Angry Santorum: I never said I’d vote for Obama over Romney!

posted at 6:00 pm on March 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

Twelve minutes from today’s Cavuto. I agree, he never said he’d vote for Obama over Romney. What he said was that “we” the electorate might collectively conclude that there’s not enough difference between them to justify replacing the incumbent, the implication being that that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Right? Read his comments from yesterday again or watch the video; the clear impression I got was “I wouldn’t blame anyone who thought that way,” an impression apparently shared by Santorum supporter Ed Morrissey. There are a lot of ways to hit Mitt for being a squish, first and foremost that America can’t afford one when bold action on entitlements is desperately needed, but anything that legitimizes the idea that the differences between Romney and The One are too “little” to justify a strong preference for one or the other is poisonous to the larger Republican effort. What he said yesterday did that, and his spokesman doubled down on it this morning by calling Romney a “mirror image” of O before adding the perfunctory bit about supporting the nominee. They’re not mirror images; there are hugely compelling reasons to strongly prefer one to the other, as I’d expect any committed pro-lifer who pays attention to Supreme Court vacancies to understand. I don’t mean to begrudge a guy a line of attack when he’s desperate to get traction somehow, but the attack on Romney from the right should never go beyond arguing that America needs a strong conservative to achieve meaningful improvements in policy. If you’re a prominent Republican with a big soapbox and you’re comparing Romney to Obama generally — even in the context of how “we,” not you, might feel — you’re playing with matches. (The only exception I can think of is on the specific issue of “ObamneyCare” because it’s hugely relevant to the primary and, let’s face it, there’s really no way around the mirror-image conclusion. But even in that case, the more likely it is that Romney will be the nominee, the more counterproductive that argument is.)

Interestingly, it’s Gingrich who’s made a bigger deal about this today than Romney. Statement one from Team Newt:

Newt 2012 Campaign Chairman Rep. Bob Walker released the following statement today criticizing Sen. Santorum’s comments about the possibility of an Obama reelection:

“As a former Pennsylvania colleague of Rick Santorum in the Congress, I am stunned by his statement that if he is not the Republican nominee, we might be better off with the reelection of President Obama. An Obama reelection would assure full implementation of Obamacare, a continuation of the assault on American energy production, more economic policies that destroy American jobs and the appointment of more radically leftist judges including perhaps to the Supreme Court. Whatever our differences inside the Republican primaries, no candidate should be suggesting that Barack Obama is a reasonable alternative.”

And statement two, a letter to RNC chief Reince Priebus (slightly edited):

Republicans must not lose sight of our ultimate goal in 2012: defeating President Obama in November. While we may disagree on which candidate will be the strongest opponent to the President in the general election, we can agree that any of the current Republican candidates would be a better president than Barack Obama.

As chairman of the Republican National Committee, you are in a position to focus our candidates on this goal. I request that you issue a pledge asking all the Republican presidential candidates to support our eventual nominee. It is imperative that Republicans unite once the nomination process is complete in order to defeat President Obama. We cannot afford four more years of his leadership.

Newt’s angle here, I assume, is to paint Santorum as a traitor to the cause so that voters will turn away from Team Sweater Vest in disgust and back to Newt as the designated Not Romney for the eleventh or twelfth time in the race. (I’ve lost count.) Mitt’s angle is not to mention what Santorum said anymore lest he end up repeating the “Romney = Obama” message inadvertently.



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 8 9 10

That doesn’t make Romnecare conservative in principle or in practice.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM

So, we’re back to where we started. What is the “conservative” solution?

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM

No more so than the healthcare system in any other state.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:51 PM

My state does not require me to carry health insurance.

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM

listens2glenn on March 24, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Massachusetts subsidizes health care in that state by requiring health insurance. I can’t imagine that you don’t really understand how health care works…..

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM

.
You’re still not giving me the line-by-line detailed explanation/answers I’m looking for.
Are there absolutely NO State govt bureaucrats making healthcare decisions for individual persons at all?
Are all healthcare decisions in Massachusetts being handled the same way they are anywhere else in the U.S., where healthcare coverage is NOT mandated ?

listens2glenn on March 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM

My state does not require me to carry health insurance.

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Nor does mine. But that doesn’t mean that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is “running” health care. It just imposes a requirement that other states do not.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Nor does mine. But that doesn’t mean that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is “running” health care. It just imposes a requirement that other states do not.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM

And who collects the fines for not having health insurance?

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Are all healthcare decisions in Massachusetts being handled the same way they are anywhere else in the U.S., where healthcare coverage is NOT mandated ?

listens2glenn on March 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I’m sorry, but I don’t know the answers to those questions. Maybe someone from Massachusetts can answer them for you.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM

And who collects the fines for not having health insurance?

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM

The state, I assume.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 3:03 PM

It then controls the required coverage of insurance, adding in many procedures that are typical, but expensive and that most people would refuse to partake in, once again driving prices higher. Because people know they are paying for these insurance premiums, they are incentivized to use them to their full potential, driving up usage and do to an increase in demand and a limited amount of government approved supply, driving even higher the prices.

astonerii on March 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM

yeah, like perfectly healthy individuals would go in and request a CT-scan and expose themselves to an unhealthy dose of radiation (not to mention the ‘thrill’ and excitement of IV administered contrast materials), or an MRI, or god know what other invasive procedures (endoscopic ultrasound, colonoscopy, or hey, to please Santorum, maybe even a trans vaginal ultrasound :) just because they ummm…can and because they pay a higher premium? really??? don’t know what kind of people you have in your antourage, but believe it or not, a majority of people actually have a brain, and they wouldn’t expose themselves to unnecessary testing or intake every single pill in the pharmacopoeia just because they can and their insurance pay for it…

jimver on March 24, 2012 at 3:06 PM

That doesn’t make Romnecare conservative in principle or in practice.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM

So, we’re back to where we started. What is the “conservative” solution?

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM

.
Deregulation and Tort Reform.

Why are there so many more lawyers needed to do “CYA” for businesses (including healthcare) than there used to be (pre-1968)?

listens2glenn on March 24, 2012 at 3:07 PM

The state, I assume.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 3:03 PM

So then, they are responsible for the enforcement of the plan.

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Forget it, Rombots. Romney isn’t getting my vote in the primaries or any kind of support, moral or otherwise. But he’s got it wrapped up already so you shouuld have nothing to fear, right?

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

listens2glenn on March 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I’m sorry, but I don’t know the answers to those questions. Maybe someone from Massachusetts can answer them for you.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM

.
S i g h
.
Is there a Doctor (from Massachusetts) in the house?

Or anyone else?

listens2glenn on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

That doesn’t make Romnecare conservative in principle or in practice.
gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM

So, we’re back to where we started. What is the “conservative” solution?

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Following the constitution. Which means getting government OUT of it. At the federal and state level. Why do so many rombots completely miss the illogic of having state government intervene to solve the problems that federal government created? When I say get government out of health care, I mean ALL government. The conservative solution to health care problems is to allow people to pay for what they can afford. Period. That there is a place for government at the discussion table is a flawed premise to begin with.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM

you shouuld have nothing to fear, right?

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Correct.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 3:13 PM

you shouuld have nothing to fear, right?

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Correct.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 3:13 PM

On that note, I think now is a good time for me to exit this thread stage-right. Ciao.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:15 PM

It’s been fun, but I’ve got to sign off for now. Later.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM

So, we’re back to where we started. What is the “conservative” solution?

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM

The problem here is that people like you do not want a conservative solution. The conservative solution is to get out of the way and allow people to take on the responsibilities for their own lives, the lives of their own family, helping those in their community and others that they voluntarily decide to help with their excess of wealth creation. Thus, you will not accept anything we have to say. You will argue that is not a solution because there has to be an action that forces people to do these things, instead of people doing them for themselves. That is why Romney is absolutely unacceptable to me as a Republican president and why I will work against his election if he is the nominee.

astonerii on March 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Following the constitution. Which means getting government OUT of it. At the federal and state level. Why do so many rombots completely miss the illogic of having state government intervene to solve the problems that federal government created? When I say get government out of health care, I mean ALL government. The conservative solution to health care problems is to allow people to pay for what they can afford. Period. That there is a place for government at the discussion table is a flawed premise to begin with.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Do you honestly believe that is a politically viable point of view? Are the People willing to return to the pre-Medicare days so those foolish old people who do not properly prepare for major medical needs by becoming wealthy (at least wealthy enough to afford the insurance costs an 80 or 90 year old would face) so they could pay for their triple bypass surgery and organ transplants and cancer treatments simply die?

We may get there, if the coming economic crisis is catastrophic enough, but do you seriously believe the will to do something so drastic will be here any time before the catastrophe?

Socializing medical care is an attempt to get around the dysfunctional will of the people by giving everyone the treatment they are demanding ….. but just not before they die waiting in line.

So, in a very real sense, the socialists may be the realists on this one thing. It is so bizarre.

fadetogray on March 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM

You keep saying I stalked posters. You do realize that I could file a lawsuit against you for slander don’t you. Why? Because it is not true – just more of your childish posturing. You always fall back on this line of attack when you realize you are an intellectual lightweight compared to so many people here, including me.

Your baseless allegations are just as hollow as your claim that you speak for 78% of the US population.

Bradky on March 24, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Forget it, Rombots. Romney isn’t getting my vote in the primaries or any kind of support, moral or otherwise.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

looks like old age has its disadvantages…time for you to take your lecithin, you already said that many times on this forum, hope you’re not just parroting yourself now :-)…though, come think about :)…

jimver on March 24, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Do you honestly believe that is a politically viable point of view? Are the People willing to return to the pre-Medicare days so those foolish old people who do not properly prepare for major medical needs by becoming wealthy (at least wealthy enough to afford the insurance costs an 80 or 90 year old would face) so they could pay for their triple bypass surgery and organ transplants and cancer treatments simply die?

Whether this is a politically viable point of view or not is irrelevant to my argument. The reason that organ transplants are difficult as they are is because it is illegal to sell organs, and that is because of government interference. The reason that cancer treatments, along with most others, is so expensive is because the government sets “usual and customary” fees through Medicare that have made it increasingly hard to make a living as a doctor without a hellacious bureaucracy that I have seen firsthand in my Medical Office Administration studies. I’m not normally big on making blanket statements, but I will make one here and now: There is not a single problem in health care that government did not have a hand in creating somehow.

We may get there, if the coming economic crisis is catastrophic enough, but do you seriously believe the will to do something so drastic will be here any time before the catastrophe?

That depends on if there’s anything left of the idea of “America” worth saving. I’m not entirely convinced there is.

Socializing medical care is an attempt to get around the dysfunctional will of the people by giving everyone the treatment they are demanding ….. but just not before they die waiting in line.

So, in a very real sense, the socialists may be the realists on this one thing. It is so bizarre.

fadetogray on March 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM

It pains me to think that you may be right. And I hope to God you’re not, but the ultimate referendum will be voted on the first Tuesday of November-next.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Wow. Brady is a major a-hole

SparkPlug on March 24, 2012 at 3:58 PM

It pains me to think that you may be right. And I hope to God you’re not, but the ultimate referendum will be voted on the first Tuesday of November-next.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I hope to God I am wrong, too.

fadetogray on March 24, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Whether Santy is able to pull off a win in LA or not, he’ll never fully recover from his snipe about how voters may as well stay with Obama. The dust from his prior relentlessness about all things bedroom never settled either. The fork has been in Santy’s sanctimoniousness for some time now.

Slainte on March 24, 2012 at 4:10 PM

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Right. Glad you realize that.

Rusty Allen on March 24, 2012 at 4:11 PM

astonerii on March 24, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Taxed
Enough
Already

Therin is the foundation of these patriotic Americans who have decided to get off of their comfy chairs and actually make a difference.

We already push for reductions in welfare, Socialist Security, and medicare/medicaid. The rest WILL be addressed when the time is right.

Working to change the minds of people is hard work. That doesn’t mean that work should be left to others to do. If not you, who?

DannoJyd on March 24, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Do you honestly believe that is a politically viable point of view? Are the People willing to return to the pre-Medicare days so those foolish old people who do not properly prepare for major medical needs by becoming wealthy (at least wealthy enough to afford the insurance costs an 80 or 90 year old would face) so they could pay for their triple bypass surgery and organ transplants and cancer treatments simply die?

We may get there, if the coming economic crisis is catastrophic enough, but do you seriously believe the will to do something so drastic will be here any time before the catastrophe?

Socializing medical care is an attempt to get around the dysfunctional will of the people by giving everyone the treatment they are demanding ….. but just not before they die waiting in line.

So, in a very real sense, the socialists may be the realists on this one thing. It is so bizarre.

fadetogray on March 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM

How did we take care of the health care needs of our elderly before the government implemented Medicare, and helped raise the costs of EVERYONE else’s care? I would love to see some proof that large numbers of elderly people died from lack of care, prior to medicare.

You are aware that there are people dying, waiting in line under socialized healthcare systems in other countries, right? Socialized medicine leads to waits for care and doctor shortages. It does not result in healthcare for everyone, because it’s too expensive.

I don’t believe we should do away with Medicare, tomorrow, but reform is sorely needed. We could gradually phase it out, with a much more cost-effective, much more privatized system, and that would probably help, but as it stands now, without reform WE CAN’T AFFORD IT.

More government involvement is NEVER the conservative solution to problems. If you are advocating socialized medicine, then you’re not a conservative, not to mention you’re incredibly stupid.

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Massachusetts health care

Look at pages 9 and 10

Fewer doctors are accepting patients, and wait times have gone up. The attempt to provide care to more people doesn’t appear to be working.

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 4:25 PM

astonerii on March 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Nice. You wait until I leave, and then you post this load of shite:

The problem here is that people like you do not want a conservative solution. … Thus, you will not accept anything we have to say. You will argue that is not a solution because there has to be an action that forces people to do these things, instead of people doing them for themselves.

All this after you said:

I would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid for one. Completely. Return it where it belongs, the family and private charities. I would get rid of the tax deduction for medical insurance covered by employers. It should be counted as income and taxed as such.

astonerii on March 24, 2012 at 2:27 PM

and I responded:

That sounds good to me.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I guess honesty isn’t your strong suit.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM

You always fall back on this line of attack when you realize you are an intellectual lightweight compared to so many people here, including me.

Your baseless allegations are just as hollow as your claim that you speak for 78% of the US population.

Bradky on March 24, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Humility and graciousness are definitely your strong points./

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Bradky on March 24, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Remember the night you called out me and Hornet Sting by our real names? How did you know them unless you looked them up on Facebook?

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 6:34 PM

But he’s got it wrapped up already so you shouuld have nothing to fear, right?

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Exactly G. Vote for whomever in the primaries. Just be sure to do the right thing in the general and I’ll shake your hand :-)

MJBrutus on March 24, 2012 at 6:36 PM

More government involvement is NEVER the conservative solution to problems. If you are advocating socialized medicine, then you’re not a conservative, not to mention you’re incredibly stupid.

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Perhaps you were missing the point of my comment. Of course more government is not the conservative solution. I would go much further in this case. More government will be a humanitarian disaster, derailing the most miraculous improvement of human life in the history of humanity.

However, I was not addressing what would be the theoretical Right Thing To Do. I was talking about what was politically possible.

Very few people in our country actually understand that we are stone cold broke, if we honor our promises to those who have already qualified under Medicare. Completely broke. Unreversible. Catastrophically. Sell your children to be Saudi slaves broke.

We have at least a hundred million people who have built their planning for retirement on the assumption Medicare will be there to pay to keep them alive. Those people will quite literally hang you from a street light before they let you take away their Medicare.

So what way is the best way to f*** all of those people out of what they have been promised?

If you try to force them back into the free market to die, which they will since they haven’t prepared for what is coming, you will get revolution probably ending in a communist state.

On the other hand, if you give them “free” medical care like they have in Britain, you can save Big Money compared to Medicare, just by keeping the lines long enough.

Is that incredibly evil? Will it means millions and millions and millions and millions of people will suffer horribly more and die earlier than they would than if we just returned to a free market based system like we should?

Of course. However, it is politically possible. What you want is probably not politically possible.

Am I saying we should give up? Hell, no. However, I am saying we should recognize the layout of the battlefield as we go into battle, and we should recognize the odds are stacked badly against us.

Recognizing the reality is the first step in winning a seemingly impossible victory. Pretending the reality is not the reality will only lead to certain and total defeat.

We are going to have to be smart. Smart and unscrupulous and cutthroat. We are going to have to lie, cheat and steal to win this fight. The People are against us. The People are short-sighted fools who have gotten us into this mess in the first place.

We will have to lie to the People better than the socialists are doing with their bait and switch between “free” and waiting lines.

Just getting up on our soapboxes and shouting “Freedom!” and “Free markets” will lose, and we all go to Hell on Earth.

We need to start getting creative. We need to be more creative and deceitful than the socialists are being.

If we don’t want to do that, then we might as well go stick our heads in an oven.

fadetogray on March 24, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I guess honesty isn’t your strong suit.

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM

You argue that I said you did did not see my advice as solutions. This is based on the fact that after you stated that, “That sounds good to me” that you were looking for the conservative solutions. Well I gave them to you twice. The first time as a base statement, this is what they are. The second time as a statement that you refuse to accept those solutions. Which it appears you had, as after I gave the solutions, you said you agreed with them, that you were still looking for them.

As for you having left, I wrote the response and submitted before seeing your statement of departure, and I actually did feel a bit bad that you were not there to defend yourself. I was working off the version of the page that had last updated while playing a video game in the background.

The conservative ideals are not likely with the American people as degraded in moral values as they are. But the only way to get to conservative solutions is to teach them about those conservative positions, how those positions in fact enable everyone to have a better life. Romney does not do that, he swallows whole every last progressive idea that comes along.

astonerii on March 24, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Remember the night you called out me and Hornet Sting by our real names? How did you know them unless you looked them up on Facebook?

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 6:34 PM

That is stalking in your little brain?
LMAO You were silly enough to put your FB link in your HA sig. If I called HS her real name it was because you used it as she never put links in her info. And I called you by your first name – that is all.
As many times as you tell people “link here” to try to get them to come to your blog you think you would understand the mechanics of links. You don’t want people to know your name don’t link to your FB pages – otherwise it is reasonable to assume that you want them to know who you are.

And you would sure think that people who go out of their way to insult other commenters in the manner the two of you do that you would NOT link to your real life info.
I know it is difficult to imagine that making the “your mother” insults is about as nasty as one can get. But you the uber christian must be aware of some passage in Proverbs that says that kind of behavior is christian.

Bradky on March 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Bradky on March 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Who are you to teach Kingjester about stalking? Why he has been following me around H/A for a year now! He regularly pulls up posts of mine from 3 and 4 years ago. You ain’t no stalker B, you’re a rank amateur. A piker, I say. You can learn an awful lot about stalking if you’re willing to swallow some of that pride and sit at the knee of the master.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2012 at 8:13 PM

MJBrutus on March 24, 2012 at 8:13 PM

LOL. Never ceases to amaze me how a few people let their internet life become more important than their real life.
Feel kind of sorry for them.

Bradky on March 24, 2012 at 8:17 PM

I think one can reasonably argue if getting rid of current entitlement programs is politically tenable. But it must be done if we have any claim to follow the constitution this nation was set up to function with. If it is indeed politically unfeasible to do so, America as our founding fathers envisioned her is already over but the post-mortem.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Oh dear. You’re such a downer.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

So this is the man you think is just like Romney!!!!

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Oh dear. You’re such a downer.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM

That is one of the kindest things you’ve ever said to me, Brutus. I thank you.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 9:19 PM

So this is the man you think is just like Romney!!!!

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Just to be clear, both are just slightly differentiated from the other.

Romneycare, Obamacare, the only difference was the level at which implemented.

Mormon, Muslim, both newfound religions based around pedophile profits who wanted to have multiple wives.

I already gave a long list, but yeah, pretty much the same.

astonerii on March 24, 2012 at 10:49 PM

You disgust me!

Bambi on March 24, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Outrageous Trolls are outraged.

kingsjester on March 24, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Syzygy on March 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Syzygy:: You can, if genuinely interested, begin reading about so-called conservative approaches to healthcare here the article is mostly a placeholder but the references list points in the right directions.

This is a dated but excellent starting summary of a 4 point plan which includes most of what I personally think is needed. Add Tort reform as a 5th point and it pretty faithfully represents current free market thinking on the subject.

GregoryNeilSmith on March 24, 2012 at 11:45 PM

If it is indeed politically unfeasible to do so, America as our founding fathers envisioned her is already over but the post-mortem.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Take the red pill.

fadetogray on March 25, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10