Santorum on 2008 endorsement of Romney: “Fool me once, shame on you …”
posted at 7:03 pm on February 24, 2012 by Tina Korbe
Pretty sure Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney won’t be friends by the end of this. After Romney reminded Santorum in the GOP debate Wednesday that the former Pennsylvania senator endorsed him in the 2008 presidential election, Santorum took to Fox News to completely disavow the endorsement:
“As far as my endorsement, you know what? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I supported Mitt Romney when it was down to Romney and McCain,” Santorum said on Fox News. “I knew John McCain, I knew what kind of conservative he would be so I landed with Romney. He proved me wrong. He went out right after the campaign was over and he endorsed the Wall Street bailout, he was for big government programs there.”
Santorum is far from alone. Many of those who hailed Mitt Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008 have been less than impressed with him this time around. Ann Coulter might be the only Romney soldier still standing — and she’s clearly not happy about it, as in her latest column she called out a couple of Romney’s former supporters for their unflinching reinvestigation of him this time around:
The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney — though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then.
(Incidentally, Coulter doesn’t offer any particular evidence for her claim that “Romney has only gotten better since then.” How? By supporting the Wall Street bailouts, as Santorum pointed out? By becoming so poised that he’s oblivious to any misconceptions of him and unconcerned to correct them? While I don’t yet want to rule out Romney as a potentially effective GOP nominee, I don’t see that he’s gotten “better” since 2008 — but I think the conservative movement has.)
Mitt Romney might be the single best evidence that the GOP and the conservative movement have changed considerably since 2008. He hasn’t changed, but the support for him has. In 2008, the Tea Party hadn’t yet appeared on the scene. Perhaps Limbaugh, Levin and other prominent conservatives who once supported Romney but now demand better make that demand because, with increased involvement and more outspoken support from conservatives who were once part of “the silent majority,” better actually seems possible.
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
Oh, but it’s holy water. He’s Rick Santorum.
jan3 on February 24, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Mote, beam, yadda yadda.
HTL on February 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM
Problem is that Romney is not slick. Bill Clinton was very slick. Newt Gingrich is pretty slick, but not Romney though, so Santorum sounds silly and untruthful.
VorDaj on February 24, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Maybe God is not on Preacher Rick’s side after all.
VorDaj on February 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM
“I know you are but what am I?” Yeah, I was right, grade-school.
29Victor on February 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM
On Feb 13, Leon Wolf at RedState looked into the TARP issue. What he found is not pretty.
First mention of Santorum opposing TARP is in a 2010 speech to CPAC, when he was already considering a run for the Presidency.
Before that, there is one mention, in 2008, in the Pittsburg Post Gazette, shortly after TARP was passed. This is the mention:
Doesn’t sound like a ringing denunciation, does it?
No one can find any opposition to TARP from Santorum before 2010, and he was a Fox News contributor at the time. Surely there must be some footage of Rick leading the charge against this monstrous Federal intrusion into the private sector? No? MSM coverup!
Mr. Arkadin on February 24, 2012 at 8:30 PM
Or perhaps they just like to hear the sound of their own voice thinking that will change the course of history somehow even though they struck out completely in 2008.
VorDaj on February 24, 2012 at 8:30 PM
Just catching on to that? You think someone who calls themselves liberal4life is pro-Romney?
Syzygy on February 24, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Santorum would have voted for the bailout too, he would have taken that one for “the team” too. He isn’t fooling me.
echosyst on February 24, 2012 at 8:35 PM
And lets look at the RCP average after mitt’s detroit speech today. hahaha
Flapjackmaka on February 24, 2012 at 8:35 PM
That little / at the end means I was being sarcastic. The hallmark of Romney supporters is to accuse everyone of whining whenever they complain about the slimefest Romney started. But when Romney supporters whine, it’s righeous indignation. I find it hypocritical.
Night Owl on February 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM
*righteous
Night Owl on February 24, 2012 at 8:41 PM
The Emperor lies (continuously). Mitt is at 64% in his home state with a 46 point lead.
Basilsbest on February 24, 2012 at 8:41 PM
Oh, please. You post a veritable jeremiad of complaints against Romney supporters, apparently completely oblivious to the fact that the exact same tactics are employed by Santorum supporters. In fact, if I were to run a statistical analysis, I think we would find that Team Santorum is slightly more likely to resort to these tactics that you allege yourself to deplore.
I have, in fact, seen plenty of posts by Romney supporters trying to argue about his business experience and clarify the record about various aspects of his time as governor of Massachusetts. Yet you say there are none.
I am not a Romney supporter (my last verifiable candidate was Perry), but I can point out baloney when I see it. Which is what you were dishing out. My reference to the well-known Biblical quote was not a “but they do it too!” excuse — it was an admonition to you to attend to (or at least acknowledge) the problems in your own camp before you post some moralistic comment implying that it is only the other side that is guilty of these tactics.
HTL on February 24, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Lazy Analysis Tina……. Santorum endorsed Romney AFTER Romneycare and almost all of the “flip flops” he “made” while Governor of Massachusetts. Santorum hangs his hat on TARP. Romney wasn’t even an elected official at the time. It’s weak. He can’t put that genie back in the bottle.
AYNBLAND on February 24, 2012 at 8:43 PM
It;s called his home state because Mittbots said so before. Now it’s not because the guy might lose there. Dont worry, even if he is the nominee he wont win either home state. He’ll be like loser gore but the election wont be as nailbiting
Flapjackmaka on February 24, 2012 at 8:49 PM
Sorry, my mistake. My only observation at this point is that the simple backslash is a bit too subtle to imply the entire meaning of the closing of a sarc tag, if such a thing actually did exist. I understand that the way blogging software and browsers parse text for instructions makes this a difficult square to circle, but perhaps parenthesis instead of angle brackets? (/sarc) would be a bit clearer?
HTL on February 24, 2012 at 8:54 PM
I will take that under adivsement!
Night Owl on February 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM
A lot of us backed Romney over Mccain in 2008. Romneycare was not an issue until Obamacare.
And Santorum was not an elected official in 2008 either, but he went on TV and spoke out against the bailout. Romney, who had just been running for President a few months before, came out for it.
And then Romney, who was not an elected official, came out publicly against the auto bailout. Rick did not support any of the bailouts.
Before you post something, get a clue.
fight like a girl on February 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM
Not so much you, as the entire blogging universe. So…how do we make it a “thing”?
HTL on February 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM
The conservative movement hasn’t gotten “better”–it’s just moved even further right.
Dragging the Republican Party to the extreme right is not the way to win elections. But then true conservatives aren’t interested in winning elections. They just want to tilt at windmills and impress everyone with how superior they are.
No greater evidence of this than the infatuation with Rick Saintorum.
I fail to see how feeling all sanctimonious while sitting on the sidelines–like that pandering gasbag Limbaugh–helps change the country to the conservative utopia the rightwing dreams of. You have to win elections to exercise power.
Meanwhile the Dems get it. That’s why Obama, despite being a leftwing ideologue, won, and why he’s likely to win again.
More meaningless rumination from Tina, who after waxing poetic on Wednesday about ashes, moved on to telling the former governor of Florida (a man old enough to be her father from a family of career politicians, including two US presidents) how he is flawed in his thinking.
At least Jeb IS thinking. So is Coulter. They’re dealing with the world as it is, not as they wish it were. They want to win.
And for that they get excoriated. Go figure.
Meredith on February 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM
For all you Rombots,
Santorum endorsed Specter, the senior republican senator from his state.
Romney voted for and openly supported Paul Tsongas, a very liberal democrat.
When you say Rick is not conservative, please tell us; compared to whom?
fight like a girl on February 24, 2012 at 9:06 PM
That I don’t know. Maybe if you and I do it, it will catch on?
Night Owl on February 24, 2012 at 9:11 PM
I think we need to get some of the cool kids to start doing it first.
HTL on February 24, 2012 at 9:33 PM
I’m not a Santorum supporter and I’m not sure I believe you’re not a Romney supporter.
If you spend any time here at all you will see that every thread that even touches on Romney is instantly flooded (like the one here) with insults and invective from Romney supporters. Often threads that have absolutely nothing to do with Romney but mention something, anything about one of his opponents are flooded with them.
I and others here have begged, repeatedly, for months for Romney supporters to give us anything at all that recommends Romney other than “he’s the only one that can win.” Thus far I haven’t seen a single response. No one has even tried. And I and other have asked over and over and over and over again.
Romney supporters can gush forth millions of reasons to not vote for the other guys but not a single reason to vote for their guy. They call out “stupid,” and “bigot,” “fat,” “RINO,” “moron,” “frothy” etc. And it’s the same on every.single.thread.
Open enrollment has really brought down the level of debate here, but most of the Romney supporters (and all of the most vocal ones) don’t even attempt discussion, they only attack.
29Victor on February 24, 2012 at 9:35 PM
He hasn’t lived there in 47 years.
Basilsbest on February 24, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Funny, that’s a virtual echo of my opinion of Romney.
I was ready to vote for him over both McCain and Huckabee. Now it’s clear that would have been a mistake. Of the three we ended up with in 2008, Huckabee was the best. And I’m still a little shocked to find myself saying that. His economic populism really turned me off in 2008, but he was still a better campaigner than McCain and more conservative than Romney.
tom on February 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Well, I tried. Several days ago, I responded to a specific request from a not-Romney to defend my candidate. Not only did the not-Romney not respond to my defense, no one else did, either.
That’s O.K. I don’t expect anyone to pay any attention to me; I post for my own pleasure. But I have, for the last several weeks, posted many lengthy posts, complete with links and quotations, defending Romney’s record, or occasionally Paul’s; and debunking what I see as false or misleading claims by Gingrich and Santorum. Sometimes I include snark, and sometimes I don’t; I refrain from using terms like “Frothy”, which I find repellent. Rarely does a not-Romney respond to the substance of my posts.
At the top of this comment page, I have a post, made in response to Zaggs asking if there is verifiable proof that Santorum opposed TARP. According to work done by others on this question, the answer is that no, Santorum does not seem to have opposed TARP until 2010, two years after the fact. In 2008, there is nothing, except one small mention in which Santorum seems to be somewhat postitive about the issue.
No one has responded to that post. So, 29Victor, I ask you, in the spirit of informed debate, can you show me where Santorum condemned TARP before his 2010 CPAC speech, when he was already positioning himself to run for president? And no, the Club For Growth White Paper that says “Santorum opposed TARP” does not count.
Mr. Arkadin on February 24, 2012 at 10:24 PM
This actually makes me angry at Santorum. The race was never “down to Romney and McCain”. The day that Romney quit the 2008 race, there were three other candidates still running.
Santorum should have endorsed Huckabee, not Romney. To act like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul weren’t even in the race, and falsely claim that it was “down to Romney and McCain” is disingenous.
ITguy on February 24, 2012 at 10:26 PM
You’re really trying hard to set the narrative that a Romney loss in Michigan doesn’t mean anything. First you keep trying to say that it would only be because of Democrats trying to sabotage Romney by voting for Santorum. Then you argue that Michigan is not really Romney’s home state at all, even though it’s where Romney grew up and went to school.
You must be seeing some really bad internal polling for Romney in Michigan.
tom on February 24, 2012 at 10:27 PM
You are correct, sir.
ITguy on February 24, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Let’s look back 4 years, to events in February 2008:
February 5, 2008…
Less than 48 hours later he broke that promise, quit the race, and lied about his reasons for quitting…
He quit when he should have kept fighting. He lied when he claimed that his reasons for quitting had anything to do with terrorism.
And then a week after he quit, he “released” his delegates to McCain, in an effort to hand the nomination to him on a silver platter, while Mike Huckabee was still fighting on. Huckabee won one state’s primary with 60% of the vote after Romney quit. (Which means that it is not a given that McCain was going to win all primaries from there on out). Romney should have stayed in, like Huckabee and Ron Paul did, and McCain would have run out of public financing money. Without any money, McCain would likely have taken a nosedive.
Romney, Huckabe, and Paul didn’t have to reach 1191 pledged delegates. All they had to do was win enough of the remaining primaries to keep McCain from reaching 1191 pledged delegates, and it would have gone to a brokered convention, from which a candidate more conservative than McCain would have likely emerged.
Romney should have kept his word and kept fighting.
Instead, he broke his word, quit, lied about his reasons for quitting, and handed his delegates over to McCain.
That is why I cannot trust the man.
He sold out his integrity for a chance for it to be “his turn” in 2012.
ITguy on February 24, 2012 at 10:33 PM
So Rick Santorum was for Romney before he was against him, and against No Child Left Behind before he was for it. Were he & John Kerry separated at birth?
Dark Star on February 24, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Funny how I keep hearing this complaint from Romney supporters. Also a lot of whining and name calling about “True Conservatives.”
It’s almost like Romney is not conservative at all. So why don’t his supporters just admit that, rather than run down everyone else?
A lot of hatred for Rush Limbaugh, too. At least, I don’t normally interpret “pandering gasbag” to be a gentle statement of disagreement.
Jeb was a good governor, but he’s hardly above criticism, nor should he be.
So why do you hang out at a blog that makes you gnaw your liver?
tom on February 24, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Santorum is 100% correct.
I live in a state where Romney got over 60% of the vote in 2008 (Colorado). Like in many other states, Romney lost a ton of voters between 2008 and now. In my state, he ended up up with less than half the votes he got 4 years ago.
Why? People who thought he was the conservative alternative in 2008, have come to realize that Romney is a liberal who lied about his conservatism 4 years ago. I know tons of people who voted for Romney in 2008, but who switched to Santorum this time around. Many of them actually regret to have ever voted for Romney.
Norwegian on February 24, 2012 at 10:41 PM
No bones about it, a loss in Michigan would be a major setback for Romney, sure, but not a show-stopper. For one thing, as others have pointed out, Michigan has a great number of Democrats turning out to vote for Santorum in the Republican primary, which doesn’t exactly speak to Santorum’s chances in those states where Dems won’t be turning out to vote for him. For another, it’s going to go all the way to the wire. Gingrich may finally drop out for lack of funds, but Ron Paul is in it for as many delegates as he can capture, so there will probably not be the cohesive consolidation of Not Romney voters behind Santorum, at least not as much or as many Not Romneys as Santorum and his people hoped to get.
Finally, there’s Santorum himself. Only now is he finally receiving the attention befitting a frontrunner and so far he hasn’t done very well under the spotlight. He actually whines about negative advertising, complains about collusion between Romney and Ron Paul (which may or may not be true), and his wife chimes in with revelations about his candidacy as an expression of the will of God. And then, of course, there was Santorum bringing up–unbidden, unasked–his take on the evil of contraceptives.
Contraceptives. In the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this guy wants to talk about contraceptives.
I think Romney will pull it off in the end, garnering enough delegates to win. I also think Santorum’s support will fade as voters get a closer look at him under pressure. I personally think Santorum will start getting shrill and desperate. I don’t think he can take the heat. But hey, I could be wrong. We’ll see.
troyriser_gopftw on February 24, 2012 at 10:45 PM
I supported Perry based on his record as a governor. I was dismayed by his performance in the campaign, and believe that he was correct to drop out. Whether he would have been wiser to wait until he had fully recovered from back surgery, or whether his real problem was just hubris, it is now pointless to speculate.
Since then, I have confined myself to reading the posts/claims of others, researching them on my own, and then occasionally responding with what I think is useful information. Others frequently disagree. Full disclosure: I have in fact posted several defenses of Romney’s record, which is different than being a Romney supporter.
Anyway, I have seen just about everything in terms of invective, but from both sides. Personally, I have been called a “lying ass bastard”, a “Mittwit”, a “dKos infiltrator”, a “moron” and a “post modernist” for my troubles. And other than the insults, no one has ever responded to the facts that I have posted.
This is not to say that I am infallible or that Romney is The One, just that the problems you identify exist on both sides. Although I will at this point also note that the bulk of the insults from the Romney side seem to come from the same few socially-retarded members, while from the Santorum side they seem to be more widely dispersed.
Make of that what you will.
HTL on February 24, 2012 at 10:48 PM
A good many Romney supporters won’t insult people too much in his defense because they’re supporting him only as a bottom-of-the-barrel, last-ditch candidate.
But most of Santorum’s flock – the ones that are seriously rah-rah for him – share to some extent his fairy-floss fantasy of a return to the 50′s. And not necessarily the 1950′s either. Get in their way and they WILL open fire.
MelonCollie on February 24, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Ann Coulter is just using Rush and Levin as a prop in her latest column, without acknowledging there’s a difference in supporting Romney vs McCain/Huckabee and supporting ROmney vs Santorum or Gingrich. Neither Santorum or Gingrich has been perfect, but I think both are much more conservative than Romney’s opponents in 2008.
Dr. Tesla on February 24, 2012 at 11:26 PM
I don’t think Santorum should have said “Courage”, he should have said “Sincerity”, which is a specific form of courage that Romney clearly does not have.
Dr. Tesla on February 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Santorum wants to return to the 1950s because Dr. Charles K says so. Not because it’s true.
Dr. Tesla on February 24, 2012 at 11:32 PM
It’s interesting to see COulter attack Gingrich mostly because he commited adultery many years ago, but then she attacks Santorum for being too moral or something. You can’t win with this woman unless your name is Romney or Christie.
Dr. Tesla on February 24, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Romney supporters are correct when they bring up the fact that Reagan had his flaws and heresies too. But that’s actually an argument for voting for Santorum, not Romney, as Reagan was never as flawed as Romney.
Dr. Tesla on February 24, 2012 at 11:37 PM
A little hard to follow the logic on that one, Doc: neither Santorum nor Romney equal Reagan, therefore Santorum?
It’s been interesting to watch Not Romney supporters jump from one candidate to another, each in their turn: Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, and now Santorum. In each instance the Not Romneys tie themselves in tiny knots attempting to convince themselves that here at last is the conservative alternative to Mr. Inevitable. It’s true both Bachmann and Perry are more conservative than Romney, but it’s also true neither is ready for the White House. Cain’s was a vanity campaign, and Gingrich? Gingrich ran to the left of Romney on major issues such as immigration and AGW and has/had the bad habit of lying and dissembling and backtracking rather than just playing it straight.
Now it’s the turn of Rick Santorum, King of the Social Conservatives. Suddenly, social issue priorities and religiosity are major drivers for Not Romneys, who not so long ago kept downplaying Gingrich’s moral failings, saying, ‘We’re not trying to elect a Pope.’ Now with Santorum, it looks like we might just get one.
I don’t think Romney is the perfect candidate but I do think he’s the most qualified and most electable of the candidates still standing. Romney has private sector leadership experience. None of the others do–and no, influence peddling, lobbying, and writing racist newsletters for a million bucks a year don’t count. Romney’s served as a Governor, so he has public sector leadership experience, as well. Gingrich, as Speaker of the House, also held a public leadership position but also managed to alienate the daylights out of everyone with whom he came in contact and, when he was Speaker, was polled as the most disliked public figure in the United States.
And so on. Most of you see it as well as I do but don’t like the idea of an inevitable nominee and especially don’t like the idea of a candidate being forced down your throats by those whom you call the ‘Establishment Elites’, the rich donors and Beltway insiders comprising what constitutes the leadership caste of the GOP. News: both Gingrich and Santorum are part of that leadership caste. No one could call either a Washington outsider.
I’m a Republican and I want to win and I know in my bones neither Gingrich or Santorum can mount a successful, winning campaign against President Obama. I’m not saying Romney’s a sure thing. I’m saying he’s the best chance we’ve got. You play the cards you’re dealt.
troyriser_gopftw on February 25, 2012 at 1:05 AM
It is 2:02 Pm. I issued my response, and challenge, to 29Victor at 10:24 PM. So far no response. Fight like a girl was the not-Romney I mentioned in my post. I suspect that he/she/it saw my post, as he/she/it last challenged we Rombots to defend Romney at 9:06 PM, but there was no response from he/she/it. Dr. Tesla posted five pointless attacks on the Rombots from 11:26 PM to 11:37 PM. He must have read my post, but failed to come to 29Victor’s rescue and show a time before Santorum’s 2010 CPAC speech where Santorum condemned TARP.
Either the not-Romneys here read threads as badly as Ed and Tina read polls, or they fall far short of their own miserable rhetoric.
Thank you, and have a good night.
Mr. Arkadin on February 25, 2012 at 2:18 AM
Fool me once shame on me…that is kind of how I feel about Hot Air.
I used to think that the folks here were serious and objective…no more.
Rick Santorum supported Romney in 2008 because it benefited him to do it..now it does not. Rick always does what benefits Rick and screw the truth.
Rick Santorum is a go along get along politician who finally got his ass handed to him in his own state because the people there were tired of him and his self aggrandizing preachiness.
His record is not that conservative, especially on issues such as immigration and big labor. Now people can ignore that just because he is not Romney, but that will change the fact that the man is a peevish and sanctimonious little busy body who likes to run people’s for them while he lines his pockets.
Terrye on February 25, 2012 at 7:17 AM
Hypocrites..plain and simple..Santorum and Levin and Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham did not say that Mitt sucks but he does not suck as bad as McCain…oh noooo, Rush said he was a full spectrum conservative and Santorum said he was the man and Levin said he shared his conservative principles
The truth is there are some people who just want to trash the guy they think is the GOP front runner, they want to lose. I can not think of any other explanation for the back stabbing, flip flopping, hypocricy, unhinged hatred and in general stupidity that has fueled much of the anti Romney hatred out there, especially among the folks who have never run anything but their mouths.
Terrye on February 25, 2012 at 7:22 AM
Um, given McCain or Romney I think I’d prefer Romney. So Santorum’s endorsement of the lesser of two prime grade number one RINOs makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? Besides, in 2008 it was McCain declaring it was his turn, or at least using that tone when speaking. In 2012 Romney has decided it’s his turn and we’d better play fair and select him. We have some honest to God (almost) non-RINOs to choose from this time. We should choose a RINO? Not not not.
{^_^}
herself on February 25, 2012 at 7:25 AM
Santorum didn’t say, “Well, I guess since it has come down to McCain and Romney I am going to have to go with Romney”. His endorsement was whole-hearted. I saw those You Tube clips of Santorum’s 2008 endorsement. I saw the enthusiasm he showed. I remember him on talk radio in 2008 telling the hosts how terrific Romney was. Now he does this “Fool me once” bit. The only fools are the ones who believe Santorum today. What a flip-flopper this guy is, huh.
kurtd on February 25, 2012 at 8:12 AM
Specter on Santorum:
Santorum lied. The conversation never happened.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/specter-conversation-santorum-cited-never-happened-video/
mountainaires on February 25, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Thank you for sharing this link. I hadn’t seen that video.
Sadly, you are doing a job that the HotAir bloggers should be doing.
Ed Morrissey and Tina Korbe seem more interested in making excuses for Rick Santorum than thoroughly vetting him and taking a close look at unelectable Rick Santorum’s history of bigotry. Allahpundit just weakly whines about everyone and everything, of course, and never takes much of a strong stance on anything… so he isn’t included in this case.
bluegill on February 25, 2012 at 9:33 AM
That Specter story hit about 1030 AM yesterday. Also, to be fair, there was a big story out of Boston yesterday trashing Romney’s claim about morning after pills being provided “voluntarily” by the Catholic Church in MA.
Both are major stories, and deserve detailed posts. Instead, we got Allah P on Romney’s cars. Ugh.
Mr. Arkadin on February 25, 2012 at 10:56 AM
LOL, Mittbots using Arlen Specter as a character witness…. That’s rich
Of Specter would never admit this conversation took place. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, and his confirmation votes in the Senate suggests it did.
Norwegian on February 25, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Santorum on LIMITED GOVERNMENT:
“I Don’t believe in it!”
Opus Dei advocates the melding of religious beliefs and politics. Santorum says he’s not a “member” of Opus Dei, but he frequently attends Opus Dei gatherings, and he supports Opus Dei icons, and he frequently uses language that reflects the tenets of Opus Dei.
The Tea Party movement was supposed to represent “fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets,” as the Tea Party Patriots’ credo put it; In that same talk in Harrisburg, Santorum said, “I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”
http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/14/santorum-is-severely-wrong
Santorum Doesn’t Believe in Freedom.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/291235/why-newts-biggest-donor-so-opposed-santorum
mountainaires on February 25, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Even National Review is getting EMBARRASSED OVER SANTO’s IDIOCY.
The Devil and Rick Santorum
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291839/devil-and-rick-santorum-editors
How Opus Dei Influenced Rick Santorum
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/opus-dei/47349/
Rick Santorum and Opus Dei
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-opus-dei/
mountainaires on February 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM
I want to win too, and you won’t win without a candidate that most conservatives are for. You are much more liberal than you want to admit if you support Romney at this point.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM
National Review has been in the tank for Romney the entire campaign. To pretend they are objective political analysts is absurd. That publication is a joke under Rich Lowry’s tenure.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 1:41 PM
Romney and Romney supporters don’t do things that benefit them…everything they do is to give Testimony to Capitalism and Free Markets,, except that RomneyCare thing, but that was done at the state level therefore it’s ok. This is the stupid logic of the ROmney campaign and his zombie supporters.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 1:53 PM
“And, NOOOOW, presenting – from the State of Pensylvaniaaaaa…..
The Honorable Arlen R, Sphincter!!!!!”
williamg on February 25, 2012 at 2:50 PM
That’s because you left the ONE PERSON in the race WORTH supporting OFF of your list:
Sarah Palin.
williamg on February 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM
Endorsing Romney and Specter? The devil made him do it.
EddieC on February 25, 2012 at 4:26 PM
But Slick Rick isn’t exactly Scout’s Honor either. I think His attacks on Mitt haven’t been anything to change one’s vote over. I think that Sanctorum is far mo more low with his attacks that Mitt has been toward him.
There’s a kind of sanctimonious undertone whenever he talks about politics that will not win him the elelction no matter how straight an arrow he is.
flataffect on February 27, 2012 at 6:38 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2