Outrageous outrage: “I don’t care what the unemployment rate is going to be,” says Santorum

posted at 9:33 pm on March 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

The clip comes from Team Mitt, which has taken enough cheap shots from the Democrats and media quoting Romney out of context (most infamously when he said he liked being able to fire people) that apparently it felt it was justified pulling this edit on Santorum. The full quote, conveniently omitted here:

“We need a candidate who’s going to be a fighter for freedom. Who’s going to get up and make that the central theme in this race because it is the central theme in this race,” Santorum told a crowd of about 200 voters during a rally here on Monday. “I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be. Doesn’t matter to me. My campaign doesn’t hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates. It’s something more foundational that’s going on.”

“I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be” is an exceptionally dumb way to make your point in the age of ubiquitous video editing software and YouTube, and Romney took full advantage in his own stump speech later today. But Santorum obviously didn’t mean that he doesn’t care about the unemployment rate in the abstract. He meant that, unlike Romney, his vision for the country is bigger than whatever the most important issue at this particular moment happens to be. Dave Weigel elaborates:

I’ve heard Santorum make this point in other speeches. Roughly: Mitt Romney can only win if the economy is lousy. I, a full-spectrum conservative, can win in any situation. Juanna Summers, a Politico embed on the Santorum campaign, clipped another line from this speech: “My campaign doesn’t hinge on unempoyment rates and growth rates.” Santorum’s meaning is pretty obvious. You can disagree with the theory that a guy who lost his last race by 18 points, when the economy wasn’t an issue, can more easily defeat Barack Obama than Mitt Romney. But that’s a different point than “the unemployment rate doesn’t matter to me.”…

The Romney campaign is attempting to press its rapid-response advantage, because the Santorum campaign isn’t ready to push back on this, and the media generally moves quickly enough for the bogus version of this quote (complete with a Romney campaign version of the clip) to traffic everywhere. It’s a meta-story, as if there were any other kind of story these days — Republicans should nominate the guy who can punch quickly, not the guy who brags about not needing a teleprompter and as a result can be easily taken out of context.

It’s also a way for Romney to try to pigeonhole Santorum as a niche “values” candidate for the benefit of undecideds who might be leery of all the time spent lately on social issues. Watch the clip and see for yourself: Why, Team Sweater Vest is so consumed with contraception and battling pornography that he doesn’t care about unemployment by his own admission! That’s what they want voters to take away, replete with Mitt sonorously reminding audiences at his town halls that he, of course, cares deeply about unemployment. On the other hand, Santorum’s attacks on Romney have gotten so sharp that he’s now taken to repeating Axelrod/Plouffe talking points about how Mitt has no “core.” You might see the clip of him saying that on CBS this morning in a Democratic ad or two this fall. They’re both fighting bareknuckle now.

I don’t want to leave you without an eyebrow-raising Santorum video, though, so watch the second one (via BuzzFeed) from 2008 for a quickie refresher on why libertarians loathe, loathe, loathe him.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Frankly, I am a bit surprise at this attempted attack on Santorum given this piece from today’s WSJ. Here is the money quote;

CHICAGO—An improving job market is prompting Mitt Romney to scrap his emphasis on the unemployment rate and to focus on rising gas prices and government regulation as evidence that President Barack Obama has mismanaged the economy.

Granted, it is the writers stating that Romney is going to deemphasize unemployment- but since when is 8% such a laudable rate? Does Romney’s team not realize there are still a record number of people out of work, record numbers completely out of the job market and people have suffered for years due to the economic policies of this President? Does Team Romney believe the Obama hype that somehow things are getting…better in some type of sustainable way?

Ugh. If that is the case- what a bunch of complete morons.

It’s the economy stupid.

Gas prices are subject to many factors and could turn on a dime. That’s a bit more ethereal jerks. Stop reading the freaking polls.

Marcus Traianus on March 20, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Even with the added context, it’s still a knucklehead statement and a campaign killer. Does Santorum have a tin ear?

What a commercial this is.

jan3 on March 20, 2012 at 7:50 AM

I thought the contraception thing was supposed to be a “campaign killer”. But it would appear as if Romney’s going to have to keep pumping moolah into negative ads until June.

ddrintn on March 20, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Stop reading the freaking polls.

Marcus Traianus on March 20, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Mitt and his ‘bots not reading the polls? Not in this universe.

ddrintn on March 20, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Does Romney’s team not realize there are still a record number of people out of work, record numbers completely out of the job market and people have suffered for years due to the economic policies of this President? Does Team Romney believe the Obama hype that somehow things are getting…better in some type of sustainable way?

The complete morons are those who buy this narrative. You have to be pretty stupid to think someone who has amassed a $1/4 billion fortune using his brains is … somehow stupid.

Basilsbest on March 20, 2012 at 7:57 AM

I thought the contraception thing was supposed to be a “campaign killer”. But it would appear as if Romney’s going to have to keep pumping moolah into negative ads until June.

ddrintn on March 20, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Who said “the contraception thing” was a campaign killer? Not me. This is. Romney made no commercials about contraception. He’ll make one about this, bet on it.

jan3 on March 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM

ddrintn on March 20, 2012 at 7:44 AM

.
The Rominator’s comment was ALL about a focus of his campaign on the MIDDLE CLASS- not the rich and not the poor- and that type of effective comment is long overdue. But you didn’t even hear the middle class part of that comment because liberal media and OWSers like yourself cannot let a Rep even think about being concerned with the middle class. You aid the commies on the left with your mitt hate.

FlaMurph on March 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Even with the added context, it’s still a knucklehead statement and a campaign killer. Does Santorum have a tin ear?

What a commercial this is.

jan3 on March 20, 2012 at 7:50 AM

If Rick Santorum doesn’t win today in Illinois, then he ought to drop out for the good of the party and the good of the country. The longer Rick Santorum stays in this thing, the more he is helping Obama’s chances of reelection. The prolonged Republican in-fighting is only driving up the negative ratings of the Republican candidates.

Rick Santorum has ZERO chance of winning the nomination (it’s a near mathematical impossibility at this point), and we all know that the social issues extremist Rick Santorum as the nominee would all but guarantee a Barack Obama landslide election victory.

Rick Santorum, your 15 minutes are up. It’s time to leave the stage. Rick, you need to think about more than just your ego.

As a conservative Republican who wants Obama defeated, I call on Rick Santorum to drop out of the race. It is time for us to unite in our effort to remove Barack Obama from office.

bluegill on March 20, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Too damn bad we don’t have any politicians out there savvy enough to figure this out.

gryphon202 on March 20, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Are you sure it’s the people running for office and not the voters who are [not] savvy enough?

DevilsPrinciple on March 20, 2012 at 4:49 AM

Whether the pols dumbed down the voters or vice versa is a chicken-or-egg question I don’t care to get into here. I have been saying for months that I believe we deserve another four years of Obama. But then again, I’m not entirely sure there’s anything left of “America” worth saving.

gryphon202 on March 20, 2012 at 8:16 AM

As a conservative Republican who wants Obama defeated, I call on Rick Santorum to drop out of the race. It is time for us to unite in our effort to remove Barack Obama from office.

bluegill on March 20, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Santorum should drop out immediately and endorse Romney again, just like he did in 2008.

jan3 on March 20, 2012 at 8:16 AM

As a conservative Republican who wants Obama defeated, I call on Rick Santorum to drop out of the race. It is time for us to unite in our effort to remove Barack Obama from office.

bluegill on March 20, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Listen to yourself. As things stand now, Obama has to do oppo reasearch on three candidates — only one of whom will end up with the nomination. Do you really want to make the media’s job as hatchet men any easier? There are pros and cons to a drawn out primary, but it’s not the doomsday scenario rombots paint it as.

gryphon202 on March 20, 2012 at 8:17 AM

“With the economy looking like it’s getting a little better on the employment front, gasoline’s getting a lot worse,” Mr. Romney told a crowd at a town-hall meeting Sunday in Vernon Hills, Ill.

For the record, I happen to believe Romney is the best candidate. But these types of statements (which are somewhat out of context given the plurality of his speech)make me think he is either drinking the kool-aid or inhaling second hand ganja from the staff.

Why in the name of Gaia would you concede anything on the single biggest issue of this election? To show you are an…optimist? Apolitical?

Really, someone will have to tell me what is so optimistic? This is the kind of over-thinking political, poll-reading stupidity that loses races. Idiots.

Marcus Traianus on March 20, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Listen to yourself. As things stand now, Obama has to do oppo reasearch on three candidates — only one of whom will end up with the nomination. Do you really want to make the media’s job as hatchet men any easier? There are pros and cons to a drawn out primary, but it’s not the doomsday scenario rombots paint it as.

gryphon202 on March 20, 2012 at 8:17 AM

That’s funny. What a stretch. Maybe we should all donate to Santorum – for the good of the party.

jan3 on March 20, 2012 at 8:26 AM

As things stand now, Obama has to do oppo reasearch on three candidates — only one of whom will end up with the nomination. Do you really want to make the media’s job as hatchet men any easier?

gryphon202 on March 20, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Republicans trying to tear down other Republicans is what’s making the media’s job easier.

A tough primary campaign season has benefits… up to a point. We have passed that point, and it’s hard to see any benefit to keeping this thing going, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS ONLY ONE CANDIDATE REMAINING WHO CAN SECURE THE 1144 DELEGATES.

bluegill on March 20, 2012 at 8:26 AM

By the way- what’s the next statement we expect to hear from Team Romney? Oh wait, here is is…

Well, with existing home purchases rising, it appears things are looking up in the housing market, but the foreclosure situation is getting a lot worse.

Huh? Talk about walking the razors edge.

Marcus Traianus on March 20, 2012 at 8:30 AM

“I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be. Doesn’t matter to me. My campaign doesn’t hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates. It’s something more foundational that’s going on.”

Oookay. Lemme get this straight. That^^ is taking Santorum “out of context”, but when Romney makes a factually correct statement that “Presidents can’t precisely set the price of oil”, followed by a detailed statement about what Obama should do to increase oil supply, it’s time for Hot Air to allege Romney said Presidents have no affect whatsoever on the price of oil.

Methinks Hot Air has become an alternate universe.

Buy Danish on March 20, 2012 at 8:36 AM

There are pros and cons to a drawn out primary, but it’s not the doomsday scenario rombots paint it as.
gryphon202 on March 20, 2012 at 8:17 AM

.
.
Your point of having multiple targets is a valid one- but…… when the ABRs get a little crazy and give the leftists the chance to change the entire landscape with a “War on women”- crap., yada yada……It’s very detracting of the correct argument.. So while multiple candidates should be an advantage- it’s probably a loser if focus is not on oblamer policy, and gets lost in the woods looking for free condoms.

FlaMurph on March 20, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Granted, it is the writers stating that Romney is going to deemphasize unemployment- but since when is 8% such a laudable rate? Does Romney’s team not realize there are still a record number of people out of work, record numbers completely out of the job market and people have suffered for years due to the economic policies of this President? Does Team Romney believe the Obama hype that somehow things are getting…better in some type of sustainable way?

Ugh. If that is the case- what a bunch of complete morons.

It’s the economy stupid.

Gas prices are subject to many factors and could turn on a dime. That’s a bit more ethereal jerks. Stop reading the freaking polls.

Marcus Traianus on March 20, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Too many people buy into what the MSM SAYS that these candidates beliefs are…How many people know that Romney NEVER said “Let Detroit go Bankrupt”? That was the editors that gave the article that headline. So whether it is Romney, RS, Gingrich, etc we need to be a little more savvy in remembering that the MSM does not want to paint ANY of our candidates in a positive light.

Some above comments state why doesn’t Romney or RS concentrate on such and such topic…well, they are in their campaign stops. But the headline that SELLS is the one line out of a 20-30 minute speech on the economy that gets the headlines! C’mon people, we need to be a little more on the ball and realize what the MSM is doing to ALL of OUR candidates. :o)

g2825m on March 20, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Santorum only care about porn and women out of the kitchens (those criminals).

Falz on March 20, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Does Romney’s team not realize there are still a record number of people out of work, record numbers completely out of the job market and people have suffered for years due to the economic policies of this President? Does Team Romney believe the Obama hype that somehow things are getting…better in some type of sustainable way?

The complete morons are those who buy this narrative. You have to be pretty stupid to think someone who has amassed a $1/4 billion fortune using his brains is … somehow stupid.
Basilsbest on March 20, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Actually sounds like a wise setup for a slamdunk narrative; “the economy was struggling to make a comeback, but Obama killed it.”. Romney knows as well as anyone that higher energy prices have a domino effect on the economy as a whole. There’s the immediate shock at the pumps, but the overall rise in cost of living takes months to really sink in.

whatcat on March 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM

the squishy Mittbots scream out …..


Social values?………..ahhhhhhhhhhh

Meanwhile, how are we to survive as a Republic when we have millions lining up to milk the system for whatever “freebies” they can get? The African American family is a GREAT SOCIETY ravaged ruin of it’s once mighty self. And yet the left continues to embrace destroying that social value.

Meanwhile, how are we to survive as a Republic when we have radical feminists, etc. working on destroying every thing that resembles normal (5,000 years plus of recorded history) family lives? And yet this left group continues to embrace destroying that social value.

Meanwhile…….day after day the left continues to embrace destroying traditional, nation building social values. But Conservatives must remain silent?

No more.

PappyD61 on March 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Considering the way Santorum completely misrepresented “bi-national health insurance” at Perry’s first debate, I’d say this is a case of what goes around comes around.

Caiwyn on March 20, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Romney is just another obama – This sort of misleading and dishonest campaigning is Romney’s hallmark.

Pork-Chop on March 20, 2012 at 9:05 AM

In 1992 the economy was showing improvement STATISTICALLY but the mood of the country was bad and Clinton kept hammering on the economy.

Its still the ECONOMY.

whether its unemployment rate,long term unemployment,a massive deficit etc. Obama’s not going to tackle it but make it worse.

My opinion is the heartless turn around artist-Romney-is the best
answer

gerry-mittbot

gerrym51 on March 20, 2012 at 9:06 AM

“I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be” is an exceptionally dumb way to make your point in the age of ubiquitous video editing software and YouTube,

Translation: it’s so easy to lie these days, why resist? Yeah, because replacing the lying suckmaster currently in the WH with his Cloroxed twin brother is just what the country needs.

SDN on March 20, 2012 at 9:08 AM

The Santorum quote sounds like what he was saying when he was the boring 5th candidate on the stage that nobody wanted.

He was running only on social values and was a target for the debate hosts for any manner of stupid social question.

The idea that the economy has to be suffering even more for Romney to win is nutty, the problems we have right now are enough to need major surgery on the federal government. Obama’s new normal is NOT the kind of growth that will fix this country.

Obama himself is the reason to vote for the Republican candidate.

Fleuries on March 20, 2012 at 9:11 AM

If Rick Santorum doesn’t win today in Illinois, then he ought to drop out for the good of the party and the good of the country.
bluegill on March 20, 2012 at 8:04 AM

That is one school of thought Bluegill. The other is to take it to the convention to keep the Dems from being able to concentrate their attacks on just one person.
If Romney takes Ill. he will win the nomination. All other discussion otherwise is hopeful thinking on the part of a few.

FireBlogger on March 20, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Notorious “mittbot” Newt Gingrich on Santy’s record:

The leadership of the Rick Santorum Republicans proved disastrous:

The Rick Santorum Republicans never passed a single balanced budget, after inheriting balanced budgets and record surpluses. They racked up $1.7 trillion in deficits and increased the average number of earmarks by almost 500 percent. The Senator even voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.

The Rick Santorum Republicans increased the national debt by 12 percent and voted to raise the debt ceiling five times to accommodate it—even while dealing with a president of their own party.

The Senator voted with Democrats and Big Labor to defeat the National Right to Work Act of 1995. He justifies this vote saying he was representing Pennsylvania where forced unionization is the law but today, PA Senator Toomey is cosponsoring nearly identical legislation.

cicerone on March 20, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Talk about taking things out of context, this one is surly an “out of context” award winner.

Here is video of the full event, those comments come in at around the 34 minute mark. But the speech is well worth listening to in full.

http://electad.com/videos/rick-santorum-campaign-rally-in-moline-illinois-march-19-2012/

Santorum’s speech begins at 4:30

Sheya on March 20, 2012 at 9:16 AM

It’s also a way for Romney to try to pigeonhole Santorum as a niche “values” candidate for the benefit of undecideds who might be leery of all the time spent lately on social issues.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble [or challenge your delusion!] but SANTORUM IS A NICHE ‘VALUES” CANDIDATE!!

His “voting bloc” amounts to hard-core evangelicals; his voters comprise 35% of voters who call themselves “very conservative.” Got that? Only 35% of those “very conservative” voters even support him. The others cast their votes for either Gingrich, Paul, or Romney.

In Alabama and Mississippi, over 70% of the voters were white Evangelicals. Yet Santorum carried just 35% and 33% of the total vote in these two states respectively, versus Romney’s 29% and 30%. Evangelicals – and cynical crossover Democrats – have proven to be Santorum’s only reliable constituency. Their influence may have peaked however as they exceed 50% of the GOP electorate in only a handful of remaining states.

This isn’t NEW. It’s the reason Santorum lost his Senate seat in PA, too:

Santorum’s “reputation in Congress as a fiscal conservative and a scrappy partisan helped him, but his blunt talk about hot-button social issues – abortion rights and same-sex marriage, his high profile efforts to keep alive Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman – tended to alienate Pennsylvania voters and made him a target for criticism inside and outside the Capitol.”

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/03/15/3823253/spin-meter-santorum-downplays.html#storylink=cpy

Here’s what we are up against. Santorum simply can not compete.

http://patdollard.com/2012/03/obama-to-pull-9-aircraft-from-air-force-to-add-to-personal-fleet/

mountainaires on March 20, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Obama himself is the reason to vote for the Republican candidate.

Fleuries on March 20, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Yes. You know it. I know it. But the deranged concern trolls who insist that Romney = Obama have become addicted to the drama of going rogue and detonating the GOP in some bizarre attempt to “punish” the mythical and as-yet-undefined “establishment.”

cicerone on March 20, 2012 at 9:21 AM

cicerone on March 20, 2012 at 9:15 AM

In defense of Rick Santorum(i am not for Santorum and think he would be a terrible president)

911 DID HAPPEN. It’s amazing to me that critics never seem to remember this.Remember how you felt when you saw people juming to their deaths from the burning towers.

Our leaders mad a lot of decisions because of this.We spent a lot of money.

Were all the decisons correct-in hindsight probably not

but 911 did happen

gerrym51 on March 20, 2012 at 9:25 AM

It matters not who says what, when, when it comes to the most important reason of all to eliminate (politically)the left from power.
We’d have to be the most myopic idiots ever to throw away our freedom for another short period of good times, and that is what the left really wants to deprive of us of -permanently.

Money obsession, is just one of the foul symptoms of their successful “diabolical” agenda(yes that means Satan – their work certainly isn’t influenced by God)

Once again, the soviets had jobs, The Nazies had jobs, the Japanese had jobs, the Chi-coms have jobs, the East German Vopoes had jobs, the North Koreans had jobs, the fascists Italians had jobs, but we are too blind to see that it is our very freedom they really wish to take away (that concience/guns/inalienable rights thing) -and they have planned and are suceeding in that by first dividing us by groups and then reducing us to cultural rot, greedy, envious, sex and drug addicts, eco-worshipping, materialistic, hedonistic, victimized, government servants, and not the least – pro-death – God haters.

All this has been accomplished, with our too-willing complicity. Only the diabolically trained left could know our real weaknesses so well -but fallen mankind is their business.

Don L on March 20, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Blech, Romney leaves such a bad tast in my mouth. God help us if he’s the nominee and we WILL lose. But we’ll pull the lever for him if that’s the case, but there’s still time to stop that train wreck and Rick is doing very well with no money and against the slime machine (you’d think it was a democrat) that’s the Romney campaign.

mozalf on March 20, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I am moving from paul to *puke* romney now. I also going to disconnect from politics a bit. this primary disappointed me and my only happiness is seeing the social conservatives being defeated by a flip flopping uncharismatic Massachusetts republican.
mitt is such a fake that i cannot seriously defend him online. I leave that for the bots. he will have my vote come november and that is all.

nathor on March 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I am moving from paul to *puke* romney now. I also going to disconnect from politics a bit. this primary disappointed me and my only happiness is seeing the social conservatives being defeated by a flip flopping uncharismatic Massachusetts republican.

mitt is such a fake that i cannot seriously defend him online. I leave that for the bots. he will have my vote come november and that is all.

nathor on March 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Welcome aboard. Its about time

gerry-mittbot-cruise organizer

gerrym51 on March 20, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Romney has already won the nomination. All the non-romney’s just want to see him sweat cause they just can’t let it go.

rubberneck on March 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Richard Sanctimonious loves him some big government,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ&feature=g-all-lik&context=G27968aaFAAAAAAAACAA

Gunlock Bill on March 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I say let the Republican primary freaking play out!

I read all these entreaties for Santorum to drop out and I ponder, hey, people, it’s only March here in the swamps of Delaware.

There’s a primary system and it’s for a reason.

First, to nominate someone, natch. But second, we learn a bit about the candidates do we not?

Like Romney using this silly sound byte to make it look like Santorum doesn’t care about unemployment. Some of us were born at night, but not LAST NIGHT!

The President or nominee will always care about that unemployment percentage. AP correctly stated that obviously, save those of us born last night, Santorum meant he had bigger and better things to tackle….we get this. I’m not sure who Romney’s trying to fool, maybe the Democrats?

patfish on March 20, 2012 at 10:29 AM

the daily beast has article today. HOW rick got rolled at missouri caucus.
I could not get link to work

gerrym51 on March 20, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Unforced errors much?

rightConcept on March 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM

We need a candidate who’s going to be a fighter for freedom.

What a load of crap from a Christian Sharia law wannabe.

Freedom for who? Our entire lives would be regulated by the govt if Santorum had his way.

Oh, Rick and his kind would be free. No one ever tell a socon how to do something. A law for me and a law for thee.

Moesart on March 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM

If we don’t move to Newt… Romney we get Obama… how many more stupid things does Santorum need to say before you believe your own ears

georgealbert on March 20, 2012 at 7:39 AM

Fixed it for you.

You are welcome.

Gunlock Bill on March 20, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Santorum is smart enough to realize his campaign is nearly finished. He is also enough of a proven GOP team player that he will soon withdraw and endorse Romney. Gingrich, not so much.

Personally, I would rather that withdrawal/endorsement occur before the Louisiana primary (where polls say Santorum is likely to win), so that Mittens can potentially win at least one southern primary, but it’s understandable if Santorum decides to do it afterwards, in order to increase his clout on the platform.

Santorum is a big-government guy, so I’m very happy to see him go, but I’m equivocal about a Romney win. Ryan seems to like him, which I take as a positive, but I am really hoping Tea Party Congresspeople start running more of the show over the next four years and I am going to watch judicial nominations like a hawk.

Mostly, I just want to see the ugly Marxist creep show that is the modern day Democrat Party recede away as a daily threat!

MTF on March 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM

No one ever tell a socon how to do something. A law for me and a law for thee.

Moesart on March 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Methinks perhaps thou protests at who they worship. Say it, for gosh sakes -stop blaming His followers. It becomes so transparent, to despise goodness like that.

Their hypocrisy, imagined or otherwise, doesn’t make their faith or their moral statements wrong -which one is it that so many anti-social-cons really despise?

Don L on March 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I think we need to forge a “new morality” of some sort… because to hear the current social arguments in the media, it’s like we’re either trying to destroy all social virtues or forcing everyone to conform to an archaic order. The vast majority of those on the left are not anarchists that want illegitimate teenagers collecting unemployment/welfare and smoking crack and copulating in public… and at the same time, most social-cons are not reactionary warmongers that want to officially conform federal/state/municipal law to the Bible’s rules, banish gays and other “undesirables” from the public eye, and force women to look like they’re straight out of “Little House On The Prairie”.

I personally feel we need a strong base of moral values to keep our precious freedoms preserved, one of individual liberty, personal responsibility, decent standards of decorum (that are decided by – and vary by – local communities… what’s good for a small mountain Mormon-dominant town isn’t necessarily good for a clothing-optional beach village and vice versa), and mutual civility. The extreme left needs to realize that you can’t have everything handed to you, you can’t take guns away from people and tell them they should depend on the police to stop someone breaking into their houses, and you can’t fine or imprison someone for making an offensive statement in a book or talk show.

At the same time, the extreme right needs to realize that there are plenty of conservative same-sex couples out there raising perfectly healthy and well-rounded families, and that the vast majority of Americans find nothing objectionable to skin bared above the bustline or below the lower thigh. (Remember, most brides are wearing strapless bridal gowns to church weddings these days.) If we could forge a common 21st-century morality along these lines and adhere to it, this country would be better off.

Then again, I’m probably considered part of the “squishy” middle that won’t go along to get along on either side, so my voice will most likely get drowned out. :P

TMOverbeck on March 20, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be. Doesn’t matter to me. My campaign doesn’t hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates. It’s something more foundational that’s going on.”

Sorry Rick fans, even in context, this is one major gaffe.

I don’t want to leave you without an eyebrow-raising Santorum video, though, so watch the second one (via BuzzFeed) from 2008 for a quickie refresher on why libertarians loathe, loathe, loathe him.

Libertarians aren’t the only ones that dislike Santorum’s past record and his ridiculous comments ie that second video. Rick has a problem with the Tea Party and conservatives that are in the smaller govt camp; they have a big problem with Rick being a ‘team’ player on the big govt establishment team.

IndeCon on March 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM

At this point, it simply doesn’t matter what Santorum says.

I can’t think of a Presidential candidate that has made so many outrageous statements in all my life, from wanting to make married Protestants who use birth control a campaign issue, calling mainline Protestants non-Christians, to now saying he doesn’t care what the unemployment rate is.

There’s around 30% of the GOP that hates Romney so much that they’re willing to vote for a guy that doesn’t have a prayer against Obama.

It’s not ideological, it’s personal and it’s petty.

If you hate Romney, fine, but field a candidate that we can actually beat Obama with.

BradTank on March 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM

If we don’t move to Newt…we get Obama… how many more stupid things does Santorum need to say before you believe your own ears

georgealbert on March 20, 2012 at 7:39 AM

I agree; Newt is the only candidate that stands a chance against Obama.

The establishment big money machine/media is powerful though. I’d rather see a brokered convention than a Romney nom. Time for a third conservative party.

IndeCon on March 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM

yeah keep beating the Newt drum, he’ll keep in the race. He won’t blow up and promise moon bases promise!

Zekecorlain on March 20, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Even in context, the quote really isn’t any better… at least not for any small government Tea party or libertarian person. He seems to be saying that he doesn’t care about the unemployment because he believes if we solve what he perceives as the “foundational” issues in our society, then all the other stuff like unemployment will fix itself. In other words, if we all conform to his view of society, then all the economy and all the other issues will magically fix themselves.

It doesn’t sound any better in context, nor does it really change all that much in context.

gravityman on March 20, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Romney is just another obama – This sort of misleading and dishonest campaigning is Romney’s hallmark.

Pork-Chop on March 20, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Except when Santorum does it. Remember “I’m not concerned about the very poor” and “I like being able to fire people”, two verbal gaffes of Romney’s that Santorum clownishly pounced on?

jan3 on March 20, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Santorum in 2008 saying to our credit GOP not the party of small govt anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ

In 1993, Republicans were up in arms about a health care reform bill spearheaded by Hillary Clinton and pushed by President Bill Clinton. Republicans decried the measure as excessive government intervention in the marketplace, and Santorum opposed the legislation. But his position was not so clear-cut.

During that fiery debate, Santorum said it would be a mistake to allow the delivery of health care services to be determined only by the market. He asserted that Republicans were “wrong” to let the marketplace decide how health care works. He instead argued that government should play a “proactive” role in shaping the health care marketplace “to make it work better.” (Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley did not respond to requests for comment.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2855093/posts

In 2005, when Banking Committee Republicans were trying to tighten the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Santorum pushed to include language in the legislation that would strengthen their affordable-housing goals.

“We’re very concerned about making sure that we do things in working with this legislation to improve the access to affordable housing,” Santorum said during a July 28, 2005 hearing on the Senate bill.

http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_6/Rick-Santorum-Fannie-Mae-Freddie-Mac-1045542-1.html

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/16/santorum-ban-gambling/

The romney campaign has committed political malpractice. Santorum is a ultra big govt fraud and yet I keep reading from voters in articles how they like him because he is for limited govt. Just today conservatives are taking his comments about unemployment and saying he is about freedom.

The romney campaign has focused on lightweight and earmarks.

Hit Santorum where it hurts and shows him for the fraud he is. Hit him saying how good it is the gop isn’t for limited govt.

Santorum has a huge benefit that he looks like he is for small govt when that is not the case at all.

Until the Romney campaign exposes santorum for the big govt fraud the campaign will go on and on and on.

ryandan on March 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Damn, that 2008 Santorum video is the real smoking gun! This guy is no more conservative than Romney is.

netster007x on March 20, 2012 at 3:29 PM

His “context” doesn’t help. It just makes him look ignorant about economics. It was a stupid thing to say, and it’s been my problem with him all along. He should be making reviving the economy the main focus and if he thinks Romney doesn’t care about liberty he’s showing himself to be a twit. The free market doesn’t function without freedom and we can’t prosper without cutting burdens like taxes and regulations. He’s blowing smoke. Most people don’t want the government involved in the issues he seems worried about, whether abortion, contraception whatever, pro or con. I’m against abortion, but I think it has to be a matter of persuasion and changing our hearts, not government mandates. We need to back government out of all our entitlements with all deliberate speed, but without leaving people without the help they’ve planned their lives around. It’s a hard lesson, but our people need to learn to plan their affairs without counting on government handouts. They could do it if they weren’t being overtaxed for government “services.”

flataffect on March 20, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4