%
- Length of time it takes to get an appointment with a doc: 70% (17% say it’s made the problem worse, vs. 13% who say it’s helping)

(Full disclosure: These data can be presented in a much more favorable light, as the author of the study does.)

So yes, people “like” the law, but they aren’t overly impressed with the effects of the law thus far. In each case, a plurality of respondents indicated that the law didn’t have much of an impact. And on the question of cost, more respondents said that the law made the issue worse, not better. This is hardly ringing endorsement. And when you consider the full cost of RomneyCare – the effect on wait times, inappropriate ER use, premiums, state spending, etc. – it’s hard to come to the conclusion that it has been a net positive for the state.

(On a side note, I’m amused that 6% of respondents to this study are uninsured. Heh.)

Just Sayin on February 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM

If Romney is struggling to beat this sad field and didn’t have the balls to run against Patrick for a second term then what makes people think he is going to beat Obastard? I’m sorry I just don’t see it. He and his people spend more time trying to tear others down than to give anyone a reason to vote for him.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I agree with you …. in the broader view … we have to hold the house and take the senate …… just sad it really is …. this year should have been a gimme ….
and look at what is standing ….

Santy – the best of whats left …

Mittens – a person who cant decide what he believes and when he believes it …

Newt – NY23 and Nancy on a couch …. among other things …

Paul – Nuff said there ….

conservative tarheel on February 23, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Mitt Romney doesn’t step on toes. He steps on necks.

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 1:12 PM

And this is the reason I find the possibility of Mitt Romney as the President of the United States so deeply distressing. No honor, no decency, no principles. Why would a bully step on someone’s toe when he can join Obama in stepping on necks?

Portia46 on February 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM

+1

SparkPlug on February 23, 2012 at 4:26 PM

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 4:05 PM

You are why Mitt can’t win, you are the type of supporter he attracts, someone who tells 1/2 truths, and leaves out important details…
Mitt is just plain dishonest as a campaigner, and his supporters are the same…so every time you post something like you did, it reminds us of why anyone but Mitt is a valid stand.

right2bright on February 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The irony being Levin endorsed Romney as the conservative’s choice in 2008.
whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Levin had originally endorsed Fred Thompson!
LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM

But he switched to Romney, declaring him: “The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.

Your argument about Romney’s conservative creds is with Levin. Those are his words, not mine.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 5:17 PM

But he switched to Romney, declaring him: “The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.”

Your argument about Romney’s conservative creds is with Levin. Those are his words, not mine.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 5:17 PM

You’re a complete idiot whose reading comprehension flat out sucks!!!

What part of LEVIN ONLY ENDORSED MITTENS AFTER IT WAS BETWEEN MITTENS AND MCLAME DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???

It’s not like Levin endorsed Mittens when there were other options besides McLame!

I said the same thing. I would still support Mittens over McLame. This is not an endorsement of Mittens, it’s a statement showing how bad McLame is!

It’s pathetic that I had to spell this out for you!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Conventional wisdom suggests Santorum is right to hit back. If that’s the case, this isn’t necessarily the best he could do. Santorum’s attacks are at their best when they focus narrowly on Romneycare and Romney’s support for the Wall Street bailouts, and this ad jumps around a bit from issue to issue.

And that’s the problem with making a :30 ad. I had to write copy for a radio PSA last week, and it was a pain in the rear to get everything I wanted to say into the time allotted.

The other problem is, Mitt has said so much that could doom him as a candidate, so it’s difficult to narrow it down. He’s Dan Quayle II… only not at all conservative, and even more buffoonish.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 5:31 PM

It’s pathetic that I had to spell this out for you!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Don’t even bother. MittBots like whatcat are determined to destroy the conservative movement and give Obama four more years. They will lie, spin and libel anyone who disagrees with them.

For that alone, Mitt deserves to lose.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Meh. I’m not the one who wrote an article declaring Romney is the one “who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles“. That’s Levin’s assessment. You’re welcome to agree or disagree with Levin’s conclusion.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 5:37 PM

lie, spin and libel anyone who disagrees with them.
Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Sorry, but that’s Levin’s own assessment of Romney’s conservative creds, not mine. So if there are “lies, spin and libel”, it’s his own.
Rally for Romney, By Mark R. Levin

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Meh. I’m not the one who wrote an article declaring Romney is the one “who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles“. That’s Levin’s assessment. You’re welcome to agree or disagree with Levin’s conclusion.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 5:37 PM

That was before Romneycare was implemented nationwide as Obamacare. And even if Romney won, he would have been primaried this year anyway by a Tea Party insurgency (which would happen anyway in 2016, if, dear God, Mitt inexplicably wins with nothing but Dem votes).

Calling Mitt the “most conservative” of the 2008 crop of candidates is not a glowing achievement. They were even worse than THIS crop.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Sorry, but that’s Levin’s own assessment of Romney’s conservative creds, not mine. So if there are “lies, spin and libel”, it’s his own.
Rally for Romney, By Mark R. Levin

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 5:41 PM

It was to prevent McCain from getting the nomination, you dummy. And see where that “pragmatic” approach got us.

I have no want to argue with intellectually deficient people like you.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Arlen Specter is calling Santorum out. He’s saying Santorum lied in the AZ debate about making a bargain with him regarding Supreme Court nominations. He say’s they never spoke. Specter:

“He is not correct,” Specter said. “I made no commitment to him about supporting judges. That would have been the wrong thing to do. As chairman of the committee I supported [Justices John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito because I thought they were qualified for the job. But I made no deal.”

Deacon Rick has more explaining to do.

jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Calling Mitt the “most conservative” of the 2008 crop of candidates is not a glowing achievement.
Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 5:42 PM

That wasn’t quite what Levin wrote. His statement was Romney “can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles“. That’s above and beyond the “most conservative” or LOTE reasoning. That’s “he’s one of us”.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Arlen Specter is calling Santorum out. He’s saying Santorum lied in the AZ debate about making a bargain with him regarding Supreme Court nominations. He say’s they never spoke. Specter:
“He is not correct,” Specter said. “I made no commitment to him about supporting judges. That would have been the wrong thing to do. As chairman of the committee I supported [Justices John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito because I thought they were qualified for the job. But I made no deal.”
Deacon Rick has more explaining to do.
jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 5:48 PM

It seemed like Santorum was pulling the Specter excuse of out his rear. Specter is a turncoat, but he’s not an idiot. Besides, one problem with Santorum’s excuse for his vote is that Arlen pretty much every nominee on through, with the exception of Bork.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Why not a Santorum ad with the theme, “The Courage to Say ‘I Was Wrong’”? If nothing else, it would resonate with girlfriends and wives across the country who particularly appreciate a man who can say, “I was wrong and I’m sorry.” And aren’t folks always saying Santorum needs to do something to appeal to the gals he supposedly keeps alienating with his anti-contraception, pro-stay-at-home-motherhood talk?

Tina Korbe on February 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM

He’ll have to do a lot more than that to win my support, and that of the women I know. We can’t be swayed by a false apology.

Oh, who am I kidding? There’s nothing this guy could do at this point to win my support.

Syzygy on February 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM

“this crap” as you say at least has the nut to run. What’s your candidates excuse?

Buttercup on February 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I have no candidate but as close as I could come to the kind of person I would want is Allen West and I even have a few misgivings about him, like his debt vote. This garbage that is running in the dimocrat lite, I mean republican party, just doesn’t do it for me. Don’t blame me or any other independent that despises Obastard we didn’t bring this field to the table in a year that should have been a gimme. So what is going on is either the repubs are throwing this on purpose or they really do suck that bad.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 4:13 PM

bbinfi – You hit on something. As an indie I’m with you in thinking that the republicans are on purpose throwing this gimme vote that should be theirs for the TAKING and they’re putting up people who suck that bad. Santorum? Not a small government type of guy BUT humble enough to say when he’s wrong. Mittens? Can’t stand him so I’m with the guy who said ABR in the primary. Newtonian – blows up, cools down, blows up, cools down – yet does have a way with words when he’s not blowing UP and its not personal. The main event is very personal so it would get under Newt’s skin if he wasn’t on top. Santorum is ok when at a personal level he takes a punch and is given a chance to respond, but rapid fire reflexes he doesn’t have. He’s still to much of a nice guy. Romney? It can all bounce off of him, it seems like he doesn’t care, because he hasn’t had to answer for his record – oh wait, he is answering for his record and that’s why he can’t consolidate his victory in the primaries.

Mitten’s has flip flopped on issues and the Santorum ad attacking Mittens is good but it needs to be READ OUT LOUD because some of those flashed by so quick I had a hard time reading them.

athenadelphi on February 23, 2012 at 6:09 PM

It seemed like Santorum was pulling the Specter excuse of out his rear. Specter is a turncoat, but he’s not an idiot. Besides, one problem with Santorum’s excuse for his vote is that Arlen pretty much every nominee on through, with the exception of Bork.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Why would Specter wait until now to give his side of the story? Santorum has been saying this for several months, at least.

I’m not saying that I necessarily believe Santorum – in fact, I think both sides are probably exaggerating – but I just wonder about the timing of Specter’s denial.

Just Sayin on February 23, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Deacon Rick has more explaining to do.

jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Don’t you know that any lie told to defeat the evil mean Mitt Romney is excusable in the eyes of the congregation of Reverend Rick?

The same is true for Neutron Newt.

It matters not that these filth are not just lying to Romney, they are lying to every single American…man, woman, and child.

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Mitten’s has flip flopped on issues and the Santorum ad attacking Mittens is good but it needs to be READ OUT LOUD because some of those flashed by so quick I had a hard time reading them.

athenadelphi on February 23, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008, saying he was a “real conservative” who “we can trust”. Now Santorum says he’s a big, lying, mean ol’ meany and a Massachusetts moderate. Isn’t that a flip-flop?

jan3 on February 23, 2012 at 6:18 PM

share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.

Mark Levin

WOW! Thanks Mark!

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I have no want to argue with intellectually deficient people like you.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 5:44 PM

That is how you explain Levin’s flip flop on his endorsement of Romney?

Levin’s own words give Romney the conservative creds the Romney haters say he doesn’t have. Either that or Levin is a core-less cowardly opportunist.

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Portia46 on February 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM

What does my comment have to do with Romney?

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Levin’s own words give Romney the conservative creds the Romney haters say he doesn’t have. Either that or Levin is a core-less cowardly opportunist.

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Or Levin had an epiphany and saw how unacceptable Mitt was and is.

Look into the story of Saul, and how he became Paul the Apostle. It IS possible.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:31 PM

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 6:21 PM

I guess you would say the same about the Heritage Foundation, because they originally backed Romneycare, only later on to vociferously disown it.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Why would Specter wait until now to give his side of the story? Santorum has been saying this for several months, at least.

I’m not saying that I necessarily believe Santorum – in fact, I think both sides are probably exaggerating – but I just wonder about the timing of Specter’s denial.

Just Sayin on February 23, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Arlen Sphincter is a coward, a turncoat Dem who deservedly got primaried in 2010. Even the Dems rejected him after he switched and voted yes on Obamacare.

Back then, Sphincter had a lot of power as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Wanna blame someone for that? Well, he got that position by seniority rules long before Rick was elected to the House, so you can’t blame Rick.

Rick was forced into a crap sandwich position. I am sure 99% of all the posters on here would have done the same thing. Politics can be a real [female dog] sometimes.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I’m not saying that I necessarily believe Santorum – in fact, I think both sides are probably exaggerating – but I just wonder about the timing of Specter’s denial.
Just Sayin on February 23, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Could be because it was brought up in a national forum on live TV.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Could be because it was brought up in a national forum on live TV.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 6:51 PM

And Sphincter wanted some freebie attention in the news media. Whatever. His words mean nothing to me, nor should they to ANYONE.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:55 PM

That is how you explain Levin’s flip flop on his endorsement of Romney?

Levin’s own words give Romney the conservative creds the Romney haters say he doesn’t have. Either that or Levin is a core-less cowardly opportunist.

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 6:21 PM

So let me get this straight, St. Mitt can flip flop all over the place like a stinking fish out of water but if someone changes their mind over four years that makes them a core-less cowardly opportunist? Well then you just admitted that Romney is a core-less cowardly opportunist. Wow I never thought I would ever see one of his followers call him that, surprising to say the least.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

So let me get this straight, St. Mitt can flip flop all over the place like a stinking fish out of water but if someone changes their mind over four years that makes them a core-less cowardly opportunist? Well then you just admitted that Romney is a core-less cowardly opportunist. Wow I never thought I would ever see one of his followers call him that, surprising to say the least.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

THIS.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

if someone changes their mind over four years that makes them a core-less cowardly opportunist?
bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

What do you believe Levin saw in the first place to write that Romney “can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles“?

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Could be because it was brought up in a national forum on live TV.
whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 6:51 PM

And Sphincter wanted some freebie attention in the news media. Whatever. His words mean nothing to me, nor should they to ANYONE.
Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:55 PM

It actually weighs in Specter’s favor on this that Republicans don’t like him; he has nothing to gain.

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

What do you believe Levin saw in the first place to write that Romney “can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles“?

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Outside of Romney was running against that scumbag McAmnesty I have no idea what Levin saw. That seems like more of a question for Mr. Levin himself than me.

My point was that when Romney changes a position then it’s like he has given the new position deep thought and that his position has evolved over time but if someone else changes their postion? Then they are a, and I quote, “core-less cowardly opportunist”. I’m still trying to figure out exactly how that works, only Romney can change his mind and not be an opportunist? I’m sorry but that sounds like something Obastard or one of his Obots would say.

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM

What do you believe Levin saw in the first place to write that Romney “can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles“?
whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Outside of Romney was running against that scumbag McAmnesty I have no idea what Levin saw. That seems like more of a question for Mr. Levin himself than me.
bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM

It would be interesting to hear his answer. However, if a person believes Levin could be so disastrously wrong then shouldn’t they be cautious about accepting his reasoning?

whatcat on February 23, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Why are the Republicans in Congress passing everything B.O. wants that helps his re-election? I’m still trying to work that out in spite of the R Candidates vs the R Candidates.

When are they going to apologize for their votes against the American people?

Why aren’t the Republicans in Congress speaking out on the main issues of today?

I get the impression they are all ok with it all.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 9:15 PM

politics is about governing and not about protesting and scoring ideologiotical points.

Critic20012 at 2 PM

cableguy615 on February 23, 2012 at 9:20 PM

if someone changes their mind over four years that makes them a core-less cowardly opportunist?

bbinfl on February 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

That wasn’t just anyone who flip-flopped like a fish. This was the Lord Master of Conservatism, the one and only, The Great One, Mark Levin! Conservatives don’t flip flop, remember?

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Look into the story of Saul, and how he became Paul the Apostle. It IS possible.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:31 PM

So lets get this straight…. Mark Levin, The Great One, was the bastion of conservatism in 2008 when he endorsed Romney. Now that he has flip flopped to NOT supporting Romney, he was really the unrepentant Saul in 2008 and is NOW a convert to conservatism.

lol

csdeven on February 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Why are the Republicans in Congress passing everything B.O. wants that helps his re-election? I’m still trying to work that out in spite of the R Candidates vs the R Candidates.

When are they going to apologize for their votes against the American people?

Why aren’t the Republicans in Congress speaking out on the main issues of today?

I get the impression they are all ok with it all.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Oh maybe because they are spineless traitorous scum who are intentionally trying to throw the election to Obastard. If not then these people are some of the most incompetent fools to ever serve time in congress and should be removed like their dimotard brothers. What ever would make you think that the republiscum are any different that the dimoturds? They are the same party merely only a different branch.

bbinfl on February 24, 2012 at 12:42 AM

“And aren’t folks always saying Santorum needs to do something to appeal to the gals he supposedly keeps alienating with his anti-contraception, pro-stay-at-home-motherhood talk?”

And aren’t the people saying that cultural enemies who want him to fail and diminish the standing of cultural conservatives?

Why would he take such advice? He shouldn’t.

David Blue on February 24, 2012 at 2:34 AM

Santorum is a hypocrite and jerk. he was pro-choice before he ran for office and became pro-life, yet that’s not okay for Romney?

Hypocrite + jerk = good nominee why? Romney is neither of those. Newt is both.
How is Romney not the best candidate again?

Drunk Report on February 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I still like the Santorum ad with RINO Romney (look-alike) shooting crap at Santorum and MISSING. Shooting the crap all over the place seems to be Willard’s (from the RAT movie of the same name) forte, JUST LIKE OBASTARD!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 24, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2