Santorum spokewoman says he’ll support Romney if nominee … Update: Santorum statement added

posted at 10:25 am on March 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As walkbacks go, this isn’t exactly … enthusiastic. Will it be enough to get Rick Santorum off the hook?

On CNN’s Starting Point, [Alice] Stewart defended the candidate’s comments Thursday in which he said: “We might as well stay with what we have” in Obama, rather than elect Romney.

“What we have with Mitt Romney is… a mirror image of Barack Obama,” Stewart said. “Both believe in government takeover of health care, cap and trade, big government spending, Wall Street bailout.” …

But later in the show, when pressed on how Santorum could support Romney if he’s saying he’s the same as Obama, Stewart responded:  “Rick has made it abundantly clear once a nominee is chosen he’ll stand behind the nominee and do everything we can to replace Barack Obama.”

Call this one a half-walkback.  Some of Santorum’s defenders claim that he meant that voters would react that way if given a choice between Obama and Romney.  Matt Lewis makes that argument pretty well, but uses the same paragraph I did in the excerpt:

“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA.

Well, if Santorum meant that’s what others would think, he certainly didn’t make that explicit in the statement.  It’s an arguable point, but interestingly, not one that Alice Stewart bothered to make on CNN, apparently. They’re still arguing that there isn’t any difference between Romney and Obama, but that Santorum will stick with a Republican rather than a Democrat.  Contrast that with Newt Gingrich’s consistent argument that everyone in the GOP race would be a quantum improvement on Obama, but that he’s more quantum than the rest — a perfectly legitimate argument, even if one doesn’t agree with Gingrich’s self-assessment.

This statement is an improvement over yesterday, but it’s not exactly an apology, either.  (via Keder on Twitter)

Update: Senator Santorum has given Hot Air this statement in response:

“I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney’s policies mirror Barack Obama’s.  I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it’s easy to see why – Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts.  Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign’s movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation.  If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation.  It’s time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts.  This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum – this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

ObamaCare is RomneyCare at the national level. There’s no denying that. That’s why Romney is a problem candidate.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 2:47 PM

This whiny little shi’ite is never going to be President and he is never going to be on a Republican ticket, now or in the future.

Wrap your tiny little brains around that fact.

The ONLY reason Santorum has had any success at all is he was the last “Not Romney” left standing after all the others had imploded. On his own merits, the idea of him running for President is laughable. A JOKE. The man’s never run anything bigger than his Senate staff, is too incompetent at running a campaign to even qualify for his home state ballot or submit complete delegate slates for at least three other states and the District of Columbia – but he’s qualified to be President?

Get real. If that weren’t enough, when he lost his Senate seat, he didn’t go “home” to PA, he stayed “home” in the DC area and became a $1 million a year lobbyist. Oh, sure, like Gingrich, he knew the technical rules to avoid being labeled as such, but when you make $1 million for a law firm whose business is lobbying the government, what else is it you’re doing? What cases did he try? What clients did he bring in?

If you ever believed for one minute Santorum had a chance, you need to sober up.

Adjoran on March 23, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Tesla makes a comment about another’s objectivity? That’s rich.

Rusty Allen on March 23, 2012 at 2:55 PM

To he|| with Rick Santorum the politician.

SD Tom on March 23, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Most of the opposition to Santorum is from the social liberals who support abortion and gay stuff.

That’s all it’s ever been. It’s not his oppositoin to free trade and stuff like that. It’s the fact he’s not wild about sodomy and abortion.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Santorum’s a milqutoast candidate who sells out those beloved conservative principles when it benefits the party. He’s not his own man, he’s a party loyalist. He’s the kind of republican people like you rallied against in 2006, which by the way, he lost.

He’s a team player, a follower. He’s not a leader.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 3:05 PM

ObamaCare is RomneyCare at the national level. There’s no denying that. That’s why Romney is a problem candidate.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 2:47 PM

It’s not only that, but with the current reporting of the assault on talk radio and the left’s attempt to silence Rush Limbaugh, of the 3 candidates left it’s painfully obvious who would be the first one to cave in to democrat pressure and agree to some kind of mandate to the first amendment against talk radio if he were, God forbid, elected president. You can kind of guess that because he’s radio and TV shy when it comes to appearing on conservative talk shows. Kind of telling…

mozalf on March 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM

When Romney has a bowel movement, a job is created somewhere. Do not question this.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Still one more than Obama’s created.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 3:17 PM

He’s a team player, a follower. He’s not a leader.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 3:05 PM

He sponsored Welfare Reform—the only entitlement reform we’ve had in quite some time. You don’t know what you are talking about.

It takes a lot of guts to do what he is doing. You have to care about something more than just yourself to even put yourself out there. He is doing this for his children.

I’m getting pretty sick of all these comments tearing a good man down. Pretty soon, all you will get is the Romney-kind of candidate.

LL1960 on March 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I’m getting pretty sick of all these comments tearing a good man down. Pretty soon, all you will get is the Romney-kind of candidate.

LL1960 on March 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Oh, so it’s for the children. Where have I heard that before?

antisense on March 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Oh, so it’s for the children. Where have I heard that before?

antisense on March 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Its because he cares about the future for his children. I’ll take that motive over just about any—especially if he’s trying to do something that I agree with.

LL1960 on March 23, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Ok, so by your logic, we should still have slavery, b/c it was Constitutional at one point.

You are not a thinker.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

No. You missed my second point. Slavery was never Constitutional per the 3/5ths Compromise.

When Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence his original wording was “life, liberty, and property”. Do you know why he changed it? So that when slavery was eventually abolished (something he knew would happen eventually) the pro-slavery states could not come back to the argument that by our founding documents the federal government could not deprive them of their “property”, since slaves were considered property. So, instead he replaced it with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

When the debate was raging at the Constitutional Convention over representation in the House and Electoral College, Jefferson and Madison in particular seized on the opportunity to place the tool by which slavery must by nessecity be eventually abolished into the Constitution. They recognized the value of the 3/5ths Compromise in this respect. They also understood they needed a single nation to be formed, otherwise the threat of reconquer by the British was very much real if they were just 13 separate small nations or even two separate ones. They wanted to abolish it in the Constitution outright, but they could not do so without alienating those states. That was too great a risk, and they recognized that the abolition of slavery would eventually come but would have to be dealt with at a later time in our nation’s history. What they recognized in the Compromise was that the slaves would be counted towards government representation. And that being counted as represented, it must naturally follow that they were a represented population under the government. Therefore, it must be eventually recognized that a represented segment of the population could not, by the very same document, be denied their natural rights, their equal protection under the law, or their representation in government. More importantly, with the additional passage of the Bill of Rights, they could not be denied their right to “redress of greivances”. These men recognized with the passage of the Constitution that they had legally abolished slavery, even if it would not be recognized and acted upon for perhaps many years to come. They knew the all of the legal tools were there in the Constitution. It was a quiet coup of epic proportions against slavery, especially when you consider it was sold as outwardly very positive for the pro-slavery states to improve their representation in government. And, they did so in an effort to protect slavery by ensuring the northern states would not have sufficent numbers in the House to pass abolition laws! They signed their own death warrant so to speak.

So, no. Slavery was not Constitutional. It was never Constitutional by design. It just took 80 years and a Civil War for it to be recognized.

As for Romneycare, it’s terrible and horrendously bad policy. However, it is not unconstitutional at the state level. Is it a bad idea? Without a doubt. A terrible idea. That doesn’t invalidate the fact that it is Constitutional.

Look, I’m no fan of Romney or Santorum. Of all the candidates we could have had, we ended up with the worst bunch of losers to nominate. I worry that none of them is going to beat Obama. And nominating the author of Romneycare when Obamacare should be the biggest bludgeon with which to beat Obama in the general is an insane idea. We probably agree on that overall. But I have to call out your horrible logic in regards to the Constitution. Your position is in NO WAY a conservative one on the subject of our founding document.

gravityman on March 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Santorum is in this for his children–if you remember that it is a lot easier to understand him.

LL1960 on March 23, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Great, that’s seven votes when they are all able to vote. What about the rest of us?

Obama can make the claim he’s doing it for his kids. Doesn’t mean squat.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 3:41 PM

He sponsored Welfare Reform—the only entitlement reform we’ve had in quite some time. You don’t know what you are talking about.

It takes a lot of guts to do what he is doing. You have to care about something more than just yourself to even put yourself out there. He is doing this for his children.

I’m getting pretty sick of all these comments tearing a good man down. Pretty soon, all you will get is the Romney-kind of candidate.

LL1960 on March 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9XmeqbOFWI

Remember that? What about those principles now?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Obama can make the claim he’s doing it for his kids. Doesn’t mean squat.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 3:41 PM

But Obama doesn’t claim that. He claims he is doing it for us—because we just can’t do it for ourselves.

The motive of wanting to make sure the ones you love have a good life, is a much more pure motive than whatever Obama’s motive is. I would even give Obama a break on this—if what he is doing wasn’t so harmful to this country.

Not sure why I am even discussing this–it seems like people just think what they want (or don’t think, as the case may be). I just feel bad for Santorum, because I think he is a good man. It doesn’t seem like there a whole lot of those out there anymore–at least not in politics.

LL1960 on March 23, 2012 at 4:02 PM

LL1960 on March 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNw9aPCPvw0

How about this? If he’s willing to compromise his principles so easily, how easy do you think he’ll compromise them as president?

He may be a good man, but being a good man makes you a great leader like just going to church makes you a good Christian.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 4:05 PM

OMG. Santorum is on the phone with Cavuto and he is losing it, BIGTIME. This is hilarious.

BettyRuth on March 23, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I’m watching Cavuto too. It’s the last gasp of Santorum’s campaign.

mr.idaho on March 23, 2012 at 4:08 PM

“Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign’s movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation.”

I’m not sure that Santorum is well-served by this reality-challenged walkback attempt, given the fact that even less people are “excited enough to actually go vote” for him than for Mitt.

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Pcoop. You are right about Santorum. But all of your arguments apply equally to Romney. Do you ignore that, or are you blind to it?

besser tot als rot on March 23, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I’m watching the Cavuto interview! Santorum is Fluked and knows it!

Roy Rogers on March 23, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Santorum sounding like Ron Paul! Stuttering stumbling bumbling…

Must have been drinking after realizing what he said!

Roy Rogers on March 23, 2012 at 4:11 PM

OMG. Santorum is on the phone with Cavuto and he is losing it, BIGTIME. This is hilarious.

BettyRuth on March 23, 2012 at 4:05 PM

You’re right. What an idiot. The more he talks, the worse it gets. Santorum is toast, and he turned the heat on himself. This guy doesn’t belong at any level of government. It’s hard for me to believe that I once thought he might be OK. Not anymore.

I think Romney should come out and tell Santorum that he doesn’t want his support!

lhuffman34 on March 23, 2012 at 4:11 PM

My husband, who is not a political junkie, just asked me “is this guy, (Santorum) is always such an jacka$$?” Well….yeah.

BettyRuth on March 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Santorum tells Cavuto to “calm down”!!!

Does Cavuto have a pulse?

Roy Rogers on March 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Nick Cavuto???

Roy Rogers on March 23, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Santorum screaming at Cavuto…sounds unstable, angry and resentful…You need to maintain some level of Presidential appearance and my freinds, he has not done this tonite.

malkinmania on March 23, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Put a fork in this campaign. Santorum jumped the shark, and lost.

“Nice man but completely lost it.”

Roy Rogers on March 23, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Santorum screaming at Cavuto…sounds unstable, angry and resentful…You need to maintain some level of Presidential appearance and my freinds, he has not done this tonite.

malkinmania on March 23, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I loved that Cavuto didn’t let up on him; Hopefully more media will get in his face and force him to admit that he’s not going to be President. Like ever. Did you love his guffaw when Neil asked him if he was doing all this for 2016? Funny stuff.

BettyRuth on March 23, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Pcoop. You are right about Santorum. But all of your arguments apply equally to Romney. Do you ignore that, or are you blind to it?

besser tot als rot on March 23, 2012 at 4:08 PM

My arguement’s can apply to anyone. Here’s the difference.

I’m looking at qualifications. I’m looking for leadership, something we sorely need. Not only was Romney a governor, he also ran a corporation. Santorum was not a leader in Washington. He lead a charge for Welfare reform? So? Just because you called for something doesn’t mean you’re a leader. It was my same beef with Ron Paul. Just because you can see a problem, doesn’t mean you’re qualified to fix it. My neighborhood butcher can point out to me that I need a new roof, I’m not hiring him to put one on my house. I’m going to hire someone with experience. While all of you ABRs are so blinded by Romneycare, you ignore the one thing Mitt has over Obama in spades and the we need more than anything. Business experience. Someone with business experience is going to be more capable of getting the country out of this abyss more than someone who spent his time in Washington voting for stuff. Sorry, I’m going for someone’s business experience over someone’s voting record.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Rick is such an angry little man.

Rusty Allen on March 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Who’s coaching this putz? He’d fare much better just pounding Obama 24/7 like Gingrich did in his heyday. When Gingrich started the Romney attack it turned everyone off and he imploded. The difference is Rick is imploding from a higher platform and it hurts more. I dont feel comfortable with this whiny crybaby handling a resurging Pooty-Putin.

malkinmania on March 23, 2012 at 4:28 PM

here is something a friend of mine sent me ….

I see the same type of arguments from some posters at Michelle Malkin. A RINO Romney may be, a revolutionary socialist with the goal of destroying evil imperialist AmeriKKKa and its Constitution of negative liberties written by dead white men, he isn’t.

this is why I will vote for whom ever the nominee is … ABO …
and yes I understand SD and others …. for me … this election is
to important … I have buried too many of my friends to watch
this country continue to be lead by someone who spits on their grave
for those who have stated they will not vote for Mittens … I understand
your position …. please understand mine ….

conservative tarheel on March 23, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Santorum’s a milqutoast candidate who sells out those beloved conservative principles when it benefits the party. He’s not his own man, he’s a party loyalist. He’s the kind of republican people like you rallied against in 2006, which by the way, he lost.

He’s a team player, a follower. He’s not a leader.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I don’t think anybody is more bland than Romney other than Mitch Daniels.

Romney’s not his own man, he was a Democrat party loyalist in Mass. That’s the problem. And that’s who you support. If there is a conservative litmus test being applied, Romney doesn’t win on that score.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Santorum should apologize to his haters, the Romney zombies, for not brown nosing their guy. They will vote for him then.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Angry is now defined as thinking Romney blows.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:41 PM

To say slavery was not enshrined into the Constitution is historically ignorant. It’s the only way it would have been ratified by the colonies.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I scoff at this notion that two wealthy slaver owners, Jefferson and Madison, cared at all about the abolition of slavery.

Nothing backs that up. They thought blacks were subhuman.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:45 PM

The problem Republicans have is we diefy the founding fathers and pretend most of them were not racists who exploited black people for labor. We will never win over black people if we continue to do this. I think it’s far better to talk about Lincoln than the founding fathers.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:47 PM

dude, give it up. It’s like you’re masturbating. It’s only satisfying to you and no one else wants to see it.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Dr Tesla….Is that you Rick?

malkinmania on March 23, 2012 at 5:02 PM

To say slavery was not enshrined into the Constitution is historically ignorant. It’s the only way it would have been ratified by the colonies.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I brought flat out fact to the argument. I told you exactly how the colonies ratified it in spite of it’s language that would eventually lead to the inevitable abolition of the institution.

Bring your facts to the table to prove differently and we can debate the topic. Otherwise, you are the one being historically ignorant.

gravityman on March 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM

It’s a perp show!

Roy Rogers on March 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I think it’s far better to talk about Lincoln than the founding fathers.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Talk about historical ignorance.

Yes, please… let’s discuss the President who violated the Constitution more than any other President in our nation’s history (suspension of writ of habeus corpus anyone?) albeit in the most difficult circumstances in our nation’s history. That’s a fantastic idea!

gravityman on March 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Santorum sounded more desperate than resigned.

I sort of feel sorry for him.

Roy Rogers on March 23, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Sorry, Didn’t for the Pastor in Chief… and don’t regret it. If I wanted a theocracy, I’d move to Iran.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 23, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Great! Now I need to figure out how to defend Romney-care.

Reminds of the dark ages when that McCain guy was the nominee and couldn’t put two sentences together to support him.

b1jetmech on March 23, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Sorry, Didn’t for the Pastor in Chief… and don’t regret it. If I wanted a theocracy, I’d move to Iran.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 23, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Santorum is no more of a theocrat then our founding fathers.

b1jetmech on March 23, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Santorum is no more of a theocrat then our founding fathers.

b1jetmech on March 23, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Might want to tell him that…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I don’t think state governments have the right to do whatever the hell they want.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Unbelievable.

That is libtard logic 101 right there on display guys.

I’m assuming tesla supports a federal mandate legalizing gay marriage now, since he thinks the states aren’t fit to govern themselves. Comrades Obama, Holder, and Reid know what’s best for us all, just shut up and obey.

1984 in real life on March 23, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Might want to tell him that…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM

No need.

b1jetmech on March 23, 2012 at 5:19 PM

“This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters…”

By posting a video of exactly what he said… Man up Rick and own it.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Senator Santorum has given Hot Air this statement in response:

“I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney’s policies mirror Barack Obama’s.

This is further proof that Senator Whiner is not presidential material. He makes an idiotic and intemperate statement and then blames the Romney campaign and lies about Romney’s policies. How embarrassing to the GOP that Santorum is being taken seriously.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I scoff at this notion that two wealthy slaver owners, Jefferson and Madison, cared at all about the abolition of slavery.

Nothing backs that up. They thought blacks were subhuman.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Really? Nothing backs that up, huh?

Abolition of slavery and his belief that blacks were subhuman are separate issues. I never said he wasn’t racist as he most certainly was, but he was for the abolition of slavery. Not for the blacks, but for the whites and the avoidance of a race war.

Here’s backing that up…

“…the hour of emancipation is advancing, in the march of time. It will come; and whether brought on by the generous energy of our own minds; or by the bloody process of St Domingo, excited and conducted by the power of our present enemy, if once stationed permanently within our Country, and offering asylum & arms to the oppressed, is a leaf of our history not yet turned over.”

-Thomas Jefferson, 1814 Letter to Edmund Cole

“there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach [slavery]… we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other”

-Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Virginia”

And to the extent that he believed it would not happen in his lifetime, but rather was for future generations of Americans to finally settle the issue…

“But in the mean time are you right in abandoning this property, and your country with it? I think not. My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them, we should endeavor, with those whom fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from all ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen, & be led by no repugnancies to abdicate them, and our duties to them.”

-Thomas Jefferson, 1814 Letter to Edward Coles

Jefferson was absolutely a racist. He thought blacks were inferior, of that there is little doubt. His aim in abolishing slavery was due to his feeling that the races could not coexist, where whites believed blacks inferior and blacks maintined the memory of the atrocities done them under slavery. He was an advocate of releasing them slowly over time, and sending them back to Africa (ever hear of Liberia? look it up).

So come again that I can’t back my argument up?

gravityman on March 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM

This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney’s policies mirror Barack Obama’s.

Santorum has lost it. This is no better than his original stupid statement, and it’s as false as it’s always been. This is UFO/Bigfoot territory. Some people are so distracted by all the nonsense over the mandate, that they can’t think of anything else. All taxes are mandates, fees, and other programs that require anything from us. If they wanted to, they could just change Obamacare to a tax like Social Security and Medicare. Sure those only apply to those who work, but that doesn’t leave much of an alternative. How about Draft Registration? The point is not that it’s a mandate; it’s that it’s just a terrible idea to have the government take over even more of our economy. Mitt Romney hates waste and unnecessary taxes. He cuts spending and balances budgets. He’s also a real leader as those who worked with him in business know.

This isn’t a choice for more or less freedom. A vote for Romney is a voter to increase freedom just as much as Santorum if not more. Santorum seems to favor a number of mandates of his own when you look at his history.

flataffect on March 23, 2012 at 5:30 PM

So my initial, gut reaction during the early debates was that Satanorum is a douchebag. I am right. He’s basically a whiny, egomaniac, whoa-is-me! type. Basically a mirror image of Barack. SouthernGent on March 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM

My impression of Santorum has always been that he’s a very rigid, uncompromising, and impractical person with an explosive temper which is barely under control. The happy warrior facade has slipped and this tightly would man is starting to unwind

Basilsbest on March 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Is Bob Beckel drunk again?

malkinmania on March 23, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Today’s Santorum meltdown.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/neil-cavuto-hammers-rick-santorum-over-romneyobama-comment/

rubberneck on March 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Say goodnight Gracie Rick

Roy Rogers on March 23, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I hope the people of Lousiana see Santorums tantrums he has had over the last couple of days, and I hope that they overwhelmingly vote for Romney.

lhuffman34 on March 23, 2012 at 5:59 PM

“Hi, I’m Rick Santorum, and I’m a choice that’s a real choice, a choice for freedom. If there’s an etch-a-sketch it’s not a freedom choice, but I’m freedom. Better off sticking with what we’ve got rather than take a chance-” **GONG!**

Exit stage left.

EddieC on March 23, 2012 at 6:01 PM

It’s very disappointing to see Ed Morrissey supporting a candidate who can’t mathematically win the nomination and whose only role now is to drag down the certain nominee.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Romney is better than a box of rocks. Since he’s won, the only thing that makes sense is to get on board. If you don’t support him before he wins you will have no leverage afterwards. People like Limbaugh and Levin will be backing Romney 100% as soon as Santorum gives up. It will be well before the convention. This is Santorum’s critical mistake. The longer he stays in now the more opportunity he has to damage his future prospects.

The people who dislike Santorum should be pulling for him to follow Newt’s lead. Newt has nothing to lose. It’s his last chance.

gh on March 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM

No LEVERAGE?

Oh, yes, I do understand crony politics when I see it, all right.

That is how this system is falling apart through the mutual back-scratching and favor giving that puts bias into the government via politics. I am AGAINST THAT.

Can we get a candidate who will start to close the revolving door and STOP having the ones who ‘helped’ then get an inside job on writing regulations FROM their favored position that gave them LEVERAGE? That is destroying this system, not helping it.

I’m expecting that no matter WHO wins the POTUS position that conservatives will have to be working hard and fast to stop government policies that are already in place that can’t be stopped by a President and must be stopped by Congress. That is on top of any swell ideas to add to government to FIX things that the POTUS will propose… to help those who have LEVERAGE, of course. Gotta help those cronies to infest the system, now, dontchyaknow?

Nope, sorry, no bandwagon hopping for me. I’ll keep on doing as I have done pointing out that the flaws in the candidates and the process are leading to ruin and that to fix things the process needs to be fixed as well as our government. Unfortunately there is no way to LEVERAGE that stuff into place via pay-offs and back-scratching. It doesn’t work that way because of the power and money of the government the only pay-off is through power and money. And I strongly doubt that Romney can be LEVERAGED into becoming a small government conservative given his track record.

ajacksonian on March 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM

dude, give it up. It’s like you’re masturbating. It’s only satisfying to you and no one else wants to see it.

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM

For you guys who always label me a troll, here’s a real troll.

And he won’t be banned from this website. He’ll probably be posting on the Green Room soon enough.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Actually – it’s statement like this that might save Santorum. Romney bothers me – but we need unity in this party, not people threatening to vote for Obama.

williamg on March 23, 2012 at 10:45 PM

I’m assuming tesla supports a federal mandate legalizing gay marriage now, since he thinks the states aren’t fit to govern themselves. Comrades Obama, Holder, and Reid know what’s best for us all, just shut up and obey.

1984 in real life on March 23, 2012 at 5:19 PM

You are stupid. My point was that state politicians don’t have some kind of right to force you to buy a commodity that you don’t want to buy, healthcare mandates like RomneyCare. You’re defending THAT, and i’m against THAT, and you are comparing me to Obama and Democrats. You are stupidity on parade.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 10:46 PM

but we need unity in this party, not people threatening to vote for Obama.

williamg on March 23, 2012 at 10:45 PM

This is a Stalinist way of thinking. There’s no loyalty oath to the Republican party.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Jefferson was so much for the abolition of slavery that he owned slaves and I don’t think he even freed the ones he owned upon his death.

B/c he was for the abolition of slavery.

Let’s make Jefferson the poster boy of conservatism.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

“Freedom for me, not for thee” Jefferson

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Santorum has crashed, now let him burn. Break out the marshmallows and the skewers. It’s ovah!

captn2fat on March 23, 2012 at 11:34 PM

I dont know anybody can assert with confidence that ROmney will be better than Obama. How do we know until we elect him? He’s been all over the place in his rhetoric, and his record in political power was extremely liberal.

You act like doubting Romney is like doubting Michael Jordan was good at basketball.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Romney will have a second election to worry about, and if we do our part and elect a conservative congress he will have that to keep him honest. At least having an election for a second term to worry about will make him better than Obama.

Even with a conservative Congress there is nothing stopping Obama from wreaking havoc with his “we can’t wait” attitude and his consistent ignoring of the Constitution. Boehner just doesn’t have the balls to keep Obama from running away with it.

Mitt is a problem solver, he is far more likely to meet with both sides of the aisle and work towards GOVERNING. Unlike Obama who is working on IDEOLOGY.

Governing is about meeting in the middle, it’s not about Purity. It’s about doing what’s best for the country, not about saying “I Won”, and throwing a temper tantrum; or trying to do an end run around Congress and the Constitution to get your IDEOLOGICAL PURE projects done.

There will be a budget passed under a President Romney, under Obama you can expect four more years of “Deemed Budget”. Obamacare will be repealed under President Romney, no so much under Obama. You can expect an expansion of drilling under Romney, not so much under Obama.

You go ahead and believe that the guy who voted PRESENT in Illinois and had never accomplished a damn thing in his life is the same as the successful Wall Street Businessman. However, nobody else is believing your load of crap.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM

I dont know anybody can assert with confidence that ROmney will be better than Obama. How do we know until we elect him? He’s been all over the place in his rhetoric, and his record in political power was extremely liberal.

You act like doubting Romney is like doubting Michael Jordan was good at basketball.

Dr. Tesla on March 23, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Romney will have a second election to worry about, and if we do our part and elect a conservative congress he will have that to keep him honest. At least having an election for a second term to worry about will make him better than Obama.

Even with a conservative Congress there is nothing stopping Obama from wreaking havoc with his “we can’t wait” attitude and his consistent ignoring of the Constitution. Boehner just doesn’t have the balls to keep Obama from running away with it.

Mitt is a problem solver, he is far more likely to meet with both sides of the aisle and work towards GOVERNING. Unlike Obama who is working on IDEOLOGY.

Governing is about meeting in the middle, it’s not about Purity. It’s about doing what’s best for the country, not about saying “I Won”, and throwing a temper tantrum; or trying to do an end run around Congress and the Constitution to get your IDEOLOGICAL PURE projects done.

There will be a budget passed under a President Romney, under Obama you can expect four more years of “Deemed Budget”. Obamacare will be repealed under President Romney, no so much under Obama. You can expect an expansion of drilling under Romney, not so much under Obama.

You go ahead and believe that the guy who voted PRESENT in Illinois and had never accomplished a damn thing in his life is the same as the successful Wall Street Businessman. However, nobody else is believing your load of crap.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I agree with some of this, but some I find very unconvincing.

I don’t believe it’s ever been more important to elect a conservative Congress, because the best we can hope for is a President Santorum or Gingrich. While Romney looks like he has a better chance to win the primary, his chances in the general are poor.

You’re right about him wanting to move to the middle. If he did manage to become president, I would expect compromise with the left often, even when unnecessary. It’s just the way he is. He appeased the left in Mass. by raising fees instead of taxes. He appeased the left by proposing an individual mandate to buy health insurance as a substitute for full socialist medicine. He appeased the left by requiring Catholic institutions to administer the morning after pill. He appeased the left by pandering to the pro-choice and same-sex marriage lobbies. He is indeed an expert at moving to the middle.

There’s a big difference between compromising with the left when necessary, and just giving the left what they want. Here is where the myth of the businessman president fails. Business is all about making money, and that’s your only measure. Governing requires having a whole set of principles to be advanced, and the score-keeping is not as simple as how good your budget looks. Everything is political. Where a businessman can simply make a decision and expect everyone to follow if they like their paychecks, a president has to deal with multiple centers of power in Congress, the courts, special interest groups, and bureaucracies. It’s true that Senators don’t often become president, but businessmen almost never do. As good as it is for a president to be familiar with business and the effect of tax policy on it, the skill sets of CEO and president are very different.

I believe Romney would at least pass a budget. I would not expect it to contain any tax cuts, and I would expect the tax bite to be pretty bad, but there would at least be a budget.

I would fully expect Romney to pass minimum wage law increases, even though he should know they cause higher unemployment in entry-level jobs, simply because it would appease the left.

As for Obamacare, the only way Romney would repeal it is if a strongly Republican Congress refuses to accept anything less than repeal. Otherwise, I would thoroughly expect some “reforms” to be passed, and for conservatives and Tea Partiers to be told that they got every thing they could reasonable get.

Romney would not have the stark opposition to drilling that Obama has. But I would completely expect him to pander to environmentalist groups anyway, so I wouldn’t count on that much improvement.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 1:28 AM

I really would like to know why so many RonMeBots support 0bamacare. Honestly, are they all useless socialists needing to suck away at the public teat?!?!

DannoJyd on March 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

T

here Goes The Neighborhood on March 24, 2012 at 1:28 AM

but he is soooo electable … and besides it is his turn ….
I will not vote FOR him …. he nor his supporters have made that sale
to me …. however I will vote AGAINST Obama …

conservative tarheel on March 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

gravityman on March 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM

That is a gross misreading of history and the U.S. Constitution. Prior to adoption of the 13th Amendment, slavery was absolutely constitutional. It’s unfortunate that it took a civil war and amending the Constitution to change that, but let’s not gloss over the truth.

Contrary to what you write, the 3/5′s Compromise came about because Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as full persons, thereby increasing their power in Congress, yet Northern states strongly objected since they were of course still in chains. The compromise was to count these “other persons” as 3/5′s of a person. Insulting today perhaps, but this wasn’t a racist move on the part of Northern states but instead a way to dilute Southern power. This 3/5′s compromise originally arose under a failed proposal to amend the Articles of Confederation, not for purposes of representation in Congress but instead for taxation. In that earlier case the roles were reversed with Northern states advocating slaves being counted as whole persons and Southern states objecting.

You also ignore the Fugitive Slave Clause, in Article 4, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, thankfully now moot due to the 13th Amendment:

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

Pierce Butler & Charles Pinckney of South Carolina both introduced this clause to the Constitutional Convention and despite objections from Northern delegates it was kept in the original document.

JohnAGJ on March 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM

It reminds me of the Man’s Prayer from Red Green:

I’m a man,
But I can change,
If I have to,
I guess.

flataffect on March 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5