-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Newt Gingrich has effectively called on Rick Santorum to drop out of the presidential race, yet the former Pennsylvania senator continues to poll in the double digits and shows no sign of quitting. Why are so many conservatives dissatisfied with a choice between Gingrich and Mitt Romney? Michelle Malkin’s Santorum endorsement is a good primer.
[Santorum] didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd - including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich - and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.
Santorum opposed individual health care mandates - clearly and forcefully - as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.
He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.”
Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.
Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values - not just in word, but in deed.
Personally, I think Santorum’s big government votes under Bush ought to be given more weight. Republicans tend to be much less fiscally conservative when they hold power or act on behalf of parochial concerns, so candidates who resist that temptation have more credibility than those who don’t. Santorum has also given little indication of having learned from the foreign policy blunders of the Bush years.
That said, it is a respectable case, especially when compared to the contortions others must go through to justify supporting their preferred candidate. It’s also a reminder of why Santorum is going to continue to collect a lot of votes from conservatives uncomfortable with the frontrunners’ records.
View all comments (60) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick
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
Clint| 1.30.12 @ 12:32PM
Big Government Ricky Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Is Gonna Sink Him With Tea Party Patriots.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Florida.
Dai Alanye | 1.30.12 @ 3:18PM
Santorum's ratings during his sixteen years in Congress:
American Conservative Union -- 88%
National Right to Life Committee -- 100%
Americans for Tax Reform -- 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee -- 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- 88%
League of Private Property Voters -- 94%
Not too shabby for a "chickenhawk."
Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.31.12 @ 4:33AM
Also, two other things are worth mentioning:
1) During his time as Senator, the NTU and the Club For Growth were giving him ratings in the upper 70s, HIGHER than the average rating for a Republican.
2) When Santorum was in the Senate, he had the guts to stand against his own party, and a President from his own party, by opposing the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" bill.
Santorum is by far the most conservative of all candidates remaining.
Mike| 1.30.12 @ 3:54PM
Santorum isn't perfect, but when you dig down into Paul's record you find out he is a total nanny stater.
If Paul matched his reputation, he'd be worth considering, but when you get right down to it, he's a European socialist.
Clint| 1.30.12 @ 4:29PM
That's A Lie.
You're A Liar, Micky.
"The legality of Social Security and Medicare must be reversed, just like slavery was abolished in 1865, according to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
“You talk a lot about the Constitution,” Fox News’ Chris Wallace noted Sunday. “You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.”
“Technically they are,” Paul insisted. “There is no authority. Article 1, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution — liberals are the ones that use this general welfare clause.”
The Tea PartyRebellion Steps On Smear Bundists.
tonypal| 1.30.12 @ 7:22PM
Not only that, his pants are on fire.
Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:30PM
He plans to do nothing to change the entitlement programs, insisting that they can be paid for from foreign aid and removing our troops from overseas.
The numbers prove Paul wrong, but what can you expect from a guy that wants to Legalize Ganja and Heroin?
Clint| 1.30.12 @ 10:55PM
You're A Serial Liar, Israel Firster Smear Bund Bibi Boy,Tool Job.
Social Security and Medicare:
" Ron Paul believes that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, saying that they are not provided for under Article 1, Section 8: "There is no authority. Article 1, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution- liberals are the ones that use this general welfare clause." He believes that that social security is outdated, and has compared it to slavery: "The Constitution and the court said slavery was legal, too. We had to reverse that. So, I tell you. Just because a court in [19]37 went very liberal on us and expanded the role of government, no, I think the original intent is not a bad idea."1 Furthermore, Paul favors a gradual transition out of Social Security and Medicare: "That would be my program, to transition out [of Medicare and social security], because this one has failed."
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Screwball,Tool Job.
Mike| 1.30.12 @ 11:47PM
Words, words words.
It's interesting that your whole case about Paul rests on words he says to his left wing buddies like Chris Matthews. But when it comes to actions, Paul does what his government masters tell him.
Gee, why is he hanging out and brown nosing people like Chris Matthews?? Because he is comfortable with those people. He fools his loyal supporters.
So, you going to shoot more empty words with me.
My question is: are you in on Paul's scam, or ado you actually believe the B.S. story. Either way, Paul is laughing all the way to the bank, while he craps on the Constitution.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.31.12 @ 4:34AM
You're the liar here. Those were statements that Ron Paul made a long time ago. He no longer makes them. And even though he has said these things, he has never done, and does not plan to do, ANYTHING to cut them, let alone abolish them. Indeed, he said during the first NH debate (last year) that he wants to dramatically cut defense spending and pump that money into entitlements because, supposedly, the parasites who use entitlement programs can't provide for themselves!
MikeG| 1.30.12 @ 9:29PM
Mike, what are you drinking or smoking? Paul wants to reduce government and eliminate the progressive income tax. How does that make hims a socialist? Socialists love the progressive income tax to redistribute from the wealthy to the poor.
You are ruining the brand name Mike. Wise up.
PCP Smoker| 1.30.12 @ 8:51PM
Clinty's bullshit posted all over the place again. Hey Clinty, is it too late for your mom to abort you? Try crawling back to her womb, so you can give her a chance.
Clint| 1.30.12 @ 10:57PM
Why Don't You Try To Make Me, PCP Smoker Coward.
Hmmmmm, Puke ?
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 1.30.12 @ 1:03PM
Michelle Malkin's endorsement is a little bit late don't you think? He really could've used this immediately after Iowa!! Maybe by New Hampshire, or at the latest, just last week in South Carolina. I'm sure he'll appreciate it, but it looks like it's a two flawed horse race now, and Santorum and Paul have been left behind, even though Clint still looks like he thinks Paul has a chance, I think it's practically over for both of them.
W. James Antle III | 1.30.12 @ 1:20PM
I agree that Santorum endorsements would have been most helpful right after Iowa, but we don't know what impact the Florida results will have on Gingrich's numbers elsewhere.
Hobbes| 1.30.12 @ 2:02PM
All of those are arguments for Ron Paul, not Big Govt/Chickenhawk NeoCon Santorum. Paul is the only candidate who didn't vote for Big Government.
aware| 1.30.12 @ 4:50PM
Quite a few don't mind big government, as long as they win.
Margie| 1.31.12 @ 12:58PM
We don't like big government~ that's something you Ron Paul people SAY we do.
And yes, we want to win because we want Obama out of OUR House. At least, that's what sane people want.
Clint| 1.30.12 @ 1:55PM
The Tea Party Rebellion Benefits From A Brokered Convention.
Floyd Looney| 1.30.12 @ 1:20PM
I agree with Malkn, we should go with the guy closest to our principles. That is Santorum.
Dai Alanye | 1.30.12 @ 3:21PM
If New loses big in Florida he should consider withdrawing and endorsing Santorum. But I suspect pigs will grow wings first.
Mike| 1.30.12 @ 11:49PM
Because his buddies in the media and the government are perpetuating the lie that he's a conservative.
darcy| 1.30.12 @ 1:23PM
When people realize that a vote for either Romney or Gingrich means we will never get rid of Obamacare, they will rush to support Santorum.
Obamacare is THE defining issue of this race. It must be repealed in its entirety; it is both the lynchpin and the superstructure of the socialist state. Without its complete dismantling, there is no hope of ever regaining our founding liberties.
Moreover, as SCOTUS observes in the run-up to the general election that voters are not adamant in their rejection of Obamacare and anyone who won't repeal it, they are more likely to give it a pass when it comes before the court this summer.
It's now or never, people. Get behind Santorum or kiss America good-bye.
Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 1:28PM
I repeat once again that Santorum has no leadership or governing experience. Michelle criticized Obama for this very thing back in 2008.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008.....-an-idiot/
RJ| 1.30.12 @ 1:51PM
Santorum had a leadership position in Congress, but you are right that he has not held an executive position. However, we have to choose from what we have: Romney, no; Gingrich, going down; Santorum is the best of the group.
Indy| 1.30.12 @ 1:55PM
I think she came to the same conclusion I did, it was a process of elimination. Each candidate has at least one major flaw. RS is speaking like an adult and has not bashed the free market while competing against Willard, he's gone straight after his biggest weakness, RomneyCare...remember recent comments by Norm Coleman and Pam Bondi, they are Romney's advisors and let the cat out of the bag, no full repeal of RomneyCare or RomneyCare in every state.
Malkin is not a happy conservative, she realized she had to pick someone from this pool of candidates...
darcy| 1.30.12 @ 2:43PM
You're obviously biased against Santorum for some other reason than lack of governing experience, if you're comparing his credentials to former candidate Obama's; why don't you take it up with Michelle Malkin now and see what she thinks. Meanwhile, you ignore the albatross of Obamacare that hangs around our collective necks.
Therefore, your comment carries zero weight with me.
Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 3:25PM
I have no bias against Santorum. I agree with just about everything he says. But I also argued against Obama four years ago that he had no leadership experience.
Normally, people are supposed to gain that sort of experience by going for lesser offices.
It doesn't mean the exprienced person is going to win, of course. Sarah had 10 or 12 years of executive experience, but the electorate was sleep-walking through American history and elected the non-experienced Obama and Biden.
If Santorum had a prayer of winning the nomination, his lack of leadership experience might be an issue that ranks lower on the scale of qualifications. However, right now he is low in the polls and is siphoning off votes from Newt and enabling a moderate to become the nominee of the Republican party. He should recognize that Newt has the superior experience and better polling numbers, and bow out.
darcy| 1.30.12 @ 3:47PM
Newt is a deeply flawed candidate. Perhaps you haven't looked close enough at his public comments over the past decade. I would recommend your read about him here: amnation.com/vfr; he's been among the topics discussed over the past several weeks, he and Romney both.
darcy| 1.30.12 @ 4:24PM
Moreover, Vern, I find it deeply ironic that you would place such a high value on M. Malkin's opinion of Obama in 2008 then turnaround and dismiss her opinion today of Santorum. She is persuasive in her reasons for preferring Rick over both Mitt and Newt even while it is unhappily the case that the four remaining Republicans in the race leave much to be desired for the conservative voter. I would state it like this: Gingrich, Romney, and Paul are wholly undesirable while Santorum at least has genuine conservative instincts, regardless of his missteps in the past.
I would prefer that the country weren't as easily led by a corrupt and sycophantic press; I would prefer that the long march through the institutions by cultural marxists had been a failure and thus we'd have a population more discerning of the dangers of socialism and respectful of our American Founding heritage. But alas, the masses are duped, and most of them willingly duped.
The entire political spectrum is straining toward the left and nothing but an about face will bring us back from the brink. I hardly think that Mitt nor Newt have any desire whatsoever to reverse course but instead will be "better" managers of our descent.
Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 5:07PM
The thing about experience Darcy is that it tells you how a person does under pressure. When Newt was Speaker of the House, he pushed conservative policies and even helped end welfare. When Romney was governor he pushed mainly moderate or liberal positions.
With Santorum, we don't know how he would govern. He might go conservative one day, then turn around under pressure and go liberal (hence, his opposition to right to work in his state).
I'm just asking Michelle to be consistent. I'm not questioning her conservative credentials or the value of her opinions.
Mike| 1.30.12 @ 3:55PM
I agree with you - it's just that everyone else is worse.
Mark| 1.30.12 @ 1:30PM
It might be all over anyway. Seems like the republican elites have decided to attack anyone who comes close to their guy romney.
Leaving the party will happen in droves if they shove Romney on conservatives. And this also means that they will not be there for house and senate votes either unless they have come out and opposed Romney for a conservative candidate. So while they want to decide who is conservative, it should have been left to the voters and not by the attack dogs.
somnolence| 1.30.12 @ 1:31PM
Mona Charen endorses Mitt Romney.
Trinacria| 1.30.12 @ 2:50PM
Ms. Malkin has just eloquently described a phenomenon that has been known by men for centuries as the "last call" rule. It can be stated roughly as follows:
The attractiveness of a given target in a target poor environment is inversely proportional to the puke factor of the remaining targets.
If memory serves, it was Pythagoras and his trusted assistant/wingman who first advanced the hypothesis following a series of field tests in the pubs of Athens. I could be wrong on the details, though...
JimH| 1.30.12 @ 3:12PM
You also have to factor in the thickness of the Beer goggles.
Trinacria| 1.30.12 @ 4:46PM
This is a common misperception. I believe it was Descarte, who's original philosophical treatise entitled, "I drink, therefore I am", was abandoned in favor of the now famous version when his hypothesis regarding the effect of beer goggles on the "Last Call" phenomenon was disproven by a little known Italian philospher who demonstrated that the effect of the beer goggles applies both to the target in question and the remaining targets; since the phenomenon is based on a relative comparison, the thickness of the goggles is cancelled out.
To this day, the fact that this important insight was overlooked by the Nobel committee remains a travesty of the highest order.
Clint| 1.30.12 @ 6:27PM
However, this is where the mistakenly referenced
" Butterhead Corollary " comes into play. While The Last Call Rule rules,The Butterhead Corollary occasionally breaks body ties.
The loser finalist is rejected due to the fact her body factor is equal to her competition, " but her head "ain't.
And if I'm not mistaken, It was Marcus Antonius who proclaimed,"I come to bury my johnson, not to praise him."
Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:34PM
Wasn't Heidegger the boozy beggar who could drink you under the table?
albert constantine jr| 1.30.12 @ 7:56PM
David Hume
could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel
and Wittgenstein
was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
W| 1.30.12 @ 9:35PM
Albert,
Tonite's Rockford had Becker solving the murder of the Chief's wife and getting promoted to Lt. Ed Harris played a creepy crooked cop involved in the murder. Becker's partner chickened out on the investigation claiming his wife was due at any minute.
albert constantine jr.| 1.31.12 @ 9:18AM
One of the few times you'll see ed Harris with any hair. His partner in that episode was played by guest star W.K. Stratton (I think he was in Black Sheep Squadron) plays federal agent Dwight Whipple in the Hawaiian Headache episode you mentioned the other day (where Rockford's ex-CO is now with the CIA).
If the episodes are being run in order, tonight should be the one where Angel's brother-in-law gets appointed to the Police Commission, and the party is robbed by the old Berkeley radicals. Good leftist dialogue that would make Mao and Alinsky proud in that one.
W| 1.31.12 @ 5:41PM
Thanks, maybe Obama, Axelrod, and their pals will be part of the Berkely group.
Clint| 1.30.12 @ 10:59PM
I Don't Drink, Pathetic Bottom Of The Barrel, Sorry-Assed Government Excuse For A Government Hire Shrink,Tool Job
W| 1.30.12 @ 9:32PM
T,
Did the paisan prove that it is just a matter of supply since the demand is always there?
Fred Rick| 1.30.12 @ 2:59PM
Michelle Malkin ROCK!
Windy City Commentary| 1.30.12 @ 3:24PM
Newt either needs to turn this ship around, and find a way to neutralize every old Republican who comes out of the woodwork against him, or drop out and endorse Santorum.
It seems Newt has entered a "no win" situation and only he can set the record straight if he has the truth on his side. It's almost as if Newt would have been better off, if he didn't state his opinion so often over the past 10 years.
Santorum probably doesn't have as many recorded soundbites for the establishment to use against him. I hope Newt can find a way to turn it around, but he's not getting much help from the conservative big mouths on radio.
Pete| 1.30.12 @ 3:55PM
True, but...
If Santorum would get to the point to challenge Romney, all the vitriol we have seen leveled against Newt will instead be leveled against Santorum.
Bill| 1.30.12 @ 3:32PM
It's too late for Santorum in capitalizing Michelle Malkin's endorsement.
Terry| 1.30.12 @ 4:27PM
Santorum is the true Conservative, and has the least amount of baggage. Romney and Newt are making a mockery out of our political process with all their incessant bickering back and forth!
Trinacria| 1.30.12 @ 5:28PM
The process hardly needed Newt and Mitt to make a mockery of it. Any process that could result in the election of a candidate who is as profoundly unqualified, unimpressive, unaccomplished, and uninformed as the current national disgrace occupying the white house has long since passed the point at which mockery even matters...
Seek| 1.30.12 @ 6:54PM
Some call it "bickering": I call it debating. And, yes, it's necessary.
Margie| 1.30.12 @ 6:11PM
Good for Michelle Malkin. She's doing what her conscience tells her to do, and she's a blessing to conservatism. I love her.
And.. Darcy: GREAT commentary, as always.
Just that, if Newt does win it, I pray he'll do what's best for the country.
Hmm, anybody know just how conservative Calista is? We all know that helps!
Plus, he would have US to keep nudging him to keep to the Right.
Webster Phreaky| 1.30.12 @ 7:55PM
"Michelle Malkin endorses Rick Santorum"
BFD, WFC ..... Malkin = Zip.
What's OBVIOUS IS, Rush Limpbugger is shamelessly Pimping GinGrinch like a cheap $20 whore on Sunset Strip! Rush Limpbugger lost a 23 year listener here!
Bill| 1.30.12 @ 8:07PM
You're a "liberal union-thug liar Obama-Dog."
PCP Smoker| 1.30.12 @ 8:53PM
you won't be missed, you piece of shit. Don't come back, either. We don't need you. We don't want you. We are better off without you.
Oldefarte| 1.30.12 @ 10:49PM
Michelle is a very intelligent person, excellent writer of conservatism and she is certainly entitled to her opinion, but I respectfully disagree with her [and David Limbaugh as well who also endorces Santorum]. Santorum is simply a ONE TRICK PONEY whose sole focus is abortion prevention. Sure he's voted this that the other within his extensive legislative career, but VOTING is simply worthless. Anyone can cast a vote for something and then walk away. WHAT HAS SANTORUM EVER ACCOMPOLISHED IN HIS LIFE? HAS HE EVER RUN A BUSINESS OR LED A GROUPING OR MOVEMENT POLITICALLY? He's identical to Paul, who also has great political positions/ideas on certain issues but has also never accompolished anyting politically. The presidency is [or should be] about the ability to administer, to manage, to supervise, to run, to accompolish and that is the essential requirement of the job that every intelligent taxpayer-voter should only consider in a candidate!!!!!!!!!
Mike| 1.30.12 @ 11:56PM
So you think Romney should be president?
Margie| 1.31.12 @ 1:08PM
Wow Oldefarte, that was pretty scathing. But how is Santorum a one trick pony? I've heard him be strong on defense, strong on his knowledge on how to get the economy going, and he's got a strong moral compass.
As to him not accomplishing anything politically~ not sure how you can say that either. And who has ever been President before they actually BECOME President, anyway?
Is that what we've come to.. so don't bother running for President unless you're already an "accomplished" political person?
Of course the politically accomplished definition is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess.
I'm not saying I won't vote for Newt and don't appreciate HIS accomplishments. I do, and always have. I just happen to like Santorum's faithful moral character, which should mean a lot more to most people, but apparently, it doesn't.
He's mocked and spat upon by the morally "challenged". But that's the way of this World, isn't it?
Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.31.12 @ 4:41AM
"Santorum has also given little indication of having learned from the foreign policy blunders of the Bush years."
Foreign policy blunders of the Bush years? What were those foreign policy blunders?
Perhaps you meant the invasion of Afghanistan, which was a mere RESPONSE to an act of Islamic aggression on the United States. After 9/11, President Bush had only two options: respond to the attacks militarily or show the entire world that an act of aggression against the US could go unpunished. I guess you, like your beloved Ron Paul, believe the US should've chosen the latter option.
Or perhaps you mean the Iraqi war, whereby the US and a coalition of 30 other countries removed a dangerous madman permanently and liberated over 20 million people?
Or perhaps you meant to say that the US should've caved in to Russian demands to forego building a missile defense system in Europe and thus leave Europe and America's East Coast unprotected against ballistic missiles (which, within 2-3 years according to Leon Panetta, will be mated with nuclear warheads)?
I'm gonna give you free advice: don't comment on foreign policy issues. Better yet, don't comment on any political issues. You discredit yourself everytime you open your arrogant, uninformed mouth.