Here is another case of the “principled conservative” demonstrating anything other than political pliancy. Santorum endorsed Romney BEFORE Huckabee was out of the race. He was questioned about it in Iowa where, like Santorum, Huckabee had already won. Santorum’s answer?
- Huckabee had lost South Carolina and Florida
- Huckabee didn’t have a lot of money
So according to Santorum – you shouldn’t vote for him!
Just watch the interaction with an Iowan upset Santorum is telling them to go with him, when he advised otherwise with Hiuckabee:
As Politico puts it:
The problem with that argument, of course, is that Santorum is facing the very same questions that Huckabee encountered about viability past Iowa, which made establishment figures and donors fearful about his prospects. And restating that rationale arguably makes it harder for him to argue to potential boosters that he himself can get it done where Huckabee couldn't.
Sadly, it was the same Santorum thinking that gave us Arlen Specter – the 60th vote on Obamacare (which is currently spending taxpayer money to kill unborn babies in Pennsylvania). Santorum will not sway or compromise his beliefs – unless he doesn’t. But on voting for HIM, you should absolutely not do what he did with Romney or Specter.
And it’s not the only time he has betrayed his “pro-life” principle. I happened upon Rick Santorum’s Op Ed piece slamming Romney’s likelihood of nominating conservative judges. I agree with Rick Santorum’s points on Romney, but it underscores again that this guy is a political opportunist. Not only did Rick Santorum vote for pro-abortion Sotomayor to the 1-step-away-from-the-Supreme Appellate Court, he refused to endorse the conservatives in Congress that wanted to filibuster her nomination.
Even the liberal sites are picking up the hypocrisy for Santorum suddenly being “Shocked! Shocked I tell you”, that Romney isn’t a conservative. Not only did he choose Mitt over Huck, Specter over Toomey, Santorum goes beyond a begrudging or qualified endorsement to out right falsehoods.
As Rick Santorum said at the time:
"Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear," Santorum said enthusiastically on February 1, 2008, adding that "Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate" [italics added].
These liberal sites commenting on Santorum’s flip flops also gave me a glimpse at two other realities with respect to Richard J. Gaffe-A-Daily:
- Santorum has given the liberal media a veritable feast of verbal faux pas
- The utter hatred of Santorum over his overt anti-gay and
(at times) anti-liberated woman quotes will make the frenzy over Anita Bryant and more recently, Tracy Morgan and Brett Ratner seem like Ernie chastising Bert on Sesame Street. - Santorum can’t discipline himself to NOT jump in on the hot button social issues to keep the focus on issues.
Santorum never apologized for his staff’s suggestion Michele Bachmann shouldn’t be President because she’s a woman, suggested adultery would lead to bestiality, or that (early on) during the Catholic priest pedophilia scandal these relationships were “perfectly normal.”
Most of the statements (like Americans don’t owe kids a college education) that these liberal blogs cite are actually IN the mainstream of American opinion – especially post Tea Party. But it’s like Rick Santorum doesn’t see a leftist landmine he doesn’t like when it he gets a chance to push traditional values.
They hypocrisy is daring to criticize Newt Gingrich for NOT derailing Contract With America by putting controversial social items first. Gingrich spent over 14 years planning a national campaign that would allow historic conservative legislative achievements to be enacted within 100 days. The same planning and strategy THAT GOT SANTORUM ELECTED TO CONGRESS!
The fact that Rick Santorum is so politically blind to basic election strategy – and so politically promiscuous AND hyperventilating hypocritical - is another reason to prefer a more mature conservative for the GOP nomination. Do we really want to risk the LAST chance the GOP has to save the Constitution, on a guy who is so prone to set traps for himself and his party?
Later tonight, PoltiJim will be posting evidence that Santorum ridiculed Welfare Reform in his early days in Congress.
3 comments:
Oh, grief, I knew something would surface about Rick other than the earmark issue. I am shocked about the Sotomayor vote.
It disturbs me a great deal that Rick doesn't miss an opportunity to diss Newt, when they've known each other for 20 years. I can't understand why Rick won't give it up and realize he can't win on a national level.
I look forward to reading further reports from you. Thanks so much.
So our choice is between 3 flip floppers with a less than perfect conservative record or a guy whose foreign policy comes straight from Thomas Jefferson's 1780's playbook.
I wouldn't categorize either Santorum or Gingrich as flip floppers. They have very few things they've changed on although Santorum has evidence there is more of a "say anything" to get elected with the "I was in a blue state" response. (which is what that is). But no danger of being as bad as Mitt in my opinion.
There are only 2 problems with your 1780 reference for Ron Paul. First, it isn't 1780. Islam has a goal of wiping US off the face of the earth and it requires aggressive foreign policy engagement. Second, JEFFERSON himself went off to fight a "foreign war" when we could least afford it. Does the "Halls of Tripoli" ring a bell?
Unfortunately, Ron Paul has a view of the constitution the FOUNDERS didn't even have.
Post a Comment