Santorum hits hard: Romney’s on the left’s team

Responding to attacks over his ‘team player’ comment, Santorum hits back hard at Romney over his apparent hypocrisy by launching into a litany of questionable positions Romney’s held over the years, including his siding with Ted Kennedy over government run healthcare in Massachusetts and his appointment of liberal activist judges while governor, asking the question “what team was Romney on” when he took those positions.

When asked specifically how he would characterize the team that Romney’s on, Santorum replied “Well I would say that’s the left..”, and went on to defend that position. Toward the end of the clip he also added that Romney’s tax plan adopts “the rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street folks” and said “we don’t need someone who is going to adopt their playbook as our nominee!”



Here’s the full clip:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

116 thoughts on “Santorum hits hard: Romney’s on the left’s team

  1. This was a great interview. Santorum stood his ground and called Romney out on his Liberalism past and how he has only stepped foot in the middle, pretending to lean to the right. And this correspondent is an irresponsible and utterly lazy, to not have done her own homework on Santorum’s work history after he left the congress, when she mentioned that Romney called Santorum a lobbyist. If she did her own research (which is her job to do) she would have found this out for herself, and wouldn’t have wasted the interview time, on a stupid question. Oh, and I’m a Gingrich supporter.

  2. Rick is falling into it just like the rest of them. In the past week, Romney has shifted to policy and attacks on Obama. Rick has been put on the defensive and now in the late stages of the race, he is caught up in tit for tat stuff. He looks small and petty. Romney looks presidential. You would think at least one of these guys could figure out how to NOT let Romney get under their skin.

  3. Wow, did you check out the look on her face? I really had to admire her for putting up with that…that…why that right wing, conservative, tea-something-or-other. I’ll bet she went and washed her hands afterwards just in case it’s catching.

  4. I found this quote about Romney’s campaign that describes it perfectly ” Romney’s running a “SEINFELD” campaign, it’s a campaign about NOTHING!!! LOL !!!

  5. Ya know I’ve been thinking all day if NEWT and SANTORUM fans would unite, help eachother and bump Rombo , then they can go head to head. Everyone keeps saying on of them needs to get out of the race , when in reality they need to join forces and nix mitt!

  6. There’s an important lesson here for conservatives, and I hope they’re paying attention, especially in congress. When establishment republicans ask you to sacrifice for the ‘team’, they won’t hesitate to use it against you later as they throw you under the bus. Don’t do them any favors. Stick to your conservative principles.

  7. I know that this website is Romney-hater-central, but I think Romney should get some credit for the fact that he even won in Massachusetts, a deeply blue state with something like an 80% democratic legislature. He had to run as a pragmatic moderate there or he wouldn’t have gotten elected. No one else in this field has done that. Once he was in office, he governed as more conservative then he talked, and didn’t get a second chance at it because he knew they would go for the ignorant leftist Deval Patrick. The fact is that Massachusetts is no place for a conservative, and if he wanted to be seen as a conservative in the future he shouldn’t have run for office there. Give the man a break and hold him accountable if he is elected.

    It’s not his fault that Obama adopted his health care plan. What if Bush had done it? The idea originated at the Heritage foundation, back in the day when an individual mandate was considered conservative legislation and an employer mandate wasn’t. And now, as soon as Obama’s adopted it, it’s evil liberalism? I think people are simply upset that it has so many similarities to Romney care. Sadly, Mitt Romney isn’t to blame for any of this.

    There are many double standards emerging through this race and this presidency. All of the democrats were furious about the war when Bush was in office, and how horrible it was going, and now when Obama in office everything is hunky dory. The same goes for the indefinite detainment of US citizens, and how Obama extended the Patriot act. Where is all the democratic dissent over THIS!? I can even say the same about Conservatives. Romney loved the Paulson bailouts, but now that it’s Geithner, bailouts are somehow evil? Santorum loved No Child Left Behind, and now he’s against it? Gingrich thought Fannie and Freddie were practicing “crazy lending”, and continued to be payed millions to lobby for them?!? (read all about that here: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple) And don’t get me started on Ron Paul.

    This entire field makes me want to puke. I know that we will take back every branch of government in 2016 though (I’m hoping for Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker). It can’t get worse than this, right?

    1. I don’t trust Romney and I ain’t a sucker for his pander.

      Why should we give Romney credit for being a republican governor, he was 4th consecutive republican governor elected in Mass. It was a blue state when he got there, it blue when he left, it wasn’t purple.

    2. …I think Romney should get some credit for the fact that he even won in Massachusetts, a deeply blue state with something like an 80% democratic legislature…‘ – dst

      This line is getting a bit stale to me. We are supposed to like Romney because he got elected in a ‘deeply blue state’. I don’t know any true conservative that really wants to be, or would even try to be, elected in a ‘deeply blue state’ unless they ran as a conservative with conservative ideas. To imply that you need to look moderate or liberal just to get elected begs the argument, ‘well, who the heck are you anyway?’

      I know that this website is Romney-hater-central…‘ – dst

      The reason this site looks to be ‘Romney-hater central’ is because the commentors on this site, for the most part, are serious about their politics and delve deeply into it to find the truth. When someone comes out smelling , shall we say, less than aromatic, then they call them on it. It is one of the many reasons I like this site more than any other.

      Santorum loved No Child Left Behind, and now he’s against it?‘ – dst

      You can vote for something in 2001 and realize in 2012 that it didn’t work. It’s nice to know one can admit their mistakes.

      Gingrich thought Fannie and Freddie were practicing “crazy lending”, and continued to be payed millions to lobby for them?!?‘ – dst

      Newt never worked for Fannie and was a private citzen consultant for Freddie (with written clauses that prevented lobbying). perhaps some further reading on your part might be in order. A good start would be here:

      http://www.newt.org/answers/#lobbying

      1. “This line is getting a bit stale to me. We are supposed to like Romney because he got elected in a ‘deeply blue state’. I don’t know any true conservative that really wants to be, or would even try to be, elected in a ‘deeply blue state'”
        Well, maybe because they have to get elected nationwide, and it wouldn’t hurt to have a few independent and liberal voters? Not only would it not hurt, we actually NEED them.

        “You can vote for something in 2001 and realize in 2012 that it didn’t work. It’s nice to know one can admit their mistakes.”
        OK, then how come that doesn’t apply to Romney’s so-called mistakes? He’s said he never wanted Obama care at the national level. You just like Santorum/Gingrich more, plain and simple.

        “Newt never worked for Fannie and was a private citzen consultant for Freddie (with written clauses that prevented lobbying). perhaps some further reading on your part might be in order. A good start would be here:”
        HA! Is linking to Gingrich’s website going to persuade me that he didn’t do that? Go read Tim Carney’s article at the Washington Examiner that I linked to, I don’t think you have read it carefully enough.

        1. Do your homework, DST. When Romney passed Romneycare, he explicitly touted it as something that could be used on the national scale (which he then, of course, envisioned taking credit for). Moreover, ROMNEYCARE is Mitt Romney’s BIGGEST mistake – and he stands behind it, knowing the disaster that it has created in MA, and the disaster that it will create in the US since it served as the model for Obamacare. But, I guess that’s Rick Santorum’s fault for supporting Arlen Specter, who then got re-elected and served as the vote that passed Obamacare into law. Yeah, that’s it.

        2. Is linking to Gingrich’s website going to persuade me that he didn’t do that?‘ – dst

          I said it was a good start, as it appears you don’t know much about the issue. If you did you wouldn’t mention Fannie in the same sentence as Freddie. From his statements, you can either confirm or rebuke them with followup searches. It’s your choice. But at least you would have done some homework.

          Oh, and by the way, the Washington Examiner endorsed McCain in ’08 and Romney in ’12, so we can see which way they are leaning, too.

    3. Wait a minute – you want us to give credit to Romney because he “did what he had to” in order to get elected Governor in MA? Isn’t he the same one questioning Rick Santorum’s principles and courage because he didn’t vote against EVERY bill that contained something with which he disagreed? Mitt Romney is a hypocrite and a (admitted) liar – he admitted that he only told the voters in MA what they wanted to hear. But, now he’s telling the truth, right? No, sorry, he doesn’t get credit for that in my book. I give more credit to someone like Santorum who is willing to be straight up with voters in talking about his past failures – voting for NCLB (which for the record, DST, Romney has and continues to support, but he won’t tell you that), the abuse that developed with earmarks, helping pass bills on behalf of his President and his party with which he may have disagreed, for the overall good of the party (which btw, is how it goes in Washington, and Mitt knows that). Alternatively, Romney fully stands behind the monstrosity that Romneycare has become (at that time, he endorsed it as a potential “national model”). The fact that you say Romney isn’t to blame is appalling – he pushed it and implemented it, proclaimed it loudly upon passage and kissed Kennedy’s rear in the process. Yeah, it’s all the Heritage Foundation’s fault. Who are you kidding?

      Whether you support him or not (seems like you do, yet you disavow the entire field), Mitt Romney was not a conservative leader of conviction in Massachusetts even when it became clear he was not going to get re-elected. That, sir, is not courage.

    4. States have the right to mandate but NOT the federal government. Romney attempted to help those that didn’t have insurance and what he designed for the state allowed everyone else to keep their insurance, yes the taxes went up but it was never intended to be a federal program-perhaps Obama used it because he wasn’t smart enough to come up with something on his own and by adding thousands of pages and more rules he was able to morph Romney’s plan into what we know of today as Obamacare which is worse than what MA had because Obama has taken advantage of this “health-care” to add several thousand pages of requirements which was QUITE different than Romney’s plan.

      1. Why do you feel the states have the right to mandate that individuals buy medical insurance? Medical care providers have the right to insist on payment if the individuals don’t have insurance or to be a charitable doctor/institution where donations help to fund those so poor they can’t afford a monthly payment plan. Medical care providers have the right to offer their services on a sliding scale based on what individuals can afford with their income. But again, why do feel states have the right to mandate? Why should they have any more right than the federal government to mandate medical insurance? This is intrusive government, and should not be advocated at any level.

    1. Yep…

      Santorum knows the difference between the constraints of laissez-faire (… let it be) free market libertarianism that Beck also espouses and the Murray Rothbard libertarianism that Ron Paul espouses.

      Beck’s intentions are honorable, but his “purist” perspective just seems to be lacking a real-world element, as his friendly contentious exchange with Santorum suggests.

      – – – – – – – – – –

      For all it’s faults, Wikipedia is handy dandy.
      >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

      “In economics, laissez-faire is an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.

      “The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means “let do”, but it broadly implies “let it be”, or “leave it alone.”

      “A laissez-faire state and completely free market has never existed.

      “… Argenson himself had used the phrase earlier (1736) in his own diaries, in a famous outburst:

      “Laissez faire, telle devrait être la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est civilisé…

      “Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l’abaissement de nos voisins! Il n’y a que la méchanceté et la malignité du coeur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et l’intérêt y est opposé. Laissez faire, morbleu! Laissez faire!!

      (Trans:
      “Leave it be, that should be the motto of all public powers, as the world is civilized…

      “That we cannot grow except by lowering our neighbors is a detestable notion!

      “Only malice and malignity of heart is satisfied with such a principle and our (national) interest is opposed to it.

      “Leave it be, for heaven’s sake!

      “Leave it be!)

      – – – – – – – – – –

      >> “That we cannot grow except by lowering our neighbors is a detestable notion!”

      Art

  8. I said it before and I’ll say it again… marginalize these trash faux news sites (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) and don’t appear on them… they all suck. This woman is really trying hard to “make something happen” and it’s annoying. Let the man finish speaking… then continue with your absurd line of questioning.

    I realize there’s an audience that those stations reach that might never get to see what REAL conservatives look or sound like – and they may never get the clear, non-propaganda version of Santorum or Newt without these appearances. But to go on there gives them a little clout and ammunition to distort… marginalize them like they deserve… don’t go on their wretched programs.

    I have changed my opinion about this. Don’t go on their sites and the audience will go where the news is… they won’t linger for the gossip, spin, or fluff pieces they’d be left with.

    1. It depends. If they own it like Rick did here, I think it is a great idea to go on them. Just stand firm and talk over them.

    1. HOW??? he has the EXACT SAME RECORD minus foreign policy! Not only would he NOT crush him, he would be annihilated by the left and accused of being no different than Obama!

      Obama’s campaign slogan would be: Why vote for Obamney when you can have the original?

      HECK, even George Soros, can see the similarities, why in God’s name can’t so-called New England Conservatives??

      Soros: Obama, Romney ‘Not Much Difference’
      http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/SorosObama-RomneyNotMuchDifference/2012/01/28/id/425830

    2. He probably would crush Obama in a democratic primary.

      But he is running in a republican primary, proclaiming himself to be a “severe conservative”.

      And unless he gets someone who is truely conservative on life and marriage as a running mate, I plan not to vote for him if he becomes the nominee.

  9. Gee Gloria, if you keep bouncing that thick head of yours around you are liable to hurt yourself. Your arrogance is so…on display. Pardon me while I push a little flatulence in your general direction. Nice retort Rick. You made her tiny brain explode.

  10. I had really hoped that Santorum would stick with his positive campaign and let the others mud wrestle each other. But no, he took the bait and jumped into the mud with them. Now he comes across as angry and petty just like Newt did when he broke his promise to run a positive campaign and jumped into the mud after Iowa. What Romney’s Super PAC is saying about them is NOTHING compared to what Obama’s PACs and his cheer leading media are going to do to them if they win the nomination. If they can’t handle it with grace now, they won’t stand a chance in the general.

    Now, I feel like I have no clear conservative to choose from. They have all acted like RINOs in the past. They have all chosen at one time or another to “take one for the team” instead of choosing to take one for the American people. And again I’m being forced to hold my nose and choose between the least of two evils. Our only hope is that one of them has truly repented of his past flings with progressivism and is sincere in his claim to have seen the conservative light. But which one?

    1. He said it in the interview. He is not attacking personally like Obamney; he’s attacking his record. fair game.

      1. Rick says he’s not attacking personally like Obama says he’s not engaging in class warfare. Yeah right! If you called me a leftist or an Occupier I would consider that a personal attack, wouldn’t you? I have no problem with Santorum pointing out specific things in Romney’s record or anyone else’s record that he doesn’t like. But making general negative statements about another Republican candidate is mud slinging and personal. That is the reason that I say he has decided to get down into the mud with the others. What have other GOP candidates said that was any worse than this?

          1. Every candidate, including Santorum, has taken some left wing positions in the past. Funding Planned parenthood and calling the pro-choice Arlen Specter a true conservative are just two of them. The problem is, how does Rick call Mitt a conservative and someone you can trust last time he ran, and now call him left wing for supporting the same policies? If Romney did that, you would call him a “flip-flopper” and a hypocrite. Some people just won’t see what they don’t want to see.

            1. Enough of the navel gazing. I pick Rick because he is better than Romney. Romney said recently that Islam is one of the worlds noble religions and that jihad has nothing to do with Islam. Romney has obviously not educated himself on Islam and should not be near the WH.

        1. Also, Romney wants to tax the one percent more, just like the left. Romney said “one percent” just like the occupiers say it. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. That’s not calling Romney an occupier. I believe Santorum said that Romney was using the same rhetoric as the occupiers. Big difference.

    2. How is it mud wrestling to talk about what Romney supported?
      I thought Santorum handled it with good natured humor.

    3. Louie, so you don’t want someone who can defend themself? I’m all for the positive vision, but you don’t let your boy get pushed around at school his whole life without eventually standing up for himself. I want to see a man out there – someone who can defend himself when and as necessary. And, I don’t see Gingrich or Santorum having problems with the real substantive debates – problem is, Romney’s team likes to lie alot and the American voter generally doesn’t know any better. Therefore, he who spends the most on ads will earn the point. Should the others just take it lying down? We’ll see how Romney takes it from Obama – I can picture it now, Romney is not a streetfighter like Newt or Rick, he will get pummeled.

      And, you’ll find a 100% pure conservative choice later on tonight – in your dreams. These are politicians, after all. It’s true in life that nobody is perfect, and it’s even more true in Washington. Pure ideologues are quickly pushed to the fringe and have no chance at leadership. Additionally, nothing would get done without a little give and take. I want a pragmatic leader who has the conviction to promote and push for conservative principles, while at the same time understands what it takes to get things done.

      1. I’m not looking for a “100% pure conservative”, I’m looking for an upbeat, positive conservative in the vein of Ronald Reagan who can articulate his own position without having to tear down his fellow GOP candidates. Reagan wasn’t perfect either. He changed from Democrat to Republican and he signed pro-choice legislation while governor. But he was still better than any of the candidates we have today.

        Where has Newt’s “streetfighter” abilities gotten him other than a big slide in the polls? Now Rick is getting pummeled by the MSM for his comments on contraceptives. Those are side issues to distract from Obama’s failed policies and Rick should not let them suck him in. But he can’t seem to help himself.

        Romney is the only one who has been consistently high in the polls over a long period of time. Yes, he has been more negative than I would like (or his Super PAC has been), but he’s remained #1 or #2 throughout. I don’t equate Romneycare to Obamacare. Romney gave the majority of people in Massachusetts what they wanted. Obama gave the majority of Americans what they did not want. That’s a big difference! If you disagree then you apparently want to elect a right-wing tyrant who has no qualms about going against the will of the majority to force people to do what you think is right. How is that any different from the Left and the way they want to force their ideals down our throats?

        One more thing. Everyone blames Romney for forcing Catholic hospitals to provide rape victims with the morning after pill in Massachusetts. But they are totally ignoring the elephant in the room. It was the Catholic majority legislator that passed the bill and later overrode Romney’s veto. They also refused to pass the bill Romney put forward to exempt religious institutions. So how is it Romney’s fault that the Catholic majority in Massachusetts elected liberal legislators who pass these type of bills? Was he supposed to pull an Obama and refuse to enforce the law against his oath of office? Was it Romney’s responsibility to protect Catholic doctrine against attacks from other Catholics? A house divided cannot stand. See Father Trosch’s web site to read more about how Catholics are there own worst enemies when it comes to abortion: http://www.trosch.org/chu/cathabor.htm

        1. Newt is still standing the last I checked. Also the last I checked he is the only one who is attacking Obama. I have not heard any other candidate speak up for what happen in Afghanistan except Newt.

          If Santorum gets side tracked during the campaign, God help us if he becomes president.

          Newt is the right choice now.

        2. Papa you start out with “I’m not looking for a “100% pure conservative”,I’m looking for an upbeat, positive conservative in the vein of Ronald Reagan who can articulate his own position without having to tear down his fellow GOP candidates.”

          Seriously, the only description that comes close to describing Romeny is “you are NOT looking for a 100% pure conservative”, Seriously you can drop the percentage 50 points and it still works for him.

          Ra ra ra ra Romney ca ca ca ca can’t articulate his own position.

          1. I second what FreeManWalking said.

            As for the Catholic hospitals being forced to provide the morning after pill: This is not about the Catholic Church. I don’t even like the Catholic Church. This is about Religious Liberty for Individuals. Government should not force anybody to provide services that conflict with their Religious beliefs. Catholics aren’t the only ones opposed to abortion either. This type of thing affects every Christian denomination, and if you are not willing to stand up when the Government is attacking the Catholics than you will be next.

  11. The pot calling the kettle black. Rick must have missed Sunday school the day they spoke on ” A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” He has the audacity to use the word “hypocrite”.

    When Santorum endorsed Arlene Spector a liberal pro abortion senator from his state against a pro life candidate like Toomey. Then claims he made a deal for the future judgeship votes coming down the road. This is so wrong in so many ways. He decided to make a “God” decision about the future, and compromised his own self proclaimed value system. ( I am not saying Santorum is not pro-life). This smacks of being morally wrong in my opinion.
    He signs a bill that would found Planned Parenthood, & unless you are living in a hole, knows that it is pro abortion. Example: This is like making a salad with all the good veggies, nuts, etc. and then adding a little arsenic. It does not matter all the good in the salad, the arsenic will kill you.
    Santorum scares me. I almost feel that he has the Obama infatuation going for him, and no one is really looking at the record.

    When I do critical analysis, I try to separate the facts from the stories. Once I do that I try to see if there are any stories, that support the facts, or are they just stories.

    I see a lot of stories in the Santorum campaign.

    1. I think your critical analysis is one sided against Rick Santorum.

      Here’s a fact: Gingrich says he would defund Planned Parenthood, but failed to accomplish this when he had the power to do so. Under Newt Gingrich’s tenure as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives 1995-1999, the federal government channeled $587,073,070 to Planned Parenthood components – more than half a billion dollars – and his Republican-dominated House never voted to bar taxpayer funding to this largest U.S. abortion provider.

      Also no federal funds can be used to provide abortions at PP. The problem is PP provides abortions with private funds and pro-life opponents don’t like any tax dollars going to an origination that provides them. Both Rick Santorum & Newt Gingrich want to defund Planned Parenthood.

      My point, you can try to spin whatever way you can come up with to turn Planned Parenthood against Rick Santorum, same thing could be done to Newt Gingrich, the same with Mitt Romney on issue of PP. (I think its cowardly for Newt supporters to piggy-back this Mitt Attack)

      1. This was not about planned parenthood, it was to the issue of character. Your comment does not address the issue of being hypocritical.

        The everyone did it rationale, never is acceptable. It is like saying I am taking one for the team. You either are principled or not. He had the opportunity to vote his principles and failed on more than one occasion to do so. Santorum is running on his principles. He made it the issue. I noticed you never dealt with the Spector issue. I guess you could not make that a Newt, Mitt & Rick issue.

        If you are going to run on the issue of having the highest ethics in the race. Then you had better be able to support that fact. People who live in glass houses never should throw stones.
        .

        1. You really want to judge moral character when you support Newt? Really? Like I said you can try to spin anyway want. Newt = endorsed Dede Scozzafava, Mitt = Voted for Democrats, Rick = endorsed Specter.

          Specter? Why are we complaining about him still? Really it’s a non-issue, but He did what Rick said he did, the proof is in the pudding. There are even reports in the press supporting Rick’s claim of Specter did indeed assured his republican colleagues he would support Bush’s supreme court appointees.

          You can’t be as principled as you want when your in congress, not Rick, not Newt, mitt has no principles, but unless you want to accomplish nothing then support Ron Paul.

          1. The issue is Rick is calling the others hypocrites. You can present all the stories you want, the issue is……… Is he justified in that statement? Your last statement I think you might want to re-think. It makes my point.

            1. He was talking about Romney being a hypocrite and he is one. All Mitt’s attacks reek of hypocrisy on the issues.
              -Mitt supports NCLB, Newt supports NCLB

              -Mitt supported the Bailouts, Newt supported the Bailouts, He said that McCain’s vote for TARP bailouts “is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate”.

              -Mitt supporters Romneycare individual mandates, Newt supported individual mandates
              -Mitt supported Cap-n-Trade, Newt supported Cap-n-Trade

              -Mitt has washington insiders and lobbyist in his campaign, Newt lobbied er consulted(yeah right) for Ethanol and Freddie Mac

              and and you are trying to piggy-back mitt’s attacks in favor for Newt attacking Rick on principles and character? Give me a break, that is hypocrisy. Get off your high horse no one can match standards on principles. No one is good enough for you.

              1. Sir this post is a talking points library. Some of your facts need to be fact checked by you. You are taking the talking points you have heard and are just regurgitating them here thinking the volume of words really has power. One point. Please give me a place to go where Newt attacked Santorum on principles. I am really interested in this point in your essay.

                Last sentence makes no sense. Full circle. Does Santorum really have the credentials to be able to call any candidate a hypocrite? If he continues on this path he is toast.

                1. Yes, he can call Mitt out for hypocrisy. And I’m glad Rick did, he didn’t let Mitt get away with attacks he threw it back in Romney’s face. I like that better instead of whining about him being really really big liar like Newt did.

                2. Just read an article in the New York Times where Santorum is complaining ( you call it whining) about what is happening to him via Paul & Romney. In your mindset I am sure this is just fine, but it is exactly what Newt did when they tag teamed him in Florida. If you think it is ok for Santorum but not ok for Newt, would that make you a hypocrite. Just asking.

        2. Problem with your point is that Santorum isn’t running based on “having the highest ethics in the race.” That Catholic-schoolboy caricature is one created by the media based on his willingness to speak about his faith and beliefs. Instead, Santorum is running as the most consistent conservative who can present the strongest contrast against President Obama. He is right on both points. At no time in this campaign has Rick Santorum held himself out as a perfect man. He, unlike Romney, has admitted his mistakes. Is Toomey a stronger conservative than Specter? Yes. Did Santorum do what most (if not all) party leaders did in endorsing Specter at the time? Yes. Does every (or any) legislator vote against every bill with which they disagree? Not if they want to be relevant – so I suppose ALL politicians are therefore hypocrites, right? Do they sometimes make mistakes in endorsements? Yes, see e.g. Specter endorsement along with Romney 2008. Fact of the matter is, at the end of the day we got the conservative judges we needed on the Supreme Court. BTW, what did Mitt do in the category of appointing conservative jurists in MA???

          Nice try though using the Romney team’s Specter red-herring to distract from real issues.

          1. I find most of this post to be conjecture & not fact. It would appear from your statement that being relevant is more important then being principled.

            We have come full circle once again. Do not call the other guy a hypocrite if you are one also.

            Santorum had better start presenting his solutions for this country, how he intends to accomplish them, and prove to the American people he can get it done. If he continues to stay in the pissing contest with the other candidates. He loses.

          2. “At no time in this campaign has Rick Santorum held himself out as a perfect man.”

            On his campaign website it says he is a “true conservative.” His record is that of a pro-life moderate. Pro-life, but still a moderate. He has joined into funky legislation with Boxer, such as “Open Space” which limits what people can do with their own property. He has voted for bills endorsing “gun education” in schools to “reduce violence”, which invariably leads to anti-gun propaganda by schools. He has voted against Right to Work. He has praised Unions, the “working man”, as if we aren’t all working.

            But more important than all of this, Santorum doesn’t have a legitimate platform. Cain was our game changer with the 999. Each candidate has endorsed a form of the flat tax (Cain’s was technically an intermediate form leading to the Fair tax). Santorum couldn’t even articulate what 999 was even about and chose to distort it. He has voted against the flat tax while in congress. He has voted to support entitlements. His platform only raises the retirement age for social security and makes promises about taking care of that money, making cuts, etc., nevermind that it has no long term future. His tax plan is still maintaining the same progressive structure, picking winners and losers, 0 percent for his Union buddies in manufacturers, his “working men”, and 17 percent for everybody else. He does not embrace a truly equitable form of taxation that treats EVERYONE equal under the law, and he denigrates the idea as going too far.

            Nice try covering up Santorum’s weaknesses with platitudes, but he simply isn’t the “true conservative” you claim he is. He is a moderate from PA, his record is that of a moderate, that any pro-life Democrat could have had. Religion and social issues are his only strong issues, and the great joke here is that every Republican candidate (except Romney and Paul to a lesser degree) already shares the same positions. Santorum’s foundation is built on sand.

            1. The non-joke is every other candidate on the platform does not share the conviction about marriage that Rick exhibits.
              http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/02/24/gingrich-least-states-are-using-bills-not-judges-legalize-same-sex-marriage
              This makes me even more glad that I voted for Rick.

              Manufacturers have been outsourcing many, many jobs to other countries. The winners with Rick’s plan are Americans needing employment, because I believe rolling back burdensome regulations and cutting the tax down to zero for domestic manufacturing will be a big draw to pull at least a portion of those lost jobs back to the United States. As a consumer, I’d love to see more products with a USA label. There are some types of products it seems all they carry in most stores are made in China… and I try hard to boycott those.

              Rick also wants to cut tax for domestic businesses that have not outsourced to other countries (because of the nature of their business). He wants to cut the current tax rate for them in half- in the form of a flat tax. I’d say in this case too, Americans seeking jobs would benefit from this cut because I think it would encourage job creation. And maybe it would translate to lower prices on things too.

              And he also wants to cut tax rates for individuals in America to Reagan era levels. This would have the government taking less money out of tax-paying individual’s pockets. Money they can choose to give to charities, save, or spend as they choose. I’d say that would be a tax cut appreciated by a lot of people.

              He understands that the deficit has sky-rocketed more than it did under a number of predecessors to President Obama combined.

              There are issues like life, marriage, foreign policy, cap and trade, individual health care mandating, and wall street bailouts where he draws a sharp contrast with Obama.
              He has a platform and it is resonating with many who hear it. The life of the unborn and God’s definition of marriage are not trivial issues to me. I believe Rick would fight for both and not put those issues on a back burner if elected. I was glad he was in the race when I voted here in TN (early voting). He is sure far more conservative than the two senators in my native CA state!

              1. It is unfair for Santorum to offer a 0 percent tax cut to manufacturers rather than offering a single low flat tax treating all businesses the same. The end result will be that businesses will then race to see how they can interpret their business as a manufacturer come tax time. It’s just more playing around with the system, picking winners and losers, and giving favors to particular people over others. You used the word “flat” tax, but it is not a flat tax. He lowers the business taxes from what they are now down to 17 percent and 0 percent for manufacturers. He does not abolish the capital gains tax, but only movies it down to (I believe) 12.5 percent. For individuals, we still pay income tax between 10 to 28 percent, not including FICA which you will still pay. This is not a flat tax, even though he called it one. A flat tax is one flat tax. Not income tax, plus FICA, minus whatever deductions. The IRS is unscathed. The tax code is not destroyed. Everything remains in the same progressive framework. We have a weak President to go up against and, as a result, a tremendous chance to make some serious reforms that were not possible 10 to 20 years ago. Why choose to stick with the same games when we can make a significant move to abolish the system entirely? I also find it pretty funny that Mr. “Reagan Democrat” system just coincidentally benefits the Unions the most. Unions need to be destroyed or significantly weakened, not given an edge over non-Unionized businesses that aren’t in manufacturing.

                I myself favor a fair tax with the abolishment of the 16th amendment. This is end-game for me. A flat tax, at least, is a positive first step that begins to break people away from this unequitable, progressive system of taxation we have now.

                As for marriage and social issues. Santorum isn’t the strongest on that, unless you are basing it on the number of children he has. I think I read he has 7 kids. I suppose that’s a strong marriage, he should be elected to President right away! Nevermind any of his actual policies. I know Saint Rick runs on social issues, but it’s a myth that somehow he’s going to do more for them than Newt Gingrich! If you really believe that, you haven’t looked at Newt’s platform.

                It’s time to move on from these moderates who abuse God for their own political benefit, when they themselves have been more than willing to be nasty and dishonest against good conservatives like Newt or Cain. The Moral Majority are ignoring the dirty politicking of their Moral Majority candidate. It’s delusions layered upon other delusions.

                1. I think that it is unfair that it has become so hard to compete in America in the field of manufacturing because of regulations and taxes that so many jobs have gone away from this country to other countries. All that needs to be done is to have a clear definition of what a manufacturing job is. How many things in/at our houses were manufactured in America? If certain countries decided to cut off certain products to America, would many of us soon be without things we now take for granted as being available on the store shelves? Rick has said he would be in support of right to work in states. Why would manufacturing businesses in other countries have to come back to the U.S. as union only businesses?

                  Other jobs that are already here because the way they can operate is here- they aren’t outsourcing jobs to other countries… the jobs are still here. But Rick wants them to have, in the form of a flat percentage, a cut to half the tax rate that they currently pay. I think this big tax cut would be a big boost to hurting businesses and may also stimulate job creation.

                  Americans are the winners with these plans in both cases. Those looking for employment are the winners in both cases.

                  I’ve never heard him call the individual tax rates a flat tax.

                  I believe he is offering some serious tax cuts and there is still a huge deficit and there are still bills that need paying, though government spending needs to be cut. Why do you believe that the capital gains tax should be lowered to zero rather than just lowered?

                  I saw that Rick Santorum was the main sponsor of the partial birth abortion bill while in the Senate. Please see a strong record of fighting against abortion:
                  http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/21/paul-ad-makes-it-appears-santorum-suppots-planned-parenthood/

                  I have heard Rick say he wants a U.S. constitution amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Here’s what Gingrich said recently:
                  http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/02/24/gingrich-least-states-are-using-bills-not-judges-legalize-same-sex-marriage

                  I now know that Rick is the only one in the race showing in his speech that he is determined to fight on the side of all Americans who want only true marriage recognized in this country. I do not want on this so important issue for us to become these divided states of America.

                  Gingrich has taken the position he opposes judges deciding the matter, but that people in states should have the right to vote to redefine marriage if that’s what they want.
                  God defined marriage, not people… there is a higher law and it’s written in God’s Word as well as on our consciences.

                  The majority of people in any state, if there is a majority in any state who, in rejecting their Creator, the Author and Definer of marriage, would vote to redefine it, should not be allowed to impose their immoral stance on those who have the conviction about marriage having the definition its Designer gave it.

                  Gingrich believes the right way to go about same gender so-called marriage is that people, if they are the majority in any given state, should have the right to redefine what marriage is in that state if they want to.

      2. (I think its cowardly for Newt supporters to piggy-back this Mitt Attack)

        ——————————————————–

        Well it’s definitely stupid. Whatever the difference between Santorum and Gingrich in terms of how conservative they are, there is a whole lot more difference between either one and Mitt Romney. Keeping Mitt Romney from being the nominee is job one here.

        1. Well Said. The piggy backing attacks on both sides is immature. We need a leader, not a salesman in the white house.

    2. Santorum didn’t sign bills that founded Planned Parenthood. It’s been around for quite some time. Research Margaret Sanger.
      Who do you support?

      1. Fact: He signed a bill that included Title X. This is a fact. Save me the excuses please. He has a good story to go with it, but he did sign on a bill that had Title X as part of it. You cannot re-write history.

        He could have voted no. What good are principles if you compromise them. He created this white elephant in the room by making his principles the main line of his campaign. Sorry You are offended.

        1. So then, you will no longer be voting in federal elections. Do you know how legislation works??

          BTW, REHLV, those who know what a real pro-life legislator is are for the most part supporting Rick Santorum.

          1. More conjecture on your part & the pundits that promote that thought process.

            I might even vote for Santorum.

            I feel that your zeal has blinded your reason on this issue. Do not attack the other person for the things you yourself are guilty . How hard is this? It is merely constructive criticism.

            Have a nice day. I am all done here.

        2. Exactly WHEN was Rick Santorum President of the United States of America, such that he could SIGN a bill – ANY Bill.

          He was a member of the US House of Representatives AND the US Senate, but has not YET been President. That will change in November of course…

          1. Good Point: Bad choice of words. I think however, you really understand what was being said, but I like the attention to detail. Bravo. Thank you.

            Let me change signed bill to voted for.

        1. Thanks for the link tj. I knew Santorum would not knowingly fund abortion. I had seen where Santorum explained about this a week or so ago, but this article is great. I figured it was buried in a budget bill and I was right.

          Ron Paul is truly evil. I read an article on Townhall yesterday that explains that Paul appears to want Obama to get back in in the hopes that Rand would be able to win in 2016. I personally believe if Obama gets back in there won’t be another election.

          1. I find that hard to believe that Paul would want Obama back in, though I am opposed to Paul from many reasons- on his Iran stance, his stance on legalizing dangerous drugs where even more drug addicts could harm themselves and those around them, for his wanting to leave abortion and marriage up to each state.

            The right to take the life of the unborn and calling immorality marriage would never have been in the mind of the founders when it came to states’ rights. in my opinion. I believe they were largely a God-fearing bunch of men. (God being the Creator of life and marriage.)

            Thomas Jefferson
            U.S. President #3, Drafter & Signer of the U.S.A. Declaration of Independence

            “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
            –Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

            1. Paul is obvious senile. The article speculates that Paul is helping Romney because he knows Romney would have the toughest time beating Obama. I truly believe Paul hates this country. He does not nothing but bad mouth us. I have never heard him say anything good about us.

              1. Oh, I also think it sounds like he would not help Israel if they asked for our help. I am not in support of Paul on that either. I picked Rick here in TN in early voting!

  12. Ouch. She was a little sensitive with the truth coming out about Romney, wasn’t she?

    Then she accused Santorum of being a lobbyist. She should probably look into the facts herself instead reading the script provided by Media Matters.

  13. I’m beginning to realize just how infected the Republican Party is with those who claim to be “Conservatives” but are far from it. I have always assumed that most who aligned themselves with Conservatism understood what it meant. They do not. Most Conservatives I see or read are JUST AS liberal as Obama on MOST issues.They are class A phoneys.

    That they can look at a true Conservative in Santorum or Gingrich (minus Gingrich’s improprieties) and not stand by their OVERT Conservative message is disturbing.

    What in God’s name draws them to Conservatism exactly? It certainly isn’t the strongly held defense of life or marriage. They could care less about either of those. It isn’t fiscal concerns if they can support a candidate like Obamney who parrots the radical agenda of denying the top 1% a break. So what is it? What could possibly be left? Nothing.

    They are confused. Delusional. Liberal.

    1. What in God’s name draws them to Conservatism exactly?

      ———————————————–

      They aren’t prepared to go ‘rat (ie full commie).

    2. The right has gone so far to the left that conservatism has to be defined. Otherwise it is meaningless, in and of itself. When the right pulls its base further to the left, the base actually adopts a liberal mentality. The two parties are so close to each other now that there is very little discernible difference on the major issues. Obama displayed this by continuing the Bush era in spending, the Patriot Act, and foreign policy, but at a much greater pace on some things. When people see Obama creating big government and debt spending, and saw Bush sign ‘No Child Left Behind”, and create Homeland security and the TSA, they start to look for alternatives. Then it is just a matter of who is the most “different”.

  14. Wow. A conservative “Missile defense shield be thy big tent” pennant, swinging for the fences. Glorious. We seek not managed decline in a Romney coalition, but constitutional limited government out of the way of free markets and free people strengthening their civic communities while manufacturing a growing economy in an increasingly bankrupt world. We pick Rick.

      1. I was watching a few Youtube clips covering his debates against Ted Kennedy. It is amazing to watch him shred Republican title to appear more Moderate. His record speaks well of his liberal leanings.

        1. If the sob wanted to be known as a conservative then he sure as hell could have lived in a state where conservative is something to be cherished as opposed to Massoftwoshits. Just can’t figure why Mitt with all that damn money couldn’t move to a state that wasn’t a liberal hole.

  15. I can’t stand the media in general, but this Gloria (whatever her last name is) just makes my skin crawl.

    1. I like the sound of that ticket! Can you imagine the one two punch in debates. Wow, it would be a bloodbath.

  16. I really like Rick Santorum – mix him with Newts intellect and you have yourself a game changing US President that can, once again, re-establish the US to become the leader of the free world.

    *edit* to say that of course, even under Obamao you guys are the leaders of the free world – but your looking more like the freeist European country as opposed to a REAL freedom loving republic. Coming from a UK citizen btw.

    1. No, they don’t look like the freeist European country. I live in Hungary – we have the highest corruption, and the highest taxes of all the European countries, and by all definitions, we are now a dictatorship. Obamaos wanna do our program better (or worse – depends on which side you’re on to see how you define it). If I were Obama, I’d be giving myself a B+ too, because his effect on destroying America is pretty good, which is what he has always wanted to do). Besides, I’m not sure what the “freeist” country in Europe looks like, or could be. Maybe Germany, but I’m sure the German populace is pretty p.o.ed because they keep doling money out to other countries – distribute the wealth.

Comments are closed.