-
Agents of Influence
June 6, 2013 | 51 comments
-
Is This Teen Lesbian the Next Rosa Parks?
May 30, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
Campaign Crawlers
The Fight and the Fighter
Santorum punches back hard against Romney in Michigan.
TROY, Michigan — Rick Santorum had been speaking for nearly an hour Sunday night in Davison. He had laid out his policies on economics, on energy, on social issues and national security. He had defended his record against attacks from his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, and expressed strong criticism of President Obama’s policies. He took questions from the audience of about 400 people who packed Crystal Hall and gave lengthy, detailed answers. When it came time for the final question, a man mentioned the “kid gloves” treatment that many conservatives felt Obama received from 2008 GOP nominee John McCain. Would Santorum go after Obama?
“Well, what do you think?” Santorum answered, getting a huge cheer from the crowd. Santorum said that he has tried to avoid personal attacks in the long Republican primary campaign and preferred to “keep it on the issues.” The former Pennsylvania senator then said, “I’m not going to go out and personally attack Barack Obama.… I’m going to talk about what he’s done to this country. I’m going to talk about his policies.… I’m going to hold him accountable for every decision he’s made.… Let me assure you, we will draw a contrast. We will talk about what’s at stake in this country. We will not let you down. We will fight for your principles and we’ll fight for this country. Just help us, here in Michigan, on Tuesday.”
There was nothing controversial in those comments, and so they didn’t become an instant banner headline on the Drudge Report. For the past two weeks, ever since a series of polls showed Santorum surging after his Feb. 7 triple victory in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, a non-stop drumbeat of “controversy” headlines have portrayed Santorum as a radical right-wing extremist. Meanwhile, and with irony approaching the level of utter absurdity, attack ads from the Romney campaign and its allied Restore Our Future super PAC have sought to portray Santorum as a big-spending liberal. One Romney campaign radio ad says Santorum voted “just like liberal Carl Levin” – one of Michigan’s two Democratic senators – in favor of the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska.
The attacks are a ridiculous distortion of Santorum’s record. During his years in Congress, Santorum amassed an admirable record as a fiscal conservative and, as recently detailed by Jeffrey Anderson and Andy Wickersham in the Weekly Standard, had one of the highest ratings from the National Taxpayers Union. Addressing the accusations of liberalism from Romney on the stump, Santorum sometimes seems astonished that anyone would believe such charges – especially considering the source.
“In 1994, [Romney] ran to the left of Ted Kennedy, and if you have any doubt, go look at the last debate between the two them – it’s hard to tell them apart,” Santorum told the audience Sunday in Davison, contrasting Romney’s failed Senate bid with his own successful upset victory that year over Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Harris Wofford. “Now for someone to run, in a critical election year – 1994, the year of the revolution, the Contract With America – who says, ‘no I won’t be a Reagan Republican, no I don’t support the Contract With America, I’m not a conservative,’ to now go and run ads here in the state of Michigan, and say, ‘Oh, Rick Santorum, because he voted for this bill or that bill’ — out of the 4,000 votes that I cast in the United States Senate — ‘is not a conservative,’ just doesn’t hold water.”
As with Romney’s previous attacks on Newt Gingrich, Santorum finds himself presented with a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t dilemma: The attacks cannot simply be ignored and yet, when the target responds, he is accused of being “defensive,” of seeming “angry” or even “whining.” Nevertheless, the very fact that Romney has found himself having to spend millions of dollars in an effort to avoid an embarrassing defeat in his native Michigan is testimony to the power of Santorum’s challenge. He has made a direct and quite personal appeal to blue-collar voters in the state he calls “America’s industrial heartland.” During his Sunday night speech, while discussing his energy policy, Santorum elicited cheers when he said, “I’m not a Texas oilman… [but] yes, I have an energy background: My grandfather was a coal miner.”
The Santorum campaign is also clearly aiming to maximize his support among conservative Catholics, who are expected to account for as many as a third of voters in Tuesday’s Republican primary. On Friday, Santorum got a rock-star reception when he attended a Lenten fish fry at a parish in Walled Lake. “I love the smell of fish on a Friday night,” Santorum said, provoking loud applause with his praise of a Catholic tradition.
Santorum’s challenge has been more effective because Romney hasn’t enjoyed an utterly lopsided advantage in advertising here. Although Romney has outspent the Santorum campaign by an estimated 3-to-2 ratio, Santorum has hit back with his own TV ads. The Santorum campaign also has sent out a mailing that contrasts his record with Romney’s and tells GOP voters, “You can’t turn on the TV without seeing a vicious negative attack ad by Mitt Romney. Not only are the ads insulting and offensive, they’re downright false.”
Recent polls indicate that Romney has regained his lead over Santorum in Michigan, albeit by a margin so narrow that an upset by Santorum is still possible Tuesday. Romney has always been the favorite to win here, but Santorum has made sure he won’t win it without a fight.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (72) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/27/the-fight-and-the-fighter
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
McCandles| 2.27.12 @ 7:28AM
Santorum will hammer Obama, finally showing some fire. He will do fine.
Ricky Santorum| 2.27.12 @ 9:40AM
God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all.
Hardly Core| 2.27.12 @ 12:45PM
You forgot "bodily" fluids.
Loved Dr. Stangelove!
Ricky "Church Lady" Santorum| 2.27.12 @ 2:34PM
SATAN!
Barry "Metrosexual" Obama| 2.27.12 @ 4:26PM
I WILL LOWER THE WORLD"S SEA LEVEL!
Barry Obama| 2.27.12 @ 12:56PM
The State coercing, you will obey, in tolerance and enslavement regardless of rationality, and in dictated medical decisions, since the arbitrary chance your essence even exists past your natural partial birth stage ... financial costs relating to the release of your bodily fluids not only will be free to you your neighbors will be forced to pay for them. Hate speech will not be allowed by these same neighbors only.
spike59| 2.27.12 @ 12:51PM
santorum stands a marginally better chance against ObaMao than Ron Paul...so, 'slim' over 'none' is your preference?
skip| 2.27.12 @ 4:57PM
usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-23/swing-states-health-care-obama/53260222/1
www.usatoday.com/news/politics.....53260222/1
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 8:05PM
"calling the 1960 Kennedy religion speech vomitous"
Religion has to be separated as much as possible from the state-- otherwise Santorums can be president! THAT is what it is about: preventing religious demagogues such as Santorum from becoming president.
mjs_pa| 2.27.12 @ 7:41AM
My frustration level with Romney's continued lies regarding his opponents (sanctioned by establishment republicans) have almost completely turned me off from this years presidential elections.
It is the courage and passion of Santorum's determined vigor that keeps me involved and inspired.
Marco2| 2.27.12 @ 8:25AM
The biggest problems with Romney's lies are that they aren't. Santorum is the one down in the mud here in Michigan. But the real reason Santorum loses tomorrow is that more Michiganders are finding out that he's a little bit nuts, that knowledge mostly courtesy of his own yap.
McCandles| 2.27.12 @ 8:39AM
"little bit nuts". Please explain.
Marco2| 2.27.12 @ 9:12AM
Vamping for the "family values" and industrial economy of the 1950's, calling the 1960 Kennedy religion speech vomitous and calling Romney the OWS candidate, whining about the conspiracies against him, his inabilty to brook criticism of any kind, we've seen and heard all of this in Michigan. He simply does not appear to be able to address the realities of the second decade of the 21st century or have the personal demeanor or composure to lead a nation in distress.
McCandles| 2.27.12 @ 9:24AM
The realities of the 21st century are exactly what Santorum is addressing! He correctly points out that you can talk federal policy all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that without intact families, for example, it's all worthless because the family unit holds this country together. His opinions on gay marriage and other social issues is not different than the other 3 candidates. He may be more passionate about them, but I like that too.
He points out the importance of manufacturing in this country. He has tax plans to help this sector. He believes that a country that produces nothing cannot stand strong for long. I agree. You may disagree, but nothing crazy there.
He may say some things about Kennedy and Romney that are over the top, but he's a human being and he has a long record of public speeches and votes. If you can't dig up something like that on any of these guys you aren't digging enough.
Santorum's demeanor seems fine to me. The bickering between Romney and Perry, IMO, was the composure issue of this campaign. Romney gets more heated than any of these guys, he just does a better job of masking it. He's awfully good at masking issues also.
Russel| 2.27.12 @ 10:51AM
Sadly , I have to agree with Marco . The media is already taking little Ricky apart at the seams and Zero's vicious killing machine is yet to gear up . Nicknames about his religious views are sticking . Like it or not , a whole lot of voters are coerced by these methods . It's imperative we win and Santorum just smells funny .
PaulC| 2.27.12 @ 12:36PM
Winning is all that matters to you? It's what happens after the win that matters. Winning alone means nothing unless the winner does something constructive once he's in office.
Hardly Core| 2.27.12 @ 12:48PM
Winning means you have a chance to do something.
Losing means you have NO chance.
Would you rather win or lose?
spike59| 2.27.12 @ 12:52PM
there's no 'after the win' when you lose; and make no mistake, Santorum is in mid-meltdown
Doctor Right| 2.27.12 @ 4:16PM
Actually, this year, winning IS everything.
There is NOTHING more important than getting Obama OUT of the White House.
Nothing.
Zip. Zilch. Nada.
To that end, I will support whomever the GOP nominates, because I know that they would ALL be 1000% improvements over Obama, even Ron "Surrender-Monkey" Paul.
It doesn't matter WHAT "the agenda" is, because you can bet that it will be diametrically opposed to what's happening now.
Obama is a wrecking-ball. 4 more years of Obama = destruction.
He MUST be stopped. This is no time to play games.
Have a preferred candidate? Me, too. But ultimately, it doesn't matter. The lines have been drawn.
I do NOT accept these lame arguments, mostly advanced by Paul-Bots, that neither Romney nor Gingrich nor Santorum can "roll-back" the damage done to our Republic. The mere act of having Obama voted out of office will be like a jolt of adrenaline to the economy and the nation's soul.
So yes. Winning matters. NOTHING is more important.
Richard Ryan| 2.27.12 @ 8:51PM
Romney is a p----y. His tax plan sounds like Obamas-soak the rich. The middle class is the focus of Mr. Milquetoast's campaign. Separating Americans into classes is what the liberals do, not conservatives.
Quartermaster| 2.27.12 @ 7:33PM
If winning is all there is, then you'd better be finding someone else. Romney won't win against Obummer. He has far too much Baggage from being MassGov, far more than Santorum has as a SoCon. name calling doesn't generally lose elections as W demonstrated.
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 12:34PM
The factthat we DON'T HAVE family values is largely responsible for the mess we're in. Figuratively tag along with me on any given Saturday when I do my opiate addiction clinic rounds, and you would see. May I strongly recommend Ted Dalrymple's works on this, especially "Life at The Bottom."
Our families have been ripped apart by Liberal social policies, and they MUST be addressed.
Brian Mc| 2.27.12 @ 2:40PM
There is a serious problem with the situation, as you've stated it, O.T.
We can't afford a government that issues edicts concerning decency, holiness, righteousness, faith and the rest...it would be an uphill battle of the highest magnitude with results appearing generations later and, would they be the ones we'd been hoping for all along? All the left needs do; "Hey, if it feels good, it's OK". There is no way to battle this governmentally and socially, we are adrift in a sea of hedonism that holds all the cards just so long as the devil remains hidden in the details. Addressing liberal policies might right the ship but she's leaking from a thousand pin pricks nonetheless. The first policy to halt would need to start in the schools, yesterday. I'm almost ashamed to admit that I believe it is far too late; the damning process is in full throttle mode.
Quartermaster| 2.27.12 @ 7:39PM
An Amoral will not remain free. Amorality and ignorance do not lead to liberty, they destroy it because they both accompany irresponsibility.
Liberalism/Progressivism is all about shifting the burden of bad decisions onto someone else. The SoCons have it right here. You can not have amoral people dictating government policy. You get what you have now.
Frankly, I think it's too late to reverse the slide. Paul is the only one that is talking the talk of what we need to do to FedGov to give us any chance of turning things around. So far, the rest have been pretty quiet with exception a few specific things. We need a ,eat ax taken to FedGov and get it down to the enumerated powers.
One thing, in my opinion, is very clear, however. If Romney gets the nod, we will lose, even if he beats Obama, which I doubt seriously he will. Romney is just the Soros approved Republican and is little different than Obama, regardless of y'all think.
Mike Rogers | 2.27.12 @ 9:26AM
It is the unholy alliance between Mittens and Paul which is the nastiest part of the entire race.
Notwithstanding his cult followers, Paul cannot win, while Mittens cannot make himself likeable.
That leaves their only chance as teaming up to destroy the others one by one so that Mittens is the least bad choice, Rand Paul could be veep, and maybe Ron Paul gets Sec Treas (but only after the general election, otherwise he'd be a sellout!).
janet| 2.27.12 @ 7:54AM
Have been a Santorum fan since day one. Last night at his rally here in Michigan, I really felt this is the man that CAN beat Obama. Focusing on the economy, Obamacare and core conservative values and this election can be won.
gearjammer| 2.27.12 @ 8:52AM
You " felt". How darliing of you. By the way what are you soc cons trying to do in Virginia ? All blowing up in your silly faces. SO TO santorum in November. But we Ike and Lincoln repubs are taking the GOP back. Just behave righties and vote for Mitt.
irish19| 2.27.12 @ 10:41AM
I, for one, aim to misbehave.
spike59| 2.27.12 @ 12:53PM
ObaMao thanks you for your assistance
Dai Alanye | 2.27.12 @ 9:36AM
I've admired Santorum's stances on the issues since he was a Senator in the next state over. Sure, the guy is likeable, especially when compared to out-of-touch Mitt, but it's his practical ideas and effectiveness as a legislator that have convinced me not only to back him but make more donations than ever before to a campaign.
The proof of his worth is the extent to which Romney (and Paul) need to exaggerate and distort Santorum's record.
We can be sure, as well, that he won't pull a McCain, and fold when up against tough opposition. I don't see that kind of toughness in Mitt, who avoids one-on-one contact with the voters the way Dracula avoids garlic or crosses.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.27.12 @ 8:00AM
Santorum is like Reagan in that he "says what he means, and means what he says." There are no hidden messages, or carefully couched and nuanced statements and answers.
But if you have been trained to listen, as I was in sales; Romney almost sounds like Obama. What he says can be interpreted one way by some, and another by their opposition. Like Obama, he takes every position. He will repeal ObamaCare. And he will keep the good and discard the bad. And he will change it and make it better, while at the same time give an unconstitutional executive order to overturn an unconstitutional law. I am confused, aren't you?
Not really. He intends to wrangle with it politically, and leave much of it in tact. And in four years it will be so entrenched, like Social Security and Medicare; that it will be impossible to unravel. But Mitt will have accomplished the "Dreams of his father," to be President.
Vern Crisler | 2.27.12 @ 9:25AM
Depressing....
Old Soldier| 2.27.12 @ 9:31AM
What the hell was he saying when he was a worthless big spending Rino Senator?
Dai Alanye | 2.27.12 @ 9:39AM
Santorum's ratings by conservative organizations were among the highest in the Senate, and this from a blue state.
Old Soldier| 2.27.12 @ 10:49AM
You forgot to put "conservative" in quotes.
http://libertycounselaction.or.....ing_record
Von Mises Jr.| 2.27.12 @ 10:56AM
Exactly. And the Old Soldier should know that you don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Santorum is committed to repeal ObamaCare, and that is good enough for me.
The option could be the constantly rumored "brokered" convention. With no brokers, it would actually be a "delegates" deal. But that leaves another opportunity for the GOP liberal establishment to replace their boy Mitt, with some other (rhymes with Mitt).
Dick Nome| 2.27.12 @ 10:30AM
You have to quit listening to Clint.
Al Adab| 2.27.12 @ 10:33AM
We clearly need a candidate and certainly a nominee, who can make the case for Conservative theory and put it into practice. Without a clear definition and clear explanation, the voters remain confused as too many who have claimed the Conservative mantel over the years have proven to be anything but.
Doctor Right| 2.27.12 @ 9:22AM
I had a interesting experience this morning while listening to Imus interview liberal mouthpiece Howard Kurtz.
After saying all the usual absurd things about Rick Santorum, Kurtz began to defend Romney against "gaffe" charges, and actually criticize the media for making much ado about nothing instead of sticking to the issues that people care about.
Folks...it is SO obvious what's going on here; in his ham-handed way, Kurtz has inadvertently revealed that the Liberals and the Democrats REALLY want to run against Romney, NOT Santorum.
WHY???
Simple. If Romney is the nominee, they figure they can play the class-warfare card, and that ObamaCare is off-the-table.
If Santorum is the nominee, it's going to be a bare-knuckles brawl with an unapologetic Conservative who can attract blue-collar votes in key swing-states.
In other words, it's 1980 all over again...only worse.
Despite their confident rhetoric, the Democrats are SCARED STIFF about November.
...with good reason.
(I didn't mention Surrender-Monkey Ron Paul because he has ZERO chance of being the nominee.)
irish19| 2.27.12 @ 10:40AM
"If Romney is the nominee, they figure they can play the class-warfare card, and that ObamaCare is off-the-table."
That is absolutely correct. zerocare is THE major issue in this election. It is one of the biggest, if not the biggest obstacles to economic recovery. Having the class warfare card available means that the discussion can be deflected away from the economy as well.
Romney must not be our candidate.
spike59| 2.27.12 @ 12:56PM
if santorum is the nominee, all ObaMao's minions have to say is one word, and it's OVER for ricky:
"theocracy"...that's the club they will use, and it will work on the moderates and independents needed to win the General Election
doesn't matter if it's fair or unfair, true or untrue...santorum has already given them all the ammo they need
Dick Nome| 2.27.12 @ 1:34PM
Deja Vu 1960 when they said the same of JFK. We have to ignore Obozo and the Caliphate though.
tadcf| 2.27.12 @ 9:33AM
As I understand, Santorum made some very misleading statements about the health policies in the Netherlands in order to support his position about effects of socialized medicine.
Dai Alanye | 2.27.12 @ 9:45AM
The Netherlands? Hmm, what has he said about health policies in Tajikistan? Malaysia? Brunei? Seychelles? Liechtenstein?
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 12:37PM
The Netherlands---where there are cases documented of euthanasia to open up hospital beds---documented well over 10 years ago---that Netherlands?
I, by the way, worked as a Senior consultant for the New Zealand NHS for a year. Nothing you can say about it is worse than the reality, especially for things that deal with any type of surgical intervention. We are 2 decades ahead of those countries.
Ricky Santorum| 2.27.12 @ 9:45AM
Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
youfamissim | 2.27.12 @ 9:48AM
Each debate standing - O came when Newt or another attacked the MSM for failing to perform due diligence. There's a two edge sword for the taking. Answers begin with Obama's past actions germane to the question, then commentary the MSM dropped the ball, followed with the relevance to the topic. If nothing else, it will curb MSM nonsensical narratives, expose their bias, and permit the GOP candidate to frame the debate in his favor AND ask Obama to release his records. This Win-Win can continue throughout the campaign. The glaring holes of omission left by the MSM are there for the leveraging. Clubbing both them keeps the focus on What are they both afraid voters might learn? Obama will use the Race Card - hoping to derail examination of his record and associations - he is a victim - please.
A full 50% of voters Don't Vote because they see no difference between the parties. Show white Christians males you will work to end race based preferences, and fight to re-establish Constitutional Equal Rights, and many of those Non-voters Will Vote. These are blue collar Conservatives - RE: Red necked, ignorant, Southern Hillbillies - as labeled by Progressive Democrats. There are so many votes available, Progressives fear this group more any other. They malign this voting bloc out of the gate and often thereafter. A report was penned in the 1990s on this topic. It showed Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, all appealed to WCM in their ads. It was asserted the tactic is subliminal - the Willy Horton ad is exemplary. Campaigns that used this tactic won. Those that didn't, including Bush I - 2nd term, lost. And why shouldn't a Conservative candidate work to end government endorsed racism? The GOP candidate will not get more than 5% of black votes anyway - the down side is minimal. The upside = HUGE!
To support Darwinism, Dems had to embrace moral relativism and secular humanism - thus murdering God. Since the Ohair decision, the Democrat constituency is a confederation of splinter groups - Gays, Unions, blacks, latinos, eco-ideologues, sexists, et al. Lose one splinter - and Democrats cannot win. If these splinters are fixed, then promising an end to racial prejudice and motivating the absent voters is a winning strategy. There are many other white professional voters who want gov't sponsored racism ended too. Economic benefits include - the most qualified candidates are hired, the costs to assure hiring racism end, legal complaints end, gov't shrinks. Dems are trying to corral these voters by promising them a gov't stipend for life. Most are self reliant types who shun this ploy. However, if economic misery persists, they may have no other choice. Now is the time...
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 10:02AM
Guess Who?
voted for
1. Raising the debt ceiling 5 times
2. Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
5. Bridge to nowhere
voted against
1. "Right-to-Work" law
Ans: Ricky "Keystone big-government pro-union RINO" Santorum
Lee Ghume| 2.27.12 @ 1:38PM
Add RINO-CINO Bibi bund Israel Firster and you could pass for Clint.
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 2:59PM
I don't know who Clint is, nut I'm rooting for Gingrich.
TrueBlue | 2.27.12 @ 3:44PM
I answered all of these last week and you're STILL using this nonsense? You're starting to act like Clint.
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 6:45PM
You go vote Obama, we ain't care about you people.
Nick| 2.27.12 @ 11:58PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!
Patrick| 2.27.12 @ 10:12AM
I don't really see him fighting back. More like whining. Makes me want to throw up(a refeence to spmething Santorum said).
Dan Martin| 2.27.12 @ 11:08AM
I live south of Pittsburgh. When driving to the airport, I cross at least 6 bridges, and that's without crossing one of the three major rivers. I don't understand the big deal over "the bridge to nowhere," which is actually a bridge from Ketchican, Alaska to Gravina Island. Ketchican's airport is on Gravina Island. UPS and FedEx won't guarantee next day delivery to Ketchican, partly because the last leg of the journey is by ferry.
I'm not saying the bridge is worthy of federal money. It is probably not. But since Santorum is from Pittsburgh, I'd like to hear him explain that the bridge to nowhere is actually the bridge to the airport.
TrueBlue | 2.27.12 @ 3:47PM
Doesn't have to explain it since the bridge was not in the final bill passed. On top of that the funding for the bridge was included in part of a larger spending bill, which the Romney, Paul, and Liberal camps love to "forget" to mention.
W| 2.27.12 @ 4:19PM
Dan
Do you remember that Pgh had a real bridge to nowhere for several years? They started the Ft Duquesne bridege from downtown but stopped about 100 feet from the North Side, and left it like that for a couple of years. They put some orange barrels and a rope at the end of the bridge. One guy gunned his car and made it across the river landing on the mud.
Now that is a real bridge to nowhere.
Ron| 2.27.12 @ 1:05PM
I am so ready for someone, almost anyone, to play hardball against NerObama....And if it is Santorum, so be it. I just cannot, for the life of me, picture Romney getting up there and hammering away...He is going to play the McCain "moderate" and as plastic-man, get nailed for it.
jstwndring| 2.28.12 @ 1:34AM
Exactly, because, as Romney likes to point out, losing our liberties to socialized medicine is nothing to get angry over.......
Hardly Core| 2.27.12 @ 1:27PM
You say, “Santorum said that he has tried to avoid personal attacks in the long Republican primary campaign and preferred to ‘keep it on the issues.’”
Well, that’s PERFECT politician forked tongue talk!
At least he said “tried”---imagine if he hadn’t “tried”! (Read “Right Turn”, Jennifer Rubin’s blog for specific examples of Santorum’s “losing it” quotes.)
Here’s a fantastic quote, which prefaces a novel of John Fowles, “Daniel Martin”, from 1977, that epitomizes the GOP presidential primary---
“The crisis consists precisely in the fact
that the old is dying and the new cannot
be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appears.”
---Antonio Gramsci
Prison Notebooks”
How spot on!
Obama et al = THE OLD, and Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, the GOP nominee for president et al = THE NEW.
And, what an “interregnum”!
The stench from the myriad deaths is almost enough, ITSELF, to kill one. Just try to name ONE place on Earth where there ISN’T dying going on, as humanity continues to go through the necessary DEATH PAINS.
It’s the SYSTEM, stupid!
Just think about ANY of the specific areas where the shit is hitting the fan. Islam---what a SYSTEM! Greece---the SYSTEM is in full-flush mode. China---the political SYSTEM is a killer: literally, for some. America---the physical AND mental SYSTEMS are speeding toward anarchy. Mexico---the SYSTEM exports their best workers.
On and on it goes.
We got trouble, right here in River City!
They say all politics is local, AND that it’s personal. Well, duh???
Think of the SYSTEM like a Ferris Wheel, that’s been spinning faster and faster, which is quickly approaching the point where it flies apart. Maybe it’d be wise to not get on that ride, during this “interregnum”?
Indeed, if on---and, who isn’t, to a large extent?---why not CHOOSE to step off, back onto stable ground?
For a while.
MikeBee| 2.27.12 @ 2:26PM
I'll say it again here: Romney is going to win Michigan. I don't support him; I'll probably vote Santorum. But Michigan's ruling GOP is TOO STUPID to shut Democrats out of our primary elections. The Dems will vote for Romney this year, IN OUR PRIMARIES, just like they voted for McCain four years ago. Their votes will put Romney over the top in Michigan. The Democrat party in Michigan is committed to supporting GOP candidates for POTUS who will lose. The very liberal Free Press has already endorsed Romney last week.
Ricky "Church Lady" Santorum| 2.27.12 @ 2:35PM
SATAN!
wodiej| 2.27.12 @ 3:02PM
THE SANTORUM SHUFFLE CONTINUES
According to a report in The Hill, Rick Santorum said on Friday that “he regretted endorsing Romney for president in 2008.” In other words, he was for Romney before he was against him.
Just as he was for earmarks before he was against them. And for No Child Left Behind before he was
against it. And he was against right-to-work before he was for it. And against family planning funding before he voted for it.
On Saturday, at the Americans for Prosperity conference in Michigan, Santorum said: "Every time we’ve run a moderate, we’ve lost. Every time we’ve run a conservative, a complete conservative…we’ve won.”
Good point. Problem is…Rick
Santorum is no “complete conservative.”
He’s a “convenient conservative.”
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 4:42PM
Santorum voted against the "Right-to-Work" law, and those labor unions will spend millons of dollars destroying him if he gets the GOP nod. Unlike Gingrich, Santorum never mentions his stance on big labor unions because Santorum cannot offend his beloved labor union bosses.
martin j smith| 2.27.12 @ 4:45PM
I am not s Santorum supporter, but I encorage him to hit Romney and Obama jointly. They are too much alike. Romney is a liar.
gad-fly | 2.27.12 @ 9:29PM
Romney and Santorum are both liars. Rick's latest involves not voting for the steel industry bailout in 1999. Then there is the dishonesty of taking down his website page on NCLB which had a different answer than "taking one for the team" during the AZ debate.
Edward Cropper | 2.27.12 @ 9:27PM
I love the certainty many comments express in their evaluation of political parties, candidates and what they know about various ideologies. At the same time I wonder how many of these experts have ever served a single day in elective office, have even run for any office, have gone door to door and canvased neighborhoods, or passed out campaign literature, registered potential voters, worked at the polls on election day, donated to a campaign etc. etc. My guess is not very many. All they know is what Drudge or someone else on the net tells them
David| 2.27.12 @ 9:42PM
Hey folks, yes, Santorum supported Romney when the 2008 primary campaign came down to Huckabee, McCain, and Romney.
So did I, and so did a lot of others prefer Romney to McCain. So did a lot of posters here whose initial choice was Fred Thompson. Oh.......how soon some of us forget historical FACTS/SCENARIOS.
Santorum should not have said he regretted it. He simply should have said that between Romney and McCain, Romney was his choice as he was for so many who did not want the conservative basher Juan Amnesty McCain to get the nod. Is that bringing back any memories. Shit, I was holding my nose about supporting Romney, too. That is what Santorum should have said.
We know what Santorum has said about labor unions in this campaign: Repeatedly he has said, "I will support a National Right to Work law as president"!!!
The only question is do you trust him? I don't know of anyone who questions Santorum's word. Have never heard that criticism of him.
And remember, Romney and Gingrich have supported an individual mandate for health insurance for many years, AND NOW claim they don't. SANTORUM NEVER HAS. Now, who has shown the best judgment on the healthcare issue?
POST American| 2.27.12 @ 11:13PM
---------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
Santorum is Goldman Sacks linked and backed
----and a wholehearted supporter of the
deadly ANTI-Consitutional NDAA 1021.
He hasn't answered for ANY of it.
------IN FACT, he hasn't even been questioned.
Santorum and Romney are BOTH
CFR vetted and groomed Globalists
who'll put the last nails in the NAFTA
franchise slumming of North America
----and make the FINAL handover into
receivership to Globalist RED China.
VOTE for this puppet and you've fallen for
the 'TTT-Rick Sanitarium'.
---------And it's a EUGENICS zealous sanitarium
at that. . .
--------------HUAC/ NUREMBERG 2012--------------
Scott Ryan| 2.28.12 @ 12:11AM
Newt wants YOU to vote Santorum in Michigan (opinion)
http://www.TableOfWisdom.com
jstwndring| 2.28.12 @ 1:43AM
Again, how any of you "conservatives" can support the candidate that signed into law the prototype to Obamacare is beyond me. Also, listen to Romney talk. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth on every-single-issue. You trust him? He will not repeal Obamacare. His campaign has as much as admitted it.
Cpm| 2.28.12 @ 11:08AM
Santorum is at this second on his knees imploring Michigan DEMOCRATS to help him defeat a Republican cnadidate. Even if he squeaks out a win in Michigan this treachery will be the end of his campaign.